Why "Cryo" anything?

After reading through all these posts, I think I am going to give up. So far, no one can come up with a good reason why "cryo" treatment alone works. Thus far, the best reason thus far is "because I experienced/believed it".

Put it in another way. Quite a few people not long ago argue that earth is the center of the universe because they believed so. I think we can do better than that in 21st Century.

Regarding DBT and statiscally significance, it takes roughly 8 correct answers out of 10 trials of ABX to be somewhat significant. Usually 9 corrects out of 10 is considered valid at >95% confidence interval. That's why most audio improvement can't really be tested using ABX. It's not because there is no improvement, but because human audible memory typically is a lot worse than that. After 3-4 trials, all things tend to jumble up.

I normally do not ask for a DBT for proof because a negative result actually proofs anyting. It just says that the difference can't be detected under the circumstance. Not very usefully in my opinion.

I only brought it up because Cello offered it up as evidence. Once again it's one of those insignificant results. It's certainly not his fault. It's quite difficult to set a good DBT ABX test.

Eric

.
Ejliu,
.
So in essence you are saying (if I understand your post correctly) that I am not capable of doing a double blind study with credible results. You also feel that the group of serious audiophiles thatlistened to the cryo treated vs non cryo treated CD's and Symposium Rollerblocks are not valid enough to allow yourself to experiment with cryo treatments to see if it helps your system ?

It totally amazes me that what we hear is not adequate enough for someone to appreciate the value of a piece of equipment, room treatment, or tweak and that a scientific explanation is needed for value to exist. What makes one think that science has the answers for all that works (or does not work), that we can measure everything that our ears can hear, or that someone has already taken the time to figure out the why's of everything?
.
Your comparison of the "earth is the center of the universe" is not a relevant comparison. I have shared the experiences of what people have consistently heard (bar none that have listened) and appreciated when comparing cryoed and non-cryoed items. I did not make a statement of why or what was going on. I just related a consistent experience. Most of us are in audio to enjoy music. It is also quite interesting and helpful to come to understand why something might work. If some piece of equipment or tweak aids in our appreciation and enjoyment of music, why in the world would any of us dismiss including something in our system soley because someone is unable to explain how it works to our satisfaction. In the end, why dismiss something just because we don’t not have an adequate understanding of why it works. When you buy a new TV do you look at the picture quality and make a decision or do you require a full explanation of the circuitry of both sets before making a decision?
.
Cryo treatments work well on many pieces of audio equipment. It is an efficient and cost effective way of improving your listening experience. I often read posts from Audiogon members who firmly believe Cryo treatments work extremely well in improving some audio pieces. I also read plenty of posts telling us why it won’t work because of some scientific principle. Those posters tell us the science of why it won’t work but have not experienced cryo vs non-cryo pieces. I also have not read where someone has tried cryo treating several different types of items and it has not improved the sonics for them any of them.
.
Ejilu,
.
Email me off line, I will send you my mailing address, you mail a CDR of your choosing, send it to me, and I will burn a copy of your CD on a Cryoed CDR and send it back to you at no cost. Then, you can compare your CD vs the cryoed copy that I make for you. Please come back on this post and share the differences you hear.
.
Rgds,
Larry
.

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."

Hi guys...just joined..

Cryo treatment of steel: As steel is cooled to a point below M s , known as the martensite start temperature, martensite will begin to form, it being transformed from austenite.. At M f , a lower temperature known as the martensite finish temperature, all of the austenite will have transformed. This gap in temps exists because the lattice changes that occur stabilize the structure are volumetric ones...austenite is FCC while martensite is BCC...(face center cubic vs body centered cubic.)

Varying the cooling steps and temperatures can force pearlite and martensite to exist together, ratios and relative amount modified by the temp profiles...What is consistent here, is that all the treatments alter the composition at the lattice level. The cryoing of steels, brasses, et al, do indeed cause a re-structuring of the crystal structure, as the strain induced by the lower temps will be reduced by molecular adjustments...some of those adjustments alter the marco physical properties...these changes are used in many areas, such as engine stuff, turbine blades, knives...etc.

Cryoing of copper, however, while theoretically capable of adjusting the crystal lattice (I've not seen this, btw.), will not significantly alter the mean free path of the electrons at room temp (this is the energy loss we call resistance). It will still be at the 3 times 10 -6 regardless..there are no discontinuities caused by grain boundaries, no signal reflections...nada.

A polymer below T g is indeed a solid, and it's TCE is a specific value..for example, E+C 2851 will be about 29 PPM/C. Above T g , TCE will be in the 90 to 120 PPM/C range, and will be in a plastic (soft) state.

At nitrogen temps (77K), kapton and tefzel are still quite flexible, and kapton only at helium temps of 4.5K and 1.8K.

AT 77K, only bisco and yibco are superconductors..too brittle for use yet, and J c (critical current) are not very high, but they are getting better.

Adhesives do not melt at cryo temps..If thin enough, they will be ok, unless they are being used to bond differing TCE materials, for example..copper (16PPM) to aluminum (25PPM), then they will fail in shear.

Adhesives and epoxies that are greater than 20 mils in thickness will crack if they are bonded to a metal, the thicker the adhesive or epoxy, the higher the temp they will fail at.

At the 5 to 10 mil thickness, unfilled epoxies will work and remain quite strong all the way to superfluid helium (1.8 K). However, even by themselves unbonded to anything else, they will tend to craze and crack if they are not cooled down extremely slowly, as the combination of heat capacity and thermal conductivity do not allow high cooling ramp rates.

Jena labs stated "the LN2 is actually much colder than this temperature."...they meant room temp..not below 77K. To get below 77K, they have to pull a vacuum. Not very hard to do, but still requires some horsepower..with helium, a reasonable setup will require several hundred horsepower..some do this with nitrogen, to get measurements at 50K.
"Micro-diodes" do not exist..period.nor does "slow field transverse energy generation"..skin effect is a current slew rate based entity, relying entirely on the radial conductivity of the wire, the geometry of the conductors, internal magnetic field rate of change, and the ability of the surrounding dielectric to charge the internal volume of the conductor with magnetic field. If you are looking for 50 hz signal propagation at 2.93 feet per second, you are looking in vain..

I was unaware silicon could be damaged by cryo..that has not been my experience...you intended to say silicone, perhaps??

Cheers, John

Geoffkait,
Please go through my post again. Cold tempering requires heat treatment cycle. Not cooling from room temperature, which is what's in vogue right now in Audio.

Cello,
Please try to under this. When you make a scientific claim such as DBT testing, the test result must be statistically significant. Otherwise, it's just pseudo-science.

Eric