cable break in believer

jayman_1975

I have been somewhat on the fence about cable break in up until recently with my new set of Merlin Verdi ICs. When i got them hooked up and had my first listen i was quite disappointed to be honest. Lows were sloppy and lacked punch, mids were bloomy and highs lacked sparkle. To be honest i was ready to unhook them and send them back to my dealer. Then i realized that they might need some break in time so i turned the volume down to 1 on my pre(which was only audible if i put my ear right up close to the speakers so i knew it wouldnt bother the wife) and let it run for a few days.

One thing i noticed over the course of a couple days was that "1" on my preamp seemed to get louder as the sound was no longer barely audible anymore in fact the wife ended up turning it off because it interfered with the sound on the TV. all the sound characteristics smartened up and my system is sounding superb.

I honestly cant believe that there can be nay sayers on this topic.

cokewithvanilla

jayman_1975 wrote: »

I honestly cant believe that there can be nay sayers on this topic.

Can cable break in be measured? I dunno. I've never noticed a difference from break in. I 'broke in' all 7 of my signal interconnects with 2 channel and none of them sounded any different.

Maybe my cable is too cheap to notice a difference.. who knows.

madmax

I've heard massive break-in effects with different cables. Some do and others seem not to.

BlueFox

My MIT Shotgun S1.3 balanced ICs broke in while I was listening. Like you, at first I was not impressed. "I paid 'x' for this!?!?!" However, later while I was listening, the soundstage literally expanded compared to the previous cables. It was so cool I started laughing. I couldn't believe it, and it now sounds great.

DarqueKnight

jayman_1975 wrote: »

I honestly cant believe that there can be nay sayers on this topic.

There are naysayers in every topic of human endeavor.

It's easy, easy, easy to be an audio naysayer if:

1. You have never tried anything.

2. You tried something *ONCE* that didn't work and you conveniently assume that because it didn't work for you, it cannot possibly work for anyone else anywhere else in the world.

3. You just like to argue on the Internet rather than listen to music.

In addition to all of the above, audio naysayerism is aided by the fact that the general public does not understand or fully understand the acoustical and electronic principles pertaining to audio. An audiophile's wife may fully understand why a Gucci handbag is worth $1,000, but try to justify spending $1,000 on a set of speaker cables or interconnects...;)

sm88

There is one major problem with such things, and it is that there is no way to isolate the subjective difference of your system without having tested it against "already broken in" cables of the exact type and exact length.

It would seem far more likely to me that your new speakers are the things that are "breaking in", or your other electronics. Frankly, I feel wire is wire, and while certainly there are different levels of quality that might make a difference, i've never heard such malarkey as hunks of wire somehow getting better with age and use, especially considering that the hunks of wire in question are but a few external meters, as opposed to the large amount of internal wiring, PCB gold, home wiring, and the miles of aluminum wires that carry the electricity to your house. I don't blame people for belief in wire break in and some other things, but I feel it more so to be something that the wire companies have picked up on and ran with.

Spend a large portion of your money on something foolish that you can't recoup your losses on and you'll justify it to the end, naysayers and common sense be damned. The companies that produce these cables are well aware of this, so what better way to hedge against complaints then to establish that you have to own and use their product for a long period of time before it becomes the quality it is supposed to be in the first place? Wouldn't it strike you as a little suspicious if a car salesman told you that your new car is 300 hp now but will be 500 hp after you've driven it for a few months?

I'm a firm believer that the human brain is the one component of a system that is most likely to exhibit 'break in', and it is something we have likely all experienced in one form or another

heiney9

sm88 wrote: »

I'm a firm believer that the human brain is the one component of a system that is most likely to exhibit 'break in', and it is something we have likely all experienced in one form or another

And.......the opinion above is more valid than those who experience the whole enchilada of cable break-in and cable differences. In your post you basically poo-poo cable differences, etc., but then we are supposed to take your word for the above statement w/o any proof. Like that's the likely answer :rolleyes:

Perhaps you have head of this word: hypocrite?

H9

sm88

Not telling anyone how to think, it's an opinion and nothing more, i'd only be a hypocrite if I said cable difference didn't matter but actually believed or perscribed to breaking in cables myself. All i'm essentially saying is that I feel it is far too difficult to isolate and therefore measure beyond mere subjectivity that break in makes a difference. Any one of myriad conditions can drastically alter what someone hears. Anecdotal evidence does little to sway me, why don't you read the Nelson Pass quote in your signature? I am in no way saying he didn't hear a difference. I'm saying that difference should not be pinned on a piece of wire supposedly improving with age and use.

heiney9

No problem, not trying to arguementative. Have you tried listening to say 1/2 dozen types of cables over say 3-5 years and qualified your statement or are you just using the "guessing hypothesis". It's OK if you haven't spent the time or had any interest in trying different cables, but it's kind of silly to comment on it then, isn't it.

I do believe the brain interacts with the external environment in ways that can't be measured or in ways we haven't even discovered yet, so I'm not saying your opinion has no basis, it is part of the larger equation for sure.

H9

DarqueKnight

sm88 wrote: »

Frankly, I feel wire is wire, and while certainly there are different levels of quality that might make a difference, i've never heard such malarkey as hunks of wire somehow getting better with age and use, especially considering that the hunks of wire in question are but a few external meters, as opposed to the large amount of internal wiring, PCB gold, home wiring, and the miles of aluminum wires that carry the electricity to your house.

Your points are standard naysayer axioms that are based on incomplete technical understanding. For example, while it is true that electricity is carried to our homes over miles of common wiring, this does not preclude the fact that the electrical noise content delivered by such wiring cannot be greatly reduced by proper power line filtering and the use of well engineered low noise power cables between the wall outlet and an audio component inside the home. It is the same principal as filtering water after it has been sucked out of a dirty river or lake and then "treated" and traveled through miles of "dirty old" municipal water system piping.

Many people overlook the fact that the performance of a well engineered cable is due to the sum of its parts, rather than just the wire conductors. The conductor material, wire geometry, dielectric properties of the insulating materials, shielding, type of terminations, welded vs. soldered connections, etc. all have an influence on how a sounds and how that sound can change as a cable breaks in. One of the most influential parameters of cable break in is the changes in dielectric (energy absorption and release) properties of the wire insulation with time.

You can find quite a bit of peer-reviewed IEEE journal research on the audible effects of various wire geometries and dielectric properties of wire insulation. Bell Laboratories has done a significant amount of research in this area.

sm88 wrote: »

I don't blame people for belief in wire break in and some other things, but I feel it more so to be something that the wire companies have picked up on and ran with.

I am just curious...do you have any quantitative proof or extensive personal experience to support your "beliefs" or are you just parroting what you have read elsewhere?

sm88 wrote: »

Spend a large portion of your money on something foolish that you can't recoup your losses on and you'll justify it to the end, naysayers and common sense be damned. The companies that produce these cables are well aware of this, so what better way to hedge against complaints then to establish that you have to own and use their product for a long period of time before it becomes the quality it is supposed to be in the first place?

All the audio cables I have purchased new came with at least a 30 day, full money back guarantee. Sometimes differences are glaring and sometimes differences are subtle. It just seems to me to be good common sense to spend some time with a new piece of audio gear and listen to it with a variety of musical selections before making a decision to keep it or return it.

Of course, there are unscrupulous and dishonest cable manufacturers who make unsubstantiated claims. It is not reasonable to extend the dishonesty of a few to the collective.

sm88 wrote: »

Wouldn't it strike you as a little suspicious if a car salesman told you that your new car is 300 hp now but will be 500 hp after you've driven it for a few months?

No. Not if there was a reasonable explanation.

sm88 wrote: »

I'm a firm believer that the human brain is the one component of a system that is most likely to exhibit 'break in', and it is something we have likely all experienced in one form or another

I agree with you on this point. One of the most important components of human brain break in is extensive listening experience. Many of the people on this forum have such experience. Do you?

steveinaz

Wire is a component, every bit as much as a resistor, capacitor, inductor or otherwise. It's also a resistor, as there is no such thing as a perfect conductor. The same electrical properties apply to wire that apply to everything else electronic. It should be assumed, subtle as it may be, that wire (and just as important the dielectric) break in with use as charges "organize" electrical fields.

What I have personally experienced is that cables, right out of the box tend to sound a little "dry" and 2 dimensional; but within about an hour (at least the cables I have used) pretty much settle in.

headrott

DarqueKnight wrote: »

No. Not if there was a reasonable explanation.

Also Raife, if you actually experience the increase in horse power after the engine breaks in. A 200HP increase would be easily discernable. With some cables, it may not be as easily discernable as the engine HP example. But it's certainly discernable. You may not know the technical reason for the break in of the engine leading to a 200HP increase and you may not know the technical reason for the cable break in precisely. But, you can experience it being there. Or, you can experience it not being there as well.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I agree with you on this point. One of the most important components of human brain break in is extensive listening experience. Many of the people on this forum have such experience. Do you?

Not just listening experience time, but actual effort put into listening rather than passively hearing. Just wanted to point these 2 things out Raife. You make excellent points in your post.

Greg

madmax

sm88 wrote: »

Spend a large portion of your money on something foolish that you can't recoup your losses on and you'll justify it to the end, naysayers and common sense be damned.

One thing you will learn here is that if something isn't what we think it should be we just sell it and move on. Cost doesn't seem to be an issue with many people here. I've paid top dollar for some items only to find myself putting it on Agon a few weeks later after not being satisfied.

ecod123

Cable break-in debate never gets old, just like ss v. tube, silver v. copper cables and cable v. satellite.:D But that's what makes our hobby (or obsession) so much fun.;)

I am a believer in cable break-in from my experience with cable upgradeitis. But I also understand that the ability to detect sonic differences can be subjective and it varies even across the audiophile population. It depends on experience, exposure and environment, amongst others. For instance, my gf could tell (or claimed to;)) the difference between real and fake designer shoes and handbags from miles away but couldn't tell the differences in a broken-in cable even though she had piano lessons as a kid. Go figure! :rolleyes: But no polkies better go telling her on me!:eek:

dorourke07

sm88 wrote: »

Wouldn't it strike you as a little suspicious if a car salesman told you that your new car is 300 hp now but will be 500 hp after you've driven it for a few months?

I wouldn't use engine break-in as your point. Engines do exhibit slight improvements in performance and gas mileage as they age. Porsche supplies information on how to properly break in their engines with your purchase and you can find the basics online.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_break-in

I'm not in the group that has experienced it yet, but as my listening improves I'll make my decision.

cokewithvanilla

I would like to see some blind tests with the same equipment, same cables, one that has 1000 hours on the cable and one that has 0 hours.

Someone mentioned "good explanation". What is the technical explanation of why a break-in should help? What changes in the cable?

madmax

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

I would like to see some blind tests with the same equipment, same cables, one that has 1000 hours on the cable and one that has 0 hours.

Most audiophiles won't let you poke their eyes out so I doubt it will happen...

Toolfan66

Wire is just Wire??? Please.. 5052 Alunminum is the same as 6061 Aluminum, and 304 Stainless Steel is the Same as 316L Stainless Steel.. They are just numbers to get People to pay more for what they say is better material. The mills know this and just put a bigger number on it to make you think you are getting something better..

Oh and I am being sarcastic..:)

I say try it before you post and look stupid..

DarqueKnight

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

I would like to see some blind tests with the same equipment, same cables, one that has 1000 hours on the cable and one that has 0 hours.

That is a great suggestion. How do you propose such a test be set up and conducted? I'm sure you would agree that there must be some thought given to the resolution capability of the audio equipment and the listening experience and acuity of the listener(s). Furthermore, there must be some metrics established regarding which parameters of stereophonic reproduction will be evaluated.

For example, two cables may only differ in the way that images are placed depth-wise within the sound stage. If a listener is not trained and experienced in perceiving such spatial differences, then that listener may erroneously conclude that there is no sonic difference between the cables.

One thing I have noted about audio blind tests is that, along other procedural and mathematical deficiencies, metrics for quantifying spatial rendering performance (the size of the sound stage and the placement of images within the sound stage) is often conspicuously absent. There is usually no discussion of this whatsoever. This is sad and unfortunate because the rendering of an illusory three dimensional sound stage is one of the basic design features of stereophonic music reproduction...isn't it?

Another important feature of stereophonic music reproduction is image "weight" or the degree of realism and solidity conveyed by the phantom sound images within a sound stage.

Don't you find it highly suspicious, and odd, that most blind audio tests make no mention of two of the most important performance metrics of stereophonic music reproduction?

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

Someone mentioned "good explanation". What is the technical explanation of why a break-in should help? What changes in the cable?

I mentioned one here:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

One of the most influential parameters of cable break in is the changes in dielectric (energy absorption and release) properties of the wire insulation with time.

My statement quoted above, and the post that contains it, should provide ample insight for further study.

---

ecod123 wrote: »

Cable break-in debate never gets old, just like ss v. tube, silver v. copper cables and cable v. satellite.:D But that's what makes our hobby (or obsession) so much fun.;)

What makes these discussions fun for me is the (probably unrealistic) hope that the naysayers will come up with some original and thought provoking counterargument against diligent ear training and equipment experience...rather than the same old tired drivel such as "how can a electric power be improved in a home after it has traveled through miles and miles and miles of dirty utility company wire?"

ecod123 wrote: »

For instance, my gf could tell (or claimed to;)) the difference between real and fake designer shoes and handbags from miles away but couldn't tell the differences in a broken-in cable even though she had piano lessons as a kid. Go figure! :rolleyes:

Believe it. My sisters and my gf always feel compelled to comment whenever they see a women with fake designer shoes or handbags. Not only will they comment on the fakeness, but they then go on to identify the telltale signs of the fakeness.

I asked, why do you care if some other woman has fake designer merchandise? Does it have any effect on your life? I was informed women are always on the lookout for nice shoes and handbags and it pisses them off when they realize they have wasted their time looking at fake s**t.

fishbones

Wire is wire huh? Well, I'm am actually a little jealous. If only my ears told me the same thing - it would save me a-lot of money. Unfortunately (for me) my ears aren't that kind. Either they're too good for my own good, or I just hear what the advertisers tell me to hear.

Although....I've picked cables that were less expensive before - because they sounded better. So, I'm at a loss there...maybe I'm just delusional?

DarqueKnight

TOOLFORLIFEFAN wrote: »

I say try it before you post and look stupid..

Well, the sad truth is that they can't try anything.

Many naysayers say they are paralyzed with fear of trying anything because they don't want to fall victim to the dreaded "placebo" effect. They don't trust that their ears will tell them the truth about what they hear or don't hear.

Likewise, these same fears are projected onto others. If others hear a difference it is only due to placebo effect generated by slick marketing persuasion, high price, or snob appeal.

TOOLFORLIFEFAN wrote: »

Wire is just Wire??? Please.. 5052 Alunminum is the same as 6061 Aluminum, and 304 Stainless Steel is the Same as 316L Stainless Steel.. They are just numbers to get People to pay more for what they say is better material. The mills know this and just put a bigger number on it to make you think you are getting something better..

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...and I'd also like to add that there is absolutely no difference whatsoever in the conducted noise characteristics of different metals and metal alloys...and even if there were, conducted noise has no audible effect on an audio or power signal's quality. All that matters is conductivity...and there ain't no audible difference in the conductivity of the various metals (various forms of copper and silver) used in audio cable wires. Hell, precious silver is only five percent more conductive than copper...and silver's conductivity advantage can be emulated by just using copper conductors that are 5% larger.

TOOLFORLIFEFAN wrote: »

Oh and I am being sarcastic..:)

Me too.:);)

WilliamM2

Must be similar to the fear "believers" have of blind listening. Still not a shred of evidence after all these years, just more anecdotal claims.

Good entertainment though.

BlueFox

I was looking on MIT's site to see if they had anything about burn-in since they mention it in the literature that comes with any cable from them. I didn't find anything specific, but here is a good paper on the electrical characteristics of different cables between 20-20kHz. It certainly appears to show that "wire is wire" is a bogus statement.

http://www.mitcables.com/pdf/Transportable_Power_101.pdf

DarqueKnight

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Still not a shred of evidence after all these years, just more anecdotal claims.

William,

I posted a research report on the subjective evaluation methods that were used by the inventors and early researchers of stereophonic systems. The report offers documentation of the fact that, over several decades, significantly more than a "shread" of evidence was collected on the scientific validity of subjective listening evaluation by trained listeners:

Link: A Survey Of Early Stereophonic System Subjective Evaluation

The report draws information from many respected peer-reviewed science and engineering journal sources.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Must be similar to the fear "believers" have of blind listening.

I have never run across anyone who had a "fear" of blind testing...just reasonable uncertainty about the scientific validity of the application of this testing methodology to audio.

You may find the following historical analysis of the application of blind testing to audio equipment interesting:

Link: A Historical Overview of Stereophonic Blind Testing

Like the first report, the second report draws information from many respected peer-reviewed science and engineering journal sources.

WilliamM2

Fascinating. And how is any of that evidence of cable break in? Seems to just be your opinion, no matter how much you claim otherwise.

DarqueKnight

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Fascinating. And how is any of that evidence of cable break in?

My point was that the process of cable break in may be imperceptible to the untrained ear. I will also remind you that you are the one who brought up the subject of blind testing.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Seems to just be your opinion, no matter how much you claim otherwise.

I recall that you have frequently asked for "scientific proof" in "peer-reviewed" journals. I provided such information and now you still say I am only offering my opinion.

Why don't you read the reports and read some of the journal references in the reports and then come back to discuss...preferably in a thread whose subject is blind testing?

WilliamM2

DarqueKnight wrote: »

My point was that the process of cable break in may be imperceptible to the untrained ear.

And my point was that there is no evidence it's perceptable to the trained ear either. None.

headrott

I think that people have different viewpoints on "blind tests" depending on how aware a person is of what's being sampled.

I have done blind tests between coke, pepsi and several other brands of cola (Shasta, RC, etc., etc.) and have gotten the blind tests perfectly correct.

I have even done blind tests between the older throwback Pepsi (in a blue can) and the newer throwback Pepsi (the 80's looking can). They are both made with real sugar, but they have different tastes. Again, perfectly correct in my answer of what the correct one was.

I make this comaparison to cable blind tests as one is using your ears and one is using your taste buds. Both are using your brain and awareness. I believe some of what you hear is based on your ears and/or taste buds, but a majority of it is based on your attention to what is being sampled. A person's awareness makes a large difference to the result of the blind test.

Greg

jinjuku

DarqueKnight wrote: »

That is a great suggestion. How do you propose such a test be set up and conducted? I'm sure you would agree that there must be some thought given to the resolution capability of the audio equipment and the listening experience and acuity of the listener(s). Furthermore, there must be some metrics established regarding which parameters of stereophonic reproduction will be evaluated.

I have some Belden 5000 (500UE) it all came on a 50 ft loop. I cut two 12 foot runs and terminated with GLS locking bananas. I still have some GLS, also unused, bananas from a same shipment.

This leaves me with 25 foot of un-used cable and terminations and two 12 foot cables that I have been using on almost a daily basis for a year (so figure 400 + hours conservative).

Are you postulating that broken in cables: have better resolution? have better dynamics, better sound stage/depth, better imaging? or are you saying they will simply sound 'different'?


I have $100 bucks that says you couldn't tell me which is the zero hour cables and which are the 400 + hour cables. I will even ship them to you. I will not tell you which is which since it should be evident to the trained ear.

You pick any sighted / unsighted testing you want. You simply won't have any bias beforehand as to which cable is which. It will be dependent on your auditory and memory discernment skills.

jaxwired

DarqueKnight wrote: »

There are naysayers in every topic of human endeavor.

It's easy, easy, easy to be an audio naysayer if:

1. You have never tried anything.

2. You tried something *ONCE* that didn't work and you conveniently assume that because it didn't work for you, it cannot possibly work for anyone else anywhere else in the world.

3. You just like to argue on the Internet rather than listen to music.

In addition to all of the above, audio naysayerism is aided by the fact that the general public does not understand or fully understand the acoustical and electronic principles pertaining to audio. An audiophile's wife may fully understand why a Gucci handbag is worth $1,000, but try to justify spending $1,000 on a set of speaker cables or interconnects...;)

I'm definately not a nay sayer, but I do take issue with people that act like placebo effect has no impact. In the believer camp, there are a lot of people that seem to think their ability to assess sound quality differences are infallable. They are wrong and usually poorer for it.

cokewithvanilla

headrott wrote: »

I have done blind tests between coke, pepsi and several other brands of cola (Shasta, RC, etc., etc.) and have gotten the blind tests perfectly correct.

...... A person's awareness makes a large difference to the result of the blind test.

Greg

This really doesn't matter. You were aware of the existence of the brands, you had tasted them before. They taste different, so you were able to identify them, sure.

With the cables, you would not be told what gear and cables you are hearing. There are hundreds or thousands of cables, and the same goes for the rest of the gear. The chances of you identifying the setup is unlikely. The difference would be the break in period of the same cables. It would be "A/B, is there a difference? If so, what?"

The point of the test is to find if break in is real, if it is, you wouldn't so much be identifying the cable as being broken in, but confirming (i use this term loosely) that breaking in is real. And, of course, if break in isn't real, you would hear no difference (and of course they would try to trick you and play the same cable twice).

edit: but to be honest, even if you blind tested 500,000 people, and they all said the same thing, it would still be far from conclusive. Audio is not like getting a new prescription for your glasses... the results aren't always clear.