Do they perform at their best as soon as connected or is some run in time needed? How much time if so?
Do speaker cables need run in time?
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
Cables are meant to sound best when burned in around 500 hours, which is around 3 weeks, to be honest I have never heard any difference, but may be if I had the same cable - one burned in and one that was new, may be then.
Here is a little bit of info from Russ Andrews site "Cables and equipment improve in performance with use. This process of improvement is called 'burn in' and it occurs when a mains or signal current flows through a circuit or cable. New cables and electronic components become more stable and reach their full performance levels after some use.
We can 'burn in' some cables for you so that you do not need to wait the full 500 hours (three weeks) for burn in. We use a special burn in machine that gives similar results in three days as three weeks of playing through your system. "
Hope that helps.
Here is a little bit of info from Russ Andrews site "Cables and equipment improve in performance with use. This process of improvement is called 'burn in' and it occurs when a mains or signal current flows through a circuit or cable. New cables and electronic components become more stable and reach their full performance levels after some use.
We can 'burn in' some cables for you so that you do not need to wait the full 500 hours (three weeks) for burn in. We use a special burn in machine that gives similar results in three days as three weeks of playing through your system. "
Hope that helps.
Speakers cables need zero run in time.
Russ Andrews is just making it up to sell his service to the gullible.
Russ Andrews is just making it up to sell his service to the gullible.
I agree about Russ Andrew, but sorry, cables do need time to burn in.
You are not really burning in the cable, you are burning in the outer of the cable, be it PVC or Teflon, this is what smears the sound of the cable and when voltage is applied to the cable the skin or outer of the cable adsorbs the voltage as well and as time goes on around 500 hours or less the outer of the cables stops adsorbing the voltage and then lets all the signal through.
You are not really burning in the cable, you are burning in the outer of the cable, be it PVC or Teflon, this is what smears the sound of the cable and when voltage is applied to the cable the skin or outer of the cable adsorbs the voltage as well and as time goes on around 500 hours or less the outer of the cables stops adsorbing the voltage and then lets all the signal through.
007L2Thrill:
I agree about Russ Andrew, but sorry, cables do need time to burn in.
You are not really burning in the cable, you are burning in the outer of the cable, be it PVC or Teflon, this is what smears the sound of the cable and when voltage is applied to the cable the skin or outer of the cable adsorbs the voltage as well and as time goes on around 500 hours or less the outer of the cables stops adsorbing the voltage and then lets all the signal through.
boy does this cable burn in problem get any more absurd
i used to tell my mates this when i was young and oh so nieve, and they had
a good laugh at waiting up to 500 hours
for the cable to improve, looking back i mow feel a right plonka it just does not happen just sales hype imho..
I agree about Russ Andrew, but sorry, cables do need time to burn in.
You are not really burning in the cable, you are burning in the outer of the cable, be it PVC or Teflon, this is what smears the sound of the cable and when voltage is applied to the cable the skin or outer of the cable adsorbs the voltage as well and as time goes on around 500 hours or less the outer of the cables stops adsorbing the voltage and then lets all the signal through.
boy does this cable burn in problem get any more absurd
i used to tell my mates this when i was young and oh so nieve, and they had
a good laugh at waiting up to 500 hours
for the cable to improve, looking back i mow feel a right plonka it just does not happen just sales hype imho..
007L2Thrill:
I agree about Russ Andrew, but sorry, cables do need time to burn in.
You are not really burning in the cable, you are burning in the outer of the cable, be it PVC or Teflon, this is what smears the sound of the cable and when voltage is applied to the cable the skin or outer of the cable adsorbs the voltage as well and as time goes on around 500 hours or less the outer of the cables stops adsorbing the voltage and then lets all the signal through.
If you believe that, then I have a great perpetual motion machine design you may be interested in.
I agree about Russ Andrew, but sorry, cables do need time to burn in.
You are not really burning in the cable, you are burning in the outer of the cable, be it PVC or Teflon, this is what smears the sound of the cable and when voltage is applied to the cable the skin or outer of the cable adsorbs the voltage as well and as time goes on around 500 hours or less the outer of the cables stops adsorbing the voltage and then lets all the signal through.
If you believe that, then I have a great perpetual motion machine design you may be interested in.
electrical conductor is electrical conductor. no run-in necessary. that is unless you beleive it is.
EXACTLY!
They can have a run out time though as the exposed copper ends can oxidize, increasing electrical resistance. I shorten mine every year or two to expose fresh copper.
They can have a run out time though as the exposed copper ends can oxidize, increasing electrical resistance. I shorten mine every year or two to expose fresh copper.
It's funny how people who know nothing about electronics and the behaviour of audio signals immediately dismiss things like burning in or the benefits of decent cables as a load of rubbish, simply because they don't understand. Or they've never experienced it themselves. They can offer no explanation as to WHY they think it's balderdash. Well, all I can say is try it. If you've got a decent system with well matched equipment and cables and you have a good ear, you should hear a difference. With some cables it will be subtle, with others more obvious but I can assure you it will change. Of course if you have rubbish equipment, no amount of running in will make it sound better. All I can say to the non-believers is you've either never tried it or you wouldn't know the difference between a decent sounding set-up and a bad one, in which case, I guess ignorance is bliss! The millions of audiophiles from many decades will be shaking thier heads at the disbelievers I can assure you. This isn't like believing in god- there is plenty of evidence and scientific fact out there on the subject if you do a little research.
As for 'sales hype', what advantage would there be for cable manufacturers in telling thier customers that thier cables need a run in period?
Ignorance breeds contempt.
As for 'sales hype', what advantage would there be for cable manufacturers in telling thier customers that thier cables need a run in period?
Ignorance breeds contempt.
Decent cable? Oh, yes. That is - an electrically adequate one. i.e. ofc copper or any other suitable material, adequate thickness, long-lasting insulator, clean and firm connection. Or any other sensible feature. Even good looks.
Cable run-in? Hmmmm... No.
Will respectfully shake hands with anybody who can explain it is necessary or advisable.
Cable run-in? Hmmmm... No.
Will respectfully shake hands with anybody who can explain it is necessary or advisable.
Arepeebee:
It's funny how people who know nothing about electronics and the behaviour of audio signals immediately dismiss things like burning in or the benefits of decent cables as a load of rubbish, simply because they don't understand. Or they've never experienced it themselves. They can offer no explanation as to WHY they think it's balderdash. Well, all I can say is try it. If you've got a decent system with well matched equipment and cables and you have a good ear, you should hear a difference. With some cables it will be subtle, with others more obvious but I can assure you it will change. Of course if you have rubbish equipment, no amount of running in will make it sound better. All I can say to the non-believers is you've either never tried it or you wouldn't know the difference between a decent sounding set-up and a bad one, in which case, I guess ignorance is bliss! The millions of audiophiles from many decades will be shaking thier heads at the disbelievers I can assure you. This isn't like believing in god- there is plenty of evidence and scientific fact out there on the subject if you do a little research.
As for 'sales hype', what advantage would there be for cable manufacturers in telling thier customers that thier cables need a run in period?
Ignorance breeds contempt.
So, did you do the following:
1. buy two sets of cable of the same type, length and connectors.
2. Use one set for the burn in time, leaving the others untouched.
3. Conduct an A-B test with a third party changing the cables in a randomised squence with the the third party being unaware of which set was which.
4. Consistently differentiate between the two sets of cables.
If you did not, then you have no evidence that cable burn is responsible for any change in the sound. Even if you perceive that the sound has changed there are any number of other possible causes.
It's funny how people who know nothing about electronics and the behaviour of audio signals immediately dismiss things like burning in or the benefits of decent cables as a load of rubbish, simply because they don't understand. Or they've never experienced it themselves. They can offer no explanation as to WHY they think it's balderdash. Well, all I can say is try it. If you've got a decent system with well matched equipment and cables and you have a good ear, you should hear a difference. With some cables it will be subtle, with others more obvious but I can assure you it will change. Of course if you have rubbish equipment, no amount of running in will make it sound better. All I can say to the non-believers is you've either never tried it or you wouldn't know the difference between a decent sounding set-up and a bad one, in which case, I guess ignorance is bliss! The millions of audiophiles from many decades will be shaking thier heads at the disbelievers I can assure you. This isn't like believing in god- there is plenty of evidence and scientific fact out there on the subject if you do a little research.
As for 'sales hype', what advantage would there be for cable manufacturers in telling thier customers that thier cables need a run in period?
Ignorance breeds contempt.
So, did you do the following:
1. buy two sets of cable of the same type, length and connectors.
2. Use one set for the burn in time, leaving the others untouched.
3. Conduct an A-B test with a third party changing the cables in a randomised squence with the the third party being unaware of which set was which.
4. Consistently differentiate between the two sets of cables.
If you did not, then you have no evidence that cable burn is responsible for any change in the sound. Even if you perceive that the sound has changed there are any number of other possible causes.
Burning in, smearing of sound by the covering, this is the language of the snake oil salemen of old. I have decent cable for my speakers, not bell wire, and I know I could not possibly improve on the sound by changing them.
500 hours "burn in time"!!. If you use your system for 4 hours a day then that is 18 weeks!
When you have been persuaded to buy super expensive cables and you go home and fit them and cant tell the difference, then the snake oil salesman tells you to "burn them in for 18 weeks", who is going to go back after this time and say they cant see any improvement?
My cable is 150 strand terminating in gold plated banana plugs. That is good enough for anyone!
500 hours "burn in time"!!. If you use your system for 4 hours a day then that is 18 weeks!
When you have been persuaded to buy super expensive cables and you go home and fit them and cant tell the difference, then the snake oil salesman tells you to "burn them in for 18 weeks", who is going to go back after this time and say they cant see any improvement?
My cable is 150 strand terminating in gold plated banana plugs. That is good enough for anyone!
chudleighpaul:
Cables need run in time?
WHAT A LOAD OF CODSWALLOP!!!!!!
Codswallop I've not heard that word in ages. Word of the day. Whatever it means. My dad used to use that phrase all the time.
As for burn in I'm not sure but I do think there is a difference between different cables. when I changed from Cable Talk 3 to QED Anniversary there was a big improvement. Even my wife noticed. Funny thing is we only changed because the CT3 cable was too thick to go up the middle of the Kef speaker stand.
Cables need run in time?
WHAT A LOAD OF CODSWALLOP!!!!!!
As for burn in I'm not sure but I do think there is a difference between different cables. when I changed from Cable Talk 3 to QED Anniversary there was a big improvement. Even my wife noticed. Funny thing is we only changed because the CT3 cable was too thick to go up the middle of the Kef speaker stand.
hammill:007L2Thrill:
I agree about Russ Andrew, but sorry, cables do need time to burn in.
You are not really burning in the cable, you are burning in the outer of the cable, be it PVC or Teflon, this is what smears the sound of the cable and when voltage is applied to the cable the skin or outer of the cable adsorbs the voltage as well and as time goes on around 500 hours or less the outer of the cables stops adsorbing the voltage and then lets all the signal through.
If you believe that, then I have a great perpetual motion machine design you may be interested in.
I am a electrician, so when I was training in my early 20's (boy was that a look time ago) I was interested in wire resistance etc, I came across something called skin effect, to cut it short, it was talking about how the installation of the copper surround can effect the wire, plus I remember a 20 page book wrote by audioquest, they really went in to it and it would confuse the best of people.
That is why many cable companies put some type of rope in there cable or a type of thin plastic, its just to get the main cable away from the outer sleeve. So many companies believe it, me on the other hand really can not say, as I have not really the time to burn in a cable 500 hours nor do I want to, I would rather use the cable and if there are any benefits to be had, then I will get them when I am playing my system.
I agree about Russ Andrew, but sorry, cables do need time to burn in.
You are not really burning in the cable, you are burning in the outer of the cable, be it PVC or Teflon, this is what smears the sound of the cable and when voltage is applied to the cable the skin or outer of the cable adsorbs the voltage as well and as time goes on around 500 hours or less the outer of the cables stops adsorbing the voltage and then lets all the signal through.
If you believe that, then I have a great perpetual motion machine design you may be interested in.
I am a electrician, so when I was training in my early 20's (boy was that a look time ago) I was interested in wire resistance etc, I came across something called skin effect, to cut it short, it was talking about how the installation of the copper surround can effect the wire, plus I remember a 20 page book wrote by audioquest, they really went in to it and it would confuse the best of people.
That is why many cable companies put some type of rope in there cable or a type of thin plastic, its just to get the main cable away from the outer sleeve. So many companies believe it, me on the other hand really can not say, as I have not really the time to burn in a cable 500 hours nor do I want to, I would rather use the cable and if there are any benefits to be had, then I will get them when I am playing my system.
Well, if Russ Andrews, a cable marketer and Audioquest, a cable manufacturer say its so, then I'm convinced!
Seriously, it is rubbish.
Seriously, it is rubbish.
Hmm, I don't know about cables, but my spike plates need at least 40 hours to burn in.
I'm undecided about burn in for various components, but I do tend to be a believer on the cables make a difference side, so I'm not about to fully discount voodoo, being breathed on by angels/the tooth fairy, changes in the magnetic fields...
I'm undecided about burn in for various components, but I do tend to be a believer on the cables make a difference side, so I'm not about to fully discount voodoo, being breathed on by angels/the tooth fairy, changes in the magnetic fields...
Tarquinh:
Well, if Russ Andrews, a cable marketer and Audioquest, a cable manufacturer say its so, then I'm convinced!
Seriously, it is rubbish.
If you feel it is rubbish that is fine, everyone as there own views, which is great.
I would like to point out, just because I know a little about cables does not mean I believe it my self, I only pointed the information out for the OP.
On another note, when I owned a monocle XL speaker cable and my naim system a long time ago, I have to admit, I did not notice any change in sound of my cables from day one to when I sold it, so take that as you will.
The little strange thing is, if it was all rubbish, then why do companies say like Ecosse with there Reference MS-2.3 speaker cable, as I remember this cable as rope all over the main conductors, which you can not see unless you cut the cable to terminate it, so if there was no effect on the cable then why do they bother, they can just save money and not bother putting it in as the customer can not see it anyway.
So because of that I keep an open mind.
Well, if Russ Andrews, a cable marketer and Audioquest, a cable manufacturer say its so, then I'm convinced!
Seriously, it is rubbish.
If you feel it is rubbish that is fine, everyone as there own views, which is great.
I would like to point out, just because I know a little about cables does not mean I believe it my self, I only pointed the information out for the OP.
On another note, when I owned a monocle XL speaker cable and my naim system a long time ago, I have to admit, I did not notice any change in sound of my cables from day one to when I sold it, so take that as you will.
The little strange thing is, if it was all rubbish, then why do companies say like Ecosse with there Reference MS-2.3 speaker cable, as I remember this cable as rope all over the main conductors, which you can not see unless you cut the cable to terminate it, so if there was no effect on the cable then why do they bother, they can just save money and not bother putting it in as the customer can not see it anyway.
So because of that I keep an open mind.
Techinicaly speaking -yes they do need sometime to burn in, but in the real world , i doubt it very much that you going to hear any different's....unless you have a Golden ear's or the idea it self get burnd in your head
007L2Thrill:hammill:007L2Thrill:
I agree about Russ Andrew, but sorry, cables do need time to burn in.
You are not really burning in the cable, you are burning in the outer of the cable, be it PVC or Teflon, this is what smears the sound of the cable and when voltage is applied to the cable the skin or outer of the cable adsorbs the voltage as well and as time goes on around 500 hours or less the outer of the cables stops adsorbing the voltage and then lets all the signal through.
If you believe that, then I have a great perpetual motion machine design you may be interested in.
I am a electrician, so when I was training in my early 20's (boy was that a look time ago) I was interested in wire resistance etc, I came across something called skin effect, to cut it short, it was talking about how the installation of the copper surround can effect the wire, plus I remember a 20 page book wrote by audioquest, they really went in to it and it would confuse the best of people.
That is why many cable companies put some type of rope in there cable or a type of thin plastic, its just to get the main cable away from the outer sleeve. So many companies believe it, me on the other hand really can not say, as I have not really the time to burn in a cable 500 hours nor do I want to, I would rather use the cable and if there are any benefits to be had, then I will get them when I am playing my system.
There is a vast difference between a mains cable or wire carrying 230 volts at up to 13 amps and a speaker cable carrying a tiny voltage and a current in the milliamp range, and that is heat.
Mains cables do get warm and heat increases resistance. This effect would not be measurable in a decent speaker cable.
I agree about Russ Andrew, but sorry, cables do need time to burn in.
You are not really burning in the cable, you are burning in the outer of the cable, be it PVC or Teflon, this is what smears the sound of the cable and when voltage is applied to the cable the skin or outer of the cable adsorbs the voltage as well and as time goes on around 500 hours or less the outer of the cables stops adsorbing the voltage and then lets all the signal through.
If you believe that, then I have a great perpetual motion machine design you may be interested in.
I am a electrician, so when I was training in my early 20's (boy was that a look time ago) I was interested in wire resistance etc, I came across something called skin effect, to cut it short, it was talking about how the installation of the copper surround can effect the wire, plus I remember a 20 page book wrote by audioquest, they really went in to it and it would confuse the best of people.
That is why many cable companies put some type of rope in there cable or a type of thin plastic, its just to get the main cable away from the outer sleeve. So many companies believe it, me on the other hand really can not say, as I have not really the time to burn in a cable 500 hours nor do I want to, I would rather use the cable and if there are any benefits to be had, then I will get them when I am playing my system.
There is a vast difference between a mains cable or wire carrying 230 volts at up to 13 amps and a speaker cable carrying a tiny voltage and a current in the milliamp range, and that is heat.
Mains cables do get warm and heat increases resistance. This effect would not be measurable in a decent speaker cable.
Emporer's new clothes anyone ?
But then again if you believe cables sound better after a burn in period good for you. How much the pyscho-acoustic element plays in perceived "sound quality" is impossible to quantify.
As for skin effect, yes in high power RF applications it's significant. But in a typical speaker cable situation well to quote from a very learned discourse I found on the subject (the link for which I'd better not provide as it relates to another HiFi publication) concludes (after a lot of maths that even as an avionics engineer I struggled to follow)
"You should question the validity and intentions of a particular cable vendor(s) when they boast in their marketing literature about solving the "Skin Effect" problem, and ask yourself, "Are they stressing this point as a means to an ends to justify their outlandish asking price of their 'exotic' speaker cables"?"
Bottom line was skin effect at audio frequencies amounted to
Actual Measured Loss
Loss(dB) (act) = -0.142dB
As you can see, the resultant calculated loss due to Rdc and Skin Effect (Rac) in the cable is negligable. In fact, if we neglected the Skin Effect losses, the resultant loss would be -0.14dB just from the DC Resistance of the speaker cables alone.
Thus the calculated Skin Effect losses in this example only account for -.04dB of total loss at 20kHz while the measured Skin Effect losses would be a mere 0.002dB! Also don't forget this is assuming a 2 ohm load, which most modern speakers do not dip down that low at 20kHz. In reality, a real world speaker load would make this loss almost immeasurable.
If you can hear that you really have got "golden ears"
Still whatever blows your hair back I guess.
But then again if you believe cables sound better after a burn in period good for you. How much the pyscho-acoustic element plays in perceived "sound quality" is impossible to quantify.
As for skin effect, yes in high power RF applications it's significant. But in a typical speaker cable situation well to quote from a very learned discourse I found on the subject (the link for which I'd better not provide as it relates to another HiFi publication) concludes (after a lot of maths that even as an avionics engineer I struggled to follow)
"You should question the validity and intentions of a particular cable vendor(s) when they boast in their marketing literature about solving the "Skin Effect" problem, and ask yourself, "Are they stressing this point as a means to an ends to justify their outlandish asking price of their 'exotic' speaker cables"?"
Bottom line was skin effect at audio frequencies amounted to
Actual Measured Loss
Loss(dB) (act) = -0.142dB
As you can see, the resultant calculated loss due to Rdc and Skin Effect (Rac) in the cable is negligable. In fact, if we neglected the Skin Effect losses, the resultant loss would be -0.14dB just from the DC Resistance of the speaker cables alone.
Thus the calculated Skin Effect losses in this example only account for -.04dB of total loss at 20kHz while the measured Skin Effect losses would be a mere 0.002dB! Also don't forget this is assuming a 2 ohm load, which most modern speakers do not dip down that low at 20kHz. In reality, a real world speaker load would make this loss almost immeasurable.
If you can hear that you really have got "golden ears"
Still whatever blows your hair back I guess.
To sum up then, a good speaker cable should have minimal resistance and good quality connections at either end, the rest is snake oil schpiel
I bet the OP got more then he bargained for about opening this thread.
So it's concluded. There is no need to burn in your cable.
So it's concluded. There is no need to burn in your cable.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram