After all of our fun here, presumably the original primary question remains…is there a measurable difference…and then, can an objective assessment be made of the subjective claim of audible differences. All with no absolute link between the two questions.
Awaiting Rafael’s findings.
Thank you for your trust.
1 Like
No pressure!
Well, I’ll also have to repeat myself.
You brought billiard balls into the thread. I haven’t mentioned any mechanism that is analogous to billiard balls and dirt.
Indeed, as they have like charge they mutually repel?
Does science, or any scientist claim that? Or is it cable manufacturers that make such claims?
1 Like
Billiard balls was a (widely used) metaphor for the classical view, as opposed to a quantum view. Your proposed mechanism seems classical, too
1 Like
I am still not convinced that all audible differences can be measured. Also that if there is a measured difference, anyone can always predict the audible outcome of said difference.
You guys can’t even agree on how electricity gets from one end of the cable to another how do you expect to prove or disprove burn in?
I don’t mean any offence by that, I just think that not enough is known about the subject to be sure.
After monitoring this whole thread it has made me question if I do actually hear burn in, but it has also highlighted that there is really not enough conclusive information for either argument.
All i can say is well done to @Rafael for making an attempt to contribute to the knowledge base.
3 Likes
Agreement or not of forum members as to the mechanism of electrical current passing through a cable is neither here nor there: I think the most important thing would be controlled testing, directly comparing with an ‘unburnt’ cable in blind listening trials. Electrical and physical measurements to try to identify a possible mechanism for change in sound if latter is proven then become entirely worthwhile.
2 Likes
The problem I see there is that I feel the difference, if any, is rather small so a certain level of familiarity with the system is required to pick out the difference in a blind test.
1 Like
All that is needed in blind testing is ears capable of hearing the difference, if it exists. Whether a person is familiar with the system is irrelevant, though that certainly doesn’t preclude people familiar with the sound of the system taking part. That said, ideally the listening panel (of course listening alone) should include several people who are convinced they have heard burn-in of cables, thereby removing allegations that the panel had poor ears or were determined not to find differences.
1 Like
Just to keep it accurate there are no claims here of clear/audible benefits quite
the opposite i am saying any benefit suggested by Science is not audible.
It requires a Computer not an Abascus ( insert correct spelling ) until you grasp this
it shows you and others do not conceive the reality of the task.
You seem to have a problem understanding what does copper purity
have to do with burn in! You are out of your depth on THIS subject
and to patronise may only encourage you. Sometimes you have to be
cruel to be kind - sorry that is how i see it.
COPPER WIRE
Thankyou for your responses. I take all of your points.
I just figure why make 99.9999% copper if it was not science backed
as a superior transfer. So does this mean Science believes more Purity
in a copper conductor is not relevant for any purpose such conductor
may be used?
Sorry this is the problem which is Just Not Getting Through! 2 cable samples will
have small but discernable audible differences straight out of the box it is just the
way it is. So the FOUNDATION for supposed testing is RIDICULOUS i am not
wasting time pointing out other areas of Grave concern.
I agree we will be unable to source two identical cables. And I can even agree that two identical things may not exist, if those two things are complex enought.
We will source two carefully matched cables by purchasing two cables of same model and maker, at the same time.
I am unsure these cables will show audible differences from the beginning, but in anycase the experiment will be designed to consider these two cables equivalent, and to measure a difference introduced by burn-in of one cable only.
But if there is difficulty to balance the bridge with the new cables, I can agree that the experiment is not adecuate.
Again please remember we are not going to measure one cable and take notes, then the second cable and take notes, to compare notes later on. We are going to measure both cables at the same time in the same circuit and measure several differential indicators. They are two very different things.
That’s blunt.
Never mind, maybe you are operating at a level way higher than we are.
We are lucky to have you on these various threads…but, although I cannot demand this, I would be most grateful if you do not respond directly to me when I make a contribution.
1 Like
Whether or not that is true would be discovered by doing listening tests and the electrical tests before burning one in, as I did suggest when the test setup was first being discussed.
Why are you so dead against testing? Surely it has a good chance of proving one way or another whether burn in is a genuine phenomenon, and if it is it genuine, the testing might even show that there is something measurable to satisfy this who consider any audible difference inevitably means a physical therefore measurable difference.
And blind comparative listening tests will satisfy scientists and engineers that the observation is a genuine effect not psychological or imperfect memory of sound. If it happens, may still leave uncertainty over mechanism, but that is simply then a puzzle for those interested to ponder and someone to solve, purely for interest.
Richard sometimes your responses seem aggressive. There is no need to be like this. If you make a claim that is evidence based then you could simply try to provide a link or a source for your information. Nobody is doubting you, they would just like to know where you have read what you claim. 
6 Likes