Does anything in copper wire change when it's burned in?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "burn-in" for copper wire, particularly in the context of audio cables and their perceived effects on sound quality. Participants explore whether regular copper wire changes its sound characteristics over time with use, focusing on line level audio and power cables without involving superconductors or extreme heating.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the resistance of copper wire is so low that it does not change with "burn-in," suggesting that any perceived differences are due to other factors such as the burning off of excess chemicals.
  • Others argue that the audiophile community often relies on subjective perceptions rather than scientific evidence, citing examples of questionable practices and products that lack empirical support.
  • A participant references Richard Clark's challenge to audiophiles, highlighting that no one has successfully identified differences in amplifiers under controlled conditions, which they argue undermines claims of sonic differences.
  • There is a suggestion that the burden of proof lies with those claiming that burn-in has an effect, as skeptics choose not to accept these claims without evidence.
  • Some participants express curiosity about how audiophiles will adapt to purely digital signals, questioning the relevance of burn-in in that context.
  • Discussion includes skepticism about the effectiveness of special digital cables and the concept of jitter, with some participants expressing a desire for objective measurements of sound quality differences.
  • One participant mentions using Cat5 Twisted Pair cable as speaker wire, arguing that it meets higher specifications than many traditional speaker cables, despite potential backlash from audiophiles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the validity of burn-in effects for copper wire, with multiple competing views presented. Some advocate for the idea that burn-in has no significant impact, while others defend the audiophile perspective, leading to an unresolved debate.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying degrees of skepticism about the scientific basis for claims made by the audiophile community, with references to anecdotal experiences and controlled testing. The discussion highlights the complexity of subjective perception in audio quality assessments.

mugsby
i'm having this ridiculous argument over at: http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=144514&page=1&pp=20
where we are having a not so friendly disscusion of wire burn in. basicly my question is this does regular copper wire change it's sound if get's "burned-in" over time. now I'm talking about line level audio or even power cables on regular home ac, no super conducting, no heating the wire till it melts.

i'm afraid i already know the answer but the audiophiles want proof it doesn't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
No. The resistance is so low that there is so little heat generated that nothing changes in the wire. The only thing "burn in" does is burn off excess chemicals on components that get hot (making things smell). Computer geeks do it to, and it's the same for computers. For computers, at least, it acts as a good stress-test.
 
mugsby - the audiophile crowd will argue about some very very silly things, you can buy wood blocks to hold the speaker wire off the floor, special tiny dots the size of ladybugs to put on your furniture, or special markers to color your CDs.

Science is not important and is rejected or substituted with pseudo-science. Not that every test is perfect nor may reveal exactly why X is better than Y, but there should be some rationale behind a statement.

We all want the best of everything, especially in our hobbies where its a point of pride and part of the satisfaction in participating. But there are limits to practicality, and the term 'audiophile' is generally one where the power of suggestion about what is 'better' gets blurred into perceptions. And perception is reailty.

If there really was a sonic difference to some of the voo-doo type of mumbo-jumbo, there would be a method to measure the difference.

Richard Clark (he stamps CDs not the security guy) decided to find out himself why people talk so much about differences between this or that. He found that some people could discern changes of .1db and that his statistics showed that people picked the louder. This threshold became his standard for the JND (just noticable difference) and he made sure that he knew how sensitive the ear really was when he put $10k on the line as an amplification challenge. You took challenge for free and could walk away with $10k if you could correctly identify amplifier A from amplifier B 16 times in a row. With his own personal money on the line, he made sure his testing methods to make $100 car audio amplifiers keep pace with $10,000 Krell home amps were very good. He would match within .01db and make sure there were no obvious defects like noise/clicks and that the frequency response was matched too (he would put the EQ on the cheap amp) and a few other basic items most people overlook. He hasn't lost yet, and audiophiles conside it an invalid test because its too controlled.

His argument is simple, the audiophiles/salespeople/marketing people talk about sonic difference as the difference between apples and oranges. I can tell an apple apart from an orange 16 times in a row without a problem. Hundreds have tried, no one has passed his test yet and he doesn't bother anymore because countless people discount the test regardless of the setup, even in their own homes with their own equipment! :smile:
 
mugsby said:
i'm afraid i already know the answer but the audiophiles want proof it doesn't.

the audiophiles are the ones who are trying to get us to accept a new fact therefore the burden of proof is on them. until they do, i for one, choose not to accept this fact ;)
 
BTW, this thread got me curious what coined the term "burn-in". I always assumed it was because the first version of a circuit is seldom correct. I was wrong.

http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/b/burn-inperiod.html
Historical note: the origin of "burn-in" (sense 1) is apparently the practice of setting a new-model airplane's brakes on fire, then extinguishing the fire, in order to make them hold better. This was done on the first version of the U.S. spy-plane, the U-2.
 
I'm curious what audiophiles will do once the signal is purely digital, right up until it gets to the speaker...?
 
russ_watters said:
I'm curious what audiophiles will do once the signal is purely digital, right up until it gets to the speaker...?

There already are systems like this. They p!ss and moan and complain about how crappy it sounds.
 
They sell special digital cables that "improve" the sound.

I'm serious. The term jitter is thrown around, and while its outside my knowledge to speak in depth on the subject because what I've read makes DSP foreign and frustrating to me, but what I've surmized about jitter is that its a non-issue.

Regardless, its the same argument about a super-optically clear cable like a pure silver analog signal cable. Anyone want a bridge, I've got one for sale...

I have heard first-hand the difference in equipment but certainly do not think its voo-doo magic. I'd just like to have an Audio Precision One to measure the difference instead of inventing an explanation. :smile:
 
Tell them you use Cat5 Twisted Pair cable as speaker cable! They will flame you for weeks, but when in reality, Cat5 is designed to run 100Mhz (250Mhz w/ Cat5e) signals with no noise, i don't have the exact specs atm, but its at a higher tolerance then most speaker cables. I personally use it all the time for low power satellite speakers because its cheap, and a 50ft Cat5 Cable is good for 4 speakers. So 50ft Cat5 = 200ft Speaker wire. Just don't use it for anything higher then 20ish watts.