|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.156.196.162
In Reply to: Who here DOESN'T believe in The Freeze Effect? (Freezing items will improve sound?) posted by Posy Rorer on April 10, 2007 at 11:00:17:
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
Follow Ups:
> > 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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: