2-Channel Analog Interconnects/Speaker Cables - Page 36

I'm hearing and believing it's about the music we all like coming through our system.

I certainly enjoy what's coming out of my speakers.

And yes I have bias on what I listen to and equip producing it.

It's very capable though and I can hear every note and syllable. All flowing through RS/Home Depot 16awg.

Since this is about how a twisted pair of wires can improve what I'm hearing to extent of cost above even new amp or speakers or room treatment is beyond me.

Got measurements on those copper wires? Better be more than 3db to get my attention for those prices though. Unlikely.

0 db is all you got maybe. Talking dynamic range/fr/signal noise ratio/power/etc. I'm still interested however and open minded. Let me know when you breakthrough and I'll be first to sign up.

Mike

"FWIW, no testing I have ever done would damage a cable, unless it was designed for that (ESD, lifetime, etc. testing is often destructive)."

That is why the terms "destructive testing " and "performance testing" are used.

Actually the whole concept of "burn-in" is a joke to any sane person with a just a grade school understanding of batteries, lights and switches.

I would love to hear the explanation of what a "burn-in" supposedly does. After the "burn in" are there little neat rows of electrons each carrying one note of music in lockstep or do they all stand in a chevron and toss their notes simultaneously towards the speaker? How many electrons are needed to carry those big heavy bass notes and can they carry more than one of the little tiny notes from a piccolo?

Let's get real folks.

Page 36 and we now how the "Burn In" debate.

You can not argue with manufacturers using the age old, "Burn in" opinion. Its simply neet gimmick to get people to spend more time getting use to the new products. Even intelligent professionals in highly skilled positions still fall for this gimmick....that is what amazes me.

Thanks !

I'd like to know how 3ft stranded/solid copper is going to improve my listening situation.

3ft, 10 ft, 100 ft, 1k ft, etc.

Fact is pristine communication on simple cat-5/6.

Mike

Gizmologist -- I know you know that, I was just stating the obvious just in case. (It is annoying when non-destructive testing destroys the DUT, however. ) I decided to ignore the whole burn-in debate (makes no sense to me, never has, not for cables, and don't get me started on "directional" cables) but I am curious as to why a "burn-in" device would damage a cable...

Playing in an orchestra, I can attest that although bass notes are much bigger, piccolo notes are much more important. Just ask the player. (Kidding -- our picc player is actually a very nice lady!)

I was just agreeing with you in detail.

http://www.mitcables.com/articles/in...ur-cables.html

"Stop! DO NOT use the DuoTech Cable Enhancer or other such active devices with MIT products. Using these devices may damage your MIT interfaces. Burn-in CDs are OK."

Burn in does not change the properties of the wire, it is supposed to change the dielectric. A little reading on the matter should clear this up. It is not the copper that changes! And yes, it is a highly controversial topic. There may be data to back it up, I would have to dig, and I am on my way to work. I doubt some of you would trust the source of the data much anyway, but I will try nonetheless.

I do destructive testing at work. It can be great fun.

If it changes the dielectric in some way, then there must be spectroscopic analysis indicative of molecular differences and/or capacitance measurements, don't you think?

I used the word "cable", and I understand the dielectric arguments, just don't buy it. I do measurements that require cables be biased to reduce trapped charges and hysteresis, but I am looking at levels well below speaker levels (and well below mic levels, for that matter). I suppose you could consider this "burn in" but the reality is quite different.

But, my question remains: what do these burn-in units do that damage the cable? I am not arguing whether they do or not, I am just curious as to what they are really doing to damage a cable (or, network attached to the cable). I can think of several things, just want to know the reality (can I use that word in this thread?)

I used Google and Dogpile but could not come up with anything current on DuoTech. I found a few others, including this little widget: http://www.bluehorizonideas.com/products.html -- but nothing with much in the way of detail. It did list some voltage and current specs, but I am not sure if that's at the input or output of the supply. I admit I did not look hard (gotta' get back to work).

Chu will you NEVER learn? Why do you insist on facts and scientific analysis?

Why can't you just read the cute stories and laugh them off?

Have you still not learned that once the tag of audiophile grade has been afixed to a piece of wire that ALL the known physics concerning copper and the insulation used are null and void from that point in time?

How many times does Tess have to explain our intellectual and professional shortcomings?

I mean REALLY!

If a toy buzzer in the guise of a "burn in device" alters the dielectric in any way, it ain't worth a plug nickel.

Tess said he had some data and what I suggested would be pretty easy to come by. I just thought it might be something along the lines of what I suggested.

Not at all.

Most science types here insist that scientific processes and method will always dictate what will happen as an inevitability, without deviation. Of course, this may fly in the face of evidence, but it's evidence from the wrong sources apparently, so it's gets conveniently ignored. This happens in many other facets of science as well; this is not unusual. This is why they can assume that certain things "should" happen, but it's only based on existing evidence, using processes that often have to be invented on the fly to adjust for the topic.

I think you were asked before what evidence has been ignored, but as usual had no answer. Your dishonesty continues to grow.

well, I will admit that was not the response I expected..oh I knew you would not change it nor the 'scorn' you hold for science, but I rather expected it to be along the lines of 'no replacement for ears to tell you what you like' or sumthin.

Tho it is a bit hard to actually get what you are saying. So, an apple when dropped can 'choose' to fly upwards? Is that where you are going? I mean, yes, I spose one day that could happen, there are some scientific trains of thought that allow for that possibility. Just like it IS possible for all the air molecules to end up on one side of the room only. Luckily for us that is a rare event eh?!

Coming back to my original question, 'for this thread do you not need to change it', coupled with this excerpt from your reply but it's only based on existing evidence and tying that all back to the question of cables, what counter evidence do you have or propose to get to show that the existing evidence is incomplete?

Not sales brochures, flim flam pseudo marketing speak (clean those quantums), but actual evidence of true audibility of cables. As you correctly hint in your answer, it must be science based and evidence based, in other words it seems we agree on the need to ignore anecdotal sighted evidence from any old JAIB on the net.

If you currently have nothing other than your own personal experiences to recount, I know (per your sig and answer) that you will agree with me that it accounts to not even a hill of beans, so what is your time frame to sit down with others and do a rigorous test and present us with the findings?

I am now glad that you stick by your sig, looking forward to your test.

Much like blind testing, if the spectroscopic analysis doesn't show a difference, the test is bad.

Not only that, a lot of this burn in BS. Is also probably aimed a lot at getting people past any return widows they may have for a product.

The changes would be on the molecular/atomic level. And I believe the capacitance has been measured at the beginning/end, I'll try and find the info. It will be from a cable maker though.

Manufacturers use several different materials for dielectrics. Polyethylene, polypropylene, and teflon are the 3 most popular.

P.E. takes the least amount of settling time, followed by polypropylene and then teflon, which can take quite awhile.

Actually, I have told you numerous times that I respect your position in your field. Now, please pluck the bug from your rear.

I would call MIT and ask them, I am sure they have the information you seek. Somebody must have turned in some ruined networks somewhere down the line.

I forgot to add, burn in may happen on the quantum level, not just molecular/atomic. Anyway, capacitor settling is akin to cable settling, or "burn in".

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/parts...urn-break.html

A cable's capacitance should be looked upon not as a lump sum but rather an incremental. It's basically one long capacitor made up of many small capacitors in parallel. If you have ever experienced the break-in of a capacitor in any fashion in electronic, cable break-in is similar.
In my experience I have attributed the break-in characteristics of a cable to a few variables.

Break-in of a cable as it pertains to audio reproduction can be defined as any gradual change in it's sonic character over time. Typically rated in hours or days, break-in is measured from the time of first installation to the time where no appreciable change in sound is heard. This assumes the cable is left in place and not moved or disturbed. With most cables the first few hours show a much more rapid change as compared to the days following, making the process difficult to hear primarily due to the short audible memory of an untrained listener.

The cause of break-in seems to be the effect of the electrostatic field on the polarization of the dielectric material. Without a voltage applied over time, audible changes are nearly imperceivable, primarily otherwise caused by the contact resistance of the terminations or connectors.

Factors in order of importance that point toward polarization effects in which we've been able to repeatably and consistently vary the break-in characteristics include:

1. the type of dielectric used.
2. the spacing of the surface of the dielectric relative to the surface of the conductor,
3. the method of applying the dielectric to the conductor,
4. the construction of the conductor,
5. the composition of the microscopic surface layer of the conductor.


Where the conductor is in intimate contact with the dielectric, such as in a pressure extrusion process, the break-in characteristic 'swings' tend to be much greater. Since the insulation fills even microscopic voids in the surface of the conductor, this process produces the greatest, most intimate surface contact.

Tubular extrusions on the other hand can be adjusted to create a gap between the conductor and dielectric, therefore reducing surface contact to a consistent yet variable amount. Minimizing intimate contact between the conductor and dielectric tends to help minimize the break-in characteristics.

There much much more but would require a book to cover, so please take the above as a very condensed version.

Are we talking physics and burn-in or audio capabilities to my ears as it applies to simple 3-6-25-50 ft copper twisted pair connected to my speakers/ics and it's measurable attributes explained long ago and it's properties and from sharper minds than me or you.

Give me at least 3db measurable results in freq response/signal noise ratio/dynamic range/headroom/pwr/etc., to change my mind. Give me something.

Nothing less will do it and I doubt it exists.

Still though I'm of open mind and will be first to save up and purchase one of these rare and exciting copper creatures often spoken about here.

In meantime I think it not good investment.

Mike

Like in a camera flash?

As opposed to being difficult to hear because of the short audible memory of a trained listener? But hearing is a lossy process Joe that depends upon the rejection of audible information that is affected by a host of variable such as mood, health, hunger, disposition, and auditory focus.



It all matters, doesn't it? Maybe even how far off the floor they are too or if the carpet is wool, nylon, polyester?



Nothing like a tight fit I say.


But then you move the cable and that alters the spacing and where it all touches and then it has to break in again.


I'll be looking for you on Oprah when the book comes out.

Must be a university up there in the land of 'wide right' with a EE professor you can collaborate with. Of all the cable mongers, I like you the best Joe.

I understand capacitor burn-in, though it does not apply to all types. I have not needed cable bias except for nV measurements, but whatever.

As for quantum effects, now I understand why all the arguments: whenever you add an observer, the outcome is uncertain!

I was hoping you would pop in for some comic relief. We had the first act with Tess and now the star attraction.

Attached is a little piece of technical information y'all may find interesting. This reflects the TRUTH about the diatribe from JS about wire acting like a bunch of capacitors in series.

Read carefully Joe so you can rewrite your "professional" statements as a Snake Oil brand wire pusher.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_13/4.html

Note that that Web page's description of capacitance is very introductory. Strictly speaking, it's only valid for low frequencies. Like less than a MegaHertz. When the wavelength of the signal is shorter than the cable length, then things get more complicated. The wavelength of 20KHz in an electrical cable is something like 7 kilometers or more. (Cables don't transport electrical signals at the speed of light. 1/2 c is common.)

Whoops, wrong word. Best I could do for a Saturday morning. Thanks for catching that Giz.

What I was getting at is that as the cable gets longer, so does the negative effects of this 'collection of relatively poor grade capacitors' on the signal.

Ha!

Giz, I see the bug is still intact.