Do speaker cables need a burn in period?

In a court case that would consider what is being claimed here  circumstantial evidence would be admissible from experts not from every Joe that claims he hears a difference. For every Joe you get who claims he hears a difference there is a Joe who claims he doesn't. Good luck finding enough experts on wire, i.e. scientists without a vested interest, independent experts not cable manufacturing shills, to support the notion wire changes over time due to the amount of energy passed from an audio signal. Cable manufactures can make their case to support their marketing claims using their experts but that's not the same thing and wouldn't prove anything. It is enough to keep them from being sued for some of the outlandish claims made since it's understood to be subjective opinion not an objective fact. 

I have not seen these outlandish claims cable manufacturers make. What are you guys talking about?  Can someone do me a solid and post some of them. I want to viddy them with my own eyes 👀 Share! Share!

blueranger
I think the nonbelievers are overlooking the circumstantial evidence of the vast numbers of listeners that can tell a difference and the cable manufacturers that spend untold thousands of careful listening hours to perfect their products while listening to burn in.. In a court of law would this prove burn in is not a fallacy but true? Known science would be taken into consideration.

>>>>>I hate to judge too quickly but my sense is that naysayers aren’t really interested in evidence. Whoa! Did I just say that?! 😳

The opinion of a vast number of listeners , pro or con, doesn't rise to the level of circumstantial evidence.  It seems to be on audio forums and popular TV shows  but not in court. Opinions are not admisible as circumstantial evidence in court unless they are given by credtialed experts. This notion

"the vast numbers of listeners that can tell a difference and the cable manufacturers that spend untold thousands of careful listening hours"

is circumstantial evidence in  court  is wrong,  it's opinion and would not be admissible. 

I’m pretty sure opinion is admissible in court. Some opinion is more “expert” than others, that’s all. That’s why, in the case of judges or lawyers’ opinions, they’re called legal opinions. Anyway, that’s my opinion. 😳