Do cables really need "breaking in"?

SMW30: not all situations offer the resolution necessary to hear the "breaking in" of cables or electronics. The car is one good example, where the ambient noise is so great, you would never hear those changes. As for the TV: Most of it is on all the time, so its not "all day" thats critical but whether its brand new. It definitely looks better after a few weeks of watching compared to brand new. This was very evident with my projection tv. My DVD/CD transport got much cleaner and smoother after about 3 weeks of use.

Maybe some surface oxidation of the conductor occurs (which will make the sound slightly less bright. Perhaps some charging of the dielectric insulation occurs. I would not discount the possibility that the (measurable) characteristics of the cable change, but I'd like a proponent of the burn-in theory to show me their measured results.

However I think it is more likely a psychological effect : the brain rapidly adapts to new tonal balances, and comes to like them. I have a hifi in England at my parents' house and one in the US both of similar quality. I have noticed that on my vacations in England in the first few days my UK system sounds worse than my US system. Then when I return home the first few days after I get back my US system sounds worse. Over the long term I am very happy with the sound of both systems ... they're just tonally different.

Sean :

My A/B test under what turns out to be controlled conditions IS data. Though not measured with a scope & voltmeter but rather with my ears, it's valid data non the less. The tools of measurement were just different from those typically used to measure electrical components. It would have been nice though to have a set of electrical measurements. To try for a correlation for such sonic effects to measured electrical effects I imagine would require a rather large test matrix.

I suggest you repeat my experiment and report your results.

You know, telling someone who is attempting to have a cordial conversation with someone else, and not trying to sell anything to him or anyone else is rather juvenile, i.e., childish and rude. The question was: do cables improve with breaking-in through use. I am one of those who say no, based on (1) the absence of any published evidence to the contrary, and (2) my own experience with cables. I'm getting on, and have a bit of experience.

I do not use $15 cables. I actually have some $10 interconnects from Radio Shack that are adequate for some applications, and I play with them sometimes to see if my opinion changes, but I don't use them in my hifi system. I do use rather inexpensive interconnects made by a pro audio gear company that I prefer to every other interconnect Ive listened to (well "broken-in" demos from my friendly hifi dealer). I use AQ Crystal speaker cables in my main system (that's my $ limit - 18 ft run can be very expensive) which I chose after rejecting several other name brands, e.g., AlphaCore, Kimber, Nordost, MIT.

So, you see, I do think cables sound different enough to make a meaningful choice. Must be my imagination.

But, based on my own experience, I don't think the sound of a cable changes through use, which was the question above. Of course, I'm probably just imagining that nothing is happening.

This in not "hearsay." I report my own first hand experience. "Hearsay" is if you say that my friend Joe says his system is much better now that he has the Valhalla. Now, can I say my preferred interconnects are just as good as the Valhalla? Of course not. I have never heard the Valhalla, and probably never will.

Other people say that they perceive a difference in the sound of their cables through use. Fine.

If one is concerned that he may unwittingly learn to live with an unacceptable cable that he thinks has burned in because he got used to it, the solution is simple: burn it in without listening to it. Ask the dealer how many hours, then feed a signal through it for that long before listening to it. Don't allow yourself to get used to it before it's adequately "broken in."

Apart from needlessly insulting other participants here, Sean says that breaking-in through use doesn't really get the job done, that you need to use a cable cooker of some sort. I have nothing to say about cable cookers because I have never used one. I don't know what they do to a cable. If they change the sound of the cable, I wouldnt have any idea how or why, or whether it would be an improvement. I dont talk about things that I dont know about.

Here's a quote: "i think that most folks would consider increased clarity, smoothness, transparency, detail, improved harmonic structure and a more natural presentation GOOD things."

Yes, no doubt, if that's what they perceive. Problem is without objective referents for those words, no one really knows what, if anything real, you are describing. The level of abstraction is too far removed from the actual event. If you're having fun, that's nice.

I guess that my post was pretty harsh. The point that i was trying to make is that many "educated" individuals try to pass off their limited electrical / electronic knowledge and experience as being "all-knowing" and "factual". The only problem with doing this is that they may have never specifically worked with / researched the area that they are talking about. They talk out of their hats based on "book knowledge" and by doing so, they present their PERSONALLY UNVERIFIED OPINION based on hear-say and what seems like "logical deductions" to them as "fact". They then try to wrap it up by using specific buzzwords and / or presenting credentials which would tend to lend credibility to their statements. Yet with all of their "techno-babble", they have never taken the time to actually test their own "theories" to see if they hold water.

It is to those people that i say "put up or shut up". It takes NO talent to repeat what someone else told you or to further promote myths and legends. FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF and THEN present your case. At least you'll have personal experience and a working knowledge of the subject before spouting off about what is / isn't "possible".

I have no problem with someone presenting a point of view as that: a point of view. I do however have problems with someone claiming that something is impossible and / or foolish, especially when they are personally lacking in first hand experience / knowledge in that area. If one is going to pass on information that was passed onto them, it should be noted as such. A link or reference to the source of such information can sometimes clarify or aid our understanding of what one is passing along. Otherwise, i assume that one is speaking from first hand experience and / or has direct knowledge of the subject at hand. NOT running off at the mouth and telling us that things that measure alike all sound alike. As you and i all know, that simply isn't the case. Nor is this the only thread that takes a similar stance.

This post and my prior one in this thread are NOT directed at any specific individuals. If you feel singled out, i'm sorry and appologize. I still stand by my statement of "put up or shut up" though. People are looking for "real world" comments from people that have tried / experienced these things for themselves. Those results could be "good" or "bad", either way. They want to hear it directly from the "Horse's mouth", not what was echoed out of the other end.

Having said that, would YOU want to base your decisions on information from someone that had no personal experience in that area ? You might find their comments helpful or offer some form of insight, but you would also want to know that they themselves were not speaking from experience. Sean
>