Cable burn-in

[Teresa]

It's a marketing ploy based on tenuous science. The ONLY papers suggesting the effect is genuine have been published by the makers of such products themselves...

 

Thanks, I had no idea since I'm not a purchaser of expensive cables and have not read such papers. I buy basic well-constructed cables as I stated in post 41

 

I know from experience if I try to return anything to any audio store including Best Buy, they ask if I allowed it to burn-in and if it had been less than a week or so they ask me to take it back home and allow it to burn-in and if I still don't like it to bring it back just before the end of the satisfaction guarantee period. Which is what I do with stuff I don't like, I bring it back about 2 or 3 days before the guarantee period ends and I get my money back.

 

I always thought burn-in (i.e.: playing music) was what one did before the end of the satisfaction guarantee period to know if one wanted to keep or return an item. I never heard of burn-in as a marketing ploy, and I still don't know why that would give any advantage of an expensive cable over a cheap one, as both can be returned for a full refund. I would think it is the satisfaction money-back guarantee that perhaps would convince someone to spend more for a cable, not something as generic as cable burn-in.

 

As I said before since burn-in is simply playing music and I like playing music I don't understand the problem.

[Jud]

All to many are nothing but marketing spin doctors selling snake oil.

 

Actual scientists and engineers consider cables for low-frequency signals a solved problem. The research for this was done 100 years ago.

 

Does "low-frequency signals" include USB, 20KHz, DSD128, all of the above...? Asking because Gordon Rankin, for example, the fellow whose Streamlength code resulted in popularization of async USB DACs, has said he doesn't consider USB cables a solved problem. (He's said they sound different to him but his test measurements haven't told him why.)

[alfe]

Does "low-frequency signals" include USB, 20KHz, DSD128, all of the above...? Asking because Gordon Rankin, for example, the fellow whose Streamlength code resulted in popularization of async USB DACs, has said he doesn't consider USB cables a solved problem. (He's said they sound different to him but his test measurements haven't told him why.)

 

The discussion is about cables not antenna's

[mansr]

I know from experience if I try to return anything to any audio store including Best Buy, they ask if I allowed it to burn-in and if it had been less than a week or so they ask me to take it back home and allow it to burn-in and if I still don't like it to bring it back just before the end of the satisfaction guarantee period. Which is what I do with stuff I don't like, I bring it back about 2 or 3 days before the guarantee period ends and I get my money back.

 

I suspect they give that response for two reasons: 1) they know many believe in burn-in and simply play into that, and 2) they know that if the customer keeps the item a little longer chances are good they will decide not to take it back after all.

[mansr]

Does "low-frequency signals" include USB, 20KHz, DSD128, all of the above...? Asking because Gordon Rankin, for example, the fellow whose Streamlength code resulted in popularization of async USB DACs, has said he doesn't consider USB cables a solved problem. (He's said they sound different to him but his test measurements haven't told him why.)

 

Did you see my thread about bad USB cables? I had to try hard to make a UBS "cable" that was good enough to work at all but bad enough to give occasional bit errors.

 

For digital connections, anything below 1 GHz has been considered low bandwidth (and thus easy) for quite some time. Analogue connections are a bit harder, but a basic coax handles several GHz easily provided impedances are properly matched.

[Richard Dale]

All to many are nothing but marketing spin doctors selling snake oil.

 

Actual scientists and engineers consider cables for low-frequency signals a solved problem. The research for this was done 100 years ago.

 

So what do you think about the theory that static electricity in the dialectric layers of the cable before break in affects the sound quality? Did they discuss that issue 100 years ago?

[mansr]

So what do you think about the theory that static electricity in the dialectric layers of the cable before break in affects the sound quality? Did they discuss that issue 100 years ago?

 

I don't think it's real. Unless it's made of an electret material (as used in microphones), any charge created during manufacturing would dissipate in a matter of seconds or less, not weeks.

[YashN]

Does "low-frequency signals" include USB, 20KHz, DSD128, all of the above...? Asking because Gordon Rankin, for example, the fellow whose Streamlength code resulted in popularization of async USB DACs, has said he doesn't consider USB cables a solved problem. (He's said they sound different to him but his test measurements haven't told him why.)

 

Gordon Rankin is correct as far as I can tell and based on my own (limited) experiments.

 

For the audiophile application domain, it isn't a solved problem.

 

Now, one can approach this in a few ways:

 

- Test various USB cable geometries and constructions to see what the effects are (I did this not expecting anything, only nothign working anymore of big drop-outs and instead I made a better cable out of a generic one)

 

- Work instead at the DAC reception side to make the latter 'impervious' or the least susceptible to cable transmission issues as is possible (devices like the Intona and UA's Regen)

 

- Test alternate means of sending the signal, i.e. using a real digital one (Corning USB) rather than an analogue-coded one (your normal USB cable)

 

Now, you'll still see a lot of people who have yet to get it: many still think the 'digital' data on the USB cable travels like little '1's and '0's as if via pulses, which they don't.

 

You'll see, even on this forum, many people thinking it's a solved problem: the only thing it was solved for was an analogue-coded way of sending digital especially for file transfer and for some other types of data transfer via communication protocols.

 

It was in no way ever intended for real-time audio and even less for real-time audiophile purposes, which is quite new. Rankin's code is relatively new as well, so that whole area of application is new, and an audiophile has a system, the likes of which the past tests were never used in.

 

Despite the many lengths gone to by ways of detailed explanations and experiments by someone like John Swenson, you'll still get people totally misunderstanding the issues and solutions.

 

They think that since data can be transmitted without errors, then by definition there should be no difference in audio reproduction.

 

They get this wrong despite the evidence, despite it being easy to do tests, and despite cloaking themselves with a fake veil of Science.

 

There's a relevant thread on diyaudio with hilarious comments by those who think they know something, including a moderator, if you want to have a laugh.

[YashN]

For digital connections, anything below 1 GHz has been considered low bandwidth (and thus easy) for quite some time. Analogue connections are a bit harder, but a basic coax handles several GHz easily provided impedances are properly matched.

 

Describe in detail and precisely how what you know about GHz and coax and their domains of application makes you conclude anything about USB and the analogue transmission on a normal cable and the effects on perceived audio differences in an audiophile setup.

[mansr]

Describe in detail and precisely how what you know about GHz and coax and their domains of application makes you conclude anything about USB and the analogue transmission on a normal cable and the effects on perceived audio differences in an audiophile setup.

 

USB 2.0 has a bit rate of 480 Mbps. It uses NRZI coding, so there is at most one transition per bit. If we're generous and allow 4x as much analogue bandwidth, it's still less than 2 GHz. It's not hard to make an adequate cable. The fact that perfectly good USB cables can be had for less than $1 is proof enough.

 

For analogue audio transmission, a bandwidth of 100 kHz is more than plenty. Again, trivial to make cabling for.

 

If the concern is analogue noise being carried on digital cables, only low frequencies (say less than 100 kHz) matter, and there's nothing mysterious going on there.

 

Now I'll be the first to admit terrible cables nevertheless do exist. I've come across one or two HDMI cables that were unreliable with some devices (but fine with others). I have also seen bad USB cables, general ones included with phone chargers and not intended for data transfer. On the analogue side, bad shielding is the most common flaw, usually resulting in power line hum being picked up.

[mansr]

Gordon Rankin is correct as far as I can tell and based on my own (limited) experiments.

 

For the audiophile application domain, it isn't a solved problem.

 

Now, one can approach this in a few ways:

 

- Test various USB cable geometries and constructions to see what the effects are (I did this not expecting anything, only nothign working anymore of big drop-outs and instead I made a better cable out of a generic one)

 

I did that test and had to do terrible things to induce transmission errors.

 

- Work instead at the DAC reception side to make the latter 'impervious' or the least susceptible to cable transmission issues as is possible (devices like the Intona and UA's Regen)

 

- Test alternate means of sending the signal, i.e. using a real digital one (Corning USB) rather than an analogue-coded one (your normal USB cable)

 

What do you mean? How is light intensity any more "digital" than a (differential) voltage?

 

Now, you'll still see a lot of people who have yet to get it: many still think the 'digital' data on the USB cable travels like little '1's and '0's as if via pulses, which they don't.

 

USB uses NRZI coding: a level change indicates a zero and no change indicates a one. Bit stuffing is used to ensure enough transitions occur for reliable clock recovery.

 

You'll see, even on this forum, many people thinking it's a solved problem: the only thing it was solved for was an analogue-coded way of sending digital especially for file transfer and for some other types of data transfer via communication protocols.

 

It was in no way ever intended for real-time audio and even less for real-time audiophile purposes, which is quite new. Rankin's code is relatively new as well, so that whole area of application is new, and an audiophile has a system, the likes of which the past tests were never used in.

 

What is so special about audio? Why does it matter to a cable whether the bits it carries represent audio or something else?

 

Despite the many lengths gone to by ways of detailed explanations and experiments by someone like John Swenson, you'll still get people totally misunderstanding the issues and solutions.

 

They think that since data can be transmitted without errors, then by definition there should be no difference in audio reproduction.

 

They get this wrong despite the evidence, despite it being easy to do tests, and despite cloaking themselves with a fake veil of Science.

 

I have done tests. Getting reliable data transfer over USB is trivial, even for audio.

[Jud]

Did you see my thread about bad USB cables? I had to try hard to make a UBS "cable" that was good enough to work at all but bad enough to give occasional bit errors.

 

Yes, in that thread I replied agreeing with your statement that bit errors would be very evidently audible, then went on to say more subtle effects (if they exist) such as commonly described resulting from changes in digital cables would not be a consequence of bit errors.

 

For digital connections, anything below 1 GHz has been considered low bandwidth (and thus easy) for quite some time. Analogue connections are a bit harder, but a basic coax handles several GHz easily provided impedances are properly matched.

 

Thanks.

[Jud]

Yes, in that thread I replied agreeing with your statement that bit errors would be very evidently audible, then went on to say more subtle effects (if they exist) such as commonly described resulting from changes in digital cables would not be a consequence of bit errors.

 

Regarding "more subtle effects," these are my descriptions of (sighted) listening to two different analog interconnects simultaneously:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/unsolicited-advice-nordost-alternative-b-28683/#post545985

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/unsolicited-advice-nordost-alternative-b-28683/#post551131

 

I did not do this with two cables of identical manufacture, one "burned in," the other not, but in principle there's no reason one couldn't.

[mansr]

Yes, in that thread I replied agreeing with your statement that bit errors would be very evidently audible, then went on to say more subtle effects (if they exist) such as commonly described resulting from changes in digital cables would not be a consequence of bit errors.

 

Right, I remember now. Given that any subtle effects are not the result of bit errors, that leaves noise, and at this point it becomes rather irrelevant that it happens to be a USB cable. If the noise originates in the PC, no "improvement" in the cable will help. If the noise is picked up by the cable, better shielding is the solution. Shielding against audio-frequency interference is not hard. If a $1 cable doesn't cut it, a $10 one probably will.

[Jud]

Right, I remember now. Given that any subtle effects are not the result of bit errors, that leaves noise, and at this point it becomes rather irrelevant that it happens to be a USB cable.

 

Yes.

 

If the noise originates in the PC, no "improvement" in the cable will help.

 

Not what's commonly thought of as an improvement, but at least two other possibilities suggest themselves:

 

(1) Some sort of "box(es)" included as part of the cable. This somewhat blurs the line between cables and boxed components.

 

(2) Some characteristic of normal cable that alters its operation in the system of which it's a part, e.g., very thin cables altering the routes of ground noise currents by virtue of greater resistance.

 

If the noise is picked up by the cable, better shielding is the solution. Shielding against audio-frequency interference is not hard. If a $1 cable doesn't cut it, a $10 one probably will.

 

The seller of most the cables I use doesn't like lots of insulation or shielding. The principals of that company (both engineers with long experience, though only one as an EE, the other as an aeronautical engineer) could well be wrong about that, but perhaps they know something we don't. Since I easily know the least of the four of us, I can't draw any final conclusions at this point. (Could a lot of shielding act to keep in noise transmitted over the wire? I recall an analogous consideration when trying to determine whether to shield my semi-customized DAC - would shielding cause internal EMI to reflect inside the DAC?)

[gmgraves]

Those "rules" aren't always very clearly defined due to gaps in our present knowledge , and in many cases are more like guidelines.

 

C'mon, my friend, there are no "practical" gaps in our present knowledge, especially when it comes to wire at audio frequencies. It's either a conductor or it isn't and at low frequencies it has only the following characteristics: DC resistance (Ω), inductance (L), capacitance ©. There is no "skin effect" at audio frequencies, no dielectric absorption, and no realignment of wire molecules over time (burn-in) then applied to the cable lengths commonly used in domestic audio systems.

[gmgraves]

I don't have silly money, I'm a poor audiophile. I buy entry-level cables with thick enough gauge to reproduce bass well with good impact, good connectors, and insulating materials, in the length I need.

 

 

 

I don't understand our resident objectivists objections to cable burn-in. If I understand burn-in correctly, one plays music through their system for a couple of weeks while they burn-in. In other words cable burn-in costs ZERO dollars and one can listen to music while the cable is burning in.

 

The objection is the notion that playing music through a length of wire changes the conductive characteristics of that wire in any way. And almost as bad is the further notion that even assuming that there was some subtle change, that anyone could accurately remember what the cables sounded like out-of-the-box so that they could not just notice the change, but be able to remember it well enough to characterize those "changes" with any degree of confidence. Human memory for sound quality simply isn't that good (in fact clinical tests have shown that it is extremely poor).

 

I'm not even sure if it is the cable or the listener being burned-in. However, whither one is listening to music as the cable burns in or one is listening to music while the cable doesn't burn-in, the important thing I believe is to enjoy the music.

 

I think that you've hit the nail on the head here, Teresa. It is the listener who has been burned-in by his own desire (expectational bias, again) to hear such a change! And if that makes the listener happy, more power to him!

[sphinxsix]

C'mon, my friend, there are no "practical" gaps in our present knowledge, especially when it comes to wire at audio frequencies. It's either a conductor or it isn't and at low frequencies it has only the following characteristics: DC resistance (Ω), inductance (L), capacitance ©. There is no "skin effect" at audio frequencies, no dielectric absorption, and no realignment of wire molecules over time (burn-in) then applied to the cable lengths commonly used in domestic audio systems.

C'mon, my friend, physics (even modern and most advanced) is always a step if not two behind reality 'as it is', even most physicists will admit it. We never know whether we measure everything that is relevant to the subject, or rather we can be more than sure that we don't. It's always an approximation in one way or the other.

[alfe]

Those "rules" aren't always very clearly defined due to gaps in our present knowledge , and in many cases are more like guidelines.

 

The gap is getting bigger, in the thread mac book &SSD, I discovered that SSD need a burn-in period of 100 hours.

[gmgraves]

Teresa

We are undoubtedly listening more intently after a new purchased addition, and this may also help explain perceived improvements.

The burn-in process does however actually happen with the large value electrolytic capacitors in the PSU area, and this is well documented.Depending on the make and type of capacitor, the process can take several days, or even quite a few weeks with some types. Some electrolytic capacitors such as Elna for Audio capacitors are notorious for the time they take to fully stabilise.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

 

 

Alex, nobody is saying that some electronic components don't burn-in. Many do, Large electrolytics do, some semiconductors change their characteristics slightly as they burn-in, certainly resistors and vacuum tubes (valves to you Brits) change their value as they warm up, and this happens every time the equipment is switched on! But cables do not burn-in. There is nothing about them in an audio situation to burn in. They don't get warm when conducting a signal (at least they shouldn't! If they do, you have a serious problem somewhere) and in fact stay at room ambient temperature (especially interconnects) and there is nothing about the act of conducting a signal which should change any aspect of the cable's physical characteristics in any way, shape or form.

[alfe]

C'mon, my friend, physics (even modern and most advanced) is always a step if not two behind reality 'as it is', even most physicists will admit it. We never know whether we measure everything that is relevant to the subject, or rather we can be more than sure that we don't. It's always an approximation in one way or the other.

 

So next time you take a plane just pray:)

[gmgraves]

So what do you think about the theory that static electricity in the dialectric layers of the cable before break in affects the sound quality? Did they discuss that issue 100 years ago?

 

No, but that issue was discussed in the aerospace industry 50-60 years ago!. NASA was worried about the effects of static electricity build-up in the cabling of spacecraft and satellites because of the fact that such build-up is a greater issue in a vacuum than it is in the atmosphere. But it was found that even if there is a static electricity build-up in the dielectric, it doesn't affect any of the conduction characteristics of the cables, but it might affect sensitive electronic components to which the cables are connected (like, in some cases, cause failure).

[sandyk]

C'mon, my friend, there are no "practical" gaps in our present knowledge, especially when it comes to wire at audio frequencies. It's either a conductor or it isn't and at low frequencies it has only the following characteristics: DC resistance (Ω), inductance (L), capacitance ©. There is no "skin effect" at audio frequencies, no dielectric absorption, and no realignment of wire molecules over time (burn-in) then applied to the cable lengths commonly used in domestic audio systems.

George

I have never claimed to hear a burn in effect with cables, however it is disappointing to see people like yourself repeatedly insisting that these things are theoretically impossible, and in effect calling the many people making those reports delusional.

It makes you sound plain arrogant ! Perhaps it may be better to say something like " I am unable to see any mechanism that could cause this to happen" instead of being so dogmatic in your assertions.

Alex

[mansr]

C'mon, my friend, physics (even modern and most advanced) is always a step if not two behind reality 'as it is', even most physicists will admit it.

 

Yes, that's why they built the LHC. Physics is well understood at the macroscopic scale where audio devices exist. Ohm's law, Maxwell's equations, etc cover it all. Relativistic phenomena are also understood and enable us to build systems like GPS and other space technology. Unless your DAC is orbiting a black hole, audio is not affected. Quantum effects are relied on in high-speed digital electronics, and commercially available devices offer no surprises in this area.

 

Physics research today targets the more fundamental principles behind the above-mentioned concepts. It's about finding out why those equations are just so and not something else. The results are interesting, but they have no bearing on everyday technology such as audio amplifiers or cables.

[gmgraves]

C'mon, my friend, physics (even modern and most advanced) is always a step if not two behind reality 'as it is', even most physicists will admit it. We never know whether we measure everything that is relevant to the subject, or rather we can be more than sure that we don't. It's always an approximation in one way or the other.

 

 

What gives lie to the argument that "we don't know everything" in this case is that if cables changed value over time enough to be noticed at audio frequencies, people using cable in other applications would have noticed some change in their arena of use as well, and nobody has. Many audiophiles seem to still be stuck with the notion that because audio waveforms carry music, that they are somehow special and therefore different from all other AC signals and they aren't.