cable break in believer

jinjuku

steveinaz wrote: »

Then take the .99 cent IC's....

Are they crosslinked RCA to XLR's? It's the only one on the line level side that will work with my setup.

vc69

ohskigod wrote: »

but would you invite these people into your home?

I really have no interest in doing that either. I know what I know and that is simply all that matters to me.

sm88

treitz3 wrote: »

Operator, please connect me back to planet Earth.

I can put you through to the Action Man if you've got a message for him

steveinaz

again, nevermind.

steveinaz

ohskigod wrote: »

but would you invite these people into your home?

It wouldn't make any difference if you did prove your point. He's not here to learn or discuss, he's here to disprove. His willingness to flip-flop based on a test tells me right away, there's no integrity there--it's a dog & pony show.

DarqueKnight

sm88 wrote: »

And once again 'level headed' people make the absurd statement that the cables have to be expensive in order for burn in to take effect. Why would a piece of aluminum coated in rubber "burn in" less than a piece of silver coated in Teflon? And what changes within the metal that makes the music sound better?

Please refer us to a statement where someone here said that cables have to be EXPENSIVE for burn in to take effect.

In my case, I said the cables should be well engineered, low noise designs. Low noise contributes to resolution. Resolution contributes to differences being heard. I have no reasonable expectation that a $14 pair of speaker cables will meet the low noise, shielding, engineering and contraction criteria required of high fidelity audio cables.

In audio as with everything else, you generally get what you pay for. Amplifiers, speaker, source components and cables all differ in their resolution properties based on their design and contraction.

A cheap cable with low quality shielding and cladding with poor dielectric properties is going to induce more noise into the audio signal thereby having a masking effect on the audibility of sonic changes.

Again, as I have explained before, the changes in burn in have more to do with changes in the absorption and release of energy of the cladding (insulating material) than with the conductor metal.

Better quality, better engineered cables are going to have better noise abatement and better signal integrity properties. That is why I agreed to do the test if a better set of cables were offered. I did not say they had to be expensive.

DarqueKnight

steveinaz wrote: »

He's not here to learn or discuss, he's here to disprove. His willingness to flip-flop based on a test tells me right away, there's no integrity there--it's a dog & pony show.

It is interesting that naysayers often claim scientific training and experience, but then go about their business of "disproving" the positions of others by demanding that others "prove" something to them. Many seem to lack the skill to conduct an investigation and intelligently document their results. Of those that do document their results, there always has to be some "stacking the deck" type scenario which goes contrary to how stereophonic systems work.

My observations of working with real scientists for over 25 years in industry and academia is that the burden of proof for disproving something rests on the challenger.

When I wanted to investigate the applicability of ABX to audio, I did not demand that ABX proponents "prove" anything to me. I conducted my own investigation. It was demonstrated mathematically that ABX was inappropriate for audio and I explained why ABX always leads to absurd results such as a $200 transistor receiver being sonically indistinguishable from a $12,000 pair of tube amplifiers.

sm88

fishbones wrote: »

Plus, how much difference in burn-in can a cable make that is an inexpensive cable? Even doubters have to think of this from a rational viewpoint? If you bought a $100 cd player from wally world, how much could it possibly change when it is doomed from the get go? I'm not saying the cables in question are bad, I don't know them at all, but really, if your going to do a test like this, the parameters of the cables potential have to be substantial, IMO.
-Troy

And it certainly isn't the only time "you're not spending enough money for it to matter" has been thrown into a discussion.

steveinaz

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It is interesting that naysayers often claim scientific training and experience, but then go about their business of "disproving" the positions of others by demanding that others "prove" something to them. Many seem to lack the skill to conduct an investigation and intelligently document their results. Of those that do document their results, there always has to be some "stacking the deck" type scenario which goes contrary to how stereophonic systems work.

My observations of working with real scientists for over 25 years in industry and academia is that the burden of proof for disproving something rests on the challenger.

When I wanted to investigate the applicability of ABX to audio, I did not demand that ABX proponents "prove" anything to me. I conducted my own investigation. It was demonstrated mathematically that ABX was inappropriate for audio and I explained why ABX always leads to absurd results such as a $200 transistor receiver being sonically indistinguishable from a $12,000 pair of tube amplifiers.

It's like I said earlier, because it's easy to sit back and say "prove it". It requires little to no intellect, zero abstract thinking, and minimal personal effort.

bobman1235

DarqueKnight wrote: »

My observations of working with real scientists for over 25 years in industry and academia is that the burden of proof for disproving something rests on the challenger.

Huh? You're drawing a weird line between trying to prove something true or false. The burden of proof lays on the person DENYING a claim, not on the person making the claim?

If I said I could fly, it would be up to you to prove me wrong, otherwise I'm assumed to be right?

I dont' think any of you should have to prove anything, really; I just don't understand the logic in the above post.

steveinaz

Prove to me that cables don't make a difference. I'm gonna send you some cables, I want you to take time out of your day and test them extensively (even though you already know from personal experience that they don't). Then report back only scientifically acquired data that supports your argument. If you don't follow thru with this, then I must be right.

Sounds rediculous, huh? "F" you Steve....LOL

cstmar01

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I'm curious why other's continue to cling to beliefs that have been disproven time and time again. And why they try to push them as fact.

And for someone who's not trying to convince anyone, you sure have posted a lot in this thread. Although I sure wouldn't call it a debate.

Hey William, do this, why don't you prove to us that you aren't just trying to cause an argument, and that you can contribute to other parts of the forum in a postive and be well manored than calling everyone out on something they enjoy?

All your post ever do is fuel the fire even more than I would say ever help or would ever change someone that was on the fence their opinion besides seeing how much of a dick you are to people.

Why would I ever want to change my point of view? Your very much could careless about the outcome besides that you were right , everyone else is wrong. You act like the king of knowledge.

What other gear are you using?

Why not get a pro audio amp? Then put that with some .99 cent IC's, some lamp cord you got at HD, and then play it with a wally world CDP and call it good? You would be in stereo heaven right? and if you get any other gear out there your stupid because everything is the same, doesn't matter how its built, doesn't matter if it has a different DAC and cable is a cable, a CDP is a CDP, and a dog is a dog.

If you want to live that that relm, good for you, I really don't care, but stop crapping on anyone else that has a different point of view and pretend like your "saving" them from spending money.

ITS OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY WHY THE HELL DO YOU CARE HOW THEY SPEND IT?

really is it like someone took a gun to your head and will kill you because they have a different point of view? Then grow up, get over yourself, and know that people have different points of view but your comments are not needed of hows its a fairy tale, that they wasted their money, and that you are so self proclaiming God of the audio world that everyone else is wrong.

jinjuku

steveinaz wrote: »

I've got a soldering gun and some electrical tape, can do! Shouldn't affect quality as wire is wire afterall right?

Why do you use XLR? You do know there's no scientific proof that they sound any better. Wait----I know your response already. "My component only has XLR." You seem to have an answer for everything, but I'm catching on. You only use Belden wire cause your pal works there, you use Canare because, blah, blah, blah. Of course you didn't buy any of those well respected brands because you thought they may have a positive influence on the final product. You selected them because they all fell conveniently in your lap at a discount price--got'cha. :rolleyes:

The cable and connectors are what we have used for years in the Audio and Video editing suites. I mean when we wired up a bunch of Guitar Centers, Rainbow Babies and Childrens Hospital, General Tire etc... I never heard the mix engineers complain.

As far as XLR to RCA I use a Behringer DCX2496 for sub management and the house curve. Receiver Pre-out (RCA) to the Behringer (XLR) then Behringer XLR to amp RCA.

But ultimately for me it's all about the speakers.

WilliamM2

cstmar01 wrote: »

Hey William, do this, why don't you prove to us that you aren't just trying to cause an argument, and that you can contribute to other parts of the forum in a postive and be well manored than calling everyone out on something they enjoy?

I do post in other parts of the forum, who the hell are you to decide who makes a contribution, and who doesn't? Why don't you get over yourself.

And please, stop whining about others that have a different opinion.

fishbones

WHOOOO CAAAAAARES!???

Let's say I am on an island surrounded by beautiful women. There's another guy on the next island over surrounded by ugly women. We meet one day out in our boats fishing for dinner and we get to talking about the women. He proceeds to tell me that all women are ugly, toothless and fat as cows. I look at him like he's crazy and say I disagree completely...women are beautiful, thin and voluptuous. The argument carries on 'til both of us realize that we're each wrong and neither of us will change each other's mind. I happily go back to my island with the beautiful women waiting for me at the shore with my days catch. He goes back to his ugly women cursing and grumbling.

Before you assume something isn't better, you should first be willing to paddle to the other island....

heiney9

Still no answers to my questions...............I'm really starting to think Jinjuku and WM2 are here to argue for the sake of arguing, with no point at all. My questions were sincere and not flippant.

I want to understand how you will benefit based on the questions I asked. If there is no benefit to your or someone else, I don't understand why you put in so much effort.

H9

cokewithvanilla

A lot of people in this thread seem to be arguing cost of cables... why is this a recurring theme in this thread? I thought the argument was about burn in, not cable cost. And, I assume, if an expensive cable can burn in, so can a cheap one.

The 'challenge' would certainly not be proof of burn in. However, it would credit or discredit one persons opinion. So, if you think you notice burn in and identify it wrong, it would discredit all your comments about hearing burn in (IMO). I think that is all the challenge would accomplish (along with creating another argument on how the test must have been flawed or someone must be lying).

there have been many things that have been believed by many people that turned out not to be true, subliminal advertising, for example. Whether this is true for burn in, I have no idea.

vc69

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

A lot of people in this thread seem to be arguing cost of cables... why is this a recurring theme in this thread? I thought the argument was about burn in, not cable cost. And, I assume, if an expensive cable can burn in, so can a cheap one.

DK covered the reasons why some cables require break-in and others do not. Cheap/poorly designed cables do not exhibit those characteristics (as a general rule).

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

The 'challenge' would certainly not be proof of burn in.

You seem to be coming around.

heiney9

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

A lot of people in this thread seem to be arguing cost of cables... why is this a recurring theme in this thread? I thought the argument was about burn in, not cable cost. And, I assume, if an expensive cable can burn in, so can a cheap one.

It's really not. Did you read what Darqueknight wrote:

This is a good explaination

darqueknight wrote:

Please refer us to a statement where someone here said that cables have to be EXPENSIVE for burn in to take effect.

In my case, I said the cables should be well engineered, low noise designs. Low noise contributes to resolution. Resolution contributes to differences being heard. I have no reasonable expectation that a $14 pair of speaker cables will meet the low noise, shielding, engineering and contraction criteria required of high fidelity audio cables.

In audio as with everything else, you generally get what you pay for. Amplifiers, speaker, source components and cables all differ in their resolution properties based on their design and contraction.

A cheap cable with low quality shielding and cladding with poor dielectric properties is going to induce more noise into the audio signal thereby having a masking effect on the audibility of sonic changes.

Again, as I have explained before, the changes in burn in have more to do with changes in the absorption and release of energy of the cladding (insulating material) than with the conductor metal.

Better quality, better engineered cables are going to have better noise abatement and better signal integrity properties. That is why I agreed to do the test if a better set of cables were offered. I did not say they had to be expensive.

hearingimpared

steveinaz wrote: »

Well, let's get this man some cables then. Though as I stated before, the Belden DIY's you built are likely pretty nice already. Belden is a "hidden gem" of sorts, and their cables are spec'd/built very well; and NO, I'm not being sarcastic.

First off if we even tried to have this discussion on Audioholics all would be banned for expressing their opinion. I was banned for making a suggestion to read Raife's paper and even threw in a compliment to juju yet he comes here and trolls like crazy. They even lied to our mods saying that I was going to their site with different screen names and that they all came from my IP address. Liars, snakes in the grass. Go back to your vanilla, all gear sounds the same Audioholic hole juju! You are just a trouble maker here. Don't bother replying dude as you are on my IL and I just read some of the quotes of your sorry crappola. How dare you come here and be hypocritical as you wouldn't allow this BS on your site.


Now my contribution; I've been in this hobby for 40 years. I've used many, many, many different ICs and speaker cables over the years. Some were awesome AFTER BURN-IN some just sounded like ****. Some after burn-in sounded worse after but most sounded better.


You don't believe me, tough ****, I don't have to prove anything to you naysaying trouble making creeps or anyone else. I know what my experience has proven TO ME!!! EFF your ABX, measurements, and all your other BS. I don't care. I know what has worked and what hasn't and why and the most important thing with ICs & speaker cables is synergy.

You need proof, DO IT YOURSELF! Maybe you could even enlighten us with your proper testing method. In the meantime y'all and you know who you are can GFYS. Last word from me on this topic.

BTW William I'm only directly a small portion of this post at you as you've stated that you've tried different cables and you didn't find a difference . . . I believe your experience has spoken. However it would be nice if you could post up what you've tried and what method you used to do the comparison.:)

WilliamM2

heiney9 wrote: »

Still no answers to my questions...............I'm really starting to think Jinjuku and WM2 are here to argue for the sake of arguing, with no point at all. My questions were sincere and not flippant.

I want to understand how you will benefit based on the questions I asked. If there is no benefit to your or someone else, I don't understand why you put in so much effort.

H9

You really think that audio myths benefit anyone other than dishonest manufacturers? I told you in the other post, it's mainly due to all the bad advice I read here.

Just recently I've seen posts where someone doesn't like the sound of a new component or speakers, and some clown will come along and ask, what IC's and speaker wire are you using? Or how long has it burned in? It'd be funny, if it weren't so ridiculous.

hearingimpared

jinjuku wrote: »

Then take the wager...

Take your wager and shove it on the Audioholics site. No one gives a crap here about your idiotic wager. Take Steve up on his offer then get the hell out of here.

steveinaz

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Just recently I've seen posts where someone doesn't like the sound of a new component or speakers, and some clown will come along and ask, what IC's and speaker wire are you using? Or how long has it burned in? It'd be funny, if it weren't so ridiculous.

That would be a rediculous recommendation. What cables do is subtle at best, and isn't going to correct gross errors with equipment. I agree with you there, William.

BlueFox

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I'm curious why other's continue to cling to beliefs that have been disproven time and time again. And why they try to push them as fact.

What are you talking about? Yes, I realize you are a troll, and like to argue, but try to at least make some sense. I posted a link to the measurements of electrical characteristics of different audio cables that clearly shows a difference. If you want to believe the differences are not adudible to your hearing then that is fine. But to try and force your beliefs as being factual on others is the sign of desperation, or just ignorance.

The only thing that has been proved, via measurements, is that different cables have different electrical characteristics. Some can hear this difference, others cannot. But the fact remains, there are differences in cables, and they are audible.

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

ohskigod

WilliamM2 wrote: »

You really think that audio myths benefit anyone other than dishonest manufacturers? I told you in the other post, it's mainly due to all the bad advice I read here.

.

if you dont like the advice, why stay here?

and I looked over alot of your posts......I normally don't like to judge, but you are pretty much an argumentative troll for the sake of being an argumentative troll. Not an insult, mearly an observation of activity to this point.

of course, this is my subjective opinion.........I'm sure you'll chalk that up as an audio myth too...lol

sm88

BlueFox wrote: »

What are you talking about? Yes, I realize you are a troll, and like to argue, but try to at least make some sense. I posted a link to the measurements of electrical characteristics of different audio cables that clearly shows a difference. If you want to believe the differences are not adudible to your hearing then that is fine. But to try and force your beliefs as being factual on others is the sign of desperation, or just ignorance.

The only thing that has been proved, via measurements, is that different cables have different electrical characteristics. Some can hear this difference, others cannot. But the fact remains, there are differences in cables, and they are audible.

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

You are completely off topic blue, this discussion has nothing to do with cables being different from each other, it is about a single cable and what it sounds like before and after being used for a while.

hearingimpared

WilliamM2 wrote: »

You really think that audio myths benefit anyone other than dishonest manufacturers? I told you in the other post, it's mainly due to all the bad advice I read here.

Just recently I've seen posts where someone doesn't like the sound of a new component or speakers, and some clown will come along and ask, what IC's and speaker wire are you using? Or how long has it burned in? It'd be funny, if it weren't so ridiculous.

Hold on there. I recall a thread not too long ago where the OP was having a hum problem. Tried different ICs and the problem went away and there was nothing wrong with the original ICs.

I had a similar problem where I had a terrible hum from a step-up transformer connected between my tonearm and pre. The manufacturer of the step-up suggested trying different ICs. I have several so I tried them all. Each one changed the db level of the hum from one degree to another but the one that completely eliminated it was MIT S3 Shotgun ICs with the left and right leads twisted eight times around each other (as suggested by Joe Abrams). Now how is this possible if all the ICs were in good working condition but made of different materials i.e. conductors of copper or silver, quad star design, etc etc. if ICs didn't make a difference?

ohskigod

sm88 wrote: »

You are completely off topic blue, this discussion has nothing to do with cables being different from each other, it is about a single cable and what it sounds like before and after being used for a while.

to the contrary, as a related note, many made mention of cables not making a difference period (I believe the words "audio myth") was mentioned by a certain someone.

also, a mention that different cables can measure differently, thus meaning cables can make a difference opens up the plausibility of the original argument, that a sound change was noted and the cable itself was cited as the reason for it.

calling out something "completely off topic" when the topic is related to cables is a bit of an inflammatory stretch don't you think?

I again submit that if genuine discourse was your goal, this verbage would not have been used.

sm88

ohskigod wrote: »

to the contrary, as a related note, many made mention of cables not making a difference period (I believe the words "audio myth") was mentioned by a certain someone.

also, a mention that different cables can measure differently, thus meaning cables can make a difference opens up the plausibility of the original argument, that a sound change was noted and the cable itself was cited as the reason for it.

calling out something "completely off topic" when the topic is related to cables is a bit of an inflammatory stretch don't you think?

I again submit that if genuine discourse was your goal, this verbage would not have been used.

The title of this topic is Cable Break In Believer. Yes a large number of people have posted about cable differences, but only because they misread a line about the construction of wire and took off on that tangent. If this were trimmed down to what it was originally about, it perhaps wouldn't be so many pages of arguing. There are plenty of topics about cables being different, and perhaps my use of language is abrasive at times but I only mean to get things back on track rather than going on and on about different types of cables and some sort of contest to determine who is master of their domain.

hearingimpared

sm88 wrote: »

The title of this topic is Cable Break In Believer. Yes a large number of people have posted about cable differences, but only because they misread a line about the construction of wire and took off on that tangent. If this were trimmed down to what it was originally about, it perhaps wouldn't be so many pages of arguing. There are plenty of topics about cables being different, and perhaps my use of language is abrasive at times but I only mean to get things back on track rather than going on and on about different types of cables and some sort of contest to determine who is master of their domain.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Who died and made you mod?