[Ahem. Sorry again for the 'novel' here, folks...]
Hdm: I agree that it would seem self-evident that if switching to a cryo'd outlet could make an incremental improvement, then switching more than just one outlet within the system would presumably make a greater improvement. In my own case, since I don't really buy into this concept and am not therefore so curious about it as to expend large sums or much time investigating it, and since the outlets that came installed in my Power Wedge Ultra are obviously of much better physical quality than my old wall outlet is, the one outlet at the wall is all I'm going to replace. As I indicated before, if I hear an improvement I won't be terribly surprised given the lousy state of my old outlet - but of course if I do, there's no way in my circumstances I'll be able to attribute that to cryo per se. As promised, I will post my anecdotal impressions here, but nobody, including myself, will want to draw any grand conclusions from that.
One thing, though - above you say, "So do the results so far invalidate my (or other peoples' positive) experiences? Not in my opinion, I'm quite comfortable with what I have found and what I hear (whether it be psychological or not!)." And Eldartford says, "Stehno...As I said in an earlier post, there is a 50 percent chance of guessing right, or wrong, so one guy's test doesn't prove much, one way or the other."
I feel this is fundamentally incorrect. I'm compelled to point out, about Stehno's results, that had he succeeded in correctly identifying the cryo'd outlet based on his auditioning, it is true that the skeptics such as myself would have (rightly) maintained that since he had a 50/50 chance of doing so anyway, this would not have provided any supporting evidence that cryo makes an audible improvement in this application as advertised. However, the reverse is not true in the same way!
The skeptics' argument starts with the assumption that no real audible difference probably exists to be heard. Therefore, if someone claims to hear a difference and is proven correct in their identification, it can be based on nothing more than chance and psychology until enough blind-testing data is amassed to give the results statistical weight.
The argument of the cryo-advocates, on the other hand, is based on just the opposite assumption: that real audible differences do in fact exist, that we should be able to hear them, and that the improvements are significant and worthwhile. Therefore, if they can't be heard by a believer (as was apparently the case with Stehno's auditioning), something other than mere testing probability must be invoked to explain that failure, *despite this being only one trial*. This takes us down the slippery slope of resorting to wondering about all sorts of possibly-invalidating variables in the testing (see Lak 6/1 "In my opinion it can all be system dependent...There might also be an issue with how clean the AC power is including the noise on the AC line"), but the bottom line in this case is that Stehno reported easily hearing improvements attributed to cryo with the same system/powerline/ears/etc. in the past.
So, excepting day-to-day variability - something the cryo-advocates seem to assume is insignificant next the obvious improvements allegedly wrought - this one result should be enough to raise serious questions in objective observers' minds about the possibility of psychology playing a central role here. Although Stenho's results by no means conclusively disprove the audibility of cryo for outlets in all circumstances (and as I wrote about above, I find the design of the 'tests' themselves leave much to be desired), the two sides of this testing coin are *not* equivalent, due precisely to the differences in the claims made, and simple probability should play only a minor role in the outcomes if the cryo-advocates are right about its obvious efficacy.
Maxgain: You said:
"Zaikesman, so if anyone hears an improvement from a cryo treated outlet in your opinion they are deluded and foolish? But if a guy tube rolls for weeks that's science. Oh brother! Wow. I bet it would take several years of A/B comparisons to determine which of two pairs of IC cables "sounds better". I'm just glad you seem to enjoy your system. It shocks me that you own a tube amp at all. Are you sure that it sounds better than your old amp? It could all be in your head? But of course you did an A/B."
1) 'Deluded' possibly, but 'foolish' no (although I never actually said either thing) - as long as that individual is happier with their sound, who am I to complain? Yes, I would like to see both more modesty about some of the claims made and a more satisfying technical explanation of why a cryo'd outlet ought to sound better, but we're not exactly endangering lives here, just spending discretionary income however it pleases us. My main point is that a lot of the casual auditioning procedures that I'm seeing described as allowing people to arrive at their positive conclusions about the cryo'ing of outlets are just not capable of supporting the level of certainty portrayed.
2) The tube-rolling process, at least in my case, comes much closer to what I consider fairly reliable evidence for drawing conclusions and basing decisions on. Yes, I A/B tubes extensively before feeling pretty comfortable that I have a handle on most of what's changing, to what degree, and how important that is. Same with amps. Same with interconnects, where I also do bypass tests using the tape loops to compare interconnects A and B vs. no added interconnect at all, to see which model is the more faithful to its input. This is an extremely revealing and much less subjective method than only doing conventional listening for determining interconnect fidelity ; everyone should try it sometime (and not only with interconnects, but preamps themselves can also be bypass-tested, something addressed in an archived thread I started).
3) Maybe a lot of things about me would "shock" you, I don't know. But to me it makes a lot more sense that changing tubes - an active device within the audio pathway - would be audible than temperature-treating an otherwise-fine AC outlet. (And as I detailed before, that's independent of whether or not cryo actually functions as advertised in the technical sense, due mostly to the tiny fraction of the AC powerline pathway the metal bits in an outlet represent, plus a few other reasons such as the nature of the signal it carries, the fact that cryo doesn't address contact integrity, etc. that I broke down above. It also makes more sense to me that an aftermarket AC powercord could make differences like I've heard.)
Or to put it in terms of "shock" as you say, it doesn't shock me that different tubes sound different, and it doesn't shock me that Eldartford couldn't hear a difference between two otherwise-identical outlets where one was cryo'd - but it does surprise me just a bit that so many ostensibly intelligent and perceptive audiophiles apparently see no need to question themselves for thinking they hear differences in an area which they can't come up with a plausible technical explanation for, and they seem so ready to dismiss even the possibility of its being primarily psychological in nature. But at least you admitted that you "can't say it's the cryo or not" (and Hdm indicated he didn't care if it was psychology or not) that's responsible for your enthusiasm, and I will certainly go back and read through your blow-by-blow account on the other thread as you recommend.
But before you walk away shaking your head, know that yes, personal enjoyement of music and sound is primary with me as I assume it is with you, but I also place a high value on truth - both in terms of trying to figure out what is truly going on and being truthful with myself about my ability to do so (the 'truthfulness' of sound aside, a separate can of worms). I don't mind saying "I don't know" or "I can't hear it", or admitting my impressions could mostly be "in my head", bcause at this level and these days, high end audio is all about small subjective changes IMO. Of course all these small changes can be aesthetically important to an attentive listener, but I also feel that if any perceived change has a basis in reality, there will be an explainable cause for its action. We may not always know that reason, but it will exist. So the reasons given for the action of tweaks must be examined, and if they're found to be wanting in logic or technical explication - or absent altogether - the very real phenomenon of psychology's impact on auditory perception must be considered, if the truth is important to us.
In the case of cryo'd outlets the psychological explanation makes the most sense to me, and absent someone giving me a good technical rebuttal to my arguments against the likelihood of audibility regarding cryo'd outlets from above, I doubt I'll change my mind about that even if like my Porter Port as much as much as you do, again for reasons I've already listed. But no matter what I think about the sound of the Porter Port, I won't extrapolate this to form prejudices about cryo in all possible system applications (despite whatever my results might seem to portend for the trustworthiness of the cryo-enthusiasts), both because I know my 'test' won't be good enough, and because other uses for cryo might make more sense to me in theory. And that's the truth, Ruth. :-)
