Cable burn-in

[Jud]

Capacitors have, you know, capacitance. Lots of it. Cables have very little, negligible amounts for audio frequencies. A typical cable would need to be several miles long before it reached the capacitance of even a small capacitor.

 

So then I take it dielectric absorption is important only for capacitance and not for signal transmission?

 

Crystal structures of metals are not at all mumbo-jumbo in general. Mechanical properties such as tensile strength are greatly influenced by it. Electrical properties not so much. Unless you're engaging in some kind of audiophilic asphyxiation using your interconnects, I wouldn't worry about it.

 

I have no wish to follow Vaughn Bodē into the great beyond.

 

I do note there are many academic papers associating the following three things in copper: (1) thermal changes (heat treatment, annealing, cryogenics) causing (2) changes in crystalline structure, and (3) measured electrical conductivity changes. Whether the latter changes as reported in the papers are of a magnitude that could conceivably result in any audible effects as part of a circuit or audio system, I frankly don't know.

[mansr]

No, those cables are long gone. It was my first, very instructive exercise on speaker cables in the mid/late 80s. Sorry mansr, I have to sleep, been awake all night. I'm a *very* slow typist, so I have to take long breaks between responses. But yours are really good questions, so please give me at least a day to get back to you. Just FYI I did have a nice ADC (Mytek ADDA 8x192) that I donated after my failure as a recording and mixing engineer (a common theme with me...). Still have a very good desktop DMM, a basic power supply and scope, all gathering dust for now. We're on the same track (and with Jud) w.r.t. tests, but it's still a long answer.

 

Well, if you think of a good test, let me know.

[mansr]

So then I take it dielectric absorption is important only for capacitance and not for signal transmission?

 

Dielectric absorption is what causes a capacitor to "bounce back" after a brief discharge. Clearly this is not great for high-frequency signals. Now if there's negligible capacitance to begin with, this effect will also be negligible.

 

I do note there are many academic papers associating the following three things in copper: (1) thermal changes (heat treatment, annealing, cryogenics) causing (2) changes in crystalline structure, and (3) measured electrical conductivity changes. Whether the latter changes as reported in the papers are of a magnitude that could conceivably result in any audible effects as part of a circuit or audio system, I frankly don't know.

 

Even if the conductivity changed by 10%, you'd have differences in cable resistance in the milliohm range. Do you think that makes an audible difference?

[gmgraves]

I can entertain the notion that some components, e.g. electrolytic capacitors, might go through a brief period of "burn-in." I seriously doubt they take more than a few minutes (or even seconds) to settle, however. Speaker suspensions and surrounds might also loosen up a little with use, but again, a few seconds at maximum excursion should take care of that. In fact, this is part of factory testing.

 

The idea of burn-in should also not be confused with ageing. Some components (again the electrolytic caps) are prone to radical changes to point of failure with old age, but here we're talking about years. Even cables can go bad with crumbling insulation and so on, though now we're talking about decades.

 

A comparison with scientific instruments is also interesting. If you get an instrument calibrated, it comes back ready for use as quickly as UPS/FedEx deliver. Never does the manufacturer advise a burn-in period before taking critical measurements.

 

 

That's because scientific instruments are not reproducing music. They are just measuring things and therefore follow a different set of physics rules than does hi-fi gear. If the instrument were a piece of high-end audio gear, even the test leads would need "burn-in"!

 

Reductio ad absurdum warning!

[elcorso]

It's mostly about dielectrics. Their properties change a little with use, much of it in early use as makes sense. PTFE is far more stable and expensive than most, so it is used in much more expensive cables: I don't think any Mogami cable has it.

 

On the subject of comparing burned-in versus new cables, just compare some burned-in ones against a newer, unused pair. Really good cables sound very good out of the box, but they get better, IME. Even the dielectric of ceramic capacitors exhibits molecular changes with use. As I've said, there is plenty of research available. That research rarely addresses audibility, but then lots of people here (like me) claim to hear differences in other components whose differences should be buried way too far below the noise floor. Okay.

 

Dear Sam,

 

+1

 

Those scientific people (objectivist) on this CA people cited what they believe confirms their theories.

 

It's very long to cite everything John Curl (and others) writen on PDF or in audio forums.

 

I don't have the time nor the patience to do it and could be like to preach on the desert or tho write on the pacific sand sea.

 

They talk a lot about electronics but forgot metallurgy and in this, vibrations, temperature changes, et al.

 

From my own sighted (and not) experience a burned-in cable sounds better compared to when it was new.

 

Why planes and car doesn't crash when new? Because you can drive it without risk it in this condition, like you can get music from new cables. This is a very childish and non scientific comparison...!

 

I suggets to buy and read (if you can find it) the book cited in my second link, the full book, not only the first 50 pages published in Google Books. I own it and read it complete.

 

If you have problems with typing, I have the same but exacerbated thanks to my very poor English. But I can read it and honestly can not remain in silence with our Computer Rationale Audiophile Scientists in Residence, (CRASH , because you like to compress everything in English)

 

Roch

 

PS/ Small differences do matter to me, but I found huge on cables too.

[christopher3393]

It's an unfalsifiable claim, irrationally based.

 

Never argue with the demented, or religious

See: Russell's Teapot

 

Sent from my HP 10 G2 Tablet using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for that little bit of transparent bigotry.

[anji12305]

Thanks for that little bit of transparent bigotry.

Argument outside of rational claims is pointless. Claims that require Faith are not rational. QED

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[alfe]

Claims that require Faith are not rational.

 

But profitable

[christopher3393]

Argument outside of rational claims is pointless. Claims that require Faith are not rational. QED

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

I think you've already decided what constitutes a rational claim and what doesn't. Beside that, the position that beliefs are unconditionally without any rationality is an oversimplification, imo, and a rather drastic one. Lots of historical-cultural conditions go into what we end up calling science. And, applied to this thread, one doesn't necessarily need work out all explanations in advance. One might listen, hear what sounds like change or improvement, and then seek explanation. Full explanation that would satisfy your standards take time. I don't believe that scientific discovery is entirely based on a presupposed secure foundation of critical rational presuppositions... and the Teapot ploy is so tired and dismissive.

[alfe]

And the Teapot ploy is so tired and dismissive.

 

The modern version is the ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.

[Jud]

Argument outside of rational claims is pointless. Claims that require Faith are not rational. QED

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

Ohh noes!!! The dred "QED," we are powerless!!

 

Seriously - show me science, i.e., at least one academic paper published in a good peer reviewed scientific journal with experimental evidence refuting any physical possibility of cable burn-in, and we can then talk about "claims that require Faith" in order for one to be open to the possibility that they might be true.

[Jud]

The modern version is the ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.

 

Are you talking Fred Hoyle's tornado in a junkyard or something else?

[alfe]

Ohh noes!!! The dred "QED," we are powerless!!

 

Seriously - show me science, i.e., at least one academic paper published in a good peer reviewed scientific journal with experimental evidence refuting any physical possibility of cable burn-in, and we can then talk about "claims that require Faith" in order for one to be open to the possibility that they might be true.

 

To review what? that aluminium dioxide is not a polymer.

[alfe]

Are you talking Fred Hoyle's tornado in a junkyard or something else?

 

Richard Dawkins." the God delusion"

[kumakuma]

Seriously - show me science, i.e., at least one academic paper published in a good peer reviewed scientific journal with experimental evidence refuting any physical possibility of cable burn-in, and we can then talk about "claims that require Faith" in order for one to be open to the possibility that they might be true.

 

Isn't this line of logic the same as arguing that cows can fly because no scientific journal has published an article refuting the physical possibility that they can't?

[mansr]

Ohh noes!!! The dred "QED," we are powerless!!

 

Seriously - show me science, i.e., at least one academic paper published in a good peer reviewed scientific journal with experimental evidence refuting any physical possibility of cable burn-in, and we can then talk about "claims that require Faith" in order for one to be open to the possibility that they might be true.

 

Faith is believing something in the absence of positive evidence. Presence of negative evidence is not required for a belief to be classified as faith.

[alfe]

Isn't this line of logic the same as arguing that cows can fly because no scientific journal has published an article refuting the physical possibility that they can't?

 

But pigs can

[mansr]

But pigs can

 

With enough thrust, absolutely. Landing can be an issue though.

[sandyk]

Isn't this line of logic the same as arguing that cows can fly because no scientific journal has published an article refuting the physical possibility that they can't?

 

 

[alfe]

Landing can be an issue though.

 

The ouch bird with big balls:)

[anji12305]

Ohh noes!!! The dred "QED," we are powerless!!

 

Seriously - show me science, i.e., at least one academic paper published in a good peer reviewed scientific journal with experimental evidence refuting any physical possibility of cable burn-in, and we can then talk about "claims that require Faith" in order for one to be open to the possibility that they might be true.

Disprove a negative?

You must be new at this...

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[anji12305]

I think you've already decided what constitutes a rational claim and what doesn't. Beside that, the position that beliefs are unconditionally without any rationality is an oversimplification, imo, and a rather drastic one. Lots of historical-cultural conditions go into what we end up calling science. And, applied to this thread, one doesn't necessarily need work out all explanations in advance. One might listen, hear what sounds like change or improvement, and then seek explanation. Full explanation that would satisfy your standards take time. I don't believe that scientific discovery is entirely based on a presupposed secure foundation of critical rational presuppositions... and the Teapot ploy is so tired and dismissive.

Russell's Teapot has applied to the same logical fallacy displayed here.

 

Shifting the burden of proof to the skeptic isn't rational. As said earlier, look to what professional sound engineers purchase in the pursuit of their livelihood for rational choices.

 

Insisting that something only a credulous few can hear is sufficient proof invites dismissal.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Jud]

Faith is believing something in the absence of positive evidence. Presence of negative evidence is not required for a belief to be classified as faith.

 

And believing something is not at all the same as not reaching any conclusion in the absence of positive or negative evidence.

[christopher3393]

This thread is sort of like biting into a juicy lucy burger filled with surprise jalapenos. Indigestible.

 

Richard Dawkins." the God delusion"

 

The Gospel of Scientists. It feels good to have a cause, doesn't it?

 

Faith is believing something in the absence of positive evidence. Presence of negative evidence is not required for a belief to be classified as faith.

 

Excellent. Whose definition of faith and belief, as if these were terms universally agreed upon and human language were universal? It is much more complex than this! Just read of few pages of this, as one of many examples: https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Belief-Difference-Between-Them/dp/1851681655

 

Russell's Teapot has applied to the same logical fallacy displayed here.

 

Shifting the burden of proof to the skeptic isn't rational. As said earlier, look to what professional sound engineers purchase in the pursuit of their livelihood for rational choices.

 

Insisting that something only a credulous few can hear is sufficient proof invites dismissal.

 

I'm not insisting that something only a credulous few can hear is sufficient proof invites dismissal. Not at all! I'm not insisting on anything but the narrowness of your perspective as presented. That's all I have to go on. I'm suggesting that there are manufacturers out there that are credible as human beings and as audio experts, even "Masters", that do not always go about things in the way you insist they should. It isn't ALL "by the book". The "book" is a later abstraction that makes discovery look much neater than it sometimes is. The kind of critical rational objectivism that you adhere to is one perspective among many. Karl Popper is an eminent contributor to the philosophy of science, but there are many who have quite reasonable disagreements with his articulation of the falsifiability approach, including some thinkers like Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerbend, Richard Rorty, Bruno Latour. These are people who haven't found a final answer to the objectivism / relativism split in modern philosophy of science, but certainly point out that reasonable people can disagree on these things without being subject to ridicule (hopefully). Look, your view as stated doesn't show that you've really thought about this. Perhaps you have. I'm no trying to offend you.

 

I don't have the answers by any stretch. I'm just advocating more open tolerant inquiry. You don't have to sacrifice your rigor. You just have to be willing to listen and try to thjink of why it might be a little different than your framework allows. I think you would find that fruitful.

 

btw, appeals to rationalwiki are red lights for bias.

[Jud]

Disprove a negative?

You must be new at this...

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

Do good careful science rather than leap to even (especially) intuitively attractive positions? Call me old fashioned, I guess.