Cables "Burn In"

Sugar, the main benefits that i've experienced from "burning" cables is that they tend to sound far more natural, offer increased liquidity and sound less "hi-fi". Rough edges are removed and all that you are left with is the music in an even more appealing presentation. Since better musical reproduction is what i am after ( even though i am definitely a "gear head" and like to tinker ), i find it a win / win situation in every aspect.

As to the "burn in" wearing off, i don't know about that. I don't think that this takes place unless something occurs to physically or chemically alter the cables. I guess that i could take some cables that i know are well burned, use them for an extended amount of time and then try re-burning them again. I think that Bob Crump has found that cables are "once burned, always burned" to a great extent. Obviously, this would be a matter of subjective judgment.

I personally don't believe that the initial differences between "burned" and "unburned" is subjective at all, as the differences can be rather staggering and hard NOT to notice. Sean
>

Sugarbrie: I am with you on this one. "Burned in" is a state of mind.
Also: I think the cable people would toss the cables on a machine and burn them in at the factory if they wanted them to sound that way.

Have to side with Sean on this one. After tiring of hearing that I had to run cables for 50-100-500 hours to hear their "true potential", I picked up a Audiodharma Pro Cooker. It definitely makes a difference on ICs (2-3 days) and speaker cables (4-5 days), but virtually none on PCs (your experience Sean?).

Interestly, I found some of the biggest differences with less expensive wire. I "fried" a set of Dimarzio (of guitar pickup fame) $500 speaker cables, and they more than held their own with a set which lists for $2500.

Just my experience.

I do believe cables need some break-in. Something changes in the molecular structure when a current is applied. Just wondering if we are going too far? As a mused above: Why wait forever for the cable to burn in? Just get one that sounds good in a perpetual partially burned in state, whatever that is!?

On the one hand, on the other hand. Have I not heard something like this on numerous occasions? The whole burn-in thing has to be a joke. If any component actually needs burning in to sound better, this means that, unless whatever change happens in the component that is not simply metaphysical in nature stops at some point, the component will either sound better and better as it ages, almost without end, or will get to a point where it loses its optimal listening quality as whatever is changing starts on a downward curve. Maybe components should have a "best before date" so that we can throw them out? No that would not do, because in audio everything is in the ears of the one listener, so the only solution is to listen for any, repeat any, change, no matter how subtle, and, if deemed to be on the negative side of the holistic listening experience, to ditch the component when it gets too "burned-in". To solve this, invent this wacky theory for cables that they go back and forth in their ability to carry a signal and that they have to "relearn" this fine art of conductivity by being "re-burned-in" from time to time. This whole thing is so unreal! Top it all off by saying "well I know it has to be so because I can hear the difference", with the sub-text implying that if the sceptic cannot, he is either deaf or stupid or both, and should get out of the hobby, and you have, yet again, a snapshot of the state of subjective audio. If, in fact, humans could hear these changes caused by some yet un-named, un-measurable and imperceptible phenomena save to the initiate, life would be unbearable. Sort of like seeing the blackheads on the nose of a stadium-full of people at two hundred and fifty yards because of extra high resolution bionic vision. Even if it was possible, why would anyone want to?