Detlof, glad to see that your results basically match mine. Then again, great minds think alike : )
Much like Detlof, i think that cooking cables presents a much more natural and refined presentation. By "refined", i don't mean "restrained". I think that music played on a system using "burned" cables has a far more natural flow to it. As Detlof mentions, PRAT or the "pace" of the music seems to improve as the system seems to be reproducing all the notes with greater ease and far less effort. The "strain" that you never realized was previously there is now gone, making it oh so apparent. Everything sounds more liquid with less glare, bass passages have the proper "weight" and definition, wind instruments ( especially horns and other brass instruments ) have the proper amount of "bite" ( which are actually micro-bursts of increased amplitude ) that one might hear on a good recording or at a live concert, highs are far more natural with more air and a very "correct" sense of timbre and harmonic structure are present, etc...
As to Detlof's comments about a "burned" cable being "louder", i don't necessarily think that it is "louder" so much as it is a combination of factors. First of all, i think that transient response is improved, compression is reduced and time-smear becomes less critical. Because you can now hear more of the signal in a manner that was more timely, your brain can now process the information faster. In effect, Detlof could "sense" the information being provided faster and cleaner with a burned cable than he could with the unburned cable, so his brain processed that info first. When you hear two signal of equal or near equal amplitude, the signal that makes the initial impact is the one that we perceive as being "louder" or "more jarring". Does this make sense to you ?
Now, to the tech-heads out there, this probably sounds like a LOT of "hooey", so let me try and explain this in layman's terms.
The "compression" and "signal delay" that occur prior to burning has to do with various levels of dielectric absorption that takes place along both the length and depth of the cable. The untreated dielectic creates a time / amplitude / frequency response "skew" that are all inter-related. Amplitude losses may vary with frequency due to the specific dielectrics being used. This in turn would alter the over-all frequency response curve of the cable itself. Phase shift ( changes in signal over time ) may be introduced as frequency response varies due to the frequency dependent dielectric absorption taking place. As such, various cables in unburned form may have very different phase / absorption rates due to the dielectrics being used.
This could possibly explain why using the same conductors with identical geometries but altering nothing more than the dielectric creates such noticeable differences in sound. Could this be why so many people prefer the sonics of Teflon / air based cables ? Both of these "dielectrics" tend to offer the least interaction with the signal. For the record, Teflon is the most "air like" dielectric that we currently know how to make. As such, the involvment ( or lack of it ) of the dielectric and its' side effects may play a MUCH greater role in what we hear and how we hear it. My guess is that these effects take place much like skin effect, as frequency varies, so does the severity ( and noticeability ) of the problem.
As such, "burning" a cable is a two-fold process: It aligns the crystal structure of the conductors which makes for a less "resistive" and "smoother" path. Think of "bumpy crystals" and electrons as being equivalent to you trying to pass across a rocky mountain-side or walking down a paved road. They might measure the same appr distance but one will be able to be traversed in a manner that is both more timely and with a lot less effort. I don't know if electrons "sweat" while working, but maybe that is what we are hearing on unburned cables : )
Burning also minimizes the effects of dielectric absorption, making the cable more linear in time coherency, frequency response and amplitude linearity. That is why we "sense" the changes as an increase in "prat", which is time, amplitude and frequency related. While this may sound far fetched to some, you can think back to this post years from now and remember just how "flat" the Earth was : )
With all of that in mind, I have yet to try a cable that hasn't improved with "burning". Poor to mediocre cables become "acceptable" and good cables only get better. Sean
>
PS... the meaning of "PRAT" now stands for Pace, Rhythm, Amplitude, Tempo in MY book. Have any of you ever seen this acronym used with "Amplitude" used for the "A" ?
Much like Detlof, i think that cooking cables presents a much more natural and refined presentation. By "refined", i don't mean "restrained". I think that music played on a system using "burned" cables has a far more natural flow to it. As Detlof mentions, PRAT or the "pace" of the music seems to improve as the system seems to be reproducing all the notes with greater ease and far less effort. The "strain" that you never realized was previously there is now gone, making it oh so apparent. Everything sounds more liquid with less glare, bass passages have the proper "weight" and definition, wind instruments ( especially horns and other brass instruments ) have the proper amount of "bite" ( which are actually micro-bursts of increased amplitude ) that one might hear on a good recording or at a live concert, highs are far more natural with more air and a very "correct" sense of timbre and harmonic structure are present, etc...
As to Detlof's comments about a "burned" cable being "louder", i don't necessarily think that it is "louder" so much as it is a combination of factors. First of all, i think that transient response is improved, compression is reduced and time-smear becomes less critical. Because you can now hear more of the signal in a manner that was more timely, your brain can now process the information faster. In effect, Detlof could "sense" the information being provided faster and cleaner with a burned cable than he could with the unburned cable, so his brain processed that info first. When you hear two signal of equal or near equal amplitude, the signal that makes the initial impact is the one that we perceive as being "louder" or "more jarring". Does this make sense to you ?
Now, to the tech-heads out there, this probably sounds like a LOT of "hooey", so let me try and explain this in layman's terms.
The "compression" and "signal delay" that occur prior to burning has to do with various levels of dielectric absorption that takes place along both the length and depth of the cable. The untreated dielectic creates a time / amplitude / frequency response "skew" that are all inter-related. Amplitude losses may vary with frequency due to the specific dielectrics being used. This in turn would alter the over-all frequency response curve of the cable itself. Phase shift ( changes in signal over time ) may be introduced as frequency response varies due to the frequency dependent dielectric absorption taking place. As such, various cables in unburned form may have very different phase / absorption rates due to the dielectrics being used.
This could possibly explain why using the same conductors with identical geometries but altering nothing more than the dielectric creates such noticeable differences in sound. Could this be why so many people prefer the sonics of Teflon / air based cables ? Both of these "dielectrics" tend to offer the least interaction with the signal. For the record, Teflon is the most "air like" dielectric that we currently know how to make. As such, the involvment ( or lack of it ) of the dielectric and its' side effects may play a MUCH greater role in what we hear and how we hear it. My guess is that these effects take place much like skin effect, as frequency varies, so does the severity ( and noticeability ) of the problem.
As such, "burning" a cable is a two-fold process: It aligns the crystal structure of the conductors which makes for a less "resistive" and "smoother" path. Think of "bumpy crystals" and electrons as being equivalent to you trying to pass across a rocky mountain-side or walking down a paved road. They might measure the same appr distance but one will be able to be traversed in a manner that is both more timely and with a lot less effort. I don't know if electrons "sweat" while working, but maybe that is what we are hearing on unburned cables : )
Burning also minimizes the effects of dielectric absorption, making the cable more linear in time coherency, frequency response and amplitude linearity. That is why we "sense" the changes as an increase in "prat", which is time, amplitude and frequency related. While this may sound far fetched to some, you can think back to this post years from now and remember just how "flat" the Earth was : )
With all of that in mind, I have yet to try a cable that hasn't improved with "burning". Poor to mediocre cables become "acceptable" and good cables only get better. Sean
>
PS... the meaning of "PRAT" now stands for Pace, Rhythm, Amplitude, Tempo in MY book. Have any of you ever seen this acronym used with "Amplitude" used for the "A" ?