Best interconnect burn-in method


I think I know the answer to this, but I just wanted to double check with everyone.  I am in the process of burning in an XLR interconnect.  The interconnect is between the DAC and the integrated amp.  I am using a laptop as the source, and it is connecting via USB cable to the DAC.  Is it true that I am still burning in the XLR IC if I leave the integrated amp turned off while playing music continuously on my laptop with the DAC turned on?  Thank you for your input.

respected_ent

Showing 3 responses by teo_audio

I’ve tried using an arc welder to burn in a set of binding posts, just prior to a show. To try and eliminate that part of the burn in process. the answer is, don’t do it. Far too dark, is the result.

Thankfully, it bounces back to a norm of sorts, but it does take a few days. Just like normal burn in.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

90% of what we mean in a face to face conversation, is lost in internet conversations. The reflection of their ego fills in what they desire, into what you have said/written. The attacks are coming out of them, based on their minds, not yours or your intent, meaning, etc. This is the fundamentals of psychology in the internet written world.

They really are, most seriously, stroking themselves heavily. Ergo...There is no chance of a meeting of the minds or a middle ground.

When we add in the forceful ego projections of some folks, there is even less chance they’ll learn anything --- and that they are trolling to get their jollies. Not much more can be said.

Ignore them. 100 percent ignore them. The thing their projecting egos can’t deal with, is being ignored ~entirely~.

Have your conversation as if they aren’t even there.

Zero response: It’s the only thing that drives them away.

Remember, they are most definitely baiting you to respond and they’ll say anything (all emotionally driven and barbed) to get that response from you. The only win available is to never respond. not even once. Think of a screaming child looking for attention and 'what it wants'. If you cave, the cycle never ends.


All those formulas and the theories and the generalizations (self admitted generalizations) in that wiki page on skin effect were idealized, tested, hypothesized, realized, etc (however one may wish to put it) with solidus lattice structures. Not conductive fluids.

One can make a hollow cylinder of conductive fluids and drop a magnet down that cylinder and the result will be different than if done with a copper tube. Lenz is still happening but...differently. Lenz, and everything else involving electrical formulae... as the vast majority know and expect it.... was based on the analysis of conductive solidus atomic lattice structure.

As the medium is not the same (with conductive fluids). The complexity of the mathematics shoots through the roof into the impractical and (currently) incalculable. We can make some general bits of analysis, but not much more than that, at this time.

Additionally, the page from wiki speaks not on the underlying meaning and origins of the observation of ’skin effect’. Just the practical engineering mathematics. If one wants to understand the limitations of the mathematics, then the page does exactly squat.

It’s very simple: The Map Is Not The Territory.

It is on the edge of such realities that the page from wiki can and does devolve into potential misrepresentation - as dogma. Big problem.