Do speaker cables need a burn in period?

Hey prof, my straw men have not feet of clay. 😄 It's just that they can't be successfully dismissed, out of hand, on the fly, despite attempts.

As to your second accusation, it sounds more like projection on your part, as it presupposes only you can be right. Now that's a straw man we can all agree upon. 👍

All the best, (and time to check out to watch from afar......)
Nonoise

I think it's a myth that buyers purchase and keep electronics, speakers and cables that they don't like because the salesperson says they will like it more in a few months...burn in, changing directions are free to try, so no real issues...

In other words, nonoise, you like to drop in occasionally with a strawman.  ;-)

Yes, they are much more friendly to your own view, than actually dealing with the details of someone else's actual position. 

@andy2,

Again, I believe you are missing a third alternative:

I (or "we") don't know who is right.

Say we want to know if it's raining outside, and we can not tell from the windowless room in which we sit.  One method is to get up, open the front door of the house and check if it's raining. Another method is to flip a coin and say "if it lands 'heads' we know it's raining."

If you use the coin method and flip heads it may in fact be TRUE that it's raining outside.

But that doesn't get around the problem that method used isn't one that, on examination, actually deserves our confidence.

It's the same when we are talking about audible differences that are either very small, or exist in areas that are controversial.   It may BE that the manufacturers who claim their cables need burn in are right, and that it's a real, physical, AUDIBLE phenomena.   But, if like flipping a coin, they are simply using the same anecdotal methods as any other audiophile....and more to the point....essentially the same subjective, anecdotal method as used by any other pseudo-science or fringe belief system (e.g. alternative medicine, psychics, etc) THEN it makes sense to point out these conclusions are not being supported by a reliable method.

Surely you accept that an unreliable method, or 'explanations' that haven't been vetted in a careful manner, used by many people, can lead to many people being wrong?  

200 million people use homeopathy on a regular basis.  Can they all be wrong?  Of course.  Same goes for any number of beliefs born of little objective, repeatable data and supported by subjective impressions.
It's why vast numbers of contradictory beliefs about the world arise in the first place.  And it's why science arose as a method to help us separate the wheat from the chaff. 

BTW, not all cable manufacturers seem to make claims that cables change with burn in.

And those include some of the most experienced and respected manufacturers.  You don't see for instance Belden or Canare cable claiming cables need "burn in."  And yet they cater to a massive, critical, often professional customer base.   For professional industries, a cable - or for that matter capacitor etc - has to perform as one expects from the physical specifications.  

It seems telling that the claims regarding long burn in times - "the cable is only going to sound better over time!  Keep it in your system!" - come from high end cable makers who are selling at boutique prices....to audiophiles who are relying on subjective impressions. 

Every so often, I'll pop in here to gauge the proceedings and there's always one theme that remains steadfast. That of Leviathan: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book)

Just as in politics and religion, there are those who simply can't trust the masses. They need constant supervision and guidance. They can't be trusted and the premise of their arguments are that they are delusional and/or mistaken, and not much else is allowed or entertained.

Some will say that's too strong a statement but if one were to be truly objective, the overlap is obviously and painfully apparent. Hobbes' call for an absolute sovereign seems to be an underlying cause de celebre around these parts. We need go no further than what is and has been written. There is nothing left for the masses to learn on their own.

Thank goodness I've been in this hobby long before I came to this site as I've always heard and experienced break in with components and cables and took it as a natural event, not even up for debate. The final sound determined whether I kept something or moved on.

Long before the camps and bubbles of the internet, every maker of gear all said the same thing: expect some break in. No biggie or controversy: it was a given. Conventional wisdom for sure, but based on empirical observation. Then the price gouging and charlatans started to flourish resulting in a backlash that went overboard. Everything was to be doubted; back to the manuals! Polarization intensified driving the camps further apart. 

If I had started this hobby along with this site, I might have ended up deferring to the experts on the subject of "break in" and go against reason and experience, doubting my own senses and perceptions, and upon being confronted with the actual evidence (hearing it), been driven into yet another episode of cognitive dissonance, getting angrier and ever more steadfast in my mistaken beliefs, and because of that, my level of enjoyment, diminished.

The horrors. 😉

All the best,
Nonoise

Cable manufacturers are just as human and prone to bias as anyone else. Bias influences, or just mistakes in perception, can happen whether you are switching quickly between A and B, or slowly over time.

In order for this to be true, every single manufacturers is wrong.  All the professional reviewers are either wrong or liars. 

So we have two possibilities:
1.  All manufacturers are wrong.  All professional reviewers are either wrong or liars.

2. You are correct and everybody else is wrong.

Uh, I think you mean do you have to burn in the air molecules for your wireless stereo.

“‘Tis better to burn it than to burn out.”

Do I need to burn in the radio frequencies for my wireless stereo?

cleeds,

What I do think is odd is that those who clamor for others to pursue measurements or blind testing seem so reluctant to undertake the work themselves.

Like who?

I defend the validity of blind testing, and I have performed a number of blind tests.

But first, let's deal with an implication one could take from your statement (whether you meant to imply this or not):

The idea that if someone critiques X method over Y method, that they have to be involved in performing those experiments themselves.  It should be obvious that isn't the case.   

You don't need to be a scientist yourself, to understand why a scientific approach to treating a new pathogen is more sound than, say, appealing to dreams, demons, magnetic bracelets, or ground up rhino horns are less sound approaches.  You just need to understand well enough the reason science operates as it does, and how this explains it's success relative to the failure of the other models.

It's similar to why you don't have to be a brain surgeon yourself, to rationally conclude if you are having signs of an aneurysm,   that you should see a brain surgeon not a vacuum salesman, no matter how enthusiastic the vacuum salesman may be about using vacuums to cure your problem.   You have enough knowledge to recognize from which direction sound and successful results derive, vs more dubious methods.

Same for audio or any other domain.  As long as you recognize the existence of the variables of human bias, you are in a position to ask who is taking that problem most seriously in their methods of evaluation.

People who say "I know there is a sonic difference between A and B simply because I believe to have heard it" are not taking the problem of bias seriously, whereas people attempting to verify phenomena through objective measurements and listening tests that attempt to control for bias at least ARE taking it seriously in their method.

As I've said this DOES NOT mean that everyone needs to be blind testing, or can't just go on what they think they hear.  No one is forcing, or should force, such a thing.  We are all free to buy on whatever criteria we want, as it should be.  But if someone wants to CLAIM there is an objective  phenomenon happening - like cable burn in - then it's completely reasonable to look at what type of method they are using to demonstrate the claim.

As to my own blind tests, I've used bind tests between CD players/DACs, some audio cables, power cables, video cables, and digital servers.   

I don't do this all the time - far from it - because as I've said no one is compelled to make decisions via such methods and frankly while sometimes they are fun, they can be a hassle.  It would be a different case if I had a lab and all the right expensive measuring tools, not to mention more technical knowledge.  But, I don't. That's not my field of expertise.  

When I want to blind test something, I  simply do the best I can within my meagre means, and I don't make claims that extend beyond what those meagre means can actually imply for me personally.  

ganainm
Yes I think "manufacturers lie or are just plain wrong". The why is debatable of course but will seem obvious to many.

>>>>What evidence do you have they are lying or just plain wrong, as you say? And how do you know it seems obvious to many? 

GK, no, I do not think "anyone who disagrees with me js engaging in a pissing contest". Just you.

>>>>>Fair enough. 

@andy2

I think in order to make a valid discussion, ones have to agree on some basic level which is our ears can identify differences in what we here. If you say that all differences are psychological then there is no point to further the discussion.

Agreed.

But if we want to understand reality, we also have to not ignore that our perception can be flawed, and influenced in any number of ways towards error. So, ideally, the most careful approach when we *really want to be sure* of a result, would be a method that reduces the variables, including the well known forms of bias.

Next, the argument that break-in is mostly psychological only works for the average buyer since he can only purchase a set of cable so he has to rely on his memory to tell the difference. This argument does not work for manufacturers since they have a lot of identical cables some old some brand new so they can listen to them side by side, therefore there is no need to rely on memory. So if they hear the difference then it’s not psychological.

But that analysis leaves out the whole point: that people can honestly be mistaken in their perception! The choices for explanation don’t sit between the false dichotomy of: "The phenomenon people claim to perceive is real OR they are lying."

The other option is they are MISTAKEN.

This is why controls for bias is foundational in scientific testing.

Cable manufacturers are just as human and prone to bias as anyone else. Bias influences, or just mistakes in perception, can happen whether you are switching quickly between A and B, or slowly over time.

That’s one reason why objective measurements are so helpful, which provide some evidence there IS a physical phenomena involved, and not just changes in our perception.

Would you agree?

Cheers!

geoffkait,

Only quasi-technical babbling seems to be allowed.

>>>>That’s where you come in.

If you paid more attention, you would notice that I do not engage in strictly technical discussions. I do ask basic questions about them, though. It is because I am aware of my limitations on that turf and I try to learn. That is a skill you may find hard to learn, but education does not stop after you get a diploma. You can still try.

cleeds,

"I don’t see that happening here at all."

As the thread is getting long, I cannot say for certain that I remember this thread itself has all the features of "ridiculous to measure" and "ridiculous to do blind testing" I mentioned, but it is frequently mentioned all over Audiogon forums. Just try to mention that something is or is not happening because double blind testing resulted that way. Or ask for measurements (few posts above are heading in that direction). You even have a poster who dismisses measurements and blind tests at the same time. I am not sure what is left then.

There was, for example, a thread with a person claiming that majestic changes happen when you take a cover off of an amplifier. For pure entertainment and with mind open (I do not belong to any camp in any way), I did it to one old amplifier I have around. It was simple enough so I thought why not. I reported that there was no difference. The response? It did not count and I was a troll. No other discussion was possible. My result was invalid only and exclusively because it was not what the person wanted me to find.

Yes I think "manufacturers lie or are just plain wrong".  The why is debatable of course but will seem obvious to many.
GK, no, I do not think "anyone who disagrees with me js engaging in a pissing contest". Just you.
For the others, just stating how and why I arrived at my understanding. No animus intended.  A few people might find some ideas to ponder.  As I pondered the "just listen" arguments and did my best to apply them. Probably enough said by me on this topic. Enjoy and share the music, by whatever means makea you happy.

Not only is there no advantage to a manufacturer for lying about directionality or break in it doesn’t make sense at all to lie about it because directionality and break in are so controversial and would almost certainly be a turn off to a lot of folks, especially sensitive gullible newbies, and mean less business rather than more. Top high end cable manufactures like Audiopquest are *outspoken* on the subject of directionality, whereas other manufacturers might be “playing it safe” by not mentioning it, or don’t know, or dismiss it. The same logic applies to cryogenics, another hot button for naysayers. Most high end cable manufacturers routinely cryo their cables, whether they advertise it or not. They are smart enough to know that if they didn’t cryo their cables they wouldn’t be able to compete.

I think in order to make a valid discussion, ones have to agree on some basic level which is our ears can identify differences in what we here.  If you say that all differences are psychological then there is no point to further the discussion.

Next, the argument that break-in is mostly psychological only works for the average buyer since he can only purchase a set of cable so he has to rely on his memory to tell the difference.  This argument does not work for manufacturers since they have a lot of identical cables some old some brand new so they can listen to them side by side, therefore there is no need to rely on memory.  So if they hear the difference then it's not psychological.  

Now if you say the manufacturers are flat out wrong or they just lie then I guess it's something all together difference.  I can't find any reason why they have to lie.  Break-in or not I don't see how that will benefit them.

@ganainm   Can you please share the science derived explanation regarding the fact that cables do not break-in?

So, help me understand. You think that anyone who disagrees with you is creating a pissing contest? Is that that the EE part of your brain talking or the pharma part?

Hifiman
No, at least I, me, this EE, do not believe we have science derived explanations for many things in the universe, and especially in our heads. But for audio frequency signal transmission over several meters of cable, yes, I do.
Don't forget that the military and big industry has had huge interest and investment in this exact topic for over 100 years.  So they have looked hard at both hypothesis and practicality.

+1. @cleeds  You said " What I do think is odd is that those who clamor for others to pursue measurements or blind testing seem so reluctant to undertake the work themselves."  EXACTLY!  If you are appealing to the importance of measurements then supply the data to prove your assertion.

One more thing... Do the scientists and electrical engineers here truly believe that all happenings have measurements derived from scientific experiments that explain those happenings?

Metaphysics baby....metaphysics. 🧐

Addendum for Andy2. I respectfully suggest the billiard anology is incomplete for electron flow. Quantum principals come into play, the role of "electron drift" vs signal transmission makes for fascinating reading. For me, the bottom line is that for signal in vs signal out, in the wires we are discussing, the physics is well established and not altered by a few hundred hours of music olaying time.

I undestand very well science is incomplete and open to progression and change. But the physics of electron flow and signal transmission is extremely well established as to basic principals.  These princilals are well measurable by incredibly sophisticated techniques. We also undertand the limits of the human ear. What IS open to much more understanding and theorizing is the human mind and its perceptions of speech and music. As well as its ability to form tribal alliances and belief systems. That is why I think it is probabilistically much more likely that tne explanations for perceptions we are discussing are found there. By many orders of magnitude. These are not perfect arguments, none are, but highly likely ones.
Some good reading is by Jonathan Haight, Daniel Levetin, Leonid Perlovsky (who has some fascinating ideas on the "purpose" of music and how it might in turn influence perception).
I am trying to advance the principals by which open minded people can parse challenging ideas with many parts, which does include some appeal to authority IF that authority is well grounded. Otherwise we are just living in our own heads. I have no interest in a pissing contest with GK, rather I am making a case for interested parties, like the OP, from the perspective of someone who has looked into many of the overlapping areas in some depth. BTW my personal starting point of thinking about the issues was that different wire would improve my audio listening experience.

i see the reason for a car’s brakes - to heat treat the rotors evenly and burnish an set the pads, but I have never seen any explanation for speaker cables. 

I think one of the reason is with real world objects such as car brakes, you can see it with your own eyes.  With electrons and molecular structure, it's hard for people to see or understand how things work at that scale therefore one has to have some back ground in electrical engineering.  
Imagine a molecule and a billiard ball.  The difference is the billiard ball is composed of many molecule, but the molecule moves and disturbed in just about the same way as a billiard ball.  But most people probably can't visualize a molecule because visually you cannot see a molecule therefore it seems somewhat mysterious.   The billiard ball and molecule are both governed by the same principle: F = ma. 
Once you could see how molecule, electrons and their behaviors are not that different from a billiard ball, then maybe you could understand the effect of break-in.

@glupson

In short, there is no way you can be right

That is sort of the problem with these threads, everyone wants to be "right", everyone believes they are "right", and everyone wants everyone else to acknowledge they are "right". Never gonna get there. Of course these threads would be a lot less fun if everyone simply stated their case objectively and moved on.

koan2

i see the reason for a car’s brakes - to heat treat the rotors evenly and burnish an set the pads, but I have never seen any explanation for speaker cables.

>>>>We see that here a lot. They frequently say proudly, “I have found no evidence to support their claim.” 😛 Just because you see no reason for it doesn’t mean there isn’t one. There is no apparent reason why a super huge black hole 3 Million times the mass of our sun is in the middle of our galaxy, either. I thought all the world loves a mystery. Ah, sweet mystery of life! 

Glupson
Only quasi-technical babbling seems to be allowed.

>>>>That’s where you come in.

glupson

... Those who ask for measurements get attacked for asking for such a ridiculous thing as measurements. Those who suggest blind tests get ridiculed for such a flawed thing as blind tests. ...

I don't see that happening here at all. What I do think is odd is that those who clamor for others to pursue measurements or blind testing seem so reluctant to undertake the work themselves.

ganainm
Thing is Geoff, nobody HAS given you a Nobel prize. The "appeal to authority" is not MY authority but say, about a million lbs of EE and Physics texts back to Maxwell and Faraday and hundreds of universities, thousand of recording studios and all those players of Strads who laugh at your directional or burnt in wire. Yeah. Appeal to those authorities.

>>>>Millions and millions? Who are you, Carl Sagan? That’s all just a big Strawman argument. You seem to excel at illogical arguments. Nobody said any EE or Physics texts explain why wires are directional or improve on break-in. Nor do they refute it. As I said no scientific laws have been broken in the process. No need for all the angst.

So, in some ways audiophiles are actually smarter than all those millions of lbs of EE and Physics texts and those millions of EE and Physics PhDs who never heard of wire directionality or break in. Or if they have heard of they smugly dismiss it on grounds that it isn’t in their textbooks from school. Do you believe learning stops as soon as you get your diploma? 👨‍🎓

Let me ask you, you don’t really think science is complete, do you? Do you know everything? From what you say you’re objection seems to be that it “doesn’t sound right” to you. In other words you have no real technical argument in this particular area, correct? I mean other than name dropping. Nobody has given you the Nobel Prize, either.

”Knowledge can be defined as what remains after you subtract out all the things you forgot from school.”

I think that gainainm is asking for hypothesis.

Very inconvenient thing in all these discussions is that any kind of testing to support the view, one way or another, is not allowed. Those who ask for measurements get attacked for asking for such a ridiculous thing as measurements. Those who suggest blind tests get ridiculed for such a flawed thing as blind tests. It is puzzling at times, to say it softly. Only quasi-technical babbling seems to be allowed.

gan,
A couple questions:
Did science actually stop to where no more discovery can be possible?
Does it specifically state anywhere in the million pounds of textbooks you've read that speaker cables don't burn in and sound better once they do?

Asking for an uneducated friend.

koan2,
 
As prof said, do not let it keep you from dinner waiting for an answer.

Forget about objective or measurement. That is not accepted. The inconvenient thing is that you are a nay-sayer or some worthless skeptic if you have doubts it works. Then you try it yourself, and, if the result is not "blacker blacks, a little violin player started dancing in the room" or some other poetry, you are no good and your result is worthless. In short, there is no way you can be right, if you just do not say "burn-in and other activities are Heaven's gift".

By the way, if you have to look/listen too hard for something, it is probably not there. At least not to some meaningful extent.

Sorry geoffkait, millions have not heard that difference. You heard it, I did not. You are wrong, I am right. I have no interest in scolding you.

By the way, I noticed you changed your repetitive statements about portable CD player system from "no speaker cable" to "no long speaker cable". I am glad you considered what I suggested.

again, I just want to hear one fact-based argument for “burning-in” speaker cables.

Join the club.

Don't let it keep you from dinner waiting for an answer though ;-)

So, many explain subjectively that they believe so.   Can anyone offer an explanation as to why this would make any difference?

i am trying to remain open-minded, but cannot see any explanation why this would make any difference.  

If if there is any difference, it seems to me adjusting to the character of the altered sound seems more likely.

again, I just want to hear one fact-based argument for “burning-in” speaker cables.

i see the reason for a car’s brakes - to heat treat the rotors evenly and burnish an set the pads, but I have never seen any explanation for speaker cables.

glubson to self: gee that guy seems like he knows something. I think I’ll ride in on his coattails and scold geoffkait again and brag about my simple experiment (which by the way is discredited by the thousands of other experiments with the opposite result. How unlucky can one person be? Shall we call you gullible glubson? 🤔

I apologize to everyone for posting my tiny little experiment about reversed interconnects here but I thought it may not be that misplaced. Wire directionality has been polluting this thread, via geoffkait’s repeated posts insisting on it, for many days now.

csmgolf,

I agree with your view of my interconnect trial but a person has to start somewhere. Not to mention that any kind of blind testing is frowned upon so my experiment was as flawed as they get. Still, been there, done that, did not work, good if it works for someone else. For me, suspicion was sufficiently proven by a lousy experiment.

Thing is Geoff, nobody HAS given you a Nobel prize. The "appeal to authority" is not MY authority but say, about a million lbs of EE and Physics texts back to Maxwell and Faraday and hundreds of universities, thousand of recording studios and all those players of Strads who laugh at your directional or burnt in wire. Yeah. Appeal to those authorities.

@audacious 
The “difference” being discussed is the difference in how a fuse or cable sounds when it is turned around in the opposite direction.  The premise being that all wire is directional and having the wire oriented in the proper direction is audibly superior.  (Hint: I believe the first statement but not so much the second). My response to @tobor007 was not about the difference between different cables.

The "difference" should be obvious, right off the bat. If not, send 'em back.

Not sure? Most of my cables have been purchased used.My speaker cables are new have about 10 hours on them so will I hear a difference in 100 to 300 hours on them I highly doubt it. Speakers yes cables I have my doubts the initial listening session is more than likely how they sound.I may have to eat my words in the future with my speaker cables but I doubt it.

You should be able to hear the difference right off the bat. If not, send them back.

@tobor007 

If someone gave you a 10 to 1, $ bet that you could pick out the the direction of your cables with a blind listening test, how much money would you risk?

Oh poor 23-post dude (or dudet), go back and read from the beginning.  Nobody can actually hear the difference in a “blind” or “double-blind” listening test.  But, that doesn’t mean there is no difference.  Many can hear a significant difference, just not under the confines of actual comparison tests.  Besides, a requirement to actually hear a difference would suck the fun out of keeping endless logs of listening notes after changing the direction of each and every fuse and cable one-by-one.

From experience, cables require different amount of burn-in time.  Some of their materials require different times.  I've found that copper wiring takes much less time than silver wiring to burn-in.  Even my phono-cables took a lot time back in 1989 to settle in (maybe 100 hours) despite their small gauge.  My speaker cables took a long time but sounded great as soon as they were plugged in.  My ICs of all sorts take a minimum of 24 hours before I listen to them as their character changes significantly (I'm a cabling beta tester for a manufacturer so I know how raw a cable can sound brand new).  

ganainm
Musician, Physician, EE degree, Ham, Audiophile. No, cables do not have burn in or have directionality. Many things CAN change such as your listening position, air density and your ears and brain. But for those who do believe in wires with magic properties, it is harmless fun. Unless they talk you out of real money. And you get to decide what that is. This is my thought based on experience physics and physiology.

Best Appeal to Authority award of the week. Bravo!

“What well established scientific norms are you talking about? I certainly hope nobody broke any scientific laws. Because if anyone broke Ohm’s law I say we hang him.”

What?🙀

ganainm
“If your experience suggest things that violate well established scientific norms I would usually suggest to any student to ponder, hard, alternative explanations, other than "oh all that estblished science is wrong". But IF you really have the chops and the data to PROVE that old science wrong, I assure you the Nobel committee is listening. Nobody on this forum has done so, so you mignt look elsewhere for facts on wire and signal transmisson.
Because the OP asked. Many lovely people believe otherwise.”

What well established scientific norms are you talking about? I certainly hope nobody broke any scientific laws. Because if anyone broke Ohm’s law I say we hang him.

”If I could explain it to the average dude they wouldn’t have given me the Nobel prize.”

Musician, Physician, EE degree, Ham, Audiophile. No, cables do not have burn in or have directionality. Many things CAN change such as your listening position, air density and your ears and brain. But for those who do believe in wires with magic properties, it is harmless fun. Unless they talk you out of real money. And you get to decide what that is.
This is my thought based on experience physics and physiology. Because the OP asked. Could I be wrong? Of course. And I will be equally surprised if the rapture happens or Atlantis rises. But you never know.
If your experience suggest things that violate well established scientific norms I would usually suggest to any student to ponder, hard, alternative explanations, other than "oh all that estblished science is wrong".  But IF you really have the chops and the data to PROVE that old science wrong, I assure you the Nobel committee is listening. Nobody on this forum has done so, so you mignt look elsewhere for facts on wire and signal transmisson.
Because the OP asked. Many lovely people believe otherwise.

What does “meh” mean?

if it means you are indifferent, just remember it is not your ox being gored. 

meh

No, tell me.

As I recall, you may have missed large parts of the thread. As I recall, another earlier appeared to have felt threatened, too. 👮‍♂️

Clearly, he has stated his INTENT to do something. Remember, Kitty, you injected yourself into all this and at the very least you are a voluntary public figure, voluntarily participating in an open debate.

In any event, you best clear up your statement of intent. 🐈