Do speaker cables need a burn in period?

I have a feeling that almost nobody here is related to any manufacturer. Save for one or two who actually do not try to hide that fact. They do not flaunt it, but they do not pretend they have no connection to the manufacturing side.

"Cable Vendor Claim
"'Breaking in' a cable has everything to do with the insulation - not the wire itself. The insulation (or dielectric) will absorb energy from the conductor when a current is flowing (i.e. when music is playing). This energy-absorption causes the dielectric's molecules to re-arrange themselves from a random order into a uniform order. When the molecules have been rearranged, the dielectric will absorb less energy & consequently cause less distortion." - Audioquest

Thus their conclusion is the dielectric , not the wire causes distortion! Claims regarding insulation molecules "aligning" with a signal, skin effect, strand jumping, etc, are anecdotal at best. Let's not forget that an audio signal is AC, and effectively random from a physical perspective. Nothing can align to a random signal by being anything other than random - exactly the state they claim is "cured" by injecting a signal.

"Break In" is not a proven audible or measurable phenomenon. The perception of changes in sound quality with time is likely attributable to the classical placebo effect, i.e., a listener anticipating a possible audible difference is predisposed to hear one whether or not it exists. Note that Audioquest isn't the only exotic cable vendor that claims cables "Break In". This is actually quite a popular myth touted by many other exotic cable vendors and cable forum cult hobbyists alike."

I might have misunderstood that article, but so would
anyone reading it who was not deeply familiar with
what you mentioned. To us, it simply says
"no matter how hard you try, you are not going
to get there".

First, we show that better stranded conductor
design, even with “both hands
behind our back”, as I call the constraints of
a stranded parallel cable, is still an arena in
which considerable improvement is possible,
and with less than half as much metal for less
than half the price.
Then, we use a cable of identical design,
except with solid conductors—a fun process
that usually provokes at least one mumbled
comment to the effect that, “if it’s that
obvious, how come everyone doesn’t do it?”
Good question.
Next, using the exact same solid conductors,
we share the audible performance difference
between parallel and twisted-geometry
cables, where geometry changes alone
can yield a surprisingly more open and
subjectively more dynamic presentation.
Going further, we move to a cable of
identical design, but with higher quality
copper conductors, and once again, the
clear sonic difference has a clear causeand-
effect.
Last in this progression is another pair of the
same better-metal cables, except with our
Dielectric-Bias System (DBS) attached. We
use identical cables except for the DBS—a
controlled experiment with a single variable
in-play: namely, the amount of interference
caused by the insulation, the dielectric.
Directionality is our honorary fifth element
or ingredient, although because it is a factor
always in play with any cable, and not part
of any particular design hierarchy, it doesn’t
quite fit in the same category as the others.
All drawn metal has a directional impedance
variation at higher RF/EMI noise frequencies.
By ‘law’, energy must follow the path of least
resistance, so we employ this impedance
variation as a mechanism for consciously
directing noise either to Earth or to
whichever attached circuit is less vulnerable
to noise. The key is to direct noise to where it
will do the least damage.