[oldmate]

Wire burn in and directionality? Until you provide verifiable evidence, it will remain total bollocks...

I knew long ago that even with verifiable evidence some people will continue to refute it. Knowing that I probably should not have started this thread. Oh well.

 

[Light - Man]

Guys, lighten up a little, surly a little humour is not forbidden on Head-fi.
 
I get the impression that none of you who have posted so far even believe in burn-in yet alone the possibility of directionality.
 
Why don't you do your own experimenting and see for yourselves if it makes any difference and not rely on others to prove or disprove it.
 
I agree that there is far too much BS and marketing speil regarding cables and I have managed to tune my hi fi system using solid core cables (which I am a fan of) etc. and I was willing to share my logic and experience.
 
I feel for me to participate any further would be pointless.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Why don't you do your own experimenting and see for yourselves if it makes any difference and not rely on others to prove or disprove it.

Because in case you haven't noticed, this is the Sound Science forum.

se

 

[castleofargh]

talking about direction on alternating current makes as much sense as wondering how fast a rock can run.
the signal is fluctuating all the time, the magnetic field is fluctuating all the time, so how would a direction get forced onto the dielectric anyway? so we don't even have to wonder if it would matter, the idea is bogus from the start.
 
and cable burn in overall, is like burn in for everything in audio, things go from not good, to great for a reason that is beyond any natural law of physic. 
things tend to go from good to not so good when left alone in the real world. I don't grow younger, the house doesn't fix itself. that's the real world. you can explain it with decay, with entropy or whatever you like, it's just a reality.
yes some systems have a period where things kind of "settle in" like car engine where you may not get the very best performance right out of the factory. but there are known reasons for that, the piston rings where made with a certain precision and the friction from running the engine will slightly reshape some parts to fit in better, or whatever I'm not really a car expert and I don't really know the english words. it's measured, explained, accepted. but even then they don't go "the paint will look right after 200hours, the air inside the tires will get direction, so avoid going in reverse for a few weeks". because they would rather BS you on making you believe that your D got bigger thanks to the car you're buying, than try to pretend the car will level up, evolve or burn in after 400hours.
 
now for a cable, it's hard to sell it by telling us that all the girls in the block will fall for us if we have that one cable. so the marketing guys have to get creative for once instead of relying on sex. sadly marketing guys are usually not the ones with the best understanding of a product or the science behind it.
still, for cables or an electronic devices, did you ever see your computer guy at the store come and tell you to run the CPU underclocked for 400hours for burn in? did you hear him tell you about cable direction changing the quality of the signal or how you should clearly get the the power transformer with the silver wire? how we shouldn't expect a game to run perfectly until the capacitors burn in and the bits get used to being in the hard drive? how we should extract all of the files in the game because the graphics aren't as good when it comes from .rar stuff that loaded textures at the start of the map?
of course not, we're not idiots we wouldn't care for that crap!
but take the same electronic, sell it to audiophiles, and wow! now everything is affecting everything audibly, and we must wait 400 hours even for the power ON button to burn in so that the sound really becomes alive and the soundstage opens up. are we audiophiles, dumber than the rest of the world, that we give in to those stuff and even care? or is it just that we're frustrated to see how now even cheap stuff sound transparent so that we need excuses to pretend that we're better than those other guys. that thanks to "know how" and money we still somehow got the sound that they don't even understand. "I don't want my music to be the same as what poor people have!"
 
when you get a new pair of glasses, the guy will tell you "oh you may need a few weeks to get used to wearing them", but he wouldn't add  "because they need to burn in, else the colors won't be as vibrant and the field of vision will open up after 600hours". it's a given that we are the part getting used to it. and it's the human that adapts.
it's really an audiophile thing, to blame our own changes in perception onto the product itself. because most audiophile never ever question themselves, never change opinion, are never wrong, can ear stuff that cannot be measured and a lot of other superman fantasies. "science is not enough to explain how much of an amazing guy I am! "
 
me when I use something and don't like it, then 2 weeks later, I use it and find it ok, I call that "changing my mind". it's not amazing, it's not worth bragging about on headfi, but that's still what happened.

 

[arnyk]

Considering I did both, heavier Guage and changed to silver, then I'm not crazy thinking I heard a difference. Thanks for clearing that up.

 
 
You' are not crazy, but you are still basing your opinion on unreliable evidence.
 
And yes, your evidence is verifiable, since any number of audiophiles will agree with you, as unreliable as the evidence is.

 

[arnyk]

  Guys, lighten up a little, surly a little humour is not forbidden on Head-fi.
 
I get the impression that none of you who have posted so far even believe in burn-in yet alone the possibility of directionality.
 
Why don't you do your own experimenting and see for yourselves if it makes any difference and not rely on others to prove or disprove it.
 
I agree that there is far too much BS and marketing speil regarding cables and I have managed to tune my hi fi system using solid core cables (which I am a fan of) etc. and I was willing to share my logic and experience.
 
I feel for me to participate any further would be pointless.

I don't believe in perpetual motion, or any number of other contradictions of the laws of Thermodynamics. Then there are the innumerable contradictions of the other laws of Physics that I don't believe in. Does that make me closed-minded or just wise?

 

[jcx]

I say it makes you look lazy - getting an education, reading others work vetted by lifetimes of experimentation, application, verification - when you should just do it all yourself from zero

 

[arnyk]

  I say it makes you look lazy - getting an education, reading others work vetted by lifetimes of experimentation, application, verification - when you should just do it all yourself from zero

 
I say that the above sounds like someone who is very poorly educated and thus has no idea about how complex science is - the fact that if you tried to redo every scientific experiment from zero, you'd never get anything else done, and you would die before you did that.

 

[Roly1650]

I say that the above sounds like someone who is very poorly educated and thus has no idea about how complex science is - the fact that if you tried to redo every scientific experiment from zero, you'd never get anything else done, and you would die before you did that.

I'm pretty sure his point is going to fly right over your head, but just in case I'm wrong.....DUCK!!!!
.......because low flying points aren't unknown...

. <<<<<<< returning the missing smiley from @jcx's post to remind old farts, like you and I, that some posts are meant to be humorous/ironic/sarcastic/etc.

 

[arnyk]

I'm pretty sure his point is going to fly right over your head, but just in case I'm wrong.....DUCK!!!!
.......because low flying points aren't unknown...

. <<<<<<< returning the missing smiley from @jcx's post to remind old farts, like you and I, that some posts are meant to be humorous/ironic/sarcastic/etc.

 
I think it was intended to be insulting, and in a way it worked - it provided a much-needed insult to jcx's so-called intelligence.

 

[castleofargh]

it was sarcasm. I got fooled the same way on hydrogen thinking a guy was utterly stupid when he was making a joke. I guess getting to know people a little better helps knowing when someone is having a little fun.

 

 

[dazzerfong]

  I say it makes you look lazy - getting an education, reading others work vetted by lifetimes of experimentation, application, verification - when you should just do it all yourself from zero

If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants.
 
Isaac Newton. AKA the dude who kinda explained gravity.

 

[Hudson]

It was obviously sarcasm.

 

[Steve Eddy]

I think it was intended to be insulting, and in a way it worked - it provided a much-needed insult to jcx's so-called intelligence.

Seriously, you owe jcx an apology.

se

 

[arnyk]

Seriously, you owe jcx an apology.

se

 
No, JCX  owes me an apology for his malicious-appearing post.
 
If he wants to claim that he carelessly left out a smiley as part of that apology, then he can.
 
If he wants to pretend he's perfect through this all, then it is a reflection on him. 
 
He's said nothing about the matter that I know of.
 
Looks like other people have problems with him, too.
 
If people want to be co-dependent with him and excuse his actions, then they are part of the problem.