Do speaker cables need a burn in period?

blueranger
Hey here is something to think about. All the naysayers need to think about what lays beyond known physics. The unknown. People are hearing differences and the current testing equipment cannot pick up on the differences. AB testing is a farce. You have to evaluate for long periods of time to notice the small differences.

>>>Actually, neither burn in or wire directionality disobeys any known laws of physics. So, you can forget about what might or might not happen in the future. It’s irrelevant. 

Once one wraps their head around the perfectly acceptable concept of our hearing being better than a measurement (more exacting, differentiating, etc.)

Why accept something untrue?

Or, at least, we have to separate the untrue implications from the true implications in such a statement.

We have tools that measure the presence of frequencies you can not hear, and levels of distortion you can not hear. Why do you think we develop a huge number of measuring tools in the first place if our senses, including our hearing, were sufficient????

How is that x-ray vision of yours going?

Measurements only take you so far.

Agreed. Ultimately the point of any audio product lies in what we humans actually hear from that product. A good understanding of measurements and of human hearing can to a degree predict the sound
one might hear from, say, a pair of speakers. But given all the complexities involved, and some of the unknowns, perfect prediction escapes us. So we can always be surprised. That’s why anyone should listen to whatever audio gear they produce, to make sure they didn’t go wrong somewhere in the design.

I’ve used Devore 0 speakers as an example a number of times for this: they’ve been attacked by some audiophiles/DIYers and speaker designers as "doing things wrong that are likely to produce bad sound" and yet when I and many others actually listen to them, I find the claims overblown in terms of actual results and I love the sound of the Devores.

But "it’s hard to sometimes predict results purely on measurements" is an entirely different thing than claims like "our ears are better/more sensitive than instruments." It really depends on what you are claiming to be able to hear. And on what grounds.

To simply pooh-pooh such statements as "tested by ear" betrays a dogmatically and hermetically sealed mindset.

No, it’s an eyes-open LACK of dogmatism, where we admit to the fallibility of our senses. It is rather dogmatism to cling to the idea that your perception is infallible, or a golden standard unsullied by the (well known) problems of bias and error.

Imagine you went to your doctor with a sore throat. The doctor says "Well, obviously you have cancer of the throat!"

You ask "why?"

The doctor says: "Because throat cancer can cause sore throats."

And you say" But...can’t many other things cause sore throats, like maybe I have a cold or a flu? Shouldn’t you show me how you have ruled out those other causes"

Doctor: How DARE you be so dogmatic as to question my diagnosis!

Now...who is actually being dogmatic there? It’s not the person who is acknowledging the variables involved, and that the doctor’s claim doesn’t seem to have taken those variables seriously enough, when deciding he can’t be in error.

It is just as strange and mixed up to try to portray someone who is pointing to the simple fact that your method is ignoring existing variables, and why you seem to have unwarranted confidence, as if the person raising these cautions is the "dogmatist." It’s literally got things the wrong way around.

@prof
" Using my current Thiel 2.7 speakers this is true, but it was eve more true with my bigger 3.7 speakers. I could go to my friend’s place, listen to a system using $50,000 of Nordost cable and come home to bass reproduction that easily surpassed that system. When over the past couple years I auditioned a large variety of speakers, in systems using many of the top high end cable brands we could name, every time I came home and played the same bass torture tracks on my system, it distinguished itself in how controlled, beautifully pitched and even holographically placed the bass could appear. "

And surely you have ample measurements to absolutely and fully prove all those assertions beyond the shadow of any doubt ( really looking forward to seeing the measurements that define just how holographically placed the bass really is ). Or are we going to have to trust hearsay based on information drawn from listening experiences using your, uhhhh, ears ?

And one more little thing, is it just me or is anyone else detecting the acrid smell of burning hypocrite suddenly wafting through this thread, though it could well be that three day old burrito I had for lunch, I mean it looked OK....but you never know eh....

OK....silliness aside for a moment ( and frankly this is at root just foolish fun eh ). Are you going to the Toronto Audio Fest ? We will be sharing a room with Charisma Audio. Would really love it if you dropped in and said hi, seriously ( but please don’t tell me you are a Leaf fan....there are some bridges that are simply too far ).

There are two impartial listeners as a beta tester for GroverHuffman cables.  One is his wife and one is my wife, who doesn't care at all what wire is used or scientific analysis of it.  They only compare wire as to whether they hear a difference and whether they prefer/like it or not/dislike/hate.  

Cable burn-in is a must prior to our testing.  As I have previously emphatically stated, we have tried brand newly made I/C and speaker cables against cables with at least 24 hour burn-in through use.  A/C cables are subjected to connection to refrigerators for several days to a week prior to testing.   So, when we hear very significant differences between the new cables and burned-in cables, we are not "out of our minds" or "foolish" or "wishing it so."   As I also previously stated, low end cables such as Monster cable, Home Depot cable and Blue Jean cable that I've heard, do not burn-in with a significance.  I couldn't tell the difference either between them new or with 100 hours on them.  Their resolution just doesn't allow it.  

Sure, some of you posters say all cable sounds basically the same.  Funny how friends and acquaintances who frequent my music room don't want to leave because they are entranced by the sound of the music as much as the music itself.  I say acquaintances because we host Toastmaster speechathons at our home with guests and guest speakers who don't know me or anything about audio equipment.

So, if the posters have either inferior audio systems, inferior acoustic environments, or inferior cabling, it is likely that there is no apparent burn-in of cabling.   As to directionality, my cabling is only made directional after usage for a significant period.  It is not made directional except for phono use (grounding). 

taras22,

And surely you have ample measurements to absolutely and fully prove all those assertions beyond the shadow of any doubt. Or are we going to have to trust hearsay based on information drawn from listening experiences using your, uhhhh, ears ?

Which is, as usual, drawn from a mischaracterization of my arguments.

I have been voicing reasons for skepticism when it comes to *controversial* claims about audibility - controversial in the sense they do not form a part of generally accepted, well established phenomena.  Claims that remain controversial among the relevant experts (e.g. I've seen many EEs say why the technical claims made by audiophiles or expensive cable companies are nonsense), and where the explanations are dubious, and the evidence almost purely anecdotal.

Claims like cable burn-in, and even the purported sonic advantages often claimed by manufacturers and users of expensive cables, fall in to that category.

That's different from the gross differences in sound well known to be audible, credible both in terms of technical explanation, what we know of human hearing, and what is reliable via our experience.

So, for instance, the audibility of sonic difference between various musical instruments would easily fall in to those categories.  The harmonic/distortion profiles of different instruments is measurable, and falls well within the realm understood as audible to humans.  And we reliably detect these differences all the time.

There will be gross physical, audible differences in the audio profile produced by, say, a Fender bass vs an acoustic stand up bass.  

It's not remotely controversial that we can capture and reproduce these audible differences in the recording/playback system.  Nobody is mistaking Paul Chambers' double bass at the beginning of Kind Of Blue for Geddy Lee playing his electric Rickenbacker bass, and for good reasons.  

That goes for a whole host of audible characteristics that occur between different bass instruments, the way they are played, the audible effects of how they were recorded, placed in the soundstage, eq'd, mastered, etc.  All of those differentiating factors exist well within non-controversial, known realms of audibility.  

Then there are all the audible influences that can be measured in terms of eq, room effects that cause "bloat" or "overhang," and various measurable phenomena  that can interfere with bass signals, produce the subjective perception of homogenizing bass - "one note bass" - etc.
These are all within the realm of what we know to be audible artifacts.

THEREFORE we have an entirely plausible case to stand on when we are discerning between different instruments on a playback system, between different bass instruments, between bass instruments recorded differently, between the qualities we can describe etc.

So...no...your "gotcha" relies on a naive look at the problem, not on some internal contradiction or fault in what I've been writing on here.

I recently bought  a Pass Lab XP10 and initially it sounds quite unacceptable to be honest.  But after a couple of weeks, it's a lot more like it.  I was able to measure the soundstage width and it's definitely wider after burn in. 

Claims that remain controversial among the relevant experts (e.g. I've seen many EEs say why the technical claims made by audiophiles or expensive cable companies are nonsense), and where the explanations are dubious, and the evidence almost purely anecdotal.

Just because somebody made claims you found dubious, does not mean the principal behind it is not true.  I think you should stop attacking cable companies and read a bit more about electrical engineering.  You know like doing something constructive.

@prof
So short answer, no measurements. I’m simply crushed.

So we have to rely on the dreaded anecdotal.

This is fast becoming an audio version of "Groundhogs Day".

I've posted something like this before but it bears repeating:https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

Here's an prime example of what our ears can do that an instrument can't. A complex signal is sent but it's our ears that differentiate the information. Measurements can't do that on the fly: they have to deconstruct the signal to analyze it.

In that respect, yes, instruments are more exacting than our hearing but our ear/brain relationship can give hoot because they've already heard and deciphered it. That signal can only be measured in a gross manner if put on an equal time footing as our ears.

So it is with cables. We listen, on the fly, analyze instantly, and enjoy.
Or not. It's our ears that are the final arbiter, and it's cables that can limit it.

All the best,
Nonoise

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

Like I said, human ears are basically transducers like any other sensors but apparently better.  And a human brain is the most complex machine by far than anything human has made.
Apparently prof don't trust brain but would defer to some ineptitude machine.

Claims that remain controversial among the relevant experts (e.g. I’ve seen many EEs say why the technical claims made by audiophiles or expensive cable companies are nonsense), and where the explanations are dubious, and the evidence almost purely anecdotal.

>>>Two things, professor, claiming that many EEs say technical claims made by audiophiles or cable companies are dubious is not only second hand evidence but it’s also, you guessed it! an Appeal to Authority. What about the many EEs who say the claims are not (rpt not) dubious? You’re just going to ignore those, right? Furthermore, anecdotal evidence is still evidence. It is in fact empirical evidence. Hel-loo! Sorry, professor, care to try again?

Imagine you went to your doctor with a sore throat. The doctor says "Well, obviously you have cancer of the throat!"

You ask "why?"

The doctor says: "Because throat cancer can cause sore throats."

And you say" But...can’t many other things cause sore throats, like maybe I have a cold or a flu? Shouldn’t you show me how you have ruled out those other causes"

Doctor: How DARE you be so dogmatic as to question my diagnosis!

prof, have you lost it? 

Do any of the nasayers believe in equipment break in? Tube break in? Speaker break in? 

Cables - no break in
Tubes - once warm, no burn/break in; they just degrade over time from day one and sound best when new. "Burn in" for a day or so is best used to determine that the tube is stable and not about to fail.
Speakers - yes; they are motors and some of the materials that flex need to break covalent bonds to perform optimally
Cartridges - same as for speakers
Turntables - yes, motor/platter bearings need to wear the metal surfaces over time to reduce micro-machined irregularities
Electronics (DACs, preamps, amps, CD players) - no, (except for the CD motors, sled and rotational) but the electronics do need warm up to function optimally.
People ear/brain system - yes, the biggest single audio component that is the most variable of the recorded/playback/listening experience. More "brain burn in" is always a good thing. No wonder many sip the etoh or smoke/vape the herb while listening.

Steve. There are wires in all the devices you stated. You might want to consider that  part of the break  you are hearing is in the wires! 

More "brain burn in" is always a good thing. No wonder many sip the etoh or smoke/vape the herb while listening.

Looks like someone still behind the time.  This has been talked over again and again.  Manufacturers have lots of components that they can compare side by side, some old some brand new, so there is no need to resort to "brain burn in" argument.

taras22,

Thanks for the invite.  I might be at the Toronto show (hope to go).

No worries, I'm not a leafs fan (not a hockey fan - I'm a bad Canadian that way).   Oh, and I don't take any of these discussions seriously in terms of personalities or holding any animosity at all.  Nothing on an audio discussion forum is worth that. 

Cheers!

blueranger,

Do any of the nasayers believe in equipment break in? Tube break in? Speaker break in?

To be clear: I'm not a "naysayer" in the sense I claim cable burn in doesn't happen.  I've just found the arguments I encounter FOR it aren't very convincing.  As well,  I've never heard any equipment I've ever bought, cables or otherwise, "burn in."  Doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

As for burn-in of tubes:  I don't know.  (I actually have a brand new pair of tubes I'm going to be putting in my CJ pre-amp.  Unfortunately, even in as a casual test of burned in vs non-burned in tubes, it wouldn't work in my situation.  The reason I'm replacing my tubes in the first place is that the old ones have become more noisy, hiss coming through my speakers, so there ought to be an obvious change when I put in the new ones. I hope there is!)

Burn in of speakers:  Much more plausible than what's been offered for cables.   But there seems very, very little hard data on the subject.  And analysis by the people who have tried measuring speaker burn in - e.g. drivers burning in - generally seem to point out if it happens the audible results would tend to be very subtle, and that any likely audible difference in break in happens fairly quickly, vs the hundreds of hours one often hears about in high end audio.

Burn in of speakers: Much more plausible than what's been offered for cables.

Just go to : www.diy.com and you'll see people measure speakers drivers and they changed after burn in.  

stevecharm - What makes you such an expert?  I've been a beta tester for cables for two decades and have had at my disposal a dozen major manufacturers cables to compare.  You are correct only if comparing cables which do not have great resolution-I couldn't tell if they burned-in or not. 

Well made, high resolution cables, burn-in at different rates depending on the materials and design.  The high resolution IC cables I've tested take a minimum of 24 hours, A/C and speaker cables longer.  I've already stated that I've compared many cables new to cables with 24 hours to one week use on them and concluded there is a DEFINITE, SIGNIFICANT difference in high end cables before and after burn-in.  

What cables, stevecharm, have you tested before and after use, to make the profound claim that cable burn-in does not exist?   

What I have experienced is when you put the new cables you will notice that your amp runs cool some days and warm some days as the cable burns in but once it is properly settled and burned you will notice the music is free flowing and your amps do not run as warm as they did while burn in and stays at normal temperature

It is all nonsense. Snake oil."I believe that I saw Jesus on a slide of bread; therefore, it most be true".

 For most people, instead of learning and understanding science they choose to follow the blind, and have a justification to their foolish (ego trip) quests to brag about their latest piece of equipment. It is mostly about the hardware specs rather than the music.

Take for example " No one actually knows how to calculate (misspelled Iculate) what speaker cable they need" by b4icu. so much diatribe. 
To the OP @gawdbless, take some time and read @MorgIII  link in the discussion: http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm
You will learn something there. 

robert_17 posts10-05-2018 3:27pm

It is all nonsense. Snake oil ... For most people, instead of learning and understanding science they choose to follow the blind ...

Actually I think most people here listen for themselves, rather than follow anybody.

Have you listened? What did you hear?

@ cleeds: I hear nonsense here.

For most people, instead of learning and understanding science they choose to follow the blind, and have a justification to their foolish (ego trip) quests to brag about their latest piece of equipment. It is mostly about the hardware specs rather than the music.

Well said.  

Roger Russell? Oh, please! Let sleeping dogs 🐕 lie.

“I saw Jesus on a slide of bread.”

I wouldn’t criticize anyone’s spelling if I were you, partner. 🤠

I wasn't criticizing his spelling. I was making sure people knew witch tread i was referring to. We all type/hit the wrong keys all the time. It is understood.

robert_1,

 For most people, instead of learning and understanding science they choose to follow the blind, and have a justification to their foolish (ego trip) quests to brag about their latest piece of equipment. It is mostly about the hardware specs rather than the music.

I don't see it that way, and it's always dicey trying to ascribe motivations to other people.  Especially when it comes to people's views we don't agree with, we tend to get that wrong giving it the worst spin possible.

My impression, not trying to read anyone's mind, is that people buying expensive cables etc are just as honest and motivated by a passion for music/sound/gear as anyone else.   They are just relying on a certain method of moving through that space.  (And one I tend to use as well - listening, trying things out).

I really don't see this rampant "I just want to buy this expensive cable/gear to show off how much it costs" thing happening, at least not in enthusiast forums like this where it seems clear to me we all share enthusiasm for music, sound and the buzz we get from our systems.

Reminder, when someone accuses people of not learning science nine times out of ten he’s an English major. 

“Only quote facts.”

Cables do make a big difference.  If cables don't make a difference in your system, your system is not good enough.

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

Don’t fret, there’s always the chance it’s just your hearing. When’s the last time you had your ears candled? 🕯

flashlier: "What cables, stevecharm, have you tested before and after use, to make the profound claim that cable burn-in does not exist?"

Audioquest, Synergistic, van den Hul, Anticables, Mapleshade, Harmonic Technologies, Tara Labs and most recently Blue Jeans (which are Belden).

No such thing as speaker cable burn in. I’ve been listening to, buying, selling and researching this for about 30 years now. I wanted to believe it, I tried to believe it, but it’s simply a matter of neuroscience, and the power and process of belief. There is no quantitative, measurable physics associated with this. Dielectric formation over time, in a speaker cable?, bah, humbug! It’s the "dielectrics" in your brain!

djones51,

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

I feel your pain.

Drat, someone on an audio forum has declared that if I don’t perceive obvious differences between cables, my system isn’t good enough. What will I do????

I’ve been stuck with junk from Thiel - like Thiel’s last flagship 3.7 speaker that review after review mistakenly took to be world-class in resolution - as well as MBL radialstrahler speakers ( How do they get away with those prices for such a low resolution speaker, let alone fool people like the Absolute Sound who rated the tweeter among the world’s best for many years!), various Audio Physic speakers (if only those speakers could render "detail," they could maybe Audio Physic make a slogan out of it!), Quads, Conrad Johnson amps, Benchmark DACs, Transrotor turntable, Benz Micro ebony cartridge....

And still my system isn’t "good enough." 

I’ll just have to suffer along with this crap.

(It’s ok everyone, no need to raise a finger to your keyboard, I’ll do it for you: "then your ears aren’t good enough." Damn, time to give up my job in sound post production I guess...)

My brain isn't good enough.

I’ve been stuck with junk from Thiel - like Thiel’s last flagship 3.7 speaker that review after review mistakenly took to be world-class in resolution - as well as MBL radialstrahler speakers ( How do they get away with those prices for such a low resolution speaker, let alone fool people like the Absolute Sound who rated the tweeter among the world’s best for many years!), various Audio Physic speakers (if only those speakers could render "detail," they could maybe Audio Physic make a slogan out of it!), Quads, Conrad Johnson amps, Benchmark DACs, Transrotor turntable, Benz Micro ebony cartridge....

I just got a pair of Acoustic Zen Hologram II speaker cables and the difference is night and day. Yes, and I am using Thiel CS2.4.

Andy,

If your system is so unstable that it alters sound when you change cables, maybe it's not good enough.

;-)

prof,

sarcasm probably not your best.  stick with philosophy.

This post is stalemate. We each have passionate beliefs in the ways our stereos sound. The equipment changes and tweeks we believe or don't believe in. Lets keep ourselves in check me included. We seem to have 2 camps here. The metaphysical and the scientific. Until we have testing equipment that can test things outside the reach of science right now, only our opinions can be our reasoning. Does science know all about the behavior of atoms and electrons? I don't think tbere is a physicist, electrical engineer or researcher that would bet their life on it. Oh well the discussion goes on

blueranger
Does science know all about the behavior of atoms and electrons? I don't think tbere is a physicist, electrical engineer or researcher that would bet their life on it. Oh well the discussion goes on.

>>>>Science is not a person so it doesn’t know anything. Scientists are not all the same, some know more about atoms and electrons than others. One thing you can bet your life on is that atom physics and particle physics are *very* mature sciences. So, even if you personally don’t know the answer someone does, sure as shootin’. 

One thing you can bet your life on is that atom physics and particle physics are *very* mature sciences.

"mature" is a relative term.  One cannot be so arrogant to claim human has known everything about nature.  Quantum physics is not the final words.  For example, dark matter and dark energy : nobody knows anything about it and they comprise about 90% of the universe.  One has to be humble what one knows and what one does not know.

Hey, whatever you’re comfortable with. 😛

The metaphysical and the scientific. Until we have testing equipment that can test things outside the reach of science right now, only our opinions can be our reasoning. Does science know all about the behavior of atoms and electrons? I don't think tbere is a physicist, electrical engineer or researcher that would bet their life on it. Oh well the discussion goes on

^^^ I think there is a member here who sells cables tailor made for this gentleman :)

Every component in the ac- or signal path will need moore or less of a burn/break-in. some components in the signal-path like condencers might need a long period, while a powercable gets it`s massage a lot faster.

Speakercables are somewhere between, it will depend a lot on how much power you give them. And if they are worth your time. A poor sounding cable will stay poor.  One hour of serious abuse is enough to get their character.

“One hour of serious abuse is enough to get their character.”

Lost in translation?  Wrong forum?  🙀😱🤔👀🔚

So Geoff, what exactly is the physical characteristic that is granted to wire due to being pulled through a die that accounts for electrical directionality?

That’s the wrong question. The correct question is, why is directionality so audible when the difference in resistance is so small one direction vs the other? I don’t think anyone really knows. Physically, in microscope photos, there does appear to be non symmetrical distortion of the wire crystal structure caused by being pulled through the die. 

I disagree. It’s the right question because electricity is not mumbo jumbo and there must be a physical characteristic that accounts for it. By avoiding the question and calling it wrong (there are no wrong questions, only wrong answers!) you admit there is no such thing as directionality.

What do you mean by resistance in one direction is different from the other? Do you mean a reproducible difference in resistance as measured but is within the noise parameters of an Ohmeter? Because if we’re talking thousanths of an Ohm, that’s noise. For single crystal wire, there are very few breaks in the structure along the length of cable that would significantly contribute to DC based resistance, if it does exist at all. For AC, directionality goes both ways. In my research, I can’t seem to find any evidence for directional resistance effects. In microphotographs, is one able to tell the direction the wire was pulled? I’m asking these questions because it’s about time we get to the bottom of things and stop the handwaving and deception.

Whoa! Hey, chill, I just explained why *electrically* there’s a difference. Do I have to draw you a picture?

Do you mean a reproducible difference in resistance as measured but is within the noise parameters of an Ohmeter? Because if we’re talking thousanths of an Ohm, that’s noise.

A good DMM can measure DC resistance down to nano-Ohm.