Another Cable Burn-in Question

the suggestion to use a break-in device is based upon the idea of not hastening the demise of a laser mechanism.

a tuner or other low current source is suitable as well.

i agree that using a break-in device as compared to say a cd player will initially produce contrasting sonic differences. i suspect, after some duration, one won't be able to distinguish one pair from another. however, i'm not sure of the duration of a signal passed through an interconnect cable, neede to erase initial sonic differences.

MrTennis, et al
My take solely is about the 'static' (uphill or down) non energized method mentioned above for cables run in periods vs. energized 'conducting a strong signal' thru them with componenets at both ends being powered up.

Consequently, due to the mention of the Hagerman device, and the philosphy behind it's construction & operation, why is it powered, or even offered at all? Aside from the obvious application for tube saving uses.... if static or non current sending is as good a thing to do for breaking in cables?

I ask only because with the presence of such a device of and by itself, a statement which seems to me to be quite ludicrous is made towards one camp or the other. At the OR very least one of great irony.

does a cdp require eelectricity ? if so it is hard to say that it will generate more or less kwh than a break-in device. both use elctricity and the break in device does not require an interface with another component.

it is simply a case of the use of a cd player or tuner or a break-in device. both require a source of power.
there are no other issues. case closed.

Just play the system. If it sounds that bad, then no amount of breakin is gonna help:)

MrT
Try reading the previous posts, instead of just the last one.

There are some which say otherwise... alluding to no need for two components to be active in oreder for cables to run in.

Dave_b
uh... yeah... but that's not the thrust of this thread. see above....