Cable burn-in: Is it real or imagined?

[Robh3606]

Here are some actual measurements for comparison. You can clearly see the differencec between the system calibration loop and the measured driver which in this case is a compression driver on a waveguide. Its a gated measurement, you can see the gate time in msec on the right of the waterfall. The waterfall is time frequency and amplitide. The ETC is time and amplitude. The ETC starts off the left side because of the time of flight of the test impulse between the microphone and the driver under test.

Rob

 

[thedudeabides]

What proof do you have that cable 'burn in' exists?
Keith

What proof do you have that it doesn't?

 

[thedudeabides]

You use your ears. I'll trust mine.

Such is the subjectivity of audio.

Re your question. Some posters on this thread obviously disagree with you.

Can you accept / understand that?

 

[MikeCh]

Explain to me by which physical means does a cable 'burn in' ie what changes?
Keith.

Hi Keith,

I have a simplified explanation of what physical changes occur during cable burn-in written on my web site (found on the Cable Conditioning page). Some folks claim they can hear the difference between cables burned in vs. not. Some folks claim there is no sonic difference. The physical changes to the dielectric are real, but is it enough to hear? What a given listener can hear is a subjective matter with lots of variables.

 

[thedudeabides]

Are you mocking my efforts to actually show evidence of burn-in?? Unbelievable...

Of course he is Dave. That's what he does.

Disparaging, insulting, and unable to accept anyone's opinion that is different than his.

 

[treitz3]

Cable 'burn in' is complete and utter nonsense absolutely nothing changes, and if you were going to measure something I would suggest you start with the electrical parameters of the cable, they won't change of course but that might be mildly more sensible than looking for changes in the FR.

Keith.

Hello, Purite Audio and good evening to you. One thing that is not only frowned upon but is also against the TOS >>>[http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1207-Terms-Of-Service]<<<......is posting comments that create heated arguments. If you had added "In my opinion", things may be different. With that said, please refrain from statements of opinion stated as fact. This may well be an area of audio that humans do not understand the full parameters of or what to even measure yet when it comes to our hobby.

We all can learn from cordial discussion of the topic. Nothing can ever be gained from the creation of heated arguments. Please consider this before posting again. Thank you, sir.

Tom

 

[dallasjustice]

When a lawyer gives an opening statement to the jury, he/she is prohibited from "arguing" their case; just the facts. Of course, clever lawyers know they CAN argue as long as the argument is preceded with "the evidence will prove__________" The "IMO" seems to inoculate the opinionated forum poster from rhetorical debate in much the same way. Folks who publicly articulate their opinions should be prepared to defend them. Of course, opinions are important, but we can't learn more about those opinions without rhetorical debate. Rhetorical debate has for millennia preceded anything worth knowing.

Cable burn-in is widely reported yet has never been "proven" with objective data. This fact doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it simply means there's no evidence it exists. There's nothing wrong with the findings/opinions sincerely expressed to the contrary. However, the background and circumstances giving rise to these observations ought to be subject to examination.

Although Keith's rhetorical technique is at best feeble and at worst counter-productive, I can't find the TOS which prohibits posting opinions which lead to heated discussion. The closest TOS I can find is TOS#9 concerning generalizations. I hope I'm not violating TOS#6.
Michael

Hello, Purite Audio and good evening to you. One thing that is not only frowned upon but is also against the TOS >>>[http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1207-Terms-Of-Service]<<<......is posting comments that create heated arguments. If you had added "In my opinion", things may be different. With that said, please refrain from statements of opinion stated as fact. This may well be an area of audio that humans do not understand the full parameters of or what to even measure yet when it comes to our hobby.

We all can learn from cordial discussion of the topic. Nothing can ever be gained from the creation of heated arguments. Please consider this before posting again. Thank you, sir.

Tom

 

[DaveC]

When a lawyer gives an opening statement to the jury, he/she is prohibited from "arguing" their case; just the facts. Of course, clever lawyers know they CAN argue as long as the argument is preceded with "the evidence will prove__________" The "IMO" seems to inoculate the opinionated forum poster from rhetorical debate in much the same way. Folks who publicly articulate their opinions should be prepared to defend them. Of course, opinions are important, but we can't learn more about those opinions without rhetorical debate. Rhetorical debate has for millennia preceded anything worth knowing.

Cable burn-in is widely reported yet has never been "proven" with objective data. This fact doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it simply means there's no evidence it exists. There's nothing wrong with the findings/opinions sincerely expressed to the contrary. However, the background and circumstances giving rise to these observations ought to be subject to examination.

Although Keith's rhetorical technique is at best feeble and at worst counter-productive, I can't find the TOS which prohibits posting opinions which lead to heated discussion. The closest TOS I can find is TOS#9 concerning generalizations. I hope I'm not violating TOS#6.
Michael

Michael, with all due respect...

 

[dallasjustice]

Michael, with all due respect...

To tell you the truth . . .

 

[dmnc02]

How can the stament

"Cable burn-in is widely reported yet has never been 'proven' with objective data"

be used to justify the statement

"Cable 'burn in' is complete and utter nonsense absolutely nothing changes"?

It seems a bit of a stretch even for a lawyer

 

[dmnc02]

While there is nothing to proving the characteristics of a simple old audio signal, proving what happens in an individuals ear brain interface is at this point in time impossible without blind testing or other objective method of proof. My ears are better than yours, I hear electric charges colliding, I hear magnetic field effects, I hear micro-vibrations, I hear blah blah.....so prove I don't....that's the OP, is this real or imagined. Its a good topic. And it stands for a lot more things than cable burn in, fuse orientation, etc, blah balh a ahah ahhah.

This topic invites, agree, disagree or maybe as answers. If we cant expouse these three, then the thread will not have much to say. These threads IMO allow for debate and openness, the very opposite of what others think. You got to hear all sides of a case to make an informed decision don't ya now!

The mod was not objecting to the topic, but to presenting a subjective opinion as a statement of fact ("Cable 'burn in' is complete and utter nonsense absolutely nothing changes").

 

[dmnc02]

.....................................Well, is it possible that absolutely nothing changes, too?..........................................

I understand that when member X says that he hears cable burn in, then is it possible he does? Is that not a subjective fact as stated by that person? Or is he really not telling us what he believes.

I just think that we can move on from the statement in question, isn't everything we say here IMO, until proved not?
Look, obviously the post in question aroused some hard feelings and was reported. It has happened to a lot of us by the way at some point or another, valid or not.

Lawyers cant even get it right on these forums, let alone us civilians.

Yes, if member X says he hears cable break in, he is clearly reporting a subjective experience. If somebody wants to claim that Member X's experience is wrong, it would be logical for him to report some evidence to the contrary. Simply saying "what you hear cannot possibly be" without a supporting argument does not help the discussion.

 

[DonH50]

It is fairly easy, well not "easy", but it can be shown (and has been, many times), that cable "burn in" can occur. The changes are small to begin with and IMO negligible at audio frequencies (unless you have a very bad cable). They also happen pretty quickly (seconds) as dielectric charge traps are filled and so forth. I suspect our ears are what's "burning in" but certainly have no way to prove either side. And, the test equipment I have access to now, whilst having more than enough dynamic range, has low cut-off frequencies far above audio frequencies.

This is another of though religious debates with no reconciliation to be found, I'm afraid.

Here's a post I made some time ago:

People like to help each other, and do not like it when their help is questioned. Beliefs enter into it, people get riled, conversation degenerates.

Example:

A: I just added a new Pet Rock to my system, the imaging is better, a veil was lifted, bass is better, you have to get one of these!
B. I do not see how a pet rock can do any of that. Have you measured the system?
A: Why would I care about measurements? I can hear it!
B. There's no way a pet rock can do that. Without measurements, you have no proof.
A: What do you mean "no proof"? Didn't I just say I can hear a difference?
B: That is not proof. You need to run a controlled test, have somebody place and remove the pet rock several times and see if you can tell when it is there.
A: I don't need some test, I can tell it works! And I just had my friend over and he heard it too so there!
B: That's ridiculous you are both nuts. I'm just trying to save you money.
A: OK, I found an article by the Pet Rock Sound chief engineer. I do't understand it, but he says it aligns the molecular flow of the universe inside my room and that's why it works.
B: Sounds like marketing. What measurements did they take?
A: There's a graph, it shows ripples in the force without the Pet Rock that are gone when it is added. Happy now?
B: No, that is meaningless. You are all mad.
A: Well, prove it! Measure the molecular flow with and without a Pet Rock and see the difference! Then you can see and show us all why it works.
B: That is nuts and I don't have anything like that kind of equipment.
A: Then you can't prove it doesn't work! You're a geek with no ears!
B: You have so much expectation bias it is running out of your ears. No wonder you think you hear something.
A; Snooty objectivist scumbag.
B: Ignorant gullible subjectivist.
<Thread closed>

THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE! No relation to any actual people, audio systems, or Pet Rocks is implied. No Pet Rocks were harmed in the making of this post.

 

[thedudeabides]

The person was called out because of his "absolutist" stance without any consideration of other disparate perspectives with the accompanying insulting / inflammatory inferences. And this is not the first instance where this has occurred with this individual.

I don't believe anyone wants to limit expression of one's personal experiences on this forum but it seems reasonable to expect that it be stated in a respectful / non condescending manner.

Is that too much to ask?

 

[Robh3606]

Just a thought but it is not unreasonable to ask for measurements from a manufacturer to back up a statement. Taken by it's self asking for measurements should not be an automatic flag as a rude post. On other forums measurements are posted on a regular basis. 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

 

[bonzo75]

I can't find Kevin (speedskater's) ASCC impedance test instructions. Anyone has a link?

 

[dallasjustice]

OI used to believe in cable burn in. The thing that got me away from it and many other mysterious phenomena is the improvement in my system. The closer my system got to accurate, the less I could hear differences in cables, I used to hear. To me, "more accurate"=better, more musical etc (check adjective box you wish). My theory is that cable differences and so called burn in may be very real. However, these differences are much more noticeable in systems which exhibit nonlinearities, especially in mid and high frequencies. I believe we can hear these differences in cables in systems due to their interactions with other components (including the room) which makes measurement and verification close to impossible. At this point, I really don't hear any cable difference at all. Basically, I fall into the cables are primitive EQ camp. I believe this because I've noticed big differences in soundstage width and especially depth after only a very small change in target curve at HF. Even 1/4db change from 1khz to 20khz can make a big difference in the very same parameters often cited by those talking about burn in and other cable differences.

I only mention the above so that my position isn't confused with Keith's position, which seems to imply that those claiming to hear these differences are making it up or hallucinating. I do NOT believe that.
Michael.

 

[Robh3606]

Basically, I fall into the cables are primitive EQ camp. I believe this because I've noticed big differences in soundstage width and especially depth after only a very small change in target curve at HF. Even 1/4db change from 1khz to 20khz can make a big difference in the very same parameters often cited by those talking about burn in and other cable differences.

Hello dallasjustice

The only issue with that is if that was the case you would see it in a simple frequency response measurement. I have measured them. I used 18 feet of cheap cable to do the measurements I posted. Look at the phase response posted. The Frequency response is going to be similar. I will measure and post latter today after I get home. I can scale 1db and see what happens.

Rob

 

[dallasjustice]

Cables interacting with the room!
Explain the mechanism to me by which a cable would 'burn in',
Keith.

I assume we can agree the room is part of the playback system? If a cable is a form of EQ, it's clear said EQ WILL interact with the room response in much the same way DSP controlled EQ interacts with the room response.

 

[dallasjustice]

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.

Hello dallasjustice

The only issue with that is if that was the case you would see it in a simple frequency response measurement. I have measured them. I used 18 feet of cheap cable to do the measurements I posted. Look at the phase response posted. The Frequency response is going to be similar. I will measure and post latter today after I get home. I can scale 1db and see what happens.

Rob