Latest Thread Images

Cable Burn-In: A Census on Head-Fi!
Apr 6, 2011 at 12:48 AM Post #16 of 39
Burn in? For cables? That's like performing a magic ritual to summon a unicorn.

You might as well light some candles and walk in a circle backwards while chanting.
 
Apr 6, 2011 at 12:51 AM Post #17 of 39
Okay, out of curiosity I dug out a pair of freebie RCAs and connected them and a pair of Blue Jeans cables to my DAC with a splitter, and used the input selector on my amp for a spontaneous test. No blindfolds or anything, the cables were in plain sight. And yet...I couldn't hear a difference.
Ever made a fool of yourself and you just wish you could go back in time?
...so yeah.
 
Humbling realization aside, I'd like to apologize if I offended anybody. I was in a pretty foul mood earlier, but that's no excuse to be obnoxious. And, no, I don't believe in cable burn-in.
 
Apr 6, 2011 at 8:23 AM Post #20 of 39
the only benifit i see of buying decent cables is that they are more durable. Many times i have been using a cheap rca cable and a fault develops on the L or R connector. Thats not to say i buy hugely expensive cables but you know what i mean.

 
 
Apr 6, 2011 at 8:40 AM Post #21 of 39


Quote:
12345142 said:
Okay, out of curiosity I dug out a pair of freebie RCAs and connected them and a pair of Blue Jeans cables to my DAC with a splitter, and used the input selector on my amp for a spontaneous test. No blindfolds or anything, the cables were in plain sight. And yet...I couldn't hear a difference.
Ever made a fool of yourself and you just wish you could go back in time?
...so yeah.
 
Humbling realization aside, I'd like to apologize if I offended anybody. I was in a pretty foul mood earlier, but that's no excuse to be obnoxious. And, no, I don't believe in cable burn-in.
Click to expand...


You know thats very big of you to actually apologize.
smily_headphones1.gif

 
I voted Fiction but frankly I would rather buy a decent cable more for durability reasons rather than sonic reasons.
 
I used to be a firm believer in cables but a doing an unscientific DBT between a good cable and a cheap cable I realised I simply couldn't tell the difference so I switched camps.
redface.gif

 
Apr 6, 2011 at 12:21 PM Post #22 of 39


Quote:
uncle erik said:
Burn in? For cables? That's like performing a magic ritual to summon a unicorn.

You might as well light some candles and walk in a circle backwards while chanting.
Click to expand...


Rubbish, I got up this morning and look what was in my garden going through the bins........
 
    
 
   
 
 
Apr 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM Post #23 of 39
Quote:
uncle erik said:
Burn in? For cables? That's like performing a magic ritual to summon a unicorn.

You might as well light some candles and walk in a circle backwards while chanting.
Click to expand...


<SARCASM>Just because you don't have the skills to draw the summoning circle correctly doesn't mean you should bash those of us who can.  I'd have won the Triple Crown by now if only those stogy old coots would let me enter my unicorn.  They're even faster than cheetahs.</SARCASM>
 
For bonus points, please note the similarity of the above statement with the arguments employed by subjectivist audiophiles.
 
Apr 6, 2011 at 1:39 PM Post #24 of 39


Quote:
12345142 said:
Okay, out of curiosity I dug out a pair of freebie RCAs and connected them and a pair of Blue Jeans cables to my DAC with a splitter, and used the input selector on my amp for a spontaneous test. No blindfolds or anything, the cables were in plain sight. And yet...I couldn't hear a difference.
 
I find rapid switching to be really useful as well, I use a passive switch box it gives you a good idea if there are any obvious differences such as level differences between CD players
 
Ever made a fool of yourself and you just wish you could go back in time?
...so yeah.
 
Too many times to mention 
wink.gif

 
Humbling realization aside, I'd like to apologize if I offended anybody. I was in a pretty foul mood earlier, but that's no excuse to be obnoxious. And, no, I don't believe in cable burn-in.
 
No offense taken
Click to expand...


Welcome to the reality, it is a great place , you'll like it !
 
 
 
Apr 7, 2011 at 2:26 AM Post #25 of 39
OK, I might have trouble with the summoning circle, but I'm really close to being able to transmute base metals into gold.

If it only weren't for the haters, I probably would have found the right compound by now.

By the way, these cryo'ed Carmot cables really sound good!
 
Apr 7, 2011 at 3:36 AM Post #26 of 39
Quote:
uncle erik said:
OK, I might have trouble with the summoning circle, but I'm really close to being able to transmute base metals into gold.

If it only weren't for the haters, I probably would have found the right compound by now.

By the way, these cryo'ed Carmot cables really sound good!
Click to expand...

 
Your behind me on this one too.  I figured that one out ages ago.  It a pain the rear to do in large quantities but it did let me blackmail several mining concerns with threats to flood the market.  All the profit and none of the work!
 
I dare anyone to disprove me.
 
</sarcasm>
 
Apr 7, 2011 at 8:54 PM Post #27 of 39
If the OP actually intended this to be a "cable burn-in thread" other than a "do expensive or molecularly different cables make a difference thread" I don't get why you fiction crowd think you would be the minority. Vice Versa you're still not the minority.
 
Apr 7, 2011 at 11:20 PM Post #28 of 39
 
Quote:
uncle erik said:
OK, I might have trouble with the summoning circle, but I'm really close to being able to transmute base metals into gold.

If it only weren't for the haters, I probably would have found the right compound by now.

By the way, these cryo'ed Carmot cables really sound good!
Click to expand...


Transmutations not necessary.  Lead can be turned to gold, but it will be radioactive, glow-in-the-dark gold.
Imagine gold like that on your rig.  It should look awesome at night with the lights out.  =D
 
Apr 7, 2011 at 11:32 PM Post #29 of 39
I don't think you can make gold by fission (at least by any known process) so you won't have to worry about nasty isotopes. You'd have to make it by fusion which doesn't produce nearly as much.  Unfortunately you'd probably need a spare supernova to do it...
 
Apr 7, 2011 at 11:37 PM Post #30 of 39
That's not what I was told, but it's not something I've bothered looking into.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top