[StanD]

  One minute you want profound scientific explanations and the next you want general platitudes. Stan you are an insufferable person but I'm growing to love your contempt for me! cheers!

My wife has called me worse.

 

[thelostMIDrange]

I'll bet. you come across as a loveable pain in the ass. Its' all good. I love you just the same for your passionate antagonistic spirit. however offbase I think it is. I'm sure you share at least the latter part of that sentiment towards me and my hope is you can learn to acquire the former

 

[StanD]

  I'll bet. you come across as a loveable pain in the ass. Its' all good. I love you just the same for your passionate antagonistic spirit. however offbase I think it is. I'm sure you share at least the latter part of that sentiment towards me and my hope is you can learn to acquire the former

What to think of you as a "loveable pain in the ass?" Maybe the latter part of that. 

 
You have to admit, you've come to the Science forum for entertainment.

 

[bigshot]

duh wha?

 

[thelostMIDrange]

I don't believe in tolls. Prove there even is such a beast? what is your definition of a troll> anyone who doesn't conform to your narrow band of acceptable behavior?

 

[Steve Eddy]

WILL YOU GUYS JUST SHUT THE **** UP?

I'm pretty sure thelostMIDrange will soon tire of talking himself and find his entertainment elsewhere.

Seriously, I'm going to start red-flagging every reply I see in response to him.

se

 

[thelostMIDrange]

good advice steve. take it....and lets get back on topic please
 
it's not evidence but boy oh boy some juicy ideas here:
 
 
Cable Break-in
 
 
There are many factors that make cable break-in necessary and many reasons why the results vary. If you measure a new cable with a voltmeter you will see a standing voltage because good dielectrics make poor conductors. They hold a charge much like a rubbed cat’s fur on a dry day. It takes a while for this charge to equalize in the cable. Better cables often take longer to break-in. The best "air dielectric" techniques, such as PFA tube construction, have large non-conductive surfaces to hold charge, much like the cat on a dry day.
 
Cables that do not have time to settle, such as musical instrument and microphone cables, often use conductive dielectrics like rubber or carbonized cotton to get around the problem. This dramatically reduces microphonics and settling time, but the other dielectric characteristics of these insulators are poor and they do not qualify sonically for high-end cables. Developing non-destructive techniques for reducing and equalizing the charge in excellent dielectric is a challenge in high end cables.
The high input impedance necessary in audio equipment makes uneven dielectric charge a factor. One reason settling time takes so long is we are linking the charge with mechanical stress/strain relationships. The physical make up of a cable is changed slightly by the charge and visa versa. It is like electrically charging the cat. The physical make up of the cat is changed by the charge. It is "frizzed" and the charge makes it's hair stand on end. "PFA Cats", cables and their dielectric, take longer to loose this charge and reach physical homeostasis.
 
The better the dielectric's insulation, the longer it takes to settle. A charge can come from simply moving the cable (Piezoelectric effect and simple friction), high voltage testing during manufacture, etc.  Cable that has a standing charge is measurably more microphonic and an uneven distribution of the charge causes something akin to structural return loss in a rising impedance system. When I took steps to eliminate these problems, break-in time was reduced and the cable sounded generally better. I know Bill Low at Audioquest has also taken steps to minimize this problem.
 
Mechanical stress is the root of a lot of the break-in phenomenon and it is not just a factor with cables. As a rule, companies set up audition rooms at high end audio shows a couple of days ahead of time to let them break in. The first day the sound is usually bad and it is very stressful. The last day sounds great. Mechanical stress in speaker cables, speaker cabinets, even the walls of the room, must be relaxed in order for the system to sound its best. This is the same phenomenon we experience in musical instruments. They sound much better after they have been played. Many musicians leave their instruments in front of a stereo that is playing to get them to warm up. This is very effective with a new guitar. Pianos are a stress and strain nightmare. Any change, even in temperature or humidity, will degrade their sound. A precisely tuned stereo system is similar.
 
You never really get all the way there, you sort of keep halving the distance to zero. Some charge is always retained. It is generally in the MV range in a well settled cable. Triboelectric noise in a cable is a function of stress and retained charge, which a good cable will release with both time and use. How much time and use is dependent on the design of the cable, materials used, treatment of the conductors during manufacture, etc.
 
here are many small tricks and ways of dealing with the problem. Years ago, I began using PFA tube "air dielectric" construction and the charge on the surface of the tubes became a real issue. I developed a fluid that adds a very slight conductivity to the surface of the dielectric. Treated cables actually have a  better measured dissipation factor and the sound of the cables improved substantially. It had been observed in mid eighties that many cables could be improved by wiping them with a anti-static cloth. Getting something to stick to PFA was the real challenge. We now use an anti-static fluid in all our cables and anti-static additives in the final jacketing material. This attention to charge has reduced break-in time and in general made the cable sound substantially better. This is due to the reduction of overall charge in the cable and the equalization of the distributed charge on the surface of conductor jacket.
It seems there are many infinitesimal factors that add up. Overtime you find one leads down a path to another. In short, if a dielectric surface in a cable has a high or uneven charge which dissipates with time or use, triboelectric and other noise in the cable will also reduce with time and use. This is the essence of break-in
A note of caution. Moving a cable will, to some degree, traumatize it. The amount of disturbance is relative to the materials used, the cable's design and the amount of disturbance. Keeping a very low level signal in the cable at all times helps. At a show, where time is short, you never turn the system off. I also believe the use of degaussing sweeps, such as on the Cardas Frequency Sweep and Burn-In Record (side 1, cut 2a) helps.
 
A small amount of energy is retained in the stored mechanical stress of the cable. As the cable relaxes, a certain amount of the charge is released, like in an electroscope. This is the electromechanical connection.
 
Many factors relating to a cable's break-in are found in the sonic character or signature of a cable. If we look closely at dielectrics we find a similar situation. The dielectric actually changes slightly as it charges and its dissipation factor is linked to its hardness. In part these changes are evidenced in the standing charge of the cable. A new cable, out of the bag, will have a standing charge when uncoiled. It can have as much as several hundred millivolts. If the cable is left at rest it will soon drop to under one hundred, but it will takes days of use in the system to fall to the teens and it never quite reaches zero. These standing charges appear particularly significant in low level interconnects to preamps with high impedance inputs.
 
The interaction of mechanical and electrical stress/strain variables in a cable are integral with the break-in, as well as the resonance of the cable. Many of the variables are lumped into a general category called triboelectric noise. Noise is generated in a cable as a function of the variations between the components of the cable. If a cable is flexed, moved, charged, or changed in any way, it will be a while before it is relaxed again. The symmetry of the cable's construction is a big factor here. Very careful design and execution by the manufacturer helps a lot. Very straight forward designs can be greatly improved with the careful choice of materials and symmetrical construction. Audioquest has built a large and successful high-end cable company around these principals.

 

[thelostMIDrange]

I tell ya, the more I look into this, the more certain I am that this is a real phenomenon. It would be hard to prove i admit, but I just get this intuitive feeling it's fact. I mean it just makes sense doesn't it?

 

[Steve Eddy]

There are many factors that make cable break-in necessary and many reasons why the results vary. If you measure a new cable with a voltmeter you will see a standing voltage because good dielectrics make poor conductors. They hold a charge much like a rubbed cat’s fur on a dry day. It takes a while for this charge to equalize in the cable. Better cables often take longer to break-in. The best "air dielectric" techniques, such as PFA tube construction, have large non-conductive surfaces to hold charge, much like the cat on a dry day.

A static electric charge on a cable has no effect on its electrical properties or behavior. Nor does a static magnetic field, which we are constantly bathed in.

Cables that do not have time to settle, such as musical instrument and microphone cables, often use conductive dielectrics like rubber or carbonized cotton to get around the problem.

They typically use carbon-loaded PVC. But it is not used to dissipate static charge. It is used to reduce triboelectric, or "handling" noise. The outer jackets are made of regular insulating materials and can readily gain a static charge. But again, a static charge has no effect on the electrical properties or functioning of the cable (see the principle of superposition).

This dramatically reduces microphonics and settling time, but the other dielectric characteristics of these insulators are poor and they do not qualify sonically for high-end cables.

It has nothing to do with microphonics.

Developing non-destructive techniques for reducing and equalizing the charge in excellent dielectric is a challenge in high end cables.
The high input impedance necessary in audio equipment makes uneven dielectric charge a factor.

Again, a static charge is benign.

The physical make up of a cable is changed slightly by the charge and visa versa.

No, it is not.

Cable that has a standing charge is measurably more microphonic and an uneven distribution of the charge causes something akin to structural return loss in a rising impedance system.

Gibberish.

Mechanical stress is the root of a lot of the break-in phenomenon and it is not just a factor with cables.

Mechanical stress does not change their electrical properties.

You never really get all the way there, you sort of keep halving the distance to zero. Some charge is always retained. It is generally in the MV range in a well settled cable.

What your meter is "measuring" is stray AC noise being picked up by the cable (they make great antennas when they're not terminated).

You're probably using a digital multimeter. If you set it to DC volts and measure between the hot and ground of a cable, it will see an AC voltage across the cable due to interference which it doesn't know what to do with, but it still spits out a "reading." If you're going to use a tool, you need to understand it and what its limitations are.

I have a nice mil-spec analog meter made by Simpson. I took a cheap freebie RCA cable with a PVC jacket. I charged the hell out of it by rubbing it down with a wool sweater. Know what the voltage read? Zero. Which of course is what I expected it to.

Why? Because a static charge is a surface phenemonenon. You wouldn't measure a voltage across the cable no matter how much static charge it had on it.

Triboelectric noise in a cable is a function of stress and retained charge, which a good cable will release with both time and use. How much time and use is dependent on the design of the cable, materials used, treatment of the conductors during manufacture, etc.

No, triboelectric noise does not retain any charge. The only reason you have triboelectric noise in the first place is because the charges are moving and producing a current through the load which is what's causing the noise. And triboelectric noise isn't a problem in audio cables for two reasons. One, you're usually not moving and flexing your cables while listening. And two, because the source impedances in audio gear are very low. Triboelectric noise is most commonly problematic in guitar cables. This is because the output impedance of a guitar pickup can be tens of thousands of ohms. And they're often being moved and flexed while in use.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of the post because it's based on the same misunderstandings and false assumptions I've already addressed.

se

 

[thelostMIDrange]

you got me convinced. it's hogwash
 
what do you think about teslas work?

 

[Steve Eddy]

you got me convinced. it's hogwash

Good.

what do you think about teslas work?

Tesla did work on audio cable burn in? Not familiar with that. You'll have to be more specific.

se

 

[Joe Bloggs]

why do you think certain posters drive you to such emotional contempt? If you thumb through a psychology 101 text at the library there are some possible explanations that may or may not apply.....I'm suggesting science is not always the greatest thing or ultimate reference because it can be corrupted over time by certain cultural movements. And that in such a zeitgeist it may be possible for such a group to overlook the possibility that they are not in the golden era they think they are in and that the past may have had higher points in some or all aspects. This relates to burn in because you fellas, as a group are totally set against it and claim science would have found a explanation for if if real. I'm suggesting science can't find much solution or explanaton for many other things and so logically this opens up th epossibility that even though current science cannot account for something does not mean a phenomenon doesn't exist, and then I would extend the possibility further, to incorporate the prior point, and suggest that past civilizations may have been able to. i.e.. alchemy etc... thanks for the back n forth. this is gentlemenly and while I suspect you feel it's a waste of time, I thank you for indulging me and not hurling insults..

Science may not be able to explain cable burn in (just as it may not be able to explain many unprovable, undisprovable "theories" with no basis in reality) but common sense can explain why it is important to perform a well-blinded test between your two cables (one burned in and one not, as the case may be) before raving about the improvements:

Consider an unblinded test. There's cable A and cable B, which let's say are known to be objectively sonically identical to all listeners, with the same build, except, say, A is colored blue and B is red. You may even know that this is so going into the test. Such is an ideal case for an unblinded test for someone to correctly conclude that two items are identical. Now let's see what happens:

1. You listen to A playing some music and try to note down its sound.
2. You listen to B playing some more music and try to note down its sound. Now, you may find the sound to be identical (as predicted) OR, something may sway your listening impression to be a little different from A. Perhaps it would be because you're listening to a different snippet of the same piece of music. Perhaps you're listening to the same snippet, but paying attention to a different part of that same snippet. Perhaps your headphones shifted a little when you went about plugging and unplugging cables, coloring the sound differently. Perhaps the room is getting warmer or cooler, affecting your temperament. Any of a thousand things not sound-related could sway your perception of the sound in a random direction.
3. You could even go through several A/B switches not "noticing" any difference, but eventually you "notice" a difference. Say, you thought you heard that B is warmer than A. Now what happens when you switches from B back to A? If you had no expectation bias going into the test, you do now--you heard it yourself, B is warmer than A!

If this were a blinded ABX test, that spurious impression of B being warmer than A is lost in the next round as the identity of B itself is gone--unless B really were warmer than A in a subjectively detectable way for you, in which case you'd start hitting on the right answer for X more and more. For a sighted test, though, the "warmer" classification, rightly or wrongly, sticks with B. Now, you may run into further trials with conflicting impressions, but expectation bias (which I'm sure you've heard explained to you plenty of times here) dictates that you disregard these conflicting impressions more and more as your impression becomes a conviction, until your sense of hearing itself becomes clouded by your expectation and you simply hear what you expect to hear every time.

So, B "is" warmer than A.

4. In the same manner, you attribute further characteristics in audio jargon randomly to each cable. Upon extended "testing", said attributions become just as firm as they are random.
5. In the end, you are able to expound on the virtues of cable B over cable A (and / or vice versa) in 10 pages of detailed sonic impressions, covering such disparate areas as pace, rhythm, timing, attack, decay, soundstage, distortion, ... in a manner that could earn high accolades in an audio magazine.

Thus, as you can see, even in the most ideal of circumstances, one almost never "finds" two truly identical items to be identical in a sighted "test".

Now, you may argue that just as sighted tests fail to identify identical items as identical, ABX tests fail to identify subtly different items as different. That may even be true. But even in that case, you have to admit that a sighted impression that two items are different is not proof of anything--because a sighted test never finds two things to be identical.

 

[tackytiger]

I've found that albums often respond favourably to burn in.
 
After a few plays, some definitely sound sweeter. Conversely, some really start to stink, and you realised you've wasted your money.

 

[cjl]

  right, that was the last one. many years ago. Trillions of dollars in research and walks for the cure and nothing....they can't even get a cure, let alone root out the cause of anything. There's plenty of info to suggest a placebo sugar pill does better than modern pharmacutics. The point is progress is not as linear or as one directional as some think, and the latest and greatest scientific knowledge does not necessarily represent something of value. Think of the great pyramids. The older ones are far superior and the ones after are shrunken malformed, technically and aesthetically inferior. You'd think they would have gotten better at building them over time rather than worse. Where was the latest and greatest towards the end of that era? ob\viously tech and civilization goes up and down like a sine wav not like a straight line upwards and some way say many aspects of modern culture are on the wane. And so just because today, no one can document or explain other properties of a cable that may account for burn in does not negate the possibility.

Because diseases, especially things like cancer (which you're implying here) are very complicated and nontrivial. If you look at survival rates, they're improving dramatically though for pretty much every disease. You're acting as though it's a binary thing of "cure/no cure", when in reality, there's varying degrees of survivability in the middle too. As for the pyramids, the oldest ones are kind of malformed (look at the Bent Pyramid for example), and the biggest and most impressive ones came after a significant period of development and improvement. Scientific knowledge is increasing, and we understand electricity incredibly well right now, and cables are far simpler than cancer. Your whole argument is an appeal to the mysterious, and a non-sequitur.

 

[StanD]

  Because diseases, especially things like cancer (which you're implying here) are very complicated and nontrivial. If you look at survival rates, they're improving dramatically though for pretty much every disease. You're acting as though it's a binary thing of "cure/no cure", when in reality, there's varying degrees of survivability in the middle too. As for the pyramids, the oldest ones are kind of malformed (look at the Bent Pyramid for example), and the biggest and most impressive ones came after a significant period of development and improvement. Scientific knowledge is increasing, and we understand electricity incredibly well right now, and cables are far simpler than cancer. Your whole argument is an appeal to the mysterious, and a non-sequitur.

My brother was totally cured of cancer. Part of his chemo used experimental anitbody therapy. I went with him to every treatment and to his final surgical procedure. I'll attest this was far more complicated than burning in a cable. Some people in this site have lost sight of reality.