Do speaker cables need a burn in period?

Taras,

A bog standard cable should at the very least be adept at transmitting something as simple as pitch and duration but dealing with more complex timbre, transient vibrato and envelope modulation is a much more difficult undertaking and requires something more refined than a bog standard cable because these qualitative items demand a better phase coherence and freedom from reactive elements such as skin effect than a bog standard cable can offer.

So you claim.

I don’t see anything to support your claim.

So....any cable can transmit a one note bass but not necessarily a musical tone which is the fine, tonally textured bass that Nonoise refers to and which musical lovers strive to hear as completely as possible when they listen to their systems.That requires something much more refined than bog standard ( which meets the existing theoretic specs and the attendant testing protocols but really sucks at presenting the qualitative aspects of music ).

This is clearly false.

I have "bog standard" belden speaker cables and it’s simply, and hilariously, false that they are producing "one note bass" or incapable of transmitting complex bass passages, or tonally distinct bass. In fact I have found that in terms of definition and all the tonal qualities we audiophiles often seek in accurate bass, such qualities are a distinguishing feature of the sound I get at home.  Using my current Thiel 2.7 speakers this is true, but it was eve more true with my bigger 3.7 speakers. I could go to my friend’s place, listen to a system using $50,000 of Nordost cable and come home to bass reproduction that easily surpassed that system. When over the past couple years I auditioned a large variety of speakers, in systems using many of the top high end cable brands we could name, every time I came home and played the same bass torture tracks on my system, it distinguished itself in how controlled, beautifully pitched and even holographically placed the bass could appear.

Audiophile pals, musicians, and a friends who review high end audio all have been blown away by what they hear at my place, despite the "bog standard" cables in place.

So, please, don’t give me this about the things "bog standard" cables "can’t do."

Secondly, it’s clearly false in that "bog standard" cables are used all the time to transmit musical information, bass included, accurately and as tunefully as they musician desires. No one needs to use Teo Audio or Nordost cables between their bass guitar and their bass amp. A standard quality cable does this quite fine. As do "bog standard" cables that connect instruments direct in to mixing boards, or via microphone to mixing boards, through all sorts of other "bog standard" cables in the chain of recording, mixing, mastering for most music sources.

If "bog standard" cables could not transmit and preserve the type of nuance you are talking about, IT WOULDN’T BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE IN THE RECORDINGS that used bog-standard cables.

And, yes, your subjective anecdote about the belden cable meant nothing. It’s ludicrous to leap from your own subjective emotional involvement to some objective idea belden cables are incapable of transmitting musically relevant information. I have gobs of emotional connection to the music coming through my system, and to how it sounds.

All your claims only serve to underline how many poor arguments one encounters justifying audiophile cables (and burn in, etc).

Hey here is something to think about. All the naysayers need to think about what lays beyond known physics. The unknown. People are hearing differences and the  current testing equipment cannot pick up on the differences. AB testing is a farce. You have to evaluate for long periods of time to notice the small differences.

Once one wraps their head around the perfectly acceptable concept of our hearing being better than a measurement (more exacting, differentiating, etc.) then "testing by ear" is one of the final steps one takes.

Measurements only take you so far. Refining be ear is what every make of audio gear, that I’ve read about, does, bar none. Show me a piece of gear, or cable, that was made just to meet a spec so as to satisfy some safety standard and I’ll show you an average sounding product, if that.

To simply pooh-pooh such statements as "tested by ear" betrays a dogmatically and hermetically sealed mindset.

And, as pointed out over and over again, the signal is always there. It's there every time you play something just as it's always been there with the original cables used in the recording, but which masked what you could hear.

Using a better designed cable simply reveals more of original signal that's always been there.

That's not a hard concept to wrap one's head around.

All the best,
Nonoise

blueranger
Hey here is something to think about. All the naysayers need to think about what lays beyond known physics. The unknown. People are hearing differences and the current testing equipment cannot pick up on the differences. AB testing is a farce. You have to evaluate for long periods of time to notice the small differences.

>>>Actually, neither burn in or wire directionality disobeys any known laws of physics. So, you can forget about what might or might not happen in the future. It’s irrelevant. 

Once one wraps their head around the perfectly acceptable concept of our hearing being better than a measurement (more exacting, differentiating, etc.)

Why accept something untrue?

Or, at least, we have to separate the untrue implications from the true implications in such a statement.

We have tools that measure the presence of frequencies you can not hear, and levels of distortion you can not hear. Why do you think we develop a huge number of measuring tools in the first place if our senses, including our hearing, were sufficient????

How is that x-ray vision of yours going?

Measurements only take you so far.

Agreed. Ultimately the point of any audio product lies in what we humans actually hear from that product. A good understanding of measurements and of human hearing can to a degree predict the sound
one might hear from, say, a pair of speakers. But given all the complexities involved, and some of the unknowns, perfect prediction escapes us. So we can always be surprised. That’s why anyone should listen to whatever audio gear they produce, to make sure they didn’t go wrong somewhere in the design.

I’ve used Devore 0 speakers as an example a number of times for this: they’ve been attacked by some audiophiles/DIYers and speaker designers as "doing things wrong that are likely to produce bad sound" and yet when I and many others actually listen to them, I find the claims overblown in terms of actual results and I love the sound of the Devores.

But "it’s hard to sometimes predict results purely on measurements" is an entirely different thing than claims like "our ears are better/more sensitive than instruments." It really depends on what you are claiming to be able to hear. And on what grounds.

To simply pooh-pooh such statements as "tested by ear" betrays a dogmatically and hermetically sealed mindset.

No, it’s an eyes-open LACK of dogmatism, where we admit to the fallibility of our senses. It is rather dogmatism to cling to the idea that your perception is infallible, or a golden standard unsullied by the (well known) problems of bias and error.

Imagine you went to your doctor with a sore throat. The doctor says "Well, obviously you have cancer of the throat!"

You ask "why?"

The doctor says: "Because throat cancer can cause sore throats."

And you say" But...can’t many other things cause sore throats, like maybe I have a cold or a flu? Shouldn’t you show me how you have ruled out those other causes"

Doctor: How DARE you be so dogmatic as to question my diagnosis!

Now...who is actually being dogmatic there? It’s not the person who is acknowledging the variables involved, and that the doctor’s claim doesn’t seem to have taken those variables seriously enough, when deciding he can’t be in error.

It is just as strange and mixed up to try to portray someone who is pointing to the simple fact that your method is ignoring existing variables, and why you seem to have unwarranted confidence, as if the person raising these cautions is the "dogmatist." It’s literally got things the wrong way around.