Beware of the cable claiming long burn in period.

@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?

Try using cables from reputable manufacturers who have a history in the industry. If you don't like the cable, the sell it on Audiogon, eBay or US Audio Mart. Try buying your equipment and cables/accessories from a reputable local dealer with a showroom. They can switch in and out for you so you can tell the difference.  Nothing to do with which equipment it is. This isn't speakers and room interaction, it's getting information from source to pre-amp. And if you have the ability to Exchange (no one should give you anything but store credit as they then have an open box product they will lose money on) then respect the terms.  You don't need to listen to anything while breaking in.  Turn your volume to zero or mute and run 24x7 for at least a week. You can, of course, listen as time permits.  Keep sending signal through the cable.  If you hit the end of the exchange policy and don't like it before it expires, call your dealer and tell them you'll be in to make the exchange. And just because a manufacturer espouses their virtues doesn't necessarily mean YOU will agree. But again, buying without auditioning is the risk you take. And if the manufacturer is selling direct means they have little credibility. They aren't using a manufacturing facility with QA process and controlling tolerances. And this is why there is a robust secondary market. The blind chasing a shiny object. So be it.

@rodman99999

You seem to just be avoiding the questions I asked.

That cable burn-in occurs, has been established by the manufacturers, as well as those multitudes, that have provided their empirical evidence.

Can you please provide links to this evidence?

Which manufacturers have established burn in occurs and is audible? The high end cable manufacturers who make so many fishy claims in the first place?

I’ve never seen "burn in is established" claims by any of the most experienced and respected long time cable manufacturers such as Canare or Belden. Have you?

Can you provide links to this purported evidence by manufacturers?I presume there are both before and after measurements showing a burn in effect AND tests establishing the audibility of the burn in?

The Scientific Process allows for/depends on empirical evidence,

Of course it does. But science has a hard-won understanding about what type of empirical evidence it seeks! "Empirical" just means based on observation and/or experience.  But that is far from understanding the type of empirical evidence sought in science and how it is understood, because people make mistakes, and bad inferences about their experience all the time.   If I were talking to an audience of 100 people each holding a quarter and I said "I have the power to influence someone's coin to flip heads 5 times...go!"  Someone may indeed flip the coin five times.  There's your "empirical evidence."  But in reasoning about that experience, is it the right move to believe my claim was shown true by that 'evidence?'   Of course not;  that would be to ignore what is known about statistics and hence the low validity of such a test given the claim. 

So it's not good enough to just claim to "do tests" or "have an experience."  The scientific method arose to be more careful, more rigorous about what type of empirical evidence it seeks, and to weed out all the erroneous, biased methods of INTERPRETING the data.  


Did you not even read the link you gave me? Read it again, and look under the headings: Identifying Empirical Research, Bias. It supports exactly what I’ve been saying.
Can you point to research results and test methodology from those purported "manufacturers" that even fits the demands noted in your own link?

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?

I wouldn’t say that, because I’m not as confused as you are about this conversation.
I quite carefully did not claim your conjecture was wrong or implausible. I simply pointed out that it was just at this point interesting conjecture, and what it would need to go beyond your mere conjecture. I’m not the one being dogmatic or blinded by bias here; I’m suggesting the very steps good scientists take to try to get around bias! I’ve used blind testing to get around my own biases in some cases.

If you don’t understand or acknowledge the steps I mentioned to move from your conjecture to better validation as valid, then you are the one who refuses to see beyond his own bias.

@prof- "I wouldn’t say that, because I’m not as confused as you are about this conversation." I’m not the least bit, "confused". YOU FIRST ASKED(of another), " What do you think is happening within the cable over those 300 hours that would alter the sound? " I provided a possibility, then asked, "Perhaps you can tell me, WHY that can’t be a cause(or, "plausible"), SCIENTIFICALLY?"
That you, "...quite carefully did not claim your conjecture was wrong or implausible." is what I pointed out. The rest is(of course) subjective, rhetorical and a waste of keystrokes. Yet, regarding the empirical evidence, if you haven’t found any on your own, you haven’t been looking(imagine that). As for my own biases, they’re based on over forty years of making a living, with my ears, Science and Electronics. Yeah, and I’m one of those, "ear truster" types, MAINLY!

I currently use Townshend Audio Fractal cable and that sounds great straight out the box. Max Townshend was the first cable designer to use the EDCT (Enhanced Deep Cyro Treatment ) everybody now copies the idea/method, Fractal cable is Max’s latest wonder cable and keeps the magical process secret, try some it will sound amazing straight out the box. Very reasonably priced as well, I have  heard nothing better. Previous cables used are JPS Labs Aluminata, Nordost various, Synergistic Research various, then tried the Fractal cable and have never looked back and saved loads of money. YMMV.