snake oil?

A potential minefield :D

I wouldn't call it "snake oil", since nobody is selling break-in as a product (?).

I'd say that 99% of all break-in is a mental component, but a lot op people would disagree. It's one of those things that borderlines something not allowed to be discussed on this forum.
 
Last edited:
For any kind of serious discussion on the subject I would think first any participant in the discussion would need to state if they can hear differences from one cable to another when connected to their audio system. If those that do not hear any differences in cables, for them, any cable break-in, burn-in, discussion would be futile imo.

For those that do hear differences in cables, that are connected to their audio equipment, then the listener needs to establish a baseline for any true listening test to determine if a cable changes its' SQ character after a burn-in period, imo.

Baseline? The listener needs to use a reference cable he can use throughout the burn-in period process of the virgin new out of the package cable.

I would think the vast majority of us know how our audio system sounds with its' present cabling. I would be willing to bet the listener knows in short order if something sounds different from what they are normally used to hearing from their system.

So for those of you that are in agreement so far if you were to change out the existing PC, power cord, that feeds the CDP with a new aftermarket PC you will hear a difference between the two PC cables from your audio system. Write the differences on a piece of paper for future reference as you proceed though the burn-in process of the new PC. (Of course for you believers that know from experience it can take forever to burn-in some aftermarket PCs on a CDP and so you hook up the PC to a piece of equipment or appliance that draws more current. Example, a refrigerator or dehumidifier.

After a couple of days the new cable with 48 hours of burn-in time is then hooked back up to the CDP. The listener then listens again for differences between his baseline reference PC and the new PC with 48 burn-in hours now on it. Compare the differences to his previous notes. You may have had to repeat the burn-in process a few more times.

I bought a KimberKable PK 10 that has a WG 330i plug and a WG 350i IEC connector, about a couple of years ago, that took forever to burn-in, break-in. For a burn-in load I used a dehumidifier that has an FLA of about 4+ amps at 120V. The baseline PC was a PS audio Plus cable.

As for some test equipment measurements that will show the differences from new to burn-in such test equipment may not yet exist. That does not mean differences do not exit. There is plenty of theory out there to read on cable burn-in though.

Food for thought, what test equipment measurements can be provided that will show why early 1960s Amperex PQ white label 6922 tubes sound better than current production EH 6922 tubes in say a preamp?

Can test equipment measurements be provided showing why some coupling caps sound better than others? How about resistors of the same type and tolerance ratings of different manufactures?

Quote:

John Curl Interview

Also, we couldn’t use mylar capacitors, which are fairly efficient
coupling capacitors. While mylars are fairly efficient from a size and cost
point of view, we realized they have problems with dielectric absorption. I
didn’t believe it at first. I was working with Noel Lee and a company
called Symmetry. We designed this crossover and I specified these one
microfarad Mylar caps. Noel kept saying he could 'hear the caps' and I
thought he was crazy. Its performance was better than aluminum or
tantalum electrolytics, and I couldn’t measure anything wrong with my
Sound Technology distortion analyzer. So what was I to complain about?
Finally I stopped measuring and started listening, and I realized that
the capacitor did have a fundamental flaw. This is were the ear has it all
over test equipment. The test equipment is almost always brought on line
to actually measure problems the ear hears. So we’re always working in
reverse. If we do hear something and we can’t measure it then we try to
find ways to measure what we hear. In the end we invariably find a
measurement that matches what the ear hears and it becomes very
obvious to everybody.

http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/JCinterview.pdf

Pages 15/18 and 16/18
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
So for a serious discussion you have to believe these differences are audible and not expectation and then the whole world of audiophoolery is open to you?

Some cables do make a difference, but the reason is easily measured with basic test equipment. No magic.

As for burn in, what is burning in? The electronics are just wiggling about within a few mm of cable. There is no metallurgy that needs aging. Nothing changes so why should the sound. No one has ever come up with a credible reason for this outside the mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It makes sense to say, "I hear something", and then go look for it with test equipment. In general, if you can hear it, you can measure it easily. There is no "Factor X" that is somehow audible, yet can't be measured.

I will concede that some 4d phenomena like soundfields are so complex that figuring out what the data means is very difficult. We can certainly say why one tube is different than another, but better/worse is up to you. As for Mylar caps, that one is obvious by several different means- I did it this way. Just skip to the end and look at the pictures.

Unfortunately, many other things, where I've been sure a difference existed, like conductor materials and low level ICs, evaporated like the smile of the Cheshire Cat the more controlled the tests became. The brain is too easily fooled.
 
One of the most annoying things about some people that can't hear differences in cables, components, break-in, etc is just how intolerant/abusive they can be - it seems to be their obligation to convince everyone of the 'error of their ways' and are fools to be 'taken in' by charlatans and crooks - scientific tests, 'peer review', self-delusion, work experience, etc usually added somewhere!

No doubt, some of it is quite true and some has not yet been understood, and I think the term 'snake oil' should be reserved for those products &/or services that are clearly shown to be fraudulent, not just unproven.

There's a 'discussion' going on in another thread about possible Bybee products being 'fraud' and it's raised a whole lot of ire and condemnation - no evidence at all about any possible fraud (money back guarantee, etc) but a whole lot about why the products couldn't possibly work at all, hence the term 'snake-oil' - it obvious that engineers and scientists can be just as 'bloody minded' and irrational as anyone else.

Off the subject a bit, it seems that the ability to 'listen better' has become the 'holy grail' of audiophiles and some people have developed their listening ability (not just hearing) to the point that they can not only discern small differences in component changes, room acoustics, etc but are able to accurately describe them - true 'Golden Ears', not that common (most people have 'blind spots' somewhere, some more than others, including musicians)
However, this enhanced ability to 'listen better' can have a definite 'downside' in that there's an automatic focus on what's wrong with the reproduction instead of appreciating the music, warts and all - 'critical listening' can easily extend to 'critical person' in lots of other areas and it can become a real problem for personal relationships, for example.
 
Yes, well, about the Bybee products - I wanted to know if the 'return guarantee' was true or if the whole business was a total scam, but there's nowhere in any of the threads that I looked that said if anyone had returned the products for refund and didn't receive it (ie simple fraud, yes?) A couple of people did mention that his guarantee was good, hence not dishonest - pretty clear, that part.

If I achieve any beneficial improvements in my system is a different matter and it will be interesting to see - a separate issue entirely, IMO.

That website! Makes me wonder if it's intentional obtuse - beyond my comprehension anyway.

Now, John Curl has a lot of credibility in my book and I can understand his approach more easily and as he is getting good results with some of the products, I'm hoping a similar thing will happen here.

If they don't and I get the refund, all I've done is waste some time - pretty simple here!

------------------
The second bit - I still have this quaint notion that engineers should be able to analyse a problem and provide a solution, or a method to evaluate a procedure at least - sigh!

and I've regarded scientists as the ones who increase our knowledge base by extending the accepted paradigms - challenging the known theorems, and it's still a bit of a surprise when such emotional responses appears - silly, I know.
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
One of the most annoying things about some people that can't hear differences in cables, components, break-in, etc is just how intolerant/abusive they can be - it seems to be their obligation to convince everyone of the 'error of their ways' and are fools to be 'taken in' by charlatans and crooks - scientific tests, 'peer review', self-delusion, work experience, etc usually added somewhere!

You have read 'The emperors new clothes'? Sums up the majority of boutique cables and devices. Go into any demo at a hifi show and the salesman (usually company owner) will carefully explain what you will hear with these new wonder cables. And having been carefully steered, by jove you hear it.

The placebo effect is very strong in humans. This is used by the cable and tweak brigade. It even extends to vets now. At least in UK the average vet now carries a very expensive line of pet foods, optimised by breed and twice the profit of your normal supermarket stuff.

So on the one hand there is strong evidence that humans are gullible. OTOH there are those who claim 'there must be something in this'...
 
Off the subject a bit, it seems that the ability to 'listen better' has become the 'holy grail' of audiophiles and some people have developed their listening ability (not just hearing) to the point that they can not only discern small differences in component changes, room acoustics, etc but are able to accurately describe them - true 'Golden Ears', not that common (most people have 'blind spots' somewhere, some more than others, including musicians)
However, this enhanced ability to 'listen better' can have a definite 'downside' in that there's an automatic focus on what's wrong with the reproduction instead of appreciating the music, warts and all - 'critical listening' can easily extend to 'critical person' in lots of other areas and it can become a real problem for personal relationships, for example.

But without critical thinking, progress would rely solely on blind chance.

Sure, history is littered with genius people, who had problems keeping critical thinking out of their personal lives, giving disastrous results. But without those people, we'd still be banging rocks together to make fire.

Critical thinking is an important tool. Sometimes it's helpful, sometimes it's not. But it should always have a place in your personal toolbox.

Yes, well, about the Bybee products - I wanted to know if the 'return guarantee' was true or if the whole business was a total scam, but there's nowhere in any of the threads that I looked that said if anyone had returned the products for refund and didn't receive it (ie simple fraud, yes?) A couple of people did mention that his guarantee was good, hence not dishonest - pretty clear, that part.

There's a reason why the members on this forum keep mentioning "The emperor's new clothes". The desire of confirming youself as having "golden ears" is far stronger than the desire of spending your money wisely. If the 'return guarantee' fools 1000 people into believing the claims of the product, then the economic return far outweighs the expense of the few people who actually make use of the guarantee. It's a simple sales trick. Nothing else.

The second bit - I still have this quaint notion that engineers should be able to analyse a problem and provide a solution, or a method to evaluate a procedure at least - sigh!

and I've regarded scientists as the ones who increase our knowledge base by extending the accepted paradigms - challenging the known theorems, and it's still a bit of a surprise when such emotional responses appears - silly, I know.

The problem with the Bybee products is that the claims of functionality are so far fetched, that it becomes hard to disprove them without touching some very heavy subjects.

Consider this: A person shows you a cardboard box and tells you that it's a time machine. Now, you could start giving a technical explanation as to why the cardboard box is not a time machine, but you'd soon run into trouble. Both because time is not fully understood by science yet, and because the few things we know about time are very hard to descibe in layman's terms. In the end you'd be forced to just go: "It's impossible!", and noone would blame you for this. After all, we've made enough observations of how time behaves to know that a cardboard box can't possibly be a time machine.

It's the same thing with Bybee products and quantum mechanics. They prey on the fact that this field of science is still shrouded in mystery. Some people seem to think that this means that anything is possible in the world of quantum mechanics. But the fact is that science has made loads and loads of observations, and the claims of how the Bybee products supposedly work, seem to contradict these observations.

So, it's perfectly legitimate to be all "emotional" and simply shout: "It's impossible!"
 
Last edited:
billshurv said:
Some cables do make a difference, but the reason is easily measured with basic test equipment. No magic.

Really? Basic test equipment? Credible Links please.... Not theory but actual tests using test equipment that exists today.
Please not VD, voltage drop, measurements for different gauge wire or resistance tests for bare wire or different types of bare wire like copper or silver. Though if you have credible Links of actual testing using test equipment that shows why copper conductor ICs and speaker cables sound different than silver I would love to see those test results.

Actual testing using todays basic test equipment showing the differences in cable construction geometry. Showing why one manufacture's construction geometry sounds different than another manufacture's. Actual testing of the type of insulation used to cover the bare wire and why dielectric absorption can influence the SQ of ICs and speaker cables. Please provide the actual test data that shows PVC insulation sounds one way on an IC and Teflon insulation another.
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
@JamesA. I cannot supply said references as silver at best has a few milliohms R less than copper. It doesn't sound different at audio frequencies. RF is a different matter and again easily measurable.

PTFE at least has a triboelectric effect so if you make your turntable to preamp cable with it and jump on it you might just hear a crackle.
 
OK, heres my attempt. Basic equipment and shows up differences, even though I personally can't hear them. Even though my method was a bit different, the measurements really don't show anything that can't be discovered with a good LCR meter and some DA tests.

As for conductors, I played with that extensively and concluded that nothing goes on beyond what you'd expect for differences in physical dimensions and resistance. Coat hangers and brass are as good as silver, though it's hard to duplicate physical dimensions with different materials. One thing I did find, well known to RF people, is that 3/8" pure silver tubing has such low resistance at HF that it's easy to create unwanted resonant tank circuits!
 
conrad-hoffman said:
Makes sense to say, "I hear something", and then go look for it with test equipment. In general, if you can hear it, you can measure it easily. There is no "Factor X" that is somehow audible, yet can't be measured.


LOL, is that how you read and understood what Curl said?

John Curl Interview

Also, we couldn’t use mylar capacitors, which are fairly efficient
coupling capacitors. While mylars are fairly efficient from a size and cost
point of view, we realized they have problems with dielectric absorption. I
didn’t believe it at first. I was working with Noel Lee and a company
called Symmetry. We designed this crossover and I specified these one
microfarad Mylar caps. Noel kept saying he could 'hear the caps' and I
thought he was crazy. Its performance was better than aluminum or
tantalum electrolytics, and I couldn’t measure anything wrong with my
Sound Technology distortion analyzer. So what was I to complain about?
Finally I stopped measuring and started listening, and I realized that
the capacitor did have a fundamental flaw. This is were the ear has it all
over test equipment. The test equipment is almost always brought on line
to actually measure problems the ear hears. So we’re always working in
reverse. If we do hear something and we can’t measure it then we try to
find ways to measure what we hear. In the end we invariably find a
measurement that matches what the ear hears and it becomes very
obvious to everybody.


http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/JCinterview.pdf

Pages 15/18 and 16/18

Quote:
I couldn’t measure anything wrong with my
Sound Technology distortion analyzer. So what was I to complain about?
Finally I stopped measuring and started listening, and I realized that
the capacitor did have a fundamental flaw.

If we do hear something and we can’t measure it then we try to
find ways to measure what we hear. In the end we invariably find a
measurement that matches what the ear hears and it becomes very
obvious to everybody.



conrad-hoffman said:
"if you can hear it, you can measure it easily"


Easily huh? LOL, I doubt at the time Curl would agree with you.