Beware of the cable claiming long burn in period.

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.

@rodman99999

Conversation will prove impossible if you refuse to try to understand what is being written instead of leaping to some caricature you have in your mind. If someone just doesn’t automatically believe what you believe or doesn’t simply accept your claims as verified....in your mind they are a dogmatist. That is about as dysfunctional a scenario for conversation as possible. Asking about the evidence for a claim, or how it could be tested, isn’t dogmatism. It’s the opposite: it’s trying to base beliefs on evidence, not simply on someone’s say-so.

So you trip over yourself with wild statements like:

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.

Again...I had said your hypothesis was INTERESTING. I did not discount it as impossible. And I repeated again:

I quite carefully did not claim your conjecture was wrong or implausible.

And yet instead of seeing this as a reasonable query about evidence and methods, in your mind you have this wild caricature that I have dogmatically "refused" to "even admit possibilities" like the one you raised.
Could you please make actual contact with what I’ve been writing, please?
It is very strange that when you simply float an interesting technical hypothesis - and it was interesting! - and someone asks about the evidence for it and how you’d go about testing it...that you leap to the OTHER person as being "dogmatic" and ’refusing’ to consider possibilities.

It seems to have gone unnoticed by you that even from my first post I admitted the possibility that the OP was hearing something objectively changing in the cables.   And I admitted your conjecture was interesting, and did not claim it to be wrong.   Yet I haven't seen YOU concede anything I've said as being possible - e.g. that it could also be due to perpetual bias etc.  Instead YOU have simply claimed I'm just wrong about this, any alternative possibilities are "in my head" only, it's all been established so you aren't even considering my point of view.And then YOU go about implying that I am the recalcitrant dogmatist?   Amazing.