Cable "burning": Real or VooDoo ???


While i have my opinions on this subject, i'd love to hear from others that have tried various methods of "burning in" cables, what was used to do it, what differences were noticed ( if any ), etc... Please be as specific as possible. If your a "naysayer" in this area, please feel free to join in BUT have an open mind and keep this thread on topic. Sean
>
sean
Uh-oh-- seems like I stepped on some toes without even meaning to. Adamanteus, if you'll look at my post again, you'll see that I said "Stevemj does not have the psychological or intellectual capacity TO GET WEIRD ENOUGH for this audiophile". Actually, although I too disagree with Steve, he makes very well written and civil posts. I would say that I complimented him by saying that he cannot get WEIRD enough for me-- straight out of HST's best works. But if I offended, my apologies. Craig.
Getting back to the topic-- can Stevemj demand that we prove our contention, ie that there is a difference in music character with "burn in", but we cannot demand that he prove his, ie that there is no difference with "burn-in"?

Personally, I have no particular "need" to explain the phenomenon as I trust my own senses. But if he wishes to prove his case, I would love to see the results of his study(s) with peer reviews, publication-- the whole works. And I surely do wish him the best of luck. Cheers. Craig
Yes, sloshing electrons through a cable changes it: the cable heats up. Temperature changes mean physical changes. Physical changes can change electrical characteristics--work hardening is an example.
Sean - My opinion, for what it is worth, is that most people here are probably better listeners than I am. I would not want to be in a listening contest with anyone here where we were trying to distinquish between signals with measureable differences. I am pretty sure the folks here have ears that are as good as ears get.

I would not hesitate, however, to bet a huge amount of money that, in a true double blind test, no one could tell if a cable had been "conditioned".

If it really would mean something to you I will try to dig up evidence that electrical signals won't change the property of metals. I hear over and over again the argument that science doesn't know everything therefore what one hears is real. This makes it pointless to give scientific evidence.
KD - Let say that we run a 10 volt square wave, that's 10 volts RMS. Say cables have .2 ohms resistance and the load is 10K. Current is E/R or 10/10000 = 1/1000 amp. Power (watts) is current squared times resistance so Watts = 1/1000 X 1/1000 *.2 =1/5000000 or one five millionth of a watt.... I think we can rule out heat as a factor.

If this doesn't make any sense, here's another way to look at it. If electricity cost 10 cents a kilowatt/hour, you will have to leave a cable on the conditioner for 57,000 years to get 1 cent worth of electricity heating the cable.