Do speaker cables need a burn in period?

There are two impartial listeners as a beta tester for GroverHuffman cables.  One is his wife and one is my wife, who doesn't care at all what wire is used or scientific analysis of it.  They only compare wire as to whether they hear a difference and whether they prefer/like it or not/dislike/hate.  

Cable burn-in is a must prior to our testing.  As I have previously emphatically stated, we have tried brand newly made I/C and speaker cables against cables with at least 24 hour burn-in through use.  A/C cables are subjected to connection to refrigerators for several days to a week prior to testing.   So, when we hear very significant differences between the new cables and burned-in cables, we are not "out of our minds" or "foolish" or "wishing it so."   As I also previously stated, low end cables such as Monster cable, Home Depot cable and Blue Jean cable that I've heard, do not burn-in with a significance.  I couldn't tell the difference either between them new or with 100 hours on them.  Their resolution just doesn't allow it.  

Sure, some of you posters say all cable sounds basically the same.  Funny how friends and acquaintances who frequent my music room don't want to leave because they are entranced by the sound of the music as much as the music itself.  I say acquaintances because we host Toastmaster speechathons at our home with guests and guest speakers who don't know me or anything about audio equipment.

So, if the posters have either inferior audio systems, inferior acoustic environments, or inferior cabling, it is likely that there is no apparent burn-in of cabling.   As to directionality, my cabling is only made directional after usage for a significant period.  It is not made directional except for phono use (grounding). 

taras22,

And surely you have ample measurements to absolutely and fully prove all those assertions beyond the shadow of any doubt. Or are we going to have to trust hearsay based on information drawn from listening experiences using your, uhhhh, ears ?

Which is, as usual, drawn from a mischaracterization of my arguments.

I have been voicing reasons for skepticism when it comes to *controversial* claims about audibility - controversial in the sense they do not form a part of generally accepted, well established phenomena.  Claims that remain controversial among the relevant experts (e.g. I've seen many EEs say why the technical claims made by audiophiles or expensive cable companies are nonsense), and where the explanations are dubious, and the evidence almost purely anecdotal.

Claims like cable burn-in, and even the purported sonic advantages often claimed by manufacturers and users of expensive cables, fall in to that category.

That's different from the gross differences in sound well known to be audible, credible both in terms of technical explanation, what we know of human hearing, and what is reliable via our experience.

So, for instance, the audibility of sonic difference between various musical instruments would easily fall in to those categories.  The harmonic/distortion profiles of different instruments is measurable, and falls well within the realm understood as audible to humans.  And we reliably detect these differences all the time.

There will be gross physical, audible differences in the audio profile produced by, say, a Fender bass vs an acoustic stand up bass.  

It's not remotely controversial that we can capture and reproduce these audible differences in the recording/playback system.  Nobody is mistaking Paul Chambers' double bass at the beginning of Kind Of Blue for Geddy Lee playing his electric Rickenbacker bass, and for good reasons.  

That goes for a whole host of audible characteristics that occur between different bass instruments, the way they are played, the audible effects of how they were recorded, placed in the soundstage, eq'd, mastered, etc.  All of those differentiating factors exist well within non-controversial, known realms of audibility.  

Then there are all the audible influences that can be measured in terms of eq, room effects that cause "bloat" or "overhang," and various measurable phenomena  that can interfere with bass signals, produce the subjective perception of homogenizing bass - "one note bass" - etc.
These are all within the realm of what we know to be audible artifacts.

THEREFORE we have an entirely plausible case to stand on when we are discerning between different instruments on a playback system, between different bass instruments, between bass instruments recorded differently, between the qualities we can describe etc.

So...no...your "gotcha" relies on a naive look at the problem, not on some internal contradiction or fault in what I've been writing on here.

I recently bought  a Pass Lab XP10 and initially it sounds quite unacceptable to be honest.  But after a couple of weeks, it's a lot more like it.  I was able to measure the soundstage width and it's definitely wider after burn in. 

Claims that remain controversial among the relevant experts (e.g. I've seen many EEs say why the technical claims made by audiophiles or expensive cable companies are nonsense), and where the explanations are dubious, and the evidence almost purely anecdotal.

Just because somebody made claims you found dubious, does not mean the principal behind it is not true.  I think you should stop attacking cable companies and read a bit more about electrical engineering.  You know like doing something constructive.

@prof
So short answer, no measurements. I’m simply crushed.

So we have to rely on the dreaded anecdotal.