Why "Cryo" anything?

Ok. So far, I have yet to think of a good explanation for "Cryo" treatment to enhance anything. Can someone explain this to me?

For background, I have a Master degree in Material Science Engineering. Here is my explaination why just "cryo" won't work.

At room temperature, the metal is already solid or frozen. Freezing it further won't do much. Most metals requires high temperature to cause any change in the microstructure or grain size/orientation/distribution. Simply freezing it for a few minutes will not change how it operates after the metal returns to room temperature.


I think I'm beginning to understand the purpose of you posting this thread. Maybe I have it wrong and I'd welcome some clarification if so, but I think this is the type of troll meant to start a fight. Let me explain.

You state that "Cold tempering requires heat treatment cycle". Not true. It's not a matter of being in vogue either. While I concentrated on deep cryo immersion of engine blocks and reciprocating assemblies in order to stay under the radar, the principles remain the same. If one were to heat treat a block and then cryo treat it the resultant brittle casting would last less than sixty seconds after start-up and subsequent shatter. Heat treating is a part of the equation only if you wish to add hardness. In fact, most applications of cryogenics don't want the material to also be hardened. If only you would do a small amount of research you'd find this to be true.

Large firms like Rockwell, IBM, 3M, etc. cryo many parts and have participated in important research. The findings are yet to be fully understood. An example is the theory that molecular reorganization occurs through cryo'ing. The results seem to prove this because holes in silica wafers become filled after. They don't know why. Science hasn't gotten that far yet.

Your mistaken claim that heat treating is required destroys any validity you may wish to have garnered with your diatribe. Obviously, you ain't no scientist. In a hobby where what matters is what one hears you conveniently dismiss anecdotal evidence. Our ears will always and forever be anecdotal devices. They are not meters. Your proposition is totally absurd and I'm calling you on it. BTW, I'll be glad to have some brake pads heat treated and cryo'd as a gift to you as long as you promise to install them and hit the brakes hard the first time at about 140 entering a curve.

To my simple way of thinking discussions like this could be fun and interesting and as science evolves eventually enlightening. Nobody needs to agree about any aspect of these technologies. At some point most of us learn that life is too short for this kind of twisted enjoyment. I wish you luck in getting there.

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)

Nice post. Out of curiosity, is Jimmy Neutron your less intelligent brother?


There is a reasonable chance that I studied and understood valid sample sizes before you did. It would be nice for us to have done over 100 repetitions of the comparisons that we did, but we only did about 22 or so. I think a 100 % agreement from sophisticated and objective audiophiles makes a pretty strong case for the idea that cryo treatments can work on certain audio components.
It is interesting that you have had time to send another condescending post to/about me but not have the time to send an email to me so we could organize me sending a cryoed copy of one of your CD's to you so you could make your own comparisons and conclusions.
What listening comparisons have you done so far of comparing cryoed and non-cryoed audio parts in the same resolving system on the same day with the same music that have led you to believe that cryo treatments don’t work ?
I will make this my last post on the subject to avoid your claim of I "being a troll".

The point I want to make is this: I am curious about Cyro treatment and its claim. So far I have not yet heard a credible scientific theory that makes it work. All of them are guesses and subjective testing. In fact, I have only read a good scientific explanation on why it would not work.

It's quite ok to claim benefit of cryo treatment because you heard the benefit. It's quite another to claim that there is a scientific reason behind it. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I often make large audio purchase based on subjective testing. In fact, I typically doubt DBT ABX testing due to its difficult set up and psycho-acoustical issues.

So, when someone makes a scientific claim, I would very much like to see the actual research going into it.

Let me put it another way. Let's say you send back the cryo CD and I told you it did absolutely nothing. Would you agree that "cryo" does not work? Of course not. Just the same that if I told you it worked great, it still does nothing to prove the scientific claim.

Aruging about subjective testing is pointless.

Please read Jneutron's post about heat cycle's roll on cyro treatment of solid metals. There is not too much more I can say on the subject. You can disagree based on your experience, but it's kind of difficult to argue about numbers.