To cryo or not to cryo

It will be difficult if not impossible to objectively measure the sonic effectiveness of cryoimmersion treatments due to a lack of an agreed upon end point. The target shooters mentioned above could measure their guns' accuracy with and without cryo treatment. Everyone can agree (or at least SHOULD be able to agree...) on whether a paper target has been hit accurately as long as clear standards for interpreting the hole patterns are used. Not so with audio. Audiophile listening is quite subjective and involves more variables which are less well defined. Rja's solution is probably the most reasonable and easiest compromise.

Rja,

You are, of course, correct but I think the idea was to use other's knowledge and experience to avoid the time and expense of making your own mistakes, so to speak.

Chadnliz, regarding:

I simply found it interesting that a Government organization such as NASA is in the business of letting the private sector use its equipment for personal business, and if he chose to use NASA as an endorsement which he did, as a tax payer I should have the right to find that interesting, no chuckles here just curiousity.

Before you make such statements, please view NASA Houston web site. They are just south of me and they do not have the "closed door" policy you suggest.

NASA works with many Universities, contractors, and businesses.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/business/index.html

The problem with that approach on this particular question is that there are those who vehimently deny any possible effect from cryo'ing and those that say it can make a sonic difference. The opinions on such a volatile issue seem to cancel each other out. Where does that leave the questioner? Pretty much where he started. Thus my suggestion to experiment and form an independent judgement.

Amen, Rja. I'm no closer than when I started the thread. But I do love the passion of the postings.

rr