It means that we apply similar methods as used for example in the medical industry. You can not throw a prescription drug on the market without first having to prove it's effectiveness (at least not in the EU and I'm sure it is the same in most other countries).

What would happen if this was not required? Charlatans would pop up like mushrooms, selling usless stuff and raking in the cash, while patients die because they are in effect not treated.

As a patient, I think I have every right to demand the certainty to be treated in a way that is sure to help.

When you test a new drug, the test is allways performed against a control group, which receives "fake" treatment. They get the placebo. Why so? It has been shown that "fake" treatment will lead to better results than no treatment at all. You need the placebo group as a reference to be able to conclude that your new drug is actually better than "fake" treatment. Even "fake" surgeries are performed! The power of belief is very strong.

Many participants of this forum are very enthusiastic about high quality audio and the whole music experience. The importance being that we want to keep charlatanry out. Past experience has shown this to be neccessary to find "the truth", which is why this forum was created in the first place. We want to be sure we are not paying a lot of money for something which is only happening in our imagination.

Obviously you people at Hifiwigwam are also enthusiastic about music and your reproduction chain, otherwise this test wouldn't have been conducted. Unfortunately the test doesn't get you nearer to "the truth" which is what we're critisizing here. You end up where you started. Look at it this way: we believe that accoustic heaven can be achieved with just regular grade wire. In this belief we are blissfully dancing to our music. Our beliefs are in agreement with science and scientific method.

Like the bit about the "McDonalds argument, not heard it before (will use that)

Who do you mean by "Scientific community"? I suppose when I stop messing about I am, "part of the community" and on your side of the pound too

My credentials are impeccable but I still stand by my post

ps happy to talk off forum about my back ground

This comes close:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=33951

A test of interconnects, not power cords. But it shows that people of the Hydrogenaudio community are willing to test things which they are skeptic about.

Okay! Well then. If anybody was offended by the first post then I do apologize. It wasn't my intent to ruffle anybody's feathers, nor was it my intent in any of my other replies.

Gecko wrote

This comes close:

A few people saying I can not hear a differance is not a test, if that was what they said, someone should have come up with something to test there ears

even if there was no real differance between cables, not everyone would I suspect at stage one reported the same, by virtue of life style and the work done by them taking place ear damage might have given one person a diffent slant on one cable over another its possible they all reported the same result but doubtful

even when people are asked to report what they see, when notes are taken differnces are reported

Interesting - so if it is not about if people can hear a difference or not, then what according to you IS a test? Also, basically saying "nah, those testers were all deaf" pretty much reaches the lowest level reachable in terms of discussion-style.

If you have nothing constructive to add and just want to denounce, then may i remind you about the following just above the post-edit-screen:



- Lyx

Gecko that's truly impressive. I've a friend who worked for a mid sized european pharmaceutical company & have some idea of the monopoly money sums (& manpower) they invest in R&D. That HA, peopled by hobbists in the main, can test to that rarified level leaves me speechless.

GofA

So if I'm a scientist, but I'm not a part of the scientific team that performs some experiment, then it's rude for me to critique their experiment?

Umm.. WTF?

In a true debate, 'rudeness' is irrelevant, at least as long as people don't resort to petty fallacies, which many of the members of WigWam have done: name calling (ad hominem), insults regarding politics, appeals to popularity (ad populum, or the so called "McDonald's argument"), etc. A proper debate is simply about analyzing a particular argument to determine whether it is sound, cogent, etc., and pointing out along the way what the possible problems with it are. You can usually do this analytically if you desire to take it to that level, although most people don't.

I take it that you and some of the other posters that fall into to the particular behavior group I just referred to have never participated in a real structured debate forum, or if so, you all seem not to have learned much.



It's one thing to deal with harsh criticism if in fact it is constructive or valid in some way. Unfortunately, after the first few posts, most of the "arguments" brought to the forum from outsiders have been nothing more than fallacies and insults. There's no good reason to continue to let these people to pollute our forum with nonsense and drag down the quality of the regular discussions.

Is this really all the insight that you can muster?

Well, thank you for trying your hardest.

I suspect this thread is short lived...

I dont know in which reality you live, but you may have noticed, that this forum has one of the highest rate of developers, following the described method - from a wide variety of audio-technologies - of all public forums on the internet. No sir, the availability of "pro's" definatelly is not the problem.

Dont believe me? Well, go here and choose "developer" at the bottom. If you switch the "results per page" to 50, then it fits on two pages for less click-o-mania.

But let me guess - next you will complain about just those "pro's" sitting on their high horse...... you just cannot make up your mind, right?

Lyx are you thick ?

you have to check everything if "every" one taking part reports the same thing you repeat the test

its not as you call it "the lowest level reachable in terms of discussion-style.
"

its the way should be done and yes you might get the same result, which is a step in the right direction but if not its back to the drawing board.

Its this forum that carried out tests with said results, they are as they say the ones who

so no one managed so as they liked the results they stopped

if they had got more people and again and again with the result

then they would have proved something,all they showed is a set of people could not tell any differance

if they kept getting more people ith same results they would have proved something

to check the peoples ears is not wrong, its important if you are trying to show your serious everything has to be covered


if the results they got had been carried out on lots of people the results would have been worth something

Dibrom,

This forum is not the science department of some university, despite what you might like to think, it's an audiophool (a term of endearment, not an insult) forum with a scientific bent. Some of its members (to my untrained eye) are no doubt professionals, others knowledgable hobbyists - we've our fair share of those in the Wigwam too. However, wigwammers're have the humility & common sense to know that it isn't a research department in 3rd level audiophoolery college but a bit of fun for consenting adults.

I won't pretend to be able to understand the science being debated here - as I said the subject brings me out in a rash - but I can understand & don't like the condescension (one example your assumption you have to explain to me what 'ad hominem' means - my degree is in Classics ffs), bile and delusions of grandeur which some HA members have been spitting at the Wigwam.

Equally, good manners are essential in a debate. Or else it turns into a fight. Your pained assertion that HA is one the one hand the home of high minded scientific discourse & on the other hand a rough place where real men shrug off a handbagging (especially if they are pesky Brits who dare to disagree with the 10 Commandments as handed down from Mt Hydrogen) with a witty formula is pretty...well sad.

As for Wigwammers playing the man & not the subject, it was an HA-er who introduced the term 'McDonald's argument' into the thread, Dave W was only saying he liked it. Furthermore you'd better yellow card the HW contributor who called us "melancholy onanists". Go figure as you Americans like to say.

Now you are no doubt going to ban the Wigwammers soon & no doubt it'll light a warm spark in the pit of your stomach, but before you do - remember you've been asked, in the spirit of friendship, to come & contribute/support the new cable test that's being thrashed out in the Wigwam at the minute. So why not reach out & contribute - I think you'll find there's a lot more craic too.

Regards, Glens of Antrim.

PS Kike & Alive respect

Oh dear don't get so hot under the collar. Yes I was being sarcastic, but you bunch are so full of yourselves it's like shooting into an open goal

Name-calling



False conclusion. That no one managed to reliably identify if the cables were changed does not mean that everyone gave the same answer. It just means that no one proved a difference with high statistical relevance.


Unfounded claim aimed at denouncement.


The fallacy here is that you will be able to say that no matter how many listeners take part.


I know, it may be difficult to understand this, but it is not possible to invite the entire world, not even an entire state, to conduct such a test. Therefore, every test will ALWAYS be limited to a "set of people"


Yes, that a few people more were not able to tell a difference, not more.


How do you know that those people were not aware of their hearing-cababilities?

I'm sick of constantly pointing out your errors and misbehaviour without you learning anything from it. In other words, arguing with you is a waste of time. Bye.

That’s not picking up the gauntlet is it?

The gauntlet remains firmly on the floor.

I’ve read Pio2001’s test and wholeheartedly and without reservation applaud the efforts made. However there are flaws to this test that bring into question the reliability of the results. Not least no effort made to assess the judges in terms of bias or hearing acuity. Immediately this alone introduces the possibility of significant skew to the results.

My point here remains as it does from the beginning.

While testing of this sort is applaudable to undertake perceptual testing to a minimum level of scientific reliability requires money, time and resource. To think otherwise is regrettably misinformed; there are organisations that can undertake such work but they will want your dollars first!

I’m aware of this and consequently the test I organised alludes not to any statistical proof of anything; the reasons and purpose were as previously given. It may be necessary to stamp this on the eyeballs of a few however before it finally registers.

The objectivity that many appear to allude to on this forum is interesting. It’s pious and isolationalist objectivity with little or no sign of pro-activity.

Other than this a wasted opportunity since I’m sure there must be some on this forum who could contribute in a more constructive manner.

Right. You do understand the difference between examining thousands of chemicals until you find a potentially effective drug, going through the whole verification process until you come to the stage where you need to find a large enough number of people willing to swallow potentially dangerous chemicals, recording the results over a very large period of time, analyzing the results in the context of the immensely complex system that is our body... and getting someone behind a curtain for a couple of hours to switch cables?

This community is primarily interested in lossy audio compression, where you for example test the effect of a command line parameter. Pick your reference, encode it, compare in a double blind fashion. You can do this yourself with the proper software (which is free btw). Results are immediate. If enough people do this, you can start extrapolating global results from the individual results.

Properly testing (power) cables is somewhat more difficult but nowhere near what you have to go through when testing pharma products. For example for it to be double blind, each time a cable is switched, the listeners have to leave the room through door A, another person enters through door B and makes the switch (or he leaves things as they are). He leaves the room through B again before the listeners return. (It would be easier if there was a seperate room for all the cables, so switching can be done faster and without the hassle).

Nice try, but better brush up on your reading skills:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=332462

"Akid" was the one doing the name-calling, referring to us lot on the forum as a "poor sad bunch of wankers."

ff123

For a bit of an amusing read, one might want to take a look at this thread over on WigWam: The americans are discussing our test.

If anyone ever wanted a peak at just how childish and lame webforums can get, here's your opportunity!

And since it's rather obvious from that thread that the members are having a good time attempting (unsuccessfully) to troll HA, I have no further qualms about handing out bans to people who can't seem to figure out how to debate in a civil fashion.

I don't think anything else really needs to be said: that thread speaks for itself and for the quality of WigWam's members -- the same ones who are wasting a lot of time and energy clinging to their absurb audiophilia in this discussion.

I won't lock this thread quite yet, because I feel that HA members may still have something useful to say, but it should be pretty apparent to members here that there's not much use in continuing to play WigWam's little game.

While it has been said multiple times (without them getting it) that ha.org is international...... i find the racist attitude even more funny, since my impression is that most of the ha.org veterans are from europe. But well, i guess its as with cables - if you just strongly enough believe in it, then the ha.org members may change their nationality.

I'd have to agree.

Last time I bothered to look, nearly half (I don't remember which was the larger half) of all of the HA members were from a country other than the US. With the core HA posters, it's skewed even more in the international direction, as you correctly pointed out.

But that's OK. Part of the reason we don't bother with locations and flags anymore in the post profile is because it doesn't add anything to the discussion, except to offer a possibility for trolls like these to latch on to something to be used for racism, elitest nationalism (which seems very prevalent in their attitudes), etc.

Anyway, I suggest to everyone who is considering responding to a WigWam member's post in this thread, to first take a gander at that thread. It makes their intent pretty clear, and will save you from wasting your time.

From a scientific point of view (i.E. established knowledge which you can read about in peer reviewed publications), any decent power cable will not alter the sound. As such it is nothing which deserves any attention. Now someone comes along claiming that they do, but fail to provide conclusive evidence. If you were part of the science fraction, what would you do? Investigate or ignore?

It's the same thing why your health insurance will not pay for homeopathy because from their perspective, you're just drinking water or eating a little sugar. There have been many studies, and none of them could conclusively prove any healing capabilities greater than placebos. And yet there are many people who swear by it.

Well I've looked around again on the test presentation page and did not find anything which looked like a reason to me. I've also read the first few posts of the respective threads in Hifiwigwam and Zerogain. On HA you posted:

Unfortunately the reader doesn't seem to understand that the test does NOT allow to draw any reasonable conclusions.

I don't understand what you mean by that first sentence. I only read hifi magazine articles if I want to get a warm fuzzy feeling about some equipment I have bought (but I only read the positive ones ). Their usual methology is of little to no value, why copy it?

This ‘us and them’ stuff is being equally perpetuated by both sides.

I’ve put forward a proposal to a community that supposedly purports to rigorous scientific method to see if there are any balls behind the talk. At the moment it appears not.

Not one of those who have made criticism of the test I organised (despite continuing failure to disseminate the information I’ve given on the test and make appropriate and applicable comment) have come forward with pro-active suggestion.

With the exception of Pio2000, is this just a talking shop? Notwithstanding the testing of codecs and so forth which only has minority interest outside of this forum.



Please point to where I have made such claims. I have made no such calims. Like I said above repeated failure to disseminate even a small amount of information correctly.

I cannot speak of the others, but what i've seen from wigwam on their forums as well as here didn't give me the impression that they are reliable and competent partners in conducting such a test. In addition - as i pointed out earlier - you also need to take into account the motivation of testers to participate - if a potential tester thinks that it is unprobable that such a test will show anything new, then he will spent his/her effort elsewhere - this is called efficiency.

I for example have an audioplayer-display on hold, basically play moderator in standardizing audiofile-tagging, have a revolutionary virtual gameworld-project on hold, and am in the mids of planning a unique pub in my city with a focus on culture and a symbiosis of nostalgia and a modern networked world. Sorry, but i expect more from putting effort into any single project of those, than by putting effort into participating in a power-cable test.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are more users of the mentioned codecs worldwide, than customers of expensive power cables. This becomes relevant when you consider that the testing which is done here has a significant influence on the progress of said codecs. Ergo, the testings done here contribute to the development of software which has a userbase of many millions.

I think this forum is a bit po-faced and humourless compared to Hi-Fi Wigwam. The spelling, grammar and punctuation on Hi-Fi Wigwam is often quite bad, though. I imagine it is much better here.

I'm afraid I have to agree that criticizing someone because of their nationality is inexcusable and ignorant.

mosfet, I understand an acceptable test would be 20 random trials of two cables with correct identification in 17 or more trials (or might be 18 or more). If you could do this you could also win quite a few thousand dollars/pounds due to a long-standing cable challenge on the Google newsgroups. As yet, nobody has claimed the prize.

[Incidently, James Randi even offered a cool million dollars for a successful DBT of Shakti Stones. According to Randi, the Shakti designer declined the test...]

I think deep down we all know that cables sound the same and we just imagine differences.

If it were possible to pass a cable DBT, I'm sure it would have been done by now. I suspect it hasn't been done because it is impossible to hear differences between two things that sound the same.

I said "someone". I was trying to reformulate the whole problem and give an explanation why noone is going to jump up and try hard to prove something which does not exist. No effects are expected. Yet some people (other than yourself) make claims without proof. Interesting? No. Ergo no testing of cables.

You want a test your readers can understand and you drop it to a level without statistic value so you can compare it to the hifi press? That's just like the TV commercials where they compare "regular" versus "spick'n'span ultra with pro-active oxygen" detergent. Easy to understand but of no value. Give your readers some more credit.

I've actually read the 6 pages. Wow.

Audio codecs are probably the most relevent piece of audio technology to most people. There are maybe a few thousand people in the whole world who care about power cables. They're are millions of people who encode their own audio, even if they listen to it on PC speakers or ipod headphones. Just look at downloads for LAME.

There are also millions of people who use audio cables, it's only a few who care about their performance. The same goes for audio codecs, even if it is a more important part of the chain, so to speak. Encoding is using, not caring.

But yes, codecs is a far more relevant discussion than cables, in my humble and very personal opinion.

True. I suppose I should have been more specific. I wonder how many people have downloaded LAME instead of just using the default Windows and MacOS encoders? I'm guessing its quite a few more then those who care about differences between peices of copper.

You miss an important difference:
tests of expensive power cables do only apply to said few.
tests of audio-codecs do improve them even for people who dont know nor care about settings/performance.

Thus, the "improvements" of power cables would only reach a minority of users.... but the improvements of i.e. LAME at 128kbit CBR... will reach users automatically, no matter if they care or know about the improvements. At this point notice that also users who download said encoded files legally or illegally are "users".

Or more simply as i said before: the userbase simply is much bigger.

I've read enough. I don't see much discussion of the tests, only more us (meaning brits) versus them (meaning stupid americans).

It's enough to make me want to go back in time and pull us out of WWI and WWII before they ever happened. Hey, wait a minute. I was the one who said we shouldn't talk about politics.

OK, so what is this crap about, "Hey, look, the Americans are discussing out test"? WTF is the relevancy of where we live, or where HA is hosted?

I need to unsubscribe from this thread before I go postal (an American saying).

It would be sufficient to revert the inet-boom ;-)

No offense meant Just a bit frustrated.

We need to be careful not to use ad populum arguments regarding the relevancy of this or that. "We" busted "them" on it, so let's be consistent.

I gave “my readers” what they wanted Gecko. And what they wanted was a test review of power cables comparable to what appears in the hi-fi press in light of the continuing and conspicuous failure of the hi-fi press to undertake such.

Was I surprised at the essentially random outcome? What do you think?

Right. However, the reason why i brought that up was because it was clamed that people should take part in something which matters to many people, like expensive power cables, instead of audio codecs. And i pointed out that this ad populum argument didn't even reflect reality.

Also, ad populum is not always wrong. It is a stupid argument when talking about what is better.... but it is by far not irrelevant when its about where to contribute.... many people - for obvious reasons - like to participate in developing something which is/will be used by many people - therefore being involved in making a big difference in how the world goes. This of course is not the only factor which counts (many kinds of "artistic" and "innovative" projects for example will naturally have a smaller userbase).

- Lyx

Re: the WigWam members...

They're not typical of people in the UK, just typical of audiofools the world over.

Heaven forbid something should upset their imaginary little world.

The sad thing is they can't even begin to grasp the damage that their non scientific, non rigorous, "if I imagine I hear it then it must be real" approach has done to hi-fi.

If you look back at the efforts that were made in the UK to advance audio from the 1920s through to the 1960s, and the great achievements that were made, it's quite sad the state we're in now. I'm sure the same could be said of the USA.

I won't knock people who like vinyl and valves/tubes - they can be fun. But if hi-fi magazines tell people to buy £700 power cables, and people are stupid enough to do it because they don't understand the placebo effect, then you'll end up with a hi-fi industry that concentrates on making £700 power cables - and not making good quality, affordable hi-fi equipment.

This also leads to the decline in the number of people interested in hi-fi, then the quality of recordings generally, the death of western society etc etc. Those £700 power cable manufacturers have a lot to answer for!

Cheers,
David.

(Definitely in the UK. And I've met some really nice Americans. And some idiotic Brits. And vice versa - but never anyone who voted for Tony Blair or George Bush though! )

After several complaints, the ASA overturned their original ruling...

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.radio...7677300167128b5

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/no...cation_id=39526

They don't mention Roberto's test, but as one of the complainants, I know it was part of the evidence that got them to re-examine the case.

The ASA have been rigorous about sound quality recently, striking down another claim that DAB digital radio (at 128kbps mp2!!!) provided crystal clear sound quality.

Cheers,
David.

I do not like to lengthen this weary discussion, but doesn't the fellow who says power cables can and do influence audio quality also sell these very same cables??

Actually, I contributed several posts to your forum, on the thread about your test.



If by cultural difference, you mean people who are very interested in scientific method and results, versus those perhaps less so, I see your point. If you mean, 'American' versus whatever, obviously you're wrong--- and I note that it was you folks who introduced *that* sour, prejudicial note into this discussion.




His handle is 'KikeG', in case you're still confused.

Not true. I made some pro-active suggestions, e.g., increase the number of trials -- a week or two ago on your forum, under this very name.

And now, having caught up with the topic here and the 'feedback' on your forum, I have yet another suggestion for Wigwam. Please accept my apologies for not describing it further; I'm afraid it clearly violates HA TOS.

The next test is about to take place, and discussions about it have been constructive : http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1113.html

We can forget all the above.

I'm wondering about the fellow who thinks that any changes created by cryogenic treatment would be reversed by bringing the part back to room temperature. It shows that he knows absolutely nothing about metallurgy. Metals have a crystalline structure that is definitely changed by both heat and cold. They are allotropic. This means that atoms can shift around to form different microstructures. For instance, cold will turn retained austenite in steels to martensite. The austenite is a face centered cubic crystal structure. It is turned to a body centered tetragonal. The metal undergoes a 4% increase in volume that is permanent, and the austenite cannot be reformed except by raising the metal to the transformation temperature which is in the rage of about 1600F. Other parameters in metals change with cold. The solubility of alloying elements change, which causes the elements to precipitate out. To think that they just go back to where they were when the metal heats back up is really silly. They can dissolve again, but they may have diffused while precipitating or while warming up. They might form combinations with other alloying elements. An example of this is the formation of carbides in steels. Dr. David Collins shows in his study in Advanced Materials and Processes that not only does cryogenic temperature initiate the formation of carbides, but the longer the metal is held at that cryogenic temperature, the more carbides are formed.

Studies by NASA, Illinois Institute of Technology, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Purdue University, University of Trento, Trento Italy, University College in Dublin Ireland all state that there are definite changes in metals subjected to cryogenic processing. The fact that crystal structure of metals is permanently changed by cryogenic treatment is well established. ASM International (www.asminternational.org ) recognizes this.

You fellows remind me of the people who told Columbus that he had not found land by sailing west, the people who called the Wright Brothers “Liars, not flyers,” and refused to look at what was in front of them when Galeleo stated his theories that the earth was not the center of the universe. If you want to put the lie to this supposed cryogenic scam, compose a valid experiment to test your hypothesis, do the experiment, and then analyze the data. But remember, you might be surprised at your results, and do not pre-suppose what you will find.

It would seem to me that the fellow who posits cryogenic treatments provide lasting changes should supply the proof. It is his burden to prove what he has said. We are not obliged to believe what he has said on the basis of his saying it.

QED

Do any of the aforementioned institutions claim that this has an impact on the qualities of a power cable treated in this manner that would (positively) affect the sound reproduction of a connected amplifier (or other audio device)?

Do they even mention changes in electrical qualities? (I don't know.) Most of the time this type of research targets mechanical properties.

Why? As the previous poster pointed out, it has already been proven that the properties of metals sometimes change in an irreversible way when they are subjected to heat or cold.

Then if these changes will make the slightest difference to their ability to transport audio signals is another matter. Since most cables are linear enough before any cryogenic treatments, it's hard to see the point of it.

Mighty post warbird!
However I see its a point you made relevant to just some of the dismissals of cyrogenic cable treatment here. I think basically all the available evidence suggests normal cables are fine for audio purposes and no special cables have ever provided evidence that they aren't.

But it is right to keep an open mind, reminds me of this old 'hot water freezing faster than cold water' phenomenon and amazing science discovered which contradicts many a past experts confident assertions -

The mpemba effect

Microstructure of cryogenic treated M2 tool steel, J. Y. Huang et al, Los Alamos National Laboratory. Materials Science and Engineering A339 (2003) 241-244

Effect of deep cryogenic treatment on the mechanical properties of tool steels, A. Molinari et al. University of Trento, Trento, Italy, & GKN Birfielld AG. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 118, (2001) 350-355

Cryogenic Treatment of Tool Steels, David N. Collins, National Heat Treatment Centre, University College Dublin Ireland, Advanced Materials & Process (December, 1998) H23-H29

High tensile ductility in nanostructured metal, Yinmin Wang, et al, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Nature 419, (2002) 912-915

Deep Cryogenic Treatment to Increase Service Life, A. Alan Swiglo, IIT Research Institute, INFAC Industry Briefing, June 13, 2000.

Thermal Processing Technology Seminar, Yuntian Theodore Zhu, Los Alamos National Laboratory. Seminar at Illinois Institute of Technology, June 4, 2001

Effects of Cryogenic Treatment on the Residual Stress and Mechanical Properties of an Aerospace Aluminum Alloy, Po Chen, Tina Malone et al, IIT Research Institute, NASA

The Effect of Cryogenic Treatments on 7075 Aluminum Alloy, K. E. Luley et al, University of Portland, Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance volume 11(5) October 2002, 479-480

Yes, Cryogenic Treatments Can Save You Money! Here’s Why, Dr. Randall F. Barron, Louisiana Tech University, Fall Corrugated Containers Conference, 1973

Cryogenic Treatment of AISI-T8 and C1045 Steels Dr. Randall F. Barron, Louisiana Tech University, Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Materials, Volume 26, 1980, 171-178

Role of Eta-Carbide Precipitations in he Wear Resistance Improvements of Fe-12Cr-MO-V-1.4C Tool Steel by Cryogenic Treatment, Fanju Meng et al, Muroran Institute of Technology, Japan, ISU International, Vol 34 (1994) 205-210

Effects of Subzero Treatments on the Bending Fatigue Performance of Carburized SAE-4320 and SAE-9310, Jung, Seung-Cheal, et al, Hyundi Motor Co., 1996 SAE Congress & Exposition, 1996

Deep Cryogenic Treatement of High-speed Steel and its Mechanism, Yun, Dong et al, Hebei University of Technology, China, Heat Treatment of Metals, 1998

Deep Cryogenic Treatment of Tool Steels, a Review, Collins, D. N., National Heat Treatment Centre, Ireland, Heat treatment of Metals 1996.2, p40-42

Read the SCIENTIFIC literature and then tell me there is no lasting affect of cryogenics. And yes, some of these talk about electrical properties.

As to whether standard cables are good enough, it depends on what you call good enough. That is a personal judgement. Some people think a clock radio is good enough to listen to music on, some spend thousands of $'s or Euros for the "ultimate" equipment. That is a personal and economic choice. I personally have heard the difference in treated components, not only in the wireing. I was surprised by the difference, even though I've spent a lot of time behind racing engines and aircraft engines that tend to dull the sense of hearing.

You have thrown out lots of references on the subject, and I will take your word for it that cryo treatments do make objective changes in metals. (And thanks for compiling this list, it should at least settle the fact that cryo can and does change cables.)

But you haven't answered the more important question of what justification you can provide that the change is audible. Your subjective experience alone is not that convincing to me nor to others here. Many others have claimed that cryo makes a difference, and more than a few have failed to back this up with blind testing, and none have succeeded IIRC. And what cryogenic effects you have described do not seem relevant for audio, since existing LCR/characteristic impedance parameters for stock cables are virtually identical to complete ideality, and claims of nonlinearity are never backed up by any measurements anyway. (cf Essex Echo and various assorted claims of rectification behavior in cables due to crystal domains and impurities.)

Alternatively: Everybody knows that you can measure the difference of biwiring on a multimeter, due to the equivalent resistance being halved (among other effects), but I dare you to find anybody who could ABX the difference.

In summary, we believe that the state of the art of audio can only be concretely advanced by statistically valid tests on audibility, and cryo treatment lies well outside this boundary, plus the existing blind tests on cables (which I think include cryo-treated cables) fail to show a difference, so strictly as a matter of interpretation of psychoacoustics and of results, cryo treatment doesn't make a difference.

It would be awesome to see some good theoretical explanations of how it could make a difference, though, and maybe that could lead to angles of attack for a blind test.

don’t know why there was an audible change. That does not mean there was no change. Orville Wright did not know precisely why his airplane flew until twenty five years later, but it did fly. (Poor Wilbur never found out.) Most scientific advancement is because someone observes something and starts poking around to find out why it happened. Very little advancement comes from hearing about something and then trying to deny it could happen because it doesn’t fit some preconceived notion. No, Mr. Coperinicus the earth cannot circulate around the sun because that is not according to theory, and I will certainly not take a look at your data. Right now, why it works is irrelevant, because you are still arguing whether it happens or not. You need to first settle the

All I know is that I went into a room for a blind test as a skeptic, and as someone who knew nothing about sound reproduction and still knows very little about it. There were about thirty people in the room. A stereo system was set up, and pieces substituted one at a time. All thirty or so of the people in the room agreed on which sounded better after a substitution was made, then reversed, then made again. In only one instance was there any dissention over the choice of the better sounding unit, and that was only one person. Substitutions were made on the amplifier, the power source, the power cords, the CD player, the interconnect cords, the speaker cords, and even the CD being played. The crowd unanimously picked out the cryogenically treated piece every time except the noted exception. The people running the experiment had no financial stake in the outcome. Do I expect you to believe me? I expect you to believe that I felt there was a significant difference.

You come to the conclusion that cryogenic processing doesn’t work on the basis of your supposition that some of the cables tested might have been treated. That is hardly a basis for any type of scientific conclusion. Why don’t you listen to treated cables (or amplifiers, CD’s, power sources, or speaker wires or ???)? Then, if you do not discern any difference you can have something to crow about.

Take this thing a step at a time. Buy three moderately priced components. Send two to a reputable cryo treater (one who will give it a real treatment, not store it near some dry ice for a while) with the instructions to cryo treat one of them, mark it, but hide the marking under some black electrical tape. A proper cryo treatment is 8 hours down to –300F, hold for 8 hours at –300F, then bring it back to room temp in 8 hours. Have him put black electrical tape on the untreated part also. Get the parts back, burn them in, then decide if there is a difference is sound quality between the three pieces. Then remove the tape and find out which is treated and which is not. Repeat until you believe you statistically relevent results.

Now that you have convinced yourself that there is a difference, you can start to look for a reason. There is no sense in looking for a reason until you have convinced yourself there is something to look for.