In Reply to: RE: That is interesting. I don't know whether the posted by soulfood on May 31, 2012 at 04:32:49:
That claim is not presumptuous, but maybe a little cynical. It does seem to be de rigueur of cable companies to list break-in time for their cables though - the more exotic (read expensive), the more time required. Let's say the company suggests 80 hours: what is happening at 80 hours that isn't happening at 70 hours? Is the cable 7/8 of the way there at 70 hours or does it all happen right at 80 hours. If the company can't answer this, and merely says "trust your ears", walk away.
And then there are the cable cookers. If we want our cables broken in, doesn't it seem logical to have the cable cooker broken in as well? Do we want a signal messing with our cables that isn't true? Some may scoff at this, but keep in mind we all have our limits to what we believe. Some don't believe in cable break-in at all; some do, but consider it subtle; some believe in maybe 10 hours of break-in, but not 80; some think 80, but not 400 and on and on.
We come into these debates with preconceived notions. How much do we "believe" before we start being suspicious. Where's that point?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: That is interesting. I don't know whether the - Mungo Jerry 06:46:30 05/31/12 (7)
- RE: That is interesting. I don't know whether the - soulfood 08:07:56 05/31/12 (0)
- RE: That is interesting. I don't know whether the - Dynobot 07:17:17 05/31/12 (5)
- RE: That is interesting. I don't know whether the - zako 08:06:24 05/31/12 (4)
- RE: That is interesting. I don't know whether the - Dynobot 08:30:50 05/31/12 (3)
- RE: That is interesting. I don't know whether the - finski 08:41:06 05/31/12 (2)
- RE: That is interesting. I don't know whether the - Dynobot 08:49:55 05/31/12 (1)
- RE: That is interesting. I don't know whether the - bjh 17:12:16 06/03/12 (0)