Do cables really need "breaking in"?

I've only been through this topic about 300 times-- guess it's always popular or new to some.

A bit off subject, but relavent I think: In Oct. 2001, we bought a new, large, wide screen TV-- near $3K and from a major manufacturer. Right out of the box the picture was fine, but the sound was terrible. It sounded like a $19.95 transistor radio-- bright, edgy, an annoying echo, and fatiguing. News announcers sounded like they were talking from a culvert. This TV allows adjustment of bass and treble, and I did my best to correct the terrible sound quality. This helped a bit.

After the TV had been on for 6-8 hours, my wife came home and said "what's that smell?". Well of course it was the smell of the electronics of the TV "burning in", and then I realized that the TV speakers also needed to break in. The "burn in" smell lasted 2-3 days for me and 4-5 for my wife. I'd say it easily took nearly two months for the sound quality to smooth out and become non-fatiguing.

And now 3 months later, the TV sound quality is just fine-- well, for a TV, and I've been able to return the bass and treble settings to more normal positions. Am I supposed to believe that this improvement in sound quality/character is all in my mind? That no actual break-in/burn-in occurred except in my mind?

BTW, new and near new TVs of the same brand sound just as bad at the dealers, but when I auditioned it I thought it was just room acoustics. Cheers. Craig

Paulwp, i WILL go so far as to say that the differences in the "sonic signature" of cables IS highly system dependent. Whether this is due to superior design (stability) of the components or the lack of resolution within the system are but two of the possible variables involved.

As to doing cable comparisons, it is VERY easy to do an unbiased test using an "outsider" i.e. "non audiophile". Hook up two speakers side by side and run the system in mono. The channels should be "plumbed" electrically identical except for the ONE cable under test. Have the listener sit directly on axis centered between the two speakers. Differences in frequency response due to room loading characteristics are not really a factor since the speakers would be firing into near identical environments. This takes for granted that the speakers being used are relatively well matched in terms of frequency response and amplitude output levels.

Since the listener does not know anything about brands, various designs or what to expect from any of the devices under test ( DUT ), you can simply play a selection of music for them and switch from speaker to speaker as instantaneously as is possible. This takes the "acoustic memory" debate out of the equation.

Of course, you can't tell them what to listen for as that surely would taint the results. Not letting them see the cables in use prior to testing also helps keep things on an even keel. Since different designs may appear "thicker, more solid" or "lighter, more airy", the listener may enter the test with preconcieved notions or effectively bias what they hear or percieve to hear based on visually preconcieved ideas. No talking should take place until the listener has formed their own opinion of what they are hearing and is willing to voice their appraisal of the situation.

If the unbiased listener tries to verbalize the difference in sonics that you were also hearing WITHOUT any assistance or guidance from you, chances are the differences in the cables under test are EASILY noticeable. If they are unsure of any specific changes, differences ranging from very subtle to no difference at all ( within the confines of that system ) would be a logical conclusion. The fact that there might be a disagreement pertaining to specific sonic differences between several parties listening to the same system under the same test conditions would leave us with nothing more than a "subjective" outcome. This could not be taken as a positive OR negative but would require further, possibly more controlled, testing.

I have found that by using this method, i am easily able to confirm what i thought the differences in various cables in a specific system were by comparing notes with the un-interested party. While this may not be as "accurate" as DBX under controlled conditions, there is also nothing extra hooked up into the system to further taint or confuse the results. The ability to repeat the test on a regular basis with consistent results supports my previous statements to the fact that differences in cables DO exist and that they are audible.

With threads that get out of hand / quickly become polarized such as this one has, is it any wonder that AA has taken the stance that they have ??? Sean
>

My friend has the Cable Cooker. He burned my i/c's for 48 hours and now I can hear a big difference. My cables (system) sound more like music than before. It works.

This is only half on pointbut I am a no count amateur speaker builder. But all of the guys I admire (Lynn Olson, George Short on and on) share at least two common traits.

1) They know all of the numbers and formulas and put great store in them. In this sense I get very tired of folks who talk about "cables" endlessly and NEVER about the design parameters used by cable makers and how it combines with a system. And why these designs cost so much $$$. If you have a speaker that has ridiculas load impedence (the old Quads and some others) that drop to under 2 ohms at high frequencies you have need certain needs in a cable. If you have a SET you have capacitance issues. If you have an ELS you have inductance issues...on and on. I feel a lot of stuff magically attributed to "cables" can be thought through and figured out without dropping ridiculas amounts of cash and chasing the latest gimmick that is thrown at us by the cable industry.

2)Knowing the numbers and respecting them, they know that the formulas just do not work. a) The cross over equations do not work, b)the frequency response curves are taken under artificial conditions, c) the Thiele/Small numbers given by most manufactureers are way off... on and on. That is, measurments, at least as we take them now,just do not tell the whole story. Another example of this phenom is why do SETS sound so good when they have such poor numbers(3 watts and THD .05). Again these examples can go on and on.

These guys spend endless hours tweaking by ear. Read Olson's account of how he developed the crossover for the Ariel.

Its the old joke about the two guys in the life boat arguing over which orr to keep in the water. You need both or you row in circles. You need to respect the numbers and such but in the end you have to listen too. The whole argument about numbers vs ears is, to me, idiotic and unproductive. You need both.

That being said I think There is so much fantastic hype and marketing around cables that it is a turn-off. The industry has not produced anything to justify the COST. (I am not saying all cables sound alike!!!) Well designed cooper suits me fine (I make my own).

By the way I do not feel thinking about how 18 inches of wire (the last .015%) overcomes a typical Audio chain that includes 100 opamps, dozens of connectors,and hundreds of yard of ordinary cable (I'm talking just the recording chain here-not the juice to your to your house) makes me a member of the flat earth society.

Sincerely, I remain

Craig ... the concept of speakers (mechanical, with moving parts) breaking in is absolutely believable.
The post was referring to cables, not speakers.

1953 .. I don't think I scoffed, or at least I didn't mean to. I just pointed out that the ear can easily be fooled, as can the eyes. Please don't resort to capitals ... I can read lower case !