Cable Burn In

prof
For instance the link to claims by cable purveyors regarding break in.First of all, going to the people who seem to be making dubious or controversial claims for products they sell might not be the best place to get objective information on cables. I don’t know about you, but I try not to derive a true picture of the world form advertisements ;)

>>>No, of course you don’t go to the experts in the field, the ones who make their living designing and testing cables. You go to people who can’t hear the difference cables can make and/or who are die hard pseudo skeptics or self styled pseudo philosophizers. That’s where one should derive a true picture of the world. Oh, brother!

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.

hifiman5,

OP - shadorne and the other measurers insist that if you can't measure it you won't hear it...you might convince yourself you did, but what the hell do your ears know?  I mean really who are your ears to tell your brain what sounds are entering them.  Much better to have a man-made device measure sounds which your inferior organic listening devices can not perceive.  Sheesh!

I assume you wouldn't scoff at the idea of a carbon monoxide detector for use in your home, on similar grounds? "My senses have served me fine, I mean who is your nose to tell your brain what substances are entering them?"   (But of course, carbon monoxide detectors are there because your senses WON'T likely detect odorless Carbon Monoxide in your environment).

Obviously, we invent measurement devices because our senses are limited at detecting what is actually there.  The same goes for our hearing.  So we know we can measure many things we can't sense, including that we can't hear.   We can know "something is there" even if our senses can't detect it.  And of course we can also measure plenty that we hear.

If you are suggesting you can hear things that can't be measured, the question is:  how do you know?


The reply "Well...I heard it!" doesn't take in to account how your perception can be mistaken.

Also, think of it this way:  Expensive, boutique audiophile cables purport to "fix" problems found in other cables.  But if instruments can't detect those problems...how would you know they are there in the first place?

Notice that most cable companies start of with TECHNICAL claims about a problem, alluding to phenomenon known from having been measured by instruments in the first place.  Look for instance at the Cardas link where in describing issues with cables they reference:

microphonics dielectric characteristics of  insulators
high input impedance
Piezoelectric effect
uneven distribution of the charge
Mechanical stress

And yet, despite appealing to a set of measurable problems, they do not produce measurements showing they fixed those technical problems.  You go directly from technical sounding descriptions...to marketing and subjective anecdotes.    If it was a technical measurable problem with cables in the first place, and they fixed that technical problem in their design, where are the measurements showing this to be the case?

(And there is also the issue of how they have drawn the line between any of those technical "problems" to their audible consequences in the first place).

If you are a "measurer" then so be it.  You will be happy in your paradigm and that is absolutely fine!

My organic listening mechanism is more important to me than a man-made measuring device.👂👂

The decision?  Which listening mechanism do you want to trust to deliver the truth of your system to you?

+1 @hifiman5 .

First of all, going to the people who seem to be making dubious or controversial claims for products they sell might not be the best place to get objective information on cables. I don't know about you, but I try not to derive a true picture of the world form advertisements ;)

OK @prof , point well taken.
That's why the consumer should be reading the user reviews of said cables.

Second of all, note in those links to Nordost and Cardas simply bring you to claims made by those manufactures, wherein they supply no objective/measured results to support their technical claims of burn in (or that it is audible even if something does change over time in the cable).

It is implied by the manufacturer's info that the listener will experience an audible change in sonics after a run-in period. In some cases they are answering queries regarding break-in.