Cryogenic cable treatment. Options

[seditious3]

There's a guy in NYC who does cryogenics. He freezes everything from pistons to brass musical instruments of the philharmonic. There was an article about him in the NY Times a number of years back.

His calling card is a cryogenically-treated disposable razor. According to the Times author, the blade stays sharp for a VERY long time.

I have no doubt that cryogenics does help some materials, but audio stuff...???

[timcupery]

There might be something to this. Responses have taken one of two forms:
1) attack the theory behind the apparent "breakthrough"
2) claim that the blind-testing is dubious

Note that even if the theory is wrong, there may be some advance. There are numerous training methods for elite runners/cyclists/etc. that were derived under mistaken presuppositions... but the work. For some of them, exercise science has learned why they work; others remain mysterious but work nonetheless. My point being that it's possible this treatment has some effect that's noticeable, even if we don't know why.

The blind-testing does seem to be dubious. But I'm not ready to write it off. I'd like to know if Mr. Howard could consistently identify the cryogenically-treated cable as sounding better, in a double-blind environment. I'm open to the possibility that he could. Maybe I've just not been around "real" audiophiles enough to be extremely cynical...

[sinistarr]

OK one elementary physics question. How are such low temperatures of 1.5K achieved?

[HbG]

If there is any audible effect, shouldn't the difference also be measurable?

Anyway, can't it be included in the terms of service or something that the audio transmission properties of cables are not to be discussed on HA?
I seriously don't see the point if neither side will ever agree with the other. It's not a debate anymore, but an ordinary war, not matter how intellectual or technical the invididual arguments are. The pattern in the bigger picture still strikes me as childish.

[Dibrom]

Anyway, can't it be included in the terms of service or something that the audio transmission properties of cables are not to be discussed on HA?

No. Unless a topic discusses something which is illegal, or otherwise dangerous to the longevity of HA, or unless it is against one of the other rules designed to keep the discussion civil (in the sense of being non-threatening to individuals and stuff like that), then it should not be banned.

Banning a topic from discussion goes against the principles of rational argumentation that this community strives for, and which I very much believe in myself. Taking that approach, like some so-called audiophile sites do when they ban the discussion of double blind testing topics, seems to me to be quite foolish and heavy handed, and it points to the fact that one has no reasoned response to a topic and so just resorts to banishment in order to hide such a weakness.

There's no shortage of people on this board who can see through the snake oil and who have important criticisms to make of such things. Other people, who lack a skeptical mentality, would do well to be exposed to these arguments, even if the "other side" will never concede failure when their nonsense has been exposed. At least some people will learn something.

At the moment, it doesn't seem to me that HA is in any danger of being overcome by the more traditional "audiophile" mentality, so one can't really use that as an excuse for banning such topics either.

I seriously don't see the point if neither side will ever agree with the other. It's not a debate anymore, but an ordinary war, not matter how intellectual or technical the invididual arguments are. The pattern in the bigger picture still strikes me as childish.

There will always be someone who you can't convince, but that doesn't mean that the majority of people won't come to understand why your argument is better than the "other side." For instance, there are still people who believe that the Earth is flat, or that the Earth and the universe are only a few thousand years old, or that we never landed on the moon, or that there is some sort of vast alien coverup conspiracy, or that psychics are for real, or that homeopathy works, or even that "audiophiles" with their exotic cables, quantum clips, rainbow foils, special creams, and green markers are on to something......

[Nero]

If I put my $7.00 interconnects and speaker cables into my freezer for a few days, would they help the sound quality just a bit, maybe?

[HbG]

Sorry Dibrom, i was being cynical instead of serious. It's just that the discussion tires me, it somewhat annoys me, one of the reasons i like HA is the relative lack of "audiophile" discussions. And this specific topic is one that keeps coming back all the time it seems.

Good post, you're absolutely right about it, i hadn't thought about the people who may be less sceptical. Does make it somewhat byblical though, Heaven, hell, and both sides trying to win the souls of those on the earth that's in between

Sinistarr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cooling_technology and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryocoolers Not the most useful wikipedia pages, but it at least gives you some names to google for.

[seditious3]

[quote=Nero,Sep 22 2005, 04:29 PM]
If I put my $7.00 interconnects and speaker cables into my freezer for a few days, would they help the sound quality just a bit, maybe?

Yes, they will sound like $8 cables.

[Nero]

If I put my $7.00 interconnects and speaker cables into my freezer for a few days, would they help the sound quality just a bit, maybe?

Yes, they will sound like $8 cables.

Sorry to make a meaningless post, but this is funny as hell, and I have to say so.

This post has been edited by Nero: Sep 24 2005, 06:20

[Defsac]

OK one elementary physics question. How are such low temperatures of 1.5K achieved?

Liquid helium in a dilution refrigerator can reach temperatures of just a few millikelvin above absolute zero.

[Pio2001]

The text says "only when I told him that I vastly preferred pair C over the other two did he confirm that this was indeed the cryogenically treated set."

That's all. This is by no means what we call a significant ABX test.
p is 33 %

[JensRex]

Yes, they will sound like $8 cables.

Which sound exactly like $1000 cables.

</flamebait>

[warbird436]

What else might it be applicable to?

Using residual stress to explain differences in audio cables is pretty novel. In fact, it's exceedingly rare to hear of residual stress outside of concrete and welding applications.

Well, as far as some are concerned; what differences?

To put my question to Boojum another way;- in what other application might the molecular structure of a a conductor (copper, in this case) make any measurable or perceptable differerence?

R.

I see a lot of opinion here and little fact. I see attempts to smear a man as a bullshitter, but not facts. I see inferences about the molecular structure of copper for crying out loud! Copper is a metal. It has no molecular structure!!! Metals are crystalline in structure. They have no molecular structure.

Not copper. The disorganized lattice structure of copper comes from it's production, yes, but not a "shock". The most energy efficient way to refine pure (99.97%) copper from blister copper is to place a thin sheet of pure copper into a chamber with copper sulphate and sulphuric acid, then connect it to the positive side of a power source to form a positive terminal (anode) and use electrolysis to cause the copper from the anode to enter the solution (become aqueous) and then stick to the cathode (negative terminal) in the form of copper cations (positively charged ions).

Since the copper cations have been "stuck" to the cathode individually the lattice structure is indeed rather disorganised. I'm very sceptical that this would significantly (audibly) effect AC frequencies in the audible range. I don't think you'd see differences in electron transfer outside of physics labs.

Copper wire is drawn and cold worked and subjected to all sorts of heat cycles. It is not used in the state in which is described there.

The fact is that cryogenic processing is a valid process recognized by the Cryogenic Society of America and ASM International. It seems to me that if you are going to put an idea down you ought to at least do some experimentation with it so you know what you are talking about. Maybe you ought to spend $15.00 to have a cable treated, listen to it next to its untreated twin, and then be able to talk about what you heard or didn't hear. No responsible scientist goes around saying something cannot happen based on total ignorance of the subject. Molecular structure indeed.!!

[Axon]

If it only costs $15 for treatment of a single cable I will gladly pay for 3 cables (Quail power cord + 2 RS Gold interconnects). Got any recommendations?

[Tahnru]

His calling card is a cryogenically-treated disposable razor.  According to the Times author, the blade stays sharp for a VERY long time.

These articles help explain why it makes a difference in steels, especially cutting steels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martensite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austenite

[Tahnru]

OK one elementary physics question. How are such low temperatures of 1.5K achieved? :o

Here's a fun little bunch of pages that step through one method and an application for it. No application for the application as of yet, I am afraid to say.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/how_its_made.html

[warbird436]

His calling card is a cryogenically-treated disposable razor.  According to the Times author, the blade stays sharp for a VERY long time.

These articles help explain why it makes a difference in steels, especially cutting steels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martensite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austenite

Yes, you are right, but it does not explain why brake rotors last three times as long. Brake rotors are pearlitic cast iron and contain no martensite.

[Tahnru]

Hee hee, you just wanted to see me have to work for my dinner, didn't you? ;)

Alright, lets build a reading list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel
The Wikipedia entry on steel. Good for some basic background information, including the content of cast iron in relation to what is commonly called steel. An offshoot article attached to this covers the pearlite structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearlite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast_iron
http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2001/adi/cast.iron.html
Descriptions of cast iron. The second link, near the bottom of its first section, is quite interesting. A quick comment on improvements made with banite/pearlite structures.

http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2004/...martensite.html
A little bit more on the process of tempering Martensite, and it's applications. Of note are high temperature pipes for extracting oil undergoing double tempering.

http://www.bso.uiuc.edu/~chillar/Cryogenic...entofMetals.pdf
An interesting read, describing tests I would like to try out for myself, if I ever get the equipment to do so. Of special interest to the topic at large are tests 5 and onwards.

http://lennon.pub.csufresno.edu/~rlk16/cryo.html#Overview
So by my basic understanding of the current theory, a carbon/ferrous alloy (cast iron, steel, etc.) gains additional toughness when cryogenically treated mostly because the carbon atoms trapped during tempering are allowed to layer up in the now-open spaces between the ferrous bits. I had a nice link showing the more uniform structure under an electron microscope, but I can't seem to find it right now. But my understanding is that the more uniform ordering of the various structures inside the alloy give it better self-reinforcement, trading off strength in some areas for increases in others. While the break discs are highly heat resistant and do not crack as easily, when they hit their stress limit they do not deform but simply snap like cold taffy. But the stress limit is so bloody high that it's not much of a problem. With all of that, keep in mind mine is a derivative understanding of the process from other peoples works, and that this is still an emerging side of modern metallurgy.


Additional reading I haven't posted links to above:
http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2002/martensite.html
http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2003/Lattices/iron.html

This post has been edited by Tahnru: Oct 20 2005, 04:57

[krazy]

I thought you were talking about copper wires?

[Tahnru]

I'm not; I'm trying to cover cryogenic treatments in general and their effects in steels and cast irons, which is where I feel most comfortable presenting evidence on the matter. In one of the papers above, the effects of treatment on copper are noted (tests 5 onwards) but no mention is made of any electrical effects tested.

[ChiGung]

I note that since the best informed people in this thread (regarding audio properties of hifi cables) have linked the most conclusive evidence* from studies that prove inexpensive standard cable types can be and usualy are completely audibly transparent, any real difference in sound between such identified cables and 'special ones' is due to audible distortion introduced by whatever 'special' properties they possess.
So to be clear, if we are not to contradict what we already know about the audible transparency of normal cables, we are investigating whether it is possible that cryogenic treatment could audibly distort the performance of normal cables, in a way which could be subjectively interpreted as 'sounding better' (even though its technicaly most desirable for cables to have no effect on sound at all)

*edit oops elsewhere (WigiWam Thread)
(and many more at HA)

This post has been edited by ChiGung: Oct 20 2005, 15:41

[warbird436]

re: http://www.bso.uiuc.edu/~chillar/Cryogenic...entofMetals.pdf

I found their conclusions to have little or nothing to do with the experiment. They formed conclusions about residual stresses, etc and did not measure them. I've never seen this paper before, but will look into it. I sent a copy to the ASM Cryogenics Committee's library. The rest of your posts were pretty interesting from a metallurgical standpoint and I printed some to read with lunch.

ChiChung:
Columus did discover land west of Spain whether you want to believe it or not. The problem you have is that any "readout" of a recorded sound has to go through an electrical circuit of some sort. Therefore what you have proven is that copper cables distort the same as the cables originally used.

[ChiGung]

Well warbird, normal cables are securely documented and properly understood to be audibly transparent whether you want to believe it or not I can believe in all sorts of things, what I know is something that is shown to be 100% audibly transparent cannot be improved upon regarding its audible transparency, other physical properties are a different matter.

Scientific enquiry should be open minded and free of prejudice, most importantly not dismiss any of the facts, the most accessibly solvent fact for here to deal with to understand the requirements of cable for audio is that normal cables have been repeatly shown to be entirely transparent to audible performance. That observable fact insists that until humans hearing ability or some natural laws change , if you detect a difference in the sound of a 'special' cable, from the sound of an adequately specified normal cable, it is due to distortion introduced by the special one.

Historical analogies illustrating how people can be stuck in their ways - cut both ways warbird. Could you be the one who is protecting your experience from real evidence which is before you now?

Happens to us all, if we are willing to learn

[RockFan]

I see a lot of opinion here and little fact.  I see attempts to smear a man as a bullshitter, but not facts.  I see inferences about the molecular structure of copper for crying out loud!  Copper is a metal.  It has no molecular structure!!!  Metals are crystalline in structure.  They have no molecular structure.

Surprised to see this bumped after so long.

Actually I was the original poster and devil's advocate, the reference to copper's 'molecular structure' was mine, so despite the pedantry, thanks for the correction. What I was suggesting is that the change in CDT cables might make little difference except in the context of audio cables.

As you say, a lot of opinion as usual (dogma, basically), but what many of the knee-jerkers fail to grasp is that cryogenic treatment is by no means an expensive or exotic process.

I happen to own a Townshend Rock, I've met Max Townshend several times and, I have to say, take a very dim view of the lack of respect shown here.

He's someone who's worked his arse off in the audio industry for nearly three decades, produced many univerally revered pieces of equipment, and I can assure those who know squat about him or his work, he is as pragmatic, honest, open-minded and empirical an engineer as you could ever meet.

[/rant]

R.

This post has been edited by RockFan: Oct 20 2005, 20:21

[ChiGung]

Respect for Mr Townsend cant with compete with what I read as a generously informed consensus at HA that this treatment is not necessary to produce transparent audio cabling, so I posit' it cannot sound better in someway without actualy being worse in transparency terms.
Nothing personal, its not helpful to give a squat who Mr Townsend is to rate this technology.

edit: less assuming

This post has been edited by ChiGung: Oct 20 2005, 21:32