New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do cables "burn in"? - Page 9

post #121 of 138

For folks who have heard burn-in, what controls did you put in place to isolate that it was your cable contributing to the difference in sound, as opposed to the burn-in of your source, DAC, amp or headphones (not to mention other possible changes)?

post #122 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfoclt View Post

For folks who have heard burn-in, what controls did you put in place to isolate that it was your cable contributing to the difference in sound, as opposed to the burn-in of your source, DAC, amp or headphones (not to mention other possible changes)?

 

I discovered it a long time ago, I had a well-loved HD580 silver dragon cable and I compared it to a brand new one. We had an HD650 on-hand to test it with and the results were consistent. There is a difference based on just those two cables that passed through my hands. It doesn't require that much of a controlled environment. You just need a cable with a few hundred hours, and a brand new one..

post #123 of 138

I haven't changed my rig for years. It is in my sig. Good question.

post #124 of 138

I understand that if you have a system that's very familiar to you, that changing something in the signal path is most likely to be the source of a change in sound, but with respect to burn-in, all the other pieces of the chain are still "burning in" as well.  It seems difficult to pull the cable contribution out of the morass of everything else going on.  For instance, what reasons are there to prioritize burn-in from t=0 hours to t=200 hours over t=1000 hours to t=1200 hours?

post #125 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfoclt View Post

I understand that if you have a system that's very familiar to you, that changing something in the signal path is most likely to be the source of a change in sound, but with respect to burn-in, all the other pieces of the chain are still "burning in" as well.  It seems difficult to pull the cable contribution out of the morass of everything else going on.  For instance, what reasons are there to prioritize burn-in from t=0 hours to t=200 hours over t=1000 hours to t=1200 hours?

 

If something had a burn-in of 1200 hours, I would never buy new equipment. Even 200 hours seems a bit off for me, I think burn-in usually is like 50-100 hours tops.

 

As of a few years ago we didn't even think headphone burn-in was real.. even though car audio installers are taught from day one that driver burn-in is real.

post #126 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_Himself View Post

 

You guys are putting him in a tricky spot. Take it easy. We're not allowed to discuss our findings with our own equipment. Being that I can pretty much guarantee the bulk of any members of the trade's experience is going to be using their own gear, it's sort of futile to put him on the spot and forcing Steve to provide answers within Head-Fi's terms of use.

I think "you guys" are being mangled by Steve Eddy, debatewise(is that a word?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

 

What I'm curious about is why cables didn't seem to burn in 25 years ago. Not even platinum ears like Enid Lumley, who recommended against having a digital watch in the listening room because it screwed up the sound didn't notice it.

 

My pet theory is that one day someone was wanting to return some cables that they didn't particularly care for an a quick-thinking sales guy said "Oh, well they haven't burned in yet." biggrin.gif

 

se

Love the watch paranoia.

 

---

Still like to get an answer to this --> View Post

 

Cheers!

post #127 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfoclt View Post

For folks who have heard burn-in, what controls did you put in place to isolate that it was your cable contributing to the difference in sound, as opposed to the burn-in of your source, DAC, amp or headphones (not to mention other possible changes)?

 

Uh no you don't want to test your cable with all the rest of hardware (DAC, amp, headphones / speakers, etc) being brand spanky new.  Because the rest of the hardware are taking burnin in place.  We ain't stupid.  But of course, good point you bring up.

post #128 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovleylady View Post

Love the watch paranoia.

 

 

biggrin.gif

 

But you missed the best part. The ugly ass double negative on either side of the watch comment. I just now noticed it. OUCH!

 

Quote:
Still like to get an answer to this --> View Post

 

I'm afraid you may be waiting a while on that.

 

se

post #129 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG POPPA View Post

Easy test Buy Silver cable, Buy silver or rhodium connecters, hook it up to your rig and listen to it. take notes from new in box, 20 hours, 50 hours, then every 100 hours or so or if you hear something different for several hundred of hours. Not too hard really.

 

Better yet let him play the list of songs and let it run for several days and come back.  Check and see how it sounds.

post #130 of 138

Well I tried burning in my cables now the sound is messed up!

 

 

 

L3000.gif

post #131 of 138
That poor little L9... It burns... It burns...
biggrin.gif

Sent from my HTC Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
post #132 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

Copper is not ferromagnetic.

 

And how are you magnetizing your cables in the first place? Are you running DC through them?

 

se


It's maybe not magnetic then ... static ? Something seem to add over time ... I cable that was in a box for a long time seem to take a certain time to setup. The jacket of the wire can have an effect too.

 

While I am not a scientist, I can only trust my ears and when I buy something new, I have impression it's not ok before put at least 50-100 hrs on them.

post #133 of 138

I still feel cable burn-in is negligible.  If you don't even like it out of the box, don't bother with burn-in, just sell it or return it or something, go back to your old cable(s) or try a different one.

 

Or buy a used one with plenty of use and not worry about burn-in, lol!


Edited by Mad Max - 8/19/12 at 3:58pm
post #134 of 138

Has anyone tried Morrow Cables? They need lots of burn in. And if lets say taken out of the system and moved around they require some more settle in time. Rather touchy. However I think they are some of the best I have heard, just leave them alone once in the system. biggrin.gif

post #135 of 138
With genuine interest in the subject, i'd like to ask a few questions if I may. Some have been asked previously, but not (at least in my opinion) answered. Here goes and sorry for the resurrection:

1.) If cable burn-in exist, surely an additional 100 or 300 hours burn-in by the manufacturers themselves would help in many ways, including returned cables and othe customer satisfaction related issues. So why do manufacturers not burn-in their cables? To me it does not sound like a mechanical thing (like driver/diaphragm "settling in") so it should not significantly affect the life of the cables. So why not?

2.) I assume the "source" of the burn-in is the signal passing through the cable. Does the amplitude/frequency of the signal together with the geometry of the cables affect how quickly a cable burns-in? Would a smaller cable burn in quicker than a larger one with the same signal, for example? If i play my music louder, will my headphone cable burn-in faster?

3.) how do we separate the possibility of our ears/brains adjusting to the relatively small changes in the sq or the possibility of us mis-remembering what our gear sounded like from the (small) changes brought about through our cable burning-in?

4.) how come burn-in only contributes positively to the sq? It seems the theories involved are beyond manufacturing controls so why is it not simply 50:50 either way?

Personally, i think cable "burn-in" exists but imho has nothing to do with the cable. I feel most people expect to hear big changes once they plug in their new cables and are usually disappointed. The "burn-in" thing comes in when the have some more time to listen and hear the more subtle changes (which once noticed are hard to ignore afterwards) and for a number of reasons these newly noticed changes/improvements are falsely connected to atoms shifting, quantum fields and so forth.

But that's just me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: