Cable Burn In

Well, one interesting thing fleschler said was that the burn-in makes things different, not necessarily better.

I have found it strange that this has not been pointed out before. There seems to be an impression that whatever happens to a cable as it "burns-in" somehow makes it better. Even if one accepts that something changes it seems a bit of a stretch to presume that that something is always going to make it change for the better. The packaging on the cables I bought, that caused me to start this thread (in complete and total ignorance) said the burn-in would yield optimal performance.

I also don’t think comparing a violin to a cable is maybe the best analogy. I’m sure there are variations in metallurgy and production in the same model of cable but it is hard to imagine that such variations would be anywhere near as significant as those found in wood, no two pieces of which will be the same.

I test cables without electronic testing equipment. I’m sure my high end system is junk to professionals although I’ve appraised 27 SoCal & San Fran recording studios in my former profession. I must say, the recording engineers had hearing deficiencies by the time they were 50 and result in non-flat sounding studio audio setups in many of them. Luckily, I’m friends with some remastering engineers with superb hearing, Kevin Gray, Steve Hoffman and Robert Pincus. I also do recording and remastering for a local orchestra, choirs, chamber orch., etc.

Back to my testing. I receive up to four versions of a cable, differing sometimes as little as having a 26 gauge versus a 30 gauge conductor or return wire or a copper, silver or rhodium connection difference. I won’t seriously compare them to the current, burned in version until I’ve cooked them as they generally (90% of the time) sound worse to start with. Sometimes, the newest version is better sounding than the current model due to significant changes in the design, such as when the new version reduced capacitance by 50% through additional teflon shielding over conductors and/or returns.

I don’t care that a machine will tell me that they all test the same other than for capacitance, inductance or resistance. The manufacturer tests for the basics. What we do is determine if sonically, we prefer the current version or the new version, usually its the current version. When multiple changes have occurred in the new version and it is significantly better, the manufacturer renames it. This has happened a half dozen times in the past 15+ years. A high percentage of the time, the cables do not meet up to the current version. The manufacturer is continually tinkering with his formulas, design and materials to produce the best cabling he can (although his speaker cables have only seen three or four versions in 20 years and A/C cables maybe three versions in 10 years).

We also test other upscale cables to his cables to see how they compare on at least two systems, mine and his. We’ve tried High Fidelity, Magnan, Kimber, Furutech, Nordost, Audioquest (not all of their cables but a selection over the years) as well as others he has tested on his own. He also take his cables to shows and upscale audio systems locally to compare to their current cabling. Never have compared them to Transparent Audio cabling which retails for 50X more for speaker cabling or Masterbuilt at 100X more. I heard them replace Siltech, Triode Wire and Shunyata as well as shows.

I don’t know what the manufacturer finds as far as the three electrical testable variables in his cables before and after he burns them in/tests them. I or the both of us compare the cables at my house and at his factory for a sonic evaluation. I don’t have any other relationship with the manufacturing of the cabling.

Works for me. 👍

fleschler,

Right, so you listen to cables. Ok.

I don’t care that a machine will tell me that they all test the same other than for capacitance, inductance or resistance. The manufacturer tests for the basics. What we do is determine if sonically, we prefer the current version or the new version, usually its the current version.

So what puzzle me here is:

If the cables need burn in, how are the manufacturers determining what is causing this phenomenon? As we aren’t talking about magic, presumably manufacturers identify some "pre-burned in" state they can measure, vs post burn in, where the measurements change. Otherwise...how do they know what’s going on at all?

That’s what I’m not seeing yet in this thread, including in your post.

What exactly do you think is technically happening to cables when you "cook" them, and have you, or the manufacturers you work with, any actual data showing these differences?

I don't care why it works technically.  Just like I don't care why SR duplexes, fuses and HFTs work, or Stillpoints or Omega E-Mats.  They work for my system and my friends systems.  My cable manufacturing friend doesn't use SR tweaks or stillpoints or E-Mats.  However, he heard the difference between SR blue fuses and his stock fuses and decided to eliminate the fuse with a breaker instead which resulted in a sound similar to the effect of an SR blue fuse.  His system and room are diametrically different acoustically (mine-live, high vaulted ceilings, windows and large room with flat walls with 4.5 way large high sensitivity speakers/his-damped room, low flat acoustic tile ceilings, small room with two way high resolution, low sensitivity speakers).  Two different rooms and systems to address the cabling effects for different systems.

I don't know what cooking cables does.  Same with components in equipment (like capacitors) and speaker cones and panels.  The latter two I've heard change over time, breaking in so to speak without regard to their technical changes.   

What I think is happening is an electrical circuit or field is changed while the cable or capacitor is charged.  Speaker cones and panels vibrate and become less stiff.  One's electrical and the other is mechanical.  It's just the way it is.  I buy into the burning in concept because I can hear it.