On another newsgroup, the subject of cryogenic treatment of brass
instruments came up, with the claim that it was "snake oil" and offered no
improvement. On a trumpet newsgroup, I've seen postings by people who
claimed that their horns sounded much better after cryogenic treatment.
The general claim was that the treatment aligned the molecules and
relieved internal stresses in the metal, or something like that.

Perhaps you metal guys have some insight on cryogenic treatment as it
pertains to brass, and brass instruments in particular. Any basis in fact,
or pure BS?

--
Jedd Haas - Artist
http://www.gallerytungsten.com
http://www.epsno.com

"Jedd Haas" wrote: (clip)Any basis in fact, or pure BS?
^^^^^^^^^^^
Has anyone ever done a blind test on this? This is the kind of thing that
can be enormously influenced by the placebo effect.

Cryogenics is a weird thing. The only documented eveidence of any effect is
with ferrous materials. I know of no other documentation for having any
molecular effects on any other material: non ferrous or plastics, etc.
Having said that, though, I did a little experiment that I learned of in
other newsgroups. I made two CD copies of a disc and simply froze one in a
regular freezer for a few days. The frozen disc had a bit more bass and
resolution. The effect seems permanent, too and this is without going to
cryogenic temperatures. Perhaps it affects the thermal dyes used in a CD-R,
but even in blind tests, most listeners can pick out the difference. Seems
to me we need a little more research into this (probably means too much $'s,
though).
Oh yeah, I know a trombone player who had his instrument cryo'd. His comment
was that it didn't affect the sound so much as it affected the slide action.

Stu


Stu

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:34:22 GMT, audiodir wrote:
Cryogenics is a weird thing. The only documented eveidence of any effect is
with ferrous materials. I know of no other documentation for having any
molecular effects on any other material: non ferrous or plastics, etc.
Having said that, though, I did a little experiment that I learned of in
other newsgroups. I made two CD copies of a disc and simply froze one in a
regular freezer for a few days. The frozen disc had a bit more bass and
resolution. The effect seems permanent, too and this is without going to
cryogenic temperatures.

There are more than a few reasons to doubt that there is a real change here.
And it's trivial to extract the song files from that CD, and compare
the two disks.

Perhaps it affects the thermal dyes used in a CD-R,
but even in blind tests, most listeners can pick out the difference.

Do you have an actual study to back that up? The problem is, it's a digital
storage medium. They're either zeros or ones. The bits aren't going
to be come zero-er, or one-er, just because it's been chilled, and if the
bits get flipped, that's going to induce noise, not "a bit more bass and
resolution". I won't even get into the error correction bits built into
the format that also prevent this sort of thing from being plausible.

People were convinced that green magic marker around the edge of a CD
made them sound better too, but that also isn't going to change zeros into
ones, and even if it could, it wouldn't do them in an audibly pleasing
and predictable way.

Seems
to me we need a little more research into this (probably means too much $'s,
though).

You could do it for free, with a Mac and iTunes. Or maybe even the PC
version of iTunes. Or, if you agree that a CD-R is a digital storage medium,
fill it with whatever data you want, freeze one, don't freeze the other,
and run an MD5 checksum of both disks to verify that there's no difference.

Hard to say about the brass instruments. Without a controlled
experiment, people are likely to hear what they think they want to hear,
just like your frozen CD-R's.

Dave Hinz

Actually, checksum didn't reveal any difference. I doubt if the cold
treatment did anything to the dyes, but I inserted that coment just in case
someone would speculate about the dye lots. I actually beleve it is doing
something to the plastic.


Stu

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:00:00 GMT, audiodir wrote:
Actually, checksum didn't reveal any difference.

Well then.

I doubt if the cold
treatment did anything to the dyes, but I inserted that coment just in case
someone would speculate about the dye lots. I actually beleve it is doing
something to the plastic.

If the checksum didn't change, the data didn't change. If the data didn't
change, you're reading it through the plastic, from the die, so nothing
changed. You've already disproven it yourself.

I tend to think the only difference would be that their lips would
freeze to the 'treated' horns.
--
Fred R
________________
Drop TROU to email.

I have found that if I freeze a book before I read it, it becomes more
meaningful.

"Leo Lichtman" writes:

I have found that if I freeze a book before I read it, it becomes more
meaningful.

I tried freezing vodka, but I don't think it makes a better martini.

Gregm

Actually this is a common misconception. The actual reading of the disc
is a totally analogue process. The reflected optical signal from the
pits on the CD is not a strict "one" or "zero". The signal varies within
a lower range which we call a "zero", and a higher range which we call a
"one". There is a "guard" band between these two signal levels. It is
only the digital circuitry that comes after the disc reading process that
causes "binning" of the two signals into either a "one" or a "zero". It
may not happen very often, but it is possible to introduce errors at the
analogue reading stage. How this may or may not affect the sound I'll
leave for others to debate. However, recall that many moons ago jitter
was ridiculed and totally dismissed in the press as being an implausable
cause for any affect on the sound. If I recall, it was one of these so-
called nut case audiophiles that originally discovered and measured this
effect. I do believe that low jitter circuitry is now pretty much
standard in any decent quality digital equipment. Cheers.

Do you have an actual study to back that up? The problem is, it's a
digital storage medium. They're either zeros or ones.

"C.A. Decker" writes:

Actually this is a common misconception. The actual reading of the disc
is a totally analogue process. The reflected optical signal from the
pits on the CD is not a strict "one" or "zero". The signal varies within
a lower range which we call a "zero", and a higher range which we call a
"one". There is a "guard" band between these two signal levels. It is
only the digital circuitry that comes after the disc reading process that
causes "binning" of the two signals into either a "one" or a "zero". It
may not happen very often, but it is possible to introduce errors at the
analogue reading stage. How this may or may not affect the sound I'll
leave for others to debate. However, recall that many moons ago jitter
was ridiculed and totally dismissed in the press as being an implausable
cause for any affect on the sound. If I recall, it was one of these so-
called nut case audiophiles that originally discovered and measured this
effect. I do believe that low jitter circuitry is now pretty much
standard in any decent quality digital equipment. Cheers.

Any bits flipping because of analog effects is an error reading the
medium. It happens, which is why there are ecc and checksums. Their
job is to detect and/or recover from the error- the same kind of thing
is done in more expensive computer memory to help recover from cosmic
rays flipping bits here and there, among other things.

However, how the audio nuts go from arbitrary bits flipping between
states to an organized effect like "better bass" instead of a simple
increase in random noise is very curious to say the least. Particularly
when such claims are not backed up by before and after disc images
showing the beneficial effects and organized data tables showing the
effect as a function of time-at-temperature.

Gregm

(somebody wrote, but this guy deleted the attributes for while top-posting,)

Do you have an actual study to back that up? The problem is, it's a
digital storage medium. They're either zeros or ones.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:49:45 GMT, C.A. Decker wrote:
Actually this is a common misconception.

What, that a digital disk is digital?

The actual reading of the disc
is a totally analogue process. The reflected optical signal from the
pits on the CD is not a strict "one" or "zero". The signal varies within
a lower range which we call a "zero", and a higher range which we call a
"one". There is a "guard" band between these two signal levels.

Yes. And if the bit is above the upper limit, it's a one. If it's below
the lower limit, it's a zero. If it's in the middle, it's an _error_,
and the error correction bits tell your reader how to correct it.

It is
only the digital circuitry that comes after the disc reading process that
causes "binning" of the two signals into either a "one" or a "zero".

Right, so far.

It
may not happen very often, but it is possible to introduce errors at the
analogue reading stage.

Of course it is. Scratches, bad pits, and so on. That's why the correction
bits are there.

How this may or may not affect the sound I'll
leave for others to debate.

If you're taking signal and turning it into something else, it's called
_noise_.

However, recall that many moons ago jitter
was ridiculed and totally dismissed in the press as being an implausable
cause for any affect on the sound. If I recall, it was one of these so-
called nut case audiophiles that originally discovered and measured this
effect. I do believe that low jitter circuitry is now pretty much
standard in any decent quality digital equipment. Cheers.

A lot of really stupid ideas have been ridiculed as well. I think this is
one thing that has always turned me off from the "high end audiophile"
people - they can't quantify their theories, and try to justify them as
good because some other theory turned out to be good when it was initially
ridiculed.

For every person thought to be a fool who turns out to be a genius, there
are 999 who really, really were just fools.

"audiodir" skrev i en meddelelse
news:ib2Yd.77923$uc.67663@trnddc08...
Cryogenics is a weird thing. The only documented eveidence of any effect
is
with ferrous materials. I know of no other documentation for having any
molecular effects on any other material: non ferrous or plastics, etc.

I bought some cryo-treated strings for my bassguitar some years ago...

They were just as expensive as my usual brand ( DR ) but lasted only half
the time before the sound went "dull"..

Having said that, though, I did a little experiment that I learned of in
other newsgroups. I made two CD copies of a disc and simply froze one in a
regular freezer for a few days. The frozen disc had a bit more bass and
resolution. The effect seems permanent, too and this is without going to
cryogenic temperatures. Perhaps it affects the thermal dyes used in a
CD-R,
but even in blind tests, most listeners can pick out the difference. Seems
to me we need a little more research into this (probably means too much
$'s,
though).

Errh.. Did you use directional cables* in your listening setup ?

I would really love an explanation of how freezing a CDR should change the
quality of the sound, when played in a CD player.. You see.. CDs are not
like old LPs... On a CD the music is stored in a digital format, much like
on a floppydisc.. The way the data is stored is a string of bits ( basically
1/0 or On/Off ).. These bits shouldnt change a whole lot, even if you freeze
the CD....... LPs are a completely different animal, basically printing the
movement of the speakercone in the vinyl disc directly..

Oh yeah, I know a trombone player who had his instrument cryo'd. His
comment
was that it didn't affect the sound so much as it affected the slide
action.

One effect it may have is that it most likely cleans or atleast loosens a
lot of the "gunk" that sticks to the brass-- That, in turn, could affect the
sound of the instrument..

/peter ( still wiping coffee off the keyboard after reading the CD story )

Actually, I think the weird thing here is what people in audio will
think they can hear.

Don't do a blind test; do a double blind test. Then the truth comes out.

Steve

audiodir wrote:

Cryogenics is a weird thing. The only documented eveidence of any effect is
with ferrous materials. I know of no other documentation for having any
molecular effects on any other material: non ferrous or plastics, etc.
Having said that, though, I did a little experiment that I learned of in
other newsgroups. I made two CD copies of a disc and simply froze one in a
regular freezer for a few days. The frozen disc had a bit more bass and
resolution. The effect seems permanent, too and this is without going to
cryogenic temperatures. Perhaps it affects the thermal dyes used in a CD-R,
but even in blind tests, most listeners can pick out the difference. Seems
to me we need a little more research into this (probably means too much $'s,
though).
Oh yeah, I know a trombone player who had his instrument cryo'd. His comment
was that it didn't affect the sound so much as it affected the slide action.

Stu


Stu

"Steve Smith" wrote in message
...
Actually, I think the weird thing here is what people in audio will
think they can hear.

Don't do a blind test; do a double blind test. Then the truth comes out.

Let me put it this way. "DBT" is strictly taboo on certain audio forums.

Seriously! Actual moderated groups, cannot seriously mention the subject.

Tim

--
"California is the breakfast state: fruits, nuts and flakes."
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

In article ib2Yd.77923$uc.67663@trnddc08, "audiodir"
wrote:
The only documented evidence of any effect is
with ferrous materials.
Not quite true. Tin, solder and presumably bronze suffer a peculiar kind of
degradation at low temperature. It was the cause of the failure of one polar
expedition, when the solder on their tins failed and they lost most of their
food.
Tin is not stable below a transition temperature when it becomes powdery due
to transformation from the matallic form into another allotrope.
- G.H.Ireland

--
igor
_____________________________________________
Acorn RISC OS4
_____________________________________________

"Mr G H Ireland" wrote in message
...
Tin is not stable below a transition temperature when it becomes powdery
due
to transformation from the matallic form into another allotrope.

Fortunately, bronze consists of (alpha) copper and (epsilon) copper-tin
intermetallic (which is hard, giving strength). Although I can't say if
said intermetallic decomposes as much lower temperatures into something
worse.

Which reminds me, anyone care to guess if 10-15% Sn bronze can be
precipitation hardened? Why/why not?
(In case you are curious
http://www2.umist.ac.uk/material/res...e/cusndiag.htm

Tim

--
"California is the breakfast state: fruits, nuts and flakes."
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

In article , Jedd Haas says...

The general claim was that the treatment aligned the molecules and
relieved internal stresses in the metal, or something like that.

Of course it made them 'sound better.' They paid a lot of
money for that to happen, right? So they'll sound 'better'
afterwards because all that money went in there for *something*.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen writes:

In article , Jedd Haas says...

The general claim was that the treatment aligned the molecules and
relieved internal stresses in the metal, or something like that.

Of course it made them 'sound better.' They paid a lot of
money for that to happen, right? So they'll sound 'better'
afterwards because all that money went in there for *something*.

Jim

I want to get into the business of making $200 wooden knobs to go on the
amp volume controls for the audio freaks. Beats working for a living...

Gregm

The instruments usually sound a lot better when warmed up if the musicians
also got the cryogenic treatment at the same time.
Must be the thawing effect... kind of spring-like. :-)

cheers
T.Alan

"Jedd Haas" wrote in message
...
On another newsgroup, the subject of cryogenic treatment of brass
instruments came up, with the claim that it was "snake oil" and offered no
improvement. On a trumpet newsgroup, I've seen postings by people who
claimed that their horns sounded much better after cryogenic treatment.
The general claim was that the treatment aligned the molecules and
relieved internal stresses in the metal, or something like that.

Perhaps you metal guys have some insight on cryogenic treatment as it
pertains to brass, and brass instruments in particular. Any basis in fact,
or pure BS?

--
Jedd Haas - Artist
http://www.gallerytungsten.com
http://www.epsno.com

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:22:54 -0600, (Jedd Haas) wrote:

On another newsgroup, the subject of cryogenic treatment of brass
instruments came up, with the claim that it was "snake oil" and offered no
improvement. On a trumpet newsgroup, I've seen postings by people who
claimed that their horns sounded much better after cryogenic treatment.
The general claim was that the treatment aligned the molecules and
relieved internal stresses in the metal, or something like that.

Perhaps you metal guys have some insight on cryogenic treatment as it
pertains to brass, and brass instruments in particular. Any basis in fact,
or pure BS?


Drop an email to these folks, attention KO or Bob about that. If
anyone in the idustry will know...these two yahoos should.

http://www.bobreeves.com/

Gunner


Lathe Dementia. Recognized as one of the major sub-strains of the
all-consuming virus, Packratitis. Usual symptoms easily recognized
and normally is contracted for life. Can be very contagious.
michael