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.
Power Cable Break In - Such a Change!
I installed a new AudioQuest Dragon Source power cord from my Lumin X1 to my Niagara 7000. The power cord from the wall to the Niagara 7000 is also a Dragon but the High Current version. I bought that cord used.
So, when I first started using the new power cord everything sounded great. However, after a couple of days I started hearing a strident sound. Especially in the upper mid/ treble region. The bass was also constricted. I started blaming the sound change on another piece of equipment that was installed concurrently.
Now, I was under the impression that the Dragon power cord with its DBS system required no break in. But I did inquire about it to AudioQuest who responded that it would still need about 150 hours to break in. It's been close to that now and sure enough yesterday I started hearing the glorious sound that I heard from day one with the power cord only perhaps better.
I must say the difference during break in and now is quite remarkable, I don't remember any other power cord going through this amount of dramatic change.
ozzy
- ...
- 154 posts total
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?
|
"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#:~ |
- 154 posts total