Speaker Cable Suggestions

I'm more interested in the "how" it works not the "if"
"blakep" seems to be the man to ask the question as he is certainly committed to the treatment
Not only the "cryo"; what exactly happens to your cables when you "burn" them?

 

Cryo treatment is a valid thing in machining/metallurgy, but of course I personally don't know what the treatment 'does' for sonics nor probably does anyone else. That doesn't mean it's not a valid thing for high end audio components (they do this with tubes as well, maybe other things). It does change the metal somehow on a base/molecular scale (I think it's deeper than 'skin deep' as the temperature is conducted to the inside of the metal).

Burn must mean 'burn-in' using a device that sends signals thru the cable. I think some of these are higher level and different spectral content than music, some folks use this to 'break in' and optimize the cable sonics.

Of course, without advanced degrees in metallurgy and EE and etc., typical folks me included have to rely on the experiences of others who've heard differences after such treatments. Folks WITH such degrees or that work in certain fields may pooh-pooh such ideas as bunk (maybe like our 'speaker engineer' above). I think hearing acuity and music listening skills (which are NOT necessarily the same thing) vary according to the individual. No one can measure how people perceive soundstage depth and imaging, or how well one can hear background details in mixing, or how well a musical 'line' is perceived in a recording. I believe this is where the 'arguments' originate - some folks cannot hear differences (or won't try on principle), some can, and never the twain shall meet ...

I'm lucky I think in that I can perceive certain things and not others. I have heard distinct differences in components, caps, tubes, cables, power cords, and even fuses, but am not sensitive to the things that make some folks unhappy when it comes to integrating a subwoofer into a 2.1 system, nor possibly to room effects that bother some folks. We'll see how those last two things work out, as I'm moving from a 23x13x10 room into a basically square 12' listening room in about a month ...

 

the idea is to run the pre out to the sub, then take the (high pass) sub output back to the power amp in. This 'filters out' the low frequencies that are now handled by the sub, taking that 'load' off the power amp and main speakers. Certainly a valid approach, altho it would require two long runs of interconnect to implement.

I'd suggest if you're into it to try things both ways, the method above and the way you're possibly doing it now, with a variable out to the sub and simply running the speakers full range. They may sound different and you may need to change polarity on the sub for each arrangement (depending on whether the amp in either inverts phase). I think you'd maybe also need to adjust the crossover frequency on the sub if that's an option, for best integration. This is a good use IMO for test signals, SPL meters, etc. - to dial in the sub properly, but always then you're allowed to tweak things to taste, don't be afraid to experiment!

Differences you may hear with the two setups above are not limited to the bass region, as relieving the main amp/speakers of low bass may also result in cleaner mids/highs, better soundstaging, and other good things, but may also result in things sounding a bit 'discontinuous' or not integrated.

 

I like the REL method of "sub-bass system" connection. Uses the speaker level output from your amp.

 

I understand enough to know that cryogenics (and treating) is a "valid" thing; just curious as to how it translates to speaker wires and such:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...a=X&ei=n1slVe7FL8ipogTXq4G4BA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA

http://www.academia.edu/6055360/Met...eels_a_review_on_the_current_state_of_science

 

Now you've raised my other question; what happens to your wires, or changes about them, with a good proper "burn"?
The wire itself is what I am curious about, not the results that people seem to argue about
Most speakers wires are used at room temperatures, yes? Do they change that much while playing Music?

 

Have to get in my vote for Audio Art cables in here. Their products are reasonably priced and sound very good to my ears. As a bonus, the owner, Rob Fritz, is great to deal with. There are a lot of good cables out there, but be careful, some are way over priced.

 

I became interested in cryogenically treating cables, receptacles, etc. about 13 years ago. Others have touched upon the change in molecular structure that occurs. Science, as far as I know, has not shown that there is a reversion post cryo and that the change is indeed permanent.

In the early stages I was interested in measurements etc and there certainly is data out there indicating reduced electrical resistance, better thermal conductivity etc. Raw power cable that I treated, as well as receptacles showed slightly lower levels of measured resistance. I've had discussions over the years on audio forums and many say that those lower levels of resistance would have no meaningful effects on improving sonics. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, maybe the lowered resistance is there but not responsible for the improvement, maybe the improvement is in my imagination?

In the end, I was much less concerned with measurements and more concerned with sonic changes and improvements and I have heard those so I've continued to treat stuff. What can I say? It costs about $25-$30 to have something cryoed so it is not a huge expense to incur to satisfy one's curiousity. I've found it to be beneficial almost universally with IC's, power cables and speaker cables so I do it.

Cryoing things like DVD players is a different situation; there can be problems with all the dissimilar materials (the cooling and then subsequent return to normal temperature presents more of a problem with the abundance of dissimilar materials and thermal shock and potential damage is more likely); as as result I am not totally committed to the practice as one player I did seemed to respond very well while another seemed to show little improvment. The one that did respond also had a relatively short life span, which may or may not have been related to being treated-it was a really cheap player to start off with haha! My line conditioners are both still operational (and were done many years ago) but I think most of the benefit there was in simply treating the receptacles and if I spent big money on another conditioner I would simply do the receptacles separately and not treat the whole conditioner.

Burn-in is even more controversial I suppose. The idea behind devices like the Audiodharma Cable Cooker and the Nordost burn-in products is that they condition/treat the cable by subjecting them to greater electrical demands than they would see in any system. You can do this with power cables by attaching them via a $3 adapter to something like a chest freezer or refrigerator that has a compressor that will have huge demands when it kicks in. I've done this but IC's and speaker cables are a bit more problematic to have burned in and you really need some kind of commercial device. I have experience with cables being burned in on both the Audiodharma and the Nordost and they have been positive (and not particularly expensive-I view cryo and dedicated burn-in as two of the bigger bang for the buck areas in this hobby in terms of improving sound quality-the main areas of improvement are in frequency extension, refinement and detail retreival-cumulatively those improvements can be substantial and sometimes the equivalent of a component upgrade) as well so I've continued to do it.

I'm a bit fortunate in that I have a heat treating company locally that has a cryogenic unit (they tend to do mainly "industrial" cryo: saw blades, drill bits, tool and die stuff, etc) and they've always been easy to deal with and economical. I actually introduced that company to Gene at Takefiveaudio many years ago and they did Gene's cryo for many years before he purchased his own unit a few years ago. I introduced Steve Huang at Audio Sensibility to them as well and, to the best of my knowledge, they are still doing work for him.

In the end, I consider measurements but I am not consumed by them. I'm much more concerned by what I hear. I don't begrudge the measurement/science types but I've also been married to a scientist for 23 years and, as a result, know that there is much that science cannot fully explain at this point (which is why there are still a lot of employed scientists ).

YMMV of course, and everyone is capable of voting with their own mind and wallet, but the costs involved here are trivial compared to some equipment costs in this hobby and I've found that both cryo and burn-in can help substantially in elevating the performance within a system and maxing it out. Which is probably why some of the major manufacturers (Meitner, Tannoy for example) publicly acknowledge that they cryogenically treat components-I'm reasonably sure there are many others who do it but do not disclose that.

It is only speculation on my part, but I'd venture a guess that many a good quality but inexpensive IC/Speaker Cable that would be cryogenically treated and then burned-in post cryo would give many of the exotic (and pricey) cables a serious run for their money. That, essentially, is the direction I have gone with cabling in my own system and it has worked for me. It is also only a guess, but I would expect that many of the audiophile cable manufacturers that sell a line from budget into the stratosphere tend to subject their stratosphere priced offerings to both cryo and burn-in to really max out their performance.

 

Interesting post and a lot of work! Thank you for all that!

Please share the data with me or provide some links to the stuff you've researched

Resistance as measured how? How much was "slightly lower"? What were the results conductivity wise?

What exactly is that doing; that's my question about all of this; I don't want to go anywhere near the "does it really make a difference in sound" hubbub either; what I would like for someone to explain to me is just exactly how and what it is about "cryo" that does these things that people argue over whether you can hear or not..........make sense? And what is it exactly that it has done. "cryo" as I understand it is simply another "fine touch" to the tempering/treating of metals with heat to make them "harder" (ergo my links to all those writings on the benefits as it applies to machining practices and processes, like your reference to tool making/treating; I can't find anything as it relates to facilitating Audio or Radio signals)

I am not consumed with them either; I guess what I am looking for is a lay speak (regular English explanation, but based on the demonstrable/measurable results of the process) of just what the results of "cryo" treating copper wires, or whatever, does that can make Audio wires, tubes etc have better sound qualities

In other words; what has it done to the metal(s) that make it treat Audio frequencies more kindly

 

Analogman:

The power cables/receptacles were measured post cryo with a simple ohmmeter I believe. It was 13 years ago .

The simplest "lay speak" I have for you is that the treatment changes the molecular structure. If you can imagine, the grain structure in an untreated cable/connector/solder joint etc is filled with gaps; the treatment results in a significant reduction in those gaps which enhances signal transmission.

Google is your friend if you really want more information about cryogenics. There's lots of info online if you dig but unfortunately not much that is audio related. Do a search using the following words, or others which you feel might be appropriate, combined or separately:

Cryogenic, molecular structure, thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, resistance.

Better yet, if you're really curious, just have some cabling cryoed and find out for yourself if it is worthwhile.

 

I have to pay a lot of money to read the entire paper:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10426910701524626#abstract
Abstract
The mechanical properties of many materials have been enhanced via cryogenic treatment, which is a cold temperature process performed after traditional heat treatment. In this research the effect of cryogenic treatment on GRCop-84 was examined. Cryogenically and non-cryogenically treated samples were tested identically to determine whether cryogenic treatment has a significant affect on the thermal conductivity of GRCop-84. Optical and electron microscopy were used to characterize the material properties. Cryogenic treatment includes a temper that appears to be responsible for the enhancements observed in GRCop-84.

It all comes back to alloys involving iron (and steel) and is for the benefit of metals (including alloys) having to "work" under extremes temperature conditions (like drill bits, saw blades and metals being asked to endure the conditions of space)

I cannot find a connection that I can make sense of (better: application) discussed as for the benefits at room temperatures and involving Audio frequencies?

What I can find (and for your reference to eliminating "gaps") is that there is some evidence to suggest that the treatment does alter the relationships of crystals, but not "molecules"

With my one year of college understanding of things, we change the molecule, we've turned the material into something else, yes?

And all of this being on a microscopic level (micrographs and x-ray defractions)

This same paper would suggest (at least as I can best understand it) there is quite a bit of precision involved in the process, not just the zub-zero "freezing":
http://www.academia.edu/6055360/Met...eels_a_review_on_the_current_state_of_science

That's why I am still looking for a condensed "version"

So is all that Hubbell hardware at hospitals "cryogenically" treated as well?

 

Funny, the cryo treatment that is done (possibly pioneered) at LLNL where I used to work, apparently consists of 1) immersing the part in Liquid Nitrogen for ... 1 minute or something (or until it looks a certain way? has a 'film' on it? something simple like that) and 2) taking the part out and putting it in boiling water for 1 minute (or something) ... and repeating 5x.

I think they did the research in the 60s or 70s? for relieving stress in parts when doing precision machining. I think the process was 'reversed' (boil first, then freeze) for certain metals/alloys. Probably did a bunch of metallurgy (electron microscope studies etc., LLNL loves that kind of stuff) and precision dimensional and other measurements etc. too ... and it is apparently valid for some flavors of some metals but not others. I have no access to those documents if they were even published. I think the folks that did it did an 'Engineering Note' on it internally to the Lab.

Anyway the point I am making is that the process doesn't have to be ultra precise, if the proper 'recipes' are used.

I don't believe the Hubbell hardware at hospitals is cryo treated ... but maybe so! Hey if so, I can confidently take my stereo next time I'm in the hospital and know it'll sound its best!

 

I have a pretty high end system, but use Bluejean. It is not that I can't here the difference, but that I don't find upgrade cables to make a difference that is musically important. I have at times found upgrading the power cord to be more valuable.

 

Why would you think that to be so?

 

I'm asking, I don't know; you'd think they'd want their hardware as "stable" and reliable as possible

 

A-man:

You might find the following links to be interesting-they are still industrial based research (and there is heat tempering involved in the 1st study which would not be typical in an audio cryo situation) but they do reference some of what I was talking about (in the 2nd link pages 218-222 are what you'll be interested in):

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1088&context=imsefacpub

http://books.google.ca/books?id=lL0ESsPLcc4C&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=cryogenic copper increase electrical transmission&source=bl&ots=XXB9nCkPeA&sig=wKhnFm_p0VnvohsUCrysN5l0UEA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0ECdUPTyLYT9ygHUhYGoBA&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=cryogenic copper increase electrical transmission&f=false


The cryogenic process today is much more complex than dropping something into liquid nitrogen for a minute or two (the type of process is actually discussed in the first link above I believe) which would result in thermal shock and destruction for most of what you would want to cryo in audioland.

For all intents and purposes there are two cryo camps today: immersion and vapour. Full immersion is actually a combination of vapour and then immersion, the idea being that immersion can get you down to -320F vs. around -300F with vapour only and that there is additional benefit to that extra 20 degrees. But the ramp down process is very slow and computer controlled, typically 8-10 hours, with the low temp being held for 12-24 hours and then a very similar slow "ramp-up" to room temperature. With immersion, vapour would be used to get into the -300F range and then the immersion would occur for the last 20 degrees or so.

Most of my experience is with vapour cryo in the -300F area. I do have a couple of HBL 5362 receptacles here, one of which was done with deep immersion, the other vapour and I really do not hear any differences between those although they're both pretty distinguishable IMO from a stock HBL 5362. So I am not particularly sold on the benefits of immersion vs. vapour and the lower temperature and there is definitely more chance for damage and thermal shock with full immersion.

The second link above is interesting to me in that resistance was lowered further with longer "soak" times, although the soak times mentioned are still very short vs. a typical treatment today, at least any that I have been involved in where soak times are more in the 24 hour range.

 

I think they want them to be mechanically and electrically fault free, with a very tight contact grip and excellent grounding.

 

On this subject of cryo treatment, it's interesting. I don't know much about it but it seems to be a well-studied but not completely yet investigated and understood area of metallurgy-- not just studied by private labs but many government labs as well -- that has multiple industrial uses.

It undoubtedly changes the crystal structure of metal and is said to remove residual stress that's introduced during manufacture -- closing gaps in the crystal structure, I think it's also been used in precipitating impurities out of some metals, it improves stress-fatigue resistance, can improve electrical conductivity, can harden metals, and there may be more going on at the atomic level that is not yet fully understood, etc.

How that affects the audible sonics of wire and cable and room temperature conductors at audio frequencies, I don't know. What are the best, worst, least, most effective processes for creating these changes in audio parts and who is doing it one way or another, I dunno, but Blakes seems to have some valuable information on those subjects.

Can changes to the crystal structure of the conductors in cable affect the way it sounds, even beyond some kind of small change in a known electrical parameter like resistance? Who knows? We tend to presume that we know everything and that what we don't know doesn't matter. But science keeps moving and making new discoveries. It's possible that L, C and R are the only things that matter when it comes to audio transmittion cable and the final sound, but it's also possible that we don't know everything yet about electricity or audio or the nature of conductors, and that there's something about the crystal structure of metal that matters in audio in ways we don't understand. Since we know cryo treatment changes the crystal structure of metal we know something is different about the material before and after. A sonic difference is possible too. I haven't A/B'ed pre and post cryo parts or anything so I have no personal experience or opinion about what it does or doesn't do sonically. But I'm willing to accept the premise that it may.

 

Analogman, do you even own any gear? Why do you insist on NOT filling out your profile as our rules here indicate you should? You've always got an opinion on what everyone has or is doing but no commitment on what you have or are doing. It's hard to take anything you say very seriously under those conditions.

 

I have a feeling that if the treatment would have influences on the 'sound' we would know that by now. I am hesitating in thinking that, assuming we don´t know everything, has much to do if there will be an audible difference. If there is an audible difference can be tested so 'not knowing everything' isn´t a valid point, IMHO. It´s sort of 'begging the question', also IMHO.

 

Well, some people claim they do know by now. But there's not much in the way of studying in terms of audio -- or I'm not sure even all that in the way of anedotal reports -- even though we know the process is widely used in other kinds of machine and equipment and tool manufacture. It's sometimes challenging to correlate some of the things we measure in audio electronics with some of the things we hear. We've all from time to time experienced differences in what we hear (and in other areas of life) that aren't easily explicable by common science; and goodness knows science changes enormously, including even physical science like our understanding of subatomic particles. We know for certain that the crystal structures of metals are changed by cryo processing and that the change alters many of the metals' properties in use. I wonder how many of us have A/B'ed pre and post cryo'ed parts or cryo'ed vs control subject parts. I know I haven't.

 

What I mean is if we really are interested in knowing if there is a difference, audible, between treated and untreated parts, we could make some tests.
The possibility for there to be a difference doesn´t mean there is one, and it might not even be a possibility in the first place, we might just 'believe', there is a possibility.

 

speaker cable is one area that I have yet to drop serious money. I am running Monster Cable to my speakers and have for many years. I did upgrade to Audio Quest between components. I was thinking that my next $1,000 investment would go towards a Furman power conditioner, a new DAC or speaker cables.

are there any opinions about weather or not speaker cables would be the best choice? I know guys that sell cables certainly feel that way.

 

$1000 (£650) on speaker cables as your next investment? No.