Cable Burn In

Whenever i'm bored (it's raining and i can't fish and my wife's sleeping so i can't play the music) i enjoy reading this forum.  Yes, many of the posters are predictable but also make legitimate arguments.  What i believe is that music is almost a purely emotional experience and, therefore, it's impossible to argue with someone who says they hear something, even though it can't be measured--it might not be their ears that are "hearing" it.  Could be just an emotional response. After all we can't measure love but we are reasonably certain it exists because we "feel" it.  That said i choose to fall in the measuring camp when it comes to high end audio claims and i may tend to disbelieve if it can't be measured.  What i also wonder from N80's original post is what would motivate the manufacturer to state the break-in period and how did they know it was 175 hours?  Why not 25 hours or even 750 hours?  It's a legitimate question to ask them how they determined it.  Is it possible their motive is to add further scientific-sounding goop in order to make us believe even more strongly that the cables are really going to make a difference? Or does it leave them an "out" to say we didn't break them in properly if we don't hear a difference ?  And if i don't play my system for a few months (as happens when we come to the lake for summer) do the dielectric molecules drift back into a random orientation or are they permanently "aligned" after break-in?  It all sounds like snake oil to me but the fun part of being an audiophile is that chasing perfect sound is never-ending and we're free to believe, feel and hear what we want--and nobody's going to change Geoff"s mind regardless of the merit and logic of their arguments because he says he "hears" it or "feels" it and we can't tell him it's all in his imagination.  If he imagines he sees ghosts then he does!  Thanks to N80, Prof, jea48, Shadorne and Geoff for furnishing high-end education, argument and entertainment on a rainy day.  Luckily i'm a long, long way from a high end audio store...

Keep listening to your system, you'll notice a difference when they "burn-in." 

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

+1 elizabeth, I totally agree although I do use my Audiodharna cable cooker since I have one.

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. 

The RCA cables I bought (the ones on which this thread is based) are also directional. They have a tag on them for the source end. I did not notice this when I ordered them. 

With Cables its pure snake oil. Once you have a good cable with
low resistance or known resistance and sized right for the application
and in your case proper shielding you are done. What you hear is what you get. The rest is pure fantasy.

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!

If you hear no difference after time passes, you've lost nothing.  If you do perceive an improvement in the openness of your sound then yippee!

Riddle me this, Batmen: How do you know it's the cables?

Hearing changes all the time. Fatigue, stimulants, temperature and pressure all affect hearing.
Loudspeakers change with temperature and pressure.
Amplifiers can sound markedly different with temperature.
Contact pressure increase with temperature.

It's not possible to isolate 'improvements' to burn-in. It's equally as likely that degradation could result if changes exacerbate inherent system distortions.

The one constant with a HiFi system is there isn't

a cable, in order to sound fantastic needs a little bit of a super intelligent chip (make sure you get the 'super', not the regular kind), and few flying saucers for windows (not the ones for doors)....

now back to the original post...can it be that, the concept of 'burning in', has more to do with our auditory system getting used to how an audio system sounds after a change, than with the physical changes that some think occur in cables?

Okay, I am open to it. And I think we are generally in agreement. Its just that for me the point is moot from a practical standpoint and my openness to the idea doesn't change that.

What I was pointing out was that you said: " If you believe that every phenomenon we experience in life is quantifiable...."

I think the word _every_ in that sentence is pretty absolute. I'm not denying that some folks are that absolute, I'm just saying that one can believe that _some_ things are quantifiable and _some_ are not. That's where I fall in this approach to subjects like this. I do not deny the importance and existence of the quantifiable nor the importance and existence of the intangibles, even those unique to a single observer.

The problem is that when things are not objectively quantifiable, there is always going to be difficulty arriving at a consensus among various observers. Its the nature of the beast. Especially when the particular observation is by nature likely to be subtle as in the case of this issue, especially when some observers are not physically equipped (hearing limitations) or trained (through experience) to appreciate these subtleties. And in that case....it would be true for the untrained and less sensitive observer that issue is largely irrelevant. Certainly said observer could learn to appreciate the subtleties but cannot overcome physical differences in hearing acuity.

OP - You said, "Again, I think this implies that your world view requires you to be on an extreme end of every issue."

All I said is to be open to things that may or may not be explainable or measurable.  I don't believe at being on the extreme end of audio issues.  If you want to talk about being "extreme" I would consider the "everything is quantifiable" stance to be the extreme position.🤔

hifiman5 said:

"  I can't see how it hurts you to be open to it. "

All I said was that I feel like I know what I need to know as it applies to my needs. That doesn't really fall on one side or other of the issue.

It seems like everyone wants this to be an all-or-nothing issue. I don't see why. I can comfortably say that some smart people here feel like burn-in is a significant issue but that for my purposes and situation is unlikely to have any impact on my listening pleasure. And as I said before, I'm going to plug them in and listen to them, and again, what else would I do with them? And again, the odds of me (a beginner) hearing this difference over the days it takes to change the SQ are slim.

The only other option would be for me to buy cables that were burned-in at the factory and that is simply money I'm not going to spend regardless of the potential perceived SQ improvement. It just would not make sense at this point in my dabbling in this hobby.

hifiman5 also said:

" One last thought.  In the end, the issue is informed by your world view.  If you believe that every phenomenon we experience in life is quantifiable then the intangibles will never matter to you. "

Again, I think this implies that your world view requires you to be on an extreme end of every issue. Don't get me wrong, I am not a relativist by a long long shot. And I firmly believe in elements of experience and reality that transcend the empirical. But certainly there are experiences that are easily tangible and quantifiable and there are experiences that are not. My world view does not require me to put all experiences in one box.

@n80  I'm not sure what you might have learned from this thread except that there are those who do believe in cable burn-in and those who don't.  I can't see how it hurts you to be open to it.  If you hear no difference after time passes, you've lost nothing.  If you do perceive an improvement in the openness of your sound then yippee!  

One last thought.  In the end, the issue is informed by your world view.  If you believe that every phenomenon we experience in life is quantifiable then the intangibles will never matter to you.  In my case, I've experienced too many phenomena that I would have no scientific explanation for to believe that there are not things happening in highly resolving audio systems that is beyond our ability to quantify.

Enjoy the journey!

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....

Thanks everyone for the education on cables and burn-in. I feel like I now know what I need to know as it applies to my needs.

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 already hate myself for asking this, but, geoffkait, how is someone who believes in tweaks, who argues in their defense with only subjective opinions, debates endlessly in their favor, builds a philosophy around them and never changes their mind ANY different from the skeptics you accuse of doing the same thing just in a different direction? If you remove the 'for' or 'against' labels, your claims and complaints seem to be of exactly the same nature.

@almarg

Thanks very much for the kind words, Al.

Having observed many (and occasionally participated in) on-line discussions of the more controversial audio topics, I’ve found a very common, almost completely reliable trend. Many people (especially those in the highly subjective camp) interpret skepticism not only as a "bore," but as an almost personal insult. "How can you come here and tell me that I’m not hearing what I know I hear??!!" (This is a trend in virtually every area where there seems to be an "objectivist/subjectivist divide).


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.

@n80 Check out http://ielogical.com/Audio/#ConnectorCleansing and  http://ielogical.com/Audio/WinterBlues.php for just some of the things that can affect systems on a day to day basis.

The universe runs on math.

If I have a preamp with a 1KΩ output impedance driving an amp with 10KΩ input impedance does that mean I need 10x as long if I drive an amp with 100KΩ input impedance.

What happens if I use DC coupled vs AC?

Music varies greatly in frequency content. Will burn-in playing Joe Bonamassa sound different than if I play Birth of the Cool? The electrical energy vastly different so if playing in has any validity, content must matter. Burn-in with Pink / White / Brown noise should affect the sound IF there is any validity to burn-in requirements.

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

prof

Agree

What nonsense. 

Wind 'em up and watch 'em go!  If only a fraction of this energy was spent solving actual problems..

I've been experimenting with hifi for a few years. At first I felt the need to reject all the dubious ideas, like tweaks, fancy footers, cable burn-in, contact enhancers, etc. Then I pursued all these things avidly. My current feeling is that all of these things make a difference, but not so much really. 

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!

FWIW, over the years I've noticed a fairly consistent phenomenon in these forums. Certain members seem to gravitate to threads involving phenomena that are either technically inexplicable, at least when considered in a quantitative manner (if that is even possible), or are particularly controversial, or both.

The usual result being that potentially constructive dialogue gives way to some combination of childish commentary, exchanges of insults, and ad hominem attacks, rather than dialogue which is constructive and potentially useful. Which as far as I am concerned would seem to defeat the main purpose of a forum.

Just an observation, FWIW. Also, BTW, I consider contributions to this forum by Prof and by Analogluvr, among a number of others I could name, to be the antithesis of those I am referring to. I always find their contributions to be pragmatic, thought-provoking, based on extensive experience in many cases, and certainly warranting intelligent discussion.

Also, as usual Jim (Jea48) has provided a constructive input to the thread. The problem, though, is that all too often audiophiles tend not to perform their evaluations in as thorough and disciplined a manner as he suggested, before proclaiming that a perceived difference is attributable to a specific cause. As opposed to being caused by extraneous variables such as ongoing aging or breakin of unrelated system components, differences in AC line voltage or noise characteristics that occur from time to time, changes in ambient temperature and/or humidity (temperature being a factor that is fundamental to the physics of semiconductors such as transistors, diodes, and integrated circuits), differences in equipment warmup states, flushing of internal digital memory that occurs when power is cycled, etc.

My own belief, again FWIW, is that when it comes to controversial audio-related matters more often than not reported perceptions are likely to be accurate, and not the result of "expectation bias." Depending, of course, on the credibility of the particular person who is doing the reporting. But my belief is also that in many cases the methodology that has been used in arriving at the reported conclusions has not been sufficiently thorough to assure that the perceived effect is being attributed to the correct variable.

Regards,
-- Al

analoglovr wrote:

" N80 if you’re interested read up on confirmation bias and expectation bias. This is the reason for all the folks claiming that things sound wildly better when they’ve spent 1000s on a cable."

I'm actually very familiar with those things. I've dealt directly with clinical trials in my lifetime and assess the merits of them regularly. When dealing with humans subjective measurements are difficult and even more difficult to attach meaning to. The mind has a powerful effect not only on how we perceive reality but how we respond to it. The placebo effect, which is very relevant to this conversation, is a good example. In one study on placebo effect subjects who were extremely sensitive to poison oak were blindfolded and told poison oak leaves were being rubbed on their arm. It was actually an inert material. Despite this a certain percentage of the test group developed a rash where they were touched with the inert substance. No one in the control group did.

Anyway, I see exact parallels to these conversations in the photography world and in the automotive performance world.

Whenever I explore a new pursuit like this or photography or whatever, there is always a certain level of skepticism that any said expenditure for any said improvement is actually going to be real. I am often shocked how much actual, real improvement there is as you go from lower end gear (like lenses, camera sensors, etc) to the better equipment. You feel and know that the money spent has been worthwhile and it is easy to see and easy to prove. I firmly believe that this cost vs improvement curve goes up steeply for quite a while. But I also believe that at the higher end of the curve the performance curve begins to flatten out as expenditures continue to rise, usually more steeply. At this level the amount of money spent buys you very very little. I also believe that there comes a point that the performance goes completely flat even as expenditures go up. High cost, no yield.

I'm not correlating any thing in the audiophile world with any point on this curve. But it is always my goal to seek that sweet spot where the curve starts to flatten out, stop spending money and know that I'm getting the most out of my budget. That sweet spot is going to be in different places for different people.  But with significant experience in the photography world, I know there are folks who delight in that part of the curve where cost is high and the benefits are subtle at best. Nothing wrong with that as long as they don't try to convince me that the curve is still going up when it isn't. 

Of course the best thing to do in that situation is to thank them, shut up and walk away. I haven't got that down yet.

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?

clearthink,

Then why don’t you buy some actual audio cable and conduct some experiments for yourself you seem to be a vocal advocate and promoter of what you seem to think is the "scientific" method you could acquire your own set of verifiable data rather than just to continue to challenge, question and oppose those who have actually acquired, installed and evaluated what they discuss rather than just imagine, theorize, and speculate what might happen were they to actually measure, listen and verify. Of course if you did that you would be subject to the same sort of criticism and ridicule you heap on other’s here with disregard for actual data.

^^^^^ It’s somewhat hard to answer (or be motivated to answer) such strange and opaque posts.

Actually, the "ridicule" tends to come from folks like yourself, in the posts you are making directed to me. If you actually care to notice, my posts didn’t "ridicule" they just applied some critical thinking to claims in the audiophile world. It’s not "ridicule" to point to the fact there are a lot of dubious claims in high end audio, and it’s not "ridicule" to point out the method typically used to vet those claims in the audiophile community are often unreliable.

Why don’t I do these measurements? Because I don’t have the measuring equipment (which can be very expensive) nor the electrical engineering expertise.


This is why I have made no such claims for myself.


But of course you don’t have to be an expert in a field to be able to say reasonable things about claims relating to a field. You can appeal to the consensus of people with relevant expertise, and with an understanding of good empirical principles, recognize when one group is appealing to poorly justified arguments/evidence over others. You probably haven’t the expertise in every science related to understanding the shape of the earth, but critical thinking allows you to weigh the type of evidence and reasoning flat earthers give for their claims, vs scientists, to have a reasonable claim on being skeptical of the flat earth claims.

And this is why, if you just want to point out I’m not a scientist or electrical engineer, that says nothing about whether anything I’ve written is unreasonable or untrue. For that....you’d have to actually address the arguments, not go ad hominem.


And btw, as an obsessed audiophile since the early 90’s, I’ve listened to countless high end systems, which included practically every big cable maker you can name. I’ve also been able to check out very expensive, highly regarded cables - speaker cables, interconnects, AC cables etc - both in my system and friend’s systems over the years. So, no, I’m not coming at this from some total inexperience with high end cabling.

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?

prof"Again, my position on cable burn in is not that I know it doesn’t occur. "

Then why don’t you buy some actual audio cable and conduct some experiments for yourself you seem to be a vocal advocate and promoter of what you seem to think is the "scientific" method you could acquire your own set of verifiable data rather than just to continue to challenge, question and oppose those who have actually acquired, installed and evaluated what they discuss rather than just imagine, theorize, and speculate what might happen were they to actually measure, listen and verify. Of course if you did that you would be subject to the same sort of criticism and ridicule you heap on other's here with disregard for actual data.

n80, I appreciate your articulate comments and willingness to learn.

Plus, I'll give them the recommended 175 hours of burn-in.....which is kind of a given right? What else could I do?

I hope your tongue is planted firmly in cheek. You will be able to judge the cables' characteristics after a few hours.

Then there is "my ear"....which seems to be the gold standard for some...and by default has to be..

Now you're talking.

prof"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 ;)"

I don't know about you but I would be reluctant to accept technical judgements from anonymous forum posters about things they admit they don't even understand especially when the claims, assertions and doubts they promulgate lack any basis in science, engineering or even common sense and from people who dismiss, disregard and reject the data, observations, and conclusions made by those who have actually listened, experimented, and documented they're testing:) <grin> <grin>

Excellent post prof! And it has been shown that the measuring devices can measure things small enough that the ear of most likely cannot detect. So I find it funny that people Scoff at measuring device list.
 N80 if you’re interested read up on confirmation bias and expectation bias. This is the reason for all the folks claiming that things sound wildly better when they’ve spent 1000s on a cable.

If you are a "measurer" then so be it.  You will be happy in your paradigm and that is absolutely fine!

My organic listening mechanism is more important to me than a man-made measuring device.👂👂

The decision?  Which listening mechanism do you want to trust to deliver the truth of your system to you?

+1 @hifiman5 .

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 ;)

OK @prof , point well taken.
That's why the consumer should be reading the user reviews of said cables.

Second of all, note in those links to Nordost and Cardas simply bring you to claims made by those manufactures, wherein they supply no objective/measured results to support their technical claims of burn in (or that it is audible even if something does change over time in the cable).

It is implied by the manufacturer's info that the listener will experience an audible change in sonics after a run-in period. In some cases they are answering queries regarding break-in.

hifiman5,

OP - shadorne and the other measurers insist that if you can't measure it you won't hear it...you might convince yourself you did, but what the hell do your ears know?  I mean really who are your ears to tell your brain what sounds are entering them.  Much better to have a man-made device measure sounds which your inferior organic listening devices can not perceive.  Sheesh!

I assume you wouldn't scoff at the idea of a carbon monoxide detector for use in your home, on similar grounds? "My senses have served me fine, I mean who is your nose to tell your brain what substances are entering them?"   (But of course, carbon monoxide detectors are there because your senses WON'T likely detect odorless Carbon Monoxide in your environment).

Obviously, we invent measurement devices because our senses are limited at detecting what is actually there.  The same goes for our hearing.  So we know we can measure many things we can't sense, including that we can't hear.   We can know "something is there" even if our senses can't detect it.  And of course we can also measure plenty that we hear.

If you are suggesting you can hear things that can't be measured, the question is:  how do you know?


The reply "Well...I heard it!" doesn't take in to account how your perception can be mistaken.

Also, think of it this way:  Expensive, boutique audiophile cables purport to "fix" problems found in other cables.  But if instruments can't detect those problems...how would you know they are there in the first place?

Notice that most cable companies start of with TECHNICAL claims about a problem, alluding to phenomenon known from having been measured by instruments in the first place.  Look for instance at the Cardas link where in describing issues with cables they reference:

microphonics dielectric characteristics of  insulators
high input impedance
Piezoelectric effect
uneven distribution of the charge
Mechanical stress

And yet, despite appealing to a set of measurable problems, they do not produce measurements showing they fixed those technical problems.  You go directly from technical sounding descriptions...to marketing and subjective anecdotes.    If it was a technical measurable problem with cables in the first place, and they fixed that technical problem in their design, where are the measurements showing this to be the case?

(And there is also the issue of how they have drawn the line between any of those technical "problems" to their audible consequences in the first place).

lowrider57 said:

" N80, you stated that you are new to the audiophile world. So, shouldn't you approach the subject of burn-in or run-in with an open mind?"

Yes. And I will. And to be clear, I have not stated that it isn't real. I've only pointed out the problems associated with actually identifying the difference. The nature of this thread alone with comments by a number of sincere and intelligent people (among the chaff) with differing opinions seems to suggest that it remains an issue which is at least problematic.

And, as I mentioned in a private message with another member here, none of it really makes any difference to me whatsoever because my system, by all accounts, already has ridiculously high end cables all around that have been burned-in for years. Plus, if I need additional cables at some point, I'll get cables that are reasonably commensurate with the ones I have.

Plus, I'll give them the recommended 175 hours of burn-in.....which is kind of a given right? What else could I do?

Then there is "my ear"....which seems to be the gold standard for some...and by default has to be....but I think it is highly unlikely that after 7.29 days of actual use that I'm going to pop in a Pink Floyd CD and yell "eureka what a difference!" when my RCA cable is burned in. I'm perfectly willing to admit that that surely has more to do with me not knowing what I'm listening to or listening for. 

rja, I'm truly sorry. I had no idea! There was no intention to poke the trolls but I don't mind poking them after they come out.

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!

+1 prof and shadorne! "The capacity of Humans for self-delusion is unlimited" - Mr. Spock.

n80, Since you are new here, I’ll forgive you for starting this thread.
Please remember that there are no conclusive answers only strong opinions.Some subjects aren't worthy of discussion, if you can even call it that.

BTW: There are several trolls who deliberately instigate these threads to watch the sparks fly.

n80,

You can see some examples of what I was talking about in this thread.

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 ;)

Second of all, note in those links to Nordost and Cardas simply bring you to claims made by those manufactures, wherein they supply no objective/measured results to support their technical claims of burn in (or that it is audible even if something does change over time in the cable).

And the other link morrowaudio is essentially a link to their cable burn in services.  I leave it to you to conclude the wisdom or not of appealing to someone trying to sell you a service as evidence of their claim.

Again, my position on cable burn in is not that I know it doesn't occur.  But rather, when I look at the basis on which those claims are typically presented, there's a fair amount to be skeptical of.

OP - shadorne and the other measurers insist that if you can't measure it you won't hear it...you might convince yourself you did, but what the hell do your ears know?  I mean really who are your ears to tell your brain what sounds are entering them.  Much better to have a man-made device measure sounds which your inferior organic listening devices can not perceive.  Sheesh!

If you are a "measurer" then so be it.  You will be happy in your paradigm and that is absolutely fine!

My organic listening mechanism is more important to me than a man-made measuring device.👂👂

The decision?  Which listening mechanism do you want to trust to deliver the truth of your system to you?

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.

N80, you stated that you are new to the audiophile world. So, shouldn't you approach the subject of burn-in or run-in with an open mind?

The instructions on your cables to allow 175 hours breakin does sound absurd and I've never seen that before. You may have purchased Mogami or Canare from that particular dealer which are professional quality cables. 
I work in the biz and use these cables and break-in has never been mentioned.

But based on my experience at home with cables using exotic metallurgy and design, there is an audible difference between the brand of cable plus the before and after breakin period. ie, I have owned 2 pairs of Purist Audio interconnects and could hear a difference between a new cable out of the box and the cable in my system.

At some point in this hobby you may discover this for yourself.

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

+1 @n80  

Keep digging Geoff, Capisci?

N80, Great reply!!!