AudioQuest DBS Field

OK I see what you mean Kijanki. Have to have a think on this one. One reason I'm leary is the EMF vectors completely different and much of the dipole aspect makes less or no sense.

to me the inductance is more relevant but..........

nice discussion.

p

I've had the AQ Panthers and Cheetahs ic's in my system. Whilst I never did a direct A/B comparison with the DBS system on or off (not exactly a well controlled study), I can say that these cables never needed any burn-in time. They sonic signtature remained fairly constant with time, which I like.

I wish I could comment on the sonic improvements of the DBS. They are nice cables, generally well priced given and engineered.

Some have suggested that a test of the DBS can be conducted by listening with the battery connected and then disconnected. Stereophile tried that approach and heard no difference. Audioquest countered that such a test would not reveal anything since the purpose of the battery's electric field is to keep the dialectic formed, and once formed it takes days or weeks to unform.

The way I understand it is that the battery helps keep the dialectric in the same state as if you played the cable regularly or daily. So, the only meaningful test would be to have identical cables, one with the battery pack attached, and one without the battery pack attached and which had not been used for some relatively long period. Even then, if you played the cable without the battery pack long enough during the testing, its performance would approach that of the other cable.

So this is a difficult situation to evaluate. My experience with the AQ DBS is that I do not seem to notice any significant change in sound (breakin) after periods of several days of not playing the system. Whether that is due to the DBS or not I can not prove, however, at the least it keeps me from fretting about it.

thanks for your complet response easy to understand!!!

Audioquest countered that such a test would not reveal anything since the purpose of the battery's electric field is to keep the dialectic formed, and once formed it takes days or weeks to unform.

"Dielectric forming" is nonsense. At least in this context.

I think it got started when someone heard about dielectric forming with regard to aluminum electrolytic caps and didn't quite understand what that was about and so came to believe that all dielectrics somehow need "forming."

With aluminum electrolytic capacitors, the dielectric is the layer of aluminum oxide on the aluminum foil used for the plates of the capacitor.

When these caps are new, the manufacturer applies a voltage to them which causes a current to flow through the cap (not the same thing as current flow during the charging of a cap). Basically they're anodizing the foil. As the aluminum oxide layer builds up, the current diminishes.

So you're literally "forming" the dielectric of the capacitor.

However none of this applies to other dielectrics such as plastics.

Interesting thing though about polarizing a dielectric that's situated between two conductors...

It's the same principle used to make condenser microphones.

*picking up cable* Check one two... Check one two... Can you hear me back there? *THUMP!* *THUMP!* *THUMP!*

;)