Why "Cryo" anything?

Couldn't have anything to do with the optical characteristics of the poycarbonate layer, could it?

Ejliu, w/ MS Materials Science Eng., surely you must know that cryo treatment is the same as "cold tempering," and has the same sort of affect on materials as "heat tempering."

Ejliu,

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)

Is this some kind of set-up? Nobody dips anything into a cool solution. Almost everyone knows cryo treatment is a two-day affair. This is some sort of joke, right?

Bob P. - what does one thing have to do with the other? That's like saying people who think tube amps sound better than solid state amps believe that turntables sound better than CD players. A straw dog argument if ever there was one. You'll have to come up with something better than that!

Ejliu - you have completely mistated the argument. This discussion is not at all like religion, it is simply a discussion between those that have tried cryo treatment and hear the difference and those that have not tried it, yet demand a scientific explanation - one that is not available, at least one that satisfies the doubters. Perhaps DARPA, NASA or some other august body will form committees to study the audio applications of cryogenics in the foreseeable future and publish peer-reviewed results. I won't hold my breath.

Germanboxers: you've actually flipped the "religion argument" around; it is religious "zealots" who demand that the non-believers "get with the program" and believe in God (or they will go to hell), regardless of whether God's existence can be proven. The (religious) non-believers are (usually) not "zealous" in their non-belief, actually they may not care one way or the other at all.

Using your religion anology, are the nay-sayers in the cryo debate actually the "zealots" in this case, trying the keep the audio world safe from "pseudoscience?"

In the debate over religion/God, everyone can (in theory) make his mind up one way or the other based on personal experience - Sunday school, listening to sermons, perception of the world, etc. But the difference here is that (apparently) the naysayers in the cryo debate have made their minds up without experience of any sort. They use scientific text, in excrutiating detail (as opposed to religious text), in the attempt to prove the "heathens" must be "hearing things."

The word "faith" does not have to have the deeper (religious) connotation you suggest. For example, you might take a reviewer's comments on an audio component "on faith." I would argue the word "faith" in this sense is in no way equivalent to "religious faith."