+1
Beware of the cable claiming long burn in period.
Almost all the audio equipment including speaker need burn in time.
But I had bad experience with one digital cable recently.
Some people blew the horn on it and claimed burn in time more than 100 hours.
Out of box it had lot of details but etched.
After 8 weeks (around 200 hours) it got little bit better but its overall performance is not better than other digital cable that I have had.
Now it is too late to return it.
Beware of any cable claiming more than 50 hours of burn in time.
The chance is high that you will waste your time and money.
But I had bad experience with one digital cable recently.
Some people blew the horn on it and claimed burn in time more than 100 hours.
Out of box it had lot of details but etched.
After 8 weeks (around 200 hours) it got little bit better but its overall performance is not better than other digital cable that I have had.
Now it is too late to return it.
Beware of any cable claiming more than 50 hours of burn in time.
The chance is high that you will waste your time and money.
- ...
- 150 posts total
Not allways true , like a good capacitor ,cables especially with Teflon dielectric can takewell over 300hours for sure . Just ask VH Audio for example. Theirs caps ,as well as Teflon Litz - OCC Copper Wire ,and caps. we have documented times when I owned a Audio store and within the last year. it is one of the exceptions to the rule. |
+1, Geoff. Just get a cable cooker. It speeds up considerably the entire burn-in process. It can be used on all types of cables and even can be used to burn-in capacitors. But even for certain cables (such as the Teo Audio cables) in which the manufacturers don’t condone use of active burn-in cable gear, conventional in-use audio burn-in is usually sufficient. |
@prof- 1) That cable burn-in occurs, has been established by the manufacturers, as well as those multitudes, that have provided their empirical evidence. The, "dispute" is in your mind(et al). 2) The Scientific Process allows for/depends on empirical evidence, whether that matters to you, or not: https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html 3)
I asked, "Perhaps you can tell me, WHY that can’t be a cause(or, "plausible"), SCIENTIFICALLY?" You could have just said, you have no valid, SCIENTIFIC reason to doubt the plausibility of my conjecture regarding Dielectric Absorption, only your biases. But, who would expect that? |
- 150 posts total