Cable "burning": Real or VooDoo ???

Yes, it was Emerson. But let's be fair. Steve espouses his point of view with consistency and tenacity. I categorically do NOT subscribe to his "wires is wires" point of view, but I do think it's a bit unfair to demean his "psychological or intellectual character". He's asking for hard data and, to be fair, we haven't yet given such. What we have given is anecdotal evidence. That such evidence is not yet quantifiable does not nullify it; rather it means there are physical properties to this whole business that aren't yet mapped. But namecalling solves nothing. Let's try to stick with facts.

Sean's approach makes some sense from the scientific point of view; perhaps we can undertake to push that kind of empirical testing to see where it leads?

Really hope everyone here can keep this confined to "quietly asking and answering in turn". (Some Greek fella wrote about that quite some time back; Plato or something like that.)

Garfish,

Point taken. I guess the afterthought about Emerson and his hobgoblins confused me. Seemed like you were damning him with faint praise. Guess you meant to praise Caesar, not to bury him. Cheers.

Anyone who resolutely believes that the flow of current through conductors - be they copper, silver, gold - does not affect the physical properties of said wire should chat with any competent and experienced electrician. These guys work with this stuff day in and day out. I had a minor epiphany a few years ago when an electrician was doing some work at my shop and told me that the metals (wiring and switches) implicated in his repairs had simply failed owing to long use and continued exposure to currents. In simple English, the physical, and therefore electrical, properties of the conductors had been altered with use. They had failed because the metals had become embrittled and acted more like resistors than conductors, almost porcelain-like in their behavior; i.e., they weren't conducting, rather they were highly resistive. "They just wore out", he said.

Now given the truth of this, it seems to follow that there is a life cycle to cables, just as with anything else. If you accept that, you must also allow for a youth, maturity and old age to cables. (That's bad news though for those of us who put significant dollars into them, hoping they'll outlast us.) Methinks entropy figures in here somewhere. Any metallurgists here who can elucidate this phenomenon of changes to metals when current is induced?

Redkiwi,

You're too polite, mate. "Rhubarb" would not be my first choice, but since most of the posters here seem refined and educated, I'll refrain from proferring the word I had in mind.

Glad to see you're still hanging around, as it were. I'm opting out now because there are some technical questions the measurement set has refused to answer but which, IMHO, bear upon the whole topic. Willful blindness perhaps? Will still keep reading and watch the saga unfold.

70242,

I believe you've misread my scribblings. Nowhere have I expressed a fear of DBTs. In fact, I think they have their uses; but the measurement-only crowd ( among whom you seem to number ) puts too much emphasis on them. Put another way, the numbers folks display an almost religious passion in their belief that if it can't be measured, it can't be heard. There is a staggering amount of anecdotal evidence that contradicts that.

I ain't afraid of DBTs, merely think their capability of resolving subtle differences is overdone.

I do believe, again, do believe that eventually the things we benighted listeners hear, and which you do not, will be amenable of quantification: the technology to measure these things just isn't sophisticated enough. Electronic instrumentation is not nearly refined enough to search out the things the human auditory system can perceive.

Bruce,

Just so! That's exactly how I've approached it. Am currently looking for a sufficiently resolving IC for CD to pre/pro, having found good ICs between amps and pre. Of course, I should get help because 702 has told me the rules of physics and Ohm's law no longer apply. (Hadn't you heard, 702, that Ohm's law had been repealed after an aroused citizenry was mobilized?) Yep, we're all in wonderland now so you'll have to guide us. Bring on those charts and graphs.

Albert and Redkiwi,

Both of you have made very sensible, intelligent posts. Mr 702, however, worships at the altar of numbers and you're not going to budge him.

Albert- your story about the racing boat reminds me of my checkered past when I was involved with fast cars. Cant' remember how many times two cars had identical bhp, torque curves, and drivers of the same physical mass. Yet when pitted against one another, there was always a winner. The hardline data types would say it should have been a dead heat every time. But it never was. Why? Obviously there was more going on there than the pure numbers would suggest.

Can we bury this already dead horse??