stevecham
And, what the heck do FUSES have to do with SPEAKER CABLES anyway? The direction the wire was pulled? In any of these studies was the resistance correlated with direction of wire pull? I thought so.
>>>>>You need to pay more careful attention, sir. These questions have already been addressed.
|
glupson
"..obviously the listening tests were done by folks who weren’t hearing impaired."
It is not obvious at all. We are still waiting to find out who those people were and how they did it. For the initial simplicity, we can assume they were not hearing impaired although the solidity of that assumption is not that great.
"And the results correlated with wire direction. I.e., they weren’t random."
What results? Whose results? When and where results?
"There is no operator error when 80,000 hear it."
Which 80 000? Where did that number come from and how was the study conducted on such a large number?
Even if all 80 000 exist, your favorite reference might suggest the possibility for a multiple-operator error.
>>>>God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. Wake up and smell the coffee. ☕️ I guess you didn’t realize I’m an audio insider. You’re obviously an audio outsider. |
No, they don’t exist, glubby. It’s all some kind of weird dream I made up. What’s the difference?
|
I always thought you were the wannabe, glubson. Maybe you’re projecting.
|
The inside is out, the outside is in. Good luck in your quest for mediocrity. |
Glubson, if you’re trying to convince me you are rather slow witted you’re doing an excellent job. People have asked me those questions many times. Let your fingers do the walking. Never smarten up a chump. Snap out of it!
|
stevesham
Ah, again, the process of belief trumps all, always, every time and then some.
Keep believing the nonsense and you will hear whatever you want to hear.
But, it’s not science. Never was and never will be.
>>>It certainly appears you’ve psyched yourself out, sir. You are deluded that you have some sort of mind over matter ability. Take two placebos and see me in the morning. I’ll be the judge of what’s science, if you don’t mind. I don’t know what a lot of people use the expression our understanding of science, as if we all have the same knowledge. Besides even knowledgeable scientists can disagree. You don’t think they’re all cookie cutouts, do you?
|
Give me a break. Harry Pearson didn’t know anything about science or about was or wasn’t possible. He was an English major. He was a nice guy, though. |
|
If a 🐷 had wings he wouldn’t bump his 🍑 so much. |
I have a strong sense someone is humping my leg. Oh, it’s only glubson.
|
Some drink from the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle. |
glubson, don’t eat the yellow snow. I’m only trying to help.
|
That’s what I like to call the Backfire Effect. It can work both ways but usually occurs with skeptics who have pretty much made up their minds on a particular subject but who may create arguments that make it seem like they have an open mind. The Backfire Effect occurs when a skeptic is faced with contradictory evidence, perhaps even a barrage of contradictions. Rather than weight the evidence the skeptic holds his beliefs even more strongly. Plus they’d rather fight than switch. 🤼♂️
|
glubson, yes, you would be interested in blah, blah but I don’t see you rolling your sleeves up yourself. Oh, I almost forgot. You’re a member in good standing of the peanut gallery. You may continue pontificating.
|
Speaking for myself I could give a rat’s behind if anyone doubts cable break-in is real or not. Get real! Live and let die.
|
maritime51
If people never asked for proof of scientific hypotheses we’d have gotten nowhere.
Oh, we got Somewhere? Where’s that, Joy Boy?
|
I hate to judge too hastily but it appears glubson has completely psyched himself out. Oh, the humanity!
|
glupson
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.
>>>>>Gosh, glubson, you must be the unluckiest guy in the whole wide world. A few experiments for man, one giant step backward for mankind. 👨🚀 Have you considered maybe getting another hobby. Macrame, perhaps, or stamp collecting. |
|
You’ll have to forgive glubson. I squeezed his head again. Cleanup on aisle 3.
|
Anyone who has to resort to Wikipedia to find out who Kate Upton is must be living in a cave somewhere. Glubson, you need to get out more. |
|
mitch2
“Burn in is experienced by many people.”
The placebo effect or expectancy effect is also experienced by many people.
>>>>>Yeah, right. You know this how? Are you psychic? Did you text them?
|
mitch2
Geoff, “You know this how?”
Know which?
1. Burn in is experienced by many people. as reported by @blueranger or
2. Expectancy effect is experienced by many people.
>>>>Both.
Which of those statements is more likely to have come from a psychic?
>>>>Both.
Can you be sure I have not been texting with the 80,000 you claim to "hear it"?
>>>>I’m an audio insider and you’re not.
|
|
Gosh, I thought everyone would like that Cardas article. Color me embarrassed. 😳
|
no2headphones
As to the opposing view on the mysterious and magical process of speaker wire burn-in, no such data exists and the idea has been debunked countless times. One doesn’t have to look hard at all to find the proof of this.
>>>>Interesting. Can you provide the proof that burn-in doesn’t exist? Share, share!
|
I hear the hardest part about flying big buses is trying to stay awake. Is that true? Also, is it true you’re required to wear Mickey Mouse ears when you fly? |
I see you were unable to provide any proof that burn-in doesn’t exist. Just as I expected. All that stuff you just posted is unsubstantiated jibber jabber.
|
Breaking News! This just in from Galen Carol Audio.
“Cables: Most all cable manufacturers agree that break-in is a result of changes in the conductor and/or dielectric. According to one manufacturer: "The insulation (or dielectric) will absorb energy from the conductor when a current is flowing (i.e. when music is playing). This energy-absorption causes the dielectric’s molecules to re-arrange themselves from a random order into a uniform order. When the molecules have been rearranged, the dielectric will absorb less energy & consequently cause less distortion."
Cardas has, for years, included a Cable Break-in Guide with their cables. In it they state: "All cables need a break-in and warm-up period. Better cables require longer break-in. With all cables, the more you play them and the less you move them, the better they will sound." The unique geometry of Cardas cables require that "...the strands be of equal tension... Current flowing through the cable during break-in, and each warm-up period, will relax the structure of the strands."
Another prominent cable designer believes that during the break-in process electrons are establishing new micro pathways through the conductor material. changes in the conductor is the primary reason for the improvement realized through break-in. They believe that most of the signal travels across the surface of the conductor. Viewed under a microscope the surface that appears smooth to the naked eye is really a series of peaks and valleys. The irregular surface forces electrons along a circuitous path to their destination. When a cable is bent or twisted, new tears and fissures form, disrupting existing pathways and requiring new ones to be formed. This explanation lends credence to reports that cables need to be re-conditioned (after) being handled. I’ve seen this in a very real way.”
|
Can you provide any evidence to support that statement? |
2noheadphones,
I can interpret for myself who is spewing jibber jabber and who isn’t. I suspect this is a simple case of you have been following the wrong sheep. Your big hero, Roger Russell, doesn’t know anything.
How about them tomatoes? |
It’s refreshing to see someone else fall into glubson’s trap of endless back and forth bloviation. |
Ganainmanm
We say our thing, get flamed,and more or less go away, although I think it is probably a good thing so those who (correctly) thought they know a little about science and engineering can realize MANY other well educated people understand a crock of marketing silliness is indeed just that. But be sure GK can at least outlast us since his whole being is in it and seems to have nothing better to do. Peace out.
>>>>I see you came back for some more abuse. There are apparently two kinds of audiophiles. The kind that likes being kicked in the head. And the kind that enjoys doing the kicking. Knowledge is what’s left after you subtract out all the stuff you forgot from school. You may have been well educated but that was a long time ago. In fact, now that you mention it, I’m not sure I’d call engineers in general well educated. But that’s for another discussion.
|
I hate to judge before all the facts are in but it appears the bobbyd38 dude hasn’t been paying very close attention to how this thread has developed. Hint: we’re off the copper thinggie. We’re onto the dielectric thinggie now. |
Stop the presses!! Audioquest explains cable burn in. And guess what? It’s not really rocket science. 🚀
“A highly misunderstood area of cable performance is the subject of cable run-in, sometimes (inaccurately) referred to as “break-in.” “Break-in” properly applies to one-way mechanical phenomena, such as a motor or a loudspeaker surround. Cables and capacitors do not “break-in”, rather their “dielectric forms,” meaning that it takes time for the dielectric material to adapt to a charged state.
This process is quite audible and explains the signi cant improvement heard in electronics, loudspeakers and cables as signal is applied over a period of time. It has long been noted that cables (and all audio com- ponents) sound better after having been left turned-on for a number of days. It has also been noted that once turned off, the component or cable slowly returns to its original uncharged state. For many music lov- ers, this means that they are almost never hearing their cables in their optimum state.”
|
Devil’s advocates, those who are posting as supposedly objective viewers who are inept can serve no purpose in these kinds of discussions. They are simply stirring the pot. We all know what that’s called. The unmentionable. Oh, no!
|
bobbyd3
Hey geoffkait,
Since you’re on the Dielectric thingie now, maybe it would help if you knew the Definition if the term?
di·e·lec·tric/ˌdīəˈlektrik/PHYSICSadjectiveadjective: dielectric
1. having the property of transmitting electric force without conduction; insulating.
nounnoun: dielectric; plural noun: dielectrics
1. a medium or substance that transmits electric force without conduction; an insulator.
Capacitors use Dielectric material that blocks DC (Direct Current), and passes Alternating Current (AC), also known as Audio Electrical signals. There IS NO Dielectric material in Copper Speaker Cables, so I really don’t follow your point? But please keep believing all the Bullshit that Cable companies, and Their Advertisers spew to get Suckers to buy there $200/Ft Speaker Cable! “A fool and his money are soon parted”
>>>>>Bobby, you’re pulling my leg, right? Of course copper speaker cables have dielectric material. What planet are you from? Didn’t you read any of the burn in articles I posted? Let me guess, you don’t read explanations because your mind is closed, right?
|
Or maybe, just maybe, he’s as inept as you are. Oddly, perhaps, the ones with no conflict of interest do not seem to know anything about it. Just an observation.
|
Cables should always wear their winter jackets when going out in the cold. |
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. I want to viddy them with my own eyes 👀 Share! Share!
|
I’m pretty sure opinion is admissible in court. Some opinion is more “expert” than others, that’s all. That’s why, in the case of judges or lawyers’ opinions, they’re called legal opinions. Anyway, that’s my opinion. 😳
|
blueranger
I think the nonbelievers are overlooking the circumstantial evidence of the vast numbers of listeners that can tell a difference and the cable manufacturers that spend untold thousands of careful listening hours to perfect their products while listening to burn in.. In a court of law would this prove burn in is not a fallacy but true? Known science would be taken into consideration.
>>>>>I hate to judge too quickly but my sense is that naysayers aren’t really interested in evidence. Whoa! Did I just say that?! 😳
|
Those are not outlandish claims. Well, maybe to an inept person, but even then. Is that all you got? 😬
|
I was unaware huffing and puffing was an acceptable form of debate. Live and learn 🧠🍳
|
I actually don’t think the so called non believers care one way or the other. They simply like to argue. It’s what non believers do. They like to get a reaction. It’s so obvious. When viewed as simply a whack-a-mole game, there really isn’t any harm in that. You can’t do anything about it, anyway. Relax and enjoy. 😛 |
Whoa! What the heck is this, an ear trumpeter convention? Huh? What’s that ya say, Sonny?
|
Hey, you’re the one with the ear-brain problem, Sky King.
|
I swear I did not squeeze his head that time. His brain must be on auto pilot. 👨🏻✈️ 🚌
|
