Cryo Treatment

[Audiocom AV]

Hello

No, that is not what I said. There may be an occasion when a front panel with display is removed, otherwise the entire is DCT processed. We have had several audio grade capacitors separately DCT processed to evaluate, all metal cased, all working 100%, 12+ months on.

Have you had any products, cables cryogenically treated? If so, perhaps the methods the cryogenic company you used operate differently. What products do you manufacture?

Best Wishes
Mark Bartlett

[StanleyB]

I was most interested in the ability of certain electronic components to withstand temperatures far below what the manufacturers would deem safe, before they reached the point of no return to working condition.

My own process goes the other way, which involves the use of high temperatures. The component laden PCB is subjected to temperatures in excess of 300 degrees centigrades for a certain amount of time. This is partly to burn off the carbon elements, but not exclusively for that purpose only.

[Audiocom AV]

Hello

The formula developed by Frozen Solid Audio does not simply involve ramping the item down to – 190 degrees; there are other processing techniques involved.

The effectiveness of DCT for Printed Circuit Boards is the same as cables, the circuit boards have a conductor and a dielectric. Similar is true of passive parts; transformers, capacitors, resistors, semi-conductors, connectors, etc. It has been documented that the benefits of DCT processing was audible on a pair of Analog Device D/A converters. When the process is applied to the hundreds of passive parts, connectors, wires, etc, used in audio & video equipment the level of improvement is remarkable. We have conducted A/B tests on singular circuit boards in DAC’s, CD players to compare cryogenic treated and non-cryogenic treated boards. The improvements from the cryogenic processed boards was always markedly superior.

There are several audio manufacturers investigating DCT, I cannot disclose details, but suffice to say that when larger companies, those that have been in the industry for many years give the process the their approval without disclosure, they are investing because it sounds better.

Best Wishes
Mark Bartlett

[Primalsea]

Out of interest was the AB listening tests double blind by people who had nothing to loose or gain from their findings.

Evaluation of DCT would seem to be a perfect candidate for DB tests by totally impartial people. If there is a difference there would be a clear result averaging out after many tests.

If the tests were by people who were part of the project so to speak and were not DB then the result is questionable.

Stowmarket is not very far from where I live. I wonder if they will let me visit, I might be pleasantly supprised buy DCT. I doubt that they will want me to stay for the whole day though to get a good average of what I hear. I would have to bring a friend with no interest in hifi as a uncontaminated reviewer.

[Marco]

Out of interest was the AB listening tests double blind by people who had nothing to loose or gain from their findings.

Evaluation of DCT would seem to be a perfect candidate for DB tests by totally impartial people. If there is a difference there would be a clear result averaging out after many tests.

If the tests were by people who were part of the project so to speak and were not DB then the result is questionable.

No-one can challenge that assertion, Paul, but if one is to rigorously apply that rule to DCT treatments before believing in or giving credibility to their effect or not, then equally so must one apply the same principles to every other subjective aspect of hi-fi, which most people who have faith in their hearing acuity don't, nor are likely to do. I can't comment if DB testing was carried out or not but it wouldn't influence me one iota either way simply because I trust my own ears with such things, regardless of what was ascertained in a test which I wasn't part of.

Would it make a jot of difference to your hi-fi decisions if some egghead in a lab (or whomever, wherever) proclaimed DCT treatment as viable simply because of the results of double-blind testing? Would that mean then that if it were 'proven' otherwise using the same method by some unknown third parties that you'd automatically dismiss it before judging the effect yourself first with your own ears? If so, then you are unlikely to discover much of the magic of hi-fi which leads to an increased enjoyment of music, simply because not everything which is effective is always scientifically provable.

People believe/accept all sorts of things (obscure and not so obscure) in hi-fi all the time without the need for double-blind testing, and it's not necessarily imagined, so I don't see why the effect of cryogenically treating cables, equipment, or anything else for that matter, should be subjected to any more scrutiny than simply what is heard and reported accordingly by discerning and experienced ears. It's then up to an individual to try it or not. However, only by trying it will you be able to reach an informed conclusion on its efficacy or otherwise.

If actual objective 'proof' is available and can be submitted by the company claiming benefits from DCT treatment to support their findings then all well and good, but it should not be a prerequisite in order for it to be 'credible' or accepted as 'fact', because in the highly subjective world of how hi-fi equipment treats music signals 'facts' are fairly thin on the ground.

Incidentally, this is not an attack on you personally (or your viewpoint); I merely wanted to nip this one in the bud in case the discussion degenerates into a pointless subjectivist/objectivist bun fight often seen elsewhere and exactly not what this forum is about

Marco.

[anthonyTD]

hi all,
most of you will know that i have on a few occasions discussed my own findings on the cryo-treatment process and its perceived affects on all things audio. it was however only after having my own individual items treated in a trusted and controlled environment that i was presented with a situation i could no longer ignore.
There is no doubt in my mind that the changes i have experienced certainly with valves before and after the cryo process are real and not a figment of my imagination, and those changes have always been for the better, ie, extended dynamics, bottom and top, with more definition, attack, etc. Also for those who need some sort of scientific proof of differences before and after the process, well, where valves are concerned, there is almost always a characteristic test measurement change. that is indeed how i know the process has been done, as all valves are measured before and after and a record kept. there are many people with just as many theories as to why this change should/shouldn’t take place, some more acceptable than others, i too have my own opinions, but believe me only real sonic benefits would have convinced me that cryo-treatment worked... all that’s left for me to say on the matter at this particular time is this,,, Anyone with a true open mind and a good set of ears will certainly hear a difference in a non cryo valve to one that has genuinely been treated, and i suspect this goes for many other items in the audio replay chain.
regards,anthony,TD...

[Marco]

Nicely put, Anthony

I totally agree.

Marco.

[Audiocom AV]

...anyone with a true open mind and a good set of ears will certainly hear a difference in a non cryo valve to one that has genuinely been treated, and i suspect this goes for many other items in the audio replay chain.
regards,anthony,TD...

Hello Anthony

Cryogenic treatment is a 'no brainer' with valves. I recall buying two matched pairs of Mullard CV4003's, have DCT applied to one pair only. I ran the non cryo pair for week, then switched; like you say..."extended dynamics, bottom and top, with more definition, attack, etc"

Switching back to the non cryo pair the sound lost definition, bass was softer, looser; the music closed in.

For the fraction extra in cost to have valves cryo treated why settle for less?

Best Wishes
Mark Bartlett

[Primalsea]

No Worries Marco, I was not in any way offended by your post. It was actually quite a good argument. As I said before some things do make a difference I'm just a bit wary about claims in hifi as many don't always have a firm footing.

It's not about egg heads and empirical testing, this had never influenced my decisions. I just see it as being sensible to see some evidence of robust subjective testing. Sceptical but not cynical is the way I approach things.

[Marco]

I totally agree, Paul. That's the right way to go about things. I'm glad you took my post in the spirit in which it was intended

Marco.