Power Cord Burn-In

Flex,

The quoted portion of my previous post is an ANALOGY.

It's not meant as any type of proof - it's just an analogy.

You're pushing an analogy to an absurd degree. Of course
it is well recognized that humans are much better at
"pattern recognition" than current computer algorithms.

However, this is a non sequitur when it comes to how electrons
flow in cables - and the computational physics that can
currently be used to model such to a high degree of accuracy.

Gregory Greenman

Dear Morb,
It's also a non-sequitur to discuss the JFK Jr problem, call it "fallible senses vs instrumenation", and then use that as a proof of the limits of hearing. In fact, your comparisons are apples-oranges.

You were comparing an optical sensor (eye) with, what, EM radiation sensors(?) under conditions where the optical sensor is severely disadvantaged. Had you compared optical to optical (e.g. eye to camera, telescope) you would have discovered that the instrumentation was no better than the eye under those fogged in conditions.

My point was to say that human sensory detection uses a wide variety of criteria in arriving at conclusions, and is subject to a high degree of training (yes, pattern recognition). Agreed, it has nothing to do with electron flow, and neither does your commentary. But my point actually does have a great deal to do with why audiophiles, as well as audio professionals, become skilled in hearing fine differences, and also with a discussion on the fallibilities of double blind tests. Lets not get into blind testing here; it's a long and heated argument.

It's a necessary and good exercise to look at audio "theories" in terms of well-established scientific knowledge, like phase diagrams and electron flow. But it's also a little dangerous to always infer from the text book situation to the engineering situation; the devil is in the details, and human ears need to be trusted at times to tell you that you haven't always got the explanation right.

Perhaps you can explain: "Faulted Defects Generated by the Movement of Boundaries in Electron Microscope Specimens" pp314-325 'ELECTRON MICROSCOPY OF INTERFACES IN METALS IN ALLOYS' CT Forwood, LM Clarebrough.
Essentially: "A striking property of high-angle grain boundaries in pure polycrystalline copper (99.999%Cu) is that they are mobile in thin-foil electron microscope specimens at room temperature and rotate during observation, preferentially at the surface intersections. ... The defects observed consist of different types of stacking fault bend, and in addition , small twinned grains sometimes form by boundary dissociation ... "
Various microphotographs are presented over a period of days, and the electron microscope was turned off between measurements.
Now, IF copper formations can actually move on their own, what would happen if an electric current was applied over the same time period?
Perhaps your model of electron flow shows what happens to these copper atoms and why they won't stay where they were first put.

power cord burn-in...is there a DR. in the house ,you guys are giving me burn-out

Nah...this is fun.