|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
84.12.243.187
In Reply to: Does Cryoing Work For Everything But Audio? posted by thetubeguy1954 on April 11, 2007 at 07:18:34:
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.
Follow Ups:
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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: