[Speederlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nor_spoon /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's more. These could very well be the final tweak to a system, where all the cables have gone through the burn in phase, and using the NM Sonic Purifiers. You probably need to play a bit with the positioning for the best result... The difference would probably be less dramatically with headphone use though...

$1000 bucks for those things? Holy hell.
Must lol at the review though: Quote:

As Paul Candy noted in his review of them, "When the RoomLenses were properly situated, the orchestra became more layered and focused. Brass and percussion shifted further back into the depth of the stage and woodwinds were more defined. Big timpani whacks were tauter and went lower. The soundstage was also slightly wider and airier, with more space around instruments. A slight bit of hash on the upper registry of massed stringed instruments was removed to make them fuller and rounder in tone."

Is there some kind of audio reviewers phrase generator that lets you spin an arrow to determine the effect(s)? "Big timpani whacks were tauter and went lower"......

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Subjective evidence is not objective evidence. Ever heard of the placebo effect? That would explain why people feel something without any objective proof. Notice how this thread is in the Sound Science forum? Do you know what science is based on? Repeatability and objective evidence, ie the scientific method. Maybe there should be a forum for subjectivism or something but it has NO place in science.

Oh, I see. The designation of this forum as the "Sound Science Forum," in and of itself, limits the types of propositions that can be advanced, the type of "evidence" that can be presented, etc. I didn't know that. Not to be difficult or anything, but could you possibly present some "objective evidence" that (1) the mere designation of this forum as the "Sound Science" forum was intended to restrict the evidence that can be offered and/or the topics that can be discussed, or (2) you have been appointed as the Grand Poobah of the Sound Science Forum with plenary authority to adjudicate summarily what topics and evidence can be discussed?

P.S. No, I've never heard of the placebo effect. What's that?

 

[Vel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, I see. The designation of this forum as the "Sound Science Forum," in and of itself, limits the types of propositions that can be advanced, the type of "evidence" that can be presented, etc. I didn't know that. Not to be difficult or anything, but could you possibly present some "objective evidence" that (1) the mere designation of this forum as the "Sound Science" forum was intended to restrict the evidence that can be offered and/or the topics that can be discussed, or (2) you have been appointed as the Grand Poobah of the Sound Science Forum with plenary authority to adjudicate summarily what topics and evidence can be discussed? P.S. No, I've never heard of the placebo effect. What's that?

It does not appear there are any rules as to what can and can't be presented that I can see. However, coming in and saying "But there is some evidence, i.e., people's observations. The fact that some do not consider them persuasive or to constitute evidence that would be accepted by a scientist does not mean that they are not evidence" is not scientific and I was pointing this out with regard to the title of this forum.

 

[jgharding]

 

Old thread, interesting original subject!
 
Confirmation bias comes into it. People want it to make a difference, so it does. I once watched an apprentice style show from the US, where the twist was that these guys were being treated to luxuries by a fake millionaire. They were talking about how gorgeous the pate was, how the champagne was the most exquisite they'd ever tasted. Of course, it ground up reformed meat and cheap fizzy wine, just served to them in a posh environment.
 
On the original topic, as far as I've heard, nothing changes, your ears and brain just get used to the sound. Hearing and listening aren't passive things, they're affected by all kinds of emotions etc. I've never even heard a appreciable difference between two different cables unless one is complete screw*d or improperly connected and the other isn't. Unless you can directly double blind A/B between them and get them right, then the difference doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned, and I've never met someone who can. I've met plenty who're full of excuses though, it's like trying to argue against god with a priest. Some people will turn everything into religion, and others will always be there to make money from it! 
 
That's my 2-cents.
​

 

[jjinh]

why does a thread like this need a bump after 2 years...

 

[jgharding]

I enjoy the original subject! The argument can go elsewhere. 
 
Plus the usual reason: I didn't notice the date DO'H! :S

 

[CatboyMac]

Quote:

You could try picking up one of these: Hagerman Audio Labs: FryBaby Personal Audio Burn-In and Cable Break-In Device and seeing if it'll do anything.

Ow... my brain hurts...

 

[Exarch]

Has anyone in here ever heard of this thing called a "frequency response curve"?  It will tell you, for a given frequency input, how an amplifier will "sound" in terms of emphasis at different ranges of the spectrum.
 
Moving right along, look for out-of-phase harmonic distortion, if it's there the amp will sound "cold".  In-phase harmonic distortion will cause an amp to sound "warm".
 
The idea of cable burn-in is utterly preposterous.  If copper/silver/unobtanium/<random metal> changed that much when being "burned in" then it would stand to reason that when timing a circuit with a 3+ ghz clock it wouldn't work until it was "burned in", and "burn in" would be a scientifically known property as your entire computer would have to be built around the concept... Or are you insinuating that the person who crammed just shy of one billion transistors onto a piece of metal the size of a postage stamp has somehow been schooled in science by your Mk1 Ear?
 
The idea that metal changes relative to a low frequency at low voltage and low amperage is like saying that if you fart hard enough you'll change the orbit of the earth.

 

[Parall3l]

Quote:

Has anyone in here ever heard of this thing called a "frequency response curve"?  
 
I believe most people here have
 
The idea of cable burn-in is utterly preposterous. 
 
X2
 
The idea that metal changes relative to a low frequency at low voltage and low amperage is like saying that if you fart hard enough you'll change the orbit of the earth.
 

 
 

 

 

[Exarch]

Quote:

Has anyone in here ever heard of this thing called a "frequency response curve"?  
 
I believe most people here have

Apparently not the individual who was asking for the science behind how an amp "sounds" or how one would define a "house sound".

 

[bobsnd]

If you really, really want to know what goes on with a cable when you burn it in, go to www.cardas.com web site and read the extensive technical explanation given by George Cardas, probably one of the most respected and knowledgeable people in the industry!

 

[xnor]

Wow, what a bunch of nonsense. He writes about traumatizing the cable by moving it.. and lots of flawed analogies and stories...

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

If you really, really want to know what goes on with a cable when you burn it in, go to www.cardas.com web site and read the extensive technical explanation given by George Cardas, probably one of the most respected and knowledgeable people in the industry!

 
 
Is this the same George Cardas who sells a demagnetizing iPhone app ?  http://www.head-fi.org/t/619940/cardas-clarifier-iphone-app
 
How come he does not supply any empirical evidence for his claims such as a few DBTs using unburned and burned cables ?

 

[wakibaki]

Yeah, Cardas is indicted as one of the 'Black Hats' of audio by Peter Aczel.
 
Anybody interested honest audio evaluation, as opposed to opening oneself to exploitation by the unscrupulous, should read Peter Aczel in 'The Audio Critic'. The back issues are free to download.
 
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/
 
w

 

[Chromako]

Cable burn in does work! Now, what does work, is that the more effort you put into a possession, the more you will enjoy it (cognitive dissonance theory). Burning in cables for the recommended 200 hours is a PITA. Placebo. Which, mind you, is real, and contributes to happiness. So, IMHO, it's not such a bad thing. Also, I've worked in electrical and chemical research engineering, therefore, I'm qualified in informing you that if you put too much current through a cable, you get that nice blue smoke.
 
But in all seriousness, it's funny, and kind of sad to see people selling and buying this snake oil. That people are making a profit from this is infuriating. But it creates economic liquidity, which helps the economy. So it's not that bad, if you think about the big picture. 
 
Cable burn in, in the audio amounts of current and temperatures, is total, utter, rubbish. It's the same thing for cryogenic cable treatment. The only thing you are going to do is cause differing contractions and their subsequent expansions with the differing materials, and then you are just potentially causing stress fractures. Nobody is saying that that is any good.
 
When a (normal) material is already solid, stationary, and not subjected to ridiculous outside forces (extreme ionizing radiation, neutron star levels of magnetic or gravitational tidal forces, telekenesis, etc), you won't change crystal boundaries or any such thing by cryogenically freezing it to liquid nitrogen levels. Not something as stable as copper. I can't say the same for exotic materials, liquid crystals, dark matter, unobtanium, or cooling to less than 4 kelvin (weird stuff happens there) as I'm not familiar with them, but you get my point. 
 
Burn in of moving parts, yes, that is very real for many reasons. But that's not what our concerns are here.