This e-mail has been cryogenically treated

@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.

@moonwatcher -

                                            REWINDS:

      Some excerpts, from my post to a recent thread (>1000 posts), that became so contentious, it was deleted.

                                           DISCLAIMER:

    I left that thread, a couple pages prior to deletion, so: not my (direct) fault.

        At the very first mention of something as simple as Wave Function (a BASIC tenet of Quantum Mechanics), the Cargo Cult will label you a KOOK.

        But remember: they can only view/understand you, based on their limited experience, education and BIASES.

         They have overlooked the fact that, if not for the hypotheses/theories and experimentation, regarding Quantum Mechanics: a plethora of modern conveniences, medical devices and the gear they so love, would not exist.

          Had scientists, chemists and inventors shared the doctrines of the Cargo Cult (Denyin'tologists), there would be no semiconductors, computer chips, LASERs, or Magnetic Resonance Imaging devices (MRIs).

                                         Solid State amps?

                                     OOPS (back to tubes)!

                                        Your Smart Phone?

                                        FA'GET ABOUT IT!

                                         Your car's GPS?

                                                NOPE!

      Bring up those pesky details, regarding the likes of QED, Dielectric Absorption, Poynting's theorem and possible application/effects, relative to frequency, that our musical signals are carried via photon or wave, outside the conductor, always from source to load and you're a KOOK?

         Again: the Cargo Cult can only understand anyone with an actual background, experience and education in Physics/QED, based on their beliefs, education, experience and biases

                Oh well- let 'em go build another runway!

                                                    references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_quantum_mechanics#:~:text=Examples%20include%20lasers%2C%20electron%20microscopes,systems%2C%20computer%20and%20telecommunication%20devices.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/08/13/what-has-quantum-mechanics-ever-done-for-us/?sh=37c459944046

https://uwaterloo.ca/institute-for-quantum-computing/quantum-101/quantum-applications-today

          But: I'm a kook, because I believe in the SCIENCE, from which all that sprang?

     https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-practical-uses-spooky-quantum-mechanics-180953494/

           Einstein got that last one wrong (Quantum Entanglement), BUT- I still wish he'd been alive, when the Hubble Telescope proved, what he considered his, "greatest blunder" (his inability to bring symmetry to his field equation, without lambda).

  https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200507/history.cfm#:~:text=Einstein's%20original%20equations%20had%20been,how%20the%20universe%20will%20end.                                            How about that?

Another example of a hypothesis/theory, with no way to EXPERIMENT/MEASURE, what you're sure must be there, in some detectable way, or another.

                                               Just for fun:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-times-quantum-physics-blew-our-minds-in-2022/

                                            Happy listening!

@moonwatcher -

        I’m rewinding these, because you seem interested in understanding other perspectives.

@rodman99999 "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."

Yeah, there's "science", there's "math", and there's engineering, which is applied science.  Ever since Maxwell came up with his equations, Newton's laws, and Einstein's relativity, we struggle to make sense of it all, especially quantum mechanics.  But we engineers simply can use the equations to design things that work. We don't have to know "why" they work. LOL.  That gets into metaphysics and even religion, which is above my pay grade. 

All we know for sure is that our current understanding of the universe is very incomplete, but hey, we've only been seriously at this "science game" for a little over 400 years. In that context, it is amazing what we do know, or think we know.