Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Cable Burn-In....what physically changes in the cable?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #61 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
BTW, has anybody ever demonstrated without a doubt that different headphones sound different?
.
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?
post #62 of 95
Quote:
I made that comment in the context of your invoking statistics and it being a "scientific discipline" and the decidedly un-scientific "statistics" that you offer up.
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?


Quote:
But that's rather like saying the overwhelming majority of people who attend church believe in God.
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?


Quote:
No. How?
You questioned that different amps sound different – that was your reaction to my statement regarding the missing understanding of data to explain amplifier sound.


Quote:
It wasn't relevant to the question you had actually asked regarding my skepticism. But if you desire an answer outside of that context, suffice to say that I've been involved in the high end home audio industry in one way or another for going on 30 years.
Why this?

Quote:
My first commercial product was a unity gain "preamp" that I'd designed around 1987 and introduced in 1989 under the Alpha Logic name. It was the basis for Corey Greenberg's Aunt Corey's Homemade Buffered Passive Preamp DIY article for Stereophile (I provided Corey with the schematics, part sources, etc. and while Corey never mentioned this in the article, he made me Elvis so I figure that was a fair trade ).
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.


Quote:
Over the years I've had experience with dozens of not hundreds of different electronic components and I do and have done consulting and contract work for a number of other high end audio companies.

I'm currently in the cable business, but plan to introduce some electronics either late this year or early next year.
Quote:
So there you have it. Happy now?
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?
.
post #63 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanderx View Post
Have there ever been tests to see, if how an amplifier will sound, can be predicted from measurements? If not, then how can you claim that this cannot be done?[/i]
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...).


Quote:
Even more, if you cannot predict how an amplifier will sound, how come there are companies with lines of amplifiers exhibiting a "house sound" to a smaller or larger amount?
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.
.
post #64 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
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.
What are you talking about? There are many people who come to "God" or "Jesus" or whomever later in life based on personal experience.

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

Quote:
Why this?
Why this what?

Quote:
An interesting device. I've always been a proponent of passive pre-amps – since they avoid apmlifier sound.
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.

Quote:
In this context: What was your motivation to (help) build high-end components?
Because I've always loved audio, and because I like things that are of high quality, and in the case of audio, sound good.

Quote:
Provided that you already believed that all amps sound the same then.
I hadn't then nor have I now any such belief. Please stop making **** up.

Quote:
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?
Again, stop making **** up.

Quote:
And what about cables?
What about them?

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

k
post #65 of 95
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.
post #66 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielCox View Post
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.
post #67 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi View Post
What are you talking about? There are many people who come to "God" or "Jesus" or whomever later in life based on personal experience.
I know that. But that's a minority. And let's avoid religion here!


Quote:
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.
Exactly – so you remember how we got here.


Quote:
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.
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.


Quote:
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.
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?


Quote:
What about them? Realistic.
I suppose your strategy of (not) answering questions has a scientific background, no?
.
post #68 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Camper View Post
Those with the scientific background to explain the physics are ran off by ignorance and rudeness.
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.
post #69 of 95
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.
post #70 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by nor_spoon View Post
Awesome device!

Here is another interesting tweak for the cable freak.
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)
post #71 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Mono View Post
It's like the water propelled car! (no, not H2, water)
What?

You've never seen a water propelled car?





k
post #72 of 95

The water propelled car!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi View Post
What?

You've never seen a water propelled car?





k
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.
post #73 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Mono View Post
So what temperature I burn those cables in? My oven goes up to 500F.
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.

Quote:
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.


k
post #74 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielCox View Post
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.
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?
post #75 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Mono View Post
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)
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...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Cable Burn-In....what physically changes in the cable?