New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do cables "burn in"? - Page 5

post #61 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwarmi View Post

 

 That should still not taint the entire industry, particularly those who do hold credentials in their resumes for having worked

 with the military and other government institutions. That's where it becomes rather grey, rather than black and white.

 

 

I don't see how having a degree, or a resume of note prevents you from using your reputation or ability to write convincing gibberish rather than unconvincing gibberish, in order to sell a public who has shown a historical propensity for lavish expenditures on dubious products something that fits in that wheelhouse. Certainly, they *might* be producing a product that makes an objective audible improvement... why have they so consistently failed to provided data to demonstrate it? Surely they understand (being engineers and scientists of note) the value of that data? Do they think we unable to understand it? 

 

 

 

Quote:

It's not quite that simple ~ the very same power cord on two different pieces of gear produce different results,

 stemming mainly from the power supply design inside the unit and how the power cord reacts to it in the

 first place. 

 

...

 

 It is a grey area with no real absolute guidelines on how any interconnect or power cord will react with any given

 system. So much so that in my opinion - recommendations should be limited to a certain to fellow Head-Fiers

 who more or less own a similar or exact setup. Even then, it is fraught with misinformation.

 

Wouldn't it be wonderful, if someone provided specific, testable data and theory to demonstrate clearly what changes can be achieved under what circumstances. That would go a long way towards combatting the misinformation, no? 

 

 

Quote:

 

 You leisurely omitted a very crucial point that I made earlier ~ there are companies out there like Shunyata

 who *advocate* - please do not use the product out of the box - burn it in. I fail to see any marketing advantage

 by stating this openly to the customer, if anything it remains a hindrance to a sale.

 

 

 

I felt I addressed that... I'm not sure that it has a bearing on the point of sale (which is affected by reviews and testimonials much more than a business practice like this recommendation), but rather the difference is in the number of returns (fewer). 

 

Anyway - we're not going to convince one another here. Better to break things off while they are still amicable. :)

post #62 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwarmi View Post

 As for blind tests ~ here's one you were not expecting. Just like those blind tests where the material is usually foreign 

 to the end user. I'd bet a very penny or two that your very own rig could have you blind tested against a range of unknown

 sources and amps only for you to fail to recognize your very own rig with a blindfold on.

 

 Back on topic ~ 'if you do not like how the cable sounds out of the box then chances are, burn in or not - satisfaction

 is not coming your way anytime soon',

 

I agree with and am not surprised by either of these statements. I do not find this a failure of blind testing. It is a failure of our expectations for our equipment, our sighted biases, and our own auditory memory. I also fully acknowledge there are a LOT of other reasons to get better than stock cables, and for different audio equipment. 

 

I certainly agree with the burn in statement as well. Any burn in (for just about anything other than full size speaker drivers) is a very minimal change (if a change at all). Statements of night and day differences are wildly hyperbolic and do nothing to help this hobby of ours. 


Edited by liamstrain - 8/12/12 at 6:30am
post #63 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

 

I don't see how having a degree, or a resume of note prevents you from using your reputation or ability to write convincing gibberish rather than unconvincing gibberish, in order to sell a public who has shown a historical propensity for lavish expenditures on dubious products something that fits in that wheelhouse. Certainly, they *might* be producing a product that makes an objective audible improvement... why have they so consistently failed to provided data to demonstrate it? Surely they understand (being engineers and scientists of note) the value of that data? Do they think we unable to understand it? 

 

 

 

 Caelin has - infact unless sorely mistaken, he has developed a piece of test kit called the DTCD

 

 http://shunyata.com/Content/DTCD-indepth.html

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXwRTzJZ7Y0&feature=channel&list=UL

 

 End of the day, I still believe his forte lies in power cords - having not tested his interconnects, I remain

 tight lipped on that front. Measurement machine or not, having personally tested his ZiTron Cobra - it

 works by lowering the noise floor and increasing dynamic impact on some gear yet it does not really offer

 up much improvement on some other gear.

 

 I know that referencing 'experts' as customers may be futile as a case in point, yet let's not be naive

 here - if you can get George Lucas on your product's website then you must be doing something

 right.

 

 Fact remains this 'expert' has an unlimited budget, can afford any product they wish to use and have no desire

 for promotion or affiliation - if your product is snake oil, I fail to see to see how an establishment like SkyWalker

 ranch is going to have any affinity with your product. It does not make sense.

 

 There are experts and then there are experts is what I'm saying :)

post #64 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwarmi View Post

 Hey I did find an interesting article on cable-burn in by a guy who calls himself a 'scientist' by trade ~

 

"Quantum Tunnel of Love

By: Bob Sireno
...

 

 

great article!
 
there should be more objectivists like Bob Sireno who actually look into the phenomena, and try to understand why they happen. instead of being busy trying to prove subjectivists wrong, by either trying to make them look like loonies, or by attributing the phenomena to other external factors such as expectations, colors... and other nonsense, as most objectivists that hang on Internet audio forums seem to spend most of their online time.   
 
I would welcome some objective data more than anybody - and not just about cables but for everything else still debatable. mostly because I think if we could measure the phenomena we might pinpoint where the weaknesses are. as it stands we have to rely pretty much on trial and error trying to find what works best in our system.
 
at the risk of going slightly off topic, let's look at upgraditis for example:
 
I believe that upgraditis has mostly do with weaknesses in the system. I see this happening all the time. there's someone receiving their expensive pair of headphones, and they're very  pleased with them. however, after a while they start asking thing like, 'what's the best dac for these 'phones?' so they buy a new dac and they're ok for a while. then it's, 'what amp?' or 'cables?' etc.. it goes in circle... until they remove the weakness in the system. their brain tells them something isn't quite right with the sound, but they fail to work out where's the problem is. I speak more of a personal experience, but I think it applies generally to others too. I always knew that the PC was the weakest link in my system, but didn't know what to do, other than getting a CD player. then I got a good music server and all was revealed to me. I wouldn't call my system perfect, but I could live with it as it is - everything I'm going to upgrade next it's just a bonus. doesn't mean I not going to upgrade the speakers - but that's another kind of upgraditis.
post #65 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodolcheez View Post


It doesn't take away. It's called "trained ears".  If you have some dumb schmuck to hear the audio between generic and high-perf cable he wouldn't be able to hear the difference because he doesn't know what to look for.  Plus his ear drum performance is different than our beautiful member Lenni.  Cables make huge difference in sound, especially with analog interconnects.  The difference is still noticeable with USB interconnects as well.  "neh?" my butt.

 

you're too kind, sir... biggrin.gif

post #66 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenni View Post

 

 

great article!
 
there should be more objectivists like Bob Sireno who actually look into the phenomena, and try to understand why they happen.

 

Problem is, he assumes there's something happening when no one has ever demonstrated that there is. That's not objectivism. That's how religious and other cults get started.

 

se

post #67 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenni View Post

 
I believe that upgraditis has mostly do with weaknesses in the system. I see this happening all the time. there's someone receiving their expensive pair of headphones, and they're very  pleased with them. however, after a while they start asking thing like, 'what's the best dac for these 'phones?' so they buy a new dac and they're ok for a while. then it's, 'what amp?' or 'cables?' etc.. it goes in circle... until they remove the weakness in the system. their brain tells them something isn't quite right with the sound, but they fail to work out where's the problem is. I speak more of a personal experience, but I think it applies generally to others too. I always knew that the PC was the weakest link in my system, but didn't know what to do, other than getting a CD player. then I got a good music server and all was revealed to me. I wouldn't call my system perfect, but I could live with it as it is - everything I'm going to upgrade next it's just a bonus. doesn't mean I not going to upgrade the speakers - but that's another kind of upgraditis.

 

 Agreed Lenni - it distorts a lot of impressions and it ends up being regurgitated on some thread. Reminds me of a time when a friend of mine

 first auditioned the RSA Dark Star with his LCD's - it was during the day with road works taking place just across the road.

 After a few minutes he took them off and remarked that the amp was faulty. I seemed a little surprised. He pointed out that the

 left channel was producing an audible pinging noise particularly when the music was not playing. He was ready to pack-up for the day

 - to him it was all too simple - this $3500+ amp was faulty. Of course he planned to post up some impressions reporting the very

 fact.

 

 Some quick thinking took place and I put the DS on an aging Nordost Blue Heaven power cord we had lying around - pinging was gone.

 He appeared shocked since cables, particularly power cables were in the same realm as 'Dungeons and Dragons' according to him

 - just to make sure we reverted back to the stock IEC as the workmen ran their gear from the mains outside. Sure enough the pinging

 returned - more shock and awe on his behalf.

 

 It is interesting that you bring up the 'music server' as a grand weakness in many systems - one that remains with me currently

 for sure. The discussion is for another thread but we can draw tangents here over in this thread - this phenomena of latency

 and noise from the PC is also barely understood - you do not have to travel far to encounter objective views that suggest

 it is pure nonsense that a silent, fanless music server has any advantage over a software laden notebook well beyond its

 use by date.

 

 @ Steve Eddy

 

 Hate to be the bearer of bad news but anyone with 1000+ (never mind 3000) posts on here is already deep in cult country according to

 the views of any casual observer outside of Head-Fi smile.gif

post #68 of 138
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwarmi View Post

 

 @ Steve Eddy

 

 Hate to be the bearer of bad news but anyone with 1000+ (never mind 3000) posts on here is already deep in cult country according to

 the views of any casual observer outside of Head-Fi smile.gif

 

Well let's see...

 

I've made 3,648 posts over the course of 9 years on HeadFi. You've made 3,399 posts over the course of a little over 1 year.

 

For me that comes to about 1 post per day. For you, about 9 posts per day.

 

I'll leave it to others to decide who's deep in cult country here. tongue.gif

 

se

post #69 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

 

Well let's see...

 

I've made 3,648 posts over the course of 9 years on HeadFi. You've made 3,399 posts over the course of a little over 1 year.

 

For me that comes to about 1 post per day. For you, about 9 posts per day.

 

I'll leave it to others to decide who's deep in cult country here. tongue.gif

 

se

 

 Hah - Touch-eeeh Mr Steve! That's the average over time, but I find that my input comes in bursts these days :)

post #70 of 138

== Do cables burn-in? ==

 

In 3 words: Yes they do.

post #71 of 138

I am a materials scientist, as well as an economist, serving in executive capacity. Hopefully the digression that follows is useful to end this argument.

 

I cannot a priori agree, on the one hand, that changes purely to cable composition or design (assuming you're already using reasonable pure copper or silver cables) would be audible over thermal noise, and more importantly, over differences caused between otherwise identical cable due to large tolerances during manufacturing or base material structure. Tolerances being large means that the result will vary sometimes as much plus or minus 200% in some parameter (although we are talking about small numbers), whereas technological improvement would only gain 50% to the parameter. And so, the benefits of a "better" (and more expensive) design are often swallowed up in tolerances. 

 

On the other hand, I must object to the idea that "measurement" = science => "can't measure" = non-existent. Such reasoning was in the past very often misleading. FAPP (for all practical purposes), very often the measurement of the state of some aspect of the system in question is not possible. But that does not mean that such a parameter does not exist or has no contribution to the complete state of the system. 

 

For instance, back in the 1900's - 1950's "behaviorists," "logical positivists," and "radical empiricists," declared many absurdities and engaged in much pseudo-scientific thought simply because the phenomena they originally wanted to investigate proved impossible to measure for practical absence of ability to carry out controlled experiments.

 

Some of them declared, among other things: that consciousness does not exist (e.g., William James), and preferences do not exist (e.g., whole list of prominent professors back then), and so purposeful behavior does not exist (and so, according to those people, the laws of economics do not exist), because consciousness and preferences are very difficult if not usually impossible to measure. And so, these observers, preferred to consciously argue that they are not conscious and have no preferences ... 

 

Norbert Wiener claimed the mechanical dog, which follows the program of the engineer who built it, so long as it looks like a dog and barks like a dog to an outside observer, is alive, just like a real living dog. Why? He said, since what distinguishes living from non-living was not know, and difficult to measure, he takes a behaviorist approach FAPP. Of course, such an approach is false to facts (by hypothesis, the robot was programmed to imitate a living dog without actually being alive). This statement in the 1940's led to much science fiction, but not much science.

 

Long story short. As far as cable performance goes, I trust FAPP what 6moons audio reviews report (http://www.6moons.com/). They actually do in fact get several pieces of an identical cable and try it out on the best equipment (which I do not have), and for varying periods of time on different samples. A priori, nothing can be said otherwise about what contribution (or lack of contribution) different cables of already reasonable quality make to final audio output. If you hear a difference (a) it exists, or (b) centrifugal control of peripheral sensory organs (your ears not only send input to your brain, but your brain also sends input to your ears, and often, what you expect to hear is what you literally hear, even when it does not exist).


Edited by thelion - 8/13/12 at 7:15pm
post #72 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwarmi View Post

 Hey I did find an interesting article on cable-burn in by a guy who calls himself a 'scientist' by trade ~

 

"Quantum Tunnel of Love

By: Bob Sireno

Burn-in: The time during the early period of use when a component or cable exhibits measurable changes in performance, that eventually stabilize, resulting in consistent performance for a significant period of time thereafter. Things happen to be more complex than this simple definition of burn-in might lead one to believe. To gain a fuller understanding we must ask: what transpires inside of a circuit that causes it to stabilize? Why, after a period of time, is a device no longer subject to “drift”?  This paper proposes answers to these questions. But first, let me put forth my position on hi-end audio before the technical stuff begins.
I am a scientist, by trade, and therefore an objectivist. Twenty two years of experience on the job has taught me that all phenomena is measurable, but, not all phenomena can presently be measured. The technology of the measuring tool is not always adequate to measure empirical reality. People tend to accept this proposition in all areas other than audio.
I am also an audiophile. I hear differences in equipment, and in cables. I hear sonic changes that take place over time. I believe that audiophiles have better aural perception (not the same as hearing!) than the bulk of humanity, and that adequate test equipment needed to verify the subtleties they claim to hear in some cases, does not yet exist. Today we’ll look into the atomic world, where the explanations may exist for the sonic changes that seem to occur in our equipment and cables with the passage of time.

Atoms and molecules have recently been filmed in motion. PBS broadcast one of the first “;atomic movies”; several years ago. The show was called STEM. I was stunned. Up close, electrons literally look like thinly connected beads of gas. The depth of micro-reality made visible with a Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscope is incredible. The behavior of individual atoms was chaotic. Some appeared lethargic; temporarily bonding to others, while some were constantly moving. All of the atoms eventually paired off, vibrated, and moved on to pair off again, sometimes in groups of three or more.

What happens to the seemingly content atoms in a conductor when electrical pressure is applied? What happens when electron waves are driven through the circuitry of a new amp, CD player, cable, etc., (going through what we call its burn-in period) that causes some people to claim that nothing occurs because it can’t be measured, or to cause others to claim that a sweeter sound, or at least a different sound, is born over time and use?

Cables are made of metal crystals, typically copper or silver, containing spherically symmetrical positive ions, through which electrons move. The purest metal also contains one ten-thousandth of a percent, or so, of impurities. Each electron passing through a cable makes a series of left and right turns around those atomic impurities until it emerges.(1) What happens during this journey, multiplied by trillions, changes the nature of the cable sufficiently to affect the sound you hear over a period of time.
Metal crystals contain grain boundaries. A grain boundary is where two crystals meet, oriented so that their atoms are usually aligned in different directions. Researchers at Cornell University developed an x-ray technique that allowed them to probe the internal structure of grain interfaces. The results showed that atoms at grain boundaries appeared to vibrate 50 percent more energetically than non-boundary atoms.(2) Electrons tend toward lower energy levels, so when electrical pressure is applied, the increased energy brings about a slow reorientation of the atoms at the grain boundaries.  Afterwards, any reoriented atoms would vibrate less energetically. The outcome of the reorientation of atoms is less electron scattering resulting in improved electrical wave phase coherence.(3)
Dr. Robert Frank of Augustana College told me that “ion mobility leads to the migration of atoms over time...and to the movement of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen gas and hydrocarbon impurities” He stated that ion movement in copper wiring would probably occur over several months, creating a change in the filter nature, and a subtle change in the capacitance of the metal. To the extent that all cabling can be described mathematically as a filter device, a change in this aspect could cause a sonic deviation over time.

I believe the ion transfer Dr. Frank described, along with grain boundary reorientation, results in lower electron orbital levels in many of the boundary area atoms. These changes, induced over a period of time, may very well be the type of changes that are responsible, in part, for the burn-in effects that some audiophiles claim to hear.

While researching the concept of burn-in, I discovered a book entitled “Quantum Aspects Of Molecular Motions In Solids”. This fascinating, but highly pedantic book, focuses on the various aspects of quantum tunneling In the book there is a paper that describes the influence electrons have on the quantum tunneling of hydrogen atoms in a metal. The same paper also discusses rotational tunneling of methane, a simple hydrocarbon, in metal.(4) In other words, at least two of the common impurities found in electrical conductors, move slowly, by quantum tunneling, when electrical pressure is applied. The result, once again, is less electron scattering and a physical change in the conductor itself at a molecular level.

Quantum tunneling is a surprisingly common event. It occurs in every electrical connection, where a thin oxide layer has formed over a metal conductor. As long as the oxide layer remains thin, electrons can, and will, tunnel through the layer.(5) I propose that electrons will not always detour around impurities in a wire, but will tunnel their way through impurities that are small enough to allow the activity to occur. In either case pathways of conductivity are established during days, weeks, and months of use through the actual conductor themselves. Like the water reeling down a babbling brook, the electrons go around, or eventually thorough, boulders of impurity, always choosing the route of least resistance.
It appears that your new components, or cables, do indeed improve up to a point when the system they are in is left on for extended periods of time Obviously, there is a point at which no more perceptible change occurs. Why is that? Well, unfortunately electrons will continue to scatter around the remaining impurities, even after burn-in. Can circuits be designed that will not exhibit electron scattering, or burn-in? Yes, it is possible to design a circuit that is so small that the signal paths are the thickness of a single electron wavelength. The result is called a quantum wire. Efforts to make a practical quantum wire have so far failed. But, once again, theory is fast becoming reality.

AT&T’s Bell labs is working on a resistor that allows but a single electron through at a time.(6) Researchers at the University of California at Santa Barbara have assembled quantum wires one electron at a time.(7) Japanese scientists at the Optoelectronics Technology Research Laboratory, near Tokyo, believe that before quantum wires can be easily fabricated a deeper understanding of what happens on an atomic level during epitaxial (crystal) growth is needed, and are working toward that goal.( 8 ) An American company, Texas Instruments, has developed a tiny device called the BiQuaRTT, or bipolar quantum resonant tunneling transistor. At only two specific voltages, electrons tunnel through the circuit barriers causing current flow. Integrated circuits will be next. Someday quantum wire production will be perfected, along with the necessary IC’s, and we’ll have an entirely new generation of amplifiers, preamps and such.

When quantum wires become commercial and are fully utilized, perhaps in 20 to 25 years, the reproduced signal approaching the final amplification stages will be as perfect as possible, and cable burn-in will no longer be a subject of dispute. To fully utilize quantum wires, and minimize electron scattering, the final amplification stage may need to be located at, or in, the speaker. One can only hope that improved recording techniques will match the hardware development that will inevitably occur.

Scientifically, there is no doubt that the propagation of electrons through a conductor changes with time and use. These changes are minute, and measurable with only the most advanced of devices. But, they exist. And to exist means that claims concerning audibility must be taken seriously. Only a few years ago, audiophiles complained that circuits employing negative feedback affected the sound of amplifiers adversely. The number crunchers denied it because the distortion figures were so much improved with the use of feedback. Turns out the audiophiles were right... that may be the case again.

Good post. Good man....

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

*sigh*

 

se

This is a good learning curve for you.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwarmi View Post

 

 You can find an on-going argument concerning the Northern lights in respect to sound - some argue that this phenomena produces audible noises like pops and

 crackles

 

 "Some people claim to hear noises associated with the northern lights, but documenting this phenomenon has been difficult."

 

 http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/northernlights.html

 

 But once again the science is still playing catch-up - there is no definitive explanation for why so many personal visiting folk attest to this

 noise and so again ~ personal testimony is disregarded as worthless and meaningless until the tools/analysis are up to task.

 

 I feel that the real sad and depressing aspect here Steve is your stead-fast opinions that are not really open to discussion or possibilities

 that are beyond your very own contemplation and understanding. Hypothetically speaking even if *cable burn-in* could be proven without

 doubt to be real and conclusive. There is another definite conclusion here too

 

 Your opinions would not change ~ that does not really make for interesting conversation.

 

Good post.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelion View Post

I am a materials scientist, as well as an economist, serving in executive capacity. Hopefully the digression that follows is useful to end this argument.

 

I cannot a priori agree, on the one hand, that changes purely to cable composition or design (assuming you're already using reasonable pure copper or silver cables) would be audible over thermal noise, and more importantly, over differences caused between otherwise identical cable due to large tolerances during manufacturing or base material structure. Tolerances being large means that the result will vary sometimes as much plus or minus 200% in some parameter (although we are talking about small numbers), whereas technological improvement would only gain 50% to the parameter. And so, the benefits of a "better" (and more expensive) design are often swallowed up in tolerances. 

 

On the other hand, I must object to the idea that "measurement" = science => "can't measure" = non-existent. Such reasoning was in the past very often misleading. FAPP (for all practical purposes), very often the measurement of the state of some aspect of the system in question is not possible. But that does not mean that such a parameter does not exist or has no contribution to the complete state of the system. 

 

For instance, back in the 1900's - 1950's "behaviorists," "logical positivists," and "radical empiricists," declared many absurdities and engaged in much pseudo-scientific thought simply because the phenomena they originally wanted to investigate proved impossible to measure for practical absence of ability to carry out controlled experiments.

 

Some of them declared, among other things: that consciousness does not exist (e.g., William James), and preferences do not exist (e.g., whole list of prominent professors back then), and so purposeful behavior does not exist (and so, according to those people, the laws of economics do not exist), because consciousness and preferences are very difficult if not usually impossible to measure. And so, these observers, preferred to consciously argue that they are not conscious and have no preferences ... 

 

Norbert Wiener claimed the mechanical dog, which follows the program of the engineer who built it, so long as it looks like a dog and barks like a dog to an outside observer, is alive, just like a real living dog. Why? He said, since what distinguishes living from non-living was not know, and difficult to measure, he takes a behaviorist approach FAPP. Of course, such an approach is false to facts (by hypothesis, the robot was programmed to imitate a living dog without actually being alive). This statement in the 1940's led to much science fiction, but not much science.

 

Long story short. As far as cable performance goes, I trust FAPP what 6moons audio reviews report (http://www.6moons.com/). They actually do in fact get several pieces of an identical cable and try it out on the best equipment (which I do not have), and for varying periods of time on different samples. A priori, nothing can be said otherwise about what contribution (or lack of contribution) different cables of already reasonable quality make to final audio output. If you hear a difference (a) it exists, or (b) centrifugal control of peripheral sensory organs (your ears not only send input to your brain, but your brain also sends input to your ears, and often, what you expect to hear is what you literally hear, even when it does not exist).

 

The jury has approved. I'm speaking to both you and Gwarmi.  This is the set standard for cable burnin.  This has gone official.

 

You see, I know some people will hate reading this, but I am getting big difference with my full solid silver analog cable ($1200, 1.5m long) after about 500+ hours of use, or burn-in.  The sound is more *controlled*. The music now has "smoother" transition.  Edginess / harshness is almost gone.   When I first got this cable it was edgy... bit harsh.  Sort of like your body wasn't warmed up for exercising.   50 hour burn-in didn't cut it.... it needed several hundreds, for the silver cable that is.


Edited by goodolcheez - 8/14/12 at 8:52am
post #73 of 138
Quote:

Originally Posted by goodolcheez View Post

 

This is a good learning curve for you.

 

 

 

No, it's not.

 

When someone demonstrates that they can hear the thermal noise of the wire itself, then we'll talk about what might be going on below that level.

 

se

post #74 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodolcheez View Post

...

 

You see, I know some people will hate reading this, but I am getting big difference with my full solid silver analog cable ($1200, 1.5m long) after about 500+ hours of use, or burn-in.  The sound is more *controlled*. The music now has "smoother" transition.  Edginess / harshness is almost gone.   When I first got this cable it was edgy... bit harsh.  Sort of like your body wasn't warmed up for exercising.   50 hour burn-in didn't cut it.... it needed several hundreds, for the silver cable that is.

 

     Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorspeaker View Post

just gotten my diy silver rca....first hour was a "huh" ..kinda mute cotton wool-ed. i was frankly disappointed.

And then magically the bass tightened..the highs bloomed, piano n guitar took on an airy clarity..heaven.

 

this is pure magic...nothing to to with science. dun discuss...i am writing just for bigpoppa. beerchug.gif

    

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG POPPA View Post

Cables do burn in. It is the dielectric that burns in more so than the cable. The metal strands, a little burn in to the cable. The more shielding ,tech flex, tubing, will add time to the burn in. Let your cables lay on your carpet.........Suck the life out of them. More dielectric.  All my cables are suspended off the floor. And anyone that knows me well, knows at meets I let my cables lay on a chair and not on the carpet.

 

For those who claim cable-burn-in, do you ever experience burn-in that degrades the sound?

 

(I have no experience with cable-burn-in myself)

 

Cheers!

post #75 of 138
ROFL............ to some it seems the world is still flat. I crack up each time se dismisses something without trying it out for himself like everbody else has with success.

[/QUOTE]

No, it's not.

When someone demonstrates that they can hear the thermal noise of the wire itself, then we'll talk about what might be going on below that level.

se
[/quote]
Edited by BIG POPPA - 8/14/12 at 9:21am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: