Are you saying that Einstein was wrong? Please, step to the head of the line and claim your Nobel.
Seriously, John, this stuff you're handwaving has zero relevance. EVIDENCE, or be man enough to admit you've got nothing but "because I say so." Physical evidence, controlled listening tests, anything.
Seriously, John, this stuff you're handwaving has zero relevance. EVIDENCE, or be man enough to admit you've got nothing but "because I say so." Physical evidence, controlled listening tests, anything.
Oh, back to that. B.S. Sorry, I know better, because I also know that I could not tell the difference between my CTC Blowtorch, my JC-2 preamp, (either one) or the long lost and forgotten JC-80 with your test procedure. Therefore, everyone, give it up and buy the cheapest and the most convenient audio products available to you and put your time and effort into something else.
Andre,
I have to give you credit, you’re sort of a last man standing here in the camp of “the difference can be made obvious (is large) to anyone”, “my wife can hear it when walking in the door”, etc. You mention certain IC’s several times care to share a brand in particular? I would love to have you show me this effect.
Mr. Fremer failed the "instantly obvious" test and Curley simply would not be held to this claim, I'm all ears.
I wouldn't anyway pay for any of those products, in particular for the BT. Instead, I'd use 5% of the price tag and DIY a better one, for my own personal use. Which is what I'm currently doing.
equipment design
yupp.. the logical conclusion here is that if you buy equipment designed by some individuals, you'd better be prepared to screw around until you find all the right cables, and make sure you burn in all your pieces/parts until the cows come home...😀
I agree,close the thread, mods... this is mindless
yupp.. the logical conclusion here is that if you buy equipment designed by some individuals, you'd better be prepared to screw around until you find all the right cables, and make sure you burn in all your pieces/parts until the cows come home...😀
I agree,close the thread, mods... this is mindless
syn08, you have to define better AND John has to agree to the definition. Otherwise your statement is empty of meaning. When we were kids we'd play games like that, "Bruce Lee fights Muhammad Ali, who's a better fighter?" ... there were plenty of arguments for each side, but at least we had a good comparison criterion: he who wins the fight, last man standing.
Working copper creates dislocations in the crystal lattice which both hardens it and decreases its conductivity (the dislocations reduce the electron mean free path). Proper annealing effectively eliminates the dislocations, softening it and increasing its conductivity.
I haven't seen any evidence that cryoing has any effect on properly annealed wire.
se
Working a metal creates dislocations. They most definitely create internal tension, backstress, and cause a loss in conductivity due to scattering (Matthiessen's rule). I've never 'coaxed' a metal, but under certain conditions, you can get the dislocations to move to the surface. I know for a fact (I've done the experiments myself, and should probably write up the results) that reverse plasticity can occur when backstress is released. Is that coaxing?
Room temperature without any additional stress is not enough to overcome the energy necessary to move dislocations (Pierls barrier) in any material I know of. Just a reminder... thermal energy at room temperatures is ~25meV.
Cryoing will cause contraction and expansion, and without experiment I'm 99% sure that it will increase dislocation density and make matters worse. Cryoing is a giant scam.
Annealing provides the temperature requirement for two efftects:
1. Dislocation annihilation/movement to the surface.
2. Grain growth. (scattering off of grain boundaries also decreases conductivity.
That's not really how the scientific method works.
I think if this really bothers you, you need to show that there is some measurable change in the material. A rather simple experiment would be to measure conductivity in a short section of wire before and after burning in. The guys at IBM have shown measurable conductivity changes at the moment a single dislocation is nucleated, so any gross change you make sure certainly be measurable by decent lab equipment.
I was referring loosely to the AVS forums thread, I apologize if I misunderstood but my impression was that over the period of a better part of a day several people including him could not score better than chance (cable swap) using his system and music. The point being I have seen no evidence ever to suggest that any of these effects are large or obvious.
Let alone obvious to anyone with no known measurement capable of backing it up.
The military cryos for mechanical properties so the electrical properties must improve too? This non-sequitur has propagated for years with no evidence to support it.
I'm not sure that John doesn't at least have conjecture on his side regarding physical change.
In fairness, I haven't read anything that says that burn in is conclusively proven to NOT change a conductor's physical properties. So hey, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Yay, John might have conjecture on his side regarding a change in a conductor's structure using 'burn-in' techniques. (Although I'm still with Sy, I haven't seen anything close to what I'd call objective proof...)
Yet the only relevant fact still remains! - None of this is discernible by the human ear. Not anyone's. This is irrefutable absolute fact, proven time and again, so I ask yet again: Why does it matter if NO ONE can hear a difference??
Ah, ok. Not familiar with that. Thought you might have been referring to the Fremer/Randi debacle, which has been grossly misrepresented by some.
The military was also using electronic "dowsers" over in Iraq to sniff out bombs too, weren't they? They must work! 😀
se
One word: Marketing. 😀
It's like the Ohno Continuous Cast process. It has absolutely nothing to do with the electrical properties of the resulting cast copper, but it's used in the marketing of cables that use OCC copper as if it did.
se
Was Fremer involved in this, or are you referring to the Mike Lavigne speaker cable DBTs on AVSforum?
I will go back and check, the links appeared together in the Randi challenge argument and maybe i made a mistake. At least the point is that folks with high resolution systems and who care to hear differences find it difficult and are willing to let that be published. I have never seen the "I can tell in five seconds stuff" observed impartially and reported.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.