Why "Cryo" anything?

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.

Eric,

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.

"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???

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.

Fishboat, Ah, fresh air in your sails! Leave the polution behind. Wise choice. This is a tough herd. :-)