Do speaker cables need a burn in period?

prof,

I guess you're saying our hearing is not a valid way of measuring.  If you cannot trust your hearing, then what else can you trust?  Once in awhile a person hearing can be fooled, but what you're saying is everybody hearing on earth has been fooled.

Again in order for you to be right, everyone else must be wrong.  Every single manufacturers have been hearing the wrong thing.  Every single professional reviewers must be wrong.  

I am not sure you have a way out in your argument.  

To say you're right and everyone else is wrong is in itself an invalid argument.

As to your second accusation, it sounds more like projection on your part, as it presupposes only you can be right. Now that's a straw man

Yes you have indeed have created another strawman.
Habits are hard to break I guess.

Prof  those were some very well thought out and rational posts. While you may not change the ones here entrenched in their viewpoints you may affect  others browsing through now and later. 

@andy2

Again in order for you to be right, everyone else must be wrong.

And I just explicitly said I’m not proposing that I have an answer "that I am right about" in regards to cable burn in. I just wrote that I DON’T claim to have that answer, so I’m wondering why you are ignoring the actual content of what I’m writing.

I guess you’re saying our hearing is not a valid way of measuring. If you cannot trust your hearing, then what else can you trust? Once in awhile a person hearing can be fooled, but what you’re saying is everybody hearing on earth has been fooled.

No, I haven’t said or implied any such thing, which is why I specified: "It’s the same when we are talking about audible differences that are either very small, or exist in areas that are controversial. "

Clearly our hearing is to a significant degree reliable! It helps us successfully survive and get through every day, after all. And we can reliably identify all sorts of sources where the characteristics are large enough to reliably distinguish. For instance, we reliably identify the voice on the other end of the phone as our mother, our friend, etc.

But as audible differences become ever more subtle, our ability to discern and remember those differences tend to reduce as well. If I played you an audio file at 40 dB and you went away for a day, and when you came back and I played the file at 80 dB, you would have no problem identifying which session was played louder. But if the difference were only 1 dB, you’d have a MUCH harder time (essentially impossible) having confidence about whether which session was louder or not.


To the degree we are talking about subtle sonic differences, it makes sense to take this in to consideration, wouldn’t you agree?


(This is why being able to switch quickly between A and B is helpful for reliably identifying subtle differences - where audiophiles often presume that they can identify identify subtle differences over much longer periods of time - "that trumpet sounds a bit more burnished with these cables than it did the last time I listened to this piece, a month ago with my old cables!")

Most of the audible differences we discern in life are those we would EXPECT to be reliably differentiated, based on the gross timbral/spectral/harmonic characteristics we are talking about, and given what we know of human hearing. Grossly audible differences can be measured between, say instruments (or even the same instruments played differently).

Speakers fall in to this category. The measurable differences between speakers tends to fall well in to the category we know to be audible to human hearing, so when someone talks about hearing a difference between speaker A and B their claims are entirely plausible.

In contrast, we have little to no measured differences being shown between things like an audio signal using different high end AC cables, or burned in vs non-burned in cables. And the technical explanations made on behalf of these claims, aside from often being all over the map depending on which manufacturer or audiophile you are talking to, are disputed among those with the credentials to know better. (E.g Electrical Engineers who are not trying to sell you expensive cables).


So there are grounds on which to be cautious about some of the claims of audiophiles and the high end audio companies - the ones in which the technical grounds are dubious or in dispute, in which objective measurable evidence seems missing (unlike that which can be shown for any number of audible differences we know to exist), and in which the claims are vetted almost entirely in a subjective manner susceptible to bias.

Is this position clear enough, and I hope, reasonable to you now?

Thanks.

prof, (or should I call you professor Hume :-)

First I appreciate that you're being very polite in your response considering some of the other posters around here.

I think I have to make an assumption that in order for the human race to work, one has to at least establish that most people are honest and tell the truth.  Yes there are people who are dishonest but I don't think human has evolved this far if most people are dishonest and all we do is just lying to other people.

Second, we have to assume that our ears are reliable after all they are transducers just like any other sensors.

Now let's say somebody gave me some data that prove cable burn in does exist, I could very say "I don't trust your equipment.  It's possible that the equipment is not accurate."  The person would say it's not possible because the equipment has been calibrated.  I then would say how do I know the calibration was accurate because the equipment you used to calibrate is not correct.  That person then told me it's not possible because that piece of equipment that he used to calibrate was already calibrated by another even more accurate equipment.  I then would say I don't trust that either.  It's possible that equipment is not even accurate.  I want you to prove to me beyond any doubt that the data is absolutely accurate.

There you see, I am using your argument against you, professor Hume.