Cable "burning": Real or VooDoo ???

Then again, it could all be immaterial, akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It seems to me that it would be very easy to see if cables improve with "burn-in." Directly compare "burnt-in" cables with identical "non-burnt-in" cables. Double-blind test, either ABX or same-different. See if a statistically significant number of trials indicate that there is probably an audible difference between them. If not, I don't insist on accepting the null argument; we can do more testing.

And/or do electrical analyses on cables before "burn-in" and after, measuring the conductance and reactance over maybe 5 Hz up to 100 kHz.

I would love to comment, but I am restricted by my own commitment to myself and others here to just say RHUBARB. But perhaps I am allowed to comment on the wine tasting analogy. I have participated in blind tasting tests of wine and they served to prove nothing I didn't already know from many years of tasting wines - they taste different from each other. The thing is, I have learnt a lot from experience of the world without the benefit of blind tests, such as stopping at red traffic lights to avoid collisions (would be interesting to do a blind test on that wouldn't it)? Next time a sexual conquest insists I wear a condom, perhaps I will insist on a blind test first. I will shut up now in quavering fear of the negative votes I will get for the use of sarcasm. But honestly, what a load of RHUBARB that still pervades these debates.

Redkiwi, again you have saved me considerable aggrivation in my own reply to this. When did this site become one of ABX arguments rather tools needed to make music? Reminds me of a bumper sticker that circulated in my area for a good while, it read, "Shut up and Dance."

Redkiwi, fond greetings: There will be RHUBARB as long as humans debate. As for double blind tests, they DO have their merits. Many of us would not be around any more, if they did not exist. As you know, the pharmaceutical industry must rely heavily on them in the development and testing of new drugs. They seem to work on a biochemical, physiological level. Strangely, they often do not in the psychological field. What we see here in this debate, is just one example for this strange fact, which has bugged experimental psychology just as much as it bugs some of us here.

Absolutely Albert - if I boogie better by painting my cables red or my CDs green then I ought to be able to say so here. Good point Detlof, but what appears to happen with these debates is the repetitive tyranny by a few who insist on double blind tests, and then insist again, and then insist again, and then insist again............. whenever a certain set of topics arise. And then they have the gall to argue that their position is valid because electrons are electrons - like that closes the debate? I have said too much again and will return to my pledge to leave these pointless exchanges alone.