Directional interconnect cables

Macallan or Lagavulin for me, but I am fussy about which ones - though I am sure its all in my head and a blind man woldn't be able to tell the difference.

Yes, wire is directional and I have confirmed that to my own satisfaction including eliminating dielectric and shield ground effects. Once burned in, changing direction of the cable is clearly audible. I know this proves nothing to you but if you try it you will likely discover the same thing.

By running the wires in air. This was achieved with some difficulty of course, but nevertheless achieved. No shield and no dielectric apart from air. The two components were faced back to back, the wire connecting the RCAs was very high purity silver, 24AWG on cold and 26AWG on hot, and then tensioned so that the wires ran in parallel througn the air with no insulation used. With the wire concerned, once it had been burned in, reversing it resulted in a change in sound, most particularly a loss of openness in the treble, and loss of firmness in the bass; a sound very similar to what an identical set that had not been burned in sounded like.

The experiments used bare wire, the only insulation being air. Yes, the cables could be burned in after a while in the changed direction. People find it easier to ascribe directionality to the dielectric, and I have not attempted to prove or disprove that the dielectric is part of the issue, yet. But I have proved to myself that when wire burns in then it gets some form of directional quality to it. I don't know why this should be, and that would be a very interesting thing to know, but I don't have access to the kinds of research funds to find out. At the level I work I am happy to just accept it as an insight and work with it, and I was able to afford the funds to buy an Audiodharma cooker. One of the things I can say from experiments conducted is that high conductor purity diminishes the burn in issue and directionality issue markedly. High purity alloys of suitable metals are also fine. It is when metals are contaminated with oxides, sulphides etc that directionality and burn in issues are most severe.

Then your definition of the word proof is different from mine. As a scientist I do not accept that science ever proves anything. But your PHD may have come from a different university than mine and so I am cool with the way you see things, but not so cool with you calling my statements false. So far I have not attacked you. What interests me is why you felt the need to attack me. As for your teapot analogy, you missed out the bit where we thought we saw a teapot.

I find the theorising here, by both sides, as pointless too. I love that comment that you can't scientifically prove the existence of burn in. A true scientist realises nothing is ever proven, and only seeks to disprove his theories, not prove them. But it is not difficult to assemble evidence about burn in. It is only the practitioner that is forced to assume that tested and undisproven theories are facts.

Yet we so often have posters asking for a rationale to support claims or beliefs of others. Why they seek a rationale, when the existence of such a thing proves nothing, is what puzzles me.

I think I reported the results of my experiments. I cannot recall offering a theory, or claim that my experiments proved anything except to justify to me that I should consider directionality and burn in, in practise. I am happy to be corrected on that though. I am not trying to be superior, just pointing out as others have here, that our experiences are relevant, but our conflicting theories lead nowhere.