Cable Burn In

clearthink,

Then why don’t you buy some actual audio cable and conduct some experiments for yourself you seem to be a vocal advocate and promoter of what you seem to think is the "scientific" method you could acquire your own set of verifiable data rather than just to continue to challenge, question and oppose those who have actually acquired, installed and evaluated what they discuss rather than just imagine, theorize, and speculate what might happen were they to actually measure, listen and verify. Of course if you did that you would be subject to the same sort of criticism and ridicule you heap on other’s here with disregard for actual data.

^^^^^ It’s somewhat hard to answer (or be motivated to answer) such strange and opaque posts.

Actually, the "ridicule" tends to come from folks like yourself, in the posts you are making directed to me. If you actually care to notice, my posts didn’t "ridicule" they just applied some critical thinking to claims in the audiophile world. It’s not "ridicule" to point to the fact there are a lot of dubious claims in high end audio, and it’s not "ridicule" to point out the method typically used to vet those claims in the audiophile community are often unreliable.

Why don’t I do these measurements? Because I don’t have the measuring equipment (which can be very expensive) nor the electrical engineering expertise.


This is why I have made no such claims for myself.


But of course you don’t have to be an expert in a field to be able to say reasonable things about claims relating to a field. You can appeal to the consensus of people with relevant expertise, and with an understanding of good empirical principles, recognize when one group is appealing to poorly justified arguments/evidence over others. You probably haven’t the expertise in every science related to understanding the shape of the earth, but critical thinking allows you to weigh the type of evidence and reasoning flat earthers give for their claims, vs scientists, to have a reasonable claim on being skeptical of the flat earth claims.

And this is why, if you just want to point out I’m not a scientist or electrical engineer, that says nothing about whether anything I’ve written is unreasonable or untrue. For that....you’d have to actually address the arguments, not go ad hominem.


And btw, as an obsessed audiophile since the early 90’s, I’ve listened to countless high end systems, which included practically every big cable maker you can name. I’ve also been able to check out very expensive, highly regarded cables - speaker cables, interconnects, AC cables etc - both in my system and friend’s systems over the years. So, no, I’m not coming at this from some total inexperience with high end cabling.

What is it about asking questions about these claims that so frustrates you? Should we as consumers simply accept whatever manufacturers claim for their products? What’s so wrong with applying critical thinking to these areas?

prof
What is it about asking questions about these claims that so frustrates you? Should we as consumers simply accept whatever manufacturers claim for their products? What’s so wrong with applying critical thinking to these areas?

What are the specific supposedly outrageous claims by cable manufacturers that have you so upset, professor? How about some specifics? Share, share. What’s your beef? 🍔 I’d really like to know. What exactly has the professor’s panties all in a twist? Is it all high end cable manufacturers or just one or two. Who are they? When? Where?

analoglovr wrote:

" N80 if you’re interested read up on confirmation bias and expectation bias. This is the reason for all the folks claiming that things sound wildly better when they’ve spent 1000s on a cable."

I'm actually very familiar with those things. I've dealt directly with clinical trials in my lifetime and assess the merits of them regularly. When dealing with humans subjective measurements are difficult and even more difficult to attach meaning to. The mind has a powerful effect not only on how we perceive reality but how we respond to it. The placebo effect, which is very relevant to this conversation, is a good example. In one study on placebo effect subjects who were extremely sensitive to poison oak were blindfolded and told poison oak leaves were being rubbed on their arm. It was actually an inert material. Despite this a certain percentage of the test group developed a rash where they were touched with the inert substance. No one in the control group did.

Anyway, I see exact parallels to these conversations in the photography world and in the automotive performance world.

Whenever I explore a new pursuit like this or photography or whatever, there is always a certain level of skepticism that any said expenditure for any said improvement is actually going to be real. I am often shocked how much actual, real improvement there is as you go from lower end gear (like lenses, camera sensors, etc) to the better equipment. You feel and know that the money spent has been worthwhile and it is easy to see and easy to prove. I firmly believe that this cost vs improvement curve goes up steeply for quite a while. But I also believe that at the higher end of the curve the performance curve begins to flatten out as expenditures continue to rise, usually more steeply. At this level the amount of money spent buys you very very little. I also believe that there comes a point that the performance goes completely flat even as expenditures go up. High cost, no yield.

I'm not correlating any thing in the audiophile world with any point on this curve. But it is always my goal to seek that sweet spot where the curve starts to flatten out, stop spending money and know that I'm getting the most out of my budget. That sweet spot is going to be in different places for different people.  But with significant experience in the photography world, I know there are folks who delight in that part of the curve where cost is high and the benefits are subtle at best. Nothing wrong with that as long as they don't try to convince me that the curve is still going up when it isn't. 

Of course the best thing to do in that situation is to thank them, shut up and walk away. I haven't got that down yet.

FWIW, over the years I've noticed a fairly consistent phenomenon in these forums. Certain members seem to gravitate to threads involving phenomena that are either technically inexplicable, at least when considered in a quantitative manner (if that is even possible), or are particularly controversial, or both.

The usual result being that potentially constructive dialogue gives way to some combination of childish commentary, exchanges of insults, and ad hominem attacks, rather than dialogue which is constructive and potentially useful. Which as far as I am concerned would seem to defeat the main purpose of a forum.

Just an observation, FWIW. Also, BTW, I consider contributions to this forum by Prof and by Analogluvr, among a number of others I could name, to be the antithesis of those I am referring to. I always find their contributions to be pragmatic, thought-provoking, based on extensive experience in many cases, and certainly warranting intelligent discussion.

Also, as usual Jim (Jea48) has provided a constructive input to the thread. The problem, though, is that all too often audiophiles tend not to perform their evaluations in as thorough and disciplined a manner as he suggested, before proclaiming that a perceived difference is attributable to a specific cause. As opposed to being caused by extraneous variables such as ongoing aging or breakin of unrelated system components, differences in AC line voltage or noise characteristics that occur from time to time, changes in ambient temperature and/or humidity (temperature being a factor that is fundamental to the physics of semiconductors such as transistors, diodes, and integrated circuits), differences in equipment warmup states, flushing of internal digital memory that occurs when power is cycled, etc.

My own belief, again FWIW, is that when it comes to controversial audio-related matters more often than not reported perceptions are likely to be accurate, and not the result of "expectation bias." Depending, of course, on the credibility of the particular person who is doing the reporting. But my belief is also that in many cases the methodology that has been used in arriving at the reported conclusions has not been sufficiently thorough to assure that the perceived effect is being attributed to the correct variable.

Regards,
-- Al

I’ve noticed something, too, over the years. That is naysayers and skeptics tend to construct detailed, layered arguments to try to discredit or dismiss certain controversial ideas, products or tweaks. Cables is obviously just one example. And it’s the same ones who pop up on all of those threads. You could say it’s an excersise in the art of debate or the art of philosophical argument. But at the end of the day it’s simply what they choose to believe. I’m giving them credit here for honest debate, but even that is often in doubt. I’m not saying it’s not OK to have a gut reaction to something, but to build a whole philosophy around it? Hel-loo! I don’t think you’ll find any super skeptics suddenly changing their tune. Even with considerable evidence to the contrary from all sides. What would they say to the other super skeptics? I mean, come on!