Do cables really need "breaking in"?

Hi Matt,

I had three sets of Stealth PGS Gold interconnects. Two xlr's and one rca. I lent all my powercords, speaker wires and interconnects to a man I sold an amp to while I was away on vacation. He wrote me a note telling me which was the newest, the next newest and the most broken in interconnects. He was correct. I had a Resolution Audio Cd55 which I installed a xlr and rca pair to the pre-amp. I would switch back and forth and the result of the switch was that the newer interconnect would always sound brighter and more brittle. After a few months they became identical.

My experience.

Bill E.

I agree with paulwp for this reason. After reading hundreds of testimonials in the usual magazines and online for several years now about the benefits of burning in cables, I have never once heard anyone say that a cable sounded worse. They ALWAYS sound better. How can that be? If they do indeed change, how can it always be for the better? If good sound consists of a synergy of all components, at least some of the time the raw sound of the cable would be more synergistic than the broken in cable. But no, they are always described as sounding better. There is no doubt that different cables sound different. But I think the effect of burn in is one of becoming accustomed to the sound of the cable.

Herman brings up a point that I have thought about quite a bit as well, while trying to understand what I was/am hearing. Herman says "I have never once heard anyone say that a cable sounded worse. They ALWAYS sound better." After playing with quite a few cables, I have answered this question to myself in this manner:

A good high end audio designer should use the END product throughout testing and voicing of a model, and I think a lot of them do just that. A simple example would be speakers. If I were building a pair of speakers, and wanted to see what 10 different midranges sounded like, here's what I would do: buy a couple of each of the midranges, and cook them on some signal/amp combination for say 200 hours. THEN, and only then, would I put each midrange into the cabinet, and see how it sings with the woofer/tweeter/crossover. Bear in mind, I would have cooked the woofer and tweeter for sure, and heck, maybe even the crossover parts (including some extra capacitors/coils to try). After this process, the combination of parts and some tweaking would produce the prototype. Now, to actually build to sell them, I would be ordering the parts in quantity, and assembling the speakers. Maybe I have time/space/money to give them 10 hours of burn in, or maybe more, and expect the owner to do the rest.

The end result is a product that out of the box does NOT sound the way I (the designer) heard it. But, since I accounted for this breakin, the speakers will sound BETTER with break in - every pair of every model that is designed as above.

Now, I have no idea how much of this is feasible for cables (that's why I used speakers for my example), but I know some cable makers do go through this process.

All in all, I agree that some of it is the listener breaking-in to the new sound, but I am very sure that cables do change their sound not only with burn in, but also from being moved. Some of the more noticeable examples I have run across include Purist Audio, Cardas, and some Straightwire models. Take a pair of these interconnects off, put them back in their box for a couple of days, put them back into the system, and there is a readily identifiable and PREDICTABLE course that the sound will take while the cables settle back in.

In my experience, yes. Some more than others. And a few cables, not at all.

Do cables really need "breaking in" ? The answer is a resounding YES. Will they ever FULLY break in under normal operating conditions within a hi-fi system ? I sincerely doubt it.

To those that have never experienced the difference between a cable that has been burned on a Mobie (or similar device) and an identical cable that hasn't, you have NO grounds to base your statements on. You are peddling hearsay based on YOUR preconcieved ideas and what you consider to be "common sense" and "logic". All i can say is that your "logic" is about as flawed as thinking that the Earth is both flat AND the center of the Universe. Just as the "heretics" known as Galileo and Christopher Columbus proved otherwise many years ago, we will someday have the technology to prove that MEASURABLE and AUDIBLE differences do exist in "burned" and "raw" cables.

While i can't speak for everyone, my experience is that interconnect cables used for hundreds of hours will typically demonstrate noticeably superior performance after "roasting" on a Mobie for a reasonable period of time. The use of another "cable burner" such as the Duo-Tech did nothing in my opinion / experience. I have no idea as to how effective Alan's "Cable Cooker" works either.

As to the "results" of "burning in cables" being positive, i think that most folks would consider increased clarity, smoothness, transparency, detail, improved harmonic structure and a more natural presentation GOOD things. As to the naysayers, put your money where your mouth is and find out first-hand. Music Direct ( or anybody else that may sell these things ) offers a 30 day return policy on a Mobie. Buy one, burn some of those $15 "competently designed" cables for two weeks non-stop and then give them a try. You can even "daisy chain" a few pairs if you make a trip to Rat Shack and invest in some double female RCA "barrel" connectors. If you don't notice a beneficial difference, then return the Mobie and get your money back. You won't be out anything other than the small cost of shipping. If you like the results, you will have made what could amount to a phenomenal purchase for the money invested. Either way, you can post the results right here for all to see, good or bad. You will be speaking with first hand experience then and nobody will be able to argue with that.

Until then, i consider any "negative" ramblings about cable burning or break in to be a moot point. Put up or shut up, your option. Sean
>