Burn in - a myth?

The answer is no. There will be at least two possibilities.
One is that some material change had occurred in the cable.
Another is that your connections have changed due to oxidation.
A third is that your kit, either speakers or amplifier had reacted differently to the new connection.

If you would like to attach your measuring instrument to two sets of identical cables and pass a signal equivalent to a sound signal through them to an equal load, and video the instrument readout over time, then I think we are getting close to a relevant test.

If you then repeat that and the change in readout is the same over the same time period then we are getting close to proof that the particular cable being tested is changing in some way.

We only then have to correlate that with the measured change in sound, either frequency or loudness that you can measure at the same time.

Looking forward to the results.

3 Likes

I hope we can agree that burn in, if it exists, is some sort of material change in the cable.

Let’s allow for proper cleaning of the connections to the extent that the user is satisfied oxidation cannot be a reason for the different sound.

Let’s allow for several changes of the cables, back and forth, in order to allow the user to determine if the cables sound different.

Then would you agree that burn in is real?

No, not until a measurement is taken or a microscopic examination reveals what those changes are. We must be able to eliminate all other variables in a controlled fashion to reach a conclusion that only the material itself has changed. That is science. Anything else is speculation as to what might or might not be happening.

1 Like

But how do you know with such certainty that our current measurement systems capture everything about cables that is relevant to sound quality?

3 Likes

I dont. I also don’t hear the differences that are suggested on here. It is for those who hear those differences to explain what causes them.
The electronic engineers who have no association with particular manufacturers can bring their knowledge to bare on the subject of loudspeaker wires. Resistance, capacitance, skin effect , inductance etc are all phenomena that have been examined and as yet no one has found a difference that can affect sound. I wait to see the first scientific explanation.

Edit. Not the difference between one cross section and another, but the difference between two lengths of the same cable.

I can agree to this one.

With the caveat that the properties of the cable can be measured directly or indirectly.

In my previous posts I have stated that I’ve done something similar with interconnects. I’ve reported there is a difference in sound. Obviously the sceptics will ignore my findings or state it’s my imagination.

I have to disagree with this one. We will demonstrate that a cable sounds different (or has different properties) before and after burn in, but we will not build up and demonstrate a theory about burn in.

To the metalurgists in this thread: please understand that a cable contains metals and impurities, and it may be difficult to visualize changes in the cable because a metal will change only if very high temperature and pressure is applied.

But cables also contain air and water.

This I noted and would like to use it in order to properly document the experiment. Many thanks in advance.

You don’t have to visualise anything. You can both see and photograph down to a very high magnification at a macro level and micro level with an electron microscope. Please refer me to those photographs.

Also please note that I do not accuse anyone of not hearing a change. I only do not ascribe it to any material change in the cable.

Correct. I should raise the level, I apologize.

And if they can’t?

Thats fine, I don’t change my view. You continue to enjoy your system.

You have examined everything that anybody has ever written on the subject then?

I don’t have to. Come back when you find something. Meanwhile I give the floor to you.

No you don’t. But unless you have then your statement is meaningless.

So if somebody can’t explain a phenomenon then it can’t happen?

I have tidied up here. I would like to remind members of the forum rules and FAQ. In particular this paragraph;

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
  • Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

11 Likes

to my understanding all scientific theories are provisional - they stand until observations show them to be incorrect or incomplete. there is no absolute truth in science

2 Likes

I would say the opposite. First comes the observation, then the theory.

And every theory can be superseded if you find a better one.