Here is the can filled with opinions. It's been hashed and rehashed to infinity and beyond with no clear result. Since I am a seeker of truth I'll post my thoughts here for the yea and naysayers to debate over. Question is: Are expensive speaker or any other cable in a system worth the exorbitant cost over a reasonably priced cable loom? I thought I'd experiment myself to find out. My comparison is between Transparent Ultra cable loom and Blue Jeans cable loom on a pure stereo system comprised of Proceed PAV, Proceed PDSD, Krell Kav 250, Musical Fidelity A3cd, Sony Ps4300 TT and B&W 803D2 speakers. All sources were used by this experiment using identical playback material. Cables had in excess of 200 hrs burn time and all were identical in lenght. The only variation were the connector manufacturers. One change that occurred during this 4 week long endeavor was that I'm firmly seated on the sharpest picket on the fence. My result is that I'm now a believer that there are audible differences in cables. I also believe that these differences are minute and one has to really listen carefully and for a long time to discern these differences. Now to the crutch of the matter, $$$$$, As we all know Transparent Cables would reside in the upper tier of Audio Cable expense. Blue Jeans Cable on the other hand falls into the lowest tier of expense (well maybe not lowest but low nontheless ) One would think then that the Transparent would be far superior to the BJs. Not really! Yes the highs were a little cleaner, mids a little tighter and lows a tad more pronounced but not by as much as one would expect. Soundstage was somewhat more open and airy and depth was somewhat more defined with the higher priced cable but again less than one would expect.
Now for my personal opinion regarding the cable debate: expensive cable looms are slightly better than reasonable priced looms, if a dollar equals a penny to you then by all means opt for the higher priced loom, if a penny equals a penny don't be ashamed for opting for the best you can do. The differences are so minute that it's not worth going into debt over. BOTH looms sounded superb on my test system and I would be happy with either loom.
Now let the debate begin, just know I'm a fence sitter and not in one camp or the other
@shadorne of course not, as that would be a silly assertion. Air is the "best" dielectric which accounts for cable manufacturers such as Audioquest who have been, for several years now, been using either PE tubes or Teflon tubes as the physical dielectric to minimize the physical dielectric's contact with the conductors, thus rendering "air" as the substantive dielectric in their designs.
Might be instructive for others to weigh in on their experience with "air tube" dielectrics versus "wire coating" dielectrics which may make burn-in even more critical as those contacting dielectrics must "form" through burn in and in my experience yield a greater magnitude of sonic improvement through burn-in.
Congratulations, you have stumbled upon a truth! Air it is. But what is it that is sealing in what air is there around the wire, eh? That is where the burn-in takes place. I just visited over a half dozen audio manufacturer sites that discussed the issue of component and cable burn-in. Most recognized the controversy surrounding this elusive issue but ALL recognized its absolute existence. This includes manufacturers who do not sell any products meant to address burn-in.
In their own product development and listening tests, burn-in is readily heard and anecdotally is reinforced by customers who, after putting newly purchased cables into their system heard a harshness and lack of body to the sound relative to the cables that had previously inhabited that space in their system. The manufacturer's response is to allow time for the cables to burn-in. Voila! Problem solved.
As stated before...I sympathize with your inability to hear this well-recognized phenomenon.
All wire conductors encapsulated by a dielectric benefit from burn in. I can't help it if you can't hear the sonic effect of that. I can have sympathy for you though... and I do. 😔
If it takes 400 hours to burn in a cable, shouldn't the risk free return period be 3 years? And how/when would I compare it to a cable that requires no or very little burn in.
Blindjim makes a lot of good points or a great voice of reason. He has been around the block a few times so I would listen to his advice. Just my 2 cents haha :)
Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead, my droogies! 👁 In the never ending story. of better sound and how to find it one always finds exasperated knuckledragging angry angst ridden ruffians plotting to bring the whole juggernaut down and pervert the whole scientific process and squash the joy of discovery. Killjoys, name droppers, name callers, pill poppers, drive by shooters, pile it up, pile it up, higher, higher.
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. Illegitimi non carborundum.
Made the scene Week to week Day to day Hour to hour The gate is straight Deep and wide Break on through to the other side Break on through to the other side
Suttle improvements in cable changes can represent a milestone for many. However I can change interconnects and hear a noticeable difference providing this is done on the same day. One time I ordered a new pair of Cardas interconnects and was such a revelation that it was as if I purchased a new power amp and or preamp.
I say, buy the better cables--find a nice used set at half price, and they will be with you through many improvements of gear. The cheaper cables will be left behind at your first upgrade, and you will be left wanting. Try to make your own power cords--not difficult at all.
I sincerely do not see any argument about run in on wires.
What I see is an argument pro or con on the notion run in will change things or not, and promoted so one or the other side of the coin has to be accepted by the opposing theorists.
There’s the real argument. Forcing someone to adopt a different perspective.
Good luck with that.
Why all the rebuttal if both propositions are offered merely as personal experience only?
If listening to a system can be improved by rubbing drawn butter on my bare feet while sitting naked in an Appalachian Rocking chair wearing a fireman’s helmet, I’d give it a try. Or not.
Probably not.
I don’t have the helmet.
Who loses? Who wins? Who cares?
It doesn’t matter.
A person convinced against their will, remains unconvinced, still.
Resistance is futile. They will seldom be assimilated.
I’ve tried $5 ICs. I’ve tried $2K ICs. Same with power cords.
I was really pulling for the $5, $100, $500 wires to be better than the $750, $1000 and $2000 wires. Really I was.
Why? Not being rich played a significant role I think.
It does take honesty. A lot of honesty. It takes notes. Honest notes. Then if the mo spensive wires is better…. A whole lot of justification and a fair time to save up to buy them.
The point is if the ‘ears’ have it, and not the heart, there is a bonafide winner. Science aside. Science was or was not working all along in the testing. It had to be. Its science. Science doesn’t take days off.
The only descrepency is no one took notes on the science portion of the process. Just the honest results of time and materials gains or losses or unnoticed changes, during the examination period.
Where then is the real proof?
IMHO? Metallurgy. Possibly ‘alchemy’.
Otherwise, please refer to the sales feedback on sold items, and or the current system lists in a member’s profile.
If the suspect was not sold, it may have trickled down into another rig. Or been traded off site. Which is my preffs budget permitting.
Proof enough for me is a $1200 wire replaced a previously adored $400 wire. Just as the $400 cable supplanted the hereto fore beloved $250 wires. Etc., etc., etc.
You can bring an audio nut perspectives, but you can’t always make them switch.
Forcing the point breeds only bad feelings and resentment. Then things get less appropriate as the less civil will go straight into the gutter with their words and inferences. Or jibe and poke adolescent inane crap. Hiding behind a faceless web, and hoping Admin won’t see it. Directionality, fuses, wires, run in, tweaks, etc., have merit if you believe they do. If you do not, super. Good for you! in fact, good for either!!!
Real maturity reminds happiness is a greater worth than being right. This is indeed, a choice.
That said, I’m most happy when I’m right. But I’ll not sacrifice happiness so I can.
"
I built some cables and it never once crossed my mind that some magic hocus pocus might change the sound, and over time I compared them with another old set I had and there was NO difference, and that's expectation bias? "
Yes that's the very exact definition of what expectation bias is now you see how it works it cuts both ways!
I have to wonder if the top recording engineers or musical artists, with some tech interest always go for the expensive cables in their systems? If a fair number do, maybe they could provide a testimony to the fact.
What percentage of improvement could be realized in reproduction if such cabling, or fuses, etc. etc. (or better) is used in the recording environment?
" Nobody ages steaks until they rot. Wine goes corked all the time. A lot of things have an optimal aging period, but forever is never it. I think this cable burn in jazz is pure snake oil. I’ve never heard it. Caps breaking in is extremely subtle. I think a lot of people just hear what they want to."
I never implied an infinite aging period as you seem to imply in the quote above. Corking wine? Really? Who the hell does that? If they do, their palate gets what it deserves!
Can’t relate at all to what you are espousing. It’s actually enjoyable to hear from one day to the next how a cable dielectric forms to the wire within it. Most interesting, and a refutation of the "expectation bias" argument, is that oft times during the burn-in, there are periods where things sound worse. It is not a linear, predictable process. You know when the "forming" is over when the sound achieves a consistency. Again...this is why many cable manufacturers offer the trial period. There can be times when that burn-in period is completed that you are not satisfied with the sound and it’s time to visit UPS.
Kosst is my audio muse and tells it like it is. GK espouses nothing but nonsense as usual. I certainly get the notion of run-in of gear -- speakers for darn sure, and tubes and electronics to a lesser degree, as well as wire. At the end of the day, if you believe that your cables sound demonstrably better after 500 hours of run-in than they did after a few hours, then I must admit that you are the better judge of that than me. I can't think of an objective way in which to affirm that conclusion other that than confirm bias.
All my experience is out of date--I sold audio in the ’90s and knew a fair amount about it then. Not any more.
The only cables that I ever heard that sounded "better" than average were AudioQuest Lapis (I think that was it--pure silver interconnects, in the "stone" named series--not the higher-end Diamond), and a pair of Nordost speaker cables I liked so much I kept them for years. The former had most effect on imaging, the latter on clarity. Otherwise I listened to a whole lot of wire and always believed there were very slight audible differences but nothing you wouldn’t quickly get used to. The task of finding the "best" wires is a true fool’s errand. Add directionality, burn in, freaky tweaks, different makes and models in different positions in a system, etc., and there is literally an infinity of combinations possible. Many of which seem to sound reasonably close to each other!
That’s no fun. Audio should be fun.
What I like better is adjusting a system’s sound by tube rolling. Finding the tubes that do what you want is a very satisfying way to adjust the sound of a system. Now that’s fun. I’d rather do that to adjust a system’s sound to my liking.
" Hearing cables "improve" over time as they "age or burn-in," if sincere, is total expectation bias. Psychologically....that is: "The tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations."
Of course this argument has been around for a very long time and is promulgated by those who "believe" that there is no such thing as burn in but this argument is easily dispensed with and summarily refuted because of course many audiophiles who have been convinced of cable burn in were convinced in sprite of the fact they believed it was not possible! So obviously claims of expectation bias do not apply because if they did the audiophile in this scenario would have been convinced that there was no such thing as burn in! The only thing that this objection proves is that the poster himself is suffering the very expectation bias that he claims other audiophiles are suffering this is so obvious to everyone except those who want us to believe that they believe in science. In fact they do believe in science they just don’t know how it works or how to follow scientific protocol to explore a theory and they do mean well they are just confused.
Hearing cables "improve" over time as they "age or burn-in," if sincere, is total expectation bias. Psychologically....that is: "The tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations."
You cannot convince someone who has already made an investment in cables that need to "age before they reach full potential" because they have already drunk the kool-aide and will never look back. Same dumb stuff as freezing cables and elevating them on little wood blocks. It is all pure slick marketing by very savvy scammers who completely understand expectation bias and use that phenomenon to fill their pockets.
From my experience cables have the shortest break-in period usualy 10 to 50 hours are enough. Speakers need the longest break-in 500 hours at least. Dacs,power amps and pre amps do need substantial break in period as well but less than speakers.
@whitestix "I often hear folks espouse these run-in beneficial claims, but I never hear about anyone that says after X number of hours that the "components", particularly wire, sounds worst than it did in the beginning. Statistically, it is an even chance that that the is the outcome."
What? Why would run-in EVER make wire sound worse? How often does appropriate aging make Scotch or Bourbon taste worse? How about wine? Why do the best steakhouses age their steaks? Oh...so they taste worse and can go out of business.
It is sad if you have never experienced the benefits of proper run-in. I don't think I have ever heard, in over 40 years in this hobby, a manufacturer not encourage the purchaser to allow for run in of their components/wires whatever. BTW, many of those manufacturers allow a 30-60 day trial period. Why? So you have an opportunity to hear their gear over time to experience how their components/wires get worse?
I didn't miss your point and in fact you used physics to justify your point. let me say that physics cannot describe most of what we hear and neither can an EE.There are so many nuances to sound that are. Or understood at all. if you read about it you will often see statements accepting that "these things are not understood" by engineers, I have a pair of CT GE speaker cables. I moved them from where they were and rearranged them. it took four daus for them to settle back I. And sound good. you can disagree, or say there is nothing in science that can support it BUT it is the case and I can hear it. I have no reason to make this statement other than scientific observation. wire isn't wire, recordings are all different, rooms are all different, sound is always different. if you can not hear these differences, and frankly I think you can, then why would it be that big of a stretch that a cable would need 100 hours, or more, to settle in? 500 hours? Not my experience but confirmation bias isn't always true and with audiophiles who listen intently why would you assume this is NOT true? Anyway, my experiences are that everything changes sound. room treatments, wires, power cords, every little thing, makes changes. Greg
Greg, You miss my point, but do live vintage gear so thanks for the suggestions. I have heard lots of SQ differences with speakers, components and tubes, and to a lesser extent, with IC's, power cords, and speaker wire. That is why I recently upgraded to a Pass Labs amp. My point was that a 300-500 hour of break-in for wire is absurd. I often hear folks espouse these run-in beneficial claims, but I never hear about anyone that says after X number of hours that the "components", particularly wire, sounds worst than it did in the beginning. Statistically, it is an even chance that that the is the outcome. I still say that the most of the "love" for a set of wires after 500 hours of burn-in is merely confirmation bias.
Every set of cables I've bought from an audio company I've been told was cryogenically treated or burned in. I just thought OK it couldn't hurt, but I haven't notice any change in sound as I have used them.
I can say different insulation and tension of winding makes a difference in the sound in guitar pickups. Poly coated wire is probably the most transparent and clear, as apposed to plain enamel which has a more mid rangy sound and slightly rolled off on top. I just use 16 AWG pure poly coated copper with low impurities for my speaker wires.
whitestix, at first, I did not think it possible either. I was proved wrong through many listening sessions, as well as, attending many meet-and-greets over the years between the dealer/retailers and Transparent reps. I can only speak to the MM2 series. I have not auditioned the newer GEN5 offerings. Wires, dielectric, insulators, something magical was going down. Happy Listening!
@whitestix I don't think jafant was talking about the wire burning in. That would be silly! What's burning in, or more appropriately "forming" to the wire inside of it, is the dielectric; be it teflon or polyethylene or whatever...
@whitestix so you are saying you never hear any difference of any cable, fuse, capacitor, wire, or any other kind of upgrade ? Not immediately and not over time? Then you should probably own a pioneer sx 950 and a pair of pioneer speakers from the 70's because all components are essentially the same and the rest is smoke and mirrors?
Jafant, I can't be convinced that any conductor could take 300-500 hours to burn-in. Other than confirmation bias, there is no reason based on physics that supports the conclusion that the wire "improves" from a SQ perspective after this period of time. Lengthy run-in with speakers, that clearly is a mechanical process. But 500 hours of burn-in for wire defies logic. It seem the pricier the cable that is being sold, the longer the required run-in time. Count me as a denier.
I concur w/ kypete. the Transparent Super up to the Reference does require 300-400 hours of burn-in to bloom. The Reference/ReferenceXL/OPUS will require 500 hours and more to open, bloom. Very good information and points of view in this thread. Happy Listening!
I also listen for a long time before making changes to understand what I am hearing and determine what changes I think should be made. These are relative to live acoustic instruments. Tone, timbre, harmonics are all on the table.
I purchased the CT GE sc and found very good results at a very reasonable price. Do I need a loom to hear the difference? No! Is a loom a preferable configuration? Sometimes but not always. I find I very times consuming and frustrating to research, purchase and compare cables BUT I do hear significant differences in sound using any cable or ic. They all have an effect, some good, some less good, and are all system dependent. Money is an issue so I read a lot from different sources to make educated comparisons. My system has done nothing but improve over time. The results are better, cleaner sound, better soundstage, I.e., wider, deeper, taller, and closer to my particular goal of live " in the room sound" of acoustic instruments .
I myself am using MG Audio Design's top of the line interconnects. I first learned about them from Arnie Nudell when he stated that he himself was using them. I later learned from Paul McGowan of PS Audio that he also uses them, and lastly that at a meeting of the Colorado Audio Society that they preferred them to top of the line Nordhost. Even so at $1600for a pme meter pair, they were still too much for me. And then I learned that they will sell half meter pairs for only $900 a pair. I believe a .6 meter pair of Nordhost goes gor #20,000. The results are simply amazing. As I can only compare them to a pair of Audience Au24se's, I can not directly compare them to the much more costly alternatives oit there, but even so I believe them to truly be state of the art, irreguartless of their cost. I have also over the last few years, by combining a one foot pair of the top of the MG Audio Designs top end speaker wires, which also goes for $900, with connecting runs of Jenna Lab's 18 gage speaker wires, which themself go for $6 a foot. The result is clearly a truly superior speaker eire, which when combined with the MG Audio Design's interconnects. The results are truly amazing. Adding 7 Audioquest power cords, a JPS digital power cord as well as 2 Audioquest Niagara 1000's, well the results are out of sight. And even though the overall costs have not been cheap, for the money that I have spent overall are tiny compared to attempting to duplicate te present results, let alone improving them.
I myself found out about MG Audio Design interconnects from an article appearing in TAS by Arnie Nudell. Later I learned that not only did Paul McGowan of PS Audio use them, but that members of the Colorado Society preferred them to top of the line Nordhost in a direct comparison. But even though the top of the line MG Audio Design top of the line interonnects went for $1600 a one meter pair, still they were above my reach. Then I found out they sell their half meter pairs for just $900 prt pair. Even though the best pair I have to compare them to is my Audience AU24se's, their differences are great in ultimate capabilities. I am also using for my speaker wires a combination of a one foot pair of MG Audio Design's top end speaker wires-which also go for $900 a pair, plus runs of Jenna Labs's 18 gage hook up wires. Again, the results are simply spectacular. I can only compare the MG Audio Design speaker wires themself to a 7 year old pair of Shunyata's top of the line speaker wires and the results are not even close. Adding a bunch of Audioquest power cords, a JPS digital power cord for my 2 Oppo players as well as 2 Audioquest Niagara 1000 strips completes the wire-power conditioning system. To get the best results one must complete the whole combination. Put in one truly inferrior wire produt in the system and the whole effect can be easily lost. But I truly believe that the combination of the above mentioned products in my audio system results in audio playback far, far above that of other alternatives for the price. In fact, not even close. That my 20 year old Martin/Logan SL-3 speakers never, ever sounded better. That my 35-40 year old Mcintosh MR74 tuner, Marants 20 FM Tuner sound simply amazing. In fact I believe my McIntosh MR74 tuner is possibly the best audio source avaliable today for the money. At least if you live in Boulder Colorado.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
