Cryogenically treated vacuum tubes...?

[salvarsan]

R.G.
You're quick to seize on minor points and argue them with willful misapprehension, so much so that I suspect disingenuousness in your use of smiley emoticons.

Contrarianism provides more heat than light and is a mystifying behavior different from what long timers here have come to expect of you. Instead, you might simply wrote, "Is not! Is not!", a message of equivalent substance.

As you're quick to conflate my observations with the entirety of Callaham's ad copy and then to extend ridicule by proxy, please feel free to take it up with Callaham himself. I'll be happy to direct him to your derision if you like.

[Chuck H]

Ok... Up to now I've been ignoring that most of the more technically argued points are those I've already iterated, though maybe on a less stringent level. That's fine. Fun thread and I love seeing any cork sniffing debunked. So I'm going to make another point that will probably be discussed and credited to the more technical minds here:

The electrical properties of a metal have more to do with the swapping of electrons than hardened grain structure. When you consider that atom to atom contact isn't dependent on grain structure it's hard to imagine a benefit to any such alignment. Atom to atom electron swapping is working on a much finer level than any grain structure improvement to be considered with the effects of cryogenic treatment. Not to mention that IT DOESN'T APPLY THE METALS USED TO MAKE VACUUM TUBES!!!

As I mentioned earlier, if there were any audio benefits to be garnered from the cryogenic treatment of metals used in electronics there would be a legitimate market for it. Complete with test data.

And as far as I know, rigidity only inspires vibration transfer, sustain and microphonics. That's why they don't make guitars out of rubber!!! The semantics of specific frequencies and circumstances not withstanding, always err on the side of caution. Rigid things resonate and transfer vibration better than less rigid things. I'll stand by that!

[Chuck H]

R.G.
You're quick to seize on minor points and argue them with willful misapprehension, so much so that I suspect disingenuousness in your use of smiley emoticons.

Contrarianism provides more heat than light and is a mystifying behavior different from what long timers here have come to expect of you. Instead, you might simply wrote, "Is not! Is not!", a message of equivalent substance.

As you're quick to conflate my observations with the entirety of Callaham's ad copy and then to extend ridicule by proxy, please feel free to take it up with Callaham himself. I'll be happy to direct him to your derision if you like.

Really?

Have you read the thread? Have you read the links you posted? Who is contriving diversion by being contrary if not yourself?

[salvarsan]

Really?

Have you read the thread? Have you read the links you posted? Who is contriving diversion by being contrary if not yourself?

Chuck,
From the beginning, I argued that any cryogenic effects would be minor, unimportant, yet you and RG seem obligated to take lengthy issue with an uncontroversial assertion.

That, as I look at it, is beyond simple contrarianism and edges into contentiousness.
Please stop before you embarrass yourselves further.

[potatofarmer]

I think everyone's forgetting that the metals in general are terrible for guitar applications. The fragile harmonics can't survive in a crystal lattice, and one quick look at the microstructure reveals just that. QED.

You know, for the cost of a few tubes, a dewar of LN2, and access to a microscope and hardness tester this could all be tested quite easily. Hell, toss in a curve tracer too. I doubt anyone here would be willing to toss away a couple hundred bucks for a piece of paper that says "inconclusive" but...

[bob p]

This cryogenic treatment business is just silly.

Everyone knows that tubes sound better if you heat them with a blowtorch.

(cue video to 0:45)

[big_teee]

For a minute after reading this Thread, I would have swore I was on the Pickup Forum.
All the Pettiness!
That is what I always liked about the amp forum, everyone gets along.
Please let's leave the arguing and pettiness in the Pickup Forum!
Thanks,
T

[Chuck H]

Mostly I just like ranting about hucksters and snake oil. But I guess I've over done it here.

[bob p]

Agree -- I always thought that all the snake oil salesmen and hucksters and petty know-it-alls hung out in the pickup forum.

/*ducks for cover*/

[salvarsan]

More meat for the contentious:

"The sky is blue."

Discuss.

[bob p]

We need a "that was a stupid post" button.

[g1]

Mostly I just like ranting about hucksters and snake oil. But I guess I've over done it here.

Nah, the OP was specifically about Vacuum Tubes, and that is what you addressed. Whether there are other legit uses for the treatment is a moot point. I understood your comment that it does not apply to the metals used in tubes the first time.
It doesn't take a lot of technical chops to understand that such treatment to a vacuum tube is probably similar to cryogenically treated stove elements.

[R.G.]

It doesn't take a lot of technical chops to understand that such treatment to a vacuum tube is probably similar to cryogenically treated stove elements.

And that is a remarkably apt statement. Do you mind if I quote it other places? Very nice, indeed.

[loudthud]

If the treatment really doesn't do anything, and you can't measure any difference in the tubes, how do we know that they actually did the treatment? Maybe they just stuck the tubes in the refrigerator next to their lunch for a half hour.

[The Dude]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just bias them "cold"?