Cryogenically treated cables

Cryogenically treating anything improves its performance.

Let’s all chip in and cryogenically treat Mr Kait

@ieales  That's Funny! Thanks.

Nice to see Mr. Know-it-All has a sense of humor, even tho not that original. School. My mom told me I had to study hard so I can get a good job. No, ma, I don’t! I’m going to be a comedian. 🤡

"Let’s all chip in and cryogenically treat Mr Kait"

Curb your enthusiasm. He may end up staying here longer. Rejuvenated. With more energy. Are you ready for that? I thought so.

"Number 7 or 8 or 9, for me, now? (stolen ideas, patented by others)"

And I thought I was a slow learner.

Cryo is another one of those things that have been around and known to work for a very long time now, and yet still it goes on on an the people who haven't yet learned. My first cryo was brake rotors on my 911. They modulate better at threshold, respond more consistency at temp, and last a lot longer compared to identical factory non-cry rotors.

Which is interesting because when I went looking for someone local to try cryo with my stereo the closest one turned out to be a shifter kart racer who me being a PCA track Instructor we hit it off and he told me all about his business.

Cryo is nothing more than a chest freezer into which goes everything from tubes to cables to crankshafts, custom hunting knives and French Horns. The expense is all in cooling mass to near absolute zero, something that happens only slowly over a period of days immersed in liquid nitrogen. Then after a few days the nitrogen is allowed to boil off and the whole thing comes back to room temp.

This is the reality of cryo. Anyone touting anything even slightly different than this is either lying or clueless because, get this, physics is physics. Its only at the extreme low temp of cryo that the molecular changes happen, and there just ain't nothing more to it than that. 

The cost therefore, the entire cost, is liquid nitrogen, and the few minutes it takes to pack the freezer. Which ain't much. My whole system, every bit of wire, including the AC circuit wire, whole CD player, dozens of CDs and some more stuff I'm forgetting, was all done for less than $200 all-in. Nice improvement, well worth it. What some charge now though, inflated with nonsensical fairy dust new-age mumbo jumbo, is nuts. 

Cryo should cost no more than $1 to at the most $3 per pound. Anything more than that, save your money, buy an Orange Quantum Fuse, be way ahead of the game.

millercarbon
Cryo is nothing more than a chest freezer into which goes everything from tubes to cables to crankshafts, custom hunting knives and French Horns. The expense is all in cooling mass to near absolute zero, something that happens only slowly over a period of days immersed in liquid nitrogen. Then after a few days the nitrogen is allowed to boil off and the whole thing comes back to room temp.

This is the reality of cryo. Anyone touting anything even slightly different than this is either lying or clueless because, get this, physics is physics. Its only at the extreme low temp of cryo that the molecular changes happen, and there just ain’t nothing more to it than that.

>>>>>OK, REALITY CHECK. Liquid Nitrogen cryo is -300 F. Absolute zero is -460 F. So, in REALITY the standard cryo treatment is not anywhere near absolute zero. Hydrogen cryo is much closer to absolute zero but not commonly used. Also standard cryo treatment doesn’t not (rpt not) involve immersion in liquid nitrogen, which would cause thermal shock. The treatment involves only immersion in the vapor. Even with the two day staged cryo process there is temporary but non-permanent thermal shock that is audible when you first receive the goods. So, waiting several days is required until the cryogenic treatment shockmgors away. Third, as I’ve outlined on these fora previously, home freezer temps of circa -10 F are sufficient to produce very good results for all manner of audiophile stuff, from CDs to cables, to CD players to amplifiers to fuses to speaker drivers, LPs, there is almost no end to it.

Costs vary from Cryo Labs but mostly likely actual costs are between 10 and 15 dollar per pound, and there is probably a minimum charge as well. Plus theee is the cost of shipping both ways which for me, shipping a five pound box of Mercury’s to the lab is about 30 or 40 bucks including insurance.

Home freezer treatment is FREE 🤗 and avoids the one to two week delay of cryo lab. And avoids the expense of cryo lab. Lastly, since permanent molecular changes probably don’t occur for home freezer treatment one can safely assume that cold treatment of audio items does not (rpt not) involve the more homogeneous physical atomic changes wrought by minus 300 degree cryo. Something else is going on as yet unexplained.

Geoff Kait, Machina Dynamica, first in liquid Nitrogen cryo, first in home freezer cryo, first in the hearts of his countrymen. 🥶

Taking days to cool down to whatever temperature in liquid nitrogen seems unexpected, to say the least. At least for things of sizes mentioned above. It may be some counterfeit liquid nitrogen sold on eBay.

One clumsy move with one’s hand while doing it will reveal that getting cold will not take that long. Do not try this at home. Leave it to someone who has done it before for reasons well-established.

Cryogenic treatment of steel for mechanical properties and thermal properties is well understood, and applies to other metals, though they typically do not have the significant changes that steel does.


Some of the properties that are stated for steel after cryogenic treatment, i.e. transformers, are not as well accepted, at least whether the cost justifies the improvement or if it can be accomplished by other means. Even small improvements in electrical transmission efficiency can justify fairly significant equipment cost increases, at least for transformers.


We do know that cryogenic treatment of copper does increase the conductivity, depending on the initial copper quality and processing method, from 2-4%. That would of course be the same as increasing the cross-section 2-4%, or in the case of high frequencies, increasing surface area 2-4%.

If a cable vendor has a very specific construction, that they claim has some specific impedance control, whether we believe that is effective or not at audio frequencies, then cryogenic treatment of those cables is going "break" that design by changing the properties of the conductors.

The corollary is that all those implied "impedance controls" don’t really do anything at audio frequencies at least if cryo-treating the copper always has a positive effect ..... well that or the cryo-treatment provides no audible benefits.

millercarbon1,879 posts11-04-2019 1:26amCryo is another one of those things that have been around and known to work for a very long time now, and yet still it goes on on an the people who haven’t yet learned. My first cryo was brake rotors on my 911. They modulate better at threshold, respond more consistency at temp, and last a lot longer compared to identical factory non-cry rotors.

Which is interesting because when I went looking for someone local to try cryo with my stereo the closest one turned out to be a shifter kart racer who me being a PCA track Instructor we hit it off and he told me all about his business.

Sorry if I’m being too harsh but that last post is mostly pure speculation. The history of cryogenics for audio is long and colorful and well documented. There’s no reason to be so skeptical and reactionary. Heck, I broke three Laws of Physics today already and it’s not even lunchtime.

Skepticism is a basis for advancement.

Feel free to point out what specifically as "jibber jabber". Your post is jibber jabber. You are trying to dismiss my arguments out of hand, but you cannot even address them. Why is it that you cannot actually address my arguments? Is it that you cannot? That makes your post text-book jibber-jabber.


I am neither skeptical nor reactionary. Again, based on your last post (and others before), I would say you are projecting your own emotional mindset on me. Addressing my arguments would go a long way to prove I am not right. So have at it ... address my arguments.

What you call skepticism, I call reality. Given the number of industries and scientific endeavours that require signal transmission properties far stricter than audio, surely there must be a body of work discussing the benefits of cryogenic treatment of cables for signal transmission?

You like quotes, here is one for you:

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

– Mark Twain

geoffkait17,964 posts11-04-2019 10:38amSorry if I’m being too harsh but that last positive a whole lotta jibber jabber. If you don’t know just say you don’t know. There’s no reason to be so skeptical and reactionary. There is no basis whatsoever for your speculation except you skepticism. No offense to you personally.

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

– Mark Twain

Hold on, geoffkait likes to use that one. He is getting a copyright on all the quotes he can find. Quotes by other people, I mean. His were rejected by the ethics committee.

This habit of yours to completely change the text in your posts ... significantly after you have posted it, really has to stop .... no worries, I was nice enough to capture the original post already.


I have a document that clearly says I am the world’s smartest and strongest dad. My son made it when I was about 5 years old. It carries about as much validity of me being the world’s smartest and strongest dad as the so called "documentation" you assert for cryogenic treatment in audio has audible improvements.

Many many many people, in many areas will swear that "something" does "something" when it does nothing or even does harm. Above average intelligence is not some magic shield for this either unfortunately.

geoffkait17,964 posts11-04-2019 10:38amSorry if I’m being too harsh but that last post is mostly pure speculation. The history of cryogenics for audio is long and colorful and well documented. There’s no reason to be so skeptical and reactionary. Heck, I broke three Laws of Physics today already and it’s not even lunchtime.

Except for the fact that it is me who is the world’s strongest and smartest, other things are correct. I do not have any document about it but it is true. Only pseudo-skeptics would argue this well-known fact.

atdavid, be advised I have 30 minutes to edit my posts. I sometimes take all 30. It would be wise to wait the customary 30 minutes before responding. That way there won’t be any misunderstanding. Besides, your recent spate of responses has taken the tone of a stubborn pseudo-skeptic. Are aren’t the first cowboy to come down the pike slapping your EE 301 book on your knee. Furthermore, it’s not proper protocol for newcomers to question the experience of forum members. I have been cryoing and freezing since you were wearing white socks.

You say stubborn, I say not gullible.

geoffkait17,965 posts11-04-2019 12:03pmI have 30 minutes to edit my posts. I sometimes take all 30. It would be wise to wait the customary 30 minutes before responding. Besides, you recent spate of responses has taken the tone of a stubborn pseudo skeptic. You need to open your mind but mYbe not so open that your brain falls out. That’s messy and hard to clean up.

You say not gullible, I say pseudo scientist. You’re also stubborn for not letting me finish editing my posts. That’s rude, dude!

@atdavid:
The gullibility wording thing, as a way of expression...is tied to the engineering maxim of negative proofing.

Negative proofing belongs to the engineering mindset and mental type ---and engineering is very much ---not science.

Negative Proofing is very much a expression of the underlying aspect of engineering which is purely, intentionally -dogmatic. Dogmatism is all about ensuring that the future is the same as the past, and so on, re the nature of dogmatism as expressed throughout the ages. This is an excellent choice for what engineering is intended as and meant for. Engineering is for making, not exploring.

This is science. Exploration. (no facts, only theory)

So drop the gullibility horsemanure.......

atdavid"You say stubborn, I say not gullible."

Those who have attained rigid, absolute, unqualified beliefs often resort to claims of superior knowledge, education, and/or experience to justify, rationalize and defend they're beliefs which in fact are only beliefs and the refusal to entertain, consider, or even evaluate competing theories without resorting to insult, innuendo, and self-important proclamations reveal that underlying the "reason" is really "Faith".

If you cannot collect your thoughts before attempting to put them down into words, maybe it is the thoughts that are at issue?
Pseudo science is making claims, that you are not able to back up with anything approaching typical standards for evidence, then claiming everyone who disagrees with you is lying, stubborn, "does not understand", etc., and yet never actually addressing any argument presented against your case.
I am still .... after what ... 5 or 6 posts, waiting for anything at all that is not ad-hoc to support your position and/or make anything other than a straw-man against what I have posted.
It is rather funny, as the pile-on that is starting is just more of the same ... ad-homs, straw-mans, etc.  .... but no one actually putting forth anything beyond ad-hoc evidence and no one addressing arguments .... that would be poster child activity for pseudo science.

geoffkait17,968 posts11-04-2019 12:10pmYou say not gullible, I say pseudo scientist. You’re also stubborn for not letting me finish editing my posts. That’s rude, dude!

Ah look. More straw-man arguments.

You seem to have a problem with engineers? I am going to assume you are not one? Engineers with a graduate degrees are one of the most prolific generators of patents, and patents is something you appeared to indicate you place intellectual value in?

Engineers with advanced degrees, and certainly PhDs are involved in research as much as anyone, "exploring" to your verbiage. Your comment about "making" versus exploring has little to do with what field you are in, and far more to do with your roll in that field. Few doctors "explore". They explore far less than the average engineer in electronics. But just like engineering, some doctors focus on research and some engineers focus on research.

There is no "engineering" maxim of negative proofing, no more than any field within the sciences. The only aspect of "negative" proofing that ever comes into play is turning a "theory" into a law in the scientific sense.

What I see more at play here is an attempt to remove the concept of falsifiability to a topic in order to shield it from criticism. That is most definitely not science. That is classic dogma. Classic dogma attempts to shield itself from criticism by never addressing evidence against it, but by attacking its critics, but never their arguments.

So, if you want to get back to science, then address my arguments, or I will assume the only dogma in this discussion is coming from those attacking the person, not the arguments.

teo_audio1,195 posts11-04-2019 12:11pm@atdavid:
The gullibility wording thing, as a way of expression...is tied to the engineering maxim of negative proofing.

Negative proofing belongs to the engineering mindset and mental type ---and engineering is very much ---not science.

Negative Proofing is very much a expression of the underlying aspect of engineering which is purely, intentionally -dogmatic. Dogmatism is all about ensuring that the future is the same as the past, and so on, re the nature of dogmatism as expressed throughout the ages. This is an excellent choice for what engineering is intended as and meant for. Engineering is for making, not exploring.

This is science. Exploration. (no facts, only theory)

So drop the gullibility horsemanure.......

I don’t think you know the history and meaning of engineering.

and importantly, science has no laws. that’s an engineering thing and is a human weakness issue.

Laws are for punishing people who do not fit the societal ideals.

Laws have no place in science whatsoever.

Funny, it is dogmatic attachments to faith that normally allow people to attach onto concepts that they cannot offer any proof for. Hence, they tend to attack their detractors, not the arguments offered by their detractors just as you are doing here.

I am quite willing to discuss a competing theory when it actually becomes a "theory", heck, I would even be willing to consider a well thought our "hypothesis".


I consider it rather comical that you accuse me of insult, innuendo, and self-important proclamations when it is exactly those things that have been thrown in my direction, and yet still, not one well thought out or reasoned refutation of what I have wrote. You are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Some may come to the conclusion that the lack of reasoned arguments and the jump to attacking the person, not the arguments may be indicative of something, but what could that be?

clearthink966 posts11-04-2019 12:20pm
atdavid"You say stubborn, I say not gullible."

Those who have attained rigid, absolute, unqualified beliefs often resort to claims of superior knowledge, education, and/or experience to justify, rationalize and defend they’re beliefs which in fact are only beliefs and the refusal to entertain, consider, or even evaluate competing theories without resorting to insult, innuendo, and self-important proclamations reveal that underlying the "reason" is really "Faith".

Engineering is hard science. Make no mistake about it. 

dear op
please get the same cable cryo and not and hear for yourself

“Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization, hyper-specialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and ecological vacuum. So disconnected has official science become from the greater scheme of things, that it tends to deny or disregard entire domains of reality and to satisfy itself with reducing all of life and consciousness to a dead physics.”

Oh look, more ad-homs (and inaccuracies).
1) Engineering has no laws since Engineering is predominantly an applied science and hence does not specifically deal with fundamental properties of the universe, though it will use those properties and it will often be used to both verify and falsify those properties. As well, Engineers, just by virtue of title and schooling path, do often get involved in fundamental science.

2) Fundamental science has many soft-laws, and a few somewhat hard laws, pretty much always defined by a mathematical equation, i.e. E=MC^2, which is well defined and bounded. This why when you hear Joe's Law, Joe is pretty much always defined as a scientist, not an engineer, again, because laws are pretty much always framed around fundamental science and never engineering.


"Laws are for punishing people who do not fit the societal ideals. " .... while there is truth to advancements in science (not so much engineering) that often it is death that advances science, this statement, when it cannot be backed up by sound and logical arguments for what you are promoting, just sounds like sour grapes.

teo_audio1,196 posts11-04-2019 1:15pmI don’t think you know the history and meaning of engineering.

and importantly, science has no laws. that’s an engineering thing and is a human weakness issue.

Laws are for punishing people who do not fit the societal ideals.

Laws have no place in science whatsoever.

"Laws are for punishing people who do not fit the societal ideals."

This was supposed to be a joke but apparently nobody picked it up. A good one.

Rule number 1 - never get into a technical discussion with an English major. It will only end in a train wreck.

hi evo845 
 where did you get the idea that cryo treating anything will make it sound different at all? what's the best sound youv'e ever heard ?were the cables there cryo treated? maybe in the recording studio? emmmm....(no!) . but it's so scientific isn't it?.sounds like you have no clue what to expect or why you are doing it so you need a survey before you upgrade something in your hifi system . like asking any more suckers here for that idea? any fashion victims?the good news are that you are unsure (not completely brainwashed after all)therefore i would advise you to stop this process before you spend a lot of money and make changes that can sound worse or do nothing.just forget about that stupid hype there is no proof that cryo sounds better but there is proof that cryo is more expensive so most cable companies will sell that because they want profit not better sound quality not science ,sales!.listen to your system.if you are not happy maybe you should change a component ,maybe everything is wrong and you should sell and buy something else. if you can describe a problem ,something like" i want more clarity" or "i have too much bass"then you can start looking for known solutions to that real problem. 

You can’t PROVE it! Hey, this is right outa 12 Angry Men, folks. You cannot make this stuff up! Somebody is channeling juror #3. 😡

You can PROVE it. Double blind test.

Don't you like that, geoffkait?

I totally forgot about double blind tests. I must have spaced out. 👨‍🚀

Quotes from 12 Angry Men 😡 😡 😡 😡

Juror #12: Oh, come on. Nobody can know a thing like that. This isn’t an exact science.

Juror #2: You said we could throw out all the other evidence!

Juror #8: Prejudice always obscures the truth.

Juror #8: Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t even have to open his mouth.

Juror #7: I don’t know about the rest of ’em but I’m gettin’ a little tired of this yakity-yack and back-and-forth, it’s gettin’ us nowhere. So I guess *I’ll* have to break it up; I change my vote to "not guilty."

🤡

That wasn’t a dogmatic, silly. It was a Rolodex.

atdavid
If you cannot collect your thoughts before attempting to put them down into words, maybe it is the thoughts that are at issue? Pseudo science is making claims, that you are not able to back up with anything approaching typical standards for evidence, then claiming everyone who disagrees with you is lying, stubborn, "does not understand", etc., and yet never actually addressing any argument presented against your case.

>>>>You must be looking in the mirror. Those are actually YOUR tactics, not mine. You just quoted yourself! Besides, it’s not true I haven’t addressed your arguments. You either haven’t been paying attention or are straight up lying.

Standards for evidence. What on earth are you going on about? Do you really think this is some sort of peer review forum for Scientific American? Or a court of law? And who is going to be the arbiter of evidence and facts - you? Get real! Three hallmarks of the scientific method are curiosity observation and investigation. You are missing all three, Mr. Smarty Pants 👖

I reserve the right to edit my posts, it’s the protocol here. There is a fluid situation on the ground and I have many reasons why I might wish to edit a post within the allotted time. What you want or demand doesn’t actually count.

So not only are you lying but you're going to start using my jokes, too?

While repeating the same thing over and over again may make it true on an internet forum, for at least a few people, it does not change reality geoff.

When my index of patheticity peaks and I start channelling popular movies I will let you know.

"There is a fluid situation on the ground..."

Next time, try Depends.

atdavid
While repeating the same thing over and over again may make it true on an internet forum, for at least a few people, it does not change reality geoff.

>>>>>Exactly! Then why are YOU repeating the same thing over and over? I did not create reality. I keep telling you. To discover the real reality you must look 👀 deeper, grasshopper! 🦗

What I have discovered is that geoff, you are unreal.

Whoa! I’m iGeoff?! No, I prefer to think of myself as 👁 Geoff.

Oh, I’ve been meaning to ask you, is it true that when you lie your pants really are on fire? 👖 🔥

As a kid I told people I was going to be a comedian and they all laughed at me. Well, noone’s laughing now!

What's really funny is Geoffy's favorite directional wire manufacturer, Audioquest, does not use cryo treatment. 😏

P.S. Autocorrect made that "directional wife manufacturer" 😂

Actually, Jay Jay, AudioQuest’s explanation is absurd. It sounds like something you would say. Oh, well, nobody is expected to be great at everything.

Advice to all AudioQuest users - send cables off to the cryo lab immediately if not sooner! I cryo’d my AudioQuest Truth interconnects and they were far better after cryo.

“This is an old technology that has proven itself for certain metals when utilized in certain conditions (it’s standard in high-performance race engines). Unfortunately, its efficacy for audio products is inconsistent. We have found that many have over-used this and many other popular modifications and treatments. The idea that, “if it works here, certainly it will work everywhere,” is simply not true. In fact, this treatment can seriously damage many materials such as the polymers used in many audio, video, digital, and filtering components. Cryogenic treatment is typically -300° Fahrenheit, and, in a way, is the reciprocal of high heat (flame forging). Either technique could help a knife, but would you subject a piece of plastic or polymer to a flame? Cryo is no better.”

@geoffkait 
Actually it's not something I would say, as I don't agree with them. I just found it ironic that your seemingly favorite wire manufacturer thinks so.