Cable Burn In


I'm new here and new to the audiophile world. I recently acquired what seems to be a really high end system that is about 15 years old. Love it. Starting to head down the audiophile rabbit hole I'm afraid.

But, I have to laugh (quietly) at some of what I'm learning and hearing about high fidelity.

The system has really nice cables throughout but I needed another set of RCA cables. I bit the bullet and bought what seems to be a good pair from World's Best Cables. I'm sure they're not the best you can get and don't look as beefy as the Transparent RCA cables that were also with this system. But, no sense bringing a nice system down to save $10 on a set of RCA cables, I guess.

Anyway, in a big white card on the front of the package there was this note: In big red letters "Attention!". Below that "Please Allow 175 hours of Burn-in Time for optimal performance."

I know I'm showing my ignorance but this struck me as funny. I could just see one audiophile showing off his new $15k system to another audiophile and saying "Well, I know it sounds like crap now but its just that my RCA cables aren't burned-in yet. Just come back in 7.29 days and it will sound awesome."
n80
dopogue
1,747 posts                                                                  07-27-2018 7:17am

I have some very pertinent experience with this issue. My long-time balanced interconnects (Clear Day) on the link between my Oppo/ModWright 105 CD/SACD player and Aesthetix Calypso linestage have served me well without complaint over the last 3-4 years. Great cables.

Recently a bat-eared audiobuddy suggested I try Duelund 20g ICs, also balanced, and since they were reasonably priced ($175), I figured, why not. When first inserted in my system they were awful -- flat, closed-in, meh in every respect. Again, the prescribed break-in (200 hours) sounded incredible to me. Fortunately I have an Audiodharma Cable Cooker to speed the break-in process.

So I gave the Duelunds several days on the cooker and compared them again to the Clear Days. Better, but no cigar. It took more days (I lost count), but eventually the Duelunds won the sonic battle and have now replaced the Clear Days. Note that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the Clear Days and a number of other ICs haven’t come close to the way THEY sound. But the Duelunds are now top dog -- sweet.open, clear, musical --and I haven’t an objective clue as to why. Not really.

One thing sure: The Audiodharma Cable Cooker is an incredible product, as anyone who owns one will likely attest

Actual listening and comparing experience.... Who da thunk!..... And at the end of the day you clearly can hear the difference between the Clear Days and Duelunds.

Jim
Post removed 
I believe it is a matter of degree. For sure new speakers and certain crossover capacitators benefit from long term burn-in. Speaker cables vary quite a bit since you have enormous power, current and phase considerations so burn in there is rational.

I find that balanced line level (XLR) cables are the least variable interconnects while unbalanced low level cables (phono cables) display more differences. With that in mind then it makes some sense that break-in of sensitive components: Tubes, Capacitators, Speakers and, to a lesser extent, solid state devices, switches and even some kinds of wire is rational. The differences are, however, variable.



If burn-in valid, then materials cannot be inert. If the materials are not inert, then they must always be affected. If the materials are affected, then a cable that's had thousands of hours of playing should have measurable deltas to its twin that sat on the shelf in the same environment for those same thousands of hours.

Technology exists to measure femto values, so it should be possible to measure deltas.

It is possible, per Heisenberg, that measuring may negate the change. By the same token, different program must also affect change. In that case, change is constant and therefore indeterminate.

Many years ago BAS reported on the results of test at UWatterloo with Linn's Ivor Tiefenbrun who gave rise the 80's single speaker in the room gospel. 

The day began with two brief tests of the Tiefenbrun claim that undriven transducers (digital alarm watches, telephones, headphones, or other loudspeakers) in the same room audibly degrade the sound quality - a claim which forms the rationale behind their "single speaker" demonstration demand. Firstly, a digital alarm watch with piezoelectric "beeper" was held about 500 mm behind Tiefenbrun's head while he listened to the loudspeaker reproduction from his stereo seat on the couch, with the watch either fully exposed or clasped firmly between the palms of my hands. We were assured that the latter artifice would muffle any deleterious effects. This was thus a single-blind test: The testee did not know the covered/uncovered status of the watch at each trial, but the tester did know. A random series of 20 trials was conducted while Remington cued up the turntable (playing a female vocalist) on each occasion, as he did throughout the day. Tiefenbrun's result: 10 correct responses in 20 trials, an outcome which shows no ability to discriminate between the two situations.

The second test, also single-blind, used a Linn "Kan" loudspeaker as the undriven transducer. Again the female vocalist was used as source material. The loudspeaker lay on the thickly-carpeted floor behind the listening couch. It was placed either on its side (the "uncovered" condition) or on its face (the "covered" condition) according to a random series of choices. Ten trials were conducted during which Tiefenbrun achieved a score of 5 correct out of 10. Again, this demonstrates no discrimination ability beyond what one would expect purely on the basis of chance.

from https://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

Someday cable burn-in maybe similarly debunked.