Richards stuff - including is cable burn in for real

[Oldpinkman]

OK
I give in. I need to start a new thread, cos although everyone else appears to be allowed to carry on posting "off topic" on the cable burn-in thread I had a quite clear warning. I have to confess I don't understand that warning. The posts causing offence were specific relevant posts in response to posts by others (Andrei and Martin), but apparantly my posts were off topic, and the posts I was directly posting in response to weren't.

Anyway - enough whinging - confused, but capable of following a direct instruction (note to self - remember old proverb, "just because you are paranoid doesn't mean the b****ds aren't out to get you")

Marco / Martin. You are absolutely entitled to trust what you hear and enjoy the experience. Andrei's point I think was that your experiences are not empirical evidence. Valid experiences - yes. Empirical evidence - No.

You are on a dodgy wicket here, if we go with the wiki definitions. Either empirical evidence "justifies a belief", and I don't think we want to go there. :)

Or - I think what Andrei meant is "an empirical result is a unified confirmation". Further "In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement."

In terms of my previous points - the matter is capable of proof. The "science" is not necessarily a theoretical explanation. I have posted elsewhere that my hard-line scientist amplifier designer friend cannot find measurements or even good theory to explain differences in amplifiers that we can all hear. The point is we can hear it. And if anyone suggests to me I can't - my response is to say "I can and I'll show you". So empirical evidence would be conducting properly controlled experiments (we're talking a blind testing demonstration I can hear the difference), properly documenting etc

Frank posted earlier in the thread, regarding my point that I can't hear this effect "If we then resorted to calling you a "deaf twat" or similar epithets, I am sure you would find that disparaging and offensive, "

And, here on my own thread, I can now reply - "not at all". I would assume "deaf twat" was meant affectionately . I would just love to have it demonstrated to me. Hopefully, someone to demonstrate to me a difference I can hear. But failing that, to establish I am indeed a deaf twat, and show me that whilst I can't hear it - they can.

Now before anyone goes off on one to the effect of "why should we bother spending the time on you just because you are difficult"? the point is not whether I individually should have it demonstrated to me, but rather whether in making the claim that the phenomena is real anyone has any real "empirical evidence".

I have a feeling Andrei will do this a lot more efficiently, so I am going to wind up here for the minute and post the reply to Martin I had wanted to post earlier, separately :)

[chelsea]

I struggle to hear any difference in cables let alone burn in.
The whole issue of cables totally baffles me.

[Oldpinkman]

Martin

regarding your earlier point "We can't explain 'dark matter', yet many astronomers are convinced that something is making up for a lot of unexplained mass in the universe."

There IS empirical evidence - by the definition in my previous post - for dark matter. The reason for believing it to be there is a consistent set of measurements and observations, documented and discussed, where a scientific consensus has been reached based on rigorous standards of testing and experiment

That is not the case for cable burn-in. Individuals have heard it. And that is not something I would presume to challenge. But it is not the same as the dark matter analogy you sort to use. And I think that is my frustration a bit with posts to the effect of "science doesn't know it all" - or "not yet proved"

Those statements are true. But taken out of context are unhelpful. Science doesn't know it all, but that doesn't mean I=V/R isn't true or relevant when designing a circuit.

Electricity - audio signals - are carried by electrons, not quarks, Higgs Bosuns or unexplained missing elements from physics. I think that in establishing that cable burn-in is a real phenomena by true empirical evidence, we are going to need a new theory for electrons - and that is far more revolutionary than coping with dark matter.:scratch:

[Oldpinkman]

What ever your opinion is on electronic components needing burn in time, it is a known fact that anything with a speaker driver in will indeed sound different as the speaker suspension, and cone break in etc.
Lets not get "known and understood facts" mixed up with individually perceived differences...:)
A...

"Burn in" - if we are not too picky with language is a real phenomena in many components. Speaker suspensions would be one. Valves another. There are easy-peasy explanations for what is happening to change the components getting burned in. It would be easy-peasy to demonstrate the effects "scientifically" and provide "empirical evidence"

Bits of wire are different. They do not move physically like a speaker suspension. They are not chemically/ physically changed like a valve (nothing evaporates off, or deposits anywhere). As far as we can determine there are no identifiable permanent changes to wire caused by electric current flowing through it. It should be possible to provide empirical evidence for the phenomena but it would require the cooperation of those claiming to hear it, and they all seem to take offence at the suggestion.

So it remains a phenomena widely reported but not verified by empirical evidence :cool:

[Wakefield Turntables]

:brickwall:

[Oldpinkman]

:brickwall:

Yeah, but in my own safe cozy environment. Join me only if you want to. :)

[MartinT]

Marco / Martin. You are absolutely entitled to trust what you hear and enjoy the experience. Andrei's point I think was that your experiences are not empirical evidence. Valid experiences - yes. Empirical evidence - No.

You would think that I can't lookup the mean of empirical evidence and ascertain what it means!


Empirical evidence is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation

I have experimented with cables a LOT over the years and I have observed (listened) to their effects.

[MartinT]

regarding your earlier point "We can't explain 'dark matter', yet many astronomers are convinced that something is making up for a lot of unexplained mass in the universe."

Your use of the word 'many' is key here. Astronomers are not yet agreed that dark matter exists, all they know is that the equations for the expansion of the universe leave a big hole in their calculations. Whether it be from invisible matter scattered around the place or some other artifact or effect is not yet proven.

[julesd68]

I struggle to hear any difference in cables let alone burn in.
The whole issue of cables totally baffles me.

You are not alone in this regard.

[Oldpinkman]

You would think that I can't lookup the mean of empirical evidence and ascertain what it means!



I have experimented with cables a LOT over the years and I have observed (listened) to their effects.

You've shortened the definition you looked up. The one I quoted included peer review and adversarial review. I am concious I appear hostile to some, and don't intend to. Perhaps I am just too picky or pedantic. This was not questioning what you've heard - but whether that amounts to "proof" or "empirical evidence", by accepted definitions.

It's odd the reactions this provokes. When Paul suggested to Marco that a Gyrodeck might sound better than a pimped SL1200 - Marco's response was to suggest a meeting where they could both share an evaluation experience. Nobody EVER does that with burn-in or mains cables. There has so far, in my experience, been a universal response of "take it or leave it". That is distinctive.

The original post, and I am being more careful this time around, was if volume makes a difference to the burn-in of speaker cable. If this is of sufficient interest, and you are one of several to suggest the thread was an interesting point to consider, then in almost any other field, unless there were accepted authoritative knowledge, you would expect someone to say "How about we do an experiment to find out"? But in this field nobody ever seems to suggest that response

Perhaps that is my mistake. It isn't that I don't enjoy just chewing the fat about stuff, it is that sometimes, where it is possible to have an answer, it seems to me to make sense to look for it.

This could be more important than the point I mistakenly (corrected by Marco) ascribed to the OP on the previous thread. If the question had been "does how you burn in affect how long it takes"? - then , apart from philosophy, it doesnt matter. It's going to burn in eventually in any system.

But the question now appears to be "do cables burn in differently depending on how they are played in the burn-in period"? Given burn-in is apparantly a permanent change affecting a cable caused by electricity flowing through it - then getting the burn-in process wrong could permanently spoil a cable. Some rational objective testing would therefore seem to serve the cause of those who seek to maximise their listening enjoyment by CORRECTLY burning in their cables

Just a thought :)

[Oldpinkman]

You are not alone in this regard.

Gosh - welcome aboard guys, but even I can hear the differences between some cables - particularly speaker cables. And if anyone challenges that, I am happy to demonstrate it. To quote an extreme example, whilst fiddling around with layouts for the living room, making use of existing cabling running under the carpet where possible, I hooked up the left rear surround sound speaker with cheap bell wire, and the right hand rear surround sound speaker with Homebase proper speaker cable.

Never mind qualitative differences, one was about half the volume of the other.

I have subsequently used QED 79 strand for all speakers except the 2 channel speakers where I tried it, but found it wanting compared with the hideous looking flat chord cables I had. Fortunately much more attractive Talk3 stepped into the 2 channel breach.

But beyond a certain point, the differences are rarely as apparant as with the rear speakers and bell wire :cool:

[Spectral Morn]

Empirical Evidence is a movable feast, yesterdays facts are today's myths - so what is so called scientific truth? Test a proposition, a theory and maybe something turns up as evidence. maybe not and interpreting that so called evidence may not actually confirm the theory/proposition but may require re thinking the original idea/question :scratch:

I was talking with a biologist the other day who originally was going to be an evolutionary biologist until enough biologists, evolutionary paleontologists let him in on the con that evolution is no more true than the man in the moon - its a con a lie but until something better is agreed on they stick with it because the awful truth may be that the big black book is correct and no one wants that.

50 years of experimenting on fruit flys and all that has happened is the fruit flys beget fruit flys, maybe with extra wings, or a leg in places legs should not be but they are still fruit flys. It was that discussion with an imminent experimental evolutionary biologist that persuaded this chap that evolution is a bust. No evidence of intermediary species, or sudden jumps anywhere in the fossil record or in the world now - like begets like and so on that's it, that is all that is observable - currently.

Putting your trust in Empirical Evidence first and foremost is a sticky wicket in my opinion as mostly science has yet to adequately explain much and the movable feast keeps on moving.

Someday discoveries at the sub atomic level and suitable equipment may be able to measure the subtle or not so subtle changes that explain the fact that some - not all (there is a mystery in that too) - can hear improvements, between cables and burn in etc and other changes and thus confirm via measurements that pithy reality - yep I can hear and always have been able to hear it. However as the equipment hooked up at the same time is also a factor it becomes a very complex task indeed. Every cable type measured with every type of gear extant is a massive task if it could be done.

Anyway I predict weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth on this thread as I think you have misunderstood Marco's words to you re his warnings, posting intent and attitude are at the heart of what he said to you and creating your own thread to continue it does not get you a by-ball in such matters - I think.


Regards Neil

[Oldpinkman]

Anyway I predict weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth on this thread as I think you have misunderstood Marco's words to you re his warnings, posting intent and attitude are at the heart of what he said to you and creating your own thread to continue it does not get you a by-ball in such matters - I think.


Regards Neil


Well, Richard, let me assure you, that you *have* been guilty of that in the past (or rather, not so much 'rubbishing', but rather attempting to undermine and devalue what many on here can clearly hear), but you're learning now to curb those tendencies, simply because they are unacceptable, so keep up the good work! :)



Yes, *providing* that we know exactly WHAT to assess and HOW to assess it! How can you test for something that you don't yet know exists?? ;)

Anyway, we're starting to wander wildly off-topic again, and very much in danger of entering into a pointlessly circular 'objectivist vs. subjectivist' debate, which this thread is not about.

Therefore, I must (finally) insist that the discussion remains on-topic from this point onwards - and "on-topic" here means discussing the accepted (to some) phenomenon of 'burn in', not questioning the existence of it in the first place.

If you want to do that, Richard, then start a separate thread on the matter, along the lines of: 'Does burn-in exist or is it a figment of our imagination?' This is the last time I will tell you this. I'm not trying to gag you; merely disciplining you to post your comments in the appropriate places.

Marco.

Now I'm really confused.

And the paranoia is mounting too.. :scratch:

[realysm42]

I like this thread.

[Andrew B]

I agree :)

[DSJR]

Richard, it's simple...

When 'we' really get into this hobby and have little else to occupy our minds (I mean this with affection, not criticism, having been there myself), the tiniest things can be magnified in our awareness out of all recognition. I used to spend hours turning LP12 mats upside down, inverting belts and even changing direction of the fuses on the LP12 Valhalla board and mains plug, 'hearing' a difference each time. The Cirkus turned it all on its head, since this was a basic FUNDAMENTAL upgrade, vastly overshadowing the 1% differences I may or may not have heard. I have to say that once 'real life' took over, my priorities changed and I have to confess that even more changes have occurred in recent times, preventing me playing my stereo's much and things like cables etc have sort-of been removed from my radar.

Having said the above, my main preamp feeds two amp systems, one a bridged pair to the speakers and t'other, the same type of amp in stock form used for headphone use. I use an MG HD1500 (Profi phonos to Neutrik 1/4" mono jacks) and a home made set of Klotz AC110 Neutrik cheapo phonos to someone or other's (REAN?) nice 1/4" jacks. When the latter was first made up, I was convinced I could hear the Klotz cable sounding beefier in the mid bass and a little softer and possibly a little foggy in the treble, the MG's sounding a bit 'etched' if anything. A year and some good use later, I'm darned if there's any difference at all between the two - the cables have been unplugged and plugged back in and this time it's not my ears at fault! The excesses of each cable seem to have evened out and I'm darned if I can now tell them apart.

I totally believe that many fancy so called Top End cables have been designed to deliberately alter the audio signal passing through them, the difference alone making them 'better.' That's not my goal any more. I'd rather use properly designed wires in the first place, terminated with good quality but not excessive plugs, since the sockets they'd be plugged into are not fancy at all! Same goes for mains cables IMO. I can't really comment on IEC mains plugs and sockets (or not to use them) as the gear I use has ample regulation and isolation from mains issues, which may not be the case with other, simpler supply designs - again, not a criticism!

[MCRU]

I think someone needs to go and throw his keyboard away and listen to music, far more satisfying :)

[Clive197]

Dear Richard

If I'm not mistaken after reading all your waffle and bluster, you don't believe in cable burn-in. I agree with you.

There, short, sweet and to the point. :cool:

[Andrei]

I totally believe that many fancy so called Top End cables have been designed to deliberately alter the audio signal passing through them, the difference alone making them 'better.'

Citizen of Tring

I believe you may be on to something! I have noticed this in relation to hi-fi:

Category one: Cheap. It will do the job;
Category two: Expensive. Ouch but worth it when the gain is in you area of interest;
Category three: Very Expensive. Buyer acknowledges the law of diminishing returns but is worth that small extra performance;

But in audio (also in cars) there is a fourth category:

Category four: Price out of proportion to the result* it can achieve. Number of buyers extremely limited and margins adjusted accordingly. Lots of hyperbole associated with the product: 'Life changing', 'Poles of articulation' (my personal favourite spasm), and other verbiage.

* result may be small audio effect in a difficult to define terms such as "air"

[MartinT]

Nobody EVER does that with burn-in or mains cables.

Not true.

[prestonchipfryer]

:zzz:

[Marco]

:sucks: :drugs:

Marco.

[prestonchipfryer]

:pat:

[Marco]

:help: :beer:

:no:

:acid:

Marco.

[sq225917]

Seems a little unfair to thread crap the thread he started because he was asked to take it elsewhere.

I used to think cables made a difference until I proved to myself that i can not tell them apart when i can not see them.

[cloth-ears]

Sod it, I don’t care who hates me. My background is in physics although I did occasionally dip my toe in electronics. Burn-in is another word for rubbish. If burn-in was indeed a real phenomenon then any scientist could measure the difference between used cables and unused cables. Also anyone who claims to be able to tell the difference could in a blind test spot the new from the old, but they can’t.

Also, the difference between so called good and bad cables is measureable if you know what to measure. Phono leads have a number of properties; resistance, capacitance and inductance. Some amplifiers are susceptible to very minor changes in any of these values. Once you have accurately measured these properties it is possible to use a bad phono connector and add or remove inductance and or capacitance to mimic the properties of a good cable. I have actually tried this and it works.

[synsei]

Seems a little unfair to thread crap the thread he started because he was asked to take it elsewhere.

I used to think cables made a difference until I proved to myself that i can not tell them apart when i can not see them.

I was thinking the same thing Simon... :doh:

[losenotaminute]

I was thinking the same thing Simon... :doh:

Maybe Marco should ban himself :D

[synsei]

Maybe Marco should ban himself :D

Off ta tha naughty step with ye Marco.... :lol:

[walpurgis]

Just brought the dog in from his walk. I think I'll take him back out! :eyebrows:

[twickers]

Off ta tha naughty step with ye Marco.... :lol:

I think a spanking, then off to bed with no supper's in order..

[synsei]

I think a spanking, then off to bed with no supper's in order..

Don't encourage him, a spanking is no punishment, he will only enjoy it... :lol:

[twickers]

Don't encourage him, a spanking is no punishment, he will only enjoy it... :lol:

The ' no supper ' part will be the killer :eyebrows:

[Marco]

I was thinking the same thing Simon...

It's called good-natured banter and taking the piss, as that's about all this thread is good for ;)

As you were then, gentlemen, with this riveting subject of discussion..... I promise to stay well away from it in future!! :D

Marco.

[Oldpinkman]

Just been to the gym - glad to see you've been enjoying yourselves while I was away. I have a long post I'd like to do when I get back to a proper keyboard. Meantime, just to get you thinking, someone has offered me an interesting explanation for why cable burn in COULD be real.

Need to sleep on it :goodnight:

[Joe]

I struggle to hear any difference in cables let alone burn in.
The whole issue of cables totally baffles me.

I can certainly hear differences between cables, but have never heard/experienced cable (or amplifier, or CDP) burn-in. I suspect it's something invented by manufacturers in case people don't like their products: 'It will improve, you just need to let to burn in' (i.e. your ears will become accustomed to the sound).

[StanleyB]

I can certainly hear differences between cables, but have never heard/experienced cable (or amplifier, or CDP) burn-in. I suspect it's something invented by manufacturers in case people don't like their products: 'It will improve, you just need to let to burn in' (i.e. your ears will become accustomed to the sound).
I think that quality HIFI equipment is wasted on you. Come back Amstrad. All is forgiven. The audio market needs you.

[Joe]

Empirical Evidence is a movable feast, yesterdays facts are today's myths - so what is so called scientific truth? Test a proposition, a theory and maybe something turns up as evidence. maybe not and interpreting that so called evidence may not actually confirm the theory/proposition but may require re thinking the original idea/question :scratch:

I was talking with a biologist the other day who originally was going to be an evolutionary biologist until enough biologists, evolutionary paleontologists let him in on the con that evolution is no more true than the man in the moon - its a con a lie but until something better is agreed on they stick with it because the awful truth may be that the big black book is correct and no one wants that.

50 years of experimenting on fruit flys and all that has happened is the fruit flys beget fruit flys, maybe with extra wings, or a leg in places legs should not be but they are still fruit flys. It was that discussion with an imminent experimental evolutionary biologist that persuaded this chap that evolution is a bust. No evidence of intermediary species, or sudden jumps anywhere in the fossil record or in the world now - like begets like and so on that's it, that is all that is observable - currently.

Putting your trust in Empirical Evidence first and foremost is a sticky wicket in my opinion as mostly science has yet to adequately explain much and the movable feast keeps on moving.

Someday discoveries at the sub atomic level and suitable equipment may be able to measure the subtle or not so subtle changes that explain the fact that some - not all (there is a mystery in that too) - can hear improvements, between cables and burn in etc and other changes and thus confirm via measurements that pithy reality - yep I can hear and always have been able to hear it. However as the equipment hooked up at the same time is also a factor it becomes a very complex task indeed. Every cable type measured with every type of gear extant is a massive task if it could be done.

Anyway I predict weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth on this thread as I think you have misunderstood Marco's words to you re his warnings, posting intent and attitude are at the heart of what he said to you and creating your own thread to continue it does not get you a by-ball in such matters - I think.


Regards Neil

So cable burn-in is real but evolution isn't. Who'd have thought it?

[the_bat]

So cable burn-in is real but evolution isn't. Who'd have thought it?

Because, as the fruit fly example demonstrates, if you believe the earth is only 4,000 years old there probably won't have been time for any significant evolution.

[bobbasrah]

I think that quality HIFI equipment is wasted on you. Come back Amstrad. All is forgiven. The audio market needs you.

But is that not the problem right there Stan, however tongue in cheek, the repost to the view expressed is that the user's system is insufficiently transparent, etc., rather than accepting it being another experience and viewpoint.
The number on this forum who will be using cheap systems in qualitative terms will be relatively few I would suggest, even if the vast majority will always be always seeking to improve on the sound quality....

[wee tee cee]

contentment is my goal to happiness,,,,,throwing money at your hi fi isnt always going to make you happier, always striving for perfection can be deeply unsatisfing.

As Bill Hicks said " THE WORLD 4000 YEARS OLD!!!!!.......ONE QUESTION-DINOSAUR BONES?"

[Oldpinkman]

contentment is my goal to happiness,,,,,throwing money at your hi fi isnt always going to make you happier, always striving for perfection can be deeply unsatisfing.

As Bill Hicks said " THE WORLD 4000 YEARS OLD!!!!!.......ONE QUESTION-DINOSAUR BONES?"

OK - might as well use this one. Nobody needs to start bun fights. Some people find this thread boring. Please pass on and ignore us if it doesn't interest you. Regarding science, I will again try to quote Brian Cox on his live Astronomy programs regarding questions he wasn't interested in. "If you are going to ask about whether the moon landings were faked, please change to BBC1 where there is a double episode of Eastenders showing".

[wee tee cee]

Dick,
Always enjoy your pointless goading of members. Always gives me a laugh that you can stir up such quantities of anguish amongst members who usually get on in an amicable fashion.......dare say you derive a lot of pleasure from it.
This is a great forum full of people willing to help each other out at great length just to let them enjoy listening to music more. If your goal is to have some fun by trying to get a rise out of folk -fill yer boots ( but they're is other forums where you could do this ).

[Oldpinkman]

Sod it, I don’t care who hates me. My background is in physics although I did occasionally dip my toe in electronics. Burn-in is another word for rubbish. If burn-in was indeed a real phenomenon then any scientist could measure the difference between used cables and unused cables. Also anyone who claims to be able to tell the difference could in a blind test spot the new from the old, but they can’t.

Also, the difference between so called good and bad cables is measureable if you know what to measure. Phono leads have a number of properties; resistance, capacitance and inductance. Some amplifiers are susceptible to very minor changes in any of these values. Once you have accurately measured these properties it is possible to use a bad phono connector and add or remove inductance and or capacitance to mimic the properties of a good cable. I have actually tried this and it works.

(Well sort of. Measurement using instruments is not the whole game. Like a stuck record, my very "science" amplifier design mate acknowledges he is unable to identify the measurements in amplifiers which cause the subjectively observed audible effects - we can hear differences but haven't worked out what the measurements are. But it should be possible to "measure" by "scientific" (properly controlled) auditioning. )

But regarding cable sound quality and electrical measurement - quite! I have posted elsewhere that whilst at Pink Triangle our analogue electronics engineer made the same point and demonstrated it. We could hear differences between cables, but he could electrically adjust cables so that they sounded the same. ie if we liked cable a better than cable b, he would add components and make cable b sound like cable a. And we did it double blind - although I was "cable monitor" not auditioner (formally) for that exercise.

Does that mean I would never buy a "designer" cable ? - No

There is more to interconnects than just impedance and capacitance - shielding can be important as well
It is fiddly and scruffy even by my standards "doctoring up" cables. If I hear a cable, within a price I consider reasonable, which I prefer, I am going to buy it rather than measure it and copy it with electrical adjustments
Cable terminations make a difference too - and again I am prepared to pay for "tidy"
The electrical measurements will change with cable length. Watch this one. If you audition a 1m length of Brand A cable, you MAY possibly not like a 2m length. I don't believe cable manufacturers "tune" their cables to sound consistent at varying lengths but someone may know different. The effects are likely to be pretty tiny - but

And auditioning cables brings me to why I am interested in the burn-in issue? I might want to go cable shopping - for the reasons explained above (not right now***). If I plan to audition, and burn-in of cables is not just real but significant, then I need to take account of that in any purchase decision.

*** I am not "in the market" right now because Pip1 uses Din connectors except optionally for the record player, and I am shite at soldering DIN plugs. Also, I have an intermittent burble - probably an unstable LED, and the short version is I am hoping to build first a PIP 2 in a conventional case with RCA's and then, get brave and convert my Pip in similar fashion. At that point RCA interconnects may be of interest.:)

[Oldpinkman]

Dick,
Always enjoy your pointless goading of members. Always gives me a laugh that you can stir up such quantities of anguish amongst members who usually get on in an amicable fashion.......dare say you derive a lot of pleasure from it.
This is a great forum full of people willing to help each other out at great length just to let them enjoy listening to music more. If your goal is to have some fun by trying to get a rise out of folk -fill yer boots ( but they're is other forums where you could do this ).

Not at all - which is why this thread is only for those interested. Nobody needs to be goaded. I think from the "sides" in this debate it is clear that the broad and diverse members have different takes on things - but hopefully there is room for everyone.

Let me use this to kick off my long point - and try to keep it short. I have discussed this issue (burn -in) just a bit on another forum. The response was much less hostile and defensive - although arguing cable burn-in was real.

What interests me, and others (Andrei it would appear) is to clarify

1)how big a difference (because often differences are described first in very "significant" terms, which then are moderated down to be "very subtle" differences by others. Martin T's comments about (I think) realysm42's description of the "huge bass effect" (apologies - I just can't fine the post to x-ref accurately) would be an example of this

2) how scientific - lets change that word - how close to the way we might try to satisfy ourselves on a point - the evaluation method reported by others is.

So we ask questions. My questions about cable burn-in "proof" are therefore about what the control of variables was. Specifically - are you sure the difference is burn-in and not acclimatisation?

It is normal for all of us, even the most "ears only" non-scientific, to instictively recognise the need for appropriate controls. Let me give an example. If I am going to audition the difference between my Technics and my Goldring cartridge - and report it - you are going to expect me to control the variables. You would not expect me to listen to the Goldring with a NAD 3020 and the Technics with a PIP/Quad set up. You would not expect me to listen to the Technics playing Katie Melua, and the Goldring playing BACH. You are going to expect me to listen to the 2 cartridges on the same piece of music, and with the rest of the equipment the same. Marco pretty much directed me as such when he thought my evaluation of the mains cable I tried hadn't been carried out properly.

You also wouldnt expect me to audition the Technics stone cold sober in the morning in the kitchen, and the Goldring after a bottle and a half of wine near midnight.

And you wouldn't expect me to listen to the Technics on tuesday 5th August, and the Goldring on 9th September.

That's not how we (any of us) audition equipment. Assuming we are auditioning - and not just listening and enjoying. We try to make sure everything apart from the things we are comparing is as constant as possible.

And therein lies the first big hurdle with cable burn-in (or any burn-in for that matter). It isn't normal to be able to switch between the 2. If a cable seems to have burned in - it isn't possible to pop back and compare it with the unburned-in version from 3 weeks before. So maybe acclimatisation is responsible instead, or as well.

And "getting used to " things is definitely a real phenomena. Also - hearing differently (or responding differently) at different times is a real phenomena. My recent shenanigans with the Technics cartridge loading being a case in point. I have switched headers back and forth, changed tracking weights and bias, and drawn different (conflicting) conclusions during the process.

But at some stage - if I want to nail it - I can put the time into sitting down properly and comparing the 2 cartridge loadings. It's not normally possible to do that with cable burn-in

So one of the questions was "has anybody done that yet" and the answers have been a bit confusing. Well - I'm confused, and it appears Andrei is also not assured that we are all singing off the same hymn sheet :scratch:

I fail to see why that needs to antagonise anybody:(

[wee tee cee]

If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand. Enjoy you're music.

[MartinT]

And therein lies the first big hurdle with cable burn-in (or any burn-in for that matter). It isn't normal to be able to switch between the 2. If a cable seems to have burned in - it isn't possible to pop back and compare it with the unburned-in version from 3 weeks before. So maybe acclimatisation is responsible instead, or as well.

It's not such a big hurdle, Richard. More likely it's been done quite often but not as a documented scientific experiment. For instance, I have several of the same Furukawa mains cables purchased at different times. Each time I receive a new one, it's instructional to insert it where a well used sample was already running. I can hear the differences (probably best leave the detail for elsewhere, but I would describe a new mains cable as somewhat clanky and a trifle harsh compared with a burned-in one). Again - just to be clear - the differences are subtle, not night-and-day. As the cable is run for a few days, it approaches exactly the sound of the one it replaced such that they cannot be differentiated.

Again, at other times, various friends have visited and we've mucked around with cables and heard things. On one notable occasion, we had two identical tonearm cables, one had been used for a while and the other was brand new. They sounded different.

None of this is proof and I'm not trying to offer any! However - for me - it's empirical evidence and adds to my sum knowledge of things-I-have-learned about hi-fi systems.

[Macca]

It always disappoints me that whenever we get a remotely controversial thread people immediately want to close it down. A while back we had a fascinating thread on vinyl vs digital with some contributions from technically qualified members that was eventually halted for reasons I really do not understand, except that some people seem to find having their belief set challenged extremely uncomfortable. Oh well...

On the subject of cables and burn in - my jury is out and that's the best place for it to be. I don't have golden ears but I do have trained ears. I listen to music because I enjoy music but improving the sound of my set up is also important to me as an intellectual challenge if nothing else, so I do pay great attention to any changes or mods that I make. Swapping cables in my own system I often, but not always, hear the difference. Burn in of cables I have not heard to my knowledge, because, as Richard correctly points out, to be sure we need to swap between burnt and unburnt examples and this is unlikely to happen outside of a deliberate, controlled test. In any case it is hard to accept that were the burn in phenomena real that it would make so much difference as to be 'night and day' and yet such effects are often reported. So were to go from there? Ultimately we either like what we are hearing or we don't. It could be that we prefer a #less accurate' sound, one that contains benign sounding distortions, for example. It may be less faithful to the recorded signal but to our perceptions it sounds 'more musical', 'more like real instruments', 'more like the musicians are playing together' et al. If that's what floats your boat then go with it, but don't imagine for a minute that your approach is 'the right one' and that others are wrong.

Your beliefs are not you, they are the product of your environment. Don't identify with them, leave them at the door and keep an open mind.

[Ali Tait]

Agreed Martin, this place is supposed to allow reasoned debate, yet if someone dares to post something outside what is accepted here by the core members, they are often vilified for it, or at least are subject to dismissive remarks.

[StanleyB]

Agreed Martin, this place is supposed to allow reasoned debate, yet if someone dares to post something outside what is accepted here by the core members, they are often vilified for it, or at least are subject to dismissive remarks.
Yes, but there is a difference between a reasonable debate and one outside what is accepted.

[Ali Tait]

Are folk not allowed to express their opinions here anymore then, regardless of their scientific veracity?

[StanleyB]

Are folk not allowed to express their opinions here anymore then, regardless of their scientific veracity?

You are giving the answers to your own questions without maybe realizing it.
There is a difference between a discussion and an opinion. A discussion is an exchange of ideas based on the possibilities available. An opinion is an entrenched stance that is not up for discussion.

[Marco]

It always disappoints me that whenever we get a remotely controversial thread people immediately want to close it down. A while back we had a fascinating thread on vinyl vs digital with some contributions from technically qualified members that was eventually halted for reasons I really do not understand, except that some people seem to find having their belief set challenged extremely uncomfortable. Oh well...


Hi Martin,

Could you please remind me of the thread you're referring to, perhaps by providing a link? If it was closed down, it certainly won't have been for the reasons outlined above. There are really only three reasons why threads are locked and/or deleted on AoS:

1) Someone joining and spamming the forum with porn or unwanted advertising material, in which case any related threads would most likely be deleted, but also possibly temporarily locked, if the nature of the 'spamming' was inconclusive, until the situation has been properly assessed.

2) Threats of violence and/or serious abuse being directed by one member at another, in which case the thread where that occurred may either be temporarily locked, until a decision has been taken as to how to proceed with punitive action towards the offenders concerned, or afterwards permanently locked, if we decide that there is no longer any value in the thread remaining open.

3) When debates become pointlessly cyclic, with neither 'side' ever likely to agree, and where the continued annoyance/frustration felt by both 'sides', as a result of one's 'opponent' simply not accepting what you want him or her to accept, is the only likely outcome.

I'm afraid that if 3) applies to any threads you're referring to, which you think should've remained open for longer, then one must accept the fact that the decision to close any thread is taken at the sole discretion of the Forum Leaders here and me, and only as a last resort, after (much) due consideration.

In that instance, members must simply respect and accept our decision, without any moaning, as our decision will have been final.

Marco.

[Ali Tait]

People form opinions based on what they believe to be correct, which will then be given forth in discussion. Perhaps I should have been more clear, when I said "accepted" I meant what is accepted on this forum rather than what is accepted as scientific fact. There may well be actual differences that cannot yet be measured.

[Macca]

Any reasonably well-educated, well balanced person should be capable of changing their opinion, or at least acknowledging that their point of view may be flawed or incomplete without suffering some sort of internal crisis. In addition there will be those who have not yet formed an opinion but may do so during the course of debate. The only thing that is important is that the debate is reasonable, that is, that points and rebuttals are made with consideration and are not dismissive or insulting. In other words if you think someone is talking bollocks you explain, coherently, why you think that and do not simply post 'you're talking bollocks' because that's not having a reasoned debate, a reasonable debate or even a mass debate :) It may still, ultimately, go nowhere but that's not the point of the exercise.

[sq225917]

What you believe comes down to one simple fact, you either accept the validity of a blind test, or you don't. If you do then your likely belief is that many things that are claimed to make a difference but have never been shown to make a difference under controlled tests do not make a difference. Or you believe that blind tests are flawed and choose to believe instead what you hear compounded by what you see.

I fall into the first category. I believe that everything 'can' be categorized by measurement and that the right measurements are capable of being taken at levels of accuracy far, far beyond what we can resolve with our ears. Of course I do apply the simple caveat that we have to be measuring the right thing in the first place. There's no point looking at the frequency response when what a listener might be hearing is differences in the time domain, skewed phase response for example.

I'll robustly defend my views, but I'm always open to expanding my knowledge bass.

This isn't a science class after all, so i see no reason to constantly harangue people with my opinion, just because their's differs. I'm not a missionary, I'm not going to change anyone's opinion, nor do I wish to.

[NRG]

I find myself agreeing with this but not any absolute adherence to blind testing. Gross difference are discernible without such testing, by all means use it to reaffirm any difference heard but I wouldn't insist on using it as the be all and end all.

Also, I'd add to the measurement discussion that we may not always be able to interpret the results and correlate them to what we can hear subjectively.

[Marco]

Also, I'd add to the measurement discussion that we may not always be able to interpret the results and correlate them to what we can hear subjectively.

Indeed - and I think that's a BIG part of the reality! ;)

Marco.

[synsei]

Yes, but there is a difference between a reasonable debate and one outside what is accepted.

It was 'accepted' that the Earth was flat for centuries, they thought they were right too... ;)

[Macca]

Blind tests are a red herring, or if you like a blind alley. They wouldn't even get a mention if it was not for the way in which audio replay has been built up into a black art, mainly by the magazines and manufacturers. More expensive equals 'better'. Well-reviewed equals 'better'. If you approach with an open mind and an ability to be honest with yourself about what you are hearing a blind test is not required. We don't choose to like or dislike the sound we hear, we make that judgement subconsciously. Identify that subconscious decision and go with it, don't make a conscious decision to over-ride it. It's not that difficult once you are aware of how the process works.

[Spectral Morn]

So cable burn-in is real but evolution isn't. Who'd have thought it?

My point Joe was that so called Empirical Evidence is a movable feast and so called Scientific Truths shift, what was fact becomes falsehood and vice versa - that is all. I reported the conversation I had with the biologist nothing more - however it raises interesting questions that truly open minds might question rather than cling to what may be the biggest con ever - his words not mine.

One should not put ones faith alone in scientific truth that is what I was saying but sadly objectavists will cling forever to their life raft of science even when on many occasions its proven to have holes in it and sometimes massive ones.

I find it sad that open minded critical thinking is a dying activity.

I accept that many can't hear changes and improvements and I would like to know why equally I would like to know why many can and importantly why. My own experiences throughout my audio life has shown time and time again that I can hear improvements, changes - including burn in. So from my view point I would like to know what it is that causes these and if my experience can be explained/backed up with measurements. However whether it can or can't is neither here not there as I know what I can hear and what I experience and I don't need someone or a piece of paper to make me feel comfortable or happy with that. My experience is validating enough.

Regards Neil

[synsei]

It is fascinating that someone brought up the creation/evolution question earlier because there are remarkable similarities to this debate. Putting it very, very simply, supporters of evolution demand proof from creationists and creationists insist all one needs is faith. This concept is directly applicable in this debate. Some it would seem, including myself, have 'heard' the differences between new and 'burnt' in cables for ourselves, but can't explain the phenomenon in scientific terms. Likewise, others seemingly have not experienced this phenomenon and seek scientific proof from those of us who have. From a personal standpoint I find it fascinating that my stance on the burn in issue is diametrically opposed to my stance on the evolution/creation debate, where I find it impossible to believe in an omnipotent creator, and yet I find myself imploring those who dismiss the burn in question to have a little faith.... :scratch:

[Macca]

If the theory of evolution is correct that proves there is no God? No, that is a non-sequitor. You can have evolution and a God. If the theory is incorrect that proves there is a God. No, that is also a non-sequitor. There are not just two positions in any debate and there is no need to pick one of them to be 'yours'.

[NRG]

With regard to 'Burn In' be careful not blur the boundaries... I think you need to be far more specific where and what you apply that term to. As Anthony indicated earlier in the thread (or was it the other) 'Speakers have been proven to run in (or burn in if you prefer). Their Thiele Small parameters change over many hours of use mainly due to the spider 'loosening'.... for want of a better word. Also, SQ posted over on PFM of his observation of the bias changes with his PhonoStage due to the 'lytic caps forming over time due I think to the low voltage and current across them. Jezz (Arkless) made a post about a box of caps that had a manufactures usage note included with them about run in.... Valve curves are measurable and will change over time affecting performance....Phono Cartridge suspension will soften or harden and change with use and time affecting the performance. Valve amp PSU chokes change over time loosing inductance... so in many areas measurable parameters that affect sound quality can be determined and observed.

Now lets try and apply that to cables...

[synsei]

If the theory of evolution is correct that proves there is no God? No, that is a non-sequitor. You can have evolution and a God. If the theory is incorrect that proves there is a God. No, that is also a non-sequitor. There are not just two positions in any debate and there is no need to pick one of them to be 'yours'.

Thank you Martin, that's a very interesting and astute observation that warrants further discussion, but possibly not on this thread... ;)

[Macca]

Thank you Martin, that's a very interesting and astute observation that warrants further discussion, but possibly not on this thread... ;)

Thanks Dave, I knew that Philosophy degree would pay off at some point ;) It is possible that evolution is a more interesting topic than cable burn in, though... reminds me I must get around to joining your UFO forum, I'm a big fan of the 'ancient astronaut' theory :)

[synsei]

Thanks Dave, I knew that Philosophy degree would pay off at some point ;) It is possible that evolution is a more interesting topic than cable burn in, though... reminds me I must get around to joining your UFO forum, I'm a big fan of the 'ancient astronaut' theory :)

You would be most welcome Martin and I look forward to your contributions. The ancient astronaut theory, if true, would tie up a hell of a lot of lose ends :)

[Marco]

Incidentally, guys, just to make this crystal clear, while I have the opportunity to do so (and this is something that perhaps our newer members may not have realised)...

One of our primary focuses on AoS, and something that is always most strictly monitored, is preventing the forum from becoming polluted by the above nonsense, which infects almost every other major audio forum on the 'net, and which AoS is blissfully free from - and will remain free from, for the remainder of its existence, as it is fundamentally what sets us apart from the other 'majors', along with the inherent sense of friendliness and relaxed vibe that we promote.

Therefore, as soon as we get the slightest sniff of any circular arguments occurring and pointless debates centred around 'objectivists vs. subjectivists', and the atmosphere of the forum suffering as a consequence, any related threads will become subject to due moderation, which could result in thread closure. Please note, therefore, that this will be the most likely reason why such discussions (which often degenerate into no more than futile 'tit for tat' squabbles) are brought to an abrupt end.

On that subject, that was the reason for my somewhat flippant use of smilies earlier, as I wanted to keep the discussion as light-hearted as possible and send a message out to everyone that this thread is being very closely monitored, and so if it shows any signs of developing into a pointlessly circular 'obj vs. sub' pissing contest, then no-one here will be remotely 'shocked' by the outcome!!

Please also note that we will be monitoring the ability of the particpants in this debate to know when to back off and simply 'agree to disagree' with their 'opponent'. Should that not be forthcoming, then we reserve the right to judge when 'enough is enough', and thus take the appropriate action. Richard, take note! ;)

That said, the discussion may now continue on that understanding.

Marco.

[Oldpinkman]

It is fascinating that someone brought up the creation/evolution question earlier because there are remarkable similarities to this debate. Putting it very, very simply, supporters of evolution demand proof from creationists and creationists insist all one needs is faith. This concept is directly applicable in this debate. Some it would seem, including myself, have 'heard' the differences between new and 'burnt' in cables for ourselves, but can't explain the phenomenon in scientific terms. Likewise, others seemingly have not experienced this phenomenon and seek scientific proof from those of us who have. From a personal standpoint I find it fascinating that my stance on the burn in issue is diametrically opposed to my stance on the evolution/creation debate, where I find it impossible to believe in an omnipotent creator, and yet I find myself imploring those who dismiss the burn in question to have a little faith.... Fascinating... :scratch:

The difference is that faith is not required in this case - at least not absolutely. Whilst it may not be appropriate or necessary, someone such as yourself COULD demonstrate to me that you can hear it, whereas nobody can demonstrate to you the existence of an omnipotent creator. I think I am less bothered by the whole business now (and therefore feeling a bit awkward starting this thread) but my "prove it" stance derived from the fact it is a subject I am interested in, to the extent of having worked in the business for a while, and there is something going on others can experience which I can't. "Prove it" was not as such intended to be "you are deluded" but rather "could you show me so I can confirm its me and my hearing" - or as Frank put it - I am a deaf twat :)

More of an Alice in Wonderland curiosity than a need to start an iconoclastic rampage. And my consternation was that the suggestion met with a wall of hostility - which did get me wondering whether this was the emperors new clothes . We do hear differently - or rather, for those of us with basically sound hearing mechanically - we "notice" differently. So as I have noted regarding turntables, "transparency" is central to what I notice, and why I like PT's, whereas "stability" is brushed aside by my perceptions - usually -and so the PT's weakness in that regard not only doesn't bother me but "Isnt heard" by me usually. However -when my attention is drawn to it, whether by others or by the music - I CAN hear it.

Since BIG claims were being made for cables (mains and burn-in) and I was interested in HiFi and sorting my system, I tried hearing for myself. Given that the weakness in the "experiment" might be my hearing - or at least my focus - I am not in a position to carry the experiment forward. If I cannot hear the difference, no amount of blind testing or other procedures are going to take me forward. I wouldn't want to be missing out on the sort of "wisdom" I acquired regarding replacing bell wire with QED79 strand, just because my perceptions are not "tuned" or I am listening to the wrong stuff - my enjoyment of HiFi has been greatly enhanced through the years by recognising that speaker lead benefit.

To repeat - Faith needed regarding the creator. Faith not needed ABSOLUTELY regarding cables - it is capable of proof. But it is only capable of proof by those who can hear. Those of us who can't, but are curious, need a friend to do the proof for us.

[Macca]

my "prove it" stance derived from the fact it is a subject I am interested in, to the extent of having worked in the business for a while, and there is something going on others can experience which I can't. "Prove it" was not as such intended to be "you are deluded" but rather "could you show me so I can confirm its me and my hearing" - .

That's how I interpreted your position from the off. It's also my position. Others jumped to their own conclusions, which is a shame.

[Oldpinkman]

. I believe that everything 'can' be categorized by measurement and that the right measurements are capable of being taken at levels of accuracy far, far beyond what we can resolve with our ears. Of course I do apply the simple caveat that we have to be measuring the right thing in the first place. There's no point looking at the frequency response when what a listener might be hearing is differences in the time domain, skewed phase response for example.

I have a friend who would very much appreciate your help here. He designed Pink Triangles Pip and Integral, and any number of amplifiers for professional use. His comment to me on this point, regarding the basis on which he might pursue a new domestic amplifier design was "Having reviewed all of the magazine reviews I can find for amplifiers, I can find no correlation between any published measurement and perceived sound quality - except one - retail price". So my position has been that I (and he, and others) can hear differences in amplifier sound, but we are not yet able to find measurements which help us in that regard.

Of course - in the context of this debate - we can "measure" in that we can demonstrate hearing those differences in a blind test. But we can't make use of measurements like THD, frequency response etc to "measure" sound quality.

[Oldpinkman]

Blind tests are a red herring, or if you like a blind alley. They wouldn't even get a mention if it was not for the way in which audio replay has been built up into a black art, mainly by the magazines and manufacturers. More expensive equals 'better'. Well-reviewed equals 'better'. If you approach with an open mind and an ability to be honest with yourself about what you are hearing a blind test is not required. We don't choose to like or dislike the sound we hear, we make that judgement subconsciously. Identify that subconscious decision and go with it, don't make a conscious decision to over-ride it. It's not that difficult once you are aware of how the process works.

I would agree nobody needs to carry out a blind test to allow themselves to enjoy what they hear. They can be useful in product development. And their use in that regard is to provide "scientific" evidence that something is heard and not imagined. I can hear the difference between the Arcam and the Integral any time. The Arcam bugs me. I don't need blind tests, I don't need consistent review material (perhaps I'm pushing my luck on that one) but it is very obvious to me, especially over time. If I needed to prove to you or anyone else (like a product development team) that I could hear it, I would expect to demonstrate it blind. If my decision about the Technics cartridge involved me spending big bucks, and I wasn't sure, I might use a blind test too - because it removes all the distracting other subjective influences which I have found muddle me sometimes. Bit tricky that one - would involve trusting the Mrs to set up a very valuable cartridge :eek:

[Macca]

I. Bit tricky that one - would involve trusting the Mrs to set up a very valuable cartridge :eek:

Clearly that's out of the question, then ;) Although seriously I would say if you are unsure as to whether something is better or not then it almost certainly isn't. Listen to what your gut tells you, it's never wrong.

[Oldpinkman]

With regard to 'Burn In' be careful not blur the boundaries... I think you need to be far more specific where and what you apply that term to. As Anthony indicated earlier in the thread (or was it the other) 'Speakers have been proven to run in (or burn in if you prefer). Their Thiele Small parameters change over many hours of use mainly due to the spider 'loosening'.... for want of a better word. Also, SQ posted over on PFM of his observation of the bias changes with his PhonoStage due to the 'lytic caps forming over time due I think to the low voltage and current across them. Jezz (Arkless) made a post about a box of caps that had a manufactures usage note included with them about run in.... Valve curves are measurable and will change over time affecting performance....Phono Cartridge suspension will soften or harden and change with use and time affecting the performance. Valve amp PSU chokes change over time loosing inductance... so in many areas measurable parameters that affect sound quality can be determined and observed.

Now lets try and apply that to cables...

OK. Time for me to join the other side. I am NOT saying this is the answer. But an interesting suggestion was put to me. A piece of copper wire does not change when electricity is run through it and does not burn-in. But cables are more than that. They are several pieces of wire together, maybe twisted, and surrounded by an insulator which will act as a dielectric. So if an electrolytic capacitor can burn in, maybe a cable (not a simple wire) can too. Interesting Watson eh?

Of course - if that is the case, someone if minded to do so, could demonstrate the point with a blind audition. But interesting...:)

I would still incline to the view that any such effect would be VERY subtle, and note I have not heard it - but my failure to hear cable burn in is hardly scientific proof of anything - I haven't really been listening for it. Indeed - in the confusing balance between "assuming we hear a change" and "assuming I have acclimatised" - I tend to default, not necessarily correctly, to the latter. :cool:

[Marco]

Although seriously I would say if you are unsure as to whether something is better or not then it almost certainly isn't. Listen to what your gut tells you, it's never wrong.

Spot on - although I would substitute "never" with 'rarely'... ;)

'Gut instinct' is a process I frequently use to assess audio. I'm reminded here of what Paul Hynes was quoted in Our Ethos, noting what is contained in the second and last paragraph:


Several of my friends over the years have shown the ability to discern perfect pitch just by listening to a note. They could tell if the note was off pitch by small amounts.

In the past our survival in the wild was based on a keen sense of sight and hearing. Being able to judge distance and direction accurately could mean the difference between life, or death, at the hands of a predator. The human brain is a very complex organ that is capable of processing sensory input in a way that focuses on important data and ignores unimportant data. Many have reported hearing signal events buried in the noise floor.

There are plenty of examples of audio equipment with exemplary measurements that do not convey music in a comprehensible way. On balance I will take what I hear over measurements every time.


If gut instinct (and the relying on one's senses) was good enough for ancient man to help ensure his survival, then it's plenty good enough for me to use to assess what I consider (to me) is 'correct' in hi-fi!!

The message? Embrace and use your God-given talents!!! :exactly:




Marco.

[Ali Tait]

That's how I interpreted your position from the off. It's also my position. Others jumped to their own conclusions, which is a shame.

Yep, that's how I saw it too.

[Gordon Steadman]

I have a friend who would very much appreciate your help here. He designed Pink Triangles Pip and Integral, and any number of amplifiers for professional use. His comment to me on this point, regarding the basis on which he might pursue a new domestic amplifier design was "Having reviewed all of the magazine reviews I can find for amplifiers, I can find no correlation between any published measurement and perceived sound quality - except one - retail price".

I would suggest that he designs it so that it sounds as good as he can get it, work out the price and get it out there.

Oh and its got to look the dog's bollocks too. Its OK for classic stuff to look naff but new has to knock the socks off visually - apparently.

I'm glad I don't have to worry about all this stuff any more. Whatever I make these days is for me and if someone wants it they just have to pay me enough to make me part with it. If I was to make something for the market, I'd be looking at mid price. At least you stand the chance of both ends being interested, especially if it sounded good, looked good too.

[Marco]

Yep, that's how I saw it too.

Trouble is, the language Richard was using sometimes also indicated something else, which was rather less savoury. However, he seems to have learned and has stopped it now, so for the moment, in that respect, all is well :)

Marco.

[Ali Tait]

Spot on - although I would substitute "never" with 'rarely'... ;)

'Gut instinct' is a process I frequently use to assess audio.

Marco.

I must admit I often do the same. Usually, if something is obviously better, it's immediately apparent within the first few seconds.

[Marco]

Indeed, Ali. The problem is that those who seek 'certainty', and for whom 'certainty' in audio is provided by 'objective evidence', aren't comfortable embracing their senses, least of all in using them as any form of arbiter... ;)

We're dealing with two fundamentally different character types here, who will forever be bewildered as to how the other's mind works!

Marco.

P.S See the edit to my previous post you quoted, and note what Paul Hynes wrote on the subject.

[Oldpinkman]

I would suggest that he designs it so that it sounds as good as he can get it, work out the price and get it out there.

Oh and its got to look the dog's bollocks too. Its OK for classic stuff to look naff but new has to knock the socks off visually - apparently.

I'm glad I don't have to worry about all this stuff any more. Whatever I make these days is for me and if someone wants it they just have to pay me enough to make me part with it. If I was to make something for the market, I'd be looking at mid price. At least you stand the chance of both ends being interested, especially if it sounded good, looked good too.

You misunderstand Gordon. This would be scratching an old itch - it would be for our benefit, not for market, and therefore it will be as good as he can get it. And he isn't short of ideas to try. (He is completely devoid of the time to do it in currently, but like so many of us, edging towards retirement). The point was measurements don't yet enable us to define the sound quality result - completely. Some are helpful, but they don't properly explain the job. Good to see you back :)

[Ali Tait]

(In reply to Marco)

Well some do perhaps, however I don't think Richard is exactly a rabid objectivist, he's just interested in why some hear a difference and some don't. I admit to being interested in that myself. If we knew the answer, we would learn something new and perhaps audio as a whole would be advanced.

I agree that measurements don't tell the whole story sometimes; wasn't that proved in the Seventies when almost perfectly-measuring amps were made that sounded crap?

[bobbasrah]

100% Ali

[Beobloke]

"Having reviewed all of the magazine reviews I can find for amplifiers, I can find no correlation between any published measurement and perceived sound quality - except one - retail price".

That's an interesting observation. In my career as a reviewer I have written for two magazines that measure each piece of kit fully. I can honestly say that, in around 95% of cases, the stuff that I have reviewed and really been impressed with has also measured well. Very often the items that have measured less well are enjoyable in some ways, but I don't think there has ever been one that I would instantly say I could happily live with. And for those of you who are thinking "Ah, well if you know it measures well then you're pre-disposed to liking it", I can assure you that I have generally done most of my listening before the measurements are sent to me, and if they do happen to be sent to me first then I deliberately do not read them to avoid any expectation skew.

Clearly my ears are just brilliant... :D

[Gordon Steadman]

Good to see you back :)
Aha, I'll have one too then!!

It was a short break courtesy of the French Health Service. Small stroke. In the UK, you get a quick scan and get sent home. Here, you are immediately booked into hospital, rigged up to 100 machines, scans every two days, every bit of you is tested over a week. Still an MRI to come.

I know where I would rather get sick:)

[synsei]

A lot of the character differences we hear in hifi products are fundamentally down to the materials and components used to manufacture the stuff, and the method. This has been clearly demonstrated in various aspects of hifi and ancillary design. Metaphorically speaking it is somewhat similar to the construction of a musical piece. Two compositions for the same voices/instrument/s will often sound completely different yet exhibit a certain 'flavour' which is recognisable. Transfer that metaphor to hifi/ancillary design and there's your explanation for the differences we hear :)

[Marco]

(In reply to Marco)

Well some do perhaps, however I don't think Richard is exactly a rabid objectivist, he's just interested in why some hear a difference and some don't. I admit to being interested in that myself. If we knew the answer, we would learn something new and perhaps audio as a whole would be advanced.

I agree that measurements don't tell the whole story sometimes; wasn't that proved in the Seventies when almost perfectly-measuring amps were made that sounded crap?

Indeed - I'm with you on all counts, but I trust you can see where I was coming from.

In my opinion, it's the fundamental impasse that exists between the thought processes of the two character types in question that fuels the bulk of these debates, and only when we can fully understand how the minds of both work, will we ever solve the mystery of why some can hear, for example, differences in mains cables, and others not.

In my view, it goes WAY beyond most 'objective evidence', or anything that can currently be proved by testing, in an audio sense (essentially because I consider that everything that truly exists we can measure), and stems instead from what 'makes us tick' as human beings.

Marco.

[Ali Tait]

I do see where you are coming from - I've read debates on PFM!- but I personally would not put Richard in that category, he's just interested in the "why", as am I, and many others here for that matter. Doesn't mean I don't trust what I hear though.

[synsei]

Indeed - I'm with you on all counts, but I trust you can see where I was coming from.

In my opinion, it's the fundamental impasse that exists between the thought processes of the two character types in question that fuels the bulk of these debates, and only when we can fully understand how the minds of both work, will we ever solve the mystery of why some can hear, for example, differences in mains cables, and others not.

In my view, it goes WAY beyond most 'objective evidence', or anything that can currently be proved by testing, in an audio sense (essentially because I consider that everything that truly exists we can measure), and stems instead from what 'makes us tick' as human beings.

Marco.

Personal perception definitely plays a part, and if one truly thinks about this it is wonderful that we as individuals can perceive things differently to our peers because it adds depth and breadth to the subject matter as a whole ;)

[Marco]

I do see where you are coming from - I've read debates on PFM!- but I personally would not put Richard in that category, he's just interested in the "why", as am I, and many others here for that matter.


Sure, but this subject of discussion, and moreover the point I'm making, doesn't simply revolve around Richard, even though he is the OP! ;)

It's a major consideration for ALL high-end audio enthusiasts.

Marco.

[synsei]

Sure, but this subject of discussion, and moreover the point I'm making, doesn't simply revolve around Richard, even though he is the OP! ;)

It's a major consideration for ALL high-end audio enthusiasts.

Marco.

I agree. I do applaud Richard however for taking an interest in something he is struggling to perceive instead of just throwing the baby out with the bath water... :)

[bobbasrah]

It's a major consideration for ALL high-end audio enthusiasts?????

High - end ?
Well might as well bugger off then.... nothing to learn...:rolleyes:

[Marco]

"High-end", in this sense = those using equipment better than your average 'Joe Bloggs' does on the High Street :)

Marco.

[wee tee cee]

I only went out for a couple of hours to get the car serviced.......this threads magic!!!!!
An open mind and some otex are invaluable to this hobby......creationists/ufo theories/philosophy/god existence debates all off the back of cable burn in.....fabulous stuff.
Old pinkman has thrown a cat amongst the pigeons, great to see the forum buzzing again and peoples passion being allowed into the hard light of day......AOS rocks......

[Arkless Electronics]

It never ceases to amaze me that the most "tin-foil hat" ideas on forums get the most interest.....
Cables don't even make a difference.. never mind burning them in!
Anyhow... those that imagine they can hear a difference will never be persuaded that they are wrong so I'll just get on with using the cheapo "came free with the CD player" type that I always use.
It's amazing how contentious this is getting as well! I'm pretty much run off pfm for the above view!! :eek:

[istari_knight]

It never ceases to amaze me that the most "tin-foil hat" ideas on forums get the most interest.....
Cables don't even make a difference.. never mind burning them in!
Anyhow... those that imagine they can hear a difference will never be persuaded that they are wrong so I'll just get on with using the cheapo "came free with the CD player" type that I always use.
It's amazing how contentious this is getting as well! I'm pretty much run off pfm for the above view!! :eek:

I wholeheartedly agree Jez, you're not alone.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-uYp5SldLOdI/TXb-wKa7jII/AAAAAAAABVo/b2Xuq3Ab1Ek/s640/tumblr_ldkfj8DGmE1qesro1o1_400_large.jpg

[Oldpinkman]

I wholeheartedly agree Jez, you're not alone.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-uYp5SldLOdI/TXb-wKa7jII/AAAAAAAABVo/b2Xuq3Ab1Ek/s640/tumblr_ldkfj8DGmE1qesro1o1_400_large.jpg

I lean to this side of the balance as you may have gathered - but "Cables don't even make a difference" is to the right of Genghis Kahn (and Gordon). Bell wire vs QED79 or similar? Even Peter Walker I think would probably blink.

And my very "cables don't make a difference" mate successfully demonstrated the difference they made was due to electrical characteristics he could and did adjust. Now there's a circular argument if ever you want one!

But yes, to express the view in a manner the other side will appreciate more, I think from Martin T - paraphrasing because I again can't find the link "cables should be the icing on the cake - differences will be subtle, and are the refinement when the more significant components have been sorted out" :)

And if that applies to cables - I think it applies at least as much to burn-in - probably it applies much much more

[Clive197]

For my two penny worth as stated very early in this thread, I agree with Richard, as I for one cannot hear cable Burn-in. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, it's just I have never been able to hear it.
I totally understand that many people believe they can hear Burn-in and I have no intention poo-pooing them.
I'm not the owner of a pair of Golden Ears but I do have trained ears and believe I am able to hear the advantage a good mains lead has. I can hear differences in analogue cables and finally for the record I can't tell the difference on properly made 75Ohm digital cables. My brain simply says Clive you muppet, there is no difference or OMG listen to that!
I'm all for discussion and would love to know why I hear what I do. At this time as my whole system stands the sound blows me away and I can't get to grips with how the sound would improve if I purchased a more expensive product or add-on.
An interesting hearing point is that I am unable to hear depth in recordings though I do hear the acoustics of a room and air surrounding instruments, I have been unable to understand why my hearing does not perceive these things and I can only liken this to the 3D images which were all the rage a few years back which some people could see and others couldn't. I could and got very frustrated by people who couldn't. HaHo.

[Gordon Steadman]

At this time as my whole system stands the sound blows me away and I can't get to grips with how the sound would improve if I purchased a more expensive product or add-on.
An interesting hearing point is that I am unable to hear depth in recordings though I do hear the acoustics of a room and air surrounding instruments, I have been unable to understand why my hearing does not perceive these things and I can only liken this to the 3D images which were all the rage a few years back which some people could see and others couldn't. I could and got very frustrated by people who couldn't. HaHo.

Judging by the comment above, I can see no reason why you should want to spend any more. Loving the music you get from the hi-fi is all that matters (except for those whose hobby is actually the hi-fi of course)

'Tis strange the different things we hear though. I hear depth and height very clearly with vinyl (much less with digital) but can hear no difference between any leads - excepting bell wire of course, there are limits even for me - Ghengis was a lefty luvvie pussycat by the way Richard, he was just misunderstood.

[synsei]

It never ceases to amaze me that the most "tin-foil hat" ideas on forums get the most interest.....
Cables don't even make a difference.. never mind burning them in!
Anyhow... those that imagine they can hear a difference will never be persuaded that they are wrong so I'll just get on with using the cheapo "came free with the CD player" type that I always use.
It's amazing how contentious this is getting as well! I'm pretty much run off pfm for the above view!! :eek:

It's a shame you don't live closer to me Jez otherwise I would invite you over so I could demonstrate to you that cables do indeed make a difference. The IC's I bought from ReFC recently have totally transformed the sound of my system ;)

[Oldpinkman]

For my two penny worth as stated very early in this thread, I agree with Richard, as I for one cannot hear cable Burn-in. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, it's just I have never been able to hear it.
I totally understand that many people believe they can hear Burn-in and I have no intention poo-pooing them.
I'm not the owner of a pair of Golden Ears but I do have trained ears and believe I am able to hear the advantage a good mains lead has. I can hear differences in analogue cables and finally for the record I can't tell the difference on properly made 75Ohm digital cables. My brain simply says Clive you muppet, there is no difference or OMG listen to that!
I'm all for discussion and would love to know why I hear what I do. At this time as my whole system stands the sound blows me away and I can't get to grips with how the sound would improve if I purchased a more expensive product or add-on.
An interesting hearing point is that I am unable to hear depth in recordings though I do hear the acoustics of a room and air surrounding instruments, I have been unable to understand why my hearing does not perceive these things and I can only liken this to the 3D images which were all the rage a few years back which some people could see and others couldn't. I could and got very frustrated by people who couldn't. HaHo.

Hi Clive
Sound stuff. Last first - stereo "imaging" is an illusion, like 3d vision. Your brain has to make the synthesis. I have mixed blessings here. My hearing is easily deluded, so 3d sound works for me, but with only one working eye - you can keep your 3D goggles. My sight was damaged in a badminton accident when I was 12. The eye was patched up with knife and fork surgery - but recently I have had surgery which has changed me from blind in that eye, to at one point reading down as far as the thick line on a sight chart. (It's not that good now, cos the lens has slipped). But this was really confusing - I got double vision. I could see a picture on the wall, and another one about 12 inches to the right and 12 inches higher "ghosted", and the "ghost image" fights and wobbles to get into the real image. And driving there is another ghost road that goes off to the left. But these were not constant. They would switch off and switch on. My eye physically was processing the information, but my brain didn't know how to deal with it. Apparantly, if I had injured when I was 8 it never would. If I had injured at 16 - it would certainly achieve 3d again. Injured at age 12 its anybodies guess. (If you are not sure about stereo vision, close one eye and from a height of 6 inches pour wine into a glass at arms length - chances are like me you will pour it all over the table) But 3d hearing is essentially the same - the ears need to supply the brain with the information, and the brain needs to be able to do the trick. And unlike real stereo vision, (ie seeing with 2 eyes) stereo hearing - hearing a point derived from hearing sound from 2 points - is an illusion and false.

But "depth" is very seductive if you can hear it. I think it notices most with fairly directional speakers. The absolute best ever I heard was in my Dad's living room, PT Anni, Helius Orion, Technics U205, Pip 2, Quad ESL 63's , heaven only knows which cables. You had to be on the spot, but some of the sound was coming from 30 yards behind the speakers - apparantly. If I ever get a system approaching that good for 3d again, I'll invite you over. (There's about 4 feet, maybe 6 at best with my current system - or rather, I should say, when I can pinch an FX2)

The main thing, as you note, is to enjoy the system you have - and I look forward to getting back to that. One of my lecturers at Uni, in my final year, gave me some great advice when I questioned why, if he was any good, he was lecturing us instead of running a big finance function. His answer was "when we set out in life, we are keen to learn, and stretch ourselves and see what we can achieve. We are focussed on the top of the mountain. But not all of us can make it to the top. The secret of happiness is to enjoy the view from the point you can climb to" ;)

[Arkless Electronics]

I lean to this side of the balance as you may have gathered - but "Cables don't even make a difference" is to the right of Genghis Kahn (and Gordon). Bell wire vs QED79 or similar? Even Peter Walker I think would probably blink.

And my very "cables don't make a difference" mate successfully demonstrated the difference they made was due to electrical characteristics he could and did adjust. Now there's a circular argument if ever you want one!

But yes, to express the view in a manner the other side will appreciate more, I think from Martin T - paraphrasing because I again can't find the link "cables should be the icing on the cake - differences will be subtle, and are the refinement when the more significant components have been sorted out" :)

And if that applies to cables - I think it applies at least as much to burn-in - probably it applies much much more

I thought it too obvious to be worth mentioning that in the case of speaker cable it has to be thick to have low resistance!

[Arkless Electronics]

It's a shame you don't live closer to me Jez otherwise I would invite you over so I could demonstrate to you that cables do indeed make a difference. The IC's I bought from ReFC recently have totally transformed the sound of my system ;)

I would similarly have welcomed the chance to prove that no they don't make a difference!

Anyhow I probably shouldn't have dipped into this particular thread..... It's a subject where there is only one correct answer and no room to even debate it. That cables make no difference is as much a fact as that the earth is round and not flat!

Unsubscribing now.... That's all folks!

[Clive197]

.... It's a subject where there is only one correct answer and no room to even debate it. That cables make no difference is as much a fact as that the earth is round and not flat!

Unsubscribing now.... That's all folks!

To me that's very very sad. People who lead blinkered lives in that they know they are right, then have no confidence and that they have turn away incase somebody makes a valid point and changes their mind.

[Reffc]

I would similarly have welcomed the chance to prove that no they don't make a difference!

Anyhow I probably shouldn't have dipped into this particular thread..... It's a subject where there is only one correct answer and no room to even debate it. That cables make no difference is as much a fact as that the earth is round and not flat!

Unsubscribing now.... That's all folks!

Sorry but I just can't let that go unchallenged as it's such a misleading thing to state as a fact and utterly incorrect. For starters, what cables are you referring to and where in the sysyem? Lets bandy about a few facts...shielded cables over non shielded cables make a difference...fact. In single ended circuits, the impedance of the ground return/shield matter as the more conductive they are, the greater the S/N ratio...another fact (this one can be established from every basic book on electronics). The value of the S/N ratio is dependant upon the ground voltage differential between the connected kit.

The type of connectors matter...opinion. In my view, there are well designed and badly design RCA's. As a design in itself, it is flawed, but as we are largely lumped with it, there are a lot of VERY poor designed RCAs on some very expensive cables, and you can often compromise on the cable quality (analogue) as long as high quality connectors which make good contact and use very low impedance ground connections are used.

It is a measurable fact that dielectric strength (ie the "constant" value) affects the signal depending upon the conductor material that it surrounds...another scientific fact. Whether the differences are audible are more a matter of opinion, but they can be measured and they can be most certainly calculated.

Come on folks, if facts are going to be stated as facts, then lets at least use facts!

Some people won't hear much of a difference between any interconnect (given a minimum standard) due to differences (electrically) between kit, hearing and room acoustics. Just as many, if not more, will notice a difference. Speaker cables can make a very audible difference depending on their electrical characteristics. lets remember that they are simply part of a circuit and exhibit L, C and R parameters, so as such, saying that they are all the same is plainly nonsensical. Whether they make an audible difference depends upon the circuit they're connected within. Some will find that they do and some will find less of a difference, where loop resistance may be the primary characteristic that matters.

Wasn't going to enter this debate for obvious reasons but I wont sit back and say nothing when there are some facts that seem to have been conveniently ignored.

[Oldpinkman]

To me that's very very sad. People who lead blinkered lives in that they know they are right, then have no confidence and that they have turn away incase somebody makes a valid point and changes their mind.

But if he's happy that's fine. Some of us hear differences - some of us don't. Some of us are interested in why. Some of us aren't. No harm in that. If the subject is of no interest, or you know the answer, don't feel obliged to waste your time discussing it with those who do want to discuss it. :cool:

[Oldpinkman]

It's not such a big hurdle, Richard. More likely it's been done quite often but not as a documented scientific experiment. For instance, I have several of the same Furukawa mains cables purchased at different times. Each time I receive a new one, it's instructional to insert it where a well used sample was already running. I can hear the differences (probably best leave the detail for elsewhere, but I would describe a new mains cable as somewhat clanky and a trifle harsh compared with a burned-in one). Again - just to be clear - the differences are subtle, not night-and-day. As the cable is run for a few days, it approaches exactly the sound of the one it replaced such that they cannot be differentiated.

Again, at other times, various friends have visited and we've mucked around with cables and heard things. On one notable occasion, we had two identical tonearm cables, one had been used for a while and the other was brand new. They sounded different.

None of this is proof and I'm not trying to offer any! However - for me - it's empirical evidence and adds to my sum knowledge of things-I-have-learned about hi-fi systems.

Thanks Martin. Helpful comments. Sorry - missed it earlier. Not proof - but a clarification of your reasons for your confidence that it is not due to "acclimatisation" :)

Regarding your earlier post "not true" I meant that at no stage in the debates I had got involved with on the subject of mains cables or cable burn-in, did anybody suggest the solution of "Let me show you". Interestingly - in the context of cables themselves, when that offer was made a few posts back to another member it was declined. But , to date, nobody has offered that to me in the context of this discussion. That's what I meant :)

[Clive197]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
Here is a person who says he is right, unequivocally. He then logs off so he cannot see anyone disagreeing with him. SAD

[John]

Whilst I have never heard burn in on a cable I am open to the possibilty of it.
However I have heard differences in cables, some subtle and so subtle. I see cables as the the cake decoration, they are more important things to consider they like the last bit of the puzzle
Recently I had Steve come over with his Fugal 3 they respond to this cables , my Belkins sounded slightly muffled in comparsion. So when we changed back to my speakers and the effects were the other way around. If I had a expectation Bias I would of thought Steve cables would of performed better with my speakers as well
In the end like everything trust your ears not anyone else dogma

[Marco]

Regarding your earlier post "not true" I meant that at no stage in the debates I had got involved with on the subject of mains cables or cable burn-in, did anybody suggest the solution of "Let me show you". Interestingly - in the context of cables themselves, when that offer was made a few posts back to another member it was declined. But , to date, nobody has offered that to me in the context of this discussion. That's what I meant

Much the same as I offered my turntable for Paul to listen to and form his own opinion on what a highly modified Technics SL-1210 sounds like, I would offer to do the same again (with anyone) with my mains and/or signal cables. I would travel a reasonable distance, in order to facilitate comparisons, or indeed anyone is welcome to visit me, in order to do the same, chez-moi.

In fact, let me take it a step further... Such is my confidence that anyone visiting me could hear very clear and repeatable sonic differences that both mains and signal cables make in my system, that if this wasn't the case (as long as those taking part were honest), or shock horror, if they succeeded in proving to my satisfaction that I was imagining those differences, I would donate £100 to their charity of choice!

Any takers amongst the resident cable sceptics? :)

Marco.

[Oldpinkman]

Much the same as I offered my turntable for Paul to listen to and form his own opinion on what a highly modified Technics SL-1210 sounds like, I would offer to do the same again (with anyone) with my mains and/or signal cables. I would travel a reasonable distance, in order to facilitate comparisons, or indeed anyone is welcome to visit me, in order to do the same, chez-moi.

In fact, let me take it a step further... Such is my confidence that anyone visiting me could hear very clear and repeatable sonic differences that both mains and signal cables make in my system, that if this wasn't the case (as long as those taking part were honest), or shock horror, if they succeeded in proving to my satisfaction that I was imagining those differences, I would donate £100 to their charity of choice!

Any takers amongst the resident cable sceptics? :)

Marco.

Marco - that is the silencer. There is no need for the charity offer. If only for the cassoulet, I would be keen - but it won't be in the next 4 weeks since I am catching up from a sinful 5 week holiday. Mains cables will be my main interest. As I have noted on this thread, whilst I don't get as excited as some about them, I have heard signal lead differences before, and my out-and-out cable sceptic engineer demonstrated those differences were electrical (which however much it may not be your cup of tea, effectively demonstrated there were differences!). But if someone else wants to step in front of me that's fine too.

Of course, this thread (built of a certain general frustration on my part) kicked off with burn-in, and that would not be covered by this tea party. But I am more chilled about that now. I think my answer is the differences are, on my scale, too small for me to need to concern myself about when buying or evaluating cable. As I noted before, it wasn't so much that I thought I should have a right to a response like that, it was more that it was so manifestly what my response would have been to a challenge about say the difference between the Technics and Goldring cartridges, that its total absence seemed really odd.

I'll bring the wine. :)

[Joe]

I think that quality HIFI equipment is wasted on you. Come back Amstrad. All is forgiven. The audio market needs you.

OTOH I mainly use secondhand or ex-dem stuff, so maybe the burn-in's already been taken care of.

[Marco]

But if he's happy that's fine. Some of us hear differences - some of us don't. Some of us are interested in why. Some of us aren't. No harm in that.


Whilst I agree with your sentiments, the problem for me (much as I enjoy Jez's contributions here) is that his views arguably carry more weight/influence than those of others, with him being a product manufacturer and electronics engineer, and so he has to be very careful that any statements he portrays as fact, are indeed irrefutably fact, otherwise such statements could wrongly influence those who don't know any better.

Therefore, in this instance, there is "harm in that."

As Paul has demonstrated, what Jez wrote was somewhat misleading (not to mention rather dogmatic), and so he was quite right to challenge and correct him on it :)

Marco.

[Marco]

Marco - that is the silencer. There is no need for the charity offer. If only for the cassoulet, I would be keen - but it won't be in the next 4 weeks since I am catching up from a sinful 5 week holiday. Mains cables will be my main interest. As I have noted on this thread, whilst I don't get as excited as some about them, I have heard signal lead differences before, and my out-and-out cable sceptic engineer demonstrated those differences were electrical (which however much it may not be your cup of tea, effectively demonstrated there were differences!). But if someone else wants to step in front of me that's fine too.

Of course, this thread (built of a certain general frustration on my part) kicked off with burn-in, and that would not be covered by this tea party. But I am more chilled about that now. I think my answer is the differences are, on my scale, too small for me to need to concern myself about when buying or evaluating cable. As I noted before, it wasn't so much that I thought I should have a right to a response like that, it was more that it was so manifestly what my response would have been to a challenge about say the difference between the Technics and Goldring cartridges, that its total absence seemed really odd.

I'll bring the wine. :)

No problem, Richard - I look forward to it. I'm rather busy myself for the next few weeks, but we'll definitely sort something out :)

Incidentally, if anyone else is interested, and doesn't want to come to North Wales, I'm willing to travel, say, within a 150 mile radius of Wrexham, and bring my cables to you (thus in the process removing the behaviour of my system from the equation), where I'm *almost* as confident that you'll hear similar differences in your own system, to those I've heard in mine, over the course of 15 years experimenting in this area, no matter whether the equipment I was using was valve or solid-state!! ;)

Marco.

[bobbasrah]

Some people won't hear much of a difference between any interconnect (given a minimum standard) due to differences (electrically) between kit, hearing and room acoustics. Just as many, if not more, will notice a difference. Speaker cables can make a very audible difference depending on their electrical characteristics. lets remember that they are simply part of a circuit and exhibit L, C and R parameters, so as such, saying that they are all the same is plainly nonsensical. Whether they make an audible difference depends upon the circuit they're connected within. Some will find that they do and some will find less of a difference, where loop resistance may be the primary characteristic that matters.

Well put Paul.... The cable is not alone...

[Reffc]

Much the same as I offered my turntable for Paul to listen to and form his own opinion on what a highly modified Technics SL-1210 sounds like, I would offer to do the same again (with anyone) with my mains and/or signal cables. I would travel a reasonable distance, in order to facilitate comparisons, or indeed anyone is welcome to visit me, in order to do the same, chez-moi.

In fact, let me take it a step further... Such is my confidence that anyone visiting me could hear very clear and repeatable sonic differences that both mains and signal cables make in my system, that if this wasn't the case (as long as those taking part were honest), or shock horror, if they succeeded in proving to my satisfaction that I was imagining those differences, I would donate £100 to their charity of choice!

Any takers amongst the resident cable sceptics? :)

Marco.

Hi Marco

I think that there has been some confusion over the points I was getting at on the Technics thread (sorry for the thread drift!) as I know just how good that a modded SL1210 can sound, especially with a decent arm and cart...it wasn't the sound that I was questioning, it was whether spending so much on upgrading the base TT in the first place was a blanket recommendation when there are so many other choices for the "upgraded" budget that will comprehensively out-perfrom the techy without the need for upgrading them. £2.5K to £5K buys a lot of turntable these days. That isn't to say yours doesn't spin a decent, tune; I'm sure it does.

Sorry for the drift Richard...as you were! :)

[Marco]

Hi Paul,

Yup, I agree and totally understand and accept where you're coming from.

However, the point I was making is that I'm always willing to put the conviction of my opinions in audio to the test, whether it be those involving my turntable, CD player, amplifier, speakers or cables! :)

The fact is, I never arrive at anything approaching a conclusive opinion, on any matter relating to hi-fi, which I would then state to others on a public forum, without being as damn sure as I can that it's likely to stand up to the severest of (subjective) scrutiny! ;)

Marco.

[Oldpinkman]

Hi Marco

I think that there has been some confusion over the points I was getting at on the Technics thread (sorry for the thread drift!) as I know just how good that a modded SL1210 can sound, especially with a decent arm and cart...it wasn't the sound that I was questioning, it was whether spending so much on upgrading the base TT in the first place was a blanket recommendation when there are so many other choices for the "upgraded" budget that will comprehensively out-perfrom the techy without the need for upgrading them. £2.5K to £5K buys a lot of turntable these days. That isn't to say yours doesn't spin a decent, tune; I'm sure it does.

Sorry for the drift Richard...as you were! :)

No bother Paul - this thread title starts "Richards stuff" so didn't need to be about cable burn-in only. I have a feeling Marco will still feel there is a challenge in "so many other choices ... that will comprehensively out-perform them" but that's for him to do if he wants - I won't lose sleep about thread drift there either.

And so - I have no problems noting that it would be nice to be able to say that a heavily modified Technics SL1200 manifestly (perhaps that should be - very probably) isn't the same beast as a stock technics, without every Technics owner on the forum getting defensive and hostile or derisory. I still haven't heard a "full monty" SL1200 - so that can be another treat at Marco's, but I have no problem believing it will be a great deck. I have heard a part modified one and that was impressive enough. But its not the same as a standard one. It is a high quality custom turntable built using the Technics motor. There is nothing wrong with that. What's perhaps a bit confusing, is the suggestion that just because a turntable is described as an SL1200 that makes it the same as every variation carrying the same name regardless of how modified it is.

But Geoff has given me his cold, so I'm off to bed now :goodnight:

[cloth-ears]

OK, if burn-in is in fact real then we must accept that the physical properties of said wire have changed over time. On a quantum level this can only imply that some sort of entropic process is taking place. If so then process will continue, the properties will go on to change even more. It won’t just stop at convenient a point in time of your choosing (when you like the sound) it will carry on changing by virtue of its existence. Will the wire become less satisfying to listen to at a later stage of burn-in?

You can’t pick and choose what part of science you want to believe in.

[Joe]

OK, if burn-in is in fact real then we must accept that the physical properties of said wire have changed over time. On a quantum level this can only imply that some sort of entropic process is taking place. If so then process will continue, the properties will go on to change even more. It won’t just stop at convenient a point in time of your choosing (when you like the sound) it will carry on changing by virtue of its existence. Will the wire become less satisfying to listen to at a later stage of burn-in?

You can’t pick and choose what part of science you want to believe in.

Maybe playing music backwards will reverse the burn-in process to some extent, though of course you risk summoning up Stan, sorry, Satan.

[Arkless Electronics]

Whilst I agree with your sentiments, the problem for me (much as I enjoy Jez's contributions here) is that his views arguably carry more weight/influence than those of others, with him being a product manufacturer and electronics engineer, and so he has to be very careful that any statements he portrays as fact, are indeed irrefutably fact, otherwise such statements could wrongly influence those who don't know any better.

Therefore, in this instance, there is "harm in that."

As Paul has demonstrated, what Jez wrote was somewhat misleading (not to mention rather dogmatic), and so he was quite right to challenge and correct him on it :)

Marco.

Just popping back to say that I stand by everything I said and do not consider that I have been "corrected" in any way shape or form.

My views on this are well known and with even a hint of hindsight I maybe shouldn't have joined the fray here.....

I have long ago learned that cable fans are like bible bashers.... they can't prove the existence of god and yet won't budge an inch on the matter even if you talk yourself hoarse on the subject.

I don't intend to try and prove myself correct technically as I've wasted far too much time on this in the past and , as I said above, it makes no difference as to how much technical proof I provide..... those that believe they hear a difference will continue to believe it.
It's sometimes a lonely place being the guy saying "hey look! the emperors got no clothes on"

Anyway it's beer 'o' clock.... and that's a product whose efficacy I am totally sold on :cool:

Over and out...

[John]

Quite honestly the one coming across slightly bible bashing is yourself Jez
This a subjective site so it will always have people who are interested in cables

[Firebottle]

Anyway it's beer 'o' clock.... and that's a product whose efficacy I am totally sold on :cool:

Over and out...

Jez I'm with you, on our recent trip to the UK we took the opportunity to stock up on real ales:

http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/Paramotorpilot/Beer.jpg?t=1380138596

Ignore the paint in the background, it's in the boiler room, the coolest room in the house!

:cheers: Alan

[walpurgis]

Nice to see this thread tracking in an interesting direction. :)

[Arkless Electronics]

Ah yes... BEER! now there's something we can all raise a glass to!
Any peasants out there who prefer carling/fosters? whether burnt in/directional or not?
I've been very impressed with American craft brewed beers lately. My local Weatherspoons has had several on hand pull. "Sunset Red" very nice.
"Bengali Tiger" wow! A proper India Pale Ale. 6.5% and full of hops as an IPA is supposed to be.... You know you've been mauled if you have too many of those :eyebrows:

[AlfaGTV]

It never ceases to amaze me that the most "tin-foil hat" ideas on forums get the most interest.....
Cables Type of beer don't even make a difference.. never mind burning them in circumstances while drinking!
Anyhow... those that imagine they can hear taste a difference will never be persuaded that they are wrong so I'll just get on with using the cheapo "came free with the CD player shopping" type that I always use.
It's amazing how contentious this is getting as well! I'm pretty much run off pfm for the above view!! :eek:

Please excuse the shameless irony ;)

[Marco]

Jez I'm with you, on our recent trip to the UK we took the opportunity to stock up on real ales:

http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/Paramotorpilot/Beer.jpg?t=1380138596

Ignore the paint in the background, it's in the boiler room, the coolest room in the house!


Quality stuff, Alan! :)

I agree that real ale is one of the things that Britain (mainly England) does well. However, for me, the bottled stuff is never the same as drinking it on draught! Consequently, that's why I only tend to drink continental lagers at home, as those don't tend to 'suffer' in the same way when not served directly from the keg.

Also, for me, part of the attraction of real ale is sitting in a quaint Olde-Worlde country pub (maybe beside a roaring log fire) drinking it - it's all part of the experience! :exactly:

Still, you can't have everything, especially in terms of real ale, if you're living in France, so enjoy! :cool:

Marco.

[Oldpinkman]

I should stay with the drink this thread has drifted to. I know I should. It would make me so much happier if I did. I'm a hazard to myself.

Drink first - sort of. Never mind the real Ale Alan - I can source that when I get to the land of the rising snail - my worry is where do I get real English bacon from?????

We are having a bit of a drink-fest here too. With over 100 apple trees dropping crop which rots year after year, yesterday my new juicer arrived. Absolutely delicious juice from Discovery apples (very odd to look at, but)

I have juiced the apple crop before - our local airfield and airwar museum owner has a cider press, and I have previously made both traditional scrumpy and a lethal kent variant. You take 2lbs dark sugar to a gallon of juice and ferment in old sherry casks with just a muslin cloth stuffed in the barrel hole. It ferments for 3 years - restarts, honestly, when the blossom is on the trees. The natural yeast will take it past 18% (not degrees) and preserves it. It is then best left another 3 years. Comes out looking and tasting a bit like sweet apple flavoured sherry (nothing like Calvados!). Not for drinking by the pint - has that shocking cider kick. Quite nice though on a winters evening

Sadly I used the old barrels as flower pots. Never occurred to me to sell a limited edition Anniversary for £25000 a pop. Bugger! :doh:

[Oldpinkman]

(And our local has hobgoblin, old speckled hen and spitfire on tap - unremarkably we have quite a bit of Spitfire in this neck of the woods...:)

[Oldpinkman]

I thought it too obvious to be worth mentioning that in the case of speaker cable it has to be thick to have low resistance!

Good. Excellent. And the cable-sceptic qualified engineer who made up my current interconnects, using £5 per metre cable for me, measuring capacitance and resistance in cables? They measure differently. So "cables don't even make a difference" is not true - electrically they do.

Maybe you could have argued "Cables don't even make a difference you can hear, provided the resistance of speaker cables is low enough" might be true - although presumably you are enough of a rationalist to accept that if someone can demonstrate in a properly controlled blind test that they can hear a difference that statement is untrue too.

I am broadly of the cable-skeptic camp. I think the differences cables make (above a fairly low threshold of quality) are so small that they are not of sufficient interest to me (aesthetics aside) to be any sort of priority. I feel that I would expect to get far greater differences for my money, below the very exotic level, by spending it on "real" components. I don't think it helps to promote that idea if innaccurate statements are put forward as unassailable fact, when they wouldn't survive even a light-weight scientific assault.

And , were I a manufacturer, I don't think it would boost my credibility much either.

[Oldpinkman]

OK, if burn-in is in fact real then we must accept that the physical properties of said wire have changed over time. On a quantum level this can only imply that some sort of entropic process is taking place. If so then process will continue, the properties will go on to change even more. It won’t just stop at convenient a point in time of your choosing (when you like the sound) it will carry on changing by virtue of its existence. Will the wire become less satisfying to listen to at a later stage of burn-in?

You can’t pick and choose what part of science you want to believe in.

It's probably going to be a few weeks before I can chat to my mate about this, and this thread should have expired from lack of breath by then. Could you explain that a bit more, without going into pages and pages. Specifically

Did that statement relate just to the physical properties of a solid metal, or is it relevant to a composite structure such as plastic sheathed metal strands?

Capacitors - certainly electrolytics - change over time. (I think entropy is the basis of the arrow of time - things move from order to disorder - one of the laws of thermodynamics if I remember). A valve cathode will change - entropically I would have thought, but I would appreciate an explanation of why not if I am wrong, with the heating process arising from electron flow.

So does your statement regarding entropy apply to a composite component?
Would a cable comprising a conductor and dielectric qualify?

Thanks

[Oldpinkman]

Dwelling on my visit to Marco, and dreaming of cassoulet, I reflected on how we would demonstrate the difference cables make. Really - if I share Marco's listening experiences with him (if I can hear it when he can hear it), then that's all that's needed.

But I've stuck my bloody great head out here. And at age 52 I have enough experience to remember making a complete dick of myself before. So - before publishing a comment, I'd feel more comfortable proving it to myself blind. Still happy to acknowledge I thought I heard something "live" even if I fail the blind test. But to stand up and say "mains cables sound different" I would want to confirm it blind.

Why?

I completely agree with Marco. The ears should be the final arbiter. And that is what a blind test is all about. If you trust your ears, as Marco and I do, then your ears, and ONLY your ears should be all it needs to confirm a difference. If the test isn't blind, then other factors can, and heaps of research suggests does, influence your perception.

That's why we blind tested at Pink. It is of course a tedious nonsense domestically. Indeed, arguably it is quite wrong domestically. The ears shouldnt be the final arbiter listening to music. It is an emotional response which will depend on a variety of environmental factors. If you enjoy what you are listening to - that is right. If getting up and changing something, whether one dac for another, or the flowers in the vase, makes you enjoy the music more, then that is right for you and go with it.

But when attempting to determine whether something is really different or not - the ears are the final arbiter! (Science can be interesting though - looking forward to a response from cloth ears) :)

[Clive197]

This is getting deep. What if ears do hear differences, but it's the brain that has to decipher the input. So unless you have coded the brain to understand the input your stuffed.

[Oldpinkman]

This is getting deep. What if ears do hear differences, but it's the brain that has to decipher the input. So unless you have coded the brain to understand the input your stuffed.

If you have a coded brain (I think you mean "are a trained listener") then you will hear it. Including blind. (There is no sensory deprivation here. Blind doesn't mean with your eyes shut. Just you don't know which cable is plugged in. "Double blind" - a bit excessive at Marco's dinner, means the guy changing the cables doesn't know either. You would be surprised at the subliminal signals one individual can send another.

On the subject of how precisely an animal can hear, my dogs, both of them, infallibly pick out the sound of my wifes car coming up the lane - without any visual clues, routine or other factors to help them Bloody incredible. I keep thinking I can do it, but I get it wrong every time. They are 100% reliable! :ner:

[Gordon Steadman]

- my worry is where do I get real English bacon from?????


Not a problem. We have friends who run an Auberge. We make friends with the pigs so we know who we are eating and the local butcher does whatever cuts we want. Anywhere in France is only a day's post away. Apart from that, there are also loads of companies that deliver from the UK. Trouble is, you are then stuck with the tasteless stuff the Supermarkets provide in the UK.

My little stay in hospital showed me how I'm spoilt food wise. All the side dishes, fruit, veg whatever, were almost tasteless compared with what I'm used to. This is France. Here too, the supermarkets are taking over and everyone has to eat food that has been stored and treated. Rubbish. We eat out of the ground and off the tree/bush. Real food with real flavour and nutrients.

Bah humbug.

[Clive197]

If you have a coded brain (I think you mean "are a trained listener") then you will hear it. Including blind. (There is no sensory deprivation here. Blind doesn't mean with your eyes shut. Just you don't know which cable is plugged in. "Double blind" - a bit excessive at Marco's dinner, means the guy changing the cables doesn't know either. You would be surprised at the subliminal signals one individual can send another.

On the subject of how precisely an animal can hear, my dogs, both of them, infallibly pick out the sound of my wifes car coming up the lane - without any visual clues, routine or other factors to help them Bloody incredible. I keep thinking I can do it, but I get it wrong every time. They are 100% reliable! :ner:

Richard, I'm playing with you. Of course I mean trained, unless of course you have a computer chip in your brain that can be coded.
My point was really about the brain being trained to understand what the ear hears. The expression "a trained ear" is just that, an expression. All our senses signal our brain, which then has to interpret the result whether its sight, touch, smell or sound.
The point that you are unable to hear what a mains cable does, is purely down to your brain not being able to interpret the incoming sound.

[sq225917]

I'm not a cable believer, i'm science fact over fiction, but even I accept that the quality of overall shielding and the impedance of the gnd can play a part in cables sounding different in some circumstances. To completely deny the audibility of shielding and altering the path of lowest impedance between components in all circumstances is a step too far even for me.

[Arkless Electronics]

I'm not a cable believer, i'm science fact over fiction, but even I accept that the quality of overall shielding and the impedance of the gnd can play a part in cables sounding different in some circumstances. To completely deny the audibility of shielding and altering the path of lowest impedance between components in all circumstances is a step too far even for me.

At RF the characteristics of cables are critical... but not at AF. Obviously it is possible to think of particular circumstances where cable characteristics would come into play but they are few and far between. 90% + of the time we will be talking here about a source with an output impedance of 100R or so, a cable of only 1 -2 meters in length and an input impedance of around 47K being driven..... in these circumstances any old screening will do and small differences in cable resistance between maybe 0.05R and 0.5R best to worst case are going to make no difference...

Anyhow, nothing I say and no amount of science and engineering will change the minds of the cable believers so I'll bow out from this thread once again and let others argue over it...

[Oldpinkman]

Richard, I'm playing with you. Of course I mean trained, unless of course you have a computer chip in your brain that can be coded.
My point was really about the brain being trained to understand what the ear hears. The expression "a trained ear" is just that, an expression. All our senses signal our brain, which then has to interpret the result whether its sight, touch, smell or sound.
The point that you are unable to hear what a mains cable does, is purely down to your brain not being able to interpret the incoming sound.

Oh sure. I would accept some people (animals - my dogs with the car) can "notice" things I probably hear but don't "notice". So regarding mains cables, I could easily be a deaf twat when others more fortunate can really hear differences.

But if they can hear them, all they need to rely on are their ears, and their brains processing of it. They don't need to know what they are listening to. And so the proof can be demonstrated by those with the ability - blind. My dogs do it most days when they run barking to the gate before my wifes car is anywhere near visible because they have heard it and recognised it. Whilst there is something of a pattern to the daily return from school, they are just as good at hearing the car return from ad-hoc trips. They hear it - and recognise it. I am quite happy they have proved their point with a blind test!

And people CAN do that with HiFi too. :cool:

[Oldpinkman]

Not a problem. We have friends who run an Auberge. We make friends with the pigs so we know who we are eating and the local butcher does whatever cuts we want. Anywhere in France is only a day's post away. Apart from that, there are also loads of companies that deliver from the UK. Trouble is, you are then stuck with the tasteless stuff the Supermarkets provide in the UK.

My little stay in hospital showed me how I'm spoilt food wise. All the side dishes, fruit, veg whatever, were almost tasteless compared with what I'm used to. This is France. Here too, the supermarkets are taking over and everyone has to eat food that has been stored and treated. Rubbish. We eat out of the ground and off the tree/bush. Real food with real flavour and nutrients.

Bah humbug.

Good to know - cos they're funny buggers about importing fresh food. Need my weekly fry-up. As noted elsewhere - enjoying fresh organic apple juice at the moment. May harvest the wild mushrooms I've just noticed on the lawn too!

[Andrei]

May harvest the wild mushrooms I've just noticed on the lawn too!
Richard you are lucky! I once bought a house and found a mushroom growing in the carpet in the middle of the hallway - its true I promise!

[Oldpinkman]

Richard you are lucky! I once bought a house and found a mushroom growing in the carpet in the middle of the hallway - its true I promise!

I have a rule in this house. No dogs or mushrooms on the carpet. (I'm working on no teenagers, but the negotiations are proving tricky. Bring on the move to France ;))

[Clive197]

Richard your difficult enough to understand now, so g-d help us when you start posting in French!

[Oldpinkman]

Richard your difficult enough to understand now, so g-d help us when you start posting in French!

Et ca veut dire quoi? Hein? :eyebrows:

[walpurgis]

Et ca veut dire quoi? Hein? :eyebrows:

Je ne sais pas.

[Oldpinkman]

Je ne sais pas.

La vache! Vous avez changez l'avatar encore une fois. Ce n'est pas la meme que ce matin. Vouz plaisantez hein?

Well Doug...;)

[Marco]

:lol:

Vous êtes vraiment deux vieux imbéciles, mais aussi avec un certain charme! Maintenant, allez faire une belle omelette aux champignons pour mon dîner... Je vais attendre dans la salle à manger.

Faites vite, car je suis très faim! :D

Marco.

[Oldpinkman]

:lol:

Vous êtes vraiment deux vieux imbéciles, mais aussi avec un certain charme! Maintenant, allez faire une belle omelette aux champignons pour mon dîner... Je vais attendre dans la salle à manger.

Faites vite, car je suis très faim! :D

Marco.

On mange chez moi? Qu'est-ce qui se passe? J'avais cru que c'est à vous à faire le cassoulet. Tant pis! J'attends toujours ma femme, qui ferra quelque chose sans doute! Moi J'AI faim aussi

Et quant au sujet – ou est le sommelier? :cool:

[synsei]

Now, this is what I call thread drift of the highest order... :lol:

[cloth-ears]

It's probably going to be a few weeks before I can chat to my mate about this, and this thread should have expired from lack of breath by then. Could you explain that a bit more, without going into pages and pages. Specifically

Did that statement relate just to the physical properties of a solid metal, or is it relevant to a composite structure such as plastic sheathed metal strands?

Capacitors - certainly electrolytics - change over time. (I think entropy is the basis of the arrow of time - things move from order to disorder - one of the laws of thermodynamics if I remember). A valve cathode will change - entropically I would have thought, but I would appreciate an explanation of why not if I am wrong, with the heating process arising from electron flow.

So does your statement regarding entropy apply to a composite component?
Would a cable comprising a conductor and dielectric qualify?

Thanks

OK, without going into pages and pages of quantum theory I am merely pointing out that if any electrical item has the ability to alter from one state to another over time then at what point does it stop altering. People say that a cable has “burned-in” when it sounds right. What happens then? Do the properties of said piece of wire suddenly stabilise, are we to believe that by pure coincidence the previous dynamic properties suddenly cease to be. Although the cable has a measureable capacitance it is not a capacitor and not subject to the standard model decay rate. Whenever two or more wires run in close proximity separated by an insulator they will exhibit some but not all of the properties of a fixed value capacitor.

There is no place in physics (even at the quantum level) that allows for such audio conductors to alter their properties over time. Could you imagine the problems they would have at the LHD if the wiring took on a dynamic quality. :-)

[pjdowns]

I like this thread.

:lol: me too

[pjdowns]

I think that quality HIFI equipment is wasted on you. Come back Amstrad. All is forgiven. The audio market needs you.

:rfl: :rfl:

[Oldpinkman]

Now, this is what I call thread drift of the highest order... :lol:

Wot iz zis dreeft you talk about? :)

[Reffc]

OK, without going into pages and pages of quantum theory I am merely pointing out that if any electrical item has the ability to alter from one state to another over time then at what point does it stop altering. People say that a cable has “burned-in” when it sounds right. What happens then? Do the properties of said piece of wire suddenly stabilise, are we to believe that by pure coincidence the previous dynamic properties suddenly cease to be. Although the cable has a measureable capacitance it is not a capacitor and not subject to the standard model decay rate. Whenever two or more wires run in close proximity separated by an insulator they will exhibit some but not all of the properties of a fixed value capacitor.

There is no place in physics (even at the quantum level) that allows for such audio conductors to alter their properties over time. Could you imagine the problems they would have at the LHD if the wiring took on a dynamic quality. :-)

:exactly:

[Marco]

I'd probably also agree if I could understand it!! :lol:

Any chance of simplifying it in 'layman's' terms?

Marco.

[Oldpinkman]

I'd probably also agree if I could understand it!! :lol:

Any chance of simplifying it in 'layman's' terms?

Marco.

Not because I pretend to understand it properly, but to add my 2 penn'th and request a clarification...

I assume LHD was LHC - large hadron collider. Clearly if cables behaved entropically as you describe we couldn't build anything, never mind that.

Entropy was nicely explained by Brian Cox building sand castles on a BBC tv series. It is why time travels in one direction only. It derives from research into how to make steam engines more efficient and relates to the laws of thermodynamics. Basically it says that "stuff" tends to move from an ordered state to a less ordered state over time. So there is no reason in the rest of physics why the wind in the desert couldn't blow the grains of sand from a very random unordered sanddune, into a very precise ordered sand castle - its not gravity, or laws of motion that stop it - but it is normal for the opposite to occur - as the wind blows it changes the ordered sand castle gradually back to a pile that is just a pile with no order to it. Eventually (fortunately way past next tuesday) it predicts the end of the universe into nothingness.

So if a piece of wire is changing over time (and of course - on the cosmic scale I just mentioned it WILL change in that way, regardless of wanting to use it in an LHC) it will carry on doing so. You can't run time backwards. And you can't stop it.

My questioning is not as to whether "science is wrong", it is "are we sure we are looking at the right bits within what is accepted as scientific fact" I would like to check entropy has to be relevant.

I can see it is relevant to why a wire won't "age" or "mature" like wine. But burn-in, if it exists, would result not just from time but from the application of an electric current. So running electricity through a valve, causes chemical changes in its structure. The valve IS physically different after it has been used. Leave aside for the minute whether that is a change that has an audible effect, physically it is changed by electricity running through it.

Moreover, like a capacitor, it does wear out. Eventually, changes from its environment, including use, cause it to wear out. A conventional light bulb would be another example of something changed by electricity running through it and wearing out. So - forget burnin - within the laws of physics - a light bulb goes from working and new, to not working and thrown away.

Now I appreciate, that in both those cases the changes occur in a way which leads ultimately to a state of failure, and nobody is likely even here I would have thought to suggest a bit of wire will "wear out from having too much electricity through it"

And those changes are not like "burn-in" - maturing from "raw" to "finished" and staying there.

So - how is a cable different? I think the answer that stands a chance of making sense to me will address this issue of capacitance and the dielectric. Every time I have another go at studying electronics it is capacitance that has me throwing in the towel. So - a capacitor - an electrolytic - can and does change state from working to broken. Probably that is not true entropy on a quantum theory level. But it is observable fact that the whole of the canon of physics can cope with.
Probably it occurs over time, and is not a function of the electricity passed through it - so it would not necessarily (the wearing out bit) be the same as burn-in .

Is the entropy problem not so much "things can't change" - but "things can't change just a bit, Goldilocks style, and then stop changing" (unless they are a mechanical structure like a speaker or cartridge suspension)?

Which brings us to the fascinating issue of "burn-out". Has anyone else noticed that things only burn-in? Nobody ever says "The Van Damme purple 75 ohm digital interconnect is blinding out of the box, but after a couple of weeks it goes off the boil and sounds harsh". It's always - "It's good now, but it'll be really good when its burned in". If cables or anything else burned out, that would be a much more serious concern. Happily - they all only ever get better :)

[Rothchild]

OK, without going into pages and pages of quantum theory I am merely pointing out that if any electrical item has the ability to alter from one state to another over time then at what point does it stop altering. People say that a cable has “burned-in” when it sounds right. What happens then? Do the properties of said piece of wire suddenly stabilise, are we to believe that by pure coincidence the previous dynamic properties suddenly cease to be. Although the cable has a measureable capacitance it is not a capacitor and not subject to the standard model decay rate. Whenever two or more wires run in close proximity separated by an insulator they will exhibit some but not all of the properties of a fixed value capacitor.

There is no place in physics (even at the quantum level) that allows for such audio conductors to alter their properties over time. Could you imagine the problems they would have at the LHD if the wiring took on a dynamic quality. :-)


:exactly:



What's the difference between 'Burn In' and 'Burn Out'?

<insert Schroedinger cat related punchline here>

[Oldpinkman]

What's the difference between 'Burn In' and 'Burn Out'?

<insert Schroedinger cat related punchline here>

Blurry hell - are you hacking my pc??? I just posted that!!! :scratch:

[Rothchild]

I don't see any reference to cats in your post ;-)

I've not hacked you, I'm just also capable of comprehension and logical deduction

[DSJR]

Before this was noticed, I think the materials older cables were made from did age and 'go off' after a few decades. Old mains cables from the early 70's often have oxidised copper, the screens of old coax cables often used in domestic audio do the same and look dirty and dull. Whether this has an audible effect I don't know, since I've not had the chance to compare pristine freshly made examples to forty plus year old ones.

Just stick to sensibly made cables with a known balance of performance parameters and take a healthy sceptic view on expensive foo plugs and wires etc. If a stereo system stands or falls because there's no Furutech plugs on the mains supply, there's summat wrong with it IMO :)

[Firebottle]

About time I waded in here, I might be talking utter pish but here goes.

The metal part of an interconnect is going to have a crystalline structure, on an atomic scale. The randomness :scratch: of the structure is dependent on how the metal was formed and the strength of the inter atomic bonds.
I can see it is entirely feasible for the structure to become more ordered with the long term passage of electrons, not just with dc, as electrons are still flowing with a complex music ac signal.

The more ordered outer atomic layers in contact with the insulation will have a small influence on the capacitance :D

:cool: Alan

[Oldpinkman]

About time I waded in here, I might be talking utter pish but here goes.

The metal part of an interconnect is going to have a crystalline structure, on an atomic scale. The randomness :scratch: of the structure is dependent on how the metal was formed and the strength of the inter atomic bonds.
I can see it is entirely feasible for the structure to become more ordered with the long term passage of electrons, not just with dc, as electrons are still flowing with a complex music ac signal.

The more ordered outer atomic layers in contact with the insulation will have a small influence on the capacitance :D

:cool: Alan

I should leave this for a physicist really, but I hadn't thought those bonds can be changed by electric current of any kind. Electricity flows by electrons hopping from the orbit of one atom to another because they are loosely bound in the outer orbits. But they are promptly replaced by another one hopping in. That doesn't represent a changed state for the metal. That is to say - matter is constantly changing - little bits are whizzing round and round hopping from one place to another - but bound together. So movement does not equal change. When hydrogen and oxygen change into water there is a permanent bonding of the structures - but the bits inside them (well the electrons) keep whizzing round. I rather gather even tinier bits whiz round in the middle of the atom, but that has nothing to do with electricity and how it flows.

The valve cathode doesn't change because of the electric current flow through it. It changes because it is heated and "boils off". That heat source may derive from an electric current, but it is the heat, not the current which changes the structure.

and yes dave (earlier) copper reacts with oxygen and changes - the surface of a cable will change. An oxidised cable will be different at the surface. The big change in old mains cables however was that the rubber rotted. Lets not go there for now, or we'll end up wandering all over the shop.

I got lucky yesterday - Owen phoned and for the first time ever needed advice from me. I know he's busy with his new amplifier launch, but I might try him on this if clothears can't help us. (He promised - I should say "teased" that he is going to produce his version of a current dumping amp design soon, and my 405 is finished, just to go off thread with a rosy glow for a moment). I think it is going to come down to this business that electricity flow itself can't change an atomic structure. So electricity heating a valve cathode can change a valve. And electro-magnetism stretching a rubber speaker mount can change a speaker. But its not the flow of electrons itself that causes the change, it is the heat or kinetic energy caused by the electron flow causes the change. So running an electric current through something and making the electrons hop out of one orbit and into another can't change anything.
:scratch:
I'll stop there - cos I could ramble forever about things I don't understand.

[Firebottle]

.... it is the heat or kinetic energy caused by the electron flow causes the change. So running an electric current through something and making the electrons hop out of one orbit and into another can't change anything.
:scratch:
I'll stop there - cos I could ramble forever about things I don't understand.

The energetic state of the electrons caused by running the current through is intimately related to the heat in the wire, think of a wire burning out (:doh:) when too much current is flowing.

:cool: Alan

[NRG]

I wonder if there's a metallurgic change in the solder that could account for change. I know from first had experience that dendrite and whisker growth occurs in solder joints having, many years ago, been at the coal face of a huge field failure and recall. With subsequent analysis of the offending BGA ASIC we found the failures where due to dendrite growth in the solder joints...we eventual fixed it by changing the type of solder used in production.

[Reffc]

The crystalline structure does't change much Alan, but even if it did, and the electrons got themselves "ordered", it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to signal transmission because the AC signal (not DC) isn't formed by electrons having to move their way along and around these metal crystals, or grains. The signal is formed when an applied voltage causes the electrons to bump into one another (layman's term ;) ) a bit like that executive desk toy with the metal balls suspended on string. The signal travels almost at the speed of light. It doesn't care about grain boundaries, it cares aboud conductivity which is a measure of how many electrons are free to do the bumping.

There is also an electron stream (where they move en-mass) but this moves at a far slower rate, way below the speed of the signal...try walking pace!

The dielectric surrounding the signal does not change with time. The signal does not change with time due to electron changes. I once heard someone say that their cables sounded better after two years...he had a valve amplifier and old crossovers in which he'd just replaced the capacitors :mental: so the changes were due to valve's drifting over time as the electrons were stripped from the valve cathodes and thr fact he had new caps in the crossovers and not because of any magic happening inside a cable.

Does cable dielectric affect sound? Well some combinations of conductor married to some types of dielectric certainly seem to. Some of this may be due to the triboelectric effect where for example if silver is in contact with teflon, the Teflon will tend to take electrons from the solver whose surface then becomes positively charged..this is more to do with static than signal transfer but it may have a bearing. It is also a measurable fact that signal propagation velocity which has two parts to it...the direction between connectors along the cable and the effects of capacitance on the signal within the dielectric between screen and conductor, can be measured. Some (like George Cardas) believe that these do have an affect on sound quality, others differ.

The debate isn't really whether one hears the changes in one's own system, because the variables between systems, rooms and hearing are so great that no meaningful conclusions have ever been drawn in a majority agreement on any forum...ever. What is fact, is that these effects, at electron level exist but what is also fact is that changing your DAC, speakers, cartridge, tonearm, amplifier, or evern servicing the one you have are ALL likely to have a greater impact on perceived sound quality than changing a mains cable or an interconnect unless you have a badly designed or low quality interconnect. I've said before that connector quality matters and I stand by that, but equally, so does the RCA jack you connect it to! If it is grimy, tarnished or badly scratched, it will either need cleaning or replacing if you want to get the best from your system, and cleaning a set of contacts costs very little!

[Reffc]

I wonder if there's a metallurgic change in the solder that could account for change. I know from first had experience that dendrite and whisker growth occurs in solder joints having, many years ago, been at the coal face of a huge field failure and recall. With subsequent analysis of the offending BGA ASIC we found the failures where due to dendrite growth in the solder joints...we eventual fixed it by changing the type of solder used in production.

There are two main issues with soldered joints:

1. Dry jointing: whereby the formed joint was likely moved before the solder set or the temperature was wrong, either way, a fault in the crystiline boundary occurs raising impedance and sometimes even causing electrical failure of the joint. Good soldering technique is a must.

2. Dendritic whiskers do indeed form, predominantly on lead free solder which has a lot of people baffled! They can not just be visible over time but cause shorts in circuits, hence militart and medical kit is exempt in some cases from the EU directive on banning lead solder for commercially sold electronic equipment. Leaded eutectic solders do not have the same tendency.

[anthonyTD]

A lot of good points and sense in this post.:)
A...
The crystalline structure does't change much Alan, but even if it did, and the electrons got themselves "ordered", it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to signal transmission because the AC signal (not DC) isn't formed by electrons having to move their way along and around these metal crystals, or grains. The signal is formed when an applied voltage causes the electrons to bump into one another (layman's term ;) ) a bit like that executive desk toy with the metal balls suspended on string. The signal travels almost at the speed of light. It doesn't care about grain boundaries, it cares aboud conductivity which is a measure of how many electrons are free to do the bumping.

There is also an electron stream (where they move en-mass) but this moves at a far slower rate, way below the speed of the signal...try walking pace!

The dielectric surrounding the signal does not change with time. The signal does not change with time due to electron changes. I once heard someone say that their cables sounded better after two years...he had a valve amplifier and old crossovers in which he'd just replaced the capacitors :mental: so the changes were due to valve's drifting over time as the electrons were stripped from the valve cathodes and thr fact he had new caps in the crossovers and not because of any magic happening inside a cable.

Does cable dielectric affect sound? Well some combinations of conductor married to some types of dielectric certainly seem to. Some of this may be due to the triboelectric effect where for example if silver is in contact with teflon, the Teflon will tend to take electrons from the solver whose surface then becomes positively charged..this is more to do with static than signal transfer but it may have a bearing. It is also a measurable fact that signal propagation velocity which has two parts to it...the direction between connectors along the cable and the effects of capacitance on the signal within the dielectric between screen and conductor, can be measured. Some (like George Cardas) believe that these do have an affect on sound quality, others differ.

The debate isn't really whether one hears the changes in one's own system, because the variables between systems, rooms and hearing are so great that no meaningful conclusions have ever been drawn in a majority agreement on any forum...ever. What is fact, is that these effects, at electron level exist but what is also fact is that changing your DAC, speakers, cartridge, tonearm, amplifier, or evern servicing the one you have are ALL likely to have a greater impact on perceived sound quality than changing a mains cable or an interconnect unless you have a badly designed or low quality interconnect. I've said before that connector quality matters and I stand by that, but equally, so does the RCA jack you connect it to! If it is grimy, tarnished or badly scratched, it will either need cleaning or replacing if you want to get the best from your system, and cleaning a set of contacts costs very little!

[Oldpinkman]

Hmm - asked the question - the physics lost me but I got this bit. If you are interested DON'T CHEAT - it will spoil it. Follow the link, play the video full screen, try to get the number EXACTLY right FIRST time (we can talk about it later)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

[anthonyTD]

Very good,
but your point is ???
A...
Hmm - asked the question - the physics lost me but I got this bit. If you are interested DON'T CHEAT - it will spoil it. Follow the link, play the video full screen, try to get the number EXACTLY right FIRST time (we can talk about it later)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

[anthonyTD]

Some good discussions going on here,
I do try [most of the time anyway] to stay away from subjects here that can be seen as controversial at best by some, however, i am going to throw another spanner in the works here, build two identical audio circuits, one with all metal film resistors, and one with carbon composite resistors, both circuits [if built exactly the same] will almost definitely test the same as far as certain signal parameters are concerned, however, it is an accepted belief amongst audiophiles and musicians in general, that one circuit version will sound noticeably different to the other, now judging purely on our current understandings ie; what we know scientifically,what' in your opinion [all opinions welcome] is going on, same goes for capacitor material differences etc...
And yes, i do feel your findings are relevant to this thread.
A...

[Oldpinkman]

Very good,
but your point is ???
A...

I will answer but I don't want to yet because I don't want to spoil that link for others the way it was spoiled for me. Within 24 hours ..:)

[Oldpinkman]

I don't see any reference to cats in your post ;-)

I've not hacked you, I'm just also capable of comprehension and logical deduction

Ha! Bit of googling and I get the cat reference - I think. :scratch: I suspected that there was a limit to how far one could dumb down particle physics with easy real world analogies - but Brian Cox has a go. I realise that at some point they break down. Never mind that - concentrate on finding a product for our range! :eyebrows:

[Oldpinkman]

The crystalline structure does't change much Alan, but even if it did, and the electrons got themselves "ordered", it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to signal transmission because the AC signal (not DC) isn't formed by electrons having to move their way along and around these metal crystals, or grains. The signal is formed when an applied voltage causes the electrons to bump into one another (layman's term ;) ) a bit like that executive desk toy with the metal balls suspended on string. The signal travels almost at the speed of light. It doesn't care about grain boundaries, it cares aboud conductivity which is a measure of how many electrons are free to do the bumping.

There is also an electron stream (where they move en-mass) but this moves at a far slower rate, way below the speed of the signal...try walking pace!

The dielectric surrounding the signal does not change with time. The signal does not change with time due to electron changes. I once heard someone say that their cables sounded better after two years...he had a valve amplifier and old crossovers in which he'd just replaced the capacitors :mental: so the changes were due to valve's drifting over time as the electrons were stripped from the valve cathodes and thr fact he had new caps in the crossovers and not because of any magic happening inside a cable.

Does cable dielectric affect sound? Well some combinations of conductor married to some types of dielectric certainly seem to. Some of this may be due to the triboelectric effect where for example if silver is in contact with teflon, the Teflon will tend to take electrons from the solver whose surface then becomes positively charged..this is more to do with static than signal transfer but it may have a bearing. It is also a measurable fact that signal propagation velocity which has two parts to it...the direction between connectors along the cable and the effects of capacitance on the signal within the dielectric between screen and conductor, can be measured. Some (like George Cardas) believe that these do have an affect on sound quality, others differ.

The debate isn't really whether one hears the changes in one's own system, because the variables between systems, rooms and hearing are so great that no meaningful conclusions have ever been drawn in a majority agreement on any forum...ever. What is fact, is that these effects, at electron level exist but what is also fact is that changing your DAC, speakers, cartridge, tonearm, amplifier, or evern servicing the one you have are ALL likely to have a greater impact on perceived sound quality than changing a mains cable or an interconnect unless you have a badly designed or low quality interconnect. I've said before that connector quality matters and I stand by that, but equally, so does the RCA jack you connect it to! If it is grimy, tarnished or badly scratched, it will either need cleaning or replacing if you want to get the best from your system, and cleaning a set of contacts costs very little!

Yeah really good post, even if I had to have 3 goes at the bit in the middle, and still don't really understand capacitance. The final paragraph is I think a point many of us were reaching a consensus on. :cool:

[Ali Tait]

The crystalline structure does't change much Alan, but even if it did, and the electrons got themselves "ordered", it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to signal transmission because the AC signal (not DC) isn't formed by electrons having to move their way along and around these metal crystals, or grains. The signal is formed when an applied voltage causes the electrons to bump into one another (layman's term ;) ) a bit like that executive desk toy with the metal balls suspended on string. The signal travels almost at the speed of light. It doesn't care about grain boundaries, it cares aboud conductivity which is a measure of how many electrons are free to do the bumping.

There is also an electron stream (where they move en-mass) but this moves at a far slower rate, way below the speed of the signal...try walking pace!

The dielectric surrounding the signal does not change with time. The signal does not change with time due to electron changes. I once heard someone say that their cables sounded better after two years...he had a valve amplifier and old crossovers in which he'd just replaced the capacitors :mental: so the changes were due to valve's drifting over time as the electrons were stripped from the valve cathodes and thr fact he had new caps in the crossovers and not because of any magic happening inside a cable.

Does cable dielectric affect sound? Well some combinations of conductor married to some types of dielectric certainly seem to. Some of this may be due to the triboelectric effect where for example if silver is in contact with teflon, the Teflon will tend to take electrons from the solver whose surface then becomes positively charged..this is more to do with static than signal transfer but it may have a bearing. It is also a measurable fact that signal propagation velocity which has two parts to it...the direction between connectors along the cable and the effects of capacitance on the signal within the dielectric between screen and conductor, can be measured. Some (like George Cardas) believe that these do have an affect on sound quality, others differ.

The debate isn't really whether one hears the changes in one's own system, because the variables between systems, rooms and hearing are so great that no meaningful conclusions have ever been drawn in a majority agreement on any forum...ever. What is fact, is that these effects, at electron level exist but what is also fact is that changing your DAC, speakers, cartridge, tonearm, amplifier, or evern servicing the one you have are ALL likely to have a greater impact on perceived sound quality than changing a mains cable or an interconnect unless you have a badly designed or low quality interconnect. I've said before that connector quality matters and I stand by that, but equally, so does the RCA jack you connect it to! If it is grimy, tarnished or badly scratched, it will either need cleaning or replacing if you want to get the best from your system, and cleaning a set of contacts costs very little!

It's better to think of the signal as "propagating" along the conductor rather than travelling. Imagine a hosepipe full of peas - push a pea in at one end, and another pea pops out at the other end.

[Reffc]

....hence my "executive desk toy" analogy...

[Gordon Steadman]

Hmm - asked the question - the physics lost me but I got this bit. If you are interested DON'T CHEAT - it will spoil it. Follow the link, play the video full screen, try to get the number EXACTLY right FIRST time (we can talk about it later)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

Er........ was this hard or something. I got the number right and saw the thingie!!! What was this intended to prove by the way??

[Oldpinkman]

OK Gordon
No patience
Many people don't see the thingy. I did cos I knew it was coming. Many people who concentrate hard enough on the first task miss it. The point was really a repeat of Clives earlier -which is that hearing is not a purely mechanical function. Our brain gets in on the act - noticing things. Different things at different times depending on where it's focus is. This makes it really difficult to be sure what we see or hear when we are dealing with qualitative things.

So what we "hear" is what the sound waves do to our ear drum and how our brain subsequently processes the information. But the brain can get fooled. There's another one you'll probably enjoy more with silhouttes of naked women revolving (although its not so apparent what the illusion is there - go for the solution where their faces show all the time, then cover their faces with your hand)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_266092&feature=iv&src_vid=lq98XIyy9U4&v=fm4UgHzfFmg

Your brain does similar things with your hearing. It makes this whole music enjoyment business a bewildering cocktail of factors to process - and very hard to be sure what we are hearing (in the context of equipment evaluation)

I guess what he was saying is, there is a bunch of complicated stuff which explains why what you are concluding happens physically to a cable (or some other components) when you hear differences, isn't necessarily physically happening (can't physically be happening is what he is actually saying). There doesn't need to be a real physical difference - but that doesnt mean you dont really hear it. The physics I didn't really understand means that it is not possible for there to be a physical change in the cable. That doesn't mean you don't hear a change - but the change you hear is due to the complex way the brain processes inputs - and in particular its focus and expectations.

And in the same way you or I don't know what somebody hears when they report burn-in and therefore can't dispute their hearing, the person hearing it has no way of knowing what if anything is physically happening to the component they have noticed sounds different. They just know it sounds different - but can't know a physical change has taken place.

Bloody confusing really! I think you were right all along - we should just listen to the music and enjoy it. :cool:

Now this current dumper.... :)

[Joe]

Which brings us to the fascinating issue of "burn-out". Has anyone else noticed that things only burn-in? Nobody ever says "The Van Damme purple 75 ohm digital interconnect is blinding out of the box, but after a couple of weeks it goes off the boil and sounds harsh". It's always - "It's good now, but it'll be really good when its burned in". If cables or anything else burned out, that would be a much more serious concern. Happily - they all only ever get better :)

Let's hope no cable manufacturers are reading this, otherwise they'll be offering 'new' cables' to replace the 'burned out' ones!

[Gordon Steadman]

There's another one you'll probably enjoy more with silhouttes of naked women revolving (although its not so apparent what the illusion is there - go for the solution where their faces show all the time, then cover their faces with your hand)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_266092&feature=iv&src_vid=lq98XIyy9U4&v=fm4UgHzfFmg

Your brain does similar things with your hearing. It makes this whole music enjoyment business a bewildering cocktail of factors to process - and very hard to be sure what we are hearing (in the context of equipment evaluation)



Nah.. looked at this one when I was on YouTube. it was obvious that they were revolving. Maybe I'm just a smartypants or something!! I find very few of these visual tricks to be in any way confusing but then..............I have been 'trained' to look at things properly - all part of the regimen at Camberwell. I would like to think that my ears are just as incapable of being fooled but who knows. However, making musical instruments demands a certain level of acoustic sensitivity.

I'm just a simple chap. If the hi-fi makes the same noises as the real instruments I make and play then its doing its job. If the music is enjoyable and moving then its doing its job. Who the hell cares about why? It can't get any more real than reality so why try and push the envelope any further?

I'm sure we are into the two different hobbies bit here. There is music and then there is hi-fi. Hopefully, its possible for the two to meet in the middle somewhere.

[Oldpinkman]

Nah.. looked at this one when I was on YouTube. it was obvious that they were revolving. Maybe I'm just a smartypants or something!! I find very few of these visual tricks to be in any way confusing but then..............I have been 'trained' to look at things properly - all part of the regimen at Camberwell. I would like to think that my ears are just as incapable of being fooled but who knows. However, making musical instruments demands a certain level of acoustic sensitivity.

I'm just a simple chap. If the hi-fi makes the same noises as the real instruments I make and play then its doing its job. If the music is enjoyable and moving then its doing its job. Who the hell cares about why? It can't get any more real than reality so why try and push the envelope any further?

I'm sure we are into the two different hobbies bit here. There is music and then there is hi-fi. Hopefully, its possible for the two to meet in the middle somewhere.

Bloody hell you're hard work Steadman. It's not clever to have them revolving all the time - the clever bit is to be able to see them revolving constantly OR see them oscillate back and forth. Apologies ladies, but stare at their breasts Gordon, whilst covering their faces (this should appeal to Frank). avoid looking at their hands or feet particularly. They should oscillate back and forth (some people apparantly see them stop, but I can't get that one). If you have oscillating ladies and can't see them revolving try looking JUST at their feet (or their faces if you have moved to the one that shows their faces)

Of course - on the music point. But you're lucky - yours is as you like it. Mine will be before too long, but for now I'm not enjoying it. And so "why" about equipment bothers me more at the moment. Mostly its probably the power amp - when the LED's on the PIP aren't burbling (but I'm going to have to be in tinkering mode to sort them out sometime). The Quad is ready, but 120 miles away. I have just finished my urgent deadline job, so if I didnt have a stinking cold could have gone to get it. But I am up to the NEC on the 9th to watch Rachel showjumping, so if not before I'll route back from there to pick it up. Then - who knows - I might go quiet on you and do some Steadman style foot-tapping :)

[DSJR]

Isn't it better just to listen to some music? :lol: I hear new things in old favourites almost every time I play them, even quickly repeated tracks and subtle cable/gear differences become as nothing in comparison - IMO of course..

[Gordon Steadman]

Bloody hell you're hard work Steadman.


Tee hee:ner:

[Firebottle]

Richard, I just hope your 405 is up to scratch because my OTL blows my 405 out of the water :eek:

:cool: Alan

[cloth-ears]

A phono lead is not a filament in a light bulb or a component of a valve. Comparisons should not be drawn between the two no matter how logical it may seem. Cables don’t burn-in, that is a provable scientific fact. The most likely scenario for perceived changes to the sound a cable makes over time could be the build up of static electricity in the system. At the point you put the new cable in you are effectively discharging any local static build up by earthing the leads. Over time this charge will build up again. The mains leads for many modern Hi-Fi components only have live and neutral, no earth. The effects of static electricity on small electronic components have long been known. It’s just an idea that could explain the phenomenon. I’m giving myself a headache now. I’ll say no more. :mental:

[Mike A]

Cables don’t burn-in, that is a provable scientific fact.

Bob, would you provide a link to where ever this is proven please.

Mike

[Ali Tait]

Perhaps it's not the cable itself, but how it interacts with the dielectric used.

[cloth-ears]

Bob, would you provide a link to where ever this is proven please.

Mike

Oh dear, I did explain as best I could earlier on in the thread. There would be too many links as to how many laws of physics would be broken to support the “burn-in” theory. It would be a lot easier if you could supply the single link that proves that playing Pink Floyd down a phono cable alters the cables atomic structure.

[Mike A]

Oh dear, I did explain as best I could earlier on in the thread. There would be too many links as to how many laws of physics would be broken to support the “burn-in” theory. It would be a lot easier if you could supply the single link that proves that playing Pink Floyd down a phono cable alters the cables atomic structure.

Theory says it shouldn't happen not that it doesn't happen, and as anybody who has had to solve difficult faults will tell you theory and practice are seldom the same.

We have in this thread alone enough anecdotal evidence to show that something is going on beyond what is covered in normal theory and dogma is not very helpful in trying to get to the bottom of it.

Mike

[Gordon Steadman]

Richard, I just hope your 405 is up to scratch because my OTL blows my 405 out of the water :eek:

:cool: Alan

I'm not surprised. The Leak used to be much better than my 405 and the OTL is better then the Leak in a few ways. I haven't had a trannie amp in my main system for 25 years now although I do like the Musical Fidelity in one of the bedroom systems.

[cloth-ears]

Theory says it shouldn't happen not that it doesn't happen, and as anybody who has had to solve difficult faults will tell you theory and practice are seldom the same.

We have in this thread alone enough anecdotal evidence to show that something is going on beyond what is covered in normal theory and dogma is not very helpful in trying to get to the bottom of it.

Mike
There is plenty of “anecdotal evidence” to prove the existence of ghosts and leprechauns. People will believe what they want to believe.

[Mike A]

Bob, anecdotal evidence has never proved anything but it gives us a place to start investigating and some people are investigating ghosts in an attempt to find out if they exist rather then sitting at a keyboard and poopooing anything they don't understand.

Mike

[synsei]

Bob, anecdotal evidence has never proved anything but it gives us a place to start investigating and some people are investigating ghosts in an attempt to find out if they exist rather then sitting at a keyboard and poopooing anything they don't understand.

Mike

UFO's too ;)

[anthonyTD]

:)
Perhaps it's not the cable itself, but how it interacts with the dielectric used.

[loo]

I often get burn out as in the more a cable stays in my system the worse it starts to sound :mental:

[cloth-ears]

Bob, anecdotal evidence has never proved anything but it gives us a place to start investigating and some people are investigating ghosts in an attempt to find out if they exist rather then sitting at a keyboard and poopooing anything they don't understand.

Mike

OK Mike, keep your hair on. My field is quantum mechanics, superpositions etc. I am not an electronics engineer so I bow to you superior knowledge. All I know is that a speaker does not move by itself, it requires some form electrical stimulation. The last time I looked electricity could be measured. Perhaps I’m missing something, some ghostly dark force that only shows itself after thirty hours of use.

[Ali Tait]

I often get burn out as in the more a cable stays in my system the worse it starts to sound :mental:

I get burn out too, usually after a decent curry..

[loo]

I get burn out too, usually after a decent curry..

after my wifes curries we get fallout followed by a vapour cloud:spew:

[Mike A]

OK Mike, keep your hair on. My field is quantum mechanics, superpositions etc. I am not an electronics engineer so I bow to you superior knowledge. All I know is that a speaker does not move by itself, it requires some form electrical stimulation. The last time I looked electricity could be measured. Perhaps I’m missing something, some ghostly dark force that only shows itself after thirty hours of use.

Sorry Bob didn't mean to come across as bolshy, I just get annoyed when people say "it can't happen so it doesn't", had you said "it shouldn't happen" I would have been in total agreement with you and we could have moved on to why it seems to happen which is where this thread is heading.

Mike

[Marco]

after my wifes curries we get fallout followed by a vapour cloud:spew:

Ah...bottom gas... You can't beat having a right good FART! A pungent pump... <Parp> <Chuff> <Phut> Now *that* is what you call thread drift :D

Marco.

[Ali Tait]

Only if ye split yer trousers- ye might get some thread drift then..

[Oldpinkman]

Richard, I just hope your 405 is up to scratch because my OTL blows my 405 out of the water :eek:

:cool: Alan

I hope so too. it is only mainly recapped to cure the hum it had. I had been happy with it then (it already had some minor mods compared with stock or your chinese home-brew). I doubt it will be up to the integral if i am silly enough to put them head to head. Its only (primary?) New mod is to take the electrolytics out of the dignal path. What interested me was the news that my man has not only been stirred by the links i sent him regarding other 405 mods including the net audio 405 3 boards, but his current job is designing an amp for studio use which uses current dumping and smps (100 into 8 200 into 4) and so he now has some ideas for "doing current dumping properly" in a domestic hifi amp. It will be fun building one of those.

Is your otl one of your valve designs? I'd be interested to hear one. I love the look of valves and have enjoyed valve amps before. But I have a nostalgic leaning towards the pt designer ideas of my friends - unless an alternative were hugely better. I am more of a steadman long term than I appear. One solution I can just listen to music on. I find little enough time to listen on one system - I wouldn't know what to do with 2 turntables ir 3 power amps. One of each for me:)

[Oldpinkman]

Sorry Bob didn't mean to come across as bolshy, I just get annoyed when people say "it can't happen so it doesn't", had you said "it shouldn't happen" I would have been in total agreement with you and we could have moved on to why it seems to happen which is where this thread is heading.

Mike

Yup. I didn't properly understand the physics but the punchline was a cable doesn't burn in. And of course it doesn't. Nothing gets burned. Its a jargon term for "sounds different after being played for a while". Nobody is suggesting anything gets burned. Nor are they able to assert a physical change has taken place in the cable. They can, and do, assert they hear a difference.

And I for one am sure they do.

When I look at the revolving women on the link I posted, they spin on their axes (in different directions). When I lift my hand to the monitor and cover their faces they oscillate back and forth. I see that with my own eyes (eye singular - as discussed previously). What I SEE is ladies spinning on their axis when my hands are away from the monitor, and ladies oscillating back and forth when my hand is near to the monitor covering their faces.
THAT IS A FACT

If I tell you that when I raise my hand to the monitor it causes the direction of the images to change - that the change in direction is real, I don't know how it happens but when I move my hand in close proximity to the monitor it causes the programming code to be altered so the ladies direction of rotation is changed...

Draw your own conclusions.

Computer programmers can't explain everything you know;)

[cloth-ears]

Sorry Bob didn't mean to come across as bolshy, I just get annoyed when people say "it can't happen so it doesn't", had you said "it shouldn't happen" I would have been in total agreement with you and we could have moved on to why it seems to happen which is where this thread is heading.

Mike

That’s OK Mike, no offence taken. My team argue all the time. That’s the only way we get things done. There’s an old saying pertaining to scientific observation “wet pavements make it rain”. That’s quite profound if you think about it.

[Andrei]

I haven't had a trannie ... in my ... system for 25 years now
Long time since you been to Bangkok then?

[cloth-ears]

Yup. I didn't properly understand the physics but the punchline was a cable doesn't burn in. And of course it doesn't. Nothing gets burned. Its a jargon term for "sounds different after being played for a while". Nobody is suggesting anything gets burned. Nor are they able to assert a physical change has taken place in the cable. They can, and do, assert they hear a difference.

And I for one am sure they do.

When I look at the revolving women on the link I posted, they spin on their axes (in different directions). When I lift my hand to the monitor and cover their faces they oscillate back and forth. I see that with my own eyes (eye singular - as discussed previously). What I SEE is ladies spinning on their axis when my hands are away from the monitor, and ladies oscillating back and forth when my hand is near to the monitor covering their faces.
THAT IS A FACT

If I tell you that when I raise my hand to the monitor it causes the direction of the images to change - that the change in direction is real, I don't know how it happens but when I move my hand in close proximity to the monitor it causes the programming code to be altered so the ladies direction of rotation is changed...

Draw your own conclusions.

Computer programmers can't explain everything you know;)
Excellent, who could possibly argue with that. I once found a sixpence in a Christmas pud, not sure what that has to do with phono leads but I’m quite sure that applying the new rules of logic it means something.

[DSJR]

Richard, I just hope your 405 is up to scratch because my OTL blows my 405 out of the water :eek:

:cool: Alan

Into which speakers?

Give an OTL a low impedance load and watch the smoke and flames... I loved my Croft OTL for the exaggerated delicacy it had, but couldn't trust it to run all night without blowing a fuse or two - a firework display one evening playing at background music levels put me off these forever - sorry :)



Richard, is the 10P really that bad, or is it the casework and name on the front?

[Joe]

Excellent, who could possibly argue with that. I once found a sixpence in a Christmas pud, not sure what that has to do with phono leads but I’m quite sure that applying the new rules of logic it means something.

The way it seems to go is this.

Person (usually a non-scientist) experiences something (e.g. cable burn-in) and reports the experience on a forum. A scientist responds that there is no scientific explanation for the experience. Non-scientist responds that 'science can't explain everything', and/or comes up with some half-understood gibberish about sub-atomic particles. Scientist argues the toss, and is eventually told that he/she is not a 'proper scientist' because a 'proper scientist' would not glibly reject the possibility of the reported experience. Scientist eventually gives up, and/or the thread is locked as being 'circular'.

[cloth-ears]

The way it seems to go is this.

Person (usually a non-scientist) experiences something (e.g. cable burn-in) and reports the experience on a forum. A scientist responds that there is no scientific explanation for the experience. Non-scientist responds that 'science can't explain everything', and/or comes up with some half-understood gibberish about sub-atomic particles. Scientist argues the toss, and is eventually told that he/she is not a 'proper scientist' because a 'proper scientist' would not glibly reject the possibility of the reported experience. Scientist eventually gives up, and/or the thread is locked as being 'circular'.
Or scientist performs an experiment. Connect two phono leads to pins 3 and 5 of an OPA2134. Send a mono audio signal down both leads (one inverted). As long as both leads have the same characteristic, amplitude, bandwidth etc then 0V should be detected at pins 1 and 7 bridged. If one of the cables is different then that difference will show up at pins 1 and 7. Basically, if you take a waveform and split it into to paths, invert one so that it is a mirror image of the other and recombine them one will cancel out the other. Even the slightest difference in either waveform will result in a +V. It’s quite simple and is how balanced leads work. (-8)+ (+8) =0 Alternatively you can poke your fingers in your ears and sing la, la, la.

Personally I would rather experiment to find the answer then poke fun at those that try.

[MartinT]

Cables don't even make a difference.. never mind burning them in!
Anyhow... those that imagine they can hear a difference will never be persuaded that they are wrong

You can keep saying that, while I continue to hear differences. Do you really think that in 30 years of enjoying this hobby, every time I've heard a cable make a difference it's been placebo or some other meta-physical effect?

I know which opinion I'll be going along with ;)

[Gordon Steadman]

Into which speakers?


Into Quad ESls. Alan and I both have the 57s and it absolutely fine. As Richard is considering the 63s, I'm sure it would be ideal. Anyway, Alan designed them so I doubt there would be any problem at all:)

[loo]

Into Quad ESls. Alan and I both have the 57s and it absolutely fine. As Richard is considering the 63s, I'm sure it would be ideal. Anyway, Alan designed them so I doubt there would be any problem at all:)

Have to agree with Gordon I use a few different OTL amps with both 63,s and 57,s and they are a superb match
Paul

[Marco]

You can keep saying that, while I continue to hear differences. Do you really think that in 30 years of enjoying this hobby, every time I've heard a cable make a difference it's been placebo or some other meta-physical effect?

I know which opinion I'll be going along with ;)

Indeed... The other thing that gets me is the subject of 'empirical evidence', which in a scientific context is often offered as proof that cables cannot make any difference. Fair enough, if that's what you accept as being true.

However, what about the huge body of 'empirical evidence' amassed by surely many tens of thousands of audio enthusiasts, all over the world, all with totally different systems, who've bought 'audiophile cables' and reputedly heard a difference?

Surely they can't ALL have been 'imagining' those differences or been victims of placebo effects, and therefore those statistics represent 'empirical evidence' just as much as that which exists to the contrary?

Marco.

[Marco]

The way it seems to go is this.

Person (usually a non-scientist) experiences something (e.g. cable burn-in) and reports the experience on a forum. A scientist responds that there is no scientific explanation for the experience. Non-scientist responds that 'science can't explain everything', and/or comes up with some half-understood gibberish about sub-atomic particles. Scientist argues the toss, and is eventually told that he/she is not a 'proper scientist' because a 'proper scientist' would not glibly reject the possibility of the reported experience. Scientist eventually gives up, and/or the thread is locked as being 'circular'.

Well, that's one way of looking at it... However, it's not most representative of my experience, least of all because I've yet to meet a bona fide scientist on an audio forum! ;)

There are usually plenty of 'scientifically-minded' audio engineers and folk with a good grasp of physics, not to mention those with a measurements obsession, but no genuine scientists that I've seen, unless you know someone I don't who fits the bill...

Marco.

[synsei]

In the end does it really matter which side of the fence one sits on as long as you are happy being there? As for the 'you are imagining it' scenario, that is utter bollocks. Since I installed new IC's in my system not only has my partner commented on the subsequent improvement in SQ but so have a variety of friends who have visited since, non of whom were told of the changes. they've noticed it for themselves....

[The Grand Wazoo]

I've yet to meet a bona fide scientist on an audio forum! ;)
..........but no genuine scientists that I've seen, unless you know someone I don't who fits the bill...

Just been to check my honours degree scroll - yep, it definitely says Bachelor of Science!
(My degree was in Pedantics)

[Oldpinkman]

You can keep saying that, while I continue to hear differences. Do you really think that in 30 years of enjoying this hobby, every time I've heard a cable make a difference it's been placebo or some other meta-physical effect?

I know which opinion I'll be going along with ;)

I think, as was noted before, statements like "cables don't even make a difference" expressed as unassailable fact, but not backed by any evidence are - well just that. And only really good for a "tis tisn't" sort of argument. And - whilst happy for a bit of thread drift - this thread has primarily been about cable burn in.

Regarding cables I hoped my spinning ladies example demonstrated how it is possible to really see something, or really hear it, without that necessarily proving something really happens. So I see my ladies change direction. That isn't the same as being able to say that they actually do change direction.

I have made the statement on here "yes valves burn in". That has been my belief, and my experience. It is possible, without needing physics to be re-written. But actually, at best I can say "I have heard valves burn in". I have no way of knowing whether they did or not. I didn't carry out the sort of experiment I suggested to you regarding cables and go back and get a decent sample of valves "cold", confirm they all sounded the same, burn some in, and compare the burned in ones with the cold ones. I think authoratitive statements of what is essentially opinion is what tends to raise the tension.

And even then there are so many "variables" - apart from the ones associated with the way the mind processes information. Take an "easy" example. A blind comparison between the Technics and Goldring cartridges. Even if I ponce a couple of LSD's or identical technics off Arthur, assure myself they both sound the same with the Goldring cartridge, and then compare the 2 A:B with somebody else doing the changes.

The absolute gain setting on the amp may not be matched each time we swap
The headers used have different components in
There is an additional gain stage on the moving coil amplifier
Cartridge alignment, VTA, tracking force could all be factors affecting sound

If you have heard differences, then you have heard them. That doesn't mean a cable has burned in.

The "special factor" with cable burn in was the issue of whether it required the laws of physics to be re-written. Again - my spinning ladies example was meant to illustrate how easy it is for most of us, without a very advanced knowledge of the subject, to toss science out the window because it is too difficult. I am not comfortable with that idea. I am much more comfortable with the idea that science is being used to state something is impossible when actually the wrong parameters are being considered. ie a cable is a dielectric and therefore a component and therefore capable of change. I am not sure this is the case - but I am happier with that idea than I am with "if it can't be explained science is wrong". Especially I am unhappy with chucking science out the window when there is no "normal" scientific proof that the phenomena exists. Quite properly it has been pointed out that a forum is a place to chat, and not a science lab. That's fine - but it's not a science lab, and accordingly, quite properly, nobody has proved cable burn in happens, and therefore chucking science out to accomodate it seems a bit bizarre, and unnecessary. If one were minded to - one could carry out experiments which prove to a reasonable standard that cable burn in is fact (using auditioning - or maybe even measurement). If one attempted such an experiment diligently and were unable to prove burn in, I think that would effectively be experimental confirmation that it doesn't happen and science can sleep easy.

Were someone to properly prove cable burn in is real - then science will have to cope with explaining it or acknowledging its limitations. Until that point is proven, I feel reasonable in assuming science is not yet undermined, and it is therefore more probable cable burn in is not a physical fact, but an experienced phenomena. At the moment, I am discussing elsewhere whether "proper proof" exists (it has been claimed again) and whether the explanation is that science is not undermined because the structure of a cable allows for the possibility of burn in without needing to chuck out physics theory. But, at the moment, I think that unlikely. :hmm:

[Oldpinkman]

Just been to check my honours degree scroll - yep, it definitely says Bachelor of Science!
(My degree was in Pedantics)

Oh there are some lovely angles here. I wondered about the definition of a scientist. My intermittently available mate, before embarking on a career as an electronics engineer, worked in research at Essex University where he held his PHd. I think , by most criteria, he counts as a scientist.

However I would note that I too have a BSc (Hons) from Aston University. - In managerial and administrative studies :doh:

[Oldpinkman]

In the end does it really matter which side of the fence one sits on as long as you are happy being there? As for the 'you are imagining it' scenario, that is utter bollocks. Since I installed new IC's in my system not only has my partner commented on the subsequent improvement in SQ but so have a variety of friends who have visited since, non of whom were told of the changes. they've noticed it for themselves....

Again, like a stuck record, quite possibly - but that is not burn in. Whilst others are entitled to their opinion that cables make no difference, that is not the (primary) subject of this thread - or my spinning ladies :eek:

See also my comments on Martins post.

[Oldpinkman]

Indeed... The other thing that gets me is the subject of 'empirical evidence', which in a scientific context is often offered as proof that cables cannot make any difference. Fair enough, if that's what you accept as being true.

However, what about the huge body of 'empirical evidence' amassed by surely many tens of thousands of audio enthusiasts, all over the world, all with totally different systems, who've bought 'audiophile cables' and reputedly heard a difference?

Surely they can't ALL have been 'imagining' those differences or been victims of placebo effects, and therefore those statistics represent 'empirical evidence' just as much as that which exists to the contrary?

Marco.

Cables. Burn in. See my other comments. I thought my spinning ladies were a bit better than a dismissive placebo effect. But placebo is an interesting term. My parents - approaching their diamond wedding anniversary, first met in the research labs at Boroughs Welcome. Remember a placebo effect means a real physical biological change has occured as a result of the action of the mind - not the substance the patient took. On his national service in Kenya my dad reported seeing a healthy man effectively lie down and die because a witch doctor told him to. Don't underestimate that phenomenal organ the brain and how it influences our experience of the world.

Regarding the mass actions of "tens of thousands" of enthusiasts standing as evidence for rational behaviour, I would note that huge numbers of people spending their money on something is no confirmation of rational behaviour. The Dutch tulip bulb bubble would be a good example of how "mass market psychology" can persuade apparantly rational people to behave in a manner which from an external perspective looks a lot less rational.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania :stalks:

[Oldpinkman]

Into Quad ESls. Alan and I both have the 57s and it absolutely fine. As Richard is considering the 63s, I'm sure it would be ideal. Anyway, Alan designed them so I doubt there would be any problem at all:)

Gordon, I dream of electrostatics, but for the minute I have the Ventricals, which are very nice, but not especially easy to drive. Well they're not that hard, but they are pretty insensitive and need something fairly big and butch :eyebrows:

[YNWaN]

I'm afraid I haven't read all of this thread (and am unlikely to), but there seems to be the idea that cable 'burn in' exists because of anecdotal evidence. Now I'm not arguing that such evidence doesn't exist but my own (and that of friends) anecdotal experience does not support the existence of cable burn in. I've listened to quite a lot of cables (interconnect and speaker) and do think cables can sound different. However, none of them altered with use/time.

[cloth-ears]

Well, that's one way of looking at it... However, it's not most representative of my experience, least of all because I've yet to meet a bona fide scientist on an audio forum! ;)

There are usually plenty of 'scientifically-minded' audio engineers and folk with a good grasp of physics, not to mention those with a measurements obsession, but no genuine scientists that I've seen, unless you know someone I don't who fits the bill...

Marco.

Marco you are such a tease. All the answers you will ever need can be found here……..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44DlSj6bnn4

[Oldpinkman]

I'm afraid I haven't read all of this thread (and am unlikely to), but there seems to be the idea that cable 'burn in' exists because of anecdotal evidence. Now I'm not arguing that such evidence doesn't exist but my own (and that of friends) anecdotal experience does not support the existence of cable burn in. I've listened to quite a lot of cables (interconnect and speaker) and do think cables can sound different. However, none of them altered with use/time.

That's one half of everything you've missed. The other half is the opposite. Blimey we do all waffle :lol:

[Marco]

Regarding the mass actions of "tens of thousands" of enthusiasts standing as evidence for rational behaviour, I would note that huge numbers of people spending their money on something is no confirmation of rational behaviour.

I guess that "rational behaviour", in that context, is open to interpretation.

However, I still contend that such a huge body of related experiences, from all sorts of different people with different systems, constitutes as empirical evidence to support the theory that different cables DO have an audible effect, particularly if it could be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that what they were hearing was real.

In the absence of that proof, we could of course argue the point until infinity, but I simply can't believe that every single person in the whole world, who has ever claimed to hear sonic differences with audio cables, was irrefutably being 'fooled'.

Marco.

[cloth-ears]

The irresistible force paradox. When the Russ Andrews kettle lead met Trading Standards.
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2008/3/Russ-Andrews-Accessories-Ltd/TF_ADJ_44177.aspx

[Oldpinkman]

The irresistible force paradox. When the Russ Andrews kettle lead met Trading Standards.
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2008/3/Russ-Andrews-Accessories-Ltd/TF_ADJ_44177.aspx

Wow. The long arm of the law supports the idea that audio claims can be objectively verified. And there is a recognised methodology- that is accepted - ABX. Of course, that method accepts things can be assessed by hearing. Done properly.

[Rothchild]

Ok, so it's not just the laws of physics that are being challenged by cable claims. We're going to have to be pretty careful with our advertising copy Mr Pink!

[John]

A few years ago a few of us went to a MAD Audio demo in a Chinese restaurant (a good night with some great food). That night we listened to a lot of different cables and if memory serves me right Barry home made cables did rather well that night. Marco was a witness and a few others. We had no expectations around Barry home made cables yet they performed really well and we all heard difference between the cables

I am willing to have a cable sceptic come round and lets see if we can hear a difference in my system with some similar priced cable I feel quite confident that we hear a difference.

[bobbasrah]

So many variables john, which is why some hear a benefit, for others it is retrograde or nothing. It is part of a circuit, so the only logical conculsion is that it must be affecting the circuit, the only question is whether it is the cable which is changing over time or the circuit is slowly rebalancing. few have identical systems..... Hence some circuits seem stable enough where no effect is observed, others differ...

[John]

Perhaps but the offer is still open
Yes it will be through my system with music I know well
I personally have nought against a sceptical view point, its the absolute view points that frustrate me
I tend to agree different cable work/do not work in different systems . For instance my system seem to prefer big chunky speaker cables use something like cat 5 cables in my system and it sounds crap yet on some systems cat 5 really works as a DIY solution to good sounds.

[MartinT]

I loved my Croft OTL for the exaggerated delicacy it had, but couldn't trust it to run all night without blowing a fuse or two - a firework display one evening playing at background music levels put me off these forever - sorry

Interesting story, Dave. When I ordered a Croft 4S back in the 1980s, I was called by Glenn himself asking whether I would prefer an OTL instead. I thought about it and declined as I was running Cambridge R40 transmission lines at the time and didn't think it would have enough welly. Seems like I saved myself from a nightmare of a time!

[MartinT]

Just been to check my honours degree scroll - yep, it definitely says Bachelor of Science!

Yep, so does mine - in Electronic Engineering. I wouldn't call myself a scientist, though, as that is more a mark of someone actually practicing the exploration of scientific frontiers.

[The Grand Wazoo]

That would be what I'd call a research scientist.

[Joe]

That would be what I'd call a research scientist.

Or a cable manufacturer.

[YNWaN]

Some time ago I read up on the specification of a number of cables made primarily for the aerospace industry. The manufacturers give a very thorough list of specification points (including the lifespan of the dialectic) and there are some very exotic cables produced. However, 'burn in' of cables is not recognised by cable manufacturers (I mean the people who actually make the cable - not those who sell it to the audio community).

[Andrei]

However, 'burn in' of cables is not recognised by cable manufacturers (I mean the people who actually make the cable - not those who sell it to the audio community).
I am with you on this Mark, at least inasmuch as I am slow to see how passing electricity through wire can make an audible difference over a relatively short period of time, but I would be interested if you can recall that article (eg url) about those cables for the aerospace industry. I would like to read it too.

[YNWaN]

It wasn't an article I read, it was the specification data supplied by the manufacturer.

It was probably two years ago that I did this research so I'm afraid I have no idea what the URL was. In any case, it doesn't discuss cable issues, it's just manufacturer specifications listing every aspect of said cables. It was when I was looking at silver alloyed with gold - so you could do a search with that criteria.

[DSJR]

Interesting story, Dave. When I ordered a Croft 4S back in the 1980s, I was called by Glenn himself asking whether I would prefer an OTL instead. I thought about it and declined as I was running Cambridge R40 transmission lines at the time and didn't think it would have enough welly. Seems like I saved myself from a nightmare of a time!

After mine, Glenn started to regulate the suppies in the OTL. I rather wish I'd bought one of these instead, since although bass 'slam' was missing in his 4S cased OTL, the mid and top were to die for, even if the whole may not have been strictly neutral by conventional standards. The circuit was so simple too, with very little indeed in the signal path, surely a good thing. It even managed to get fair levels (in a small room) out of ATC 20's, which are very ineficient.

Sorry mr Firebottle, I may have come on too strong, but the firework display from my OTL because of blown supply-rail fuses (four, two per channel) does stay in the mind for decades after....

[Oldpinkman]

I see why people complain of thread drift now (which I am not, I should emphasise). But there is a problem with effectively 2 discussions going on here. Regarding #224 (Marco) #228 (John) #229 (Bob)

Those points address cables, and not burn in. To restate, as OP, I am not taking issue with cables sounding different. I accept cables can sound different. I have posted that I switched QED79 in to replace ugly chords, didn't like it, replaced with Reffc Talk 3, did like it and have stayed with it. (I guess I should note that this is yet another very subjective statement - I am accepting I hear a difference, when others say they can't, and haven't gone back and blind tested it - but I could. In fact, although I've now re-used the QED in question elsewhere, I might shell out on a roll for the purpose). But I'm drifting now :doh:

Burn-in of cables is not the same as cables sounding different. From my discussions elsewhere, it would seem that the claim for burn-in rests solely on auditioning and cannot be measured (although the theoretical justification is the formation of the capacitance in a dielectric due to current, and it is possible to measure capacitance down to 0.01pf accuracy with relatively inexpensive bridge meters). So - if we accept this cannot be measured, but can be heard, and we don't really know why, it is not too difficult to devise a test procedure which I (as one of the forum scientists - endorsed by the Grand Wazoo), and others with perhaps more genuine credentials, would accept as scientific proof. And I think we can come inside the budget for the Large Hadron Collider :)

I would suggest the following

Identify a designated auditioner (can be an individual, or a panel)
Identify a cable (preferrably modestly priced, but we should still be below the LHC budget if its the most esoteric) which the auditioner is confident will consistently exhibit easily recognisable burn-in with test equipment of their choice
Identify the necessary burn-in procedure (time, signal, any other factors considered relevant)
Get 10 new cables, and send to the auditioner to confirm they are all identical "raw". If necessary reject cables which are different and get a sample of 10 fresh identical cables to the satisfaction of the auditioner
Send those cables, numbered 1-10 to me, or another independent "burner" with precise instructions as the required burn-in
The "burner" then selects cables to burn in randomly. (Sequentially from 1 to 10, roll an unweighted dice a minimum of 3 feet, and take even numbers to burn in, and odd numbers to leave unburned in)
The burner then burns in the chosen cables using the methodology prescribed by the auditioner and returns all of the cables to the auditioner once burnin is complete
The auditioner listens to the cables on equipment of his choice and indicates for each of the 10 cables whether they are burned in or not

I would accept 80% accuracy (2 mistakes out of 10 cables) as sufficiently conclusive to put the boot on the other foot (ie science has some explaining to do). I would be prepared to match Marco's offer and donate £100 to the charity of choice if it can be successfully proved that cable burn-in is a physical fact :cool:

[cloth-ears]

I see why people complain of thread drift now (which I am not, I should emphasise). But there is a problem with effectively 2 discussions going on here. Regarding #224 (Marco) #228 (John) #229 (Bob)

Those points address cables, and not burn in. To restate, as OP, I am not taking issue with cables sounding different. I accept cables can sound different. I have posted that I switched QED79 in to replace ugly chords, didn't like it, replaced with Reffc Talk 3, did like it and have stayed with it. (I guess I should note that this is yet another very subjective statement - I am accepting I hear a difference, when others say they can't, and haven't gone back and blind tested it - but I could. In fact, although I've now re-used the QED in question elsewhere, I might shell out on a roll for the purpose). But I'm drifting now :doh:

Burn-in of cables is not the same as cables sounding different. From my discussions elsewhere, it would seem that the claim for burn-in rests solely on auditioning and cannot be measured (although the theoretical justification is the formation of the capacitance in a dielectric due to current, and it is possible to measure capacitance down to 0.01pf accuracy with relatively inexpensive bridge meters). So - if we accept this cannot be measured, but can be heard, and we don't really know why, it is not too difficult to devise a test procedure which I (as one of the forum scientists - endorsed by the Grand Wazoo), and others with perhaps more genuine credentials, would accept as scientific proof. And I think we can come inside the budget for the Large Hadron Collider :)

I would suggest the following

Identify a designated auditioner (can be an individual, or a panel)
Identify a cable (preferrably modestly priced, but we should still be below the LHC budget if its the most esoteric) which the auditioner is confident will consistently exhibit easily recognisable burn-in with test equipment of their choice
Identify the necessary burn-in procedure (time, signal, any other factors considered relevant)
Get 10 new cables, and send to the auditioner to confirm they are all identical "raw". If necessary reject cables which are different and get a sample of 10 fresh identical cables to the satisfaction of the auditioner
Send those cables, numbered 1-10 to me, or another independent "burner" with precise instructions as the required burn-in
The "burner" then selects cables to burn in randomly. (Sequentially from 1 to 10, roll an unweighted dice a minimum of 3 feet, and take even numbers to burn in, and odd numbers to leave unburned in)
The burner then burns in the chosen cables using the methodology prescribed by the auditioner and returns all of the cables to the auditioner once burnin is complete
The auditioner listens to the cables on equipment of his choice and indicates for each of the 10 cables whether they are burned in or not

I would accept 80% accuracy (2 mistakes out of 10 cables) as sufficiently conclusive to put the boot on the other foot (ie science has some explaining to do). I would be prepared to match Marco's offer and donate £100 to the charity of choice if it can be successfully proved that cable burn-in is a physical fact :cool:

Richard, that sounds good. The only problem is that one of your pieces of measuring equipment is the lughole which is connected to a brain. Each person’s brain is different and hears subject to interpretation which can be effected by mood, blood alcohol level etc.

The only way I can see this being done is as mentioned before; by using the inversion method. Send the same mono signal down two cables (one after burn-in and one virgin). Invert one side so at the end of the cable we should be able to hear nothing, if both cables are indeed identical. If one cable is different only that difference will survive as the inversion process cancels out identical signals.

[Oldpinkman]

Richard, that sounds good. The only problem is that one of your pieces of measuring equipment is the lughole which is connected to a brain. Each person’s brain is different and hears subject to interpretation which can be effected by mood, blood alcohol level etc.

The only way I can see this being done is as mentioned before; by using the inversion method. Send the same mono signal down two cables (one after burn-in and one virgin). Invert one side so at the end of the cable we should be able to hear nothing, if both cables are indeed identical. If one cable is different only that difference will survive as the inversion process cancels out identical signals.

But - it can't be measured, just heard. I realise the measurements you propose are probably relevant in the context of a cable, and I am shrodingers catting again when I talk about amplifiers, but we struggle with measurements. We can measure differences in amplifiers, we just can't work out which measurements account for the differences we hear.

The variability in the aforementioned lughole I am not concerned about. It is likely, as you say, to suffer from mood alcohol etc. All of those factors only reduce the likelihood of someone correctly picking a burned in cable from a raw one live. So it should be the other side raising those objections not you. If , with all those extraneous nuisances someone, or a team, can pick 8 from 10 cables correctly blind - I am persuaded they have made their case. I agree a bigger sample size would be more reliable, but that introduces all sorts of hearing strain issues (in addition to available time issues, and cost of cable issues). I think 10 is a reasonable sample size. 10 from 10 true random blind is impressive enough for me. :)

What do you think?

[Oldpinkman]

I guess that "rational behaviour", in that context, is open to interpretation.

However, I still contend that such a huge body of related experiences, from all sorts of different people with different systems, constitutes as empirical evidence to support the theory that different cables DO have an audible effect, particularly if it could be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that what they were hearing was real.

In the absence of that proof, we could of course argue the point until infinity, but I simply can't believe that every single person in the whole world, who has ever claimed to hear sonic differences with audio cables, was irrefutably being 'fooled'.

Marco.

Even though this is about cables, and not cable burn in, reflection in the jacuzzi after tennis means I'd like to try this explanation for how many people can report hearing burn-in. (As Mark - YnWan noted - many havent, so the anecdotal evidence would seem balanced, but...)

First - peer pressure. As hobbyists we all like to exercise our skill and knowledge in a bit of tweaking, lost on the likes of my mum, buying a "stereo" and sticking one speaker on top of the other, both on the floor in the corner of the room. So we know about speaker stands, and spikes, and speaker positioning and whatever. And, often, we just accept these tweaks without testing (the old green marker pen being a classic). If burn-in of speakers and cartridges becomes part of that, before long someone, with no appreciation of the limited applicability of the concept, suggests it for other things including cable, and before long it becomes the accepted norm in at least a sizeable "clique" if not the whole community. This phenomena was easy to witness in the "Linn chip" where Linn successfully persuaded the entire UK market, and much of the overseas market, that their flawed design was "right" - everything else was wrong, and everyone should be striving to design product that sounded like their flawed design. And they were incredibly successful. The legacy continues today - although the size of the clique has shrunk from the majority it was to a significant minority now.

Second - we listen differently. Gordon, and his very long article covered this. So, more briefly, we get a new cartridge, or cable, plug it in and listen to it very carefully. Note, we are almost certainly listening to the equipment not the music. We are listening to how that cartridge or cable sounds. And we probably note its a bit strident, or a bit sterile. I fiddle with tracking weight, and bias, and VTA and then listen again. For the next few weeks, however much we go to listen to a record, we "note" how the new cartridge or cable sounds. We are still listening to equipment. At some point, it normalises and we start listening to music again, at which point we note how much more "musical" everything sounds, how much less strained, how natural and refined it is. Our cartridge, or cable has burned in. What has happened to take the rough edges off the new equipment is we have stopped listening to equipment and resumed listening to music. But, some of us, as part of the community who suggest the idea, attribute that to burnin. (And no real harm it causes)

THird (is where it gets tricky). Prickly about being challenged on burnin on the grounds that science suggests it can't happen, and plenty anecdotally can't hear it, ever more strenuous claims are made for the fact that, it isn't just acclimatisation but proper comparisons have been made which establish it is objective hearing uninfluenced by any of the factors which cause the mind to affect the way we interpret what we hear. And it all gets a little trickier.

As I noted in my charity offer post - it is feasible to carry out a reasonably reliable test. Only those who can hear the phenomena CAN carry out that test. There is no suggestion they should feel obliged to - but "my side" are stuck. We can't measure, we can't rely on theory, and WE can't hear. So we have no means of PROVING burnin doesn't happen. Since the only acceptable measure for proof is hearing - the only available test is for those who can hear it to demonstrate it. I think the test procedure I outlined is fairly reasonable. It might be interesting to see whether trading standards have any minimum criteria, but in the absence of those my sample of 10 seems reasonable. :)

[cloth-ears]

OK Mr Pinkman, I’m with you on this one. I’ll even throw in a £100 to charity if the beardy weardy bunch can get 8 out of 10 consistently.

[Oldpinkman]

OK Mr Pinkman, I’m with you on this one. I’ll even throw in a £100 to charity if the beardy weardy bunch can get 8 out of 10 consistently.

I need to bring you up to speed on a couple of points. I would only expect them to do it once for their £100 for charity. One true blind 8 out of 10 and the boot moves to the other foot

And I have been put on the naughty stool before for comments akin to the beardy weardy bunch. I know it's meant affectionately to keep things light and avoid taking ourselves too seriously over what is, after all, only bloody record players, but - well, just don't say I didn't warn you :facepull:

[cloth-ears]

I for one don’t want to be put on the naughty stool so I send my heartfelt apologise to all members of beardy weardy bunch.

[Macca]

I for one don’t want to be put on the naughty stool so I send my heartfelt apologise to all members of beardy weardy bunch.

Are they in anyway connected to the Hair Bear Bunch? Just asking because if you can ride an invisible motorcycle then you can sure as shit spot cable burn-in.

[cloth-ears]

Are they in anyway connected to the Hair Bear Bunch? Just asking because if you can ride an invisible motorcycle then you can sure as shit spot cable burn-in.

:lol:

[Oldpinkman]

Just in case this doesn't really belong on the other burn in thread, I'll post this here. It relates to a discussion I am having on another forum, and my spinning ladies :)

This discussion includes relying on hearing, including yours, to prove its point. It helps to understand how it works. Take another example - take HFS69 and play the phase check track. Do you get a sharply defined central image?
Nope - you are hearing not seeing
You do not have a cyclops ear on the front of your forehead
The sound is NOT coming from between the speakers

Stereo we enjoy is an illusion which relies on fooling the brain. What our fabulously sensitive highly calibrated ears hear is one sound coming from a point (area) on the right, and another identical one coming from the left, and the brain gets confused and thinks it is hearing one sound coming from somewhere in the middle. I say identical - but actually "fairly similar" will do to fool the brain.

And yet we are to rely on hearing done casually, to hear something so small it can't be measured, which can be confused with plugging and unplugging cables, or folding cables on the floor differently - I think how we hear is very relevant to a discussion where "proof" relies on hearing it. And if we are to use hearing as proof - it needs properly controlled test procedures outlined elsewhere. Otherwise it's hearsay, and as valid as anyone on AOS adamantly stating what he has heard. I'm not challenging anyones hearing experiences, just reminding you of a few realities about human hearing as a measurement instrument.

;)

[John]

Yes agree the brains tricksy!
That's why its good to base your experience on live music as a reality check
In the end we end up with systems based on our own preferences

[MartinT]

Well indeed, the ears don't really hear anything at all. They are sensors and it's the brain that assembles the input and creates a 3D soundstage from it. Much like it de-jitters the input from the eyes and makes a stable internal 3D image from them.