Cable Break-in/adjustment period

bikezappa

Music is the best.

AudioGenics

......A flurry of comments by audio-industry professionals immediately appeared on the Internet—most of them extremely well-reasoned and politely expressed. The consensus seems to be: Yes, of course, cables make a difference;........

bikezappa

DarqueKnight wrote: »

If they went to "nasa.com" or any other place where a large group of technically competent people exists, they know they would be either:

1. Eaten alive, as in chewed up and spit out,
2. Totally ignored,
3. Immediately Banned just for being so ignorant,

Or all of the above.

Audio forums are attractive targets for these sociopaths because of the supposedly delusional, gullible and technically incompetent mental condition of the audiophile.

It's to bad I'm on his ignore list so he can't read this but these verbose lectures about his philosphy and voodoo science of line cords and fuses by the Dr of EE are just tiring. Say something new!

I hope he is not like this in bed.

AudioGenics

.......James Randi is now offering $1 million to anyone who can prove that there's any real difference in performance between a pair of $80 Monster HDMI cables (which many will claim is already overpriced) and the astoundingly priced $7,250 12-foot "Anjou" audio cables from Pear Cable. As Randi notes, the key is in the actual performance .....

BlueFox

jvc wrote: »

.......James Randi is now offering $1 million to anyone who can prove that there's any real difference in performance between a pair of $80 Monster HDMI cables (which many will claim is already overpriced) and the astoundingly priced $7,250 12-foot "Anjou" audio cables from Pear Cable. As Randi notes, the key is in the actual performance .....

Why would someone compare an HDMI cable to an analog cable? I guess I am now $1 million dollars richer since it will be easy to show the video performance of the HDMI cable is better than the video performance of the analog ICs.

AudioGenics

BlueFox wrote: »

Why would someone compare an HDMI cable to an analog cable? I guess I am now $1 million dollars richer since it will be easy to show the video performance of the HDMI cable is better than the video performance of the analog ICs.

Unfortunately, like most offers of $1 million this one is a hoax. While James Randi is claiming to offer a $1 million dollar prize to differentiate between these speaker cables, by reading the official rules of the challenge, it becomes immediately clear that the offer is not valid. One must be able to "demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability" in order to qualify. Since there is a wealth of scientific information explaining the differences between speaker cables, the offer is not a valid one

Cpyder

DarqueKnight wrote: »

...I just think it is ludicrous, ridiculous and counter-productive to try to reduce any subjective phenomenon to a set of quantitative and objective criteria. You can mathematically "prove" with tests and measurements that a particular woman's face and body are perfectly symmetrical and balanced and that she has near flawless skin and hair and is therefore "beautiful". Now, what about those for whom absolute physical symmetry is not "beautiful"? Some men like a measure of asymmetry or even exaggeration in one or more physical areas. All the scientific studies, measurements and "proof" will not make a woman more appealing to them just because she conforms to a scientific quantitatively verifiable ideal.

Even if we all wanted to be objectivists, we have the very real problem that everything that humans can audibly perceive from audio reproduction equipment cannot be quantified with current laboratory meaurement tools. When we finally are able to quantify audio equipment performance down to the quantum level, we will then have to solve the problem of correlating measured performance with variable human perception.

I wish the objectivists and naysayers good luck with all that.

You can scientifically prove that the two women in question are different. Hell, you don't even need science, just look at them. But when ALL of science and NO human being on the entire planet can prove a difference between a broken-in cable and a "new" cable. Does it really exist??

And before someone posts "Do you know all the science that ever existed?," No, I don't but I'm more than positive that if there was any science backing up these cable break-in claims, cable manufacturers would cite it!! They already have their pseudoscience believers buying their products. Why not get the educated and scientific community's attention and money by proving there's a difference!

DarqueKnight wrote: »

If they went to "nasa.com" or any other place where a large group of technically competent people exists, they know they would be either:

1. Eaten alive, as in chewed up and spit out,
2. Totally ignored,
3. Immediately Banned just for being so ignorant,

Or all of the above.

Audio forums are attractive targets for these sociopaths because of the supposedly delusional, gullible and technically incompetent mental condition of the audiophile.

And you'd fair well? I'm sure they wouldn't roll their eyes to someone who has publicly denounced the scientific method and valid testing procedures. Is the method perfect? No, but until a better method comes along that produces as accurate and consistent results, it's all we have. As well as someone who believes that since they hear something, that means everyone else is wrong.

Flash21

I'm sure cable performance could be measured scientifically, but the number of variables are dauntingly large.

For example, an interconnect cable that sounded the best amongst those auditioned for my old CD player sounded terrible on my new CD player. So it is not as simple as measuring cable A and cable B and so forth, each cable would have to be measured for each combination of equipment. Think of how many variables that alone introduces. Now add in power cables, vibration control, and any number of other seemingly insane tweeks that folks claim to affect the sound that cables transmit (for the most part I draw the line at cables, I'm simply unwilling to take it any further due to diminishing returns).

This extreme sensitivity to differing conditions is why I think extremely high resolution for such measurements would be necessary. In fact, I suspect it is something of a Schrödinger's cat scenario, where the very instrumentation used to measure the performance of cables will affect the performance.

IMHO all of the above explains why it hasn't been done. Who has the funding for such extremely delicate and complicated testing? Not you or I, or the government. It's just not as important as, say, a cure for cancer.

concealer404

If my anti-audiophile girlfriend can hear the difference, so should everyone else.

Cpyder

Flash21 wrote: »

I'm sure cable performance could be measured scientifically, but the number of variables are dauntingly large.

For example, an interconnect cable that sounded the best amongst those auditioned for my old CD player sounded terrible on my new CD player. So it is not as simple as measuring cable A and cable B and so forth, each cable would have to be measured for each combination of equipment. Think of how many variables that alone introduces. Now add in power cables, vibration control, and any number of other seemingly insane tweeks that folks claim to affect the sound that cables transmit (for the most part I draw the line at cables, I'm simply unwilling to take it any further due to diminishing returns).

This extreme sensitivity to differing conditions is why I think extremely high resolution for such measurements would be necessary. In fact, I suspect it is something of a Schrödinger's cat scenario, where the very instrumentation used to measure the performance of cables will affect the performance.

IMHO all of the above explains why it hasn't been done. Who has the funding for such extremely delicate and complicated testing? Not you or I, or the government. It's just not as important as, say, a cure for cancer.

Wouldn't cable manufacturers have the funding and time to carry out these tests? It is their product. I couldn't buy a piece of electronics knowing that the manufacturer never carried out any testing on their own product.

concealer404

Cpyder wrote: »

Wouldn't cable manufacturers have the funding and time to carry out these tests? It is their product. I couldn't buy a piece of electronics knowing that the manufacturer never carried out any testing on their own product.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe testing just MIGHT have something to do with recommended break in period. Just a thought.

So, you're all good! Carry on buying electronics!

Flash21

Cpyder wrote: »

Wouldn't cable manufacturers have the funding and time to carry out these tests? It is their product. I couldn't buy a piece of electronics knowing that the manufacturer never carried out any testing on their own product.

I'm sure they have performed testing...listening testing...for all the reason I stated before, that is what is feasible.

Cpyder

concealer404 wrote: »

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe testing just MIGHT have something to do with recommended break in period. Just a thought.

So, you're all good! Carry on buying electronics!

What do you mean? Where is the research by the company? Not just a paragraph saying that cables break-in.

concealer404

Cpyder wrote: »

What do you mean? Where is the research by the company? Not just a paragraph saying that cables break-in.

It had to be there somewhere.... i don't think a company would tell you to break in cables for 500 hours or whatever just to play a cruel joke on you. The fact that i can hear the difference, and my girlfriend of all people can hear it is enough for me.

If you can't hear it, or are questioning it, that's fine. Consider yourself lucky for being able to be happy with the $5 radioshack cables.

dragon1952

Who cares about what the cable companies claim? Jeez, by reading some of these posts you'd think they were the only product that stretches the truth, or even downright fibs. Probably 90% of the products on the market do it to a degree, and I'm talking all products...cereals, deodorants, toothpaste, suppositories, automobiles. That's the whole concept behind marketing. We, as consumers, have to be smart enough to sift through the ****. And very few products have scientific proof of their claims, or if they do, they are usually biased. As for cables, it's nice to know the materials, specs and topology. The rest is buying at or below your price threshold and experimenting, which leads to coming to your own conclusions. Personally, as for cables costing more than say 3-5 hundred bucks max, I tend to get a little skeptical, generally speaking, about their value. As for cable break-in, I'm sure there is something to that, but likely not as much as they claim. As for audio gear in general, much of it may just be our brains getting used to the change. As for the claims, maybe it would be more honest if they would mention that as a possibility in addition. But that's probably not what people want to hear (no pun intended).
I know that there are differences in many of the amps, CDP's and cables that have been through my system, but it has nothing to do with marketing or claims. It comes down to experimentation and synergy.
As for the cables that have stuck in my system....a 15 yr old first generation Audioquest 4-conductor speaker cable....no fancy space-age copper, teflon or hyperlitz..... I can't even find any marketing data on them. And a pair of Ebay special bare bones silver IC's. Total cable cost , about $120.

hearingimpared

With 5 pairs of ICs and a set of speaker wires, all MIT, I've spent over $2000. I would have never spent that much if I didn't hear a major change and pleasing sound over the cables and wires I was currently using. I also realized a noticable VAST difference in pleasing sound AFTER BREAK IN. So doubt away and deride all you want I know what I have is real and NOT a placebo effect or wishful thinking.

MLZ

hearingimpared wrote: »

So doubt away and deride all you want I know what I have is real and NOT a placebo effect or wishful thinking.

And the same goes for you Doubting Thomas' over at the Astrology forums

hearingimpared

MLZ wrote: »

And the same goes for you Doubting Thomas' over at the Astrology forums

What is an astrology forum?

hearingimpared

keiko wrote: »

hey gus! Is all poon-tang the same too? Is there any scientific proof showing any differences, or is all the same? Just asking.

:rolleyes:

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

cnh

Almost 500 posts on another cable thread. Guys?

Haven't we learned that this debate is interminable!

You either 'hear' it or you don't, and that's it. And as far as placebo is concerned...for those of you who LOVE that 'argument' SO MUCH. You know PLACEBOS have cured CANCER. So they are just as EFFECTIVE as REAL drugs in many cases!

The Placebo argument is a NON-ARGUMENT! Turn on your system...use your Radio Shack I/Cs or your MITs and just enjoy your system...whatever side you're on.

cnh

AudioGenics

http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm

cnh

Keiko,

Now that's the spirit!!!! That's why we're here!

cnh

MLZ

hearingimpared wrote: »

What is an astrology forum?

See http://www.bobmarksastrologer.net/forums/

These guys truly believe that the date, time and place of their birth predestines their personality and entire life and no argument will dissuade them from their strongly held beliefs.

So I do not argue with people who believe in something so strongly that they ignore any science to the contrary.

hearingimpared

MLZ wrote: »

See

So I do not argue with people who believe in something so strongly that they ignore any science to the contrary.

That's the spirit!

blakeh

Perhaps the astrology people are onto something...

If you were born in an even year, you don't hear a difference in cables. If you were born in an odd year, you do!

It all makes so much sense now! We should break this discussion intot wo threads -- one for the evens and one for the odds.

comfortablycurt

blakeh wrote: »

Perhaps the astrology people are onto something...

If you were born in an even year, you don't hear a difference in cables. If you were born in an odd year, you do!

It all makes so much sense now! We should break this discussion intot wo threads -- one for the evens and one for the odds.

That can't be right Blake. I was born on an even year...and I defintely hear a difference in cables.

It's probably more to do with the day and the hour that you were born on...

For instance...if you were born on June 23 1976, at 4:03 pm, you definitely aren't going to hear a difference. Had you been born on June 23 1976 at 4:06 pm though...you'd be hearing a difference...without a doubt.:p

blakeh

Good points, Curt. You are way more familiar with the science of astrology than I am!

comfortablycurt

blakeh wrote: »

Good points, Curt. You are way more familiar with the science of astrology than I am!

Quite true, but as far as the faith based placebo effects of astrology are concerned, you're the king Blake...lol

lightman1

My stars say you all suck. Born in '68 and can hear a difference as well. Atta boy Curt! Stand up for us evens!
Mike is a freak and Ben told me Joe only has a Coby boombox for system.
I believe what my ears tell my emotions when the music plays.
Science or no science.

Hacks.

lightman1

VERY thorough data on your pie chart, Mike. A job well done.