Another interesting video:
1 Like
Can you explain why you don’t consider yourself as an audiophile, in that sense?
Yes - I don’t sit listening to the kit, worrying about all the tweaks and fiddles I could to with it - I listen to the music - enjoy it, and am happy that it is doing a great job.
I would tweak your source personally 
1 Like
Can you give all details, when you will have time?
Which cables, which audio system, and the tools.
Great you will do that 
That’s also the opening video of the excellent Audio Myths thread:
1 Like
I consider myself as an audiophile, but music lover too.
As audiophile, I am not really interested in tweaking, even if sometimes it helps to enhance the system.
Apart 5 or 6 ethernet cables I tried, I changed maybe 3 times in 25 years my cables ( interconnects and speakers cables).
The most interesting is the upgrade in sources, dacs, cartridges, phono stages…which is a real part of an audiophile journey. Not tweaks.
Ooh, now that’s really interesting development.
Excellent.
2 Likes
The difference between two cables, one new, one burned in. More detail in a procedure I am writing for you.
Procedure will follow soon.
1 Like
The difference is you can hear the two amps one immediately after the other, and even go back and forth. But in the vast majority of cases people compare a sound now with a sound at leat several hours ago, often many day or weeks - and there are two problems with that, firstly memory of sound is not an accurate reference, and secondly ears do not hear exactly the same all the time (nor is perception of what they hear).
It seems that virtually no-one has compared used and unused otherwise identical cables one immediately after the other and even go back and forth, as is common comparing electronics. This is the testing I advocate that @Rafael include in his schedule, though of course it would be only his ears unless he can rope in some volunteers (who ideally should hear by themselves, and without knowing what is different between each hearing.
We will compare two cables, one new, one burned in.
At the same moment in time, at the same temperature, at the same humidity, at the same atmospheric pressure. If there is a difference, we will measure it.
If the difference is audible, we will listen to it.
Loads of people have done this and found no difference.
Don’t forget you also need the same (preferably simple resistive) load impedance.
1 Like
Can you give me the phone number of one? I will call him and get advice.
Oddly enough I don’t have phone numbers for researchers.
Question: as part of your experiment, have you undertake literature review?
I generally listen 5 mn for a new cable. Then make no listening during 5 hours, while the system is running at very low volume level.
After 5 hours ( around) , I always notice a difference in the sound quality.
Generally it’s less bright and more open. Then I let the system run in 2/3 days, without any listening. For me there’s no doubt, it’s very obvious each time. After 2/3 days, 24/24, there is a clear difference.
2 Likes
Dear @Xanthe,
Thank you for your very useful comments. The idea of the bridge is yours and we shall recognize that.
During my drive Nice-Milan this afternoon, I had a vision of symmetry and simplicity: I would like to build the bridge with four identical cables.
Then measure to check balance (theoretically zero in the oscilloscope, silence in the speaker).
Then burn in one cable and measure again. We will plot the two curves and look at the differences. We will listen to the speaker that will play the difference. Very elegant.
I think all possible bias are discarded with this procedure, objective and subjective.
We need to be as precise in execution as the ND 555, that is the trick.
In the configuration with a speaker (or a sensitive IEM) the experiment can be repeated at home by anyone.
Do you see any flaws?
A problem remains if we can measure but we cannot hear. I am praying for more than 0,5 dB.
When you know your system well, it is easy to identify weak points in a new cable. Maybe a thin sounding male voice that you know is not right, maybe a touch of brightness to your favourite Eva Cassidy track. Maybe a not so focussed central image. These things are so hard to identify for someone not familiar with the system but easy for you. I feel it is quite obvious when these things change with a little run in time. If they don’t, or don’t smooth out enough, the cable goes back.
This is why I am sceptical that listening tests with people not intimately familiar with a system will be able to distinguish between two different cables let alone the same cable +/- burn in.
1 Like
Yes of course.
I also have to reply to your comment that burn in has not been documented in other fields or applications. I think I have a few documents about this in medical and nuclear.
I also remember the Russians documented burn in when they were launching spacecraft equipped with valve computers. I will search for this.
I must remember to keep to cables only, not equipment or systems in general, as per your comments.
Lots of fun, but you may be right also in this one.
2 Likes