Why "Cryo" anything?

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. :-)

.
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 CDR’s.
.
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 friend’s 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 info@cryogenicsinternational.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 can’t possibly work based on science. Well, it just works. I can’t 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.
.
Rgds,
Larry
.