Cable "burning": Real or VooDoo ???

Sean - My opinion, for what it is worth, is that most people here are probably better listeners than I am. I would not want to be in a listening contest with anyone here where we were trying to distinquish between signals with measureable differences. I am pretty sure the folks here have ears that are as good as ears get.

I would not hesitate, however, to bet a huge amount of money that, in a true double blind test, no one could tell if a cable had been "conditioned".

If it really would mean something to you I will try to dig up evidence that electrical signals won't change the property of metals. I hear over and over again the argument that science doesn't know everything therefore what one hears is real. This makes it pointless to give scientific evidence.

KD - Let say that we run a 10 volt square wave, that's 10 volts RMS. Say cables have .2 ohms resistance and the load is 10K. Current is E/R or 10/10000 = 1/1000 amp. Power (watts) is current squared times resistance so Watts = 1/1000 X 1/1000 *.2 =1/5000000 or one five millionth of a watt.... I think we can rule out heat as a factor.

If this doesn't make any sense, here's another way to look at it. If electricity cost 10 cents a kilowatt/hour, you will have to leave a cable on the conditioner for 57,000 years to get 1 cent worth of electricity heating the cable.

Steve, the fact that some people CAN and DO have very high "guess" ratios while doing blind testing PROVES that there HAS to be differences amongst cables. It also proves that there are different levels of hearing ability. Just because 10 people score negatively on blind tests does not negate the fact that one or two might score positively.

As i previously stated, J. Peter Moncrieff was able to determine whether there was or wasn't an ABX box hooked up into the system under test. He did this 10 out of 10 times !!! All testing was done under "blind" conditions with witnesses to verify the results. Obviously, this was no fluke with 100% accuracy. These results caused them to actually change / redesign the relay being used in the internals of the ABX boxes themselves.

While i know that I could NEVER hear something like that myself, i also know that test equipment would not really be able to measure any APPRECIABLE changes in impedance with the addition of the ABX box's relay and connections in the audio path / circuit. As such, Moncrieff's ears were obviously FAR superior to what we think the human ear to be capable of detecting. The "good" thing about all of this is that he was able to do this type of stuff on a regular basis. The better part of all of this is that, he too was a scientist. Not only did he tell you what he heard, he presented measurements as to why things happened as they did. The best of both worlds in my opinion.

That is why i specified a "trained listener" earlier in one of these threads. The average joe ( me included ) simply wouldn't have the know how of what or how to listen for such subtle clues or details that would give the differences away. Someone that IS trained can focus on things that you or i would simply overlook due to a limited attention span, lack of training or a lower level of discernment.

I don't think that anyone here would belittle "science" as a whole. Obviously we wouldn't have the gear or knowledge that we currently do if it wasn't for research and development. At the same time, i think that most of us realize that we as humans ( scientists ARE humans ) know just enough to be dangerous. As such, we have elevated what little that we do know to the point of thinking that we ARE all-knowing. THIS is what puts the "blinders" on science and discoveries, as it rules out the potential for discoveries that don't follow the normal train of thought or what is "right" according to theory. After all, the Earth IS the center of the Universe and is still flat, right ??? Sean
>

Steve, the dichotomy we are locked on here is probably not to be solved. I find it difficult to believe, that all of those who are aware of differences in the way a cable "sounds" after "burn-in" are victims of some sorts of mass hysteria, just as I find it difficult to believe, that the laws of physics should suddenly be null and void. So the idea, that something third is going on, which we really know nothing about, is perhaps not too far fetched after all. Double blind tests seem to show, that the " third factor" seems to lie rather within the psyche of the "believers", but since we know, that often the outcome of those experiments are heavily dependent on the experimental set-up and the maths involved and those factors again on the conscious or unconscious biases of the experimenters, also DBT are not really conclusive.
Hence, in my humble opinion, something like "sceptical modesty" would befit both parties in this never ending argument. I know of my own personal gullibility and know for sure, that emotional factors will influence the way I percieve things. So though of good musical hearing, I am also a sceptic. This dilemma however does not prevent me from enjoying the music. Besides, with new cables or not, my system never sounds the same. There are always subtle, however clearly noticeable differences to the day before.
The more complex the system, the more factors can influence the way it will perform. It can be likened to musical instruments, which also never sound the same from one day to the other. So I don't really care much, what causes a change, as long as the system "sounds right", i.e. musical and I'll start fretting and tweaking if it does not, until I've got it right again. Sometimes I also have to "fret and tweak" on myself, because, when I'm not "right", the system won't sound "right " either. So..and I say this with a selfironic grin .. the two way relationship between an audiophile and his system is a rather complex one, to say the least, and physics will never be able to explain all of it.

Sean, you're so right! Hearing acuity can be trained well beyond that level, which even complex measurements will be able to show. Another example for what our senses are capable of: Wine tasters or perfume testers ( vive la France )are schooled for years and can point out subtle differences which no chemical testing ever could and the industry depends heavily on their results. Why should it be different on the aural level?