Hey here is something to think about. All the naysayers need to think about what lays beyond known physics. The unknown. People are hearing differences and the current testing equipment cannot pick up on the differences. AB testing is a farce. You have to evaluate for long periods of time to notice the small differences.
Do speaker cables need a burn in period?
I have heard some say that speaker cables do need a 'burn in', and some say that its totally BS.
What say you?
What say you?
Showing 50 responses by blueranger
This post is stalemate. We each have passionate beliefs in the ways our stereos sound. The equipment changes and tweeks we believe or don't believe in. Lets keep ourselves in check me included. We seem to have 2 camps here. The metaphysical and the scientific. Until we have testing equipment that can test things outside the reach of science right now, only our opinions can be our reasoning. Does science know all about the behavior of atoms and electrons? I don't think tbere is a physicist, electrical engineer or researcher that would bet their life on it. Oh well the discussion goes on |
The answer to the OP question is yes. In the timeline of earth we have barely crawled out of the caves. We have discovered some things but only a very small part of the big picture. The question of time, space , dimensionality or whatever we haven't discovered that doesn't have a name yet.My ears tell me something is going on beyond our very basic understandings of the universe. Those things science cannot explain. The answer is yes. |
Thanks Chazro. Also why is it after I play the Cardas frequency sweep record my vinyl rig sounds better Glupson? It certainly doesn't sound worse. If I want my interconnects to sound worse all I have to do is burn them in the much stronger speaker cable mode which I have accidently done. It took a while but they settled back down. Thats a new phenomena that science hasn't conceptualized a reason for even being. Science is a journey of discovery by thinking outside the box with an open mind. Stephen Hawking anyone? |
Actually I had some fast cables. Kimber KGAC silver. How did I know they were faster than my copper Tara's? An example is the beginning of "Hey You" by BTO. It starts out fast. With the silver cables I found myself startled with a jolt even though I knew it was coming. With the copper cables I didn't get that physiological response. I did that many times over the years. End result was the same. |
Circumstantial Evidence Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove. Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence. |
I think the nonbelievers are overlooking the circumstantial evidence of the vast numbers of listeners that can tell a difference and the cable manufacturers that spend untold thousands of careful listening hours to perfect their products while listening to burn in.. In a court of law would this prove burn in is not a fallacy but true? Known science would be taken into consideration. |
Well our technology is not all that and a bag of chips. We still use fossil fuels and can barely get off this planet in a rocket. Science can't prove what we hear because science has not advanced far enough especially with sound. Take the late Julian Hirsch. Bless his heart he was only trying to take the mystery out of our components. If it measured good . ITS GOOD!!!. Now we know he was wrong because a component can test bad and sound great. So all these so called test instruments can't correctly tell which component will actually sound better than another. Remember the THD wars of the 70s and 80s. Manufacturers got THD levels real low to prove their product sounded better than the competitor. My point is, that relying on test instruments is not so cut and dry. Not black or white. We need more technologically advanced methods for cable testing. |
I have posted this a long time ago. I had just bought a whole system set of silver cables Kimber KCAG. I had burnt then in for 24 hours in a rush to hear them. They were very detailed but edgy and a little shrill. I kept playing them for a month. I then switched them out and cooked them for a week. After that they had smoothed out a lot. |
Burn in is real. Ive heard it many times. And no we don't have the test equipment that can analyze not just what our ears hear but how the brain processes the information. How did this all start? Because people started hearing changes in the sound and the term burn in was coined. I can't make it more clear until we have sophisticated enough equipment that can test in the realm of our brain process. You just can't sweep all this under the rug. |
"The existence of a neutrino mass allows the possibility of a tiny neutrino magnetic moment, in which case neutrinos could interact electromagnetically as well; no such interaction has been discovered.[32] " I just pulled that from WIKI with only 5 mins time. Not as proof but just an example of the many things that haven't been discovered yet. Proven or unproven |
Burn in is just a name that people describe what they hear in wires changing in sound. It could be better called by some scientific name years from now. How about neutrino electrical alignment. Don't pick on me for choosing that word. Its just an example off the top of my head. Science will give it a better word in tbe future. |