I have every reason to doubt it.
What are the parameters for this burn in totake place? What are the dependencies? What is the optimum time for burn in for a given length of cable? What is the optimum time before any degradation takes place? Why do the manufacturers not burn in the cable before sales, they cost enough?
I can almost, I say almost, believe that the customer can discern an effect of a new cable and perhaps a change in the interaction with existing kit, but a piece of metal is burning in? Show your workings.
1 Like
None of these questions appear to have anything to do with burn-in being real or not!
Ah, you are from the ‘all cables sound the same’ camp.
And how will this change whether or not the phenomenon exists? If you are told what causes it, will you change your viewpoint? I suspect not. More likely you will dismiss the reasons given as nonsense.
You believe in science. So do I.
5 Likes
Well, the mechanisms associated with cable burn-in are fairly well understood by those involved in producing cables for hi-fi use and they have been written about. As someone who has studied physics and chemistry I can see no reason to dismiss those things described as being lies or a deliberate attempt by manufacturers to mislead me. They seem perfectly reasonable and plausible to me.
But really this is irrelevant. I hear what I hear, whether I am able to understand it or not. One only has to use ones ears - nothing more.
2 Likes
You seem to miss that I agree with your last statement, as have others.
1 Like
Sorry you will need to elaborate - I don’t follow.
If you mean that you have every reason to doubt it because you don’t hear it yourself then I would consider that perfectly reasonable. I would be of the same opinion if I didn’t hear it.
I would have a healthy scepticism but I would not dismiss it out of hand. There are more things in heaven and earth and all that…
A scientist should have an open mind.
Why do you need to learn the parameters? Why would a manufacturer take on the burden of burn in? Do you believe that their claims are to deceive? For what purpose? Because you honestly believe that they want you to become accustomed to the sound and then you won’t return it?
Have you never changed a component or cables? Eventually if you’re unhappy with the sound you will change it regardless.
2 Likes
The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.
2 Likes
Indeed. Where is that science?
HiFi is subjective. Science can not convince me that x is better than y. It can however tell me why someone might prefer x over why by identifying and showing where those differences are.
1 Like
“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?
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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!
1 Like
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!
1 Like
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.
2 Likes