Power Cable Break In - Such a Change!

@rodman99999 - no. anyone with any "inkling" of the scientific process knows - you form a hypothesis, not a theory. Either you don't know the difference, which, may be very possible. Or worse, in your condescending message towards me, you use inexact language. Which, makes you inarticulate at best or just stupid at worst. . Which one are you? I assume, perhaps without merit, that you do know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, right?

And btw. No, It is not always an observation to kick off the process. It can also be a question. And thank god again you were wrong about it or else we would never have known the theory of relativity. 

And 96%?!?! Really? If you want to quote something so specific, about something we don't know of, seriously, How smart are you? Because, we just don't know, what we don't know (As don Rumsfeld once put it.) 

But to the subject at hand, okay, I accept the hypothesis that you can't measure cables traditionally to find a difference in sound. Then, observation should be used next. And the observed things are that the bass is tighter, or the midrange more full, or the highs are more airy. Those are things that can be measured. Why have we not done that? Null tests can prove those differences, So why haven't the cable manufactures themselves performed these experiments? Or published these results? 

But to the subject at hand, okay, I accept the hypothesis that you can't measure cables traditionally to find a difference in sound. Then, observation should be used next. And the observed things are that the bass is tighter, or the midrange more full, or the highs are more airy. Those are things that can be measured. Why have we not done that? Null tests can prove those differences, So why haven't the cable manufactures themselves performed these experiments? Or published these results? 

There is pretty much one answer that is obvious.
If I was making these things and found, possibly the worst amp, and it made a difference, then I would be using that to show the effect.

Would you prefer equipment that measures well or sounds better? 

In the case of the power cable, I would like to see it test as being different.

We can also argue whether more distortion sound better, but in general I would strive for measuring well.

Maybe with the amplifier one can say, “Ok the front end is high fidelity and is neutral with low distortion,” and then consciously say… “I am going to now spice it up with a tube amp.”

If every piece of gear is spicing things up, and morning away from neutral fidelity, then it gets to be a recipe of chance, that could be hard to repeat.

In any case, as mentioned previously, we have no actual proof that anything is happening from the manufacturers… which seems odd.

I can take a preamp with a Stereophile published graph showing a minimum of 0.03 % THD+N and agonise whether going to a different one with 0.02% THD+N graph is worth the cost… but I have no way to understand what might happen with a power cable. It is just described with words.

As ANYONE, that has the slightest inkling of how the process works, knows:  "...when science doesn't have an *ANSWER," it comes up with a, "THEORY".

              *ie: To that other 96% of this universe, Science can't explain

I heard a quote the other day that described science as mostly “coming up with questions.”  Then various hypothesis are investigated in order to describe what is happening and correlate the observations with reality. As the hypothesis are evolved, then we understand how things work, and can replicate/repeat these findings.

There may be a hypothesis as to why a cable might produce a change, but it needs to be repeated and measured to get to the point where the manufacturers can claim that they work, how they work, and when they may not work.

The hypothesis of crystal structure changes seems reasonable, but it would be more compelling with before and after microscope images showing that the crystals in fact changed.

It is not only the crystal structure that is changing with current. The diode effect has influence on the directivity of the cord, the saturation of the diëlektricum acts as an capacitor on the time domain and varies after burn-in. And then there are easier measurable things like the EMIRFI contribution/blocking attributes of the cord (on the surrounding cords for example) next to L,C,R measurements.

@jpeters568 -

         The goal of the Scientific Method: to, "ANSWER" WHY observed phenomena occur.

     The steps of the scientific method include: 1) asking a QUESTION about something you observe, 2) doing background research to learn what is already known about the topic, 3) constructing a, "hypothesis", 4) EXPERIMENTING the, "HYPOTHESIS", and 5) observing the results  6)ANALYZING the data from the experiment and drawing CONCLUSIONS*, and 7) communicating the RESULTS to others.

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/scientific-method-steps

     INVARIABLY: When one of the Sciences runs into a phenomena, for which it HASN'T YET figured out a method of TESTING (experimenting) the HYPOTHESIS, or: CAN'T YET understand (analyze) whatever data might been found during EXPERIMENTATION, there can be no categorical, "ANSWER*" to the question, "WHY?", and a, "THEORY" is proposed.

                  *English 101: without an answer, there can be no conclusion

     As an example: I've repeatedly mentioned that Science has no ANSWER or CONCLUSION as to what exactly makes up 96% of this universe, BUT: since Einstein's cosmological constant problem, Physicists/Scientists have been THEORIZING and spending BILLIONS, in search of an ANSWER as to WHAT'S UP?

 ie:  https://www.livescience.com/strange-theories-about-the-universe.html

     "And 96%?!?! Really? If you want to quote something so specific, about something we don’t know of, seriously, How smart are you?"

                                AS IF I made the numbers up?

      Get a clue! (fifty or sixty implied punctuations and interrobangs)

https://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/science/space/24essa.html

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy#:~