Deep Freeze Piano!!!!!

[Ron Nossaman]

>I too was skeptical when I heard about cryogenics but after searching the
>WEB found a gfreat deal of information about it. Here is one page.
>http://www.americancryogenics.com/process.html . On one of the other sites
>(don't remember which one now) showed a crosssectin of metal before and
>after treatment. The treatment takes 48-72 hours and apparently does change
>the molecular structure of the metal. There were testimonials from drummers
>about their cymbals amd a saxophonist bragging about his better sounding
>horn.
>
>I am no scientist, just curious.
>
>Dennis Benson RPT


I looked it up too. Sure enough, it's used in conditioning metals. This 
still has virtually nothing to do with wood, which is of entirely different 
material and structure. Someone says something that sounds authoritative 
and hints at truth, someone else passes it on without verifying any of it, 
and the next thing you know it becomes one of those things "we were 
taught", that no amount of science, logic, or actual demonstration will 
ever dislodge. You watch. About a year from now, someone will post to the 
list saying something like "I understand freezing the soundboard improves 
the tone", and we'll do it all over again.

But how do we know whether or not the wood improved? The article didn't 
tell us the time elapsed between taking the piano out of the freezer and 
testing the pitch, nor did it tell us what the pitch testing showed 
(assuming it was tested again) two weeks later - or two weeks prior, for 
that matter. Nor does it point out that the pitch produced when a 
soundboard is thumped depends on where you thump it, nor does it point out 
that the produced pitch is no indication whatsoever of how the piano will 
sound when it's strung. That's a lot of points not pointed, and that's the 
point.

Starting with a false presumption that a thump tone pitch is indicative of 
tone potential in a strung piano (using the largely invalid comparison of a 
violin to a piano (as usual) to make the presumption), a false analogy is 
drawn from a different and unrelated branch of science, and the testing 
that supposedly proves the original hypothesis tells us nothing about 
either the conditions of the testing, nor the results in the finished piano 
- much less the reproducibility of the results.

We can all sit and scratch our heads wondering, but there certainly isn't 
any information of any use whatsoever from that article about how a one 
time exposure to moderately low temperatures (not even to cryogenic levels, 
which require at least -300°F) affect soundboard wood except a good 
illustration of how these kinds of ideas are so readily embraced without 
sufficient examination.

It's yet another of the magic bullet/philosophers stone free lunches that 
everyone wishes they would find to revolutionalize the industry, science, 
the world, the universe, get dates, grow hair, get rich, etc.

But that's just my opinion. Meanwhile, I'm off to my considerably less than 
cryogenic level freezer to see if that ice cream has significantly improved 
in tone and taste since the last time (I check frequently). It's a 
long-term research project of mine that's already revolutionized my waistline.

Ron N