The Great Cryo'd Outlet Test

[Ahem. Sorry again for the 'novel' here, folks...]

Hdm: I agree that it would seem self-evident that if switching to a cryo'd outlet could make an incremental improvement, then switching more than just one outlet within the system would presumably make a greater improvement. In my own case, since I don't really buy into this concept and am not therefore so curious about it as to expend large sums or much time investigating it, and since the outlets that came installed in my Power Wedge Ultra are obviously of much better physical quality than my old wall outlet is, the one outlet at the wall is all I'm going to replace. As I indicated before, if I hear an improvement I won't be terribly surprised given the lousy state of my old outlet - but of course if I do, there's no way in my circumstances I'll be able to attribute that to cryo per se. As promised, I will post my anecdotal impressions here, but nobody, including myself, will want to draw any grand conclusions from that.

One thing, though - above you say, "So do the results so far invalidate my (or other peoples' positive) experiences? Not in my opinion, I'm quite comfortable with what I have found and what I hear (whether it be psychological or not!)." And Eldartford says, "Stehno...As I said in an earlier post, there is a 50 percent chance of guessing right, or wrong, so one guy's test doesn't prove much, one way or the other."

I feel this is fundamentally incorrect. I'm compelled to point out, about Stehno's results, that had he succeeded in correctly identifying the cryo'd outlet based on his auditioning, it is true that the skeptics such as myself would have (rightly) maintained that since he had a 50/50 chance of doing so anyway, this would not have provided any supporting evidence that cryo makes an audible improvement in this application as advertised. However, the reverse is not true in the same way!

The skeptics' argument starts with the assumption that no real audible difference probably exists to be heard. Therefore, if someone claims to hear a difference and is proven correct in their identification, it can be based on nothing more than chance and psychology until enough blind-testing data is amassed to give the results statistical weight.

The argument of the cryo-advocates, on the other hand, is based on just the opposite assumption: that real audible differences do in fact exist, that we should be able to hear them, and that the improvements are significant and worthwhile. Therefore, if they can't be heard by a believer (as was apparently the case with Stehno's auditioning), something other than mere testing probability must be invoked to explain that failure, *despite this being only one trial*. This takes us down the slippery slope of resorting to wondering about all sorts of possibly-invalidating variables in the testing (see Lak 6/1 "In my opinion it can all be system dependent...There might also be an issue with how clean the AC power is including the noise on the AC line"), but the bottom line in this case is that Stehno reported easily hearing improvements attributed to cryo with the same system/powerline/ears/etc. in the past.

So, excepting day-to-day variability - something the cryo-advocates seem to assume is insignificant next the obvious improvements allegedly wrought - this one result should be enough to raise serious questions in objective observers' minds about the possibility of psychology playing a central role here. Although Stenho's results by no means conclusively disprove the audibility of cryo for outlets in all circumstances (and as I wrote about above, I find the design of the 'tests' themselves leave much to be desired), the two sides of this testing coin are *not* equivalent, due precisely to the differences in the claims made, and simple probability should play only a minor role in the outcomes if the cryo-advocates are right about its obvious efficacy.

Maxgain: You said:

"Zaikesman, so if anyone hears an improvement from a cryo treated outlet in your opinion they are deluded and foolish? But if a guy tube rolls for weeks that's science. Oh brother! Wow. I bet it would take several years of A/B comparisons to determine which of two pairs of IC cables "sounds better". I'm just glad you seem to enjoy your system. It shocks me that you own a tube amp at all. Are you sure that it sounds better than your old amp? It could all be in your head? But of course you did an A/B."

1) 'Deluded' possibly, but 'foolish' no (although I never actually said either thing) - as long as that individual is happier with their sound, who am I to complain? Yes, I would like to see both more modesty about some of the claims made and a more satisfying technical explanation of why a cryo'd outlet ought to sound better, but we're not exactly endangering lives here, just spending discretionary income however it pleases us. My main point is that a lot of the casual auditioning procedures that I'm seeing described as allowing people to arrive at their positive conclusions about the cryo'ing of outlets are just not capable of supporting the level of certainty portrayed.

2) The tube-rolling process, at least in my case, comes much closer to what I consider fairly reliable evidence for drawing conclusions and basing decisions on. Yes, I A/B tubes extensively before feeling pretty comfortable that I have a handle on most of what's changing, to what degree, and how important that is. Same with amps. Same with interconnects, where I also do bypass tests using the tape loops to compare interconnects A and B vs. no added interconnect at all, to see which model is the more faithful to its input. This is an extremely revealing and much less subjective method than only doing conventional listening for determining interconnect fidelity ; everyone should try it sometime (and not only with interconnects, but preamps themselves can also be bypass-tested, something addressed in an archived thread I started).

3) Maybe a lot of things about me would "shock" you, I don't know. But to me it makes a lot more sense that changing tubes - an active device within the audio pathway - would be audible than temperature-treating an otherwise-fine AC outlet. (And as I detailed before, that's independent of whether or not cryo actually functions as advertised in the technical sense, due mostly to the tiny fraction of the AC powerline pathway the metal bits in an outlet represent, plus a few other reasons such as the nature of the signal it carries, the fact that cryo doesn't address contact integrity, etc. that I broke down above. It also makes more sense to me that an aftermarket AC powercord could make differences like I've heard.)

Or to put it in terms of "shock" as you say, it doesn't shock me that different tubes sound different, and it doesn't shock me that Eldartford couldn't hear a difference between two otherwise-identical outlets where one was cryo'd - but it does surprise me just a bit that so many ostensibly intelligent and perceptive audiophiles apparently see no need to question themselves for thinking they hear differences in an area which they can't come up with a plausible technical explanation for, and they seem so ready to dismiss even the possibility of its being primarily psychological in nature. But at least you admitted that you "can't say it's the cryo or not" (and Hdm indicated he didn't care if it was psychology or not) that's responsible for your enthusiasm, and I will certainly go back and read through your blow-by-blow account on the other thread as you recommend.

But before you walk away shaking your head, know that yes, personal enjoyement of music and sound is primary with me as I assume it is with you, but I also place a high value on truth - both in terms of trying to figure out what is truly going on and being truthful with myself about my ability to do so (the 'truthfulness' of sound aside, a separate can of worms). I don't mind saying "I don't know" or "I can't hear it", or admitting my impressions could mostly be "in my head", bcause at this level and these days, high end audio is all about small subjective changes IMO. Of course all these small changes can be aesthetically important to an attentive listener, but I also feel that if any perceived change has a basis in reality, there will be an explainable cause for its action. We may not always know that reason, but it will exist. So the reasons given for the action of tweaks must be examined, and if they're found to be wanting in logic or technical explication - or absent altogether - the very real phenomenon of psychology's impact on auditory perception must be considered, if the truth is important to us.

In the case of cryo'd outlets the psychological explanation makes the most sense to me, and absent someone giving me a good technical rebuttal to my arguments against the likelihood of audibility regarding cryo'd outlets from above, I doubt I'll change my mind about that even if like my Porter Port as much as much as you do, again for reasons I've already listed. But no matter what I think about the sound of the Porter Port, I won't extrapolate this to form prejudices about cryo in all possible system applications (despite whatever my results might seem to portend for the trustworthiness of the cryo-enthusiasts), both because I know my 'test' won't be good enough, and because other uses for cryo might make more sense to me in theory. And that's the truth, Ruth. :-)

Zaikesman: There's a cheap cure for your skepticism after you've installed and run your Porter Port for 3 or 4 months. And that is to simply buy a stock, non-cryoed "Porter Port" (a slim line non-plated 8300 I believe-model # should be on your box), burn it in on your fridge for a couple of months and then replace the Porter Port with it. Cost: about $20. Then again, just to be absolutely fair, you should burn the Porter Port in on the fridge too!

Hdm: Cure for my skepticism? You're a bigger optimist than I thought! (Especially after the Eldartford and Stehno experiences above...What does it take to shake your faith that this tweak might not be everything you thought?) But I'll tell you what: convince me of why a cryo'd outlet ought to make my system sound better in theory - just one reason that makes sense is enough - and I'll do it (minus the fridge business).

P.S. - These old two-prong outlets don't have a green groundwire inside (just 2 black and 2 white), so I got a separate groundwire today (12ga.), should be able to install PP tomorrow...Anyone here have any tips on how best to check for proper grounding of the box (it's metal) without frying my ass? (Not that some of you probably wouldn't enjoy that about now... ;^)

Zaikesman: I am quite confident of my hearing (and unlike you, I have actually heard the differences under what I consider to be pretty controlled, long term conditions) so I'm sorry to say that there is nothing, read nothing, than can "shake my faith". I've been describing the differences for the better part of two years with a far greater number of people having tried (that's kind of important isn't it?) the tweak agreeing with me than disagreeing with me. The simple fact is that there are pretty substantial audible differences between what one would assume are very high quality outlets even when they are not cryoed. This is a pretty unbelievable concept for a lot of people as well, along with power cord performance, ic and speaker cable performance, etc. etc. That cryo is controversial is not really much of a surprise.

With the exception of cryoed outlets that I've bought, I've spent maybe the sum total of $100 U.S. having cabling cryoed locally. If it screwed my system up or did nothing, I'd be the first to admit it and post it here. I have no hidden agenda in terms of convincing people to cryo their cables or receptacles other than to present a cost effective idea for improving the sound from their system.
Kind of like you recommending the Fluid Damper Tweak for the Technics table. Except this costs even less.

As to "one reason", lower resistance is going to be a positive for audio system performance and cryo does that. There's your reason. Improved power transfer or signal transfer=improved sound. Simple as that. There are some (and they appear to be in the very small minority) that have tried cryo that don't like what it does. I can accept that as they may simply prefer a different "type" of sound or presentation. So be it. I've made the comparisons, I've posted my findings and, as I stated above, the great majority of people who have done the same seem to be on the same page with me.

So really, why should my faith be shaken?

I thought you would say something like that about why your faith is still strong. Yes, it's only what you hear that matters to you, but maybe it's time to dial-back on the hearty recommendations for others or at least qualify them somewhat, and to take a second look at the conditions under which other adopters reported their observations of positive improvements. Stehno was one of those converted adopters before he added an element of objectivity to his testing, but I'm not sure what he's certain of today. Sometimes it does seem that the more ephemeral or debatable an 'improvement' in high end audio is, the more vociferous a group of audiophiles forms to support it. It's almost as if more concrete improvements would just be too boring and easily percieved by anyone with ears to seem exciting. (Or maybe it's just that concrete improvements are too hard to come by anymore in this hobby, so fetishizing minutiae blown-up to larger-than-life proportions is how we compensate.) Certainly Maxgain isn't the only audiophile to feel some degree of contempt for what he sees as overly-rigorous auditioning checks and balances ; I think there could be some attractive element of what we might call 'audio machismo' at work in seeming able to confidently proclaim one's sonic impressions, without injecting doubt or qualifiers, based on very subjective auditioning experience.

[This is a prefered mode of audio salesmen BTW - just the other day I was in a showroom where a guy was trying to audition two speakers against each other ; the salesman came in and asked which one he liked best. The customer said he liked elements of each and wasn't sure, but was leaning toward the one with the fuller bass. The salesman replied that it was obvious to him, one of the speakers sounded 'clearer' than the other, so that was it. I didn't say anything, but what was 'obvious' to me was that the one speaker he was trying to sell, a high-order stand-mount 2-way, 'clearly' sounded like a woofer and a tweeter working separately, whereas the one the customer seemed to prefer unmolested, a first-order floor-standing 3-way (I know, why compare these two?), sounded more coherent and yes, fuller in the bass, so of course the other speaker thrust more 'detail' at you more and could be said to sound 'clearer' even if it didn't sound as natural to me. The certainty tactic seemed to be working ; after the customer registered a meek protest, I decided I had to leave the room when he began letting his preference be swayed by the salesman's greater apparent confidence. I'll mention that the only reason I went into this shop, which I generally avoid even though I can walk to it from my house, was to meet with an Audiogoner who was buying a cable from me. That's karma for the bricks-and-mortar store for ya! But I did go home having purchased a $42 tweak...]

I've learned I can't always care so much what others say they hear. It's not a matter of trust ; I trust Albert Porter implicitly both to be entirely forthcoming and to assess sonic qualities (his appraisal of the tubes he sent me to try out jibed pretty much exactly with what I heard). But I told him when I bought the Porter Port that I didn't sign on to the cryo'd-outlet bandwagon in theory - to me, it's more likely there were other reasons in play if he heard an improvement. I trusted Stehno's hearing and opinions enough to take up his recommendation on auditioning a speaker cable (through purchasing it, I might add) which is now my reference. Also Psychicanimal, we've confirmed many of the same basic findings tweaking our 1200's with the KAB stuff, but I've told him flat-out I can't accept it when he says his audio-buddies can hear those same improvements when he plays his system for them *over the telephone*. Again, I think other reasons for such an impression are much more likely. (BTW, I don't personally find it beyond imagining that there might be some audible differences among various models of outlets, mostly because I'm willing to believe some variation in connection integrity could exist, maybe as well as conductor robustness, that could affect current capacity under high demand.)

Anyway, about the reason you give that cryo could lower an outlet's resistance: I addressed this above, but I'll do it again in more focused detail here (and in case you couldn't read my post that far :-)

Let's ignore all the wiring from the power station to the utility pole transformer and from the pole to the house. Let's just talk about the wiring from the breaker panel to the outlet. Let's assume this wiring has some resistance per foot we'll call X, and is 30ft. long yielding a total resistance of 30X. Let's also assume that the conductors inside our outlet have that same resistance X per foot, or X/12 for the one inch of conductor we'll say is in there. Ignoring the final five feet represented by the AC powercord and everything before the breaker box, our components are seeing a total resistance presented to their power supplies of 30X + X/12.

Now, let's assume that if we cryo the outlet, its resistance drops from 1/12X to zero, becoming a perfect superconductor for that one inch of powerline pathway (obviously an impossibility, so this is better than a best-case scenario in real life). This means the total powerline resistance under our definition is now just 30X. This is about the same thing as if we had simply shortened our 30ft. in-wall wiring run by one inch, or a reduction of 1/360 or under .3% of the total powerline resistance seen by the components' power supplies (and remember, this is for a totally non-resistive outlet, much better than I suspect can actually be achieved by cryo in real life). The outlet's connection integrity has stayed the same. Again, I ask: why should we think this trivially minor drop in the powerline resistance will cause such an effect on our components' power supplies' performance as to be clearly audible at the speakers? I think a better explanation is needed - or more likely that one doesn't exist (well, it does exist, but it doesn't have anything to do with the metal inside outlets, it has to do with the gray matter inside heads). But heaven knows I'm no electrical engineer, so if something is fundamentally amiss with my reasoning about this resistance argument, please somebody set me straight.

BTW, I'm curious to read further thoughts from both Eldartford and Stehno at some point here...