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As I’ve mentioned before, you are unlikely to find any other references to this type of research, and certainly not peer-reviewed papers.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…
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.
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.
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.
Not at all. It was just a suggestion really for you to take a look there, rather than being a piece of interesting information in itself. Do try Hi-fi Pig or The Ear as I’m pretty certain I’ve read manufacturer’s feedback on cable reviews there. Good luck.
I seem to be coming to this particular party just after the fight is over and the police are asking if none of us has homes to go to, but I thought I might just unabashedly quote myself from a few years ago because it was my attempt to answer the age-old question ‘what’s the science’?
These kind of threads always follow the same pattern, broadly speaking.
People hear an effect, which they decribe. Other people, who do not hear it, are unable to accept that the effect can be real, because they can’t hear it. Fair enough.
What then happens though is that those who cannot hear it demand ‘scientific proof’ from those who do in order to ‘validate’ their experiences. If they are unable to provide this, and of course they cannot, then they are deemed to be experiencing various forms of aural hallucination.
What on earth has science got to do with listening to a hi-fi system?
What would be really productive is to accept that, even if you don’t hear it yourself, the effect may nevertheless occur as some people do experience it. What we should then do, rather than pointlessly attempting to debunk it, is to investigate possible reasons why some people may hear it and others don’t.
This approach requires both intelligence and an open mind.
Not obvious to me. More likely I would say that they are not resolving enough or that the effects may be masked in some systems by other factors. Just a thought though. I can’t prove it scientifically or direct you to any research papers that will ‘prove’ it to you.
