To cryo or not to cryo

I'm not any type of scientist either, Double4w, but I do have 1) a set of ears and 2) I can read information and make a relatively simple interpretation of it.

With respect to #2 above, take for example the following info, quoted directly from the article referenced:

"Fine eta(h ) carbide particles (precipitates) are formed during the long cryogenic soak (chromium carbides, tungsten carbide, etc., depending upon the alloying elements in the steel). These are in addition to the larger carbide particles present before cryogenic treatment. These fine particles or "fillers", along with the larger particles, form a denser, more coherent and much tougher matrix in the material."

"Retained austenite is a softer grain structure always present after heat treatment. By applying cryogenic treatment, retained austenite is transformed into the harder, more durable grain structure - martensite. The range of retained austenite in a material after heat treating may be as high as 50 % or as low as 3 %. The amount depends on the heat treating operator and the accuracy of the heat treating equipment. Cryogenic treatment simply continues the conversion initiated by heat treatment, whereby almost 100 % of the retained austenite is converted to martensite. As greater amounts of retained austenite are transformed, and wear resistant martensite is increased, the material obtains a more uniform hardness."

"Copper electrodes exhibit longer life, show less wear and deformation and they can be used with less power input. Cryogenic Treatment reduces tip burn-off and carry reduced amperage on heliarc tungsten electrodes."

Let me translate it simply for you. Cryoed materials allow better transfer of 1) power to your component and 2) signal from the component to the speaker because of the above.

Let's break it down even further. You know the audio guys who place a very high emphasis on "the source" as being critical, the guys who tell you "garbage in, garbage out". They make a valid point. However, let's take that thought one step further: the power and the signal transfer are the ultimate source, the equipment is only facilitating that (that is a slight exaggeration, but without power and signal transfer, the equipment does nothing).

Cryo, by its very nature, enhances both power delivery and signal transfer. It is the ultimate el-cheapo form of power conditioning and cable upgrade all rolled into one. That's about as simple as I can make it for you.

How could it?

The most expensive TVs don't necessarily give the store the best profit margin. Also different chains have different deals with different TV makers. I used to be involved in the business, and it's a real crap shoot simply to "believe your eyes" in the store. Subtle adjustments to a television's color, contrast, sharpness, etc. can make a big difference in the quality of the picture available in the store at any given time.

Rustler - Getting back to the original discussion: after all is said and done, and I'm not disagreeing with you regarding how stores might set up/display their TVs, but at the end of the day, no matter where or how one evaluates TVs for purchase, it is usually performed by looking at the picture quality and selecting the TV with the best looking picture....presumably within one's budget :-). Now you can argue that the test is not fair or that people have different tastes in picture quality, etc.; it still it comes down to Perception, not Specs.

Hdm,

Most of this article addresses the behavior of STEEL. It may apply to my silver cables but then again, it may not. Remember that many metals work harden and thus increasing their martinsite percentage makes them harder but more brittle.
Is making a metal tougher and harder a good thing in audio applications? Or do we want it to be ductile and soft? Yes, cyro increases the surface hardness and wearability but so what. I'm not making a welder. Are these good attributes for audio. Just because it transfers electricity more efficiently says nothing about what it does to that signal or even if enhanced electron transfer "sounds" better. What if cryoed copper wire transfers energy twice as efficiently but results in an order of magnitude more skin effect?
You are making judgements that do not follow from reading the scientific literature. This is the point I've been trying to make.

Let me give you an example. Klipch horn speakers are very efficient. My Spendor BC-1s are not. Efficiency is not the goal. Sounding like music is. Have someone stand across the room and talk to you. While he is talking have him raise his hands around his mouth like a megaphone. The result is instantly noticeable. This is why Klipsh horns sound so nasal. They do not sound like music. Spendor's do.

So cryo can deliver more power. Is this a good thing? If you've been around audio very long you will remember when more power definately meant worse sound. It's not so bad today but remember, that's why guys are enamoured with the little 8 watt amps. They sure don't have any power delivery but they sure sound sweet.

We all know that just because something measures better (say power transfer) doesn't mean it sounds better. That's why all those Julian Hirsch articles we read for so many years were absolutely worthless. He didn't like music - he liked oscilloscopes.

Maybe you are right - I'm not saying you're not. All I'm saying is that better sound does not logically follow from this article or any other that I've read on cryogenic processing. Conversely, we cannot say cryo does not work from this article either.

Hdm, I repeat; this is not to beat up on you. We need these types of articles and we need the free exchange of ideas on this forum but we must not jump to unsupported conclusions.

Ross