An interesting quotation

[davedotco]

One more for your collection.

The English audiophile does not really understand music, but they absolutely love the noise it makes. Sir Thomas Beecham.

I didn't know that word had been invented that long ago but I would laugh if he had said that. I find the term audiophile a little creepy, personally. A great many quotes sound self-evident, are highly amusing but mere opinion.

Your suspicions about the word audiophile in this context are justified. The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations gives: "The English may not like music, but they absolutely love the noise it makes." I think this was a response to Oscar Schmitz's infamous description of England as "the land without music" ("das Land ohne Musik").

Matt

EDIT it's also hard to believe that someone as fastidious as Beecham would have got his grammar wrong: "the English audiophile ... they". !!!

Sh*t.

I could have swore he said audiophile, after all he was speaking at the Heathrow Hi-fi show in 1973.

Note to self. Must use correct grammar if my wind ups are to be successful.

 

[Andrew Everard]

I could have swore he said audiophile, after all he was speaking at the Heathrow Hi-fi show in 1973.

Which would have been remarkable in itself, given that he died in 1961.

 

[matt49]

Which would have been remarkable in itself, given that he died in 1961.

:ghost:

 

[Overdose]

Are you absolutely sure about this whole "aircraft just use any old wire" thing...?

http://www.awcwire.com/ProductTOC.aspx?id=Boeing-Cable-Specs-BMS13

I didn't say aircraft use 'any old wire' and all kinds of wire have a specification irrespective of use, but the existence of a specification does not mean that the wire is 'burnt in'. A product is made to specification and once complete, usually tested and then off to be sold. There is no extended burn in for wiring for any product that I know of and why would there be?

 

[Overdose]

Not that I'm commenting on whether I believe burning in cables makes a difference to the sound or not, but I think you've not grasped what people are after when they do things like burning in cables.

They are after an alteration in the way the equipment behaves from new by use. It is seemingly always for the better, 'burn in' never appears to be to the detriment of the equipment, so to use the analogies of the previous poster why would you risk using any other equipment that had not been properly optimised by 'burn in' of any wiring involved?

I'd expect any equipment of that importance (and the components in that equipment) to have been fully tested for hundreds of hours prior to be putting into proper use and therefore "burnt in". If you want to call it that.

But they don't. They are built on a production line and then punted out to the customers.

Yes, I'm sure you're right. Planes are just run off the production line in Dagenham, and then immediately passengers are put on them and off they go, with fingers crossed there's no issues.

:doh:

Who's talking about aircraft? In any case, I'd think a period of flight testing for shakedown purposes would be needed, but not running into much more than the time taken to carry out specific tests. It wouldn't be run and/or flown for hundreds of hours first.

 

[professorhat]

Who's talking about aircraft?

I was, but never mind. I suspect your brain was operating at too high a level for you to understand little old me.

 

[the record spot]

Are you absolutely sure about this whole "aircraft just use any old wire" thing...?

http://www.awcwire.com/ProductTOC.aspx?id=Boeing-Cable-Specs-BMS13

I didn't say aircraft use 'any old wire' and all kinds of wire have a specification irrespective of use, but the existence of a specification does not mean that the wire is 'burnt in'. A product is made to specification and once complete, usually tested and then off to be sold. There is no extended burn in for wiring for any product that I know of and why would there be?

I didn't suggest they did.

Did you click on either of my links though? Boeing have some of their wires made for them and then branded as Boeing wire. Why do you think that might be if there's no reason for them to do so, wire being wire, and it just being rolled off the production line and sold to the customer?

 

[BenLaw]

IQ of 147

I'd be more impressed if that was your high break at snooker.

No, but I did score 182 at golf once.

 

[the record spot]

Quite a bit probably.

Disappointing reply. .... but not a surprising one.

Don't sweat the small stuff Charlotte. I expect an airline's idea of "quite a bit" differs from Overdose's idea of "quite a bit" by, you guessed it, quite a bit when it comes to what goes on in the cockpit and on the instrumentation.

 

[John Duncan]

Hey, how hard can it be?

 

[Overdose]

Who's talking about aircraft?

I was, but never mind. I suspect your brain was operating at too high a level for you to understand little old me.

'Burn in' does not relate to any specific piece of hi-fi equipment, but any and all of it.

If 'burn-in' has a definitive effect on cables and solid state technology, then any solid state technology or product containing it and or wiring, will be affected by 'burn-in'. The thing is, that no other industry seems to need to carry out such extended running in periods, therefore placing much doubt on the efficacy of 'burn-in' in any situation regarding solid state technology and/or wiring.

I you want to use aircraft as an example, there are probably far more sensitive systems or components in aircraft than in hifi components.

 

[professorhat]

Who's talking about aircraft?

I was, but never mind. I suspect your brain was operating at too high a level for you to understand little old me.

'Burn in' does not relate to any specific piece of hi-fi equipment, but any and all of it.

If 'burn-in' has a definitive effect on cables and solid state technology, then any solid state technology or product containing it and or wiring, will be affected by 'burn-in'. The thing is, that no other industry seems to need to carry out such extended running in periods, therefore placing much doubt on the efficacy of 'burn-in' in any situation regarding solid state technology and/or wiring.

I you want to use aircraft as an example, there are probably far more sensitive systems or components in aircraft than in hifi components.

<Sigh>

Never mind.

 

[CnoEvil]

Boeing have some of their wires made for them and then branded as Boeing wire. Why do you think that might be if there's no reason for them to do so, wire being wire, and it just being rolled off the production line and sold to the customer?

Apropos of nothing in particular....

In older planes, Kapton insulated wiring causes fires ("burn out"): http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/aviation/kapton_mangold.htm

 

[Overdose]

Hey, how hard can it be?

Pretty lights impress you then?

 

[John Duncan]

Boeing have some of their wires made for them and then branded as Boeing wire. Why do you think that might be if there's no reason for them to do so, wire being wire, and it just being rolled off the production line and sold to the customer?

Apropos of nothing in particular....

In older planes, Kapton insulated wiring causes fires ("burn out"): http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/aviation/kapton_mangold.htm

And in newer ones:

m.usatoday.com/article/news/2147173

 

[John Duncan]

Hey, how hard can it be?

Pretty lights impress you then?

Yes, it's a common fault amongst those of us who aren't as bright as you.

 

[Overdose]

Are you absolutely sure about this whole "aircraft just use any old wire" thing...?

http://www.awcwire.com/ProductTOC.aspx?id=Boeing-Cable-Specs-BMS13

I didn't say aircraft use 'any old wire' and all kinds of wire have a specification irrespective of use, but the existence of a specification does not mean that the wire is 'burnt in'. A product is made to specification and once complete, usually tested and then off to be sold. There is no extended burn in for wiring for any product that I know of and why would there be?

I didn't suggest they did.

Did you click on either of my links though? Boeing have some of their wires made for them and then branded as Boeing wire. Why do you think that might be if there's no reason for them to do so, wire being wire, and it just being rolled off the production line and sold to the customer?

What relevance has any of that with burn in?

Do you think the wire is tested and then put onto rolls?

 

[BenLaw]

Hey, how hard can it be?

Whatever you do, don't press the red one.

 

[steve_1979]

I think we may have finally reached the point where this picture is appropriate.

Good night everyone. :wave:

 

[the record spot]

Yes, and in the original link I provided which I used to suggest that airlines don't just slap in any old bit of wiring that's kicking around, even when it does apparently fit its' supposed purpose, Alex Paterson (whom you've also linked to Cno) lists some of the reasons why certain cables aren't in use anymore. And of course, we now know that Boeing and Airbus will have their cabling made under their own brand name. Now why would they if they clearly don't need to?

 

[alchemist 1]

Inebriated with the exuberance of their verbosity.............Hic ! :cheers:

 

[the record spot]

What relevance has any of that with burn in?

Do you think the wire is tested and then put onto rolls?

Who cares about burn-in? You're harping on about that one not me. Apparently, cables are hyped up bits of nonsense. The line of reasoning went that does the airline or medical industry care about what cables go into their equipment. I checked and it seems that the airline industry does. The two links I provided highlight why in the first and the two of the three large airliner manufacturers (McDonnell Douglas being the other) have their wires built to their spec and in their own brand name.

Now, if the cable doesn't matter to the airline industry, as you and your ilk would have us believe, why are Boeing and Airbus bothering when they'd surely be able easily get what they need? Or is it more likely that they know what they're about rather more than you think?

Your second sentence sums you up nicely OD. Quite a bit you might say.

 

[John Duncan]

Yes, and in the original link I provided which I used to suggest that airlines don't just slap in any old bit of wiring that's kicking around, even when it does apparently fit its' supposed purpose, Alex Paterson (whom you've also linked to Cno) lists some of the reasons why certain cables aren't in use anymore. And of course, we now know that Boeing and Airbus will have their cabling made under their own brand name. Now why would they if they clearly don't need to?

Apparently Boeing Material Standards are pretty much the industry standard, though disappointingly I can't find how much a metre of their data bus cable might cost (terminated).

 

[Overdose]

Boeing have some of their wires made for them and then branded as Boeing wire. Why do you think that might be if there's no reason for them to do so, wire being wire, and it just being rolled off the production line and sold to the customer?

Apropos of nothing in particular....

In older planes, Kapton insulated wiring causes fires ("burn out"): http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/aviation/kapton_mangold.htm

And in newer ones: m.usatoday.com/article/news/2147173

That's not Kapton though and the reason that Kapton is an issue (in some older aircraft), is that the insulation breaks down over time due to contact with moisture, this leads to cracking of the insulation at frequent intervals, allowing high temperature arcing outside of the insulation, aside from the shorting danger at this point, the high temperature of the arcing carbonises the insulation, therefore rendering it useless and actually turning it into a conductor.

 

[Overdose]

What relevance has any of that with burn in?

Do you think the wire is tested and then put onto rolls?

Who cares about burn-in? You're harping on about that one not me. Apparently, cables are hyped up bits of nonsense. The line of reasoning went that does the airline or medical industry care about what cables go into their equipment. I checked and it seems that the airline industry does. The two links I provided highlight why in the first and the two of the three large airliner manufacturers (McDonnell Douglas being the other) have their wires built to their spec and in their own brand name.

Now, if the cable doesn't matter to the airline industry, as you and your ilk would have us believe, why are Boeing and Airbus bothering when they'd surely be able easily get what they need? Or is it more likely that they know what they're about rather more than you think?

Your second sentence sums you up nicely OD. Quite a bit you might say.

Of course the type of cable matters, who said it didn't? The line of reasoning went that if burning in were at all effective, then aircraft manufacturers would do it also, along with a whole host of other industries utilising wiring in sensitive systems or components.

My second sentence asks if you think wire is tested before being put onto rolls, do you?