<title deleted> - Page 9  

Absolutely NOT! I believe the OP should have the option of setting rules for posting within the thread, and a moderator overseeing it. If the OP does not want people to say "no, this is not believable", "I need more scientific data" etc. to get his/her point across, then so be it. If the OP wants a totally open discussion, then fine. I'm just saying the OP should have the option, since this subject is HIGHLY subjective. And now, even carries "beliefs"..

I think, maybe adding a asterisk/star whatever (*) than the OP would like someone to oversee the thread. And if they want it totally open, then disregard the (*)


I'm trying to fight for both sides. I don't want there to not be any discussion because of non-believers. I think everyone should RESPECT and HONOR the OP's opinion/rules. However, THESE are so often overlooked, and the non-believer jumps right in.


I think the "rules" should be tightened up. That's all. I totally agree with you here. I am not talking about given members authority for who to post/not post, instead give them the option of having a moderator oversee it.

Like I mentioned, I refuse to share my results with you guys on my new IC I received. With the same fear, that it can/will turn into this (this right here; this thread.. THIS!). "THIS" thread has gone wayyyyy to far.. and until something is fixed, I won't voice my opinion.


But it never seems the "believers" destroy threads like this.. It's always the other way around. Yes, we argue with you, yes, we participate in arguments, yes, we egg you on, however it's starting to get downright nasty.

We would like to post our impressions/thoughts/opinions/results, but it's the non-believers who go too far. Those who just can't and REFUSE to believe any part is true.


It is "similar" but not even close. I won't even go on about Religion.

Simple fact is, no member here has the authority to choose who can and cannot post in a thread.

No thread starter has the right to create rules for whose/what oppinions can/cannot be posted in their thread.

They can ask politely, that is all.

It boils down to, ANY opinion, whether for or against the subject at hand, are allowed. Since they are on topic, and relevant. If you don't break the rules, you are fine. Heck, that is why the rules are there.

However, some mods do tend to assert their own personal beliefs, or their own personal sets of rules, too much. Only a few mods do this though, and almost all the mods are fair, and try to be as unbiased as they can, which is great. I also think that the mods know who the mods who over-assert their personal beliefs too much, are.



The way you are proposing is not only a total hindrance to learning and spread of knowledge in general, it is near completely impossible to implement.

You make some good points.. I'm not a member to many other forums, especially for a hobby. So I lack some experience..

However, I'm just looking for someone to get this fixed. My ideas, or thoughts, are strictly out to start some discussion so we can get this resolved.

I agree to most of your idea. I ENJOY being here, but now, after this, I have absolutely no incentive to post a review/opinion etc. on a cable, cable burn-in or nothing. I have no incentive to continue to post in this section either, until something is done. I really enjoy sharing my work/experiences and opinions, and 99.999% of the time I keep it friendly and civil. However, that's not always the case with other posters.



" The OP shouldn't be able to make rules, only make requests and the rest of us should have the decency to respect those rules. "


Good.. but that exact same thing happened here. OP requested that "nay-sayers" not need reply, and it only took ONE reply to get this going..



Now it seems like a lot is falling into my hands... *gulp* and maybe I need a break from this section.


I'm JUST trying to help.. I enjoy conversing, and having a healthy "civil" argument with someone, but THIS, this thread is out of control.

Since you guys know it all, I'll let you have a stab at it. I was only trying to help. I didn't want those "exact" rules implemented. I am looking to start a discussion on how to fix this problem. Since it seems, its "impossible" to control any of this, my membership to the "cable section" can be deleted. I want nothing to do with a 120 page argument. In fact, I've only read like 5 pages. And I also believe there's a lot of people out there, who (like my Dad and Sister) will argue and fight until someone tells them they are right. So I argue, get my point(s) across, if they ignore it, I ignore them.

HOWEVER, that's where my problem comes up. I don't like (and haven't) put anyone on the ignore list. Aside from "heated cable talk/arguments" I believe people have more to say on other subjects as well, and I don't want to "ignore" them simply for something they said in a cable forum. I might want to hear what you have to say about a amp, or a certain pair of headphones, therefore I will very likely never add anyone to my "ignore" list.


And since it seems, that "this is a free world" anyone can post, then I probably don't belong in this section.. it gets to heated to quickly, to much OT, to many personal attacks. etc. etc. etc. You know exactly what I'm talking about.


I guess I'm the one out of line...

If someone were to say

"ok, now I know alot of people think cables don't have a real effect. But I hear something, and yes it might be placebo, but I want to share my experiences"

I would be fine with that, and wouldn't bother posting in the thread.

Unless someone decided to either make rude remarks about "non-believers" or make completely false statements. (like the ones made about different metals having certain special supernatural properties)

One of the big problems is the attitudes of people.

They make one post, and even it is entirely relevant and factual, people will just respond with derragotory remarks like "troll".

It is this attitude that gets us worked up, since real, useful information was posted, and the only responses are "troll" or "get lost this is my thread"

Anyone here should know, that if you make false claims, or reply with insults when someone presents something you don't want to hear, your going to catch a lot of flak for it.

Could you go a little further in depth? And what do you mean by one making completely false statements?



I CANNOT agree more.


one believer, one non-believer, having a civil argument; this is why I post

As with ANY debate on personal beliefs (which this very much is), it will turn into a very long and heated debate. This is expected, and is the same with politics, religion, ethics, etc etc, even cables.

Attempts to mute these discussions, or close them will be futile. When that happens people still have alot of stuff they want to say, and just wait for the next chance to say it.

I've been in alot of forums, with alot of threads like this. And when they are left to run their course, they do better. They go on and on, but eventually die out. But because everyone was able to get out what they wanted to say, they don't reoccur as often.

I think the mods have realized this now.

The only thing I feel that needs to be moderated is the name calling. If someone is sarcastic or condescending, deal with it.

But when people call people "trolls" or "stupid believers" then that should be ended right there. Personal attacks should not be tolerated. Some of the worst I've seen here is someone calling the "skeptics" poor bums who can't afford anything good so they pick on "believers". Completely uncalled for, and really lowers the level of the debate.

Wow, wow, wow, my friend. There is a distinctly ominous sense to what you are writing here. And I thought we were to have a battle of arguments, not some dark alley stabbings.

The OP, as I understand, had originally stated that "Holly crap, burn-in is real!", to which some people had replied that, essentially, "no it isn't." Now, this thread is special, in a peculiar way, because as of a while ago, this is officially "the thread that was formerly known as *Holly crap, burn-in is real!*"

The deletion of the original post, obviously, poses a peculiar problem from the standpoint of how the discussion had unfolded, at least the gist of it: we no longer know how the original post substantiated the claim that was made in the title of the thread. This is a unique opportunity, it seems to me, for the "believers" out there to state, in concise terms, how exactly is the cable burn-in "real" - and I would lay the particular stress in the word real.

Purely subjective testimony with no material basis, this needs to be stressed, could mean that the experience is due to cables themselves just as well as that it is due to nothing more than a subjectively held conviction that has no material basis. The latter possibility seems more likely, actually, since popular convictions that have no material basis are not anything uncommon. If the latter was to be the case, in either way, the term "cable burn-in" would be highly inappropriate for the experience it seeks to express linguistically; the latter possibility, anyways, would not, for obvious reasons, demonstrate that "cable burn-in is real."

If cable "burn-in" is real it should be possible to at least say what it is in material terms, and how the material process that's at work in the "burn-in" affects the reproduction of sound.

And please, let's avoid the arguments that demand the proof that cable "burn-in" doesn't exist. Some info about the, so called, Burden of Proof logical fallacy.

Another logical fallacy of relevance, in terms of possible responses, is the, so called fallacy of "middle ground", which "is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position."

Come on guys, let's have a real argument here!

I stay away from Politics, and Religion. Instead I like to have arguments that someone (either I, or the person I'm arguing with) has some control of. Sports for instance, is where I argue the most, but it is very civil and peaceful argument, we come to a conclusion, and then move on to the next topic. Not so here..


But I see threads like this all over this section.. especially burn-in topics. It's not just one..

I like this saying a lot:

"If you have something good to say, then say it"

I do agree debates are much funner, and MUCH more informative, and resolve much quicker when simple rules of logic are followed.

This is what I have found, a quick search on Google:



You'll also often hear that you should burn-in your speaker cables, as well as your components. These burn-in periods have as little effect on your home theater as the length of your speaker cables.

Cables don't have some sort of "memory" that is altered in the first few hours of use. This is a slight misunderstanding of electrical fields involved. Yes, electromagnetic fields do have an effect on the dielectric, the white foam that surrounds the center wire of your interconnect cables. As the audio or video signal sweeps up and down (all "within" the cable), the effects of the first half of the signal are reversed by the second half. If you have an electronics background you know that the electromagnetic field depends on current moving through a wire, and it's this current that turns out to be the overriding factor in how a cable behaves over time. With interconnects, very little current is flowing through these cables, so burn-in is essentially a waste of your time.

The one way that a signal can alter the cable is if the signal has enough current with it to heat the cable, and to melt the cable's crystalline structure. This type of burn-in is prone to bring the fire department running rather than your local home theater enthusiasts.

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messa...79/127865.html



So would anyone like to comment to the first part? After reading this, it makes sense to me. However, I am a "newbie" when it comes to cables. I know nothing about electrical engineering, or what's involved in making a cable, or even how a cable works. However, I find interesting reads here all the time (ie. cable burn-in is real). I try it for myself, and see I am getting results. Therefore, I am a "believer". A "believer" that what I just read, does indeed work.

Here's another one:



I recently purchased a new speakercable called Fantasy, in Bi-Wire configuration, from Harmonic Technology. With the cables connected to the entire multichannel setup I anxiously started playing a lot of music. But to my huge dissapointment the sound was clearly lacking of "body" and "weight" and also sounded a bit harsh compared to my older (and cheaper!) cables that had been running for six years.

I contacted the manufacturer because I was not happy with my investment and wanted to return them. However, they were very clear on the importance of burning-in the cables properly and urged me to continue playing music for at least 100hs or more before judging.

Hearing this I became very skeptical indeed. I have never heard anyone speaking of the necessity of burning-in something as "passive" as a cable. But nonetheless, I did as they instructed and played music non-stop around the clock for five days. And to my huge suprise - something happened to the sound. And it was anything but subtle. The "weight" and "body" had returned, but now it was more profound than with my old cables. And the difference of sound before-and-after brake-in was indeed very noticable. The sound had an almost uncanny smothness and natural tone that made me shake my head in disbelief.

I am very glad I went beyond my disbelief of burning-in cables and tried it before I sent them back for a refund. Now my electronics and speakers can really show me what they can do. This cable has given me one step closer to audio-heaven (fully broken-in that is...).

Anyone care to share their thought on this interesting topic of burning in cables...?!

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/5/106481.html




I'm not sure how I could put my experience in terms..

When I FIRST tired my recently acquired silver IC's, I immediately noticed tighter bass, over my crappy copper IC's. The new (brand new) cable also added a little (think small) dynamic punch to the overall frequency. My headphones are already very dynamic, and the silver seemed to add a little bit more.

Now, I am coming upon 100 hours of pink-noise burn-in, and I am anxious to see the end result.

I guess this will be a good chance to experience "cable burn-in", on a half-way decent quality IC. I had already "burned-in" my headphones. It seems everything opened up a little more.. bass was a little better, mids/highs a little better, and the sound stage a little deeper. Again, this was noticeable, but no way was it night/day. It improved them, yes, but it is in no way, shape or form, a big improvement.



I'm not sure if this is what you were looking for (probably not), but this is how it has been for my situation.

I think this is unworkable. Essentially it comes down to the mods being a kind of police force in everyone's private state (thread), policing it by the op's rules. The mods have better things to do. Furthermore this would lead to a disgusting kind of trolling, for instance writing: Metal is not music it's crappy noise! And please don't post in this thread if you disagree.

I would never criticize someone for writing on his experiences with cables. I might if someone makes wild, unfounded claims. I might if someone writes: Wow! Cable burn in is real! Please don't post if you don't agree.


If he had written: My experiences have led me to believe in cable burn in, or something like that, this would be a whole different thread.


I've heard this argument before and it just doesn't make sense. Why should anyone believe in something for which there is no scientific basis, no theoretical framework to explain it and no objective evidence. Because someone says they hear things?

Both topics are subjective; very.

However, there's more posts/user end reviews of having "success" with cable burn-in, which got me interested.



Both posts (above) have my interest, and I guess tomorrow/Monday "I" will truly know if cable burn-in works. I found some quality silver IC's, and this is my chance to prove to myself either it works, or it doesn't.

I will always believe in burning in your headphones.

This is where I get caught up. Regardless, if there is "scientific 'anything' " or not, why do I need to prove there is something "scientific" going on? Better yet, HOW do I go about proving something scientific when it's my ears that's hearing it.


Because, what I hear, and what others (who believe in burn-in) hear is conclusive, why can't it not be true? This is the exact statement that has me dumbfounded.

Weather it's scientific, or a "placebo"effect (as its called) and if there is a change in the end, then wouldn't this be enough to call it conclusive? Therefore, it would be real. "Scientific" or not. Right?