Topic: Cable burn in?

[Teen Wolf Blitzer]

I keep seeing reference to this.  Can someone please explain this to me?  How many hours does it take to "burn in" a cable and why is this a good thing?  Thanks folks.

 Ignorantly yours, Mark

[orechall]

I know ToddR would be a good one to answer this from what he told me I would see a slight difference with the cables I got from him after they had about 50 hours burned in on them.  as for why you are getting -T's you got me there but dont worry I got a +T to throw your way and hope that you get that V2 you have been looking for before too long.

[Teen Wolf Blitzer]

Thanks man.  backatcha.

[cshepherd]

Hey Mark,
Yes, it's true.  Cables take about 50 hours to burn in.  Out of the box, an interconnect changes sound pretty frequently for the first hour or so.  The most noticeable points are after 1 hour, 25 hours and 50 hours.  Beyond that, any changes are going to be very subtle.  Cables sound very restrained out of the box, lacking extention on either end.  Often, the treble frequencies will come in before the bass drops.  It's important to pass signal through them for a couple of days before taking them out into the field. 

Chris

[Teen Wolf Blitzer]

Hey Mark,
Yes, it's true.  Cables take about 50 hours to burn in.  Out of the box, an interconnect changes sound pretty frequently for the first hour or so.  The most noticeable points are after 1 hour, 25 hours and 50 hours.  Beyond that, any changes are going to be very subtle.  Cables sound very restrained out of the box, lacking extention on either end.  Often, the treble frequencies will come in before the bass drops.  It's important to pass signal through them for a couple of days before taking them out into the field. 

Chris

+t Chris.  I'll go ahead and start running em.  Heck it'll give the R4 a good test as well.  :0)

[cshepherd]

Hey Mark,
Yes, it's true.  Cables take about 50 hours to burn in.  Out of the box, an interconnect changes sound pretty frequently for the first hour or so.  The most noticeable points are after 1 hour, 25 hours and 50 hours.  Beyond that, any changes are going to be very subtle.  Cables sound very restrained out of the box, lacking extention on either end.  Often, the treble frequencies will come in before the bass drops.  It's important to pass signal through them for a couple of days before taking them out into the field. 

Chris

+t Chris.  I'll go ahead and start running em.  Heck it'll give the R4 a good test as well.  :0)

Thanks,
If the R4 is new, you should do the same with it.  Electronics take 50-100 hours to burn in as well...some even longer.

[tooldvn]

I've just been reading some google-found sites on cable burn-in, that some interconnects do not have to be plugged in on both sides to burn them in (such as rca's between components), but that other cables like speaker cables require that you actually be plugged into a speaker and constantly hearing music.   No one had anything about microphone cables, what are your guys thoughts, should they be plugged into monitors or a recorder etc for proper burn in, or is it possible to just connect them to a source and leave them unconnected on the other end?

Sure would be nice to have a MOBIE or a cable cooker, don't think I'm quite there that I can justify $800 just to burn-in my cables. ;-)

-dvn

[jpschust]

chris, ill disagree, i can certainly hear a difference in playback between a pair of my cables that are broken in versus a pair that are brand new.  it's not huge but it's there.  id assume it would replicate in recording as well.

[RebelRebel]

Ive been listening really really hard, through good speakers, bad speakers, and ugly speakers. got some mogami golds from vintage king, same length. let one pair "burn in" for 3 days, and did nothing to the other pair. I could tell no difference whatsoever. Still cant.

 The real challenge is a double blind test. id like to see how many people can pick the ones that are burned in out of the bunch.

I am a huge skeptic when it comes to the audiophile hocus pocus, and so far Ive yet to be convinced of anything(other than basic rules, buying hiqh quality stuff is a good idea , using power conditioners, common sense stuff). I think a huge part of this to some is mental.


Chris Church, tell us how you really feel. 

No offense  CShepard, you are a straight shooter, unlike some of your colleagues in the audiophile business who make a kings ransom selling snake oil to the brainwashed. Id have no problem purchasing from you.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

It is B.S cable burn in is a joke the movement of electrons in a conductor (unless the current of the capacity of the conductor is exceeded) do not change the molecular structure of the conductor all they do is rearrange free electrons by negative and positive charges.

Do you believe that the dialectric surrounding the conductor could not be the cause?  Maybe we are not reading the same papers but I have never read any paper that attibuted burn-in effect to changes in the metal conductor.  Every paper I've read proposed that the effect is due to charge accumulated in the insulator over a period of time.   I've also read papers stating that burn in can be attibuted in part to the user becoming accustomed to the distinct sonic traits of one brand of interconnect installed in place of another.   So there are two other theories.

on this very subject. From respected scientists not Crack pots that want to sell you silver ac cords and magic Teflon wire.

I'm curious to know if you hear a difference between ICs or speaker cables?

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

By IC I meant interconnects, not integrated circuits.  Sorry, I thought the context was clear.

I'm not talking about the jacket of the cable but the insulator between the shield and the signal conductor.  Your initial statement was that there could be no burn in effect because of changes in the metal of the conductor.  I have never read anyone suggest that was the case.  Rather I've read the suggestion that there is an effect due to stored charge in the insulating material between the conductors of the wire and connectors.  I look forward to your thorough debunking of this suggestion.  Not that I believe one way ot the other, but I'm always interested to hear the scientific basis for someones strongly stated conclusions.

I can believe that you called some cable manufacturer who could not explain any science behind his product.  But a sample group of 1 isn't exactly an exhaustive study of the industry. 

With respect to straight up audible differences interconnects, well I have heard them.  Given two well constructed cables that provide the ideal connnection, I agree that they will should sound the same.  I've compared three interrconnects heads up.  Each had a different wire material, geometry, and connector.  There was an audible difference.  I'm also interested to know what playback system you used for your tests. 

[Kyle]

With respect to straight up audible differences interconnects, well I have heard them.  Given two well constructed cables that provide the ideal connnection, I agree that they will should sound the same.  I've compared three interrconnects heads up.  Each had a different wire material, geometry, and connector.  There was an audible difference.  I'm also interested to know what playback system you used for your tests. 

I think this is the crux of f it. I have burned in a set of cables last night - new set of ToddR Speaker cables. I hooked them up, and began to listen. I think there was a bit of an improvement over a few hours. They seemed to become bore dynamic. But maybe that was just me...

What I think the 'crux' is  - all wires sound different. What makes one cable better than another. The fact that you like the way it sounds over the other. I had Monster 16ga Standard bi-wired on my B&W 601s in the bedroom setup .The ToddR cables have a very different sound. Is it better? The Monster had a more compressed sound, while the ToddR had a more open, clear, detailed sound. The monster had a warmer sound, a more rounded bottom end. Ultimately, I like the ToddR more, due to clarity and dynamics.

Get as many ICs as you can, test 'em out, and find the sound you like. That makes the best cables, imo (barring build quality, etc..)

[Kyle]

No, I was listening to different things. I took a break for a few hours, and then resumed with the movie "Christine". At that point I noticed increased dynamics over the monster cable. The speaker sounded more natural, more open - Def increased clarity. The speakers  sounded a bit boxy before. Like I said, I think many wires sound different and the trick is to find one that is pleasing to your ear.

don't forget placement. Placement is key - but that's a whole other thread

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Chris, thanks for replying.  I have no problem with your arguments against burn-in effects.  You just aren't convincing to me.   Personally I can't say I've heard the effect in ICs or mic cables.   Since the last time I tried with Pulsars, I've tried with a pair of  z-squared ICs since I had one pair in my system for a few months and another pair new from the manufacuter.  I didn't hear a difference in those two.   

I have heard a distinct burn in effect in a power cord and in speaker cables.  So I'm not willing to rule out that the small signal wires might exhibit an effect that is more subtle than my hearing can detect.  There are a lot of people who report that they can hear a difference.   Those aeren't just experiences of a few hours but over extended period of time and different listening sessions.  Quite of a few people on this board report hearing  burn in of ICs and mic cables and they have a lot wider range of experience than me, so I can't easily discount their reports.  you stated that their ears are wrong.   I'm not willing to do that.

Of the people who did hear a burn-in over a longer period of use in their rig, I'm very interested to know if they have gone back to the earlier recordings and could they hear a distinct difference between those and the later recordings.

So anyway, I assume that you are also reporting based on your own experiences mixing sound.  Is that the gear you would use for subjective tests or do you have some sort of reference system for playback?  Just curious if you ever tried and what was the associated gear. 

[RebelRebel]

  I dont get the burn in thing....at least not with cables.

I do believe that there are obvious sonic differences between cable materials, but I say(after a  lot of listening on my own to cables betwen 50.00 and 4,000.00) that any well crafted cable is just as good as another well crafted cable and that a LOT of Clever Marketing is taking place and luring people like sheep to slaughter.

Just a few months ago I had in my hands a pair of VdH cables, Luminous Audios Synchestra Line, Acoustic Zen silverlines, and my Mogamis/ and Todd R cables. Random others in the past year..

I am always looking for ways to squeeze that last bit of "sheen" from my recordings. and thought the differences between the super high priced cables and the Mogamis/ToddRs would be drastic.... not so. Actually , I heard hardly any differences whatsoever in the silver "elite" cables and the DIY ones. Same for the Mogamis and VdH.. What gives? Yet I hear all these people making statements like: "The Heavens Gate amplifier has a sound all of its own ."the soundstage , LF immediacy, High-Mid charisma and depth of emotion of this piece makes your feet really move and your soul rejoice  for a new tommorow". Right.


Im not listening through kmart speakers either. B+W nautilus 802s, Truth Audio TA-1Ps, bryston power amps, mytek DAC, etc.. So how much of this is real and how much is BS??If some of these reviews speak the truth, claiming differences to be as apparent as the nose on your face, how come I cant hear any differences??? How about professionals who say there is no difference?Surely all of our ears arent broken??

and if this audiophile stuff is true, how come more professionals dont buy into it?? why do they use Redco and canare instead of these other brands?? They certainly have the funds...


Will spending 3,000 dollars (or 4 in the case of one of the pairs I was trying) for some "boutique" wire give you that much(or any??) improvement over a 50-100 dollar one?? Will spending 1200 dollars on a "cable burner in-er" be a good investment??

I say heck no. And that any percieved differences would be purely mental...the mind associating super high prices with quality...Id rather spend that dough on microphones and preamps...rather than lining the pockets of some "boutique" corporation(of course greed doesnt exist in the "boutique" manufactruing realm)

I would really like to do some testing, but I have no idea how to render a "scientific" test as I normally just use my ears. To my knowledge there have not been any cable comparison tests here.

Psycho Acoustics is right.

[Kyle]

Teddy, thanks for the ToddR's! Did you get my package?

Onwards - I found a distinct differecne between the ToddR silvers and the Monster Standard. You can hear it. It is not in my mind or psycho acoustics (although I am psycho ) - The wires ahve a different sound. I am not saying one is better than the ther or spending $3000 is the magic answer - I just prefer the sound of the ToddR cables to the Monster., The Monster had a more rounded bottom end - a bit "warmer" for lack of a better term. The ToddR's did not have that sound. They were much clearer, more detailed, but not as bottom heavy.

My girlfriend is by no means an audiophile and as soon as I turned the system on she said "What happened in here? Iit sounds different. There is no bass." Changed cables - that's it. 

I will not spend $3000 on ic's - that's crazy. But different cables can sound different. Audition as many as possible and go with what you like.

[RebelRebel]

Yes, the todd rs have different materials than the monsters. Im not denying that cables made with different matreials will sound different...what I am rejecting is that two cables(well made) with the same materials shouldnt sound drastically different..., and also that a well built cable should be more than enough for any appllication...no matter if it is 60 bucks. Good that you wouldnt pay 3,000 for a cable. I wouldnt pay 300. Or 200. 100 is as high as I go.

Havent got the stuff yet, but no worries man!

Teddy, thanks for the ToddR's! Did you get my package?

Onwards - I found a distinct differecne between the ToddR silvers and the Monster Standard. You can hear it. It is not in my mind or psycho acoustics (although I am psycho ) - The wires ahve a different sound. I am not saying one is better than the ther or spending $3000 is the magic answer - I just prefer the sound of the ToddR cables to the Monster., The Monster had a more rounded bottom end - a bit "warmer" for lack of a better term. The ToddR's did not have that sound. They were much clearer, more detailed, but not as bottom heavy.

My girlfriend is by no means an audiophile and as soon as I turned the system on she said "What happened in here? Iit sounds different. There is no bass." Changed cables - that's it. 

I will not spend $3000 on ic's - that's crazy. But different cables can sound different. Audition as many as possible and go with what you like.

[Kyle]

Yes, the todd rs have different materials than the monsters. Im not denying that cables made with different matreials will sound different...what I am rejecting is that two cables(well made) with the same materials shouldnt sound drastically different..., and also that a well built cable should be more than enough for any appllication...no matter if it is 60 bucks. Good that you wouldnt pay 3,000 for a cable. I wouldnt pay 300. Or 200. 100 is as high as I go.

Havent got the stuff yet, but no worries man!

Teddy, thanks for the ToddR's! Did you get my package?

Onwards - I found a distinct differecne between the ToddR silvers and the Monster Standard. You can hear it. It is not in my mind or psycho acoustics (although I am psycho ) - The wires ahve a different sound. I am not saying one is better than the ther or spending $3000 is the magic answer - I just prefer the sound of the ToddR cables to the Monster., The Monster had a more rounded bottom end - a bit "warmer" for lack of a better term. The ToddR's did not have that sound. They were much clearer, more detailed, but not as bottom heavy.

My girlfriend is by no means an audiophile and as soon as I turned the system on she said "What happened in here? Iit sounds different. There is no bass." Changed cables - that's it. 

I will not spend $3000 on ic's - that's crazy. But different cables can sound different. Audition as many as possible and go with what you like.

Agreeed 100%

ToddR just hooked me with a set of speakers cables (extra stock laying around) -12' for $65 with bananas - sweet deal - couldn't say no...

[SparkE!]

You know, I've always been a sceptic of claims on cable burn-in, but I've never made a big deal about it.  I mean if someone thinks their cables sound better after using them for awhile, that's OK with me.  It doesn't cost much to do the burn-in and if it makes people comfortable, then what's the harm?

It always cracks me up when someone talks about how their cables sounded different after some amount of time of listening to music that has passed through them, but they can't really do an A/B comparison because the cables were so expensive that they only bought two of them (one for each of two channels) and they were both in use during the burn-in.

A real test would be to burn in some cables and then do A/B comparison, going back and forth between the ones that had been burned in and the ones that had not.  An even better test would be to make the switches blind, not knowing ahead of time which cables you listening to.  And the ultimate test would be to make the switches double blind so that neither the person running the switch nor the person listening would know which cable was in use at the time.

Is cable burn-in snake oi?  Probably.  Does it make a difference to me? Not at all.  I'm perfectly OK with letting people have their misconceptions if it makes them feel better.  Frankly, there are better things to argue about when it comes to audio.  I say if it makes you feel better, burn your cables in.  Do it for thousands of hours if you think it makes a difference.  Get it out of the way.  There's more important things to pay attention to when you actually go into the field to make a recording and you don't need the distraction of worrying about using cables that are not burned in.  If you're not worried about cable burn-in, then great!  All it means is that you get to skip that step.  No harm, no foul.

[Chuck]

I feel that there is some value in perception. For example, I have some Radio Shack RCA interconnects around and don't ever use them in my reference system. Will those cables let signal pass from one component to the other? Yes, but, I feel much better using the Canare star-quad cables that I hand solder myself. To me there is value in knowing that quality wire, insulation and jacketing is used in the Canare cables. When making RCA interconnects with this cable it is possible to use the two pairs of wires to connect the two sides of the wire to there proper connectors, leaving the shielding tied only to one end of the cable. This configuration allows the signal to pass between the components properly while having the sheild connected on the amplifier side for RF interference protection.
This is of value to me.

I personally have not heard any difference between cables that have been burned in vs. cables that have not.

[SparkE!]

Well, I just recorded three files.  All three files are recorded with the same two cables, one cable per channel.  One of the cables is brand new, pulled out of its packaging tonight.  The other one is well used with 100's of hours on it.  Both cables are exactly the same model of cable, purchased at the same time from the same vendor.  All three files are recorded at 24 bits/96 kHz and stored as Microsoft 32 bit floating point .wav files.  Two of the three recordings have the cables connected to the same channels and the remaining recording has the cables reversed with respect to the other two.  Anyone want to tell me which recording has the cables connected differently from the other two recordings?  Extra credit if you can also identify the cable that's burned in.

Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3

Each of these files is about 5 M in size.

[apd]

I guess I'll throw my $0.02 in, I'm relatively new here so I apologize in advance if I'm speaking out of line.

As someone who has at one time taught graduate courses in transmission line theory (at microwave frequencies), I have a hard time swallowing any burn-in claims.  The electrical model of any two-wire transmission line (coaxial or parallel conductor), is that of a series resistance and inductance due to the conductors and a shunt conductance and capacitance due to the dielectric material between conductors. Any cable manufacturer worth his salt will publish the per unit length values of all 4 parameters as part of the data sheet (at least at higher frequencies).

Essentially, every conductor (wire) will have some bulk resistance in ohms per unit length due to conductance of the particular metal it is comprised of, assuming impurities are kept to a minimum.  Any time you pass a current through a wire you will generate some inductance per unit length, but at audio frequencies this is negligble.

As for the insulating material (dielectric), it will have some loss per unit length which appears as a shunt conductance between the wires, as well as a shunt capacitance per unit length.

At high frequencies (tens of megahertz on up), you will generally see losses due to attenuation increase quickly unless the physical and electrical properties of the cable are optimized for transmission at much higher frequencies (at much higher cost).  This is why you don't use the same coaxial cable for cable tv as you do for satellite.

Assuming the diameter of the wire is sized correctly for the expected current it will carry (its ampacity), then very little heat will be generated due to conductor losses.  Heat generation is the main problem with dielectric materials.  After repeated heating/cooling cycles, the dielectric will become brittle which can lead to microscopic cracking when stressed, which reduces dielectric effectiveness and increases losses.  If the dielectric is chosen properly and the electric field breakdown properties aren't exceeded then arcing and dielectric breakdown shouldn't be an issue either.  I don't see how any significant aging effects can take place after 50-100 hours of use.

At microwave frequencies, currents flow along the outer surface of the conductor (skin effect), and the metal's conductance and the frequency of operation will determine the skin depth at that frequency.  99.4% of the current is carried in the first 5 skin depths.  At low frequencies, the skin depth is large enough to encompass the entire cross-sectional area of the cable, so current density is uniform.  So surface plating of the conduct or using Litz wire won't make a differnece.

The top of the audio band (20 KHz) has a wavelength of about 1500 meters, and it will increase at lower frequencies.  The electrical length of a typical speaker/interconnect/microphone cable is quite short, so the instantaneous voltage will be equal along its length.  So I don't see any odd charge storage effects happening. At microwave frequencies, where the wavelength is smaller than the physical length, voltage/current distribution along the length of the cable will be quite different.

The human ear requires much less power at higher frequencies than low frequencies to perceive the same loudness.  This is why radio and phono stages use pre-emphasis/de-emphasis circuits to improve signal to noise ratios.  Is it possible that someone with excellent hearing can hear the subtle difference in upper audio frequency attenuation between a cheap cable and a quality cable?  Maybe, but I can't (but I don't claim to have concert musician hearing).  Can someone hear the difference between a very good low-loss cable costing $50 and another costing $1000?  I doubt it.

If it makes people feel better to buy outrageously expensive interconnects then I don't see the harm in it.  People think I'm nuts for buying pocket knives made out of tool steel instead of cheap ones made out of scrap metal.  They both can cut common items.

[cshepherd]

Fully burned in cables will also require 3-5 minutes of warm up time after they've been out of the system.  Thought some of you guys might be interested in that tidbit of knowledge.

~crackpot

[SparkE!]

Well, I just recorded three files.  All three files are recorded with the same two cables, one cable per channel.  One of the cables is brand new, pulled out of its packaging tonight.  The other one is well used with 100's of hours on it.  Both cables are exactly the same model of cable, purchased at the same time from the same vendor.  All three files are recorded at 24 bits/96 kHz and stored as Microsoft 32 bit floating point .wav files.  Two of the three recordings have the cables connected to the same channels and the remaining recording has the cables reversed with respect to the other two.  Anyone want to tell me which recording has the cables connected differently from the other two recordings?  Extra credit if you can also identify the cable that's burned in.

Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3

Each of these files is about 5 M in size.

Anyone want to take a crack at this?  Perhaps someone who has used adjectives like "stunning", "amazing" or "dramatic" when describing the changes they heard in their cables after burn-in?

[RebelRebel]

 

Well, I just recorded three files.  All three files are recorded with the same two cables, one cable per channel.  One of the cables is brand new, pulled out of its packaging tonight.  The other one is well used with 100's of hours on it.  Both cables are exactly the same model of cable, purchased at the same time from the same vendor.  All three files are recorded at 24 bits/96 kHz and stored as Microsoft 32 bit floating point .wav files.  Two of the three recordings have the cables connected to the same channels and the remaining recording has the cables reversed with respect to the other two.  Anyone want to tell me which recording has the cables connected differently from the other two recordings?  Extra credit if you can also identify the cable that's burned in.

Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3

Each of these files is about 5 M in size.

Anyone want to take a crack at this?  Perhaps someone who has used adjectives like "stunning", "amazing" or "dramatic" when describing the changes they heard in their cables after burn-in?

[Brian Skalinder]

Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3

Okay, I'll play - I don't really care if I'm wrong, I just find this kind of stuff fun.  So for kicks I gave these three a listen, even though I've not heard "stunning", "amazing", or "dramatic" differences in my very, very limited cabling changes over the years:

To make sure I understand how this was setup, here's an example of how I comprehend the test - A, B, and C do not necessarily correspond to 1, 2, and 3:

Sample A = L burned in, R new
Sample B = L burned in, R new
Sample C = L new, R burned in

Assuming I understand the setup correctly (or even if I don't, I suppose it doesn't matter), here's my feedback...

FWIW, I first trimmed the start of each file - each had a slightly different delay before the music started, and I didn't want that to influence my testing.

After trimming, I hear a definite difference between 1/2 and 3.  I was quite surprised!  Whether or not the difference is due to the cables, I don't know since I'm not entirely sure how the samples were produced.  But, the difference is there and easy for me to pick out in an ABX test when focusing on specific portions of the sample.  For example, listen at the 3rd beat / ~1 sec mark when comparing 1 or 2 v. 3.  On the 3rd beat, the guitar in sample 3 reveals a higher tone than samples 1/2.

I ABX'd 1/3 and 2/3 ten times each and went 10/10.  However, I failed miserably ABX-ing 1 and 2 - total crapshoot on that comparison, I simply could not tell the difference.

While I'm confident of the differences I hear between 1/2 and 3, I really can't say which cable is burned in and which is new.  If I had to guess, I'd say in Sample 3, R = burned in, L = new, and the opposite for samples 1/2.

BTW, I don't feel I have especially good ears.  But I do think that over the years I've learned how to listen - this factor is probably more important than the specific gear used for playing back music.  I didn't do the testing on a terribly high end system.  My playback was:

PC soundcard >
AKG K501 headphones

and

Waveterminal 2496 digi-out >
Bel Canto DAC1.1 >
Audio Experiences Symphonies preamp >
McCormack DNA-1 power amp >
Von Schweikert VR-1s

SparkE! - PM me with the results?

[Chuck]

I don't think the source is the same on the three files.
Each file looks different, they are not all the same length and they all sound different to me.
I'm guessing it's three different/separate performances. Not the same exact source on each recording.

Sparke?

[Brian Skalinder]

I don't think the source is the same on the three files.
Each file looks different, they are not all the same length and they all sound different to me.
I'm guessing it's three different/separate performances. Not the same exact source on each recording.

It's a listening test, not a sight test.    Did you trim the start of the files so there isn't a different time delay before the first note starts?  I found that tipped me off right away as to which was which, hence my trimming of the files before listening again.  (I didn't bother trimming the ends since I didn't listen all the way through to each sample).  Are you able to distinguish between all three in an ABX environment?  I didn't fare well at all when ABX-ing 1 and 2.  Every time I think I figure it out after getting my ABX selection correct, I miss the next one!

Just curious:  what's your playback?

[Chuck]

I was playing it back through a DAW with CuBase using AKG K-240's and a pair of Audix powered monitors.
If you actually examine the files with an editor, they are quite different. I do have to admit to seeing the files before listening, but if you look at them they are obviuosly not the same source.

edit:

I alligned them all on separate stereo tracks in CuBase and A,B,C'ed them using the solo and auto replay features. I didn't listen enough times to distinguish each file from the other, but if I had more time, I would have been able to distinguish them. As in most cases of this kind of thing, it's all very subjective. Which file sounds best is anyone's guess/opinion. I think we spend too much time trying to determine good/better/best sometimes. Not that finding good/better/best is a bad thing, but it is very, very subjective and often elusive...

[cshepherd]

This is like watching an argument over wether or not the earth is flat.

Chris

[Chuck]

This is like watching an argument over wether or not the earth is flat.

Chris

If it was round, wouldn't the oceans just pour into space?

[cshepherd]

No way, the water crosses into another dimension, boomerangs around the sun and back to the other side of the earth before anybody notices it was gone. 

Chris

[SparkE!]

I don't think the source is the same on the three files.
Each file looks different, they are not all the same length and they all sound different to me.
I'm guessing it's three different/separate performances. Not the same exact source on each recording.

Sparke?

It's 3 different stereo recordings, each of a different source. 

In retrospect, it probably was not a good idea for me to use 3 different sources if the thing we are trying to identify is if there is a perceptible difference between well used cables and new cables.

How about this? I'll split a single mono signal twice and record all 4 signals at 24/96 as 2 stereo pairs, each pair from a different cable set.  Then I'll split the stereo pairs into 4 mono tracks.  Then I'll post 3 of the 4 mono tracks, again as 32 bit floating point Microsoft wav files.  The result will be 3 recordings, 2 of which use the same age of cable and 1 of which uses the other cable set.  I think that this method should be a fairer test because the only differences will be which cables were used in the signal path for each track.  All 3 would use exactly the same signal source.  I'll choose which 3 to use by flipping a coin and I'll choose their names by flipping a coin too.  That should remove any of my personal bias from the experiment.

Does this sound like a fair experiment?  If not, what do I need to do to make it fair?

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

This is like watching an argument over wether or not the earth is flat.

Chris

The earth is definitely not flat.  What most people don't realize is that the earth's crust is actually the inside surface of a sphere.  And if you dig deep enough, you don't get to china, you deflate the sphere by letting the universe out.

Wrap your head around that.

And no, I'm perfectly sober right now.

[OOK]

ish ga bib al gog a bib al

[balou2]

ish ga bib al gog a bib al

I couldn't have said it better myself. +t

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Chris Church,   

Why don't you go back through the topic posts and answer the questions I have asked of you several times.  You seem to consider yourself quite the experienced expert here yet not once have you reported your own empirical results nor have you reported the equipment on which your tests were conducted.  I've been very clear about my empirical tests, the results I experienced, and the associated equipment.  (the search feature is your friend) Take a look at Brian's post.  Why is it that you can't report that sort of information when asked?  Based on your unwillingness to discuss much about your test methods, I have a difficult time finding you credible in light of the well documented anecdotal reports that contradict your claims. 

While I will admit that there is some value to this, I see an issue with the samples offered and that is why I am not compelled to participate in this round of test.  I feel that a more appropriate test would be to perform pure stereo samples using old for both channels of a sample and new for both channels of a sample.  The current test might also have greater validity if it were performed using one pair new+old then the other pair new+old because we cannot rule out that the difference heard by brian is a difference due to manufacturing inconsistancies.  Still, I'm following the results of others with great interest.  edit:  I will be especially interested to learn if the sound of the new cables approach the sound of the old cables over time.  That would indicate some kind of burn in effect in light of the difference between the two in the current state.


WRT my comment, it was offered to Chris Shepard who's opinions I respect based on discussions we have had related to cable issues outside this thread.

Honestly dude, how in the hell do you expect me to believe that you are serious about this effort when you have already claimed that people who hear burn-in are "wrong".  You have your preformed conclusion and ultimately you may be proven right.  But you are hardly the standard bearer of the scientific method.

What does this have to do with the topic? we are really trying to put this to a real test. I think maybe you should give a listen and see what you think,  insted of being the class clown.

Chris Church

This is like watching an argument over wether or not the earth is flat.

Chris

The earth is definitely not flat.  What most people don't realize is that the earth's crust is actually the inside surface of a sphere.  And if you dig deep enough, you don't get to china, you deflate the sphere by letting the universe out.

Wrap your head around that.

And no, I'm perfectly sober right now.

[Teen Wolf Blitzer]

 

[terrapinj]

And please someone send me the recording that has the broken in cable and the none broken in cable I bet no one can pick the one that is broken in with any accuracy. If you can hear the difference between a broken in cable and one that is not. Well your ears are wrong There have been many studies done on this very subject. From respected scientists not Crack pots that want to sell you silver ac cords and magic Teflon wire. IMO

Chris Church

maybe your ears don't pick up on it chris, you asked for samples and now say you are too busy to listen. it is clear that your mind is made up on this matter. if you are requesting that Chris Shepard not post unless it contributes to the discussion I think it's only fair that you do the same. If you have some articles or tests or anything on the subject matter arguing for your case please post them, if not please don't post.

no one here is going to make up their mind based on what someone else says is fact - we don't do it in the gear we run, the music we listen to or any other discussion we have here. this is a place for discussion so we can each make up our minds for ourselves. i don't disagree that you don't hear a difference or that many others say there isn't a difference because what you hear is what you hear. Maybe Chris Shepard can hear differences - and he is fully entitled to his opinion. He is not trying to sell anything here.

[cshepherd]

I admit I broke one of my own rules.  I try to hard to leave sarcasm out of my posts and stick to what I believe to be the truth.  I have been listening critically to music and sound for over 10 years.  I feel extremely lucky to have had a mentor/dealer in this crazy audio business who showed me the ropes.  He could listen to a piece of gear for 10 minutes and call it for what it was.  I could never understand how he did that.  Now I do.  It's called experience.  I can't explain why cable burn-in occurs.  I don't need to know.  My ears hear it on a daily basis.  That's good enough for me.  Mike in New York (kindms) recently purchased a set of Atlas Questor rca cables from Eugene Hi-Fi on my recommendation.  Mike paid full price for the cables.  I only asked that he send me his comments after listening to them for a few days.  These were his unprovoked comments, what he felt was most necessary to talk about, also posted at http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=62875.msg853841#msg853841

My playback is pretty humble.

Pioneer Elite DV-45a -> Atlas Interconnetcs -> marantz SR880 -> Toddr's Segue silver clad speaker cables -> Klipsch KG1.5V (Bookshelf speakers)
Energy e:xl 12 subwoofer

I really like the build quailty. They felt like a nice set of cables. good aesthetics. When I got them hooked up and started giving them a listen for the first 3 hours or so I was like oh no these sound crunchy etc sort of bright. But it had only been about 3hrs so I pushed on. I would say shortly after they really seemed to open up. I was getting resonance from my 24/48 masters that I hadn't heard before. I asked my Girlfriend if i was hearing stuff because the notes seemed to just float thru my apt. The longer I had them in the better they got. I was actually quite surprised by the difference a few hours made on the cables.

Unfortunately for me these were to do analog cassette master transfers. So I burned them in and then packed them up to go to upsate NY. Nakamichi LX-5 -> Atlas -> PC. So they are now currently being used for this task and no longer in my playback system Sad

I was extremely happy with my purchase and thought your customer service was excellent. As soon as I packed them up I wanted a new set. I may do that soon. When I do you'll be the first to know.

There's no psycho-acoustics at play here.  There's no back door deal for him to back deceptive claims made to the masses.  Just hard evidence from someone who took the time to listen.  One of our peers.  Chris Church, I'm sorry I offered to send you a burned in Atlas Questor instrument cable to check out with your guitar collection.  I thought you might appreciate the opportunity to hear what something other than Mogami sounds like between your vintage guitars and vintage amps.  Judging from this rant you started the following morning, I must have seriously offended you.  My apologies.


Chris Shepherd
aka crackpot

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I will conduct my own listening test as should all the members of taperssection that are interested

Chris, are you on the east coast?  I'd be more than happy to let you listen to a variety of cables in my playback system.  I can't demonstrate burn-in differences, as I indicated above.  I tried with two pair of interconnects and I didn't hear a difference in my test.  I can hear a distinct difference between interconnects in my playback system.   For listening tests I generally use 24/96 DVD-A studio recordings because I think they are more clear than the swill I bring from the field.

Anyway, if you are near the DC area I'd be more than happy to have you over for listening tests.   There are several other list members who are close by and they can come along to participate too.  We can bring together an assload of different  wires between the group of us.


Edit: couldn't help but respond to this

Why not show us some of this cable knowledge you have and show us some of these reports you’re talking about. And contribute in a meaningful way? hummm I guess it’s easier to just be the class clown eh?

Dude, the search feature is your friend.  There is plenty of discussion on this board, on audiogon discussion forums, audio asylum discussion forums, audiocircles discussion forums, etc.  There really is a lot of end user discussion about burn-in occuring.  So if you wish to participate rather than pontificate, please avail yourself of the search feature on each of the 4 resources I mention and read what many many others have posted on this topic.

And to answer your question honestly, yes it is easier to be a class clown under these circumstances.  Yet I've made the effort to engage in discourse that is drama free.  Chris Shepard previously offered to let me audition some cables and his kind offer left me with the impression that I could trade comments with him in the manner usually seen in these threads.  Given that you didn't start the thread, I can't see where you think you now own it.

In anycase, the offer is still open.  You are welcome to try some tests on my playback system and I promise that if you  can't hear what I hear, I'll not tell you that your 20 years of udio work has resulted in hearing loss.  I know I have hearing loss yet I can hear differences between some cables.

[eric.B]

I find that *most* who have been in the music/audio industry for twenty+ years have ears that are shot..   ymmv

[willndmb]

on my shit speakers source 2 sounds best
followed by 1 and then 3
so if i understand right, source 2 would have both burned in on l/r
1 would have 1 burnt in one not
3 would have both not burnt it

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

No thanks I live in Canada very far away I guess you don't want to make some recordings of the interconnects? I have someone else working on this now for me.
Chris Church

I don't have any way to make recordings using the interconnects that I own.  My recording rig is fully balanced.

If you have an opportunity to borrow some cables to try in your playback system you should do it.  I entered into this hoping that I could not hear a difference between the $60 used cardas interconnects and the $120 used ven haus cables.  The cardas is long gone.  I would have been just as happy to spend the extra money on hoppy brew.

[SparkE!]

on my shit speakers source 2 sounds best
followed by 1 and then 3
so if i understand right, source 2 would have both burned in on l/r
1 would have 1 burnt in one not
3 would have both not burnt it

Hey thanks for taking the time to listen, but I don't think you understand how the test was set up.

These are 3 different stereo sources, each made with 2 cables, 1 on one channel and 1 on the other channel.  One cable is burned in, the other is not.  On 2 of the 3 sources, the burned in cable is on one channel and on 1 of the 3 sources, the burned-in cable is on the other channel.  The goal is to pick which recording has the cables on different channels with respect to the other 2.

Unfortunately, people are responding more to the fact that these are 3 different sources, so that is unfairly biasing the results.  Please try again when I post 3 recordings of the same source and try to pick which 2 of the 3 are recorded with the same cable.  Extra credit for identifying whether those 2 recordings were made with the burned-in cable or the new cable.

Right now, I'm having a hard time finding my two identical splitters so that all signal paths will be identical, except for the choice of cable connected to the recorder.  I don't want two different types of splitters involved too.

[Chuck]

Good thing mine are not as confirmed by my audiologist. And by wearing ear plugs when I was just teching a sound system and not mixing. But I guess there are stereotypes no mater where you go.

I am amazed how many people make negative comments towards me when all I am asking for is a fair trial but no one seems to be able to set it up



Chris Church

I find that *most* who have been in the music/audio industry for twenty+ years have ears that are shot..   ymmv

My 46 year old ears are shot from loud music. I have ringing in my ears constantly. I started ruining my ears when I was four-years-old (my parents tell me) putting nickels into the Juke box and putting my ears to the speakers. I worked in a machine shop that did further damage. At that time I had some custom ear plugs made that probably saved even further damage. I find it difficult to listen to really load music for any length of time anymore. All that said, I still work in audio and trust my ears as that is all I have. I have never been able to hear changes in cables after they are broken in. I'm with Chris on this one. I'm willing to be proved wrong.

[OOK]

Somebody reads to much stereophile......I stopped reading that rag years ago....entertaining, but to much high priced voodoo.

[jcrab66]

i can attest to the fact that the atlas quadstar cables that chris s sent me to try sounded different to my humble ears compared to the canares i run on a daily basis, chris shepard is a standup guy and anyone who says different is an idiot...

[SparkE!]

Hi this is a stupid question I know but why not just unplug on cable after the recording is made and then plug the other one in and record that cable that way you can’t say that capacitance was a factor by using a splitter? Let me know if that was a dumb ass question ok

Chris Church

on my shit speakers source 2 sounds best
followed by 1 and then 3
so if i understand right, source 2 would have both burned in on l/r
1 would have 1 burnt in one not
3 would have both not burnt it

Hey thanks for taking the time to listen, but I don't think you understand how the test was set up.

These are 3 different stereo sources, each made with 2 cables, 1 on one channel and 1 on the other channel.  One cable is burned in, the other is not.  On 2 of the 3 sources, the burned in cable is on one channel and on 1 of the 3 sources, the burned-in cable is on the other channel.  The goal is to pick which recording has the cables on different channels with respect to the other 2.

Unfortunately, people are responding more to the fact that these are 3 different sources, so that is unfairly biasing the results.  Please try again when I post 3 recordings of the same source and try to pick which 2 of the 3 are recorded with the same cable.  Extra credit for identifying whether those 2 recordings were made with the burned-in cable or the new cable.

Right now, I'm having a hard time finding my two identical splitters so that all signal paths will be identical, except for the choice of cable connected to the recorder.  I don't want two different types of splitters involved too.

OK, then let's decide on what should be used for the source.  Suggestions anyone?

[zhianosatch]

As for my knowledge well let’s just say I have been doing "audio" for 20 years and in that time worked with some of the most advanced audio gear on the planet.

so why not mention names?

[RebelRebel]

Chris is just a cynic(like myself and others). That in and of itself is not a crime. He is a good man.  He even started using puncutation, give him a break. 

chris s sent me to try sounded different to my humble ears compared to the canares i run on a daily basis, chris shepard is a standup guy and anyone who says different is an idiot...

Noone has said any different, so what is your point exactly?? .

[SparkE!]

I would say CD player into recorder via "magic cables" keep the signal path simple what do you think?

Chris Church

How about we use a 24 bit source?  Does anyone know of something on the Archive that would make good use of the whole audio spectrum and would be listenable to a wide range of people?  Maybe one of Skalinder's recordings?  Maybe one of Wayne Brissette's? Teddy, maybe one of yours?

[jcrab66]

Chris is just a cynic(like myself and others). That in and of itself is not a crime. He is a good man.  He even started using puncutation, give him a break. 

never said anything  bad about him myself

Noone has said any different, so what is your point exactly?? .

i made a comment regarding the fact that i could tell the difference between my cheap canares and some higher end cables, much like many have in this thread. Thats my point. A better question might be what was the point of your question???

[RebelRebel]

chris shepard is a standup guy and anyone who says different is an idiot

so you didnt say the above?? and does that comment imply that someone insulted him personally?

[jcrab66]

chris shepard is a standup guy and anyone who says different is an idiot

so you didnt say the above?? and does that comment imply that someone insulted him personally?

Of course i said that but since you didnt make clear what part of the quote you were referring to i chose to respond to the part you should of left out of the quote. A reasonable person could take some of chris c's comments as insulting towards chris s. In no way does it imply that someone insulted him personally, no where in that statement did I say that.

[Chuck]

Chris is just a cynic(like myself and others). That in and of itself is not a crime. He is a good man.  He even started using puncutation, give him a break. 

never said anything  bad about him myself

Noone has said any different, so what is your point exactly?? .

i made a comment regarding the fact that i could tell the difference between my cheap canares and some higher end cables, much like many have in this thread. Thats my point. A better question might be what was the point of your question???

To me, this is an entirely different matter than the issue that is the topic of this thread, which is cable burn-in.

[RebelRebel]

I will gladly submit something.Im in MD right now for an audition, but I will hook you up on Monday when I return.

I would say CD player into recorder via "magic cables" keep the signal path simple what do you think?

Chris Church

How about we use a 24 bit source?  Does anyone know of something on the Archive that would make good use of the whole audio spectrum and would be listenable to a wide range of people?  Maybe one of Skalinder's recordings?  Maybe one of Wayne Brissette's? Teddy, maybe one of yours?

[SparkE!]

I will gladly submit something.Im in MD right now for an audition, but I will hook you up on Monday when I return.

I would say CD player into recorder via "magic cables" keep the signal path simple what do you think?

Chris Church

How about we use a 24 bit source?  Does anyone know of something on the Archive that would make good use of the whole audio spectrum and would be listenable to a wide range of people?  Maybe one of Skalinder's recordings?  Maybe one of Wayne Brissette's? Teddy, maybe one of yours?

OK, all I need is a good, clean, 5 to 10 second clip that makes good use of the entire audio spectrum and is something that most people will enjoy hearing.  I'd need to have it on DVD-A or at least I need to have a file that I can burn to DVD-A.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

if you want to use my lack of proper English against me go right ahead

I guess thats the way it goes when you lose an argument you need to find some fault in me don't you?

edit, in an attempt to resemble the english language.

Sorry to go off topic in this thread, but Chris, seriously, you need to stop reacting so quickly and maybe read things twice before you post.  Mike's note indicates that he edited the English in his post.  It was not a slur against you. 

The previous post about hearing was an objective statement with clear disclaimers that the statement may not apply to you.  It was not intended by the poster as a slur against you.

Even with all the enthusiastic exchanges, no one else has been personally offended by anything you have said and no one has made any offensive statement toward you. 

[Chuck]

what are your thoughts on current bunching and the skin effect?

I keep my feet soft by applying moisturizer to them every night. So, I would say that moisturizer definately has a skin effect...

...sorry Moke... I just had too...

[Chuck]

rough heels?

Yeah, I'm an old guy like you 
Colorado Spings has an arid climate, so I need the moisturizer.

I believe in using good cables too.

[Chuck]

rough heels?

Yeah, I'm an old guy like you 
Colorado Spings has an arid climate, so I need the moisturizer.

I believe in using good cables too.

When I say "good cables" I mean $100 good, not $10,000 good 

[BobW]

heh-heh,  he said annulus   

[Javier Cinakowski]

Thanks to everyone in this thread.  It's been an education.  Im not sure I have an opinion, but a cable is a cable.   

[SparkE!]

The skin effect is talking about paralleling several smaller wires to form a large conductor. It was discovered by Tesla I agree with the skin effect I think it is better to have several smaller conductors form a larger one infect its impossible to find solid conductors that are 2ga in use as speaker wire anywhere So I would say that it is a fundamental of conductor theory. And widely accepted that as the frequency changes so does the flow of electrons across a conductor change its location. This was part of the fundamental theory for the magic hi pass low pass speaker cable but, what they failed to realize is part of the skin effect states that a frequency of say 60hz will move to the outside of the conductor by say as much as 50% to 60% but how does the low frequency know what wire to piggyback onto? This is the magic part of the magic cable that can not be explained by anyone to my satisfaction

Current bunching is a newly discovered effect of the flow of current and it is what it says it is current that bunches up in a conductor there have been studies using plasma as a conductor an a luminance technique was employed to see the phenomenon it exists. But how have the cable crackpots been able to fix it there are theories that changing the geometry of a conductor will decrease current bunching and the skin effect only one problem with this theory NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO SHOW IT IN REAL LIFE.

I guess if they say they have done it we should just take them at there word right? I think NOT. also they now claim (these same cable voodoo guys) that impedance and capacitance no longer mater in a conductor because they have solved all the problems with there geometry Have they changed the laws of physics while there were at it that says in every conductor this is an opposition to the flow of electrons referred to as resistance or impedance? I guess its like jack and his magic beans No one has seen them but yet some of us still believe lol not me.

If you can not measure it and graph it and put in on paper then it’s a theory and theories are just that. Some people use them to create the illusion of a great product I say show me the proof if you can't show me the proof how do you know it works in the first place??


Chris Church 

what are your thoughts on current bunching and the skin effect?

Chris, skin effect doesn't have anything to do with paralleling smaller wires to form a large conductor, except that some people use that method to combat the effects of the skin effect.  Skin effect is, in laymen's terms, the tendency for AC current to concentrate itself near the surface of a conductor that carries it.  The higher the frequency, the closer to the surface of the conductor that the AC current runs.  Some people use multistrand cable composed of individually insulated wires to form a larger conductor that is less susceptible to the skin effect.  The magnitude of the effect and its effect on the phase response of the cable are mathematically tedious to compute and these effects tend to be quite small, but predictable, at audio frequencies.  For one of the best descriptions that I've seen of skin effect at audio frequencies and the related effects of conductor diameter and spacing on audio frequency electrical signals, go to this link:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page1.html

Please note that this is a 5 page article, so be sure to look through all 5 pages.  Also pay attention to the geatly expanded magnitude  scales shown.  For reference, an attenuation of .01 dB amounts to reduction in signal amplitude to 99.77% of the original amplitude.  Also notice how extremely small of a difference there is between silver and copper in terms of their conductance per meter.  Then start to realize that one skin depth at 10 kHz is a little over 1/2 cm, but people silver plate copper cable only to a depth of perhaps a couple thousandths of an inch (about 1/20th of a mm), so unless you are using really thin wires, the silver plating has very little effect on frequency dependent attenuation.  It's probably arguable that you could notice a slight benefit by using 100% silver cable, but the difference of using silver plated copper cable vs. plain copper cable is going to be imperceptible for any reasonable length of cable.   You could tell the difference if you ran a mile of cable, but that's not something that people are likely to do.  You'll get more loss in a 10 foot run due to body oils that you inadvertently leave on the cable terminations than you'll get from not using plated cable.

Also on this same site is a good introductory discussion of transmission line theory and other relevant topics if you are trying to understand the validity of the various claims made by cable makers.  For those other topics, you'll want to go here:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/Analog.html

[balou2]

...damn...should've turned left at Albequerque.

Overall point in my mind?  If someone wants to spend the time and money to increase their recording/playback quality, lett'em.  Period.  No science, no analysis, no shit.  If you're spending $1000 on cables and haven't done your homework, you deserve to get shafted.  All cables are new at some point, so "burn-in" is an inevitable reality.

I will likely be purchasing new cables in the near future (likely from Chris Shepherd in fact).  These will likely be the Atlas All Cu Navigator cables.  I will specifically request that the cables ship UNTAINTED (i.e. never having current run through them) and make a reference recording on my home stereo as the first thing they see.  After that, I'll burn'em in, and run the same test, under the same conditions:

• Same termperature
• Same recording
• Same time of day
• • Every possible controllable aspect will be in place, and short of a clean room or vacuum, it should be closely enough constructed.
    
  [pulls out soap box]
  
  Regardless of all of this, I think it would be more valuable if the tone of peoples' posts were steady.  I value nearly EVERY persons' view who posts on this site...at least most of them.  What I don't value is the name calling, or judgement-passing that some folks offer up just because they have differing opinions.  Even when name calling is not directed at someone specifically, throwing out an insult based on a generalization could offend other folks who actually DO what the insulter is bagging on.  That sucks.  Debate is good...even healthy disagreements are good...but damn folks, sometimes a subject just needs to be dropped.  So...everybody...just fuck off.  
  
  [off soap box]
  
  Back to the Clipper's game.
  miike
  
  

[F.O.Bean]

Debate is good...even healthy disagreements are good...but damn folks, sometimes a subject just needs to be dropped.  So...everybody...just fuck off. 

[Brian Skalinder]

Interesting (in a painful sort of way) discussion.

Chris, I think the only way to ensure you get the test YOU want is for YOU to do it.  Don't expect other people to do it for you.  Either <a> do it yourself or <b> let it go.

$0.02

[SparkE!]

Brian, are there any of your 24 bit recordings up on archive.org that would have a good 5 to 10 second section that would be suitable for testing cables?  Eddie from Ohio has some good vocal sections, but your notes indicate that it's 44.1/16 and that there is wind noise from a fan.  Maybe something from My Morning Jacket, 2006-04-22?  Maybe some Josh Ritter from the night before that?  You've got some great recordings of Goran Ivanovic Group, but they are so different from the norm.

[Brian Skalinder]

Brian, are there any of your 24 bit recordings up on archive.org that would have a good 5 to 10 second section that would be suitable for testing cables?  Eddie from Ohio has some good vocal sections, but your notes indicate that it's 44.1/16 and that there is wind noise from a fan.  Maybe something from My Morning Jacket, 2006-04-22?  Maybe some Josh Ritter from the night before that?  You've got some great recordings of Goran Ivanovic Group, but they are so different from the norm.

I think the recording itself is secondary, we really need to agree on the methodology first.  If everyone agrees with Chris' suggestion (edited slightly) of digital source > DAC > cables in test > ADC > digital recorder, then just about any reasonably good sounding recording will do the trick.  EFO probably isn't a good choice since it's all folk, and I flubbed it by not running my windscreens, anyway.  I'd skip MMJ 4/22/06 since it was recorded in a gym off a crappy sound system.  The Josh Ritter recording would do the trick since it's a full band, one of the upbeat numbers would probably work best.  Or MMJ from 10/22/2005 Vic Theatre would work, too, though maybe not everybody prefers the sound of subcards.  Or maybe the WSP samples I used for my dither comparison (available at tapers.org in the gear_comparison directory, l/p = tapers4all/tapers4all).  Or...any number of nice recordings on LMA of which I'm not aware.

But you know, as I think about it, Chris is probably right in that a studio CD would work well.  No audience recording off a small club PA will provide full range, while a properly selected studio recording - even better one with which most people are familiar - will certainly do so.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Good to see so many interested in this comp. Some bickering is natural..

Regarding test sources, I would suggest a source which has a wide and deep soundstage with several distrinctly imaged performers.  Generally, that implies non-PA.  I suppose a studio cd would work but do we really want a source that isn't a two microphone recording with a natural soundstage (vs. mixer created)?   We may want to avoid sources with copyright issues that might complicate hosting/distro of the results down the road.

[SparkE!]

I can kickdown some classical, if anyone is interested. Maybe some of the Hutchins Consort. They're massively wide, acoustic, and the frequency range represented is totally complete (as much as acoustic music can be complete).

Great!  All I need is a short 5 to 10 second segment of high quality, broad spectrum audio that would be listenable to a wide range of people.  I just want to make sure that people are responding to the differences they hear in the recordings and not to the musical style of the source material itself.  I can provide you with a place to upload it via PMs or I can pull it from an FTP or HTTP site if that works for you.

[SparkE!]

Let me poke around a bit, and see what I can find.

Thanks!  I really appreciate this.  I just don't have any sources that I consider to be of high enough quality or that I think will have a broad enough appeal to be appropriate for this type of test.  I've got recordings that I think are very good, but it's hard for me to honestly say that they will have broad appeal among the diverse group of people on this board.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I don't think anyone gets my point so I am just going to not post.

Taking some time away to research those anecdotal reports I directed you towards? 

Edit:  and just so I'm not a complete class clown, here's a post from a guy who hears differences in cables and I would take bets that his hearing is better than the hearing of anyone who has posted in this thread.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?fcabl&1147806702&read&3&4&

[eric.B]

I don't think anyone gets my point so I am just going to not post.

Taking some time away to research those anecdotal reports I directed you towards? 

Edit:  and just so I'm not a complete class clown, here's a post from a guy who hears differences in cables and I would take bets that his hearing is better than the hearing of anyone who has posted in this thread.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?fcabl&1147806702&read&3&4&

from the thread you referenced..  I love this post..

05-17-06: Jaybo
don't laugh, but with most well designed, neutral components.....less is more. outside of the sonic generalizations of copper, silver, or hybrid cables, there is no cable brand that will dramatically 'fix' anything. if the old MIT'S sound better to you. use them. I have 15 year old Acrotech wire that i can't throw away....they just don't do anything wrong...in fact they don't do anything that stands out either........cables shouldn't bloom or vrrroooom or create anything. they should just solidly link components.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Ps.... There is book smart and there is experience smart I would rather be the latter any day.

This comment seems to be in opposition to everything you have posted in this thread.

If you live someplace with a high end audio shop staffed by audio lovers and not just smug high end snobs, I encourage you to go there and ask them if they can demonstrate differences in cables.  I specificly mention the differnce because the snob guys wont think that you are worth their time but the audio lover guys will take time to swap gear around and demo different cables.

If you aren't all talk and really are interested in doing a real test, then I suggest that you take your canare cables with you and do a heads up comparison with the shop's high end cables.  Somehow I don't really think you have enough interest to put any effort into this since you seem to want everyone to send you samples or post links to anecdotal reports.  But maybe you will finally prove me wrong and do something to extend your experience. 

[eric.B]

my opinion..  even though i really dont feel I have the rights to speak on this topic, I will anyway..

I hope and dream that every person who loves listenin' to music has the stereo/multi-channel set up that sounds good to them..   a setup I feel is allmost like a pair of glasses, whereas the owner gets to pick the prescription..  Everyones "eyesight" (taste) in what music should sound like will be drastically different..  so what one can say is great to them, absolutely will not be to others..   To speak of the differences as to whether "cable burn-in" actually makes the fidelity "better" is 100% without a shadow of a doubt a matter of perception..  sure there are systems out that that we can sit in front of and say "wow", but ideally, unless you have 100% control of your listening environment, cabling (aside from "decent" interconnects) doesnt mean dook..  imho..   carry on!..  

[balou2]

Come on now...leave Adam out of this.

[jeromejello]

hey, does anyone remember how many years chris has been doing audio?

i cant seem to recall... maybe he will make a post and emphasis the number so we can all see how important he is...

[balou2]

hey, does anyone remember how many years chris has been doing audio?

i cant seem to recall... maybe he will make a post and emphasis the number so we can all see how important he is...

Touche!

Maybe Adam knows.

I just don't get how one person can end up on the disagree-ing side of so many topics.  This is supposed to be an information board, not inflamation.  Debate yes...but come one....

[F.O.Bean]

I LOVE TOMATOES homegrown organically is definitely the way to go

[Teen Wolf Blitzer]

Exactly!  Chris seems to want everyone else to do a test.  Why don't you do it Chris?  By the way this thread is kinda mute at this point.  My silvers and R4 are all burnt in at this point.

Ps.... There is book smart and there is experience smart I would rather be the latter any day.

This comment seems to be in opposition to everything you have posted in this thread.

If you live someplace with a high end audio shop staffed by audio lovers and not just smug high end snobs, I encourage you to go there and ask them if they can demonstrate differences in cables.  I specificly mention the differnce because the snob guys wont think that you are worth their time but the audio lover guys will take time to swap gear around and demo different cables.

If you aren't all talk and really are interested in doing a real test, then I suggest that you take your canare cables with you and do a heads up comparison with the shop's high end cables.  Somehow I don't really think you have enough interest to put any effort into this since you seem to want everyone to send you samples or post links to anecdotal reports.  But maybe you will finally prove me wrong and do something to extend your experience. 

[Teen Wolf Blitzer]

The way you're treated Chris?  Hmmmm.  With posts like this I resent the way you speak around here.

It is B.S cable burn in is a joke the movement of electrons in a conductor (unless the current of the capacity of the conductor is exceeded) do not change the molecular structure of the conductor all they do is rearrange free electrons by negative and positive charges, And we are talking microvolt not kilovolts so once the a real signal of any significance is run thru the conductor how can you hear the difference?

And please someone send me the recording that has the broken in cable and the none broken in cable I bet no one can pick the one that is broken in with any accuracy. If you can hear the difference between a broken in cable and one that is not. Well your ears are wrong  There have been many studies done on this very subject. From respected scientists not Crack pots that want to sell you silver ac cords and magic Teflon wire. IMO


Its a big business cable making there are many crackpots out there that want you to pay $1000 for 1 meter of speaker wire lol I wish I was in the wire business but I have to be able to live with my self. Knowing that I was conning people out of hard earned money would not sit to well with me.

Chris Church

I do not disagree with that much here at T.S, but I do disagree with the way I have been treated here by some of the members. As I said in my other post I get the message loud and clear.
I guess its just that I do not fit in here I guess I should have agreed with more of the things that have been said here,  even if I did not agree with them oh well my loss your gain right? pardon the pun.
Its cool to make fun of me and wait for me to make a mistake so you can jump all over it right? yeppee its like being in highschool all over again.

Chris Church

hey, does anyone remember how many years chris has been doing audio?

i cant seem to recall... maybe he will make a post and emphasis the number so we can all see how important he is...

Touche!

Maybe Adam knows.

I just don't get how one person can end up on the disagree-ing side of so many topics.  This is supposed to be an information board, not inflamation.  Preparation H might fix that problem.  Debate yes...but come one....

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I do not disagree with that much here at T.S, but I do disagree with the way I have been treated here by some of the members. As I said in my other post I get the message loud and clear.
I guess its just that I do not fit in here I guess I should have agreed with more of the things that have been said here,  even if I did not agree with them

I just remember you joining ts and immediately spouting a bunch of anti dpa-406x dogma that sounded like a sales spiel intended to get novices to buy other mics and which flew in the face of people who likely had far more experience with live compact mic recording than you do.  When called out on it point by point, you ran away from the thread.  I chaulked it up to a stubborn old guy and moved on.

I've certainly given you the benefit of the doubt here and in other threads. But here again, you seem to be running away from a discussion.  A fairly friendly discussion that is quickly making progress to 'prove' something that happens to challenge your present point of view.  The theme that I am noticing in several threads is that you are not intrerested in challenging your assumptions or learning something new.  I think most here are willing to overluck stubbornness, gruffness, whatever.. But if you aren't willing to challenge your own assumptions and learn something new, what's the point in anything?  The fact is, people tend to ignore those who aren't interested in considering other points of view or true discussion.  You do whatever you want but it is becoming apparent to *me* that you aren't much intersted in other viewpoints.

Back to the thread..  I just remembered that I have some purely acoustic bluegrass (Hackensaw Boys) in 24/96 that would probably work.  I can run pc>ua5> cables>722. The source is stage lip mk21 nos > 722.  I'll try it with canares, mil-silver and 1804a.  I don't have any new cables at the moment so this will just be a diff comp rather than a burn-in comp.  I'll try and get some samples generated, for those who are interested..

[oniontaper]

[SparkE!]

I just remembered that I have some purely acoustic bluegrass (Hackensaw Boys) in 24/96 that would probably work.  I can run pc>ua5> cables>722. The source is stage lip mk21 nos > 722.  I'll try it with canares, mil-silver and 1804a.  I don't have any new cables at the moment so this will just be a diff comp rather than a burn-in comp.  I'll try and get some samples generated, for those who are interested..

I'm definitely interested.  (Actually, I'm interested in getting a copy of that whole show! Wanna do a B&P?)

Hackensaw Boys put on a great show.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I enjoyed Hackensaw a lot. Unfortunately, that was right around when I discovered that the 722 has a bug in the 'bass roll off'.  If you clip while running it, you get nasty distortion (I think it has been improved in recent firmwares but I avoid it).  So while I didn't clip much in that show, the few points where it did are pretty nasty.  I've patched it up pretty well but have always considered the source flawed and it bugs me as one that got away.. The Abigail Washburn opener was really nice. It was also damaged, though not quite as bad.

[TNJazz]

I am done. I have deleted all of my posts here in this thread. I do not care say what you will. I have my opinion but since it does not conform I will keep it to my self from now on.

Why did you delete all your posts?  If you keep picking up your toys and going home every time someone calls you out, maybe you should just go and not keep coming back.

I don't have 20 years of audio experience, but I have many close friends who do, including engineers who have run sound for Madonna, The Outlaws, The Allman Brothers, Peter Frampton and too many more to list.  I've had a couple of them try to tell me crazy shit, like "recording into Nuendo the music gets saved in a proprietary format and you have to export it out over lightpipe to convert it to wave forms"     Last time I checked, wav format was not proprietary...

So my point is 20 years of experience in sound does not necessarily mean shit for credibility.  You've proven that you are opinionated and when challenged you pout and leave.

Interestingly enough, all my friends agree with you - cable is cable and it doesn't make a difference.  One of therm even used the phrase "snake oil".  However, FOH work is different enough from field recording and home listening that maybe they never bothered to listen for a difference.

I don't know which is right and which is wrong, all I know is that you had the opportunity to spark some really interesting tests and discussion and instead you chose to be a blowhard and a crybaby.  Some "professional" you are...

I've never written a post like this before, but I felt it needed to be said.

Dirk

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I just remember you joining ts and immediately spouting a bunch of anti dpa-406x dogma that sounded like a sales spiel intended to get novices to buy other mics and which flew in the face of people who likely had far more experience with live compact mic recording than you do.  When called out on it point by point, you ran away from the thread.  I chaulked it up to a stubborn old guy and moved on.

My apology to Chris for the incorrect attribution above.  Someone else wrote that about the DPAs, not Chris. I think it was the guy who sells the DSM mics.  Sorry for dragging it in here.

[Church-Audio]

Thank you for saying that. I love DPA MICS! they are the best mics you can buy. Period IMO

I just remember you joining ts and immediately spouting a bunch of anti dpa-406x dogma that sounded like a sales spiel intended to get novices to buy other mics and which flew in the face of people who likely had far more experience with live compact mic recording than you do.  When called out on it point by point, you ran away from the thread.  I chaulked it up to a stubborn old guy and moved on.

My apology to Chris for the incorrect attribution above.  Someone else wrote that about the DPAs, not Chris. I think it was the guy who sells the DSM mics.  Sorry for dragging it in here.

[Church-Audio]

I deleted my posts because I can not have an opinion with out someone like your self saying shit about me, I am tired of this.

A- I never said someone else should do all the work for this test but someone said they would I said great.

B- I never said anything bad about anyone on this board. EVER I have used generalizations yes but not direct connections to any one user.

C- I am entitled to my opinion in this mater but I can see it offended so many people I thought I should just delete it all.

D- I am not taking my toys and going home I am still here I do get tired of being picked on but I do notice a pattern here it seems that anyone who makes mics and preamps gets treated like shit IMO that’s why some of the people I know in the business will not come on here anymore to talk.

E- I love to debate with people all things audio that is how I learn by being shown I am wrong and occasionally being shown I am right. But I guess I just do not fit into the click here.

F- I don’t give a  F$#@ anymore I am going to try to help anyone on here that asks for help if you want to hijack the threads like you did this one and call me names and all that shit your welcome to do so. I like trying to help people. I have spent hours on here trying to type things out. I am not the best typist or speller and my grammar could stand some improvement but here I am trying to help anyway. I will not be dissuaded by you.


G- Have a good day let’s just try and get along

I am sorry I said the things in the PM that I said to you I was pretty pissed off.

I am done. I have deleted all of my posts here in this thread. I do not care say what you will. I have my opinion but since it does not conform I will keep it to my self from now on.

Why did you delete all your posts?  If you keep picking up your toys and going home every time someone calls you out, maybe you should just go and not keep coming back.

I don't have 20 years of audio experience, but I have many close friends who do, including engineers who have run sound for Madonna, The Outlaws, The Allman Brothers, Peter Frampton and too many more to list.  I've had a couple of them try to tell me crazy shit, like "recording into Nuendo the music gets saved in a proprietary format and you have to export it out over lightpipe to convert it to wave forms"     Last time I checked, wav format was not proprietary...

So my point is 20 years of experience in sound does not necessarily mean shit for credibility.  You've proven that you are opinionated and when challenged you pout and leave.

Interestingly enough, all my friends agree with you - cable is cable and it doesn't make a difference.  One of therm even used the phrase "snake oil".  However, FOH work is different enough from field recording and home listening that maybe they never bothered to listen for a difference.

I don't know which is right and which is wrong, all I know is that you had the opportunity to spark some really interesting tests and discussion and instead you chose to be a blowhard and a crybaby.  Some "professional" you are...

I've never written a post like this before, but I felt it needed to be said.

Dirk

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I do notice a pattern here it seems that anyone who makes mics and preamps gets treated like shit IMO that’s why some of the people I know in the business will not come on here anymore to talk.

You mean GuySonic and Len Moskowitz?  The GuySonic and Moskowitz material from 10 years ago on dat-heads still ranks at the top of the arrogant self promotion I've witnessed.  If you want to lump yourself in with those guys you're going to have to make a much much bigger ass of yourself.

Doug Oade gets treated with a hell of a lot of respect.   So apparently designing mics and preamps is not the common trait that draws disrepect.  It isn't strictly a vendor thing.  There are plenty of vendors here who get a lot of respect.

[SparkE!]

Chris, it really didn't help for you to delete your posts since they were so heavily quoted throughout this thread.  It's kind of like nails that you wish you hadn't driven.  You can pull them, but the holes are still going to be there.

Unfortunately, it's hard to disagree with others in a public forum without sounding like an ass to some of the people who disagree with you.  (And no, I'm not calling you an ass.  I'm just saying that it's hard to disagree with others without some of them thinking you're an ass.)  And while we're on the subject, I don't think you're an ass. (Of course, I agree with you, so that might be influencing my opinion of you. )

It's been my experience that the only thing that's harder to discuss than politics, culture and religion is audio equipment.  People can be unreasonably offended when you question their equipment choices.  We all know what types of commitment people have to their own particular choices in mics.  Apparently choice of cables carries that same level of what I consider to be irrational commitment.

But then again, I'm a cheap bastard.  My goal in equipment is to get good enough performance from my gear that you can't tell the difference between my recordings and the recordings of the high end stuff and at about 1/10th the price.  I want to believe that some moderately cheap cables produce results are virtually indistiguishable from the results you'd get with über expensive cables.  I have a good theoretical background in the analysis and design of transmission lines, filters and amplifiers, so I tend to look at cables in terms of their distributed capacitance, inductance and resistance and how those things affect that signals that pass through them.  I also know that at audio frequencies, things like current bunching and skin effect produce real, predictable, measurable, but insignificant effects for all but the longest cable runs.

Are the high end cables better? Probably.  Can you tell the difference?  Maybe, but I've never been able to, or at least I've rationalized the use of my cheap cables by not really trying hard to tell the difference.  You say that you'd love to be proved wrong.  Not me! I'd hate it because then I'd have to buy expensive cables in order to be satisfied that I was doing an adequate job of recording.

But that's not what this thread is about.  It's about the notion that cables somehow get better with use.  I can't adequately express how preposterous that seems to me.  Somehow, we're supposed to believe that something changes about the cables, but no one seems to be able to say exactly what that something is.  I definitely believe that there are people that are convinced that the burn-in effect is real and actually, I tend to agree.  What we don't agree on is this:  People who believe in burn-in believe that it's the cables that change.  What I believe is that people's opinion of their cables change with time and the cables remain unchanged.  If anything, I believe that the cables actually get worse with time just due to wear and tear on the plating on the contacts, but the change is so small as to be insignificant until the contact plating actually wears through and you start getting shot noise and intermittent continuity in your signal path.

So, let's do the tests.  I'm still needing about 5 to 10 seconds of high quality audio to use in the tests.  I've got lots of 16 bit material that I think is pretty good, but this burn-in effect, if it even exists, is probably going to be more subtle than the quantization error in a 16 bit recording.  I'm not even sure that the quantization noise in a 24 bit recording will be sufficiently low for you to be able the hear the difference between a used cable and a new one.  Let me know if you have a clip that you think will be good enough to reveal the difference between new and burned-in cables.  The sooner we choose an adequate recording, the sooner we can reach an agreement and quit antagonizing Chris.

[Church-Audio]

How dare you say I am not an ass! I am an ass we all are from time to time but can’t we all just get along. I wanted you to make the samples because everyone around here knows you and I would say respects you. I have got a lot of heat for not doing it my self; I wish I had high end cable. But I do not I only have canare cable IMO that is high end cable anyway I hope you can find the time to do this I would like to as well as with music use a mls tone and run it through the cables as well I can supply that to you. The only problem is I would need an mls tone of the recorder so I could subtract that from the results of the cable, if that makes sense. I got pissed off I think some people on here just want to piss on me. I have just decided to ignore them totally. Life is too short, I respect you and value your views in this subject, I have read your posts on capacitors and a few other subjects and learned quite a bit from them.

Chris Church

Chris, it really didn't help for you to delete your posts since they were so heavily quoted throughout this thread.  It's kind of like nails that you wish you hadn't driven.  You can pull them, but the holes are still going to be there.

Unfortunately, it's hard to disagree with others in a public forum without sounding like an ass to some of the people who disagree with you.  (And no, I'm not calling you an ass.  I'm just saying that it's hard to disagree with others without some of them thinking you're an ass.)  And while we're on the subject, I don't think you're an ass. (Of course, I agree with you, so that might be influencing my opinion of you. )

It's been my experience that the only thing that's harder to discuss than politics, culture and religion is audio equipment.  People can be unreasonably offended when you question their equipment choices.  We all know what types of commitment people have to their own particular choices in mics.  Apparently choice of cables carries that same level of what I consider to be irrational commitment.

But then again, I'm a cheap bastard.  My goal in equipment is to get good enough performance from my gear that you can't tell the difference between my recordings and the recordings of the high end stuff and at about 1/10th the price.  I want to believe that some moderately cheap cables produce results are virtually indistiguishable from the results you'd get with über expensive cables.  I have a good theoretical background in the analysis and design of transmission lines, filters and amplifiers, so I tend to look at cables in terms of their distributed capacitance, inductance and resistance and how those things affect that signals that pass through them.  I also know that at audio frequencies, things like current bunching and skin effect produce real, predictable, measurable, but insignificant effects for all but the longest cable runs.

Are the high end cables better? Probably.  Can you tell the difference?  Maybe, but I've never been able to, or at least I've rationalized the use of my cheap cables by not really trying hard to tell the difference.  You say that you'd love to be proved wrong.  Not me! I'd hate it because then I'd have to buy expensive cables in order to be satisfied that I was doing an adequate job of recording.

But that's not what this thread is about.  It's about the notion that cables somehow get better with use.  I can't adequately express how preposterous that seems to me.  Somehow, we're supposed to believe that something changes about the cables, but no one seems to be able to say exactly what that something is.  I definitely believe that there are people that are convinced that the burn-in effect is real and actually, I tend to agree.  What we don't agree on is this:  People who believe in burn-in believe that it's the cables that change.  What I believe is that people's opinion of their cables change with time and the cables remain unchanged.  If anything, I believe that the cables actually get worse with time just due to wear and tear on the plating on the contacts, but the change is so small as to be insignificant until the contact plating actually wears through and you start getting shot noise and intermittent continuity in your signal path.

So, let's do the tests.  I'm still needing about 5 to 10 seconds of high quality audio to use in the tests.  I've got lots of 16 bit material that I think is pretty good, but this burn-in effect, if it even exists, is probably going to be more subtle than the quantization error in a 16 bit recording.  I'm not even sure that the quantization noise in a 24 bit recording will be sufficiently low for you to be able the hear the difference between a used cable and a new one.  Let me know if you have a clip that you think will be good enough to reveal the difference between new and burned-in cables.  The sooner we choose an adequate recording, the sooner we can reach an agreement and quit antagonizing Chris.

[Church-Audio]

IMO I think you might want a longer peace of music then 10 seconds I can't personally tell in 10 seconds if something is better I can hear some things maybe in 10 seconds but give me a whole song and I can hear all kinds of things or even maybe half of a song I really do not think copy write issues are of any importance here I might be wrong but you are not selling the recording you are only using it to demonstrate a point? I donno I can give you two minutes of me playing guitar but I don’t know if that would qualify as HiFi lol. I don’t know I can also hold these files on my server if need be. Let me know if that is an issue I can host them and provide a URL link to them.

Chris, it really didn't help for you to delete your posts since they were so heavily quoted throughout this thread.  It's kind of like nails that you wish you hadn't driven.  You can pull them, but the holes are still going to be there.

Unfortunately, it's hard to disagree with others in a public forum without sounding like an ass to some of the people who disagree with you.  (And no, I'm not calling you an ass.  I'm just saying that it's hard to disagree with others without some of them thinking you're an ass.)  And while we're on the subject, I don't think you're an ass. (Of course, I agree with you, so that might be influencing my opinion of you. )

It's been my experience that the only thing that's harder to discuss than politics, culture and religion is audio equipment.  People can be unreasonably offended when you question their equipment choices.  We all know what types of commitment people have to their own particular choices in mics.  Apparently choice of cables carries that same level of what I consider to be irrational commitment.

But then again, I'm a cheap bastard.  My goal in equipment is to get good enough performance from my gear that you can't tell the difference between my recordings and the recordings of the high end stuff and at about 1/10th the price.  I want to believe that some moderately cheap cables produce results are virtually indistiguishable from the results you'd get with über expensive cables.  I have a good theoretical background in the analysis and design of transmission lines, filters and amplifiers, so I tend to look at cables in terms of their distributed capacitance, inductance and resistance and how those things affect that signals that pass through them.  I also know that at audio frequencies, things like current bunching and skin effect produce real, predictable, measurable, but insignificant effects for all but the longest cable runs.

Are the high end cables better? Probably.  Can you tell the difference?  Maybe, but I've never been able to, or at least I've rationalized the use of my cheap cables by not really trying hard to tell the difference.  You say that you'd love to be proved wrong.  Not me! I'd hate it because then I'd have to buy expensive cables in order to be satisfied that I was doing an adequate job of recording.

But that's not what this thread is about.  It's about the notion that cables somehow get better with use.  I can't adequately express how preposterous that seems to me.  Somehow, we're supposed to believe that something changes about the cables, but no one seems to be able to say exactly what that something is.  I definitely believe that there are people that are convinced that the burn-in effect is real and actually, I tend to agree.  What we don't agree on is this:  People who believe in burn-in believe that it's the cables that change.  What I believe is that people's opinion of their cables change with time and the cables remain unchanged.  If anything, I believe that the cables actually get worse with time just due to wear and tear on the plating on the contacts, but the change is so small as to be insignificant until the contact plating actually wears through and you start getting shot noise and intermittent continuity in your signal path.

So, let's do the tests.  I'm still needing about 5 to 10 seconds of high quality audio to use in the tests.  I've got lots of 16 bit material that I think is pretty good, but this burn-in effect, if it even exists, is probably going to be more subtle than the quantization error in a 16 bit recording.  I'm not even sure that the quantization noise in a 24 bit recording will be sufficiently low for you to be able the hear the difference between a used cable and a new one.  Let me know if you have a clip that you think will be good enough to reveal the difference between new and burned-in cables.  The sooner we choose an adequate recording, the sooner we can reach an agreement and quit antagonizing Chris.

[balou2]

I agree with Chris.  Whatever sample it is, 10 seconds is probably not enough.  Sometimes it takes my ears that long to "settle" around a sound, let alone begin processing what I'm hearing.  Good call.

[F.O.Bean]

only thing i have to say about this thread is:

using el-cheapo cables will yield decent results, but once youve stepped into the HQ cable category, there is def an audible, not saying you have to spend 10,000 dollars to get HQ cables, but i can def hear a huge diff in canare vs. silver-clad and in the same respect, i heard a HUGE difference in my jump from Audio Magic X-Streams vs. the Silver-Clad cables that Leegeddy built me over a year ago, the silver-clads really opened up my rig, deffienrce was HUGE IMO, tahts why i fluffed leegeddy's/ToddR's cables so much, cause i trhought the quality was exceptional for a sub 200 pair of XLR's

now as to wether 'burning-in' is beneficiary, well, not sure about that, maybe heresy, maybe not, i think getting quality cables is what matters, not how many hrs theyve been 'burned-in'

but suggesting a cheapo RS cable is as good as silver-clad/silver/etc is just crazy, the shielding/insulation/craftmanship is almost always better the more you spend, and thats what i think needs to be realized

BUT, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one

I thought it was an AMAZING jump going from the AM X-Streams to the Silver-Clad cables that Leegeddy/ToddR crafted and you may think im crazy( I think im crazy) but that jump in quality wasnt just made up in my mind to justify the purchase in my head, the difference was 'night-and-day' to me, and thats all that matters, cause im the one who islistening to the majority of my tapes, not joe-public \

so do what your ears like best, they'll love you for it

[Church-Audio]

I think that what you say is true. There is a difference between cheap cables like radio shack and high end cables. In workmanship shielding capacitance resistance/impedance microphonics ect not to mention connectors. I just wanted to have the radio shack cables be a part of the test just to see what happens when people listen to them. Also I personally feel that just testing two cables only give a 50/50 and in some cases someone might get lucky just guessing. I thought in order to make this a real test at least three cables should be used. What do you think?

Chris Church

only thing i have to say about this thread is:

using el-cheapo cables will yield decent results, but once youve stepped into the HQ cable category, there is def an audible, not saying you have to spend 10,000 dollars to get HQ cables, but i can def hear a huge diff in canare vs. silver-clad and in the same respect, i heard a HUGE difference in my jump from Audio Magic X-Streams vs. the Silver-Clad cables that Leegeddy built me over a year ago, the silver-clads really opened up my rig, deffienrce was HUGE IMO, tahts why i fluffed leegeddy's/ToddR's cables so much, cause i trhought the quality was exceptional for a sub 200 pair of XLR's

now as to wether 'burning-in' is beneficiary, well, not sure about that, maybe heresy, maybe not, i think getting quality cables is what matters, not how many hrs theyve been 'burned-in'

but suggesting a cheapo RS cable is as good as silver-clad/silver/etc is just crazy, the shielding/insulation/craftmanship is almost always better the more you spend, and thats what i think needs to be realized

BUT, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one

I thought it was an AMAZING jump going from the AM X-Streams to the Silver-Clad cables that Leegeddy/ToddR crafted and you may think im crazy( I think im crazy) but that jump in quality wasnt just made up in my mind to justify the purchase in my head, the difference was 'night-and-day' to me, and thats all that matters, cause im the one who islistening to the majority of my tapes, not joe-public \

so do what your ears like best, they'll love you for it

[F.O.Bean]

I think that what you say is true. There is a difference between cheap cables like radio shack and high end cables. In workmanship shielding capacitance resistance/impedance microphonics ect not to mention connectors. I just wanted to have the radio shack cables be a part of the test just to see what happens when people listen to them. Also I personally feel that just testing two cables only give a 50/50 and in some cases someone might get lucky just guessing. I thought in order to make this a real test at least three cables should be used. What do you think?

Chris Church

only thing i have to say about this thread is:

using el-cheapo cables will yield decent results, but once youve stepped into the HQ cable category, there is def an audible, not saying you have to spend 10,000 dollars to get HQ cables, but i can def hear a huge diff in canare vs. silver-clad and in the same respect, i heard a HUGE difference in my jump from Audio Magic X-Streams vs. the Silver-Clad cables that Leegeddy built me over a year ago, the silver-clads really opened up my rig, deffienrce was HUGE IMO, tahts why i fluffed leegeddy's/ToddR's cables so much, cause i trhought the quality was exceptional for a sub 200 pair of XLR's

now as to wether 'burning-in' is beneficiary, well, not sure about that, maybe heresy, maybe not, i think getting quality cables is what matters, not how many hrs theyve been 'burned-in'

but suggesting a cheapo RS cable is as good as silver-clad/silver/etc is just crazy, the shielding/insulation/craftmanship is almost always better the more you spend, and thats what i think needs to be realized

BUT, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one

I thought it was an AMAZING jump going from the AM X-Streams to the Silver-Clad cables that Leegeddy/ToddR crafted and you may think im crazy( I think im crazy) but that jump in quality wasnt just made up in my mind to justify the purchase in my head, the difference was 'night-and-day' to me, and thats all that matters, cause im the one who islistening to the majority of my tapes, not joe-public \

so do what your ears like best, they'll love you for it

sounds good to me Chris

I would personally use RS cables/Canare cables and some high-end/silver-clad cables

I was really amazed at how much cleaner/clearer/responsive my silver-clads were even moving up from those AM X-Streams tho mind-blowing improvemnt

i think that also has to deal w/ hand-made cables, the xstreams are the only AM cables that arent hand-built, so i think that says something right there

[SparkE!]

I agree with Chris.  Whatever sample it is, 10 seconds is probably not enough.  Sometimes it takes my ears that long to "settle" around a sound, let alone begin processing what I'm hearing.  Good call.

Yes, but there are other things to think about too.  If you make the clips too long, it can be hard to actually do an A/B comparison.  Linguists that designed the tests for speech intelligibility and speech quality for the vocoders used in modern handheld digital communications devices in our military and public safety organizations found that they could not get good results when the audio samples were longer than about 10 seconds.  Their tests were designed around phrases that were between 3 1/2 seconds and 4 seconds in length.  ("Please line up by the screen door" and "I like catsup on fish" were among the test phrases.)  Also, you've got to realize that a 10 second stereo clip of 24/96 material is over 5M. It's almost 35M per minute. When you include multiple sources in your test, that can add up pretty quickly and unless you've got a hosting plan that allows a lot of traffic, that may not be something that you'll want to do.

So, I agree that it's hard to settle in on a clip that's less than 10 seconds in length, but neither do you want to go with something that's too long.  That's precisely why I'm having a hard time choosing a good clip to use.  If we could go with a 1 minute clip, then I'd have all sorts of good options that are downloadable off archive.org.  I'm not finding any 10 second clips that have enough diversity in that time in order to be the basis for a good comparison between sources.

Amazon.com's audio clips are 30 seconds long.  Is that the right length?  If so, maybe we should use 30 second clips that are each composed of three 10 second tracks?

Also, we need to decide on what is the right testing method.  Unless you can demonstrate repeatability, you can't take the results we get too seriously.  In the vocoder tests that I mentioned above, subjects were randomly presented with audio clips and asked to rate each one on a scale of 1 to 10 and the same clips were repeated many, many times during the trials.  Different subjects had different ideas about what sounded good and they also had different ideas as to what constituted a 10 and what constituted a 5 and what was bad enough to be a 1.  However, the data that was collected easily showed which subjects could consistently rate the same material at the same approximately the same number each time it was presented.  No one did well on their consistency at first and it seemed to be a learned skill to be able to rate the same clip consistently each time it was presented.  The also found out that the results were more accurate when the subject initiated the onset of the clip.  Some people could rate more clips per hour than others.  Everyone would eventually fatigue and produce more erratic ratings if their rating session ran too long.  The report on the testing method alone was over 100 pages long.

I'm not suggesting that we need to go to these lengths.  After all, we're only trying to tell if people can tell a difference in broken-in cables vs. new cables.  That kind of test can be much less rigorous.  The test I'm proposing is to have three clips, one of which is using different cables than the other two (which both use the same cables).  The challenge is to identify which is the odd clip.  The test results won't be infallible and they won't put to rest forever the debate over whether cable break-in produces audible changes, but as long as enough people participate, we can at least develop a concensus here at ts.com.

[balou2]

I agree with Chris.  Whatever sample it is, 10 seconds is probably not enough.  Sometimes it takes my ears that long to "settle" around a sound, let alone begin processing what I'm hearing.  Good call.

Yes, but there are other things to think about too.  If you make the clips too long, it can be hard to actually do an A/B comparison.  Linguists that designed the tests for speech intelligibility and speech quality for the vocoders used in modern handheld digital communications devices in our military and public safety organizations found that they could not get good results when the audio samples were longer than about 10 seconds.  Their tests were designed around phrases that were between 3 1/2 seconds and 4 seconds in length.  ("Please line up by the screen door" and "I like catsup on fish" were among the test phrases.)  Also, you've got to realize that a 10 second stereo clip of 24/96 material is over 5M. It's almost 35M per minute. When you include multiple sources in your test, that can add up pretty quickly and unless you've got a hosting plan that allows a lot of traffic, that may not be something that you'll want to do.

So, I agree that it's hard to settle in on a clip that's less than 10 seconds in length, but neither do you want to go with something that's too long.  That's precisely why I'm having a hard time choosing a good clip to use.  If we could go with a 1 minute clip, then I'd have all sorts of good options that are downloadable off archive.org.  I'm not finding any 10 second clips that have enough diversity in that time in order to be the basis for a good comparison between sources.

Amazon.com's audio clips are 30 seconds long.  Is that the right length?  If so, maybe we should use 30 second clips that are each composed of three 10 second tracks?

Also, we need to decide on what is the right testing method.  Unless you can demonstrate repeatability, you can't take the results we get too seriously.  In the vocoder tests that I mentioned above, subjects were randomly presented with audio clips and asked to rate each one on a scale of 1 to 10 and the same clips were repeated many, many times during the trials.  Different subjects had different ideas about what sounded good and they also had different ideas as to what constituted a 10 and what constituted a 5 and what was bad enough to be a 1.  However, the data that was collected easily showed which subjects could consistently rate the same material at the same approximately the same number each time it was presented.  No one did well on their consistency at first and it seemed to be a learned skill to be able to rate the same clip consistently each time it was presented.  The also found out that the results were more accurate when the subject initiated the onset of the clip.  Some people could rate more clips per hour than others.  Everyone would eventually fatigue and produce more erratic ratings if their rating session ran too long.  The report on the testing method alone was over 100 pages long.

I'm not suggesting that we need to go to these lengths.  After all, we're only trying to tell if people can tell a difference in broken-in cables vs. new cables.  That kind of test can be much less rigorous.  The test I'm proposing is to have three clips, one of which is using different cables than the other two (which both use the same cables).  The challenge is to identify which is the odd clip.  The test results won't be infallible and they won't put to rest forever the debate over whether cable break-in produces audible changes, but as long as enough people participate, we can at least develop a concensus here at ts.com.

Absolutely...SparkE, and excellent points.  I'm very familiar with the linguist tests and barometers used.  And while I do subscribe to the results yielded from said tests, I wasn't suggesting a 5 minute clip.  I think we can easily afford to increase our base duration from 10 seconds, to anywhere between 30-40 seconds.  I don't think it will need to go beyond that, but this will allow for aural-interpretation to be consistent and true.

I must admit...this entire conversation started by Mark asking why it's a good thing to burn in a cable.  An initial response was that "interconnect changes sound pretty frequently for the first hour or so.  The most noticeable points are after 1 hour, 25 hours and 50 hours".  This is easy to account for for the first hour- cables out of box directly to the system for the test.  I would wager that several audio passages could be sent through the cable initially, but if there is an actual "burn in" period, the sound will be constantly fluctuating until that process is complete (whenever that is).  So, are folks suggesting that there will be a simple "initial" sound test recorded, then a 50 hour "burn-in period" then a second set of samples recorded?  If we're going to all this trouble, we should take multiple samples of the chosen segment, and record them at various periods through the span of the test/burn-in period.

That being said, I'd think a very simple way to compare these would be to reproduce the sound waves in a frquency analyzer and lay them over one another for analysis.  If there is a frequency-response difference, it will be noted in the spectrometer...right?  This could easily be accompanied by, as Teddy suggests, a double-blind listening component, to which identification of unknown segments is attempted by a chosen group.  This, of course, may be affected by play-back equipment, however.  Chris Church mentioned NOT having good playback equipment, as did someone else.  I too fall in to that category (at least off of my PC).  It's just one of the other variables to consider here...hence the suggestion for inclusion of a frequency analyzer.  That could provide visual, undisputable evidence, and would be the common denominator for all participants, allowing for no variation in the play-back equipment issue.

Mike

[Church-Audio]

Wow you bring up some good points. I think a simple sine wave would tell you about distortion I can analyze a wave file and tell you what one has a higher content of distortion. It seems to me that we almost need many different files. Such as short samples of music maybe 10 seconds as Sparke Suggested and some medium length ones and maybe a full spectrum MLS wav file and some 1k and 10k and maybe even 100hz files I can generate the files at 192k or 96k or 48k at 24bit The only problem I have is I do not have these high end cables so I can do the tests with. So Sparke if you want good test files I can make them up for you all in the digital domain so they are not compromised and I can also give you graphs of each sample as a baseline for comparison if that helps let me know and I will make the files for you in the next two days give me a ftp or an email address and I will send them too you.


I can also do distortion measurements, MLS, impulse and thd+noise. And even reverb time to see if there is any preoperational differences. So please guys let me know if these files will be of any use and I will send them to whom ever needs them.




Chris Church

I agree with Chris.  Whatever sample it is, 10 seconds is probably not enough.  Sometimes it takes my ears that long to "settle" around a sound, let alone begin processing what I'm hearing.  Good call.

Yes, but there are other things to think about too.  If you make the clips too long, it can be hard to actually do an A/B comparison.  Linguists that designed the tests for speech intelligibility and speech quality for the vocoders used in modern handheld digital communications devices in our military and public safety organizations found that they could not get good results when the audio samples were longer than about 10 seconds.  Their tests were designed around phrases that were between 3 1/2 seconds and 4 seconds in length.  ("Please line up by the screen door" and "I like catsup on fish" were among the test phrases.)  Also, you've got to realize that a 10 second stereo clip of 24/96 material is over 5M. It's almost 35M per minute. When you include multiple sources in your test, that can add up pretty quickly and unless you've got a hosting plan that allows a lot of traffic, that may not be something that you'll want to do.

So, I agree that it's hard to settle in on a clip that's less than 10 seconds in length, but neither do you want to go with something that's too long.  That's precisely why I'm having a hard time choosing a good clip to use.  If we could go with a 1 minute clip, then I'd have all sorts of good options that are downloadable off archive.org.  I'm not finding any 10 second clips that have enough diversity in that time in order to be the basis for a good comparison between sources.

Amazon.com's audio clips are 30 seconds long.  Is that the right length?  If so, maybe we should use 30 second clips that are each composed of three 10 second tracks?

Also, we need to decide on what is the right testing method.  Unless you can demonstrate repeatability, you can't take the results we get too seriously.  In the vocoder tests that I mentioned above, subjects were randomly presented with audio clips and asked to rate each one on a scale of 1 to 10 and the same clips were repeated many, many times during the trials.  Different subjects had different ideas about what sounded good and they also had different ideas as to what constituted a 10 and what constituted a 5 and what was bad enough to be a 1.  However, the data that was collected easily showed which subjects could consistently rate the same material at the same approximately the same number each time it was presented.  No one did well on their consistency at first and it seemed to be a learned skill to be able to rate the same clip consistently each time it was presented.  The also found out that the results were more accurate when the subject initiated the onset of the clip.  Some people could rate more clips per hour than others.  Everyone would eventually fatigue and produce more erratic ratings if their rating session ran too long.  The report on the testing method alone was over 100 pages long.

I'm not suggesting that we need to go to these lengths.  After all, we're only trying to tell if people can tell a difference in broken-in cables vs. new cables.  That kind of test can be much less rigorous.  The test I'm proposing is to have three clips, one of which is using different cables than the other two (which both use the same cables).  The challenge is to identify which is the odd clip.  The test results won't be infallible and they won't put to rest forever the debate over whether cable break-in produces audible changes, but as long as enough people participate, we can at least develop a concensus here at ts.com.

Absolutely...SparkE, and excellent points.  I'm very familiar with the linguist tests and barometers used.  And while I do subscribe to the results yielded from said tests, I wasn't suggesting a 5 minute clip.  I think we can easily afford to increase our base duration from 10 seconds, to anywhere between 30-40 seconds.  I don't think it will need to go beyond that, but this will allow for aural-interpretation to be consistent and true.

I must admit...this entire conversation started by Mark asking why it's a good thing to burn in a cable.  An initial response was that "interconnect changes sound pretty frequently for the first hour or so.  The most noticeable points are after 1 hour, 25 hours and 50 hours".  This is easy to account for for the first hour- cables out of box directly to the system for the test.  I would wager that several audio passages could be sent through the cable initially, but if there is an actual "burn in" period, the sound will be constantly fluctuating until that process is complete (whenever that is).  So, are folks suggesting that there will be a simple "initial" sound test recorded, then a 50 hour "burn-in period" then a second set of samples recorded?  If we're going to all this trouble, we should take multiple samples of the chosen segment, and record them at various periods through the span of the test/burn-in period.

That being said, I'd think a very simple way to compare these would be to reproduce the sound waves in a frquency analyzer and lay them over one another for analysis.  If there is a frequency-response difference, it will be noted in the spectrometer...right?  This could easily be accompanied by, as Teddy suggests, a double-blind listening component, to which identification of unknown segments is attempted by a chosen group.  This, of course, may be affected by play-back equipment, however.  Chris Church mentioned NOT having good playback equipment, as did someone else.  I too fall in to that category (at least off of my PC).  It's just one of the other variables to consider here...hence the suggestion for inclusion of a frequency analyzer.  That could provide visual, undisputable evidence, and would be the common denominator for all participants, allowing for no variation in the play-back equipment issue.

Mike

[Brian Skalinder]

Not much to add other than:  I don't think 3 samples are necessary.  There's an ABX app for most common OSes, so anyone who wants to do so may use it in their listening.

[SparkE!]

Not much to add other than:  I don't think 3 samples are necessary.  There's an ABX app for most common OSes, so anyone who wants to do so may use it in their listening.

Yeah, but that assumes that you have a decent sound card in your computer.  If you have 3 files, at least you can burn them to DVD-A and listen to them on a compatible deck and it doesn't matter if the test is blind.  The goal is simply to identify which of the 3 files was made with the different set of cables.

So, it depends on whether you think more people will have access to a decent soundcard or whether more people will access to a DVD player that will do DVD-A playback.

[RebelRebel]

Im back, and can pick out a 10 second clip for you easily if you want..

[Javier Cinakowski]

edit: to be ironically hypocritical.  T+

very intesested in these results. 

[SparkE!]

edit: to be ironically hypocritical.  T+

very intesested in these results. 

[best ScoobyDoo voice]  Ruuuuh??? Rironic? Rippocritical? [/best ScoobyDoo voice]

[it-goes-to-eleven]

24/96 Bluegrass samps are ready..  The first is a slow number with vocal where the instruments come in one at a time and seems well suited for testing, the second is an intense and hectic instrumental.

I wanted to collect some test results but realized I don't have a balanced output source that can take a digi stream.  Best I can do is pc > ua5  > rca to xlr > v3> test cable > 722.  That would work but is not ideal (note to self, order mytek). I'll probably take a stab at it anyway. Shoot me a pm if you'd like the samples for testing.

My most interesting test candidates are 15' radio shack, 25' mil silver-teflon (and 2'), 15' canare quad (and various), 6' 1804a.  Once we get the testing rolling, I think we should do some quad vs. 2 pair tests, both for overall quality and resistance to noise from cellphones and dimmers.  I have both types of silver-teflon.

[morningdew]

I'm interested in any tests done to compare cables.  I have a 100' spool of 1804a that is just sitting around collecting dust.

Someone gave me 100' of the mil. spec. sliver clad, teflon coated stuff right before I was getting ready to make up a bunch of cables.  I made a pair of 50' footers.  I used the sliver clad stuff instead of the 1804a because I assumed it was better.

I would like to hear someones' thoughts on 1804a vs. the sliver clad.  Both before and after burn in.

[RebelRebel]

30 second Classical Samples are uploading now, Spark.

[Church-Audio]

Guysonic makes some of the best sounding omni binaural mics I have ever heard for under $800 I would be glad to be lumped in with him any day thanks for the compliment!
Chris Church

I do notice a pattern here it seems that anyone who makes mics and preamps gets treated like shit IMO that’s why some of the people I know in the business will not come on here anymore to talk.

You mean GuySonic and Len Moskowitz?  The GuySonic and Moskowitz material from 10 years ago on dat-heads still ranks at the top of the arrogant self promotion I've witnessed.  If you want to lump yourself in with those guys you're going to have to make a much much bigger ass of yourself.

Doug Oade gets treated with a hell of a lot of respect.   So apparently designing mics and preamps is not the common trait that draws disrepect.  It isn't strictly a vendor thing.  There are plenty of vendors here who get a lot of respect.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Guysonic makes some of the best sounded omni binaural mics I have ever heard for under $800 I would be glad to be lumped in with him any day thanks for the compliment!
Chris Church

He does make excellent mics.   

But I've never found the high quality of his mics to sufficiently balance the negative impact his personal style has on the forums in which he is a participating member.   Alot of it comes from his "I've been doing this for x number of years, so I know everything" attitude I've seen displayed time and time again.   As I mentioned above, being a mic builder is not the issue. 

[Church-Audio]

Do you want the test tones from me I have 96k 24bit or 192 24 bit MLS and 1k or pink noise white noise what ever you need please let me know.

edit: to be ironically hypocritical.  T+

very intesested in these results. 

[best ScoobyDoo voice]  Ruuuuh??? Rironic? Rippocritical? [/best ScoobyDoo voice]

[SparkE!]

Do you want the test tones from me I have 96k 24bit or 192 24 bit MLS and 1k or pink noise white noise what ever you need please let me know.

Thanks Chris, but I can generate any test signals that I need.  I've got music samples from freelunch and I'm waiting for a link to the clips that Teddy is sending.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

So what format do folks prefer for the comp files?  24/48?  Should we even be producing 16 bit versions?   If so, should we just do the original recordings at 24/44 to avoid the resampling step?

[SparkE!]

I plan to play the source material at 24/96, either by burning it to DVD-A and playing it back on a compatible deck (most likely) or by using a stock UA-5 as the playback device.  It would be nice to keep the source as clean as possible so that we don't mask any of the subtle differences that are claimed to exist between various cables.

[RebelRebel]

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

    *   Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
    * Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
    * Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
    * Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
    * Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
    * Quantify, wherever possible.
    * If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
    * "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
    * Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are

    * Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
    * Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

    * Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
    * Argument from "authority".
    * Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
    * Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
    * Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
    * Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
    * Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
    * Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
    * Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
    * Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
    * Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
    * Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
    * Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
    * Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
    * Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
    * Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
    * Confusion of correlation and causation.
    * Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
    * Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
    * Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"



   

[SparkE!]

Well, I've recorded two sets of samples from 24 bit files that were provided by Teddy and by Freelunch.  One set is for people who do not have a good soundcard, but have a way to burn and listen to DVD-A sources.  The other is for people who have a good soundcard and can use something like PCABX or WinABX to compare two sources and see if they can identify which is which when played randomly

The a-set samples are 3 recordings of each clip.  All 3 recordings are done with the same equipment in the signal path, except that 2 are done with one set of cables and 1 is done with the other set of cables (which I will call the odd recording).  One set of cables is brand new and the other set is well broken in.  The goal is to identify which 1 sample of the 3 is the odd recording.  Extra credit if you can identify which cable set was used on the odd recording.

The b-set samples are 2 recordings of each clip.  1 recording is done with one cable set and 1 recording is done with the other cable set.

Both the a-set samples and the b-set samples will be made available soon, probably by bittorrent.  There is a problem with the b-set samples because for some reason, they will not play in PCABX.  This may be due to the .wav format that they use.  When I tracked them out, I used CDWave and used the alternate 24 bit format so that the tracked files could be flac'd.  Maybe that's the problem.  Maybe they have to be re-stored in a different WAV format so that PCABX can use them.  I've seen references to PCABX being used to compare 24 bit files, so there has to be a way to do this, but I have not figured it out yet.

If you want to get ready for comparing b-set samples, then you'll want to read up on PCABX:

http://www.pcabx.com/getting_started.htm

I love their motto: "Shedding light by means of the combustion of snake oil"

[SparkE!]

OK, I found a way around the issue that WinABX and PCABX do not play 24 bit files.  It turns out that foobar2000 has an integrated ABX comparator utility.  What you do is highlight both test tracks in your playlist, right click and choose Utils/ABX two tracks...

Get foobar2000 here

foobar2000 also plays flac files directly, so it's a nice player for use on your PC.  It also means that you don't have to unflac to wav files in order to do an ABX comparison.

[F.O.Bean]

OK, I found a way around the issue that WinABX and PCABX do not play 24 bit files.  It turns out that foobar2000 has an integrated ABX comparator utility.  What you do is highlight both test tracks in your playlist, right click and choose Utils/ABX two tracks...

Get foobar2000 here

foobar2000 also plays flac files directly, so it's a nice player for use on your PC.  It also means that you don't have to unflac to wav files in order to do an ABX comparison.

and also nero 6 ultra has plugisn to burn cd's directly from flac/shn, which comes in VERY handy instead of decoding/encoding your flacs/shns just to burn them to cdr

[RebelRebel]

you can now PAY to have your cables burned in...

http://www.pymblehifi.com.au/NordostCableBurning.htm

and check out this amazing technical paper

http://www.nordost.com/Technical%20Papers/index.htm

r fine and micro litz round conductors. This eliminated strand interaction thereby significantly reducing the well documented audible distortions caused by skin effect and magnetic fields interactions. The combination of Flatline's Extruded FEP insulation and these solid conductors had the remarkable result of transmitting signals at over 90% the speed of light. This represents a 20-25% improvement over conventional cables. In addition these designs have a capacitance that is 3 to 10 times lower than traditional cables. These are some of the foremost reasons why Nordost cables are so accurate and communicate with such sonic clarity..However once they have been used for 70 to 80 hours in one direction they will sound better when they are hooked up and used in the original direction of break in.