Cable burn in

Related to remembering sound: I borrowed my dealer’s Isotek so-called Mains Noise Analyzer for giggles.

First of all, the “results” of this are entirely unhelpful. I plugged it into various sockets around the apartment and sometimes it displayed higher noise numbers (it goes from 0 = “no mains noise” to 1000 = max) and emitted a louder sound (which it does to signify the number reading (and, I suppose, to scare one into investing into an Isotek isolation device)), sometimes it was low.

In the living room, I had very clean readings (~50) from the hifi socket when I plugged both my laptop and a NUC into other sockets (on different circuits in the same room). Noise readings went to maximum when I unplugged these polluters. Then I tried the bathroom and in one socket the noise was nearly zero. But then I realized that I had plugged the “analyzer” into a little 1-to-3 socket multiplier that I had bought on Amazon for 2 euros. When I plugged the “analyzer” directly into the socket, noise was maxed out again.

So, more related to this thread, I tried the hifi with the laptop and NUC plugged into their sockets (supposed low noise), and then without. Then I ran a heavy-gauge extension cord to the bathroom and tried as well with and without the socket multiplier.

With the laptop and NUC, all it took was to get up from couch, make 2 steps, plug/unplug the laptop/NUC, fall back on couch. Even with this little distraction, I could not be sure. Sometimes I thought something changed. Then I was convinced that it hadn’t. Occasionally I was confused about the current laptop/NUC state and thought the sound was indeed better with them plugged in (supposed lower noise readings), only to then realize that they were actually unplugged.

Comparing the bathroom socket to my regular hifi socket required, of course, system shutdown and restart, which takes a minute or more until NDX2 and 252 are working again, and predictably I had even less of an idea.

After much back and forth, I concluded that either there were no SQ changes at all, or they were small, seemingly random, and unrelated to the sockets and noise readings.

Now, I don’t rule out that I am particularly unsuited to this kind of comparisons, but the evidence certainly did only one thing, add even more support to the established evidence that our ears are not objective and our brain sucks at remembering hifi SQ.

What’s great was that after I stopped dicking around and listened to the music, the system sounded just as fabulous as always and very enjoyable.

4 Likes

Many years ago I had a Ti’ko 486 PC, running Windows of some sort. A few years later, my nephew-in-law wanted a PC, and I offered him this one. Now this PC had a Turbo button in it, which changed the clock speed - for playing legacy games that needed a slower clock speed.
A few days later he said that the PC didn’t seem as fast as he thought it would. I asked whether he had used the turbo button. Oh, yes, he said, he had tried it with and without the button pressed in, and it definitely made a difference, but was still slow.
So I took the lid off - and the turbo button was not connected. Plugged it in and all was well.
But they were absolutely convinced that it made a difference. The mind does amazing things…

3 Likes

A lot of detections by scientific instruments can’t be detected by our senses, be it ears or eyes, etc….
I fully agree.
But there are phenomena detected by our senses or which can reach our consciousness that can’t be detected by scientific instruments. Telepathy, daydreams, six sense, ……are some examples.

Indeed a typical case. And it’s not limited to being naive about these things either. Even knowing this, one remains susceptible:

Just a few days ago I ran a quick manual test on our software to verify if a code change yielded the supposed gain in responsiveness. I even kept an eye on the CPU readings of the process in the system monitor, comparing them “by feeling” to the readings of the pre-change test a day ago. I assumed that the developer had performed the usual, objective run-time profiling and seen a difference. I came away quite satisfied with the performance, which was a big relief, and started to write an email to the customer who had complained.

Then the developer appeared in the door to inform me that he had previously forgotten about the profiling before handing the case over to me, but that he had it done now, and that there was absolutely no difference. The change had only been to replace one slow API call with another that was thought to be faster, but profiling showed that it was exactly as slow in this scenario.

1 Like

But aren’t these examples of things our brain makes up that aren’t real? So is it not conceivable that burn-in is another one of those, like a daydream?

You seem to be unwilling to consider all options open on this topic.

3 Likes

I don’t see why. I hope that Raphael will be able to measure the burn in phenomenon.
But I am aware that the test can also show nothing.
As for my post above, it was not related to this topic precisely, just to some saying and believing that there’s no phenomenon detected by our consciousness that can’t be detected by scientific instruments. I don’t believe in that.

Guys, even dreams can be detected by instruments. Let’s have fun.

But are you also willing to entertain the fact that it’s possible that burn-in isn’t real, i.e. is a psychological effect?

And ghosts! There are several tv shows that prove this if you don’t believe it!

That depends on whether blind listening tests on the same cables, in a suitably revealing system/setup and with suitable music, detects a difference.

@litemotiv

When a brain is in a scanner you can see different areas of activity if the pacient is dreaming or in sound sleep. This in my opinion demonstrates the precision of the scanner.

This is a fact and very different from many videos I had to watch in this thread, some lasting more than one our.

So I will see your video tomorrow, thank you in any case.

You cannot blind test two cables at the same time, so I have a limited interest in this.

You take this all very seriously Rafael, don’t pressure yourself too much :wink:

Absolutely just for fun I promise.

You can blind test by comparison switching from one and back (randomly back or not). I think it is essential for completeness and for the electrical or other physical tests to be meaningful especially if the electrical/physical tests reveal no significant difference.

I make a note to look at this in detail.

Good night, I hope to be asleep when the sun rises over Canberra.

1 Like

Not. I believe and I am certain that it’s not a psychological effect. It’s real.

Dreams can’t be detected or measured. Only the consequences of them. the activity of the brain. Electrodes put on the head and you can see the brain activity.

REM sleep (when you dream) is observable and detectable. Of course the content of your dream cannot be known.