I thought it was something burning, maybe even cables.
Do speaker cables need a burn in period?
I have heard some say that speaker cables do need a 'burn in', and some say that its totally BS.
What say you?
What say you?
Showing 50 responses by glupson
It would be a good way to do it, but around here it would be even more flammable. It could happen that, once he conducts his own test and reports results that are not in line with what was expected by others, he gets called different names and his results get dismissed as crap. That happens here. It is just a no-win situation. |
geoffkait, No worries, I still do good things for humanity. It is just that I tried doing a few small experiments here. Like changing direction of wires or removing the cover from an amplifier. Responses, yours included, revealed more about responders than expected. Unless one strives to uncover different personality traits/flaws of others, I would not recommend posting own results of some experiments in these threads. They do not contribute to discussion about whatever is discussed. |
I also do not think there is a wide anti-cable conspiracy going on. Maybe a mild anti-"anti-cable" paranoia. Does it really matter if speaker cables need burn-in? Is anyone going to buy cables and listen for a few hours only? If they do need burn-in, you will get there at some point. If they do not, you will get there sooner. Why do people care so much? |
geoffkait, "Have you considered maybe getting another hobby. Macrame, perhaps, or stamp collecting."You may not remember but we discussed stamp collecting before (hints: Freddie Mercury, Ron Wood, Queen Elizabeth II). You even thanked me for informing you about it. I am not a stamp collector but do own a fairly large collection of Lichtenstein stamps, along with lesser numbers of some others. Have you considered maybe getting another hobby? This audio stuff is not going well, I am afraid. Restaurant napkins? Stamp collecting? We can trade. |
Except for the part about me needing to get out of my cave more often, everybody is right. I am already out way too much. I also doubt that I would run into Ms. Upton on the street. She lives in Texas, it seems.
In reality, anything is more interesting than discussions about cable burn-in. Even more so when they get crowded in some dead-end which is often, if not always, the case. This thread included. That is why I mentioned that existence of burn-in may not be important. Regardless of if it exists or not, what can you do about it? It is not worth getting all riled up about it.
Microphone back to whoever has more on Ms. Upton. |
"We have barely scratched the surface of physics." We are all, me included, taught that there is more out there, but what this is all that there is? There is no guarantee that more explanations for many things are coming our way. Is there a time limit when we may say "we have waited enough, there is actually nothing beyond this"? Having said that, for the time being, we should try to find more. |
I knew my piano tuner has been robbing me. He is always tightening strings and telling me they got loose over time. How on Earth do you relax a room? |
How come that every tweak is positive? Is it possible that something actually influences the sound in a non-favorable way? Is burn-in of the cables always something that should be positive, or does it have a negative impact on the sound, too? It might have not been said explicitly, but all the reviews mentioning it are glowing. It is always for better. What are the chances? |
It is getting emotional indeed... Who writes these things? Even worse, who reads that? I guess, me. Yes, thanks geoffkait. You proved I am a dummy. |
blueranger, "They settled down later." Wouldn’t that mean that burn-in is not a permanent effect? Does the burn-in have to be repeated after, let’s say, a few weeks of vacation? It would be exactly the opposite from... "Have you heard the term electromigration? A current causes permanent changes in a wire" Is there a third part that is missing between above two sentences? |
blueranger, I already am a believer. I believe that you experienced everything you mentioned. I keep mind open about cables but do have some doubts. Thankfully, it is not much of my obsession so I can enjoy reading about both views without getting agitated. Some claims earlier in the thread do not defy current physics, that one may still be in diapers. There are claims that defy logic on a very basic level. If someone at Cardas, or whatever other manufacturer, said "it is that way and we have no clue why, but it sounds that way", less people would argue about it. Unfortunately, companies try to come up with explanations to impress potential buyers and those explanations are at times laughable. Once rooms start getting relaxed and cables traumatized in whatever way, credibility goes out the window. |
"Another prominent cable designer believes..."Prominent cable designer gets three points for admitting to believe rather than claiming. Instead of burn-in, cable risers, and all other ideas, why someone would not make cables with the principle of Schwann cells? That seems like a very logical next step. Hop-hop and there is a new dimension of "fast" in audio. My cable is faster than yours. Come on, manufacturers who are quietly monitoring these threads to see what could be sold, try that. Nobody would be able to argue it is crap. It has worked for thousands and thousands and thousands of years and has been produced in countless billions. Now, just to figure out how to make it and that is all. What you are doing now is a copper-age joke. |
This thread, and many similar ones, is only for decadent entertainment. What else could it be? Threads about cables get lots of action with ideas and opinions how to do things in some way being expressed quite energetically. I was puzzled so I checked (just a quick search on Audiogon forums) how are the threads about improving DAC chips doing. Those little things that do the actual work in many, if not most, of our systems. Well, it does not seem that many people are interested in discussing that. DAC chips seem to be some orphan while cables are the favorite child. I guess that talking about chip design, or whatever else regarding its function, requires a bit more actual knowledge and engineering skills than being bold while talking about wires, regardless of the side you are on. |
andy2, You are right but, from some marketing perspective, creating a story around a subject is desirable, too. Adding some sort of mystique is probably always positive in marketing terms. Expensive cables, whatever "expensive" is at that moment, are not aimed for majority of people. Majority would agree with your statements. Fancy cables are aiming at small group with its own ideas and personalities. Just read how stubborn both sides on cable threads are. That group needs more of a story than just "it is great". Call it a "marketing psychology" or something like that. Make it seem like they have to work for it. Restaurants with long waiting lists (weeks and so on) have been using that kind of approach for the longest time. It is not to say that burn-in does or does not exist. It is just why it would be a good thing for a manufacturer to talk about it. Not to mention that, in case cable does not sound phenomenal, they can always say "they need a really long break-in, months". |
"I would think people buy cables for the sound quality. I don’t think they care about burn in." Just this thread has 17 pages. At least half is our non-sense arguing about something else but actual question, but still. Eight pages, 400 posts or so, are arguing about existence of burn-in. Someone cares. I am not sure why, though, but someone cares. |
ganainm, It was not a threat at all. Far from that. It is that on some of these threads people interact with others in a way they would never do in real life. There have been calls for death, suggestions of suicides, etc. Morons, trolls, you name it. I thought that keeping conversation in the way you would at the bar would be somehow acceptable. That is where 6'5" comes from. You do not start insulting a person just because he has a different opinion. At least you keep mind open. "You" not being you personally, but any of us. |
no2headphones, My curiosity about DACs was actually limited to chips. I first tried just DAC and it brought me to much more but most were regarding DACs as a stand-alone machines or other, basically finished, products. I have no idea how chips work and consider those who can design them very bright and admire their work. I found out that most threads that somehow talk about DAC chips have 10-20-30 posts. Maybe more, I really did not dig too deep, but far less than threads about cables. Not much discussion about comparison and other details and properties of DAC chips. So I thought, on one side we have an item that is advanced in execution and that cannot be replaced by just about anything. Not many talk about it on Audiogon (some other websites are more active in that regard, though). On the other side we have an item that can, relatively functionally, be replaced by pretty much anything that conducts electricity and there are a few threads regarding it right now and they have hundreds of posts each. We get all technical and scientific about much simpler item barely mentioning the sophisticated one that does heavy work. I have a feeling that nobody who can figure out the way to improve DAC chips ever visits these threads. Who knows, they may be too busy improving a little piece which will enable us to differentiate between burned-in and not-burned-in cable in the future. This would be kind of thread I was looking for to compare with cable threads. See how many and when. Yet, you will see threads about tweaks consisting of howling at the moon or bringing African plants into the room going much stronger. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/grounding-dac-chip-tweak?highlight=dac%2Bchip |
Eloquent is not the enemy of truth at all. It is just nicer and more coherent way of expressing it. Think of it as "truth with a style" rather than "truth with whining". Whatever the truth about burn-in ends up being, it is, except for manufacturers, only of academic importance. I am not sure where did Marx land from in all of this. He lived way before speakers and amplifiers, I think. |
Again, I am in neither camp on this burn-in issue, so I can somewhat objectively tell you that both sides seem entrenched in the same way. Same pattern with different prefix. If you have a firm belief in existence of burn-in, arguing with someone who has a firm belief in its non-existence will lead you nowhere, except for frustration. The only ones you could try to explain your views to are those with no loyalty to either camp. However, you may need to accept their doubts and questions as legitimate, too. So far, most of the burn-in proponents answers to challenging questions have been "it is that way, you just do not get it, shame on you" kind. Who would go for that? |
On these 18 pages, and between both camps, you could not collect 100 sentences that would qualify as somewhat scientific. Most of the "scientific" attempts are good for shrugging shoulders and not much else. There are lots of testimonies, but they are on both sides. Nobody wins. I follow this thread because I do not have an opinion if burn-in exists or not. However, some of the claims and theories presented are not making a strong case for it. For now, the opponents are a bit more eloquent in refuting it theoretically. |
I have not seen these outlandish claims cable manufacturers make. What are you guys talking about? Can someone do me a solid and post some of them. "A note of caution. Moving a cable will, to some degree, traumatize it." I am not sure if it would be accepted as outlandish, but bizarre or silly it is. Note: Above statements are from an article provided as a reference two days ago by........geoffkait. |
They may not be outlandish. They may be just right in Neverland or any other fantasy land. For normal living people, they are a sad joke. Relax your room, you will feel better. So will your cable. Nervous rooms and traumatized cables are a big problem in Hi-Fi. It is not all I got. I use your references so you can easily find it yourself, too. |
Eloquence and logic are not mutually exclusive. In fact, eloquence is ability to present logical thinking in a better and, often, easier-to understand, way. I think you are confusing magicians, con artists, swindlers, hustlers, little neighborhood crooks, and a few more with the skill and gift that eloquence actually is. You seem to think that anything that is laid out nicely must be there to get you somehow. It is not always the case. It really is not. Just like the truth which can also be pretty. How did lawyers' personality characteristics end up here? |
Over time on this thread, so-called "non-believers" have been asking for explanations grounded in science and rational thinking. The other ones, "believers", have been annoyed by that and frequently resorted to "you have to believe" and "there is more science that you just do not understand" or similar answers. That would make both of those groups mentioned in one of the above posts actually one and that would be "non-believers". |
andy2, That is unfortunate. I have been lucky to have met different ones. Maybe it does help that I grew up with a few of them so I am biased. You are basically implying that "non-believers" are not honorable people. It brings a conclusion that they are not honorable because they disagree with you or things you claim. Vatican is more open-minded than that. |
andy2, I see that you are bitter, but do not let it get the best of you. I am not sure what your definition of "technical people" would be, but you are making a very generalized statement about people you have never met nor you know anything about. You are on a slippery terrain with that and risk discrediting yourself and your technical explanations. There have been at least two posters over the last few days who clearly showed, without much arrogance, that they do handle technical terms and concepts quite well. The claim that "non-believers" are non-honorable is probably not worth honoring with further response. |
They use the word "honor" as a tool but they themselves don't actually know the meaning of the word... Could you elaborate on that one? Not only how they manage to use something they do not know at all, but how they use it as a tool. Tool for what? Not to mention that your definition of "honor" would be helpful in this. |
andy2, Add Ms. Kate Upton to the list of people you unintentionally offended. Not that she will ever know, but in theory. I have been trying to decipher your post that contained her name. It is really not that easy. It appears that most of us have different idea about the meaning of word "truth" than you do. "Truth" simply did not fit in there so I tried to substitute it with "true". No luck, still did not fit. I am sure that your intention was to present the truth in that post but were unsuccessful. You see, if you did not have such a negative view of eloquence and allowed yourself the option of presenting the truth eloquently, we could have understood. Speaking of cable burn-in, don’t you just love it? It makes the world go around. |
Is air burning? I am burning-in cables right now with some Internet radio from far away. That helps as the signal collects more energy going under the ocean. Electric eel make wonders. I already hear much more rounded middle of the vocal mids in female singers. A few more years, and male voices will start getting shape. |