• If you ever spot Spam (either in the forums, or received via forum direct message) please use the Report button at the bottom of each post to make sure a Moderator can handle it quickly. Thanks for your help in keeping things running smoothly!

Burn in

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.


Well-known member
Jun 12, 2013
John Duncan said:
TrevC said:
The_Lhc said:
TrevC said:
The_Lhc said:
TrevC said:
He could be entirely mistaken of course, :cheer:
These are MEASURED results, I'll take those over idiotic guesswork every day of the week. You can do what you like.
No guesswork from me. No overly complex claptap about skin effect either. Skin effect and cable capacitance is only important at radio frequencies, and I'll warrant this "paper" was commissioned by a cable company.
Guesswork again then?
Ooh look, that paper sounds a bit techy, it must be true then.
Oh so now we have to differentiate between true science and not-true science?

I think I'm going to listen to some music through some speaker cables whose brand I forget.
Good idea. That's what I'm doing right now. :O)


New member
Feb 26, 2008
Ben K. said:
I don't want to get involved in these endless debates on whether cables can or can't make a difference but I can't help but wonder why people keep referring to science? I'm a biologist which does not qualify me to comment either way in this debate however I have yet to see someone produce an article that has been published in a scientific journal supporting either side of the argument. Links to websites and things found on google are not credible in the world of science I'm afraid. I know some people are in engineering and I respect your views from that point of view but could other people stop referring to science unless they can produce published articles.
I would imagine that scientists have far more worthwhile things to study than the validity of audiophool snake oil claims. It's not exactly cutting edge science is it? - more like 'O' level physics; or at least it was in my day. Would a physics text book qualify as a published article?

Actually, are there any of you out there who believe in this nonsense who also have, let's say, an engineering degree? A physics 'A' level? Just curious.

It's far more likely that trading standards will get more involved - and its good to see that they've started - to at least ensure that fanciful claims are eliminated from advertising. I don't suppose that much can be done about the night and day differences that many magazine/review writers claim to hear, especially as so many of them depend on sponsorship from manufacturers for their income.


New member
Jul 17, 2012
matt49 said:
As a member of that profession, obviously I'd disagree. Maybe you can let us know what you do for a living so we can slag it off. (Not that I would.)
That was a previous job, and one of the reasons I left.

Lets just say I've had to deal with a *lot* of court cases between academics having ******** bun fighting over what the other said. Seriously, most of these people have never left the playground and it was like listening to little kids "well so and so said this".... I kid you not. Granted the odd one or two had grown up, but in general I found most of them had a high intelect, yet a social capacity of a 10 year old.



Latest posts