​Cable Burn In?

[OldBigEars]

Quite rarely, actually.

 

Unintentionally hilarious and nauseating in approximately equal measures.

[lmitche]

In this discussion there is no mention of the difference between the impact of digital domain cables (AES, USB, etc...) connecting transport to DAC versus analog domain interconnects and speakers cables.

 

In the former case SQ performance can be profound between cables. While differences in the analog side can also occur, to my mind it's more of a subjective taste then overall performance issue.

 

I assume the cable loom purchased by the OP covers both of these domains. It makes me wonder if the digital cables in this loom are the bottleneck here.

 

If true and I were the OP, I'd return the loom, place my old cables back into service and go buy a good digital cable.

[mansr]

Unintentionally hilarious and nauseating in approximately equal measures.

 

Is it self-assessment day?

[jabbr]

But mathematics isn't.

 

Which mathematics? True by definition still depends on the definition.

[jabbr]

On the topic of Teflon in this post, you really need to wonder if Teflon is affected by anything hiding behind audio equipment.

According to Wikipedia, Teflon has a dielectric strength of 60MV/m, even down to a millimeter, of insulation, that's still 30kV, 30,000V before the material starts to complain.

Think about moving electrons and breaking in an insulation like that, when the metal conductor is at 2V or a lot less. Not going to happen, Teflon will not move, ever.

 

Burn in could be nothing, or it could easily be some sort of triboelectric / static effect that could just as easily depend on the cable just sitting there in the same position of a defined period of time.

 

Move the cable, change the forces within and then wait until the static charges reequilibrate :shrug:

[new_media]

Why does break in make everything sound better? Shouldn't some things actually sound worse over time?

[mansr]

Why does break in make everything sound better? Shouldn't some things actually sound worse over time?

If it made things worse, there would be no point believing in it.

[wgscott]

That's true, and endemic not only among overly credulous believers, but also among those indulging in cheap skepticism on the basis of "common sense" and half-vast expertise. We've all seen them on the climate science and evolutionary biology blogs, telling scientists who've spent careers in these disciplines they're wrong.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

I think this may be a false analogy.

 

In the case of climate science and evolutionary biology, the data are on the side of the "believers" (or, more accurately, proponents) of these claims. In the case of cable claims, the "believers" can't or won't produce data to back up the claims, or else they claim the effects cannot even be measured.

 

Rather, it would appear the anti-data folks would include the Creationists, the climate-change deniers, the anti-vaccine people, and the cables-make-a-huge-difference advocates.

[jabbr]

I think this may be a false analogy.

In the case of climate science and evolutionary biology, the data is on the side of the "believers" (or, more accurately, proponents) of these claims. In the case of cable claims, the "believers" can't or won't produce data to back up the claims, or else they claim the effects cannot even be measured.

 

Rather, it would appear the anti-data folks include the Creationists, the climate-change deniers, the anti-vaccine people, and the cables-make-a-huge-difference advocates. Sounds like the basis for a certain Party Platform to me.

Well, well let's not get too serious about this

 

1) climate science and anti-vaccine people are a serious danger to all of us.

2) biology non believers can influence education and perhaps relegate a generation of children to menial labor (the new jobs are increasingly in science based fields)

 

3) cable believers are similar to people who like to gamble in casinos -- perhaps its just a hobby, perhaps its fun & enjoyable but unless there is demonstrated harm to others (and given that both opinions are out there) its at best harmless and at worst a tax on stupidity. ... but really no worse than buying a Mercedes or Jaguar or ... of course I don't know any girls who like expensive cables, but that's another matter... maybe I'm hangin out at the wrong parties...

 

4) Now if you start to mess with my unobtainium power jFet collection ... them's fightin' words

[mansr]

Well, well let's not get too serious about this

 

1) climate science and anti-vaccine people are a serious danger to all of us.

2) biology non believers can influence education and perhaps relegate a generation of children to menial labor (the new jobs are increasingly in science based fields)

 

3) cable believers are similar to people who like to gamble in casinos -- perhaps its just a hobby, perhaps its fun & enjoyable but unless there is demonstrated harm to others (and given that both opinions are out there) its at best harmless and at worst a tax on stupidity. ... but really no worse than buying a Mercedes or Jaguar or ... of course I don't know any girls who like expensive cables, but that's another matter... maybe I'm hangin out at the wrong parties...

 

Cable believers are harmful when their "advice" causes people to waste money. Sure, nobody dies, and it's presumably money that would otherwise have been spent on speakers or amps, not food or rent. Nevertheless, following such advice leaves people on a limited hifi budget with a lesser system than they'd get by allocating the money more wisely. If you have practically unlimited funds, as is seemingly the case for some, by all means go ahead and indulge yourself. Just try to be a little less condescending towards the more factually minded among us while doing so.

[jabbr]

Cable believers are harmful when their "advice" causes people to waste money. Sure, nobody dies, and it's presumably money that would otherwise have been spent on speakers or amps, not food or rent. Nevertheless, following such advice leaves people on a limited hifi budget with a lesser system than they'd get by allocating the money more wisely. If you have practically unlimited funds, as is seemingly the case for some, by all means go ahead and indulge yourself. Just try to be a little less condescending towards the more factually minded among us while doing so.

 

Both sides of the advice are out there-- smart people are advise to read, evaluate, decide. People on limited budgets are advised to shop carefully.

 

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[new_media]

... but really no worse than buying a Mercedes or Jaguar or ...

 

My mom has a Jaguar and it has left her stranded on the side of the road more than once.

[OldBigEars]

but really no worse than buying a Mercedes or Jaguar

 

You stick with your Toyota - love it, like you do. No need for you to waste money on fine cars, or fine wine, or nice hotels, or well designed clothes. No need to beat yourself up just 'cos you can't afford the better things in life. Just enjoy what makes you happy and what you can comfortably afford. Any try not to be too bitter towards people who have the means and the capability of appreciating the differences.

[mansr]

You stick with your Toyota - love it, like you do. No need for you to waste money on fine cars, or fine wine, or nice hotels, or well designed clothes. No need to beat yourself up just 'cos you can't afford the better things in life. Just enjoy what makes you happy and what you can comfortably afford. Any try not to be too bitter towards people who have the means and the capability of appreciating the differences.

There's that condescension again.

[wgscott]

My mom has a Jaguar and it has left her stranded on the side of the road more than once.

 

Maybe she just wasn't wealthy enough nor sophisticated enough to appreciate the finer things in life.

[wwaldmanfan]

Why does break in make everything sound better? Shouldn't some things actually sound worse over time?

 

 

No question that some audio gear can degrade. Vacuum tubes, capacitors, rubber surrounds in speaker drivers, etc. However, I'm talking years, if not decades, for that to occur. A cable should never wear out in one human lifespan. Worst case, the teminations corrode, so you just cut off a little and redo it.

We all need to stop and take a breath. This subject has been bandied about on this forum for years. The newbie OP came in here with a legitimate question. Some of us were shocked that he paid $2,000 for cables and was told that they would sound poor for at least 700 hours, but then the heavens would open, and angels would sing. Anyone with any experience with electronics on any level has got to realize that that's insane. Then again, it is possible that there could be a very slight change over, maybe, 100 hrs of use. Arguing about this is pointless, because we've been there and done that.

One thing is clear, and I hope the OP realizes it by now, if he is not happy, he should return the cables, and get his money back right now.

[Ralf11]

Science and scientist are fallible.

 

How many times in the short history are science theories replaced?

 

Even mathematics theories. Please remember and PHD in mathematics ends as a philosopher. Then, is a philosopher infallible?

 

Maybe the problem today is there are too many specializations and too little 'compendiators'. It's like when you are sick with an strange disease, you enter in an hospital and each specialist looks only his field. I you don't have an MD that summarize your condition better buy a tomb.

 

Please note, I'm not again science, but is better to have a dud. This is what brings new discoveries.

 

From the other side, not all human beings are the same. If someone, but not you, can perceive 'different' from you, please don't go the 'science way' to justify the 'impossible'. I have seen the impossible possible in many fields.

 

And no, this is not 'magic', or something like that. And I agree sometimes senses make you a bad move.

 

Roch

 

xlnt example of the problem

 

Science is self-correcting

 

Scientists have nothing to do with philospohers and avoid tem at all costs

 

etc. etc.

[Jud]

I think this may be a false analogy.

 

In the case of climate science and evolutionary biology, the data are on the side of the "believers" (or, more accurately, proponents) of these claims. In the case of cable claims, the "believers" can't or won't produce data to back up the claims, or else they claim the effects cannot even be measured.

 

Rather, it would appear the anti-data folks would include the Creationists, the climate-change deniers, the anti-vaccine people, and the cables-make-a-huge-difference advocates.

 

Yeah, seems like we've talked about this burden of proof stuff before.

 

I do see some of the same broad dismissals of those in the field/business by those who aren't, on the basis that the former benefit financially or are part of the cabal. Thus engineers who design cables who say there are differences, or even those who don't, like Gordon Rankin or John Swenson, are discounted because they are assumed to profit or be tight with those who do. To me this is reminiscent of the charges that climate scientists are part of a government-industrial complex profiting from making up stories about AGW and its impact. Or the charges that life science professors only support evolution because they would lose jobs otherwise (apparently people are unaware of tenure).

 

But I do agree I'd sure like to see reliable technical backing for these anecdotal experiences, or greater publicity for any that might exist that I'm unaware of.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

xlnt example of the problem

 

Science is self-correcting

 

Scientists have nothing to do with philospohers and avoid tem at all costs

 

etc. etc.

 

Science *aims* to be self correcting. It is a worthy goal not always perfectly reached in practice, at least in the near term.

 

There are many philosophers on topics such as cladistics who are valuable and welcome contributors to scientific discussions.

 

I think even here with our non-scientific discussions, specific points thoughtfully made are of greater value than casual broad-brush declarations.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Ralf11]

no, it isn't perfect but we have reached a remarkably accurate picture of the universe all from the self-correcting nature of science

 

while I am rather conversant with genetics, I am not familiar at all with cladistics philosophy

[Ralf11]

re: reliable technical backing for these anecdotal experiences

 

this phrase seems to hit on two different ways of doing science or achieving scientific explanation (hard ot be sure b/c of the way its worded)

 

Science has two dis-similar approaches:

 

One is to generate a mechanistic explanation for phenomena - to look at smaller mechanisms and see how they function to generate the phenomenon under examination - e.g. the effects of hormones on behavior, or of mitochondria on energy production

 

A second is epidemiological: we use statistical methods to see if there is some non-random effect even if we do not understand the mechanism, e.g. cancer clusters, tho this mode of inquiry is not limited to illness

[sockpit]

I'm afraid the nature of scientific explanation is not a scientific question. You've veered into the philosophy of science . . .

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

while I am rather conversant with genetics, I am not familiar at all with cladistics philosophy

Live and learn: About – Evolving Thoughts

 

See also, for example, AOU Committee on Classification and Nomenclature of North and Middle American Birds | American Ornithology and WoRMS - World Register of Marine Species

 

Species classification and cladistics at the margins and with living things that reproduce asexually is a matter of imposing order and division on continuous variation, so there's a bit of philosophy and art in it as well as science.

[Ralf11]

Jud, I think you are conflating cladistics with philosophizing. Cladistics, in taxonomy, attempts to identify clades or lineages. There was a brouhaha over it in the 1970s-80s but all the effort (and new jobs) are now in using molecular genetics.

[Jud]

Jud, I think you are conflating cladistics with philosophizing. Cladistics, in taxonomy, attempts to identify clades or lineages. There was a brouhaha over it in the 1970s-80s but all the effort (and new jobs) are now in using molecular genetics.

 

So what does molecular genetics tell us about whether dogs should be classified as Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris, and whether we should use the Biological Species Concept or the Evolutionary Species Concept? Is this a purely scientific discussion regarding genetics, or does it involve philosophy of classification?

 

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog#Taxonomy