Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

No offense intended (at least by me)

Hi-

Were you in this room as opposed to on the Internet, I still would have said, in a conversational and not confrontational tone of voice, that you should not even think about arguing about the applicability of cryogenic processing to tool steel, because it is well-established science, and, further, people who have to decide how to spend money in the machine-tool and manufacturing businesses have voted with their wallets, it is SOP in the tabletting-punch business. And people pay good money to have target rifle barrels treated. Say what you think about NASCAR, I don't care. Camshafts and crankshafts are made from ferrous metals. A process that favorably changes the Austenite/Martensite ratio with no side effects is SOP there. There is no shortage of peer-reviewed science on the Austenite/Martensite effect. I append a link to an ASME article.

I cheerfully admit that the applicability of cryo to non-ferrous metals, such as silver (in flutes) is less well-understood. Any phase change that takes place should be in very minute quantities, instead of wholesale, as in ferrous metals. But there is also a large body of anecdotal evidence from the musical instruments industry that there is some effect.

Applied Cryogenics is or was a company made up of reasearch scientists who were seeking to exploit applications for cryogenics. Their principals had peer-reviewed publications in metallurgy. The polycarbonate paper was not peer-reviewed or published, but, it consisted largely of reproducible measurements any mechanical testing lab should be able to check. I.E., process a CD, it takes less force to achieve a given deflection, and it springs back more slowly.

Re: CDs. Changing the modulus of elasticity makes for a "floppier" CD with more self-damping. The theory is that it flutters less while rotating than a more rigid CD (all CDs are out of round and out of balance, just to tolerance specs), thereby putting less load on the focus-correct and tracking-correct circuits. So far, so good.

However, why this should change the sound in any given player, debunkers lay at the feet of supposed poor design of the player. In any case, it does fly contra the "bits is bits" orthodoxy. As I reported, my wife, unaware of the process, volunteered a comment on the changed sound. Many many trained listeners, such as Ed Meitner, heard the difference.

I surmise that you are a "bits is bits" kind of guy. Fine with me. I have 14 years experience in CD replication, and I don't believe it. And I know some of the most highly-regarded mastering engineers in the world, and none believe that, they have all had expereinces where a CD made from an Exabyte tape sounds different from one made from a 1630, despite the Exabyte and the 1630 being from a common source and bit-for-bit verified.

Ciao,

JM



This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Herbie's Audio Lab  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.