New Answers for Cryogenic Treatments

Quite interesting. Seems to suggest that cryogenic treatment results in a different noise distribution as a function of frequency. Is that how you read it Lee?
Of what sorts of components I don't know. The juxtaposition of purity and noise does have a certain Orwellian ring to it though!

 

LOL...maybe they did! But before you and I can go at it, we need more to go on! As far as knowing your Orwell, you hit it on the head. Always a pleasure Lee and thanks for the info.

 

Anyone hear of this company, check it out.
www.cryogenicsinternational.com/audio.htm

 

Hey Lee....who're you talking about here...SAP or something else. I'd be happy to dash off an email and when I do, I'll copy you on it. Just tell me what you're looking for. I thought you weren't interested in testing CD's but I tell you what, if that's what we're going to do, I'd trust you (yeah, even skeptics can trust believers ) to come up with two matched CD's containing program material that you believed would be most revealing.

 

From the point of view of thoroughness, I'd be most curious to see such curves of 'noise' floors in a particular component. I'm curious as to how one measures such a parameter. Questions that come to my mind of a general nature are:
1)is the noise floor reproducible within a particular type of electronic component, say a resistor or does it depend upon value, signal, what its connected to, etc.
2)Does it depend on the type of resistor...wire wound...etc.
3)Any dependency upon the manufacturer.

Probably other questions. I hope its not another 'borrow from Peter to pay Paul thing' where all we're doing is just moving the distortion around and nothing really happens. And it will be of most interest if this patent application becomes accepted or is another one of those pending things that's been pending since time immemorial.

 

I think what the original quote is referring to is something called "thermal noise", a well known phenomenon. For example, CCD's used in astro photography need to be cooled to reduce noise in the dark areas of the final image. Similarly, thermal noise is the reason that 24 bit DAC's do not produce 24 bits of resolution. (Chu, is this due to Brownian motion?).

Obviously, there is a scientific and engineering reason to reduce the operating temps of semiconductors, the smaller the process, the lower the operating temp needs to be. Is this reduction audible? I don't know. Is reducing the noise floor from -100db or -105db to -120db going to be audible, especially given the limitations in the recording chain? Some people, especially those who buy *very* expenisve equipment might just like engineering overkill. I know that I like engineering overkill in power amp power supplies.

Anyway, just call me a doubting thomas as to the efficacy of this form of engineering overkill.

 

Well hell, it just might drop someone into a DBT hole! Certain levels of distortion are inaudible however...there are many people, who regardless if 0.02% distortion is audible, will opt for the component with 0.004%. Personally I see nothing wrong with that, but you know, one of the good points in knowledge of what is and isn't audible, is that people, whose funds are limited, can, with knowledge of facts, and judicious shopping, put together a system that is enormously fulfilling and stop beating themselves up that what they have a low-fi setup. Now you know Saurav, there is another reason for redistributing the noise, even if it's not audible in the end as Lee's post said. Product differentiation...a tough thing to do in this world we live in. How can we maintain our prices or perhaps increase them without losing units sold? But hey, at least for now, the chick hasn't hatched