Respectfully, this is exactly the kind of explanation that causes technically minded people to be skeptical.
You’re presenting a collection of engineering terms—velocity of propagation, leading edges, wire geometry, cryogenic treatment, cable cooking, and burn-in—but not explaining a plausible mechanism by which those properties survive the Ethernet PHY, packet buffering, and ultimately change the analog output of a DAC.
“Leading edges at audio frequencies” is particularly confusing. Ethernet is not an analog audio interface, and the cable is not carrying an audio-frequency waveform. It’s carrying a high-speed differential digital signal designed to be recovered by the receiver while operating within the Ethernet specification.
The claim that coiling and uncoiling an Ethernet cable during shipping requires another 100 hours of settling is even more extraordinary. If that were true, it should be straightforward to demonstrate with repeatable measurements of either Ethernet link performance or the DAC’s analog output.
And yes, this is the last couple of meters of a network path that may have traversed hundreds or thousands of miles of ordinary fiber, copper, switches, and routers before reaching the streamer. That doesn’t prove the final cable is irrelevant, but it does mean the burden is on the manufacturer to explain why this short compliant Ethernet cable is uniquely capable of changing the sound in ways the rest of the network does not.
These are manufacturing claims, not just personal listening impressions. Extraordinary engineering claims deserve engineering evidence.
