Beware of the cable claiming long burn in period.

Threads like these are perfect examples of why falling for audiophile tropes like "everything needs burn in" doesn't have good consequences.There's enough real things for an audiophile to worry about let alone sitting around wringing hands over "burn in."  But...it's your dime....

For what reason prof needed to insult the discussion? I do not know.

I didn’t insult anyone...unless offering a different opinion is considered ’insulting.’

shkong78 bought a digital cable on the expectation that cables burn in and change sound and has clearly been put out that it did not ’improve’ to the point he expected. He indicates he has wasted time and money on this.

If it’s the case (and I don’t see good evidence to the contrary) that digital cables don’t ’burn in’ and change audible performance, then his concerns themselves have been a waste of time and money.

As I say: when I see the level of handwringing many audiophiles have over the ’sound’ of cables, much less "the changing sound of cables" and other such beliefs...it makes me glad not to engage in those particular belief systems.

aniwolfe,

"It took over 300 hours to really sound great."

What do you think is happening within the cable over those 300 hours that would alter the sound?

aniwolfe,

Maybe you can tell me what is happening inside during the 300 hours?

One possibility is that there are physical changes occurring within the cable over that time that alter the sound in a way you are able to hear.

However, that boutique digital cables "sound different" than basic, capable digital cables is highly disputed by engineers and many people who know about computing.  Let alone that a digital cable "changes sound" over time.   So from what I've read on the cable debate, the plausibility technically speaking is wanting in such claims.

Another possibility is that you imagined the difference you "heard."

This has plenty of plausibility - endless studies on the malleability and unreliability of our perception support this possibility.


But...many audiophiles don't like confronting those facts.  Makes things inconvenient for some portion of the hobby.

Again: I am not rendering some absolute judgement on why you heard what you think you heard - whether it had an objective or purely subjective basis.  I'm just pointing out the case for skepticism.  You are not at all obligated of course to change anything in your purchasing behavior based on this.  If you are firmly wedded to a purely subjective method of trying to understand audio, this will fall on deaf ears ;-)

@rodman99999

Interesting conjecture.

But, first, it seems to start by assuming the *audible* phenomenon claimed about such cables is valid, when that is in dispute.

Second, anyone can conjecture, even from already established science - that is after all what scientists tend to do.  It's the next step that is important and missing in most cable claims:  testing.   How would you determine that the aligning process you suggest occurs...and is responsible for AUDIBLE changes in cables?


Wouldn't it make sense that if your conjecture is sound, that measurements would show changes over time - given you are appealing to measurable phenomena in the first place?

And, since it's a fact we can often measure things we can not perceive, if you DID find measurable differences, wouldn't you agree we would need a way of determining if the differences are audible?  And if you agree there, why would it make sense to ignore all the data we have about how sighted listener bias can influence results?

@rodman99999

You seem to just be avoiding the questions I asked.

That cable burn-in occurs, has been established by the manufacturers, as well as those multitudes, that have provided their empirical evidence.

Can you please provide links to this evidence?

Which manufacturers have established burn in occurs and is audible? The high end cable manufacturers who make so many fishy claims in the first place?

I’ve never seen "burn in is established" claims by any of the most experienced and respected long time cable manufacturers such as Canare or Belden. Have you?

Can you provide links to this purported evidence by manufacturers?I presume there are both before and after measurements showing a burn in effect AND tests establishing the audibility of the burn in?

The Scientific Process allows for/depends on empirical evidence,

Of course it does. But science has a hard-won understanding about what type of empirical evidence it seeks! "Empirical" just means based on observation and/or experience.  But that is far from understanding the type of empirical evidence sought in science and how it is understood, because people make mistakes, and bad inferences about their experience all the time.   If I were talking to an audience of 100 people each holding a quarter and I said "I have the power to influence someone's coin to flip heads 5 times...go!"  Someone may indeed flip the coin five times.  There's your "empirical evidence."  But in reasoning about that experience, is it the right move to believe my claim was shown true by that 'evidence?'   Of course not;  that would be to ignore what is known about statistics and hence the low validity of such a test given the claim. 

So it's not good enough to just claim to "do tests" or "have an experience."  The scientific method arose to be more careful, more rigorous about what type of empirical evidence it seeks, and to weed out all the erroneous, biased methods of INTERPRETING the data.  


Did you not even read the link you gave me? Read it again, and look under the headings: Identifying Empirical Research, Bias. It supports exactly what I’ve been saying.
Can you point to research results and test methodology from those purported "manufacturers" that even fits the demands noted in your own link?

I asked, "Perhaps you can tell me, WHY that can’t be a cause(or, "plausible"), SCIENTIFICALLY?" You could have just said, you have no valid, SCIENTIFIC reason to doubt the plausibility of my conjecture regarding Dielectric Absorption, only your biases. But, who would expect that?

I wouldn’t say that, because I’m not as confused as you are about this conversation.
I quite carefully did not claim your conjecture was wrong or implausible. I simply pointed out that it was just at this point interesting conjecture, and what it would need to go beyond your mere conjecture. I’m not the one being dogmatic or blinded by bias here; I’m suggesting the very steps good scientists take to try to get around bias! I’ve used blind testing to get around my own biases in some cases.

If you don’t understand or acknowledge the steps I mentioned to move from your conjecture to better validation as valid, then you are the one who refuses to see beyond his own bias.

@rodman99999

It’s amazing how much exception you take simply to the obvious questions of how you would turn your conjecture in to a testable hypothesis.

Why does this cause you to run around in circles, and shift the burden to me as if I had to somehow disprove YOUR hypothesis??? I mean, do you think it works like this?  You float a hypothesis, and if SOMEONE ELSE doesn't prove it wrong....then you may as well be right and asking for evidence for your claim is just being mean?

You claimed burn-in was a settled question among manufacturers. Again....I dared ask for evidence and I get the X-Files response: "The Truth Is Out There."

Ok. Guess I’ll trust you on that, as you seem to have a good handle on these things.

elizabeth,

It's not true that no one's mind is ever changed in discussions like these, including audiophile controversies like cables, tweaks, burn in etc.   There are plenty of audiophiles who have switched from whole-hearted belief in all sorts of subjective audiophile ideas, to skepticism.  And of course you will also hear testimonials like "I was skeptical...until I was influenced by reading people's reports on line to try and now I'm a believer."


Personally, my own beliefs have evolved over time, both through personal experience and very much by looking at the case made by people taking different sides of a debate.


Not everyone is as dogmatic as you seem to believe.

The ironic thing is that it's usually those quickest to yell DOGMATIST who don't recognize their own dogmatism.   It often goes like this:

Skeptic:  "All of us, me, you, are human beings prone to various types of errors in how we interpret our subjective experience.   This isn't simply a claim by fiat; it's based on tons of evidence from everyday life to all the biases documented scientifically.   So I could be wrong - in fact I've proven myself to be wrong in some cases using tests to uncover my bias.  Because every human suffers bias, it's reasonable for you to admit you could be wrong as well.  It makes sense therefore to take in to account we could be wrong and ask what methods will help us more reliably tell when we are in error."

Believing Audiophile:   "Speak for yourself!  My subjectivity and senses are reliable, so I know I'm not wrong about what I KNOW I HEAR!  And stop being so DOGMATIC!"

@rodman99999

Conversation will prove impossible if you refuse to try to understand what is being written instead of leaping to some caricature you have in your mind. If someone just doesn’t automatically believe what you believe or doesn’t simply accept your claims as verified....in your mind they are a dogmatist. That is about as dysfunctional a scenario for conversation as possible. Asking about the evidence for a claim, or how it could be tested, isn’t dogmatism. It’s the opposite: it’s trying to base beliefs on evidence, not simply on someone’s say-so.

So you trip over yourself with wild statements like:

One glaring bit of evidence, when judging whether another is, "dogmatic", is the refusal to even admit possibilities, when in disagreement with their dogma, regardless of how apposite those possibilities might be.

Again...I had said your hypothesis was INTERESTING. I did not discount it as impossible. And I repeated again:

I quite carefully did not claim your conjecture was wrong or implausible.

And yet instead of seeing this as a reasonable query about evidence and methods, in your mind you have this wild caricature that I have dogmatically "refused" to "even admit possibilities" like the one you raised.
Could you please make actual contact with what I’ve been writing, please?
It is very strange that when you simply float an interesting technical hypothesis - and it was interesting! - and someone asks about the evidence for it and how you’d go about testing it...that you leap to the OTHER person as being "dogmatic" and ’refusing’ to consider possibilities.

It seems to have gone unnoticed by you that even from my first post I admitted the possibility that the OP was hearing something objectively changing in the cables.   And I admitted your conjecture was interesting, and did not claim it to be wrong.   Yet I haven't seen YOU concede anything I've said as being possible - e.g. that it could also be due to perpetual bias etc.  Instead YOU have simply claimed I'm just wrong about this, any alternative possibilities are "in my head" only, it's all been established so you aren't even considering my point of view.And then YOU go about implying that I am the recalcitrant dogmatist?   Amazing.

@rodman99999

Thank you.

As I said, I do find your hypothetical explanation interesting. I've heard something similar before to explain possible changes in cable performance.

I'm no expert on electrical theory to say the least, so I'll have to sit back and see if such an explanation ever gets vetted by people with the necessary knowledge and expertise.

Cheers!