Do speaker cables need a burn in period?
Over time on this thread, so-called "non-believers" have been asking for explanations grounded in science and rational thinking. The problem is the non believers are non-technical people and non-honorable people. They use the word "honor" as a tool but they themselves don't actually know the meaning of the word since it's entirely foreign to them. Like a blind from berth will never knows the concept of color. |
andy2, That is unfortunate. I have been lucky to have met different ones. Maybe it does help that I grew up with a few of them so I am biased. You are basically implying that "non-believers" are not honorable people. It brings a conclusion that they are not honorable because they disagree with you or things you claim. Vatican is more open-minded than that. |
So the thread has been reduced to denegrating women as illogical frustrating creatures. Where would one find evidence to support this supposed "rational scientific" opinion? Do we have another court case here built on circumstantial evidence? I am sure we could find " vast numbers" of people we can call as expert witnesses. |
Over time on this thread, so-called "non-believers" have been asking for explanations grounded in science and rational thinking. The other ones, "believers", have been annoyed by that and frequently resorted to "you have to believe" and "there is more science that you just do not understand" or similar answers. That would make both of those groups mentioned in one of the above posts actually one and that would be "non-believers". |
Now you are really confusing. What kind of mentality is that? I know a bunch of lawyers and they seem to be quite different in most of the things. I always heard that lawyers are of a certain type, different from honorable people. That's all I heard until I actually had direct contacts with actual lawyers. I then realized people were right that lawyers are different people from honorable people. Like Jack Nicholson said so clearly: You can't handle the truth. |
I actually don’t think the so called non believers care one way or the other. They simply like to argue. It’s what non believers do. They like to get a reaction. It’s so obvious. When viewed as simply a whack-a-mole game, there really isn’t any harm in that. You can’t do anything about it, anyway. Relax and enjoy. 😛 |
Eloquence and logic are not mutually exclusive. In fact, eloquence is ability to present logical thinking in a better and, often, easier-to understand, way. I think you are confusing magicians, con artists, swindlers, hustlers, little neighborhood crooks, and a few more with the skill and gift that eloquence actually is. You seem to think that anything that is laid out nicely must be there to get you somehow. It is not always the case. It really is not. Just like the truth which can also be pretty. How did lawyers' personality characteristics end up here? |
Again, I am in neither camp on this burn-in issue, so I can somewhat objectively tell you that both sides seem entrenched in the same way. Same pattern with different prefix. If you have a firm belief in existence of burn-in, arguing with someone who has a firm belief in its non-existence will lead you nowhere, except for frustration. The only ones you could try to explain your views to are those with no loyalty to either camp. However, you may need to accept their doubts and questions as legitimate, too. So far, most of the burn-in proponents answers to challenging questions have been "it is that way, you just do not get it, shame on you" kind. Who would go for that? |
Eloquent is not the enemy of truth at all. It is just nicer and more coherent way of expressing it. Think of it as "truth with a style" rather than "truth with whining". Whatever the truth about burn-in ends up being, it is, except for manufacturers, only of academic importance. I am not sure where did Marx land from in all of this. He lived way before speakers and amplifiers, I think. |
On these 18 pages, and between both camps, you could not collect 100 sentences that would qualify as somewhat scientific. Most of the "scientific" attempts are good for shrugging shoulders and not much else. There are lots of testimonies, but they are on both sides. Nobody wins. I follow this thread because I do not have an opinion if burn-in exists or not. However, some of the claims and theories presented are not making a strong case for it. For now, the opponents are a bit more eloquent in refuting it theoretically. |
They may not be outlandish. They may be just right in Neverland or any other fantasy land. For normal living people, they are a sad joke. Relax your room, you will feel better. So will your cable. Nervous rooms and traumatized cables are a big problem in Hi-Fi. It is not all I got. I use your references so you can easily find it yourself, too. |
I have not seen these outlandish claims cable manufacturers make. What are you guys talking about? Can someone do me a solid and post some of them. "A note of caution. Moving a cable will, to some degree, traumatize it." I am not sure if it would be accepted as outlandish, but bizarre or silly it is. Note: Above statements are from an article provided as a reference two days ago by........geoffkait. |
See the requirements for expert testimony from the Federal Rules of Evidence below. Can you imagine a thread here trying to define who is qualified to provide expert opinion on cables, fuses, and wire burn-in? That should be good for several months of worthless but entertaining back and forth. Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. |
The opinion of a vast number of listeners , pro or con, doesn't rise to the level of circumstantial evidence. It seems to be on audio forums and popular TV shows but not in court. Opinions are not admisible as circumstantial evidence in court unless they are given by credtialed experts. This notion "the vast numbers of listeners that can tell a difference and the cable manufacturers that spend untold thousands of careful listening hours" is circumstantial evidence in court is wrong, it's opinion and would not be admissible. |
blueranger I think the nonbelievers are overlooking the circumstantial evidence of the vast numbers of listeners that can tell a difference and the cable manufacturers that spend untold thousands of careful listening hours to perfect their products while listening to burn in.. In a court of law would this prove burn in is not a fallacy but true? Known science would be taken into consideration. >>>>>I hate to judge too quickly but my sense is that naysayers aren’t really interested in evidence. Whoa! Did I just say that?! 😳 |
In a court case that would consider what is being claimed here circumstantial evidence would be admissible from experts not from every Joe that claims he hears a difference. For every Joe you get who claims he hears a difference there is a Joe who claims he doesn't. Good luck finding enough experts on wire, i.e. scientists without a vested interest, independent experts not cable manufacturing shills, to support the notion wire changes over time due to the amount of energy passed from an audio signal. Cable manufactures can make their case to support their marketing claims using their experts but that's not the same thing and wouldn't prove anything. It is enough to keep them from being sued for some of the outlandish claims made since it's understood to be subjective opinion not an objective fact. |
I have an experience I want to share with you guys. Yes it also takes time to break in a new cable. When it is broken in then don't feel safe like that when you buy second hand. I have bought second hand speakers and cables around the country (Denmark). Listen to it before paying and later transport. In winther time and if the speakers and cables are exposed to cold weather something happend to them. I have a van where the storage room has no heat. Typical transport time below zero can be from 1 to 4 hours. The gear that has been exposed to these temperatures do change their sound characteristics. Speakers that sounded good suddently sounds terrible and need to break in again. The same goes for cables. Happy listening - to music out there :-) |
Circumstantial Evidence Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove. Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence. |
I think the nonbelievers are overlooking the circumstantial evidence of the vast numbers of listeners that can tell a difference and the cable manufacturers that spend untold thousands of careful listening hours to perfect their products while listening to burn in.. In a court of law would this prove burn in is not a fallacy but true? Known science would be taken into consideration. |
"This energy-absorption causes the dielectric’s molecules to re-arrange themselves from a random order into a uniform order. When the molecules have been rearranged, the dielectric will absorb less energy & consequently cause less distortion." Molecular rearrangement of dialectric by way of music signal, hmm... That’s a hoot. If the molecules of the polymeric dielectric restructured upon playing music through the cables, the breaking of covalent bonds in the dialectric would cause the insulation to fall apart and literally disintegrate. But we all know that doesn’t happen now, don’t we? And please don’t tell me that the music also forms new covalent bonds. |
