Slightly O.T, Speaker Wire "Burn in"

[0345.86.86.888]

I thought speaker wire "burn in" was a B.S. audiphile thing but our lad just got his hands on some super cheap Kef Q100 speakers which sounded absolutely gorgeous. I'd be inclined to say quite possibly the best sounding speakers I've ever heard (apart from the kef LS50's)

Anyway... today we changed his no-brand "richer sounds" 2.5mm sq (guesstimate) speaker cable that is about 3 years old, for some new 4mm sq. van damme OFC stuff. Bloody Hell the difference was beyond belief. Until today I thought Speaker wire "burn in" was complete B.S, but every single track we played sounded "tight" and strangulated. It made the speakers sound sharp and overly tight with a significant separation between frequencies. In other words, just horrible compared to his original, well etched cables.

Digging around t'internet, speaker wire "burn-in" seems to be as much contested as computer O.S. ;¬) There seems to be a certain market for "burner inner" boxes that eliminate the requirement for 50+ hours of use to condition speaker wire and given that with the new "home cinema" room we're looking at quite a number of speaker wires, 50 to 100 hours of use to realize the full potential of the surround sound system makes a full audio spectrum burn-in box a worthwhile investment for speaker leads (Atmos 7.1.4) and interconnects. Just throwing it out there for any other thoughts about speaker wire burning in. Definitely noticed a significant "strangulation" of sound and gappy crossover between tweeter and base driver compared to the well-used existing speaker wire.

Any thoughts from the experienced audiophiles?

Cheers Pete

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In which case that would show up on a frequency response test.

The 'ear' actually has a very poor memory - influenced by all sorts of things. Hence the only real way to be certain of any improvment is by properly conducted double blind tests.

Some time ago, a large cash price was offered to anyone who could reliably tell the difference between cables of adequate spec. Lets say the basic phono leads that come in the box with a cheap amp etc, and expensive 'designer' ones. And it's still unclaimed.

[Dave Liquorice]

Exactly. OP has gone from 2.5 (ish) to 4 mm^2 wires so contribution of the wires resistance to the whole system is reduced.

Try tapping a big loudspeaker cone with the actual speakers terminals open circuit and short circuit. The speaker has mass and when set moving momentum. Remove the drive and the momentum will make it act like a motor. Open circuit no current can flow and the cone will do what it wants, short circuit a current can flow which generates a force opposite to that of the momentum thus tending to stop (aka damp) the movement.

The *only* time that I have ever heard a definate difference in reproduction was when I changed the 10' or so speaker cables from "heavy bell" wire to 2.5 mm^2 1024 strand "speaker cable". So marked and obvious was the difference I got the meter out. Running at a reasonable level(*) the bell wire dropped somthing over 5 V for each leg, the speaker cable just a volt or two.

(*) Quad 405, 100W RMS per channel, speakers 150 W RMS, the amp would give up first... For these tests I probably used "maximum", which would be *LOUD* but not *F---ING LOUD* at least to me. B-)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The cone itself should be stiff, but the suspension compliant.

[Dave Liquorice]

appreciable

100 W into a nominal 8 ohms is 3.5 A. The around 5 V drop on a single leg of "heavy bell wire" implies a resistance of 1.5 ish ohms or three ohms for both legs. That is a significant proportion of 8...

TBH the OP going from 2.5 to 4 mm^2 and having such a dramatic effect in a percieved negative direction did surprise me. How ever I'm well aware that people get used to "less than optimal" reproduction systems and when placed in front of something "accurate" don't like it for more or less the reasons stated.