Beware of the cable claiming long burn in period.

This just reminds me of the Morrow thread from a little while ago.

When the return period is shorter than the break-in period, you know there's a problem.

That was my thread. I tried to return a $600 (my cost, not Mike Morrow's fake cost) set of IC's that were in pristine condition 4 days late and Mike Morrow told me to F myself. That was after spending a lot of money on phono cables that I found satisfactory. Then when I went to sell my pristine but crappy IC's with some spoofing in my ad copy about Mike Morrow's film-flam advertising, I am 99% certain he hired a shill to buy the cables in order to put an end to my ad that made fun of him.  I was a fool for buying and a fool for selling. I've since graduated to far better phono cables (German-made Firewire) so maybe I will list the phono cables with the same spoof for $1000 to make it more expensive for MM to silence me from telling the truth. 

Wow. I did not realize the problem of a late return with him was such a bad experience. Folks definitely should be made aware of the problem. When I have a cable I did not like, the dealer was adamant I should give it more time.. but I returned it within the time frame. (problem was I had to use the money as a credit.. And bought junk I really did not need., but not a big deal.. I should have jumped and bought the cable I was too cheap to go for at the time. Took me two years to get up the guts to just buy what I really wanted. Kimber KS1116 7m for $3200.) The Kimber KS1116, for me anyway, is the cable for life...

Well written prof. +1

Well, cable for life might work if the life is short. You replace speakers, equipment and then might have to replace cables too. Some, however, are less equipment dependent than others but this doesn’t mean they are best in every case. Unless of course you build your system around your favorite cables which would be a highly unusual and novel approach. You might still end up with great set up, by the way.

@prof- AGAIN: Your initial question, to aniwolfe, " What do you think is happening within the cable over those 300 hours THAT WOULD ALTER THE SOUND?" That question presupposes that THE SOUND MIGHT BE ALTERED. Why would I have to establish whether it WAS or NOT? HELLO(is anybody in there)? That Dielectric Absorption and the attendant oriented polarization of dipoles are a reality, has been categorically established. Let me rephrase my question: Perhaps you can tell me, WHY that can’t be a cause(or, "plausible"), of a POSSIBLE SOUND ALTERATION in a cable, SCIENTIFICALLY(without your obfuscation)? One glaring bit of evidence, when judging whether another is, "dogmatic", is the refusal to even admit possibilities, when in disagreement with their dogma, regardless of how apposite those possibilities might be.