Hopefully I know that Peder will approve my little joke. He knows I agree with him and share with him some tiredness to read some comments above.
2 Likes
I find it curious that forum members can go on about all these claims as if they are fact, but donāt like it when there are skeptics in the crowd who voice their disagreement. So how is it that the opinions & beliefs of the former are valid and acceptable, and reasonable criticisms and questioning claims by the latter are not?
6 Likes
I believe that different ethernet cables may cause music replay to sound different, due to alteration in the electrical noise (most likely RF) reaching the DAC, with some DACs prone to audible differences as a result, e.g through modulation effects. The degree of effect, and its audibility, is likely to vary according the network, the electrical environment, the streamer/DAC, the audio system, and the individual
Against that, I believe that āburn-inā of cables used for hifi, ethernet or any other is simply codswallop. I do not mean that any way to be insulting to anyone, and certainly I do not deny that some people genuinely perceive some effect over time that they interpret as burn-in. My starting point is that I have not come across any offered explanation for burn-in that is remotely plausible. Some people suggest that it may be due to some hitherto unknown effect - however, given that human ears are not absolute and totally consistent tools for comparing from one day to another, but psychological effects are well known such as becoming accustomed to and learning to like the sound one hears, I think the psychological explanation is a far, far more likely explanation of peopleās perception of cable burn-in than some fanciful or so-far-unknown physical process.
In order to present a reasoned argument that burn-in is a more likely explanation, what is needed is to have two identical cables compare the two with blind listening tests, preferably with more than one listener, āburn-inā one but not the other, then repeat the blind listening tests. A difference then would start to be convincing, though to be have real weight it would need to be repeatable with more than te one pair of cables.
5 Likes
Itās not a claim Josquin, but a fact. Shared by thousands of users and Hifi reviewers well known in this audiophile world.
If it was only some particular and anecdotic points of view, it would not be of course a fact.
Opinions and anecdotes shared by thousands of users does not make fact. Itās still just opinion and anecdotes shared by thousands of users. Facts are not determined my majority vote,ā¦
ā¦and especially not if they are hifi reviewers. 
Confirmation bias is a very powerful force in the universe.
5 Likes
This is an interesting comment.
Makes me think about my expensive Teddy Prado power supply.
The power supply did not make any difference, at all.
Still, I didnāt sell it.
It still powers my Roon server.
The curious thing is that I knew it wouldnāt make a difference.
This leaves me thinking about how strangely one can think/reason even with solid engineering knowledgeā¦
As said previously, I now have a ridiculously expensive Roon server 
3 Likes
In science, when an observation is shared by a very big Ā« Ć©chantillon Ā« of subjects coming from different ares, these same observations give what itās called Ā« fact Ā».
I had the same ps on my last unitserve. It gave very little differences. However later I bought an Uptone js2 ps, which uplifted really the sound of the naim server. I think the Israeli ps is not enough powerful for something like a server. On a switch, it made positive results.
In french Ā« fait avĆ©rĆ© Ā« . If 10 thousand different people have exactly the same Ā« symptĆ“me Ā« after taking a particular medecine, it becomes a fact, not?
If 10,000 people believe their ethernet cable experienced burn-in that most certainly does not make it fact. Where is the empirical data to support it, and where is it demonstrated that confirmation bias didnāt influence observation?
We start with Bert asking about whether itās ok to leave his system on for a few days and we end with a rather petty argument about something that matters not one jot. It doesnāt matter. Let it go.
5 Likes
In pharmacology test, which is science, the only different parameter is that some have the placebo, other the real medecine. But if 95% of people who received the real medecine share the same physical effects ( like for example the increase of the body temperature), this symptom will be considered as a fact. Not ?
I have, I believe, experienced amplifiers changing and usually producing a better sound quality as components such as electrolytic capacitors stabilise over time.
On the other hand Iāve never heard that effect for any cables - the burn in effect if present is well below the day to day and month to month variation in the way my ears/brain perform and the inconsistencies of my memory for the precise details of a musical signal.
(Incidentally, Iāve never noticed the āburn-inā effect for computers - they also seem to stay the same and not get any quicker).
4 Likes
Not if 95% of people on the placebo also share the same physical effects ( like for example the increase of the body temperature).
Yes, itās logical. But if none of the placebo group encounters rise of body temperature, only those having received the real product ? As well as men as women ? In the same conditions of test?
Iāll only briefly comment on this,.for answers and arguments as above,Iāve been reading since the mid-1980s.
I,.and the distributor for Naim and Linn in the 1980s and onwards,evaluated a lot together.
It happened that Ivor (Linn),.was also involved (when he was in Sweden).
The former distributor became an icon in Sweden,.and on Linn.
So I can use one word,.Iām taught from the best in many,many years.
As an example,.who are we to question,among other things,.Ivorās knowledge.
And he,.or the Swedish distributor never needed any scientific evidence,or other āreliable evidence for anything factualā.
They listened with their ears and mindsā¦
If It Sounds Better,.It Is Better,As Simply As That.
ā¢People who need scientific evidence of everything,.iāve met them throughout my more serious hifi-life (from 1983,.when I bought my first LP12 and onwards).
The funny thing is,.I havenāt yet meet any such person,who has not agreed with us when we listened,.tested and evaluated together.
Although,.we have not had scientific evidence and reports 
.
See the answer above.!!!
AND,.thatās enough for me,my large swedish group,.all the forums that use Tune-Dem as an evaluation-methodā¦Ivor and the former distributor etc,etcā¦
I have in many places here,.including in the threadā¦āEthernet Switch and Cables Maniaā,which I started.
Described my experience,.and what I have listened to and tested.
It is based on that practical experience,.as I make my statements.
But JosquinDesPrez,.in that you question this,please tell us about your experienceā¦
ā¢ About how you listen and evaluate.
ā¢ What evaluation-method you use.
ā¢ What ehternet/streaming cables you tested.
Itās always good,.to be able to value what you say,that we know what practical experience you have,.from what weāre talking about.
Then the reader himself,.may draw his own conclusions.
/Peder 
Enough said
2 Likes
If it was also done as a double blind test, then the results would be valid.
However, if the test isnāt done blind, psychological factors could dominate, invalidating the result due to insufficient controls being applied.
This is an easy one - if it sounds better and continues to sound better over time, then it is/has.
I generally find that new equipment sounds veiled and loose from new but over time it opens, tightens and becomes more cohesive all at the same time. I have experienced this effect many times.
Or your brain is steadily becoming accustomed to the new sound.
Or youāve forgotten the precise details of how it used to sound when you first made the change.
4 Likes