“Better” and “prefer” are big words, I think going there may be a bit tricky.
But I think it is possible to demonstrate that a cable sounds different before and after burn in.
“Better” and “prefer” are big words, I think going there may be a bit tricky.
But I think it is possible to demonstrate that a cable sounds different before and after burn in.
I’d say anybody who states they are 100% certain cable burn-in exists is suffering from tunnel vision, and anybody who states they are 100% certain cable burn-in doesn’t exists is suffering from tunnel vision.
I personally think, weighing up all the arguments, coming to my own conclusions, cable burn in is more likely to be a phenomenon than not. But I actually don’t care.
I’m not swayed by the fact we can’t scientifically prove it exists. If we take anaesthetics as an example, we don’t actually know how they work. Think how much money and effort has gone into solving that problem.
I’m not swayed by the argument that the low level of current isn’t enough to alter the structure of a cable.
If we take another medical example. What about hand transplants, they definitely burn in. Initially the hand doesn’t function very well, but over a period of months its function will increase. And we’re talking very low level electrical pulses.
Is it? Do you have a reference for that test?
I would say that anyody who states they are 100% certian that cable burn-in exists isn’t suffering from tunnel vision.
I’m over here.
Have a read of the still current cable directionality thread Link. I don’t know who specifically “these people” are, but you might lose your bet!
No. Not really. Science can describe a mechanism to explain an observation that has been made. It can’t tell you why someone might prefer x over y. That is entirely subjective.
Observations we make regarding the changes in sound as cables burn in have absolutely nothing at all to do with science. Science can, however, explain those observations.
If one does not believe in cable burn-in, because one deoes not hear it, then one is unlikely to seek a scientific reason for something that does not, as far as one is concerned, exist.
So far, so good. The problem comes when people who do not hear burn-in claim that it cannot exist because there is no scientific reason for it. Now there they are simply wrong. Either through ignorance or stupidity. Or both.
In order to explain the observations of people who do hear cable burn-in they postulate all sorts of psychological mechanisms, which although entirely speculative and without any foundation, they present as ‘scientific’ fact. Job done - they have debunked the ‘myth’ of cable burn-in.
Except, of course, they have not. Because they fail to take into account the fact, yes fact, that the observations of people who do hear burn-in are supported by sound (no pun intended) science.
The non-believers should acquaint themselves with the scientific facts. I would not expect them to change their assertion that burn-in is not real if they do not hear it. But I would expect them to maintain an open mind and to not attempt to dismiss the experiences of those who do hear it as mistakes or fantasy.
That is the intelligent approach. Which perhaps says something about the intelligence of many of the non-believers here…
Well if they don’t believe in cable directionality either then at least they are consistent in their ignorance of reality!
All you need to do is listen. No big deal. No laboratory conditions required. No measuring instruments. No blind panel of 200 listeners. Just little old you and your ears.
That’s what I have done on several occaisons and I’ve had no trouble hearing it at all. Amazingly I didn’t need to sit watching an oscilloscope - I just used my ears! How cool is that?
Now providing proof of what I’ve heard - well that’s another matter altogether. Nigh on impossible. So, big problem for me , right?
Well no not really. I don’t have to prove it to anyone. Nor am I remotely interested in doing so.
What scientific facts are these? Please provide info as to where we can read the details of the facts: ideally as peer-reviewed published research data (as opposed to marketing blurb by manufacturers - if they’ve had research done finding burn-in they will proudly link the resultant papers).
At the moment all I have seen/read are postulated but not proven possibilities about crystal structure etc, while the only apparently verified observation of change of cables with use that I have seen-read is yours, as recounted a day or so ago, all others to the best of my recollection having been purely based on memory of sound.
Yet interestingly many people claiming to have heard burn-in of cables seem to believe themselves somehow to be immune to known psychological influences, and oblivious to physiological variations in hearing…
It of course begs the question who is right… Certainly open minds should prevail - but as well as being open to the possibility that cables might change due to some as yet unknown physical effect, open minds should also be maintained by those who believe, recognising the possibility of being misled due to psychological or physiological effects, and so taking steps to verify observations objectively before maligning those who do not “believe”.
It would be great to take the observation you have made yourself regarding used against virgin cable, which is really very compelling as far as it goes, and involve multiple people, blind, under controlled conditions. As I have intimated previously, the first thing to do is verify observation…
You can read about these in various articles published on-line usually by manufacturers in response to various reviews of their cables and in an attempt to provide some background information. These articles sometimes contain references to other scientific work.
As I’ve mentioned before, you are unlikely to find any other references to this type of research, and certainly not peer-reviewed papers. The reason for this is because it is so specialised and the only people likely to have any interest in it is hi-fi cable manufacturers. That is the nature of the beast.
As a retired scientist myself I find the mechanisms discussed to make perfect sense and I have no reason to doubt them. But whether or not you think they are of any value is up to you and your judgement. If you wish to dismsiss it all as ‘marketing blurb’ then that’s your call. But what are you basing this on? A disagreement with the scientific reasons discussed? ie. you have sufficient scientific knowledge and insight in order to be able to say - ‘well this can’t happen, because …’. If you do then fair enough - let’s hear it. Or are you just basing it on a belief that all manufacturers are out to con you out of your money by telling great big porky pies about the research they have carried out?
Well, no not really. It is more a case of proceeding in accordance with common sense and in line with one’s experience of the world. If a cable manufacturer tells me that their product will take 100 hours of use to burn-in and to reach correct performance then I have no reason to believe that they are lying to me. I assume that they have reached this conclusion via their own observations.
Now I will either hear this for myself, or I will not, as the case may be. If I do hear changes in the sound over time, as indeed I have, then my assumption is that this is due to the burn-in process. This would seem to be an entirely sensible and logical way to proceed. It is not really in accordance with any scientific protocol. But that’s fine, as I’m not carrying out any scientific experiments. I’m listening to music on my hi-fi.
Of course I could proceed differently. I could hear changes in the sound and assume that I am imagining them. This however would seem to be a rather illogical and even paranoid way to proceed. I am not prone to imagining things in any other area of my life. I do not make observations, such as for example seeing an aircraft flying through the sky, and suspect that I am imagining it. This being the case, why should I treat my observations of cable burn-in any differently? Is it some sort of special case? I really don’t think so. No, it seems logical to me to accept that if I hear something then it is really occurring.
Well, if that’s the sort of thing that floats your boat. Doesn’t really interest me. What would be the point? I already know that burn-in exists because I’ve heard it! I really have no interest in ‘proving’ it to anyone else. And even if I could ‘prove’ it, what is the point? It won’t change whether a person hears it or not.
Well, if you are a scientist carrying out an experiment then perhaps yes. But I’m retired, thank God, so I’ll leave that to the professionals. I just want to get on with listening to my music…
Sounds like a great idea as this argument is just going around in circles.
Indeed, and that is always the case with these discussions because it is impossible to prove anything, at least within the context of a forum. They are, in fact, entirely pointless.
The gentleman doth protest rather forcefully, methinks.
Well I could say that I am required to prove it to everyone. I don’t believe that this is the case though. So I said so. Only because some people seem to think that I am required to. I don’t believe them though.
Sometimes one is simply carried away by his own eloquence.
Thank you for the compliment!
Je vous en prie.
Please name the best one or two of these that you know of.
To be perfectly honest I really can’t remember. They are just articles I’ve come across when looking at reviews. But if you look at various on-line reviews of cables from The Chord Company or Atlas Cables you will no doubt find some of them. I’m not sure if any are available on the Chord website - might be worth a look. Try Hi-Fi Pig or The Ear.