cable break in


had a friend ask me if after you break in/burn in your cables are they more or less conductive? i would have to say less conductive, but not sure why? does anyone have a good answer?
hemidakota

Showing 7 responses by nsgarch

Jefferybehr is correct. In addition, at least according to the transcript I read of a formum of power cable/interconnect manufacturers, the consensus seems to be that the conductor<>insulation interface goes back to its pre-break-in state after a period (several weeks) of non-use. Also if IC's are reversed in the system, they have to be re-broken-in so that interface can be (molecularly) reoriented. At least that's what I read FWIW.
Marakanetz: I haven't the knowledge to debate what you say, but again, the cable manufacturers state that it takes awhile (the break-in time) for the insulation/dielectric to react/respond to the current flowing in the conductor. And that after a time, the molecules in the insulation material (usually foamed Teflon these days) at the interface with the conductor are altered by the current flow in a way that creates even better dielectric properties than when new.

What I don't understand (assuming that's all true) is why it makes any difference to the Teflon which way the current is flowing, since it's non metallic. Probably has to do with Quantum Theory, of whaich my knowledge is rather shallow.
I also think that break-in time is inversely proportional to the current through the cable. Which is why PC's break in faster than speaker cables which are faster than IC's. Tonearm IC's are the slowest, and in fact I'm thinking of making an RCA to DIN adapter so I can use my tonearm IC somewhere else in the system for awhile.

Marakanetz, I'm sure you're right re: the physical properties of the materials, however then you should look for another reason for the phenomena we hear. It can't all be marketing hype or auto-conditioning. After all, ten thousand pairs of ears can't be wrong.

Stan, I'm sure you're really a sweet guy in person, oh and you should add Siltech and Magnan to your list of great cables :~))
Bob, let's say you've got a SS amp which draws 225W at idle but draws 1200W at rated output (200W/400W into 8/4 ohms). So at let's say a nominal (audio) output of 100W/200W into 8/4 ohms, it's drawing around 600W from the wall. W/V=A, or 600/120=5amps.

Typical amplifier nominal output voltage is around 50V for a 20dB voltage gain (over the preamplifier output) and which is a pretty loud listening level if the speakers are reasonably efficient. Again using W/V=A, you get 2A (@100W) for an 8ohm speaker and 4A (@200W) for a 4 ohm speaker, unless I'm way off somewhere.

An example would be my Levinson amp which will provide 400W/ch into my 4 ohm (nominal) electrostats, but at the loudest listening levels I can stand, it's only drawing 400W from the wall (or 3.3A) and it's only putting out around 150W rms of audio power, which at its 67V (26dB) gain, is only around 2.2A to the speakers (vs. 3.3A from the wall.)

The example you gave assumes an 8V output voltage which would be only about a 3dB voltage gain for the amp. Not very loud, even with a super-efficient speaker.
Hemi: There are three things I'm aware of that affect or improve the conductivity of a given piece of wire. Two have to do with the crystalline structure of the metal:

1.) Working with the direction of the "wire draw", and honestly I don't know which direction has the better conductivity -- in the direction of the draw or against it.

2.) Cryo treatment, resulting in a more compact crystalline structure which improves electron flow through the metal.

3.) The third has to do with the cross-sectional geometry of the conductor -- ribbon vs. square vs. round, etc. and I don't think there is conclusive evidence regarding this issue.
inpep: You are using the formula A = (square root of) W/R.
I am using the formula A = W/V. There is also another formula (ohm's law), A = V/R.

They should all yield the same result, so perhaps we're just plugging in the wrong numbers? Additionally, there are some cofactors when using AC, although I'm pretty sure the output of an amp has no phase angle.

There's a neat formula wheel at:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-ohm.htm

and on the following page.
Bob, I think what you're forgetting is that the voltage output of a given amp is a constant just like the voltage in a wall socket. The exact amount of voltage is is a function of the gain multiplier the amp is designed for, which for most amps (regardless of output capacity in watts) is about 25dB +/_ which translates into about 60V +.

Amp output in watts is determined by the strength of the input signal as you turn the volume on the preamp up or down. And the current (which varies with the amount of watts the amp is putting out at different volume levels) is a function of the impedance of the load being driven.

So what I'm trying to say is it's the watts that an amp puts out that changes with the volume. And since the load (usually) and the voltage are constant, the only other variable is the current. That's why little amps run out of gas (clip) when trying to drive current-hungry speakers (like big multiple driver boxes or stats with low impedance) because they can't get the watts/current they need to produce decent sound pressure levels.

So thinking of an amp as a great big "equal sign" with ohms laws on each side in a balanced equation is not how things actually work, plus there's also the additional issue of amplifier inefficiency to take into account.

.