# Flawed analogy?



## Talley (Dec 8, 2010)

"Some" claim burn in helps cables sound better. Some says this is a joke. Maybe... to a degree it is plausible? And I say this only by relating it to this analogy:

You buy a new home... you walk in and look around and you see it's condition. As you live in it and months goes by it seems you notice some kind of flaw in the home as each day passes by, a chip in the paint or dent in the wall or squeeky door. After years of years with this home you see all of it's minor characteristics that you simply did not notice at first. 

Could this not be the same with audio?... You demo a system and you hear it's sound but as you listen more and more to that same system every day you start to notice finer details, certain characteristics that defines its sound.


Could this be the same?


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Flawed analogy.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Agree, Flawed. 

Burn in requires some "heat" if your cables are getting even remotely warm then your awg is way to small. 
Speakers burn in because they move and the components get more flexible as they move over time and the motor on the driver heats and cools. 
Electronics will also burn in over time as they heat and cool during use this can change the sound very subtle amounts. (The higher the quality of the components the less this is a factor because the tolerances are better) 

But burn in on cables, not even a consideration

Your hearing will change from day to day due to pressure changes as well as your own health such as if you have a cold. If you dont clean the wax out of your ears that can also dramatically change from day to day. Listening at moderate to loud volumes for long periods of time will also hurt what you hear.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Well, to use your analogy, I say flawed. The situation you have described, would make me think that the listeners ears have "burned in", and grown accustomed to the sound. I also think each case study is different. In my case, every single time my tv goes on, so does my system. My tv speakers have never once made a sound. That means basically every day I'm listening to my system. Even for the news, or wheel of fortune, and therefore I'm very sensitive to any tuning changes. To me this means someone who only uses their system periodically, could notice things, simply because of their state of mind, or that they could be trying to hear a difference, and actually do but only because they weren't paying attention before. Or paying attention to some other part of he system, or just not be as in tune.(punny?) So for me, and in my OPINION, the cable debate is twofold.(at least) 
OPINION. Cable burn in theory is stupid. Just as much as cryo, or fancy accessory power cables etc. How on earth could letting my speaker cables pass current for X amount of time, possibly unlock the hidden functionality of my speakers crummy internal wiring, and crossover components? Or a power cable undo all the bad that my power company has done in 20 miles from their door to mine, and unlock all the potential of my avr's circuitry? I've never seen a legit endorsement from an oem saying to use this stuff. Because they know it's all balogne. Otherwise they'd say, hey use this xyz thingy to wring out the last ounce of performance that we're engineering "out" of our products. I've just never seen any credibility applied to this stuff. I.E.:actual science. I use a simple APC h-10 to supply enough current, and manage voltage fluctuations, while filtering. Done. Notice, I did use the word OPINION above, and if anyone can prove me wrong, I'll color myself stupid. Fwiw, I almost fit this whole post in the same single word Charlie used... And also agree with tony. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FargateOne (Mar 3, 2015)

willis7469 said:


> Well, to use your analogy, I say flawed. The situation you have described, would make me think that the listeners ears have "burned in", and grown accustomed to the sound. I also think each case study is different. In my case, every single time my tv goes on, so does my system. My tv speakers have never once made a sound. That means basically every day I'm listening to my system. Even for the news, or wheel of fortune, and therefore I'm very sensitive to any tuning changes. To me this means someone who only uses their system periodically, could notice things, simply because of their state of mind, or that they could be trying to hear a difference, and actually do but only because they weren't paying attention before. Or paying attention to some other part of he system, or just not be as in tune.(punny?) So for me, and in my OPINION, the cable debate is twofold.(at least)
> OPINION. Cable burn in theory is stupid. Just as much as cryo, or fancy accessory power cables etc. How on earth could letting my speaker cables pass current for X amount of time, possibly unlock the hidden functionality of my speakers crummy internal wiring, and crossover components? Or a power cable undo all the bad that my power company has done in 20 miles from their door to mine, and unlock all the potential of my avr's circuitry? I've never seen a legit endorsement from an oem saying to use this stuff. Because they know it's all balogne. Otherwise they'd say, hey use this xyz thingy to wring out the last ounce of performance that we're engineering "out" of our products. I've just never seen any credibility applied to this stuff. I.E.:actual science. I use a simple APC h-10 to supply enough current, and manage voltage fluctuations, while filtering. Done. Notice, I did use the word OPINION above, and if anyone can prove me wrong, I'll color myself stupid. Fwiw, I almost fit this whole post in the same single word Charlie used... And also agree with tony.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I totally agree with you specially about burning wire and cryo (The CERN in Switzerland Alpes (les Alpes Suisses-Françaises) has the only one really cryo wire (absolute 0 degree -270C more or less to get supra-conductors) for searching boson de Higgs!!. 
How can a 1.8m cable erase bad AC from 1 000km 720kv power lines before it ??? Not possible.

But, since I have conected my receiver through more expansive 8 outlets bar and 3 cables (neither burnes nor cryo but well shielded and grounded among other caracteristics but more likely not better because expansive) I do not get the same sound from my receiver.
I can't explain why. 
As Talley says yesterday, maybe it is only my brain that is tricking me. Well, I am happy it does ( in french we call a guy in my situation: un imbécile heureux!! = :laugh2



> I use a simple APC h-10 to supply enough current, and manage voltage fluctuations, while filtering. Done.


Is it possible to think ( I am not electician or electronician) that if the internal processors electronics machin in our receiver as less bad informations to treat with good filtered AC cable and outlets then it can uses his calculator capablities better to translate music-bits in signal for the speakers??:sweat:


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Analogies don't provide any real support for any particular proposition. Analogies are great for creating understanding but this is really a question of physical fact and psychological phenomena. If there is a phsycial differnce in the behavior of the wire in a circuit it should be measurable. No analogy can provide measurement. If one is convinced that he/she hears a difference, whether there is one or not and is trying to convey understanding about that perceived phenomena, perhaps an analogy is useful, but why not jut relate the experience as precisely as possible. This is far more useful or interesting to most of us.

Why use an analogy to speculate over something like this? What is your actual esperience or measurement?


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

lcaillo said:


> Analogies don't provide any real support for any particular proposition. Analogies are great for creating understanding but this is really a question of physical fact and psychological phenomena. If there is a physical difference in the behavior of the wire in a circuit it should be measurable. No analogy can provide measurement. If one is convinced that he/she hears a difference, whether there is one or not and is trying to convey understanding about that perceived phenomena, perhaps an analogy is useful, but why not jut relate the experience as precisely as possible. This is far more useful or interesting to most of us.
> 
> Why use an analogy to speculate over something like this? What is your actual experience or measurement?


This is a great idea, although, I do not believe that everything in our systems can be measured. I have been doing a bit of an "Affordable" cable examination by changing our interconnects and speaker cables over a period of time and I can say with the utmost confidence, that different cables oft times sound different. I cannot measure them but there are repeatable differences. Should anyone wish to know of my findings, I would be happy to share.


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Savjac said:


> This is a great idea, although, I do not believe that everything in our systems can be measured. I have been doing a bit of an "Affordable" cable examination by changing our interconnects and speaker cables over a period of time and I can say with the utmost confidence, that different cables oft times sound different. I cannot measure them but there are repeatable differences. Should anyone wish to know of my findings, I would be happy to share.


I think all differences are measurable, but not sure if we know how to measure the diffences yet though. When you say "different cables oft sound different"...are they the same length, Impedance, Inductance, and Resistance (I hope I got the 3 measurements correct)? In my experience if any of the 3 measurements are different it could change the sound...especially if you are dealing with tube audio equipment.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

IME, while it seems that basic parameters are sufficient, what many fail to realize is that impedance and other measures vary with frequency, and may interact with other devices to result in complex relationships. The human perceptual system can also be very sensitive to relationships in stimuli in ways that we have not always been able to easily quantify, and combining these complexities with psychological effects results in great difficulty "measuring" things that we perceive. So yes, we should be able to measure differences that result in audible changes, but it is not as simple as hooking up a meter or running a sweep. It ain't trivial...


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

ellisr63 said:


> I think all differences are measurable, but not sure if we know how to measure the diffences yet though. When you say "different cables oft sound different"...are they the same length, Impedance, Inductance, and Resistance (I hope I got the 3 measurements correct)? In my experience if any of the 3 measurements are different it could change the sound...especially if you are dealing with tube audio equipment.


Herein lies the rub, I have no idea and do not understand how to measure any of this. I do the very think that our systems are designed to do and that is to listen to the product and see which one brings the music closer to me. Some products are really crummy and some are very nice, but this is in my system. To answer your next question, YES I am tuning the system to my tastes, but dont we all ?


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Savjac said:


> Herein lies the rub, I have no idea and do not understand how to measure any of this. I do the very think that our systems are designed to do and that is to listen to the product and see which one brings the music closer to me. Some products are really crummy and some are very nice, but this is in my system. To answer your next question, YES I am tuning the system to my tastes, but dont we all ?


I believe you can measure the cables with a simple meter.
Here is an article where they measuresd speaker cables... http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_spkr_cable.pdf

Years ago I had a tube preamp (Audible Illusions), and we found huge differences in sound from one cable to another. I then started looking for the specs on the cables and found that they were all different in those 3 areas. Another thing i found out is that if your output from the preamp is not lower than the input of the power amp the differences are larger . Case in point... We wnet from the Audible Illusions preamp which when cables were switched you could pick out the differences every time, but when i got the Classe DR6 preamp (1ohm output), there was no audible difference at all from the cables. The Classe DR6 was a very revealing preamp too! 

I also recall some expensive cables that were made out of RG6 (I think) that were touted by all the reviewers as being the greatest thing you could use... I made a set... When i played music through my setup it sounded like I had a surround sound setup when i only had stereo. It was very strange the way it sounded, so I did a little research and found out that the cables were throwing my amp into Oscillation! I can't remember which spec was doing it but that was the last time i used those wires!


----------



## robbo266317 (Sep 22, 2008)

ellisr63 said:


> I also recall some expensive cables that were made out of RG6 (I think) that were touted by all the reviewers as being the greatest thing you could use... I made a set... When i played music through my setup it sounded like I had a surround sound setup when i only had stereo. It was very strange the way it sounded, so I did a little research and found out that the cables were throwing my amp into Oscillation! I can't remember which spec was doing it but that was the last time i used those wires!


This is commonly due to capacitance in the cable and was a huge problem with older amps. (There was a trend a while back to Plait cat 5 cable to make speaker leads and although the resistance and inductance were low the capacitance was high and caused similar issues for some amps.)


----------



## dgmartin (Oct 29, 2011)

lcaillo said:


> IME, while it seems that basic parameters are sufficient, what many fail to realize is that impedance and other measures vary with frequency, and may interact with other devices to result in complex relationships. The human perceptual system can also be very sensitive to relationships in stimuli in ways that we have not always been able to easily quantify, and combining these complexities with psychological effects results in great difficulty "measuring" things that we perceive. So yes, we should be able to measure differences that result in audible changes, but it is not as simple as hooking up a meter or running a sweep. It ain't trivial...


Just checking if I'm getting it right :
I understand the cables cannot be exactly modeled by simple linear L,C,R elements (since some elements could vary with frequency themselves). 
The resulting cable impedance will interact with the input/output impedances of the systems to create filters responsible for the LF/HF rolloffs.
The complex impedances could also generate some instabilities (oscillations) at given frequencies as other mentioned. 
As I see it should still be a linear transfer function (by linear I mean not level-dependent) which should be measurable at the system level. 
Thanks!


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Not being level dependent does not mean linear. The impact of that such transfer functions on what we hear is also not well understood, IMO, but the most significant variables are certainly expectation and psychological.


----------



## dgmartin (Oct 29, 2011)

lcaillo said:


> Not being level dependent does not mean linear.


Here's the nuance I'm missing... would you mind explaining?


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Impedance is only linear for d.c. Once you start to vary the voltage, you are in a "complex" world. Yes, one should be able to model a cable on the parameters you mentioned, but it will not be a linear model.


----------



## dgmartin (Oct 29, 2011)

I understand impedance is complex mathematically speaking. I guess I'm just using a broader definition of linear... i.e. it's linear if, at a given frequency, the system output will double if we double the input. Thanks for your patience!


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

dgmartin said:


> I understand impedance is complex mathematically speaking. I guess I'm just using a broader definition of linear... i.e. it's linear if, at a given frequency, the system output will double if we double the input. Thanks for your patience!


Sorry, but I don't see the point in not using terminology correctly. Simplifying assumptions can be useful in generating understanding or analogy but I don't see the point here. Music is not sound at one frequency. The whole debate is due to people either over simplifying or rejecting good science rather than digging in and understanding all of the variables and how they interact.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

dgmartin said:


> I understand impedance is complex mathematically speaking. I guess I'm just using a broader definition of linear... i.e. it's linear if, at a given frequency, the system output will double if we double the input. Thanks for your patience!


 Output level vs input level describes gain instead of impedance. As long as 1dB increase on the input results in 1dB increase on the output gain is linear.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

lcaillo said:


> Sorry, but I don't see the point in not using terminology correctly. Simplifying assumptions can be useful in generating understanding or analogy but I don't see the point here. Music is not sound at one frequency. The whole debate is due to people either over simplifying or rejecting good science rather than digging in and understanding all of the variables and how they interact.


Interesting thoughts here. I totally agree that music is not a constant but rather it is more a flow of frequency, however, rejecting science has never been a thought for even a second. I do not have the background to do the science really but I do have a musical and listening background so while I may not always know why something happens, I can tell you when it does.


----------



## dgmartin (Oct 29, 2011)

lcaillo said:


> Sorry, but I don't see the point in not using terminology correctly.


I was trying to be flexible on the “linear” terminology and avoid both confusion and debate at the same time, which I realise is next to impossible to conciliate. 
When you say:


lcaillo said:


> Impedance is only linear for d.c. Once you start to vary the voltage, you are in a "complex" world.


First, the impedance is not only linear but constant for DC. Second, your definition seems to say that complex does mean linear. I have many textbooks sitting on my shelves with chapter such as “linear circuit analysis”, “linear vibrations” etc. and they all involve complex numbers, amplitudes and phases. I’m not suggesting one definition should be held as absolute and do not care much about terminology, but if we use non-linear for complex, then what are we going to use to describe the true non-linear systems (material non-linearities etc...)?


lcaillo said:


> Simplifying assumptions can be useful in generating understanding or analogy but I don't see the point here. Music is not sound at one frequency.


The point was really not to simplify the whole issue, but your post (#9) left me wondering if there was not something beyond my current understanding of what is measurable and I simply wanted to validate it. From our exchange I now see what you meant and can only agree.



lcaillo said:


> The whole debate is due to people either over simplifying or rejecting good science rather than digging in and understanding all of the variables and how they interact.


Well said!


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Talley said:


> "Some" claim burn in helps cables sound better. Some says this is a joke. Maybe... to a degree it is plausible? And I say this only by relating it to this analogy:
> 
> You buy a new home... you walk in and look around and you see it's condition. As you live in it and months goes by it seems you notice some kind of flaw in the home as each day passes by, a chip in the paint or dent in the wall or squeeky door. After years of years with this home you see all of it's minor characteristics that you simply did not notice at first.
> 
> ...


Catching up here... I like the analogy. > According to its "logic," heating up the house hot enough and long long enough (burn-in) will make all of its flaws magically go away. Coool! Don't think any place I have ever lived has worked like that. Time and temperature always made the flaws get worse, not better. By what logic would we assume that the basic fuel for entropy would make anything - any cable - act more orderly? I can think of no analogy or logic or law or perspective or paradigm that illustrates or explains or supports such a view.


----------

