Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Cryogenic cable treatment. (Read 30603 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #50 –
Quote
The sad thing is that Meitner is highly respected for some of his other work (DSD converter development) -- although I'd note that few if any of the claims for his (or any other high-end products) are ever properly tested.  It's a very echo-chamber culture, high-end.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328421"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


"Sad"? "very high-end"?

There's nothing intriniscally 'high end' about cryogenics,- it's not expensive at all -  but even if it is, so-frigging-what?

The pack/consensus mentality here at HA that makes posters feel free to make snide comments about people who often have real accomplishments to their names (e.g. Meitner and Townshend) sometimes strikes me as egregious as anything in the world of 'audiophilia'.

R.

>edit for grammar.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #51 –
Quote
Respect for Mr Townsend cant with compete the generously informed consensus here that this treatment is not necessary to produce transparent audio cabling, and it cant sound better in someway without actualy being worse in transparency terms.
Nothing personal, its not helpful to give a squat who Mr Townsend is to rate this technology.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336041"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Simply put, Max Townshend's credentials are impeccable.

So there.

R.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #52 –
Quote
Simply put, Max Townshend's credentials are impeccable.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336049"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So are credentials of people such as Jim Johnston (aka JJ) or Dick Pierce, in regards to audio engineering. Both agree that cables make no difference, as long as they are not broken.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #53 –
Quote
Therefore what you have proven is that copper cables distort the same as the cables originally used.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=335967"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Distortion should add up. But measurements show no relevant distortion, be it linear distortion, where measured levels (<< 0.1 dB freq response from 20 Hz to 20 KHz) fall quite below known tresholds of human hearing, or nonlinear distortion, of which measuremens show no trace at all.

On the other side, placebo effect in regards to auditory perception is a proved, common, and well known issue.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #54 –
Quote
Quote
Therefore what you have proven is that copper cables distort the same as the cables originally used.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=335967"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Distortion should add up. But measurements show no relevant distortion, be it linear distortion, where measured levels (<0.1 dB freq response from 20 Hz to 20 KHz) fall quite below known tresholds of human hearing, or nonlinear distortion, of which measuremens show no trace at all.

On the other side, placebo effect in regards to auditory perception is a proved, common, and well known issue.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336059"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ironic. Often I hear advocates of analogue, vinyl, tube-amplification etc. referred to as 'flat-Earthers' or 'Luddites'.

Yet, while such people are in no way an obstacle to the development of 'modern' audio technology (whatever you might say),  hardline 'objectivists' (dogmatists?) seems to be the ones who place the most obstacles in the way of simple empiricism and experimentation.

You bandy phrases like "below the threshhold of human hearing" as if these threshholds (of perception), actually) are established and set in sacred-writ, when nothing could be further from the truth.

R.

R.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #55 –
Quote
You bandy phrases like "below the threshhold of human hearing" as if these threshholds (of perception), actually) are established and set in sacred-writ, when nothing could be further from the truth.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336067"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh, and you know more than years of scientific psychoacoustic research? You, that don't have ANY sort of rigorous or verifiable proofs of such wild statement? The only thing you can offer is anecdotal evidence and wild speculation over it, which is not what science is about.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #56 –
Quote
You bandy phrases like "below the threshhold of human hearing" as if these threshholds (of perception), actually) are established and set in sacred-writ, when nothing could be further from the truth.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336067"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rest assured that when we "bandy" the term "threshhold of human hearing" here, we're talking about exceptional human hearing, not average.

You, sir, should watch yourself. Most consider your recent posts as "trolling".

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #57 –
Quote
You bandy phrases like "below the threshhold of human hearing" as if these threshholds (of perception), actually) are established and set in sacred-writ, when nothing could be further from the truth.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336067"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The limits of perception we know is the documentable edge, our gutsiest feelings may extend beyond but as yet unobservably, unproveably beyond.
I accept its possible our powers of perception (and manipulation) may extend beyond our concious grasp and control, but for them not to have been documented by now by all the enquiries in that direction means they must be extremely subtle or hidden by some undiscovered affects.
This previously undocumentable reach of human perception, be it subconcious, ultraconcious or all out psychic must be so subtle that reports of roomfulls of listeners reacting powerfully to cable demonstrations can actualy have nothing to do with it or with the performance of cables beyond the much tested and accepted standard types.
Powerfull social and psychological phenomenon exist to explain such reactions.

Do chill no one that matters really wants to fall out over this
Each to there own'
no conscience > no custom

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #58 –
Quote
Quote
You bandy phrases like "below the threshhold of human hearing" as if these threshholds (of perception), actually) are established and set in sacred-writ, when nothing could be further from the truth.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336067"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rest assured that when we "bandy" the term "threshhold of human hearing" here, we're talking about exceptional human hearing, not average.

You, sir, should watch yourself. Most consider your recent posts as "trolling".
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336071"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I have no idea what you mean by "exceptional human hearing" and, I suspect, neither do you.

I'm in my 40's and I've lived to regret abusing my hearing with headphones, concerts  and riding motorcycles without earplugs -  I tested it recently and I can't hear much above 15KHz

That presumably means I should be excluded from any discsussion of high fidelity music reproduction.

Oh yes -  "most consider" that I'm "trolling". That's usually a last resort, but I've somehow provoked you into making it in 3 posts. Hmmm.

R.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #59 –
Quote
Quote
You bandy phrases like "below the threshhold of human hearing" as if these threshholds (of perception), actually) are established and set in sacred-writ, when nothing could be further from the truth.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336067"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh, and you know more than years of scientific psychoacoustic research? You, that don't have ANY sort of rigorous or verifiable proofs of such wild statement? The only thing you can offer is anecdotal evidence and wild speculation over it, which is not what science is about.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336070"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sigh.

Children.

R.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #60 –
Being able to hear from 20 Hz to 20 KHz at sane levels is exceptional hearing abilities.

Being able to hear a frequency response deviation in that range of frequencies, of just 0.1 dB, is exceptional hearing abilities.

Now, measurements easily show that differences caused by standard cables are way smaller than those 0.1 dB, from 20 Hz to 20 KHz.

If you think this is not true, please explain us how and why, and at least offer us some reasonable explanation or verifiable evidence that contradicts it.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #61 –
Quote
hardline 'objectivists' (dogmatists?) seems to be the ones who place the most obstacles in the way of simple empiricism and experimentation.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336067"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


After the time I spent on the two interconnect cable listening tests in 2005, this is a bit unfair.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #62 –
Quote
Now, measurements easily show that differences caused by standard cables are way smaller than those 0.1 dB, from 20 Hz to 20 KHz.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336089"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Standard interconnect cables.
Don't forget that speaker cables influence is usually around 0.1 dB for home applications, and much more in professional use, with several tens of meters of cables used for one speaker.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #63 –
Quote
Sigh.
Children.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336087"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good point, I hadn't thought about it.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #64 –
Quote
Standard interconnect cables.
Don't forget that speaker cables influence is usually around 0.1 dB for home applications, and much more in professional use, with several tens of meters of cables used for one speaker.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336094"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I was thinking of interconnect cables. First post talks mainly about the effect of cryo treatment over those.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #65 –
Quote
Quote
hardline 'objectivists' (dogmatists?) seems to be the ones who place the most obstacles in the way of simple empiricism and experimentation.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336067"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


After the time I spent on the two interconnect cable listening tests in 2005, this is a bit unfair.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336091"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sorry if it seems that way Pio.

But, you're barking up the wrong tree. Music can't be ABX'd.

ABX testing forces  "left-brain" perception.

Listening to music is .......?

So much for ABX'ing.

It has it's place for testing codecs, though.

R.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #66 –
Quote
ABX testing forces "left-brain" perception.


Using those terms and talking without proper research done, I'd say that the "right-brain" would play less attention to "audio fidelity" than the "left-brain". So, I'd say using the "left-brain" is better when comparing encoders/cables/etc, since that is a rational process.

cya

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #67 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
hardline 'objectivists' (dogmatists?) seems to be the ones who place the most obstacles in the way of simple empiricism and experimentation.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336067"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


After the time I spent on the two interconnect cable listening tests in 2005, this is a bit unfair.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336091"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sorry if it seems that way Pio.

But, you're barking up the wrong tree. Music can't be ABX'd.

ABX testing forces  "left-brain" perception.

Listening to music is .......?

So much for ABX'ing.


[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336425"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If by definition it can't be measured, is it real?  (Serious question)

If so, how would you know what is real and what isn't?

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #68 –
Quote
ABX testing forces  "left-brain" perception.
Listening to music is .......?
So much for ABX'ing.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336425"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you understood the changes a standard interconnect actually does to the signal that goes throught it, you would agree with us that cryo treatment can't improve perceived sound in any way.

As I said in another thread, even if ABX (or other blind methods) had such problems, it would be the least bad method. Sighted tests are USELESS for reliable testing of subtle differences, get that in your mind. Placebo effect and all that. And don't tell me that cable differences are not subtle, because then relevant differences would have been easily found in an objective way, which is not the case.

Not to say that in Pio2001 tests, people DID hear differences. The "surprise" is that sometimes the good sounding cable was the"bad" one, and viceversa, in an unconsistent way. Was that the evil left brain trying to trick the good right brain?

And how are you qualified to call us children? For what I've read in discussions with some audio knowledgeable people in other forums, you don't understand a lot of concepts related to audio engineering, human perception of sound, or what is science about.

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #69 –
Quote
But, you're barking up the wrong tree. Music can't be ABX'd. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336425"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, but we were not testing music, we were testing cables.
 

Cryogenic cable treatment.

Reply #70 –
Quote
But, you're barking up the wrong tree. Music can't be ABX'd.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=336425"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Many peole has ABXed music, even outside of codec testing. Speakers influence is trivial to ABX, for example. Sub-performing speaker cables have been easily ABXed in these forums, to give another example. And, what would make codec testing different to cable testing?