cryogenic saxophone
Darryl C. Olivier
There is an ongoing discussion in alt.music.saxophone about cryogenic
treatment of saxophones. Supposedly a sax plays better after being
dipped in LN2 and brought back to room temperature. Some who have
tried it swear by the process. Sounds like snake oil to me. Does
anyone know if this treatment can alter the structure of brass? Is
there another explanation for a change in acoustic properties after
such a treatment?
Kas R. Osterbuhr
Let me state first, these are my personal opinions. I mean no slander
or libel agains manufacturers of cryo machines.
SHORT ANSWER: I don't think that there are any material structure
changes that would occur. The saxophone would likely have the same
elastic modulus, same structure, same strength. I see no reason for
it's acoustic properties to change. I could be wrong though.
In my opinion the LN2 Cryo machines are a hoax. I have read literature
from the company marketing the machines (300 Below, Inc). The guy who
started the company (Pete Paulin) is supposedly a metallurgist or
something. However I have read his literature and found many, many
flaws and scientific statements that don't make sense.
The first and biggest tipoff is that those who buy the machines from 300
Below are obligated to pay them a percentage. There are meters on the
machines that keep track of the N2 you use, of the batches you run. You
have to pay 300 Below a "franchise fee" on everything you do. This is
ridiculous. We just bought a CNC machine. Imagine if we had to pay our
machine tool dealer 5% of every job we brought in!!
Keep in mind that I recently graduated from CSM in Golden with a
metallurgy degree. I am by no means an expert, I'm just stating an
opinion based on the mathematics, chemistry etc. that I learned, and it
may very well be that there are many more experienced metallurgists out
there that can say differently.
First of all, Pete and his company claim that the treatment increases
the density and "regularity" of the lattice. At 300 below, the metal
may be more dense, but unless you cause a microstructural change, as
soon as you heat it up, the density will return to its original value.
The key is that, unless you have retained austenite, there will be NO
structure change. I'm not familiar with any transformations that are
likely to occur at very low temperatures that wouldn't have already
occured, except the A --> M transformation. With materials other than
iron, I'm not an expert, maybe someone could help me out here...
I won't argue that quenching a material below room temperature will
undoubtedly result in a different microstructure. This is if you quench
it from a phase such as austenite (high temp phase) to below room temp.
This is a common treatment that results in high percentages of
martensite, the hard stuff. However, after some time, any retained
austenite becomes stabilized to a certain degree, and is unlikely to
transform to martensite even if at 300 below for a long, long time. And
what about cast iron, ferritic steels, etc that don't even have
austenite in them? I can forsee no benefits there.
Heck, Aluminum is not even allotropic, the ONLY strengthening mechanisms
it has are dislocation density mechanisms (plastic deformation), and
precipitation hardening mechanisms. Neither of these will be affected
by sub zero treatment. But if you have an aluminum engine block, then
you sure should get it frozen!?
They claim also that carbides precipitate that fill "microvoids" in the
structure, making it more dense. This couldn't be more falsely stated.
Perhaps they are making a statement that, although not scientific, is
somewhat understandable for most readers? Microvoids in materials are
typically 5-10 micrometers in size. And carbide precipitates,
especially those associated with any sort of strengthening would be on
the order of 50 angstroms (about 1000 times smaller than microvoids).
And we know from precipitation and growth equations that any
precipitation at a low temperature like this will be associated with
VERY small particles (diffusion is very slow). Why would carbides
precipitate at this low of a temperature, diffusion is severly retarded
by the low temperature. And even if there were precipitation, doesn't
the conservation of mass still apply? Fe3C and Fe aren't that
dissimilar in density.
They make claims that cooling the part down, and heating it up in a very
controlled manner can reduce residual stresses. I'll let the reader
think about this one...
The reader of Pete Paulins literature will see a statement similar to
the following "metallurgist have long doubted the effects of cryogenic
treatment, because there are no VISIBLE microstructure changes". Of
course, this is the perfect coverup statement, you can't go wrong.
Crackpot metallurgist such as myself will take some of his sample parts,
look at them, and see no difference. After reading Pete's literature
someone would listen to me and think in thier mind "this guy is a
metallurgist, and they have long doubted this process because they
couldn't see anything different!" But we can't disclaim the enthusiasm
of the satisfied 300 Below customer, right?
I have in my possestion a bunch of carbide cutters from a friend of
mine. Half are cryo treated and half are not. I intend to analyze them
on the SEM and using trad microscopy and hardness etc... However my
time is limited right now. Don't expect results for a few months. If
there is someone out there who would like a couple of parts for a
detailed microstructural analysis, I would be glad to send them. I am
interested in the results myself. I am compelled by the astounding
claims of the customers, and I have no right to refute their claims
until I find the truth, the metallographic truth.
Because someone has posted about this, I think I'll go in on monday and
do some rockwell or vickers tests. They are crude but might give some
"instant gratification" to those interested in my lengthy reply to the
question about the saxophones.
Thanks for everyone's time, those who actuall read all of this. I
welcome any comments or critiques.
--
Kas Osterbuhr
Metallurgist/CAE Specialist
Sherpa Unlimited
Computer Products Division
Denver, CO
email: she...@plinet.com
cc: cla...@midusa.net
phone: 1.303.987.2139
Xiaobao Fan
Kas R. Osterbuhr wrote:
>
> I have in my possestion a bunch of carbide cutters from a friend of
> mine. Half are cryo treated and half are not. I intend to analyze them
> on the SEM and using trad microscopy and hardness etc...
>
> Because someone has posted about this, I think I'll go in on monday and
> do some rockwell or vickers tests. They are crude but might give some
> "instant gratification" to those interested in my lengthy reply to the
> question about the saxophones.
>
Hi, Friend:
I believe this is an enlightening subject to do. I'm interested to see
your results, both in microstructure observation and the hardness
measurement. Don't keep us wating too long.
Regards!
#########################################################
Xiaobao FAN, Ph.D.
Research Center for Advanced Materials
National Institute for Research in Inorganic Materials
1-1 Namiki, Tsukuba
Ibaraki 305, Japan
Phone: 81-298-51-3351 ext. 520
Fax: 81-298-52-7449
E-mail: f...@nirim.go.jp
Homepage: http://www.nirim.go.jp/~fan/
#########################################################
Rick Rowland
Darryl C. Olivier wrote:
>
> There is an ongoing discussion in alt.music.saxophone about cryogenic
> treatment of saxophones. Supposedly a sax plays better after being
> dipped in LN2 and brought back to room temperature. Some who have
> tried it swear by the process. Sounds like snake oil to me. Does
> anyone know if this treatment can alter the structure of brass? Is
> there another explanation for a change in acoustic properties after
> such a treatment?
Being a metallurgical engineer and a previous saxaphone player, I have a
possible explanation for the sound difference.
First of all let me state that as has already been stated on this thread
I don't believe there to be a microstructural change in Brass due to
cryogenic treatment. Secondly, I believe that "full time" artists will
believe anything or go with any gimick that comes along. Anyway enough
with my personal opinions.
Another possible reason for the "change in sound" quality after
cryogenic treatment in a saxaphone would be that any saxaphone dipped in
Liquid nitrogen must be fully repadded. Anyone who has had their own
saxaphone repadded knows that their is some sound change associated with
this routine maintenance.
Well that's my 2 cents worth.
-Rick
Kas R. Osterbuhr
Rick Rowland wrote:
>
> Darryl C. Olivier wrote:
> >
> > There is an ongoing discussion in alt.music.saxophone about cryogenic
> > treatment of saxophones. Supposedly a sax plays better after being
> Another possible reason for the "change in sound" quality after
> cryogenic treatment in a saxaphone would be that any saxaphone dipped in
> Liquid nitrogen must be fully repadded. Anyone who has had their own
> saxaphone repadded knows that their is some sound change associated with
> this routine maintenance.
>
> Well that's my 2 cents worth.
>
> -Rick
I might want to make a point here, I hope that my original post wasn't
misintrepreted. The parts aren't actually "dipped" in liquid nitrogen.
They never come in contact with any liquid. They are esentially in an
oven with liquid nitrogen flowing around it, the LN is what cools it
down.
The only reason I make a point of this is maybe it invalidates your
"repadding" theory, I don't know. Just wanted to make sure you didn't
misintrepret the process. Maybe the extreme cold itself does enough
dammage to merit repadding?
Brent Lawson
Intresting. Hi...I am one of the ones following on the saxophone
newsgroups...and...i was wondering(since you have said to have treated
THOUSANDS of horns...could you please release a study of your findings
from the treatment on these horns?...thank you for your time and input on
this situation.
**BRENT**
Saxophone player
Someone looking to be an engineer.
Nehelp with the last one would be appriciated.
DeepCryo wrote:
>
> Kas et al,
>
> I invite you to our facility, in Decatur IL. I'll even buy your ticket.
> Call me at 1-800-550-CRYO. I'll pay for your telephone call too. Come
> here and look truth in the eye. Then report to your audience. FAIR? You
> bet it is. I hope you take me up on the offer. We'll do $1.2 million
> this year, by earning every penny, and every one of those dollars is
> backed by an unconditional money back guarantee.
>
> If you've read the literature, then you'd know that I'm not a
> metallurgist. I received my degree in Aeronautical Science from
> Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. They graduate most engineers to
> little firms like Boeing, Lockheed, McD.
> Never mind me though..........let's address your fallacies.
> There are no meters on the processors.
> There is no franchise fee. We do not offer franchises.
> We are the most successful Cryogenic Processing Company in 30 years and
> are willing to share our data for a technology transfer fee. It costs us
> hundreds of thousands of dollars to acquire. If I give you one idea that
> makes you $250,000 what is that idea worth? Testing is expensive, and
> there is no free lunch Kas. Should we give it away? We sell a processor
> and software with adequate marketing/accounting/cryogenic theory training
> and an open 800 # for support for 1 year for $35,000. There is an open
> door for any of our service centers to come spend as much time as is
> needed at our facility. The price of a CAR Kas, not a BUSINESS. One
> processor in our facility generated over $250,000 in gross revenues last
> year. BAD DEAL? Find me a better one, I'll buy it from you.
>
> 20 years ago, (1975) this is equal to $7,500. Think of it. What was the
> price of a Suburban then? Now? It's cheap son, not expensive. Sure you
> can get an igloo cooler for $29.........come back in a year and tell me
> how successful you are.
> The point is, there is a right way and a wrong way. Just like PROPER heat
> treating. We don't know all the answers. But our learning curve works.
> We are the biggest, and there are over a hundred out there now. The
> report card in business Kas is a happy employee, a satisfied customer, and
> a decent bottom line. We net 5%, not stellar but adequate. We plow a
> lot into research. It is fun and interesting.
>
> Other changes do occur. Read this months Gear Technology.
> Eta Carbides are a significant contributor. Always have been.
>
> Please refer to my article published in the March/ April 1993 Gear
> Technology which addresses the Quantimet evaluation noting precipitation
> and tripling of microfine eta carbides (which do increase coherence of the
> orthorhombic conversion). The equipment was a JEOL IXA-5A Electron Probe,
> A DRON-1 x-Ray Diffractometer and a Quantimet 720, and a Chevenard
> Differential Dilatometer.
>
> Kas, visually, (no aid) you can see no difference. With a scanning or
> tunneling electron microscope you can, and we've published this for years.
> YOU CAN SEE A DIFFERENCE. (we even publish the pictures)
>
> We have published in 28 national magazines, been featured on USA Today,
> and the Discovery Channel. (will air again March 17th) Happens to be
> the all time highest viewer response segment for NEXTSTEP. (although even
> Phil makes a few faux pas in his analogy) No big deal.
>
> The aluminum we process by the way, is a NASA called for spec for stress
> relief and stabilization. We've treated a number of planetary probes and
> optical benches.............NASA must be gullible too eh Kas?
> Our equipment is at Lawrence Livermore, (dummies too?) as well as the US
> Navy Nuclear Facility (goofballs?), and is located at 76 other locations
> worldwide. (every single one of them up and running successfully.)
>
> With over 10,000 actual customers in our database we are hardly bogus.
>
>
> We helped to develop 28 new service centers nationwide in 1996. They each
> must overcome skepticism which is gradually turning to enlightenment from
> people such as yourself. Healthy skepticism is fine. We prove our mettle
> daily with real world results. That's why we are in business. Derision
> however, only makes the author look foolish. Especially if he's ignorant
> of the facts and ill informed. Read your ASM Heat Treaters Guide more
> thoroughly.
>
> We are real people who come to work every day. Just like you. It is our
> lively- hood. We have kids, we go to church. We donate to charity.
>
> If we can help further your education before you have to enter the real
> world, it will all be worthwhile. The last student we helped just won
> the Pennsylvania Science Fair in chemistry and physics. THAT makes our
> business worthwhile.
>
> By the way, we've treated thousands of horns. And received national
> acclaim doing it. The process is NOT subjective. Blind testing has proven
> it repeatedly.
> It works.
>
> My sincere regards,
>
> Pete Paulin
> CEO
> 300 Below Inc.
> 2101 East Olive St
> Decatur IL 62526
> Deep...@AOL.com
DeepCryo
Shortwhite
There is an ongoing discussion in alt.music.saxophone about cryogenic
> treatment of saxophones. Supposedly a sax plays better after being
> tried it swear by the process. Sounds like snake oil to me. Does
> anyone know if this treatment can alter the structure of brass? Is
> there another explanation for a change in acoustic properties after
> such a treatment?
Being a metallurgical engineer and a previous saxaphone >player, I have a
possible explanation for the sound difference.
>First of all let me state that as has already been stated on this thread
>I don't believe there to be a microstructural change in Brass due to
>cryogenic treatment. Secondly, I believe that "full time" artists will
>believe anything or go with any gimick that comes along. Anyway enough
>with my personal opinions.
>Another possible reason for the "change in sound" quality after
>cryogenic treatment in a saxaphone would be that any saxaphone dipped in
>Liquid nitrogen must be fully repadded. Anyone who has had their own
>saxaphone repadded knows that their is some sound change associated with
>this routine maintenance.
Well that's my 2 cents worth.
>-Rick
I'm a sax player that just slipped over here to see what was being said on
this topic. According to several people who have had saxes immersed in
nitrogen, the horns do not have to be repadded. I had assumed that at the
very minimum the keys would be removed before this process.
But some posters have just put the whole shebangs in with, according to
them no negative results.
If there are more comments on this subject, please e-mail them to me, as I
feel totally out of place where someone in not bitchin' about cane vs.
plastic reeds.
Thanx,
GW
Mayes uk
In article <5fadkr$3...@camel0.mindspring.com>
doli...@mindspring.com "Darryl C. Olivier" wrote:
[snipped]
> There is an ongoing discussion in alt.music.saxophone about cryogenic
> treatment of saxophones. Supposedly a sax plays better after being
> dipped in LN2 and brought back to room temperature. Some who have
> tried it swear by the process. Sounds like snake oil to me.
Sounds cool to me.
Charlie
--
Mayes uk
Rick Rowland
To the Newsgroup
I thought I would post this e-mail/flame from and my reply to Pete
Paulin, who is the CEO of 300 Below, Inc. He decided to flame me for
everything said in this thread, when my comments were regarding a brass
saxaphone. He sounds pretty frustrated to me. You can see the
professionalism of this man just by reading his words. Enjoy.
> Paul,
>
> The sad song and dance about going to church and having kids is fine,
> but I ask for the metallurgical difference to treating brass. Also, if
> I were you, an aeronautic science major that couldn't get a job in the
> diminishing aerospace business, I wouldn't be making fun of Kansas as I
> have been to Decatur Illinois and recognize that town for the pig stye
> that it is.I realize that at liquid nitrogen temperatures there will be
> some changes, but what permanent changes are there in it? I also know
> of some instances, for example transforming retained austenite in
> steels, that cryogenic treatment works. The references to cryogenic
> treatment in the ASM metals handbook are largely written by 1 individual
> who is not even a metallurgical engineer. This man is a mechanical
> Engineer. I do not doubt that there might be some benefits in some
> alloy systems, but my initial post was in regard to brass if you
> remember correctly. So I ask again, what changes in microstructure
> occur in a cryogenically treated saxaphone that would have any affect on
> sound quality. Finally don't try to dazzle me with big words like
> Scanning electron and scanning tunneling or even transmission electron
> microscopy as I have experience with all of these.
> In short data speaks louder than words.
>
> -Rick
George Jefferson
:> There is an ongoing discussion in alt.music.saxophone about cryogenic
:> treatment of saxophones. Supposedly a sax plays better after being
:> dipped in LN2 and brought back to room temperature.
I bet it works wonders with stereo speaker cables as well..
(if I thought of that first I want a royalty!)
Bainite 1
Bravo, Rick !! Wonder if your comments are " music " to Pete P's ears ?
IMHO, you hit the nail right on the head, re...data speaks louder than
words.
Regards,
Greg Dexter
Dead Jazz Icon
Okay, Maybe I don't understand this procedure fully, but doesnt
it cause the laquer to chip and fall off the horn? If this is the case,
couldnt it simply be the removal of the laquer that causes the horn to
sound different?
On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Rick Rowland wrote:
> Darryl C. Olivier wrote:
> >
> > There is an ongoing discussion in alt.music.saxophone about cryogenic
> > treatment of saxophones. Supposedly a sax plays better after being
> > dipped in LN2 and brought back to room temperature. Some who have
John D. Borneman
DeepCryo wrote:
(snipped out long sales pitch)
>
> By the way, we've treated thousands of horns. And received national
> acclaim doing it. The process is NOT subjective. Blind testing has
>proven it repeatedly.
> It works.(snip)
But to get back to the point.....why does it work?
--
John Borneman
jdbo...@mail.delcoelect.com
Paul Passarelli
Ya' know,
When I first read this, I thought MY shorts were-a-burnin'. But on
reexamination, I could hear the thoughts of a business man who felt his
product was being unjustly maligned.
Put yourself in his shoes for a moment.... O.K. moment's up. I dunno,
maybe it is snake oil, maybe not.
Anyway I agree with you. Let's see the data.
--Paul
Bainite 1 <bain...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970306023...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Material Guy
The whole steel industry was built initially not knowing why it worked.
Most of the brass and bronze industry was built ( in the bronze age) and
they didn't know why it worked.
Evidently, you aren't historically technically educated. The person who
makes something work commonly doesn't know why. There is some side
sniper who asks the experimentalist -- "Why does it work? I won't
believe you till you tell me!" These side snipers usually fail to make a
meaningful place in technological or other history.
John D. Borneman wrote:
>
> DeepCryo wrote:
>
> (snipped out long sales pitch)
> >
> > By the way, we've treated thousands of horns. And received national
> > acclaim doing it. The process is NOT subjective. Blind testing has
> >proven it repeatedly.
Leonard Migliore
In article <19970308010...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, je...@aol.com
(Jeull) wrote:
> I think the businessman got way out of line. He was not under attack in
> every quarter, just on the subject of the horns. And it may be that he is
> pretending to understand the technical basis for the improvement in the
> performance of the sax, or worse, thinks he understands it when he can't
> explain it to us, but that doesn't mean his sax business is bogus. He is
> providing a service that customers demand.
All I know is that after I put my saxophone in liquid nitrogen and tried
to play it, my lips stuck to the reed.
--
Leonard Migliore
Laser Kinetics, Inc.
Wade Johnson
I have read all the postings on the the subject of cryogenics. Whether
cryogenics makes a saxophone play better is still being debated without
substantial data..therefore, any increase in the performance of a
treated saxophone is a subjective evaluation by the player.
The one objective piece of data that has been determined is that someone
finally found out how to turn brass into gold.
Wade
Mr. Bill
damned thing got smaller too!...well mother nature rarely gives away
anything for free..
thought youd like to know
Mr. Bill
Material Guy
> Hey I dipped my willie in LN2 and its been hard ever since!...but the
> damned thing got smaller too!...well mother nature rarely gives away
> anything for free..
>
> thought youd like to know
> Mr. Bill
You have spoken eloquently on your position in the above quote.
Mr. Bill, you are a true #####man.
In general, most materials process discoveries are made accidently and by
people who often lack PhD's. In fact, sometimes being educated is an
absolute hinderance to innovation.
The steel industry was born well before the microstructure of steel was
observed, let alone understood. The bronze age and iron age all
developed in the lack of a scientific explanation of why it worked. It
just did.
Much of the composites industry has a similar empirical formulation. It
works, then the academics and other guys go and come up with reasons,
papers and so on.
Bill, you and many other "technical people" simply don't understand
technology. You think that it is like the books that you read in
college, but it isn't. The most innovative people are rarely the most
educated people.
You can be highly educated, and still ignorant. Anyone, even doubters
and demanders of "proof" can be ignorant.
Bill, tell us about your inventions, please.
Material Guy
> Hey I dipped my willie in LN2 and its been hard ever since!...but the
> damned thing got smaller too!...well mother nature rarely gives away
> anything for free..
>
> thought youd like to know
> Mr. Bill
You have spoken eloquently on your position in the above quote.
Rick Rowland
Material Guy wrote:
>
> > Hey I dipped my willie in LN2 and its been hard ever since!...but the
> > damned thing got smaller too!...well mother nature rarely gives away
> > anything for free..
> >
> > thought youd like to know
> > Mr. Bill
>
you quantify and explain the sound difference of a brass saxaphone
before and after cryogenic treatment.
Alan Peake
>:> There is an ongoing discussion in alt.music.saxophone about cryogenic
>:> treatment of saxophones. Supposedly a sax plays better after being
>:> dipped in LN2 and brought back to room temperature.
>I bet it works wonders with stereo speaker cables as well..
>(if I thought of that first I want a royalty!)
You probably didn't. Someone in another newsgroup went to one of these "Cryo"
factories and saw everything from golf clubs to rifle barrels and racecar
engines going through the process.
Alan
Gregg
Alan Peake <Alan....@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote in article
<Alan.Peake....@dsto.defence.gov.au>...
>
> You probably didn't. Someone in another newsgroup went to one of these
"Cryo"
> factories and saw everything from golf clubs to rifle barrels and racecar
> engines going through the process.
>
> Alan
>
I have a friend who races his own car and this cryogenic stuff is all the
rage among race folks. It doesn't make any sense to me either, but there
is tons of stuff about it on a lot of racing web pages with all kinds of
wild claims about cylinder wear etc.
The incredible volume of talk is beginning to make me wonder if there might
be something to it.
Maybe I should see if they can freeze my entire 1987 Toyota Tercel.
Maybe not.
Rick Rowland
> I have a friend who races his own car and this cryogenic stuff is all the
> rage among race folks. It doesn't make any sense to me either, but there
> is tons of stuff about it on a lot of racing web pages with all kinds of
> wild claims about cylinder wear etc.
>
> The incredible volume of talk is beginning to make me wonder if there might
> be something to it.
>
> Maybe I should see if they can freeze my entire 1987 Toyota Tercel.
>
> Maybe not.
Gregg,
There are many applications where cryogenic applications are very useful
and documented. One example of this is wear resistance applications
where martensite transformation can only be finalized by cryogenic
treatment. One example of this might be gear teeth, which are high in
carbon and many high carbon alloy steels have a martensite finish
temperature well below room temperature. A lot of this thread has been
talking about questionable cryogenics such as the "sound difference"
after treating a brass instrument such as a saxaphone. It is very hard
to quantify a sound difference and even harder to explain the reason for
it.
-Rick
Steve Ryan
In article <01bc2fb5$c0e747e0$228db8cd@default>, "Gregg"
<Ove...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
My degree is in chemical not metallurgical engineering, but I remember
reading an article about cryogenic treatment. The process is more involved
than dippeng an object in liquid nitorgen. The principal is supposed to be
that cooling a metallic object from room temperature to -200+ C very slowly
(<1 C/hr) then slowly bringing it back to room temperature effects the
uniformity of crystal structure bringing about changes in physical
properties which might effect sound vibratory response. No I don't
remember where I saw the article and I have no idea if the person who wrote
it was a quack. Just my 2 cents worth.
-Steve