Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
Why is it assumed that cables sound "better" after burn it? Burn in requires a change in electrical properties (or magic) so how do we know the "new" properties will be a better "match" to any particular system? Why do I never hear someone say "after burn in my cables sounded like crap"?
That have always been my argument also. Those that argue that cable burn in is a fact seem to only acknowledge the positive effects of it, but never the negative effects of it. Your argument is one of negative side effects, and another is cable that need burin to optimize is not stable over time.

So when somebody post that their cable sounded best after a period of burn in, in actuality are saying that their cable is a lemon since it is not stable over time. One can't have it both ways


Quote Originally Posted by jneutron
Insulation absorbs and releases energy in a very predictable way..it is called capacitance. and that is very well known.. For ac signals, that is pretty much all there is..the DC model includes several other mechanisms, but we aren't talking DC.
This was your response to Risabet when he said that "If one accepts that the insulation of a cable can absorb and then release energy, then while that absorbtion is occurring and changing, the sound of a cable can change."

Also whould like add to your comment that while signal is AC, absorb and release energy action is continuos as according to polarity of signal, and there is never a dielectric "stabilization"-which will occur after the burn in period. So, the stabilization argument is very shaky from the get-go