- Agreed
2…but I do not make my initial presumption that reality is based on fiction.
…this all comes down to philosophy (in the academic sense of the word). I have no need to debate with myself whether I am deluding myself about burn in, in my experience it is axiomatic.
Although we could debate real nature of axioms ad finitum.
Agreed…the validity of the perception is always going to be debatable, particularly as it is difficult to measure.
No doubt, someday, someone will be able to either confirm or refute the phenomenon…by measurement!
Thanks for the comments. Interesting. However I am unable to agree or disagree or even comment. Would be glad if a scientist could explain that the burn in of audio cables exist, but unfortunately it will not happen soon.
The same for audiophile switches, why they improve the sound…
These subjects will remain in the controversy domain for a long time, I am afraid.
There are known engineering reasons for this (based on system interactions and coupling occurring at higher frequencies) which also explain why the effect isn’t consistent between different setups.
And it turns out that “Truth” is remarkably hard to define clearly and definitively (most of the obvious definitions are no good as they are essentially based on circular reasoning!).
“ the Master shows the moon, the idiots look the finger”…
Then the non-idiots get their eyes poked because they were distracted and they weren’t watching for the finger!
There’s two side to every coin.
…Godel would be proud of you! (the post 2 above this).
Burnt in cables sound ‘better’ apparently. Define ‘better’? Is it improved bass? Better high frequency response? More pronounced mids? ‘Better’ surely has to be quantifiable and if so should be measurable. Lots of speaker manufacturers produce response graphs, surely these will be different for speakers using burnt in and non burnt in cables if the phenomena is actually true (on the presumption that the speakers themselves are run in) I do believe in speaker and component burn in but not so much cables, I put it down to ones brain/ear adapting to the sound over time. Anyway, it could easily be proven or disproven using burnt in cables and non burnt in cables in a succession of well controlled double blind tests and let statistics provide the truth.
Not the original meaning of that zen dictum, but why not. Maybe the finger was bleeding
Xanthe’s version is actually very appropriate for certain Zen traditions, and its meaning should be remembered by all schools.
Um - I don’t follow that. It very definitely is not something that can be taken as true - hence this debate.
The important question is simpler. Do they sound different? That, surely, can be measured.
…hence my careful linguistics…my claim is that for me it is axiomatic…that does not mean that it is axiomatic. We are digging deeply into epistemology here!
I will not continue there….it’s not the topic. But there is only one meaning in that dictum, but we disagree. Apparently we like to disagree often , but no problem.
…over the years the ‘Cable’ threads are the most fun and often are the easiest to just scroll through.
It either sounds good or it doesn’t, you either like it or move on.
Also best to make your point once then move on since you are not going to change anyone’s mind.
JMHO - YMMV
Lao Tseu would not disagree with you Seakayaker.
Yes, we are. Axiomatic is not something that can be true just for one person or side of the argument. It is something that is generally accepted as true - a starting point for further argument or discussion. It can hardly be axiomatic if only one person considers it to be self-evident.
Being in the here and now instead of dreaming would be very well demonstrated by a poke in the eye.
To me it seems that we are agreeing and disagreeing in generally balanced measure
I am familiar with the ancient masters but my favorite was from the modern era, a Buddhist and a poet. David Budbill who wrote:
On the Road to Buddhahood
Ever plainer. Ever simpler.
Ever more ordinary.
My goal is to become a simpleton.
And from what everybody tells me
I am making real progress.
The poem can be found in his book: “Moment to Moment: Poems of a Mountain Recluse” and posted in the public domain in a article in the Vermont Independent Voice - Seven Days
When it comes to discussions regarding ‘Cables burn in’ I find it much easier to be a simpleton.
I think that you are confusing the ontological and the phenomenological concept of an axiom (if, indeed, there is any such thing as an axiom).
However, whatever, if it serves your purpose, then that’s your perspective.
FWIIW, for me, it is a self-evident truth that cables change over a period of time.
This is why I chose the words that I used in my original statement.