Beware of the cable claiming long burn in period.


Almost all the audio equipment including speaker need burn in time.

But I had bad experience with one digital cable recently.

Some people blew the horn on it and claimed burn in time more than 100 hours.

Out of box it had lot of details but etched.

After 8 weeks (around 200 hours) it got little bit better but its overall performance is not better than other digital cable that I have had.

Now it is too late to return it.

Beware of any cable claiming more than 50 hours of burn in time.

The chance is high that you will waste your time and money.
128x128shkong78
@prof 
I let me ears decide on components. If the cable was bright or lean or etched in my system, I would have packed its bags. If you dont believe in cable burn in, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you can tell me what is happening inside during the 300 hours? When I tried talking to the cable, she didn't say anything. Maybe the cat had its tongue?? Oh well lol

@shkong78 
I am glad you are enjoying your Silnote cable.. But to say the silverstar is a so so cable is laughable. I would never trust your opinion. Bye!

prof1,714 posts02-18-2019 4:32pmaniwolfe,

"It took over 300 hours to really sound great."


What do you think is happening within the cable over those 300 hours that would alter the sound?

>>>>Unbelievable. 
I think there is also a manufacturer assumption that a 100+  hour burn in will take less than 8 weeks...
aniwolfe,

Maybe you can tell me what is happening inside during the 300 hours?




One possibility is that there are physical changes occurring within the cable over that time that alter the sound in a way you are able to hear.

However, that boutique digital cables "sound different" than basic, capable digital cables is highly disputed by engineers and many people who know about computing.  Let alone that a digital cable "changes sound" over time.   So from what I've read on the cable debate, the plausibility technically speaking is wanting in such claims.

Another possibility is that you imagined the difference you "heard."

This has plenty of plausibility - endless studies on the malleability and unreliability of our perception support this possibility.


But...many audiophiles don't like confronting those facts.  Makes things inconvenient for some portion of the hobby.

Again: I am not rendering some absolute judgement on why you heard what you think you heard - whether it had an objective or purely subjective basis.  I'm just pointing out the case for skepticism.  You are not at all obligated of course to change anything in your purchasing behavior based on this.  If you are firmly wedded to a purely subjective method of trying to understand audio, this will fall on deaf ears ;-)

@prof - "Maybe you can tell me what is happening inside during the 300 hours?" Here’s one possibility, for you to ignore, again: Regarding burn-in time for cables: I’ve always held(yeah: my opinion) that part of it was attributable to the fact that cables are capacitors(actually, an LC circuit, to a degree) and their dielectric’s dipoles need time to align themselves, with relation to whatever voltages/signals they’re going to be dealing, before they sound their best. The better the dielectric(ie: Teflon, Polypropylene, etc) the lower the dielectric absorption, but- the longer the process takes. I suppose, moving cables around, might scramble one’s dipoles, as well. Perhaps that’s why some mention having to re-burn-in their cables, after handling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_absorption Perhaps you can tell me, WHY that can’t be a cause(or, "plausible"), SCIENTIFICALLY?