Why "Cryo" anything?

Lugnut, I didn’t suggest the thread should be limited. I questioned why others chose to limit the discussion by suggesting that “if it sounds better, don’t worry about why”. Whether you like it or not, that IS a limiting statement!! This particular issue is unique in that it is much more easily investigated through theory as well as measurement. We can measure structural and compositional changes in the lattice very precisely. In the case of cables and other equipment, the number of variables and their interactions oftentimes precludes easy analysis of why something sounds better.

Furthermore, you have to admit that the number of different materials that are being cryo’d and claims of its superiority are a little over the top. Golf balls, fishing hooks, tennis rackets and pantyhose (no joke) all benefit from cryoing? All grades of steel, Aluminum, Copper, Silicon, plastics, composites all benefit from cryoing? This is the “hype” surrounding cryo treatment and it should make all of us at least suspicious of the claims, particularly if there is an economic motive by some, right? If you tried it for a given application and feel secure in the improvements, then great, but certainly you would agree that this anecdotal evidence would not necessarily apply to a different application with a different material, right?

As an “MSE”, I’ll concede that for a few specific grades of steel, cryo treatment is sometimes used to optimize a given property. Fortunately for us, it doesn’t put us into an “emotional tailspin” because there is valid science behind it. For highly alloyed steels, the original processing may have resulted in some retained austenite still present at room temperature. Lowering the temperature further can force this retained austenite to transform to martensite. This IS easily measured and understood! In almost all cases, this would be followed by tempering at somewhere close to 300C to allow some of the dislocations created from the transformation to relieve themselves. If you followed the same treatment for a grade of steel that did not have retained austenite, you get NO change in structure. This IS easily measured and understood!

Surely you don’t judge the validity of ideas based on whether an A-goner has his system posted or not, do you? If it helps you to take my intentions seriously, I have Magnepan 3.6 speakers, Parasound JC1 amps, Rowland Concerto linestage, APL Denon3910 Universal player, Purist Audio Museaus interconnect and speaker cables, and a PS Audio UPC-200 conditioner. My room is dedicated and I use ASC tube traps, homemade Helmholtz resonators (Argent Room Lenses), and Auralex diffusers. You have made some sweeping statements in your post trying to categorize those of us that are trying to understand the physics of THIS particular issue. Perhaps I’m wrong, but from your comments it seems as if you think true audiophiles are under attack in this thread from the “naysayers” and must band together to defeat them? I always thought I was a “true audiophile". Given my wife’s puzzled expressions and general disdain for the UPS delivery guy, I just assumed this was good enough empirical evidence to confirm that. Perhaps not?

Finally, I’m sure you’re not serious with this statement:

My offer to Ejliu to heat treat and cryo some brake pads for him is still open

I’m sure you are just saying this to make a point and wouldn’t actually want someone to be injured to prove it? Besides, from my read on Ejliu’s posts, he was only trying to suggest that heat treatment before cooling was necessary to change the structure and NOT that this change would be good and/or smart.

Interesting discussion from everyone. It's very similar to a discussion on proving existence of God.

Group A states that God must exist because they believes it to be so. Don't ask why. Just follow their "truth".

Group B simply asked to see if it's possible to scientifically prove God's existance. And they are treated as heretic and must be casted out of group A's wonderful society.

Maybe we should have a new policy on Audiogon's tech forum.
"Don't ask. Don't tell". Just follow the gospel according to "sohpiscticated audiophile".

Anyway, I will give up for sure now.

Eric

Ejliu - you have completely mistated the argument. This discussion is not at all like religion, it is simply a discussion between those that have tried cryo treatment and hear the difference and those that have not tried it, yet demand a scientific explanation - one that is not available, at least one that satisfies the doubters. Perhaps DARPA, NASA or some other august body will form committees to study the audio applications of cryogenics in the foreseeable future and publish peer-reviewed results. I won't hold my breath.

Geoffkait, actually I think you just made Ejliu's point:

a discussion between those that have tried cryo treatment and hear the difference and those that have not tried it, yet demand a scientific explanation - one that is not available, at least one that satisfies the doubters.

Substitute in religion and you get:

a discussion between those that have tried "religion" and know it to be true and those that have not tried it, yet demand a scientific explanation - one that is not available, at least one that satisfies the "non-believers".

There is an element of “faith” in this hobby given the difficult nature of quantifying differences that are heard. I’m by no means a “if it doesn’t measure differently, it can’t sound different” guy partly because for a complex system such as an audio system, it’s not clear that enough precise measurements of all the important variables -- and there interactions -- could be accomplished, nor would it be clear (to me anyway) how exactly to interpret them. I use my ears to guide me, but I also recognize that my subjective opinions aren’t necessarily objectively true. The cryo issue (to me) is a different animal because it is such an easily investigated process. It involves (mostly) a single material (an area I have reasonable knowledge in) put through a simple thermal cycle. I’m sure Ejliu’s interest in this was for at least similar reasons?

BTW, I have cryo’d ACME silver plated outlets…they were $5 more than the non-cryo’d version.

Germanboxers: you've actually flipped the "religion argument" around; it is religious "zealots" who demand that the non-believers "get with the program" and believe in God (or they will go to hell), regardless of whether God's existence can be proven. The (religious) non-believers are (usually) not "zealous" in their non-belief, actually they may not care one way or the other at all.

Using your religion anology, are the nay-sayers in the cryo debate actually the "zealots" in this case, trying the keep the audio world safe from "pseudoscience?"

In the debate over religion/God, everyone can (in theory) make his mind up one way or the other based on personal experience - Sunday school, listening to sermons, perception of the world, etc. But the difference here is that (apparently) the naysayers in the cryo debate have made their minds up without experience of any sort. They use scientific text, in excrutiating detail (as opposed to religious text), in the attempt to prove the "heathens" must be "hearing things."

The word "faith" does not have to have the deeper (religious) connotation you suggest. For example, you might take a reviewer's comments on an audio component "on faith." I would argue the word "faith" in this sense is in no way equivalent to "religious faith."