Do speaker cables need a burn in period?

Yeah, because I had a great deal of previous experience with that cable. Yesterday was just a re-visit to re-confirm.

And btw very sorry if that seemed like an insult to your cables of choice. In my defense I just didn’t know.

Right now, Kitty Kat has a special on the curious little clock and salvaged transatlantic cable. Sublime!  🐍💩🙀

Andy2 wrote:

Let's me repeat:1. If you think cable burn in is false, then there is a massive world wide conspiracy.
2. If you're right, then everybody in the world is wrong.
Just take your pick and move on.

I admit it makes me curious how someone can take such a dogmatic stance where they simply won't allow reason or evidence to intrude on their claim.

Take a look at the false dichotomy Andy2 seems completely dedicated to propounding.

Let's apply it to other areas of inquiry.

As I've mentioned before in a previous thread:  My son was part of a large scientific study researching the efficacy of a new allergy therapy. 

The study followed strict scientific principles to control for variables.
We were "blinded" as to whether he was receiving the study drug or a placebo, and we had to keep a journal on any symptoms.  The researchers running the test were "blinded" to who was receiving the study drug vs placebo.

Now...what could possibly be the rational for this?

Imagine we had said "Look, why are we not allowed to know if my son is on the real drug or placebo?  Neither he nor we would LIE about his experience while on the drug.   And why would the researchers have to be blinded in the study.  Why would they deliberately LIE when interpreting the results?  The only explanation for why you think we have to accept the blind controls are that you assume there is some CONSPIRACY TO LIE by the patients and researchers when interpreting the results.  And if you think ANY of the conclusions we would make without blind testing are wrong, then EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS WRONG."

Does this hysterical response actually constitute a sound, informed argument?

Or...do you think maybe that is missing a third option for why research uses blind testing?

Maybe...one that Andy refuses to account for in his drum-beating for his false dichotomy? 

taras22,

Gotta say that is a very odd thing for a fundamentalist to bring up.

That was lame the other times you tried that approach; it doesn't get any better with time.

You couldn't accurately articulate the position I have argued if you tried.  (because if you could, anyone would see that "fundamentalist" pot-shot couldn't stick and you'd look foolish).   

Please don’t pollute audio discussions with pharma blind tests. There is no similarity whatsoever between drug tests and audio tests. In other words, for you philosophy majors out there, and master debaters, it’s a Strawman argument. This is just more philosophical quackery. 🦆 🦆 🦆