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?
- ...
- 34 posts total
- 34 posts total