I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[analog_sa]

Originally posted by SY
What is a "cable cooker?"

That's quite an amusing question from someone with strong opinions on cables. After all the "cooking" brings the cable argument a few notches up.

[Key]

Yeah because it's total BS. You wanna know why cables don't need to be broken in? Because there are no moving parts.

If you really want to break in a system there is no better way than just playing a ton of music through the system for an extended period of time. Don't want to run up your electric bill but still want to break in your speakers? Unplug them and carefully place the stereo set so that they face eachother. This will push the drivers magnetically against eachother and break the speakers in if you leave them overnight or for a day or two.

PS I would not do this with every driver only ones that have a large excursion and can handle it.

[scott wurcer]

Originally posted by Key
Just a box that runs test tones through your cables in the attempt to break them in.

See here http://www.audioexcellenceaz.com/aud...ablecooker.htm

For $800 I'd go for the bottle of Harlan Estate (non-cryotreated).

[analog_sa]

Originally posted by Key
You wanna know why cables don't need to be broken in? Because there are no moving parts.

May i quote you on this? It's just too brilliant.

[brianco]

Originally posted by Key
Yeah because it's total BS. You wanna know why cables don't need to be broken in? Because there are no moving parts.

There are those who would totally disagree with this idea / 'non-fact' as they would say.

Those who are deeply into this may well contend that each crystal of copper has a boundary and that at the boundaries movement takes place. They claim that breaking cables in helps those boundary interfaces to mate with their neighboring boundaries more effectively and that the cables as a result 'sound' better than before such a burn-in.

To my way of thinking as we use cables/ICs this will be a natural process and cannot be harmed but helped - should there be any scientifically acceptable truth in the initial premise - by an elongated use over the first few days after installation. But to get into an argument on what is going to happen anyway is really not profitable!

[SY]

How does that happen because of an electrical signal (as opposed to thermal annealing)? What happens to those crystals when the wire is moved or flexed? Any actual evidence that this process causes audible changes?

[Key]

Originally posted by analog_sa



May i quote you on this? It's just too brilliant.

yeah, feel free I got a million of em.

Really though things with moving parts it makes sense to "break in". Speakers are designed this way or else they would degrade in performance very rapidly - after the break in. And they say as much in a lot of well respected manufacterers manuals for the speakers. I have never seen Neutrik, Switchcraft, Belding, Canare etc... (non snake oil cable makers) say anything of the sort about cables - please feel free to prove me wrong and show me if they say otherwise.

What I find extremely frustrating about these tweeks that are supposed to add subtle details to your playback system is that I have done a bit of comparisons under real situations where the recordings were near identical but had small tonality differences (due to different masterings) and it is not as easy as just simply listening to the recording to hear the differences. In most cases you can't tell unless you find a certain section of the song where it is slightly revealing in the differences. And even then fast A/B/X/Y switching is neccessary for me to notice these small differences

[brianco]

Originally posted by SY
How does that happen because of an electrical signal (as opposed to thermal annealing)? What happens to those crystals when the wire is moved or flexed? Any actual evidence that this process causes audible changes?

I had this explained to me about 18 years ago. On the simple grounds that if there is truth in the theory 'burn-in' will occur anyway in course of usage. I then put it to one side so far away in my mind that I can no longer recall the detailed argument. As I said above why worry about it! I couched my response to Kay in a manner which makes it clear that I do not appeal to this theory as a basis of any firmly held beliefs - either way!

The underlying idea in posting is that the holders of such beliefs may just possibly be correct and that to say that it is BS as there is no 'movement' in cables may be a mistake.

For my own part I find it impossible to accept that energy moving along a media can do so without in some way effecting change in that media - in this case a strand/s of cable - be it in advance of that movement, during that movement or after that movement or - even - all three in any combination. Whether this can cause a permanent change is questionable. However it may simply change the humour of the cable. But as for absolute truth I cannot possibly hold a view on the matter.

[Key]

Eh fair enough. Truthfully I don't know. But I suspect it's BS as there are no moving parts that need to be stretched. Further more I already have a program that can generate sweeptones up to 96kHz so I have zero need for that product since I could just run a loopback with my soundcard.

[Panicos K]

Originally posted by Key


In most cases you can't tell unless you find a certain section of the song where it is slightly revealing in the differences. And even then fast A/B/X/Y switching is neccessary for me to notice these small differences

I agree with the first sentence.It is in certain sections of a piece of music that differences are more easily heard.However,I think that to be able to hear the differences you have to listen to that section exactly as part of the whole music piece and not as something that will reveal any difference.It is its relation to the whole song or piece of music that will reveal the difference.A quick switching on that section alone will cause problems even to the most experienced listeners.