Do speaker cables need a burn in period?

@andy2

I think in order to make a valid discussion, ones have to agree on some basic level which is our ears can identify differences in what we here. If you say that all differences are psychological then there is no point to further the discussion.

Agreed.

But if we want to understand reality, we also have to not ignore that our perception can be flawed, and influenced in any number of ways towards error. So, ideally, the most careful approach when we *really want to be sure* of a result, would be a method that reduces the variables, including the well known forms of bias.

Next, the argument that break-in is mostly psychological only works for the average buyer since he can only purchase a set of cable so he has to rely on his memory to tell the difference. This argument does not work for manufacturers since they have a lot of identical cables some old some brand new so they can listen to them side by side, therefore there is no need to rely on memory. So if they hear the difference then it’s not psychological.

But that analysis leaves out the whole point: that people can honestly be mistaken in their perception! The choices for explanation don’t sit between the false dichotomy of: "The phenomenon people claim to perceive is real OR they are lying."

The other option is they are MISTAKEN.

This is why controls for bias is foundational in scientific testing.

Cable manufacturers are just as human and prone to bias as anyone else. Bias influences, or just mistakes in perception, can happen whether you are switching quickly between A and B, or slowly over time.

That’s one reason why objective measurements are so helpful, which provide some evidence there IS a physical phenomena involved, and not just changes in our perception.

Would you agree?

Cheers!

ganainm
Yes I think "manufacturers lie or are just plain wrong". The why is debatable of course but will seem obvious to many.

>>>>What evidence do you have they are lying or just plain wrong, as you say? And how do you know it seems obvious to many? 

GK, no, I do not think "anyone who disagrees with me js engaging in a pissing contest". Just you.

>>>>>Fair enough. 

cleeds,

What I do think is odd is that those who clamor for others to pursue measurements or blind testing seem so reluctant to undertake the work themselves.

Like who?

I defend the validity of blind testing, and I have performed a number of blind tests.

But first, let's deal with an implication one could take from your statement (whether you meant to imply this or not):

The idea that if someone critiques X method over Y method, that they have to be involved in performing those experiments themselves.  It should be obvious that isn't the case.   

You don't need to be a scientist yourself, to understand why a scientific approach to treating a new pathogen is more sound than, say, appealing to dreams, demons, magnetic bracelets, or ground up rhino horns are less sound approaches.  You just need to understand well enough the reason science operates as it does, and how this explains it's success relative to the failure of the other models.

It's similar to why you don't have to be a brain surgeon yourself, to rationally conclude if you are having signs of an aneurysm,   that you should see a brain surgeon not a vacuum salesman, no matter how enthusiastic the vacuum salesman may be about using vacuums to cure your problem.   You have enough knowledge to recognize from which direction sound and successful results derive, vs more dubious methods.

Same for audio or any other domain.  As long as you recognize the existence of the variables of human bias, you are in a position to ask who is taking that problem most seriously in their methods of evaluation.

People who say "I know there is a sonic difference between A and B simply because I believe to have heard it" are not taking the problem of bias seriously, whereas people attempting to verify phenomena through objective measurements and listening tests that attempt to control for bias at least ARE taking it seriously in their method.

As I've said this DOES NOT mean that everyone needs to be blind testing, or can't just go on what they think they hear.  No one is forcing, or should force, such a thing.  We are all free to buy on whatever criteria we want, as it should be.  But if someone wants to CLAIM there is an objective  phenomenon happening - like cable burn in - then it's completely reasonable to look at what type of method they are using to demonstrate the claim.

As to my own blind tests, I've used bind tests between CD players/DACs, some audio cables, power cables, video cables, and digital servers.   

I don't do this all the time - far from it - because as I've said no one is compelled to make decisions via such methods and frankly while sometimes they are fun, they can be a hassle.  It would be a different case if I had a lab and all the right expensive measuring tools, not to mention more technical knowledge.  But, I don't. That's not my field of expertise.  

When I want to blind test something, I  simply do the best I can within my meagre means, and I don't make claims that extend beyond what those meagre means can actually imply for me personally.  

Do I need to burn in the radio frequencies for my wireless stereo?

Uh, I think you mean do you have to burn in the air molecules for your wireless stereo.

“‘Tis better to burn it than to burn out.”