[dBe]

So, whatcha think about the sonics?

[groovybassist]

I happen to be where the tour ended and still have the discs until I send them back to Dave on Monday. I'm interested in a description of the nature of differences, from early participants who heard a distinct difference. To my ears and on my current system, I don't hear any real difference, but am happy to explore this before sending back to Dave. I'm not claiming to be a golden-ear, but I am a former musician and typically have no trouble identifying changes in cables, power filtration, components, tweaks, etc., which is why I'm a bit flummoxed.  Maybe my age is finally catching up with me!

Mike

[dBe]

I happen to be where the tour ended and still have the discs until I send them back to Dave on Monday. I'm interested in a description of the nature of differences, from early participants who heard a distinct difference. To my ears and on my current system, I don't hear any real difference, but am happy to explore this before sending back to Dave. I'm not claiming to be a golden-ear, but I am a former musician and typically have no trouble identifying changes in cables, power filtration, components, tweaks, etc., which is why I'm a bit flummoxed.  Maybe my age is finally catching up with me!

Mike

Mike, it isn't age.  I'll post some observations later.

You received the discs in a dirty,battered condition.  Too bad.  It would have been a good thing for you and the last player or two to get a fair chance.  Just didn't happen.  My apologies.

It isn't your ears.

Dave

[Elizabeth]

When they are sent back.. I would like to hear if cleaning them up.. IE resurfacing them affects the Cryo??

And when sent back can you tell if they ARE your original discs? or some were replaced with crummy copies?
I realize damaged data sides cannot be fixed.

[dBe]

When they are sent back.. I would like to hear if cleaning them up.. IE resurfacing them affects the Cryo??

And when sent back can you tell if they ARE your original discs? or some were replaced with crummy copies?
I realize damaged data sides cannot be fixed.

I'll be able to tell if they are the same discs.  I doubt very seriously if they have been swapped.

Resurfacing will change the sonics.  It always does.  I'll go into why a little "bit" (pun, you see) later in the discussion of what people heard, didn't hear, postulate, guess, etc...

It isn't the data that is changed anyway..... oh, that's a hint, huh? 

Dave

[blakep]

I believe I was about 75-80% through the tour as far as receiving the discs. I thought they were pretty hacked up when I got them but I wouldn't necessarily attribute that to the fact that I failed the test, and I did "fail" as far as I'm concerned.

I have a fair bit of experience with cryo with cables, receptacles, components and CD's; have probably done at least 50 CD's in the past, possibly more. As such, I felt the only way that I could consider myself to have passed the test was to not only identify the difference in the discs but also to identify which disc(s) were cryoed and which were not. 100% accuracy in identifying the cryoed and non-cryoed disc.

I did choose X as a cryoed disc correctly but incorrectly chose A as being non-cryoed and B as being cryoed. Spent probably 3-4 hours straight listening to the discs and it was a struggle to hear significant differences.

I have heard what I consider to be fairly significant differences in cryoed vs. non cryoed CD's in the past but simply didn't hear them with these CD's.

I am on record here (last post in the thread) before this evaluation:

http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26731

as saying that the differences in cryoed vs. non-cryoed CD's are not consistent (I'd have to say that my experiences with cables/receptacles in particular (but not necessarily whole components) would be described as consistently positive. In other words, some CD's and music benefit more from cryo than others and with some CD's the difference is "negligible" as I said in the linked post above. I'd certainly describe the differences as negligible, at least to me, in this case.

Now most of what I own in the way of CD's are older performances, originally recorded analog but possibly remastered. Plus some DDD recordings, mostly blues and jazz that don't have much in the way of synthesizers or the kind of electronica/highly processed sound of the CD's on the tour. I have a fair bit of Floyd on vinyl but almost all of it is earlier (with the exception of say, The Final Cut, I think) and originally recorded all analog.

With discs that I've had cryoed in the past, the ones that have exhibited the biggest sonic differences have, in many cases, been discs that were originally recorded analog, but may have been remastered (possibly poorly) for digital, or may not have been exceptionally recorded in the first place. Of the discs that I can recall showing the biggest improvement post cryo, a few from memory would be Paul Butterfield Blues Band/Self Titled and a number of the RVG Blue Note CD reissues (I think Rudy's hearing in the high frequencies may have been shot when he did these as they are very BRIGHT, nasty might be a better word ). These CD's, for example, sounded noticeably better post cryo: smoother, more fleshed out, less "edgy".

Now, don't get me wrong: as much as I'm not really keen on the "processed" quality of the Floyd disc(s) on this tour, I think the performances represent a pretty high level of digital recording (not that I really like digital recording that much ), and the performance is very dense and full of synthesizer, which is pretty hard to (IMO) really establish a "correct" sound for, as opposed to what I consider to be real instruments in real space. Of the Floyd that I listen to most, I'd expect a cryoed CD of Dark Side of the Moon to maybe exhibit some better qualities post cryo as it's a bit hot as a recording initally; I think I might have problems, for example, ascertaining differences between cryoed CD versions of Wish You Were Here and The Wall, which I'm both really familiar with, as I think they are much better recorded initially even though they're all analog as well.

So there's my excuse, but I struck out! At least I can admit it. 

[dBe]

Blake, 

I started this tour as a response to a statement made in paraphrase that 'cryogenic is bogus'.  I come from an industry that would not exist and we would not be communicating now if this statement were true.  Without cryogenic materials processing the semiconductor industry would not exist.  It is not possible to produce semiconductors without cryo processes in several different areas.  There are other reasons, too.  Racing engines of all types, telescopes, both optical and electronic perform the way they do because of cryo.  Guns, medical instruments and process.... The list is becoming almost endless.

Cryogenics works, but then you know this empirically, which is the best way to learn.  The premise was to get people interested in why it works through hearing the results of cryo on a CD.  Obviously not the best choice on my part from what present experience is telling us.  Oops, my bad...again.  Money thrown frivolously to the audio gods to prove a point.

Here is a short form of the hard data from the tour until physical degradation of the discs began to render that data irrelevant.  Every person was able to discern a difference between the discs.  Discs A and X were cryoed.  Disc B was not.  Toward the end of the test X was being heard as the superior disc of all.  I believe that visual inspection and error extraction will find that disc X is the least damaged of the three.  I will have Groovybassist - aka Mike send them back to me this week.

To all that participated: thank you.  We have learned at least one very important thing here.  Treat the discs like a prized possession.  Data IS data.  That is what digital audio is all about.  Bits are bits.  It is how those bits are managed that is how and why digital audio sounds different.  The optical component is what was addressed by this Tour.

So, why do ya'll think we got what we got?

Dave

[Rclark]

I was able to readily hear the difference and greatly preferred the non-cryo discs. The cryo'd disc has a strange fatiguing smear to it.

[jtwrace]

When will you be posting each persons results?

[Diamond Dog]

Hi : I wasn't part of the test but followed this with interest. If the cryoed disc X was preferred, is it conceivably because the cryo process improved the clarity of the polycarbonate (? ) of the disc, enabling the laser to give  a better "read" of the data? Also, was the process identical for both of the cryoed discs ? 

D.D.

[SoCalWJS]

This was an interesting experience for me.

My preference for listening is in a dark room. This made it fairly easy to not see the markings on the disc until I used a light to look at it after I listened to the disc. I would then return the disc to it's case after listening to it. After a few cycles, I randomly shuffled the discs (while they were inside of the covers) so that I did not know which disc was which until after I listened to it and shined a light on it. I was able to pick out disc B every time.

I had the advantage of listening to the discs when they were brand new. I was able to quickly differentiate disc B from both Disc A and disc X, but my problem was that while I thought A and X sounded very similar, I thought they sounded ever so slightly different from each other. However, they both sounded distinctly different from disc B. Based on not being able to positively match the two of them (A and X), I decided that my results were not conclusive. I do not know if it is possible that the 2 discs reacted differently to the cryo process. 

Yet I did hear differences. I felt that B was more natural sounding (if that can be said about listening to this particular CD), than either A or X. I chose to listen to a couple of specific segments of (amplified) acoustical guitar and vocals that I was already very familiar with. These segments were between 30 seconds and a little over a minute long. This made it fairly easy to cycle through several times quickly.

Thank you Dave for doing this!

[jriggy]

I believe one or more of the discs were a little beat when I received them but I can not say how bad or which ones...
I listened to the first two tracks in this order: A, B, X, B, A, B, X, A, X.  As I played them, each disk were set back into their....tray? Wait... Were these CD's packaged in cardboard sleeves or in standard jewel cases??? If memory is serving me correctly at the moment, these CD's were packaged in cardboard sleeve style 'cases'. This may explain why the CD's got worse and worse as the tour went on. It is very easy for dust and/or foreign particles to scratch the CD's every time they are removed or inserted into the sleeves...or in some cases, the cardboard surface itself can not be good for a disk.

 With home renovations that week, I did not have the time I wanted to really get into listening to the full discs but my observations mirror Rclark.

 I figured the cryoed disk(s) must be superior, so I chose B as being the cryoed disc, since it sounded the best in my system --smoother and more natural sounding... I guess, instead of stating what I thought was what, I should of just stated what sounded better to me and I would feel more like a winner
 Disk A had a hard glair to it and a mechanical sound to vocals and leading edges. Disk X was fooling me. It had some of that glair disc A had but seemingly not as bad. Also a touch more dynamic and clear than A, but not nearly as good as B. Odd. That lead me to believe that buy the end of the tour we were going to be told that X was cryoed for not as long or at a higher temp, or something like that, than B was (since I was assuming B was cryoed). Maybe this was due to some disc damage setting in already on one or more of the CD's.

So, B was clearly better in my system, A kinda sucked and X seemed to be somewhere in between.

Jason

[jriggy]

SoCal,
I just read your post AFTER posting mine. I am happy to see that my findings were the same as yours!
 
I wish I would of thought to do a blind pick also!

~J

[SoCalWJS]

 

After re-reading my post, I realize I should have rephrased it or added some info.

Disc B was different. That should have been the key point.

Another member, who will hopefully post his results, was able to do this test on two different systems. He consistently picked out disc B, but thought it was better on one system and worse on the other.

This leads me back to that system synergy topic again.

The difference was pretty easy to pick out, the preference? - that's another story.

[groovybassist]

I did the test two different ways.  Friday evening, I knew which disc I was putting in and there were no obvious differences, but I did have a visceral reaction that B was different - it just seemed more abrasive/harsh; extremely subtle difference and more a gut reaction than anything else.  I was concerned about recency bias, so on Saturday morning, I did it blind - my wife shuffled the cases and I had no idea which was which.  In the blind test, again, no glaringly obvious sonic differences, but I told Dave if you put a gun to my head, I would say A is different.  I cleaned the discs per Dave's instructions and still no obvious differences for me.  I'm 100% unfamiliar with this music, which is certainly a factor, but my experience was nothing like the early participants.

-Mike

[dBe]

When will you be posting each persons results?

The only person that I will proxy for is Medium Jim.  He told me that he really could not hear any difference.  He also said that the discs were pretty well damaged by the time he got them.

Dave

[Don_S]

I did not participate in the study so my observations are limited to what I gleaned by reading the responses here.

At least three testers (Rclark, jriggy, SoCalWJS) heard differences and preferred the non-cryoed CD. It appears that cryogenic treatment does make a difference but a difference may not necessarily equal an improvement.

My current opinion is that cryogenic treatment is not guaranteed to make what we would consider improvements. It can, in some cases, be beneficial.  But its application needs to be judicious and tested and not accepted blindly. I am extrapolating this to all cryo treatment, not just CDs.

Not to pick on jriggy who fessed up with good humor. He thought the best sounding disk must be the cryoed one. I would have (previously) leaned toward that same assumption

I was able to readily hear the difference and greatly preferred the non-cryo discs. The cryo'd disc has a strange fatiguing smear to it.

[dBe]

Hi : I wasn't part of the test but followed this with interest. If the cryoed disc X was preferred, is it conceivably because the cryo process improved the clarity of the polycarbonate (? ) of the disc, enabling the laser to give  a better "read" of the data? Also, was the process identical for both of the cryoed discs ? 

D.D.

Yes, it is the optics that are being effected in this procedure.  I'll comment about CD optics a bit later after the discussion has gone on for a while. 

The process was the same for both discs: a very slow drawdown (~2 hours) in LN2 to -322/324F from a prechill done with CO2.  The process is a full immersion process.  The discs were immersed in the LN2 for 18 hours and then brought back up to ambient over a 24 hour period through a controlled boiloff process.

Dave

[dBe]

I did not participate in the study so my observations are limited to what I gleaned by reading the responses here.

At least three testers (Rclark, jriggy, SoCalWJS) heard differences and preferred the non-cryoed CD. It appears that cryogenic treatment does make a difference but a difference may not necessarily equal an improvement.

My current opinion is that cryogenic treatment is not guaranteed to make what we would consider improvements. It can, in some cases, be beneficial.  But its application needs to be judicious and tested and not accepted blindly. I am extrapolating this to all cryo treatment, not just CDs.

Not to pick on jriggy who fessed up with good humor. He thought the best sounding disk must be the cryoed one. I would have (previously) leaned toward that same assumption

Cryo is a wonderful process for SOME things, but not all... just like you stated.  It can be abused and overused or misapplied.

The point here was not that it makes everything better, but that cryo imparts a change.  Different is only different... better is better.  Human perception is just that.  Explain Orioles and Yankees fans to me... please.  I'll tell my maddog Yankees fan daughter wassup with that.

I cryo a lot of cables that people send to me.  Many have molded ends that have visual molding flaws on them from dies or molding media that are too cool or imperfect fills.  I can guarantee that they will separate at that point when cryoed.  Plastics are tough to cryo... that includes the plastic disc that is a CD.

Wire, gun barrels, projectiles, crankshafts, satellite lenses - all of thse are different and all require a different approach to cryo, but they all 'can' benefit from the process when properly done.

Dave

[kevin360]

I was (according to the list) the 6th person to get the CDs. I was appalled at their condition when I removed them from their sleeves (and I emailed Dave about it) – my CDs from the early 80s still look practically new, but I'm anal in the extreme. Anyway, I don't think their condition affected my results and I did correctly identify disk B as the odd man out – I didn't try to identify the cryo treated CD(s), only which one was different.

It was not a significant difference, in my opinion. In fact, with my bedroom system, I don't recall finding a difference (but it's been a while). So, I took them to the cave and had a go with the big rig. Still, nothing jumped out at me, but I did notice that every time I went from either A or X to B that I had a sense of a change. After dozens of trials, I actually preferred B, but I couldn't really say why. It could be as simple as that's more like what I'm accustomed to hearing from a CD.

One of the problems with this experiment, for me anyway, was the amount of time between listening to each sample. A changer would have effected quicker disk changes, which would have helped. It was interesting and fun, but it sure was work. It was definitely a learning experience and I am very grateful to Dave for sponsoring this activity. I'm very sorry that it ended as it did – surprised too.

Regardless of my stated preference, it is clear that the cryo treatment did have an audible impact, which I doubted going into this. I'm not stating that I think cryo processing is bogus, only that it's far more applicable to some things than others.