Cable silliness (again)
On Sunday, December 9, 2012 8:00:43 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
I was reading the latest issue of one of the US high-end audio rags.
In it, they were "reviewing" some new interconnects. This is what the
reviewer said: "Inteconnects, like all cabling used in audio needs time
to "break-in". That means that for the first few weeks, cable
performance is all over the place. At first the cable seemed too "light",
then after a few days it seemed too fulsome, and finally it sounded
just right" (forgive me for rolling my eyes at this point!). So now the
snake-oil sellers have an "out" when somebody disagrees with their
findings about cable sound. "Oh, you haven't broken the cable-in
correctly" (too little, too much, the wrong kind of signal, etc.) Gimme
a break. Break-in a cable? Please, tell me by what mechanism a passive
conductor "breaks-in? And don't gimme any crap about dielectric
polarization, or some such nonsense. As a cable engineer for an
aerospace company back in the early sixties, we measured dielectric
polarization for coax used in spacecraft. Yes it can occur, IN A
VACUUM! In air, it bleeds off more quickly than it forms and it has
no effect on the signal at all below microwave frequencies!
Like I said, complete and utter balderdash.
ER- I mistakenly stated that I work as a cable engineer in the early
sixties. OK, I'm old, but I'm not THAT old! Make that the early '70's.
8^)
|