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
I already hate myself for asking this, but, geoffkait, how is someone who believes in tweaks, who argues in their defense with only subjective opinions, debates endlessly in their favor, builds a philosophy around them and never changes their mind ANY different from the skeptics you accuse of doing the same thing just in a different direction? If you remove the 'for' or 'against' labels, your claims and complaints seem to be of exactly the same nature.
Post removed 
prof
The weird thing is the skeptic is paying the most attention to human fallibility, including his own. The whole critical thinking thing is based on "I’m quite fallible and could be wrong...so how do I come up with ways of accounting for my fallibility?" And yet it is those who have unshakable belief in their own perception, who can not be budged by evidence their perception isn’t as reliable as they think, who are often the ones accusing skeptics of dogmatism.And who end up name-calling and taking pot-shots at the character of the skeptic.

>>>That’s one of the more ridiculous series of claims I’ve seen but one that I suspect actually represents the pseudo skeptic camp rather well. In terms of argument it is really illogical, however. Of course any of us can be sometimes be deceived or fail to hear differences but that doesn’t mean we are ALWAYS deceived or mistaken. Nobody claimed it was easy. That’s part of the problem, think8ng that it’s easy. People try something once and draw a conclusion and give up.

Nobody is saying psychological biases cannot play a role sometimes. But to suggest audiophiles suffer self deception and psychological bias in all cases is laughable. If that were true we’d never progress beyond common generic sound. I can appreciate the argument that folks take pot shots at the character of some skeptics. But logically that does not (rpt not) mean that the skeptics are correct. Follow?

Human fallibility indeed.😛


Thanks everyone for the education on cables and burn-in. I feel like I now know what I need to know as it applies to my needs.