Well, let me say what it implies to me. The previous part of the chapter showed minute sections of a 99.999% Cu sheet, actually physically move without anything but room temperature across it, over a period of days. Pictures and everything.
What I just put forth, is that SOME parts don't move under the same conditions, BUT I conjecture that they MIGHT, if some audio signal were passed through the specimen over a period of time. Would you call that 'breaking-in' the copper sheet? Why do some parts actually move across the specimen? Any ideas?
What I just put forth, is that SOME parts don't move under the same conditions, BUT I conjecture that they MIGHT, if some audio signal were passed through the specimen over a period of time. Would you call that 'breaking-in' the copper sheet? Why do some parts actually move across the specimen? Any ideas?
Why does it matter (or not) if what you are calling 'break-in' occurs, when no one can factually hear any difference?
What you might want to ask yourself is why they must use microscopically thin copper foil in order to observe this effect.
You seem to be implying that the same thing happens in bulk material yet you have presented absolutely no evidence that this is the case.
se
It might help to step back for a moment and look this forum over: the 98.9% of hifi engineering that is still and will always be under development receives aggressive and creative work. It's great! Yet some of us are pushing the .01% that is far below audibility. Yes I know 'fringe areas' have some appeal and do sell. Look at Velodyne's 'servo' invention. It was proved in tests that it drops distortion a mere 1% (below audibility in the bass region) but nonetheless was the foundation of a hugely successful enterprise! I understand this appeal. But we can rise above. These areas might be worth some effort if the rest of audio was already perfect; but it's as far from perfect as we are. Analogy: it's like a life's work invested on dust-removal cloths for fine sports cars in the Sudan.
John I'm quite sure you are exceedingly bright. I wish you would use your skills and talent on the 98.9%! I implore you! We would all benefit. 😎
Please! We have to draw the line at stuff like cable isolators and pebbles if we are to be taken seriously by others of education! I can only imagine how many would be rolling in their graves if they knew what we were doing. I'm not pleased to be part of a community that is pushing the equivalent of blood-letting and leeches.🙁🙁
John I'm quite sure you are exceedingly bright. I wish you would use your skills and talent on the 98.9%! I implore you! We would all benefit. 😎
Please! We have to draw the line at stuff like cable isolators and pebbles if we are to be taken seriously by others of education! I can only imagine how many would be rolling in their graves if they knew what we were doing. I'm not pleased to be part of a community that is pushing the equivalent of blood-letting and leeches.🙁🙁
I would further add that cross-sectioning and SEM analysis of heavy guage wires is easity done. I suspect that the average distribution of grain structure is unaffected at the current levels mentioned here.
If I was a woo-woo I would suggest running DC at the max ampacity through a wire and force all the defects to the end and then cut it off.
Honestly, does this sound anymore far-fetched than most copy on the snake oil sites? Well at least no one can patent that process now.😀
If I was a woo-woo I would suggest running DC at the max ampacity through a wire and force all the defects to the end and then cut it off.
Honestly, does this sound anymore far-fetched than most copy on the snake oil sites? Well at least no one can patent that process now.😀
Steve, they look at the surface of things with an electron microscope. That is WHY a thin sheet of pure Cu is adequate in this case. Actually, in bulk, I would guess that the ohmic resistance would change slightly, not enough for most to notice, but it would.
expert's musings
If "experts" would "do the math" and "run some tests" and "present some data", more folks might take their (currently non-existant) alternative hypothesis seriously. Might wanna brush up on tensor field theory, tho...
All that's being presented is idle speculation w/o examination.
If all this intemollecular/intergranular motion caused cable "burn-in", then cables would never be "burned in" since every time you ran any sort of electrical signal through them, they'd change. Doesn't make any sense... hence my ?'s in "that other thread" as to when you know the cable(s) changed... since the simple act of switching the cables would cause innumerable grain boundary motion, lattice defects, etc.... it's known in the industry as "work hardening"...
BTW... one must be very careful interpreting thin film section properties and extrapolating to bulk materials. 2 different beasts all together
Show us the money,eh??😀
If "experts" would "do the math" and "run some tests" and "present some data", more folks might take their (currently non-existant) alternative hypothesis seriously. Might wanna brush up on tensor field theory, tho...
All that's being presented is idle speculation w/o examination.
If all this intemollecular/intergranular motion caused cable "burn-in", then cables would never be "burned in" since every time you ran any sort of electrical signal through them, they'd change. Doesn't make any sense... hence my ?'s in "that other thread" as to when you know the cable(s) changed... since the simple act of switching the cables would cause innumerable grain boundary motion, lattice defects, etc.... it's known in the industry as "work hardening"...
BTW... one must be very careful interpreting thin film section properties and extrapolating to bulk materials. 2 different beasts all together
Show us the money,eh??😀
Last edited:
Thanks, I hadn't seen those. Links 2 and 3 are rehashes of each other, explanations of how self-deception works but without specific tests. Good, low-calorie reminders.
Link 1 is more interesting. While I can't make sense of his description of a 1000+ sq.ft. empty room with bare concrete floor as 'nonreverberant', the speaker cables used in the 'Geek' system - 6 feet on one side and 25 on the other - should arguably have been audible. I keep handy an LTSpice circuit modeling 18 gauge cable (based on the 1 foot lump sum model from a Nelson Pass paper) driving the DR MTM speaker project from PartsExpress. It's 18 vs the 16 of the Nousaine test but the graph below gives a simulated sense of the magnitude of expected variance at the speaker terminals. Top end variations are cable-inductance effects, the larger geometry of 16 gauge suggests an even great divergence than shown.
Wouldn't such a balance shift be instantly audible with pink noise?
Attachments
For everyone, I am coming from the other side of the problem. For all practical purposes, break-in has been shown to me and all my colleagues, AND we work with it every day. Often, we try to find ways around it. One way is Cryoing a part. Yes, it works, the military has used it since WW1, and it works for many things. Break-in is a last ditch attempt to shorten the listening pleasure time interval when changing cables, for whatever reason, and then being able to make a REALISTIC comparison, rather than dismissing a new cable, and later finding it better after it has been played through for awhile.
Where the rest of you think that is this crazy, is laughable, and I recommend that you don't try to compete with those of us who know better.
Where the rest of you think that is this crazy, is laughable, and I recommend that you don't try to compete with those of us who know better.
toolate!
Scott, it's done with RF induction heating at high temp for high purity metals, silicon, etc... zone refining
hmmnn... wonder if mercury ICs would be immune to burn in, since they'd be liquid?? ;-)
Zone melting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scott, it's done with RF induction heating at high temp for high purity metals, silicon, etc... zone refining
hmmnn... wonder if mercury ICs would be immune to burn in, since they'd be liquid?? ;-)
Zone melting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
Actually the book's authors cite that surface activity should be more obvious. They say:
"The fact that this takes place preferentially near the surface intersections is to be expected since some of the atom movement required at the boundary can take place by surface diffusion." p. 314, F.& C.
"The fact that this takes place preferentially near the surface intersections is to be expected since some of the atom movement required at the boundary can take place by surface diffusion." p. 314, F.& C.
Sigh. Jan, I'm 100% sure he will hear the difference between new and burned in cables because of large differences in SQ with certain cables.
😀 Are you sure, you claim you want to learn but refuse an offer based on your preconceived and obviously untested (by you) ideas.
Why would you guess that would happen in bulk when you have yet to show any evidence of this occurring in bulk materials?
To simply look at the surface, they could just as easily have used a 1/8" sheet of copper from McMaster Carr.
Tell the folks here just how thin the foil was that they looked at.
se
I don't know how thin it was, but it was what normal specimens were put on for viewing. In this case, they apparently just looked at the substrate.
Last edited:
I don't know how you get to your 98.9% but first get your system to 90% and you will be amazed at what large influences 'small things' can have on SQ.
No, you didn't. You just quoted it totally out of context and without any plausibility arguments. I can find a quote about isotopic effects in copper- can you tell me the relevance to wire? (hint: exactly the same as the relevance of your quote)
So, again, where's the EVIDENCE of changes in audio cables after break in? If you don't have any, just man up and say, "I got nothin'."
- Status
- Not open for further replies.