Freezing CDs?

So in your own words, you have no authority whatsoever to make any kind of judgement or pass any kind of comment as you have never tried it and therefore, are not qualified to make a comment. As I said, a total and complete hypocrite...!!!​

 

I think that this has got absolutely nothing to do with physics at all. The temperature of a domestic freezer is what, -10C, -15C. Polycarbonate (ie that which has the 0s and 1s etched onto it) cannot be affected at that temperature. If it could, we wouldn't make jet fighter canopies or use it other pretty demanding applications.

Therefore, it is extremely unlikely, bordering on the impossible, that any physical changes to the pits occurs and even if it did, it changing the physical size / shape of the pit can't change a bad data word into a good one. So that may rule out improved sonics through less error correction at the DAC.

Having just read Mr Belt's website and some of his more 'interesting' ideas to improve sound quality (blue piece of paper under a pot-plant or vase anyone?) leads me to think that he's on to something.

Personally, I don't doubt for a minute that some of you have heard an improvement in the quality of the CD after freezing but I do doubt that it can be attributed to anything miraculous happening to the signal path from the CD to the speaker. What I believe is going on here is the Subject-expectancy Effect at work – a positive affect is experienced by the subject because they want it.

Given that appreciation of music and fidelity is all a bit subjective (show me an instrument that can measure beyond frequency spread and distortion) by changing the conditions around that subjectivity (ie “I want it to sound better after freezing this CDâ€Â) you probably do improve the sound but, most importantly, only to you. This is no bad thing – a free sound upgrade whether a result of a physical change or a change in perception is still a free sound upgrade.

 

that nicely sums up ...some of the more rabid naysayers ...


I still don't understand why the detractors are so vehemently opposed to even the merest hint ..that the sound they perceive is not fixed in stone ...unable to be affected by the normal day to day processes that effect everything else ... but miraculously there hifi replay is immune.

imo its more they can't tolerate the thought that theres life outside the herd and some of us occasionally have independent thought...even if it wrong or misguided. Interestingly you don't see the open minded ramming there opinions down other peoples throats ...telling them what right and wrong ....

 

You see straight away ...the ideas are dismissed without trying


so being able to pick the "better" sounding cd from the pair ..even when shuffled is imagination ....hum interesting concept


Why would I want to prove something that I was originaly skeptical about ? common sense would suggest I would want to refute the idea to maintain ideals.....

I repeat there was a small but decernable difference ....which suggests the idea has more legs than some would hope

 

No, its funny isn't it?

To me, one or two of the detractors seem to tar the whole subject with the same brush, from the less plausable concepts to well respected subjects.....they are all brushed/swept away in the same manner ......

 

reminds me of this old thread...

https://www.audio-forums.com/as-rediect/showthread.php?t=16666&highlight=hand+cream

 

Zanash,

It's perfectly fine and understandable that people who enjoy this tweaking business might want to experiment new topologies and explore new materials as long as these "centipede" experiments have well defined objectives and are backed by proper scientific background and adequate evaluation methodology (just as any component replacement should).
But if someone comes here determined to make a fool of himself then he should be prepared and brave enough to "take it" like a gentleman.
FYI my "reference" system, the best sound I've heard at any price, is composed of tremendously (work in progress) modified sources and amplification and even makes use of a very common DIY recipe of low capacitance ICs.

Cheers,
Tuga

 

This issue clearly has everything to do with physics, physics being the behaviour of matter. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the behaviour of polycarbonate as the data is not stored on polycarbonate, it is stored on Aluminium which is a metal and therefore clearly affected by temperature.

The number of experts in physics we have on this forum is absolutely amazing.​

 

You are wrong. The 0's and 1's are not etched onto polycarbonate but aluminium.​

 

Correct...but vague.
What I would like to know is whether or not the "slight" temperature variation in this experiment is enough to provoke such a notable reaction as to improve the performance/accuracy of the reading mechanism - your hearing (it) doesn't stand as proof.

 

Even using CDR/CDRW discs the data is not etched onto or into the polcarbonate protective casing. The disc contains a heat sensitive chemical gel that is affected by the burning laser. In case you still haven't made the connection, this gel is heat sensitive and very probably cold sensitive as well.​

 

I agree...!​

 

interetsing....

People are writing on here stating technical facts so positively.........great......fantastic...... but if there is dissagreement, by definition someone isn't getting it quite right.

 

Here one only has to think of mercury metal that used to be contained in a thermometer. The effects of cold on metals is very well known and very easily measurable.​

 

I also agree...!​

 

That's a perfect illustration. Let's just hope aluminium is not as plastic...

 

This is true but the disagreement could be due to a thought process rather than fact. All of the Worlds best creations started this way.​

 

I certainly hope not. I'd never get in another aeroplane...!!!​

 

Not by positively stating incorrect information as facts?!?

or are you saying some times people don't express them selves clearly?

 

I think sometimes it could be very difficult to express oneself perfectly clearly. I really do believe that not all of us have that ability. Regarding stating incorrect information as facts, i'm sure the person/person's only do this because they genuinely think they are correct when the make the statement. This I feel can be excused.

I spent twenty seven years as an industrial scientist and hope that I speak facts but there will inevitably be times when I am wrong. I try hard to keep away from things I do not know about.

The golden rule: "Never assume" it makes an 'Ass' out of 'u' and 'me'

​