In the famous HiFi Tuning measurements of electrical characteristics of fuses of many brands including stock fuses, the lower resistance direction was always consistent with the direction that sounded the best, both for DC circuits and AC circuits. But as noted on the HiFi Tuning data sheets, the rather small differences measured did not account for the relatively significant differences heard in listening tests of “directionality.” And as fate would have it that’s how directionality can be controlled, by controlling the manufacturing process starting with the wire as it comes off the final die. I.e., it’s predictable. Hel-loo!
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?
1,164 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
I believe the "famous" measurements referenced by Geoff are from the paper linked below; http://www.hifi-tuning.com/pdf/wlfr.eng.pdf For an even more enthusiastic testimonial about audible improvements, refer to the Positive Feedback Issue 51 article by Myles B. Astor; https://positive-feedback.com/Issue51/hifi_tuning.htm Draw your own conclusions. |
None of those numbers in that first set of data for FUSE direction 1 vs. 2 are qualifed as statistically significant. We’re talking differences in microOhm and there should be at least three measurements per trial so that a standard deviation is calculated. But of course, a single number stands as "accurate." The directionality in our subjective minds is far more compelling than any microOhm differences. I’ll bet no one on earth can hear such differences, only if THEY WANT TO. But put it under blinded A/B/X testing and the whole house of cards falls apart, which is why the proponents are so quick to avoid such testing. Oh, you mean you're telling me you can't hear with the lights out? Yeah, uh huh.. Cables don’t need burn in. Electrons are in orbital shells in the metal atoms and are not in the least influenced in any lasting or "memory" manner by current applied. This is silly to the point of hilarity to the point of sadness. |
Everyone has their own idea of burn-in. I've been around a long time and the best way to "condition" your cables, Boil water in a stainless steel pot and submerge your cables. Be sure not to burn yourself. Boil the water down till the pot burns. Then your cables are ready to use. Oh, and yes they are directional. The sound travels one direction just like we read, from left to right!!!! |
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. |
stevecham None of those numbers in that first set of data for FUSE direction 1 vs. 2 are qualifed as statistically significant. We’re talking differences in microOhm and there should be at least three measurements per trial so that a standard deviation is calculated. But of course, a single number stands as "accurate." The directionality in our subjective minds is far more compelling than any microOhm differences. I’ll bet no one on earth can hear such differences, only if THEY WANT TO. >>>>Again, you’re not paying careful attention. The differences in measured resistance, while small, were consistent in that they correlated to the direction of the wire pull. And - as I already mentioned - the measured differences are consistent with listening tests. God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. The differences are not (rpt not) insignificant, in any case. I.e., the differences are not (rpt not) random. Besides, you can eliminate psychological causes by careful testing, no? |
"And - as I already mentioned - the measured differences are consistent with listening tests." ...says the person who repeatedly bashes people for requesting measurement results and/or blind listening tests. Besides, what measured differences, what listening tests? Performed by who? Where? Under what circumstances? Lots of room for operator error noted. |
Cables don’t need burn in. Electrons are in orbital shells in the metal atoms and are not in the least influenced in any lasting or "memory" manner by current applied. This is silly to the point of hilarity to the point of sadness. False science is worse than no science. This statement has no basis and oversimplified. |
"..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. |
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. |
geoffkait, Based on your statements, it is hard to guess you are an audio insider. However, it is clear that you do have great imagination and talent for constructing stories with barely any connection to reality. Pumpkins, flying elephants, and other natural phenomena are always in fashion. Disney may been hiring and I can write you a letter of support. That is not to say that some of the physics implied by posters other than you may not be correct. I do not drink coffee and do not smell it when I wake up. |
You may find this forum more suitable in your quest for Internet fame. Audio forums do not seem to work that well. http://www.fanforum.com/f98/cinderella-2-dream-wish-your-heart-makes-63013040/ But, before you switch your focus, could you elaborate on those 80 000 people and their results? Where could we find some legitimate proof of their existence? |
The answer to the OP question is yes. In the timeline of earth we have barely crawled out of the caves. We have discovered some things but only a very small part of the big picture. The question of time, space , dimensionality or whatever we haven't discovered that doesn't have a name yet.My ears tell me something is going on beyond our very basic understandings of the universe. Those things science cannot explain. The answer is yes. |
@blueranger - you make an interesting point. I read a piece by Harry Pearson (RIP) in the Absolute Sound decades ago where he basically said that there are unexplainable truths/realities in Audio reproduction due to the limitations of our scientific knowledge. He asked the question about whether we, audiophile hobbyists, felt that science had/has ALL the answers at this point. He obviously felt it didn't. While, to this day, I'm still undecided I'll admit that he's still got me wondering!;) |
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? |
you make an interesting point. I read a piece by Harry Pearson (RIP) in the Absolute Sound decades ago where he basically said that there are unexplainable truths/realities in Audio reproduction due to the limitations of our scientific knowledge. He asked the question about whether we, audiophile hobbyists, felt that science had/has ALL the answers at this point. He obviously felt it didn't. While, to this day, I'm still undecided I'll admit that he's still got me wondering!;) I actually believe differences from our listening experience can be measured, but our hearing is very complicated and it's hard to devise a measurement technique. In the case of cable burn in, it can be measured, but you need very sophisticated equipment which can cost a lot of money and it's not like it's a survival matter so people don't trouble doing it. If they can hear the difference and it can be explained by basic physics then it's good enough for them. Even if you have the equipment, you need to have extensive knowledge in physics and electrical engineering so it's not like push a button kind of thing. I once saw a website that measure jitter on a bunch of DAC and concluded that cables don't matter. I mean it's like comparing difference cars using 0-60 number. Our hearing is much more sophisticated that can be measured by some basic parameters. |
Thanks Chazro. Also why is it after I play the Cardas frequency sweep record my vinyl rig sounds better Glupson? It certainly doesn't sound worse. If I want my interconnects to sound worse all I have to do is burn them in the much stronger speaker cable mode which I have accidently done. It took a while but they settled back down. Thats a new phenomena that science hasn't conceptualized a reason for even being. Science is a journey of discovery by thinking outside the box with an open mind. Stephen Hawking anyone? |
| Post removed |
" Mr. Jeavons said I liked maths because it was safe. He said I liked maths because it meant solving problems, and those problems were difficult and interesting but there was always a straightforward answer at the end. And what he meant was that maths wasn’t life because in life there are no straightforward answers at the end. " "I picked this quote because I think it really describes Christopher. Though it never states it directly in the book, Christopher displays many characteristics of someone with autism. He hates small talk because he finds it pointless, does not understand facial expression, and does not get similes or metaphors (15). One thing he does understand is math. With math he does not need to try and understand people. In the quote above, it is said that the reason he loves math so much is because, unlike people, it is not abstract or unclear. He finds a safe place. Dealing with people is confusing and uncomfortable for him. At the beginning of the book, he gets so overwhelmed by the police officer that he winds up punching him (7). But with math, all he needs to do is be by himself and solve a straight forward problem. When Christopher finds himself in stressful situations he goes off into tangents that revolve around math and science, which comfort him. After he gets arrested he discusses what the Milky Way is and how the stars are aligned in it; instead of thinking about the uncomfortable situation he is in, he uses math and science to distract himself. Anything that is predictable or can be like a puzzle, like physics and astronomy, is good and easy for him. Anything outside of that range makes him feel unsafe and insecure. That is why Christopher decides to turn the death of Wellington into a murder mystery. He would rather look at it as a puzzle than an emotion situation. " Or......numbers and maths are cool and neat and stuff but the big problem with such thingees is when it really gets down to brass tacks or speaker cables because 9x5 may very well equal 42. |
Speaking of autism, I’ve oft opined on these fora, gentle readers, that Asperger’s syndrome, a mild and common form of autism, seems to rear its head rather often here. Perhaps what is commonly referred to as audio nervosa is actually our old friend, Asperger’s, in disguise. Hyper focus on cables or tweaks, especially the more outrageous ones, seem to invite the same sort of obsessive and cumpulsive behavior as an escape from reality as math and science in the example just described. You know, things like Tuning, CD Tweaks, PWB Tweaks, vibration isolation, cables, fuses, But not in a bad way. At least not usually. 😛 |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |