Maybe you "chuckleheads" misunderstood what i was saying, so i'll try and clarify it here. For the record, i DO believe that cables do change sonics with use. I simply wanted to know if others had done anything to "speed up" the process, what they used to do it, the overall results, etc... I didn't post what i've used, how i've done it, the results, etc... because i didn't want to taint the responses or have them lean any specific way. I was hoping for honest responses to the specific questions i asked. Once again, PLEASE try and keep this on topic. Sean
> |
Since i started this ruckus, i might as well add my findings to it. Thanks to those that understood where i was coming from and took the time to share their honest comments. As mentioned, i wanted to get "the straight dope" from everyone first-hand before "going to press" with what i had found.
I have both a Duo-Tech and a Mobie. Both of these devices are designed as "cable burners" for interconnects with the Duo-Tech doing double duty for speaker cables also. I purchased the Duo-Tech a few years back from someone here on Audiogon. Quite honestly, i don't know if it ever made any difference at all, but i had continued to use it on occasion. I figured that it couldn't hurt anything as it was simply applying signal to the cable. To get the most from it, i always ran the Duo Tech on the speaker cable setting for everything instead of on the Interconnect setting for interconnects, etc... I'm assuming that the "speaker" setting put out a far higher level signal as the unit would get MUCH warmer in that mode.
As to the Mobie, it makes a HUGE difference that is NOT debatable. The differences are THAT noticeable. Unfortunately, it is only designed to do interconnects with no provisions or adapters for speaker cables. All i can say is that even if you have 10,000+ hours on your interconnects, you've still never heard what they are fully capable of UNLESS you've "burned" them in at a higher voltage. I am THAT sure of this product and its' benefits. While i know that this sounds "controversial" even for the "believers" here, i was literally amazed at the differences that i noted after "Mobie-ing" some cables.
Since i had never gotten real noticeable results with the Duo-Tech, i wasn't expecting much from the Mobie. BOY, was i wrong. Cables that were hard, grainy, splashy, etc... with over 500 hours of actual use on them were WAY smoother and lush sounding after only 36 hours on the burner.
I spoke with one of the guys that helped design the Mobie recently. He told me that 30 continuous days of burning on the Mobie can make cables that were made out of "Bat Guano" sound good !!! While he recommended using the Mobie on cables for a full 30 days of burn-in, ANY time on the Mobie is better than none in my opinion.
As to the differences between the Duo-Tech and the Mobie, i guess that the Duo-Tech produces a sine wave that ramps up and down in intensity. As such, you would be better off using wideband noise or an actual music signal at a constant yet higher signal to burn in the cables as some here have done. The problem with this though is that even at maximum output levels on most line level sources, you've still only got about 2 volts of ouput going through the cables. In contrast, the Mobie uses a square wave that remains at level that is well over 5 times the level that any interconnect would see under normal use. On top of the higher intensity signal, the advantage to using a square wave is that it produces an infinite amount of harmonic energy at great amplitude. To put this into plain English, instead of just having one limited spectrum of coverage within the audio band, it is covering the primary frequency along with a multitude of ranges above it and doing it at a much higher amplitude on a constant basis.
As to the technical reasons why this works or if it can be measured with test equipment, i have NO idea. While i know that there are doubters here, all i can tell you is "don't knock it till you've tried it". I have emailed with some of the "instigators" here and hope that they are not above learning by their own trial and error.
Here's a simple test for some of you that are handy and have test equipment. This would work best if you have two identical runs of cable. This way you could "burn" one set and listen to them and then use the other set that was untreated as a point of reference.
Since some of you might have audio generators, try running a 1 Khz or lower square wave into some interconnects with a high impedance 10K - 50K ohm dummy load ( resistor ) attached. Try using the highest voltage possible, which hopefully should be AT LEAST a good 10 volts or more. Let these cables run for as long as possible and then give them a listen, comparing them to the unburned cables.
My findings are that the burned cables will be far smoother, less grainy, have better ( warmer ) tonal balance, etc.... Of course, this could be a BAD thing if your system is already "dialed in" just perfectly or if it is already on the "warm & smooth" side.
An alternative to buying a Mobie or a Cable Cooker ( a high dollar and more versatile version of the Mobie ) would be to simply make up some adapters and use an old receiver to do this with. You can use your interconnects as speaker cables ( with the use of some inexpensive adapters that you can fabricate ) and connect them to some homebrew dummy loads. Of course, you would have to make sure that the dummy loads ( resistors ) were rated for above and beyond the amount of power that you were putting into them. Simply tune in a local "hard" or "classic" rock music station and crank up the volume. Initial cash outlay should be well under $20 for all the supplies needed to do this given that most of you probably have a few spare "boat anchors" ( aka receivers ) floating around the closet or basement. If someone needed help or had questions on how to go about doing something like this, contact me via email and i'll see what i can do about coming up with some directions and a parts list to make your life easier. Sean
> |
Like i said, don't knock them until YOU have tried them first hand. Until then, you're simply speaking out of ignorance with a complete lack of experience to support your statements. You have cited NO factual information in ANY of your "tirades" even though you have challenged every statement that some of us have made pertaining to this subject.
As to your "funny" comments and examples, water CAN be "softened" in a pool. Obviously, there are chemicals that can do this job rather rapidly. As you correctly stated in your "example", the other way is via mechanized circulation . This is true if the temperature of the water was such that it was partially frozen. Circulation would raise the overall temperature due to friction, causing the frozen water to "soften", become less "grainy" or
"hard" : )
As to wire and cables, there are differences in the grain or "crystal structure" of specific metals. This is well known and documented. While i can't speak first-hand of whether or not anything is altered in the "break in process" with these using scientific terminology or data, my ears tell me that there IS a difference. Maybe Jack Bybee can explain this to you in the terms that you'd like to see. After all, he is a physicist who has worked in-depth on the subject for the U.S. Government.
On top of that, there ARE chemical changes that take place when different metals are used in conjunction with each other (electrolysis). Who is to say that applying voltage to the junction points, connections, plating or to the cable itself is not "treating" it in some manner ???? After all, we have copper, silver, brass, gold, aluminum, rhodium, tin, lead, etc... making contact with each other in almost all of the wires that we use.
On top of this, a metalurgist WILL verify that temperatures and application of electricity DO alter metals. While this can be demonstrated on a very short term / extreme situation basis, WHO has documented what takes place over a very extended period of time given less extreme conditions ? Please site the specific studies that your referring to and how we can all access these findings.
Until you can provide the proof to deny the findings that THOUSANDS of people will testify to via first hand experience, your argument holds no more (if not LESS) water than the case presented by the "believers" here on this forum and many other like-minded sites around the world. Sean
>
|
I know that the Mobie is available from Music Direct here in Chicago. The phone number is 800 - 449 - 8333 and their website is listed below so that it's easy to cut and paste. Talk to Bes if you need info on it as they don't have much on their website or email me directly / post questions here. For the record, the Mobie runs about $225 - $250 brand new and accepts RCA's, BNC's and XLR's.
The Cable Cooker is being sold by Alan Kafton of Audio Excellence in Arizona. He is the owner of a product line called "Audiodharma", the parent company for the Cable Cooker. It has not been in production real long and i think that it sells for over $600.
As to Jostler's comments, i make my living by repairing / modifying / measuring electronic communications equipment. I have seen equipment that measures poorer in EVERY electrical aspect beat the pants off of another piece of gear that would be a technicians "bench darling". In other words, the unit that measures better in terms of power output ( both rms and peak ), looks cleaner on the scope and spectrum analyzer, etc... gets its' ass beat under real world operating conditions by something that looks like a piece of junk in comparison. It is "testing" like this that tells me that we don't know "jack" about how things really work or how to measure the truly important aspects of electronics operation. Unfortunatetly, everything in life does not boil down to 1 and 0's nor can we explain everything. That's why "theories" are simply "theories" and NOT fact. Sean
>
http://www.amusicdirect.com
PS.... i have NO affiliation with ANY of the products that i mention here or in any of my posts. I am NOT in the audio business at this point in time. |
Steve, once again you have failed to post ANY information that supports your point of view other than an analogy ( a poor one at that ). While we are all open to various points of view ( that's why we openly discuss different areas of interest here ), making claims with no personal experience or points of reference are typically dismissed as "bullshit", "hype" or "propoganda". As such, both sides of this argument may be guilty of doing all of the aforementioned, but there are FAR more proponents with first hand experience on the "wire DOES break in / cables do sound different" side of the fence.
Once again, we are asking YOU or one of the others that promote similar ideologies to enlighten us and point us in the right direction, i.e. documented evidence of what happens to various metals when low level voltages and current are applied for various amounts of time. We are also asking you to cite data that verifies that, given trained listeners that are familiar with the equipment under test, that sonic differences amongst various wires, cables, etc... could not be detected. Remember, i said "trained listeners" and not "Bubba" off of the street. By doing so, you will not only be supporting your claims but may also recruit more people through the presentation of said scientific research and statistical analysis. Until you or one of your cohorts can produce such evidence, you will simply be viewed as an agitator that is crying wolf by the majority that frequent this site.
I am NOT trying to confront you as an individual. I am simply trying to clarify that NEITHER of us can PROVE our points of view. As such, neither SHOULD be presented as fact. Most here are wise enough and have enough first hand experience to draw their own conclusions without the need for anyone else to tell them what is wrong or what is right. As such, your presentation does not put us on the defensive, as there are more believers than non-believers. Quite to the contrary, it puts your "team" in the corner. Until your "team" can demonstrate to the majority that we are all "deaf goofs with more dollars than sense", the majority here will continue to trust their ears and first hand experiences. Sean
> |
Very straightforward and honest post Bmpnyc. Thanks for summing up all of my ramblings : ) Sean
> |
Steve, the fact that some people CAN and DO have very high "guess" ratios while doing blind testing PROVES that there HAS to be differences amongst cables. It also proves that there are different levels of hearing ability. Just because 10 people score negatively on blind tests does not negate the fact that one or two might score positively.
As i previously stated, J. Peter Moncrieff was able to determine whether there was or wasn't an ABX box hooked up into the system under test. He did this 10 out of 10 times !!! All testing was done under "blind" conditions with witnesses to verify the results. Obviously, this was no fluke with 100% accuracy. These results caused them to actually change / redesign the relay being used in the internals of the ABX boxes themselves.
While i know that I could NEVER hear something like that myself, i also know that test equipment would not really be able to measure any APPRECIABLE changes in impedance with the addition of the ABX box's relay and connections in the audio path / circuit. As such, Moncrieff's ears were obviously FAR superior to what we think the human ear to be capable of detecting. The "good" thing about all of this is that he was able to do this type of stuff on a regular basis. The better part of all of this is that, he too was a scientist. Not only did he tell you what he heard, he presented measurements as to why things happened as they did. The best of both worlds in my opinion.
That is why i specified a "trained listener" earlier in one of these threads. The average joe ( me included ) simply wouldn't have the know how of what or how to listen for such subtle clues or details that would give the differences away. Someone that IS trained can focus on things that you or i would simply overlook due to a limited attention span, lack of training or a lower level of discernment.
I don't think that anyone here would belittle "science" as a whole. Obviously we wouldn't have the gear or knowledge that we currently do if it wasn't for research and development. At the same time, i think that most of us realize that we as humans ( scientists ARE humans ) know just enough to be dangerous. As such, we have elevated what little that we do know to the point of thinking that we ARE all-knowing. THIS is what puts the "blinders" on science and discoveries, as it rules out the potential for discoveries that don't follow the normal train of thought or what is "right" according to theory. After all, the Earth IS the center of the Universe and is still flat, right ??? Sean
> |
7, i think that you'll find that sometimes electrical measurements VERIFY what we hear even though it would not show up under "normal" test procedures. Moncrieff did reviews of products and talked about ( others still do it today ) product X having a "blacker background" than product Y and product Z. The differences between he and the current breed is that he actually showed the differences via scope photos that product X actually had deeper nulls on the negative going portions of the same signals than either product Y or Z. Is it possible for someone to hear such absolutely minute discrepancies in signal ??? I guess so because he was able to make note of such things BEFORE measuring them. Keep in mind that we are talking duration lengths of microseconds and output level differences of microvolts at best. This is NOT recognized by the scientific community as being "above the accepted minimum hearing threshold", etc....
I also know where your coming from as someone that makes a living working with electrical measurements. I don't think that we know everything about how such things work and try to keep an open mind about them. Measurements DO give us something to compare and baseline one product against another while explaining SOME of the if's and why's to us. Besides that, they give us a baseline for repeatability as to how something works "normally". The problem is that many of the actual "industry standard" test procedures may not be up to the level of discernment that the actual equipment is capable of doing or to what we can hear. THIS is what causes many of the problems that the "regulars" on this site and several others have problems with. Just because something measures similar under specific test conditions DOES NOT mean that it HAS to perform the same under dynamic use. There are specific test parameters that are followed, but who is to say that they are measuring the "most correct" criteria as to what we consider important when listening ???
I think that your approach of refining circuitry via measurements AND listening tests is about the only way that this industry will make progress. Obviously we've been the way of "best measurements" via SS electronics in the 70's and we've all heard how most of that sounded. Sean
> |
I have to agree with Albert. Aside from a few posts that aimed for the jugular, i think that we were able to confirm at least ONE thing and do it reasonably civil. Most of the "regulars" agree and those that didn't agree still don't.
As an electronics tech, i can somewhat understand where some of these folks are coming from. It is hard for those that are "technically minded" and "electronically educated" to basically "renounce" or "dismiss" all of their education and background. As such, they will probably continue to believe as they do until they are shown differently or experience "changes" for themselves. I know that i used to think that a lot of this stuff was all "hogwash". First hand experience is HARD to deny, especially if the differences are quite obvious.
The funny thing that i find about all of these "wire debates" is that the "average person" simply listens and makes observations for themselves. While they are "uneducated" as to brands, specs, etc... or what to expect from specific models or designs, they can typically identify differences quite readily in MOST comparisons. On the other hand, those that are "electronically educated" seem to denounce any differences. Is it due to "preconcieved notions" ??? You can't say that this is the case with the "average person" as they have NO background or ideas as to what to expect from brand x or brand y. They simply have to go by their own judgement and what they experience first hand.
While i know that the "purists" will say that sighted tests mean NOTHING, i do not share that opinion for the above reasons. As such, i think that most people want to use what works or "sounds" best in their system, regardless of brand or design. If we are "normal" citizens, finding the best performer at the lowest price is something that we would all strive for. If that truly were the case, we would all own Pioneer, Technics, Fisher, etc... if it DID perform the same or better than many of the other brands that we do use. Seeking something "better" is what led us away from most of those pieces into the the components and cables that we use today. As such, we have "learned" much along the way in terms of hands & "ears on" experience. Like those that are "electronically educated", we are not about to throw away OUR "education" in these matters without being shown something different first-hand. We are simply the other side of the same coin.
On that "note", i'd like to say thanks to all for voicing an opinion and i hope that you enjoy your music and systems. Whatever they may be.... Sean
> |
Steve, your example takes things to an extreme. How much "small gauge" wire would you have to run to increase the line loss to the level that you mentioned ??? I took and measured appr 20' of 21 gauge wire. This would be equivalent to a 10' run of cable to and from the speaker. Series resistance was less than 0.3 ohm. While a smaller wire would be higher in resistance and a longer run would also contribute to this, it would take a LOT of wire to produce even just a FEW ohms of resistive loss.
Even with that in mind, i'm NOT discounting your theory that various speaker cables DO alter the load that the amp sees. As such, the amp CAN respond differently to specific impedance combinations that it is presented with due to different speaker / speaker cables / cable lengths required in various installations. As such, you have only helped me to prove that wires CAN sound different and ARE completely system dependent due to the stability of the circuit driving it.
THANKS for the help in clarifying this situation, as i never knew you had it in ya..... : ) Sean
> |
Red, the VAST majority of Engineers and Techs that i know are FAR from being "scientists". They only know what their books and teachers taught them and that's where most of their "education" stopped. That is why many of the products that we have today are the way that they are: VERY limited and not real flexible. They look good on paper but are not practical or realistic in real world situations.
Part of this is because "adaptability", "practicality" and the "hands on approach" are not taught in schools anymore. They simply give you the basics and shove you out into the working world. Hell, most of the time if you can pay your tuition and show up, you will graduate. Who cares if you really know enough to do the job !!!
As such, it is up to the "techs" and "engineers" to do TWO things. Apply what knowledge they have AND learn more as they go along. Since many engineers simply do a design and do not get to put the actual end product through its' paces in actual field use, they don't have the "hands on" that many "commoners" have to deal with on a daily basis. Since they get very limited feedback on the design from the end user ( if ANY at all ), they assume that their "creation" is near perfect. As such, they learn to live by their "textbook" education and the limited feedback that trickles back to them from management. Anything else that does not conform to their limited point of view and desktop experiences is strictly considered to be "heresy", "snake oil" or "impossible". They've closed their minds, eyes and hearts to the opportunities and knowledge that confronts them on a daily basis.
To those engineers and techs that are NOT like this, KUDOS to you for breaking the mold. To those that this offends, maybe it's because it hits too close to home. Sean
> |
THANK YOU Steve for posting this question. While i don't have time to respond right now, BELIEVE me, i WILL when i get back from work tonight. Sean
> |
Audiofrk, I have a Duo-Tech and a Mobie. While the Duo-Tech is more versatile in terms of what you can hook up to it and "burn in", I prefer the Mobie.
As to Steve's question, what else would a "good" engineer do when something doesn't "feel right" even though it is functionally perfect ? They "tweak" and "re-engineer" !!!
By this, i mean altering components by make, model or specifications, re-arrange component & wire layout, try various voltage and bias levels, etc... Call it "circuit evolution", "upgrading", "modifying", etc... but it takes place EVERY day. They do this until they feel comfortable with the results and then send out the unit for production.
Those that DON'T take the time to refine and perfect their products are simply the "whores" of the industry and out to make a quick buck. This is why we have "off the shelf" companies like Pioneer, Kenwood, Technics, etc... and "refiners" like many of the "esoteric" or "specialty" brands. This is not to say that crooks and shysters don't abound in either circle, some more than others.
For reference purposes, let's go back to a piece of "audio history". We'll use the Perreaux PMF series of amps. The PMF-2150 was the first production stereo amp to use Mosfets for output devices. By doing further refinement using the same basic output circuitry but "finessing" the overall design, Peter Perreaux was able to DRASTICALLY alter EVERY aspect of the amp. He played games with the power supply, voltage & bias levels and lay-out of the parts. His "re-design" of the same basic circuit ( same type and number of output devices per channel as the original 2150 ) was called the PMF-3150.
As such, the 3150 performs NOTHING like the 2150. ANYONE that has listened to these two amps within the same system will testify to this fact. ANYONE that looks inside the amps will easily be able to see their similarities due to the majority of parts that were retained. At the same time, they would also notice the differences due to those same parts being configured quite differently within the chassis. Besides ALL of that and what is most important to YOU, the units also MEASURE very differently. Same chassis, majority of the same components, very similar designs in terms of schematics but quite different performance overall.
This brings us to another point. Since most "basic" audio designs have already been done, all that is left for most companies to do is to "tweak" or put THEIR "signature" onto an existing topology, circuit or design. As you are well aware, there are only a "few" folks that are truly "stretching" the audio design "cookbook". With that in mind, most of these "new models" are simply refinements and improvements to "tried & true" models. As such, some of these "new models" do sound MUCH better than the originals even though they might MEASURE poorer or make use of parts that share the same exact "parts values". As such, we've come a LONG way even though much of it "appears" to be the same. Sean
> |
Stiffly regulated supplies in SS power amps typically DO NOT do well with low impedance loads, large changes in dynamics, severe impedance swings, peak power output, etc... UNLESS the amp is built like TWO tanks with a MASSIVE power supply reserve. The supply and regulators would have to be MUCH larger than an unregulated supply to achieve similar results under dynamic conditions. As such, it would cost about as much as a tank to build something like that.
Given that most people do not have the budget for such things, most "common" SS amps will perform best in an unregulated design with the "killer regulation" or "stiff" supply reserved for "price no object" and "esoteric" designs. As to which design sounds better ( tight regulation, moderate regulation or no regulation ), there are proponents in every camp that are quite vocal.
Tubes, on the other hand, typically don't pull much current and need higher and stable voltages to work best. As such, building regulators for a reasonable amount of current for tube use is much simpler and cost effective than building the monster circuit that would be required for a beefy SS design.
As to damping factor, that is determined by the output impedance of the amp vs the overall load impedance of the speakers. Given that fact, damping factor changes AS THE LOAD CHANGES. If you look at specs for amps, they will state the damping factor at a very SPECIFIC impedance for this very reason. As such, damping factor will ALWAYS be higher as impedance of the speaker is increased.
This is the very reason that tubes, which typically have a higher output impedance, don't do well with lower impedance loads. The damping factor is pretty low and the speaker can now "modulate" the load that the amp sees with greater ease. As such, you get less bass control with a reduction in definition.
Steve's suggestion of using tiny wire WILL alter the damping factor of the system, but not with the results that he speculates at. Putting more resistance at the output of the amplifier in effect RAISES the damping factor of the amplifier. You haven't raised the output impedance of the amp itself, you've raised the load impedance that the amp sees. Since bass requires higher current levels to reproduce than high frequencies do, the smaller gauge wire and higher series resistance will produce a much thinner, leaner and "taught" bass simply because current flow has been "choked". This is NOT due to a "reduced damping factor" as explained above, but due to lack of overall bass output.
Now compare this to an amp with a low damping factor and your results would be the opposite. Low damping factors are typically associated with an increase in round, mushy bass that rings. In effect, the tonal balance has now become warm and full, not thin and lean as would occur with the "thin wire" substitution recommended above. Sean
> |
How is it then that i remember you as being one of the "wire is wire" crowd ? Am i mistaken ? Sean
> |
