bernmart Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 I got some great advice from several of you a few weeks ago, and I've been improving the sound of my Fortes in increments: first replacing my receiver w/ a vintage Harmon-Kardon; then replacing my CD plaer with a Rotel, both for its own sake and because it has a "digital-out" jack so I can buy and use a DAC if I choose. Both of these upgrades made an immediate, obvious difference. I also bought a pair of silver interconnects. The improvement here is subtle, but I do hear it. I think. My question, though is about burn-in. The manufacturer says there's a 20-50 hour burn-in during which the sound improves. Is this so, or is it another audio myth? How can something which has no moving parts need a break-in period? Or (the skeptic in me says) is the burn-in period a chance for the listener to convince himself that this small upgrade really makes a difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelerFan Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 Interconnect "burn-in"? A load of crap in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bean Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 I think It's good that we don't hold back. That was clear and to the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bean Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 oops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 Bernmart, Not being technically minded, I don't understand lots of the things that do need burn in. However, I think interconnects and speaker wire are in the real of things that just work as they are. No need for burn in. Your thought that time listening is a factor in our perception is right on track. My experience with silver interconnects was that they definitely made a "difference". They did, to my ears, reveal more detail in the high end, but the bass seemed to suffer. I think such "upgrades" are simply a matter of personal preference and that which we prefer for our own "reference". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dBLimit Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 ---------------- On 12/18/2004 11:51:53 AM bernmart wrote: I got some great advice from several of you a few weeks ago, and I've been improving the sound of my Fortes in increments: first replacing my receiver w/ a vintage Harmon-Kardon; then replacing my CD plaer with a Rotel, both for its own sake and because it has a "digital-out" jack so I can buy and use a DAC if I choose. Both of these upgrades made an immediate, obvious difference. I also bought a pair of silver interconnects. The improvement here is subtle, but I do hear it. I think. My question, though is about burn-in. The manufacturer says there's a 20-50 hour burn-in during which the sound improves. Is this so, or is it another audio myth? How can something which has no moving parts need a break-in period? Or (the skeptic in me says) is the burn-in period a chance for the listener to convince himself that this small upgrade really makes a difference? ---------------- I would not say it is a myth. Anytime I have made a change to a cable in my system (power, analog audio) it takes time for the sound to improve. I never thought power cables would need burn-in time either. But they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 The idea that wires "burn-in" is typical of the delusional thinking that bird-minded flibbertygibbets have infected this hobby with. 50 years ago, when almost everybody in this hobby was a DIYer and many were engineers, such inane ideas would have been scoffed at. Now, when all an audiophile does on his own is open his wallet, such psuedo-science is rife. As the technical skills of the hobbyist go down the amount of bull****, both thrown and believed, increases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 The problem with silver is corrosion. So it would slowly burn out, not in. That's why serious electronics people use gold flashing for contacts that can corrode and if they use silver they will somehow protect it from the environment. Silver contacts are usually an alloy to prevent arcing and burning. Stick with the gold stuff, but then again you don't have to believe me as I only have about 50 years experience. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott0527 Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 Chalk me up in the load of crap column. At least until I start manufacturing and marketing high end audio cables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 One of my recent trips to an upscale audio establisment resulted in the sales drone showing me a cable with a battery. The $300 interconnects with the battery did not need to be broken in etc. It was all I could do to keep a straight face. High end cables are all about money, not quality. This company was getting rid of Monster and going to AudioQuest. No doubt AQ offered better margins and higher prices. Plain copper, if used properly, will usually do the trick without breaking the bank. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmdridq Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 My only thought about a 20-50 burn-in time recommended by the cable manufacturer would be that they are hoping the "break-in period" will postpone your returning the cables past the usual time where the dealer would take them back without any questions. Or you might forget about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthurs Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 I know many people steadfastly insist on break-in, but I've never personally heard it, and have owned cables at all points of the spectrums of cost and quality. Another vote for crapola.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernmart Posted December 19, 2004 Author Share Posted December 19, 2004 Great bunch of responses. Even when forum members disagree with each other, I learn a lot from reading their posts. In this case the consensus seems to be that burn-in is a myth. And since I've listened more than 20 hours since I've gotten these interconnects, I'll just stop worrying about it and play music! Thanks again, y'all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WS65711 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 IF . . . IF there is such a thing as "burn-in" time for cables and interconnects, then it goes without saying that cables and interconnects also possess the capability to "burn-out". How many burnt-out cables and interconnects have you seen? How many burnt-out cables and interconnects can we collect in a pile if ALL forum members contribute ALL the burnt-out cables and interconnects they have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 If I find a bad cable I do my tasmainian devel impersonation and destroy it unless it's about 50 ft long then I cut it up then destroy it. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacKevin Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Millions of Electrical Engineers are rolling their eyes at anyone who would say that Speaker Cables need burn in time. I am one of them. Just buy the biggest Copper cable you can find. I use #14 awg Lighting cable, not because I'm cheap, just because I know. Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockbobmel Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 I bought some AudioQuest speaker cables for $125. last summer. They sounded great (for a while), now they sound like my old ones for $1.25 a foot! I think cables make a change, yes, but better? Maybe more bass or highs from one to another, but once your ears get adapted to them, the surprise goes away. IME........ Good thing I didn't buy that AQ 3/4 " dia. braded green power cable. They were $150. for a 1m cord. They sounded "Better" in the store. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 ---------------- On 12/18/2004 7:25:08 PM TBrennan wrote: The idea that wires "burn-in" is typical of the delusional thinking that bird-minded flibbertygibbets have infected this hobby with. 50 years ago, when almost everybody in this hobby was a DIYer and many were engineers, such inane ideas would have been scoffed at. Now, when all an audiophile does on his own is open his wallet, such psuedo-science is rife. As the technical skills of the hobbyist go down the amount of bull****, both thrown and believed, increases. ---------------- I could not have said better myself. BUT in the "we live in the middle of sun possibility. IF bur-in is needed, burn out will happen.. Now if we take the oxidation factor, the new hot metal is silver. All one has to do is take a new silver bowl , copper bowl, gold bowl, and platinum bowl. Expose each to the air and see which shows signs of Oxidation first. Oxidation will have a detrimental effect of resistance and conductivity. Silver unfortunately is the new snake oil of the industry. To me, after 37 years of experience with tubes, wire, etc., I have found that "break-in" seems to have come about with the advent of newly manufactured tubes, using NOS faster and a justification for the high prices charged. Take an ohm-meter check brand new cables, "burn them in" for 40 hours. See if the resistance has changed. The only parts I can agree with is either platinum or gold plating. As long as NO pportion of the copper is exposed and subject to oxidizing. dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djk Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 It was always instructive to go to trade shows and hear the sound slowly improve from set-up on Saturday night to tear-down on Wednesday morning. I believe Jeff Rowland has the correct explaination: The wire is self-annealing. It sounds better after it doesn't move for a while (days). We devised a demonstration that showed an audible result. Something that appeared to violate the laws of physics was watching Jeff and his lab tech (both near 7') fold themselves into a Mazda RX7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 I don't think I would believe the difference even if I heard it. There are about a thousand other factors that could be involved not accounted for. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.