This e-mail has been cryogenically treated

@mahgister , it's easy to bomb; G.Marx likely had a lot more practice at the art...

@erik_squires , I esp. enjoyed Bogusium and Deceptium.....goog the latter refers one to plant phylum latin or a type of beetle....adding 'alloy' behind the latter yields this, top of list:

...and mahgister thinks he's boring? *L*

Gotta love rabbit holes that lead to an event horizon.... ;)

...think I'll stick with Al & Ti.....nice, MOR stuff...

@invalid look at the video I posted above. That is how you test it. 

@rodman99999 thank you for those links. My undergraduate degree in the dark ages of the early 1980s was in aerospace engineering but my first job was in designing tooling for turbine blades. I believe G.E. at the time did use cryogenically cooled tooling in some cases for the benefits it provided in longevity and dimensional stability.

But the question remains to ask an electrical engineer, or a physicist would be why changing the lattice structure of steel or copper to be different or more organized does anything beneficial for electricity flowing through it containing information that is modulated (for analog) or "offs and ons" (for PCM digital)?

I’ve seen the marketing claims, and I don’t deny that better constructed cables can sound better than poor ones and of course they can last much longer.

Yet, I’d like to understand what is it that you could measure objectively between two similar cables, one that is cryo treated and one that is not, and point to it saying, "there, that one will sound better"?

The other paper focuses on GaN based electric devices and lowering the resistance of their interfaces. They noted the cryo treatment helped if those connections were Nickel/Gold but that cryo treatment actually negatively impacted the resistance if those connections were Palladium/Gold.

Now, lowering resistance is generally always a good thing, and for the relatively new GaN devices very important for their operation. But once again, at the end of the day, is it audible in an average audiophile’s system and room?

I’d love to see some practical measurements and double-blind listening tests.

I’m not saying there aren’t differences, just that at some point, are we discussing how many angels can sit on the head of a pin relative to what we humans can hear?

@moonwatcher -

"My undergraduate degree in the dark ages of the early 1980s was in aerospace engineering... '

                My class pictures were carved on a cave wall, in France.

          Even so, the Physics Labs and QED lectures (back in the 60's) and watching the developments in both those fields, in the decades since, more than convinced me: there's WAY too much going on, with regards to electromagnetism, musical signals and our sound systems, than we now know how to measure.

"But the question remains to ask an electrical engineer, or a physicist would be why changing the lattice structure of steel or copper to be different or more organized does anything beneficial for electricity flowing through it containing information that is modulated..."

"Yet, I’d like to understand what is it that you could measure objectively between two similar cables..."

     Unless they've majorly updated the EE textbooks, since my days of higher learning: those taking such courses are still being instructed on how folks thought electricity worked in the 1800s.

     Of course: when you're only interested in (basically) making things work, those old theories, laws and measurement practices are fine.

     It was interesting, comparing what was taught and lectured upon, between the Physics and EE Depts, regarding electricity, at Case.

     Made for quite a few interesting discussions between course participants.

     Our discussions weren't quite as animated as those at the 1927 Solvay Conference, I suppose, BUT: there was still a contingent (like here, on AudiogoN), that wanted the universe (and electricity) to always make sense.    Of course, it's been widely/scientifically proven: it seldom does.