Cable "burning": Real or VooDoo ???

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.

Steve, the fact that some people CAN and DO have very high "guess" ratios while doing blind testing PROVES that there HAS to be differences amongst cables. It also proves that there are different levels of hearing ability. Just because 10 people score negatively on blind tests does not negate the fact that one or two might score positively.

As i previously stated, J. Peter Moncrieff was able to determine whether there was or wasn't an ABX box hooked up into the system under test. He did this 10 out of 10 times !!! All testing was done under "blind" conditions with witnesses to verify the results. Obviously, this was no fluke with 100% accuracy. These results caused them to actually change / redesign the relay being used in the internals of the ABX boxes themselves.

While i know that I could NEVER hear something like that myself, i also know that test equipment would not really be able to measure any APPRECIABLE changes in impedance with the addition of the ABX box's relay and connections in the audio path / circuit. As such, Moncrieff's ears were obviously FAR superior to what we think the human ear to be capable of detecting. The "good" thing about all of this is that he was able to do this type of stuff on a regular basis. The better part of all of this is that, he too was a scientist. Not only did he tell you what he heard, he presented measurements as to why things happened as they did. The best of both worlds in my opinion.

That is why i specified a "trained listener" earlier in one of these threads. The average joe ( me included ) simply wouldn't have the know how of what or how to listen for such subtle clues or details that would give the differences away. Someone that IS trained can focus on things that you or i would simply overlook due to a limited attention span, lack of training or a lower level of discernment.

I don't think that anyone here would belittle "science" as a whole. Obviously we wouldn't have the gear or knowledge that we currently do if it wasn't for research and development. At the same time, i think that most of us realize that we as humans ( scientists ARE humans ) know just enough to be dangerous. As such, we have elevated what little that we do know to the point of thinking that we ARE all-knowing. THIS is what puts the "blinders" on science and discoveries, as it rules out the potential for discoveries that don't follow the normal train of thought or what is "right" according to theory. After all, the Earth IS the center of the Universe and is still flat, right ??? Sean
>