No money, basically you make a good point here, but don't many audiophiles react in the sense of : Since all "good", meaning very expensive, cables neeed to be burnt in and this is always expressively mentioned in the glossy literature, then something must be "wrong" with a cable, which is said to work right out of the box. So if you like, but I am not implying that this is so in most cases, you could just as well infer, that all that burning in stuff is merely a necessary marketing hype (next to clever pricing)for the manufacturer to sell his wire as something special and top notch. |
Why would cable companies insist that their cable needs to be burned in if it doesn't change the sound? They aren't making money by the # of hours you play the cable. Seems like it would be easy enough for a company to say "our cable is good from the start" all others are inferior and have to be burned in. But that isn't the case, at least as far as I tell. |
Excuse my typo "...forumla..." should read "...formula..." |
702, thanks for the reply, maybe we are all progressing in the right direction of meaningful discussions and who knows, ultimately we may stumble across an explanation that will transpose into a forumla that we can all understand and use to explain some of these effects we perceive? Regarding wave properties, I would have thought we need to look along these lines as any effects that may (or not depending upon your viewpoint) well be caused by the transfer of wave charge along, say, a conductor. The sources quoted are only a small part of the many complex contributions on the subject of particle matter. Speaking of altering structure, is it not possible that somewhere along the line sub-atomic particles are indeed being re-aligned (I'm not saying or suggesting they are "altered")into a more ordered and natural structure after being disturbed during the manufacturing process? Could there be anything here that we should look at to help understand these "changes"? Regards, Richard. |
702, granted and I also agree with Garfish, that we are often closer than it may seem, but I often sense absolutism on both sides, which is detrimental to progress of knowledge for both sides. |
702; I get the impression that we may actually agree on a lot except maybe for minor differences in "procedure", or maybe "what is the next step". Cheers. Craig |
Bmpnyc: I know a few wine experts, and they've never done that either. But if someone did, their actions in the scenario I described would show them to be a poseur and not an expert.
Garfish: Trust your senses, yes, but also keep them in check through investigation and understanding, including knowing how to make a comparison. My senses suggest that the sun, planets, and stars all revolve around the earth--that's what it looks like, right?--but I know that's not what actually is happening.
Detlof: I said cables have not been proven to change over time. I may be skeptical about any prospects that they will ever be, but I don't see what's absolutist about that. |
Vantageaudio: The wave properties of electrons do not seem to be the issue here, but instead whether electron flow as "burn-in" will somehow alter the crystal structure of the wire and over time improve its properties of conduction. (Wouldn't simply moving, bending, twisting, or coiling the wire affect its "crystal structure?") Schrödinger's wave theory does not even hint that electrons differ amongst themselves, although they will have different energy levels if they receive different amounts of energy. Millikan calculated from his observations that electron mass is about 1/2000 that of a proton or neutron. If it's true that only the valence electrons make up the electron cloud about the positive ions and the electron flow in an electrical conductor when a voltage potential is applied, then it just seems that in any kind of "burn-in" scenario anyone's described here, there's not nearly enough mass or energy in those electrons to even nudge those positive ions about in the lattice, let alone "realign" them. |
Dekay is right, when listening to music and auditoning equipment you have to trust your senses-- also in many other endeavors in life. |
The proof is in the hearing, at least this is what I feel that this hobby is all about. In that any difference perceived is in fact "real" as in "I think, therefore I exist." Proof other than that perceived through the senses does not really mean anything to me (look at various amplifier specs and then listen to the amps themselves and you will see where I am coming from). There was an English tube amp produced a few years ago that looked like garbage on paper and spec'd the same as well. It sounded wonderful. According to the spec's though it should have sounded like a tuner placed between stations, go figure. There is no way that a scientifically measurable difference can be proved to be an audible one (for everyone) and in the same vein it is impossible to prove that a scientifically non-measurable "difference" does not exist to the senses. We know very little, IMO, about our physical world and even less about the human brain and perception. I am all for an open discussion, however if one has not actually auditioned (whether it be blind or not) the gear that is being disrespected then that "one's" opinion is an ultimate act of "pon-tune-if-ica-tion" (my new made up word) and is a waste of cyber space. On the other side of the coin though, I was upset to read Jostler's thread of today in that he obviously does listen to music and audition equipment and is therefore actively involved in this hobby. In this regard his (unpopular) opinions are valid one's, IMO, and should not be censored. |
Anyone who resolutely believes that the flow of current through conductors - be they copper, silver, gold - does not affect the physical properties of said wire should chat with any competent and experienced electrician. These guys work with this stuff day in and day out. I had a minor epiphany a few years ago when an electrician was doing some work at my shop and told me that the metals (wiring and switches) implicated in his repairs had simply failed owing to long use and continued exposure to currents. In simple English, the physical, and therefore electrical, properties of the conductors had been altered with use. They had failed because the metals had become embrittled and acted more like resistors than conductors, almost porcelain-like in their behavior; i.e., they weren't conducting, rather they were highly resistive. "They just wore out", he said.
Now given the truth of this, it seems to follow that there is a life cycle to cables, just as with anything else. If you accept that, you must also allow for a youth, maturity and old age to cables. (That's bad news though for those of us who put significant dollars into them, hoping they'll outlast us.) Methinks entropy figures in here somewhere. Any metallurgists here who can elucidate this phenomenon of changes to metals when current is induced?
|
Hello 70242, in reply to your above post I can only say that I am not attempting to find fault with the assertion made by stevemj or anyone else. I am also not saying that there are different electrons. However I am asking if stevemj (or someone) would care to expand on their assertion. It is my understanding that sometime ago a person called Schrodinger proposed that the electron should be thought of a continuous distribution of time dependent waves and denoted this by means of a forumla. This became known as the "Schrodinger wave" but this is only true if the wave remained confined to the atom. However, it is also my understanding that outside an atom electrons can be found in a small region of space so that in general the wave density does not agree with the formula. Another person by the name of Bohr later proposed that the intensity of this wave does not represent the actual charge density of the electron but the probable density of the electron and conceived as a small local particle. It is these and others studies that lead to the belief that there are possible differences in electron charge patterns and their subsequent behavior and that this may have some relationship to the perceived differences we experience between components..??? The subject will always be open to debate and useful and meaningful contributions can only help all our understanding and listening pleasure. Regards, Richard. |
Lets not bicker about wine experts 702 and of course wines change with age. Cables do not, you so adamantly say. I think it would have been more correct to have added something like " as far as the laws of physics tell us".
This would make a subtle but very significant difference, because it leaves open the possibility, slight as it may be, that new evidence could lead to new hypotheses and finally to new insights. Not with you, the way I percieve it and please forgive me, if I am wrong. To me, your statement has the quality of absoluteness to it and therin lies the weakness of all arguments from your side of the fence. It makes you vulnerable for attacks of dogmatism, of closed mindedness, of a basically deeply IRRATIONAL belief in the infallibilism of all precepts of science, whereas also here, as in all human endevour, there is questioning, movement and change on many fronts.
Tell me honestly - although I'll grant you, this is a poor example - how can you really KNOW , if cables change with age or not? All you could say, to my mind at least, that according to physics, this is highly improbable, that they could change. If you imply more, you move into the realm of BELIEFS, namely that in the unshakeable nature of the laws of physics. As far as makro physics are concerned, belief and knowledge are good bedfellows and I have no trouble with your argument. It gets more tricky, when we enter the realm of micro physics. I am no expert, not technically trained, but does not the flow of electrons through molecules of metal touch both fields of physics and thus inspite of the established laws of electricity does leave some white spots on this so well explored territory? So already here a doubt in respect of the absoluteness of your statement seems legitimate. But then there is another aspect, which lets me doubt the absoluteness of your assumtions about the audiophile quality of wires even more: And that is simply the very large number of people who report hearing differences and whose description of what they hear with what cables often has a certain uniformity to it. The hypothesis, that what they report could be safely put in the realm of phantasy, while the people themselves obviously suffered from some minor form of psychopathology, which more over is fed by unscrupulous manufacturers, dealers, the press and advertisers, is probably more then daring. In fact, it seems even highly infantile, when we consider sociological data of the average audiophile: Which is: over average education + training, high incidence of academics + professionals, over average positions and incomes..... etc. Doesn't really sound like a bunch of irrational, illadvised romantics, does it? No, the longer I follow this and similar arguments here, and I do this, because I am (also professionally) fascinated with how we come to find our "truths" and how we argue and defend them, I am slowly coming to the conclusion, that probably those that hear differences in wire are the REALISTS afer all, and those who deny it are the BELIEVERS. Just my thoughts, and 702, sorry if I accused you of an absolutism, which you perhaps don't have at all.. but well, it sounded like that to me.
Regards |
Steve: I grant your point that heat in your example appears unlikely to make much difference. My point was in response to somebody previously who said electrons sloshing through a wire make no change to the wire. Heat cycling is just one example of a change-inducing physical effect that electron sloshing does have on wire. Maybe there are other effects not related to heat. And, given the subtleties of the differences we claim to hear, maybe it doesn't require much of a physical change to make the cable audibly different.
Also, relating to your example--I'm not an engineer, but couldn't the amount of power running through a speaker wire be substantially higher, enough even to create a measurable heating? So, even if a cable conditioner doesn't generate enough power to make a difference in your opinion, maybe burning in a speaker wire with real signal would at least push a lot more power through the wire and potentially have a much greater physical effect? |
As a former wine afficionado I must jump in here and say that I personally know two acknowledged wine experts and they have never expressed an opinion anything like that described by 70242. I do see his point, but we (the cables make a difference members) are not some group of followers being beckoned by the Pied Pipers of the Audio Press to parade behind their golden ears and march to the rhythm of their imaginary distinctions. Instead we are mostly experienced listeners with decades of experience with open, but still skeptical minds who are aware of audio phenomena that is not completely explained yet. What is gained by asserting we are all wrong and that we are imagining "burn in" or differences in coax cables? |
Vantageaudio: Do you seriously find fault with Steve's assertion that all electrons are alike? Really? No, come on, do you? Are you saying they're different? Do different electrons move at different speeds or something? Or with less grain and improved soundstage?
Kdmeyer: As Steve mentioned, the heat buildup in audio cabling is so microscopically minuscule as to be negligible. And that's a good thing, because when metals (copper, silver, et al) heat up, their resistance to current flow increases. That would degrade their performance characteristics, especially for speaker cables.
Detlof: Wine tasters can indeed discern fine gradations between wines. But wines also have been proven to sometimes change with age and environment, whereas cables have not.
I would be highly suspicious, though, of a wine "expert" who looks at the label, sips some wine, and then says "Ah, yes, of course. Pinot noir. Domaine Carneros 1997. It certainly is," then after a palate-cleansing cracker, goes on to the next one, looks at the label, tastes the wine and says, "David Bruce Russian River 1998, yes, I could tell, it has the shadings that one would expect only from this vintage." And so on. Yet in audio, we're supposed to accept this sort of "testing" as "proof" of phenomena that are highly improbable or scientifically impossible. |
Garfish,
Point taken. I guess the afterthought about Emerson and his hobgoblins confused me. Seemed like you were damning him with faint praise. Guess you meant to praise Caesar, not to bury him. Cheers. |
Sean, you're so right! Hearing acuity can be trained well beyond that level, which even complex measurements will be able to show. Another example for what our senses are capable of: Wine tasters or perfume testers ( vive la France )are schooled for years and can point out subtle differences which no chemical testing ever could and the industry depends heavily on their results. Why should it be different on the aural level? |
Steve, the dichotomy we are locked on here is probably not to be solved. I find it difficult to believe, that all of those who are aware of differences in the way a cable "sounds" after "burn-in" are victims of some sorts of mass hysteria, just as I find it difficult to believe, that the laws of physics should suddenly be null and void. So the idea, that something third is going on, which we really know nothing about, is perhaps not too far fetched after all. Double blind tests seem to show, that the " third factor" seems to lie rather within the psyche of the "believers", but since we know, that often the outcome of those experiments are heavily dependent on the experimental set-up and the maths involved and those factors again on the conscious or unconscious biases of the experimenters, also DBT are not really conclusive.
Hence, in my humble opinion, something like "sceptical modesty" would befit both parties in this never ending argument. I know of my own personal gullibility and know for sure, that emotional factors will influence the way I percieve things. So though of good musical hearing, I am also a sceptic. This dilemma however does not prevent me from enjoying the music. Besides, with new cables or not, my system never sounds the same. There are always subtle, however clearly noticeable differences to the day before.
The more complex the system, the more factors can influence the way it will perform. It can be likened to musical instruments, which also never sound the same from one day to the other. So I don't really care much, what causes a change, as long as the system "sounds right", i.e. musical and I'll start fretting and tweaking if it does not, until I've got it right again. Sometimes I also have to "fret and tweak" on myself, because, when I'm not "right", the system won't sound "right " either. So..and I say this with a selfironic grin .. the two way relationship between an audiophile and his system is a rather complex one, to say the least, and physics will never be able to explain all of it. |
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
> |
KD - Let say that we run a 10 volt square wave, that's 10 volts RMS. Say cables have .2 ohms resistance and the load is 10K. Current is E/R or 10/10000 = 1/1000 amp. Power (watts) is current squared times resistance so Watts = 1/1000 X 1/1000 *.2 =1/5000000 or one five millionth of a watt.... I think we can rule out heat as a factor.
If this doesn't make any sense, here's another way to look at it. If electricity cost 10 cents a kilowatt/hour, you will have to leave a cable on the conditioner for 57,000 years to get 1 cent worth of electricity heating the cable. |
Sean - My opinion, for what it is worth, is that most people here are probably better listeners than I am. I would not want to be in a listening contest with anyone here where we were trying to distinquish between signals with measureable differences. I am pretty sure the folks here have ears that are as good as ears get.
I would not hesitate, however, to bet a huge amount of money that, in a true double blind test, no one could tell if a cable had been "conditioned".
If it really would mean something to you I will try to dig up evidence that electrical signals won't change the property of metals. I hear over and over again the argument that science doesn't know everything therefore what one hears is real. This makes it pointless to give scientific evidence. |
Yes, sloshing electrons through a cable changes it: the cable heats up. Temperature changes mean physical changes. Physical changes can change electrical characteristics--work hardening is an example. |
Getting back to the topic-- can Stevemj demand that we prove our contention, ie that there is a difference in music character with "burn in", but we cannot demand that he prove his, ie that there is no difference with "burn-in"?
Personally, I have no particular "need" to explain the phenomenon as I trust my own senses. But if he wishes to prove his case, I would love to see the results of his study(s) with peer reviews, publication-- the whole works. And I surely do wish him the best of luck. Cheers. Craig |
Uh-oh-- seems like I stepped on some toes without even meaning to. Adamanteus, if you'll look at my post again, you'll see that I said "Stevemj does not have the psychological or intellectual capacity TO GET WEIRD ENOUGH for this audiophile". Actually, although I too disagree with Steve, he makes very well written and civil posts. I would say that I complimented him by saying that he cannot get WEIRD enough for me-- straight out of HST's best works. But if I offended, my apologies. Craig. |
Yes, it was Emerson. But let's be fair. Steve espouses his point of view with consistency and tenacity. I categorically do NOT subscribe to his "wires is wires" point of view, but I do think it's a bit unfair to demean his "psychological or intellectual character". He's asking for hard data and, to be fair, we haven't yet given such. What we have given is anecdotal evidence. That such evidence is not yet quantifiable does not nullify it; rather it means there are physical properties to this whole business that aren't yet mapped. But namecalling solves nothing. Let's try to stick with facts.
Sean's approach makes some sense from the scientific point of view; perhaps we can undertake to push that kind of empirical testing to see where it leads?
Really hope everyone here can keep this confined to "quietly asking and answering in turn". (Some Greek fella wrote about that quite some time back; Plato or something like that.)
|
Excellent posts just above by both Sean and Bmp, IMO. But really, I don't think that Stevemj has either the psychological or intellectual character to get weird enough for this audiophile, or for most others with open minds. Was it Emerson who said "consistency is a hobgoblin of small minds"? Cheers. Craig. |
There have been numerous testimonials at various Audiogon chats regarding the "conversion" of staunch opponents to the "cables make a difference" group. Every story always goes something like, "For 20 years I did not believe that...... until I heard..... and could not believe my ears.....I apologize to all I may have offended..... and now happily enjoy my system more than ever". To all the "blinded by science" group, why not accept that there are significant improvements to be had by choosing a cable that synergizes with peoples systems, and find the science to prove why, instead of denying the experience of thousands of audiophiles who really have no axe to grind, but simply know what they are hearing? |
Very straightforward and honest post Bmpnyc. Thanks for summing up all of my ramblings : ) Sean
> |
There have been numerous testimonials at various Audiogon chats regarding the "conversion" of staunch opponents to the "cables make a difference" group. Every story always goes something like, "For 20 years I did not believe that...... until I heard..... and could not believe my ears.....I apologize to all I may have offended..... and now happily enjoy my system more than ever". To all the "blinded by science" group, why not accept that there are significant improvements to be had by choosing a cable that synergizes with peoples systems, and find the science to prove why, instead of denying the experience of thousands of audiophiles who really have no axe to grind, but simply know what they are hearing? |
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
> |
Ontario - There is more to my post than sarcasm. Stirring water in a swimming pool and expecting that to change the water's characteristics is a fair analogy to sloshing electrons back and forth in a wire and expecting that to change the electron's (or wire's) characteristics.
Oddly, it seems that the more preposterous the belief, the less likely an explanation of why it is preposterous will be useful. |
Sean; thanks for the Mobie info. I believe I have a Music Direct catalog, and will check for Mobies-- sounds vaguely venereal: ). Craig. |
Play nice Ontario! No need to flash someone if their opinion is different than yours. |
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. |
Stevemj read this!!!!!!!!
I am sick of your little attitude ,if u do not wish to add A opinion on audio subjects with out sarcasim I will help u.
I will notify Audiogon of your constant harrasment at their site to their enthusiasts and will ask them to remove you from being able to sign in as a user
Thanks for visiting with us Mr. MJ |
Sean; where are the Mobie and Cable Cooker available from? Thanks. Garfish the Believer. |
Proof, Sean? You don't sound like a guy who's even interested in proof. Obviously, no one can prove that your professed experience with cable break-in is a figment of your imagination. For that matter, you cannot prove it isn't. (Actually, you could, but that would require the kind of test I'm sure you can find fault with.) But there is no known physical phenomenon that would explain this effect (despite your rather strained attempts to suggest such), while there is a known psychological phenomenon that explains it pretty well. And we are all free to use or not use that information as we wish. |
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
>
|
Miracle Cures: Stevemj needs a keyboard break in device. His present model is stiff, and will not respond properly to input no matter how often he gives it the finger. Data that it does transmit, is either out of context or condescending.
Perhaps instead, it is his computers chip set, and the keyboard is not at fault. The processor has never been broken in with sufficient hours of full bandwidth truth, thereby producing answers not applicable to actual human experience.
Or, the last possibility is that the devices are OK, and the operator is not broken in. This situation is very dangerous at an audio site. Postings here are required to be from people who listen to music and realize that dealing with equipment is a fact of life.
In that case, the miracle cure would consist of Stevemj turning off his computer, hooking up a set of cables, and breaking himself in at the same time as the wire. I'll bet that in less than 100 hours, his keyboard would begin to respond as accurately the other posts on this topic. If he resists, he can return to his "water conditioned" pool. I am certain he has experimented with it quite a lot, as he is certainly all wet. |
Miracle Products:
For swimming pool owners, we have a "water condition". After filling your pool, it stirs up the water for several hours. You would be amazed at how the much smoother it is after being broken in. It relaxes the water molecules.
For your car: Don't use oil that hasn't been broken in! THis new device subjects the oil to real conditions for several hours before your oil change. You would be amazed at how much less grainy the oil is.
Got stiff, lazy, or jerky electrons in your cables? Our cable conditioner will get those darn electrons whipped into shape in no time. Our condition has several hours of specially designed "music for electrons". This special computer generated music will energize reluctant electrons and remind them to behave properly. |
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
> |
Hi Garfish, I bought the Duo-Tech sometime in the 80s. I dont think they make them anymore. I have seen them sold on this site for $50 to $75. Great post Wehamilton! |
I use Transparent Audio Ultra XL balanced interconnects and they are very much affected by the burn-in process. T/A says 100 hrs. which I now believe. My friend had a well used cable (same as above) and it sounded so good in my system I spent the big bucks to buy one. Couldn't have been more disappointed in the sound of the new cable. After much use in the system, usually with me out of the house, they started to break-in. The change was particularly noticeable in the treble freq. and low level detail.
FYI, I confirmed with T/A that the Cable Cooker is safe for their network boxes and based on my long and painful experience I will try to use one next time to shorten the process.
My cable now sounds like my buddy's when A/B even though they didn't when new. If it was all in my head, I could have easily said my $1775 cable was awesome, embarassed to admit I made a mistake. But the fact is it took the 80 hours or so before it sounded like anything I wanted to listen to. I have this argument with a electrical engineer friend (I'm an M.E so what do I know from electrons) and he says the same thing as posted above (electrons don't know the difference). But there are a lot of other factors in play here and I think we still don't understand all the reasons. I do believe it, though, when he tells me he can't hear the difference because a lot of people can't. My old boss once told me he couldn't hear or follow the beat of music (how white do you have to be to say that?!). Anyway, I now accept the fact that some people can't hear the difference, and Circuit City has plenty of fine equipment for them to enjoy. I, however, can hear the difference and am a tortured soul (aka audiophile) as a result. |
Josler - Leather cables are good for country western music. |
Sean; just gotta' add: I think your thread is good, but the title-- shall we say "a bit provocative"? IMO. I'll quit now....Craig |
.........should have been more specific-- Brulee, Ramesh where do you get the Duo Tech burn in devices? Re: the Nordost, I'm guessing they have a website? Thanks. Craig |
Brulee pretty much summed up my feelings and experiences with "wire" burn in. I often use the XLO burn-in CD. BTW, where do you get the wire burn-in devices? I too am tired of running all my electronics 14 hrs. a day to burn in wires. Sean; it's pretty much been my experience that new wires are often excessively bright, sometimes to the point of glaring/smearing of mids and low treble, but smooth out considerabley with use-- bass usually tightens up too. Bob B.-- good story about the Syn. Res. ICs. As Avguy and Richard stated, and I agree, there's no point in trying to turn this thread into another whizzing contest. Cheers. Craig. |
Instead of burn-in there are those that cryogenically freeze their cables. |
Just using the shoes as a example. Might have been a poor use of words but you get the idea. |
