Power Cable Break In - Such a Change!

     OH, and: it takes some time for the dielectric to form, take a charge, polarize, or however one chooses to define the process, when a dielectric is subjected to electromagnetic waves, which affects the Poynting vectors, measurably/predictably.

              The lower the material’s dielectric constant: the longer that takes.

                                               PC burn-in?    Maybe?

                   Regarding that dielectric polarization/break-in time factor:

     My first SR power cable (Reference  A/C Master Coupler, w/Polyethylene), didn't have their active shielding and MPC.     Took quite a while.    That cable's feeding a Hafler 9505 subwoofer amp, now.

      My second* had the MPC/active shielding (still: Polyethylene) and performed with excellence, straight from the box, with very little change over time.   A major difference, twix the two.

                  *Feeds Stealth Power Purifier and the rest of the system.

@twoleftears -

     This is just a guess and I suppose there may be other reasons, but, perhaps:

"Biggest issue is that it does not inhibit oxidation of the conductors. That has to be taken care through other means."

     The local Master Of The Deluded ("Trust ME, I’m a fictitious operative!"), quoting ANOTHER fictitious character, about, "self-deception".

"The capacity of Humans for self-deception is apparently unlimited" - Mr.Spock the Vulcan.

@carlsbad-

     I don't believe anyone said, ""a copper wire will change with low levels of current flowing through it for 300 hours."

     However: Physics, years of study and scientific measurements have categorically proven that semiconductors/dielectrics DO change, in the presence of electromagnetic waves, and: that affects the signal they're transferring, as previously covered.

              Of course: you're free to disbelieve whatever Physics/Science you choose.

                                                       OOPS!

     Make that,  "... might explain some of WHAT'S HEARD from our systems..." (typo).

     According to SOCRATES: "The only true wisdom is knowing when you know nothing."

     My version: "In order to know you don’t know anything you have to know something."

     Here are examples, in response to a previous post (mrskeptic’s):

https://thermalprocessing.com/freezing-out-the-competition/#

     and:

https://www.thefabricator.com/tubepipejournal/article/shopmanagement/cryogenic-processingadispelling-the-myths-mysteries

     iow: YES, cryo treatment DOES fundamentally change the molecular/crystalline structure of metals (as well as a plethora of other materials).

     The problem with naysayers* isn’t that they’re ignorant (ie: that, "actual metallurgist)".    It’s that they, "know" so much that’s outdated and simply wrong.

                 *Those still basing their opinions on 1800s Electrical Theory

     More to the point of the potential affect of cryo treatments on our cables/components/systems:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/materials-research-society-internet-journal-of-nitride-semiconductor-research/article/improved-low-resistance-contacts-of-niau-and-pdau-to-ptype-gan-using-a-cryogenic-treatment/F9F3004B4AB0272292BB7D0122B63429

@rwortman -

     What is it, far as the topics covered above, for which you are seeking an informed, scientific explanation?

     If you have any knowledge, at all, regarding the Sciences; you must be aware, that we only, "know" what comprises about 4% (matter AND energy) of this entire universe.

     Of that 4%: there are very few things that we can consider categorical, "fact" or, "Law".     The rest is all theory, over which Physicists and some of the greatest minds the planet has ever known, have argued since 1927 Vienna and the fifth Solvay Conference on Physics.

     If you're actually interested in some information, regarding the 20th Century's theories (ie: Electrical Theory (QED), semiconductor permittivity, wave/ particle duality, etc) and how those might explain some of what hear from our systems:  we're on.

     If you're just another naysayer, looking for the typical, inane, uneducated argument: forget about it!

                                      Either way: happy listening!

     "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction."  (Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse , 1872) 

     "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon,"  (Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873)

      "The super computer is technologically impossible.  It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." (Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University)

       "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible!" (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895) 

      "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom."  (Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923)

      "Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." (Dr. Lee DeForest, Father of Radio & Grandfather of Television)

      "The bomb will never go off.  I speak as an expert in explosives."  (Admiral William Leahy, re: US Atomic Bomb Project) 

      When the steam locomotive came on the scene; the best (scientific) minds proclaimed, "The human body cannot survive speeds in excess of 35MPH."     

      If the planet's innovators/inventors/scientists had paid heed to the ubiquitous bleating of the naysayer, from the dawn of humanity; we'd still be listening to conchs for entertainment.     Well: PERHAPS they'd have admitted one for each ear DOES create a stereo effect, but...

     Their church's credo should be, "Science?    We don't need no stinking Science!"   

                                         ESPECIALLY: ANYTHING NEW!

@ozzy-

     What did I post that has you confused?

     You are absolutely correct, far as  "My ears are my best measurement."

     It's the naysayers, that want you to disbelieve your own senses, mental faculties and modern (post 1800s) scientific theories.

@jpeters568 -

     As ANYONE, that has the slightest inkling of how the process works, knows:  "...when science doesn't have an *ANSWER," it comes up with a, "THEORY".

              *ie: To that other 96% of this universe, Science can't explain

     BUT: the process ALWAYS starts with an OBSERVATION made by someone with an interest in what's going on (in this case: differences in an acoustic/musical presentation).

     For a lot of us, that enjoy music and the acoustic in which it was recorded, reproduced as realistically as currently possible: HOW that works, with whatever component chosen (be it a new room treatment, preamp, amp, speaker, cable, stand, fuse, etc), isn't as important as THAT it works, to THEIR EARS.

     But then: I imagine I'm not alone in researching how electricity acts (or: MIGHT act), when encountering various circuit configurations, dielectrics and metals (according to post 1800s THEORIES and MEASUREMENTS that are easily available, to the honest fact seeker, as I've mentioned), before choosing with which component to listen/experience/experiment.  

     Gotta wonder: how many music lovers, that own a marginally expensive system, have ever studied Acoustics and can readily quote the Sabine equation (doesn't get more basic), or: ever bothered to ACTUALLY measure a room, themselves, before treating it?.

                                PERHAPS: that should be outlawed?

And with all due respect, when you suggest science can't do something, after being trained in the filed, WTF do you believe in when science doesn't have an answer,  witchcraft?

@jpeters568 -

         The goal of the Scientific Method: to, "ANSWER" WHY observed phenomena occur.

     The steps of the scientific method include: 1) asking a QUESTION about something you observe, 2) doing background research to learn what is already known about the topic, 3) constructing a, "hypothesis", 4) EXPERIMENTING the, "HYPOTHESIS", and 5) observing the results  6)ANALYZING the data from the experiment and drawing CONCLUSIONS*, and 7) communicating the RESULTS to others.

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/scientific-method-steps

     INVARIABLY: When one of the Sciences runs into a phenomena, for which it HASN'T YET figured out a method of TESTING (experimenting) the HYPOTHESIS, or: CAN'T YET understand (analyze) whatever data might been found during EXPERIMENTATION, there can be no categorical, "ANSWER*" to the question, "WHY?", and a, "THEORY" is proposed.

                  *English 101: without an answer, there can be no conclusion

     As an example: I've repeatedly mentioned that Science has no ANSWER or CONCLUSION as to what exactly makes up 96% of this universe, BUT: since Einstein's cosmological constant problem, Physicists/Scientists have been THEORIZING and spending BILLIONS, in search of an ANSWER as to WHAT'S UP?

 ie:  https://www.livescience.com/strange-theories-about-the-universe.html

     "And 96%?!?! Really? If you want to quote something so specific, about something we don’t know of, seriously, How smart are you?"

                                AS IF I made the numbers up?

      Get a clue! (fifty or sixty implied punctuations and interrobangs)

https://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/science/space/24essa.html

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy#:~

@holmz-

      Bear with me a minute, in my folly, far as a possibility on why a power cord might make a difference.

      Based on some of the theories on how electricity works, simplified:

      The conductor acts as a waveguide for the signal/voltage.

      Within the conductor: when excited by an AC current, electrons oscillate, generating photons/electromagnetic waves that travel, always from the source, to the load.

       Keep in mind: all signals (ie: music, AC) are sinusoidal  waves

       Those photons/electromagnetic waves travel through and outside the dielectric, which (according to it's permittivity/Poynting vectors) will have various effects on those waves.    One of the most obvious, is the dielectric's effect on the speed of the signal.

      The better designers of printed circuit boards, even take the above into account, when choosing materials for their products.

       I posted a link on the first page, that included data on the manufacture of semiconductor chips and what was observed when materials were cryo'd, during process.     Short version: better contact/lowered resistance between layers.

          Under the scanning microscope: much smoother surfaces observed.

       I would hope, by now, it's a given that various cable constructions, twists, braids, etc, can make for a cleaner transmission of signals (ie: Litz, etc).            

        Just seems to me (a hypothesis): given the above (some theories and some things established/measured/proven), it's not a big stretch to believe a power cord, built of the best conductor (Ohno CC silver), wrapped in a very low dielectric coefficient dielectric (ie: Teflon), cryo'd for the smoothest transfer of those photons/magnetic waves and twisted in some crazy way, might not smooth out some of preturbations/noise, from the crap an AC waveform had to go through, back to it's generator.  (run-on, much?)

       I haven't tested this, actually comparing two circuits, but: it wouldn't surprise me, if a power supply that used a choke, would be less affected by a better power cord, as the former can eliminate a lot of the high freq garbage, etc, that's either created by, or makes it through all the big converting/filtering stuff, before.

       Never thought about PCs before the good stuff hit the market, but: the Physics/QED made sense.

            I tried 'em, I like 'em and the science makes my head feel better.

                              Don't care WHAT it does to anyone else's!

     When I bought my turn-of-the-century built home: much of the remaining wiring was still varnished cotton insulated.

     As cotton was recognized to be a not-so-great insulator, that kind of wiring was threaded throughout the house, captive in ceramic spools (knob and tube wiring), like this:

https://www.canadianhomeinspection.com/home-reference-library/electrical/knob-tube-wiring/

     Of course: that was before we figured out how to synthesize the plastics and rubber substitutes, that are better insulators.

     Cotton has an excellent, very low, Dielectric Constant, but: mixing it with another material will add that material's Constant to the cotton's.    

    That includes: laying the cables on the floor/carpeting.     A concept many don't understand, but: why some will hear differences, in their homes/systems, when using cable lifters.

    Here's a PDF chart to save, that may be of use far as choosing materials, for the DIY cable guys:

                               https://www.kabusa.com/Dilectric-Constants.pdf