Do speaker cables need a burn in period?

I have heard some say that speaker cables do need a 'burn in', and some say that its totally BS.
What say you?

gawdbless09-15-2018 3:29am

...
1103 posts total
View entire discussion

andy2 Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 484 posts 10-12-2018 at 02:06pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Cables don’t need burn in. Electrons are in orbital shells in the metal atoms and are not in the least influenced in any lasting or "memory" manner by current applied. This is silly to the point of hilarity to the point of sadness. False science is worse than no science. This statement has no basis and oversimplified.
maritime51 Details Discussions Posts This discussion 1,288 posts 10-12-2018 at 02:10pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete And, then, the falsity of a motive denied.... Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. 🐍💩
glupson Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 1,794 posts 10-12-2018 at 04:39pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete "..obviously the listening tests were done by folks who weren’t hearing impaired." It is not obvious at all. We are still waiting to find out who those people were and how they did it. For the initial simplicity, we can assume they were not hearing impaired although the solidity of that assumption is not that great. "And the results correlated with wire direction. I.e., they weren’t random." What results? Whose results? When and where results? "There is no operator error when 80,000 hear it." Which 80 000? Where did that number come from and how was the study conducted on such a large number? Even if all 80 000 exist, your favorite reference might suggest the possibility for a multiple-operator error.
geoffkait Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 14,147 posts 10-12-2018 at 05:18pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete glupson "..obviously the listening tests were done by folks who weren’t hearing impaired." It is not obvious at all. We are still waiting to find out who those people were and how they did it. For the initial simplicity, we can assume they were not hearing impaired although the solidity of that assumption is not that great. "And the results correlated with wire direction. I.e., they weren’t random." What results? Whose results? When and where results? "There is no operator error when 80,000 hear it." Which 80 000? Where did that number come from and how was the study conducted on such a large number? Even if all 80 000 exist, your favorite reference might suggest the possibility for a multiple-operator error. >>>>God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. Wake up and smell the coffee. ☕️ I guess you didn’t realize I’m an audio insider. You’re obviously an audio outsider.
glupson Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 1,794 posts 10-12-2018 at 05:33pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete geoffkait, Based on your statements, it is hard to guess you are an audio insider. However, it is clear that you do have great imagination and talent for constructing stories with barely any connection to reality. Pumpkins, flying elephants, and other natural phenomena are always in fashion. Disney may been hiring and I can write you a letter of support. That is not to say that some of the physics implied by posters other than you may not be correct. I do not drink coffee and do not smell it when I wake up.

1103 posts total
View entire discussion

More to discover