I'm not going to offer any kind of post with regard to positive or negative effects of cryo'ing bits and pieces of audio gear since it's pretty controvertial. Many believe in it and many don't. Most are closed minded on the subject independent of which camp philosohy they ascribe to. What I will offer is asking you to do your own investigation into why NASA, NASCAR, INDY and a miriad of other world class engineering teams DO cryo? Sometimes our educations trap us.
95 responses Add your response
Cryo is just a form of heat treatment. Heat treatment has been used for a thousand years to modify the properties of metals, as in swords. Therefore, it is entirely to be expected that Cryo will affect the tonal quality of brass instruments.
But, just because brass instruments play music, it does not follow logically that everything related to music will be affected by Cryo. But audiophiles are not known for logic.
Try a cryoed razor side by side with its non-cryoed version.
they last about 3-4 times longer.I do not understand how,but it works.
Actually makes shaving cheaper than stock razors.
Lugnut, I've not paid any attention to the arguments about cyro'ing. But your post caused me to be more curious since I generally respect your points of view. As I'm from the uneducated class I don't have to worry about my education trapping me. :-)
What I infer from your post is that because NASCAR, NASA, and INDY, have found a use for cyro'd products, that it must follow that there must also be credible uses for cyro'd products in audio related products which will produce an audible result.
While I find that possible, as are many things which lay folks don't understand, at the same time I find it interesting that there are advocates for cyro'ing just about everything in the audio chain. Is this broad based application of cyro'ing, or even a narrow based application, supported by any credible theory in physic's, or are we just talking about subjective observation, i.e. "I don't know how it works , but I hear the difference" type testimonials?
I'm staying out of the pros or cons argument. Geez, you can tell already that minds are made up. I don't want to get criticized for expressing a point of view one way or the other. FWIW, every golden eared reviewer and manufacurer that I know of hears the differences. Some like it others hate it. I'll be out for the afternoon but I'll email you direct later on.
Please, let's keep this civilized. It's not like we're talking religion or politics. So many insults thrown around in these type of topics and THIS is supposed to be an educated and enlightened group. Show us some class. I'm outta here.
I have only used four cryoed cable, and did not have the same ones in non-cryoed versions to compare to. So I have no first hand observations on the subject. I would point out first, that it is a relatively inexpensive process compared to some of the stuff that we shell out our money on in audioland, generally only adding the cost of a couple of cds to the product, irrespective of the vernturesome pricing of many audio manufacturers. Second, many that I respect, and have the ability to carry out testing with good gear, over a long perious of time, such as Albert Porter, are convinced that there is a benefit from this inexpensive process. Keep an open mind, I do.
I had two of the same power conditioners, I lent one to a friend for a while. When he had it he got it cryo treated. When I got it back I did a side by side comparison with the regular one and I thought the cryo'd one sounded noticably better. I ended up selling the non cryo'd one and keeping the other.
I'm no expert in MSE, but from what I understand is that the cryo process involves first heating the metal and then cooling it down to whatever cryo temperature. From what I've read, the cryo process used in tool and die manufacture results in stronger materials and more wear resistance. In an area that I am very familiar with, aircraft manufacturers are now investigating the cryo process for brake pads, engine turbine shafts, and landing gear. Obviously, at least to me, the cryo process appears to have at least some effect on metals.
Now, why can't this have an impact on audio equipment? Now, of course, there are people who look to take advantage of the latest trend to sell useless products. Is what you are trying to say is that if you take a cable, a receptacle, a tube or a power cord and just dunk it a cryo bath WITHOUT first heating it, then the process is useless? Again, I'm not an expert but I don't dismiss the claims of others off-hand without listening for myself first.
Sorry, Newbee - apparently someone got up on the wrong side of the bed today? I read your post and didn't find anything all that inflamatory in there...
I also read quite a bit of the CryogenicsInternational stuff. I found it mildly interesting, nothing I hadn't read/heard elsewhere, and mostly marketing - this is what they sell. Not that it's wrong, just consider the source.
And you know what? I have absolutely no problem with cryogenic treatment of materials for mechanical purposes. It's fairly well documented that quenching, cryo-ing, whatever can affect certain properties of metals, etc. Those things are all objectively measurable and testable and repeatable. No problemo!
And you know what, #2? I have no problem with cryo-ing audio gear, either. Have a ball! If it's what you want to do, if you think it works for you, if it doesn't hurt anyone else, if you don't ram it down their throats (and they behave in an equally civil manner) then no problemo!
I don't cryo - yet. I have not been able to find any double blind testing that shows a difference, and until then it's just not worth my money. And no, just trying it and "do I hear a difference" doesn't really cut it, either. I know how susceptible I am to suggestion (heck, I'm married - that pretty much shows how easily I can be had!). I know I'm getting older and my ears probably aren't worth squat, so if someone can't measure an objective and repeatable improvement then I'll save my money for other goodies.
PS - one confession, though. Cryo-ing CDs just makes me scratch my little pea (pee?) brain. I've really gotta work to keep the pod open on this one...
I'm not an MSE, but I am a chemist & have had some materials science...and I've used liquid nitrogen (I'm guessing liquid N2 is the cryo liquid being used in the cryo 'treatments') more times than I can remember. Liquid N2 is a pretty generic, very inexpensive material with really nothing exotic about it.
There seems to be some confusion with regard to heat treating & simple submersion into a cryo fluid (N2). Heat treating and N2 submersion are two separate processes & shouldn't be blended into a single term (reference). i.e. a material can be heat treated without being cryo treated & something can be cryo treated with being heat treated. Neither process requires the other.
Material like metals & glass...have no 'molecules' to rearrange as they are not made up of molecules. They do have a crystal structure that can be impacted by heat. Metals can be thought of as elemental(iron, manganese, tin, copper...or alloys) protons in a sea of electrons or electrons in a sea of elemental protons...whichever way one wants to look at it. How these protons & electrons are arranged relative to one another determines the crystal structure (hold that thought for later).
Materials like plastics are made up of molecules & they too are impacted by heat. All these materials have a specific temp where they turn from a glass-like state into a 'malleable' state. With respect to polymers (plastics) this characteristic temperature is called the Tg (glass-transition temp). A polymer below it's Tg is basically a frozen solid...this can be at room temp or even much higher temps. Frozen is defined by the polymer molecules being unable to move or slide by each other. A plastic fork is a good example of a plastic(actually it's polystyrene) below it's Tg. When you heat this fork up to about 100 degrees C you notice that the fork can be bent. When you bend a hot plastic fork the molecules are sliding by each other & taking on a new relationship to one another(hold that thought for later). When you let the it cool the fork will be permanently bent. You'll also note that this bent plastic fork can be flexed when at room temp but when you let it go it will return to it's original, bent shape. 'Bending' a plastic fork stretches the polymer chains(the chains have a zig-zag conformation & thus can be extended...sort of like a coiled telephone cord stretching & recoiling)...when you stop bending the fork the polymer chains resume their previous position & the fork looks like it did before. Now dropping this fork into liquid N2 does nothing to change it's molecules relationship to one another...they are already 'frozen' into the fixed relationship they take on when their temp drops below the plastic's Tg. If you try to bend the cold, N2-frozen fork while it's still very cold the fork will no longer flex as it did before, rather, it will shatter as the polymer chains can no longer deform.
No doubt that heat treating has positive impacts on metals, and possibly other materials(plastics for one), but the reasons why are well understood, are far as I know. When you heat treat a sword (for example) the crystal structure changes(protons & electrons change their relationship to the protons & electrons that were close by before heat was applied). When you quickly quench the hot sword into water, oil...etc the crystal structure doesn't have time to change back to what it would be at room temp. The quenching has frozen a new crystal structure into place. This new crystal structure offers new properties...like hardness. Just like the plastic fork, cooling this sword from room temp to liquid N2 temps won't change the crystal structure...it's already frozen in place. When the sword returns to room temp it's properties will be the same.
Now if one just takes any material that exists a room temp, cools it down in liquid N2, and returns it to room temp I can't imagine any physical reason why the object would behave differently...electric or otherwise...and this comes from a reasonably good understanding of what the material "is", in an atomic or molecular sense. If cryo-treated audio accessories are actually being heat treated first & then dunked into N2 for a little exotic touch...then it might be more understandable that 'cryo treating' could change things(as the heat treating does). Although I'd guess heat treating & quenching a vacuum tube in N2 might be a little rough on the tube.
I've typed all this out to help folks appreciate the mechanics of why some might doubt the reported effects cyro treating. I have glossed over some of the specifics in how materials behave as explaining further could take much longer & be much more boring to some people. Naturally a good MSE could shoot some holes in what I've typed...but I'm not an MSE..I'm just an organic chemist with some appreciation & understanding of the materials that surround all of us.
Lastly, there may be reason why NASA, NASCAR... are doing cryo treating, but it's likely they know why. Just because they do it (if they do) there is no causal relationship that what they do, for the reasons they do it, will also result in audio system sounding better. If NASA...etc is actually heat treating with a very fast quench in N2(there would be reasons for doing this) & this is being called "cyro treating" ...well..."heat treating with a fast quench" might be closer to the mark.
Lastly, lastly, if we could cool our audio systems to liquid N2 temps & keep them there...then they would approach, or be, super conducting & THAT might sound interesting.
I have personally had good and bad experience with cryogenically treating stuff. I personally believe in doing CD's and DVD's and some cabling, however, I would understand the construction of your cables, the insulation and adhersives they may use in construction. Adhesives will melt when cryogenically treated. My Sonoran cables have a PVC lining that doesn't lend itself to cryogenics as the PVC cracked and the microbearings flooded the copper wire and sucked out all its signal. CD's however, have improved sound with more space between instruments and lower noise floor. I would have never believed it if my friend hadn't brought over his cryoed to compare to my uncryoed versions. It was very easy to detect. By the way, Cryogenics International in Scottsdale did mine and is very experienced in audio stuff. It was my fault I didn't do my research before I dropped off my stuff. I can save you some money if you use Charles by recommending how to pack your CD's. Write me and I'll tell you.
I must have hit a nerve or something. Anyway, maybe I did not state my position clearly.
I understand the reason for cyro treatment after the material is heated to a cerntain temperature to change its properly. This is not the case from what I have understand about the current state of Audiophile "Cryo" treatment. They simply freeze object of desire. That makes no sense.
Let me give you an example for why it would work.
Heat up a piece of Cu to around 500C. Solid state diffusion will start rapidly and grain size will grow. If you put that piece of Cu under some kind of physical or magnetic force, the grain will grow in one particular directly. Now just sudden drop the temperature to a much lower temperature will freeze the grain in that state.
This is basically what happened a long grain Cu speaker cable is made. (Any piece of Metal is usually made of millions of small grains)
Now a counter example:
The metal is already in a solid state in room temperature or < 100C. Drop it into a liquid nitrogen. It's not going to change the structure of the metal at all. As soon as it return to room temperature, it's no different than before.
Someone mentioned glass, an amorphous material. That means it's in a solid form and can change somewhat at very low temperature. (< 50C) Still, just drop a tube in liquid nitrogen will just put lots of stress on the tube unnessarily and likely shorten its lifetime. Still does very little.
Cryogenic Treatment: FROM JENA LABS
"Many JENA LABS wire products are Deep Immersion Cryogenically treated as part of the standard production process. Those for which Cryogenic treatment is not standard may be ordered with optional Deep Immersion Cryogenic treatment. This treatment entails a cold chilling process culminating in immersion of the cables in Liquid Nitrogen, also known as LN2. The boiling point of LN2 is -320.4° Fahrenheit, [-195.77° Celsius] or about 400° F below warm room temperature. In the liquid state as we use it, the LN2 is actually much colder than this temperature.
Exposing metallic objects to this extreme cold causes beneficial molecular changes to occur. As metallic objects cool, they shrink. With the extreme cooling and the shrinkage that follows in LN2 immersion, the crystal boundaries of metallic conductors align more closely with one another and become more conductive and quieter. Mechanical integrity is also improved. The improved molecular condition stays intact through the slow warming process and is stable at room temperature.
When conducting an electric signal, treated wire and formed metallic parts will produce less micro-diode-effect noise, less impurity inclusion field disturbance and less 'slow field' transverse energy generation. The result is a cable or electrical device that is quieter in noise floor and more revealing of subtle musical nuances.
Working with LN2 requires very specialized and expensive equipment, and extreme care in process. It is very dangerous, as the cold is so severe that it can result in severe injury from accidental exposure to the liquid. The process of chilling and warming takes several days to complete, and if done incorrectly can result in the fracture and loss of the materials being processed. In every phase of the treatment, extreme care must be taken. We feel strongly enough about the musical merits of the treatment, that we gladly make the investment in the equipment, the time, and the safety procedures needed to make the benefits available to our customers.
CDs, SACDs, and DVDs
Optical discs used in home entertainment benefit from Cryogenic treatment. The sound produced by treated discs is smoother and less fatiguing, while also bringing a sense of wider frequency response, more dynamics and a much more life like detailed 3-D soundstage. The video portion of DVD information is improved with better color saturation, lower noise, and improved sharpness. JENA LABS employs a stirred Evaporated LN2 vapor system to treat optical discs. This treatment chills the discs to -320° Fahrenheit, which though not as cold as our Deep Immersion process, certainly qualifies as authentic Cryogenic treatment. Our experiments have shown that exposing optical discs to the extreme cold of the Deep Immersion process may cause some discs to fail. The stirred Evaporated LN2 Cryogenic process we employ is perfectly safe for the discs, and cold enough to impart the beneficial sonic and visual improvements we desire.
Beware of others Cryo-Claims
Several audio writers, equipment modifiers, and so-called technologists have promoted refrigeration of cables and electronic parts by packing in Dry Ice. This is NOT cryogenic treatment. It results in only minor and temporary improvement. Even gas bath refrigeration in a cold furnace cooled by LN2 will not provide a sufficient chill. Scientifically speaking, Cryogenics refer ONLY to temperatures at or below the vapor point on Nitrogen, -320.4° Fahrenheit. Our process involves temperatures that are substantially colder than this. Clearly, dry ice has nothing to do with Cryogenics. Only true Liquid Nitrogen Immersion, as employed by JENA LABS will fully and permanently enhance the musical behavior of metallic conductors".
What does not survive cryo treatment well are:
1) Metal Oxide Varistor, an electronic component used in surge suppression [they cracked].
2) Silicone compounds for damping [they shrunk a bit and hardened].
3) Neoprene rubber [shrank a bit and lost elasticity]. I also have been told that silver mica caps don't do well, and "some" adhesives".
Add the mov's and silicon (and other) damping compounds last, *after* the cryogenic treatment....that way everything will be perfect.
Good point. I've even noticed that if I disconnect something for awhile I need a short break in to get back where it was. BTW, I don't own any cryo'd cables, just outlets. My experience is with broken in cables taken out to audition something else and then reinserted a few days later.
Question about the basic thought Elizabeth brought up. I cryo'd an engine block and reciprocating assembly for a gound pounding small block. The benefits of the cryo process were quite evident after the normal duty cycle of this motor. You know, tear down, inspect, reassembly. The cylinder walls didn't even need to be rehoned. So, my question is if the materials in an internal combustion engine with all the heating and cooling from prolonged abuse retain the benefits, will coiling and handling of cables make the cryo process go away?
The reason that liquid Nitrogen is so cheap is that it is an undesired byproduct of making liquid Oxygen, which is in demand. You get liquid Nitrogen by making liquid air (mostly Oxygen and Nitrogen), and then letting the Nitrogen boil off, some of which is collected and sold at little more than distribution cost. You are left with Oxygen, which is what you were after. How long will it be until some enterprising Cryo outfit starts using liquid air, at a lower temperature than liquid Nitrogen, and tells audiophiles that their N2 Cryo'd cables are warmed-over junk.
And regarding NASA...not everything they do is desirable. I prefer my steak on a plate, not from a toothpaste tube.
Naturally, everyone is free to believe what they wish, but some of the sheep shearing I see in this hobby sets new highs in lows. I just took a break from working on my sailboat. If sailors bought into & embraced as much hokum as some audiophiles there would be a lot more lives lost at sea. I offer the following to bring a little truth & direct experience to the discussion.
"Adhesives will melt when cryogenically treated."
Not true. Nothing melts when it gets colder. At least not as long as the universe keep expanding. If/when the universe stops expanding & begins to collapse...then things might melt when they get cold...but that isn't likely to happen for a few billion years yet. Chances are excellent we'll have exterminated oursleves by that time.
No disrespect to Lak intended here..
"FROM JENA LABS"
This dribble from Jena is pure marketing hokum. They use a lot of technical jargon that sounds impressive, but actually says nothing.
"...In the liquid state as we use it, the LN2 is actually much colder than this temperature."
Absolute nonsense. They couldn't afford the science that gets liquid N2 colder.
"Exposing metallic objects to this extreme cold causes beneficial molecular changes to occur..... "
Pure fiction. The molecules don't exist...thus no changes can occur. I'm sure many of you have kids...ask one of them that has had even the most basic chemistry or physics courses.
"Working with LN2 requires very specialized and expensive equipment, and extreme care in process. It is very dangerous, as the cold is so severe that it can result in severe injury from accidental exposure to the liquid.... We feel strongly enough about the musical merits of the treatment, that we gladly make the investment in the equipment, the time, and the safety procedures needed to make the benefits available to our customers."
More marketing dribble. Handling liquid N2 in small quantities requires (typically) a 400# insulated low pressure tank that you dispense out of. From this tank you vent it through a stainless hose into a vacuum bottle (like a Coleman glass-vacuum thermos bottle). From this bottle you can pour it like water into any vessel or equipment you like. Yes it's cold & you have to be careful, but it certainly isn't any more dangerous to handle than many common tasks you do around the house everyday...like cooking & draining pasta. Jena includes this in their marketing hype so that you feel better about paying a healthy price for their 'service'.
Given my familiarity with handling N2 I supposed I could make a few bucks 'cryo treating' various items for folks...but I don't think I could live with myself after taking their money.
Back to reality & working on the boat. :-)
No disrespect Fishboat, but dropping items into N2 does not constitute "cryo treating" and I doubt if you'd be taking anyone's money after doing it with any audiophile gear/paraphanalia as you'd probably be destroying it. Proper cryo does require some fairly substantial equipment, but that does not mean that cryo needs to be expensive; it is not. I've probably spent a few hundred dollars having items cryoed; given the money I have invested in music and my very modest system (it is indeed very modest compared to many members' systems here), that is what I would consider to be a very small amount of financial outlay for a pretty decent improvement in sonics.
Advocates of cryo will say that it will change (and that change will remain following return to room temperature) the
crystal structure of metals, and both cabling and receptacles, for example, measure with lower resistance following cryo treatment (and without any heat treatment I might add). Whether this will result in improved sound quality is open for argument I suppose.
Whether Lak's terminology above on "melting" is correct, I cannot say, but he is correct about MOV's, although certain MOV's may be more prone to damage than others in my experience. I cryoed two identical line conditioners with MOV's that had different manufacturing dates and slightly different MOV's; one set of MOV's had significant damage (although that damage did not seem to hamper the performance of the conditioner) while the other had no such damage.
I can say that, in my experience, every piece of cabling that I have done, as well as CD's, has been a positive experience. I have also cryoed two budget DVD players, one that benefited greatly (Cyberhome) and one that did not (Toshiba) seem to benefit. Someone else, whose opinion I respect, also cryoed the boards out of the Toshiba, as opposed to the entire player which I had done, and reported to me that he preferred the non-cryoed boards in the Toshiba.
Can you point out the double blind studies that shows statistically benefit sonically?
When you say that "cryo" treatment consistently shows an improvement, that's actually a worrisome statement to me. That usually shows a rather biased opinion.
Can you point out the link that shows the resistance measurement that says the resistance is lowered after treatment? That would be an interesting read.
Engine block consitently operates at fairly high temperature and come back down. It does not surprise me that Cryo can do something but it has more to do with the heat and cryo cycle treatment.
In order for change to occur in the micro-structure of a metal, you will need some kind of heat treament. Simply cryo will not do it.
If "cryo" and then some mechanical treament, physical change can take place but that is all macro-structure. That means break or crack the material when it's very brittle at low temperature.
Once again, none of the evidence offered up so far means very much to me. I was looking for someone to come up with a better scientific answer other than "I heard it; therefore, it's better".
Eric: "Biased" or not, that's my opinion based on my experience. If you want the opposite side of the argument, I at least pointed out one example within my experience where cryo did not seem to have a benefit, and one where there was some damage. Then again, this is a cryo thread, which inevitably breaks down along the lines of those who have experience and seem to like what it does and those who have no experience and can't seem to believe that it will work.
To be fair, there are also those with experience who either hear no difference, or hear a negative difference with respect to cryo, but if you review the threads on this subject here or at Audioasylum, that view is represented by an extreme minority of those with experience. You can draw your own conclusions.
With respect to the resistance issue, I am aware of
no such link. Once again, it is simply my experience that I refer to. With respect to both cabling and receptacles that I have had cryoed, I have seen both items (the actual ones I have had cryoed) measured for resistance before and after treatment. The cryoed item has offered lower resistance in every case. Does this result in better sound? Who knows?
None of the items I've had cryoed have been heat treated, nor could they be without damage or destruction. The benefits of cryo have absolutely nothing to do with heat treating (once again, in my experience). Sorry, but that's the extent of science with respect to my opinion on cryo. I've used the process, listened for differences and heard them. Seems to me (not that I'm into science to explain everything because I am definitely not) that that's a bit more scientific than saying that there is nothing here that science can explain without trying it, but that's my bias if you want to call it that. There are many audiophile tweaks that I haven't or won't try because I am too much of a skeptic, but I don't really feel comfortable dismissing them with absolutely no experience with them. It's always ironic to me that most of those using the science cloak in these arguments won't embrace science by getting down to science basics and doing a little bit of experimentation.
"Cryo treatments absolutely do great things sonically for many (not all) audio pieces (results based on double blind studies)."
Now this is what I'm looking for! As I've said, I don't do the cryo 'cause I haven't been able to find any real published DBT results that showed any improvement, much less consistently identifyable improvement. Hopefully we can (finally!) start to get some resolution on this.
Larry/Cello - now you've just gotta post links or references to these double blind test studies, oh please, please, please? Pretty please???
Are you assuming that my engine block was first heat treated and then cryo'd? That's not the case. I used exactly what NASCAR and INDY teams use which is cryo treatment of a new block. These benefits are well documented but have nothing to do with audio. Parts last much longer and experience fewer failures. Prior to cryo'ing the block and reciprocating assembly I did pay to have the new block shaken to simulate prolonged use of approximately 100k miles. (Engine builders refer to used blocks in good condition as "seasoned".) This process is where the parts are bolted to an exceptionally heavy, intentionally unbalanced platform and shaken for over a week. It's a very violent process. When done, the final machining prior to assembly becomes more accurate vs. machining of a new, unshaken block prior to assembly. FWIW, the machining process requires a block to be held in place for the processes. Without the treatment once the block is removed it will twist and not be square to itself. With the shaken treatment once released it stays square. Again, I'm not getting into the middle of the audio argument and I'm not trying to poke holes in your logic. I just want to clarify that cryo'd engines only undergo cold immersion and controlled thaw AND that it is worth it for racing applications.
It's your money...what you do with it is your business. At the very least it helps the economy keeping rolling.
"It's always ironic to me that most of those.." people that find science objectionable fail to realize that life as they know it, in every corner of their material lives, from the time they wake up to the time they fall asleep, including the mattress they sleep on, is based on science and doing a little bit of experimentation. Most people find the output from all this science to be very acceptable, but have little interest in the very topic that makes their world go 'round.
As for working from ignorance..after extensive education I've spent the greater part of my life working (making a real living..my & my family's well being on the line) in science. I've done OK and have managed to scatter numerous patents across the world. While it's true science can't explain everything we experience it's equally true that separating what we experience (what we believe) from what may or may not be happening in the physical world is most often an impossible task...it's the difference between faith & science, perception & reality, fusion & cold-fusion...and I don't expect we'll resolve this age-old discussion in this thread. I would encourage people to at least make a slight attempt to understand what happens as materials get colder rather than embracing market-speak at face value. Look up what happens at the physical level (atomic or molecular) as one approaches absolute zero(the concepts are fairly easy to understand). "Absolute zero" is the term you'll use on google. Compare what you find out with the concept of mysterious changes occuring as the temp goes down. If that's too much effort and freezing things makes you happy, then be happy. As you know, you can even be cryo-treated when you pass on..
As this discussion is starting to get personal I'm going to exit at this point. I hear my boat's rudder calling me.
Hi Eric / Mr_hosehead,
A friend and I did the double blind studies and were done with great care.
I am sorry if I was a bit over the top with my first post. I get a bit tired of people making statements about how something does or does not work or sounds or does not sound better in audio based on their electronic or physical property science /theories rather than practical experience.
I have learned that principles can send you in a general right direction, but experience is all that counts in audio in the end. Who cares what the science says if your practical experience works for you in your system with your music when this moment's science says it does not? Science does not know what it does not know. To think that we have a complete understanding of electronics and physical properties as it pertains to Audio, is naïve and foolish.
I am always interested in hearing scientific theories and principles as they relate to audio (and most things for that matter), but I think it is wrong to be close-minded and assume that current science accounts for all the information needed to understand a particular situation.
The 2 different double blind studies were done on CDR's and Symposium Roller Blocks. In both cases, my friend came up with the exact same results two different weekends in a row. In the case of the CD's he was able to rank 6 different CD's in the same exact order based on sonic differences (improvements) on two different Saturdays. He also was able to always tell me which pair of Symposium Roller Blocks had been cryoed and which not over several repetitions. I also have had several other audiophile friends (some with incredible ears and musical sense) consistently confirm the same results. Not one person out of many has not been able to hear the positive differences yielded by cryoing the Roller Blocks and the CDRs.
I have also found that cryoing power cords, speaker cables and interconnects also help dramatically, but I have not been a position to do A/B comparisons on these items do to a lack of spare non-treated items. In these cases, I have been left to my memory (and my friends memory) of the before / after listening experiences and that is a good bit left to memory, different listening conditions (power quality, my mood, my ears etc.) for me to make absolute statements.
I will tell anyone considering doing cryo treatments that you have to be careful. Some materials can be damaged by cryo treatment (specifically, silicon and super glue that I am aware of). I have had great success with sending items to Charles Beresford of Cryogenics International. He is a great guy that has cryoed tons of audio stuff and can share his and his customers experience with you. You can contact him by email at email@example.com or phone 480 991 0299 (no, I do not have any financial interest of any sort. I am just a very, very happy and grateful customer).
. A word of caution: Cryoed cables (especially speaker) cables take an inordinate amount of time to break in. I have a great pair of NBS speaker cables that I thought I had ruined by cryoing them. It took using a cable cooker and over a hundred hours plus of playing at full listening volume (200 initial hours of running my CDP with the system at low volume did almost nothing to break them back in) to get them back to sounding great. When they had full broken in, my system sounded incredible and had never sounded nearly as good (verified by a good friend who has heard my system weekly over the last 3 years).
In the end, all I can tell you with complete confidence is that Cryoing does work and works well on most items. Detail has been enhanced, glare and brightness reduced, bass has become tighter and more tuneful and the overall musicality and emotional value enhanced.
I always chuckle when I read the posts of the Cryo naysayers and ramblings of how it cant possibly work based on science. Well, it just works. I cant tell you why or how, but I can assure you it can and does improve sonics.
As non audio side note, the Gillette Sensor razor blades that used to last me about a week now are good for over 3 months.
There are situations where science cannot explain why something works. But there are two other situations.
1.. Science explains how something works.
2...Science explains why something cannot work.
Although we are surrounded by examples of situation 2 (Dumbo notwithstanding, elephants can't fly) audiophiles have a hard time ever accepting this.
After reading through all these posts, I think I am going to give up. So far, no one can come up with a good reason why "cryo" treatment alone works. Thus far, the best reason thus far is "because I experienced/believed it".
Put it in another way. Quite a few people not long ago argue that earth is the center of the universe because they believed so. I think we can do better than that in 21st Century.
Regarding DBT and statiscally significance, it takes roughly 8 correct answers out of 10 trials of ABX to be somewhat significant. Usually 9 corrects out of 10 is considered valid at >95% confidence interval. That's why most audio improvement can't really be tested using ABX. It's not because there is no improvement, but because human audible memory typically is a lot worse than that. After 3-4 trials, all things tend to jumble up.
I normally do not ask for a DBT for proof because a negative result actually proofs anyting. It just says that the difference can't be detected under the circumstance. Not very usefully in my opinion.
I only brought it up because Cello offered it up as evidence. Once again it's one of those insignificant results. It's certainly not his fault. It's quite difficult to set a good DBT ABX test.
So in essence you are saying (if I understand your post correctly) that I am not capable of doing a double blind study with credible results. You also feel that the group of serious audiophiles thatlistened to the cryo treated vs non cryo treated CD's and Symposium Rollerblocks are not valid enough to allow yourself to experiment with cryo treatments to see if it helps your system ?
It totally amazes me that what we hear is not adequate enough for someone to appreciate the value of a piece of equipment, room treatment, or tweak and that a scientific explanation is needed for value to exist. What makes one think that science has the answers for all that works (or does not work), that we can measure everything that our ears can hear, or that someone has already taken the time to figure out the why's of everything?
Your comparison of the "earth is the center of the universe" is not a relevant comparison. I have shared the experiences of what people have consistently heard (bar none that have listened) and appreciated when comparing cryoed and non-cryoed items. I did not make a statement of why or what was going on. I just related a consistent experience. Most of us are in audio to enjoy music. It is also quite interesting and helpful to come to understand why something might work. If some piece of equipment or tweak aids in our appreciation and enjoyment of music, why in the world would any of us dismiss including something in our system soley because someone is unable to explain how it works to our satisfaction. In the end, why dismiss something just because we dont not have an adequate understanding of why it works. When you buy a new TV do you look at the picture quality and make a decision or do you require a full explanation of the circuitry of both sets before making a decision?
Cryo treatments work well on many pieces of audio equipment. It is an efficient and cost effective way of improving your listening experience. I often read posts from Audiogon members who firmly believe Cryo treatments work extremely well in improving some audio pieces. I also read plenty of posts telling us why it wont work because of some scientific principle. Those posters tell us the science of why it wont work but have not experienced cryo vs non-cryo pieces. I also have not read where someone has tried cryo treating several different types of items and it has not improved the sonics for them any of them.
Email me off line, I will send you my mailing address, you mail a CDR of your choosing, send it to me, and I will burn a copy of your CD on a Cryoed CDR and send it back to you at no cost. Then, you can compare your CD vs the cryoed copy that I make for you. Please come back on this post and share the differences you hear.
Hi guys...just joined..
Cryo treatment of steel: As steel is cooled to a point below M s , known as the martensite start temperature, martensite will begin to form, it being transformed from austenite.. At M f , a lower temperature known as the martensite finish temperature, all of the austenite will have transformed. This gap in temps exists because the lattice changes that occur stabilize the structure are volumetric ones...austenite is FCC while martensite is BCC...(face center cubic vs body centered cubic.)
Varying the cooling steps and temperatures can force pearlite and martensite to exist together, ratios and relative amount modified by the temp profiles...What is consistent here, is that all the treatments alter the composition at the lattice level. The cryoing of steels, brasses, et al, do indeed cause a re-structuring of the crystal structure, as the strain induced by the lower temps will be reduced by molecular adjustments...some of those adjustments alter the marco physical properties...these changes are used in many areas, such as engine stuff, turbine blades, knives...etc.
Cryoing of copper, however, while theoretically capable of adjusting the crystal lattice (I've not seen this, btw.), will not significantly alter the mean free path of the electrons at room temp (this is the energy loss we call resistance). It will still be at the 3 times 10 -6 regardless..there are no discontinuities caused by grain boundaries, no signal reflections...nada.
A polymer below T g is indeed a solid, and it's TCE is a specific value..for example, E+C 2851 will be about 29 PPM/C. Above T g , TCE will be in the 90 to 120 PPM/C range, and will be in a plastic (soft) state.
At nitrogen temps (77K), kapton and tefzel are still quite flexible, and kapton only at helium temps of 4.5K and 1.8K.
AT 77K, only bisco and yibco are superconductors..too brittle for use yet, and J c (critical current) are not very high, but they are getting better.
Adhesives do not melt at cryo temps..If thin enough, they will be ok, unless they are being used to bond differing TCE materials, for example..copper (16PPM) to aluminum (25PPM), then they will fail in shear.
Adhesives and epoxies that are greater than 20 mils in thickness will crack if they are bonded to a metal, the thicker the adhesive or epoxy, the higher the temp they will fail at.
At the 5 to 10 mil thickness, unfilled epoxies will work and remain quite strong all the way to superfluid helium (1.8 K). However, even by themselves unbonded to anything else, they will tend to craze and crack if they are not cooled down extremely slowly, as the combination of heat capacity and thermal conductivity do not allow high cooling ramp rates.
Jena labs stated "the LN2 is actually much colder than this temperature."...they meant room temp..not below 77K. To get below 77K, they have to pull a vacuum. Not very hard to do, but still requires some horsepower..with helium, a reasonable setup will require several hundred horsepower..some do this with nitrogen, to get measurements at 50K.
"Micro-diodes" do not exist..period.nor does "slow field transverse energy generation"..skin effect is a current slew rate based entity, relying entirely on the radial conductivity of the wire, the geometry of the conductors, internal magnetic field rate of change, and the ability of the surrounding dielectric to charge the internal volume of the conductor with magnetic field. If you are looking for 50 hz signal propagation at 2.93 feet per second, you are looking in vain..
I was unaware silicon could be damaged by cryo..that has not been my experience...you intended to say silicone, perhaps??
Please go through my post again. Cold tempering requires heat treatment cycle. Not cooling from room temperature, which is what's in vogue right now in Audio.
Please try to under this. When you make a scientific claim such as DBT testing, the test result must be statistically significant. Otherwise, it's just pseudo-science.
I would think cryo treatment comprises a complete cooling and (re)heating cycle; i.e., the return to room temperature constitutes "heating" in my book. No heating above room temp is required, but I suppose it could be used along w/ cryo in some applications like hardening of tools, etc.
Cold tempering (as I use the term) has been around for a very long time; what is in vogue, as you say, in audio is same process (or should be) as Cryopro and other outfits have been doing for years. Actually cryoing has been around in audio for quite, more than 6 or 7 years, now that I think about it, Meitner, Walker, and many others, some more public than others. I first started using Crypro about 12 years ago, about the time that some big guns like Holleywell were experimenting with cryoing transistors. (Never did hear about their results heheh)