2. cables
  3. 137172-115924

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."
n80
ieales's avatar
ieales
1,201 posts
 
@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.


prof
3,441 posts
 
@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.


n80 OP
2,101 posts
 
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 
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
I’m still thinking about the question.
More to discover