Cryogenic Treatment: thoughts on Cryotweaks.com (long)

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Chu Gai, Jun 8, 2002.

  1. Chu Gai

    Chu Gai Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,270
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    After an earlier thread where the topic of cryogenically treating CD's and other items was examined somewhat, a link to an online company offering cryogenic services for a variety of items was given: www.cryotweaks.com
    Two things stood out for me, perhaps they won't for you:
    1) the nice little picture of that reminded me of tectonic plate movement wherebye the crystals of the wire moved together after cryrognically being treated and the claim on the website. Now I can see how the overall structure of the cable would shrink as the temperature is lowered. Most items do contract when cooled. As to whether this state of contraction remains after warming back up to room temperature...well that's another thing.
    2) the website under the pre and post pictures INITIALLY said the following:
    a)Untreated wire. Note the gaps in the crystalline structure.
    b)Treated wire. Smaller gaps = less resistance and a quieter cable.
    it now says the following:
    a)Untreated wire (Illustration). Note the gaps in the crystalline structure.
    b)Treated wire (Illustration). Smaller gaps = a "quieter" cable.
    While I can't say with 100% certainty, prior to that particular change I had sent off an email to them. My original inquiry and a portion of their reply along with a followup email by myself (no reply to that) follows.
    Thanks for the references, although most of the dates don't correspond to the Volume Numbers and regretfully many of the publications are out of print.
    I'm a little confused, since your web page makes the following comments:
    Untreated wire. Note the gaps in the crystalline structure.
    and then...
    Treated wire. Smaller gaps = less resistance and a quieter cable.
    Those pictures are artists renderings I take it, yes?
    So I would take it that since you seem to be specializing somewhat in audio
    tweaks, and your web page has made certain claims
    1: cryotreatment of audio wires (and I assume their subsequent return to
    ambient temperatures) results in a tighter packing of crystals (wouldn't
    that imply the wire shrinks?)
    2: cryotreatment result in less resistance and quieter cables.
    Could you tell me specifically if you've done this work yourself and confirmed through either electron micrographs or x-ray diffraction patterns that the crystals are now packed tighter by taking wire from room temperature to whatever temperature you take it to? And also you claim less resistance. How much less?
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "M Garner"
    To: *******
    Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 7:23 PM
    Subject: Re: Contact form for CryoTweaks.com
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: *******
    > To:
    > Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 4:45 PM
    > Subject: Contact form for CryoTweaks.com
    >
    >
    > what are the changes in the resistance that you've found after cryogenic treatment. also may i have the scanning electron micrographs that indicate the changes in the surface structure of the metal after treatment? also what sort of controlled tests has cryotweaks performed that indicate a statistical valid result that treatment results in both an audible improvement? Thanks!
    > >
    >
    > Thank you for your inquiry, although I do not have time to go into the empirical data, I have compiled a list of supporting reference material that you can research in your own time.
    > In my opinion however, the best test instruments are your ears. Charts and graphs are nice supporting material, may provide visual and mental exercise
    > and stimulation, but I do not believe the existing methods of data collection and analysis quantify completely an individual's experience of listening to music. I could go on, but I do not wish to get in to a lengthy debate.
    >
    >
    > Below is the reference material:
    >
    > Hi-Fi News in July 2001 (http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hfnrr/0701/)
    >
    > Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Vol 04 Timmerhaus, K.D. 1958
    > Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Vol 06 Timmerhaus, K.D. 1961
    > Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Vol 09 Timmerhaus, K.D. 1964
    > Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Vol 10 Timmerhaus, K.D. 1964
    > Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Vol 11 Timmerhaus, K.D. 1966
    > Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Vol 12 Timmerhaus, K.D. 1966
    > Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Vol 13 Timmerhaus, K.D. 1967
    > Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Vol 14 Timmerhaus, K.D. 1968
    > Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Vol 15 Timmerhaus, K.D. 1970
    > Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Vol 16 Timmerhaus, K.D. 1970
    > Advances In Cryogenic Engineering Vol 17 Timmerhaus, K.D. 1971
    > Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Vol 18 Timmerhaus, K.D. 1972
    > Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Vol 19 Timmerhaus, K.D. 1974
    > Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Vol 20 Timmerhaus, K.D. 1975
    a longer list follows and was snipped by myself.
    The webpage changed after my email. Now I thought it reasonable to ask them about their claims. The implication they made was that if you give us your wire, we'll send it back to you and it'll have less resistance and the crystalline packing will be tighter. They dodged my question. To me that suggests they have never performed the tests to substantiate their claims. Moreover, the lack of being able to cite a specific reference to substantiate their claim suggests that such data may not exist at all. Now I did check out their references and found virtually all out of print and some were incorrectly cited with respect to the dates. Some would say this is just a mistake. To me this is somebody just pulling doing a cut and paste, possibly off of Kimber's website.
    A pity that a place would cite scientific papers submitted in scientific proceedings and then juxtapose it with a laudatory review by some audio publication. Anyways, I personally don't plan on sending anything to them. As to what anyone else does, well, its your money.
     
  2. Saurav

    Saurav Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I appreciate your doing this. There seem to be too few open enquiring minds these days. On both sides of the fence, if you know what I mean [​IMG]
     
  3. Mark Austin

    Mark Austin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 1999
    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Chu, were you ever able to get ahold of Pierre Sprey from Mapleshade?
     
  4. Chu Gai

    Chu Gai Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,270
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I did toss correspondence that way Mark and i'm still waiting for a reply. Don't know if he'll answer it personally or have someone else do it. Seems to have many diverse interests and perhaps governmental ones are occupying his mind at the present time.
     
  5. Lee Scoggins

    Lee Scoggins Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Lee
     
  6. Chu Gai

    Chu Gai Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,270
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    quite so, when done in a non-biased manner [​IMG]
     
  7. Frank_S

    Frank_S Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 1999
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    FWIW, I use a cryo tube in my linestage. [​IMG]
     
  8. Chu Gai

    Chu Gai Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,270
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's cool. My issues had more to do with what I see were claims and then the patent refusal to answer a question that had to do with a claim on their website. Instead a torrent of literature references that I'd suspect no one there ever read or even has in their possession. Personally I found it amusing that one would cite scientific references that have to do with the compilation of crogenic papers presented at symposia and then insert a little review by some hack reviewer. Shoddy work.
    But the website did change after my initial inquiry and more is left to the imagination and less that they can be questioned upon.
     

Share This Page