What nonsense.
Cable Burn In
I'm new here and new to the audiophile world. I recently acquired what seems to be a really high end system that is about 15 years old. Love it. Starting to head down the audiophile rabbit hole I'm afraid.
But, I have to laugh (quietly) at some of what I'm learning and hearing about high fidelity.
The system has really nice cables throughout but I needed another set of RCA cables. I bit the bullet and bought what seems to be a good pair from World's Best Cables. I'm sure they're not the best you can get and don't look as beefy as the Transparent RCA cables that were also with this system. But, no sense bringing a nice system down to save $10 on a set of RCA cables, I guess.
Anyway, in a big white card on the front of the package there was this note: In big red letters "Attention!". Below that "Please Allow 175 hours of Burn-in Time for optimal performance."
I know I'm showing my ignorance but this struck me as funny. I could just see one audiophile showing off his new $15k system to another audiophile and saying "Well, I know it sounds like crap now but its just that my RCA cables aren't burned-in yet. Just come back in 7.29 days and it will sound awesome."
But, I have to laugh (quietly) at some of what I'm learning and hearing about high fidelity.
The system has really nice cables throughout but I needed another set of RCA cables. I bit the bullet and bought what seems to be a good pair from World's Best Cables. I'm sure they're not the best you can get and don't look as beefy as the Transparent RCA cables that were also with this system. But, no sense bringing a nice system down to save $10 on a set of RCA cables, I guess.
Anyway, in a big white card on the front of the package there was this note: In big red letters "Attention!". Below that "Please Allow 175 hours of Burn-in Time for optimal performance."
I know I'm showing my ignorance but this struck me as funny. I could just see one audiophile showing off his new $15k system to another audiophile and saying "Well, I know it sounds like crap now but its just that my RCA cables aren't burned-in yet. Just come back in 7.29 days and it will sound awesome."
175 responses Add your response
@n80 Check out http://ielogical.com/Audio/#ConnectorCleansing and http://ielogical.com/Audio/WinterBlues.php for just some of the things that can affect systems on a day to day basis. The universe runs on math. If I have a preamp with a 1KΩ output impedance driving an amp with 10KΩ input impedance does that mean I need 10x as long if I drive an amp with 100KΩ input impedance. What happens if I use DC coupled vs AC? Music varies greatly in frequency content. Will burn-in playing Joe Bonamassa sound different than if I play Birth of the Cool? The electrical energy vastly different so if playing in has any validity, content must matter. Burn-in with Pink / White / Brown noise should affect the sound IF there is any validity to burn-in requirements. Cable direction, other than cables with networks, is nonsense. Cable burn-in is most probably 100% nonsense. |
@almarg Thanks very much for the kind words, Al. Having observed many (and occasionally participated in) on-line discussions of the more controversial audio topics, I’ve found a very common, almost completely reliable trend. Many people (especially those in the highly subjective camp) interpret skepticism not only as a "bore," but as an almost personal insult. "How can you come here and tell me that I’m not hearing what I know I hear??!!" (This is a trend in virtually every area where there seems to be an "objectivist/subjectivist divide). The weird thing is the skeptic is paying the most attention to human fallibility, including his own. The whole critical thinking thing is based on "I’m quite fallible and could be wrong...so how do I come up with ways of accounting for my fallibility?" And yet it is those who have unshakable belief in their own perception, who can not be budged by evidence their perception isn't as reliable as they think, who are often the ones accusing skeptics of dogmatism.And who end up name-calling and taking pot-shots at the character of the skeptic. |
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. |
| Post removed |
prof The weird thing is the skeptic is paying the most attention to human fallibility, including his own. The whole critical thinking thing is based on "I’m quite fallible and could be wrong...so how do I come up with ways of accounting for my fallibility?" And yet it is those who have unshakable belief in their own perception, who can not be budged by evidence their perception isn’t as reliable as they think, who are often the ones accusing skeptics of dogmatism.And who end up name-calling and taking pot-shots at the character of the skeptic. >>>That’s one of the more ridiculous series of claims I’ve seen but one that I suspect actually represents the pseudo skeptic camp rather well. In terms of argument it is really illogical, however. Of course any of us can be sometimes be deceived or fail to hear differences but that doesn’t mean we are ALWAYS deceived or mistaken. Nobody claimed it was easy. That’s part of the problem, think8ng that it’s easy. People try something once and draw a conclusion and give up. Nobody is saying psychological biases cannot play a role sometimes. But to suggest audiophiles suffer self deception and psychological bias in all cases is laughable. If that were true we’d never progress beyond common generic sound. I can appreciate the argument that folks take pot shots at the character of some skeptics. But logically that does not (rpt not) mean that the skeptics are correct. Follow? Human fallibility indeed.😛 |
ieales Cable direction, other than cables with networks, is nonsense. Cable burn-in is most probably 100% nonsense. >>>You sound awfully sure of yourself. Are those conclusions based on experience, physics, what other pseudo skeptics told you, a Google search, your gut reaction? Finally, do you have ANY evidence to support either of those statements? Share, share.... |
@n80 I'm not sure what you might have learned from this thread except that there are those who do believe in cable burn-in and those who don't. I can't see how it hurts you to be open to it. If you hear no difference after time passes, you've lost nothing. If you do perceive an improvement in the openness of your sound then yippee! 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. In my case, I've experienced too many phenomena that I would have no scientific explanation for to believe that there are not things happening in highly resolving audio systems that is beyond our ability to quantify. Enjoy the journey! |
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. |
OP - You said, "Again, I think this implies that your world view requires you to be on an extreme end of every issue." All I said is to be open to things that may or may not be explainable or measurable. I don't believe at being on the extreme end of audio issues. If you want to talk about being "extreme" I would consider the "everything is quantifiable" stance to be the extreme position.🤔 |
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. |
a cable, in order to sound fantastic needs a little bit of a super intelligent chip (make sure you get the 'super', not the regular kind), and few flying saucers for windows (not the ones for doors).... now back to the original post...can it be that, the concept of 'burning in', has more to do with our auditory system getting used to how an audio system sounds after a change, than with the physical changes that some think occur in cables? |
If you hear no difference after time passes, you've lost nothing. If you do perceive an improvement in the openness of your sound then yippee!Riddle me this, Batmen: How do you know it's the cables? Hearing changes all the time. Fatigue, stimulants, temperature and pressure all affect hearing. Loudspeakers change with temperature and pressure. Amplifiers can sound markedly different with temperature. Contact pressure increase with temperature. It's not possible to isolate 'improvements' to burn-in. It's equally as likely that degradation could result if changes exacerbate inherent system distortions. The one constant with a HiFi system is there isn't |
| Post removed |
I have some very pertinent experience with this issue. My long-time balanced interconnects (Clear Day) on the link between my Oppo/ModWright 105 CD/SACD player and Aesthetix Calypso linestage have served me well without complaint over the last 3-4 years. Great cables. Recently a bat-eared audiobuddy suggested I try Duelund 20g ICs, also balanced, and since they were reasonably priced ($175), I figured, why not. When first inserted in my system they were awful -- flat, closed-in, meh in every respect. Again, the prescribed break-in (200 hours) sounded incredible to me. Fortunately I have an Audiodharma Cable Cooker to speed the break-in process. So I gave the Duelunds several days on the cooker and compared them again to the Clear Days. Better, but no cigar. It took more days (I lost count), but eventually the Duelunds won the sonic battle and have now replaced the Clear Days. Note that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the Clear Days and a number of other ICs haven't come close to the way THEY sound. But the Duelunds are now top dog -- sweet.open, clear, musical --and I haven't an objective clue as to why. Not really. One thing sure: The Audiodharma Cable Cooker is an incredible product, as anyone who owns one will likely attest |
Whenever i'm bored (it's raining and i can't fish and my wife's sleeping so i can't play the music) i enjoy reading this forum. Yes, many of the posters are predictable but also make legitimate arguments. What i believe is that music is almost a purely emotional experience and, therefore, it's impossible to argue with someone who says they hear something, even though it can't be measured--it might not be their ears that are "hearing" it. Could be just an emotional response. After all we can't measure love but we are reasonably certain it exists because we "feel" it. That said i choose to fall in the measuring camp when it comes to high end audio claims and i may tend to disbelieve if it can't be measured. What i also wonder from N80's original post is what would motivate the manufacturer to state the break-in period and how did they know it was 175 hours? Why not 25 hours or even 750 hours? It's a legitimate question to ask them how they determined it. Is it possible their motive is to add further scientific-sounding goop in order to make us believe even more strongly that the cables are really going to make a difference? Or does it leave them an "out" to say we didn't break them in properly if we don't hear a difference ? And if i don't play my system for a few months (as happens when we come to the lake for summer) do the dielectric molecules drift back into a random orientation or are they permanently "aligned" after break-in? It all sounds like snake oil to me but the fun part of being an audiophile is that chasing perfect sound is never-ending and we're free to believe, feel and hear what we want--and nobody's going to change Geoff"s mind regardless of the merit and logic of their arguments because he says he "hears" it or "feels" it and we can't tell him it's all in his imagination. If he imagines he sees ghosts then he does! Thanks to N80, Prof, jea48, Shadorne and Geoff for furnishing high-end education, argument and entertainment on a rainy day. Luckily i'm a long, long way from a high end audio store... |
| Post removed |
Hi N80 and welcome to the crazy world of audiophilia. My all-time favorite post here was the very first one from Nonoise. Yes, you've (re)opened a very familiar can of worms. And one you get guys like Prof & Clearthink going, forget a logical straightforward conversation. I was wondering when somebody would mention a cable-cooker, and Geoff (and others) finally did. Someone advised buying 2 pair of the same cable, breaking one in and then comparing it to the new unused set. That'll work, but... If you have access to a cable-cooker, you won't have to wait so long. Put one set on the cooker for 48 hrs. and THEN compare them. Have a friend swap the cables out so that you, the subject, has no idea which is which. Go back-and-forth several times. If you hear no difference, perhaps you're right that this is all negligible to you. One last point; the notion of burn-in as a marketing ploy is nonsense. In 40+ years of this hobby (obsession?), I've never heard a dealer or mfgr. tell any dissatisfied customer to "wait for burn-in". Now OTOH, I know of a few cable mfgrs. who burn their cables in before selling them and do not advertise that fact. That IS a marketing ploy, in that they know their cables will sound better than many 'right out of the box'. (It's also a nice convenience for their customers who do not ave access to a cable-cooker.) You can tell that I'm not a skeptic on burn-in. Why? Because I've done what I described above many times with different cables and other 'subjects' listening as well. But each to his own; The only things that counts are what you hear and whether it brings you some joy. Happy listening! |
aalenik. And one you get guys like Prof & Clearthink going, forget a logical straightforward conversation. If you are implying my posts are "illogical" I haven't seen you demonstrate that. (Unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant there). . If the "burn in" claim has not been used to mitigate your or anyone’s expectations or impressions of a piece of gear, you have somehow led an amazingly fortunate audiophile life. Burn in is used all the time by, for instance, high end audio salesmen to mitigate either the impressions, or the expectations, of people auditioning gear. I have auditioned plenty of speakers over the last couple of years and, especially if the speaker was new, I was often cautioned "now, we’ve just got these this week, so they aren’t BROKEN IN, so keep that in mind." In other words, if you hear something you don’t like...hey...maybe it’s not that you don’t like the speaker...it’s just not broken in yet, so don’t give up on it. Similarly, similar statements may come after the audition. When asked "what did you think?" I will usually, politely, say what I heard. And if anything like "bright" or other issues come out of my mouth, often enough THEN I’ll be told "Well, the speakers ...(or some other component being used in the audition, cables, amp, DAC or whatever)...were not broken in yet. (This was the case just this month - I mentioned a few issues with a speaker I was interested in during an audition, and the "well of course but we just got the speakers and they aren’t broken in, so you shouldn’t write them off because of that" response came right back). I doubt many here, who have frequented high end audio dealerships, would never have encountered anything like the above, where the "break in" issue isn’t brought up by salesmen. Secondly, every manufacturer who claims to the consumer their product requires a "break in" period is, de facto, setting up an excuse for why the consumer may be dissatisfied upon initial set up. That’s the POINT, otherwise there wouldn’t be a point in mentioning it. They may not declare "no, KEEP the item longer, past the break in period" (though in fact, I’ve had one or two speaker manufacturers tell me that), but they ARE setting up an excuse to explain any initial dissatisfaction - "well, the people who wanted early returns hadn’t got past the break-in period, so this discounts their assessment to some degree." That’s the spoken or unspoken scenario set up. And it’s often given voice by audiophiles all the time, even here "Did you allow X to break in? If not...then you didn’t REALLY have a valid assessment of that gear." As to your own listening tests, if you did indeed to blind testing of burned/not burned in cables and reliably detected a difference, well done! And I can understand why that experience informed your own decisions. Unfortunately we can’t really determine from here how well your tests were conducted. It’s the same for my own claims for blind tests. They shouldn’t be definitive for anyone else, especially as they weren’t there to oversee the process. (That’s one reason why replicability of results is an important tool in science). If I could see a report of cable burn in trials, showing objectively measurable differences between a new and burned in cable, with a variety of subjects, the blind test procedure documented and seemingly well run, and if the results were positive for identifying between the cables, I’d certainly take that on board as some evidence for cable burn in claims. But what we tend to get, even from the Big Cable Manufacturers, are examples like Nordost’s pages on cable burn in. They say it’s required, make some technical claim about what happens...but (as far as I’ve seen) provide NO objective, measured evidence of this happening. But, nonetheless, once they’ve prayed on your audiophile worries about your cables and endorsed the issue of burn in....the DO have a cable burn in device to sell you to "fix" this. Lucky us! ;-) |
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. |
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. It's interesting also that Stereophile provides detailed measurements that you can compare for speakers, amplifiers and digital audio components. But they produce no measurements for any interconnect/speaker cable/ AC cable/power conditioner reviews. I suspect John Atkinson, who does their measurements and generally likes to see how things tick by looking at differences in objective measurements, knows something when he's not bothering to measure those things ;-) |
Speaking of John Atkinson, editor Stereophile magazine, he also believes blind testing is unreliable and is prone to error from all sides. He, like your humble scribe, did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday. 🚚 https://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html |
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? |
| Post removed |
n80 OP So, geoffkait, you’re always asking for people who disagree with you to supply some sort of proof to support their opinions. >>>>>Really? Can you show me an example of what you’re referring to? Oh, is this what you mean by asking for proof? I’m just asking to back up a bold statement. That’s not the same thing at all. 😛 But you’re dismissing blinded studies. >>>>>Yes, but only to the extent that I’ve detailed very carefully in quite a few posts. It’s actually not (rpt not) true I dismiss all blinded studies. It’s not nice to put words in my mouth. And I can’t remember but I think you’re not in the measure-bater camp either. >>>>What is the measure-bater camp? I am not in too many camps, so probably not, whatever camp that is. 😀 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? >>>>>I am not asking for proof of anything from anyone. Where did you get that from? Where do you come up with these questions? Did you leave out listening tests on purpose? 😳 |
@dopogue, If you want to sell those Clear Day interconnects I’d take them off your hands. I actually need 2 pair. 1 pair for the phono to phono preamp and 1 pair for phono preamp to receiver. I find it ironic that the Clear Day interconnects are not shielded and best many a shielded and more costly interconnect cables. |
n80 OP 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? >>>>Exactly what I just got through saying. That is not the same thing as demanding proof of cables, fuses, tweaks, whatever. 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. You do know the difference, I assume. |
| Post removed |
dopogue Actual listening and comparing experience.... Who da thunk!..... And at the end of the day you clearly can hear the difference between the Clear Days and Duelunds. Jim |
| Post removed |
I believe it is a matter of degree. For sure new speakers and certain crossover capacitators benefit from long term burn-in. Speaker cables vary quite a bit since you have enormous power, current and phase considerations so burn in there is rational. I find that balanced line level (XLR) cables are the least variable interconnects while unbalanced low level cables (phono cables) display more differences. With that in mind then it makes some sense that break-in of sensitive components: Tubes, Capacitators, Speakers and, to a lesser extent, solid state devices, switches and even some kinds of wire is rational. The differences are, however, variable. |
If burn-in valid, then materials cannot be inert. If the materials are not inert, then they must always be affected. If the materials are affected, then a cable that's had thousands of hours of playing should have measurable deltas to its twin that sat on the shelf in the same environment for those same thousands of hours. Technology exists to measure femto values, so it should be possible to measure deltas. It is possible, per Heisenberg, that measuring may negate the change. By the same token, different program must also affect change. In that case, change is constant and therefore indeterminate. Many years ago BAS reported on the results of test at UWatterloo with Linn's Ivor Tiefenbrun who gave rise the 80's single speaker in the room gospel. from https://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm Someday cable burn-in maybe similarly debunked. |
Right now I'm burning in a new set of cables that the maker states takes about 75 hours. The guy who designed them was an engineer at Beldin Wire & Cables. The price is very reasonable, the trial period is 40 days so there's really no downside to trying them out, and yes, I'm hearing improvements. Is this "engineer" who used to work for a cable company who all naysayers say is good enough for audiophiles and who appears to make little on his cables wrong? They are an improvement over what I've been using to the degree that I'm keeping them, and they only have about 10 hours on them. Again, they're very reasonable when it comes to cost. I've paid more and gotten less. All the best, Nonoise |
There are only two paradigms really for how people approach things based on technology like hifi. First is is the one I subscribe to which is try my hardest to understand how things work and use that knowledge to guide the way. That is how all new real technological innovations work. The other is to rely mainly on faith in lieu of actual knowledge to guide the way. Many things in in life are beyond human understanding and best handled by a combo of both. Audio it is not one of those things. It is best handled by acquiring real knowledge. Hearsay alone may not deliver truly great results. Things that cannot be explained essentially translate to happening by magic ie nobody can factually account for what is observed. |
I have a Duotech cable burner that has a setting for interconnects and speaker wire. Earlier this year I was burning in some new interconnects and after 2 days had realized I had used the speaker wire setting. I hooked them up to my stereo and they sounded horrible. No dimension and flat sounding. I knew they would settle back in like the exact other models in my system and they did. What's the point is that cable burn in does change the sound. I had some silver cables that sounded strident and I finally just burned them a week. When I plugged them in they sounded much better. |
Having been addicted to this wonderful hobby since 1965, I have heard all sorts of claims. Some are true, many are just a different brand of snake oil. In my own experiences,component burn-in, warm up time, power supply and matching, all have a seat at the table. As one example, I auditioned a new pair of speaker cables a few years ago. They went through a partial burn-in by the manufacturer. Upon installation, I put a favorite CD on repeat, 24/7. For the next 90 days, I listened to at least 15 minutes of that CD and 45 minutes to 2hrs of others, every day. I kept a daily journal. The change was not to be denied! I returned them, but that's another story. Some of us can hear the difference and some of us can't. My wife can't, but I don't hold it against her. Happy listening |
