|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
141.76.45.34
Serious Q.: I'm new to the Prop Head forum, and I'm surprised that for a place called "Audio Asylum", it's mostly made up of unusually conservative minds (perhaps I misunderstood the "Asylum" part and it's a reference to strait-jacketed thinking?). Minds who are extremely hostile to new ideas in audio that don't follow established patterns. Maybe Prop Head should properly be renamed "Naysayers Row", for the fact that its almost entirely made up of skeptics who pre-judge products and ideas they know nothing about? Okay, that's another discussion! Since "The Freeze Effect", which was mentioned here recently, is one of those new ideas in audio that don't follow established patterns (insofar as a 20+ year old idea can be called "new"), I'm curious to know how many here simply don't believe it, and if it's yet another idea that Prop Headers would rip to shreds, arguing "it cant posssibly work because". Or are there any that still don't even know about it? (I am referring to the idea that you can freeze your audio equipment and such in a domestic freezer, and improve its sound).
Follow Ups:
I am not convinced by any of the standard explanations of how domestic freezing (and possibly cryo?) may affect the performance of audio components. That's because the theory is not borne out when "certain variables" are introduced. I am all too familiar with the tendency of orthodox audio engineers to go with whatever is "conveniently understood", and to stomp all over what isn't, and what may be difficult to prove to -their- satisfaction.
And as the title says, I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Anyone with an interest in audio science can start exploring this idea themselves, and "maybe" start to catch up to those who knew about it over 20 years ago.If people are going to start arguing with me that they won't try it because there isn't enough evidence to convince them it works, I'm really not interested in hearing your complaints. Just don't try it, and continue to pretend you know everything and that you are sincerely interested in progressive ideas in audio science. You would, of course, be kidding yourself, and you will not advance in your knowledge. It is entirely your right to remain ignorant about audio or anything else in the universe, and its even your right to claim otherwise, when you're simply wrong and have no interest in making any effort to gain knowledge to change your situation. Viva la liberte! I will just quote the one immutable truth written by tubeguy, re: the issue of whether freezing has performance benefits for audio:
"That's a question everyone has to answer for themselves."
Now. If enough people show enough scientific curiousity to make determinations of the DOMESTIC FREEZER effect on their own, -then- perhaps we can go on to the next step. Which might be demonstrating the effect of improved sound can't simply be due to alignment of crystalline structures or limited to what Crygoenics Int'l says about it, and only -then- can we seriously look at or talk about how the effect may work. (wrt -sound-,and not other effects freezing may or may not have, which are beyond the theme of this forum). As in most scientific discoveries, observation comes first, hypotheses come later. Nuff said. Here are sound samples for you to listen to, if you are interested in finding out about the phenomenon (of, once again!, DOMESTIC freeze effect):
http://www.mympxplayer.org/4-vt4234.html?postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=45
Scroll down to post "Lattesurf", 31 Mar, 2007.
Listed at the bottom of his post are mp3 test files of the DOMESTIC FREEZER freeze effect, which this open-minded invididual tested on his mp4 player. (n.b. Not CD, not amplifier... mp4 player). I dont think I need to mention here that if the effect can be had on an mp4 player (and it can), then CI's idea that it "clarifies" and "aligns" the polycarbonate so the laser can read the "pits" and "lands" accurately without refraction" doesn't go far enough to explain the phenomenon.
A number of others have tested the effect on their players, reporting similar results. I suggest you start with clip 2 (only because the others are bloody awful music...). The experimenter stated that he viewed the audio waveforms of the files, and they showed cleaner step responses. Also that a background noise commonly present on that model player was reduced or eliminated. n.b. This doesn't replace a proper freeze test, it only gives you an idea of what to expect. But it takes 2 minutes to evaluate, instead of 2 days (in what one brave PHPer described as a "tedious process").
Objective Audiophile 2007
Your experiments are not scientifically repeatable because there is no test procedure. There are no controls. Not even dependent variables are defined. There are no working theories presented as to why domestic freezing does what it's proponents say it does as far as sonic improvements are concerned.All of the loose references you have provided (they, them, so-and-so, this guy, my buddy, etc) seem to have done these tests with their own rendition of what would be a reasonable test procedure. Of course, we're assuming that because you are asking people to "do the experiment for themselves" but offer no test procedure, thus making any data you collect... absolutely useless. Of no value.
"Some guy" even was able to see "improved step response" by "looking at waveforms". Well, you can't look at waveforms, but you can look at graphical representations of them. What test equipment was used to measure these step response measurements? What was the test procedure? What is his definition of "improved step response" and how much did it improve? Who was SOME GUY? Can he present his findings here?
Ah - now you're saying that this phenomenon not only results in improved sonics, but MEASURABLE IMPROVEMENTS!!
Excellent. Post the test results and this debate will be over!
Hi.I think only kids go for MP3s.
Why don't you quote us what audios you have frozen in your freezer? Would it be more convincing than telling others' stories.
Sorry, MP3 to me is not Hifi at all. Moot reference.
> > I think only kids go for MP3s. < <Are you kidding me?
> > Sorry, MP3 to me is not Hifi at all. Moot reference. < <Apparently not. Ok, you know what? Against all good advice, I'm gonna humour you, cheap Jack. Because I'm sure this is gonna be good....
What's your problem with the mP3 test?
> > Why don't you quote us what audios you have frozen in your freezer? Would it be more convincing than telling others' stories. < <
Now you've GOTTA be kidding me! If I dare merely "talk" about my "personal experiences" with this effect, I would have 65 DBT-fanatics all barking out charges of "irellevancy!". So THAT would be a "moot reference" as you put it. I gave you instructions in another post on how to perform the test yourself. If you're not satisfied with the results of others, do your own to your own personal standards.
Hi.You quoted some Joe Blow's MP3 freezing story which was a soap show rather than any properly implemented experiment. Can't you read his show is a joke? Read Presto's post above with your eyes open up & learn.
What's a kiddie's MP3 to do with adults' HiFi audio we are all involved here in PHP? Here is not kindergarten, sonny. Go smart by stealing body's freezing story on an interconnect or a valve. Would it be more convincing? Don't tell me you still play MP3, boy.
So can't answer my simple question? Your smoke mirrors can't fool any adults here. You can't even tell us how experienced you are involved in home freezing of any audio components because you have not done ANY! Admit it you are a liar & a loser. Don't lie to yourself & me. I am not born yesterday.
I can see since day one you talk big emply. Now you prove it yourself again this time, so obviously. Your moot excuse confirms your being so helpless & desparate. Why not fabricate a story how successul you did with your freezer work & see if it will pass me?
What "65 DBT-fanatics all barking out charges"? Mind your foul language as PHP is a dedicated place for DBT discussion in caes you dont know.
Go home & learn more befor wasting more bandwidth here.
c-J
cheap-Jack took a deep breath and let out this delerious fit (sponsored by Skeptic Lunatics Inc.):> > You quoted some Joe Blow's MP3 freezing story which was a soap show rather than any properly implemented experiment. Can't you read his show is a joke? Read Presto's post above with your eyes open up & learn.
What's a kiddie's MP3 to do with adults' HiFi audio we are all involved here in PHP? Here is not kindergarten, sonny. Go smart by stealing body's freezing story on an interconnect or a valve. Would it be more convincing? Don't tell me you still play MP3, boy.
So can't answer my simple question? Your smoke mirrors can't fool any adults here. You can't even tell us how experienced you are involved in home freezing of any audio components because you have not done ANY! Admit it you are a liar & a loser. Don't lie to yourself & me. I am not born yesterday. < <
Well.... you sure WRITE like you were born yesterday.(Oh sorry, shhh... he's not finished....).
> > I can see since day one you talk big emply. Now you prove it yourself again this time, so obviously. Your moot excuse confirms your being so helpless & desparate. Why not fabricate a story how successul you did with your freezer work & see if it will pass me?What "65 DBT-fanatics all barking out charges"? Mind your foul language as PHP is a dedicated place for DBT discussion in caes you dont know.
Go home & learn more befor wasting more bandwidth here. < <
This is your idea of "quiet & civil", cheap-jack? I'm sorry, but this incoherent rant isn't even good enough to pass for "Chinglish", so I'm not going to deign to respond to it. I will only say, derived from the few parts of your diatribe that were legible, that I wrote -no- "foul language" to you in my post (in fact, -you- are the one who wrote foul language in the title of your reply to me), and only asked you what problems you had with my test. Then you basically went into this impression of a gorilla in a cage that someone's been poking a stick at. c-J, I don't know what you're smoking these days, but I have a feeling your real name is "cheap-Crack". Just lay the pipe down and leave it at home the next time you answer someone's post.p.s. Before I forget, thank you for demonstrating how hysterical, insulting and foul-of-mouth that people often are here in response to my comparatively staid posts. That's why I didn't report your unprovoked flaming rant to the mods, even though I'm sure it's warranted. I don't want it deleted. It hurts your equally hysterical friend Jim's case, and it makes mine. Write a few more like it, and I'll give you points, okay? You can trade 'em in for cool bubble gum cards.
...I am content to report on it, and let others go and do likewise.Anyone who tells me that I'm full of shit for that, is welcome to, ah, take his licks.
With an estimated ten thousands points yet to be determined in the audio matrix, it does seem rather hopeless -- does it not? -- to *require* DBTs. Such ill-advised procedures would only delay progress, enabling the Sonys and Boses of this world to profit further.
Say! You don't suppose there's a... conspiracy!... between mid-market marketeers and the DBT crowd?...
> > With an estimated ten thousands points yet to be determined in the audio matrix, it does seem rather hopeless -- does it not? -- to *require* DBTs. Such ill-advised procedures would only delay progress, enabling the Sonys and Boses of this world to profit further. < <If anyone "requires" DBTs of the freeze effect, I have no problem with them doing that. Only if they're going to ask -me- to do it for -them-, when it's -their- belief system. That I have a problem with. (And as far as I can tell from reading the little grey box at the top of the forum, it doesn't say everyone has to provide DBT's for every claim they make). I have no problem hearing differences in the files linked, but with those files, I have provided an easy means for anyone to do DBTs to their heart's content on the freeze effect, if they don't trust their own ears. And if anyone tells me I'm full of shit over something I positively identified? They're also welcome to, ah... take their licks!
x
We are all SO grateful for your extremely valuable post here. Wow, what a way to make a first impression. The best way to get people to listen to you is to start off by insulting everyone. The louder and more obnoxious you are, the more people will believe the nonsense you are spewing all over the place... Yeah, right.Your line of "reasoning" is a joke. Your argument has NOTHING to do with science. Your attitude is abrasive and irritating.
Don't come storming into the parlor, screeching your nonsense while the adults are having a discussion, little one... and don't be surprised if someone takes exception to your poor behavior.
or him, or it, maybe it will go away. If all it has to chat with is it's small circle (Belt, Kait, Clark) it'll be pretty boring for it around here.So as someone else has repeatedly suggested, how 'bout we all stop feeding this troll?
nt
.
nt
And, if you're going to quote me, why don't you try to use what I actually said in my post. Don't paraphrase... It's bad manners to do that. How's the rock collecting going?
My quote was close enough; you're just quibbling.Rock collecting going well; looks like I just picked up another one. :-)
You seem like too nice of a guy... Even though I don't agree with many of your propositions, I can appreciate that YOU believe in what you're doing.Now, about that clock... ;-)
Cheers,
Chris
Not too comfortable with the idea of someone not being mad at me, but if that's the case, so be it. :-)
I do not believe you know what you are talking about relative to audio because I do not believe you can really hear all the tweaks you believe in and claim to hear.Tweaks are easily tested for audibility.
'I know what I hear and could not be wrong' is not reliable evidence.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
Hi.by quantitative measuremnts due to limited knowledge & available instrumentation todate. DBT may help.
That's why we have to be open-minded & give such tweaking the benefit of doubt provided such tweaking can be at least rationalized by some scientific principles or theories.
FYI, I am subjective, rationally.
Like a $500 wooden knob as claimed by its vendor can improve the sound bigtime. One may instantly dismiss it as snake oils.
But if one takes a second thought. The mass of the knob can damp out the peaky resonances of the rotating shaft of the volume control
wiper, resulting sonic improvement.At least there is some remote scientific rationing behind it, yet to be proven by the resultant resonance spectrum analysis or otherwise.
That's why I asked for technical explanation why a florinated water pot or some colourful labels can improve sound. How come minus 20C-30C domestic freezing can PERMANENTLY change the molecular stress balance of a metal? As I said, I am all ears.
We might have missed a lot out there. Nobody knows everything. Correct?
Let's be patient to recieve some technical reasoning from those who have made such sonic claims on their tweaks.
We entertain tweaks there in PHP, privided all such claims come up with some scientific reasoning, to say the least.
c-J
Hi“FYI, I am subjective, rationally.
Like a $500 wooden knob as claimed by its vendor can improve the sound bigtime. One may instantly dismiss it as snake oils.
But if one takes a second thought. The mass of the knob can damp out the peaky resonances of the rotating shaft of the volume control
wiper, resulting sonic improvement.
At least there is some remote scientific rationing behind it, yet to be proven by the resultant resonance spectrum analysis or otherwise.”Logical an all but examine how the device in question actually works. Most potentiometers already have silicone damping in them to make them “feel nice” but unless you have a dirty pot, you can tap on it with your finger and not hear anything in the sound coming out. This is important as simply tapping on it produces G forces millions of times larger than any airborne sound would impose. Usually, Tubes and mcrophones etc are about the only things in audio that are micro phonic (where mechanical vibration has an effect on the signal).
Lastly, from a acoustic / mechanical point of view, simply substituting a wood mass in place of a plastic mass on the end of the shaft in it self (being a mass) could have no effect on Q, resistance to motion is damping, this is what reduces “Q”.
Sadly also, a spectrum analysis would not show any difference, there is no mechanism for the improvement to take place. Also, a wood knob vs plastic would have no change in Q if you were to vibration test the assembly. In my opinion, your first reflex was correct, this is snake oil in the shape of a knob with an exotic, slightly plausible explanation..
Best,
Tom
... you could admire her system and then say "Nice Knobs Babycakes"Hopefully this will happen before I die.
I have already had the glorious opportunity to address a big-boobed woman in a supermarket produce department holding two mellons with: "Nice mellons!" Fortunately she laughed harder than I did or it might have been my last day on the job.
And they told me there was no future working in a supermarket produce department!
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
Of course if Posey "Roarer" believes in a bizarre tweak, that may be a very good contrary indicator that the tweak is only "audible" to people like Posey who believe in it ... and only audible when these people KNOW the tweak is in use.Of course I could be wrong about this contrary indicator.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
nt
Hello Posy,You've hit upon yet one more topic most of the strictly scientifically oriented, measurement/specificationist aka "objectivitsts" will poo-poo as being an unproven idea.
Before discussing "if" cryoing works or not we need to deteremine what cryoing something means and entails. The word, "CRYOGENICS" is derived from two Greek words - "kryos" which means cold or freezing, and "genes" meaning born or generated. Deep cryogenics (below -300F) has created many new applications, as well as in ultra-cold temperature physics.
Cryogenic processing involves lowering the temperature of an object to sub zero temperature. With most metals, this means dropping the temperature to a least -300 degrees F. Although some companies claim to cryogenically treat metals with dry ice (fp=-110 degrees F) or with ice and alcohol, the experts in the field agree that it is necessary to go down considerably lower than this in order to reap all the substantial benefits of the process. So just placing something in a freezer overnight or even a few days isn't going to be a properly cryogeniclly processed component.
Equally important to the temperature attained is how that temperature is obtained. Exposing something to a very sudden change in temperature causes residual stresses, cracks, and other problems. It is very important that the temperature of an object be brought down at a controlled rate that is compatible with the material. A typical cryo process first involves preparing your tooling and or other component to be placed in the processor. The chamber is sealed and the temperature is dropped to -300 degrees F over a period of 12 hours. Then it stays for 24 hours at -300 degrees F using liquid nitrogen (the liquid nitrogen never comes in contact with parts). When the parts have been at the proper temperature for the appropriate time, then after 24 hours it is allow to come up to temperature very slowly as not to damage anything. The tooling and or other components are tempered to the proper temperature three times.
According to Controlled Thermal Processing, Inc. Over 50% of the cars starting a NASCAR Nextel Cup® race are running parts treated by Controlled Thermal Processing, Inc. As seen here: http://www.metal-wear.com/racing.htm Do you honestly think that NASCAR doesn't do any research into whether or not this expense is justified? Controlled Thermal Processing states virtually any part that is stressed or worn during a race can benefit from cryogenic processing and that cryogenic processing: 1) Improves Reliability, 2) Reduces Wear, 3) Reduces Distortion & 4) Increases Horsepower and/or Torque.
Here's what some scientific studies have deterimined...
1) A study performed at Jassy Institute in Romania used a scanning electron microscope with a microscopic counting device to evaluate additional changes to the structure of the steel. The study found the number of countable small carbides increased throughout a heat treatable steel from 33,000 per square millimeter to over 80,000 per square millimeter as a result of cryogenic processing. This increase in carbides adds greatly to the wear resistance of a part. The carbides make a refined flat "super-hard" surface on the metal, like two pieces of smooth glass rubbed together have much lower friction than two pieces of sandpaper when rubbed together. A refined surface structure is not only more wear resistant, but also reduces friction and heat, allowing more rapid movement. Using the latest particle counter, it was able to count "hardening" of metal as it changed at molecular level. "From Dr. Joan Alexandru and Dr. Constantin Picos, Polytechnic Institute of Jassy, Romania."
2) Study of Cryogenically Treated carbide tooling showed performance increase of up to 400 percent. "Arizona State University"
3) In an additional study supports the increased life claim. The scientists found that for various metal samples processed at -320 degrees F, the wear resistance was approximately 2 to 5 times greater than that for samples processed at -120 degrees F. "Department of Mechanical Engineering at Louisiana Tech University."
4) Tests done demonstrated cryogenic processing extended the life of circuit boards in military applications, specifically boards used in cruise missiles. "Boeing/Sunstrand"
5) Tests on experimental thin film magnetic memory wafers showed increased conductivity of metallic layers, reduced residual stress between layers, and possible (but not fully confirmed) "healing" of vacancies in the layers. "Honeywell"
Here's what Controlled Thermal Processing, Inc. says about audio components and cryogenic processing. Cyrogenic processing has some interesting effects on electronics and on stereo equipment. At this point, we are not quite sure why. However, what we are seeing is real: 1) Better Sound Reproduction, 2) Longer Life, 3) Reduced Rise Time in Transistors, 3) Increased Efficiency in Transformers and 4) Longer Contact Life. Plus cryogenic processing glass is known to achieve an almost perfectly annealed quality, which would work with tubes. They also claim cryogenic processing of audio equipment has been shown in numerous blind tests to improve the quality of sound in virtually all audio equipment and audio equipment components.
According to Cryogenics International the reason optical discs i.e. CDs, DVDs, and SACDs sound better is because they're inherently full of stress from the cooling of the polycarbonate from the injection mold process. These "clouds" cause birefringence, which affects sound quality. Our cryogenic process "clarifies" and "aligns" the polycarbonate so the laser can read the "pits" and "lands" accurately without refraction. The result is truer retrieval of the digital music. With vacuum tubes they're dramatically improved by the reduction of residual stress and uniformity of structure. Residual stress increases the resonance of a vacuum tube and a vacuum tube exhibits much resonance, so it is very beneficial to use this process to reduce resonance thereby improving quality.
Manufacturers use cryogenics to treat guns, car/aircraft engines, musical instruments, golf clubs, mill cutters, broaches, drill bits, punches, dies, taps, molds, granulator blades, DME dies, trimmers, slitters, knives, extruder dies, cut-off knives, punches, chippers,
etc. Are we supposed to believe all these companies just subjectively decided that cryogenically processing their components seems to be an improvement so that justifies the added expense? PA-leeeeasssee, companies typically look to cut every uneeded expense they can. They do research, if the extra expense isn't justified the supposedly better cryogenically parts/components wouldn't be purchased period. Knowing that these people have seen vast improvements when using cryogenically processed parts/components are we audiophiles/music lovers supposed to believe cryogenic processing works for everything but audio components, just because a few quite vocal people refuse to believe it does? Thats's something each and everyone of us needs to decide for ourselves. So does cryogenic processing improve how an audio component will sound? That's a question everyone has to answer for themselves.Here are some links on cryogenic processing to help you decide for yourself.
http://www.nwcryo.com/Electronics.html
http://www.hekimianracing.com/cryoracer.html
http://www.fountainheadcryo.com/Default.aspx?tabid=324
http://www.cryogenicsinternational.com/shooting.htm
http://www.cryone.us/
http://www.metal-wear.com/index.htmThetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Well, you certainly have me convinced. You make a great case here for the cryo treatment of objects, including audio equip. Plenty of data and objective research. And an interesting point about CI stating its effect on polycarb & other materials, not just metal. Only problem is, my thread is not about cryogenic freezing! I never talked about cryo freezing, but everyone is bringing that up. That's another thread for another time! This is about DOMESTIC HOME FREEZING. I don't want to argue about the differences between the two, that's irrelevant. My argument is that DOMESTIC HOME FREEZING NOT CRYOGENIC FREEZING has similar audio performance enhancement effects to cryo treatment (for audio applications, I have not tested it with anything else, nor have I tested cryo treatments).I posted tests at the top of this thread for easy evaluation. You can even do a DBT test with it, if that's your bag.
Posy,My apologies on causing any confusion. Personally I've never heard or read where anyone who's achieved any of the "benefits" of cryo freezing when using a regular freezer. I take that back I do recall someone somewhere stating placing their CDs in their home freezer subjectively yielded a slight improvement, but it wore off as quickly as the CD warmed up!
Personally I have my doubts about any real changes being made in a regular freezer, especially after reading the reasons behind why the benefits occur with cryo freezing. But I cannot see any harm in trying it anyway. What's the worst thing that could happen, you don't hear an improvement?
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Hi.please tell us:-
(1)how close a home freeze (say, -25C-30C as in my case) can enhance the sound like gyrogenics (-180C).
(2)how it works technically to effect such sonic enhancement.
(3)how you carry out your home freeze to effect such enhancement.
> > how close a home freeze (say, -25C-30C as in my case) can enhance the sound like gyrogenics (-180C). < <Don't worry about it. Just put the item (ie. CD) in the coldest part of your freezer, turn the freezer to max for max effect.
> > how you carry out your home freeze to effect such enhancement. < <
About 12 hrs in the freezer, several more hours in the fridge (get to fridge temp), then wrapped in thick blankets until room temp (or any alternative means to slow down the process of thawing).
> > how it works technically to effect such sonic enhancement. < <
Already wrote numerous comments on this q. Read those.
Heat treatment, annealing, hardening etc, and stress relief of metal structures by supercooling cycles is well accepted and has been for years.There is no need to bring it up here as it clouds the issue by extrapolating that since it works on mechanical properties of metals it MUST therefore be good for cables resistors, printed circuits etc etc and produce "better sound" - whatevet that means.
Maybe it does, I do not know, but the arguments are confused here.
Our Beltist friend is not talking about this at all, so don't try and blind him with science. A complete waste of time.
He is talking about Beltist faith-based principles. If you don't but into that you are missing the point.
Hello Clifff,I attempted to be somewhat objective on this issue. I'm not going to immediately naysay cryoing in audio. Personally I don't see it as being a large stretch to go from realizing that since it has been PROVEN to work on mechanical properties of metals (glass and plastics too by the way) that it would work on the metals and plastics of circuit boards, transistors, inductors etc, the metals in IC's and other wires as well as the metal and glass in vacuum tubes.
IMHO you're only obfuscating the issue with your suggestion that I am: cloud(ing)the issue by extrapolating that since it works on mechanical properties of metals it MUST therefore be good for cables, resistors, printed circuits etc etc and produce "better sound" - whatever that means. This suggestion of yours falls short in light of the fact that tests done by Boeing/Sunstrand have demonstrated cryogenic processing extended the life of circuit boards in military applications, specifically boards used in cruise missiles. As well as other tests performed by Honeywell on experimental thin film magnetic memory wafers showed increased conductivity of metallic layers, reduced residual stress between layers, and possible (but not fully confirmed) "healing" of vacancies in the layers. Even if cryoing doesn't produce "better sound" where better sound equals a more realistic replication of music, at the very least it improves component reliability by extending the life of the circuit boards.
According to Controlled Thermal Processing, Inc even the objectivists beloved "BLIND TEST" has been done numerous times and has shown that cryogenic processing of audio equipment has improved the quality of sound in virtually all audio equipment and audio equipment components. Like you said Clifff, maybe it does, I do not know for sure. I do have both cryoed and non-cryoed Bendix 6900 tubes. Subjectively the bass is considerably tighter and less bloated on the cryo treated 6900's. That's what I noticed straight away, but in all honesty I never really did any extended comparisions.
I don't think the arguments are confused here. Posy simply must realize that simply freezing something in a typical home freezer will NOT produce any of the results cryogenic processing is noted for. That's what I explained and said BEFORE discussing "if" cryoing works or not we need to determine what cryoing means and entails. If Posy doesn't understand this his arguement is lost before it begins. That's also why I both provided some additional links on cryoing components and stated: "So does cryogenic processing improve how an audio component will sound? That's a question everyone has to answer for themselves." I'm still undecided myself, but I am leaning towards believing it does affect wires, circuit boards, tubes, transistors, inductors etc. Thus the question is really not does cryoing affect these components, but rather is the affect a postive one that leads to a more realistic replication of live music? That still remains a question everyone has to answer for themselves. As of this time I remain undecided. Oh yes there's one last thing I'd like to say. It was pleasant to finally have a civil discussion with you.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Now *you're* making the assertions.Posy was just saying that home freezing should be tried, it worked for him.
Cryoing is a different question, and by the way, thanks for the excellent post on it.
"This suggestion of yours falls short in light of the fact that tests done by Boeing/Sunstrand have demonstrated cryogenic processing extended the life of circuit boards in military applications, specifically boards used in cruise missiles. As well as other tests performed by Honeywell on experimental thin film magnetic memory wafers showed increased conductivity of metallic layers, reduced residual stress between layers, and possible (but not fully confirmed) "healing" of vacancies in the layers. Even if cryoing doesn't produce "better sound" where better sound equals a more realistic replication of music, at the very least it improves component reliability by extending the life of the circuit boards.According to Controlled Thermal Processing, Inc even the objectivists beloved "BLIND TEST" has been done numerous times and has shown that cryogenic processing of audio equipment has improved the quality of sound in virtually all audio equipment and audio equipment components."
This is a direct cut and paste from their web-site SELLING Cryo!Once again a leap of faith is being made between "improving life of missle pcbs" and things sounding better:
I can believe the better reliability: reducing stresses in metal layers and glass substrates could well reduce the susceptiblity to vibration in flight. For a few minutes, at least :-)
As you state, this has NOTHING to do with stuffing things in your freezer at -10C.
Clifff,So much for expecting civility from you, oh well. You have this obsession with being sarcastic with those who don't agree with you 100% so I'll just state the facts and stop trying to be civil, as it's wasted upon you. You act like you made a great discovery in claiming "This is a direct cut and paste from their web-site SELLING Cryo!" when I provided a link to that site. Cryoing benefits have been scientifically documented as anyone with access to a PC can see for themselves. But I'll repeat myself just for you....
The latest research data on cryogenic tempering confirms the long standing theory that cryogenic treatment significantly enhances cutting tool life. Dr. Joan Alexzndru and Dr. ConstantinePicos of The Polytechnic Institute of Jassy, Romainia, utilized the latest scientific equipment available, a JEOL IXA-5A Electron Probe, a Diffractometer, a Quantimet 720 Quantitative Microscope, and a Chevenard Differential Dilatometer to supply the following results from the extensive study.
The study involved 7 samples (A-N in Fig. 2), each subjected to a different tempering cycle as noted. Each sample was the equivalent of M2 steel; each sample had carbide particles physically counted, both before and after the deep cryogenic treatment. The team then measured the samples with the equipment above, and with standard metallurgical evaluation testing. The results confirm with tangible evidence the carbide precipitation in cryogenic processing.
All the metal samples were taken from identical batch stock. The sample structure was comprised of .83%C, .38%Mn, .3%S, 4.1%Cr, 5.1%Mo, 1.9%V, and 6.3%W. Samples were all simultaneously standard heat treated at 1230° C, then oil-quenched. Four of the pieces were then subjected to the cryogenic cycle at -70° C with varying tempers added after cold soaking.
Findings
The results of the testing conclude with the following findings and analysis comparing standard heat treating to heat treating with the addition of shallow cryogenic soak:
Austenite decreased from 42.6% to 0.9%.
Martensite increased from 66% to 81.7%.
Carbides increased from 6.9% to 17.4%.
Mean number of carbides counted @ 1mm sq. increased from 31,358.17 to 83,529.73.
Number of carbides less then 1um in size increased from 23,410.24 to 69,646.09.
Rockwell increased from 60.10 to 66.10.
Tensile strength increased from 86.0 to 244.46.
Bending strength increased from 86.0 to 244.46.
KCU (resiliency) increased from.668 to 1.18.
HRC 675° C after 20 minutes keeping: 56.88 to 62.25.
Durability of the cutting time increased from 20 minutes to 45 minutes with a shallow cryogenic cycle.
====================================================================
Now considering that the cutting life of a tool was extended to just over double it's normal life expectancy, I think a circuit boards reliability will increase dramatically over a tad over the few minutes you're sarcastically suggesting.As for your other sarcastic comment about this being: Once again a leap of faith is being made between "improving life of missle pcbs" and things sounding better. I stated my POV on cryoing creating better sound quite clearly 1)I do not know for sure 2) I'm still undecided myself, but I am leaning towards believing it does affect wires, circuit boards, tubes, transistors, inductors etc. 3) Thus the question is really not does cryoing affect these components, but rather is the affect a postive one that leads to a more realistic replication of live music? That still remains a question everyone has to answer for themselves. All 3 of those comments are a far cry from taking a leap of faith that things WILL sound better like you suggested I did.
You should dramatically increase your reading comprehension BEFORE responding to me again as it's quite obvious you're incapable of understanding what I am actually saying, prefering instead to act in the typical British manner of being sarcastic, arrogant and pompous even when I spoke civilly with you! Stop acting like a bloody twit and respond to what I actually say and not what you want it to mean. And you wonder why I talk to you like I do....
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
There was nothing uncivil in my post.Quoting advertising blurb is NOT a contribution to a technical debate.
Your quote from Romania is fine, but, as I stated in my first response brings nothing to the debate.
It is VERY WELL KNOWN that Cryo has a real and understood effect on metals. No contest.
You are quoting sources to "prove" that point. Again. It is unecessary!
But accepting that Cryo has an effect on the MECHANICAL properties of metals etc DOES NOT automatically mean that it makes transistors SOUND better.
Clifff,First let's start with your proclomation that you don't even read my posts but that's a whole different issue. Here's the problem as I see it ok? I think you'll agree I responded very civilly to you in my first response, no?
Now let's look at how you responded back, shall we? Well you insinuated that I was once again making a leap of faith between "improving life of missile pcbs" and things sounding better. You did that despite the fact that I stated specifically:
1) I do not know for sure
2) I'm still undecided myself, but I am leaning towards believing it does affect wires, circuit boards, tubes, transistors, inductors etc.
3) Thus the question is really not does cryoing affect these components, but rather is the affect a postive one that leads to a more realistic replication of live music? That still remains a question everyone has to answer for themselves.As I stated before Clifff ALL 3 of those comments are a far cry from taking a leap of faith that things WILL sound better like you suggested I did. Yet you made that sarcastic remark anyway.
Then after you suggested I said something I didn't, you got even more sarcastic and said "I can believe the better reliability: reducing stresses in metal layers and glass substrates could well reduce the susceptiblity to vibration in flight. For a few minutes, at least :-) Granted you added a little smiley face so you can act like my old buddy used to before The Bored intervened and claim you were needling or joking with me, but you and I aren't friends. ONLY my friends get to needle and joke with me, so your little sarcastic remark wasn't appreciated or being civil.
Even now as I can see you're continuing in that same arrogant vein by stating yet once again "But accepting that Cryo has an effect on the MECHANICAL properties of metals etc DOES NOT automatically mean that it makes transistors SOUND better." when you know full well that's NOT what I believe as I've quite clearly stated 3X now. So as you wish to continue insinuating I believe things I state openly I don't in order to make yourself appear correct in your actions, PLEASE do me a favor and stop. I tried being civil with you but it's crystal clear that it's YOU who cannot understand the difference! Like I said previously you should drastically increase your reading comprehension, BEFORE responding to anyone else.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
z
But then of course, you didn't read my post, did you?
Because apparently you agree with what he said.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,Just in case you don't know SARCASTIC means marked by bitterness and a power or will to cut or sting. SARCASTIC implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding, taunting, or ridiculing.
I believe Clifff was intentionally taunting, or ridiculing me. To make the insinuation: I was once again making a leap of faith between "improving life of missile pcbs" and things sounding better. After and in spite of the fact that I stated specifically:
1) I do not know for sure.
2) I'm still undecided myself, but I am leaning towards believing it does affect wires, circuit boards, tubes, transistors, inductors etc.
3) Thus the question is really not does cryoing affect these components, but rather is the affect a postive one that leads to a more realistic replication of live music? That still remains a question everyone has to answer for themselves.As ALL 3 of those comments are a far cry from Clifff's suggestion that I was taking a leap of faith that things WILL sound better, Cliff was definitely being sarcastic when he made that remark.
Now to address the comment you made that "...saying something (I) agree with is sarcastic?" It certainly can be "IF" it's done in a way that's meant to be inflicting of pain by deriding, taunting, or ridiculing or if it's marked by bitterness and a power or will to cut or sting. Just like you're attempting to do with this post. I don't want to argue with anyone here. But a few of you seem intent on provoking those types of responses. Pat why not do us both a favor and just ignore my posts? I know I'll be a lot happier if you do.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
"This is a direct cut and paste from their web-site SELLING Cryo!Once again a leap of faith is being made between "improving life of missle pcbs" and things sounding better:"
This, to me, is obviously a reference to the passage quoted. THEY were making a leap of faith.
The phrase "a leap of faith IS BEING MADE" does not apply to anything you said, only what you quoted.
Clifff,If that's what you meant I owe you an apology. It read to me like you were stating I was the one making the "leap of faith". So as my subject heading an here within the post, I Apologize Clifff.
.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,It hardly surprises me that you'd say that. You're obsessed with disagreeing with just about anything I say. I was quite civil with Clifff, to respond back with sarcastic remarks isn't being civil IMHO.
But you've usually patted Clifff on the back once he's posted in response against what I say so why should I expect you to change now. Perhaps you could be like the other person who used to comment about everything I say before The Bored stepped in and just cease responding to my posts? I know I'd really appreciate it as you, like Clifff have NOTHING of value to offer me.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Because apparently you and he agree on this.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
nt
a
How long do the sonic effects of Cryo-ing supposedly last, should there be any at all?
Hello Kerr,The structural changes of cryoing are permanent in that they'll last the lifetime of the component IIRC. As far as sonic changes I heard a difference between the cryoed Bendix 6900 and the untreated Bendix 6900. As the structural changes of cryoing are permanent I'd assume that "IF" a sonic difference is heard they'd be permenant as well.
In the 6900 tubes the bass was considerably less bloated. But I didn't do any longterm comparisons. Some people swear by cryoed tubes, others prefer the tubes untreated. A friend of mine cryoed some 6550's and didn't like the change in the sound characteristic, so much for Clifff's leap of faith that cryoing sounds better!
Do some research you'll see what Clifff admitted in his first reply i.e, "Heat treatment, annealing, hardening etc, and stress relief of metal structures by supercooling cycles is well accepted and has been for years." So it's known fact that cryoing affects the structure of metals, plastics and glass. What's debatable for most objectivists is whether that translates to a sonic difference. What's debatable for most subjectivists who've actually heard a cryoed tube is NOT whether that translates to a sonic difference, but rather is that sonic difference an improvement or a detriment.
As far as any other audio components besides tubes. I know that cryoing will affect the physical structure of the component, but I don't know whether that translates to a sonic difference with these devices. I've never heard cryoed wires, amps, CDPs etc. so I'll refrain from making comments on what I haven't heard for myself.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
HiI worked at a company that had a material science lab once and had asked about what happens when things are super cooled “cryoed”.
If I recall, the reason was it is reliving the internal stresses in the material which were put there when the material was formed.
These folks dealt with LN2 not modestly cool temperatures one could reach in a home freezer. Also, heat annealing was far more common approach to releasing stress.So far as audibility of Cryo, I don’t know, I suspect it might not effect something’s but might not others but keep in mind, a home freezer is not cold enough to be “cryo” in the scientific sense.
I don’t know where you live but in my part of the country, it would be hard to insure that the gear hadn’t already been frozen at one point or another.
Before arriving in a living room or store, the gear spends time in an un-heated trucks and warehouses. Certainly, any of the Tube gear or old electronics I have to play with have been frozen, for weeks on end by virtue of being stored where its freezing in the winter.I would ask then, what are the sonic attributes you hear when you freeze something?
Best,
and why is anyone bothering to attempt to enter into a rational technical debate with her?A self-confessed Beltian fanatic, ($5K of stuff), arrogant, extremely rude, attention-seeking brat pouring out verbal invective at every post.
AT least May is calm and polite although she does bang on interminably as if what she is saying is REALLY IMPORTANT. It is to her, of course. Its business.
If Rosy thinks that we are encouraged to try out what she seems to be promoting with that sales pitch her knowledge of human nature is sadly missing.
.
I have not tried freezing anything other than cds. I have cryoed cables, tubes, cds, etc. I do think there is a substantial difference among these treatments both in theory as well as in their effects.I found no benefit in freezing cds. I found that cryoed power cords and tubes did sound different. I say it this way as I think dynamics are lost in this treatment which does make a difference. I have not done either for the last five years.
I think cryogenic treatments of connectors, cables, switches, etc. do improve the sound. But the times I tried just putting items in the freezer didn't yield such result to a noticeable degree. This includes CDs and tubes.
a
nt
x
Todd:"I think cryogenic treatments of connectors, cables, switches, etc. do improve the sound."
or conversely,
"I DO NOT think cryogenic treatments of connectors, cables, switches, etc. do improve the sound."
The whole purpose of PHP is to make either of these two statements and then attempt to back them up with a scientific of technical explanation. That's what all the fuss is about.
Of course we're all free to think what we want (based on whatever experiences we have had) or simply *believe* what we want. But if someone is going to talk about technology in a technological forum, they must certainly understand why they are being asked to provide more evidence than just "I believe it to be so" or "That's what I heard...."
How do we learn of the actual mechanism by which things work if we stop at, "Okay, I think I heard a difference - let's cap off our level of understanding right there..."
It's not bad science. It's non-science!
Oh yeah, I used to use quitar strings that were cryo'd. I liked the sound of those particular strings, but cannot say for sure whether or not it was the cryo process that gave them the sound I liked . But I was using cryo'd strings for the longest time. Dean Markley Cold Steel they were called. Very bright and distinctive tone. Really sweet with the right pickups.
"The whole purpose of PHP is to make either of these two statements and then attempt to back them up with a scientific of technical explanation. That's what all the fuss is about."Does a rule here explicitly state this? If there is such a rule, the original poster could be cited for inducing violation of the rule. I'd then respond by stating "Can you please ask the question on another board? Stating opinion without backing it up with scientific proof is prohibited here."
Note I also stated this in the context of "I think"..... It's an opinion. And I'll state that opinion again and again. (Unless a rule here expressly restricts non-scientifically-backed opinion.) If I think an otherwise harmless tweak works, I'll state that opinion. And any disagreement is accepted.
The one forking the money for any tweak product only needs proof for himself, not anybody else.
Just like I'd never fork over money for tweaks I think don't work. And people are welcome to disagree with that opinion too.
Todd:C'mon. Every forum has it's own culture, and this forum is no exception.
This forum is here so that those who are inclined can engage in "Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics."
There are other forums for those that wish to only use ankedotal evidence, heresay, and uncontrolled and biased listening tests in an attempt to substantiate theory.
I think that is why the general concensus here is that Posy's posts are purposely "against the grain" of the culture here, and are causing more adversity than they are worth.
Cheers,
Presto
I view Posy's post no differently from posts glorifying Bose on other boards. But then again, if one is stuck-up over the technical frivolity (demanding proof of others' subjective findings, in this case), just like those who are obsessed with how awful Bose is, they take such posts in a totally different way.Of course the post was there primarily to push your hot buttons. But from those with the attitude of loosening those who are "stuck-up", these posts will occur. If people weren't so serious over the frivolity, they'd react with a smile, not beet-crimson rage.
Or in other words, when people wear hot buttons on their sleeve, those buttons are bound to be pushed from time to time.
ps
I do not believe cryoing CDs will result in an audible change in performance. I do not believe freezing audio equipment will help it, although that is a new one for me. Why? Because I am not aware of any credible evidence that that these things change the performance. Uncontrolled sighted auditions are not reliable evidence for the audibility of small differences.However, as the null hypothesis cannot be proven, all I can say is that I have seen no credible evidence that these things result in audible differences.
Credible evidence would be that people can prove they can hear the differences in controlled double blind tests, or alternatively, that measured results show sonic differences above known just noticeable differences, or both.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Golden Ears usually compare two components playing at different volumes and then declare they sound different.What a surprise!
.
.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
Richard,Even though I usually disagree with your POV I find your arguements are rational and usually well thought out. It's a shame to see you resort to saying things you make up as if they're facts when doing so in an effort to make you appear correct in your beliefs.
For Example: What extensive scientific testing have you done that substantiates your theory of: Golden Ears usually compare two components playing at different volumes and then declare they sound different?
Just because you may have witnessed this happening on the odd occassion doesn't make it the thing that's usually done. In fact your stating this is no different than my claiming objectivists usually just make up stories as needed to support their POV and then declare these stories provide proof they're correct.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
xx
And the best the Objectivists can do, as witnessed by Pat D's response it simply repeat what we say and substitute the word Subjectivist for Objectivist! Talk about the strengths of ones own convictions?Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
x
.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Hi.I am talking for my pair of rusted ears. Like many "golden ears", I compare at same volume, which I often test with a digital SPL meter.
I went through this tedeous experience of home freezer freezing of my tubes & ICs in a 2-day freeze (minus 25-30C) followed by 2-day warm-up process with a thermometer monitoring the tempertures.
As you said I would be "fooled by expectations" to tell myself & the world I heard some nite & day improvement.
No, as I already reported, the sonic difference, if any, was pretty subtle given my system is already pretty revealing.
Frankly, I am not expecting miracles. I tried this process out, repeatedly, just to find out: can this domestic so called deep-freeze be effective to improve sound at all by stealing the concept of cryogenics (minus 180C).
One can lie to the world, but should never lie to ownself. I won't.
c-J
What test signals do you use?Of course even with accurate A-B volume matching, and audiophile could still imagine hearing differences.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
.
.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
nt
Hi.Take a deep breath & read my post below again to May Belt re cryoing vs domestic freezer. Totally different ballgames, pal.
What "20+ year old idea" you are referring? Cryogenics or domestic freezing?
If it was domestic freezing, explain to us how it can improve the sound?
As I already posted below, I went through this tedeous domestic freeze excercise. I know too well about it. But do you?
c-J
> > Take a deep breath & read my post below again to May Belt re cryoing vs domestic freezer. Totally different ballgames, pal. < <First of all, I'm not your "pal", so don't call me "pal". Secondly, take a deep breath and read my response below to your turgid complaint about lowering one's voice and being civil. That is -not- what you are doing here by titling your post "You're still confused, newcomer!". And for someone who's as perpetually confused as you are (yes, I did some background research on you), it's not even funny in an ironic way for you to accuse others of being confused, for no reason. And when I say "ironic", I'm referring to the fact that you stupidly criticize me for being "confused" about the differences between cryo & domestic freezing, when nowhere in this thread, or my entire posting history from since the day I was born, have I ever stated to you or anyone else that there are no differences between cryo & domestic freezing. Since you're big on proof, why don't you prove that I stated otherwise? Should be easy enough.
So, are you less confused? Because I dont want the next bit to confuse you once again.... I have not discussed the cryo version of the freeze effect, but I will say now (based on reports from others) that I don't believe the cryo & domestic freezer are "totally different ballgames" wrt the effect, as you stated. Nor do I have any reason to believe that you conducted proper tests comparing the two, using the same item. But I'm not really interested in discussing this aspect anyway. The cryo is off limits to most testers, the domestic version is easy for anyone to try.
Finally, re: your rude remark about telling me to read your post again... what happened, did you poke yourself in the eye? Not only did I read that msg, I responded to it like yesterday, and you never replied. But then you never replied to my other response to you, because you couldn't even understand what I was explaining to you about ul certification.
> > What "20+ year old idea" you are referring? Cryogenics or domestic freezing? < <Domestic. Sorry, i thought that was obvious...
> > If it was domestic freezing, explain to us how it can improve the sound? < <
You did cryo tests, right? Same principle.
> > As I already posted below, I went through this tedeous domestic freeze excercise. I know too well about it. But do you? < <
Don't be arrogant, Jack. I know more than you about it, as I have more (and longer) experience with it than you do. Don't assume you "know too well about it" because you went and did one test under the "tedeous process". You don't hardly know anything about it. Nor does it sound to me like you're all that interested in it. Why dont you start off by telling where did you hear about it, and what/why did you test?
Hi.This is a technical plaza, not a showplace for your jokes.
Domestic freezing is the "same principle" as cryogenics???? Give me a break !!!!!!
Ignorance is not a guilt. But you're far far beyond.
Hi.> > This is a technical plaza, not a showplace for your jokes. < <
Well, let's see... every one of your posts that I have read so far, has turned out to be a joke. So, are you being ironic with me again, or just plain hypocritical?
> > Domestic freezing is the "same principle" as cryogenics???? Give me a break !!!!!! < <
Jack, are you -really- this stupid, or are you just pretending to be? Because you're doing a very good job of convincing me you are. Despite me having never talked about cryo and you insisting on obsessing over it regardless, I can't believe how many times I have already explained to you that you got it wrong, I never said the two were the same. And yet one more time, you want to waste my time with your nonsense strawman about cryo being the same operating principle. If you are too dense to understand what someone is saying to you after this many times, give up. I'm not going to entertain you insulting me and attacking my character because YOU are too stupid to understand what I wrote. Go back to school Jack, learn about CONTEXT.
> > Ignorance is not a guilt. But you're far far beyond. < <
I guess I must be as far away as you are to a dictionary. You keep doing some really screwy things with your syntax, fellow. And you're being ironic again. As I've proven, you're the one who's ignorant. I've written message after message of detailed refutations to your arguments. In response, all you've done is scream your fool head off at me, misconstrue everything written said to you because you have absolutely no reading comprehension skills whatsoever, and post loud, inane, ignorant and misguided character attacks. As I have shown in my previous post to you, throughout your record here you have accused others of the being stupid & ignorant, because you were too stupid & ignorant to understand what they were saying. So I hate to tell you, but you're the joke.
Now listen carefully: I have attempted to engage you many times now in serious debate on audio matters with detailed, attack-free responses. Every single time you ignored them, and if you responded at all, it was only to attack my character. STOP READING MY POSTS. You're too dumb to understand what is being said to you, too intellectually dishonest to formulate a reply to a reasoned debate, so you have no further business with me. At one point, you said you didn't want me to reply to your posts others, so great, then don't reply to mine.
x
I don't think anyone is saying that cryogenics is the same as home freezing, obviously there is a difference in temp. Nevertheless, if done properly the effects of Mr. Home Freezer are very close to the *effects* of full-blown cryo, audio-wise (IMHO). The advantage, obviously, is it's easier and cheaper. I have 12 yrs experience with both... more than the average bear. :-)
Hi.Apparently I did not do it so "properly" like you have done to yield the "very close to the effects of full blown cryo".
Tell us, plesse.
"You did cryo tests, right? Same principle."Normal freezer temperatures do not have the same effect as cryogenic treatment. It is well documented that the behavior of materials at extremely low temperatures changes quite abruptly. Super conductivity being a good example where ultra low temperatures are required to have the desired effect. 1 or 2 kelvin more and no more super conductivity.
Putting metal in a freezer has no permanent effect on its grain structure, conductivity, hardness etc. Cryogenically treating it does affect these parameters.
"Don't be arrogant, Jack. I know more than you about it"
Mighty presumptuous of you Posy seeing as you aren't pals with Jack and thus make big assumptions on his experience.
> > > You did cryo tests, right? Same principle." < < <> > Normal freezer temperatures do not have the same effect as cryogenic treatment. It is well documented that the behavior of materials at .. < <
Okay, I'm gonna stop you right there. I already explained this to your friend cheap-Jack, who also couldn't understand context. Read my reply, and please don't read and take quotes out of their context next time. I don't even want to hear about "cryo" period, that's not the subject of my thread.
> > Putting metal in a freezer has no permanent effect on its grain structure, conductivity, hardness etc. Cryogenically treating it does affect these parameters. < <
First of all, you're assuming you understand the working principle behind the effect. And that it only applies to metal. You're contradicting the research of Cryogenics Int'l re: effect, so what research have you done to be able to say that? The enhancement effect of perception of sound, in my experiments and that of all others I know of, is a permanent one.
> > > "Don't be arrogant, Jack. I know more than you about it" < < <
Mighty presumptuous of you Posy seeing as you aren't pals with Jack and thus make big assumptions on his experience.
What are you talking about? This clown even calls me his "pal"! And I don't see you accusing him of being presumptuous for that, nor for him arrogantly suggesting I don't know anything about the effect, when he knows nothing about me. And when he can't even figure out which type of freezing process I'm talking about. I know guys like your "cheap Jack" all too well. Like most guys on these forums like PHP who only want to argue theory and mostly understand audio via theories, they're all talk. They have very little actual experience in doing pioneering hands-on experiments in audio, and even less in listening skill. You want presumption? I'll go further and say that I've probably done more tests on the domestic freeze effect than anyone on this forum (with the likely exception of Mr. Kait). Now. Let's have cheap Jack respond for himself, and tell me what is the extent of his testing re: domestic freezer, okay? We'll see if you're right.
Hello! Cheap Jack! Yoohoo! I think I asked you this before and like all the other refutations I wrote to you, you never answered! Detail your experiments with the domestic freeze effect please! We have a bet going here!
Don't worry, I'm sure he's gonna be along any minute, and we'll settle this issue.
Objective Audiophile 2007
"This clown even calls me his "pal"!"Ahem...him calling you "pal" wasn't really his way of trying to make friends with you but you seemed to take it this way. He was not really presuming anything with using that word. FWIW, cheap-jack is not my friend any more than he is yours. We debate on this forum, sometimes its fun and sometimes not.
I could really care less if you and Cheap-jack go round and round. I am trying to have a meaningful discussion with you because maybe, just maybe you know something about what I have to admit on the face of it seems a bit of a silly tweak. Now, I am not calling you silly or your experience silly, I am calling the notion of freezing an item and that making it sound permanently better a silly notion. So humor me and start at the beginning, I gather you have tested this many times, right? Under what conditions? Have you tried to repeat it in some kind of controlled manner? Do you have an idea for a working mechanism?
You have to realize that as a scientist, I am by nature a keen observer and skeptic about my own observations. Often my observations have led to interesting discoveries but they have also led to dead ends because not everything is as it seems...even to our extended senses (ie. instruments). Sometimes what looked like an interesting piece of data was, upon further review, a loose connection or picking up stray RFI. THis is why the first observation of a phenomenon is followed by the next 100 until it is sure the phenomenon is real and repeatable. That blip on the screen may be something unique or noise.
"You want presumption? I'll go further and say that I've probably done more tests on the domestic freeze effect than anyone on this forum (with the likely exception of Mr. Kait)."
Well you have me beat, I have only done some cryogenic treating (I have access to liquid N2) and bought some cryoed parts. Never had the time or inclination to put my DAC, cables or amps in the freezer (only the cables would fit anyway).
I tell you what, you tell me which objects in the freezer gave the most dramatic effects and I will test them out. I will put cds or cables in there or hell even a picture of myself. Or even of you if you send me one. As tweaks go I guess its cheap enough.
> > Ahem...him calling you "pal" wasn't really his way of trying to make friends with you but you seemed to take it this way. He was not really presuming anything with using that word. < <Uh... I know that actually. I wasn't being sincere. It was kinda meant as a joke. However, c-J is sincerely annoying with that "pal", "bud", "my friend", crap. It's insulting and I've asked him to cut that crap out, let's see how "civil" he is, and if he does.
> > I am calling the notion of freezing an item and that making it sound permanently better a silly notion. < <
You know what's ironic? That's actually one of the "sanest" tweak ideas in my roster.
> > I gather you have tested this many times, right? < <
Yes.
> > Under what conditions? < <
Usually icy cold.
> > Have you tried to repeat it in some kind of controlled manner? Do you have an idea for a working mechanism? < <
Funny you should mention that... look at the top of this forum, I have posted a request for suggestions for a protocol for the freeze effect test. You can suggest -your- desired controls, conditions, etc. As for the working mechanism.... yes, but I'm afraid its Beltian, and that's just going to get tossed out on its hiney in this place (along with anything that isn't yet established in scientific peer-review journals). I think if I discuss that here, then I'm better off discussing it after that I post my test files, and people can evaluate the first step, which is determining if it works at all.
> > You have to realize that as a scientist, I am by nature a keen observer and skeptic about my own observations. Often my observations have led to interesting discoveries but they have also led to dead ends because not everything is as it seems...even to our extended senses (ie. instruments). < <
You mean like the double-slit experiment?
> > Sometimes what looked like an interesting piece of data was, upon further review, a loose connection or picking up stray RFI. THis is why the first observation of a phenomenon is followed by the next 100 until it is sure the phenomenon is real and repeatable. That blip on the screen may be something unique or noise. < <
I don't know about doing 100 WAV files, but for this reason, I have asked people how many is satisfactory to be certain the phenomenon is real and not a "blip".
> > I tell you what, you tell me which objects in the freezer gave the most dramatic effects and I will test them out. I will put cds or cables in there or hell even a picture of myself. < <
Why not do multiple items? I don't know why people only try one thing at a time. Results are always better when multiplied. It's hard to say which gives most dramatic effects, since I've never really compared one object to another. "Most dramatic effects" is really freezing each component in your system (probably not the answer you're looking for). The amp is a good place to start for me, although most people just start with CD's, because its easy, and they can have an identical control cd that's unfrozen. If you're feeling "experimental", I would say to basically stuff everything you can fit in there at once! I mean if you can get your DAC, amp and all your cables in at once, why not? It would still mean only 2 days processing time (without your stereo). I left detailed instructions the process in a post to cheap-jack, in case you don't know how its done.
The photo in the freezer, although it sounds absurd, does have an effect IMO, and is at least easy to do, if anyone wants to have a go. The "official" way is to get two photos of yourself, one when you were a child, the other a more recent snap. (It could even be a photocopy, but I think the original is better). Sign the photos on the back. Place them in ziploc bags (this is to protect them, but if that's not a concern, don't use the bags as they degrade the sound just a slight tad), then you simply place them in your freezer. If all goes well, what will happen is that sound will improve when the photos are in the freezer, and degrade when they are taken out. It's a pretty 'advanced technique', but those who have experienced this and know it isn't a placebo, know they have to chuck out all their previous presumptions about what is and isn't 'silly' in the science of sound reproduction.
> Or even of you if you send me one. As tweaks go I guess its cheap enough.
You mean by snail mail? Ok, email your address to me and I'll send you a silly tweak. The catch is, you gotta promise to try it, no matter how absurd the premise seems to you, and post results here. But only if they're positive! (just kidding).
I was thinking of a non-beltian way that an MP3 player could be improved by freezing. You are feeding this out to a DAC, right? Perhaps the freezing is simply lowering the jitter of the USB interface? Or perhaps dropping its noise floor by a few microvolts.I guess I could put a picture in the freezer. Doesn't hurt anyone or pollute the environment. If I understand this correctly the picture in the freezer only affects the listener whose picture it is thats in there, right? If that is the case you could have 4 listeners and each one with a picture either in or out of the freezer. A fifth person can handle moving pictures in and out and recording whose is in at a given track. This could be correlated then with those who think they heard a difference. I noticed in a thread above, jeromelang was saying that the sound from a cd is different from the first time played to subsequent playings. Fine then I suggest using analog to eliminate all the "issues" with digital playback. R2R tape would be even better.
> > I was thinking of a non-beltian way that an MP3 player could be improved by freezing. You are feeding this out to a DAC, right? Perhaps the freezing is simply lowering the jitter of the USB interface? Or perhaps dropping its noise floor by a few microvolts. < <I know there's a lot of resistance to Beltian concepts here, and I know that's putting it mildly. But every time I see people trying to figure out explanations for Beltian effects within parameters they are more familiar with (ie. conventional understanding of "logic"), I'm compelled to shake my head to and fro. So it's not that what you're saying isn't "logical", but there's two basic problems with it. Every single audio component responds the same way, so it isn't simply about USB interfaces and DACs.
More importantly, so do non-audio components exhibit similar effects. Yes, people do freeze audio equipment with the idea that the process is somehow affecting the metals, other materials or electronic parts. But photos don't have USB interfaces, and neither do some of the other things I've tried. So once you get far more advanced into this phenomenon, well like everything in audio and life, it doesn't seem as simple as it once did. How can it work then, if the process isn't having a direct effect on the electronics? This is how: the process is treating the object. The 'treated' object now reacts differently with your senses, and anyone else's. It might be said that it's really your senses that are changing, not the object. Why and how does it reactly differently? That's a long story, and a whole nuther can of worms, as they say...
> > I guess I could put a picture in the freezer. Doesn't hurt anyone or pollute the environment. If I understand this correctly the picture in the freezer only affects the listener whose picture it is thats in there, right? < <
Good question, and that's what I thought initially. But apparently not. A lot of Beltists it seems also employ pictures of their loved ones, for similar effects. But before you start complicating things by bringing testers in, and reel-to-reels and doing multiple photos of each, I would start simple with seeing if you can discern the effects yourself, sighted test knowing when your signed photos (young and present) are in the freezer. It might be tricky for you to discern at first if you've never heard a Belt effect, I don't know. I know for beginners, the effect of a Belt treatment removed is usually stronger than in place. If you can establish a distinct improvement in that test, you can go on to having someone remove the photo without your knowledge. Then if you want to get ambitious, I suppose you could test multiple people. Beltists have taken this "tweak" to an art, and they add all sorts of things to the pictures when freezing. One of them, besides signing their name on the back, is to write: 'x 26 'x (which are special coordinates... long, long story...). (I'm just adding that because why not, it might help).
As for your playback source, consider that analogue might have its own issues. A tape rubbing against a playback head is not the most precise mechanism either, and in my long forgotten experiences with cassette, can sound a bit different each time as well. If you're worried about differences with CD playback, why not just try Jerome's idea of turning off the player between each repeat of the test? I use CD all the time in my testing, and I can still make meaningful discernments.
> Mighty presumptuous of you _ seeing as you aren't pals with _
> and thus make big assumptions on his experience.
> > > I'm curious to know how many here simply don't believe it, and if it's yet another idea that Prop Headers would rip to shreds, arguing "it cant posssibly work because".My inclination to disbelieve that it works is not unjustified since nobody suggesting this tweak will ever provide any technical or scientific reasoning as to why it would make ANY difference whatsoever, and why that difference is sure to be an improvement. Is it being said that a consumer freezer is capable of bringing items down to the same temperatures as a cryogenic chamber? Likely not.
So, if metal is in a solid state when at room temperature, at what temperature do you consider it to be "frozen"? If a vacuum tube is 100 degrees celcius when operational, would it not be considered "relatively frozen" when at room temperature and just "more frozen" in a freezer? Yes, poeople can die in freezers, and meat lasts longer, but what happens to electronic components? And if something happens, why is it "better"? Just what "change" does freezing components in a domestic freezer actually impart? How is the "not previously frozen" part now inferior? Is the change temporary? Or indefinate? Because that is what we discuss here at PHP. We discuss what it does. Not whether or not someone has tried it, or how someone "feels" about it. We talk about the science and technology behind the claim.
Are you up for that? If so, perhaps you could tell us how YOU think it works. We don't need to try everything to compare things to known principles or discuss theories do we? Do we need to drop every object on the planet from a building to be "certain" that acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m/s^2? Of course we don't.
But to be completely honest? I think this post is not in the interest of learning or exchanging ideas, but an attempt to get a specific reaction to prove some sort of "sociological" point about those who typically post here.
If you truly want to discuss the possibility that domestic freezing of some components can have ANY kind of effect, why not start with a thesis statement, or some sort of statement that defines for us WHY you think this is possible. If you said "I think domestic freezing has effects similar to cryogenic treatment because although not as extreme, the mechanism is very similar (reducing the temperature of an item for a finite length of time and allowing it to slowly return to room temperature)." We could talk about that then. But running away and hiding after saying "I know it works because I tried it and you're just a moron because you won't try it too" DOES NOT WASH HERE.
"Proof is in the pudding" does not wash here. We don't design power systems and bridges and human life safety systems with "proof in the pudding" techniques. We use math, technology and hard science. Although things are testing before use, they are DESIGNED FIRST and TESTED LATER. We're not making pudding. We're trying to understand what things will AFFECT sound and of those, which do so in a positive manner.
You can't rip "Proof is in the pudding" to shreads. There is nothing there to rip up.
> > My inclination to disbelieve that it works is not unjustified since nobody suggesting this tweak will ever provide any technical or scientific reasoning as to why it would make ANY difference whatsoever, and why that difference is sure to be an improvement. < <So your inclination is to immediately disbelieve any idea that someone claims improves sound, if you don't have a technical or scientific explanation for such that suits you?
> > Is it being said that a consumer freezer is capable of bringing items down to the same temperatures as a cryogenic chamber? Likely not. < <
Not likely not. Not. Not only would that be a ridiculous claim, but its irrelevant. Both methods can improve things. Whether one is more effective than the other, I don't know, I haven't seen research on that.
> > So, if metal is in a solid state when at room temperature, at what temperature do you consider it to be "frozen"?
It's really not that complicated. Try this: freeze a piece of metal, and once you think it's frozen, give it a good lick. If your tongue sticks to it, it's frozen. Or, about the time it might take to freeze your groceries. Or, say about 8-12 hours.
> > If a vacuum tube is 100 degrees celcius when operational, would it not be considered "relatively frozen" when at room temperature and just "more frozen" in a freezer? < <
That's a strange question. The operational temp of an item has nothing to do with freezing temps. Any item can be thrown into a kiln and reach hundreds of degrees. That doeesn't make it more "frozen" when it sits at room temp. The one thing I haven't frozen actually, is vacuum tubes. But I have no reason to doubt it would probably respond very well to the procedure.
> > Yes, poeople can die in freezers, and meat lasts longer, but what happens to electronic components? < <
No, it's not just electronic components.
> > And if something happens, why is it "better"? Just what "change" does freezing components in a domestic freezer actually impart? < <
There are obviously changes that occur, but it's hard for me to say what, and some of the theories are not going to make any sense to you anyway; especially if you haven't experimented. But it might be said that it's not a very well understood or researched phenomenon. That itself is worthy of debate. Also, I do think it's a very misunderstood one.
> > How is the "not previously frozen" part now inferior? < <
Doesn't sound as good as its frozen counterpart (assuming the process was done correctly, and that the listener has the skills to discern the difference).
> > Is the change temporary? < <
Or indefinate? < <
Neither. The change is "indefinite".
> > Because that is what we discuss here at PHP. We discuss what it does. Not whether or not someone has tried it, or how someone "feels" about it. We talk about the science and technology behind the claim. < <
Fair enough. But wouldn't you have to actually know something about the phenomenon you're talking about before you can discuss it?
> > Are you up for that? If so, perhaps you could tell us how YOU think it works. We don't need to try everything to compare things to known principles or discuss theories do we? < <
But you're assuming the Freeze Effect relies on well known principles, or even well known theories. I don't.
> > But to be completely honest? I think this post is not in the interest of learning or exchanging ideas, but an attempt to get a specific reaction to prove some sort of "sociological" point about those who typically post here. < <
To be completely honest, I didn't think you were sincere about learning or exchanging new ideas either. So no, I don't think you and me are gonna be debating anything any time soon. Some of your recent responses on the group, especially around me, left me with that impression. For example... You posted this in a thread from May of PWB, concerning a cessation of personal attacks:
-----------------------------------------
.but below is a link to a page of "Free Improvements" from what appears to be an authentic "P.W.B. Electronics" website.Free Sound Improvements for all. Get 'em while they're hot!
-----------------------------------------Now, what does that have to do with the topic of the thread, or your pet fetish, the topic of this forum? Were you making an attempt to prove some "sociological point"? Or were you, as it appears (since you've stated here that you don't believe in such ideas), making mockery attacks in a thread calling for the cessation of such attacks? When I asked you, you ignored my query. Next.
Somehow, you latched on the screw alignment idea, which is another idea that proposes an improvement in sound. Instead of "proposing a thesis for it", or an explanation of why it can't work (after you've experimented with it), you wrote, without knowing anything about it or having ever tested it:
---------------------------------
Wouldn't want to be appraising audio equipment with a SCREW LOOSE...Cheers,
Presto
---------------------------------Then, in yet another message on this, you provided us with a reason for your closed-minded intolerance of this proposal. You said:
---------------------------------------
I will not be using this free tweak. I think it does nothing to improve sonics and only risks damaging things.
-----------------------------------------
Your reasoning behind the assertion that it does nothing to improve sonics was NOT stated in any way, shape or form. Contrary to your pet fetish, the theme of this forum. The "reason we are all here at PHP", as you say. Not very scientific of you, let alone "hard scientific". Furthermore, you claimed that it "risks damaging things", after doing an assessment and showing a basis for your concerns. But you made this conclusion before submitting your work for peer review.
Had you done so, here's what the peer-review board would have come back with:
"Who said you couldn't LOOSEN the screw, you nincompoop? REJECTED FOR REASONS OF RUBBISHNESS. Don't waste this board's time submiting papers like this again".
This simple demonstration you gave us of your analytical "talents", over an extremely simple audio idea, shows that you are not qualified to judge any audio product or idea, if this is the kind of conclusions you're prepared to make. It's obvious that you rejected a perfectly good audio improvement idea, because you didn't understand the concept, you couldn't get past your prejudices toward it, not even to actually try it (which would have taken far less time to do than to write up a technical analysis of it for the rest of the group), and you came to premature conclusions about it, based on your premature judgements of it. In a word, you're bad for audio. Maybe your expertise lies in power systems, bridges or "human life safety systems". But personally, i wouldn't trust you to design a remote control unit for a cd player.
In case I didn't post enough evidence of your intellectual dishonesty and insincerity,
there's also this immature character-attacking flame post from you to indicate that perhaps no, you're not interested in learning anything new or exchanging ideas:"Lonlieness+Boredom+Belief+Pseudo-Science = Posey Rorer (nt) -"
Sounds like "Presto The Troll" didn't get his attention fix from Posy today. Is that why you're flailing your arms trying to get my attention, in attack post after attack post?
I think you are a PRIME EXAMPLE of my point about those who show prejudice and intolerance of ideas that challenge conventional views of the science of sound reproduction, and I don't need to add any more to prove it.
> > "Proof is in the pudding" does not wash here. We don't design power systems and bridges and human life safety systems with "proof in the pudding" techniques. < <
Where did you get the idea that AA is for the discussion of power systems, bridges and human life safety systems? I think you might be on the wrong discussion board. This is the one about audio.
> > We're trying to understand what things will AFFECT sound and of those, which do so in a positive manner. < <
What a coincidence, so am I. I do that all the time. That requires experimentation. Empty talk won't tell you, it can only, at best, point you in some direction that may or may not help. The proof, listen carefully, "is in the pudding". Once you understand what the pudding is trying to tell you, then you can try to understand what's in the recipe. You don't do it backwards and then expect to get anywhere in audio.
> > You can't rip "Proof is in the pudding" to shreads. There is nothing there to rip up. < <
Correct. Pudding is quite "unrippable". But it is bakeable.
...of that old saw.But: Is 90 proof "better" than 40 proof?...
Posey:Thanks for all of the creative writing, but I don't see any substantial rebuttle worth my time, so I'm not reading all of it.
The type of experiments that have been cited with respect to the "freeze effects" are not repeatable because no procedure has been defined or made available. Nobody has ANY idea of what you consider to be important control variables. Even the dependent variables are not defined. As for the one fellow that had "improved step response" after looking at waveforms... Again, this persons "test results" are useless if the procedure for his test is not provided. How can I repeat the experiment and validate any results? I can't see the results, and I don't have the procedure for the experiment. How did he capture these waveforms? This rhetoric is of no value - it's a bunch of pseudo-scientific heresay.
How on earth is it of ANY value to compare subjective appraisals done with uncontrolled experiments with absolutely NO consistency? If you claim that temperature changes the physical properties of things (and we know it does - it's called contraction and expansion), that's fine. But there are certain things that become important.
We AT LEAST need to know the temperature of the freezer, the duration of the freezing process, the duration of the "warm up period", and the final temperature the object is at when it is put into use.
So step up Posey. How long does it take to freeze a CD? Are the effects you are claiming to be able to impart with freezing dependent on the temperature of the freezer, the duration of the freeze, or both?
You speak of advancing audio. Here is your chance. Big words. Very small evidence of any "advancements" here. Step up or step down. You choose. Until you define the procedure for your experiment and what theories are to be tested and how, there simply IS no experiment that anyone is obligated to try or even acknowlege the significance of.
Then again, some people consider kissing the same sex in college to be "experimentation"...
But that's not the definition used here in PHP.
drop two unequal weights off the Leaning Tower of Pisa, logic dictated that the heavier object would fall faster. It takes very little effort or cost to place something in your freezer for a day or two to actually test the hypothesis. Try it and it may surprise you....or not.
Unclestu52:Yes, you're right I could. But how is that going to enable me to have a technical or scientific discussion here on PHP afterwards? I will be no better equipped to hold such a discussion than before doing the "experiment" (and I use that term loosely).
I tried it. I heard nothing.
I tried it. I heard something.Who cares?
All I am saying is that trial and error tweaks substantiated with nothing more than listening test in an uncontrolled test environment cannot form the basis for a scientific or technical discussion. I can talk about how I felt about the test. Or whether or not I believe the tweak works, or the test was valid. But that's as far as it can go. And that's all I am trying to convey here.
Here are some questions I would like to know:
What temperature should my freezer be at?
How long should I keep the CD in there?
Should I time how long it takes for the CD to return to room temperature?
What if condensation should form on the CD's surface, but then evaporate later? Should I clean the CD?Where are the controls in this experiment Stu? This is non-science if there are no controls. Have you people actually ever participated in a real scientific experiment or study? I am thinking... no.
Perhaps it's time we all gave the "science experiment" and "scientific process" wikis a once over, yes?
What layman can possibly obtain all the necessary test equipment needed for testing of various hypotheses? I personally own a Gauss meter, a Genrad SPL meter, various o'scopes, various hand held ohm meters, one bench type ohm meter, Crown distortion meter, microscopes, etc., etc. I still do not have the capability to measure every possible parameter which may have an effect on sound.
What kind of instrumentation do most manufacturers have? Probably a bit more than I have, and probably newer and more sensitive gear, but probably not much more.I once presented an interesting hypothesis and demoed the hypothesis to a manufacturer, who was intrigued with what he and his staff heard. Not content to simply accept my hypothesis, he bought the necessary instrumentation to measure the effect. He was able to measure the effect, but the test gear cost him $100,000. While he was pleased to have 'black box' verification, he was also a little put off by the fact that a set of human ears could clearly hear the effect without the need of 100,000 dollars worth of equipment.
Take the manufacture of perfume. Either you like the smell or you don't, but the best 'noses' can detect one part per trillion as can be determined by spectrographic analysis. Do you need the spectrographic analysis in order to make the judgement?
The Scottish government commissioned an expensive research project where they similarly analyzed the components which were responsible for the various flavors of the single malts. At the end, they had chemical corroboration for every variation which flavored the various brews. What does this have to do with your personal enjoyment of a particular label?
Music, like odors, can be very subjective. If you do something and it sounds better to your taste, that is all that is important. Others can claim it is merely a placebo, but it doesn't matter, if you can hear a difference.
I know from my experience, tracing the reasons for a certain effect can take years to track down. A lot of individual research needs to be made, and very few of us mere listeners can afford, let alone have the space for certain pieces of test gear.
But to answer your question, I have recorded multiple discs from the same CDR batch and using the same recorder. I have frozen one copy in a regular freezer, one with dry ice, and one with a combination of dry ice and liquid nitrogen. And yes, I have done this at different times with different discs. I have friends who have also replicated the experiment, one being a PHD with a degree in molecular biology. We have no equipment available to measure any
difference other that our ears (and eyes in the case of a DVD)can offer.What's holding you back? Galileo's experiment was not explained til Newton presents his great work many years later. Does that lack of explanation invalidate what he observed? Here the observation precedes the explanation, but much of science and technology developed from chance observation. Look at Fleming and the discovery of penicillin. There are many other happenstances in the world. Remember Descartes? If you only use what has a rational explanation, that's your prerogative, but what is the price of a little harmless experimentation? Why have to wait for someone else to do work that you can replicate easily?
I personally think a lot of tweaks are snake oil. Digital "reclocking" devices, for example. If someone thinks otherwise, that's fine. I've never had a need for people to "prove" something that I personally couldn't hear or thought was scientifically far-fetched.
I see plenty of them popping up.Draw your own conclusions!
nt
May Belt:"Why is not Prop Head section inundated with engineers describing THEIR experiences and THEIR sound after trying this technique?"Engineers are supposed to be doing subjective appraisals of tweaks in Propeller Head Plaza according to May Belt. I though PHP was for technical or scientific discussions, and not sharing of subjective appraisals made during uncontrolled and highly biased test conditions.
May Belt: "Over 20 years since it was first described as improving the sound of audio equipment and my questions are even more pertinent than if I had asked them 20 years ago. Precisely because engineers have had plenty of time, in that 20 years, to do all the experiments they would need to do !!!"
Once again - engineers to the rescue. People make claims, but 'some nameless and faceless and unpaid engineers' are supposed to do all the work.
It is the sole responsibility of the individual(s) making the claim to provide supporting evidence and refute any contradictory evidence NOT those who may doubt the accuracy of the claim.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
> > > "Engineers are supposed to be doing subjective appraisals of tweaks in Propeller Head Plaza according to May Belt. I though PHP was for technical or scientific discussions, and not sharing of subjective appraisals made during uncontrolled and highly biased test conditions." < < <Excuse me Presto but these 'engineers' are making AUDIO equipment - equipment for people to listen to - to get pleasure from listening to music - not merely making microwave ovens (although I must admit, microwave ovens are really quite technically amazing) !!
May:Audio engineers or not, they are not required to substantiate claims that you are making. Only YOU can substantiate ON THIS FORUM the claims YOU are putting forth ON THIS FORUM.
You seem to only want to talk about tweaks that are:
A) Born of accident, trial-and-error, or some mystical secret
B) Substantiated or validated with only uncontrolled listening tests and beliefNeither of these things are ever going to be accepted here, and the sooner realize that, the sooner you can find a more suitable environment for your posts.
And I guarantee that once you do, the personal attacks, derisive posts, and rude comments will all cease immediately.
nt
Posey:I do not value the advancement of audio heh? Ah, but what a subtle but deep deep dig that was Posey! Very well done! You're such a card. But I am afraid that I've forgotten more about audio and audio engineering concepts than you'll ever know in your entire lifetime.
Seriously though, I would take a substantial break and perhaps spend less time typing and more time reading and researching so that perhaps ONE DAY, you might have learned enough to be a valuable contributor to this forum. Then again, being a shill for May Belt and PWB Electronics is really a good "job" for you, seeing as how all it requires is a big mouth and a grating personality. You're overqualified really...
Poor poor lonely Posey Rorer.
I do hope May will be your friend after all you've gone through for her. Really I do.
Just click on the (A) next to the moniker.Home freezing would not be a reproducible treatment for audio gear. Most gear is transported by truck, and any truck shipment might pass through Wyoming in the winter, where it would get colder than it would in a domestic freezer. Thus, unless one had a detailed history of how the unit was manufactured and shipped, presence or absence of any effect would mean nothing.
.
nt
.
We conservatives want to save and protect what's best from the past -- i.e. conserve. Conservatives like those great old LPs and tapes, and in my case, 78s; without conservatives you'd have... only digital.No, what this place is infested with, is ORTHODOXY.
If it ain't in the textbook, skedaddle! Or off with your head!
As for cryo, audio folk have been experimenting with that for nearly two decades. Stereophile formerly offered its CDs in cryo versions. Tubes and other items are often cryoed. Heck, real instrument-makers employ cryo. This shouldn't be controversial, yet it still is.
We shall see where this discussion leads.
Somehow I think he is referring to the photo in the kitchen freezer effect and not cryo treatment, which seems to be a real and repeatable effect.
> > Somehow I think he is referring to the photo in the kitchen freezer effect and not cryo treatment, which seems to be a real and repeatable effect. < <No I'm not, and thank you for asking - it avoids so many unnecessary misunderstandings. Just to make it clear for everyone, when I ask if you don't believe in the freeze effect, I am referring to improving sound by placing things in a domestic FREEZER, and by "things" I mean basically anything you care to freeze for this effect. Audio equipment, for example.
BTW, I'm also betting you're just guessing when you say the photo is not a real and repeatable effect. So what's your assertion based on?
s
"BTW, I'm also betting you're just guessing when you say the photo is not a real and repeatable effect. So what's your assertion based on?
"You can prove to me that it is a real and repeatable effect? From what? Your own personal experience? I saw David Copperfield make an elephant disappear once. I am sure he could do it repeatably (as in every night he had a show),fooling me every time, and everyone who was there for sure thought it was a real disappearance even though they new it was just a show, bias be damned it sure looked like he made it disappear!!
I suspected you meant normal freezing and not cryogenics but it is better to err on the side of caution. In that case then I would say you are simply wrong. Materials behave very differently at cryogenic temperatures than they do at normal merely "cold" temperatures, which to materials such as metals that are already frozen are not that cold at all. At cryogenic temperatures there are fundamental changes to the structure in metals that end up being permanent. Cryogenics is defined by NIST to start at -180°C.
"Disbelieve" is rather ambiguous from a logical point of view. Thus, the dictionaries we tend to find:-have no belief
-refuse belief
-reject beliefThese are not at all the same thing.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
morricab wrote:> > I suspected you meant normal freezing and not cryogenics but it is better to err on the side of caution. < <
Brilliant. Did you surmise that all by yourself from the fact that I wrote, in the message you are responding to: "Just to make it clear for everyone, when I ask if you don't believe in the freeze effect, I am referring to improving sound by placing things in a domestic FREEZER"?
> > You can prove to me that it is a real and repeatable effect? < <
No son, you're seriously confused. YOU are the one who said "the photo (in the freezer) is not a real and repeatable effect". Ergo, the onus is on YOU to prove to me that it is not a real and repeatable effect. Keep in mind that I saw David Copperfield once try to turn Lake Erie into blood. And he failed. Repeatedly.
> > In that case then I would say you are simply wrong. Materials behave very differently at cryogenic temperatures than they do at normal merely "cold" temperatures, which to materials such as metals that are already frozen are not that cold at all. At cryogenic temperatures there are fundamental changes to the structure in metals that end up being permanent. Cryogenics is defined by NIST to start at -180°C. < <
Save your strawman for someone else. You must be the 10th guy here now trying to argue with me that cryo is different temps than a domestic freezer, WHEN I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE!!!
"No son, you're seriously confused. YOU are the one who said "the photo (in the freezer) is not a real and repeatable effect". "I never said this.
As PatD has pointed out your the confused one, Son. No need to rehash your lack of understanding about scientific method.
"Save your strawman for someone else."No strawman just trying to get at whether or not you think the "freezer effect" that you seem to think is a real effect is the same as the effects reported from cryogenic treatment. If you think it is the same mechanism of action then I would disagree with you. If you have another proposal for a mechanism then please state it.
No one is arguing that cryo temperature is much lower than the home freezer. That much is obvious to everyone. You have simply constructed a strawman argument.One shouldn't get too hung up on the temperature thing. That is if one is actually serious about getting to the bottom of this thing.
...in question is not so interested.
to claim to know what I am interested in and not. Why just tonight I made a big tweak to my system. I added electrostatic subwoofers to my smaller electrostatic panels with an active crossover and a second amp! I love to experiment with audio.
And all this time I thought he was one of the good guys.
x
nt
PR
"YOU are the one who said "the photo (in the freezer) is not a real and repeatable effect". Ergo, the onus is on YOU to prove to me that it is not a real and repeatable effect."But one cannot prove the null hypothesis and that is what morricab somewhat carelessly stated. The real problem is to prove that freezing pictures improves or even changes the sound. And the burden of proof is on those who do.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
therefore I don't believe you should draw any other conclusions from a general lack of response.
Plus, you're interacting with me, so does that mean you're "peculiar"? Simple fact of life you need to understand: Bad attitudes will get you bad attitudes in return. Plus, I have more people responding to me than I can handle at the moment, thank you for your concern. So you're also wrong about that. And there's something like 30 responses to my thread, asking if anyone disbelieves the freeze effect. So, at the risk of repeating myself, you're wrong again. Having proven that you're wrong, that still leaves the question open as to why my question has gone unanswered, but replies are still pouring in by the hour. My current thinking is people simply don't have the courage to admit they believe or disbelieve the phenomenon, either way. Most seem more comfortable using the thread as a springboard to launch more personal attacks. It's the people of PHP that will decide whether serious audio discussions are possible here or not.
nt
There: you said it.
nt
Ever watch David Copperfield make a large object disappear in front of hundreds? We can trust our senses completely, right? RIGHT!! The funny thing is that with a magician you KNOW its fake but you are still fooled and your sense report what your brain can't accept. That is why that particular profession is so fascinating to so many people.
All I'm saying is that experienced listeners have learned, by definition, to trust their senses more than, say, the man standing under bridge. You are an experienced listener, aren't you?
He's probably not doing as much guessing as you do when you go down to Pimmit Run and grad a bunch of smooth pebbles and stick them in a jar you bought from Ikea! Brilliant.
it would have been funnier if you could type.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: