Power Cord Burn-In

Gmorris,

I received my PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
over 20 years ago. So your implication that I'm "wet behind the ears"
is unfounded.

In our work, we have to take into account the degree to which
the cable that carrys the signals from the experimental
diagnostics affect the signals from those diagnostics.
Therefore, the transport of electrons in cables has been
extensively studied.

If you think that Maxwell's Equations are the state of the
art in modelling electron transport in cables - you are
WAY behind the times.

If you are also a physicist, then you know that instrumetation
is so much better than your "EARS" and musical memory.

Just as pilots have to learn to ignore their fallible
senses and trust their instrumentation - or they end up
like JFK Jr; you have to realize that your ears are not
the fine tuned instrumentation you think they are.

I'm not trying to be pompous - just to provide some
good scientific information to combat all the "snake-oil"
and pseudo-science that some people are spending their
hard-earned money on - but to no avail. [ Except maybe
a placebo effect - which is the most likely explanation
for the supposed improvements.]

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Dr., I also have a doctorate in physics from a "Prestigious" university. I did say " Maxwell's equation, etc." My research was in Quantum Fluids. I found it unusual for someone to sign his or her post:

"Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist"

My main point is that measurement instruments are "accurate" provided you have defined "exactly" what you are trying to measure and the instrument has been precisely calibrated. Modeling of all facets of the musical experience and its impact on the human emotion is an inexact science. Mathematical equations are for the most part models of the phenomena occurring in nature. They are merely approximations, and are "exact" only under very restricted conditions.

You don't need to model "all facets of the musical experience and its impact on the human emotion" in order to model the effect a cable has on the signal passing through it. Of course, once you know the effect the cable has on the signal, you also need to know whether that effect is audible to humans. There's a good deal of scientific work (outside your field, of course) on the latter question, Dr. Morris. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with it.

Bomarc:

".....Of course, once you know the effect the cable has on the signal, you also need to know whether that effect is audible to humans..."

I agree with the above but not the sarcasm. I am aware of the existence of "a good deal of scientific work" and have read quite a few of the papers. My point is still germane to this discussion: listening pleasure is the ultimate objective (I hope). In many instances this enjoyment cannot be correlated with the measurement of specific technical parameters.

Well of course it can't be correlated to measurements, since it happens inside your head. But you can't enjoy what you can't hear.

Actually, that's not true. You CAN enjoy what you can't hear. But in that case, your enjoyment is coming from something other than the sound of the component, so the technical parameters of the component are irrelevant.

When differences ARE audible, however, there is often a correlation between measurements and enjoyment.