bobbyd3 Hey geoffkait, Since you’re on the Dielectric thingie now, maybe it would help if you knew the Definition if the term?
di·e·lec·tric/ˌdīəˈlektrik/PHYSICSadjectiveadjective: dielectric 1. having the property of transmitting electric force without conduction; insulating. nounnoun: dielectric; plural noun: dielectrics
1. a medium or substance that transmits electric force without conduction; an insulator. Capacitors use Dielectric material that blocks DC (Direct Current), and passes Alternating Current (AC), also known as Audio Electrical signals. There IS NO Dielectric material in Copper Speaker Cables, so I really don’t follow your point? But please keep believing all the Bullshit that Cable companies, and Their Advertisers spew to get Suckers to buy there $200/Ft Speaker Cable! “A fool and his money are soon parted”
>>>>>Bobby, you’re pulling my leg, right? Of course copper speaker cables have dielectric material. What planet are you from? Didn’t you read any of the burn in articles I posted? Let me guess, you don’t read explanations because your mind is closed, right?
No2headphones: Well I am probably not the best one to asked about site conduct since I was just emailed that some of my posts will be deleted by a moderator. I get it. Go away ganainm ! No science here! OK I'm gone. We can both poke around for alternatives. DIY Audio does have some folks who know one end of a soldering iron from another but have not been in a while. Good luck....
glupson, you're certainly right about the emotional level raised over cable issues. While I've been late to this party, it's been entertaining at the very least. I've admittedly enjoyed this thread and ALL the commentary offered herein. I'm actually awaiting a DAC to arrive today to play my .wav files from my laptop. Once it arrives, I intend to retire to my listening room, enjoy some legal Cdn product and feed my ears for a few hours. Wonderful meeting you all and look forward to more in the future - different topic though. May your ears and bellies be full! Be well all.
My curiosity about DACs was actually limited to chips. I first tried just DAC and it brought me to much more but most were regarding DACs as a stand-alone machines or other, basically finished, products.
I have no idea how chips work and consider those who can design them very bright and admire their work. I found out that most threads that somehow talk about DAC chips have 10-20-30 posts. Maybe more, I really did not dig too deep, but far less than threads about cables. Not much discussion about comparison and other details and properties of DAC chips.
So I thought, on one side we have an item that is advanced in execution and that cannot be replaced by just about anything. Not many talk about it on Audiogon (some other websites are more active in that regard, though). On the other side we have an item that can, relatively functionally, be replaced by pretty much anything that conducts electricity and there are a few threads regarding it right now and they have hundreds of posts each. We get all technical and scientific about much simpler item barely mentioning the sophisticated one that does heavy work. I have a feeling that nobody who can figure out the way to improve DAC chips ever visits these threads. Who knows, they may be too busy improving a little piece which will enable us to differentiate between burned-in and not-burned-in cable in the future.
This would be kind of thread I was looking for to compare with cable threads. See how many and when. Yet, you will see threads about tweaks consisting of howling at the moon or bringing African plants into the room going much stronger.
It was not a threat at all. Far from that. It is that on some of these threads people interact with others in a way they would never do in real life. There have been calls for death, suggestions of suicides, etc. Morons, trolls, you name it. I thought that keeping conversation in the way you would at the bar would be somehow acceptable. That is where 6'5" comes from. You do not start insulting a person just because he has a different opinion. At least you keep mind open. "You" not being you personally, but any of us.
Hey ganainm, thanks for the response! No, I don't suggest these sites are chalked full of industry insiders but it is far more prevalent than just a few years ago and seems likely to get worse. The very nature of forums like this makes it easy to disguise the true nature of a party so predisposed. I feel it's a fair point to raise in this day and age. I also don't intend to insult any participants. Being so new here, perhaps I should use my eyes and ears a great deal more before tapping the keys. Your point about AG is well taken though. I hadn't realized that AG was as much about selling stuff. Admittedly, I'm very new here and still looking around, getting my bearings. I'm glad to have met you and look forward to your opinion on various matters in future. Any other advice you wish to provide on site conduct is certainly welcome.
This has degenerated into one big pie fight that has nothing to do with audio and everything to do with ego.
How many times must we read the same links and arguments that have already been tossed in the dung heap of history? Nothing new or revelatory is being discussed.
I might have misunderstood that article, but so would anyone reading it who was not deeply familiar with what you mentioned. To us, it simply says "no matter how hard you try, you are not going to get there".
I guess one has to create a story in order to advertise a product. I don't think you can criticize that. But you could criticize the validity of their claim with respect to their DBS system. Personally I don't see why they have to go out of their way creating something just to sell cables if it does not improve the sound.
In my previous job working in signal integrity, a circuit board sometimes needs to be baked in heat to improve jitter performance. It has to do with dielectric absorbing moisture and when it is baked, it allows the moisture to escape. So the state dielectric is pretty important to the electrical current.
Here is an interesting interview with AudioQuest founder. The last paragraph is on wire directivity. (He's a close cousin to GeoffKait).
First, we show that better stranded conductor design, even with “both hands behind our back”, as I call the constraints of a stranded parallel cable, is still an arena in which considerable improvement is possible, and with less than half as much metal for less than half the price. Then, we use a cable of identical design, except with solid conductors—a fun process that usually provokes at least one mumbled comment to the effect that, “if it’s that obvious, how come everyone doesn’t do it?” Good question. Next, using the exact same solid conductors, we share the audible performance difference between parallel and twisted-geometry cables, where geometry changes alone can yield a surprisingly more open and subjectively more dynamic presentation. Going further, we move to a cable of identical design, but with higher quality copper conductors, and once again, the clear sonic difference has a clear causeand- effect. Last in this progression is another pair of the same better-metal cables, except with our Dielectric-Bias System (DBS) attached. We use identical cables except for the DBS—a controlled experiment with a single variable in-play: namely, the amount of interference caused by the insulation, the dielectric. Directionality is our honorary fifth element or ingredient, although because it is a factor always in play with any cable, and not part of any particular design hierarchy, it doesn’t quite fit in the same category as the others. All drawn metal has a directional impedance variation at higher RF/EMI noise frequencies. By ‘law’, energy must follow the path of least resistance, so we employ this impedance variation as a mechanism for consciously directing noise either to Earth or to whichever attached circuit is less vulnerable to noise. The key is to direct noise to where it will do the least damage.
Hey geoffkait, Since you’re on the Dielectric thingie now, maybe it would help if you knew the Definition if the term? di·e·lec·tric/ˌdīəˈlektrik/PHYSICSadjectiveadjective:dielectric
1.having the property of transmitting electric force without conduction; insulating.
nounnoun:dielectric; plural noun:dielectrics
1.a medium or substance that transmits electric force without conduction; an insulator.
Capacitors use Dielectric material that blocks DC (Direct Current), and passes Alternating Current (AC), also known as Audio Electrical signals. There IS NO Dielectric material in Copper Speaker Cables, so I really don’t follow your point? But please keep believing all the Bullshit that Cable companies, and Their Advertisers spew to get Suckers to buy there $200/Ft Speaker Cable! “A fool and his money are soon parted”
Hi glupson. You're certainly right to be confused about burn in if you're following this thread. BTW, love your suggestion about DACs. I did a quick check and found over 75,000 references to DACs on AG. DAC chips have already evolved well beyond on our ability to resolve all that they can do. My problem has to do with the pricing on stand-alone DACs which is far beyond what it needs to be. There are really only a few manufacturers of the chips and different companies either specify the parameters they want for their own or usually just buy from a selection of available chips. I still find it mind boggling, the processing power that's available in these chips that fit on the tip of your finger. When you consider the processing power and speed that's required for the new 8k displays, even 20 years ago, it was hard to fathom the capabilities of these little wonders today - and it continues to increase so rapidly.
As to the latest article from Audioquest, see below from engineer Gene DellaSala, owner of Audioholics, written back in 2004 when Audioquest made the same claims.
"Cable Vendor Claim "'Breaking in' a cable has everything to do with the insulation - not the wire itself. The insulation (or dielectric) will absorb energy from the conductor when a current is flowing (i.e. when music is playing). 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." - Audioquest
Audioholics Response
Thus their conclusion is the dielectric , not the wire causes distortion! Claims regarding insulation molecules "aligning" with a signal, skin effect, strand jumping, etc, are anecdotal at best. Let's not forget that an audio signal is AC, and effectively random from a physical perspective. Nothing can align to a random signal by being anything other than random - exactly the state they claim is "cured" by injecting a signal.
"Break In" is not a proven audible or measurable phenomenon. The perception of changes in sound quality with time is likely attributable to the classical placebo effect, i.e., a listener anticipating a possible audible difference is predisposed to hear one whether or not it exists. Note that Audioquest isn't the only exotic cable vendor that claims cables "Break In". This is actually quite a popular myth touted by many other exotic cable vendors and cable forum cult hobbyists alike."
So, glupson, don't give in to the dark side. Far and away, the part of your system that most requires break in are your speakers and there's plenty of legitimate information easily available to you on that subject.
I have a feeling that almost nobody here is related to any manufacturer. Save for one or two who actually do not try to hide that fact. They do not flaunt it, but they do not pretend they have no connection to the manufacturing side.
no2headphones: Challenging issues you raise. Not everyone here is an industry shill, some are just true believers without much respect for concepts like double blind, established physics, expectation bias etc. They are fine people but no point in arguing religion. To have real discussions with science/engineering oriented music lovers who want to discuss audio, including the possibilities of edgy stuff/ limits of audibility, tinkering etc etc would likely need to be established on another forum since Audiogon is about selling stuff. And the "magic" cable properties are a big part of the "stuff" that is sold in the whole market.
"I would think people buy cables for the sound quality. I don’t think they care about burn in."
Just this thread has 17 pages. At least half is our non-sense arguing about something else but actual question, but still. Eight pages, 400 posts or so, are arguing about existence of burn-in.
Someone cares. I am not sure why, though, but someone cares.
I might have misunderstood that article, but so would anyone reading it who was not deeply familiar with what you mentioned. To us, it simply says "no matter how hard you try, you are not going to get there".
You are right but, from some marketing perspective, creating a story around a subject is desirable, too. Adding some sort of mystique is probably always positive in marketing terms. Expensive cables, whatever "expensive" is at that moment, are not aimed for majority of people. Majority would agree with your statements. Fancy cables are aiming at small group with its own ideas and personalities. Just read how stubborn both sides on cable threads are. That group needs more of a story than just "it is great". Call it a "marketing psychology" or something like that. Make it seem like they have to work for it. Restaurants with long waiting lists (weeks and so on) have been using that kind of approach for the longest time.
It is not to say that burn-in does or does not exist. It is just why it would be a good thing for a manufacturer to talk about it. Not to mention that, in case cable does not sound phenomenal, they can always say "they need a really long break-in, months".
Did the marketing guy at Audioquest get fired after this?
For an undecided prospective customer, this says "don't bother buying something expensive".
I think you might have misunderstood the purpose of that article. The excerpt was taken from an article regarding to their DBS system. It's an active dielectric bias system that conditions the dielectric so that the cable will sound optimally regardless its state. Unlike regular cable, the dielectric may not perform optimally if not being listened in awhile. The DBS system will enable the cable to sound optimally even if it was left unused.
I hate to judge before all the facts are in but it appears the bobbyd38 dude hasn’t been paying very close attention to how this thread has developed. Hint: we’re off the copper thinggie. We’re onto the dielectric thinggie now.
This false theory is nothing more than Marketing Mumbo Jumbo created by Dishonorable people to sell crap (Overkill Speaker Cables) to unsuspecting, uneducated victims!
I don’t understand how cable burn in helps sell cables? If I were a cable manufacturer, if it weren’t for cable burn in, people wouldn’t buy my cables?I would think people buy cables for the sound quality. I don’t think they care about burn in. In fact, it’s better if the cables do not need burn in because they can enjoy the cables right away, instead having to wait for 300hrs.
Discrete components like Resistors, Capacitors and Semiconductors definitely need burn in. And Burn-in in the electronics industry is done to isolate and identify failures, as most defective components will fail within the first 24 hours. However Copper does not! Copper is a natural element, and it’s physical and electronic characteristics don’t change, simply because you pass current through it. All speaker cables do is move electrons from one atom to another when there is a difference of potential (voltage) applied. There is NOTHING to burn in, PERIOD! BTW, I have an education in Electronics and 40 years in the Audio Industry. This false theory is nothing more than Marketing Mumbo Jumbo created by Dishonorable people to sell crap (Overkill Speaker Cables) to unsuspecting, uneducated victims!
I'll be dammed! That certainly explains my experience using speaker cables and IC's. Took a long time to figure out why they sounded bright/edgy 'today' and perfectly fine 'tomorrow'. Unlike electronics though, I did not experience a reversal in the wires when the equipment was off for a few days. So much for A/B testimonials!
This thread, and many similar ones, is only for decadent entertainment. What else could it be? Threads about cables get lots of action with ideas and opinions how to do things in some way being expressed quite energetically.
I was puzzled so I checked (just a quick search on Audiogon forums) how are the threads about improving DAC chips doing. Those little things that do the actual work in many, if not most, of our systems. Well, it does not seem that many people are interested in discussing that. DAC chips seem to be some orphan while cables are the favorite child.
I guess that talking about chip design, or whatever else regarding its function, requires a bit more actual knowledge and engineering skills than being bold while talking about wires, regardless of the side you are on.
Stop the presses!! Audioquest explains cable burn in. And guess what? It’s not really rocket science. 🚀
“A highly misunderstood area of cable performance is the subject of cable run-in, sometimes (inaccurately) referred to as “break-in.” “Break-in” properly applies to one-way mechanical phenomena, such as a motor or a loudspeaker surround. Cables and capacitors do not “break-in”, rather their “dielectric forms,” meaning that it takes time for the dielectric material to adapt to a charged state.
This process is quite audible and explains the signi cant improvement heard in electronics, loudspeakers and cables as signal is applied over a period of time. It has long been noted that cables (and all audio com- ponents) sound better after having been left turned-on for a number of days. It has also been noted that once turned off, the component or cable slowly returns to its original uncharged state. For many music lov- ers, this means that they are almost never hearing their cables in their optimum state.”
I can't scientifically prove what I hear is real. On the other hand I can't unhear what I have experienced. The Kimber ICs I have are very fast and detailed. When I put them in my system my body would jump at start of "Hey You" by BTO. The Tara's not so.
Ganainmanm We say our thing, get flamed,and more or less go away, although I think it is probably a good thing so those who (correctly) thought they know a little about science and engineering can realize MANY other well educated people understand a crock of marketing silliness is indeed just that. But be sure GK can at least outlast us since his whole being is in it and seems to have nothing better to do. Peace out.
>>>>I see you came back for some more abuse. There are apparently two kinds of audiophiles. The kind that likes being kicked in the head. And the kind that enjoys doing the kicking. Knowledge is what’s left after you subtract out all the stuff you forgot from school. You may have been well educated but that was a long time ago. In fact, now that you mention it, I’m not sure I’d call engineers in general well educated. But that’s for another discussion.
I love them tomatoes. They exist, they're real, unlike speaker wire burn in.
I think I'm finally seeing the light - that exists between your ears. From now on, I'm taking my new speaker cables to the holy land and drag them on the ground from West to East. Then, I'm bringing them to your place so you can breath on them and correctly mark them for directionality before I even try them in my system. My main concern is how to counteract the magnetic field of the northern hemisphere. Is it possible to get your cables coated in lead or should I buy them from a shop in the southern hemisphere?
As more and more products go wireless including speakers (blueranger thinks we'll still have point source, wired speakers 50 years from now, at least his descendants will), how will we deal with burn in then? There's got to be a way to manipulate that Wi-Fi to make it sound better?
We need to keep this thread going. Eventually, enough people will read it that 30, 40, 50 years from now, they'll realize how stubborn and obtuse we were. But then, thanks to time travel, someone will have the good sense to come back to erase this thread.
It is not a trap. I am selflessly spilling pearls of my imagination for advancement of audio reproduction. Not to mention, Biocables (I just named them this morning) would need to be directional so you get your minute of "I told you so" fame, too. I take care of you. You are welcome.
Actually I had some fast cables. Kimber KGAC silver. How did I know they were faster than my copper Tara's? An example is the beginning of "Hey You" by BTO. It starts out fast. With the silver cables I found myself startled with a jolt even though I knew it was coming. With the copper cables I didn't get that physiological response. I did that many times over the years. End result was the same.
Prominent cable designer gets three points for admitting to believe rather than claiming.
Instead of burn-in, cable risers, and all other ideas, why someone would not make cables with the principle of Schwann cells? That seems like a very logical next step. Hop-hop and there is a new dimension of "fast" in audio. My cable is faster than yours.
Come on, manufacturers who are quietly monitoring these threads to see what could be sold, try that. Nobody would be able to argue it is crap. It has worked for thousands and thousands and thousands of years and has been produced in countless billions. Now, just to figure out how to make it and that is all. What you are doing now is a copper-age joke.
I already am a believer. I believe that you experienced everything you mentioned. I keep mind open about cables but do have some doubts. Thankfully, it is not much of my obsession so I can enjoy reading about both views without getting agitated. Some claims earlier in the thread do not defy current physics, that one may still be in diapers. There are claims that defy logic on a very basic level.
If someone at Cardas, or whatever other manufacturer, said "it is that way and we have no clue why, but it sounds that way", less people would argue about it. Unfortunately, companies try to come up with explanations to impress potential buyers and those explanations are at times laughable. Once rooms start getting relaxed and cables traumatized in whatever way, credibility goes out the window.
I can interpret for myself who is spewing jibber jabber and who isn’t. I suspect this is a simple case of you have been following the wrong sheep. Your big hero, Roger Russell, doesn’t know anything.
blueranger: "Science in its infancy cannot measure the differences that many people can hear. Infancy woah? Yep some think we know all there is to know about sound. A hundred years from now our grandchildren will look back at us and see how far they have come."
The human brain is the most complex machine ever imagined or realized. It is totally responsible for ALL of the above. And, yes, there is an unknown science to the human brain/mind/perception that is still uncharacterized. And yes, the process of belief is poweful enough to account for cable burn in, as well as start global conflicts, as it has since time began for H. sapiens.
Ok again here we go. We cannot unhear what we have experienced. I have a feeling this topic will be obsolete and fully answered by science 30 40 or 50 years or more from now.
Obviously you can't or didn't read, listen or interpret the information I provided. It more than covers this so called "burn in" issue. It's real empirical data from real engineers, not unsubstantiated jibber jabber.
Even the article you provided as Breaking News! -from Galen Carol Audio is specifically addressed in the material I sent you - which you would know if you actually went through it.
Not only is there a raft of empirical data but also, properly conducted listening tests.
The only references you can provide are from cable manufacturers who've conveniently omitted any empirical data much less truth. Why would they say otherwise? Their very existence depends on the suckers who believe that crud.
Burn in is debunked! There is zero proof that it has any basis in reality.
It seems Mark Twain's quote is correct, “It's
easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
It seems you and blueranger are having a good deal of fun in feeding your bs unsupported opinions, completely unhelpful to those who want to know the facts and the truth. If you're just here to crank up the rhetoric merely for the fun of it, I find that wholly disappointing. It lowers us all who are serious about the hobby.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
