Why "Cryo" anything?

Let me try to answer some of them.

For 1 and 2, at normal operating temperature, (room temp to 100C), there will be not be any significant change to the internal structure of the material, but the surface of the metal can oxidize easier. Mechanical movement by twisting and pulling can cause more change in micro-structure than temperature at this range. For example, if the speaker cable design emphasize large grain micro-structure (Audioquest LGC), simply twisting the long cable will cause the long grain to break up into shorter grain structure. The effect can be worsen at lower temperature because the bonding strength is lessen at lower temperature.

So it's likely reversible, but the process can be quite complicated. I would think that material is best designed into manufactoring instead of some tweak.

3) Change in the stress of the metal will have to do with the Macro-structure or mechanical design. For example, a tight fitting metal o-ring undergoes cryo treatment only. The fitting might not be so good afterward because the overall shape have changed due to thermal stress cycle or thermal stress hysterisis. The micro-structure or material itself probably have not change that much.

4) Sorry. Can't comment on it.
5) DBT is very simple. Just make sure the listner and test giver do not know the actual test being run. For ABX, it's ok for the listner to get familar with the music passage first before the test. So, listen to A, listen to B and then listen to X. The listner writes down if the X is A or B. Repeat the same passage at least 10 times. If the listener can consistently get the correct answer 9 out of 10 times. It's statistically significant.

Very tough listening test in my opinion. I can't remember the difference that well. After 2-3 tests, everything sounds very much the same. It's also very impratical for multiple listner because of narrow sweet spot.

Eric

I can't help but be amused here. Take a look at what we have: someone posing a question with absolutely zero experience with cryo now answering questions relating to its efficacy, reversability, etc. etc. It is precisely this kind of interaction on these boards which should be taken with an absolutely huge grain of salt.

I make no claims of universal or all knowing educational knowledge. Frankly, I doubt if there is any concrete answer to question 1) or 2) above as there are probably no audiophiles out there who have done the kind of research necessary to anwser those questions, and I really doubt if there ever will be. Question 3) I honestly don't know. Question 4) My personal opinion is that, in most cases, (say 90% of what I've cryoed) following re-breaking in of the wire/component, yes, the improvements are across the board and positive. Inevitably, there will be those that dismiss my view of re-breaking in as ridiculous; I can only say that in almost all cases (approximately 90% as listed above), the cryoed wire/component exhibits lots of positives (ie. increased transparency, detail, easier to follow bass, etc.) following treatment but also has a tendency towards some thinness and stridency which disappears and is replaced by a much smoother and less fatiguing presentation following some extended (in my exerience about 15-30 days) use. Your point (a) in #5, Lost in Space, is very well taken. I am with you 100% that judgements on these issues should be rendered only by those that are absolutely familiar on a long term basis with both the components and the recordings that they are listening to. I think it would be simply too difficulty to make a judgement with respect to whether the change was positve or negative without that familiarity. And even with that familiarity, it is not easy. I have been doing recent (further) comparisons with cryoed receptacles and my conclusions are not totally at odds with audiophiles who prefer one component with better quality recordings and one with recordings that are less than first rate. Ultimately I think any system should be optomised for top quality recordings, but I can certainly respect those that choose the opposite view in light of the poor quality of much of the software we have to listen to.

This is a complicated issue, but one that someone can delve into relatively inexpensively if they choose to. My suggestion is to cryo something (probably wire) in your system that you feel you can scrap if necessary and see how you make out. That's the way I started out.

Is HDM a MSE? HS!

HDM,
Lost_in_space's question 1, 2 and 3 are very general engineering questions. They can be answered by engineers with some background in thermal dynamic and material science.

I don't and can't comment on sound effect of "Cryo" treatment. So I did not. You however have experienced on such matter and tried it in a long term setting. How do you attribute the difference to "cryo" treatment? In my own subjective test, I often have difficulty pinpointing one single item as the source of difference. There are just so many variables to content here.

For example, I have often asked my wife to be the test subject and found that I can easily make something sound better simply by turning the vol about 1-2dB louder. It's rather amazing.

Another question for you on the cryo power outlet, which is more likely?

1) The "cryo" treated power outlet's contacts are cleaned and has better contact with AC plug and therefore better sound.
2) A "cryo" power outlet has a special property that results in better sound.

Why do lots of people around here always pick 2)? Is it because of the pretty pseudo science ad?

Eric

Ejliu, give it up. Those who think that "cyro" sounds better, are the same that believe that the direction of the fuse in the mains also makes an audible difference. Something about AC current flowing in only one direction, no doubt!
Salut, Bob P.