Do speaker cables need a burn in period?

But andy2 you have used language to offend unless in your universe no female lawyers exist. 

I guess my system is junk. Oh well life goes on. 

Interesting ancedote tarras22 or is it Steve Stone? At any rate the best thing about that test is it points out what  the objectivist admits we all have biases and can be as dogmatic as anyone else which is why the objectivist argues for  blind testing and replicability. In the case of this thread I freely admit I would probably not be a good test subject on whether a lenght of wire used for x number of hours sounds better or different than a new lenght of wire. The notion to me is preposterous. 

The opinion of a vast number of listeners , pro or con, doesn't rise to the level of circumstantial evidence.  It seems to be on audio forums and popular TV shows  but not in court. Opinions are not admisible as circumstantial evidence in court unless they are given by credtialed experts. This notion

"the vast numbers of listeners that can tell a difference and the cable manufacturers that spend untold thousands of careful listening hours"

is circumstantial evidence in  court  is wrong,  it's opinion and would not be admissible. 

The question was
"In a court of law would this prove burn in is not a fallacy but true?"
The answer is no it's not even circumstantial evidence. 

In a court case that would consider what is being claimed here  circumstantial evidence would be admissible from experts not from every Joe that claims he hears a difference. For every Joe you get who claims he hears a difference there is a Joe who claims he doesn't. Good luck finding enough experts on wire, i.e. scientists without a vested interest, independent experts not cable manufacturing shills, to support the notion wire changes over time due to the amount of energy passed from an audio signal. Cable manufactures can make their case to support their marketing claims using their experts but that's not the same thing and wouldn't prove anything. It is enough to keep them from being sued for some of the outlandish claims made since it's understood to be subjective opinion not an objective fact. 

No, My opinion on whether wire burns in would not be admissible, a scientist opinion  who has tested and studied the phenomena and provide supporting evidence for his opinion  would be. That would be admissible circumstantial evidence. 

Ok does anyone understand the point of andy2 last post? If so please translate. Thanks. 

Actually that explains it fairly well. Thanks

So the thread has been reduced to denegrating women as illogical frustrating creatures. Where would one find evidence to support this supposed "rational scientific" opinion? Do we have another court case here built on circumstantial evidence? I am sure we could find " vast numbers" of people we can call as expert witnesses. 

I took a hearing test a few months ago. Science did a pretty good job of showing me what I couldn't hear. Those crazy scientists have really come a long way since phrenology and bloodletting. 

Can I only use the original silly putty or can I use some of the newer glow in the dark types? If I mix it with graphene will it work better? Graphene seems to make everything audio better? 

Well that answers that, burn in like God is all in your head.