Do speaker cables need a burn in period?

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.

taras22,

So what is your answer to the dilemma posed by the claims in high end audio?

Do we just accept that any hypothesis can be floated, and then decided by appeal to subjective impressions?

If so, that puts high end audio on par with Mesmerism, and any other pseudoscience.

Surely the phenomena in audio are in the same physical world as science is dealing with, so why should audio be just exempted from the concerns, and controls, that we’ve found to be justified in science?

But if we are going to say that we aren’t going to allow magic, but point out it’s engineering and we are dealing with technical problems, then we would want plausible technical hypothesis, right? That is, hypothesis based on plausible extrapolations from other known phenomenon, to explain the new phenomenon - e.g. if a manufacturer is going to give an explanation for cable burn in, it should be at least plausible based on some technical explanation. If the explanation appeals to completely unknown processes, then we have to ask why it is plausible in the first place! And at the very least, an explanation appealing to unknown processes should have quite a high bar to pass when being tested, beyond "I feel convinced I heard something."

And if you are giving a hypothesis that is appealing to known, measurable phenomena, then it makes sense your hypothesis would involve physically testing/measuring to see whether you are right, and if you offer a "solution" to a measurable technical phenomenon, you should be able to provide measurement data showing you have SOLVED the problem.

Once you allow pure subjectivity to vet all these claims, you are in to the world of Mesmerism and all the other pseudosciences and fringe belief systems, because THEY ware justified by the same "method."

We see this suspicious disconnect between the claims and explanations of cable manufacturers, vs the claims that would pass muster scientifically, all the time. They throw out a techy-sounding "problem" their method "solves" but for some reason it’s never shown technically - via measurements showing the problem is solved. They move from the techy-sounding hypothesis, to subjectivity, to...of course it worked!

And the types of "explanations" cable manufacturers often give for phenomenon are incredibly sketchy in making claims, with little evidence.

Take Nordost’s page "explaining" cable burn-in:

https://nordost.com/blog/what-is-cable-burn-in/

For years now, manufacturers have been aware of another practice that drastically improves upon performance that has recently been gaining acceptance from hifi enthusiasts: cable burn-in.

.....

Any listener will be able to identify a marked change in audio equipment within the first 100 hours of use

Note the claim cable burn-in: "DRASTICALLY IMPROVES UPON PERFORMANCE"

That’s a BIG claim. If there is a DRASTIC change in performance from a burned in cable, that obviously should mean some significant physical change is occurring (we aren’t appealing to magic, right?) that should be measurable.

Why don’t we GET those measurements for the claims Nordost has just made?

Instead, we get this:

During the manufacturing process, as insulation is extruded over the conductors, gases can become trapped. This combined with the high electrical charges often found in new cables, result in a brittle and bright sound that lacks the detail and depth desired for music reproduction.

Look at all the ways this is utterly insufficient as an "explanation."

Where is the actual technical explanation, and evidence, that such trapped gases would results in the sonic defects - "brittle bright highs etc" - they describe?

I don’t see any in that statement. But Nordost goes on:

When cables are first put into use, their directionality is not securely established. However, once the Vidar begins running current through the cables, the trapped gases are dissipated and small impurities in the conductor’s metal begin to act like a diode, favoring current flow in a particular direction. By using extremely wide bandwidth signal as well as a range of both ultra-low and high frequency sweeps, the Vidar stresses the conductors, neutralizes charges, improves the way that signals pass through metal and ultrasonically conditions the surface of the conductors. It is these changes in both the conductor and insulation material that refines performance in audio cables.

So they say. But this explanation proposes:

1. A number of technical, physical changes claimed to occur in burning in a cable. The obvious question is, if they can’t measure the phenomena they refer to, then how can they tell us they occur in the first place as a problem to be solved?

But presuming all the technical issues exist described in pre-burned in cable exist as claimed,  and are measurable, WHERE ARE THE MEASUREMENTS SHOWING CABLE BURN IN ALTERS AND FIXES THOSE PROBLEMS? Why is that so conspicuously missing from Nordost? They make a technical claim based on measurable phenomena, but don’t provide experimental measurements showing they have FIXED the problem. We just have to take their word, apparently. How convenient for marketing!

2. If it is mere subjective impressions that Nordost is using to vet, and sell this "solution," then this is no different from any other pseudoscience, where fanciful techy-sounding hypotheses are floated, without any objectively experimental protocol offered, no measurable, repeatable data offered. But which rely on the human ability to fool ourselves or be led via biases to think we "hear" what may not actually be there.

Certainly many audiophiles just don’t seem to care about this, going with the "if I think I hear a difference, there is a difference" heuristic.

But you can’t say that there is no basis for reasonable doubts about many claims made by cable manufacturers, and in particular cable-burn in, if the evidence for it does not escape the level of pseudoscience.