I cannot cite a paper, but I did read recently (in “The Complete Guide to High-End Audio” by Robert Harley) that there is some good evidence for this, that some people cannot synthesize the information back into a spatial picture. I seem to recall that there is also some evidence that it is at least in part a learned skill. I would guess that even knowing that this is possible and therefore attempting it is in part learned.
Another aspect is, in my opinion, the difficulty of the test situation, in the broadest sense. If you ask someone if they are hearing a difference, this act alone changes their state of mind. A bit like in school when some people knew the answers very well but just don’t recall them when stressed by a test. This has many facets. For instance, some people may well hear a difference but struggle to put a finger on it, and therefore may be reluctant to say yes if you ask them. This is probably also a question of training at least in part. Another additional filter is an inability to engage, or to put the experience into words - similar to how my mother always claimed not to hear any difference between some of the music I listened to, which was obviously untrue in the literal sense. Other test subjects may be biased to saying yes even if they don’t hear a difference.
Some of this could be mitigated and controlled for by proper test designs, but these complications, and there are many more, make it so difficult to perform the kind of standardized tests that would tell us something with more confidence.
Not the first time, but let me mention again that Anne-Sophie Mutter and two other classical musicians could not reliably distinguish between a good beginner’s violin, an expensive modern violin, and a Stradivarius, when put to a blind test on a German TV show. I personally don’t doubt that they can do this in principle, and it illustrates to me how difficult it is to set up and interpret blind tests in audio.
It is also possible that your wife is right, of course
Nordost also has such a device, mentioned further up, and their explanation is total twaddle.
Perhaps (as you said) Cablecooker has a better device, actual evidence, a better explanation. We’ll see when presented. There is nothing to comment yet on the sheer possibility of this being the case
There are also reviews on the device of thecablecooker, quite interesting. Amazingly a very similar conversation was taking place in Head-Fi in 2016 (where I found thecablecooker). I excuse myself and go to bed, tomorrow I have to wake up very early. All the best!
Cablecooker also mentions 168 hours of cooking, interestingly the same magic number as Nordost for their normal cables. Turns out that 7 x 24 = 168. And Nordost’s magic number 336 for their better cables is, you guessed it, 14 x 24
"Although it is not yet fully understood scientifically, the phenomenon of “cable break-in” has been experienced by many audiophiles. Interconnects, speaker cables and even power cords seem to go through a conditioning period when used in an audio/video system, and will sound better after many hours of in-system use.
The sonic differences between wiring that is broken-in and wiring that is not, are very audible in high quality audio systems. The break-in process is believed to be due primarily to current flowing through the conductors of wiring components.
Dielectric stress caused by a voltage difference between the conductors is also believed to be of some benefit."
Or to rephrase this
“We have no rational reason on which to base an explanation, but here it is anyway”…
At least they say “is believed…” rather than just stating how it works.
Earlier, I had already started a post quoting them, but then abandoned it halfway through I very much like “The break-in process is believed to be due primarily to current flowing through the conductors of wiring components.” That’s very rational compared to blaming fairies or solar wind. The rest of the explanation page is also so meaningless that it would be better if they simply said “we don’t know why but it makes a difference in our listening tests”
Having to sit on a jury starting tomorrow morning, I’ve been given a brief lesson on unconscious bias by the court. And imo, when it comes to differences in sound with audio gear (in particular the contentious issue of power and ethernet cables and switches and burn-in) that unconscious bias can work both ways. The “it’s all snake oil” crowd will go out of their way to not hear anything (to the point of not actually even trying in the first place) and the ‘everything makes a difference’ crowd can hear huge differences by just dusting the top of their speakers (okay that’s hyperbole but you know what I mean). Neither is correct imo, and the truth most likely lies somewhere in the middle, and it’s impossible to take human physiology out of the issue, which can’t be measured.
Agreed that it can work both ways. However, we should probably keep in mind that most people (everyone?) from what you call the ‘“it’s all snake oil” crowd’ didn’t say that burn-in is impossible, just that the evidence is insufficient and that the suggested mechanisms are impossible.
It may be possible to remove human physiology from the issue, but only with a much larger investment than audio aficionados or even large hifi companies can realistically muster even with best intentions. So in practice you are right. This is, however, reason to be even more mindful of these influences, not to ignore them altogether.
(We should convince, I don’t know, maybe the US Army that this is a very important topic Though we might never be informed of the results, which would also be frustrating)
I disagree with the “truth is in the middle”. Just because two opposing or different points are argued does not mean that the truth is in the middle, not even when both sides are argued with scientific rigor and merit. E.g., when supporters of Newtonian and relativistic physics disagreed, the truth was not in the middle.
Perhaps i am not clear i consider my own view irrelevant my concern is for others to be able to get proper consideration of their views without being intellectually intimidated.
By narrow minded Technical people who inhabit this arena.
I can only pursue what i need to if it is in the generic sense not singular so i have to hope people will know for themselves whether not the referencing would apply to them.
Regarding Psychological situations this is an interesting but different subject and not
as complex /difficult as some imagine.