# <title deleted>



## Asr

<post deleted>


----------



## Black Stuart

So now you know.
 you need at least 150 hours before the bass truly comes in and I have found there are time points after this when definition will change albeit small changes but none the less significant.

 'Cables should be heard and not seen' - well not quite but their appearance has to be secondary to how they convey music.

 After extensive trialling, I have reached a definitive construction ie. dialectric/conductors/design etc. so decided to try and create a pleasant exterior finish. 

 I have to say that I'm really pleased with how they look but repeat it's the sonics that count most of all.


----------



## webbie64

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Black Stuart* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So now you know.
 you need at least 150 hours before the bass truly comes in and I have found there are time points after this when definition will change albeit small changes but none the less significant._

 

X2. For anything with silver in it - though overall SQ will still vary depending on the silver quality, core size, winding, dialetics, etc. But, yes, burn in is essential to hear what any silver-related IC can truly offer. Happy listening to them, Asr!


----------



## Marc303

i dont believe its cable burn in....

 I can get a well used phono cable and swap it for another that is in my system. The sound will remain pretty much identicle for about 30 mins and then slowly change. 
 If I then swap the cable back the same thing happens. 

 with speaker cable the opposite happens. 
 I can swap out my speaker cable and the system will sound terrible/bright/harsh for about an hour and then slowly change to sound good , swapping back also does the same. 

 I believe it is to do with the amps caps getting used to and settling with a slightly different load.


----------



## Chri5peed

...but cable burn-in can't or doesn't exist.


----------



## Dept_of_Alchemy




----------



## majkel

In the first hours after arrival of my silver interconnect I felt it a bit colorless and cold. I don't see it that anymore, even when swapping with copper interconnects. I realized yesterday that it's my only interconnect I find nothing wrong with it.


----------



## chesebert

I thought I heard something change in the sound even if I just leave my stereo alone for a few days. Looks like the effect of burn-in goes away after a while, ie temporary; although the difference is not as dramatic as a new cable


----------



## d-cee

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dept_of_Alchemy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_



_

 

the aftermath:


----------



## gritzcolin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *d-cee* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the aftermath:




_

 

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH gasp AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that rules. 

 On another note Qables offers a new deep burn in method for some extra money that uses some fancy pants machine to send a constant current through the cables for a certain period.


----------



## fkclo

Just want to add that the Audio Art IC-3 is one of the best value interconnect for the money. Actually one can ordered it pre-cooked as well for an extra US$5 per cable.

 I have a pair and despite trying the various much more expensive choices I am still keeping the IC-3. Too good to let them go, even though they have been little used nowadays.

 F. Lo


----------



## Patrick82

If you leave the cable unused for a few months you need to burn it in again.

 I experimented with my Valhalla interconnect, it has 8 conductors inside and I only use 1 conductor per signal. I kept it running for half a year, then I switched the conductors and it sounded dull with lack of low-level detail. But after a few days of burn-in the transparency was back like before.


----------



## vcoheda

cable burn in is real. i have noticed changes for the better with all of my equipment, but cables in my experience take longer to burn in than other components and the change or improvement is more noticeable. i think 150 hours is a good number to recommend.


----------



## fkclo

Well, burn-in period as depends on the material. Pure silver cables can take a very long time - at least 500 hours, to settle in. Copper requires less. This is one reason why many do not like pure silver as they are drawing their conclusions too early. 

 Gold cables, however, does not seem to respond to burn-in like other conductors. It sounds smooth and coherent from the start.

 F. Lo


----------



## Icarium

Honestly I like to hear the cables burning in. Hearing the changes is really fascinating and really lets you appreciate the end result.


----------



## jp11801

for cable burn in to work can anyone explain what happens when essentialy a low level signal enters the wire? PS while I has witnessed break in/burn in with speakers, headphones and to some degree electronic components what is it about a strand of wire a solder joint and an rca connect that change as a very low level electical signal enters them?


----------



## ken36

Yes it is.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fkclo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, burn-in period as depends on the material. Pure silver cables can take a very long time - at least 500 hours, to settle in. Copper requires less. This is one reason why many do not like pure silver as they are drawing their conclusions too early. 

 Gold cables, however, does not seem to respond to burn-in like other conductors. It sounds smooth and coherent from the start.

 F. Lo_

 

Gold cables?! Some silver cables are almost 18.000 dollars, imagine the cost if these were gold!

 Gold sounds harsh!

 Pure silver can sound softer, if it's a new designed silvercable. Some older pure silvercables in those days had sibilance in the highs and extreem low, so it was out of proportion and sounded unbalanced. new good silver cables don't have that anymore!

 Silverplated copper gives the best sound for me. Smooth natural sound with extended highs and lows, but not any sibilance over the spectrum, good balance.

 Copper sounds smooth and sometimes somewhat dark or warm. It missed the last detail in the upper regions. Therefor some might prefer the coppercables, since it is capable of hiding imperfections in a system.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you leave the cable unused for a few months you need to burn it in again.

 I experimented with my Valhalla interconnect, it has 8 conductors inside and I only use 1 conductor per signal. I kept it running for half a year, then I switched the conductors and it sounded dull with lack of low-level detail. But after a few days of burn-in the transparency was back like before._

 

Patrick, Nordost states in their manual of the reference series of IC's that it is possible that the cable needs to burn in again if you don't listen to your rig for over a week. It is true, if i don't listen to it for a week, i need to play a few hours before it sounds it's best again. This has to be something with the dielectric, or better known as insulation. Teflon needs a settling period for the signal to provide the best dielectrical propperties.

 Vacuum is the best, then air and then teflon! Nordost uses both air and teflon! So, the obviously did their homework.

 It is now more and more believed that the type of dielectric has quite a huge impact of how a cable actually sounds.


----------



## krmathis

Yes, cable burn-in in real.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_for cable burn in to work can anyone explain what happens when essentialy a low level signal enters the wire? PS while I has witnessed break in/burn in with speakers, headphones and to some degree electronic components what is it about a strand of wire a solder joint and an rca connect that change as a very low level electical signal enters them?_

 

if you don't believe in it, then just leave it at that.


----------



## fkclo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Gold cables?! Some silver cables are almost 18.000 dollars, imagine the cost if these were gold!

 Gold sounds harsh!

 Pure silver can sound softer, if it's a new designed silvercable. Some older pure silvercables in those days had sibilance in the highs and extreem low, so it was out of proportion and sounded unbalanced. new good silver cables don't have that anymore!

 Silverplated copper gives the best sound for me. Smooth natural sound with extended highs and lows, but not any sibilance over the spectrum, good balance.

 Copper sounds smooth and sometimes somewhat dark or warm. It missed the last detail in the upper regions. Therefor some might prefer the coppercables, since it is capable of hiding imperfections in a system._

 

My experience is very different on the gold. I have a pure gold mini-mini from Qables and this is the best ipod interconnect I have had - very smooth, very coherent, balanced, fully body, and most importantly, without loosing details. My experience with Gabriel Gold Extreme and Revelation (not pure gold, but gold and silver alloy) also display similar qualities. Very pleasing to the gear. More recent, I try AweSound Simply Gold - a XLR pair. Again, same rich, resolving sound, and extends very well at both end of the spectrum.

 And yes, gold is expensive (especially when the dollars are weak today).

 "hybrid" copper-silver is said to have the best of both worlds, but to some extent, it can also be seen as a compromised solution. Nonetheless, it is a safe pet and copper-silver hybrid (either in alloy form or plated) is less sensitive to component character.

 F. Lo


----------



## fkclo

Just want to add that purity of the conductor material plays a key part in how it sounds. For example, 24k gold sounds better than 22k, 5N Silver sound better than 4N silver, and single crystal 7N copper sounds better than anything less.

 Also for silver, aged annealed wires sounds better than new stock wire, and hot drawn wires sound better than cold draw wires...

 I am no metallugist but read about all these and then verify with my ears. There may be exceptions though, I think the above is in general true.

 Just my 2 cents.

 F. Lo


----------



## meat01

sorry didn't read the first sentence of the thread.


----------



## meat01

ditto


----------



## Dr.Love

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, cable burn-in in real._

 

Yup.


----------



## hoosterw

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Gold cables?! Some silver cables are almost 18.000 dollars, imagine the cost if these were gold!

 Gold sounds harsh!

 Pure silver can sound softer, if it's a new designed silvercable. Some older pure silvercables in those days had sibilance in the highs and extreem low, so it was out of proportion and sounded unbalanced. new good silver cables don't have that anymore!

 Silverplated copper gives the best sound for me. Smooth natural sound with extended highs and lows, but not any sibilance over the spectrum, good balance.

 Copper sounds smooth and sometimes somewhat dark or warm. It missed the last detail in the upper regions. Therefor some might prefer the coppercables, since it is capable of hiding imperfections in a system._

 

Maybe I can add some of my exprience. 
 Gold cables are about 3 to 4 times the price, purely based on silver or gold price. This means if I build exactly the same cable once using silver and once using gold, the goldcable will come out 3-4 times as expensive.

 I think it is hard to say "that gold sounds harsh" as a fact. I think that is pretty much depending on the whole chain it is used in and in what way (construction) it is used. I do believe it sounded harsh for you though.

 As to the actual sound my opinion is that gold is absolute transparent and I agree with Francis, it requires much less burn in in fact hardly none. maybe that has to do with the fact that unlike silver and copper, gold is from nature resistant to pollutions(impurifications?) and it has a much closer molecular structure. Whereas the other two are very happy to (eg) oxidize etc.

 Rgds Hans.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hoosterw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Maybe I can add some of my exprience. 
 Gold cables are about 3 to 4 times the price, purely based on silver or gold price. This means if I build exactly the same cable once using silver and once using gold, the goldcable will come out 3-4 times as expensive.

 I think it is hard to say "that gold sounds harsh" as a fact. I think that is pretty much depending on the whole chain it is used in and in what way (construction) it is used. I do believe it sounded harsh for you though.

 As to the actual sound my opinion is that gold is absolute transparent and I agree with Francis, it requires much less burn in in fact hardly none. maybe that has to do with the fact that unlike silver and copper, gold is from nature resistant to pollutions(impurifications?) and it has a much closer molecular structure. Whereas the other two are very happy to (eg) oxidize etc.

 Rgds Hans._

 

Read any paper on conductors and they will tell you that (every) most cable manufaturers think silver is the best conductor for sound, not gold! Not only because of the price, but because of the properties of gold concerning sound.

 Oxidation is not a reason for bad sound, as a matter afact lessloss cables state that oxidized cables don't have to sound worse then not oxidized cables!


----------



## hoosterw

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Read any paper on conductors and they will tell you that (every) most cable manufaturers think silver is the best conductor for sound, not gold! Not only because of the price, but because of the properties of gold concerning sound.

 Oxidation is not a reason for bad sound, as a matter afact lessloss cables state that oxidized cables don't have to sound worse then not oxidized cables!_

 

Like I said, my opinion! So you have found 1 manufacturer now that does not share that 'general' opinion.
 And that is very lucky for all of us, because if we would all like the same, we would all be married to the same partner 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 .

 Rgds

 Hans


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hoosterw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Like I said, my opinion! So you have found 1 manufacturer now that does not share that 'general' opinion.
 And that is very lucky for all of us, because if we would all like the same, we would all be married to the same partner 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .

 Rgds

 Hans_

 

Not 1, the mayority of brands use silver as their top end cables. As a matter afact, you have to search with a big loupe to find a brand using gold as conductor! And all these brands state that they think silver is best for audio.

 Conductivity in silver is even better then in gold; 
 Silver 1.59 Best 
 Copper 1.72 
 Gold 2.44 
 Aluminum 2.84 
 Zinc 5.8 
 Platinum 10.0 
 Steel 10.4 
 Tin 11.5 Worst 


 Probably why silver and copper are the choice conductors in audio, price and conductivity.


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_if you don't believe in it, then just leave it at that._

 

actually in my statement anywhere did I say I do not beleive it?? I simply asked a question about what about the cable changes during the useage process that leads to improved sound. Thats it, I wish to understand it like I understand speaker breakin or even amp break in/burn in.


----------



## jimmy8269

I do believe in the burn in magic. Not much for my support reasons, my experiences states the same events as others.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Conductivity in silver is even better then in gold; 
 Silver 1.59 Best 
 Copper 1.72 
 Gold 2.44 
 Aluminum 2.84 
 Zinc 5.8 
 Platinum 10.0 
 Steel 10.4 
 Tin 11.5 Worst _

 

But... but... but these tables mean that my wire coat hanger isn't as good as your silver cables! Heresy
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 !

 PS--Someone is going to take me literally, so... this is supposed to be sarcastic. I'm a cable believer.


----------



## Kees

Just a thought: Could it not be the whole system (components in the amp for instance) readjusting to the new situation that inserting a different cable creates?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But... but... but these tables mean that my wire coat hanger isn't as good as your silver cables! Heresy
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 !

 PS--Someone is going to take me literally, so... this is supposed to be sarcastic. I'm a cable believer._

 

Well, nobody said it to me, i red it.To be sarcastic.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just a thought: Could it not be the whole system (components in the amp for instance) readjusting to the new situation that inserting a different cable creates?_

 

It has something to do with capacitance, resistance and damping factor. It is known, that when the damping factor changes, the frequency responce also changes. The lower the capacitance, the better. resistance is not so much recognized for the sound of a cable but has alot to do with the damping factor, wich has alot to do with how the amp can perform and how it actually sounds through the system.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, nobody said it to me, i red it.To be sarcastic.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Oh, by the way, the PS wasn't directed at you... I just figured that someone out there would take it literally.


----------



## Donnyhifi

I definitely believe in speakers/amp/armature burn-in, currently I'm on the fence on the cable burn-in but I'll know for sure once I finish burning my new Qables 1/4 to mini silver cables. They were sounding cold and sibilant with shallow bass earlier but now it seems like theres more punch low end. The sibilance is still there and quite strong but I have approximately another 40-80 hours to go before these are burned in according to Qables.

 Cheers,

 Donny


----------



## fkclo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donnyhifi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I definitely believe in speakers/amp/armature burn-in, currently I'm on the fence on the cable burn-in but I'll know for sure once I finish burning my new Qables 1/4 to mini silver cables. They were sounding cold and sibilant with shallow bass earlier but now it seems like theres more punch low end. The sibilance is still there and quite strong but I have approximately another 40-80 hours to go before these are burned in according to Qables.

 Cheers,

 Donny_

 

For burning in silver interconnects, I would suggest you use a dedicated cable cooker. Qables offers this service using one of the most state-of-the-art equipment in the market. If you want to buy one, the FryBaby can be something more affordable than the Audiodharma.

 Silver takes a long time to really shine. And cooking will help at lot.

 F. Lo


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Asr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_First of all, those who are just going to say cable burn-in can't or doesn't exist, please don't post in this thread._

 

Yes sir, Mr. Censor, sir! I assume, however, that it is OK to pretend that you believe in cable burn-in and make sarcastic comments that way


----------



## Patrick82

I just changed my interconnect from Valkyrja to Valhalla and it sounds very quiet, is it normal? The Valhalla had been left unused for 1 and half months and now it sounds a dB quieter. Does the sound get louder with burn-in?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just changed my interconnect from Valkyrja to Valhalla and it sounds very quiet, is it normal? The Valhalla had been left unused for 1 and half months and now it sounds a dB quieter. Does the sound get louder with burn-in?_

 

Could be, once the leakage is normal, it is constant and could be louder.


----------



## Black Stuart

Tourmaline,
 I know someone who tried gold/plated silver for I/Cs and was very impressed with the results.

 I think this wire can be bought from www.wires.co.uk. 

 If silver/plated copper works why not gold/plated silver.

 fwojciec - if you have nothing to contribute but negative/thread crapping comments do go away and play your mind games somewhere else. As you can see there are many on this thread who are inputting much of use to those who can hear (not believe) differences, which happen during burn-in.

 It's quite obvious the thread/crappers are going to try and wreak their usual damage - if moderators will not throw them off the thread, it's simple just ignore them and continue our discussion.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Black Stuart* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tourmaline,
 I know someone who tried gold/plated silver for I/Cs and was very impressed with the results.

 I think this wire can be bought from www.wires.co.uk. 

 If silver/plated copper works why not gold/plated silver.

 fwojciec - if you have nothing to contribute but negative/thread crapping comments do go away and play your mind games somewhere else. As you can see there are many on this thread who are inputting much of use to those who can hear (not believe) differences, which happen during burn-in.

 It's quite obvious the thread/crappers are going to try and wreak their usual damage - if moderators will not throw them off the thread, it's simple just ignore them and continue our discussion._

 

Hi stuart,

 well gold sounds harsh, most of the time, it could be the mix of gold and silver that does the trick, since silver will soften the sound a bit.

 Gold is behind copper conductance wise though.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just a thought: Could it not be the whole system (components in the amp for instance) readjusting to the new situation that inserting a different cable creates?_

 

maybe that too. but i absolutely believe - from personal experience with many cables - that the cable itself has to burn in. i found this on the upscale audio website.


> The concept of cable burn-in is well known, as cables sound better when used in a system for a period of time. This is due to changes which occur in the conductor and the insulation material. New cables often have very high levels of electrical charge caused by the production process. This can often result in new cables sounding brittle, bright, and lacking in detail. These charges must be neutralized if a cable is to ever perform optimally. ... The end result of conditioning cables is improved soundstaging, increased detail, and an overall more musical presentation.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

If you're confident in the point that "science doesn't know everything", o.k.

 But why do you let them make a fool out of you by telling you absurd crap about "electrical charges" and "neutralizing" them?

 C'mon, if you didn't quit school at 12 they told you how you can neutralize "electrical charge".

 Isn't there anything that you do not believe in?


----------



## vcoheda

i believe in the ignore list.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just changed my interconnect from Valkyrja to Valhalla and it sounds very quiet, is it normal? The Valhalla had been left unused for 1 and half months and now it sounds a dB quieter. Does the sound get louder with burn-in?_

 

After I changed the interconnect it sounded so quiet that I needed to bend under my table to check if my pre-amp had the correct volume. After 3 days burn-in it sounded so loud that I had to check if my pre-amp had a too loud volume. But the volume was always the same. Burn-in makes a huge difference.

 At around 3 days the differences start to appear, I need to find my old logs...

 Edit: Found it! I'm hearing the same things now as I did almost a year ago. And the differences appeared at 3 days (72 hours) then also.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82 10 months ago* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When I soldered back the Valhalla I used fresh conductors inside the cable instead of the ones I previously used. That was the problem! Between 60-84 hours of burn-in the improvement in clarity was dramatic! 


*First impressions cable burn-in:* More clarity. More space between sounds. More low-level detail. Cleaner vocals. Faster bass. Faster shimmering. 
 Complex passages are now very clear instead of muddy like they used to be.
_


----------



## vcoheda

i'm not so sure burn in goes away per se. maybe equipment - phones, cables, etc - needs to be warmed up, but i don't think that is a very long period of time. for example, i just switched from my HD650 to my DT800, which i have not used for at least a few weeks. at first it sounded not quite right but after an hour or two, it sounded as good as i remember it. i know these are headphones but i am focusing on the cable part of it.


----------



## acp6s

no doubt, it's real but i doubt the real difference burn-in creates for electronics such as cdp. engineers have been known to say it's all in the head. psychological adjustment i guess


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *acp6s* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_no doubt, it's real but i doubt the real difference burn-in creates for electronics such as cdp. engineers have been known to say it's all in the head. psychological adjustment i guess_

 

Around here, we call that placebo. This section of the forums is full of it.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *acp6s* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_no doubt, it's real but i doubt the real difference burn-in creates for electronics such as cdp. engineers have been known to say it's all in the head. psychological adjustment i guess_

 

yes. i am less a believer of burn in/break in for electronics (non tube based). headphones and cables - a resounding yes. other stuff (CD players, DACs, Amps) i am less sure that burn in is needed or if it is, the period seems to be a much shorter time.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Around here, we call that placebo. This section of the forums is full of it._

 


 Right. While no matter what it is, placebo, or science, IF it sounds "better" (we'll leave it at that, and nothing else), why does it matter? 

 Not sure why this is wrong.. 


 While I believe in 50% placebo, 50% science... I think it has something to do with me getting adjusted to the "new" sound, and the other 50% of the actual cable "breaking-in".

 If the manufacturer states for it to burn in for 100, or 1000 hours, I'll follow the "directions" to a "T", and if not, I'll give it a few days and make my final decision. I'll give it a chance to grow on me, and impress me, if it doesn't, I don't see any reason to keep it.


----------



## vcoheda

don't even bother with those people. they only say two things. everything sounds the same and if it doesn't, the reason is placebo. that's it. that's their sole and total contribution to head-fi.

 i wish they would just take their ipods and radio shack cables and go bother someone else.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Right. While no matter what it is, placebo, or science, IF it sounds "better" (we'll leave it at that, and nothing else), why does it matter? 

 Not sure why this is wrong.. 


 While I believe in 50% placebo, 50% science... I think it has something to do with me getting adjusted to the "new" sound, and the other 50% of the actual cable "breaking-in".

 If the manufacturer states for it to burn in for 100, or 1000 hours, I'll follow the "directions" to a "T", and if not, I'll give it a few days and make my final decision. I'll give it a chance to grow on me, and impress me, if it doesn't, I don't see any reason to keep it._

 

If a big-name manufacturer supported burn-in, either they actually believe it, or they want to get you past the __ day return policy. Just like those "male enchantment" pills have a thirty-day money-back guarantee, but their packaging says they take 60 or 90 days to work, so people wait it out, and lose their chance to get their money back. I think that's called fraud, or am I thinking of a different term?
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_don't even bother with those people. they only say two things. everything sounds the same and if it doesn't, the reason is placebo. that's it. that's their sole and total contribution to head-fi.

 i wish they would just take their ipods and radio shack cables and go bother someone else._

 

Don't even bother with these people. They only say two things. If it doesn't sound right, it needs burn in, or my fallible ears are better than scientific equipment or processes.

 I have no problem if you think your $13,000 power cord makes your system sound better than a $5 generic one, but when you go and tell other people to waste their money on that kind of snake oil, I want to protect them. Newbies probably don't know any better. I know I probably wasted around $30 getting a Qables SilverCab instead of asking someone to build me some kind of LOD for my X5 (or getting a cheaper Qables LOD, or something), but I read a thread, in this very forum, that persuaded me to waste my money.

 As I said, I have no problem if you have faith in these products. But when you publically say it works, with no proof, and unexperienced people believe you and waste their time or money, I do have a problem.

 Anyway, sorry if this seems like a personal attack. I've had a migraine for the past two weeks, and my medication isn't helping it. I do not mean to attack anyway, I just want some scientific proof. No one's ears are a benchmark. And outside of testing equipment, there is a way, using multiple people's ears, to test and see if you actually can hear a difference (or if you are just convincing yourself that you can), but we aren't allowed to discuss that.

 Seriously, just support your claims. If what you say is true, then it should be very easy to prove it. If you're going to voice your opinion on a public forum, expect criticism. You guys sound like the mediocre artists on deviantart that cannot even take constructive criticism, and just ignore and block those people, for whatever reason.

 Anyway, I need to go lay down, as I think my migraine is getting worse.


----------



## dura

I never believed much in cable burn in; a few hours perhaps, and very modest chances at the most. Untill I discovered Kimber. My Kimber 8TC ls-cables chanced rather dramatic during the first 50 hours. Last month I bought a Silver Streak IC that needed 100 hrs, going from etched to smooth. The differences were large.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyway, sorry if this seems like a personal attack. I've had a migraine for the past two weeks, and my medication isn't helping it. I do not mean to attack anyway, I just want some scientific proof. No one's ears are a benchmark. And outside of testing equipment, there is a way, using multiple people's ears, to test and see if you actually can hear a difference (or if you are just convincing yourself that you can), but we aren't allowed to discuss that.

 Seriously, just support your claims. If what you say is true, then it should be very easy to prove it. If you're going to voice your opinion on a public forum, expect criticism. You guys sound like the mediocre artists on deviantart that cannot even take constructive criticism, and just ignore and block those people, for whatever reason.

 Anyway, I need to go lay down, as I think my migraine is getting worse._

 

I am sorry about your migraine.
 Did you know it doesn't exist? It is all in your imagination. There is no scientific proof that you are actually experiencing any pain.
 I suggest you stop using it as an excuse until you can support your claim with scientific proof.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If a big-name manufacturer supported burn-in, either they actually believe it, or they want to get you past the __ day return policy. Just like those "male enchantment" pills have a thirty-day money-back guarantee, but their packaging says they take 60 or 90 days to work, so people wait it out, and lose their chance to get their money back. I think that's called fraud, or am I thinking of a different term?_

 


 There's quite a few manufacturer's that "support" or recommend cable burn in. Some vary from a few hours, to hundreds of hours. If they recommend 100 hours, and give you 30 days, fine. If they recommend 1000 and give you 30, then I'm going to have a problem. I cannot get a "final" taste for this product, if I cannot expect it to work outside the given "money back guarantee". Some company's have 30,60 and 90 day programs, and if a cable needs to be burned in for more than 30 days (IMO of course) there's a problem, like you mentioned. However, your statement isn't always true, therefore I didn't want you to "believe" something someone else said.



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have no problem if you think your $13,000 power cord makes your system sound better than a $5 generic one, but when you go and tell other people to waste their money on that kind of snake oil, I want to protect them. Newbies probably don't know any better. I know I probably wasted around $30 getting a Qables SilverCab instead of asking someone to build me some kind of LOD for my X5 (or getting a cheaper Qables LOD, or something), but I read a thread, in this very forum, that persuaded me to waste my money._

 



 Not sure what exactly you mean here. Why do you want to protect someone, when you don't believe in it? Why not let them learn first hand, instead of someone telling them. I'm learning first hand, for instance. I was on the fence on this topic, however when I scored a $100 power cable, for $50 used, I gave it a shot. What the heck, right? Well, to my amazement, in the short time I have had with it, it HAS improved my system. To what degree? I don't know yet, but to ME, what I paid $50, and the retail (new) price of $100, is worth it. However, "I" do understand this may not be the case for you. If you have tried an "aftermarket" cable; we'll leave it at that, because $100 is "high-end" to me, and "entry leave" for others, and you didn't think it wasn't worth, the asking price, I respect your opinion, but until I HEAR first hand, I won't comment.

 It's just like tweaking on a car. Adding "aftermarket" parts, etc. Just because a add-on supercharger states it will increase your HP by 500, you cannot truly know until you buy, install and test (in this case, a Dyno) for yourself. Claims and graphs are mislead.. at times, and I use these for guidance, and I make the final decision myself. I won't let a graph make it. Just because it's "scientific" results. 

 The same thing can be said for tubes, for tube amps. What I hear from one, might not be the same thing you hear. Then again, it could be worse than your stock tubes. Who knows, unless YOU try..



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But when you publically say it works, with no proof, and unexperienced people believe you and waste their time or money, I do have a problem._

 


 What exactly do you mean by this? If "I" can hear a sonic difference, there's proof right there. How you determine my recommendation, is up to you. Again, trying first hand is all the proof you need. And with like 99% of the company's now-a-days including SOME sort of money back guarantee (on cables, for instance), all you have to loose is shipping costs, to truly know is something like this works for YOU. 

 If I do recommend a "snake oil" product, as all you nay-sayers call it, I will clearly add a personal disclaimer, to take this recommendation with a "grain of salt". However, I notice a lot of recommending is going on, without real experience, actually owning the product etc. they are solely recommending the product based on what someone tells them, or they "hear" from someone else. 



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just want some scientific proof. No one's ears are a benchmark. And outside of testing equipment, there is a way, using multiple people's ears, to test and see if you actually can hear a difference (or if you are just convincing yourself that you can), but we aren't allowed to discuss that._

 


 Why? Just listen for yourself. Again, all you've got to loose is shipping costs. 



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Seriously, just support your claims. If what you say is true, then it should be very easy to prove it. If you're going to voice your opinion on a public forum, expect criticism. You guys sound like the mediocre artists on deviantart that cannot even take constructive criticism, and just ignore and block those people, for whatever reason.

 Anyway, I need to go lay down, as I think my migraine is getting worse._

 


 Why? Just listen for yourself. Again, all you've got to loose is shipping costs. I don't understand why everyone thinks they need "scientific date" to prove/justify something. Certainly some things require it, but I don't really think we need that to say a cable, and cable burn-in has an effect on our systems/rigs. I think our ears can justify that... And I understand (I think; just in case) this wasn't directed to me, however "I" can take criticism, and encourage it. It makes for a "healthy" argument (supposed to). 






 I enjoyed responding to your comments, and hope you enjoy responding to mine. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I hope you feel better, and your migraine goes away. 






 Take it easy,



 -Nick


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am sorry about your migraine.
 Did you know it doesn't exist? It is all in your imagination. There is no scientific proof that you are actually experiencing any pain.
 I suggest you stop using it as an excuse until you can support your claim with scientific proof._

 


 ...made me laugh even at 2am...


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am sorry about your migraine.
 Did you know it doesn't exist? It is all in your imagination. There is no scientific proof that you are actually experiencing any pain.
 I suggest you stop using it as an excuse until you can support your claim with scientific proof._

 

There is no basis in science for burn-in, so the burden of proof falls into your court.

 And, actually, my migraine is caused by stress, so technically, I am "convincing" myself to have a migraine. Ever hear of phantom limb syndrome? Those people no longer have an arm, but they feel (I think it's pain, right?) the limb they lost. That just goes to show how our brains can so easily fool us.


----------



## akerman

Cable burn-in is unreal.


----------



## stevenkelby

Some attitudes can be very stressful to maintain.


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've had a migraine for the past two weeks, and my medication isn't helping it._

 

I feel your pain, I used to have those and September/October were usually the worst months. I even had tomography of my brain done because there was a suspicion of brain tumor.

 But then I started running regularly, just a 30-40 minute run a day, and I don't get migraine headaches anymore. Zero. Null. They are just gone. I occasionally get a regular sort of headache if I'm really exhausted, for example, but that's rare as well (once every few months).

 Food for thought for you. This is no joke, I'm dead serious.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I feel your pain, I used to have those and September/October were usually the worst months. I even had tomography of my brain done because there was a suspicion of brain tumor.

 But then I started running regularly, just a 30-40 minute run a day, and I don't get migraine headaches anymore._

 

September is the time when I need to close my window because it gets too cold otherwise. It gives me a headache because of lack of oxygen. After a couple months I'm used to the colder air and can keep the window open for a longer time. The colder air makes cables sound better too.


----------



## OverlordXenu

I know, I've seen a neurologist. It's just stress-caused. I'm actually going to start working out again tomorrow.


----------



## vcoheda

maybe you should try arguing less.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_maybe you should try arguing less._

 

All the skeptics I have seen look angry and tense. Then they wonder why they don't hear a difference between cables...

 Here's the skeptic from Stereophile forums, guess which one he is on the picture.


----------



## vcoheda

haha!

 that picture is awesome. the skeptics are anal.


----------



## stevenkelby

Haha! 

 You said anal.


----------



## fwojciec

This thread is really beginning to sound like Beavis and Butthead dialogue


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_maybe you should try arguing less._

 

Wow, you're an a-hole. The cause of my stress is none of your business, and these are just cheap shots because you can't come up with any proof, and you just ignore all doubters.

 I really don't care enough about fights on sites like these to let them affect my life.

 Wow, you really fail, hard.


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, you're an a-hole. The cause of my stress is none of your business, and these are just cheap shots because you can't come up with any proof, and you just ignore all doubters.

 I really don't care enough about fights on sites like these to let them affect my life.

 Wow, you really fail, hard._

 

Don't mind them - they have no arguments so all that is left to them is "leave us alone", "you're on my ignore list", and calling people names. The posts above are perfectly typical and characterize these guys best.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Don't mind them - they have no arguments so all that is left to them is "leave us alone", "you're on my ignore list", and calling people names. The posts above are perfectly typical and characterize these guys best._

 

It's funny, they call me the troll, and they're the ones that involve things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, you're an a-hole. The cause of my stress is none of your business, and these are just cheap shots because you can't come up with any proof, and you just ignore all doubters.

 I really don't care enough about fights on sites like these to let them affect my life.

 Wow, you really fail, hard._

 

After your posts here and in other threads where your obnoxious opinions weren't solicited and your crusade to protect newbies has the air of a chach picking a fight with another guy to protect the other guy's girlfriend's honor, I bet you win the award for being the most ignored member on Head-Fi. +1 to that list. And I'm not ignoring you because you're a doubter - if that were the case I would need to ignore half of everyone on Head-Fi. I'm ignoring you because you're a rude chach.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's funny, they call me the troll, and they're the ones that involve things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand._

 

Okay I take that back. You're too amusing to ignore. You've got to be kidding. Asr started the thread to discuss his experience with cable burn-in. He asked doubters not to post here because not everyone who wants to talk about burn-in wants to argue with overzealous trolls in EVERY SINGLE THREAD ON BURN-IN. The OP sets the topic, not the stressed-out hero whose misguided mission prevents him from respecting the requests of others. You are not saving anyone. Go take your medicine.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay I take that back. You're too amusing to ignore. You've got to be kidding. Asr started the thread to discuss his experience with cable burn-in. He asked doubters not to post here because not everyone who wants to talk about burn-in wants to argue with overzealous trolls in EVERY SINGLE THREAD ON BURN-IN. The OP sets the topic, not the stressed-out hero whose misguided mission prevents him from respecting the requests of others. You are not saving anyone. Go take your medicine._

 

AMEN!!!


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's funny, they call me the troll, and they're the ones that involve things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand._

 

See what happened? It's like a law of nature... Judging by the sudden increase in the intensity and the frequency of name calling it would seem that we did hit a nerve with our comments...


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay I take that back. You're too amusing to ignore. You've got to be kidding. Asr started the thread to discuss his experience with cable burn-in. He asked doubters not to post here because not everyone who wants to talk about burn-in wants to argue with overzealous trolls in EVERY SINGLE THREAD ON BURN-IN. The OP sets the topic, not the stressed-out hero whose misguided mission prevents him from respecting the requests of others. You are not saving anyone. Go take your medicine._

 

You can't post about something in a public forum, and expect to block anyone's thoughts on the matter from it. If they want to do that, they should create their own forums, so they can ban people like me, and live in their own little world.

 I only mentioned my migraine because I do not want to attack anyone personally, and I didn't want my posts to come off like that.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can't post about something in a public forum, and expect to block anyone's thoughts on the matter from it._

 

there's a thing called civility and appropriate behavior. when someone starts a thread to discuss a subject and people come in and pollute that thread with unrelated posts (thread crapping), that is not right. that is what you and others do. it has nothing to do with quieting voices or keeping out certain viewpoints. you guys have your little agenda and that's it.

 this is all you people do. one person starts a thread and asks whether someone has used product A because they are thinking about buying it or have already bought it and then you come in and say don't buy product A because even though you have never tried it and have no experience with any related products, you know for a fact that it will not work, and maybe you post a link or two that no one will read.


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_there's a thing called civility and appropriate behavior. when someone starts a thread to discuss a subject and people come in and pollute that thread with unrelated posts (thread crapping), that is not right. that is what you and others do. it has nothing to do with quieting voices or keeping out certain viewpoints. you guys have your little agenda and that's it.

 this is all you people do. one person starts a thread and asks whether someone has used product A because they are thinking about buying it or have already bought it and then you come in and say don't buy product A because even though you have never tried it and have no experience with any related products, you know for a fact that it will not work, and maybe you post a link or two that no one will read._

 

This thread is not about personal experience with burn in or a request for impressions concerning a product OP is thinking of buying: it is called, if you recall, "Holy crap, cable burn-in is real!" This thread is about a claim: it says that something is the case, and it says so in an unqualified, emphatic manner.

 Now imagine that I start a thread called "Headroom amps are junk and a waste of money!" and begin my first post with "First of all, those who are just going to say Headroom amps are good, please don't post in this thread" would you expect people to respect that request? This is, of course, a rhetorical question.

 The OP could make more exotic requests of other posters as well, like, for example, "you can only post in this thread if you're sitting naked in front of your computer wearing socks on your ears" - except nobody would respect such a request, naturally. In other words, the OP has some power of determining what will be discussed in the thread and what will not be discussed, but if he/she makes absurd, unreasonable requests these requests are not going to be respected. The OP of this thread had made an unreasonable request.

 And while we're on the subject of "civility and appropriate behavior" - wasn't it you who was poking fun at another person's migraines and calling all skeptics "anal" just a moment ago? Have you ever had a migraine? Do you know what it feels like? It is *ludicrous* that you are now talking about civility and good behavior.


----------



## Jahn

seriously, why do cable threads always end up being the crappiest on head-fi? poor cables, they just try to get from A to B with no drama...


----------



## LawnGnome

Wow, some people really have a big ego.

 They think THEY can tell people who CAN and CAN'T post in a PUBLIC forum. 

 And then just run around and insult anyone who disagrees with them.

 I'd hate to see how these people fair in real life.


----------



## stevenkelby

It's fare you uneducated buffoon! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Joking of course, all in good fun.

 In real life, we get on great .

 And never get migraines either, thanks.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now imagine that I start a thread called "Headroom amps are junk and a waste of money!" and begin my first post with "First of all, those who are just going to say Headroom amps are good, please don't post in this thread" would you expect people to respect that request? This is, of course, a rhetorical question._

 

Nice try. A better example would have been a thread where someone wanted to talk about his experiences with HeadRoom's products but anticipated some HeadRoom detractors would come barging into his thread to tell him Ray Samuels is better, so he asked, in advance, making the mistake of believing the HeadRoom detractors would be capable of showing some respect, that they not post in his thread. 

 You're right though, it was a stupid request. The burn-in nonbelievers are like wild baboons who can't control themselves, breaking into houses and flinging poo because damnit, they take their topics where they want.


----------



## greydragon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The burn-in nonbelievers are like wild baboons who can't control themselves, breaking into houses and flinging poo because damnit, they take their topics where they want._

 

Sweet line 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Thanks for the chuckle.

 There'll always be ay-ayers and nayers spouting their opinions. Threads without different points of views won't be as interesting, I think.


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice try. A better example would have been a thread where someone wanted to talk about his experiences with HeadRoom's products but anticipated some HeadRoom detractors would come barging into his thread to tell him Ray Samuels is better, so he asked, in advance, making the mistake of believing the HeadRoom detractors would be capable of showing some respect, that they not post in his thread. 

 You're right though, it was a stupid request. The burn-in nonbelievers are like wild baboons who can't control themselves, breaking into houses and flinging poo because damnit, they take their topics where they want._

 

OK, fine, but why do you need to call people names? Do you think that describing a group of people as "wild baboons" somehow makes the *claim* they are making about the reality of cable burn-in less valid? How about speaking about the claim, not about the (supposed) characteristics of the people who make it? One does not win debates by means of ad hominem attacks - ad hominem attacks are just evidence of the impotence of your arguments.


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greydragon* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Threads without different points of views won't as interesting, I think._

 

Agreed on this particular point: "strife is justice" as a philosopher had said.


----------



## DSlayerZX

to be true, OverlordXenu is probably one of the biggest forum troll on headfi. just check his recent posts. When ever someone share their personal experience toward cable, headphone, or what ever it is, regardless he has tried it or not.. he has to make his personal commend and change that person's personal experience.

 On another post when we are discussing the new ATH headphones, he just has to drop in and call us weeaboo.
 it also happened on one of the "what anime are you watching right now forum"
 since when our interest bothers and give you the right to insult us?
 Not exactly a pleasant person to deal with
 ================================================== =================
 but anyway, I am not sure if there are a big difference when cable are burned in...
 I mean, I heard a difference when I got my first new silver cable, but after that, I bought almost all of my cable used... mix with a new source or new amp along the way... so I really don't know anymore


----------



## vcoheda

try the ignore list. a great tool.


----------



## Agnostic

Back on topic:

  Quote:


 Holy crap, cable burn-in is real! 
 

No it ain't!


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Agnostic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Back on topic:


 No it ain't! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

How about "holy cable burn-in, crap is real", then?


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How about "holy cable burn-in, crap is real", then?_

 

At least that makes sense! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 (Well, more or less anyway)


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"holy cable burn-in, crap is real", then?_

 


 Am I the only one not getting this? 


 or how about, "holy crap, cable burn-in is real" ...and we stay on topic.. "nay-sayer" you..


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_OK, fine, but why do you need to call people names? Do you think that describing a group of people as "wild baboons" somehow makes the *claim* they are making about the reality of cable burn-in less valid? How about speaking about the claim, not about the (supposed) characteristics of the people who make it? One does not win debates by means of ad hominem attacks - ad hominem attacks are just evidence of the impotence of your arguments._

 


 He's trying to demonstrate the character and credibility of those people and thus help others with their judgments of those posts.

 Character counts for a large part of what someone says in court.

 I think it's a worthwhile point to post. 

 Funny too.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He's trying to demonstrate the character and credibility of those people and thus help others with their judgments of those posts._

 

That is called "argumentum ad hominem"... Trying to disprove the person, not the argument. Even though it's common in the media and politics, it's still a logical fallacy.

 They really should be teaching logic in schools. It's amazing at what passes as "valid debate" on the internet.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He's trying to demonstrate the character and credibility of those people and thus help others with their judgments of those posts._

 

What you have described is, basically, a textbook example of ad hominem. I know that can be an effective rhetorical technique - but only when people don't realize what is going on and are easily intimidated by aggression. We can either discuss arguments or call each other names. Either - or. And please don't say that calling people names is a valid form of arguing about claims, because it isn't - it is a logical fallacy.


----------



## stevenkelby

You misunderstand me. OK, I mis-communicated myself.

 If someone has a known stance on an issue, that will be reflected in their comments, obviously. If that stance is not known, their opinions will be judged in a different light. 

 I'm just saying that I like to know where someone is coming from.

 If they are constantly pushing one point of view with hard-headed aggression and refuse to engage in a serious debate, then it is useful for me to know that. That is the information I was trying to convey for the benefit of others.

 In my opinion, argumentum ad hominem only comes into play if we are having a valid, logical debate, which, clearly is not possible with the people in question. Which is my real point.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ And please don't say that calling people names is a valid form of arguing about claims, because it isn't - it is a logical fallacy._

 

It may have been interpreted as that, due to my poor articulation, but that is not what I was implying.

 My comments were not related to the arguing of claims, but the establishment of character.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It may have been interpreted as that, due to my poor articulation, but that is not what I was implying._

 

The problem is, you don't know how to debate fairly. And you don't seem to understand basic logic. You're using a technique that isn't going to help your point any. This isn't meant as an insult. If you'd like a link to resources on the subject, I'd be happy to share some.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The problem is, you don't know how to debate fairly. And you don't seem to understand basic logic. You're using a technique that isn't going to help your point any. This isn't meant as an insult. If you'd like a link to resources on the subject, I'd be happy to share some.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Please do, I'm always up for some education.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_OK, fine, but why do you need to call people names? Do you think that describing a group of people as "wild baboons" somehow makes the *claim* they are making about the reality of cable burn-in less valid? How about speaking about the claim, not about the (supposed) characteristics of the people who make it? One does not win debates by means of ad hominem attacks - ad hominem attacks are just evidence of the impotence of your arguments._

 

You missed my point. I have no interest in engaging you or OverlordXenu on the validity of cable burn-in _in this thread_. Why would you assume that simply because you brought that discussion here I or anyone else is obliged to respond to it? The fact remains that the OP respectfully requested that you NOT bring that discussion here. The excuse you made as to what gave you the right to ignore his request indicates that you are not a respectful forum-dweller and signals to me that engaging you in a civil discussion is probably not worth my time. Thanks very much for the definition of an ad hominem argument, but I don't need it. I'm not here to discuss _your_ topic in Asr's thread.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What you have described is, basically, a textbook example of ad hominem. I know that can be an effective rhetorical technique - but only when people don't realize what is going on and are easily intimidated by aggression. We can either discuss arguments or call each other names. Either - or. And please don't say that calling people names is a valid form of arguing about claims, because it isn't - it is a logical fallacy._

 

I'm a little puzzled at why you're delving into this whole ad hominem thing in what appears to be a defense of OverlordXenu, who in this thread alone has made the following comments:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Around here, we call that placebo. This section of the forums is full of it._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Don't even bother with these people. They only say two things. If it doesn't sound right, it needs burn in, or my fallible ears are better than scientific equipment or processes.

 ...you guys sound like the mediocre artists on deviantart that cannot even take constructive criticism..._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, you're an a-hole._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If they want to do that, they should create their own forums, so they can ... live in their own little world._

 

You're standing up for a poo-flinging baboon who's obviously bitter because he spent $30 on a Qables LOD and felt ripped off. Oh my goodness! $30! All cables are evil unless they cost 17 cents! Give me a break. Take a look at the poo he's flung in numerous other threads before you commit to defending this guy. 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is called "argumentum ad hominem"... Trying to disprove the person, not the argument. Even though it's common in the media and politics, it's still a logical fallacy.

 They really should be teaching logic in schools. It's amazing at what passes as "valid debate" on the internet._

 

Couldn't agree with you more.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Only audiophools spend money on expensive wires._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Sometimes I think some people around here have been modding their brains, if you know what I mean!_


----------



## Sovkiller

Not sure if you had noticed that the original poster got sick of this stupid argument believers versus non beleivers (and for the sake of it, as with no new evidence there is no reason to dicuss, and there is none till now, and you will not convince the opposite side otherwise) and even deleted the post, and title of the thread...


----------



## nick20

_Quote:
 Originally Posted by bigshot
 Only audiophools spend money on expensive wires._

 So everything would be right though if I bought a pair of R10's. Or bought a $5,000+ amp to compensate for the headphones..

 This quote right here can go 5 trillion way.. but I will only say it once: "Each person has his own priority". If their priority is to attain and manage every ounce of performance from what they got, why stop them?

 I'm not stopping "some Joe" from buying a Bentley, or a Mayback, or whatever.. 


 I certainly wouldn't call them "auto'phools' " on the internet, or to their face.. 


_

 Quote:
 Originally Posted by bigshot
 Sometimes I think some people around here have been modding their brains, if you know what I mean!_


 Well, if you think about, yes. And is that a bad thing, or a good thing? I can't tell.. (maybe it's all the modding I HAVEN'T done to my brain...)


 (trying to keep it friendly..)




 -Nick


----------



## stevenkelby

This has nothing to do with believers versus non believers, I have never posted my views one way or the other.

 This is about the style of debate we see played out here by some people, other peoples reactions to that, and still other people pointing out what they (we) see as inappropriate behaviour.

 Like flinging poo.


----------



## vcoheda

this is by far the least useful part of the forum - very little information or actual feedback from users of products. just a few individuals thread crapping to no end.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not sure if you had noticed that the original poster got sick of this stupid argument believers versus non beleivers (and for the sake of it, as with no new evidence there is no reason to dicuss, and there is none till now, and you will not convince the opposite side otherwise) and even deleted the post, and title of the thread...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 That's because if everyone read everything the OP stated, he didn't want the disbelievers in.. that this was solely for burn-in talk. Not, "oh this crap is fake" stuff around here.. 


 I believe in it, and I practice it. 'Nuff said.


----------



## stevenkelby

I think this is useful to establish the attitudes and opinions of some people. I know I've learned a lot.

 We can't talk about cables on head-fi until these characters are dealt with.


----------



## nick20

This thread got ALL skewered up tonight..


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not sure if you had noticed that the original poster got sick of this stupid argument believers versus non beleivers (and for the sake of it, as with no new evidence there is no reason to dicuss, and there is none till now, and you will not convince the opposite side otherwise) and even deleted the post, and title of the thread...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I had noticed, and I'm fairly sure he made his initial request because he didn't want the thread to turn into what it has, including my posts here. Being that the thread was ruined long ago, I see nothing objectionable to ruining the ruiner's attempts at thread-crapping by shifting the thread to the topic of their obtrusive, disrespectful behavior.

 Just for the record, as far as cable burn-in goes I'm neither a believer nor a nonbeliever. I have no perspective to defend; my only objective is to get it through OverlordXenu's head that it's not his right to jump into every thread that touches on burn-in with his impassioned opinions born from a tiny fragment of experience in his crusade to keep newbies from spending $30 on a dumb cable.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I had noticed, and I'm fairly sure he made his initial request because he didn't want the thread to turn into what it has, including my posts here. Being that the thread was ruined long ago, I see nothing objectionable to ruining the ruiner's attempts at thread-crapping by shifting the thread to the topic of their obtrusive, disrespectful behavior._

 


 This sucks.. it really does. If people would only take 5 more seconds to read two sentences, this problem could have been easily avoided (by non-believers NOT posting on this topic), however, it hasn't, and this is where we are.. 

 It SUCKS! 



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just for the record, as far as cable burn-in goes I'm neither a believer nor a nonbeliever. I have no perspective to defend; my only objective is to get it through OverlordXenu's head that it's not his right to jump into every thread that touches on burn-in with his impassioned opinions born from a tiny fragment of experience in his crusade to keep newbies from spending $30 on a dumb cable._

 

Please, as easy as it is to go "off the hook" and get into a personal attack, I am merely asking a question.

 How can you not believe in cable burn-in, yet be a nonbeliever? By reading this, you would fall under the "non-believer / neutral" I think.. correct me if I'm wrong. Because you do not believe it it, you would be a nonbeliever/neutral then?

 What I think you meant was you believe in "cables" but not the burn-in part? Or maybe I'm totally on another page..




 I'm just trying to understand, that's all.





 -Nick


----------



## nick20

"T Minus X minutes until thread is locked up.." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I bet.. there's no point, and no reason for this thread to be open anymore.. 



 So sad.. I truly wish this could have stayed on topic.. and allowed for discussion.. instead it turned sour from the get-go.


----------



## stevenkelby

Apart from not respecting a reasonable request from the OP, which is just a manners thing, I would be happy if they would just post

 "I don't believe in burn-in because of XXXX, my experience is: XXXXX and here is the evidence to support my belief: XXXXX. I have a reasonable, non-offensive, polite and useful observation or question: XXXXX"

 And that would be great. That's not how some people play it though and until they stop, this thread is what will happen. What will make them stop? I don't know but pointing out the error of their ways is my only idea. Most of the smart people here just ignore it all together. I would too if I wasn't interested in discussing cables logically and maturely.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Apart from not respecting a reasonable request from the OP, which is just a manners thing, I would be happy if they would just post

 "I don't believe in burn-in because of XXXX, my experience is: XXXXX and here is the evidence to support my belief: XXXXX. I have a reasonable, non-offensive, polite and useful observation or question: XXXXX"

 And that would be great. That's not how some people play it though and until they stop, this thread is what will happen. What will make them stop? I don't know but pointing out the error of their ways is my only idea. Most of the smart people here just ignore it all together. I would too if I wasn't interested in discussing cables logically and maturely._

 


 Weren't you calling people "poo flinging baboons"? Yet you say others lower the level of the discussion?


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Apart from not respecting a reasonable request from the OP, which is just a manners thing, I would be happy if they would just post

 "I don't believe in burn-in because of XXXX, my experience is: XXXXX and here is the evidence to support my belief: XXXXX. I have a reasonable, non-offensive, polite and useful observation or question: XXXXX"

 And that would be great. That's not how some people play it though and until they stop, this thread is what will happen. What will make them stop? I don't know but pointing out the error of their ways is my only idea. Most of the smart people here just ignore it all together. I would too if I wasn't interested in discussing cables logically and maturely._

 


 While I totally agree with the above ^ 

 Then all the believers are going to say something about: the source, the DAC, the AMP, the headphones, and that's "why" they weren't seeing results etc., and it will go on and on forever. 

 The only way to end all this, is end cable, burn-in etc. discussion period. Which isn't likely going to happen.. until then, it's going to always be around.. just like steroids...


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dept_of_Alchemy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_



_

 


 I like where this thread has gone:


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Weren't you calling people "poo flinging baboons"? Yet you say others lower the level of the discussion?_

 

Yeah, but that's funny so it's ok.


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_While I totally agree with the above ^ 

 Then all the believers are going to say something about: the source, the DAC, the AMP, the headphones, and that's "why" they weren't seeing results etc., and it will go on and on forever. 

 The only way to end all this, is end cable, burn-in etc. discussion period. Which isn't likely going to happen.. until then, it's going to always be around.. just like steroids..._

 

Yeah you are right, it has to go both ways. 

 It would only work with very strict modification, deleting personal attacks etc, which is not where head-fi should go imo. 

 I guess we just leave it how it is, if people want to argue like idiots, we can. The smart ones never join in.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah you are right, it has to go both ways. 

 It would only work with very strict modification, deleting personal attacks etc, which is not where head-fi should go imo. 

 I guess we just leave it how it is, if people want to argue like idiots, we can. The smart ones never join in._

 



 I hope not. After this, I HOPE the Mod's have seen what seems like EVERY cable, burn-in, "snake oil" etc. turn into. 

 I HOPE they can add another moderator or two, to help with strictly the cable section. Then, we CAN have these open discussions, without the fear, this is going to happen to every single thread that pops up. 

 IF the moderators don't do anything, it will be a pretty big blow to head-fi, IMO. If they cannot clean up this section, there won't be ANY discussion on cables, burn-in, and "snake oil" products. NONE. 

 Furthermore, I will no longer participate in the cable section period, if nothing is done. I feel bad for the OP of this thread, he clearly wanted to SHARE his results and findings, and clearly excluded "nonbelievers" from posting, yet from post 1, it was already derailed. Now, he's got "this" left.. I feel ashamed, even though my participation was very low. 



 From your post, WHY shouldn't Head-Fi moderators NOT go into stricter moderation, of at least this section? 

 It should be something like the following:

 The OP sets the rules, since we ALL see out of whack this gets, if you don't met, or neglect to follow them the Moderator has the ability to delete your post. 

 Simple, seems effective, except they would need a little more help, which shouldn't be a problem. 



 Now, I refuse to post my results/findings on the new silver IC I got. Because I can hear differences with the cable, sonically, I don't want people telling me I'm wrong, when I can clearly hear it. Or telling me there's no way this could be true etc. etc. 


 Oh well, hopefully Head-Fi and staff will take a closer look at this situation a little closer, because it's pretty common in this section. I know they can and will make this a better place. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







(please, please read the bold, red signature)




 Take care...



 -Nick


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_......

 -Nick_

 


 So pretty much, you feel this forum needs strict moderation to delete and prevent posts of those who do not believe in cable theories?

 Since this is a public forum, people have the ability to post as they wish, within the boundaries of the rules. Individual members do not have the authority to govern who posts in which threads.

 This thread was about peoples experiences or thoughts on cable burn in. Never experiencing burn in with one's cables, or thoughts on why burn-in is highly unlikely, ALL fall within the scope of the original topic. Since the OP has no right to tell people who can or cannot post in a thread.

 This situation is similiar to posting a thread on Religion in general, and then saying only people belonging to X religion can reply.


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 From your post, WHY shouldn't Head-Fi moderators NOT go into stricter moderation, of at least this section? 

 It should be something like the following:

 The OP sets the rules, since we ALL see out of whack this gets, if you don't met, or neglect to follow them the Moderator has the ability to delete your post. 

 Simple, seems effective, except they would need a little more help, which shouldn't be a problem. 
_

 


 I've just seen too many forums get over moderated and dwindle away to the point no one posts anymore for fear of breaking the rules or upsetting someone.

 It's more fun this way, at least we have some freedom (apart from ABX of course).

 I wouldn't want a head-fi where people like those I have an issue with are removed from the board. They do have a right to post and they provide an excellent example for the rest of us by showing what not to do. 

 I don't want us to lose the right (privilege) to respond either.


 Your idea is good in theory but who's to say that the OP will set fair rules? Also, you may have something worthwhile to say, which I want to read, but doesn't happen to follow the OPs rules. 

 The OP shouldn't be able to make rules, only make requests and the rest of us should have the decency to respect those rules. Some won't but there you go, it leads to this and that's the price you pay.

 Here's what I think should happen:

 I think only the mods should set the rules and they should enforce those rules with an iron fist. that's why the rules should be fairly liberal. Head-fis rules are good, I feel.

 If someone is breaking the rules with offensive remarks or personal attacks, like this kind of thing from page 4 here:

  Quote:


 Wow, you're an a-hole. 

 ...

 Wow, you really fail, hard. 
 

Then I feel that the post should be edited by a mod and the poster given a warning.

 3rd warning equals a ban.

 That seems fair to me and I think Jude would like that but we are probably under-moderated here I guess.


----------



## stevenkelby

And we all have the choice to ignore, or toy with, trolls as we wish.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So pretty much, you feel this forum needs strict moderation to delete and prevent posts of those who do not believe in cable theories?_

 


 Absolutely NOT! I believe the OP should have the option of setting rules for posting within the thread, and a moderator overseeing it. If the OP does not want people to say "no, this is not believable", "I need more scientific data" etc. to get his/her point across, then so be it. If the OP wants a totally open discussion, then fine. I'm just saying the OP should have the option, since this subject is HIGHLY subjective. And now, even carries "beliefs".. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I think, maybe adding a asterisk/star whatever (*) than the OP would like someone to oversee the thread. And if they want it totally open, then disregard the (*)


 I'm trying to fight for both sides. I don't want there to not be any discussion because of non-believers. I think everyone should RESPECT and HONOR the OP's opinion/rules. However, THESE are so often overlooked, and the non-believer jumps right in. 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Since this is a public forum, people have the ability to post as the wish, within the boundaries of the rules. Individual members do not have the authority to govern who posts in which threads._

 

I think the "rules" should be tightened up. That's all. I totally agree with you here. I am not talking about given members authority for who to post/not post, instead give them the option of having a moderator oversee it.

 Like I mentioned, I refuse to share my results with you guys on my new IC I received. With the same fear, that it can/will turn into this (this right here; this thread.. THIS!). "THIS" thread has gone wayyyyy to far.. and until something is fixed, I won't voice my opinion. 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This thread was about peoples experiences or thoughts on cable burn in. Never experiencing burn in with one's cables, or thoughts on why burn-in is highly unlikely, ALL fall within the scope of the original topic. Since the OP has no right to tell people who can or cannot post in a thread._

 

But it never seems the "believers" destroy threads like this.. It's always the other way around. Yes, we argue with you, yes, we participate in arguments, yes, we egg you on, however it's starting to get downright nasty. 

 We would like to post our impressions/thoughts/opinions/results, but it's the non-believers who go too far. Those who just can't and REFUSE to believe any part is true. 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This situation is similiar to posting a thread on Religion in general, and then saying only people belonging to X religion can reply._

 

It is "similar" but not even close. I won't even go on about Religion.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Absolutely NOT! I believe the OP should have the option of setting rules for posting within the thread, and a moderator overseeing it. If the OP does not want people to say "no, this is not believable", "I need more scientific data" etc. to get his/her point across, then so be it. If the OP wants a totally open discussion, then fine. I'm just saying the OP should have the option, since this subject is HIGHLY subjective. And now, even carries "beliefs".. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think, maybe adding a asterisk/star whatever (*) than the OP would like someone to oversee the thread. And if they want it totally open, then disregard the (*)


 I'm trying to fight for both sides. I don't want there to not be any discussion because of non-believers. I think everyone should RESPECT and HONOR the OP's opinion/rules. However, THESE are so often overlooked, and the non-believer jumps right in. 




 I think the "rules" should be tightened up. That's all. I totally agree with you here. I am not talking about given members authority for who to post/not post, instead give them the option of having a moderator oversee it.

 Like I mentioned, I refuse to share my results with you guys on my new IC I received. With the same fear, that it can/will turn into this (this right here; this thread.. THIS!). "THIS" thread has gone wayyyyy to far.. and until something is fixed, I won't voice my opinion. 




 But it never seems the "believers" destroy threads like this.. It's always the other way around. Yes, we argue with you, yes, we participate in arguments, yes, we egg you on, however it's starting to get downright nasty. 

 We would like to post our impressions/thoughts/opinions/results, but it's the non-believers who go too far. Those who just can't and REFUSE to believe any part is true. 




 It is "similar" but not even close. I won't even go on about Religion._

 


 Simple fact is, no member here has the authority to choose who can and cannot post in a thread.

 No thread starter has the right to create rules for whose/what oppinions can/cannot be posted in their thread.

 They can ask politely, that is all.

 It boils down to, ANY opinion, whether for or against the subject at hand, are allowed. Since they are on topic, and relevant. If you don't break the rules, you are fine. Heck, that is why the rules are there.

 However, some mods do tend to assert their own personal beliefs, or their own personal sets of rules, too much. Only a few mods do this though, and almost all the mods are fair, and try to be as unbiased as they can, which is great. I also think that the mods know who the mods who over-assert their personal beliefs too much, are.



 The way you are proposing is not only a total hindrance to learning and spread of knowledge in general, it is near completely impossible to implement.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've just seen too many forums get over moderated and dwindle away to the point no one posts anymore for fear of breaking the rules or upsetting someone.

 It's more fun this way, at least we have some freedom (apart from ABX of course).

 I wouldn't want a head-fi where people like those I have an issue with are removed from the board. They do have a right to post and they provide an excellent example for the rest of us by showing what not to do. 

 I don't want us to lose the right (privilege) to respond either.


 Your idea is good in theory but who's to say that the OP will set fair rules? Also, you may have something worthwhile to say, which I want to read, but doesn't happen to follow the OPs rules. 

 The OP shouldn't be able to make rules, only make requests and the rest of us should have the decency to respect those rules. Some won't but there you go, it leads to this and that's the price you pay.

 Here's what I think should happen:

 I think only the mods should set the rules and they should enforce those rules with an iron fist. that's why the rules should be fairly liberal. Head-fis rules are good, I feel.

 If someone is breaking the rules with offensive remarks or personal attacks, like this kind of thing from page 4 here:



 Then I feel that the post should be edited by a mod and the poster given a warning.

 3rd warning equals a ban.

 That seems fair to me and I think Jude would like that but we are probably under-moderated here I guess._

 



 You make some good points.. I'm not a member to many other forums, especially for a hobby. So I lack some experience.. 

 However, I'm just looking for someone to get this fixed. My ideas, or thoughts, are strictly out to start some discussion so we can get this resolved. 

 I agree to most of your idea. I ENJOY being here, but now, after this, I have absolutely no incentive to post a review/opinion etc. on a cable, cable burn-in or nothing. I have no incentive to continue to post in this section either, until something is done. I really enjoy sharing my work/experiences and opinions, and 99.999% of the time I keep it friendly and civil. However, that's not always the case with other posters. 



_" The OP shouldn't be able to make rules, only make requests and the rest of us should have the decency to respect those rules. "_


 Good.. but that exact same thing happened here. OP requested that "nay-sayers" not need reply, and it only took ONE reply to get this going.. 



 Now it seems like a lot is falling into my hands... *gulp* and maybe I need a break from this section. 


 I'm JUST trying to help.. I enjoy conversing, and having a healthy "civil" argument with someone, but THIS, this thread is out of control.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Simple fact is, no member here has the authority to choose who can and cannot post in a thread.

 No thread starter has the right to create rules for whose/what oppinions can/cannot be posted in their thread.

 They can ask politely, that is all.

 It boils down to, ANY opinion, whether for or against the subject at hand, are allowed. Since they are on topic, and relevant. If you don't break the rules, you are fine. Heck, that is why the rules are there.

 However, some mods do tend to assert their own personal beliefs, or their own personal sets of rules, too much. Only a few mods do this though, and almost all the mods are fair, and try to be as unbiased as they can, which is great. I also think that the mods know who the mods who over-assert their personal beliefs too much, are.



 The way you are proposing is not only a total hindrance to learning and spread of knowledge in general, it is near completely impossible to implement._

 


 Since you guys know it all, I'll let you have a stab at it. I was only trying to help. I didn't want those "exact" rules implemented. I am looking to start a discussion on how to fix this problem. Since it seems, its "impossible" to control any of this, my membership to the "cable section" can be deleted. I want nothing to do with a 120 page argument. In fact, I've only read like 5 pages. And I also believe there's a lot of people out there, who (like my Dad and Sister) will argue and fight until someone tells them they are right. So I argue, get my point(s) across, if they ignore it, I ignore them. 

 HOWEVER, that's where my problem comes up. I don't like (and haven't) put anyone on the ignore list. Aside from "heated cable talk/arguments" I believe people have more to say on other subjects as well, and I don't want to "ignore" them simply for something they said in a cable forum. I might want to hear what you have to say about a amp, or a certain pair of headphones, therefore I will very likely never add anyone to my "ignore" list. 


 And since it seems, that "this is a free world" anyone can post, then I probably don't belong in this section.. it gets to heated to quickly, to much OT, to many personal attacks. etc. etc. etc. You know exactly what I'm talking about. 


 I guess I'm the one out of line...


----------



## LawnGnome

If someone were to say

 "ok, now I know alot of people think cables don't have a real effect. But I hear something, and yes it might be placebo, but I want to share my experiences"

 I would be fine with that, and wouldn't bother posting in the thread. 

 Unless someone decided to either make rude remarks about "non-believers" or make completely false statements. (like the ones made about different metals having certain special supernatural properties)

 One of the big problems is the attitudes of people.

 They make one post, and even it is entirely relevant and factual, people will just respond with derragotory remarks like "troll".

 It is this attitude that gets us worked up, since real, useful information was posted, and the only responses are "troll" or "get lost this is my thread"

 Anyone here should know, that if you make false claims, or reply with insults when someone presents something you don't want to hear, your going to catch a lot of flak for it.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Unless someone decided to either make rude remarks about "non-believers" or make completely false statements. (like the ones made about different metals having certain special supernatural properties)_

 


 Could you go a little further in depth? And what do you mean by one making completely false statements? 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One of the big problems is the attitudes of people.

 They make one post, and even it is entirely relevant and factual, people will just respond with derragotory remarks like "troll".

 It is this attitude that gets us worked up, since real, useful information was posted, and the only responses are "troll" or "get lost this is my thread"_

 


 I CANNOT agree more. 


 one believer, one non-believer, having a civil argument; this is why I post


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Since you guys know it all, I'll let you have a stab at it. I was only trying to help. I didn't want those "exact" rules implemented. I am looking to start a discussion on how to fix this problem. Since it seems, its "impossible" to control any of this, my membership to the "cable section" can be deleted. I want nothing to do with a 120 page argument. In fact, I've only read like 5 pages. And I also believe there's a lot of people out there, who (like my Dad and Sister) will argue and fight until someone tells them they are right. So I argue, get my point(s) across, if they ignore it, I ignore them. 

 HOWEVER, that's where my problem comes up. I don't like (and haven't) put anyone on the ignore list. Aside from "heated cable talk/arguments" I believe people have more to say on other subjects as well, and I don't want to "ignore" them simply for something they said in a cable forum. I might want to hear what you have to say about a amp, or a certain pair of headphones, therefore I will very likely never add anyone to my "ignore" list. 


 And since it seems, that "this is a free world" anyone can post, then I probably don't belong in this section.. it gets to heated to quickly, to much OT, to many personal attacks. etc. etc. etc. You know exactly what I'm talking about. 


 I guess I'm the one out of line... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 As with ANY debate on personal beliefs (which this very much is), it will turn into a very long and heated debate. This is expected, and is the same with politics, religion, ethics, etc etc, even cables.

 Attempts to mute these discussions, or close them will be futile. When that happens people still have alot of stuff they want to say, and just wait for the next chance to say it.

 I've been in alot of forums, with alot of threads like this. And when they are left to run their course, they do better. They go on and on, but eventually die out. But because everyone was able to get out what they wanted to say, they don't reoccur as often.

 I think the mods have realized this now.

 The only thing I feel that needs to be moderated is the name calling. If someone is sarcastic or condescending, deal with it.

 But when people call people "trolls" or "stupid believers" then that should be ended right there. Personal attacks should not be tolerated. Some of the worst I've seen here is someone calling the "skeptics" poor bums who can't afford anything good so they pick on "believers". Completely uncalled for, and really lowers the level of the debate.


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think this is useful to establish the attitudes and opinions of some people. I know I've learned a lot.

 We can't talk about cables on head-fi until these characters are dealt with._

 

Wow, wow, wow, my friend. There is a distinctly ominous sense to what you are writing here. And I thought we were to have a battle of arguments, not some dark alley stabbings.

 The OP, as I understand, had originally stated that "Holly crap, burn-in is real!", to which some people had replied that, essentially, "no it isn't." Now, this thread is special, in a peculiar way, because as of a while ago, this is officially "the thread that was formerly known as *Holly crap, burn-in is real!*"

 The deletion of the original post, obviously, poses a peculiar problem from the standpoint of how the discussion had unfolded, at least the gist of it: we no longer know how the original post substantiated the claim that was made in the title of the thread. This is a unique opportunity, it seems to me, for the "believers" out there to state, in concise terms, how exactly is the cable burn-in "real" - and I would lay the particular stress in the word real. 

 Purely subjective testimony with no material basis, this needs to be stressed, could mean that the experience is due to cables themselves just as well as that it is due to nothing more than a subjectively held conviction that has no material basis. The latter possibility seems more likely, actually, since popular convictions that have no material basis are not anything uncommon. If the latter was to be the case, in either way, the term "cable burn-in" would be highly inappropriate for the experience it seeks to express linguistically; the latter possibility, anyways, would not, for obvious reasons, demonstrate that "cable burn-in is real." 

 If cable "burn-in" is real it should be possible to at least say what it is in material terms, and how the material process that's at work in the "burn-in" affects the reproduction of sound.

 And please, let's avoid the arguments that demand the proof that cable "burn-in" doesn't exist. Some info about the, so called, Burden of Proof logical fallacy. 

 Another logical fallacy of relevance, in terms of possible responses, is the, so called fallacy of "middle ground", which "is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position."

 Come on guys, let's have a real argument here!


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As with ANY debate on personal beliefs (which this very much is), it will turn into a very long and heated debate. This is expected, and is the same with politics, religion, ethics, etc etc, even cables.

 Attempts to mute these discussions, or close them will be futile. When that happens people still have alot of stuff they want to say, and just wait for the next chance to say it.

 I've been in alot of forums, with alot of threads like this. And when they are left to run their course, they do better. They go on and on, but eventually die out. But because everyone was able to get out what they wanted to say, they don't reoccur as often.

 I think the mods have realized this now.

 The only thing I feel that needs to be moderated is the name calling. If someone is sarcastic or condescending, deal with it.

 But when people call people "trolls" or "stupid believers" then that should be ended right there. Personal attacks should not be tolerated. Some of the worst I've seen here is someone calling the "skeptics" poor bums who can't afford anything good so they pick on "believers". Completely uncalled for, and really lowers the level of the debate._

 


 I stay away from Politics, and Religion. Instead I like to have arguments that someone (either I, or the person I'm arguing with) has some control of. Sports for instance, is where I argue the most, but it is very civil and peaceful argument, we come to a conclusion, and then move on to the next topic. Not so here.. 


 But I see threads like this all over this section.. especially burn-in topics. It's not just one.. 

 I like this saying a lot: 

 "If you have something good to say, then say it"


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, wow, wow, my friend. There is a distinctly ominous sense to what you are writing here. And I thought we were to have a battle of arguments, not some dark alley stabbings.

 The OP, as I understand, has officially stated that "Holly crap, burn-in is real!", to which some people have replied that, essentially, "no it isn't." Now, this thread is special, in a peculiar way, because as of a while ago, this is officially "the thread that was formerly known as *Holly crap, burn-in is real!*"

 The deletion of the original post, obviously, poses a peculiar problem from the standpoint of how the discussion had unfolded, at least the gist of it: we now longer know how the original post substantiated the claim that was made in the title of the thread. This is a unique opportunity, it seems to me, for the "believers out there" to state, in concise terms, how exactly is the cable burn-in "real" - and I would lay the particular stress in the word real. 

 Purely subjective testimony with no material basis, this needs to be stressed, could mean that the experience is due to cables themselves just as well as that it is due to nothing more than a subjectively held conviction that has no material basis. The latter possibility seems more likely, actually, since popular convictions that have no material basis are not anything uncommon. If the latter was to be the case, in either way, the term "cable burn-in" would be highly inappropriate for the experience it seeks to express linguistically; the latter possibility, anyways, would not, for obvious reasons, demonstrate that "cable burn-in is real." 

 If cable "burn-in" is real it should be possible to at least say what it is in material terms, and how the material process that's at work in the "burn-in" affects the reproduction of sound.

 And please, let's avoid the arguments that demand the proof that cable "burn-in" doesn't exist. Some info about the, so called, Burden of Proof logical fallacy. 

 Another logical fallacy of relevance, in terms of possible responses, is the, so called fallacy of "middle ground", which "is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position."

 Come on guys, let's have a real argument here!_

 

I do agree debates are much funner, and MUCH more informative, and resolve much quicker when simple rules of logic are followed.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 The deletion of the original post, obviously, poses a peculiar problem from the standpoint of how the discussion had unfolded, at least the gist of it: we now longer know how the original post substantiated the claim that was made in the title of the thread. This is a unique opportunity, it seems to me, for the "believers" out there to state, in concise terms, how exactly is the cable burn-in "real" - and I would lay the particular stress in the word real. 

 Purely subjective testimony with no material basis, this needs to be stressed, could mean that the experience is due to cables themselves just as well as that it is due to nothing more than a subjectively held conviction that has no material basis. The latter possibility seems more likely, actually, since popular convictions that have no material basis are not anything uncommon. If the latter was to be the case, in either way, the term "cable burn-in" would be highly inappropriate for the experience it seeks to express linguistically; the latter possibility, anyways, would not, for obvious reasons, demonstrate that "cable burn-in is real." 

 If cable "burn-in" is real it should be possible to at least say what it is in material terms, and how the material process that's at work in the "burn-in" affects the reproduction of sound._

 

This is what I have found, a quick search on Google: 



 You'll also often hear that you should burn-in your speaker cables, as well as your components. These burn-in periods have as little effect on your home theater as the length of your speaker cables.

 Cables don't have some sort of "memory" that is altered in the first few hours of use. This is a slight misunderstanding of electrical fields involved. Yes, electromagnetic fields do have an effect on the dielectric, the white foam that surrounds the center wire of your interconnect cables. As the audio or video signal sweeps up and down (all "within" the cable), the effects of the first half of the signal are reversed by the second half. If you have an electronics background you know that the electromagnetic field depends on current moving through a wire, and it's this current that turns out to be the overriding factor in how a cable behaves over time. With interconnects, very little current is flowing through these cables, so burn-in is essentially a waste of your time. 

 The one way that a signal can alter the cable is if the signal has enough current with it to heat the cable, and to melt the cable's crystalline structure. This type of burn-in is prone to bring the fire department running rather than your local home theater enthusiasts.

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messa...79/127865.html



 So would anyone like to comment to the first part? After reading this, it makes sense to me. However, I am a "newbie" when it comes to cables. I know nothing about electrical engineering, or what's involved in making a cable, or even how a cable works. However, I find interesting reads here all the time (ie. cable burn-in is real). I try it for myself, and see I am getting results. Therefore, I am a "believer". A "believer" that what I just read, does indeed work.


----------



## nick20

Here's another one:



 I recently purchased a new speakercable called Fantasy, in Bi-Wire configuration, from Harmonic Technology. With the cables connected to the entire multichannel setup I anxiously started playing a lot of music. But to my huge dissapointment the sound was clearly lacking of "body" and "weight" and also sounded a bit harsh compared to my older (and cheaper!) cables that had been running for six years.

 I contacted the manufacturer because I was not happy with my investment and wanted to return them. However, they were very clear on the importance of burning-in the cables properly and urged me to continue playing music for at least 100hs or more before judging.

 Hearing this I became very skeptical indeed. I have never heard anyone speaking of the necessity of burning-in something as "passive" as a cable. But nonetheless, I did as they instructed and played music non-stop around the clock for five days. And to my huge suprise - something happened to the sound. And it was anything but subtle. The "weight" and "body" had returned, but now it was more profound than with my old cables. And the difference of sound before-and-after brake-in was indeed very noticable. The sound had an almost uncanny smothness and natural tone that made me shake my head in disbelief.

 I am very glad I went beyond my disbelief of burning-in cables and tried it before I sent them back for a refund. Now my electronics and speakers can really show me what they can do. This cable has given me one step closer to audio-heaven (fully broken-in that is...).

 Anyone care to share their thought on this interesting topic of burning in cables...?!

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/5/106481.html




 I'm not sure how I could put my experience in terms.. 

 When I FIRST tired my recently acquired silver IC's, I immediately noticed tighter bass, over my crappy copper IC's. The new (brand new) cable also added a little (think small) dynamic punch to the overall frequency. My headphones are already very dynamic, and the silver seemed to add a little bit more.

 Now, I am coming upon 100 hours of pink-noise burn-in, and I am anxious to see the end result. 

 I guess this will be a good chance to experience "cable burn-in", on a half-way decent quality IC. I had already "burned-in" my headphones. It seems everything opened up a little more.. bass was a little better, mids/highs a little better, and the sound stage a little deeper. Again, this was noticeable, but no way was it night/day. It improved them, yes, but it is in no way, shape or form, a big improvement. 



 I'm not sure if this is what you were looking for (probably not), but this is how it has been for my situation.


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think the "rules" should be tightened up. That's all. I totally agree with you here. I am not talking about given members authority for who to post/not post, instead give them the option of having a moderator oversee it._

 

I think this is unworkable. Essentially it comes down to the mods being a kind of police force in everyone's private state (thread), policing it by the op's rules. The mods have better things to do. Furthermore this would lead to a disgusting kind of trolling, for instance writing: _Metal is not music it's crappy noise! And please don't post in this thread if you disagree.
_
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Like I mentioned, I refuse to share my results with you guys on my new IC I received. With the same fear, that it can/will turn into this (this right here; this thread.. THIS!). "THIS" thread has gone wayyyyy to far.. and until something is fixed, I won't voice my opinion._

 

I would never criticize someone for writing on his _*experiences*_ with cables. I might if someone makes wild, unfounded claims. I might if someone writes: _Wow! Cable burn in is real! Please don't post if you don't agree. 
_ 

 If he had written: _My experiences have led me to believe in cable burn in_, or something like that, this would be a whole different thread.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But it never seems the "believers" destroy threads like this.. It's always the other way around. Yes, we argue with you, yes, we participate in arguments, yes, we egg you on, however it's starting to get downright nasty. 

 We would like to post our impressions/thoughts/opinions/results, but it's the non-believers who go too far. Those who just can't and REFUSE to believe any part is true._

 

 I've heard this argument before and it just doesn't make sense. Why should anyone believe in something for which there is no scientific basis, no theoretical framework to explain it and no objective evidence. Because someone says they hear things?


----------



## nick20

Both topics are subjective; very.

 However, there's more posts/user end reviews of having "success" with cable burn-in, which got me interested. 



 Both posts (above) have my interest, and I guess tomorrow/Monday "I" will truly know if cable burn-in works. I found some quality silver IC's, and this is my chance to prove to myself either it works, or it doesn't. 

 I will always believe in burning in your headphones.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Agnostic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've heard this argument before and it just doesn't make sense. Why should anyone believe in something for which there is no scientific basis, no theoretical framework to explain it and no objective evidence. Because someone says they hear things?_

 


 This is where I get caught up. Regardless, if there is "scientific 'anything' " or not, why do I need to prove there is something "scientific" going on? Better yet, HOW do I go about proving something scientific when it's my ears that's hearing it. 


 Because, what I hear, and what others (who believe in burn-in) hear is conclusive, why can't it not be true? This is the exact statement that has me dumbfounded. 

 Weather it's scientific, or a "placebo"effect (as its called) and if there is a change in the end, then wouldn't this be enough to call it conclusive? Therefore, it would be real. "Scientific" or not. Right?


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You'll also often hear that you should burn-in your speaker cables, as well as your components. These burn-in periods have as little effect on your home theater as the length of your speaker cables._

 

The topic we are discussing has nothing to do with cables, it is about the terms of reference for debate on head-fi. But first I will digress and tell you what I think when I see a statement like that above.

 First of all, I have no firm beleif either way and as I have not conducted, or seen peer-reviewed evidence of, a scientific test of the hypothesis, I am in no position to make judgments. As is no-one here. However, we, and I, do have the right to an opinion. And here's mine:

  Quote:


 These burn-in periods have as *much *effect on your home theater as the length of your speaker cables. 
 

I assume a normal length speaker cable is several feet.

 Answer these questions:

 If the length of your speaker cables was several thousand miles, would you expect that to have an effect on your home theater?

 If no, fair enough for you.

 If yes:

 You have just admitted that "cables length makes a difference"

 Presumable a 10 ft and an 11 ft cable will show no difference. A 10ft and a 10'000 mile one will. 
 Can you offer me evidence to show the length below which length cables fails to make a difference? 

 Obviously the answer is no. There is no scientific proof either way.

 And similar scenarios holds true for ANY debate on cables.

 Even if there was scientific proof, scientists know that it could be overturned any time as new evidence comes to life.

 A lot of people want things digital so the world is easy to understand. It is or it isn't, yes or no, black or white. the world is analogue, things can only be measured in probability and the best we can ever say is something like:

 "There is a high probability that E=MC2"

 "Facts" are just a convenient way of putting forth our strong beliefs.


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is where I get caught up. Regardless, if there is "scientific 'anything' " or not, why do I need to prove there is something "scientific" going on? Better yet, HOW do I go about proving something scientific when it's my ears that's hearing it. 


 Because, what I hear, and what others (who believe in burn-in) hear is conclusive, why can't it not be true? This is the exact statement that has me dumbfounded. 

 Weather it's scientific, or a "placebo"effect (as its called) and if there is a change in the end, then wouldn't this be enough to call it conclusive? Therefore, it would be real. "Scientific" or not. Right?_

 

If the change you hear is not objective but caused by changes in your perception it is meaningless to talk about the sound quality of a cable because the sonic change is in your head not out there in the world. If I buy the same cable or follow the same procedure as you there is no reason for me to hear the changes you heard or even hear any difference whatsoever for that matter, because the sonic qualities you heard are not in the cable, nor in the burn in; they are in your mind. 

 A real experience? Yes.
 An objective fact? No.
 (and the difference is huge)


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


 Originally Posted by stevenkelby View Post
 I think this is useful to establish the attitudes and opinions of some people. I know I've learned a lot.

 We can't talk about cables on head-fi until these characters are dealt with. 
 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, wow, wow, my friend. There is a distinctly ominous sense to what you are writing here. And I thought we were to have a battle of arguments, not some dark alley stabbings._

 


 I stand by that. What I was referring to was the characters of the people posting the personal attacks and ban-able comments I quoted earlier, not the people themselves.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Agnostic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the change you hear is not objective but caused by changes in your perception it is meaningless to talk about the sound quality of a cable because the sonic change is in your head not out there in the world. If I buy the same cable or follow the same procedure as you there is no reason for me to hear the changes you heard or even hear any difference whatsoever for that matter, because the sonic qualities you heard are not in the cable, nor in the burn in; they are in your mind. 

 A real experience? Yes.
 An objective fact? No.
 (and the difference is huge)_

 


 But maybe it is the other way around, maybe it IS out there, in the cable, and in my head. But I don't know way of testing it scientifically. 



 So then what's the point to have $20, $50 or $200 IC's over $.50 IC's? If it can't be real world, then why buy any cable you can't get from the dollar store? 



 Why is there no reason for you to not hear the same qualities, or different qualities from the same cable? 



 But how can you prove that it's all in my head, not not something inside the cable, amp, power cord, speaker cable, etc. etc.?


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 "Facts" are just a convenient way of putting forth our strong beliefs._

 

People have stronge beliefs in anything from UFOs to angels. Those are not facts.

 In general facts are _reasonable _ beliefs supported by evidence. 

 Scientifically facts are _reasonable_ beliefs supported by evidence that are stated in such terms as to be falsifiable.


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But maybe it is the other way around, maybe it IS out there, in the cable, and in my head. But I don't know way of testing it scientifically. 



 So then what's the point to have $20, $50 or $200 IC's over $.50 IC's? If it can't be real world, then why buy any cable you can't get from the dollar store? 



 Why is there no reason for you to not hear the same qualities, or different qualities from the same cable? 



 But how can you prove that it's all in my head, not not something inside the cable, amp, power cord, speaker cable, etc. etc.?_

 

There are ways of testing this. Double blind testing. All the double blind tests I have seen show that people cannot reliably distinguish one cable from another.

 I cannot prove what you hear is not real. I have however no need to prove that, because I have a perfectly reasonable theory (placebo), supported by double blind testing, that explains what you hear. Why would I look for another?
 I can understand some people don't LIKE this theory, but that is a different matter. If you don't you come up with a different one and provide evidence to support it. So far we have only the vaguest hint of a theory, and no evidence to support it whatsoever.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Agnostic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are ways of testing this. Double blind testing. All the double blind tests I have seen show that people cannot reliably distinguish one cable from another.

 I cannot prove what you hear is not real. I have however no need to prove that, because I have a perfectly reasonable theory (placebo), supported by double blind testing, that explains what you hear. Why would I look for another?
 I can understand some people don't LIKE this theory, but that is a different matter. If you don't you come up with a different one and provide evidence to support it. So far we have only the vaguest hint of a theory, and no evidence to support it whatsoever._

 



 I guess I have nothing else to say. 

 If I can hear a difference in cables, then fine. I'll keep doing what works for me. Placebo or not, burn-in or not, I'll keep doing those things, because it's what's worked for me. I CAN hear a difference, and why doubt or question it? I'll quietly leave this section.. and bring my beliefs with me. 


 Since you believe in an untested theory, I take it you use stock cables, and very cheap IC's? Because its not a difference in the cable (except for the fact your paying $100 for a cable [which is where the placebo effect is starting]) except the "price" makes you think its working and hearing things. So you would assume a $5 cable sounds just as good as a $50 or $300 cable, I take it... ?


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I guess I have nothing else to say. 

 If I can hear a difference in cables, then fine. I'll keep doing what works for me. Placebo or not, burn-in or not, I'll keep doing those things, because it's what's worked for me. I CAN hear a difference, and why doubt or question it? I'll quietly leave this section.. and bring my beliefs with me. 


 Since you believe in an untested theory, I take it you use stock cables, and very cheap IC's? Because its not a difference in the cable (except for the fact your paying $100 for a cable [which is where the placebo effect is starting]) except the "price" makes you think its working and hearing things. So you would assume a $5 cable sounds just as good as a $50 or $300 cable, I take it... ?_

 

Yes. I only have basic cheap interconnects. 
 For clarity's sake, I'm not saying there are *no possible* audible differences in cables, I have no evidence to support that claim, I just have no reason to believe in that claim either, and generally it's a very EXPENSIVE and LUCRATIVE claim for cable makers. As soon as I find convincing evidence that cables make a substantial difference in sound quality I might look into it, but it doesn't really look like that's going to happen.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Agnostic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes. I only have basic cheap interconnects. 
 For clarity's sake, I'm not saying there are *no possible* audible differences in cables, I have no evidence to support that claim, I just have no reason to believe in that claim either, and generally it's a very EXPENSIVE and LUCRATIVE claim for cable makers. As soon as I find convincing evidence that cables make a substantial difference in sound quality I might look into it, but it doesn't really look like that's going to happen._

 



 30-day money back guarantee... if not more.. 60 or 90 days.. 



 That's what got me.. I can return it, if I can't hear any differences... real simple.


----------



## Herandu

I designed a range of cables myself that used the best materials short of gold. But people kept telling me they were too cheap
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. Next time I shall develop the same cable in a different colour and make them 10 times more expensive
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

 I have been using a set of the Beresford digital coax cable for digital as well as analog. I was told they weren't designed for analog specifically, but tell that to my pre-amp. The main reason I decided to use those cables is because of their technical construction:
 Resistance: < 0.0001Ω/m
 Conductor material: PCOFC
 Insulator: PTFE
 Earth Conductors: Dual PCOFC mesh 
 Earth Conductors: 124 & 126 x 0.2 mm
 Center Conductor: 80 x 0.2 mm
 Diameter: Ø 6.5 mm
 Shielding: 99% +
 Signal-noise: >150 dB
 Bandwidth: 0 to 50MHz

 OK, that's all engineering stuff, but I am an engineer and I can't find many cable sellers that are able to even email you their cable specs. If more of them did publish their specs we would all have a right laugh and easier life. Some of those high-end cables have less than a 1/3rd of the strands and amount of conducting material that is in the Beresford cable, let alone the diameter, type of insulator, shielding strength, etc. All they have is extra or higher numbers after their U$ price. I am not saying this cable is the best, but I doubt very much that many of your expensive interconnects can rival it for technical construction. Dynamics, detail, and smooth sound need loads of conducting material and shielding from interference. That's because they need low resistance, wide bandwidth, and good noise rejection. But most manufacturers avoid talking about the things we can see and measure. They prefer to boast about the things we perceive as being good.


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_30-day money back guarantee... if not more.. 60 or 90 days.. 



 That's what got me.. I can return it, if I can't hear any differences... real simple._

 

I understand the logic of that, however, my problem is that cables are not like headphones or amps where there is a clear explanation of how they have different sonic qualities. For cables there is no such explanation and I do not trust my ears enough to spend a lot of money on cables that may not have any added value, rather that have been proved time and time again to be completely indistinguishable sonically no matter how expensive they were to people claiming to have golden ears or at least very good hearing. This would indicate at the very least that cables, _even if _they make a difference, only make a very marginal and subtle one.

 I think part of my skepticism also stems from my awareness of the complex ways in which perception functions. We are, to name one thing, able to completely eliminate very loud noises from our conscious perception if we give our mind the time to adapt to a situation. People are for instance in most cases able to sleep through the most INFERNAL noise as long as it is a regularly recurring sound and the mind has had time to grasp the fact of it's recurring nature and non-significance. Think of trains passing close to your house at night at regular times. In fact while you are listening to music your mind is constantly filtering out background noises from your conscious awareness.

 I think some people making claims about cables could learn some very interesting things if they were a bit more open to the possibility that not everything they hear is caused by objective factors in their equipment. Human perception is a very fascinating subject and scientific field of study; and our minds are capable of some quite amazing and fascinating things that have nothing to do with objective perception!


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Agnostic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I understand the logic of that, however, my problem is that cables are not like headphones or amps where there is a clear explanation of how they have different sonic qualities. For cables there is no such explanation and I do not trust my ears enough to spend a lot of money on cables that may not have any added value, rather that have been proved time and time again to be completely indistinguishable sonically no matter how expensive they were to people claiming to have golden ears or at least very good hearing. This would indicate at the very least that cables, even if they make a difference, only make a very marginal and subtle one.

 I think part of my skepticism also stems from my awareness of the complex ways in which perception functions. We are, to name one thing, able to completely eliminate very loud noises from our conscious perception if we give our mind the time to adapt to a situation. People are for instance in most cases able to sleep through the most INFERNAL noise as long as it is a regularly recurring sound and the mind has had time to grasp the fact of it's recurring nature and non-significance. Think of trains passing close to your house at night at regular times. In fact while you are listening to music your mind is constantly filtering out background noises from your conscious awareness.

 I think some people making claims about cables could learn some very interesting things if they were a bit more open to the possibility that not everything they hear is caused by objective factors in their equipment. Human perception is a very fascinating subject and scientific field of study; and our minds are capable of some quite amazing and fascinating things that have nothing to do with objective perception!_

 

QFT.
 I absolutely agree with you here.

 The only difference being that I _do_ trust my ears (and personal perception) to guide me to the (for me) most enjoyable sound signature.
 The added value is in my perception and not in specs or scientific proof.


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_QFT.
 I absolutely agree with you here.

 The only difference being that I do trust my ears (and personal perception) to guide me to the (for me) most enjoyable sound signature.
 The added value is in my perception and not in specs or scientific proof._

 

I do trust my ears as well of course. In the end I decide what I like by using my ears. I am, however, quite aware that my ears can be fooled and I am aware that my perception of sound changes under the influence of mood, time of day, what music I'm listening to, what volume I'm listening at, what equipment I have been listening to previously, etc.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Agnostic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do trust my ears as well of course. In the end I decide what I like by using my ears. I am, however, quite aware that my ears can be fooled and I am aware that my perception of sound changes under the influence of mood, time of day, what music I'm listening to, what volume I'm listening at, what equipment I have been listening to previously, etc._

 

I guess that is why I don't take just a few hours to do comparisons, but weeks or even months.....


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Agnostic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_People have stronge beliefs in anything from UFOs to angels. Those are not facts.

 In general facts are reasonable  beliefs supported by evidence. 

 Scientifically facts are reasonable beliefs supported by evidence that are stated in such terms as to be falsifiable._

 


 Semantics. You agree with my point though I see.


----------



## stevenkelby

Agnostic, why don't you just try some nice cables if they are free for 30 days? You will risk nothing but your preconceptions, which should be safe anyway. Then you would have more confidence in your beliefs.


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Agnostic, why don't you just try some nice cables if they are free for 30 days? You will risk nothing but your preconceptions, which should be safe anyway. Then you would have more confidence in your beliefs._

 

I'm sorry I just don't believe in them. I don't need more confidence in my beliefs because I'm perfectly happy with them as is. They are supported by a theory and evidence, what more do I need? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 It would be a hassle to get them and send them back and I would loose postage charges as well I guess. And then even if I would hear a difference I wouldn't want to pay for it without evidence of an objective sonic change for reasons I already explained.


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Agnostic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And then even if I would hear a difference I wouldn't want to pay for it without evidence of an objective sonic change for reasons I already explained._

 

That's a telling comment!

 Some experience of high end cables would add to your credibility from a forum point of view, if you were interested in that of course.


----------



## Agnostic

My credibility is not exactly what is at stake here. What is at stake is the lack of supporting evidence and theories to support the claims that people make about the objectivity of sonic differences between cables.
 My hearing or not hearing them does not prove anything, one way or the other and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

 It's not that I'm completely unwilling to test cables, I'm just not that interested in it because I have no reason to believe they could make a difference, so I'm not going to go to the trouble, especially since it would prove nothing. If the chance arises I might try and have a listen. I doubt the results would be earthshattering.


----------



## pageman99

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Agnostic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are ways of testing this. Double blind testing. All the double blind tests I have seen show that people cannot reliably distinguish one cable from another.

 I cannot prove what you hear is not real. I have however no need to prove that, because I have a perfectly reasonable theory (placebo), supported by double blind testing, that explains what you hear. Why would I look for another?
 I can understand some people don't LIKE this theory, but that is a different matter. If you don't you come up with a different one and provide evidence to support it. So far we have only the vaguest hint of a theory, and no evidence to support it whatsoever._

 

I'm not trying to be rude just informative, but FYI any discussions of DBT is strictly verboten here!


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Agnostic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My credibility is not exactly what is at stake here. What is at stake is the lack of supporting evidence and theories to support the claims that people make about the objectivity of sonic differences between cables.
 My hearing or not hearing them does not prove anything, one way or the other and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion._

 

Oh I wasn't questioning your credibility at all, just hypothesizing about public opinion. Not important anyway.

 A question, do you believe that there could exist any audible differences between any components, of which there is no current scientific proof (satisfactory to you)?

 For example, could 2 amps sound different even though no one has taken measurements proving that they sound different?


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pageman99* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not trying to be rude just informative, but FYI any discussions of DBT is strictly verboten here!_

 

Is that so? Doesn't make any sense. The discussions will take place anyway, but you forbid people on one side of the argument to refer to objective evidence that's at the basis of their objections?

 Sorry to say it, but that a very strange policy to say the least.


----------



## stevenkelby

We don't forbid it, Jude does, and we all agree to it by clicking the "I have read..." box when we sign up. It may be because DBT talk always descends into, basically, this thread. Precisely because some people reply to objective impressions with, and I quote from another thread:

  Quote:


 Show us evidence or it never happened. 
 

Which is not constructive, don't you agree?

 Posts like that go against the spirit of the "No DBT talk" rule but help illustrate why it's there. Because, history shows, posts like that rarely help and usually turn into a heated, pointless argument.

 For a demonstration of this effect, please see this thread.


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh I wasn't questioning your credibility at all, just hypothesizing about public opinion. Not important anyway.

 A question, do you believe that there could exist any audible differences between any components, of which there is no current scientific proof (satisfactory to you)?

 For example, could 2 amps sound different even though no one has taken measurements proving that they sound different?_

 

The matter of amps is not comparable to cables because for amps there are measurements that show a difference in sonic qualities and there is a theorethical framework that explains why amps have different sonic signatures; the same goes for headphones. Not having measured the sonic qualities of a specific amp doesn't mean you don't have proof of its sonic characteristics being distiguishable from another amp (in theory anyway), you can generalize that from the information you have about amps in general. 

 We know there are objective differences between cables physically and specifically in electric properties. There is just no theory describing how those electric properties (beyong a very basic level) could make a sonic difference, and tests do indeed show that people cannot reliably distinguish between cables. All this does not mean there can be no objective sonic difference, but it shows that at least those differences would have to be pretty subtle. 

 So we end up with a situation more or less like people who claim they see UFOs, (no offense intended). They may indeed be seeing them, however there is no proof to substatiate that claim and no reasonable explanation why aliens would behave in that way; while there are masses of explanations of what caused the perceptual event they describe as seeing a UFO, that do not actually involve the existence of UFOs but are reasonable and supported by evidence.

  Quote:


 We don't forbid it, Jude does, and we all agree to it by clicking the "I have read..." box when we sign up. It may be because DBT talk always descends into, basically, this thread. Precisely because some people reply to objective impressions with, and I quote from another thread:

 Quote:Show us evidence or it never happened. 

 Which is not constructive, don't you agree?

 Posts like that go against the spirit of the "No DBT talk" rule but help illustrate why it's there. Because, history shows, posts like that rarely help and usually turn into a heated, pointless argument.

 For a demonstration of this effect, please see this thread. 
 

The or it never happened part is of course nonsense, however I see nothing wrong in asking for evidence if people claim something is a fact that by the current state of knowledge is unsupported by evidence and unexplainable theoretically.


----------



## stevenkelby

A think and believe it likely that it never happened is the most likely scenario. 

 Other than that, as I have said often, this matter is not about cables, it is about mutually acceptable terms of reference for debate.

 Your refusal to answer my 2 closed questions with the yes or no answers I asked for has dulled my enthusiasm for this debate.

 Of course I can't insist that you answer, but I consider it polite to do so, as I will give you a straight answer to any question you ask.

 If you choose not to, I have no interest in continuing here. 

 Maybe next time!


----------



## jsaliga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We don't forbid it, Jude does, and we all agree to it by clicking the "I have read..." box when we sign up._

 

Uhh...that's wrong. Participation here does not require one to agree with the policy. It only requires that one accept and abide by the policy. They are not the same thing.

 I agree with what the policy is attempting to achieve, but I don't think it is especially effective. Most of these threads devolve rather quickly into verbal shout fests from members who are at the extreme polar opposites on this question. The reasoned, well articulated members quickly abandon the thread when this happens and all that is left is an uncompromising tit-for-tat that goes nowhere. Sound familiar?

 --Jerome


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jsaliga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Uhh...that's wrong. Participation here does not require one to agree with the policy. It only requires that one accept and abide by the policy. They are not the same thing.
_

 

Jeez man, semantics! Surely you know what I meant? Sorry for missing the word abide. No one would suggest that agreeing with the rules is a pre-requisite for joining the forum.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jsaliga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 I agree with what the policy is attempting to achieve, but I don't think it is especially effective. Most of these threads devolve rather quickly into verbal shout fests from members who are at the extreme polar opposites on this question. The reasoned, well articulated members quickly abandon the thread when this happens and all that is left is an uncompromising tit-for-tat that goes nowhere. Sound familiar?

 --Jerome_

 

So what are you doing here 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Sorry, just kidding. You're right though, there are a bunch of names that have a lot of valuable experience and opinions on cables but you never see them post in cable threads. I think thats a pity and I would love this place to have an environment that makes them feel comfortable posting without fear of this happening. 

 How do we achieve that?


----------



## Superpredator

Wow the discussion turned civil without my being involved. Duly noted for next time - I'm off to watch Batman Beyond.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh I wasn't questioning your credibility at all, just hypothesizing about public opinion. Not important anyway.

 A question, do you believe that there could exist any audible differences between any components, of which there is no current scientific proof (satisfactory to you)?

 For example, could 2 amps sound different even though no one has taken measurements proving that they sound different?_

 


 The difference between this, and amps, is how reasonable it is to believe that amps make a difference.

 Amps are much more complicated than wire. And the components used in amps all have very detailed and controlled measurements provided by the manufacturer.

 All of the many components have different specifications and implementations, than in other amps.

 Specs are provided for amps, and their components. Cables from this exotic brands do not.

 So even though you may not be able to prove(which people can, but not the point) that two amps sound different, all of the measured and proven differences in their construction and components make it reasonable to believe they do.

 Cable manufacturers only provide meaningless terms like musicality and warmth, and unmeasured and unproven claims like "approaches the speed of light". Since there is many claims, but not measurements it is not very reasonable to assume two cables sound different.

 What I find interesting is, compared to industry use cables, many of these exotic cables are very sub-par. Many of them are not even shielded.


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Jeez man, semantics! Surely you know what I meant? Sorry for missing the word abide. No one would suggest that agreeing with the rules is a pre-requisite for joining the forum.



 So what are you doing here 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Sorry, just kidding. You're right though, there are a bunch of names that have a lot of valuable experience and opinions on cables but you never see them post in cable threads. I think thats a pity and I would love this place to have an environment that makes them feel comfortable posting without fear of this happening. 

 How do we achieve that?_

 

It is, personally, my intention to make this environment uncomfortable for people with fantastic experiences of hearing differences between cables who are basing their expertise on subjective convictions alone and are unwilling to submit the claims they make to rational criticism. These people should know that when they make claims on this forum they are going to be asked certain questions, and what they claim they experience is going to be placed in a certain context. They are free to post, just like I am. Are they afraid that someone is going to say something that will make them feel uncomfortable or look silly? Are they going to delete their posts afterwards?

 It is my understanding that the way the know-how and expertise is created and maintained in this hobby has been changing rather dramatically since the internet appeared, over the last ten years or so, and certain ways of producing truths in this hobby are becoming increasingly questionable, which I believe is a good thing. You have to remember that before the internet the majority of knowledge, the entire discursive core of this hobby, was produced and maintained by hobbyist magazines with glossy pictures, marketing agendas, and "authorities" who claimed a whole lot of things, among them that cables make differences to sound, or that cable burn-in is real, for example. Because of the peculiar structure of the discursive environment produced this way, because individual audiophiles usually had no means of maintaining regular contact and conversation with other each other (the way they are able to do now), the magazines had an easy job, and generally didn't have to try very hard to be highly successful in imposing their views and opinions on the majority of audiophiles - often in a purely forceful, and opportunistic manner. 

 Nowadays we have the ability to oppose and resist the power magazines have over the discourse of this hobby, as well as the ability to create our own expertise by imposing rules of rational, logical debate on some of the more exotic claims and beliefs that were forged and tacitly accepted under the previous discursive regime. Many of those beliefs and claims are furthermore not harmless at all, they are not disinterested: they are expressions of business shrewdness, their maintenance is in the interest of particular manufacturers, who stand to benefit from them.

 Some people believe that cable discussions are stupid and pointless - I don't think this is true. Perhaps these discussions don't achieve anything spectacular like consensus and immediate, massive shifts in what people believe, but over time these debates do add up - the fact that, as you say, some people have been made uncomfortable about posting certain things means that we have achieved something very tangible and useful, that we have improved this hobby in a small but important way.

 And before you start going on about how everything is relative and nothing can be determined with completely certainty... I know all these arguments - but I also know that grounding one's opinions in what we know to be real in the material sense, and imposing a general framework of rationality on how the facts are processed and transformed into convictions of what is and what isn't the case is generally very useful and productive, though it may hurt some people's feelings or make certain opinions unmaintainable.

 If all you have to say is we should exclude some opinions by default, by means of regulations, so that other opinions that wouldn't be otherwise able to stand their ground can be expressed with impunity and could not be subjected to rational criticism, then I'm sorry, but your comments don't really bring anything useful to the discussion.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some experience of high end cables would add to your credibility from a forum point of view, if you were interested in that of course._

 

Credibility doesn't come from trying every piece of equipment that comes down the pike. Credibility comes from knowing *which* equipment is the right equipment. Agnostic clearly knows what he's talking about. He's thought about it and researched it. He can articulate his thoughts into objective comments that can apply just as much to others as they do to his situation.

 I don't think Agnostic has any need of worrying about his credibility. He's got it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your refusal to answer my 2 closed questions with the yes or no answers I asked for has dulled my enthusiasm for this debate._

 

It's pretty obvious that you weren't holding up well to Agnostic's replies. Admit it when someone bests you in an argument. Don't try to turn it around on them. Being intellectually honest will help *your* credibility.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Since you believe in an untested theory, I take it you use stock cables, and very cheap IC's?_

 

It's not an untested theory. He cited comparison tests that showed that there was no audible difference between different cables.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_there are a bunch of names that have a lot of valuable experience and opinions on cables but you never see them post in cable threads..._

 

...because their "facts" don't stand up to review by their peers.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is my understanding that the way the know-how and expertise is created and maintained in this hobby has been changing rather dramatically since the internet appeared_

 

The irony is that the bologna being peddled in audio magazines didn't used to be the norm. Back in the 70s, when I started out, hifi nuts were a practical lot. The advent of magical thinking in audio came from two places... stereo store salesmen (I remember encountering it first at Pacific Stereo in LA) and magazine "advertorial". The concept of stacking the cards in favor of the advertisers continues in the internet era. It makes you wonder who the magazines and websites swear their allegiance to... the average audiophile or the almighty dollar.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry, just kidding. You're right though, there are a bunch of names that have a lot of valuable experience and opinions on cables but you never see them post in cable threads. I think thats a pity and I would love this place to have an environment that makes them feel comfortable posting without fear of this happening. 

 How do we achieve that?_

 

Not going to happen. The detractors have made it pretty clear that they're willing to forcefully push the debate into any thread they like, even if the OP specifically asks people to refrain from debating in his thread. Head-Fi is essentially an experiential forum, but to these people experience is valid only as long as it is not with burn-in or cables - unless of course it is _their_ experience, in which case they think it perfectly acceptable and logical to report that there is no burn-in and all cables sound the same because they haven't experienced a difference. Whatever "facts" these detractors wish to cite in their attack on the possibility of cable burn-in, the underlying stink that surrounds their arguments is that _they have not experienced it themselves_. Everything else is window dressing designed to make them feel better about their experience. When they haven't experienced other kinds of burn-in that I have and they go equally baboon crazy in their attack on those it makes it stunningly easy to not give a crap what they think. My experience or theirs? Very easy decision.

 If you'd like to know about a particular cable, the best method is to search profiles to see who has what. You get very candid, very useful opinions in private conversation. Then you can be free to try experiencing for yourself whether you hear a difference - without being attacked for wanting to have your own experience by people whose experience says you shouldn't.


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not going to happen. The detractors have made it pretty clear that they're willing to forcefully push the debate into any thread they like, even if the OP specifically asks people to refrain from debating in his thread. Head-Fi is essentially an experiential forum, but to these people experience is valid only as long as it is not with burn-in or cables - unless of course it is their experience, in which case they think it perfectly acceptable and logical to report that there is no burn-in and all cables sound the same because they haven't experienced a difference. Whatever "facts" these detractors wish to cite in their attack on the possibility of cable burn-in, the underlying stink that surrounds their arguments is that they have not experienced it themselves. Everything else is window dressing designed to make them feel better about their experience. When they haven't experienced other kinds of burn-in that I have and they go equally baboon crazy in their attack on those it makes it stunningly easy to not give a crap what they think. My experience or theirs? Very easy decision.

 If you'd like to know about a particular cable, the best method is to search profiles to see who has what. You get very candid, very useful opinions in private conversation. Then you can be free to try experiencing for yourself whether you hear a difference - without being attacked for wanting to have your own experience by people whose experience says you shouldn't._

 

Once again, you are making unjustified and somewhat offensive generalizations about "detractors" without providing anything that would support the claim that cable burn-in is real. That method of arguing was already discussed before, as well as the validity of subjective experiences as proof of the reality of something supposedly material in character like "cable burn-in."

 All public claims about the reality of certain phenomena are likely to be challenged, so using PM messages is actually a very reasonable way to avoid this.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Once again, you are making unjustified and somewhat offensive generalizations about "detractors" without providing anything that would support the claim that cable burn-in is real. That method of arguing was already discussed before, as well as the validity of subjective experiences as proof of the reality of something supposedly material in character like "cable burn-in."_

 

Once again, I've already made it clear that I'm not here to argue with you about whether cable burn-in is real or not. You've got an exceptional ego to assume that I'm interested in or obliged to engage you on a topic that interests you. The topic that interests me is the character of obsessive members who make it their mission to disrupt other people's threads. I mentioned this already, and you chose not to engage me on it. Fine with me. Let's not repeat this again. And by the way, when the discussion gets offensive, I go with the flow. I'm not claiming to be some wonderful debater on your pet subject. I don't want it to debate it at all, and consider my contributions here little more than the ramblings of an obnoxious jerk.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All public claims about the reality of certain phenomena are likely to be challenged, so using PM messages is actually a very reasonable way to avoid this._

 

Yes, because the detractors are incapable of allowing others to peaceably engage in discussions. Not every discussion about cables or burn-in or pink noise is necessarily a discussion about whether differences exist between cables or burn-in is real. I see no harm in allowing them to exist as experiential discussions - you know, like all the other forums here. Or is there something wrong with those as well? If no one is going to step up to the plate to give us a definitive answer to the questions of cable differences and burn-in, what harm is there in sharing experiences? Essentially your unspoken contention is that we shut the cables forum down - because what use does it serve? All you use it for is to detract, hence the label I've chosen for you. If you don't wish to use it for what it was set up for, why do you use it at all? Why don't you PM Jude and ask him to remove it? Or is it that you enjoy disrupting other people's discussions?

 Criticizing me for not being willing to engage people who repeatedly make statements like the ones below is ridiculous. Is there anything in it for me? Am I out to convince anyone of anything? I come to Head-Fi to read about people's experiences. If you've got an experience, share it. If you want to repeatedly cast doubt on the existence of a phenomenon instead of utilizing the forums for what they're here for, that's your business, but there's nothing about that that interests me. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_6moons is not a reputable review site. Are there any other reviews for these cables?_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nobody cares about who is on your ignore list. You really need to get a life._

 

And the last time I attempted to engage bigshot he ignored me. He tends to selectively respond to the points others make, as kwkarth, a moderator, took note of. I stopped reading his posts long ago.


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Once again, I've already made it clear that I'm not here to argue with you about whether cable burn-in is real or not. You've got an exceptional ego to assume that I'm interested in or obliged to engage you on a topic that interests you. The topic that interests me is the character of obsessive members who make it their mission to disrupt other people's threads._

 

Then what are you doing here? It is true that the original post of this thread was deleted, but we are still discussing the reality of cable burn-in here, since this was the original topic of this thread. You can always start a separate thread on the topic that is of interest to you.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not every discussion about cables or burn-in or pink noise is necessarily a discussion about whether differences exist between cables or burn-in is real. I see no harm in allowing them to exist as experiential discussions - you know, like all the other forums here. Or is there something wrong with those as well?_

 

If you don't see a difference between discussing experiences due to something that exists in the material sense (like in the case of headphones, amps, sources, etc.) and experiences due to something which doesn't seem to have any material basis then what can I say...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Essentially your unspoken contention is that we shut the cables forum down - because what use does it serve? All you use it for is to detract, hence the label I've chosen for you. If you don't wish to use it for what it was set up for, why do you use it at all? Why don't you PM Jude and ask him to remove it?_

 

Instead of putting words in my mouth and trying to divine my intentions you could always look at what I write about. I have always been against all calls for closing cable discussions or shutting down cable forums - neither makes much sense to me. I believe that there is a value to those discussions, and I have written about just this a few posts ago. The reason why I don't think closing cable discussions makes any sense is because they tend to reappear like a force of nature anyways, so this is clearly something that people have very different opinions about and are likely to disagree about. In this context, it seems that you simply don't understand how forums work and why there is a cable section on head-fi: it is here so that discussions about cables are contained within a particular section of the forums and they don't spread to discussions in other sub-forums - that way those who want to avoid cable discussions altogether can do so. The cable forum, in other words, is a means of controlling and containing a certain kinds of recurring traffic, and thus it is useful that it does exist.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And by the way, when the discussion gets offensive, I go with the flow._

 

This is precisely the kind of behavior that should be avoided if we mean to have civil and reasonable discussions about our hobby here. What you don't seem to understand is that for different people this forum is about different things, and they like different things about it. It is because of all these differences that it is important that we try to be courteous to each other, even if we disagree.


----------



## stevenkelby

I'm no longer interested in this thread either, not because I fell anyone bested me, but because they refused to engage me on a point I felt was valid.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If all you have to say is we should exclude some opinions by default, by means of regulations, so that other opinions that wouldn't be otherwise able to stand their ground can be expressed with impunity and could not be subjected to rational criticism, then I'm sorry, but your comments don't really bring anything useful to the discussion._

 

I feel I've made it clear that I don't feel we should exclude anyones opinion, merely that we should set some ground rules for a polite way of discussing them. If people haven't even recognized that point, they are unlikely to recognize and further points I may make.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, because the detractors are incapable of allowing others to peaceably engage in discussions._

 

You read and discuss what you think is interesting, and I'll read and discuss what I think is interesting. You're under no obligation to read or reply to anyone's post. The world isn't going to conform to you. You need to figure out a way to exist in it without getting angry and frustrated all the time.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Instead of putting words in my mouth and trying to divine my intentions you could always look at what I write about. I have always been against all calls for closing cable discussions or shutting down cable forums - neither makes much sense to me. I believe that there is a value to those discussions, and I have written about just this a few posts ago._

 

Herein lies the root of the problem. To some people the value comes with the exchange of experiences. Instead of allowing others to acquire what value they can from these experiences, you impose what _you_ value on everyone else by dragging every experiential cable and burn-in discussion towards the aspect of the topic that _you_ find valuable. Not everyone values what you value. Get that through your head. How easy would it be to put your topic in another thread instead of consistently and thoroughly obliterating threads other people are actively using by shifting the topics in each and every one of them to what _you_ find valuable? 

 You seem like a very reasonable and intelligent person. Do you really want to even pretend that OverlordXenu's posts in the recent threads on Zu cables and pink noise represent an appropriate approach towards a constructive discussion on this topic? If you think that derailing other people's conversations is a reasonable thing to do, at least admit that you're putting what you find valuable ahead of what everyone else does.

 And do I really have to repeat myself? The OP set the topic, and the topic here was his experience with cable burn-in. That's what he valued. That's what he wanted to talk about. Some people obviously value experiential discussions on cables and associated phenomena, and there's no sensible excuse for ruining what they value. Yes, OverlordXenu believes he is saving the universe and has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't care about what other people value. He's on his own little mission. But you sir, you are a sensible person. If you want a thread on your topic, there's a little button with the words "New Thread" on it. Use it liberally.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I feel I've made it clear that I don't feel we should exclude anyones opinion, merely that we should set some ground rules for a polite way of discussing them. If people haven't even recognized that point, they are unlikely to recognize and further points I may make._

 

The ground rules as I see them are to be more polite to others than they are to you, help other people when you can, and argue fairly and clearly without using logical fallacies to force a point. The problem is, until you know what logical fallacies are, and understand that they don't have any place in civil discussions, most of your points aren't points at all.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And do I really have to repeat myself?_

 

To be honest, you're wasting your time posting to this thread about how you don't see the need to post to this thread. You're wasting your time even more trying to tell other people how *they* should post. Why not just take a break and go out into the sunshine.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But you sir, you are a sensible person. If you want a thread on your topic, there's a little button with the words "New Thread" on it. Use it liberally._

 

Why would I start a new thread when there is this perfectly fine thread that used to be called "Holly crap! Cable burn-in is real" - a thread that seems particularly cool and and unique to me, also because of its turbulent history (deletion of the original post, etc.) In either case, I am on topic here by discussing the reality of cable burn-in, you are not by discussing OverlordXenu.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To be honest, you're wasting your time posting to this thread about how you don't see the need to post to this thread. You're wasting your time even more trying to tell other people how *they* should post. Why not just take a break and go out into the sunshine._

 

Funny, it doesn't feel like a waste of my time. Thanks for your concern though. From where I stand you're wasting _your _time telling people what they should experience. And you're free to pretend that you're a wonderfully civil debater, but I've seen your posts. I know full well that isn't the case. You enjoy your sunshine, okay?


----------



## bigshot

You're on your own pal. Feel free to discuss what you perceive to be my faults. You'll just end up embodying exactly what you complain about. I'm not the one crying and throwing tantrums until the thread gets closed. I'm just talking about sound to folks who are interested in the subject and want to share solid information.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The irony is that the bologna being peddled in audio magazines didn't used to be the norm. Back in the 70s, when I started out, hifi nuts were a practical lot. The advent of magical thinking in audio came from two places... stereo store salesmen (I remember encountering it first at Pacific Stereo in LA) and magazine "advertorial". The concept of stacking the cards in favor of the advertisers continues in the internet era. It makes you wonder who the magazines and websites swear their allegiance to... the average audiophile or the almighty dollar.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

This is actually very interesting to me - maybe my understanding of the process is still a bit too schematic at this stage, but I simply haven't been around to see how it all started and developed for myself. What you say makes perfect sense though - it would certainly have taken a while for the most effective business techniques to evolve and crystallize; it also seems natural that these techniques would be deployed in the new medium, once it had appeared. I still think there is something qualitatively distinct and potentially hopeful about the internet in the long run, but then maybe I'm a bit idealistic about things


----------



## earwicker7

I'm curious about something... 

 I really, honestly, don't mean this in an angry way, but wouldn't some of you be happier posting to Gizmodo or one of those similar sites? They seem to be much more in line with your way of thinking. It just seems like a waste of time to lurk in the shadows so that you can start fights with the (vast) majority of Head-Fi who believe in this stuff.

 I know you have probably convinced yourself that you are in some way saving us from ourselves, but seriously, look at yourselves for a minute and think about what you're doing. You're proselytizing in a very combative manner. You're not going to make Jews out of Christians, you're not going to make misogynists out of feminists, you're not going to make meat eaters out of vegetarians. (Just to be PC, I'm not making a value judgment on any of the preceding, I'm just making a point). And you aren't going to turn the members of Head-Fi into audio Luddites.

 There are plenty of websites which cater to these viewpoints. Could you please go there and quit dragging this site through the mud?

 Thanks.


----------



## vcoheda

the bottom line is these people are trolls. no other term for it. they comment on things they don't know about. and that's all they do. if you look at their profiles, just about all of them have owned/tried very little gear and all of it low-end stuff.

 based on experience alone - which in truth, is the only thing that people put any value on - they are the least qualified to comment on pretty much every topic i can think of.

 i really wish head-fi would step up and get rid of these guys.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the bottom line is these people are trolls. no other term for it. they comment on things they don't know about. and that's all they do. if you look at their profiles, just about all of them have owned/tried very little gear and all of it low-end stuff.

 based on experience alone - which in truth, is the only thing that people put any value on - they are the least qualified to comment on pretty much every topic i can think of.

 i really wish head-fi would step up and get rid of these guys._

 

Absolutely. Just to make this personal, I'm an Agnostic. I would never dream of going into a church, synagogue, mosque, etc, and try to lecture people on how I think my beliefs are superior. It's just in horribly bad taste and, frankly, I think, damaging to the psyche of the person who is doing it.


----------



## bigshot

No offense, earwicker7, but if you really want to see the level of discourse raised around here, it would be good to start by not telling folks who disagree with you to get lost. That isn't very productive.

 Thanks for the tip about Gizmodo. I already follow that blog and Engadget.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_based on experience alone - which in truth, is the only thing that people put any value on - they are the least qualified to comment on pretty much every topic i can think of._

 

30 years in home audio- 20 in audio (film and video) recording, production and post production. Credits on CDs, TV shows, rock videos and commercials. Currently building a database-driven digital media library. Sideline digital audio restoration business. Music collector/researcher and amateur musician.

 How about you?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_30 years in home audio- 20 in audio (film and video) recording, production and post production. Credits on CDs, TV shows, rock videos and commercials. Currently building a database-driven digital media library. Sideline digital audio restoration business. Music collector/researcher and amateur musician.

 How about you?_

 

see my profile. i limit my comments to that alone plus other gear i have spent time with. and by the way, what cables have you tried, since you like to pontificate so much on that topic. i bet i know the answer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 you guys are a joke and no one takes your posts seriously:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=264425



 edit: ignore list. add "bigshot." (should have done this a long time ago)


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the bottom line is these people are trolls. no other term for it. they comment on things they don't know about. and that's all they do. if you look at their profiles, just about all of them have owned/tried very little gear and all of it low-end stuff.

 based on experience alone - which in truth, is the only thing that people put any value on - they are the least qualified to comment on pretty much every topic i can think of.

 i really wish head-fi would step up and get rid of these guys._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Absolutely. Just to make this personal, I'm an Agnostic. I would never dream of going into a church, synagogue, mosque, etc, and try to lecture people on how I think my beliefs are superior. It's just in horribly bad taste and, frankly, I think, damaging to the psyche of the person who is doing it._

 

Why should people who have contrary views get banned? The past few pages have been really entertaining ok some beleive and some don't ok great. IT's just wire everyone chill if you want to buy the expensive shiny cable go ahead if you don't then don't. I find no reason to limit the discussion heck I'd be happy if someone could just explain what happens over the course of 100 hours other than I got used to the sound. 
 There is no reason to limit the debate or ban people.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is no reason to limit the debate or ban people._

 

how is it debate when someone tells you that a product they have never used doesn't work.


----------



## fishski13

vcoheda and earwicker7,
 misery loves company? it's supposed to be a fun hobby. they just want to wind you up - they're succeeding. use the ignore function. 

 i'm not sure why the onus is always on the Subjectivists to prove that something they perceive is "real". ask any any one of these Objectivists to prove that burn-in isn't real. they can't, neither can a Subjectivist prove that it is real. it's all subjective. any "scientific method" other than listening to a cable in situ over an extended period of time and then switching it out for a different cable for an equally extended period of time is pointless. do you enjoy musical reproduction by ABX and D*T methods? i don't - i pop in a cd, kick back and _listen to music_ (without a blindfold mind you). these so-called methods are akin to taking a wild grizzly bear out of it's natural environs, putting it in your fenced-in backyard, studying it's feeding habits, and then claim your observations as "fact". 

 PACE


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_see my profile. i limit my comments to that alone plus other gear i have spent time with. and by the way, what cables have you tried, since you like to pontificate so much on that topic. i bet i know the answer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 you guys are a joke and no one takes your posts seriously:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=264425



 edit: ignore list. add "bigshot." (should have done this a long time ago)_

 

First you post off topic (the topic is the question of the reality of cable burn-in), then you call people who have been posting on topic "trolls," then you question their general competence, then you offend them some more "you people are a joke", and finally you add them to the ignore list when they respond to your post in good faith and in a completely legitimate manner 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What is it exactly that you are trying to say or accomplish by all this?


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_vcoheda and earwicker7,
 misery loves company? it's supposed to be a fun hobby. they just want to wind you up - they're succeeding. use the ignore function._

 

This logical fallacy is called ad hominem attack (arguing against the person not their claim). It is not nice, apart from being illogical.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i'm not sure why the onus is always on the Subjectivists to prove that something they perceive is "real". ask any any one of these Objectivists to prove that burn-in isn't real. they can't (...)_

 

This logical fallacy is called Burden of Proof - look it up before you post something like this again, or just read through this thread because we have already covered this one.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_(...) neither can a Subjectivist prove that it is real. it's all subjective._

 

If it is all subjective why is it called "cable burn-in" and what does it have to do with cables specifically?

 Edit: I have removed a part of what I had originally posted, because it didn't really say anything of relevance. I think the question above is more important, and if you could explain that, we would be actually much closer to determining whether "cable burn-in" really exists.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why should people who have contrary views get banned?_

 

They shouldn't. I'm not saying they should be banned. I'm just questioning the mindset of someone who makes huge amounts of posts to a website that is almost diametrically opposed to their way of thinking.

 It's like a fundamentalist Christian having the highest number of posts on a Muslim website. What's the point? To make people angry. Period.

 So no, they shouldn't be banned, I believe in freedom of speech, but if they have any class, they'll leave of their own free will.


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_how is it debate when someone tells you that a product they have never used doesn't work. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

it's a little like me not buying the machina dynamic clever clock, I don't need to buy a rebranded battery operated clock with a littleorage dot to know it more likely than not will not change the sonics. 
 btw I am not saying I have not heard differnce in sonics with some cables I have, I am saying it's ok to be a skeptic. Skeptics to a large degree help the community by keeping the more enthusiastic members (I include myself in this category) from leading the community down the primrose path. 

 Now I for one think both sides could probably have a bit more civility in the discussion, it's way to easy to grow internet muscles when you are typing better to imagiine you a having a face to face with that person and type accordingly.


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They shouldn't. I'm not saying they should be banned. I'm just questioning the mindset of someone who makes huge amounts of posts to a website that is almost diametrically opposed to their way of thinking.

 It's like a fundamentalist Christian having the highest number of posts on a Muslim website. What's the point? To make people angry. Period.

 So no, they shouldn't be banned, I believe in freedom of speech, but if they have any class, they'll leave of their own free will._

 

you did not say they should get banned but on this very page someone did mu post reffered to that.

 Oh and on the religion reference let me put it another way, this is not a house of cable worship this is a place that is open to the general public to discuss their opinions and share facts. I really see no reason why someone should self censor provided they are civil, I think we are on the same page on this. I'm not sure if people who post in contray to the OP or others are trying to anger people they just feel strongly and are expressing that. 

 No one is going to get the other side to have an epiphany, each side is trying to teach a dog geometry


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No one is going to get the other side to have an epiphany, each side is trying to teach a dog geometry_

 

Close. One side is trying to have an experiential discussion and the other side is trying to teach a dog geometry. "It's impossible for you to experience that, dog! Now draw me an equilateral triangle." Next time bring some Alpo. I'm far more pliable when people feed me.


----------



## fishski13

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This logical fallacy is called ad hominem attack (arguing against the person not their claim). It is not nice, apart from being illogical.



 This logical fallacy is called Burden of Proof - look it up before you post something like this again, or just read through this thread because we have already covered this one.



 If it is all subjective why is it called "cable burn-in" and what does it have to do with cables specifically?



 That's a very controversial claim, my friend, care to elaborate how exactly purely subjective experiences are more reliable than the "scientific method"?



 Sorry, I lost you there completely. What do grizzly bears have to do with the reality of cable burn-in?_

 

ad hominem attack, come on, you're not that thin skinned.

 perception _is_ reality. i believe you when you say you can't hear a difference, or that cable burn-in isn't real - i respect that opinion and it's "real" for you. you've conducted your own personal experiments and experienced your experiences and that's what matters. but i do hear a difference, so who's right or wrong (my answer: neither)? does one really need science to tell them what they hear is "real" or not? 

 re the grizzly analogy: the scientific methods need to fit how what is being tested/measured, or observed, exists, or is used, in real life. i don't listen to music by means of various scientific methods, so anything other than ABXing in my own home, with my own ears, and with with my associated equipment, would be pointless.

 PACE


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Close. One side is trying to have an experiential discussion and the other side is trying to teach a dog geometry. "It's impossible for you to experience that, dog! Now draw me an equilateral triangle." Next time bring some Alpo. I'm far more pliable when people feed me._

 

I hope you didn't take the dog math things as a slight to either isde it was just my way of illistrating the futility of this discussion

 Personally as I have mentioned I have heard difference with cables, what I have not experienced is a change in the cable after repeated play. My hypothosis is changes I may have thought I have heard are chalked up to me getting used to the cable. Just my 2c cents

 Pace, perception is not reality, reality is reality. If I percieve the earth to be flat it does not make it flat does it? If I percieve my transistor radio sounds as good as a 5k cdp player and amp set up is it or is it a construct of my own making?


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ad hominem attack, come on, you're not that thin skinned.

 perception is reality. i believe you when you say you can't hear a difference, or that cable burn-in isn't real - i respect that opinion and it's "real" for you. you've conducted your own personal experiments and experienced your experiences and that's what matters. but i do hear a difference, so who's right or wrong (my answer: neither)? does one really need science to tell them what they hear is "real" or not? 

 re the grizzly analogy: the scientific methods need to fit how what is being tested/measured, or observed, exists, or is used, in real life. i don't listen to music by means of various scientific methods, so anything other than ABXing in my own home, with my own ears, and with with my associated equipment, would be pointless.

 PACE_

 

I'm not offended by ad hominem attacks, it's just that they bring nothing useful to the debate and merely degenerate the discussion. Why write such things in this case? You have to excuse me, but it seems that nearly everyone who joins these discussions on the side of the "believers" begins by trying to characterize the skeptics as this or that, so at this stage pointing out ad hominem attacks becomes like a knee jerk reflex for me. Just read through this thread and see what I mean.

 If you say that your position in the burn-in debate is that "neither" the believers nor the skeptics are right, then you are actually committing another logical fallacy called middle ground, by the way, just a little friendly warning 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Look, logic is not merely a rhetorical technique, it is something that brings clarity to the matter under consideration. The situation, considered logically, looks more or less as follows in this particular case:

 1) A claim that "Holly crap! Cable burn-in is real" was made by the OP. He has since deleted his post and removed the title of the thread, but others have concurred with his claim, so it is still something that must be considered.
 2) The skeptics have nothing to prove here, it is those who made the claim that should substantiate it.
 3) If it is said that the proof is in the subjective experience ("it is true, because I hear it") then there is a number of possible explanations for this phenomenon, something like cable burn-in is just one of them, and a rather unlikely one, all things being considered.
 4) So the question is: how do we demonstrate that the perceived difference is caused by some kind of material process ("burn-in") that happens specifically in the "cable"? How do we exclude the possibility that it is a purely psychological phenomenon? If it were a purely psychological phenomenon, of course, then the name "cable burn-in" would be a misnomer.

 Until this last question is answered there is no basis for claiming that "cable burn-in is real", and this is pretty much where we are at the moment.


----------



## fishski13

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hope you didn't take the dog math things as a slight to either isde it was just my way of illistrating the futility of this discussion

 Personally as I have mentioned I have heard difference with cables, what I have not experienced is a change in the cable after repeated play. My hypothosis is changes I may have thought I have heard are chalked up to me getting used to the cable. Just my 2c cents

 Pace, perception is not reality, reality is reality. If I percieve the earth to be flat it does not make it flat does it? If I percieve my transistor radio sounds as good as a 5k cdp player and amp set up is it or is it a construct of my own making?_

 

absolutely, it's a construct of your own making. that's the point. how would your life be any different if you didn't believe the earth to be round - would you experience anything differently? yes, the earth is round, but in comparison, the effects of cables are much more difficult to measure as their differences are much less in the grand scheme of things. unlike cables, the earth being round doesn't depend on differences in hi-fi equipment and listener preferences as it is much more subjective in nature. i _like_ this genre of music, i don't like that genre.

 PACE


----------



## fishski13

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not offended by ad hominem attacks, it's just that they bring nothing useful to the debate and merely degenerate the discussion. Why write such things in this case? You have to excuse me, but it seems that nearly everyone who joins these discussions on the side of the "believers" begins by trying to characterize the skeptics as this or that, so at this stage pointing out ad hominem attacks becomes like a knee jerk reflex for me. Just read through this thread and see what I mean.

 If you say that your position in the burn-in debate is it is that "neither" the believers nor the skeptics are right, then you are actually committing another logical fallacy called middle ground, by the way, just a little friendly warning 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Look, logic is not merely a rhetorical technique, it is something that brings clarity to the matter under consideration. The situation, considered logically, looks more or less as follows in this particular case:

 1) A claim that "Holly crap! Cable burn-in is real" was made by the OP. He has since deleted his post and removed the title of the thread, but others have concurred with his claim, so it is still something that must be considered.
 2) The skeptics have nothing to prove here, it is those who made the claim that should substantiate it.
 3) If it is said that the proof is in the subjective experience ("it is true, because I hear it") then there is a number of possible explanations for this phenomenon, something like cable burn-in is just one of them, and a rather unlikely one, all things being considered.
 4) So the question is: how do we demonstrate that the perceived difference is caused by some kind of material process ("burn-in") that happens specifically in the "cable"? How do we exclude the possibility that it is a purely psychological phenomenon? If it were a purely psychological phenomenon, of course, then the name "cable burn-in" is a misnomer.

 Until this last question is answered there is no reason to believe that "cable burn-in is real", and this is pretty much where we are at the moment._

 

we think differently. i really have no quabbles with your views other than your freq. references to Logic with regards to debate - it too can be a limited mental construct. been there done that enroute to my bachelors in science (biology, minor chem + math). i mean no condescension.

 1) absolutely
 2) we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. i don't think it's unreasonable to expect those with opposing views to prove what they believe if that's expected of others. 
 3) absolutely, but i don't hear "unlikely".
 4) psychological, a very plausable possibilty. please read my last post. although proving this is difiicult.

 some cable makers use a lot of silly pseudo-science to market their wares. while i appreciate scientific inquiry, it's fruitless to use this as a means to justify/market that which is subjective. they set themselves up for all the crap they get. 

 PACE


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_we think differently. i really have no quabbles with your views other than your freq. references to Logic with regards to debate - it too can be a limited mental construct. been there done that enroute to my bachelors in science (biology, minor chem + math).

 1) absolutely
 2) we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. i don't think it's unreasonable to expect those with opposing views to prove what they believe if that's expected of others. 
 3) absolutely, but i don't hear "unlikely".
 4) psychological, a very plausable possibilty. please read my last post. although proving this is difiicult.

 some cable makers use a lot of silly pseudo-science to market their wares. while i appreciate scientific inquiry, it's fruitless to use this as a means to justify/market that which is subjective. they set themselves up for all the crap they get. 

 PACE_

 

If we think differently that only means that you are thinking differently than logic 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you are happy to leave it at that, so am I.


----------



## fishski13

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If we think differently that only means that you are thinking differently than logic 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you are happy to leave it at that, so am I._

 






 i'm kosher with that, as long as you tell me you don't believe in the existance of god (on second thought, let's not go there) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

 PACE


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_





 i'm kosher with that, as long as you tell me you don't believe in the existance of god (on second thought, let's not go there) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

 PACE_

 

I agree about not going there - that would be way off topic 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Alrighty, enough for today. It was a pleasure...


----------



## fishski13

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I agree about not going there - that would be way off topic 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Alrighty, enough for today. It was a pleasure..._

 

x2.
 PACE


----------



## Black Stuart

The thing that really hacks me off is that the skeptics keep referring to those who can hear differences with cables as 'believer's. It is they who are the 'believers' in science and instruments, fine that does'nt cause me to make insulting remarks like bigshot (what a handle, it tells you all) that we who can hear differences have 'had our brains modified'.

 They also keep quoting the thousands of dollars cables but when I say that I make cables for pennies, that beat the crap out of modestly priced commercial offerings as well as the ridiculously expensive ones - it all goes deadly quiet. 

 I think that a lot of skeptics should go back to uni and engage in the pointless irrelevant discussions that they used to have there. 

 This is a forum for those who enjoy listening to music, using various sources, who like to share their experiences and gain from that civil intercourse.

 This is an excellant forum but it will die if the threadcrappers are not dealt with. it's also true to say that most if not all skeptics never construct anything themselves.

 Would'nt it be good to hear just what, if anything the skeptics actually make with their own hands, what experiments have you all conducted - let's hear, chapter and verse, c'mon let's hear what you've ACTUALLY created - don't be bashful - we are waiting, we are all ears.


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Black Stuart* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The thing that really hacks me off is that the skeptics keep referring to those who can hear differences with cables as 'believer's. It is they who are the 'believers' in science and instruments, fine that does'nt cause me to make insulting remarks like bigshot (what a handle, it tells you all) that we who can hear differences have 'had our brains modified'.

 They also keep quoting the thousands of dollars cables but when I say that I make cables for pennies, that beat the crap out of modestly priced commercial offerings as well as the ridiculously expensive ones - it all goes deadly quiet. 

 I think that a lot of skeptics should go back to uni and engage in the pointless irrelevant discussions that they used to have there. 

 This is a forum for those who enjoy listening to music, using various sources, who like to share their experiences and gain from that civil intercourse.

 This is an excellant forum but it will die if the threadcrappers are not dealt with. it's also true to say that most if not all skeptics never construct anything themselves.

 Would'nt it be good to hear just what, if anything the skeptics actually make with their own hands, what experiments have you all conducted - let's hear, chapter and verse, c'mon let's hear what you've ACTUALLY created - don't be bashful - we are waiting, we are all ears._

 

And another ad hominem! Keep em coming... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So far I have only seen one or two people who believe in cables (yes belief, there is no theoretical framework to explain how it would work nor any test that prove people hear a difference) who have had the guts to say what it really comes down to:

 1. Yes, I believe in cables because I have experienced sonic differences between them. 
 2. No, that doesn't prove it's a real phenomenon, but being aware that it's possibly placebo, the specific quality of my experience is convincing to me.
 3. No, I don't know how it could work theoretically.
 4. No, I don't have any proof to support this is factual.
 5. Yes, it would be very interesting to see some kind of test that could help to show if what I hear is real because even though I don't think so, I may be spending money and time on something that may not have any real benefit to my sonic experience whatsoever.

 I think that would be an intellectually honest and reasonable point of view to take and I admire those who have taken this point of view (there are some if only a few that seem to).


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hope you didn't take the dog math things as a slight to either isde it was just my way of illistrating the futility of this discussion_

 

Not at all.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Personally as I have mentioned I have heard difference with cables, what I have not experienced is a change in the cable after repeated play. My hypothosis is changes I may have thought I have heard are chalked up to me getting used to the cable. Just my 2c cents_

 

I sit somewhere in your camp I do believe. Except that when someone like Asr, whose ears I generally trust as much as one can trust ears he can't hear though, says he hears something, I generally find that worth taking note of. If his thoughts on headphones, amps, sources and yes, some cables, have always sounded reasonable, and I have been able to confirm that he is indeed describing sonic phenomena accurately, why would I suddenly doubt his experience when it comes to cable burn-in? What is it about this forum that renders what people claim they hear meaningless, when we have three other forums where everyone goes on like it's meaning_ful_?


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I sit somewhere in your camp I do believe. Except that when someone like Asr, whose ears I generally trust as much as one can trust ears he can't hear though, says he hears something, I generally find that worth taking note of. If his thoughts on headphones, amps, sources and yes, some cables, have always sounded reasonable, and I have been able to confirm that he is indeed describing sonic phenomena accurately, why would I suddenly doubt his experience when it comes to cable burn-in? What is it about this forum that renders what people claim they hear meaningless, when we have three other forums where everyone goes on like it's meaningful?_

 

I doubt most reviewers for one simple reason their ability to be reviewers is based much more on the ability to write then it is to listen. If I had amazing listening skills but could not write very well I could not be a reviewer, if I had average listeing skills but could write very well I would would be a reviewer. The major flaw with some of this is it denies the most significant variable out there , the humar mind. I would feel so much better about this if the reviewer had a control pair and did not rely on memory for the comparison.Reviewers typically go for the bold pronouncement over the sedate one, headlines sell newspapers. This by NO means is directed at any one reviewer and it more meant as a generalization. 
 And here is where I contradict myself reviewer for me are much better at establishing base lines. Reviewer A tends to like things I like therefor I may like this thing


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not at all.



 I sit somewhere in your camp I do believe. Except that when someone like Asr, whose ears I generally trust as much as one can trust ears he can't hear though, says he hears something, I generally find that worth taking note of. If his thoughts on headphones, amps, sources and yes, some cables, have always sounded reasonable, and I have been able to confirm that he is indeed describing sonic phenomena accurately, why would I suddenly doubt his experience when it comes to cable burn-in? What is it about this forum that renders what people claim they hear meaningless, when we have three other forums where everyone goes on like it's meaningful?_

 

This gives me an idea: Why not establish a forum called "*Careful Listening and Experiential Evaluation*"? This would be for just that, not 'science', measurement or objective validation. Posts on these latter items, or ones that purport to be like the drivel in this thread, would be prohibited. Seriously, if those that avowedly wish to inflict discomfort and claim to be peers who will never accept what they _a priori_ do not consider real or proven--which is, of course, the most subjective possible point of view--insist they will badger every other thread, let's have one they are barred from.

 And it's perfectly fine with me, in fact it would be a positive thing, if they had a forum about the 'scientific' or objective approach to evaluating audiophile equipment. Then we could do away, perhaps, with the us and them stuff, since both forums would be very interesting, at least to me.

 BTW, about Agnostic's list. I can agree with each of them properly stated:
 1. Yes, I believe in cables because I have experienced sonic differences between them.
 2. No, that doesn't prove it's a repeatable, reproduceable, i.e., fully proven phenomenon [though indisputably *real* as an experience of many], but being aware that to one extent or another it is possibly placebo, the specific quality of my experience is convincing to me. Not hearing such is also possibly of this nature.
 3. No, I don't know how it could work theoretically, but there are hypotheses about this being explored by some.
 4. No, I don't have any proof to support this is factual, though what "this" refers to here is most problematical: the experience?, the proof of a measurable underlying cause? The observability of this to everyone? Likewise, there is no proof it is not so, and the lack of proof is not a disproof.
 5. Yes, it would be very interesting to see some kind of test that could help to show if what I hear is real because even though I don't think so, I may be spending money and time on something that may not have any real benefit to my sonic experience whatsoever. "Real" in this case means present if and only if the particular cables involved are double-blindly present, that is, you can't get this particular difference any other way consistently over time.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Agnostic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And another ad hominem! Keep em coming... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 So far I have only seen one or two people who believe in cables (yes belief, there is no theoretical framework to explain how it would work nor any test that prove people hear a difference) who have had the guts to say what it really comes down to:

 1. Yes, I believe in cables because I have experienced sonic differences between them. 
 2. No, that doesn't prove it's a real phenomenon, but being aware that it's possibly placebo, the specific quality of my experience is convincing to me.
 3. No, I don't know how it could work theoretically.
 4. No, I don't have any proof to support this is factual.
 5. Yes, it would be very interesting to see some kind of test that could help to show if what I hear is real because even though I don't think so, I may be spending money and time on something that may not have any real benefit to my sonic experience whatsoever.

 I think that would be an intellectually honest and reasonable point of view to take and I admire those who have taken this point of view (there are some if only a few that seem to)._

 

Well, if you would say this with a bit more neutrality (ie, without an obvious show that you personally don't believe in it) you're coming very close to my beliefs. Frankly, I think you're also coming very close to the way the majority of people on this website feel.

 Merge 3 and 4 to "I, and others, do have theories as to why this takes place but are having trouble finding real world measurements with current technology, and the ear itself is notoriously unreliable when tested" and I think you would describe most of us.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Black Stuart* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The thing that really hacks me off is that the skeptics keep referring to those who can hear differences with cables as 'believer's._

 

Actually, it is generally *not* the so-called "skeptics" who are using that term. For example, the first instance of the word believer in this thread was by earwicker7 in post 23, who wrote:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But... but... but these tables mean that my wire coat hanger isn't as good as your silver cables! Heresy
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 !

 PS--Someone is going to take me literally, so... this is supposed to be sarcastic. *I'm a cable believer.*_

 

Similarly, nick20 wrote:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_However, I find interesting reads here all the time (ie. cable burn-in is real). I try it for myself, and see I am getting results. Therefore, I am a "believer". A "believer" that what I just read, does indeed work._


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, it is generally *not* the so-called "skeptics" who are using that term. For example, the first instance of the word believer in this thread was by earwicker7 in post 23, who wrote:



 Similarly, nick20 wrote:_

 

Wow, way to take that totally out of context and then list said context in the same thread. D'oh!

 EDIT--Again, why aren't you posting on Gizmodo instead of here? Team Rockbox? You're touting the fact that you like MP3?


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, way to take that totally out of context and then list said context in the same thread. D'oh!_

 

What did I take out of context? Black Stuart seems to suggest that the phrase "believer" is being used pejoratively by the so-called skeptics, which is clearly not true. My point is simply that the phrase "cable believer" is being used by the so-called "believers" to describe themselves.

  Quote:


 EDIT--Again, why aren't you posting on Gizmodo instead of here? Team Rockbox? You're touting the fact that you like MP3? 
 

Is this intended to be some sort of barb? I'm merely pointing out, Head-Fi style, that I use Rockbox. (In fact, I am a member of the Rockbox team with commit access to the Rockbox project.) Rockbox is quite popular at Head-Fi, so the link to the Rockbox site is often useful when I respond to threads here with questions about Rockbox. But what does this have to do with this thread?


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This gives me an idea: Why not establish a forum called "*Careful Listening and Experiential Evaluation*"? This would be for just that, not 'science', measurement or objective validation._

 

This seems like an interesting idea, but I think we would have to come up with a better name for this new forum. My own proposal would be "Truthiness in Audio (Fact-Free Forum)" - I think it captures the gist of what you're saying pretty well


----------



## LawnGnome

Once again this thread has been lowered to petty insults and childish jabs.

 This thread had several pages of good real discussion.

 Only to be ended by black stuarts outburst, and earwicker's uncalled for attempt of an attack on Febs.



 @blackstuart.

 We ALL believe in something. But that isn't the point.

 Currently since we are talking about CABLES, we have the people who BELIEVE in the cables, and the people who are SKEPTICAL of the effects of cables.

 Hence the two names, believers and skeptics. 

 Also, I think it was Patrick82 to originally started the believers/skeptic thing.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This seems like an interesting idea, but I think we would have to come up with a better name for this new forum. My own proposal would be "Truthiness in Audio (Fact-Free Forum)" - I think it captures the gist of what you're saying pretty well 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Gee fwojciec, you're so unbiased. How about just leaving the cables forum as it is now - a place for experiential discussion, like all the other forums we have here. You continue to request that people who report their experiences also conduct more rigorous investigations, the very kind that are mentioned in the current forum title ("DBT-Free"). Certainly there's no point in asking for something that's not supposed to be here. If DBT doesn't belong, doesn't it follow that the only thing left to discuss is experience? Is there a point to continually taking your arguments to people who discuss their experiences when, after all, that's essentially what this forum is for?


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This seems like an interesting idea, but I think we would have to come up with a better name for this new forum. My own proposal would be "Truthiness in Audio (Fact-Free Forum)" - I think it captures the gist of what you're saying pretty well 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Ignoring the obvious provocative thugishness of your gratuitously nasty response to an attempt to be constructive and recognize the worth of both approaches on their own, let me ask you:

 Are you really opposed to careful listening and experiential evaluation of audiophile equipment? Isn't that what we all use to make our selections whether one prefers this or one is left to proceed this way by default lacking more valid, proven bases for choice? 

 You have a lot of maturing to do if you do not realize that the views and perceptions of others are very much compelling facts of our human existence and thus of great interest to all...and not just because they make easy targets for indiscriminate expressions of contempt.

 I wish others who might really be positively interested in the idea of this proposed forum would say so here or in pm to me. I would like to know how one seeks to establish such a forum and if it can have the limitation I suggested.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Gee fwojciec, you're so unbiased. How about just leaving the cables forum as it is now - a place for experiential discussion, like all the other forums we have here. You continue to request that people who report their experiences also conduct more rigorous investigations, the very kind that are mentioned in the current forum title ("DBT-Free"). Certainly there's no point in asking for something that's not supposed to be here. If DBT doesn't belong, doesn't it follow that the only thing left to discuss is experience? Is there a point to continually taking your arguments to people who discuss their experiences when, after all, that's essentially what this forum is for?_

 

I agree with you about what should be the case, but some have stated their intention to not let this happen, and the moderator(s) despite the no DBT thing have not seen fit to enforce this. Thus a new forum moderated by someone who will insist on sticking to what can be heard and reported may be the only practical solution.

 I also do value the objectivist or whatever you call it approach and so would like to see a place where those who want to develop and discuss this can do so.


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ignoring the obvious provocative thugishness of your gratuitously nasty response to an attempt to be constructive and recognize the worth of both approaches on their own, let me ask you:

 Are you really opposed to careful listening and experiential evaluation of audiophile equipment? Isn't that what we all use to make our selections whether one prefers this or one is left to proceed this way by default lacking more valid, proven bases for choice? 

 You have a lot of maturing to do if you do not realize that the views and perceptions of others are very much compelling facts of our human existence and thus of great interest to all...and not just because they make easy targets for indiscriminate expressions of contempt.

 I wish others who might really be positively interested in the idea of this proposed forum would say so here or in pm to me. I would like to know how one seeks to establish such a forum and if it can have the limitation I suggested._

 

If you look at the definition of "truthiness" you might see how strikingly similar it is to what you are saying, especially the part where it suggests that what is imprortant is subjective truths and what should be excluded (!) is "regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or actual facts." Food for thought, IMO, not a thuggish intent - though I see how it could have been taken this way, and perhaps I should have explained more.

 I believe that different approaches are valid but only when they are allowed to mingle with each other, I am a pluralist, but I also believe that opinions should be allowed to struggle against each other because that way they are able to refine themselves and become more self-conscious. I object to all calls for prohibitions and such, I think they are silly and irresponsible.

 Irresponsible, in this particular case, because a purely subjective forum with a prohibition on facts would simply be a mega-FOTM machine.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Irresponsible, in this particular case, because a purely subjective forum with a prohibition on facts would simply be a mega-FOTM machine._

 

Like the rest of Head-Fi?


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Gee fwojciec, you're so unbiased. How about just leaving the cables forum as it is now - a place for experiential discussion, like all the other forums we have here. You continue to request that people who report their experiences also conduct more rigorous investigations, the very kind that are mentioned in the current forum title ("DBT-Free"). Certainly there's no point in asking for something that's not supposed to be here. If DBT doesn't belong, doesn't it follow that the only thing left to discuss is experience? Is there a point to continually taking your arguments to people who discuss their experiences when, after all, that's essentially what this forum is for?_

 

I abide by the rules of this forum and I don't discuss DBT. The matter at hand is more complex, anyways, and I don't think the debate in this thread, for example, can be appropriately understood in terms of the simplistic binary set of alternatives you are trying to reduce it to.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I agree with you about what should be the case, but some have stated their intention to not let this happen, and the moderator(s) despite the no DBT thing have not seen fit to enforce this. Thus a new forum moderated by someone who will insist on sticking to what can be heard and reported may be the only practical solution._

 

I think your idea is a reasonable one, and I would be willing to contribute my time to its inception. I also agree that any cables forum should have a place for discussion of objective testing as well as experiential discussion, and it might make sense to have at least three forums - one for each and a mixed forum for no-holds-barred conversation. I find both approaches to the cable enigma equally interesting (which is to say a lot less interesting than most other things). I only see a problem when one side consistently invades and wrecks the other side's attempt to carry on a simple discussion. Perhaps a forum where objective-based approaches were allowed would give the current detractors a positive outlet for their opinions. Yes, I will keep using that word, detractors. I think it has a nice ring to it. However, as far as forum titles are concerned I would have to insist on being a decent person for once and would call them EXPERIENTIAL, OBJECTIVE, and KILL EACH OTHER.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Gee fwojciec, you're so unbiased. How about just leaving the cables forum as it is now - a place for experiential discussion, like all the other forums we have here. You continue to request that people who report their experiences also conduct more rigorous investigations, the very kind that are mentioned in the current forum title ("DBT-Free"). Certainly there's no point in asking for something that's not supposed to be here. If DBT doesn't belong, doesn't it follow that the only thing left to discuss is experience? Is there a point to continually taking your arguments to people who discuss their experiences when, after all, that's essentially what this forum is for?_

 

DBT is not the only objective testing out there.

 And the whole point of doing scientific testing, so that solid results can be found, so other members can benefit.

 If you rely solely on opinions which are based on placebo effect. Then your experiences are yours alone. and the community would not benefit from you posting your experiences, because they are in YOUR mind ONLY.

 Someone else may use that same cable in the same setup, and find something completely different because it is just in their mind as well.

 So all of these reviews and opinions that are based on people opinions and experiences only would be useless to other members, since the effect of the cables are just in the persons mind.

 However, I doubt most members realize that.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Like the rest of Head-Fi? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 


 The rest of headfi is NOT like this. For you to claim it is, is completely false.

 Headphone section has frequency response, isolation graphs and more.
 Portable audio section has the specs and software of the devices.
 The source/amp sections have measurements like THD%, dynamic range, crosstalk, SNR, IMD%, etc

 The DIY forum has measurements and solid extensive white papers for almost EVERY component used.

 So you can see, your claims are far from correct.

 Just because you claim something is true, does not mean it is.

 EDIT: completely off topic here and not meant as a jab, but the term is no-holds-barred.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_EDIT: completely off topic here and not meant as a jab, but the term is no-holds-barred._

 

Not taken as one and I appreciate it. "No-holes-barred" is a vestige from my days spent reading ***** in the early 90s.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you rely solely on opinions which are based on placebo effect. Then your experiences are yours alone. and the community would not benefit from you posting your experiences, because they are in YOUR mind ONLY._

 

I'm a little tired of your misuse of the word "placebo." It's a medical term for an inert substance that has an effect on a patient even though chemically it shouldn't, and the placebo effect is thought to be a possible result of suggestion. Indeed, according to our current understanding it is likely that the placebo effect is intrinsically tied to suggestion. To suggest that all experience is the result of placebo, as you just did, is wonderfully ignorant. Do you know how Phase II and III clinical trials for an opioid medication are conducted? Clinicians provide participants in a given study with opioid medication and by asking patients how they feel, _determine_ how they feel. The methods are scientific enough to convince the FDA to approve these medications based on efficacy. Where experience is the end result, _experience_ is a valid method for quantifiable measurement. Do I mean to suggest that when people here share their experiences on cables and associated phenomena they are compiling scientific data? Obviously not. However, I am saying that they are conveying meaningful experience and information. To label all experience placebo and claim that there is no such thing as a meaningfully sharable experience is to completely miss the boat on the human experience. It's also a gross misuse of the term - removed from its proper context all you can really do is use it according to your own understanding of it. The placebo effect has never thrown all experience into doubt for the scientific world; rather it's a variable to take into account when conducting studies involving humans. We're not conducting studies here. When you conduct a trial involving cables, then you can more properly mention placebo. Until then don't use this word unless you'd like to provide us with a new definition for it, one that would necessarily be on your terms, colored by your perceptions.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So all of these reviews and opinions that are based on people opinions and experiences only would be useless to other members, since the effect of the cables are just in the persons mind._

 

Once again you are excluding what others find valuable simply because you think it isn't. We have already established that this is a stupid way to behave.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The rest of headfi is NOT like this. For you to claim it is, is completely false._

 

My claim had to do with the rest of the forums suffering from mega-FOTM syndrome, which they do. Far more than the cables forum, judging from my experience here. When was the last time you saw people go so nutty over a cable that they posted 19 pages on it?


----------



## vcoheda

you're wasting your time. just use the ignore feature. problem solved.


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My claim had to do with the rest of the forums suffering from mega-FOTM syndrome, which they do. Far more than the cables forum, judging from my experience here. When was the last time you saw people go so nutty over a cable that they posted 19 pages on it?_

 

What the rest of head-fi suffers, in the worst case, is some symptoms of regular FOTM, but it's not so bad since at the end of the day people can say "hey, this is FOTM, let's not get carried away and let's look at the facts." 

 Start a purely subjective forum with "no objective facts allowed" rule, however, and you'll inevitably see the phenomenon get escalated to "mega" proportions, since the tendency will be unrestrained by definition and thus actually actively supported and encouraged.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_you're wasting your time. just use the ignore feature. problem solved._

 

I know I am, but it passes the time at work.


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_you're wasting your time. just use the ignore feature. problem solved._

 

Only if persistence in ignor-ance is an acceptable "solution."

 Edit: Sticking one's fingers in one's ears, closing one's eyes, stomping one's foot and shouting "I can't hear you, I can't hear you!" is an infantile kind of behavior, IMO. I don't understand why you are so pleased with yourself whenever you mention the ignore list... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you want to ignore this discussion just ignore it, there is no need for reminding everyone time and again that you are ignoring it.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What the rest of head-fi suffers, in the worst case, is some symptoms of regular FOTM, but it's not so bad since at the end of the day people can say "hey, this is FOTM, let's not get carried away and let's look at the facts."_

 

You really think people do that to a significant degree? Could you cite some evidence for me? From my standpoint most people on Head-Fi look to the experience of others for guidance, as evidenced by the seemingly infinite and repetitious threads that go up every day in which members ask other members how things will sound. Very little of the discussion outside of the DIY forum touches on numbers, specs and graphs. I don't personally recall very many FOTM threads coming full stop because someone wanted to pause for a moment and consider the facts, whatever it is that you're talking about there.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Start a purely subjective forum with "no objective facts allowed" rule, however, and you'll inevitably see the phenomenon get escalated to "mega" proportions, since the tendency will be unrestrained by definition and thus actually actively supported and encouraged._

 

Not to put words in your mouth, but it seems you think you're fighting to prevent the cable forum from turning into a rampant FOTM orgy. As I mentioned, the other forums are regular homes to orgies and I don't think you're being very clearheaded about how you think facts and common sense involve themselves in the FOTM mentality. Only long after oodles of noodles of people have already succumbed to the urge to experience the flavor do people start getting reasonable again. As LawnGnome argued, the other forums actually have more protections against unreasonable thinking than the cable forum does, and as it is the other forums are where you find most of the FOTM madness. I think the cables forum will be safe enough without your guiding hand.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm a little tired of your misuse of the word "placebo." It's a medical term for an inert substance that has an effect on a patient even though chemically it shouldn't, and the placebo effect is thought to be a possible result of suggestion. Indeed, according to our current understanding it is likely that the placebo effect is intrinsically tied to suggestion. To suggest that all experience is the result of placebo, as you just did, is wonderfully ignorant. Do you know how Phase II and III clinical trials for an opioid medication are conducted? Clinicians provide participants in a given study with opioid medication and by asking patients how they feel, determine how they feel. The methods are scientific enough to convince the FDA to approve these medications based on efficacy. Where experience is the end result, experience is a valid method for quantifiable measurement. Do I mean to suggest that when people here share their experiences on cables and associated phenomena they are compiling scientific data? Obviously not. However, I am saying that they are conveying meaningful experience and information. To label all experience placebo and claim that there is no such thing as a meaningfully sharable experience is to completely miss the boat on the human experience. It's also a gross misuse of the term - removed from its proper context all you can really do is use it according to your own understanding of it. The placebo effect has never thrown all experience into doubt for the scientific world; rather it's a variable to take into account when conducting studies involving humans. We're not conducting studies here. When you conduct a trial involving cables, then you can more properly mention placebo. Until then don't use this word unless you'd like to provide us with a new definition for it, one that would necessarily be on your terms, colored by your perceptions._

 

And it's going... going... going... holy hotcakes, pull out Aunt Petunia's best wine, Superpredator has hit it out of the ballpark!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I hope my attempt at baseball humor was correct, I'm not a sports guy but I figured it was appropo.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_only if persistence in ignor-ance is an acceptable "solution"

 Edit: sticking one's fingers in one's ears, closing one's eyes, stomping one's foot and shouting "I can't hear you, I can't hear you!" is an infantile kind of behavior, IMO. I don't understand why you are so pleased with yourself whenever you mention the ignore list 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

He thinks the detractors invade and ruin threads other people are using to engage in discussions of their choice. He's not wrong.


----------



## 003

Why isn't this thread closed already? It's totally derailed now and has turned into a poo flinging contest.


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He thinks the detractors invade and ruin threads other people are using to engage in discussions of their choice. He's not wrong._

 

Yes, it's a *SHAME* how some people just *won't stop* bringing up rational arguments against unfounded claims.

 I also wanted to ask you if you were aware a good medical trial always uses double blind testing.


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *003* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why isn't this thread closed already? It's totally derailed now and has turned into a poo flinging contest._

 

Another person stopped by just to say that he likes us...

 If you don't like the thread just don't post in it. There is no reason to post just to say: "you people disgust me." Of course there is some tension here, but there is also discussion, consensus, and genuine exchange of opinions. It is posts like yours that degenerate these threads. 

 If you want to find out why this thread is not closed then you should perhaps read what was discussed here before jumping to stereotypical, lazy conclusions.


----------



## Superpredator

Here are some threads that contain very typical examples of how a detractor works:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=263252 (OverlordXenu)

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=264096 (badmonkey)

 Be sure to read all their posts.

 When this kind of behavior is what people have to repeatedly deal with when they go to discuss topics here, why would you for one second question why they would use the ignore function and recommend it as a solution. Is anyone really obliged to engage people like OverlordXenu and badmonkey when they carry on like tools? If one can't reason with them and mods won't ban them, is there a better solution than ignoring them?

 Well, one could argue yes, and that's why I'm here. I consider all this an investment in my ability to carry on a discussion in peace down the road. One day I will pass out miniature Snickers to celebrate my success.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Agnostic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I also wanted to ask you if you were aware a good medical trial always uses double blind testing. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Well, I hesitate to comment on this, as the subject you just mentioned is strictly verboten in this forum, and I think you know that and are just trying to get this thread closed. But yes, it is a part of medical trials. However, you're ignoring the obvious and very valid point he's making.

 To elucidate, the majority of trials on opiates use a 10 point scale to measure pain... I don't remember the exact description for each number, but it's something like 1 is no pain, 5 is moderate, 10 is unbearable, etc. This measure is ENTIRELY subjective. A person like myself, who is a wuss when it comes to pain, considers a sinus infection an 8 or 9. My dad, who refused anything stronger than Tylenol when he broke his shoulder, would probably have rated his broken shoulder as a 5. As utterly subjective as this is, it is the only way that these studies can be done.

 Hearing is subjective. Fine me ONE audiologist who disagrees with this and I'll drop out of my group and join yours.

 If you are so convinced your methodology is correct, I believe you should spend your time lobbying the FDA and getting all pain medications off the market.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Only if persistence in ignor-ance is an acceptable "solution." ...

 Sticking one's fingers in one's ears, closing one's eyes, stomping one's foot and shouting "I can't hear you, I can't hear you!" is an infantile kind of behavior, IMO._

 

A perfect example of this sort of behavior is your persisting to assert that only one kind of knowledge constitutes "facts" no matter what actually makes sense, corresponds with widespread linguistic practice, what other types of facts are cited, how it demonstrates your limited experience, knowledge and conceptualization and/or your over-riding intent to be bluntly dismissive to no good end. And that's a fact!


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A perfect example of this sort of behavior is your persisting to assert that only one kind of knowledge constitutes "facts" no matter what actually makes sense, corresponds with widespread linguistic practice, what other types of facts are cited, how it demonstrates your limited experience, knowledge and conceptualization and/or your over-riding intent to be bluntly dismissive to no good end. And that's a fact!_

 

I am not ignoring other posters and I am always willing to engage different opinions, and I am capable of a compromise with those I disagree with. If you are calling me narrow-minded then I think you are being unjust to me.

 I have never said that only one kind of knowledge constitutes facts. But I have said that certain kinds of facts, in absence of other kinds of facts, might be insufficient to support certain kinds of claims - read through my earlier posts if you don't believe me or you are not sure what I mean by this.

 The rest of your post is just an attempt to offend me, so I will not comment on it, since it doesn't bring anything useful to the discussion.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's like a fundamentalist Christian having the highest number of posts on a Muslim website. What's the point?_

 

This isn't a religion. It's a hobby. The hobby isn't about cables. It's about sound and music. I talk about sound and music in every post I write. I have every right to be here. No one is going to bully me into leaving.

 If you aren't interested in what I have to say, you should really learn to filter for yourself instead of insisting that the world filter for you.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I hesitate to comment on this, as the subject you just mentioned is strictly verboten in this forum, and I think you know that and are just trying to get this thread closed. But yes, it is a part of medical trials. However, you're ignoring the obvious and very valid point he's making.

 To elucidate, the majority of trials on opiates use a 10 point scale to measure pain... I don't remember the exact description for each number, but it's something like 1 is no pain, 5 is moderate, 10 is unbearable, etc. This measure is ENTIRELY subjective. A person like myself, who is a wuss when it comes to pain, considers a sinus infection an 8 or 9. My dad, who refused anything stronger than Tylenol when he broke his shoulder, would probably have rated his broken shoulder as a 5. As utterly subjective as this is, it is the only way that these studies can be done.

 Hearing is subjective. Fine me ONE audiologist who disagrees with this and I'll drop out of my group and join yours.

 If you are so convinced your methodology is correct, I believe you should spend your time lobbying the FDA and getting all pain medications off the market._

 

But what you say here is actually rather telling. The range of subjective experience measured in the case you quote is from "no pain" to "unbearable pain". You will agree with the fact that it is easier to tell "no pain" from "unbearable pain" than distinguishing between what a cable sounds like before and after "burn-in."


----------



## jsaliga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fwojciec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is posts like yours that degenerate these threads. 

 If you want to find out why this thread is not closed then you should perhaps read what was discussed here before jumping to stereotypical, lazy conclusions._

 

You're being a little unfair here. This thread has been off topic for several pages now, and that is probably why the OP deleted his opening post and removed the thread title.

 I'm not saying that the current discussion isn't helpful or even interesting. But there's no getting around the fact this thread has been off topic for some time. At the very least it should be moved to the members lounge.

 While I find many of your posts genuinely interesting, there is no need for the snide remark you made in the above quoted post.

 --Jerome


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i like this genre of music, i don't like that genre._

 

It is perfectly possible to discuss the relative merits of different types of music if you define your criteria for judging. When you do that, even someone with different criteria and different opinions can learn from you.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Black Stuart* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The thing that really hacks me off is that the skeptics keep referring to those who can hear differences with cables as 'believer's._

 

I don't particularly care for that term either... and skeptic isn't the right term to describe what I do. But they're the terms that are generally used on this board, so I use them. Care to think of better ones to describe the concepts?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## fwojciec

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jsaliga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're being a little unfair here. This thread has been off topic for several pages now, and that is probably why the OP deleted his opening post and removed the thread title.

 I'm not saying that the current discussion isn't helpful or even interesting. But there's no getting around the fact this thread has been off topic for some time. At the very least it should be moved to the members lounge.

 While I find many of your posts genuinely interesting, there is no need for the snide remark you made in the above quoted post.

 --Jerome_

 

I just get annoyed when someone comes here and, thoughtlessly, says things like "poo flinging" to describe what we write here. It is you, by the way, who is steering this thread off topic at the moment. (the topic is the reality of cable burn-in, if you recall, which is what we have been discussing here, mostly...)

 I also wonder why is it that you have edited out a part of my post in what you have quoted? It wasn't such a long post, after all, and the part you have edited out was important, as it gave context to how exactly his reaction was stereotypical and lazy.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ignoring the obvious provocative thugishness of your gratuitously nasty response to an attempt to be constructive_

 

I think he was pointing out the irony in your suggestion of a separate board defined by the "belief" (for lack of a better word) of the posters. If you start defining boards by the opinions of the posters instead of the topic, you are going to kill the discussions dead.

 Trying to create a forum with the intent purpose of eliminating disagreement is sure to either create a boring forum, or a forum that is constantly being sniped by trolls.

 You need to learn to get along and play nicely. If someone says something you disagree with, answer their points and avoid rhetorical tricks. If there's nothing you want to say in response, just move on and read something more interesting to you. You're under no obligation to post, you know.

 You aren't going to bend the multitude of personalities on the internet to your personal will. It's a waste of time to even try.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A perfect example of this sort of behavior is your persisting to assert that only one kind of knowledge constitutes "facts"_

 

Facts are facts. The best way to analyze facts is to do it rationally and logically. Subjective impressions are great for the individual registering them. They don't necessarily apply to anyone else.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the majority of trials on opiates use a 10 point scale to measure pain... I don't remember the exact description for each number, but it's something like 1 is no pain, 5 is moderate, 10 is unbearable, etc. This measure is ENTIRELY subjective._

 

I was in the hospital late last year, and had to register my degree of pain on that chart for the doctors. It really isn't subjective. Each level has a specific example that defines it. I don't remember them exactly, but one at the top was unable to speak or function, another was unable to walk unaided, another was unable to concentrate on tasks, etc... It was very easy to decide on exactly the level of pain you were experiencing. (I got up to 8! Ouch!)

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I hesitate to comment on this, as the subject you just mentioned is strictly verboten in this forum, and I think you know that and are just trying to get this thread closed. But yes, it is a part of medical trials. However, you're ignoring the obvious and very valid point he's making.

 To elucidate, the majority of trials on opiates use a 10 point scale to measure pain... I don't remember the exact description for each number, but it's something like 1 is no pain, 5 is moderate, 10 is unbearable, etc. This measure is ENTIRELY subjective. A person like myself, who is a wuss when it comes to pain, considers a sinus infection an 8 or 9. My dad, who refused anything stronger than Tylenol when he broke his shoulder, would probably have rated his broken shoulder as a 5. As utterly subjective as this is, it is the only way that these studies can be done.

 Hearing is subjective. Fine me ONE audiologist who disagrees with this and I'll drop out of my group and join yours.

 If you are so convinced your methodology is correct, I believe you should spend your time lobbying the FDA and getting all pain medications off the market._

 

When did I ever say hearing was not subjective? Oh wait, I never did.

 The fact that hearing is subjective doesn't preclude valid testing methodologies. Even if you have only subjective reports as data you can test the validity of a thesis. That's exactly what double blind medical trials do. And the reason they are double blind is exactly because such a physio-psychological phenomenon as placebo exists.


----------



## WindowsX

Hey, science couldn't prove how bee can fly. So, bee shouldn't be able to fly.

 Hey, science couldn't prove how this universe was born. So, our existance is a placebo.

 Hmmm.....I don't remember when did science creates a thunderstorm, typhoon, or the snow. We created science to understand it. So being unable to understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So if you see people talking about things you don't know or believe. Please let them be including me as long as you have no decisive proof to make our beliefs become fake (We didn't ask you guys to believe in us in the first place)

 I didn't meant to be so offensive but.....you know? It wouldn't be nice if every believer has to say "Dear, non-believer, please leave this thread behind because I only want to ask for an answer from believers only." Like Shunyata's thread. It gave me such bad feelings seeing normal cables threads became interrupted by non-believers and screwed the topic.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WindowsX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey, science couldn't prove how bee can fly. So, bee shouldn't be able to fly._

 

The internet is a wonderful thing!

  Quote:


 The secret of honeybee flight, the researchers say, is the unconventional combination of short, choppy wing strokes, a rapid rotation of the wing as it flops over and reverses direction, and a very fast wing-beat frequency. 
 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0111082100.htm


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This isn't a religion. It's a hobby. The hobby isn't about cables. It's about sound and music. I talk about sound and music in every post I write. I have every right to be here. No one is going to bully me into leaving.

 If you aren't interested in what I have to say, you should really learn to filter for yourself instead of insisting that the world filter for you.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Honestly, I considered you one of the more civil people on the other side, but if you're going to put it like that, you just made my ignore list.


----------



## WindowsX

Just like another cables' thread. Decisive evidence, please. Next?

 .....We quoted a lot of quotes from the internet regards the cable and non-believer always said don't give us BS or snake oil's comment because it's just a fake theory, blablabla...


----------



## tyrion

I think this thread has outlived any useful purpose. It seems to me that if the two groups, whatever you to call them, can't get along in a thread then they shouldn't post in the same thread. If someone thinks a cable is the greatest thing since sliced bread, so what, let them. If you don't think a cable has any effect on sq, then start a thread and discuss it. If each side doesn't care what the other side thinks, then each stay out of the others thread and don't be a troll.


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WindowsX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey, science couldn't prove how bee can fly. So, bee shouldn't be able to fly.

 Hey, science couldn't prove how this universe was born. So, our existance is a placebo.

 Hmmm.....I don't remember when did science creates a thunderstorm, typhoon, or the snow. We created science to understand it. So being unable to understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So if you see people talking about things you don't know or believe. Please let them be including me as long as you have no decisive proof to make our beliefs become fake (We didn't ask you guys to believe in us in the first place)

 I didn't meant to be so offensive but.....you know? It wouldn't be nice if every believer has to say "Dear, non-believer, please leave this thread behind because I only want to ask for an answer to believers." Like Shunyata's thread. It gave me such bad feelings seeing normal cables threads became interrupted by non-believers and screwed the topic._

 

If you make the claim *Cable burn-in is real!* you should be prepared to give proof. Otherwise just say *I believe in cable burn-in* and state your reasons why. 

 As for all the complaints saying people that don't believe in cables *screw topics* about cables:

 1. Those threads get screwed by a combination of uncivil behaviour and faulty reasoning.

 2. The bare fact that some people give arguments against cable differences and cable burn-in and the like my not be what *YOU* want to hear, that does not mean it's not useful to others reading these forums. Not everyone believes in cables and it's only right that people reading the forums get a fair warning that the value of cables in an audio system is a controversial topic before they start spending a lot of money on them.


----------

