Break In Period???

I'm sitting here reading people's cable reviews and I am in shock. Everyone keeps saying "Sounds great after a 100 hour burn in period." Or something along those lines. I may be entirly mistaken, but how in the world can a cable break in? It has no moving parts. Its properties don't change with use. It just doesn't make sense to me.

If there is such a thing I would love to know about it and what all it entails. If there is no such thing, I find it amazing that so many people can have the wrong information.

P.S. I posted in the wrong area. Sorry.

This may very well be the correct forum for this post.

The fact that many home audio fans believe in a host of ridiculous things: wood pucks, green markers, audible power cords, etc., etc. should somewhat damage the crediblity of the "masses" when dealing with issues such as the abiltiy to distinguish amps and many other "issues". Unfortunately, worrying about and talking about things like "cable burn in" is fun, and anybody can do it. You too can be an expert on cable burn in (because it is all in your head)! The whole "field" is rife with nonsense and misinformation--which is a shame because there are plenty of real issues to worry about and also music to hear.

The logic behind cable break in seem to be "hey, cars have a break in period, therefore cable must also". Sorry, sorry, this is a further example of how little our culture values both science and critical thinking. As you point out, there are no moving parts in cables. There is no burn in for cables, arrows on cables are meaningless, it is ridiculous to think that peope can hear differenence in audio cables, it never ends, it goes on and on....

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"?

All I can say is that it IS possible to be rational and still have fun and appreciate music. And, it is a lot cheaper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shwamdoo

I'm sitting here reading people's cable reviews and I am in shock. Everyone keeps saying "Sounds great after a 100 hour burn in period." Or something along those lines. I may be entirly mistaken, but how in the world can a cable break in? It has no moving parts. Its properties don't change with use. It just doesn't make sense to me.

If there is such a thing I would love to know about it and what all it entails. If there is no such thing, I find it amazing that so many people can have the wrong information.

P.S. I posted in the wrong area. Sorry.

---

Nowhere on the planet can you find a more gullible group of marks than "Audiophiles". This doesn't seem to matter what phase of audio you are talking about whether it be cables, amplifiers, digital sound, or anthing else in the world of audio. It's a place where you can sell plain copper wire for hundreds of dollar per foot (after it's properly burnt in of course) or sell amplifiers for thousands of dollars that sound no better than those you could buy for a few hundred. P. T. Barnum would have a field day with this group of people. It is amazing how so many erudite people will try to con you and then run away faster than Dracula from the cross when you mention double blind testing.

[QUOTE=ruadmaa]Nowhere on the planet can you find a more gullible group of marks than "Audiophiles".[QUOTE]

No more gullible than any other consumer group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shwamdoo

I'm sitting here reading people's cable reviews and I am in shock. Everyone keeps saying "Sounds great after a 100 hour burn in period." Or something along those lines. I may be entirly mistaken, but how in the world can a cable break in? It has no moving parts. Its properties don't change with use. It just doesn't make sense to me.

If there is such a thing I would love to know about it and what all it entails. If there is no such thing, I find it amazing that so many people can have the wrong information.

P.S. I posted in the wrong area. Sorry.

---

Run-in is more important for the insulation than for the conductor itself. All insulation acts as a tiny capacitor, storing and later releasing energy. PVC, teflon and the other common insulators all have different characteristic dielectric constants. Most designers today find the coefficient of absorption of the dielectric to be more important than the dielectric constant, as are the dissipation factor, the ability of the dielectric to convert the absorbed energy into heat, and the velocity of propogation, how quickly any absorbed energy is returned to the conductor.

Run-in simply places the cable's insulation in a constant state so that its dielectric behaves the same at all times. This state is not permanent, a long period of disuse will return a cable to its original state.

If one accepts that the insulation of a cable can absorb and then release energy, then while that absorbtion is occuring and changing, the sound of a cable can change. As to whether or not a cable takes 100hrs or so to break in may be excessive but it certainly is possible.

When you purchase a new component does it sound the same fresh from the box as it does 6 months later? Probably not. The caps, circuit board, resistors and other parts have characteristic run-in periods also.

PS: Air is the best dielectric


:)

Mr. risabet

What an absolutely fascinating explanation! I did notice some "qualifiers" in your discourse- what my coleagues would call "WEASEL WORDS".

Still, I would like to point out one concept, among many, that SIMPLY CANNOT BE!

Re your comment: "Most designers today find the coefficient of absorption of the dielectric to be more important than the dielectric constant, as are the dissipation factor, the ability of the dielectric to convert the absorbed energy into heat, and the velocity of propogation, how quickly any absorbed energy is returned to the conductor. "


First, please understand that there is an irreversable hierarchy for ENERGY.

You CAN directly change electricity into heat, i.e. electric baseboard heat in a house. But you CANNOT readily change heat into electricity. When you convert electricity into heat you have also increased entropy. Remember entropy, Mr. risabet?

Electricity and heat are both forms of energy, but electricity is at the top of the pile and heat is at the bottom of the pile.

Consider kings and serfs: Kings do not readily exchange places with serfs. And all through European history, serfs were prohibited from being kings.

You CAN use heat to generate steam, and that steam can be expanded in a steam turbine and that steam turbine then can drive an electrical generator to produce electricity.

But in no way will any "velocity of propogation" reverse entropy and convert that heat back into electricity to return it to the conductor. Nor can the "absorbed energy (It can only be heat because of entropy, remember) be returned to the conductor" because heat must flow from a higher temperature to a lower temperature and therefore it cannot be " returned to the conductor" because in the conductor that heat has nowhere to go! So that heat must be lost into the ambient air..... And "velocity of propogation" is a fancy sounding term but I can fathom no meaning for it here.

So how about using some basic EE and (the three laws of) thermodynamics to better illustrate your explanation for us?

Let's take a look at risabet's comments from a critical thinking point of view. First off, is he credible? I don't know, he certainly makes no attempt to qualify his statements which is a bad sign. What are his sources? None are given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by risabet

Run-in is more important for the insulation than for the conductor itself.

---

Well, ignoring for a second that I don't know what the heck "run-in" is (returning quickling from the audio store?), I must point out that nobody has suggested that burn-in is more important for the conductor than the insulation. The suggestion is that the idea is ridiculous for any part of the cable. This is a straw man or a diversion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by risabet

All insulation acts as a tiny capacitor, storing and later releasing energy. PVC, teflon and the other common insulators all have different characteristic dielectric constants. Most designers today find the coefficient of absorption of the dielectric to be more important than the dielectric constant, as are the dissipation factor, the ability of the dielectric to convert the absorbed energy into heat, and the velocity of propogation, how quickly any absorbed energy is returned to the conductor.

---

This misdirection is quite common in high end technobabble. Quote some simple facts and then act as if you have established your contention. Yes, all insulation acts as a capacitor (tiny or not) and yes capacitors store energy that can later be released. Yes different materials have different dielectric constants. So what? What does this have to do with burn in or even run in?

Notice how risabet can speak for "most designers", did he take a poll? And, what kind of "designers"? High end cable designers? If they are misguided crackpots or entrepreneurs why should we care what they think? What do electrical engineers think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by risabet

Run-in simply places the cable's insulation in a constant state so that its dielectric behaves the same at all times. This state is not permanent, a long period of disuse will return a cable to its original state.

---

How does rssabet know that run-in place cable insulation in a constant state so that its dielectric behave the same at all times? Could it be that a cable's insulation is always in a "constant state" regardless of run-in? hmmm...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by risabet

If one accepts that the insulation of a cable can absorb and then release energy, then while that absorbtion is occuring and changing, the sound of a cable can change. As to whether or not a cable takes 100hrs or so to break in may be excessive but it certainly is possible.

---

Whoa there. What if the absorbtion and relase occur very quickly and then at a constant rate so that there is no overall effect? While this is "occuring" (why changing?) maybe it happens so fast that any effect is inaduible. Maybe the energy is so small as to be inaudible? Is there any evidence or calculations to say that they are? This seems to be a really major flaw in logic.

The major contention against burn-in is that it takes 0 hrs to break in, I mean that is certainly possible. Isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by risabet

When you purchase a new component does it sound the same fresh from the box as it does 6 months later? Probably not. The caps, circuit board, resistors and other parts have characteristic run-in periods also.

---

Well now that is kind of exactly what the question really is, isn't it? Actually, my components sound exactly the same after 6 months. Don't yours? Haven you any kind of evidence that they do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by risabet

PS: Air is the best dielectric

---

What you mean by "best"? And, no it isn't.

Now I don't want to argue with risabet. I really don't want to offend him, but I find his comments to be rather an insult to my intelligence. He makes no logical argument in his statements, nor does he attempt to support them with so much as a reference, nor does he qualify: he seems certain, like he is lecuturing to us unfortunate unenlightened tin ears. At the very least he should offer some kind of reason to believe his "theory" would result in audible effects. Maybe those tiny caps are just so tiny that any overall effect on the signal cannot be hear. I mean, its possible, isn't it?

Not too many years ago, the microprocessor fab arm of the computer industry hit a snag in further reducing feature size in silicon. As they delved into "deep submicron" territory (under 18um), they noticed a curious thing about the aluminum connector traces between switching elements.

ELECTRO MIGRATION!

http://www.altera.com/literature/wp/wp_copper.pdf

When a current passes down a conductive wire, the net effect is a trend towards most electrons moving in a vector along the normal axis of the wire. However, many electrons will be moving perpendicularly or even in reverse of expected electron flow.

That’s right, as the circuit is active under elevated current stress, the passage of electron handoff through holes would occasionally bump an atom aside from its designated position, and the cumulative effect could be the failure or conductive change of the trace. This wasn't like the heating of a fuse, but more like the aging characteristics of a light bulb filament being accelerated by DC rather than AC, but at lower temperatures.

Imagine a stone lying in the sand near the surf at the beach. As the waves wash in and out, the stone causes eddies in the flow of the water. This moves sand aside from the stone, changing its position. As I understand it, electro migration happens because the trace is down to a few atoms thick and under a hundred atoms wide; enough that granularity becomes severe at this feature size. It becomes a growing problem as more atoms are lost at slight choke points, and the process continues.

It seems copper metalization staved off this problem for even smaller feature sizes, because copper resists electro migration better than aluminum.

I'm sure someone can use this actual industrial occurrence to sell some new cables that have had their "atoms realigned through burn-in", and they can point out copper is "more resistant to electron migration".

hehe :p

Here's another link on electro-migration, this one provides some numbers to look at for comparison.

As described, the phenomena occurs as a result of current density. For typical wires, the current density approaches 10Kiloamps per cm squared (we limit to about a kilo per inch squared) while on the chips, it is in the realm of 10e10 amps per cm squared, a factor of a million more current density. It is momentum transfer that moves the atoms..so it ain't gonna happen to wires, unless lightning strikes. regardless of what some cable vendor states..
http://www.csl.mete.metu.edu.tr/Elec...ation/emig.htm

The speed of propagation within a cable is directly related to the amount of energy stored within the wire.

The equation for prop velocity within a wire...

V = 1/ sqr[LC]

C is directly proportional to the Dielectric coefficient.

L is directly proportional to the permeability.

So, it can be "obtusely" claimed that "cable designers" worry about the prop velocity, but they are trying to claim that some frequencies are slower than others, like that erroneous Hawksford claim about smearing with the 2.93 meter per second 50 hz stuff...

But, the prop velocity is indeed related to the total storage energy...most cable vendors, just don't know how, and have glommed the words because they sound neat...

Quote:

---

Risabet: If one accepts that the insulation of a cable can absorb and then release energy, then while that absorbtion is occuring and changing, the sound of a cable can change. As to whether or not a cable takes 100hrs or so to break in may be excessive but it certainly is possible.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Risabet: PS: Air is the best dielectric

---

No..it is not.

Air has a dielectric breakdown potential of 70 volts per mil (this being the dry nitrogen, STP value). Kapton is 6 Kilovolts per mil, nomex 1.35 kv per mil, Emerson and Cuming 2851 KT is 425 volts per mil.

Air and vacuum share the same dielectric coefficient, that being 1.

If you believe it is a better dielectric, perhaps you can explain why it is better?

Cheers, John

PS...does anyone know how to turn html code on here? planting equations without super and sub capability is just a pain, I'm gonna hafta set the scanner up..

ho-ho!

Hi jneutron, you HAVE to know I was joking, right?

My thesis is this:

Take a real phenomenon, misapply it to audio when in reality it affects ultra high frequencies, nanostructures, or really LARGE scale properties, and make it a new "problem" to solve that a given "guru" has the magical mystery punch-in-a-cup to "solve all of your problems".

Meanwhile, ignore all the factors that actual audio designers have been wrestling with for the breadth of the science. Push under the rug such performance nightmares like harmonic distortion from speakers of any design. Output ringing spread over several milliseconds from TWEETERS. Thermal compression. Huge phase shifts from high order filters. Hopeless impulse response from ported woofers.

I remember as a kid looking at the characteristic curves of a transistor, and noticing the "bend" in them. Even with class A biasing and local feedback, I thought to myself, "that will NEVER work"... A common emitter output can only do so well in terms of linearity. But after the vanishing distortion characteristics and high damping factor AB amps of the late 70s early 80s, here we are in SET land, with people who love the sound of "bad specs", and vilify stable amplifiers that have some control over their speaker load.

There is some laughing and crying all at the same time.

I thought that the left hand button responded to the origional poster, but apparently I accidentally posted under you..oops. sorry bout that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toga

ho-ho!

Hi jneutron, you HAVE to know I was joking, right?

My thesis is this:

Take a real phenomenon, misapply it to audio when in reality it affects ultra high frequencies, nanostructures, or really LARGE scale properties, and make it a new "problem" to solve that a given "guru" has the magical mystery punch-in-a-cup to "solve all of your problems".

Meanwhile, ignore all the factors that actual audio designers have been wrestling with for the breadth of the science. Push under the rug such performance nightmares like harmonic distortion from speakers of any design. Output ringing spread over several milliseconds from TWEETERS. Thermal compression. Huge phase shifts from high order filters. Hopeless impulse response from ported woofers.
.

---

Um, actually, I don't understand your initial statement..we most certainly see eye to eye with respect to grabbing the latest buzz words and using them..I was not directing any verbage your way, just adding...that was why I linked to the origional post, and not in response to you..I agreed with you.

I just added the link to show how the actual effect is 6 orders of magnitude beyond currents that are excessive to begin with..your link gave a more user friendly version, but after all...this is the "Lab", so I had ta include some tech stuff...:-)

Cheers, John

I was sure the left hand "post reply" button directed the post to under the origional poster...obviously I was wrong..

Moderator: what am I doing wrong???

And, how do I turn on HTML coding, so I can use equations?

Cheers,

John

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 :)

The deaf man says, I can't hear, so sound can not exist. The blind man says, I can't see, so light doesn't exist.

Not all things are understood. When I go to someones house that has a mega buck system full of ridiculously ovepriced components and cables what I usually hear is beautiful sound. When I listen to a $100 Radio Shack stereo powering $69 speakers what I usually hear is dreck.

There is a factual differnce between these two extremes. To pretend that this difference becomes absolute zero at some price point whether it's $150, $500 or $2,000 is plainly ludicrous. There exists a continium of performance, admitedly the improvements become smaller and smaller as prices rise towards absurd but the good (almost always more expensive) stuff sounds better - get over it.

Ok here's one for all of you (first of all let me say i dont believe a word about cable break in, and i havent owned any kind of equipment good enough to be able to asses the effects of run-in, but hey, i guess that if capacitors blow over time, that means that use affects them in some way right?)
now back to the cables...
check this OUT: an electrical current be it AC or DC will cause the wire to heat up, HENCE the insulation will be heating up also. we could argue that heating the insulating material can cause its properties to change. PERHAPS they might get permanently altered, who knows... These capabilities include heat storage and dissipation.
Resistivity of a material goes up with temperature. So as the copper heats up, some of the heat is transferred to the insulation which now, due to the "changed" properties, have a better ability to disspate heat. this in turn allows the copper to run cooler, therefore decreasing its resistivity, and better preserving the purity of the signal.
i think from the physics point of view, the argument is "reasonable". however, i believe i've never written such a bag of wank.
there is NO effect, no matter which, that oculd ever be big enough to alter the sonic properties of the cable.
i dont believe in spending 2k in cabling either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hermanv

The deaf man says, I can't hear, so sound can not exist. The blind man says, I can't see, so light doesn't exist.

Not all things are understood. When I go to someones house that has a mega buck system full of ridiculously ovepriced components and cables what I usually hear is beautiful sound. When I listen to a $100 Radio Shack stereo powering $69 speakers what I usually hear is dreck.

There is a factual differnce between these two extremes. To pretend that this difference becomes absolute zero at some price point whether it's $150, $500 or $2,000 is plainly ludicrous. There exists a continium of performance, admitedly the improvements become smaller and smaller as prices rise towards absurd but the good (almost always more expensive) stuff sounds better - get over it.

---

Ok, on with the critical analysis:

A scientist says, there is no evdence for ghosts, so they don't exist. There is, however, evidence for sound and light regardless of our senses. Come to think of it, I don't know any deaf or bind people who deny the existence of those phenomena. You made that quote up, didn't you?

We all agree that home audio systems can and do sound different. The issue is why. And also why isn't there always an audible difference among some components and why does price not seem to matter for others?

The major critical thinking error of hearmanv is this: He notes a correlation between price and performance, and he wrongly assumes a causal relationship between price and performance. Correlation is not causation, is a major lesson of beginning stat courses. Something is causing the differences he hears, but is it price? Moreover, is it price alone? Could it be that price greatly affects the audible qualities of one type of component (say speakers), but not another (say amps)? It is illogical to assume that because price affects the audible performace of some components, it must affect the audible performance of all components.

Get with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaboom

Ok here's one for all of you
check this OUT: an electrical current be it AC or DC will cause the wire to heat up, HENCE the insulation will be heating up also. we could argue that heating the insulating material can cause its properties to change. PERHAPS they might get permanently altered, who knows... r.

---

As I have been crticial of critical thinking, lately, let me just say that Kaboom is attempting to think critically in attempting to use the facts he knows (e.g. current heats a conductor) to come up with a way that permanent changes can occur that might affect performance. He also critically points out that the change may be so small as to not make any audible difference. Bravo.

My major critical objection to his hypothesis is that cables don't heat up very much. If they did your voice coils might melt which is a definite permanent and audible change in cable (in this case burn out rather than burn in).

yap, i kept in mind that cables will barely heat. Incidentally, out of curiosity, at a reasonably loud listening level, what kind of voltage and current are flowing through the cables? i mean obviously they are varying or there would be no music.
but are we talking 10k volts and low currents or tens of amps and low voltages?

Oh come ON! there IS a correlation between price and quality UP TO a price point. I find a 12k bucks koetsu cartridge VERY hard to justify, but i've owned cheapass gemini, decent stanton, pretty good shure and very good Goldring, each of them costing more than the one before it and there were pretty tangible differences that my sister who doesnt know what the **** a phono cartridge is on the first place could spot.
I've auditioned B&Ws 601 at 400 bucks, 602s at 500 and some kickass Sonus Fabers at 5000, and there DEFINATELY was a difference. as there was between a rotel RA-01 at 450 and a Musical Fidelity at 4500.
However, past a price point, the improvements that can be made to the quality of the components and the build quality is so minute that it becomes much more of a "status" and "self-suggestion" thing.
Personally, i think that if you think that blowing 60.000 on a stereo system makes your music sound better and makes you happy (assuming you can afford that kind of equipment without starving your family) go for it.
Basically, i think specially at the lower (between 0 and 3000$) price brackets, moving up in bucks will bring a noticeable increase in sound quality, therefore stablishing a correlation (this is, however, all subjective. a lot of people nowadays will prefer systems that just shake the walls, even tho they do that with horribly distorted bass. and you can do that with a couple of 100s)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaboom

yap, i kept in mind that cables will barely heat. Incidentally, out of curiosity, at a reasonably loud listening level, what kind of voltage and current are flowing through the cables? i mean obviously they are varying or there would be no music.
but are we talking 10k volts and low currents or tens of amps and low voltages?

---

I think you should continue to work this out for yourself. Consider the information you do know. Your speakers' nominal and minimum impedance and your amps' max output (usually into 8 and 4 ohms resistive but more information is available in some cases).

Just keep in mind that people probably listen to their amp putting out about 1 amp on average, maybe a bit more under critical listening and significantly more listening to heavy metal and club levels. And, of course, speaker efficiency is a factor.

How much does 1 amp heat up 3 meters of 18 ga. hooked up to eight ohms? I'll bet jneurtron might have some data on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobotCzar

How much does 1 amp heat up 3 meters of 18 ga. hooked up to eight ohms? I'll bet jneurtron might have some data on that.

---

Yup.


5 amps RMS into a #18 awg wire pair will increase the temp 10 C over ambient..in still air.(Belden tech info, page 16.4).

Dissipation is proportional to current squared. P = I squared R...

So, 1 ampere is 1/25 th the power dissipation..if you assume linearity, the temp increase will be 10/25, or .4 degrees C, .72 degrees F. If you assume non linearity, the temperature difference could be as much as a degree.

This temperature rise is considerably below the variation the cable will see within the room environment when the room is cooled or heated. And, will do nothing whatsoever to the microstructure of the copper, or alter any dielectric properties.

Cheers, John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hermanv

The deaf man says, I can't hear, so sound can not exist. The blind man says, I can't see, so light doesn't exist.

---

Hmmmmm. Another version of the old "If a tree falls in the woods, will it still make sound?" argument.

Quote:

---

Not all things are understood. When I go to someones house that has a mega buck system full of ridiculously ovepriced components and cables what I usually hear is beautiful sound. When I listen to a $100 Radio Shack stereo powering $69 speakers what I usually hear is dreck.

---

Usually? Obviously you have stated there are exceptions, therefore, your attempt at drawing a hard fast correlation between price and performance is null and void by your own admission.

BTW - what would happen if you switched the equipment to each other's acoustic environment?

Quote:

---

There is a factual differnce between these two extremes. To pretend that this difference becomes absolute zero at some price point whether it's $150, $500 or $2,000 is plainly ludicrous. There exists a continium of performance, admitedly the improvements become smaller and smaller as prices rise towards absurd but the good (almost always more expensive) stuff sounds better - get over it.

---

While there may be factual differences between the equipment - or even measurable ones, the key is audibility. At some point, the differences are inaudible. A point so sorely missed by many, including yourself.

-Bruce

I think Kaboom is correct. A few extra dollars can go a long way to improve the quality of a budget system. However, as you enter the realm of cost-no-object audiophilia, the law of diminishing returns takes over. If people have the money to spend $10,000 on MIT Oracle cables or $125,000 on Wilson X-2/Alexandria speakers let them do as they please. I'm sure that their system will be personaly gratifying, and thus it will serve its purpose. To deny that those pieces of equipment sound superbly is foolish. It may be your opinion that they are outrageously priced, but that doesn't mean that they don't perform.

FLZapped, it may be true that Kaboom did not perform his comparison of his friends expensive system with the Radio Shack stereo in a scientific manner, but does that mean that his observations are invalid? Do you not agree that a "mega buck system" will outperform a Radio Shack stereo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shwamdoo

FLZapped, it may be true that Kaboom did not perform his comparison of his friends expensive system with the Radio Shack stereo in a scientific manner, but does that mean that his observations are invalid? Do you not agree that a "mega buck system" will outperform a Radio Shack stereo?

---

No, it doesn't mean his observations are invalid. However, without some scientific rigor you can't claim the observations are valid either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noddin0ff

No, it doesn't mean his observations are invalid. However, without some scientific rigor you can't claim the observations are valid either.

---

Actually, scientifically speaking his observations are invalid. Anecdotal evidence or obervations under uncontrolled conditions are simply not accepted as useful evidence (i.e., they are worthless).

Speaking outside of science, his observations are also invalid as we have no idea what factors matter in making a cheap system sound cheap. Some of us claim that only the speakers, room, and recording matter. So, if you spend more money for those things, you could improve quality significantly. If you spend more money on things that do not matter (do not result in audible differences or improvements), then no improvement in system quality can be expected. It make no common sense to say "everything matters" any more than it does to say "nothing matters" (every system sounds the same).

People belive in a thing called "GOD" and whatever facts are against such an existance they will not move from their believe.

PS: I dont believe in GOD but do believe in burn in....and you know why ? A: Because it makes me happy and i enjoy spending 500$ on a cable and want to believe it sounds better.

:p

Quote:

---

No, it doesn't mean his observations are invalid. However, without some scientific rigor you can't claim the observations are valid either.

---

True, you can't claim something to be a fact without having proof. However, you can observe two different speakers and come to the conclusion that one outperforms the other. You may not have proven it, but it can be accepted as true.

"Scientifically" the CD is a far superior format than the LP. "Scientifically" the solid state amplifier is far superior to the tube amplifier. Yet scores of audiophiles utilize these technologies simply because they sound better to them. Not because of how they perform on paper. Music is about sound, not numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shwamdoo

FLZapped, it may be true that Kaboom did not perform his comparison of his friends expensive system with the Radio Shack stereo in a scientific manner, but does that mean that his observations are invalid? Do you not agree that a "mega buck system" will outperform a Radio Shack stereo?

---

Perhaps, perhaps not. I was pointing out that he should also consider the acoustic environment in which these two systems were being listened to in. One would hope that a person who spent mega-bucks on a system would have put some thought into the acoustics. On the other hand, the RS system may have been in a garage......

He admitted that there were exceptions, as I previously observed. What was he overlooking? Why didn't he question himself on that?

-Bruce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobotCzar

Actually, scientifically speaking his observations are invalid. Anecdotal evidence or obervations under uncontrolled conditions are simply not accepted as useful evidence (i.e., they are worthless).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shwamdoo

True, you can't claim something to be a fact without having proof. However, you can observe two different speakers and come to the conclusion that one outperforms the other. You may not have proven it, but it can be accepted as true.

---

OK, a few comments on the Scientific Method. Scientifically speaking his (Kaboom's) observations are neither valid or invalid. They are simply observations. They may be dead-on accurate by all known criteria or they may be wacked. They can be accepted as true, or accepted as the ravings of a lunatic. To scientifically assess their validity, you need to perform listening tests in a way that removes, to the greatest degree possible, subjectivity, extenal influences, and random variation. If you want to survey a correlation between cost and quality you need a sufficiently large sample size that covers the cost range of interest. Do that and you can say with a fair amount of certainty that, within your ability to measure, the conclusions are valid. But who wants to ruin their hobby with all that rigor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shwamdoo

"Scientifically" the CD is a far superior format than the LP. "Scientifically" the solid state amplifier is far superior to the tube amplifier. Yet scores of audiophiles utilize these technologies simply because they sound better to them. Not because of how they perform on paper. Music is about sound, not numbers.

---

Let's not confuse scientific with subjective. 'Superior' is subjective. 'Better' is of course subjective. Define your criteria and you can begin to talk 'scientific'. There is likely a well established scientific correlation between what people believe sounds better and how components 'perform on paper'. Numbers are just symbols used to describe quantities. Numbers can be subjective. Sound can be quantified. Music can by symbolized. What goes on between you ears is subjective, but can be scientifically assessed and correlated to the measurable performance of the components producing the sound. Enjoy your music.

heyheyhey halt it boyz!!! it wasnt me talking about radio shack!
in fact i've never auditioned an audioshack stereo. the speakers quoted were heard using the same amp, source and cabling in the same room in the same shop, and the cartridges (well except the koetsu, dang...) were not only auditioned but OWNED, meaning they were heard with my OWN system that, after a couple of years, i think i've gotten to know pretty well.
however, the musical fidelity and the rotel were auditioned with different systems, although in the same room. However i would find it pretty hard to be unable to tell the diff between the bottom-of-the-line rotel and the near-the-top-of-the-line Musical fidelity.
cheers!

Sorry Kaboom, probably sloppy referencing on my part. I think the radio shack components were hypothetical so there's no actual shame in hypothetically listening to them!

Cable Theory

I wonder if the concept of "burn in" is more a case of familiarisation with a product. I think it was in a Soundstage review of the Odyssey Stratos that I read which proposed this theory. Does the product's sound actually change, or is it that, over time, we become more accustomed to it's characteristics over the product which it replaced? Maybe it is our brain and ears that burn in to these new qualities.

I guess the only way to "prove" this theory is to purchase two identical products, burn one in and leave the other in the packaging, and then do direct A/B comparisons. Given that most of us cannot afford to do this and that results could still be subjective this may not be practical anyway.

I am no physicist, but could their be even a brief burn in period for cables as the atoms and their electrons are subject to current flowing through them which energises them? Even a small change in heat may also make the atoms move faster and therefore affect the sound. A theory I had was that each listening session had a period of burn in, however brief, for the cables. I have no proof, only opinions, but when leaving my my equipment powered up in idle for some time, I still feel that the sound mellows a little after half an hour or so. As the electronics were already warmed up it wasn't any of these although it may be the speaker's drivers warming up too.

Also, let's not forget that sound quality is a matter of taste just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One persons listening nirvana can sound dreadful to another. Do most agree that different cables can sound different and that the same cable can sound different in another system? It's all good fun isn't it?

Of course people are welcome to read the Audioquest PDF, but you would be wasting your time. It is full of misdirection and technobable without one whit of evidence. If you don't want to waste your time consider these quotes:

"Sometimes we are faced with empirical data that we simply don’t understand. However, such a lack of understanding doesn’t mean the phenomenon is magical or incomprehensible."

Then again, sometimes we are not faced with any emprical data at all--such as in this article. Lack of understanding of emprical data also doesn't mean claims are true.

"There is some disagreement as to whether skin-effect is relevant at audio frequencies. The argument concerns whether skin-effect causes damage other than simply power loss."

Just who is in disagreement is not clear. I suggest that physicists and EEs are in desagreement with audiophiles and marketeers about "damage" done. The fact that there is "some disagreement" does not, however, stop Audioquest from continuing on to discuss the importance of skin-effect.

"Probably the biggest obstacle to predictably assembling a high performance audio or video system is too much thinking...."

For sure too much thinking is a problem for the ridiculously misleading statements in this article. Actually, any thinking is likely to expose this farce.

I admit I could not bring myself to read all of this dreck, but in case you would like to know how what it says about cable "run-in" consider this:

"A cable’s performance takes time to optimize because of the way a dielectric behaves (the way the insulating material absorbs and releases energy), changes in the presence of a charge. Cables will continue to improve in sound or picture quality over a period of several weeks. This is the same reason amplifiers, preamplifiers and CD players also require an adjustment period. The key difference between “adjusting” and “breaking-in” is that things don’t “un-break-in”, however, electrical components do “unadjust”. Several weeks of disuse will return a cable to nearly its original state. "

Note the claim with zero empirical evidence. A little too much thinking will indicate that the time to "optimize" the "way a dielectric behaves" is pretty damn short (tiny fractions of a second). Nothing is said to indicate that the performance of a dielectric changes significantly over repeated use--which is the real question. The paragraph moves quickly to imagined benefits and made up defiinitions (un-break-in indeed) after nonsensical technobabble.

This article is a disgrace and evidence of how screwed up home audio really is. You certainly cannot trust a document written by a marketing department. Don't take my word for it (I'd prefer you didn't beleive anything said in this opinion forum), ask a real physicist or EE, NOT any audiophile, recording "engineer", or salesman.

I need a completely new post to discuss the foolish, unscientific statements regarding ABX testing in the audioquest article. There are three pages of diatribe regarding the supposed flaws of ABX testing. This response is required as ABX testing contradicts all the claims made in article. Consider this:

"In an ABX set-up, the listener does not know whether or not there has been any equipment change at all. ABX testing is not a question of how a fixed but blind “A� compares to a fixed but blind “B�. Because there are too many unknowns, the ABX test becomes primarily an opportunity for embarrassment. Context is everything, and the ABX set-up is one very distorted context, much too far removed from the purpose of an audio system. ABX fans believe that a lack of repeatable hierarchy proves there are no valid differences. Others of us believe the same evidence proves that the ABX test is an invalid methodology. "

First off, this paragaph is rambling, just what is the point? Why does a listener need to know if there is an equipment change? Can't he hear the difference due to skin effect, oxygen pollution, lack of run-in, etc. etc.? Well, that is embarassing now isn't it? How ironic that the quote complains of "too many unknowns", the truth is that ABX testing removes all the unknowns except for the different components (e.g., cables). There are no unknowns available to provide audible differences. Contnext is everything? It certainly is when it comes to audioble cable differences, the context of expecting to hear differences can work miracles.

What this heck is "repeatable hieracchy"? Yes, rational people including scientists look for repeatable evidence, what exactly is audioquest offering--optimal performance when the context is right?

Who are the "others" that believe that the failure to distinguish cables in ABX testing "proves" that the test is invalid? Not scientists, they wouldn't accept any evidence but a blinded test. Not judges, blind testing is accepted as valid proof in courts, subjective evaluation is not. Could it be high end audio fans that find that valid testing is invalid because it does not confrim their beliefs and opinions? So much for "empiricial data". ABX testing is THE most valid empirical data available, but it doesn't fit with the "theory" presented by maketing reps and audio crackpots so it must be invalid. Right.

You know, I don't care what you think about scientific proof, one can use common sense to understand that a claim must have some evidence or it is just hot air. The audioquest article is enough hot air to lift a battleship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Florian

People belive in a thing called "GOD" and whatever facts are against such an existance they will not move from their believe.

PS: I dont believe in GOD but do believe in burn in....and you know why ? A: Because it makes me happy and i enjoy spending 500$ on a cable and want to believe it sounds better.

:p

---

Wow! I was trying to wake up until i read this post.

I dont belive in burn in of new electronics,maybe older tube stuff. I do think its a good idea to let stuff warmup abit before you use it.

I have found that components do sound different after a burn in. Several years ago I purchased a very highly rated portable CD player. Because of the rave reviews I plugged it into my rig. After using it for about a week I heard a very audible difference (playing background music) from one song to the next. I replayed the first selection and it sounded different. I realize this is all subjective but when the change is enough to bring me out of the latest edition of the Dune series there is something going on. When I was working as a biomedical engineer we always burned in new electronics for 100 hours. This was mostly to weed out premature failure. I don't think it made any HP heart rate monitor display a crisper picture on the CRT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeE SP9

I have found that components do sound different after a burn in..

---

Joe,

I don't doubt that you found the compoents sound different after burn in. But, I do question the source of that difference. I mean, it could be that your hearing or perception changed. Considering that your mood, your health, the weather, what you ate, etc. could all affect how well you hear (or what your hear) we could be talking about a change in you rather than in the components. (Changes in the compoents can be measured and we could be sure of their changes after "burn in".).

Scientists have long ago established that your beliefs and expectations can and do affect what you hear. You could be expecting a difference and therefore "hear" one. Perhaps your perception improves after listening for a time, that is possible isn't it?

So, you actaully found that components sound different TO YOU after a time. And, you can't be sure what the cause is. Isn't that a more accurate statement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobotCzar

Joe,

I don't doubt that you found the compoents sound different after burn in. But, I do question the source of that difference. I mean, it could be that your hearing or perception changed. Considering that your mood, your health, the weather, what you ate, etc. could all affect how well you hear (or what your hear) we could be talking about a change in you rather than in the components. (Changes in the compoents can be measured and we could be sure of their changes after "burn in".).

Scientists have long ago established that your beliefs and expectations can and do affect what you hear. You could be expecting a difference and therefore "hear" one. Perhaps your perception improves after listening for a time, that is possible isn't it?

So, you actaully found that components sound different TO YOU after a time. And, you can't be sure what the cause is. Isn't that a more accurate statement?

---

I was only reporting on one specific component. A portable CD player. The difference in sound was from one selection to the next while playing music at background levels. Your attempt to rephrase what I said is inaccurate and rather presumptuous. I did not believe that components could change their sound as much as the one portable did. I have never heard that sort of change before. I purchased my first piece of audio equipment in 1967 and this was the first and only time I've heard an difference like that. I am a BS EE and have a decent knowledge of components and circuit design. I am at a loss to explain the difference that I heard. This is/was not a case of "wishfull" thinking. I neither wanted nor expected to hear any difference. I was distracted from the novel I was reading by the change in sound character. If someone had told me they had experienced this kind of change I would be skeptical also.