Why "Cryo" anything?

Ejliu,

I think I'm beginning to understand the purpose of you posting this thread. Maybe I have it wrong and I'd welcome some clarification if so, but I think this is the type of troll meant to start a fight. Let me explain.

You state that "Cold tempering requires heat treatment cycle". Not true. It's not a matter of being in vogue either. While I concentrated on deep cryo immersion of engine blocks and reciprocating assemblies in order to stay under the radar, the principles remain the same. If one were to heat treat a block and then cryo treat it the resultant brittle casting would last less than sixty seconds after start-up and subsequent shatter. Heat treating is a part of the equation only if you wish to add hardness. In fact, most applications of cryogenics don't want the material to also be hardened. If only you would do a small amount of research you'd find this to be true.

Large firms like Rockwell, IBM, 3M, etc. cryo many parts and have participated in important research. The findings are yet to be fully understood. An example is the theory that molecular reorganization occurs through cryo'ing. The results seem to prove this because holes in silica wafers become filled after. They don't know why. Science hasn't gotten that far yet.

Your mistaken claim that heat treating is required destroys any validity you may wish to have garnered with your diatribe. Obviously, you ain't no scientist. In a hobby where what matters is what one hears you conveniently dismiss anecdotal evidence. Our ears will always and forever be anecdotal devices. They are not meters. Your proposition is totally absurd and I'm calling you on it. BTW, I'll be glad to have some brake pads heat treated and cryo'd as a gift to you as long as you promise to install them and hit the brakes hard the first time at about 140 entering a curve.

To my simple way of thinking discussions like this could be fun and interesting and as science evolves eventually enlightening. Nobody needs to agree about any aspect of these technologies. At some point most of us learn that life is too short for this kind of twisted enjoyment. I wish you luck in getting there.

John

Nice post. Out of curiosity, is Jimmy Neutron your less intelligent brother?

Cheers

Bill

.
Ejilu,
.
There is a reasonable chance that I studied and understood valid sample sizes before you did. It would be nice for us to have done over 100 repetitions of the comparisons that we did, but we only did about 22 or so. I think a 100 % agreement from sophisticated and objective audiophiles makes a pretty strong case for the idea that cryo treatments can work on certain audio components.
.
It is interesting that you have had time to send another condescending post to/about me but not have the time to send an email to me so we could organize me sending a cryoed copy of one of your CD's to you so you could make your own comparisons and conclusions.
.
What listening comparisons have you done so far of comparing cryoed and non-cryoed audio parts in the same resolving system on the same day with the same music that have led you to believe that cryo treatments don’t work ?
.
Rgds,
Larry
.

Cello,
I will make this my last post on the subject to avoid your claim of I "being a troll".

The point I want to make is this: I am curious about Cyro treatment and its claim. So far I have not yet heard a credible scientific theory that makes it work. All of them are guesses and subjective testing. In fact, I have only read a good scientific explanation on why it would not work.

It's quite ok to claim benefit of cryo treatment because you heard the benefit. It's quite another to claim that there is a scientific reason behind it. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I often make large audio purchase based on subjective testing. In fact, I typically doubt DBT ABX testing due to its difficult set up and psycho-acoustical issues.

So, when someone makes a scientific claim, I would very much like to see the actual research going into it.

Let me put it another way. Let's say you send back the cryo CD and I told you it did absolutely nothing. Would you agree that "cryo" does not work? Of course not. Just the same that if I told you it worked great, it still does nothing to prove the scientific claim.

Aruging about subjective testing is pointless.

Lugnut,
Please read Jneutron's post about heat cycle's roll on cyro treatment of solid metals. There is not too much more I can say on the subject. You can disagree based on your experience, but it's kind of difficult to argue about numbers.

Eric

.
Eric,
.
This is an audio site. Why on earth if you are truly interested in knowing whether cryoing works would you turn down a free Cryoed CD if not just to satiate your curiosity ?
.
Understanding the science is fine and worthy, but what is the point in being interested in the science and not the subjective experience of listening on your own ?
.
Your responses and reactions just reinforces the thought that you started this thread just to start a debate to argue and you don't really care about whether cryoing works in someone's system.
.
Please don't ask questions in the future on this forum if you have no serious interest in searching for answer of your questions. You have just succeeded in wasting the time of a few well-intended people who were trying to be helpful.
.

Ejliu,

Jneutron didn't say what you allude to. You don't get it, or more likely are trying to deflect justified criticisms. The fact is, in most applications of metals undergoing cryo treatment there is NO heat treatment. Of course, I suppose that lower temperatures may be considered heat treatment in the negative sense. Still, with very little research you yourself can confirm that heat treating metals in the conventional sense is rarely practiced. Post your name, address and the school where you received your Masters degree in Material Science Engineering so we can verify it as I don't buy into the anecdotal evidence that you possess such.

I'll go to the effort to tell you about a cartridge, turntable and tonearm shootout I was invited to early this year. I live in Idaho and the event was hosted in Miami. Approximately ten people were in attendance. The host had arranged enough equipment where we could listen to identical cartridges on the same turntable for immediate comparison. We could also listen to identical cartridges on different tonearms. Further, we could listen to identical tonearm/cartridge combinations on different turntables. By my estimation we played with over $150,000 in analog gear. This isn't even taking into consideration the reference system that allowed us to hear the music. The host of this event? Cello.

I feel honored to have had the opportunity to be a part of something of this magnatude. I have absolutely no problem posting the usernames of all of the attendees as every one of them is a well respected member here at Audiogon and you can follow up with investigation to confirm it. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that Cello makes every effort to be as scientific as possible without the aid of public money to further real world gains in music reproduction. This event was obviously not inexpensive for the host. Cello speaks truthfully about whatever efforts he went to in regard to cryo being beneficial or not. To dismiss out of hand such extreme measures a guy like this goes to for the love of music is insulting to these seasoned ears.

Son, you're out of your element here. You posting this thread was a troll.

Lugnut...What's wrong with a "troll"? That's how a lot of discussion gets started. Look at how many postings this thread generated.

Eldartford,

As the poster child for the type of behavior I take issue with it doesn't surprise me that you ask this question. If you don't get it then there's no use trying to explain. You must be very lonely.

As with most things in life, perception is reality.

Ok. I am baited into posting with another answer. Since I started, I might as well finish it.

Cello,
I believe this is a "tech talk" forum. I thought this is the place to discuss about the science/technology behind the product. I was looking for a reasonable theory for an audiophile "fab". I purposely did not post the question in cable forum for that.

Whether I hear the difference in a "cryo" CD does not prove or disprove the possible theory.

Lugnut,
I received my MSE from Stanford University in 1996 and BS in electrical engineer and MSE double major from UC Davis in 1994. For the last 8 yrs, I have been working as a process engineer in a semiconductor capitol equipment company working on CVD product. So most people would say that I have a ok background in thermodynamic, electrical engineering principles, plasma physics, semiconductor physics, gas dynamic, metallurgy and associated process treatment.

I think that's enough background to post a likely theory and ask a question about "Cryo" treatment on audiophile product.

Having a shoot-out means very little to this discussion. There is nothing wrong with subjective listening test. I do all of my purchasing based on subjective listening test; however, it has very little to do with science.

Eric J Liu (feel free to look it up)

I mentioned the martensite transformation for one very important reason. It is a "diffusionless" phase transformation..in other words, the change at the atomic level, from a face centered cubic crystalline structure (FCC) to the body center cubic one (BCC) will occur without the need for specific atoms to migrate within the structure. So, all the atoms are there, they just re-arrange a tad. As the metal is cooled, the driving force that makes the structure change to BCC eventually is large enough that the changes occurs.

Diffusion based transformations on the other hand, do indeed require heating, so that the atoms have enough energy to move about to where they want to be..a good example is that of a "cored microstructure" like copper-nickel, where initial solidification is around particles of one alloy, and subsequent solidification has a gradient of alloy content..this structure requires heat treatment to homogenize the overall material. BTW, all of this stuff is in Barrett, Nix, and Tetelman.."The principals of engineering materials",Prentiss Hall, 1973..

Obviously, for a cryo treatment to work, the transformation would have to be a diffusionless one.. Since cryo treatments are shown to be effective for modifying macro properties for many disciplines, one can certainly make the argument that there are many different diffussionless reactions out there.

For wires, I certainly cringe at the thought that the metal undergoes some "magic transformation" which somehow makes it easier for the electrons to glide through the lattice, and certainly would expect to measure any such change as a change in resistance. Plastics, on the other hand, are more difficult to brush off..

CD's and cryo for example..I'd look at:

1. Does the process stress relieve the plastic, making the disk flatter as it is spinning? (the internal stresses of a spinning disk will be slightly different from one at rest).
2. Does the process help re-arrange surface atoms in either the reflective layer or the poly surface?
3. Does it alter the optical properties of the poly by surface re-arrangement?. or, perhaps some diffusionless transformation similar to martensite?

I would assume that all these could be easily checked by checking the end result...bitstream comparison of two cd's, one cryoed..

Bill..a distinction must be made between intelligence and work experience..I have some experience in the cryo world..but thanks for the kind words...

Cheers, John

John,
For martensitic formation to occur, steel needs to be heated well above room temperature first. That temperature will depend on the composition of the steel. (how much carbon and other metal additive and etc) Again, a heating cycle is needed.

For a reaction to occur, a driving force is needed. (physical force, thermal, elctro-magnetic and etc) Reducing the temperature certainly will not provide that driving force.

This brings up another theory for me. If you combine cryo treatment with some kind mechanical machining at the lower temperature, you can potentially change the micro-structure due to internal stress difference and mechanical force; however, this is not what I have understood about today's Audiophile "cryo" technique. From what I read in the brochure, it's dipping the desired object in a cool solution.

Eric

Yes, you are correct in part. In order for the transformation to martensite to occur, austenite is indeed required..and that is obtained by heat.

What is more important, though, is the fact that it is a diffusionless process, one that does not require heat treatment for it to start..it requires the driving force, which in the case of the change from austenite to martensite, is not an increase in temp, but a decrease to below the martensite start temp.

The fact that cryo is indeed used to alter the macro properties of any material means that one is using a diffusionless process..and, it does not necessarily require a pre-treatment to higher temperatures first..The argument that all metal objects require heat to actually form them, before one can cryo them, is just a semantic one. There are processes that do not require the end manu heat them prior to cryo..

But, a diffusionless process does not require a heat precursor, but instead, use the internal lattice forces being created by the cooldown..that is the driver force..not heat..

Some quotes:page 311, same text..

"T3 is so far below the equilibrium transformation temperature Teu, that the driving force for FCC austenite to transform to BCC ferrite is enormous.....

"The diffusionless transformation by which (greek symbol meaning austenite phase, no html codes here) decomposes to martensite takes place by a complicated shearing of the () lattice. Each atom moves only a small distance relative to it's neighbors, less than one atomic distance. Consequently, thermal activation in the sense of vacancy motion or solid state diffusion is not required for the formation of martensite.

Since martensite formation is a diff. transformation, it cannot be supresses by quenching and, irrespective of time, a certain amount of martensite will form at a given temperature...the amount of martensite that forms at a given temperature will increase with increased cooling...at a temp Tf, all the austenite will have transformed."end of quotes..

So, clearly, the diffusionless transformation equilibrates at any temperature between the start and finish temp. If the object is, at a later date, taken down to a lower temperature, more martensite will form..this will continue until all the austenite is gone...

Now, the real question, is...is this type of diffusionless process possible with plastics?..I don't know.

Cheers, John

Is this some kind of set-up? Nobody dips anything into a cool solution. Almost everyone knows cryo treatment is a two-day affair. This is some sort of joke, right?

John,

the point I am making is that the starting phase of the steel must be in austenite. Once quench to to a lower temperature. Martensitic transformation occurs. Certain percentage of the marensite is formed, but the other material do not stay in Austenite phase. All the left over goes into Pearlite or Ferrite depending on compostion.

So any further quenching will not continue the martensitic transformation. The material must be raised back to a higher temperature level and reform Austenite before that's possible.

Put it another way. A piece of Steel can have a dramatic phase change by dropping rapidly from 900 to 20C, but that change is near permanent. Dropping the temperature from 20C to -150C do not continue the phase change. You must heat back up above ~800-900C to reform the inital Austenite phase.

The driving force for the martensitic transformation is the instable crystal structure of Austensite at lower temperature. So without forming austenite again. The driving force is gone.

For anyone who is interested, check out an example of phase diagram: (note that phase diagram changes rapidly depending on level of impurity.)

http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/96ClassProj/examples/kimcon.html

For amorphous material like glass, the temperature change will mostly introduce lots of stress on the material. Eventually it formed a solid. The phase change most likely will cause physical breakage. Not sure what would be the audible effect, but I think the end result would most likely lower reliability.

Eric

""The driving force for the martensitic transformation is the instable crystal structure of Austensite at lower temperature. So without forming austenite again. The driving force is gone.""

The point is, at a specific temperature, austenite/martensite ratio will be stable, and lowering the temp changes that ratio to another, stable one..eventually, a temp is reached where all the austenite is gone.

Now, purchase a material, it is delivered, and in your hand..next, assume that what you have in your hand is not fully stable at the atomic level, and if you lower it's temp, a diffusionless process stabilizes the lattice..that is what the cryo process is all about..yes, heat was initially involved, but after you got the material, all you did was cool it..

It's that instability I'm talking about..the austenite to martensite transformation was the easiest example to use to explain diffusionless transformations..

It's the concept of a transformation that occurs as a result of cooling something that is important..

Cheers, John.

PS..be back in a week..on vaca...it's been a pleasure..

Howdy folks,

I'm new to the forum and cryo, but keen to learn more.
(I apologise if these have already been answered elsewhere.)

1) Is this cryo treatment physically (and audibly) reversible? ie. does the given un-cryoed component sound exactly the same as before? Ditto for a re-cryoed component?

2) Is it equally effective on components of varying ages/oxidations, or is it best done during manufacture?

3) Could its mechanism have something to do with altering micro-stresses, surface micro-cracks / imperfections, or driving out gaseous impurities? Is any change, say to copper wire, visible under an electron microscope?

4) Are the improvements positive in every aspect of the sound quality (eg. transparency, soundstage width or depth or height, grain, sibilance, fatigue, engagement, noise etc), or are most aspects improved while some others have no change or get worse?

5) I'm not very clued up about the DBT and ABX testing methodologies mentioned - wondering do any of these include AB testing where the ear is primed to say a short loop of music through A first repeated many times before beginning the random switching. Then prime the ear for B many times over and retest? Repeat above many times. The reason I'm curious is because in my limited not-very-scientific audio comparison tests I've found it's easier to a) hear a change after your ear has heard a given sound many times over and memorised it well, and b) hear an improvement rather than a temporary degradation. However, I find it's easy to be seduced by an improvement in one aspect of the sound while a perhaps bigger degradation in some other aspect slips through unnoticed (but rears it's ugly head in a long term test).

Cheers,
Lost_in_space

Let me try to answer some of them.

For 1 and 2, at normal operating temperature, (room temp to 100C), there will be not be any significant change to the internal structure of the material, but the surface of the metal can oxidize easier. Mechanical movement by twisting and pulling can cause more change in micro-structure than temperature at this range. For example, if the speaker cable design emphasize large grain micro-structure (Audioquest LGC), simply twisting the long cable will cause the long grain to break up into shorter grain structure. The effect can be worsen at lower temperature because the bonding strength is lessen at lower temperature.

So it's likely reversible, but the process can be quite complicated. I would think that material is best designed into manufactoring instead of some tweak.

3) Change in the stress of the metal will have to do with the Macro-structure or mechanical design. For example, a tight fitting metal o-ring undergoes cryo treatment only. The fitting might not be so good afterward because the overall shape have changed due to thermal stress cycle or thermal stress hysterisis. The micro-structure or material itself probably have not change that much.

4) Sorry. Can't comment on it.
5) DBT is very simple. Just make sure the listner and test giver do not know the actual test being run. For ABX, it's ok for the listner to get familar with the music passage first before the test. So, listen to A, listen to B and then listen to X. The listner writes down if the X is A or B. Repeat the same passage at least 10 times. If the listener can consistently get the correct answer 9 out of 10 times. It's statistically significant.

Very tough listening test in my opinion. I can't remember the difference that well. After 2-3 tests, everything sounds very much the same. It's also very impratical for multiple listner because of narrow sweet spot.

Eric

I can't help but be amused here. Take a look at what we have: someone posing a question with absolutely zero experience with cryo now answering questions relating to its efficacy, reversability, etc. etc. It is precisely this kind of interaction on these boards which should be taken with an absolutely huge grain of salt.

I make no claims of universal or all knowing educational knowledge. Frankly, I doubt if there is any concrete answer to question 1) or 2) above as there are probably no audiophiles out there who have done the kind of research necessary to anwser those questions, and I really doubt if there ever will be. Question 3) I honestly don't know. Question 4) My personal opinion is that, in most cases, (say 90% of what I've cryoed) following re-breaking in of the wire/component, yes, the improvements are across the board and positive. Inevitably, there will be those that dismiss my view of re-breaking in as ridiculous; I can only say that in almost all cases (approximately 90% as listed above), the cryoed wire/component exhibits lots of positives (ie. increased transparency, detail, easier to follow bass, etc.) following treatment but also has a tendency towards some thinness and stridency which disappears and is replaced by a much smoother and less fatiguing presentation following some extended (in my exerience about 15-30 days) use. Your point (a) in #5, Lost in Space, is very well taken. I am with you 100% that judgements on these issues should be rendered only by those that are absolutely familiar on a long term basis with both the components and the recordings that they are listening to. I think it would be simply too difficulty to make a judgement with respect to whether the change was positve or negative without that familiarity. And even with that familiarity, it is not easy. I have been doing recent (further) comparisons with cryoed receptacles and my conclusions are not totally at odds with audiophiles who prefer one component with better quality recordings and one with recordings that are less than first rate. Ultimately I think any system should be optomised for top quality recordings, but I can certainly respect those that choose the opposite view in light of the poor quality of much of the software we have to listen to.

This is a complicated issue, but one that someone can delve into relatively inexpensively if they choose to. My suggestion is to cryo something (probably wire) in your system that you feel you can scrap if necessary and see how you make out. That's the way I started out.

Is HDM a MSE? HS!

HDM,
Lost_in_space's question 1, 2 and 3 are very general engineering questions. They can be answered by engineers with some background in thermal dynamic and material science.

I don't and can't comment on sound effect of "Cryo" treatment. So I did not. You however have experienced on such matter and tried it in a long term setting. How do you attribute the difference to "cryo" treatment? In my own subjective test, I often have difficulty pinpointing one single item as the source of difference. There are just so many variables to content here.

For example, I have often asked my wife to be the test subject and found that I can easily make something sound better simply by turning the vol about 1-2dB louder. It's rather amazing.

Another question for you on the cryo power outlet, which is more likely?

1) The "cryo" treated power outlet's contacts are cleaned and has better contact with AC plug and therefore better sound.
2) A "cryo" power outlet has a special property that results in better sound.

Why do lots of people around here always pick 2)? Is it because of the pretty pseudo science ad?

Eric

Ejliu, give it up. Those who think that "cyro" sounds better, are the same that believe that the direction of the fuse in the mains also makes an audible difference. Something about AC current flowing in only one direction, no doubt!
Salut, Bob P.

Bob P. - what does one thing have to do with the other? That's like saying people who think tube amps sound better than solid state amps believe that turntables sound better than CD players. A straw dog argument if ever there was one. You'll have to come up with something better than that!

This thread is hilarious. The naysayers don't trust their ears! And, it seems that they won't even try to listen. Success of every audio product I know of is dependent upon anecdotal evidence. No matter what the gizzmos that measure things say, if it doesn't sound good people won't buy it. In this case, especially considering that free offers were made, all one would need do is listen and then decide for themselves. The kind of fear to not try something is evidence of a problem other than audio. Whoever made mention of selecting a television based on picture quality hit the nail right on the head. Eyes are wonderful measuring devices and so are our ears. End the end the question becomes are we listening or bench testing.

.
I just had a sophisticated audiophile friend visiting from Colorado who I had listen to 2 CDR’s (both copies of the same music mix), one cryoed and the other not.
.
I did not tell him which CD was treated, which not and nor that either of the CD’s were cryoed. He easily picked the cryoed CD as his clear favorite of the 2 CD's. This makes close to 25 people who have easily been able to hear the improvement derived from Cryo treating CD’s.
.
This makes it still 100 % of the time that audiophiles can hear the difference between a cryoed and non-cryoed CD and all clearly preferred the Cryoed CD.
.
Who gives a flying rat's ass whether there is a scientific logic to why this works. If it works it works. If people can always hear it, then they can hear it. It just works and it is obvious to anyone who has sat down and made the listening comparison.
.
If you have not tried listening to cryoed vs non-cryoed materials, then you really have no place being a naysayer unless you just choose to be illogical.
.

Cello, the best test of hypothesis' is when the candidates do not know that they are under test and in the case of audiophiles, it is best to NOT use "sophisticated" listeners. Note that I said that the candidates are under test, not the device, for you are really testing if the candidates can hear a difference, since you are so sure that there is a difference . If the candidates had shown no difference in hearing the cds it is the candidates that failed the test, since your affirmation is that there is a difference.
See the problem here with using "sophisticated" listeners to validate your assertion?

Geoffkait, if you are one who thinks that the direction of a fuse in the AC mains line makes a difference to the sound in an amp, then of course you will think that cyroing electronics and cds will make a difference and probably you will hear a difference also.

Bob P.

Lugnut, I bench test using my ears or is it I listen by bench testing, but ultimately I bench test using my eyes - I have to look at the results. Also, remember the expression "the hand is quicker than the eye". It is easy to fool the eyes, after all it is done all the time in cinema by fooling the eye into seeing a continuous picture by showing 32 pictures every second. I doubt that showing 64 pictures a second would make the image "better". However, maybe cyroing the film might make a difference!
Bob P.

This is an interesting thread. I’m not really sure why some are taking the stance that “if it sounds better, don’t worry about why”? This is the Tech Talk forum and I believe the point for Ejliu starting this thread was to probe if anyone has a sound understanding of why “cryo” may make a difference, not necessarily anecdotal evidence that “cryoing” improves the sound of any particular piece of equipment.

As a metallurgical engineer (BS – University of Illinois, 1989 for you credential seekers), I too have a guarded skepticism regarding the validity of potential mechanisms for the perceived changes/improvements attributed to cryoing mentioned in this thread. Please understand that I also rely on my ears primarily to guide me toward better sound. Since this activity is subjective in nature, I clearly don’t fall into the trap, sometimes typical of engineers, that if it doesn’t measure better/differently, there can’t be an improvement/difference. I hear what I hear…psychoacoustical explanations aside! But clearly, the point of this thread was the "WHY", right?

The asking of “why” is a very important step in my opinion. Technology does not advance without this step. A deeper understanding of the physical world and using this knowledge to design more advanced products is central to the technological world we live in. With all due respect to the rare “black magic” inventor, it’s the science that drives true advancement.

No one in this thread has yet offered credible science to explain “why” cryoing changes the sound of a component. What has been offered is speculation that whatever happens MAY be caused by a diffusionless phase change similar to a martensitic transformation. Since the temperatures involved (RT – LN2) are so low, this really is the only possibility, IF the changes are caused by a reorganization of the crystal lattice. A mechanism involving mass transport (diffusion) would simply take way too long, possibly hundreds of years to accomplish.

I have a several issues with the martensitic transformation explanation though. First, transformations of this nature are not equilibrium transformations. They rely on “trapping” a non-equilibrium phase, usually through rapid cooling, leaving no time for the equilibrium phase to nucleate and grow. They occur very rapidly, in some cases at the speed of sound. They are basically a shear transformation, a small shift or rotation of a lattice plane, not unlike a seismic shift of plates in an earthquake. Since, in the case of IC’s, PC’s or SC’s, there hasn’t been any suggestion that cryoing must take place immediately after the Cu is solidified or drawn (strain-induced), this suggests that for a martensitic-type transformation to take place, an equilibrium phase different from RT equilibrium phase must be present on a Cu/Alloy ternary phase diagram at temperatures near LN2. Perhaps this is true, but given the extensive research in cold-temp physics, I would have assumed that the phase diagrams of commonly used materials would have been updated by now??

Secondly, if this were indeed true and the phase diagrams not understood/updated at low temperatures, then what would be the purpose for holding a component at this temperature for extended time, longer than necessary to get the temperature equalized? If it is a diffusionless transformation, time has no bearing on the volume fraction of the non-equilibrium phase present, only temperature and the rate of change of temperature are important.

Thirdly, very special conditions need to be met to “practically” induce martensitic transformations. By practical, I mean the cooling rates have to be reasonable. In steel, you have to alloy carefully to stabilize austenite at low enough temperatures to allow real world cooling rates to bring the piece to Ms before the onset of ferrite/pearlite nucleation. Not all materials can be forced into this type of transformation. Are we to believe that composition is unimportant for this transformation at cold temperatures, given the relatively poor heat transfer of LN2. If this were true, I would expect science would have stumbled upon this phenomenon a LONG, LONG time ago.

Finally, if this type of transformation were indeed happening, simple x-ray diffraction techniques could demonstrate this beyond a reasonable doubt. If the lattice structure changes, it is easily measurable!!!

I mean no disrespect to those that posited their thoughts on why/how perceived changes in sound may come about through cryoing. To be honest, though, without specific science to support it, it is just a guess. If anyone has access to peer-reviewed papers on the presence of meta-stable or non-equilibrium phases at low temps for the materials in question, please e-mail me or post it here. It would be wonderful for all of us if there was solid science supporting this…further advancement would then be just around the corner!!

Regards,
Jordan

.
Viridian,
.
Are you sohpiscticated or an audiophile ?

.
Rgds,
Larry
.

Jordan,

I mean no disrespect either. Though this thread was posted under the "tech" section I fail to see why it's scope should be limited as you suggest. The threadhead did not ask to keep replies to known measurements Or whatever other "true" scientific priciples you allude to. As one looks at the enitire process of science many phenomena are first observed long before they are measured. In fact, observation is the norm.

A few MSE "experts" have chimmed in with fairly exhaustive remarks gleaned from textbooks and even they exchanged disagreements about heat treated being required or not for cryo treatment to actually occur. Plain and simple, measured science is not at this time able to answer the posted question. Does this make the claim that cryo'ing works in the audio realm not true? No, as measured science cannot prove that negative either.

As I prepare to exit this troll I'd like to offer that I thought this was an audio site where enthusiasts share our experiences for the benefit of the passion we all enjoy. Thirty years ago the conventional wisdom was that interconnects and speaker cables didn't make a difference at all but today it's generally accepted, with the exception of a few flat earthers that hang around here, that wires can have a huge impact on component performance. Even after three decades science still isn't able to fully explain the "whys" but most audiophiles sure hear it.

I'm not sure that the nay sayers can even be involved in this hobby and are likely anti-audio. First, by their own standards set forth here it would be impossible for them to buy any one piece of equipment without first understanding in a measured way why it sounds the way it does. Comparing two amplifiers with nearly identical specifications and price would certainly place them in an emotional tailspin trying to understand why they sound so different. Second, while the advocates (or at least those with an open mind) post their systems therefore proving they belong in this community none of the naysayers are involved enough to do so.

Don't blame me for doubting the intentions I've taken issue with. A lack of historical helping within these threads, as well as being outside the statistical norm of regular contributors, is anecdotal evididence of the type that I use in discerning most things in life. Of course, no anecdotal evidence, no listening experiments and no human judgements are valid to you guys.

My offer to Ejliu to heat treat and cryo some brake pads for him is still open.

.
Marty,
.
Good answer.
.
Rgds,
Larry
.

Lugnut, I didn’t suggest the thread should be limited. I questioned why others chose to limit the discussion by suggesting that “if it sounds better, don’t worry about why”. Whether you like it or not, that IS a limiting statement!! This particular issue is unique in that it is much more easily investigated through theory as well as measurement. We can measure structural and compositional changes in the lattice very precisely. In the case of cables and other equipment, the number of variables and their interactions oftentimes precludes easy analysis of why something sounds better.

Furthermore, you have to admit that the number of different materials that are being cryo’d and claims of its superiority are a little over the top. Golf balls, fishing hooks, tennis rackets and pantyhose (no joke) all benefit from cryoing? All grades of steel, Aluminum, Copper, Silicon, plastics, composites all benefit from cryoing? This is the “hype” surrounding cryo treatment and it should make all of us at least suspicious of the claims, particularly if there is an economic motive by some, right? If you tried it for a given application and feel secure in the improvements, then great, but certainly you would agree that this anecdotal evidence would not necessarily apply to a different application with a different material, right?

As an “MSE”, I’ll concede that for a few specific grades of steel, cryo treatment is sometimes used to optimize a given property. Fortunately for us, it doesn’t put us into an “emotional tailspin” because there is valid science behind it. For highly alloyed steels, the original processing may have resulted in some retained austenite still present at room temperature. Lowering the temperature further can force this retained austenite to transform to martensite. This IS easily measured and understood! In almost all cases, this would be followed by tempering at somewhere close to 300C to allow some of the dislocations created from the transformation to relieve themselves. If you followed the same treatment for a grade of steel that did not have retained austenite, you get NO change in structure. This IS easily measured and understood!

Surely you don’t judge the validity of ideas based on whether an A-goner has his system posted or not, do you? If it helps you to take my intentions seriously, I have Magnepan 3.6 speakers, Parasound JC1 amps, Rowland Concerto linestage, APL Denon3910 Universal player, Purist Audio Museaus interconnect and speaker cables, and a PS Audio UPC-200 conditioner. My room is dedicated and I use ASC tube traps, homemade Helmholtz resonators (Argent Room Lenses), and Auralex diffusers. You have made some sweeping statements in your post trying to categorize those of us that are trying to understand the physics of THIS particular issue. Perhaps I’m wrong, but from your comments it seems as if you think true audiophiles are under attack in this thread from the “naysayers” and must band together to defeat them? I always thought I was a “true audiophile". Given my wife’s puzzled expressions and general disdain for the UPS delivery guy, I just assumed this was good enough empirical evidence to confirm that. Perhaps not?

Finally, I’m sure you’re not serious with this statement:

My offer to Ejliu to heat treat and cryo some brake pads for him is still open

I’m sure you are just saying this to make a point and wouldn’t actually want someone to be injured to prove it? Besides, from my read on Ejliu’s posts, he was only trying to suggest that heat treatment before cooling was necessary to change the structure and NOT that this change would be good and/or smart.

Interesting discussion from everyone. It's very similar to a discussion on proving existence of God.

Group A states that God must exist because they believes it to be so. Don't ask why. Just follow their "truth".

Group B simply asked to see if it's possible to scientifically prove God's existance. And they are treated as heretic and must be casted out of group A's wonderful society.

Maybe we should have a new policy on Audiogon's tech forum.
"Don't ask. Don't tell". Just follow the gospel according to "sohpiscticated audiophile".

Anyway, I will give up for sure now.

Eric

Ejliu - you have completely mistated the argument. This discussion is not at all like religion, it is simply a discussion between those that have tried cryo treatment and hear the difference and those that have not tried it, yet demand a scientific explanation - one that is not available, at least one that satisfies the doubters. Perhaps DARPA, NASA or some other august body will form committees to study the audio applications of cryogenics in the foreseeable future and publish peer-reviewed results. I won't hold my breath.

Geoffkait, actually I think you just made Ejliu's point:

a discussion between those that have tried cryo treatment and hear the difference and those that have not tried it, yet demand a scientific explanation - one that is not available, at least one that satisfies the doubters.

Substitute in religion and you get:

a discussion between those that have tried "religion" and know it to be true and those that have not tried it, yet demand a scientific explanation - one that is not available, at least one that satisfies the "non-believers".

There is an element of “faith” in this hobby given the difficult nature of quantifying differences that are heard. I’m by no means a “if it doesn’t measure differently, it can’t sound different” guy partly because for a complex system such as an audio system, it’s not clear that enough precise measurements of all the important variables -- and there interactions -- could be accomplished, nor would it be clear (to me anyway) how exactly to interpret them. I use my ears to guide me, but I also recognize that my subjective opinions aren’t necessarily objectively true. The cryo issue (to me) is a different animal because it is such an easily investigated process. It involves (mostly) a single material (an area I have reasonable knowledge in) put through a simple thermal cycle. I’m sure Ejliu’s interest in this was for at least similar reasons?

BTW, I have cryo’d ACME silver plated outlets…they were $5 more than the non-cryo’d version.

Germanboxers: you've actually flipped the "religion argument" around; it is religious "zealots" who demand that the non-believers "get with the program" and believe in God (or they will go to hell), regardless of whether God's existence can be proven. The (religious) non-believers are (usually) not "zealous" in their non-belief, actually they may not care one way or the other at all.

Using your religion anology, are the nay-sayers in the cryo debate actually the "zealots" in this case, trying the keep the audio world safe from "pseudoscience?"

In the debate over religion/God, everyone can (in theory) make his mind up one way or the other based on personal experience - Sunday school, listening to sermons, perception of the world, etc. But the difference here is that (apparently) the naysayers in the cryo debate have made their minds up without experience of any sort. They use scientific text, in excrutiating detail (as opposed to religious text), in the attempt to prove the "heathens" must be "hearing things."

The word "faith" does not have to have the deeper (religious) connotation you suggest. For example, you might take a reviewer's comments on an audio component "on faith." I would argue the word "faith" in this sense is in no way equivalent to "religious faith."

I'll do the right thing here and offer an apology for some of my remarks. No, I wasn't serious about the brake offer. It was a response to the alleged requirement that parts must first be tempered to recieve the benefits of cryo. Normally I would take my own advice and just stop posting as the conversation degenerates. My mistake. I guess the steroid program I'm on is making me more aggressive than usual. Still, no excuse. I do still believe this thread to be a troll however. What I find frustrating is that my sense of science is that many things are observed first and the proof follows. That's what makes us unique. Our curiosity is boiled down to "I wonder why that happens?" Here we have a proposition that it can't be measured therefore it isn't happening. So many of the advances in science have been accidental and cryoing audio gear seems to be one of them. I maintain that my description of speaker cables and the evolution of their "acceptence" as a valid product proves my point. Science still cannot explain why they sound the way they do except in very basic terms. If it could, then there would be DIY instructions for making state of the art speaker cables. The MSE's here have expressed a belief that cryo'ing audio parts cannot have an affect based on their understanding of applied science. As frustratingly curious as I am about things I don't understand I would have posted the threadhead in a different way. I would have asked if anyone had a theory about why cryo'ing audio parts would make a difference in light of the indisputable, widely held fact that people do hear changes whether good or bad. Honestly, the attack by the naysayers is more along the lines of "it's in your head" which is insulting to the vast majority of people who's hearing is good enough to discern minute differences between other non-contovertial areas of audio. Why this is ignored as real is where I get my buttons pushed. Still, it's my responsibility to control myself, not yours. I'm sorry.

.
Lugnut,
.
Nice summation and great post. You are fogiven, come home.
.
Rgds,
Larry
.

I dont really know anything about the cyrogenically process or if it works for audio applications but as far as I am concerned empirical evidence is a part of the scientific method. This includes experiments such as double blind tests, ALthough everyone has the right to feel that someones experiment was improperly done but to say that dbt's are difficult I really dont think so in the big scheme of things. Of course many EE's think that all is known and in a few years of college everything is passed to them but in reality this is not the case. If someone is not even willing to listen to a cryod cd because listening is not technical enough maybe this shows a major problem with the way students are taught at colleges. I am just trying to say that most innovations happen by accident and the thoery as to why it works are figured out later, like superconductivity which from my understanding was happened upon
"Superconductivity was first noticed when liquid mercury was cooled to liquid Helium temperatures (4.2K) while its resistivity was being plotted. While approaching that temperature, the resistance was coming down linearly, when all of a sudden it dropped to zero Ohms! Dutch physicist Heike Kamerlingh Onnes was performing this experiment in 1911. "
I am sure since then thousands if not millions of hours have been spent trying to figure out exactly how it works using other theories to premote new theories but after almost a hundred years cryogenis is still in its infant stage, as far as I am concerned.
But comparing a change in sound between cryo ing audio stuff and superconducting is a reach, why does any one think that superconductivity is the reason this sounds like a spurious relationship, come on the copper in a cable is not superconductive at room temp. but maybe something has changed. THe human ear is an amazing piece of equipment on I dont think we have the ability to recreate, yet some brush off any thing pretaining to hearing as not too technical?
The following is an exert from ludwig: "The human ear is a truly remarkable instrument. At one point in my life I designed Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) systems for the U. S. military. The primary function of an ECM system is to detect an enemy before he (it's rarely a she) detects you, for self-defense. It is interesting to compare the characteristics of a good ECM system and human hearing:
Comparison of characteristics

Characteristic
Good ECM system
Human hearing
Directional coverage
ECM All directions
Human hearing All directions
Source location accuracy
ECM Within 1-5 degrees
Human hearing About 5-degrees

Ratio of highest to lowest frequency (bigger the better)
ECM 20 : 1
Human hearing 1000 : 1

Ratio of strongest signal to weakest (the bigger the better)
ECM Million : one
Human hearing 32 trillion : one

Human hearing is a superior defensive system in every respect except source location accuracy. Note: Jourdain (page 23) states that human accuracy is 1-2 degrees in azimuth.
In contrast, a military system designed for communications (rather than detection) would typically have a much smaller ratio of highest-to-lowest frequency, no source location capability, and often a narrow directional coverage. For human communication a frequency ratio of 10:1 and a ratio of strongest to weakest signal of 10,000:1 would suffice. The far larger actual ratios strongly imply a purpose other than communication.

This doesnt prove anything except if people are hearing a difference maybe it is worthwhile to take a listen your self and if you hear a differnce maybe after wrapping your head around it you could try to wrap some of the knowledge you have around it . Try to figure out the mystery. What would have happened if everyone beside Dutch physicist Heike Kamerlingh Onnes said something to the effect of "Zero resistance everyone one knows that is immposible there must be something wrong with his instruments and methods, not worth even looking into" Pretty ridicules huh?

Excellent post, Lugnut...I figured this debate was just getting us all a bit too excited.

I do differ from your opinion that the "naysayers" are suggesting that there is no difference in sound. Perhaps I'm only speaking for myself (I don't think so?), but no one has directly said that cryo'ing does NOT make a difference. Some of us have tried it, some have not. My take on the discussion has been that some of us with specific knowledge of materials have questioned the "reasons" some have attributed to the difference, not really that there are no differences. This certainly doesn't rule out mechanisms we are unaware of, but the metallurgy is very well understood, so I'm fairly certain that we need to look elsewhere for the answers.

Autio, I agree that our ears are wonderful devices, but one component of hearing is perception and this is not always reliable. I've found my moods, sickness, exhaustion from a workout, etc all affect how and what I hear. Also, when I listen critically with a friend, sometimes afterward I find myself reversing my thoughts on further listening by myself. What I'm saying is MY hearing/perception is not always as reliable as I would like it to be. Maybe others don't have this problem? Ultimately, it is still the only tool we have to measure our enjoyment of a given component. I'll leave it at that.

Regards,

Jordan

Actually it would be violating a patent infringement to have Ejliu treat a brake pad and charge for the process.
This is a patented process and is used by many fleets to reduce the maintenance cost on high usage vehicles.
I have not participated in this discussion because one of my client companies produces products for the automotive industry that uses cryo processing.
I cannot make any claims as to improvements in audio equipment. The improvements in machining, stress relief longevity and resistance to corrosion are substantial and have been tested/ patented and are repeatable. We have many clients in the aerospace industry the military, high performance auto and bio medical. You can look up the patents on sparkplugs, brakepads and human joint replacements.

Cryo works, I tried it with tubes,the difference is
huge,those who cant hear it,either they dont want to
hear it, or their ears are not train, or maybe they
are scare to try it.