sleepwalker: you may have missed my point. I was referring to directionality. The reciprocation of engine pistons was my analog not for break-in but for electrons; there is no net current flow of electrons in a wire propogating a musical, or alternating current, signal.
For this reason, there can be no wire directionality because the electron field alternates as electromotive power, as push, pull, otherwise, we’d hear nothing. There’s as much force in one direction as the other, hence no net flow. |
Do pistons in an internal combustion engine have directionality?
La meme chose. |
GK: nice try :-) But man do you get ’em going!
Next we should talk about whether the composition of baryons in wire metals, such as protons (two up and one down quark) vs. neutrons (two down and one up quark) are what's really 1) being burned in and 2) account for directionality.
Because it ain't fermions such as photons, my friend. |
andy2: "Einstein was known for this thought experiments. Nobody back there was asking for data :-)"
WRONG! Jeez, man o man....
His "thought" experiments, good grief! Sir, do you know anything about mathematics, like, say calculus?
You are wrong. There are theoretical physicists and there are experimental physicists and they NEED EACH OTHER. Theory is nothing without data to prove or disprove the theory. Until data is produced, it remains theory. Experimental physicists need theoretical physicists to determine what experiments to design and perform. In biological sciences, they are often the same person; in physics, they are often different people. Regardless, THAT is the scientific method. Einstein’s theories were eventually proven experimentally. For example the only way this electronic messaging works is to take into account, and adjust for (geosynch communication satellites), GENERAL RELATIVITY. |
|
Physically asymmetrical HOW?
And how can resistance measure lower at one end than the other? Stupid pseudoscience garbage. Measure a resistor with leads one way, then flip them around, and they measure the same. I’VE DONE IT. I build amplifiers.
Fuses, HAH!
NO clothes.
But then I guess many of you are laughing because I'm somewhat late to this game. Very funny. |
Is the hypothesis proposed that there is directionality inherent to wire, built into the physical structure and composition, even before it is ever connected to a voltage source, either DC or AC?
Or, is it that directionality becomes apparent only after connection to such voltage sources the hypothesis?
If the former, please explain what physical structures are fabricated into wire that determine directionality.
Otherwise, everyone here is simply full of it. |
No one here has the courage to talk about everyone's brain burn-in period though. Neurons are far more adaptable than speaker cables. We are very good at the process of belief. |
taras22: "for giggles" huh?
You had already dismissed the Belden-based cable before you even listened.
Subjectivity and the process of belief rule over any quantitative, objective assessment, any way, any time.
No wonder people are walking away from this so-called hobby. Reality is meaningless. |
Cables - no break in
Tubes - once warm, no burn/break in; they just degrade over time from day one and sound best when new. "Burn in" for a day or so is best used to determine that the tube is stable and not about to fail.
Speakers - yes; they are motors and some of the materials that flex need to break covalent bonds to perform optimally
Cartridges - same as for speakers
Turntables - yes, motor/platter bearings need to wear the metal surfaces over time to reduce micro-machined irregularities
Electronics (DACs, preamps, amps, CD players) - no, (except for the CD motors, sled and rotational) but the electronics do need warm up to function optimally.
People ear/brain system - yes, the biggest single audio component that is the most variable of the recorded/playback/listening experience. More "brain burn in" is always a good thing. No wonder many sip the etoh or smoke/vape the herb while listening. |
My brain isn't good enough. |
flashlier: "What cables, stevecharm, have you tested before and after use, to make the profound claim that cable burn-in does not exist?"
Audioquest, Synergistic, van den Hul, Anticables, Mapleshade, Harmonic Technologies, Tara Labs and most recently Blue Jeans (which are Belden).
No such thing as speaker cable burn in. I’ve been listening to, buying, selling and researching this for about 30 years now. I wanted to believe it, I tried to believe it, but it’s simply a matter of neuroscience, and the power and process of belief. There is no quantitative, measurable physics associated with this. Dielectric formation over time, in a speaker cable?, bah, humbug! It’s the "dielectrics" in your brain! |
So Geoff, what exactly is the physical characteristic that is granted to wire due to being pulled through a die that accounts for electrical directionality? |
I disagree. It’s the right question because electricity is not mumbo jumbo and there must be a physical characteristic that accounts for it. By avoiding the question and calling it wrong (there are no wrong questions, only wrong answers!) you admit there is no such thing as directionality.
What do you mean by resistance in one direction is different from the other? Do you mean a reproducible difference in resistance as measured but is within the noise parameters of an Ohmeter? Because if we’re talking thousanths of an Ohm, that’s noise. For single crystal wire, there are very few breaks in the structure along the length of cable that would significantly contribute to DC based resistance, if it does exist at all. For AC, directionality goes both ways. In my research, I can’t seem to find any evidence for directional resistance effects. In microphotographs, is one able to tell the direction the wire was pulled? I’m asking these questions because it’s about time we get to the bottom of things and stop the handwaving and deception. |
And, what the heck do FUSES have to do with SPEAKER CABLES anyway? The direction the wire was pulled? In any of these studies was the resistance correlated with direction of wire pull? I thought so.
|
None of those numbers in that first set of data for FUSE direction 1 vs. 2 are qualifed as statistically significant. We’re talking differences in microOhm and there should be at least three measurements per trial so that a standard deviation is calculated. But of course, a single number stands as "accurate."
The directionality in our subjective minds is far more compelling than any microOhm differences. I’ll bet no one on earth can hear such differences, only if THEY WANT TO.
But put it under blinded A/B/X testing and the whole house of cards falls apart, which is why the proponents are so quick to avoid such testing. Oh, you mean you're telling me you can't hear with the lights out? Yeah, uh huh..
Cables don’t need burn in. Electrons are in orbital shells in the metal atoms and are not in the least influenced in any lasting or "memory" manner by current applied. This is silly to the point of hilarity to the point of sadness. |
Ah, again, the process of belief trumps all, always, every time and then some.
Keep believing the nonsense and you will hear whatever you want to hear.
But, it's not science. Never was and never will be. |
blueranger: "Science in its infancy cannot measure the differences that many people can hear. Infancy woah? Yep some think we know all there is to know about sound. A hundred years from now our grandchildren will look back at us and see how far they have come."
The human brain is the most complex machine ever imagined or realized. It is totally responsible for ALL of the above. And, yes, there is an unknown science to the human brain/mind/perception that is still uncharacterized. And yes, the process of belief is poweful enough to account for cable burn in, as well as start global conflicts, as it has since time began for H. sapiens. |
"This energy-absorption causes the dielectric’s molecules to re-arrange themselves from a random order into a uniform order. When the molecules have been rearranged, the dielectric will absorb less energy & consequently cause less distortion."
Molecular rearrangement of dialectric by way of music signal, hmm...
That’s a hoot. If the molecules of the polymeric dielectric restructured upon playing music through the cables, the breaking of covalent bonds in the dialectric would cause the insulation to fall apart and literally disintegrate.
But we all know that doesn’t happen now, don’t we?
And please don’t tell me that the music also forms new covalent bonds.
|
"In a court of law would this prove burn in is not a fallacy but true?"
As long as there is reasonable doubt, no. |
Geoff: Now you’re talking my language! I wonder if there’s a dialectic with faster break in properties than air? Unobtanium? Dark matter? Event horizons?
And, is air directional? |
In all this bickering thread, has anyone actually burned in any cables lately? I’d love to see air as a dialectric get burned in. More popcorn please. |
nonoise: when I was a kid my stepdad used to drag race at New England Dragway (Ford GT500), as it was called then and I got to hang in the pits. Very educational. I do recall one event where some pro stock car had magnesium wheels (real mag wheels, he he!) and the beads diameter on those rear tires must have been too large or something because on take off, the rims spun in the tires and ignited the wheels and they burned baby! What colors, what smell! Truly Hot Wheels! The mad scramble to put that out was a calamitous riot. Needless to say that guy lost that heat and his nice car looked like ----.
And twoleftears: Higgs boson does exist, at least there's evidence for it, but it's hard to pin these subatomic particles down as to location in time and space, which brings us back to Schrödinger's cat, which we'll never know if it's alive or dead, which bring us to back to maritime...say something maritime's kitty... |
Planes fly above our heads? Are you kidding me? Great, now I have to recalibrate all my expectations. 💩 |
