Do speaker cables need a burn in period?

prof

Nicely put. 



   

Then there are the STEALTH audio cables which uses amorphous metal which has no directionality.  

Indra V16 Interconnect Retail: $7000/1 m RCA, $9300/1 m XLRSakra V16 Interconnect Retail: $12,000/1 m RCA, $16,000/1 m XLR

Those prices are about 10X to 17X my GroverHuffman cables.  No thanks even if they were 200% better.  The reviewer on today's Positive Feedback Mag was comparing them to $9800/m CH Precision ICs.  Maybe they are high end but what if they are not as good?  

The Stealth Flagship Sakra V12 XLR interconnects are actually Directional, at least according to Stealth.

Home /Sakra V12 XLR Interconnect (Pair)
Sakra V12 XLR Interconnect (Pair)
by Stealth Audio

Starting from :$16,000.00
Length

Price with selection: $16,000.00
Quantity

The Sakra V12 is quite different from the standard Sakra: the cables are indeed directional – since they are CONICAL inside and outside, and feature our new “vari-cross” geometry – the cross-section of the cable varies along their length; this is done to improve the impedance matching between the source and the receiving end; Sonically, the cables are more relaxed right out of the box, and sound yet more full-bodied (and thus natural) while having improved resolution and transparency over the "original" Sakra.

Because of the improved geometry the Sakra V12 is more relaxed and natural (right out of the box, in a brand new condition the V12 sounds more “broken in” – compare to the original Sakra with 1000+ hours on it)

In other words, the Sakra V12 is simply a better cable and is our flagship analog interconnect for 2013.

Addendum:
Śakra V17 Limited Edition. Double runs of Vari-Cross amorphous wire-in-Helium, C-37 treated, STEALTH custom RCA and XLR.

[Whoa! You don’t see C-37 everyday. Or wire-in-Helium for that matter!]

I suspect that the expression, “tests are performed using generally accepted methods” opens up a whole can of worms since as we have already see there really are no generally accepted test methods. Even the lofty double blind test has no official protocol or methodology. Reasonable people disagree with how to perform a double blind test.

As I’ve oft pointed out, negative results of blind tests cannot be used to categorically claim failure of the device(s) under test. Results of a blind test, in and of itself, cannot be generalized. Now, if there were twenty or thirty independent blind tests, however they were performed, one might look at the pass/fail ratio and try to draw conclusions and find comfort. Positive results are a different story, inasmuch as positive results are obtained in spite of all the things that can affect the results of a test.

Well said, and drives directly to the nub of the problem of embracing the idea of using double blind tests without some real solid scientific rigour. Read, you can’t wrap yourself in the cloak of science and use a testing system that lacks an absolutely solid testing protocol. Going down that road simply yields a "science" version of truthiness, which is fine for conversation fodder after a few cold beverages but as Geoff correctly points out don’t produce nothing you can take to the bank eh.