Do speaker cables need a burn in period?

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.

Happy listening!

I for one am not calling anyone a moron, just suggesting we inhabit completely different paradigms concerning what science is or isn't.

" You may want to wait for a 6'5" black belt, amateur boxer to finish his sentence before telling him he is a moron. :

That wasn't a veiled threat was it?

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. 1. having the property of transmitting electric force without conduction; insulating.

nounnoun: dielectric; plural noun: dielectrics

1. 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”

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.

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. 

Go and enjoy your systems.

All the best,
Nonoise