Years ago in this thread was a mention of static.
Having possibly an influence.
Considering a good few of you haven’t been round there at the back. A big build up of dust could be contributing to a static build up.
Perhaps the difference with screened vs unscreened speaker cables - is that you can run long lengths of screened cables within installations with years of dust accumulation without dropping performance.
R1 and R2 our cables.
R3 a loudspeaker/oscilloscope.
R4 and R5 precisely matched loads.
Easier with a picture. But still I have to calculate the differentials on R1, R2 (R, L, C) to make sure the experiment will support our claims. We may be in for a big disappointment.
Thank you for the contribution. This is very simple and elegant. Almost anybody can make the experiment at home.
Indeed mine are directional, but to be honest can’t say I have heard any burn in or ‘settling in’ effects with Tellurium Q … in fact I kind of hoped they would and open up / brighten a little with ‘burn in’… but nothing happened… and in the end I sent them back.
I have to say other than flexing the Naim Burndy leads every 12 months or so, and consideration of some cables seemingly benefitting from suspend freely… probably some mechanical resonance thing… I have not really experienced cable burn in.
Many years back I had one of those cable burn in CDs to ‘condition’ cables… and again after many many hours of exposed burn in, no sonic difference.
Now I do hear the effects of temperature on speaker drivers, and I hear the effects of some new electronics stabilising and reaching their quiescent operating temperature, and even Fraim supports not setup properly, although that is marginal to my ears …and even the changed acoustic feel with a window open in my listening room… but cable burn in is one of those things perhaps I am blessed I am not cursed with hearing.
Imagine you have a room of 100 people and at least 80% can hear a burn in change from Duo-Tec i can assure you the change is big enough the cable has no future useabilty relevant to its original state. No matter the methods of testing you carry out and so far what is suggested is really only capable of sufficent analysis to calculate say the difference between 2 amplifiers.
You are light years away from detection methods required. As you seem to think this is some sort of distortion/amplitude test. Note this- if any thing you say is possible you would never need to listen to a cable but just simply buy the measured one!
Now return to the Start - at the end of the day no matter of Any testing in the world you have 80% of people who are Positive this is your REAL quandary how will you explain that!
Not sure if this one is for me.
I am only interested to demonstrate that burn-in happens in cables.
Then to demonstrate that this change can be perceived by ear.
The difference I think I need to use as a threshold is 0,5 dB (with a proper definition).
If the cable sounds better or worse after burn-in, I am not interested. This I agree is subjective.
Thankyou i am now days just a big sook.
Also 80% of the people in the room have better ears.
Thankyou.
Not if the test is conducted on duplicates of the unburnt cable as I suggested, and multiple times, and consistently finds no difference. Agreed that if at that point a difference is found it would be unclear without further work whether the difference is due to amps or cables or both. However even then, repeating with the unburnt cables and comparing with the burnt cable, with several replicated tests, would identify whether the burnt cable has changed any more than the unburnt or the amps.
As for room full of people, that is far too susceptible to influence. To be definitive it needs multiple people, but each done on their own as the sole listener, and blind.
I am open to correction but surely there is away to change the sound of some thing without resorting to amplitude. If you want to grasp this problem it will require a rearrangement of your thinking.
100% of people are affected by expectation bias, psychological easing and/or auditory hallucination.
Dont quite agree with your last statement it is to dismissive.
I understand your point, but we are not going to compare signals, we are going to measure a differential, with an oscilloscope and with a loudspeaker.
At least mathematically they are two very different things.
And of course I do not think it is a question of amplitude only, I think it is more related to hysteresis cycles and other particular phenomena related to the complexity of the materials and signals we are going to test.
Again you are assuming this bias or psychological has some how been induced prior in the first place. Come on people you really need to try harder than this. This be my last comment on my post.
I am only saying that as humans we are subject to it all the time, day and night, all of us. We can’t really escape it unless we use objective measurements…
And if it rains inside the room, they all will get soaked.
I agree fully with you, that’s why the experiment is measured with instruments, not with ears.
But it is correct. If you believe not, please explain your reasoning.
Ask yourself what is more likely:
A well-understood psychology affect with tonnes of supporting research is at play
Or
Some as-yet undiscovered physics that only people with nice stereos can hear is happening
C’mon guys this isn’t even a difficult one
Why one is exclusive of the other?
To me it is very obvious that both of your points are happening.