​Cable Burn In?

[wwaldmanfan]

I am one of the people who do believe cables make a difference (no flames please) BUT these absurd recommended "burn in times" not just for cables but all audio products in general, IMHO, is a gimmick to provide a barrier for returns.

 

It kind of reminds me of purchasing a dog with a "guarantee" that if the dog has a "health issue" during his/her first two years you can return the dog for a new one. Yeah right.

 

That would be a warranty, but you're right, most pets don't usually come with those. I don't know much about dogs, actually. Perhaps very expensive, inbred purebreeds do have some kind of health-issue warranty? One of my best friends is a vet; I'll have to ask him about this.

[Priaptor]

That would be a warranty, but you're right, most pets don't usually come with those. I don't know much about dogs, actually. Perhaps very expensive, inbred purebreeds do have some kind of health-issue warranty? One of my best friends is a vet; I'll have to ask him about this.

 

Remember most high end audio products have some kind of a money back either from the manufacturer or the retailer. For example, Audio Research "recommends" 600 hour burn in. That usually goes past the "money back guarantee" so the "recommended burn in period", in my cynical perspective, serves a purpose beyond having the component sound its best. So the point is that once you are past the "money back guarantee" it is very unlikely that after the recommended burn in period that you will do anything but keep it and most will rationalize just keeping it even if they aren't crazy about it.

 

The dog thing was just to bring up a somewhat analogous issue. Every Golden I ever brought home had this absurd "health guarantee", the remedy being for either one or two years, IF, there is a "health issue" (defined in the fine print) the breeder will take back the dog and give you a new one. The point I am making is that should that occur the owner is so entwined with love and emotion for the dog there is NO WAY they are returning it for a new one and the breeder depends upon that just like the manufacturer of audio equipment knows getting you past the "return point" with the burn in recommendation is going to mitigate returns.

 

Anecdote on the dog thing. I had an amazing Golden that unfortunately developed, at an early age, hemangiosarcoma at 4 1/2 and the breeder who had issued a "5 year warranty" against such diseases. Like I was ever going to send my poor Riley back to her for a new dog??

[plissken]

Value = Utility / Price

 

If we use actual metrics and apply your definition, then $2000 cables are a horrible value.

[lmitche]

If we use actual metrics and apply your definition, then $2000 cables are a horrible value.

??

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I am looking to build the perfect audiophile timer that would read the presence of signal from the speaker terminals in parallel with the speakers themselves. It would have very high resistance, of course, so as not to affect the sound going to the speakers themselves. It would increment the total elapsed time with signal present in the system on its internal timer.

 

Ideally, it would allow me to preset the exact number of hours recommended for burn in and an alarm would sound at the precise second that burn in duration was achieved with signal! It could also send a text message to my cell phone/Apple watch. No sense actually listening to the system before that precise moment, since we know it will not sound any good at all before then. It goes without saying that it would have an LPS, not an SMPS, of course. And, it would have excellent mechanical isolation via Stillpoints, an atomic master clock, etc.

 

I think such a device could greatly benefit audiophiles everywhere or perhaps such playback timers should become mandatory features, built in to each separate piece of equipment, especially cables. I could license it to AudioQuest, Audio Research, etc. It could become the next big thingamajig - the Audiophile Stopwatch.

[Jud]

In me callous and misspent youth. I had a lovely Jaguar XK-140 C roadster (the "C" means that the cylinder head of the engine had a coat of orange paint on it which indicated that the car could get you to an illegal speed quicker). It was a gorgeous thing and it had a rule: "I break down anytime you take me more than 25 miles from home". And it did too. I would have thought that in the ensuing 60 years (My Jag was a 1956 model), they would have corrected those reliability problems! After all, Lucas, the British prince of darkness is out of business as is Skinner's Union (who made the carburetors for virtually all British cars at one time). But, I guess not...

 

Probably my favorite classic car as far as appearance.

[lmitche]

Probably my favorite classic car as far as appearance.

+1 I rebuilt an XK in my youth.

[Jud]

Dogs can interbreed with wolves and produce fertile offspring. Therefore both are Canis lupus. I think the point was that comparing DNA sequences has replaced the more qualitative, subjective classifications. But the ability to interbreed and to produce fertile offspring is the ultimate test of whether two organisms belong to the same species. The rest is kind of arbitrary.

 

When I was a kid, people spoke of the "plant kingdom" and "animal kingdom". Now, thanks to comparing ribosomal RNA genes, we know there are essentially three domains (or kingdoms) of life -- bacteria, archea, and eukaryotes. Plants and animals are two closely related branches of euks.

 

Yep, I'm well aware of molecular genetics supplementing/replacing morphology, paleontology, etc., with regard to a lot of this a relatively long time ago.

 

But look at your "ultimate test." This is the Biological Species Concept, which is certainly the most widely used one. But there are many others, see Untitled. And the Biological Species Concept, while it works great for sexually reproducing species (accounting for most of the life that's big enough for us to see), doesn't work at all for the huge majority of life on Earth, which might be viewed as a slight problem, eh? The fact that scientists choose to use a definition that doesn't work for the vast majority of what they're supposedly defining isn't a scientific decision, it's a philosophical (utilitarian) one - "We are willing to have a definition that doesn't apply for a lot of life because it's so useful in other ways."

 

By the way, don't know if you've read it, but Eugene Koonin's "The Logic of Chance" is IMO an interesting and worthwhile read on what comparative genomics and "systems biology" can tell us about evolution in a world where there's no sexual reproduction and lots of HGT.

[Jud]

When I was a kid, people spoke of the "plant kingdom" and "animal kingdom". Now, thanks to comparing ribosomal RNA genes, we know there are essentially three domains (or kingdoms) of life -- bacteria, archea, and eukaryotes. Plants and animals are two closely related branches of euks.

Oh, BTW - Bacteria, Archaea, and eukaryotes don't include viruses. They're defined as non-life. Is that scientific, philosophical, or both? In your view of the RNA World, was the first life the equivalent of today's viruses, or did life begin only when we reached a level analogous to today's Archaea and Bacteria?

[gmgraves]

My theory on burn in is, the suppliers expect that over that time you get used to the sound of said cables/equipment and learn live with them (or not in some cases)

 

+1

[gmgraves]

+1 I rebuilt an XK in my youth.

 

Which one?

[gmgraves]

We aren't talking about values. We are talking performance. Values are subjective, performance is objective.

 

YOU weren't talking about value for money spent, and how they are perceived, but *I* was!

[gmgraves]

Probably my favorite classic car as far as appearance.

Mine too. It was also quick and fast for it's day. When running perfectly (rare), it was good for ~130 MPH+ and a 0-60 of around 8 seconds. This was when a powerful American car (like a Chrysler 300 with a "hemi) was lucky to do 0-60 in 11. The car had lousy brakes though and stopping was a challenge. They would haul you down from 100 to 50 in no time flat, but 50 to 0? Not so much. Had to wait for the XK-150 and 4-wheel disc brakes in 1957, to finally get decent brakes.

 

Of course (in my opinion and that of a lot of other people as well) the E-Type Jag was the most beautiful automobile ever. Even ol' Enzo said it was the prettiest car in the world. Second prettiest, again, in my estimation, was either the '62 250 GT Berlinetta Lusso, or the the 246 Dino from a decade later.

[lmitche]

Which one?

It was a green XK150, 1958 I think. It was the late 70s. We were college kids and found it in a barn in CT while we were painting a house on the same property one summer.

 

The owner gave it to us! Once restored the proceeds from the sale paid half a year of my college tuition of $4000.

 

Ours had an electronic overdrive switch on the dash. The lines were absolutely beautiful.

[Ralf11]

I am one of the people who do believe cables make a difference (no flames please) BUT these absurd recommended "burn in times" not just for cables but all audio products in general, IMHO, is a gimmick to provide a barrier for returns.

 

It kind of reminds me of purchasing a dog with a "guarantee" that if the dog has a "health issue" during his/her first two years you can return the dog for a new one. Yeah right.

 

sure cables make a difference - you can always just hook up some capacitors and inductors to zip cord to make that difference for a lot less $$ - is a difference an improvement??

 

remember, if you like your cables you can keep your cables

 

burn in time clearly benefits (most) speakers, maybe some active electronic components and likely the extended listening time affects your perception of the sound too(!)

 

I suggest that cars & viruses be moved to off-topic areas; I will then be glad to post some famous quotes on sports cars, and for anyone wanting to learn biology post some readings in various areas.

[jabbr]

I am one of the people who do believe cables make a difference (no flames please) .

 

I really don't have a major issue with cables at "x" price. A colleague once advised me against a Audi M5 because of the difficulty keeping it under the speed limit so with cars, for example, while there are objective metrics, in reality getting someone from point A to point B: no difference: that said a Tesla with real autopilot is interesting. ... but in any case, like cars, people have other than purely objective reasons to get certain cables :shrug:

 

Now when your cables cost more than both your DAC and amp -- NASA we have a problem.

[jabbr]

 

I suggest that cars & viruses be moved to off-topic areas; I will then be glad to post some famous quotes on sports cars, and for anyone wanting to learn biology post some readings in various areas.

 

My fault for introducing: point I was trying to make is that whether you are moving electrons or people from point A to point B people will purchase a vehicle at different price points aside from the utility if getting the basic job done.

[Ralf11]

and a good point (but this discussion is on the internet)

[Priaptor]

I really don't have a major issue with cables at "x" price. A colleague once advised me against a Audi M5 because of the difficulty keeping it under the speed limit so with cars, for example, while there are objective metrics, in reality getting someone from point A to point B: no difference: that said a Tesla with real autopilot is interesting. ... but in any case, like cars, people have other than purely objective reasons to get certain cables :shrug:

 

Now when your cables cost more than both your DAC and amp -- NASA we have a problem.

 

Was there ever an Audi M5? Never heard of it. I heard of S models and BMW M5 but never an Audi M5

[jabbr]

Was there ever an Audi M5? Never heard of it. I heard of S models and BMW M5 but never an Audi M5

 

Oops ! BMW of course -- that's how oblivious I am to the actual car -- I'm generally driving & thinking about what I'm going to do once I get there

[Ralf11]

20 years and I'm still trying to burn in my speaker cables

[semente]

Mine too. It was also quick and fast for it's day. When running perfectly (rare), it was good for ~130 MPH+ and a 0-60 of around 8 seconds. This was when a powerful American car (like a Chrysler 300 with a "hemi) was lucky to do 0-60 in 11. The car had lousy brakes though and stopping was a challenge. They would haul you down from 100 to 50 in no time flat, but 50 to 0? Not so much. Had to wait for the XK-150 and 4-wheel disc brakes in 1957, to finally get decent brakes.

 

Of course (in my opinion and that of a lot of other people as well) the E-Type Jag was the most beautiful automobile ever. Even ol' Enzo said it was the prettiest car in the world. Second prettiest, again, in my estimation, was either the '62 250 GT Berlinetta Lusso, or the the 246 Dino from a decade later.

I don't like the Dino but the 250GT SWB is definitely one of the most beautiful together the DB4 Zagato.

 

R

[Fitzcaraldo215]

20 years and I'm still trying to burn in my speaker cables

The same ones? Golly, it sure takes a long time breaking stuff in for best sound.

[sjay]

The same ones? Golly, it sure takes a long time breaking stuff in for best sound.

 

I dont think his ears are resolving enough

[NOMBEDES]

As I stated in the last thread regarding this painful subject: cables may sound "different" because they have to. How can you justify absurd prices if there is not some sonic artifact associated with the cable? If you splice a kazoo in your 5$K wire product, you will get at least one good review (insert your favorite publication here) and at least three people who will buy said product and, Bobs your uncle, you walk home with 14$K. And Kazoos are easy to break in.