Cable Burn In

Next up, the top ten things that affect sound quality. Independent variables we call em. Who wants to go first?

No one can keep track of it that well. Things change all the time, even things that you can’t control and things you don’t even know about. Nobody’s going to sit there for days on end and see when the break in stops, Cut me some slack, Jack!

The parasite of Bora Bora, 🍑🎩

blueranger
You hit the nail on the head. Ears are like the microphones and our brains are like the tape recorders in the studio. Oh well maybe not a good analogy. Steve Guttenberg in on of his youtube videos predicts that in the future we won’t be listening to music by our ears but the music will be fed directly into our brains for ultimate fidelity!!

>>>>If you don’t think it’s a good analogy why did you say it? Microphones and recorders, well, quite. Ears are like microphones and brains are like transceivers. And the transceivers work on the conscious level and the subconscious level. Much of the noise and distortion you’re perceiving (hearing) is not from the recording or anything in the system. It’s still S/N + D. You can’t tell the difference, whether the N or D is from the system or outside the system. The brain doesn’t differentiate. I’m from Guttenberg’s future.

Blueranger
The human ear is limited to 20-20 at best. I do believe there
are parameters our scientific instruments cannot measure in the sonic realm. Its not cut and dry. To be fair a human is not infallable. We cannot be calibrated like an instrument. However with that being said the cable burn-in phenomena is real. Too many people have experienced just to dismiss It. Quick AB test are inaccurate. You have to listen for long periods at a time to pick out differences.

>>>>The ear is limited but the human brain is not. The human brain itself is sensitive to interference and noise from a variety of sources that affect our hearing, e.g., RFI/EMI and subtle conscious and subconscious influences of our physical surroundings and emotional and mental state. News flash! Our perception of sound is not (rpt not) completely based on what goes into the ears. We can be easily distracted, even consciously. For example if someone is conversing with us we may not hear the sound at all, or only as background, I.e., phase lock loop effect.

Whoa! Back up! Beep! Beep! Did somebody say nano tubes? Is that like a really small bicycle inner tube?

I’m not quite sure I see why the military would have any use for cables that outperform. Unless maybe the General was an audiophile. Obviously there are technical standards for BER, voice recognition, signal to noise ratio, that sort of thing.

n80 OP
geoffkait said:

"When someone recently stated that there have been many blind tests of cables, I asked him to provide links to blind tests. Which someone did. That’s an example of asking for evidence of a bold statement. "

And then you dismissed blind tests. That’s my point. Reading over this and a few other threads it typically goes like this:

1. Someone makes a statement you disagree with.
2. In your reply you ask for evidence. And usually throw in some pretentious and snarky dig at them....presumably because they had the nerve to believe something that you don’t.
3. If they produce evidence, which many people won’t because with you there is no point, you then dismiss the evidence out of hand whether it be subjective, measured or blind tested. And usually throw in another patronizing dig questioning their intelligence.
4. If someone has the nerve to point out this pattern you resort to direct ad hominem attacks and in this case, dismiss the rest of the thread as a veiled threat that you won’t grace us with your presence any longer.

>>>>If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Tip: If I were you I’d lose the attitude pronto. At least you’ve apparently learned the difference between evidence and proof. But we’ll see....

n80 OP
geoffkait said:

"Besides, all I was asking for in the example you provided is EVIDENCE. That doesn’t seem too much to ask. 😬 I’m not demanding PROOF. "

Okay, change my question to you asking for "EVIDENCE". The result is the same. You ask for evidence but then claim that nothing anyone introduces rises to the level of "EVIDENCE". Same difference. Still specious. And you’re pretty much just parsing words to wiggle out of the trap you set for yourself.

>>>>>I’ve already given you my answer. As I suspected, you don’t know the difference between proof and evidence. Nor do you understand why I ask for evidence to support bold statements. Let me give you an example. When someone recently stated that there have been many blind tests of cables, I asked him to provide links to blind tests. Which someone did. That’s an example of asking for evidence of a bold statement. This conversation can serve no purpose any more.

analogluvr
The best tweak in the world is a 5K run before you sit down and listen. Then maybe take it one step further and Add a cold beer.

>>>>>And if you keep chuggin’ em down before you know it your crap system starts to sound pretty freakin awesome.

Hey, nobody’s ever bothered to measure cables before and after cryogenic treatment. Nobody’s bothered to measure tubes before and after cryo. Nobody’s bothered to measure CD players or amps before and after cryo. Nobody’s bothered to measure tonearms before and after cryo. Nobody’s measured CDs before and after cryo. And nobody’s bothered to measure trumpets and saxophones before and after cryo.

mapman
There are only two paradigms really for how people approach things based on technology like hifi.

First is is the one I subscribe to which is try my hardest to understand how things work and use that knowledge to guide the way. That is how all new real technological innovations work.

The other is to rely mainly on faith in lieu of actual knowledge to guide the way.

Many things in in life are beyond human understanding and best handled by a combo of both.

Audio it is not one of those things. It is best handled by acquiring real knowledge. Hearsay alone may not deliver truly great results. Things that cannot be explained essentially translate to happening by magic ie nobody can factually account for what is observed.

>>>>>To summarize, a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

”If I could explain it to the average guy they wouldn’t have given me the Nobel prize.” - Richard Feynman.

”Knowledge can be defined as what’s left after you subtract all the stuff you forgot from school.” - old audiophile axiom

Hey, whatever.

Lizzie, the Air Force never sleeps. 😳 

93rubyz
Ask yourself this question -- after the "burn in" what physically has changed in that cable?

>>>>>>How can you physically tell that a cable has been cryogenically treated?

n80 OP
geoffkait, when I said that you were always asking for proof you said:

Can you show me an example of what you’re referring to?

So I scrolled up a few posts where you said, and I quote:

Finally, do you have ANY evidence to support either of those statements?

>>>>Exactly what I just got through saying. That is not the same thing as demanding proof of cables, fuses, tweaks, whatever. Besides, all I was asking for in the example you provided is EVIDENCE. That doesn’t seem too much to ask. 😬 I’m not demanding PROOF. You do know the difference, I assume.

n80 OP
So, geoffkait, you’re always asking for people who disagree with you to supply some sort of proof to support their opinions.

>>>>>Really? Can you show me an example of what you’re referring to? Oh, is this what you mean by asking for proof? I’m just asking to back up a bold statement. That’s not the same thing at all. 😛

But you’re dismissing blinded studies.

>>>>>Yes, but only to the extent that I’ve detailed very carefully in quite a few posts. It’s actually not (rpt not) true I dismiss all blinded studies. It’s not nice to put words in my mouth.

And I can’t remember but I think you’re not in the measure-bater camp either.

>>>>What is the measure-bater camp? I am not in too many camps, so probably not, whatever camp that is. 😀

So if we can’t rely on blinded studies and if measurement with equipment can’t tell the whole story then what is there? What sort of proof do you want from someone?

>>>>>I am not asking for proof of anything from anyone. Where did you get that from? Where do you come up with these questions? Did you leave out listening tests on purpose? 😳

Speaking of John Atkinson, editor Stereophile magazine, he also believes blind testing is unreliable and is prone to error from all sides. He, like your humble scribe, did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday. 🚚

https://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html

The RCA cables are most likely only directional in the sense the shielding is connected at one end only. But the RCA cables are probably not directional in the sense I use the word, which is due to the inherent directionality of wire. 

Actually it’s not that difficult to isolate burn in. How, you ask? By using a cable burn in device or the break in track on XLO Test CD or similar. You can observe sound quality improving as you break it on. Problem solved!

ieales
Cable direction, other than cables with networks, is nonsense.
Cable burn-in is most probably 100% nonsense.

>>>You sound awfully sure of yourself. Are those conclusions based on experience, physics, what other pseudo skeptics told you, a Google search, your gut reaction? Finally, do you have ANY evidence to support either of those statements? Share, share....

prof
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.

>>>That’s one of the more ridiculous series of claims I’ve seen but one that I suspect actually represents the pseudo skeptic camp rather well. In terms of argument it is really illogical, however. Of course any of us can be sometimes be deceived or fail to hear differences but that doesn’t mean we are ALWAYS deceived or mistaken. Nobody claimed it was easy. That’s part of the problem, think8ng that it’s easy. People try something once and draw a conclusion and give up.

Nobody is saying psychological biases cannot play a role sometimes. But to suggest audiophiles suffer self deception and psychological bias in all cases is laughable. If that were true we’d never progress beyond common generic sound. I can appreciate the argument that folks take pot shots at the character of some skeptics. But logically that does not (rpt not) mean that the skeptics are correct. Follow?

Human fallibility indeed.😛

I’m still thinking about the question.

I’ve noticed something, too, over the years. That is naysayers and skeptics tend to construct detailed, layered arguments to try to discredit or dismiss certain controversial ideas, products or tweaks. Cables is obviously just one example. And it’s the same ones who pop up on all of those threads. You could say it’s an excersise in the art of debate or the art of philosophical argument. But at the end of the day it’s simply what they choose to believe. I’m giving them credit here for honest debate, but even that is often in doubt. I’m not saying it’s not OK to have a gut reaction to something, but to build a whole philosophy around it? Hel-loo! I don’t think you’ll find any super skeptics suddenly changing their tune. Even with considerable evidence to the contrary from all sides. What would they say to the other super skeptics? I mean, come on!

prof
What is it about asking questions about these claims that so frustrates you? Should we as consumers simply accept whatever manufacturers claim for their products? What’s so wrong with applying critical thinking to these areas?

What are the specific supposedly outrageous claims by cable manufacturers that have you so upset, professor? How about some specifics? Share, share. What’s your beef? 🍔 I’d really like to know. What exactly has the professor’s panties all in a twist? Is it all high end cable manufacturers or just one or two. Who are they? When? Where?

prof
For instance the link to claims by cable purveyors regarding break in.First of all, going to the people who seem to be making dubious or controversial claims for products they sell might not be the best place to get objective information on cables. I don’t know about you, but I try not to derive a true picture of the world form advertisements ;)

>>>No, of course you don’t go to the experts in the field, the ones who make their living designing and testing cables. You go to people who can’t hear the difference cables can make and/or who are die hard pseudo skeptics or self styled pseudo philosophizers. That’s where one should derive a true picture of the world. Oh, brother!

Ah, the old pro audio vs high end audio disconnect rears it’s ugky head. This is what happens when one segment of the industry stoves pipes. I.e., develops a set of concepts and products without paying attention to what’s going on in other segments of the industry, especially the one segment that presumably has a leg up on the advanced audio stuff.

It’s always a treat when one pseudo skeptic pats another pseudo skeptic on the fanny.

I just filed your response under Whatever. It’s not necessarily a good debate strategy to agree with me that your statement is false. 😀 

Break in is like cryogenic treatment and directionality. Everyone does it but nobody talks about it. Settle-in is a term most often used to mean reestablishing the delicate electrical mechanical interface once a Cable has been pulled and reconnected. Or when a cable is pulled and another cable connected, as in a cable shoot-out. Or perhaps even when a cable itself is physically moved.

n80 OP
geoffkait, it seems rather one sided to demand both subjective and scientific proof from shadone in regard to minor tweaks which by definition would be....minor.... And in fact, it really isn’t logical at all to demand "subjective evidence". That’s a bit of an oxymoron, no? And in reality, there does not seem to be any "scientific evidence" in this matter at all. So you are asking for evidence that doesn’t exist.

>>>>Can I respectfully request you read what I wrote again? I said either one, not both. In other words, anything other than ranting and raving. 😛 And, no, you’re probably scrambling to get on board but listening I.e., subject evidence is admissible evidence, you know, like an eyewitness in a murder case. Measurements and subjective tests are both scientific. They’re both empirical evidence. We “measure” what we hear with our ears. Capish?

shadorne
It’s a mad mad world. Some audiophiles will believe any tomfoolery that any tomfool cares to invent. It’s a mugs game for the unscrupulous who spend hours here promulgating “fear marketing” that says folks are not getting the best out of their precious system without an endless number of ridiculous tweaks.

>>>>>>Shadorne, I suspect you’ve completely psyched yourself out over this tweak stuff. You actually have no subjective or scientific evidence to support your rather extreme and dreary position that nothing works and everything’s a scam. What a dreadful and sad little corner you’ve painted yourself into. There’s a thin line between mad, mad, mad and sad, sad, sad. 😢