Cable Burn In

I believe you. I doubt it is anything I would ever notice and it does sound like a very clever way for a cable company to excuse a bad product. I mean, how do you compare what you are hearing right now vs what you're hearing 7.29 days later? Just sayin'. But I'm an eternal skeptic.

Anyway, now I'm curious. Just what exactly is burned-in? And if something needs to be burned-in in an expensive cable, why don't they do it before they send it to you? Or maybe that's a thing. You can buy race tires for your sports car that are heat-cycled several times by the manufacturer to bring them up to peak performance.....for a few extra dollars. Of course maybe the best cable companies do this already? If not, I smell a marketing opportunity!

That lends some credibility to the issue. And would make a test much easier. I'm assuming someone or some magazine has done it? Just compare cables from that same manufacturer that have had their burn-in service and that have not. Let a group of audiophiles listen at the same time in the same place.

Anyway, I am not at the level that this will ever be an issue for me but I will certainly keep it in the back of my mind. 

Did not intend to open the nonoise must have been referring to in the first reply. And I have no expertise to say anything about this issue.

I would just re-state that it seems impossible to assess SQ differences that are separated by days. And it would seem that this burn-in process, if it exists, would occur over time and not at once....which would make a significant subjective evaluation even more difficult.

And again, why would a cable maker sell a product that is not ready for the level of quality expected by the high end audiophile? If quality is truly that important the cable should be burned-in before it is sold. No one has mentioned any cable maker doing this. So if the phenomenon is real, and I have no basis on which to deny that it is, then why wouldn't a serious boutique cable maker do the burn-in before sale?

geoffkait, it seems rather one sided to demand both subjective and scientific proof from shadone in regard to minor tweaks which by definition would be....minor.... And in fact, it really isn't logical at all to demand "subjective evidence". That's a bit of an oxymoron, no? And in reality, there does not seem to be any "scientific evidence" in this matter at all. So you are asking for evidence that doesn't exist. 

For a while in the automotive performance world (street, not track) there was the craze for so called grounding kits. This was a large diameter wire to help ground the car's electrical system better than the factory ground(s). For years people spent money on these and made wild performance claims....that you could just feel in the seat of your pants.

I'm not equating this to cable burn-in. jea48 has proposed a very logical method for assessing the phenomenon. It remains very subjective of course and even his method does not control all variables. 

I know I keep beating the same horse, but if this is a real issue, or even a marketable issue, why aren't cable makers selling pre-burnt-in cables....for a premium, of course?

geoffkait wrote:

"Can I respectfully request you read what I wrote again?"

Yes, you may request it. But I already read it twice and there is no need to read it again.

"I said either one, not both."

That does not change anything about it.

"And, no, you’re probably scrambling to get on board but listening I.e.,"

I don't know what you're trying to say here. And yes, I read it again.

"subject evidence is admissible evidence, you know, like an eyewitness in a murder case."

And as such is very weak evidence both in court and in scientific experimentation. But that is irrelevant since you never provided evidence that shadone's opinions were derived without "subjective evidence" anyway. It was just your assertion, which makes you guilty of what you accuse.

"Measurements and subjective tests are both scientific."

As mentioned, subjective tests are among the weakest forms of scientific evidence.

" We “measure” what we hear with our ears."

And that's where we come up with measurements like "that sounds good".

 "Capish?"

Capish? Seriously? Patronize much? 

lowrider57 said:

" N80, you stated that you are new to the audiophile world. So, shouldn't you approach the subject of burn-in or run-in with an open mind?"

Yes. And I will. And to be clear, I have not stated that it isn't real. I've only pointed out the problems associated with actually identifying the difference. The nature of this thread alone with comments by a number of sincere and intelligent people (among the chaff) with differing opinions seems to suggest that it remains an issue which is at least problematic.

And, as I mentioned in a private message with another member here, none of it really makes any difference to me whatsoever because my system, by all accounts, already has ridiculously high end cables all around that have been burned-in for years. Plus, if I need additional cables at some point, I'll get cables that are reasonably commensurate with the ones I have.

Plus, I'll give them the recommended 175 hours of burn-in.....which is kind of a given right? What else could I do?

Then there is "my ear"....which seems to be the gold standard for some...and by default has to be....but I think it is highly unlikely that after 7.29 days of actual use that I'm going to pop in a Pink Floyd CD and yell "eureka what a difference!" when my RCA cable is burned in. I'm perfectly willing to admit that that surely has more to do with me not knowing what I'm listening to or listening for. 

rja, I'm truly sorry. I had no idea! There was no intention to poke the trolls but I don't mind poking them after they come out.

analoglovr wrote:

" N80 if you’re interested read up on confirmation bias and expectation bias. This is the reason for all the folks claiming that things sound wildly better when they’ve spent 1000s on a cable."

I'm actually very familiar with those things. I've dealt directly with clinical trials in my lifetime and assess the merits of them regularly. When dealing with humans subjective measurements are difficult and even more difficult to attach meaning to. The mind has a powerful effect not only on how we perceive reality but how we respond to it. The placebo effect, which is very relevant to this conversation, is a good example. In one study on placebo effect subjects who were extremely sensitive to poison oak were blindfolded and told poison oak leaves were being rubbed on their arm. It was actually an inert material. Despite this a certain percentage of the test group developed a rash where they were touched with the inert substance. No one in the control group did.

Anyway, I see exact parallels to these conversations in the photography world and in the automotive performance world.

Whenever I explore a new pursuit like this or photography or whatever, there is always a certain level of skepticism that any said expenditure for any said improvement is actually going to be real. I am often shocked how much actual, real improvement there is as you go from lower end gear (like lenses, camera sensors, etc) to the better equipment. You feel and know that the money spent has been worthwhile and it is easy to see and easy to prove. I firmly believe that this cost vs improvement curve goes up steeply for quite a while. But I also believe that at the higher end of the curve the performance curve begins to flatten out as expenditures continue to rise, usually more steeply. At this level the amount of money spent buys you very very little. I also believe that there comes a point that the performance goes completely flat even as expenditures go up. High cost, no yield.

I'm not correlating any thing in the audiophile world with any point on this curve. But it is always my goal to seek that sweet spot where the curve starts to flatten out, stop spending money and know that I'm getting the most out of my budget. That sweet spot is going to be in different places for different people.  But with significant experience in the photography world, I know there are folks who delight in that part of the curve where cost is high and the benefits are subtle at best. Nothing wrong with that as long as they don't try to convince me that the curve is still going up when it isn't. 

Of course the best thing to do in that situation is to thank them, shut up and walk away. I haven't got that down yet.

I already hate myself for asking this, but, geoffkait, how is someone who believes in tweaks, who argues in their defense with only subjective opinions, debates endlessly in their favor, builds a philosophy around them and never changes their mind ANY different from the skeptics you accuse of doing the same thing just in a different direction? If you remove the 'for' or 'against' labels, your claims and complaints seem to be of exactly the same nature.

Thanks everyone for the education on cables and burn-in. I feel like I now know what I need to know as it applies to my needs.

hifiman5 said:

"  I can't see how it hurts you to be open to it. "

All I said was that I feel like I know what I need to know as it applies to my needs. That doesn't really fall on one side or other of the issue.

It seems like everyone wants this to be an all-or-nothing issue. I don't see why. I can comfortably say that some smart people here feel like burn-in is a significant issue but that for my purposes and situation is unlikely to have any impact on my listening pleasure. And as I said before, I'm going to plug them in and listen to them, and again, what else would I do with them? And again, the odds of me (a beginner) hearing this difference over the days it takes to change the SQ are slim.

The only other option would be for me to buy cables that were burned-in at the factory and that is simply money I'm not going to spend regardless of the potential perceived SQ improvement. It just would not make sense at this point in my dabbling in this hobby.

hifiman5 also said:

" One last thought.  In the end, the issue is informed by your world view.  If you believe that every phenomenon we experience in life is quantifiable then the intangibles will never matter to you. "

Again, I think this implies that your world view requires you to be on an extreme end of every issue. Don't get me wrong, I am not a relativist by a long long shot. And I firmly believe in elements of experience and reality that transcend the empirical. But certainly there are experiences that are easily tangible and quantifiable and there are experiences that are not. My world view does not require me to put all experiences in one box.

Okay, I am open to it. And I think we are generally in agreement. Its just that for me the point is moot from a practical standpoint and my openness to the idea doesn't change that.

What I was pointing out was that you said: " If you believe that every phenomenon we experience in life is quantifiable...."

I think the word _every_ in that sentence is pretty absolute. I'm not denying that some folks are that absolute, I'm just saying that one can believe that _some_ things are quantifiable and _some_ are not. That's where I fall in this approach to subjects like this. I do not deny the importance and existence of the quantifiable nor the importance and existence of the intangibles, even those unique to a single observer.

The problem is that when things are not objectively quantifiable, there is always going to be difficulty arriving at a consensus among various observers. Its the nature of the beast. Especially when the particular observation is by nature likely to be subtle as in the case of this issue, especially when some observers are not physically equipped (hearing limitations) or trained (through experience) to appreciate these subtleties. And in that case....it would be true for the untrained and less sensitive observer that issue is largely irrelevant. Certainly said observer could learn to appreciate the subtleties but cannot overcome physical differences in hearing acuity.

The RCA cables I bought (the ones on which this thread is based) are also directional. They have a tag on them for the source end. I did not notice this when I ordered them. 

wyoboy, I appreciate your perspective on subjective evaluations. I think the key here is that when it all comes down to it, it does not matter. That is not to say this or that tweak doesn’t matter, it is to say that if whatever tweak makes a difference to the person that makes it, then bingo! it works. It does not matter what I think about it.

When I counsel patients on alternative therapies I make sure given therapy will not cause harm and tell them to give it a try. If it relieves their problem and causes no harm, then I’m happy for them even if I myself do not believe there is any real mechanism for that therapy to have helped. And that is not to suggest simply that "it is all in their heads". In fact I do believe it is all in their heads but not in a negative way. I believe that the mind helps heal. And if the mind is convinced of the healing power of some method, then it acts on the body. (This only goes so far. It does not matter how much you believe taking garlic will help your cholesterol, it is NOT going to unclog a blocked coronary artery).

This all puts me in mind of discussions about color. A touchy, though quantifiable variable in the world of photography and printing. In books on the subject there is often an illustration where a hue of red, the same used by Coca Cola, is shown on one page. On the back of the next page there is a scale of red hues and you are asked to pick out Coca Cola red from it. Very few can and most do so by accident (they often can’t do it twice). Some are better than others, but not many nail it consistently. I can help but wonder if there is a similar effect with sound?

Finally, there has been mention of blinded studies. I’m not sure why the audio magazines aren’t full of them. A panel of experts. Same room, same system, equipment not visible. Various songs played at various volumes but only one physical element changed. Experts fill out a check list of important qualities, each one on a 1-5 scale. Then you repeat the whole test 3 times. That’s how you test subjective elements. I’d say panels would need 5-10 experts. Maybe the magazines do this. I suspect most would rather not.

So, geoffkait, you're always asking for people who disagree with you to supply some sort of proof to support their opinions.

But you're dismissing blinded studies.

And I can't remember but I think you're not in the measure-bater camp either.

So if we can't rely on blinded studies and if measurement with equipment can't tell the whole story then what is there? What sort of proof do you want from someone?

geoffkait, when I said that you were always asking for proof you said:

Can you show me an example of what you’re referring to?

So I scrolled up a few posts where you said, and I quote:

Finally, do you have ANY evidence to support either of those statements?

geoffkait said:

"Besides, all I was asking for in the example you provided is EVIDENCE. That doesn’t seem too much to ask. 😬 I’m not demanding PROOF. "

Okay, change my question to you asking for "EVIDENCE". The result is the same. You ask for evidence but then claim that nothing anyone introduces rises to the level of "EVIDENCE". Same difference. Still specious. And you're pretty much just parsing words to wiggle out of the trap you set for yourself.

And he also said:

"You do know the difference, I assume."

I know the difference between rational civil conversation verses someone being patronizing and insulting to cover up for the inconsistencies of his posts. And, no, I will not find that "EVIDENCE " for you. It is in black and white all over this forum and stands in stark contrast to almost every other member and post I've read on this otherwise extremely cordial site.

geoffkait said:

"When someone recently stated that there have been many blind tests of cables, I asked him to provide links to blind tests. Which someone did. That’s an example of asking for evidence of a bold statement. "

And then you dismissed blind tests. That's my point. Reading over this and a few other threads it typically goes like this:

1. Someone makes a statement you disagree with.
2. In your reply you ask for evidence. And usually throw in some pretentious and snarky dig at them....presumably because they had the nerve to believe something that you don't.
3. If they produce evidence, which many people won't because with you there is no point, you then dismiss the evidence out of hand whether it be subjective, measured or blind tested. And usually throw in another patronizing dig questioning their intelligence.
4. If someone has the nerve to point out this pattern you resort to direct ad hominem attacks and in this case, dismiss the rest of the thread as a veiled threat that you won't grace us with your presence any longer.

" Believe what you want, but don't be so pompous as to tell me what I can or can't hear."

That cuts both ways, right? How is it that person  'A' can say "I hear a dramatic difference" and another person 'B' with equally good hearing and skills  say  "I don't hear a difference" and that makes person 'B' pompous but not person 'A'?

Well, one interesting thing fleschler said was that the burn-in makes things different, not necessarily better.

I have found it strange that this has not been pointed out before. There seems to be an impression that whatever happens to a cable as it "burns-in" somehow makes it better. Even if one accepts that something changes it seems a bit of a stretch to presume that that something is always going to make it change for the better. The packaging on the cables I bought, that caused me to start this thread (in complete and total ignorance) said the burn-in would yield optimal performance.

I also don’t think comparing a violin to a cable is maybe the best analogy. I’m sure there are variations in metallurgy and production in the same model of cable but it is hard to imagine that such variations would be anywhere near as significant as those found in wood, no two pieces of which will be the same.

Jim, thank you. I think it is ironic that I started this thread in my ignorance, both of the existence of this phenomenon and the debate surrounding it.

The irony is that for me it makes no difference whatsoever:

1) I already have great cables (from what I've been told and the resale value I see on them.
2) They are all burned in for what that's worth.
3) The cables I bought are to connect a weak link in my system which no cable, burned in or not is, going to improve and which I don't care to do anything about.
4) I'm going to use this set of cables now....and later. If they improve things great, if not great.
5) My system sounds super incredible awesome to me. I feel no room or need for improvement.

So for me, at this moment, the issue is moot and is mostly just a curiosity to me in regard to the passions it engenders.