Cable burn-in: Is it real or imagined?

[Robh3606]

Hello Dallasjustice

I understand but if it was as simple as that I doubt we would be having this conversation. That is such a basic and easy measurement also consider what values of L and C it takes to make an audible change is say speaker wires as an example. Even interconnects depending on the impedances. It's not insignificant and another relatively easy measurement set to put this issue to bed.

Rob

 

[NC Lee]

My favorite after an aggressive lambasting of another's opinion is: "... but hey, I could be wrong."

 

[dmnc02]

My theory is that there are FR differences between different cables. The so called burn in is merely the brain's adaptation to the new cable's response.

One problem with the brain's adaption theory is that it cannot explain the evidence mentioned by DaveC in post #131 in terms of different initial response of his customers receiving cables that had been previously burned-in vs. cables that had not been. That is an excellent statistical test, if the sample size is large enough.

 

[dallasjustice]

Speaker cable testimonials are especially tricky. One MUST power down their system to replace speaker cables and then power it back up again. So there's a new variable added to an already complex situation. It is hard to know how experienced the listener is at distinguishing the electronics from the cable, if at all. Again, I'm not saying they are hallucinating. I am just offering an alternate theory for their observation.

One problem with the brain's adaption theory is that it cannot explain the evidence mentioned by DaveC in post #131 in terms of different initial response of his customers receiving cables that had been previously burned-in vs. cables that had not been. That is an excellent statistical test, if the sample size is large enough.

 

[dmnc02]

Speaker cable testimonials are especially tricky. One MUST power down their system to replace speaker cables and then power it back up again. So there's a new variable added to an already complex situation. It is hard to know how experienced the listener is at distinguishing the electronics from the cable, if at all. Again, I'm not saying they are hallucinating. I am just offering an alternate theory for their observation.

I understand, but having to power down one's system only reduces the ability to detect small changes. It does not bias the outcome in favor of liking or disliking a new cable.

 

[Robh3606]

I understand, but having to power down one's system, only reduces the ability to detect small changes. It does not bias the outcome one way or another.

Simply changing the cable could influence and bias the result. That's the crux of the sighted vs. blind debate

Rob

 

[thedudeabides]

Hi Michael,

I would think the exact opposite would be true. This would include cables and all other things audio.

Are you saying you can't hear a difference between 16ga. zip speaker wire and a more technically robust design?

Best.

 

[dmnc02]

Simply changing the cable could influence and bias the result. That's the crux of the sighted vs. blind debate

Rob

If DaveC's customers did not know whether the cables they received had been previously burned-in or not, there you have your blind test.

 

[Steve Williams]

If DaveC's customers did not know whether the cables they received had been previously burned-in or not, there you have your blind test.

good point. I agree

 

[Robh3606]

If DaveC's customers did not know whether the cables they received had been previously burned-in or not, there you have your blind test.

So they had cables with no burn in, were not happy then received cable that were burned in and thought they sounded better?? Did they know the new cables were burned in?? Did they think they were just replacements same as before?? I missed that.

Rob

 

[dmnc02]

So they had cables with no burn in, were not happy then received cable that were burned in and thought they sounded better?? Did they know the new cables were burned in?? Did they think they were just replacements same as before?? I missed that.

Rob

Read the post again. He said he was receiving complaints by customers before he started shipping his cables already burned-in.

 

[Robh3606]

My own observation, plus before I burned-in my cables I got calls from customers asking why their new speaker cables crippled their system. I had one guy from the South East US call and say something like "It sounds like I put a muzzle on my system!". They were all very surprised at the outcome after burn-in and ended up very happy with them.

You mean this post?? All it says is they were happy after they burned in. That's not a blind evaluation.

Rob

 

[dmnc02]

You mean this post?? All it says is they were happy after they burned in. That's not a blind evaluation.

Rob

I am referring to the first sentence ("My own observation, plus before I burned-in my cables I got calls from customers asking why their new speaker cables crippled their system"), not to the last two.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I would love to see a set of pre and post cable burn in measurements that showed changes to known parameters. It would be quite a learning experience for those of us who do use measurements as a tool to set-up their systems.

Rob

Rob,
Can you specify which known parameters you are thinking about? As far as I know cable sound has never been correlated with a specific measurement.

 

[GaryProtein]

Simply changing the cable could influence and bias the result. That's the crux of the sighted vs. blind debate

Rob

A second person must change the cables.

The test must be run numerous times. The person changing the cables must also LIE TO YOU about changing the cables part of the time--saying they changed them when they actually did NOT change them and seeing if you find a difference.

You MUST MUST guess correctly at least four out of five times because adjectives usually used in expressing the differences are terms like "greatly improved soundstage", "greater depth", much sweeter highs and midrange", better controlled bass", etc.

Differences like these should be readily apparent, so the listener has little to no excuse for guessing wrong.

 

[dmnc02]

A second person must change the cables.

The test must be run numerous times. The person changing the cables must also LIE TO YOU about changing the cables part of the time--saying they changed them when they actually did NOT change them and seeing if you find a difference.

You MUST MUST guess correctly at least four out of five times because adjectives usually used in expressing the differences are terms like "greatly improved soundstage", "greater depth", much sweeter highs and midrange", better controlled bass", etc.

Differences like these should be readily apparent, so the listener has little to no excuse for guessing wrong.

You have a textbook double blind test above.

 

[Robh3606]

I am referring to the first sentence ("My own observation, plus before I burned-in my cables I got calls from customers asking why their new speaker cables crippled their system"), not to the last two.

He had happier customers after he burned them in. OK but that's not a blind evaluation between one that is burned in and one that is not. That said I see your point that it suggests that something is going on based on him having happier customers with ones he did burn in. His customers didn't know either way but were happier with the burned in cables. Is that what you were getting at? This would be so much easier with face time.

Rob

 

[Robh3606]

A second person must change the cables.

The test must be run numerous times.

Hello Garyprotien

I understand how it's done I was just making a point that any knowledge can skew the outcome.

Rob

 

[dmnc02]

He had happier customers after he burned them in. OK but that's not a blind evaluation between one that is burned in and one that is not. That said I see your point that it suggests that something is going on based on him having happier customers with ones he did burn in. His customers didn't know either way but were happier with the burned in cables. Is that what you were getting at? This would be so much easier with face time.

Rob

He is reporting two different empirical observations in the same post:

1) He did not use to burn-in his cables before shipping and he received complaints about their sound (which, by implication, subsidized once he started burning-in before shipping).

2) Some customers of his were encouraged to burn-in the cables they had received before forming a final opinion and changed their mind.

The first is a double-blind test of cable burn-in (assuming customers did not know whether the cables they received had been burned-in or not), the second is a sighted test.

 

[DaveC]

Dallas, you definitely do not have to turn your system off when changing speaker cables. You just want to take the cables off the amp end 1st and put them back on the speaker end before the amp end to avoid shorts. I always hot-swap ICs too but there are amps that can't do this without transmitting ground current on the signal before the ground makes contact so you get a large buzz, this needs to be avoided. I can even hot swap power cables on tube equipment fast enough that the storage caps never discharge and the amp is never really powered off.

To clarify my comments about getting calls from customers, this did happen several times and I also communicated about this issue with others via email, I just mentioned the calls because it shows the urgency involved with the communication because of the horrible sound they were getting before break-in. These customers all had their original speaker cables to compare to and in every case the sound was worse that their original cables before break in and surpassed them after break in with exceptions in the 5% range or so. I never sent the customers already broken-in cables as this period of very bad sound only lasts a few hours. After I started burning in my cables this issue completely went away.

My cables performance is consistently described by my customers in such a way that if delusional they would all have to be sharing a mass delusion, which is less likely. If there truly was only placebo effect and expectation bias I would expect a much more random sampling of performance reports. The other thing that has been very consistent is that the more neutral the cable is the less the spread of reactions and the more consistent it is from system to system. For example a cable that is voiced on the warm side will get more of love-hate reaction than a very neutral cable, which gets a more consistent reaction. But even the love-hate descriptions share many similarities, it's just the synergy varies a lot more, i.e. you don't want a warm cable for a system that already leans very warm. So with the warm cable I get It sounds like X and I like it, or it sounds like X and I hate it, the descriptions of what it's doing are similar yet the result varies a lot more.

People that think synergy is everything are only partially right, there are objective criteria for cable performance that are not subjective, such as the resolution of the cable and it's ability to portray tones and timbres realistically, so a trumpet sounds like a trumpet and an upright bass sounds like a real bass. Not every component, speaker and cable can be completely neutral, but the closer you get to neutral the less synergy matters and in a hypothetical system where every part is neutral synergy would be a complete non-issue. For this reason I believe using cables as tone controls as Dallas mentioned is a really bad idea, you need to pay more for a cable that does as little as possible and not for a cable that sounds how you think it should, if you used cables that are not neutral you will compensate in other areas and every non-neutral element in the system causes a loss of resolution so to get best results and a very resolving system using components, cables and speakers that are as neutral as possible is important. With my line when you pay more you get a cable that effects the signal less, not a cable that is voiced to sound a certain way. There is a huge difference between the two approaches to design, one has high fidelity as a goal, the other is simply personal preference. There's nothing wrong with personal preference in a sound that is less accurate, it's just not the pursuit of high fidelity anymore.