2. cables
  3. 137172-115924

Cable Burn In

I'm new here and new to the audiophile world. I recently acquired what seems to be a really high end system that is about 15 years old. Love it. Starting to head down the audiophile rabbit hole I'm afraid.

But, I have to laugh (quietly) at some of what I'm learning and hearing about high fidelity.

The system has really nice cables throughout but I needed another set of RCA cables. I bit the bullet and bought what seems to be a good pair from World's Best Cables. I'm sure they're not the best you can get and don't look as beefy as the Transparent RCA cables that were also with this system. But, no sense bringing a nice system down to save $10 on a set of RCA cables, I guess.

Anyway, in a big white card on the front of the package there was this note: In big red letters "Attention!". Below that "Please Allow 175 hours of Burn-in Time for optimal performance."

I know I'm showing my ignorance but this struck me as funny. I could just see one audiophile showing off his new $15k system to another audiophile and saying "Well, I know it sounds like crap now but its just that my RCA cables aren't burned-in yet. Just come back in 7.29 days and it will sound awesome."
n80
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Break in is like cryogenic treatment and directionality. Everyone does it but nobody talks about it. Settle-in is a term most often used to mean reestablishing the delicate electrical mechanical interface once a Cable has been pulled and reconnected. Or when a cable is pulled and another cable connected, as in a cable shoot-out. Or perhaps even when a cable itself is physically moved.
n80 OP
2,117 posts
 
geoffkait wrote:

"Can I respectfully request you read what I wrote again?"

Yes, you may request it. But I already read it twice and there is no need to read it again.

"I said either one, not both."

That does not change anything about it.

"And, no, you’re probably scrambling to get on board but listening I.e.,"

I don't know what you're trying to say here. And yes, I read it again.

"subject evidence is admissible evidence, you know, like an eyewitness in a murder case."

And as such is very weak evidence both in court and in scientific experimentation. But that is irrelevant since you never provided evidence that shadone's opinions were derived without "subjective evidence" anyway. It was just your assertion, which makes you guilty of what you accuse.

"Measurements and subjective tests are both scientific."

As mentioned, subjective tests are among the weakest forms of scientific evidence.

" We “measure” what we hear with our ears."

And that's where we come up with measurements like "that sounds good".

 "Capish?"

Capish? Seriously? Patronize much? 
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
I just filed your response under Whatever. It’s not necessarily a good debate strategy to agree with me that your statement is false. 😀 
czarivey
5,946 posts
 
while there are some $few sonic differences can be noted in wires, fraction of penny or simply none can be noted in pre/after 'burn-in' so 
racamuti's avatar
racamuti
362 posts
 
N80, Great reply!!!
More to discover