Some drives definitely do better when imaged cold.
The "freezer" trick has risk. You can certainly kill a drive with it. But sometimes it works really well. There are some techniques for reducing the risk of the procedure. It should only be used as a last-ditch approach, and only after you've done everything else competently and correctly. I cringe when clients bring me a drive they have frozen; I am certain that they have not taken the precautions that I do. Like I said, I rarely try it -- it's too risky.
Why does it work? Adaptives can change. Changing temperature changes some of the parameters.
Kudos to the Italian Stallion for trying to use a scientific, empirical approach. However, for the sake of "intellectual argument" (i.e, do not read any of the following as recommendations), suppose:
1. You measure RPM and find it to be wrong. You change the PCB. That doesn't get it. So then you have to do a platter swap with the attendant risks. Which is easier . . . freezer or platter swap? Which is more risky?
2. SMART log shows problems with flight height. How do you change that . . . unless you've spent countless hours doing experimenting and reverse-engineering? Which is faster . . . freezer or R&D?
I'm not sure I understand what is meant by measuring behavior at different locations.
If BlackST has the wherewithal to safely change the adaptive parameters of any drive sent in for data recovery, though firmware, software, or hardware manipulation, I shall be the first to build a temple to the Supreme Guru of data recovery . . .
