Cable "burning": Real or VooDoo ???


While i have my opinions on this subject, i'd love to hear from others that have tried various methods of "burning in" cables, what was used to do it, what differences were noticed ( if any ), etc... Please be as specific as possible. If your a "naysayer" in this area, please feel free to join in BUT have an open mind and keep this thread on topic. Sean
>
sean
Hi Sean. I am going to make one "picky point", that is meant to add to your post rather than negate it. And that is that I disagree that the techs have to "renounce" or "dismiss" anything except their assumptions. For a true scientist, all you have to do is accept that there might be more than you currently understand, or that maybe you haven't applied your existing knowledge to what is really going on.

I have two daughters aged 7 and 9, and keep reminding them of a "SECRET". That secret is that the biggest fool in the world is the person that believes he/she knows everything. Beliefs are very useful things to have, but just like the shoes they grow out of so regularly, that they need to always be ready to grow out of their beliefs too.
Red, the VAST majority of Engineers and Techs that i know are FAR from being "scientists". They only know what their books and teachers taught them and that's where most of their "education" stopped. That is why many of the products that we have today are the way that they are: VERY limited and not real flexible. They look good on paper but are not practical or realistic in real world situations.

Part of this is because "adaptability", "practicality" and the "hands on approach" are not taught in schools anymore. They simply give you the basics and shove you out into the working world. Hell, most of the time if you can pay your tuition and show up, you will graduate. Who cares if you really know enough to do the job !!!

As such, it is up to the "techs" and "engineers" to do TWO things. Apply what knowledge they have AND learn more as they go along. Since many engineers simply do a design and do not get to put the actual end product through its' paces in actual field use, they don't have the "hands on" that many "commoners" have to deal with on a daily basis. Since they get very limited feedback on the design from the end user ( if ANY at all ), they assume that their "creation" is near perfect. As such, they learn to live by their "textbook" education and the limited feedback that trickles back to them from management. Anything else that does not conform to their limited point of view and desktop experiences is strictly considered to be "heresy", "snake oil" or "impossible". They've closed their minds, eyes and hearts to the opportunities and knowledge that confronts them on a daily basis.

To those engineers and techs that are NOT like this, KUDOS to you for breaking the mold. To those that this offends, maybe it's because it hits too close to home. Sean
>
702 sez, among other tings:

"If you've listened to recordings, attended concerts, gone to films, seen a Broadway show, or watched TV in the past 20 years there's a good chance you've heard some things I've been a part of developing."

so *that* explains why there's etched highs, unnaturally forward midrange, over-boosted mid-bass, compressed dynamics, flat soundstage in so much commercial audio... ;~)

sorry, couldn't resist; doug s.