CD Superclock & Cryogenic Treatment

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

admin_exported

New member
Aug 10, 2019
2,556
5
0
I have noticed that an ebay trader in Wales is offering these two upgrades. The first is a "Superclock" modification for any CD player that claims to deal with a number of issues not dealt with by the manufacturers designs. Secondly, they are (separately) offering to freeze your equipment to -190 degreesC to improve its performance. I've added a link to the superclock page, and the cryogenic treatment is linked to another page lower down it. Does anyone have any experience of either of these modifications?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300146283960&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RCRX_Pr4_PcY_BIN_Stores_IT&refitem=300148853834&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=active_view_item&usedrule1=CrossSell_LogicX&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget
 
I had a Marantz 6000ki modded by them, expensive but did really transform the player. I then bought a Densen 400+ which was far better despite only being a few hundred £ more. I've since had the Densen modded as I've decided to keep it for a few years - less of an impact.

Diminishing returns, only do it if you intend keeping the machine and be aware you will probably lose everything if not more on resale.
 
[quote user="oldphrt"]
Ah yes, placebo snakeoil for the overly rich and credulous, especially the cryogenic treatment which is likely to cause damage.

Try praying for a better sound, it will work just as well, ie. not at all.

[/quote]

I beg to differ on both counts. Firstly I was able to compare a "moded" Marantz 63 compared to a normal factory version. Not only did it comfortly beat the un moded version (the sound being richer/smoother with a deep 3d soundstage) but in some ways beat my Sony SCD777ESD when played in CD mode. Only when the Sony was played through my Cyrus Dac X did the sound surpass the moded Marantz. "Clock jitter" is now accepted as a major problem that was ignored (not completely understood) in early CD players. A lot research has since been done into the effects of jitter see http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/jitter1_e.html .And http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/appnotes-d/jittercu.html. The mods done to the Marantz tackled this and other issues.

Secondly I use (the very highly rated) Isolda DCT speaker cable, which you may be aware, is cryogenically treated. It's wonderfully clear. I haven't been able to compare it with untreated but do trust Max Townshend when he claims that there are sonic improvements. You might want to read http://www.frozensolidaudio.com/Freezing%20Issue.htm . And for the science bit: http://www.frozensolidaudio.com/science.htm .I have to say though that I am not sure about treating electronic components to low temperatures, these as you say may "cause damage". I my opinion the concept of DCT is sound but the application of it may not be appropriate in certain circumstances.
 
[quote user="oldphrt"]There would certainly be significant improvements to his bank balance if everyone believed him.[/quote]

I take it you have heard them (and thus qualified to express an valid opinion) or are you basing your sarcasm on hot air (Phrt).
 
Ah! so you haven't head them. Please enlighten me. Tell me based on your physics (and using physics) why its a scam. Or do you know of some research that has been done which shows DCT not to have sonic advantages? After all one person saying it snake oil does not constitute a valid scientific argument. At least I provided a site which shows metallurgical changes in the crystalline structure of a silver wire. I look foward to seeing your proofs/research. We'll leave out 'common sense' for the moment as this commodity tends to vary from person to person.
 
Another war! I am reading with interest but can't join in on this one as I have a moded Marantz too!
 
[quote user="Thaiman"]
Another war! I am reading with interest but can't join in on this one as I have a moded Marantz too!
[/quote]

Oh yes!
 
[quote user="Anton90125"][quote user="Thaiman"]

Another war! I am reading with interest but can't join in on this one as I have a moded Marantz too!

[/quote] Oh yes![/quote]

I don't know what do yo mean by Oh Yes! Ant.....my marantz sounded better BUT all it cost me was £200 (the price of audiocom superclock 4) as I did the mod myself which included opamp, power supplies, fully damping etc.
I have heard the lower version (cd 63 ose) which had been moded and imo, the standard 63KI is better! and cost only £150 2nd hand.
 
You missunderstand. I have heard a moded Marrantz 63 and yes I agree it sound superior to the non moded version. My "Oh yes" refers to another war!
 
[quote user="Anton90125"] I have heard a moded Marrantz 63 and yes I agree it sound superior to the non moded version.[/quote]

Yes, but like I siad "it doesn't make any sense to pay for the mod when you can pick up the 63KI for £150!! and it sound better (to my ears).
My moded one (spare room system) is a Marantz 17 KI which has a lot better components inside than the standard cd 63.
 
[quote user="oldphrt"]Of course I haven't heard them. I don't know anyone daft enough to buy them in order to test them. In any case what would be the point? Speaker cables only need to be as low an impedance as possible and this can easily be achieved using copper cables that are reasonably priced. End of story.[/quote]

So you are basing your knowledge of the Isolda on something you have never heard. You have not made any kind of scientific argument against anything I stated (or web sites provided) but instead just dismissed out of hand. You say you have based your opinion (stated as if its a fact) on physics but not constructed any kind of physical argument to justify your claims. At the risk of "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs", speaker cable impedance consists of resistance, capacitance and inductance. When you put cables in parallel (as you have suggested in other posts to get the impedance down) you increase the capacitance, which has a direct effect on the sound (it will also cause instabilities in some amplifiers like Naim). Speaker cables are typically between 100-400 ohms. Isolda has a characteristic impedance of eight ohms! It also has a small network to deal with the capacitance. Max Townshend strongly believes in Impedance matching (Grandmother sucking eggs again: practice of attempting to make the output impedance of a source equal to the input impedance of the load to which it is ultimately connected, usually in order to maximize the power transfer and minimize reflections from the load). Do you not think its strange that Max takes this trouble to employ a standard electronic practice with his cable then follow it up with a "snake oil" practice as you describe it. Now thats the end of the story!
 
[quote user="oldphrt"]The sort of capacitance we are talking about here (500pF max) will have no effect on any well designed amplifier. I have encountered instability on a system when a strange cable with woven enamelled wires in a clear sleeve was being used (can't remember the make) but that's exceptional. Inductance would be very low too (maybe a few uH) so for speaker wires resistance more or less equates with inductance at audio frequencies.[/quote]

For the given cap=500pF and Ind few uH how do you calculate an impedence 0.1 ohm ?
 
[quote user="oldphrt"]Because the inductance and capacitance values are negligible at audio frequencies the impedance of the cable is equal to the resistance.[/quote]

Mmmm...

I copied this from another site:The Characteristic Impedance depends upon the ratio of the values of the capacitance per metre and inductance per metre. To understand its meaning, consider a very long run of cable that stretches away towards infinity from a signal source. The source transmits signals down the cable which vanish off into the distance. In order to carry energy, the signal must have both a non-zero current, and a non-zero potential. (i.e. both the E-field and the H-field must exist and propagate along, guided by the cable.) Since the far end is a long way away, the signals transmitted from the source can't initially be influence by the properties of any destination before they finally arrive. Hence the ratio of the field carried along the cable (and hence the current/voltage ratio) are determined solely by properties of the cable. The result, when the signal power vanishes, never to be seen again, is that the cable behaves like a resistive load of an effective resistance set by the cable itself. This value is called the Characteristic Impedance, ImpedenceZ, of the cable. In general, for a loss-free cable, its value is given by

equation : ImpedenceZ=Squareroot(Impedence/capacitance) Using your figures 500pF and a few uH say 3uF
we get: 77 Ohms (ish).
 
[quote user="oldphrt"]For gawds sake we are talking audio here, not RF. Say the cable measures 0.1 ohm dc resistance from end to end. With negligible capacitance and inductance at audio frequencies the cable will also have an impedance of 0.1 ohm from end to end.[/quote]

There is no frequency component in that equation so audio or RF is not an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom