Cable Burn-In....what physically changes in the cable? - Page 5

Umm.. yes? Different headphones measure radically differently frequency response wise, and it is rather unlikely people would fail to spot the up to 10 db differences in bass response. Unless the test did not include bass frequencies.

Is there any reason to assume that large differences in frequency response in the 30-16KHz range would not be obvious to the large majority of humans? Or that frequency response graph differences don't translate to real audible differences?

I see what you mean. And that's the «dogginess» I was referring to. Of course I could do a poll about this, but I simply fear the effort. Also, the result would be the same as by mere speculation on the basis of an intuitive Head-Fi survey. I don't think you'll dispute that. So what is it that you need instead?


An argument I've halfways expected. But people don't believe in God on the basis of personal experience, but on the basis of tradition and education. That's entirely different from a «belief» gained from own experience. Do you see the difference?


You questioned that different amps sound different – that was your reaction to my statement regarding the missing understanding of data to explain amplifier sound.


Why this?

An interesting device. I've always been a proponent of passive pre-amps – since they avoid apmlifier sound. In this context: What was your motivation to (help) build high-end components? Provided that you already believed that all amps sound the same then.


Not really. Your audio personality is much too puzzling to be self-explaining. You do occupy yourself with high-end gear and at the same time pretend that it makes no (sonic) difference? And what about cables?

On a side note: What popular high-end gear have you auditioned?
.

I've read a lot of hi-fi magazines with measurements («Stereoplay» publishes extensive data) and sonic descriptions. There's no clear correlation between data and sound. And the most important point: The deviations among the different amps are way below the official hearing threshold (read: THD+N <0.002%, IMD <0.01%, FR 20 Hz–20 kHz < –0.1 dB...).


Most likely it's because they use related schematics and components – to come close to a specific sonic ideal. You don't need measuring data for that.
.

What are you talking about? There are many people who come to "God" or "Jesus" or whomever later in life based on personal experience.

What I did was respond to your statement that "We don't even know why different amps sound different." This statement assumes that different amps DO sound different. I simply pointed out to you the FACT that this has yet to have been established.

Why this what?

It wasn't a passive preamp. It was designed in response to certain problems with passive preamps, namely that in certain situations the much higher output impedance of passive preamps could combine with cable capacitance and result in high frequency rolloff.

The unit retained the unity gain of passive preamps since gain wasn't necessary for most situations, but added an active output buffer to keep the output impedance much lower than it would be with a purely passive solution.

Because I've always loved audio, and because I like things that are of high quality, and in the case of audio, sound good.

I hadn't then nor have I now any such belief. Please stop making **** up.

Again, stop making **** up.

What about them?

Realistic.

k

Interesting but off-topic.
To the OP: I could try and provide an explanation and so could other people but there really wouldn't be a point - science doesn't randomly speculate like that. Concentrate on sonic differences in cables first and then work on burn in.

I don't think that is the case at all. The first step in any scientific evaluation of burn-in claims would be to provide a testable hypothesis of what property of the cable is changed by burn-in. From there an appropriate experiment could be developed to measure this property of the cable through the burn-in process in order to test the hypothesis. Results of the testing would either verify the hypothesis or not. Assuming that the hypothesis is verified the next step would be to demonstrate how changes in that cable property would produce audible differences, but that can be addressed if things reach that point.

While it is true that science doesn't "randomly speculate", it does provide the framework for evaluating such claims as they relate to phenomena that are observable and repeatable. By the claims of believers in cable burn-in, the changes should indeed be both observable and repeatable, and therefore scientifically testable. If these changes are in fact real, demonstrating them is simply a matter identifying the property of the cable that is changing and then measuring that change. Before anyone says that whatever the cable property that is changing defies measurement, recall that saying that burn-in produces an audible change is the same as saying that the change is measurable.

So if you, or anyone else for that matter, has a potential explanation of how burn changes the performance of cable please post it. While is may just be speculation at this point, unless it involves the supernatural, science should be able to test it.

I know that. But that's a minority. And let's avoid religion here!


Exactly – so you remember how we got here.


I know, I have noticed the buffer stages. A friend of mine has built a buffered unitiy-gain preamp, and it sounded quite neutral – more so than the active pre-amps I had auditioned so far.


You have noticed the question marks? Your statements so far have led me to believe that you think amps make no difference. So that's not the case, and you're preferring to stay mysterious instead of contributing to the discussion?


I suppose your strategy of (not) answering questions has a scientific background, no?
.

That's it right there.
No one with actual knowledge in a particular area likes to offer an explanation on something as requested only to have it ****-kicked by 10 different people all saying that science is (effectively) useless.

A hypothesis requires evidence first and there isn't any here. As soon as there is (and it shows how long it takes, what changes are made, etc. then maybe a hypothesis can be formed.

I love it! BS plastic with battery for $250, cable burn-in device, But that's really small change compared to the $1500 stone or whatever shield. You gotta love how people are trying to get rich It's like the water propelled car! (no, not H2, water)

What?

You've never seen a water propelled car?





k

The water propelled car!

Wow, there it is! The proof! I stand corrected sir. So what temperature I burn those cables in? My oven goes up to 500F. I think I'll see some physical change in the conducting material. Heat > faster electrons (yeah, even faster than light) > better response > zero noise... may be a bit of smell. Stinky subject anyway.

That'll sort of work. But you really need to get yourself a centigrade oven. Cables sound much better when they're burned in at centigrade temperatures compared to fahrenheit temperatures. Kelvin temperatures are best of all, but kelvin ovens are very very expensive.



k

All that is required of a hypothesis is that it be testable. Granted the more evidence available on which to base a hypothesis, the more likely it will be to hold up during testing, but as long as it is testable it can be evaluated. To begin with, the hypothesis could be as simple as "Burn-in changes property XYZ of the cable." If testing were to support this hypothesis, an explanation of how changes in this property of the cable alter the sound would still be required. However, at this point just identifying a property of the cable that actually changes during burn-in would be a good start. As you say, there is no evidence that anything about a cable changes during burn-in and I doubt there is any to be found in the first place. However, what is the point of posting that you have a potential explanation for burn-in, but that you don't want to share it since it would be pointless?

There's more. These could very well be the final tweak to a system, where all the cables have gone through the burn in phase, and using the NM Sonic Purifiers. You probably need to play a bit with the positioning for the best result...

The difference would probably be less dramatically with headphone use though...