GUILHERME said:
Guilherme brings forward a very good example of what can occasionally happen in a worst case scenario with less than full critical knowledge of cable burn-in processes. Then we get this brilliant insight.
Bill Fitzpatrick said:
I think it should now be obvious to those of us with advanced physics training that the problem in Guilherme's case was caused by Cherenkov radiation evidenced by the 700 nm radiation mentioned by Bill F. (Way to go Bill I'd never though of it in that way before). This occured when highly excited charge carriers (from the thrash metal music) attempted (and succeeded) in exceeding the propagation speed of C in the cable's dielectric matrix. The molecular poles in the dielectric could not keep pace with the conductors on its boundary regions.
Cherenkov radiation damage to interconnects can occur as a gradual process over time. Fortunately such radiation damage leaves a mechanical signature, a stiffening of the dielectric at low temperatures that may be detected with low tech equipment. If you are curious if your interconnects have suffered radiation damage simply place them in the freezer for 5 minutes. If they feel stiffer and less flexible immediately after removal there is a good chance your interconnects useable lifetime has been shortened. You will soon likely have to go buy new interconnects or live with impaired wiring.
I think RCA Victim is on to something here:
After all "cables" tend to be flexible metallic objects covered in a dialectric sheath, which pretty much just lay there.
Whereas a "rocket" tends to be rigid, hollow metal without a sheath that whooshes and swooshes around- "To Infinity and Beyond!!!" - as Bas I'm sure would agree.
So now we know what they are "not", so now we must tackle what they "are"
Now your "physics" discussions are useful, but as I'm sure Kwei would agree, They are just a model of reality- they aren't reality itself!!! I myself use another model- kind of a soft touchy feeley "Skinnerian" approach:
First put the fine wood cable box into the listening room for a day with no sounds or activity to add stress. The next day open the box and put on something using the existing cables, that isn't very challanging, such as The Four Seasons. Leave the room and close the door so you don't go mad.
Next day remove the cables from the box and unroll them. Play another tune equally unchallanging...After this, return the cables to their box and let them rest.
The third day hook them up, and play the piece. If it sounds good than remove them immedietly to the box as a "reward"
I'm sure that the clever among you can see where I am going with this. After about a week, your cables will be capable of thundering Wagner cycles and Mahler Symphonies better than you have ever heard in your life.
Just remember that a slip up in this stage- going too fast- may destroy any chance of the cables ever performing optimally.
Now we're talking interconnects here right?
On the other hand, speaker cables are wilful obstinate beasts.
Just hook them right up and let them play. If they don't sound fantastic, remove them, grasp the ends in your hand and "whip" them against the floor (hardwood floor please) Try them again and repeat the punishment until they perform as you know they are capable of.
This works for me.
So at least we will have some common ground......
After all "cables" tend to be flexible metallic objects covered in a dialectric sheath, which pretty much just lay there.
Whereas a "rocket" tends to be rigid, hollow metal without a sheath that whooshes and swooshes around- "To Infinity and Beyond!!!" - as Bas I'm sure would agree.
So now we know what they are "not", so now we must tackle what they "are"
Now your "physics" discussions are useful, but as I'm sure Kwei would agree, They are just a model of reality- they aren't reality itself!!! I myself use another model- kind of a soft touchy feeley "Skinnerian" approach:
First put the fine wood cable box into the listening room for a day with no sounds or activity to add stress. The next day open the box and put on something using the existing cables, that isn't very challanging, such as The Four Seasons. Leave the room and close the door so you don't go mad.
Next day remove the cables from the box and unroll them. Play another tune equally unchallanging...After this, return the cables to their box and let them rest.
The third day hook them up, and play the piece. If it sounds good than remove them immedietly to the box as a "reward"
I'm sure that the clever among you can see where I am going with this. After about a week, your cables will be capable of thundering Wagner cycles and Mahler Symphonies better than you have ever heard in your life.
Just remember that a slip up in this stage- going too fast- may destroy any chance of the cables ever performing optimally.
Now we're talking interconnects here right?
On the other hand, speaker cables are wilful obstinate beasts.
Just hook them right up and let them play. If they don't sound fantastic, remove them, grasp the ends in your hand and "whip" them against the floor (hardwood floor please) Try them again and repeat the punishment until they perform as you know they are capable of.
This works for me.
exist only one nonburnigable medium - vacuum 
I am interested if anyone knows if the recording industry has ever required the use burned in cables or equipment for recording, or is this not a concern for the actual music or noise they recorded for us. I am sure a microphone has to change its qualities as well as the cabling, Mixers and so on. Of course if a mic was used for the wrong singer or instrument it might have to be quarantined. 
Hi,
Required? Nah...
I do know a few studios that do pay attention to cable quality and burn-in though.
Unfortunately most recording engineers should be "unburned" first and re-learn the basics....
Microphones are of course basically mechanical devices not unlike loudspeakers and do require a break-in period.
Cheers,
Required? Nah...
I do know a few studios that do pay attention to cable quality and burn-in though.
Unfortunately most recording engineers should be "unburned" first and re-learn the basics....
Microphones are of course basically mechanical devices not unlike loudspeakers and do require a break-in period.
Cheers,
Have any of you folks ever demagnetized a tape head or degaussed a CRT?
Submitted for your approval:
I read the postings pointed to in the link near the first of this thread where it was postulated that the dielectrics in the interconnects had a bias from the stresses of the manufacturing process and that this "electret" effect was the main cause of the alleged problems with interconnects which "burning in" might fix.
I’ve also read through this thread and see that some are convinced that the actual conductors somehow benefit from being "broken in" in some way.
If there is any truth to all of this, then it would make sense that to perform the electrostatic or electromagnetic equivalent of "degaussing", one would want to follow the same protocol as is used for the more familiar forms of degaussing.
To degauss a CRT or a tape head, one first exposes the "victim" to a very strong alternating magnetic field and then slowly reduces the intensity of the field until it reaches zero. This is most often accomplished by placing the source of the alternating magnetic field close to the degaussee and then slowly moving it away so that it is quite some distance away before the power is switched off.
The idea is to leave the head or CRT with a magnetic bias of “zero”, and this is accomplished by applying a strong enough field to overcome its existing bias and then taper that field (AC, of course) down in intensity until you are left with a zero bias condition. This works just great and is easy to do.
Anyhow, based on this, wouldn’t it make sense to hit up your cables with a strong AC signal and then slowly taper it to zero? It doesn’t take long to demagnetize a tape head or degauss a CRT. The critical thing is the tapering of the applied field from strong to zero.
If you’re only interested in de-electreting your dielectric, then you only need high voltages to start. If you’re worried about the magnetic effects in the conductors, then you may need to actually have some current flow, and it seems to me that you’d need a load on the far end of the cable from the signal source.
But back to the main point: I propose that we should use Ravel’s Bolero played backwards as the ultimate signal source for degaussing and de-eletretizing our interconnects.
Also, you’ll all want to slowly turn the volume down each time you’re done listening to your stereo. If you have the misfortune of turning the system off during a loud peak, everything will be left with a strong DC bias, both magnetically and electrostatically. Your system may never recover from this and you will need to buy all new gear, including interconnects - either that or you'll need to play something really loud the next time to erase the previous bias.
Seriously, though, I can see where this sort of thing could easily be true for transformers. If the transformer had a “DC” magnetic bias to it’s core, then it would be reasonable to want to remove that bias. Applying a strong AC current through at least one winding and then slowly tapering that current to zero might do the trick. Again, this wouldn’t require a long time, just enough to demagnetize the core. And the frequency shouldn’t be important. Tape head demagnetizers just use the mains frequency and they work just great.
Now don’t get any ideas out there, I’m working on the patent for my “Tapered Cable Burner” as I write this. It will have settings for different musical tastes too. I’m sure the marketplace will reward me for my innovation.
Submitted for your approval:
I read the postings pointed to in the link near the first of this thread where it was postulated that the dielectrics in the interconnects had a bias from the stresses of the manufacturing process and that this "electret" effect was the main cause of the alleged problems with interconnects which "burning in" might fix.
I’ve also read through this thread and see that some are convinced that the actual conductors somehow benefit from being "broken in" in some way.
If there is any truth to all of this, then it would make sense that to perform the electrostatic or electromagnetic equivalent of "degaussing", one would want to follow the same protocol as is used for the more familiar forms of degaussing.
To degauss a CRT or a tape head, one first exposes the "victim" to a very strong alternating magnetic field and then slowly reduces the intensity of the field until it reaches zero. This is most often accomplished by placing the source of the alternating magnetic field close to the degaussee and then slowly moving it away so that it is quite some distance away before the power is switched off.
The idea is to leave the head or CRT with a magnetic bias of “zero”, and this is accomplished by applying a strong enough field to overcome its existing bias and then taper that field (AC, of course) down in intensity until you are left with a zero bias condition. This works just great and is easy to do.
Anyhow, based on this, wouldn’t it make sense to hit up your cables with a strong AC signal and then slowly taper it to zero? It doesn’t take long to demagnetize a tape head or degauss a CRT. The critical thing is the tapering of the applied field from strong to zero.
If you’re only interested in de-electreting your dielectric, then you only need high voltages to start. If you’re worried about the magnetic effects in the conductors, then you may need to actually have some current flow, and it seems to me that you’d need a load on the far end of the cable from the signal source.
But back to the main point: I propose that we should use Ravel’s Bolero played backwards as the ultimate signal source for degaussing and de-eletretizing our interconnects.
Also, you’ll all want to slowly turn the volume down each time you’re done listening to your stereo. If you have the misfortune of turning the system off during a loud peak, everything will be left with a strong DC bias, both magnetically and electrostatically. Your system may never recover from this and you will need to buy all new gear, including interconnects - either that or you'll need to play something really loud the next time to erase the previous bias.
Seriously, though, I can see where this sort of thing could easily be true for transformers. If the transformer had a “DC” magnetic bias to it’s core, then it would be reasonable to want to remove that bias. Applying a strong AC current through at least one winding and then slowly tapering that current to zero might do the trick. Again, this wouldn’t require a long time, just enough to demagnetize the core. And the frequency shouldn’t be important. Tape head demagnetizers just use the mains frequency and they work just great.
Now don’t get any ideas out there, I’m working on the patent for my “Tapered Cable Burner” as I write this. It will have settings for different musical tastes too. I’m sure the marketplace will reward me for my innovation.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.