Do cables really need "breaking in"?

Paulwp, i WILL go so far as to say that the differences in the "sonic signature" of cables IS highly system dependent. Whether this is due to superior design (stability) of the components or the lack of resolution within the system are but two of the possible variables involved.

As to doing cable comparisons, it is VERY easy to do an unbiased test using an "outsider" i.e. "non audiophile". Hook up two speakers side by side and run the system in mono. The channels should be "plumbed" electrically identical except for the ONE cable under test. Have the listener sit directly on axis centered between the two speakers. Differences in frequency response due to room loading characteristics are not really a factor since the speakers would be firing into near identical environments. This takes for granted that the speakers being used are relatively well matched in terms of frequency response and amplitude output levels.

Since the listener does not know anything about brands, various designs or what to expect from any of the devices under test ( DUT ), you can simply play a selection of music for them and switch from speaker to speaker as instantaneously as is possible. This takes the "acoustic memory" debate out of the equation.

Of course, you can't tell them what to listen for as that surely would taint the results. Not letting them see the cables in use prior to testing also helps keep things on an even keel. Since different designs may appear "thicker, more solid" or "lighter, more airy", the listener may enter the test with preconcieved notions or effectively bias what they hear or percieve to hear based on visually preconcieved ideas. No talking should take place until the listener has formed their own opinion of what they are hearing and is willing to voice their appraisal of the situation.

If the unbiased listener tries to verbalize the difference in sonics that you were also hearing WITHOUT any assistance or guidance from you, chances are the differences in the cables under test are EASILY noticeable. If they are unsure of any specific changes, differences ranging from very subtle to no difference at all ( within the confines of that system ) would be a logical conclusion. The fact that there might be a disagreement pertaining to specific sonic differences between several parties listening to the same system under the same test conditions would leave us with nothing more than a "subjective" outcome. This could not be taken as a positive OR negative but would require further, possibly more controlled, testing.

I have found that by using this method, i am easily able to confirm what i thought the differences in various cables in a specific system were by comparing notes with the un-interested party. While this may not be as "accurate" as DBX under controlled conditions, there is also nothing extra hooked up into the system to further taint or confuse the results. The ability to repeat the test on a regular basis with consistent results supports my previous statements to the fact that differences in cables DO exist and that they are audible.

With threads that get out of hand / quickly become polarized such as this one has, is it any wonder that AA has taken the stance that they have ??? Sean
>

Do cables really need "breaking in" ? The answer is a resounding YES. Will they ever FULLY break in under normal operating conditions within a hi-fi system ? I sincerely doubt it.

To those that have never experienced the difference between a cable that has been burned on a Mobie (or similar device) and an identical cable that hasn't, you have NO grounds to base your statements on. You are peddling hearsay based on YOUR preconcieved ideas and what you consider to be "common sense" and "logic". All i can say is that your "logic" is about as flawed as thinking that the Earth is both flat AND the center of the Universe. Just as the "heretics" known as Galileo and Christopher Columbus proved otherwise many years ago, we will someday have the technology to prove that MEASURABLE and AUDIBLE differences do exist in "burned" and "raw" cables.

While i can't speak for everyone, my experience is that interconnect cables used for hundreds of hours will typically demonstrate noticeably superior performance after "roasting" on a Mobie for a reasonable period of time. The use of another "cable burner" such as the Duo-Tech did nothing in my opinion / experience. I have no idea as to how effective Alan's "Cable Cooker" works either.

As to the "results" of "burning in cables" being positive, i think that most folks would consider increased clarity, smoothness, transparency, detail, improved harmonic structure and a more natural presentation GOOD things. As to the naysayers, put your money where your mouth is and find out first-hand. Music Direct ( or anybody else that may sell these things ) offers a 30 day return policy on a Mobie. Buy one, burn some of those $15 "competently designed" cables for two weeks non-stop and then give them a try. You can even "daisy chain" a few pairs if you make a trip to Rat Shack and invest in some double female RCA "barrel" connectors. If you don't notice a beneficial difference, then return the Mobie and get your money back. You won't be out anything other than the small cost of shipping. If you like the results, you will have made what could amount to a phenomenal purchase for the money invested. Either way, you can post the results right here for all to see, good or bad. You will be speaking with first hand experience then and nobody will be able to argue with that.

Until then, i consider any "negative" ramblings about cable burning or break in to be a moot point. Put up or shut up, your option. Sean
>

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
>

Bomarc, i agree that there is the potential for differences in perception when the speakers are sitting side by side as close as possible. However, listening directly on axis and in the nearfield ( i forgot to mention that part before ), the differences should be minimal at best. However, nothing is perfect, including ABX.

Since we are not concerned with imaging or soundstage ( we are in mono after all ), the basic things to listen for would be changes in tonal balance, transient response, inter-transient silence and harmonic structure. These are not just attributes of the cables under test, but how the equipment in the system loads into and responds to the specific impedances being presented to them. You are therefore not just testing for differences in cables, but which ones are most cohesive in your specific system. Sean
>