Quote:

Quote:
trumpet bells can be made of a variety of materials and the metal alloy chosen directly affects the sound ... cryo treatment changes the metal, vaguely akin to tempering.

If tempering were desirable, why don't the trumpet makers simply temper the metal? Or use a stiffer type of metal? And why cryo? They could just temper it or choose an appropriate stiffness and be done with it, no?

Some do indeed temper their bells. The problem is that it's not necessarily "desireable". As with audio, there's plenty of disagreement.

Just so you know, bells are available in a wide range of materials, from sterling silver, to cheap yellow brass, with all types of steps in between with various copper and nickle contents. Some are annealed and some are not, some have two or three combinations of metals, all of which influence the sound, before you even get to the most critical element, the shape of the bell flare itself, which must be in appropriate proportion to the leadpipe taper, etc.

The number of choices available are pretty stunning, but it's interesting to note that most of the orchestral pros pretty much stick to about a handful of makes and models. When I tell Elk that my Bb is a gold plated 1960 B1, he knows exactly what I play and even will surmise a little about my personality and probably be correct.

Anyway, the effects of annealing and cryo on sound are actually not agreed upon. Despite that, makers provide these choices and trumpeters battle on online forums about which is "best." Sound familiar???

Dave

Quote:
>>> "Whether the treated instrument sounds better is somewhat besides the point." <<<

No it is not beside the point !!! That is EXACTLY what playing musical instruments is all about - producing the best sound you can - which in turn gives you the most pleasure in playing that instrument !!

I think your wrong about that May. To a serious trumpeter, the ease of playing and control over the instrument are of the utmost importance and very personal and very refined. A great trumpeter will get his or her sound so long as the trumpet is close to his or her image of a trumpet.

Some trumpeters believe that a certain trumpet or mouthpiece will give them the sound they want. Famous mouthpiece designer Gary Radke calls that "chasing sound" or "chasing tone". In the very short haul, we call it the honeymoon, there will indeed be a change and others will hear it, but in a matter of days the trumpeter's tone actually migrates back to his earlier tone, because that's what's in his or her head and the lips, mouth, lungs, etc. are unconscously adjusted to get back to the old tone. This really happens, over and over.

The player must adjust his tonal concept, in his head, to change the tone of the instrument. A really great trumpeter is aware of this uses it to change tone color on the fly, perhaps using several colors within one piece.

Equipment is part of the equation, but less than many presume. A trumpeter seeks an instrument that compliments his tonal concept so that he is not fighting the instrument. Quite literally, it is a fight to play an instrument that doesn't fit your concept and it consume valuable energy that doesn't get into the music.

So if Elk, or I, have a trumpet that we love and it just seems to sing what we want it to say with little effort, we're not going to screw with it. ANY change can bad. My trumpet may be way too flexible for Elk and his may be way too tight for me. Making mine tighter would be good for Elk, but bad for me, so there's no "right" answer. If you've searched for decades and found an instrument that "works", then you don't mess with it.

Dave

Technically, the trumpets are already "frozen" before they are ever treated.

The reason I mention this is that certain terms can become bastardized.

Cryogenic treatment is not the same as 'freezing.'

A home freezer and a cryogenic tank are about as homolgous as your house is to the outside air on a midsummer's day.

Good point Buddha, I meant to comment on that. Freezing has no impact on a trumpet. Mine's been frozen a time or two in the trunk of my car. Freezing will NOT change the brass crystals and, therefore, has no lasting impact on the response of a trumpet.

I play guitaar also. Freezing strings also has no impact on how the strings sound or last.

BTW, darn I forgot who it was, but someone up in the thread quit guitar because it made their fingers hurt. Come on, you're never going to get good at anything without enduring a little pain. If your fingers feel like that, imagine a trumpeter's lips. Some people dangerously push themselves too far past pain, and I discourage that, but playing an instrument well takes persistance and pratice, pratice, pratice.

Work on proper technique, no matter what instrument. Playing the piano incorrectly can also injure you. Just because you can make a sound with no effort and attention to form, doesn't mean that you can become a good player without getting the fingers and arms in the correct position.

Dave

Quote:

Quote:

Adequate power line filtering is trivial to achieve, and is a standard part of every power supply.

Rowland is the only one I know that employs Power Factor Correction, which presents an even load (sinewave-like) to the mains (rather than allowing spiking as a Class D amp would want to do)converting the AC to 385 volt DC and presenting the amp with DC.

Adequate power line filtering of a power supply is not a trivial thing at all. The definition of adequate is debatable and the effect of power supply output noise is also debatable.

Power Factor correction does not present an "even" load to the "mains". The load presented to the mains varies with the amount of power consumed by the device and its load. Power Factor correction puts both the voltage and current waveforms in time alignment.

Quote:

Power Factor correction does not present an "even" load to the "mains". The load presented to the mains varies with the amount of power consumed by the device and its load. Power Factor correction puts both the voltage and current waveforms in time alignment.

Cyclebrain, is there any smoothing of the load with PFC? I was told that demand spikes were reduced.

Dave

Cryogenic is where the materials are taken below the temperature point at which materials (some of the atomic structures within the given material) cease to have molecular motion-during the freeze period.

That we hear a difference means that pundits who think they are scientists,who think they know what scientific methodology is..attack us via their ignorance and emotions on the subject.

Real scientists note our observations and think that 'something is afoot'..but keep such to themselves.

Their reasoning is similar to mine.

Mine is keep it to myself as I use the knowledge to make a living.

For the scientists, it's 'keep the knowledge to themselves', until they are ready to publish,as their world is 'publish of perish'.

In the end, the scientist, in this fucked up world, has just as much personal reason to keep you like a mushroom or on the farm-as I do.

>>> "I think your wrong about that May. To a serious trumpeter, the ease of playing and control over the instrument are of the utmost importance and very personal and very refined.

So if Elk, or I, have a trumpet that we love and it just seems to sing what we want it to say with little effort, we're not going to screw with it. ANY change can bad. My trumpet may be way too flexible for Elk and his may be way too tight for me. Making mine tighter would be good for Elk, but bad for me, so there's no "right" answer. If you've searched for decades and found an instrument that "works", then you don't mess with it." <<<

I fully appreciate that and I understand the gist of what you are explaining - even though I do not play a brass instrument myself. I.e That the 'feel' of playing the instrument is important and personal and that whilst your instrument may be perfectly suitable for you, if Elk played your instrument it may not be at all suitable for him and his technique - and if you played Elk's instrument it may not be at all suitable for you and your technique. That the instrument has not only to play Note A, or Notes C and D - etc - but has to feel 'right' (to sing well) for the individual player !!

But you yourself said:-
>>> "I know professional trumpeters that played the same trumpet for decades and then had it cryrogenically treated. Everyone of them (three guys) felt a difference, toward the positive, reducing stress in the ease of resonating." <<<

Meaning that cryogenically freezing instruments which those trumpeters had played for decades had a positive effect !! So to spell out the point I am (still) trying to make. If Jack Smith, a musician who you had great respect for had had his instrument (which he had been delighted with for decades) cryogenically treated and claimed that, after this treatment, it was even better, then he would want to tell people of his experience. Similarly of Bill Brown had done exactly the same thing with the same results, then HE would want to tell people of his experience. The point I am making is that, at some time, you would begin to give MORE credence to what Jack Smith and Bill Brown were saying than you would to someone who wanted to dismiss the whole cryogenic process. I am not saying you have to BELIEVE Jack Smith and Bill Brown outright - without question. What I am saying is that you cannot give EQUAL credence to them AND, at the same time, give EQUAL credence to someone who dismisses the whole thing !! Yes, the controversy will probably go on and on (it has been going on over 20 years to my knowledge) but it will surely swing in one direction at some point !!

>>> "Equipment is part of the equation, but less than many presume. A trumpeter seeks an instrument that compliments his tonal concept so that he is not fighting the instrument. Quite literally, it is a fight to play an instrument that doesn't fit your concept and it consume valuable energy that doesn't get into the music." <<<

And, that is exactly how the professional trumpeters you referred to described the improvement - reducing the stress in the ease of resonating (not consuming valuable energy). As Elk comments "It's precisely this feel that matters."

>>> "BTW, darn I forgot who it was, but someone up in the thread quit guitar because it made their fingers hurt. Come on, you're never going to get good at anything without enduring a little pain." <<<

That was Me. I made that remark merely to show that I was not ignorant regarding musical instruments, not intended as a sob sob story. At the time I was trying to play the guitar I needed NON tender finger ends for something else I was doing, so my desire to play the guitar had to take a back seat. I don't need a lecture on 'enduring a little pain' in order to play a particular musical instrument !!!!

Quote by Elk :-
>>> "cryo treatment changes the metal, vaguely akin to tempering. Thus, the changes are not random. Anything that eases tension in worked metal often improves functionality. Thus it makes sense that it could uniformly improve the instrument." <<<

To which Ethan again dismisses it with "My guess is if there is a change it would be very small, akin to identical trumpets off the same production line."

It is precisely this type of constant dismissal which made me respond again on the Stereophile forum !!!

I am back again saying that one cannot give EQUAL credence to two opposing viewpoints.
Yes, of course, one can 'sit on the fence'. But then ongoing discussion is quite pointless unless it is for 'jousting' purposes only. That is why I challenged Elk that, surely, he cannot give equal credence to BOTH Keith Howard AND Ethan Winer on the subject of cryogenic products and processes !!

I will give further quotes from Keith Howard's article

Keith was doing a review on speaker and interconnect cables. Keith knew the manufacturer of the cables (who built the cables himself) and Keith was therefore able to obtain and compare identically constructed cables but with one set non cryogenically treated and the other set having been cryogenically treated.

Keith says :-
"I have now done the comparison many times, and the difference continues to astound me. The DCT cable has greater resolution and a notably airier, more natural sound........ If anything the interconnect cables, when they arrived a little later, proved even greater a revelation than the speaker cables."

Keith Howard was 'astounded' at the difference which cryogenic freezing made !!

Robert Harley said in his 'Cryogenic' Stereophile article :-
"In addition to CDs and LPs, the process has been used on Laser-Vision-format video discs, speaker cable, interconnects, integrated circuits and musical instrument strings."

But, Ethan Winer dismisses cryogenic products and processes !!

This particular thread started with Elk reporting on someone who had 'heard' different power cords give different sounds and was trying to work out measurements which might explain the difference.

Over on the General section someone called JIMV posted how he had heard improvements in the sound after changing the power cord.
To which Ethan said :-
>>> "The next thing you should try is going back to your original fuses and wires, to see if you still hear the clicks and bumps. I bet you'll find those details were audible before too, but you never noticed them until you listened more carefully. Please try that and report back." <<<
JIMV replied to Ethan :-
>>> "I did. The question remains. Even if the sound is in the original mix, which it was not, or at least could not be heard by me, it is loud and clear now.

The differences were, the separation of a series of bumps and thumps from background noise on one track when I replaced the fuse. Not with any clarity, just enough to know it was there. When I changed the power cable, the bumps and thumps became clearly the sound of the musicians thumping either their guitars or a small drum softly with their fingers. In addition, with the new cable, a sound like a tiny triangle (note the serious use of proper musical terms) appeared on another track. I have less than 5 hours on the cable and under 20 on the fuse so far (relatives visiting) so I cannot say how the sound will end up with serious hours on the stuff but I can say I hear a change on my system with my ears." <<<

But Ethan then explains away JIMV's experience as JIMV initially sitting in his listening chair, hearing one sound, then getting up and changing the power cord, then sitting down in his listening chair again BUT, this time, not sitting in EXACTLY the same position, so (in Ethan's viewpoint) THIS was what had caused JIMV to hear a change in the sound !!!!!

To quote Ethan :-

>>> "you listen, get up to change the power cord, sit down again after, and now the response at your ears is different because you're not sitting in exactly the same place again." <<<

So simplistic !!! Again dismissing someone else's experience - JIMV's ears were not in exactly the same place again !!!

Regards,
May Belt.

May, you seem to be saying that Elk "should have" had his trumpet cryongenically treated by now, because a few professional trumpeters say that it benefited them. Keep in mind that those three that I know of were a small minority. MOST trumpeters do not have cryogencially treated trumpets.

I see cryo as a way to change a trumpet's response. You can also open or close the leadpipe taper, change the tuning slide, put a heavier cap on the third valve, add dampening at nodes, etc., etc., etc. For instance, my B1 was a little too "slippery" for me when I first got it. I added a weighted cap to the third valve to tighten it just a little. That's a reversible change and I still have the original cap in a drawer. Cryo is not reversable.

With so many tools at our disposal, most trumpeters don't resort to the huge unknown, non-reversible cryo treatment. Those that do, probably tried other things and just didn't get what they were seeking.

Like I said, I've got one cryo trumpet, but it was that way when I bought it and it had about a dozen other "tweaks" applied to it by the previous owner that, guess what, sold it for something else. I figure he lost about $1500 on his sale to me.

As with audio, there are many searching trumpeters, searching for the "perfect" trumpet. For many the search is never ending. Some of us are lucky enough to find something that really fits and say, "Enough with all the searching, I'm going to settle in with my good friend and just try to make music by improving my own skills. The more time that I spend with my friend, the more likely that I make the sound I want, when I want."

Dave

Quote:
Cryogenic is where the materials are taken below the temperature point at which materials (some of the atomic structures within the given material) cease to have molecular motion-during the freeze period.

Well, now THAT would be absolute zero.

Cryogenic treatment is actually more dynamic than that.

Quote:

Quote:

Power Factor correction does not present an "even" load to the "mains". The load presented to the mains varies with the amount of power consumed by the device and its load. Power Factor correction puts both the voltage and current waveforms in time alignment.

Cyclebrain, is there any smoothing of the load with PFC? I was told that demand spikes were reduced.

Dave

Power line demand is determined by your power supply's storage capacity and the load presented to it.
When my power supply wants some power, I want the mains to supply it NOW. Besides PFC not being a smoothing device, I don't want my power feed smoothed (current limited).

Quote:

Quote:
Cryogenic is where the materials are taken below the temperature point at which materials (some of the atomic structures within the given material) cease to have molecular motion-during the freeze period.

Well, now THAT would be absolute zero.

Cryogenic treatment is actually more dynamic than that.

No, apparently someone has gone below absolute zero.
"Cryogenic is where the materials are taken BELOW the temperature point at which materials (some of the atomic structures within the given material) cease to have molecular motion-during the freeze period."

Someone remind me what cyro trumpets have to do with Residential Power Line Noise?

What sounds better 50Hz lines or 60Hz?
Does Euro equipment designed on 50Hz mains have a less natural pacing when used on 60Hz mains? 20% faster.
But seriously, is there a sonic difference in a piece of equipment designed on 50Hz used on 60Hz?

Quote:

Power Factor correction does not present an "even" load to the "mains". The load presented to the mains varies with the amount of power consumed by the device and its load. Power Factor correction puts both the voltage and current waveforms in time alignment.

Rowland said something along the lines that PFC controlled harmonic currents added to the AC caused by the non-linear loads of the amp. Somewhere in his description he talked about present a more sinewave-like demand.

I obviously misunderstood what that meant. Can you explain it in layman's terms?

Thanks for your help.

Dave

Quote:

Quote:

Power Factor correction does not present an "even" load to the "mains". The load presented to the mains varies with the amount of power consumed by the device and its load. Power Factor correction puts both the voltage and current waveforms in time alignment.

Rowland said something along the lines that PFC controlled harmonic currents added to the AC caused by the non-linear loads of the amp. Somewhere in his description he talked about present a more sinewave-like demand.

I obviously misunderstood what that meant. Can you explain it in layman's terms?

Thanks for your help.

Dave

No, I can't explain it in Layman's terms or any other way because I don't know the harmonic effect, if any, on a sine wave based on power factor problems. The real measure is what is the effect of all of these things on the output side of the power supply. If the power supply effectivly removes these harmonics/noise/hash then who cares.
Of course, what is the definition of "effectively removes"?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Cryogenic is where the materials are taken below the temperature point at which materials (some of the atomic structures within the given material) cease to have molecular motion-during the freeze period.

Well, now THAT would be absolute zero.

Cryogenic treatment is actually more dynamic than that.

No, apparently someone has gone below absolute zero.
"Cryogenic is where the materials are taken BELOW the temperature point at which materials (some of the atomic structures within the given material) cease to have molecular motion-during the freeze period."

I think you are pretty close but cryo temps are 20-40 degrees above absolute temperature, if using nitrogen gas. (There is a reason I mention variance in temp.)

I believe it is less than 1 or 2 degrees, maybe even less, above absolute zero, atoms literally start to fall apart. They have gotten to about a millionth, or was it 100 millionth of a degree or so above absolute zero using laser technology etc.

Hope this helps.

Well, no matter how we describe it, Rowland's PFC is removing or minimizing these harmonic currents and, perhaps, some other things and convert AC to 385V DC.

Dave

>>> "May, you seem to be saying that Elk "should have" had his trumpet cryongenically treated by now, because a few professional trumpeters say that it benefited them. Keep in mind that those three that I know of were a small minority. MOST trumpeters do not have cryogencially treated trumpets." <<<

I wouldn't dream of saying that ANYONE 'should' do this or that !! What I don't like to see is when people choose to share their experiences (any improvements they gain either with their audio equipment or with their musical instruments) being summarily dismissed !!
Yes, you only mentioned three trumpeters you know of, and yes, they are a small minority to YOU but when I read such as the New York Times article it would appear that there are more than three musicians who have had that treatment carried out !!

In order for those three professional trumpeters you referred to, to eventually decide to have their instruments cryogenically treated, there MUST HAVE BEEN previous musicians reporting on their experiences with cryogenic freezing and, their experiences spread by word of mouth and personal recommendation for the three musicians you referred to be eventually interested enough to have the treatment done themselves. Back to my numbers theme again. There must have been a gradual accumulation of musicians reporting good results to make the three musicians you mentioned be interested enough to have their instruments cryogenically treated !!!

To quote from the NYT article:-

>>> "One Dr. Markoff had an old trumpet which he described as "best suited for a lamp". But when he played it after it had been frozen, he found the instrument had become "one of the freest-blowing" and most superbly focused trumpets he had ever owned.

Those who have tried the deep-freeze say there is a difference in ease of playing and in the range of 'color' in the tone.

Dr. Markoff, the ophthalmologist, has been spreading the word about cryogenics among 20 musicians in the Philadelphia Orchestra, where he is a substitute player. As a result, about 45 instruments have been frozen, and whilst results were not uniform, many musicians described the sound as 'richer' and 'more focused' and the instruments as having 'easier response'." <<<

These people's experiences (from cryogenically freezing musical instruments) are dismissed by Ethan !! THIS is what I react against !! I am NOT insisting that everyone cryogenically freezes anything or everything !!!! I would not dream of doing so. You have misunderstood the points I have been making. It appears that I have not got myself sufficiently understood but I don't know how to do it any clearer.

Your quote :-
>>> ""Enough with all the searching, I'm going to settle in with my good friend and just try to make music by improving my own skills." <<<

I don't have any problems with that. Completely natural 'settling in with a good friend'. But, in the face of many other people's experiences, if you, dcstep, actually chose to completely dismiss their experiences (not merely ignored them but actually dismissed them), and did it repeatedly, then I would challenge that approach.

Regards,
May Belt.

>>> "They are, at this point, equally credible and thus entitled to equal consideration. Both provide anecdotal reports, their opinions.
There are more choices than simply picking one proffered opinion, such as picking neither or finding some truth in both." <<<

Initially both are entitled to equal consideration and both have their opinions and yes, you COULD choose to pick neither. However, when you have had time to investigate both opinions far more thoroughly, then what ? If you find that you agree far more with Ethan's opinion, then the result would be an UNEQUAL consideration in favour of Ethan. If you find that you agree far more with Keith's findings, then the result would be an UNEQUAL consideration in favour of Keith I am not talking about someone's first opinions (first anecdotal reports) on any subject which, as you say, are entitled to have equal consideration with other first opinions. I am talking about when things have gone further and you have been able to assess any situation much further with more input from other people whose opinions you have respect for. Maybe you just have not reached that point yet.

I am not enamoured with your use of the words 'truth in both'. The word 'truth', to me, infers a black and white stance i.e truths and untruths. Whereas my view of science is that we don't know everything yet and so there is still a lot of exploration to do !

You say "at this point", they (Keith Howard and Ethan Winer) are equally credible !!!
At what "point", for you, would they become NOT equally credible ?

My view of the subject of (such as) Keith Howard and Ethan Winer - particularly on the subject of the cryogenic freezing process is :-

Keith's approach was to explore and he was 'astounded' at the difference in sound between cryogenically frozen cables and identical but non frozen cables. Keith's experience, to me, points to an approach which says "There is something going on which needs further exploration."

Ethan Winer's approach, on the other hand, dismisses 'cryogenic products and processes' and that approach, to me, says "There is nothing going on, therefore there is nothing to explore."

Ed Meitner's approach was to explore the cryogenic freezing technique quite thoroughly - knowing that "there was something going on which needed further exploration".

Ethan's approach is to dismiss 'cryogenic products and processes'.

I am NOT saying that everyone has to explore everything anyone else reports on !!

I am NOT saying that everyone has to believe everything anyone else describes !!

But, to use one example.
I am NOT saying that dcstep has to have his trumpet cryogenically treated just because other musicians have done so - and particularly if he himself does not want to. But, I would react if dcstep chose to DISMISS the experiences of the musicians he referred to and who he respects and who HAVE explored the technique !!

That is what I mean, Elk, when I say that you can't see BOTH approaches - (1) and (2) as EQUAL !!!
1) "There is something going on which needs exploring further."
2) "There is nothing going on, therefore nothing needs further exploration."

Yes, anyone can chose to sit on either side - it is their right to do so.
Yes, anyone can intellectually be on the side of exploration and still say "But, I personally don't want to be the one doing the exploring."
But, you can't be on both sides i.e. "That there is something going on which needs exploring" AND "There is nothing going on, therefore nothing needs further exploration."

Either you are closer to Keith's "There is something going on which needs further exploration" or you are closer to Ethan's "There is nothing going on, therefore nothing needs further exploration."

Either choice would mean that you would be taking one approach MORE seriously than the other.

Unfortunately, the approach of "There is nothing going on which needs further exploration" stifles continuing discussion !!

Now, let me make myself clear on one point. I am NOT saying Ethan has the approach of "There is nothing going on which needs further exploration" the WHOLE of the time.
In some areas his approach can be "There is something going on which needs further exploration" but I find that these occasions, with respect to Ethan, are rare.

I feel sure that Ethan and I would agree (from each of our own experiences) that there is a wealth of information, already handled by people's audio equipment (whoever made it and however much it cost) and already presented into the room by their loudspeakers (whoever made them and however much they cost) which is not being resolved correctly. Leading to the approach that "There is something going on which needs further exploration." !!

>>> "I might cyro an Eb trumpet that I have which I do not like much - it can't do this creature much harm (then again, the D side isn't too bad . . .)" <<<

Please see my quote by Dr. Markoff. That is what HE did with a trumpet he did not have good regard for - until !!!

If you DO cryo your Eb trumpet and get a similar result as Dr. Markoff, then surely you could not STILL find Ethan's dismissal (opinion) of the cryogenic process EQUAL to Dr. Markoff's opinion.

Regards,
May Belt.

Cryogenic treatment most definitely has an effect on the physical properties of certain materials when performed under certain conditions. This is well know in metallurgy.
A change in the physical properties of a material could easily cause a change in its effect on the sound of an instrument. Different resonances, different damping.
So far I have only refered to physical changes, not electrical changes. Super cooling conductors does reduce its resistance, but only while it is super cooled. Back at room temp the conductor reverts back to its original resistance value. Does cryo treated wire have different capacitance or inductance? I would think not, because those traits are based the way the wire is packaged (insulation/spacing) and not on the conductor itself.
So at the present time I see no reason for cryo wires to sound any different. But I am open to additional info from one of Kieth Howards always excellent reports.

May, let me try to get this straight, the whole point of your very lengthy discussion is that Ethan is wrong. If that's the case, then I can agree, if he's saying that cryo has no physical impact. I think that change happens is undisputed and has been demonstrated with cutting tools, etc.. So that's clear. If Ethan denies any physical change, I haven't seen that, but if he does, then I would disagree with him. (Not the first time I disagree with Ethan and, no doubt, not the last).

As for the effectiveness on musical instruments at making them sound or respond different, I think that's a different case, which has not been clearly demonstrated. I'm a big believer in the "madness of crowds", having wittnessed in financial markets several times in my career. The same things can happen with an orchestra.

What's needed is a physics demonstration by someone with the equipment to perform an unbiased test.

The fact that many think that they hear something, added to the fact we know that the crystal makeup is changed by cryo, makes me think that this is something very worthy of further investigation.

Dave

1) Just because a different material has different physical characteristics doesn't mean that it will sound different.
Also doesn't mean that it won't.

2) Unlike audio, where the accuracy of reproducing sound is paramount (sometimes I wonder), in the field of musical instruments who's to say what is the correct sound for an instrument? This trumpet sounds better than that trumpet.
No, they just sound different. That old crappy Sears Silvertone guitar costs a bit more now.

Quote:

>>> You say "at this point", they (Keith Howard and Ethan Winer) are equally credible !!!
At what "point", for you, would they become NOT equally credible ?

You left out the third horseman, the completion of the triumvirate, the trinity. DUP.

Quote:
If Ethan denies any physical change

Context please. The stuff about trumpets is a side issue and is unrelated to the stated topic of this thread. I don't really care if cryo treating a trumpet changes its sound or changes how it feels to the player. In the context of electrical wire, cryo treating is a pointless exercise unless it can be shown to affect the three things that matter with wire: resistance, inductance, and capacitance. This should be trivial to establish by taking two identical wires, cryo treating only one, then measuring the three parameters that matter. Has anybody done this and published the results? If not, why not?

Even if the resistance goes from 0.01 Ohm to 0.009 Ohm, who cares? Just buy the next larger gauge of zip cord at Home Depot and be done with it.

--Ethan

So, do you or don't you deny a physical change??? That's the question here. No context is required, either there is a physical change or there isn't.

Dave

I have no idea. I'm not a metallurgist.

Again, my only interest is as this relates to audio reproduction. I've seen people cryo all sorts of things including wires and even amplifier power supplies. I don't get it, but I'm willing to be convinced by some evidence. Not anecdotal reports of "It sounds better," but hard facts as I outlined above.

--Ethan

>>> "May, let me try to get this straight, the whole point of your very lengthy discussion is that Ethan is wrong." <<<

'Wrong' is a very emotive word, Dave.

Can I, instead, say that I don't think Ethan is right in dismissing other people's experiences as readily and as constantly as he does. I don't think he is right in having the approach, the attitude to dismiss so many of the things which people report have changed their sound so that he is, in fact, inferring that there CANNOT be anything which needs exploring further !!!!

Even John Atkinson has made similar observations to mine (on the subject of Ethan).

To quote John :-
>>> "The problem I have with Ethan's point of view is that it assumes that all is known and all is understood. In which there is no point in exposing oneself to new experiences. In which case, what is the point in doing anything at all?
I continue to be surprised by things I think should matter having little effect on what I perceive and by things my preconceptions would lead me to dismiss apparently having a significant effect (positive or negative) on perceived sound quality. So when presented with something that appears to defy logic or my understanding of how the world works, I try not to dismiss it, instead filing it away under "things to return to if there's time."
I do accept that some things affect the listener, not the soundwaves. But if they do so consistently for more than listener, surely that means the effect is "real"?" <<<

To make my point again and to quote Ethan :-

>>> "Just as bad are magic hockey pucks, too-small room treatments that defy all that is known about physics, power "conditioner" products, amplifiers that claim to use no negative feedback (I guess the designers enjoy 10 percent distortion?), cryogenic products and processes, and so forth." <<<

Your quote :-
>>> "The fact that many think that they hear something, makes me think that this is something very worthy of further investigation." <<<

From the quote from Ethan I have just given, Ethan is actually inferring the opposite of your approach and the opposite of John Atkinson's approach !!

THIS is my whole point !!!

I think cryo HAS a physical impact but exactly what it then, in turn, INFLUENCES 'is something worthy of further investigation'.

I have watched Ethan dismiss things left, right and centre. It was Ethan's dismissive response in a much earlier 'thread' which prompted me to respond way back then.
To quote Ethan :-
>>> "Products like these Harmonix dots defy all logic, common sense, and everything known about the physics of acoustics. So in the absence of hard test data showing a change, or even an explanation as to how they actually do what is claimed, I have to conclude these work entirely on placebo effect." <<<

The very Harmonix dots which John Atkinson has attached to his speakers and which he says make an audible improvement !!!!

To quote John :-
>>> "It was the Harmonix discs that I attached to my B&Ws, not the Shun Mooks. But this doesn't affect my conjecture.
I have still have them glued to the centers of the panels of my B&W Silver Signature speakers, where they made an audible improvement." <<<

To quote Ethan again :-
>>> "I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear me say that I consider all of the products sold by both of these companies (Harmonix and Shakti) to be total bullshit with no foundation in science or anything else beyond wishful thinking.
BTW, I don't usually trash other vendors in my business, but you did ask so I gave you my honest opinion." <<<

Elk started this particular 'thread' by linking to a report where someone had heard changing power cords improve his sound and had been attempting to find measurements to show what might be happening.

Back to my theme i.e 'that there was something going on which needs further exploration' !!

I have again seen Ethan (On the General section) with the dismissal approach, dismissing JIMV's experience on hearing an improvement in his sound after changing the power cord. Ethan explaining away JIMV's experience as JIMV initially sitting in his listening chair, hearing one sound, then getting up and changing the power cord, then sitting down in his listening chair again BUT, this time, not sitting in EXACTLY the same position, so (in Ethan's viewpoint) THIS was what had caused JIMV to hear a change in the sound !!!!!

But it was when I saw Elk's sentence "I greatly enjoy Keith Howard's articles" that I thought "Surely it is not possible to enjoy such as Keith Howard's articles and yet NOT respond to and challenge repeatedly Ethan's dismissive approach" and that is why I am back responding. It just did not make sense to me that anyone can be regarding both approaches as equal. To be polite to both, equally, YES. To read, equally, what both are saying, YES. To try to present a reasoned argument to further any discussion, YES. But for HOW many years does one continue seeing both approaches as equal ???????

I think this particular discussion is staying on too narrow a path. You have discussed cryogenically treating musical instruments etc but you have not widened it out to cover all the other things which people have been cryogenically treating and heard improvements in the sound.

I have named the few which Robert Harley referred to (Cds being one of them) and I have quoted what Ed Meitner has treated.

As I will be saying to cyclebrain, applying the freezing/slow defrost technique to such as CDs and gaining improvement in the sound widens the whole thing away from merely 'freezing metals' !!!

Our own involvement in the whole subject of freezing came about from initial desperation (to attempt to solve a particular problem) some 26 years ago. The whole story is quite well known (particularly in the UK).
It all started by applying the freezing/slow defrost procedure to plastics !!!!!! Then progressed to metals, then progressed to many other things. So, when I read about Ed Meitner's findings (in the late 1980s) after he had used the cryogenic technique, I knew that here was someone else who had been discovering something similar to what Peter and I had been discovering !!

Regards,
May Belt.

>>> "Does cryo treated wire have different capacitance or inductance? I would think not, because those traits are based the way the wire is packaged (insulation/spacing) and not on the conductor itself.
So at the present time I see no reason for cryo wires to sound any different. But I am open to additional info from one of Kieth Howards always excellent reports." <<<

Don't stay thinking narrowly about cryo treating wires. Consider the cryoing of other things such as CDs etc where the argument about 'different capacitance or inductance in wire' is of no consequence.

>>> "So far I have only refered to physical changes, not electrical changes. Super cooling conductors does reduce its resistance, but only while it is super cooled. Back at room temp the conductor reverts back to its original resistance value." <<<

This is the old, old response. Usually presented as "If you freeze water it turns to ice. But, when you defrost the ice it turns back to water again. So, nothing has altered. Nothing to investigate. End of discussion."

My question remains. Either there IS 'something going on' which needs further exploration or there is nothing going on, therefore there is nothing to explore.

As I have just said to dcstep, "I think cryo HAS a physical impact but exactly WHAT it then, in turn, INFLUENCES 'and 'HOW it does the influencing' is something worthy of further investigation'.

If the subject of cryogenic freezing warranted 'further exploration' way back 20 years ago, and investigations over these past 20 years have not thrown up anything tangible as to why the technique can 'change sound', surely it must STILL warrant 'further exploration' !!!

Regards,
May Belt.

>>> "Of course if there is additional quality information available any rational person would then start leaning in that direction." <<<

It, obviously, all depends on what any one person regards (and will accept !!) as additional quality information !!! I would have thought Keith Howard's experience with cryogenically frozen cables and John Atkinson's experience with cryogenically frozen CDs to be more 'quality' than Ethan's mere dismissal of 'cryogenic products and processes' !!!

>>> "Additionally Dr. Markoff's hyperbole is completely non-credible. Cryogenic treatment is not going to turn a junk trumpet into a good playing instrument. This isn't a magic wand that is being waved." <<<

Surely carrying out the cryogenic treatment and turning an unacceptable trumpet into "one of the freest-blowing and most superbly focused trumpets he had ever owned." is exactly what Dr. Markoff found ? How is that non-credible ? I suppose it all resolves on the word you have chosen to use - junk !! If you mean junk as in 'falling to pieces junk' then you would be correct - cryogenically treating a trumpet 'falling to pieces' would not do anything worthwhile. If the use of the word 'junk' was merely being used as a somewhat derogatory description for a trumpet someone does not particularly like the sound of, then cryogenically treating it could make it more pleasurable to play !!!

Regards,
May Belt.

>>> "The stuff about trumpets is a side issue and is unrelated to the stated topic of this thread. I don't really care if cryo treating a trumpet changes its sound or changes how it feels to the player." <<<

But don't you think people SHOULD 'care' - or at least 'prick up their ears', 'open their eyes', or whatever investigative expression people care to use ? Because, to my opinion, it shows confirmation, from yet another source, that 'there is something going on' !!

>>> "In the context of electrical wire, cryo treating is a pointless exercise unless it can be shown to affect the three things that matter with wire: resistance, inductance, and capacitance. This should be trivial to establish by taking two identical wires, cryo treating only one, then measuring the three parameters that matter. Has anybody done this and published the results? If not, why not?" <<<

So, again with the dismissal !! I.e "In the context of electrical wire, cryo treating is a pointless exercise."

>>> "I've seen people cryo all sorts of things including wires and even amplifier power supplies. I don't get it, but I'm willing to be convinced by some evidence. Not anecdotal reports of "It sounds better," but hard facts as I outlined above." <<<

So, you don't like anecdotal reports - only hard facts ? Even though so many things throughout history and science STARTED with ONLY anecdotal reports !!!

Supposing people HAVE attempted to measure any changes in resistance, inductance and capacitance between cryo'd and non cryo'd wire and found no changes in the measurements ? What then ? All investigations have to stop ? What about cryogenically freezing CDs and improving the sound from those CDs ? Where measurements of capacitance, inductance and resistance are irrelevant ?

Don't you realise Ethan that the 'sound performance' of your room panels can be totally dependent upon whether the person listening is listening to a cryo'd CD or a non cryo'd CD ? You can have two identical CDs, have identical equipment throughout the listening trials, have your room panels in exactly the same position throughout the trials, with exactly the same acoustic measurements but the 'sound' in the room can be better when listening to the cryo'd CD and worse when listening to the non cryo'd CD !!!!!!! Still with the same room panels in exactly the same position you put them in !!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:

Back to wires, etc.: My recollection is that only iron has been shown to physically change after cryogenic treatment. Can anyone cite to any info that any other materials are actually changed?

I've seen comparisons of cryo'd steel drill bits. So steel is another material. What are your cryo'd brake rotors made of?

There are people experimenting with rodium for mains plugs, rather than brass or plated brass. I suspect that the hardness and corosion resistance will serve well over time, but I wonder if there's a difference in sound when new.

Regarding power cords, I think that termination and insolation are important and pontenially impact sound in a system subject to EMI and RFI.

Dave

Copper also changes at a molecular level when cryod.

Quote:

Quote:

Copper also changes at a molecular level when cryod.

I have seen one claim of this (with an assertion of 7% greater conductivity) on a site that offers treatment for wires, etc. - but with no technical information, no explanation, no citation to metallurgy. Nothing but bald assertion.

Are you aware of anything that actually shows that copper physically changes? I have searched in the past and have had no luck finding anything.

Years ago I was talking to an engineer in a Chicago company that manufactured test instruments. Anyway, he personally had access to an electron microscope (at the company) and viewed the molecular changes in the cryod copper wire they used in their instruments.

Jennifer Crock and I have also discussed this subject as well.

Hope this helps.

When doing cutting edge innovation:

-the competition is best left in their stinky pile of ignorance.

'nuff said.

Quote:
When doing cutting edge innovation:

-the competition is best left in their stinky pile of ignorance.

'nuff said.

Imagine there's no competition

It's easy if you try

Quote:

Quote:
When doing cutting edge innovation:

-the competition is best left in their stinky pile of ignorance.

'nuff said.

Imagine there's no competition

It's easy if you try

It's just my little way of saying why there can be so little info on some things.

Shouting an advantage's fine details from the rooftops is no good way of keeping the competition ignorant and down on the farm.

Contrary to popular belief, it can be good for business to tell folks -nothing-. Even if one is committing no shenanigans. Especially if one is committing no shenanigans.

And those folks who feel that companies in the audio world who don't supply such information..are crooks and liars....are very likely never going to be a customer of the given company, no matter what is said, done, explained or handed out. So catering to them is a fools game, at best.

Either it sounds good and correct-or it does not.

If one trusts their papers and calculators more than their brain and ears-then they should get into some other sort of hobby. Music is about your ass, not your head. There's no reason the head cannot get involved, but it does not rule the situation.