or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Gear sounds worse after "burning in"?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gear sounds worse after "burning in"? - Page 2

post #16 of 55

I thought my final statement in my previous post made adding tongue in cheek sarcasm unnecessary.  Maybe it didn't. 

post #17 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post

I thought my final statement in my previous post made adding tongue in cheek sarcasm unnecessary.  Maybe it didn't. 
You got me! It was no more hare brained than some stuff that people believe.
post #18 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 

I thought my final statement in my previous post made adding tongue in cheek sarcasm unnecessary.  Maybe it didn't. 

People don't always read to the bottom of each post I find :)

 

I got that you were putting across the burn-in opinion of others.

 

What really drives me nuts with this is when manufacturers insist that I 'burn-in' their product for 100+ hours before even using it. I had this experience with a desktop amp manufacturer here in Canada.  Also, I've been asked to review a DAP, but was told to burn it in for 200 hours before listening for reviews.

 

There's a bulk wire online retailer that says they burn in their wire for many, many hours (can't remember, but it was in the 200 hour range) before selling it.  This is after doing the necessary cryo-ing of course.

 

Burning in of cables just amazes me.  I guess copper isn't copper until it's been magically exposed to electrons.  I'm not exposing the retailer, but this is from their site:

 

"Cable Burn-in
All cables will require a break in period, depending on the materials used this can take upwards of 400 hours with some types of cable. The conditioning process can be at best inconvenient if being done using your audio system. Some applications such as speaker cables and phono cables can be very difficult to properly condition with normal use in an audio system due to the signal levels required to completely burn in these types of cables. For instance, very few people play their system loud enough to properly condition speaker cables, and phono cables will never completely burn in with the small signal from a phono cartridge. The CABLE COOKER produces a signal approximately 2000 times higher than the average MC cartridge! 


We use the audiodharma CABLE COOKER versions 3.0 and 2.0 Pro for all our cable and outlet conditioning. The CABLE COOKER will expose the cables to continuous signal levels they will not experience during normal use in an audio system. This improves the sound quality of all forms of interconnects, speaker cabling, and power cabling beyond any normal break-in cycle. 
The CABLE COOKER 3.0 uses a swept square wave which starts at 0 DC and is calibrated at just over 40KHz. This frequency sweep improves on every sonic parameter, translating into more transparency and dimensionality, a deeper/wider soundstage, and deeper/tighter bass information. We use the CABLE COOKER 3.0 for all our interconnect, powercord and speaker cable burn-in."

post #19 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gignac View Post

"Cable Burn-in
All cables will require a break in period, depending on the materials used this can take upwards of 400 hours with some types of cable. The conditioning process can be at best inconvenient if being done using your audio system. Some applications such as speaker cables and phono cables can be very difficult to properly condition with normal use in an audio system due to the signal levels required to completely burn in these types of cables. For instance, very few people play their system loud enough to properly condition speaker cables, and phono cables will never completely burn in with the small signal from a phono cartridge. The CABLE COOKER produces a signal approximately 2000 times higher than the average MC cartridge! 

We use the audiodharma CABLE COOKER versions 3.0 and 2.0 Pro for all our cable and outlet conditioning. The CABLE COOKER will expose the cables to continuous signal levels they will not experience during normal use in an audio system. This improves the sound quality of all forms of interconnects, speaker cabling, and power cabling beyond any normal break-in cycle. 
The CABLE COOKER 3.0 uses a swept square wave which starts at 0 DC and is calibrated at just over 40KHz. This frequency sweep improves on every sonic parameter, translating into more transparency and dimensionality, a deeper/wider soundstage, and deeper/tighter bass information. We use the CABLE COOKER 3.0 for all our interconnect, powercord and speaker cable burn-in."
How can people peddle this rhubarb and why do people believe it? Even the most ardent cableist must smell that!!!
post #20 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by krismusic View Post


How can people peddle this rhubarb and why do people believe it? Even the most ardent cableist must smell that!!!

I wish that were true, but apparently they have enough believers to actually have a price list for this sort of work...and there's a company that manufactures something called the 'cable cooker' (terrible, terrible name.)

 

Anyhow, who knows?  I just know that if I ever go and listen to a friends sound system and hear him describe how he paid to have his cables burnt in, I'm walking out of the room immediately. :)

post #21 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gignac View Post

 I just know that if I ever go and listen to a friends sound system and hear him describe how he paid to have his cables burnt in, I'm walking out of the room immediately. smily_headphones1.gif
I don't take a review seriously any more if someone starts talking about the improvement a cable made.
post #22 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by krismusic View Post


I don't take a review seriously any more if someone starts talking about the improvement a cable made.

Just because someone's expectation bias results in them hearing a difference doesn't invalidate their previous subjective observations, though.

 

It's likely not a function of their hearing that caused them to hear a difference with a cable roll -- it's probably just their bias towards expecting a cable to change the sound.

 

If we accept that, I don't see how a review from someone who heard a cable change the sound is any different than a total objectivist user, so to speak.

post #23 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanjiWatsuki View Post

 

 

If we accept that, I don't see how a review from someone who heard a cable change the sound is any different than a total objectivist user, so to speak.

You lost me on that last sentence, but I do believe there is an anticipation of change that usually holds the keys to any perceived effect.

 

There is a benefit to ergonomically comfortable cables though, don't get me wrong, but I'm not relying on them to change the sound...aside from possible microphonics into an IEM.

 

So, to me the benefits of a well made headphone cable are: durability/longevity, ease of use (ones not prone to tangling, etc.) and the limiting of microphonics (particularly with IEMs, as mentioned.)

 

That's it.

post #24 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gignac View Post
 

You lost me on that last sentence, but I do believe there is an anticipation of change that usually holds the keys to any perceived effect.

 

There is a benefit to ergonomically comfortable cables though, don't get me wrong, but I'm not relying on them to change the sound...aside from possible microphonics into an IEM.

 

So, to me the benefits of a well made headphone cable are: durability/longevity, ease of use (ones not prone to tangling, etc.) and the limiting of microphonics (particularly with IEMs, as mentioned.)

 

That's it.

 

There are people here that will dismiss reviews if someone mentions anything about cables changing the sound. The thought is that "If they hear a difference from cables, how can I trust anything else they hear? Obviously, their ears must suck."

 

I don't think that's a valid response.

 

I definitely agree that there are ergonomic benefits to cables and their microphonics, though.

post #25 of 55

Right, I could see that, and I wouldn't dismiss someone entirely for their preference of one cable over another.  I've been at the point where I nearly drank the kool-aid on that one, because when crowds begin to talk, it's so much fun to feel like part of the gang.

 

I've re-cabled headphones, and built my own interconnects, but again it was most because I wanted something that physically held up and looked nice.

 

I just don't want to get in a screaming match with some of the cable heads.

post #26 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanjiWatsuki View Post

There are people here that will dismiss reviews if someone mentions anything about cables changing the sound. The thought is that "If they hear a difference from cables, how can I trust anything else they hear? Obviously, their ears must suck."

I don't think that's a valid response.

I definitely agree that there are ergonomic benefits to cables and their microphonics, though.
It's not that I think their ears suck. (!) it's rather that I question whether they are able to tell me what a phone sounds like independently of expectation bias, mood or other phsychological factors.
I'm not sure that I can.
post #27 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gignac View Post

I just don't want to get in a screaming match with some of the cable heads.
It's OK. This is Sound Science. They won't come in here! smily_headphones1.gif
I agree with you regarding build quality and ergonomics of cables though. Even looks. DIY is a different thing to getting mugged for £100's as well.
post #28 of 55

If a reviewer starts talking about cables making a difference, then it's clear that there is some bias about cables going on. That doesn't logically imply that the reviewer must be biased about the rest of the gear, but it does increase the likelihood. So perhaps it's not fair to dismiss the entire review outright, but some increased skepticism is warranted IMO. 

The thing that gets me is when I read a review of some budget component, and the reviewer starts gushing about how he wasn't truly impressed until he introduced interconnects that cost more than the freaking component itself. Sure, if you already have the cables laying around you might as well try them. But it's completely impractical and senseless insofar as a review should be informative to a potential buyer. Maybe my expectations are too high about that last part though :rolleyes:

post #29 of 55
If there's one thing I've noticed about reviews here it's that the negative reviews tend to be much more helpful....and yet so much harder to find...what a surprise. :wink:

 

 

There's a considerable amount of knowledgable people here though, and it's just a matter of finding someone who speaks in terms of measurable performance and cling to that person's word like a hobbit to a wizard.

 

With any luck we'll all be able to learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff on this forum (my gluten free friends can make their own analogy.)

 

Best,

post #30 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gignac View Post


There's a considerable amount of knowledgable people here though, and it's just a matter of finding someone who speaks in terms of measurable performance and cling to that person's word like a hobbit to a wizard.

With any luck we'll all be able to learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff on this forum (my gluten free friends can make their own analogy.)

Best,

You are right that there is a wealth of knowledge on here. That's what makes the forum so worthwhile.
That and people coming out with stuff like "a hobbit to a wizard". Excellent. smily_headphones1.gif
I agree too with Manbear. I don't mean that I will ignore a cable fans review but definitely scepticism increases.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Gear sounds worse after "burning in"?