The molecular level explanation of "cable burn-in"

According to one cable seller

"The insulation (or dielectric) will absorb energy from the conductor when a current is flowing (i.e. when music is playing). This energy-absorption causes the dielectric's molecules to re-arrange themselves from a random order into a uniform order. When the molecules have been rearranged, the dielectric will absorb less energy & consequently cause less distortion."

So it’s the plastic polymer (as dielectric insulation) to undergo some sort of molecular rearrangements to minimize the distortion. Probably one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever!

“Many premium AC cords constrict or compress the audio transient as their characteristic impedance restricts the transient current.”

We all know impedance restricts current but how possibly “many” premium AC cords constrict/compress the audio transient (when not carrying audio signal)? Then again is it achieved by this molecular rearrangements of the cable insulation?

Unfortunately there are no measurement data or mathematical formulas to be found to back up this amazing scientific discovery. Simply “it happens”. So I came up with a formula for them.

∆E = P - SoT

∆E: energy absorbed by dielectric

P: energy (power) drawn from wall outlet

So : Smake Oile

T: Dielectric Transition Temperature


So far all I hear is that different insulating materials, because of their dielectric strength affect the current running through them but there is nothing in the literature that I’m familiar with that explains any sort of permanent change, molecular alteration, rearrangement of the atoms in the insulation in a permanent way to explain "breaking in" of a cable. If anyone has read or knows some actual science behind this, please let us know.

        Even the lamest of those, willing to do a bit of research, could pick up an encyclopedia (old as the 60’s-70’s) and find information on Maxwell’s equations(1873), Dielectric Absorption, Poynting’s theorem (1884) and Quantum Electrodynamics (on which we were being lectured in the 1960’s).

                                   "...actual science..."?

                          Did I mention: "willful ignorance".

                                     Another rewind:

        Anyone needing a rationale for experimenting with new cables in their system and/or feeling dissuaded by the Church of Denyin'tology's antiquated electrical doctrines: take heart!

        Many new electrical facts have been established in the past 100 years, that support audible differences, between various cables, fuses, etc.

         I couldn't find anything like, "Updated Electrical Theory For Idiots", but- did manage to find something resembling a cartoon, that even a child could follow.  It neither mentions AC/sinusoidal waves in wires, nor does it go into the photon propagation of electromagnetic waves.   It does, however, emphasize/demonstrate how Electrical Theory has progressed, since the 1800s:


        The next presupposes a certain amount of knowledge, in the field of modern Electrical Theory.   

        It's an established (measured) fact that an electromagnetic wave's propagation and speed, are dependent on the materials, of which the transmission line (cable) are made (ie: Dielectric Constant/permittivity).     The better (lower) the Dielectric Constant the better the flow and the longer it takes for that material, to become polarized.     One reason anything that comprises an RLC circuit (ie: capacitors, cables, PC boards), takes time to, "form", or, "break/burn-in".*      

          *Something that makes the Denyin'tologists apoplectic.

          Even the most inane (regarding the Sciences) must admit; braiding and twisting wires eliminates/reduces EMI interference.              
          That must lend credence to various cable geometries.

          That better dielectrics enhance the propagation of electromagnetic waves (ie: your music signal), lends the same credence to choosing cables with better materials (ie: Polypropylene, Teflon, air, etc).

           Of course: anything the Church of Denyin'tology's popes can't fathom, they'll summarily dismiss.


         As simple a device as a fuse is: it still carries a sinusoidal signal/voltage, ALWAYS from source to load.

                                                 NOT back and forth!

         Also (as mentioned above): any fuse acts as an RLC circuit, the 'C' of which will be determined by properties of its wave guide's/ conductor's surroundings (ie: glass, air, bee's wax, ceramic, end cap materials, etc).

          Any commonly drawn wire will exhibit a chevron pattern in its crystal lattice, so: why not "directionality" and why OHNO Continuous Cast, single crystal wire sounds better, to so many?


                   Stated above are scientifically tested, measured and proven facts. 

                                  There is no "contest", or "dispute" involved.


         The OP mentions Maxwell, but: obviously they have no understanding of his theory and possible ramifications as regards the above.


          Anyone that feels compelled to harp on not hearing any differences, is obviously too obtuse to understand the term "variables" (as frequently mentioned) and worthy of disregard.


          My only goal in these threads has ever been to encourage those with a mind to experiment with their systems, based on the latest (20th/21st Century's) findings of ACTUAL Physics/science and ignore the Cargo Cult's incessant runway building (objections, convolutions, deflections and obfuscations).


                                                       Happy listening!


Cords and Cables are simple. First ... ignore all sales pitches.



1. If you are happy with your system don’t change any cords or cables.

1a. If you are at minimum 80% happy then you might get that last % from some new cables or cords.


2. If you do NOT HEAR any changes with a new cord or cable, then do not change.

2a. Also do not post as if you are The Divine.



PVC and PETE have different dielectric constants that affect the properties of the cables between the two PETE has a lower Dk so absorbs less electric charge consequently it's a better insulating material for audio cables. (the other way around for capacitors) But this is not the issue here. The problem is this novel behavior of dielectric macromolecules in cable electronics according to the  website. I suggest their research be submitted to the IEEE review board for authentication. This could be someone's PhD dissertation and publishable in a high impact engineering journal.

I was going to make a separate thread about the magic dielectric bias system but decided not to. I'm aware that there are similar magic fairy lamps used in the cable selling industry - MPC Network Box etc.. as one member stated they could simply use magic stones like shungite/quartz instead of spending money on tooling extra labor to attach those magic lamps to their expensive cables and name them like "time-dependent (hence 200 hrs of burn-in time required) dielectric wave quantumiser" or some other extra fancy pseudo-science nomenclature. My speaker cables are the Kimber 8tc that I bought many years ago and I would say they're "good enough" I would like repeat "good enough"