This is not facetious - do cables with “burn-in time” also have “burn-out time”? Does a cable’s (not its connectors or corrosion to them) performance diminish with age?
Skeptic or just plain hard headed
So I purchased a pair of Morrow Audio phono cables. These are the PH3 with the Eichmann connectors. Wanted to start there to see if MA cables will be a viable option for my system.I think my story is not so unique to others who have purchased MA cables. So no need to go into the hu hum of burn-in in regards to MA cables, and how things sound bad at first, then gets better, then excellent...yada yada yada. I know the story about this product. I simply am one who is not a believer in electronics break in periods, or battery packs on cables, etc... Regardless of what side of the fence you are on in regards to that Im NOT trying to start that debate again please.. Anyway. After reading several reviews of the MA cables and understanding that most agreed that the cables needed a substantial burn-in time, and that the cables would not sound its best until this happens I decided to give them a try. Thinking ok lets get a jump on the burn-in period (if the concept is true). I paid for the 2 day burn-in service from MA. What I didn't expect is that when I got the cable it would sound as bad as it did in comparison to my existing name brand cable (not getting into that either, not relevant). I thought well the cable might not quite be up to snuff with all this talk about burn-in (if its true) but not that much of a difference. I mean as soon as I dropped the needle on the record I immediately heard a profound difference in sound stage and clarity degridation. Needless to say this cable was destined to be returned to MA for a full refund and my thinking was "they are crazy if I am going to trade my cable for this cable" So I decided to give MA a call to setup the return. Talked with Mike Morrow (very nice guy by the way) and we had our differences in what I should expect out of his product. Now my Mother always told me that I have a hard head.. I heard that growing up all my life, and when you couple that with skepticism it makes a pretty, well lets just say not a very fun person to have a debate with lol. However Mike insisted that if I return the cable that I would be missing out on the fruit they would bare after 400 hours of break in. 400 hours??? really!. Oh at that point I was really ready to return them. I told all my friends "Mike must be nuts" (no offense Mike) no way am I going to wait a year to hear what this cable is capable of, AND I do not have any way to expedite the process...at least I thought I didn't until I found an old sound bar I don't use anymore with analog inputs. Ok I know you pro MA and pro cable burn-in folks are chomping at the bit. Im almost done. Take your hands off the keyboard for just a few more lines.
So here is the deal to be fair I am going to be open minded about this because Mike really made me feel like I would be missing out if I return the cable without a proper burn-in (great salesman), and since he had such conviction I now think I have to test this thing out right??. Now I know that there are testimonials out there about how the MA cable improved over 100s of hours in their system, and that they are now "blown away". However can you really hear a profound difference in a cable you play in your system over 170 hours or so? I would think a gradual difference would be harder to detect. I mean my system seems to sound better to me everyday without making any changes. Is it because of continued cable and electronics burn in?? maybe. Or maybe its just my brain becoming more intimate with the sound of my system. Well this test I'm doing should reveal a night and day difference from what the system sounds like today with the cable pre burn-in if there is any merit to the notion. In regards to does it sound better than my existing cable that is yet to be determined. I think my goal now is to prove or dis-prove if cable burn-in is a real thing. This whole idea has evolved from if it's an improvement or not over what I use today. We can discuss that later.
I now have the cable connected between a cd player , and a sound bar with a CD playing on repeat. The disc of choice for this burn-in is rather dynamic so it should be a good test. At the end of 16 days (384 hours) I will move the cables to my reference system and do about another 20 hours of additional burn-in to compensate for moving the cable. This will put a total of 452 hours of burn-in on the PH3. When I put this cable back in my system I sure hope it sings because this is a lot to go through to add a cable to your system. Mike if you are right I will eat crow and will preach from the highest mountain top that you are right, and that cable burn-in is REAL. For me anyway the myth will be considered busted or reinforce my belief that cable burn-in is a bunch of BS.
For those who will argue the point of cable burn-in I fully understand the concept, and I don't plan to get sucked down that rat hole and I won't argue that....yet because at the end of this test I may be in your camp and I don't want to have a steady diet of crow so for now I will remain neutral on the subject until the test is complete. However I will be totally transparent and honest about the results. So not trying to make anyone angry as I know beliefs about audio are sensitive subjects, and rightfully so this hobby is expensive and I like you have a substancial investment in this. Just trying to get to the truth. I also understand that cable burn-in may actually happen when you consider it from a scientific perspective, but the real question is can you actually hear the difference.
I will report back to this thread in 17 days from today (need at least one day to evaluate) with the results.
happy listening!!
-Keith
So here is the deal to be fair I am going to be open minded about this because Mike really made me feel like I would be missing out if I return the cable without a proper burn-in (great salesman), and since he had such conviction I now think I have to test this thing out right??. Now I know that there are testimonials out there about how the MA cable improved over 100s of hours in their system, and that they are now "blown away". However can you really hear a profound difference in a cable you play in your system over 170 hours or so? I would think a gradual difference would be harder to detect. I mean my system seems to sound better to me everyday without making any changes. Is it because of continued cable and electronics burn in?? maybe. Or maybe its just my brain becoming more intimate with the sound of my system. Well this test I'm doing should reveal a night and day difference from what the system sounds like today with the cable pre burn-in if there is any merit to the notion. In regards to does it sound better than my existing cable that is yet to be determined. I think my goal now is to prove or dis-prove if cable burn-in is a real thing. This whole idea has evolved from if it's an improvement or not over what I use today. We can discuss that later.
I now have the cable connected between a cd player , and a sound bar with a CD playing on repeat. The disc of choice for this burn-in is rather dynamic so it should be a good test. At the end of 16 days (384 hours) I will move the cables to my reference system and do about another 20 hours of additional burn-in to compensate for moving the cable. This will put a total of 452 hours of burn-in on the PH3. When I put this cable back in my system I sure hope it sings because this is a lot to go through to add a cable to your system. Mike if you are right I will eat crow and will preach from the highest mountain top that you are right, and that cable burn-in is REAL. For me anyway the myth will be considered busted or reinforce my belief that cable burn-in is a bunch of BS.
For those who will argue the point of cable burn-in I fully understand the concept, and I don't plan to get sucked down that rat hole and I won't argue that....yet because at the end of this test I may be in your camp and I don't want to have a steady diet of crow so for now I will remain neutral on the subject until the test is complete. However I will be totally transparent and honest about the results. So not trying to make anyone angry as I know beliefs about audio are sensitive subjects, and rightfully so this hobby is expensive and I like you have a substancial investment in this. Just trying to get to the truth. I also understand that cable burn-in may actually happen when you consider it from a scientific perspective, but the real question is can you actually hear the difference.
I will report back to this thread in 17 days from today (need at least one day to evaluate) with the results.
happy listening!!
-Keith
440 responses Add your response
@michaellent Well 1st im happy your amused. It should be entertaining but at the same time I think its healthy to have the debate as there are soooo many things that are simply marketing with a lot of this stuff. Getting to the truth if possible with something like this topic is the objective. Its good to get different opinions as long as it's done respectfully. Since I have started this conversation I have been called a 12 year old, a fool, crazy, etc... but I have YET to be disrespectful to anyone unless they were disrespectful to me.. So while Im not exactly sure what amuses you so about this conversation, but maybe just maybe you have read something that makes some sense to you. |
Barnettk, Doug Schroeder just posted on another thread that he has tried this also with the preamp to amp ICs using doubles. It had the same result as the source to preamp ICs. Use the same length cables and preferably the same make and model for best results. I used a Teo GC with a Teo GC II and still had great results. It's an irresistable improvement! I will be doing the preamp to amp ICs with double JW Reference ICs. I love the combination of the Teos with the JW Reference. |
| Post removed |
@barnettk This is without a doubt the most humorous post I have ever seen on this site! I laughed and laughed. Not at all because of the content of the question-it’s been a serious debate for a long time. Please don’t delete it. I plan on coming back in reading the responses to your query over and over when I’m depressed @geoffkait Why would anyone pay $1500 or more to burn-in $300 Cables? Why not by $1800 cables and not have to bother burning in. I have a little experience compared to yours and have not been on this site very long. That’s absurd! I’m going to put $1000/qt oil in my $500 car buy that reasoning. It only takes 4 1/2 quarts @elizabeth |
"I am saying all wire is directional, thus all cables are directional whether the manufacturer says so or not." That’s impossible. Most cables, except for monofilament, are made from numerous strands. My sense is that there is no control or consideration of directionality of multistranded cables, and the net result of any directionality according the direction of filament "pull" is a moot point in aggregate. Thus a 50/50 mix directionality-of-pull in a multistranded cable could not have a finished directionality as assembled. And don’t tell me that Audioquest controls for the direction of every single strand of wire in its cable products. This leads me to believe that this entire discussion is a bunch of hogwash. Are you saying the only way to control directionality is to use monofilament cables? Good luck, because those have their own conductivity limitations for audio applications. Oh, by the way I also pulled the batteries from my Audioquest 72V and 48V interconnects and speaker cables and reversed their directions. No difference. Hogwash. |
barnettk "Why would MA suggest reversing the cables?" I assume that he thought maybe it would improve the way the cable sounded since in our conversation I did not feel that the cable sounded that good from the start. >>>>If MA controls his cable for directionality and labels the cables for direction why would he suggest reversing them to see if that would improve the sound? It doesn’t make sense. I realize I’m retreating myself. Unless the cables are shielded, then I couid see why he would say that. The reason Audioquest and some other cable companies *control directionality* during fabrication of the cables is so the customer will know a priori which way to hook up the cable for the *best sound.* When ANY cable is not in the “correct direction” the sound will suffer relative to the other direction. That’s why fuse direction is important, too. It’s the same issue. |
| Post removed |
LOL. Ok I hear you. MA suggests direction of signal down their cables. Where its shielding or for whatever reason. They recommomend connecting their cables a certain way (directionally) in regards to single flow. I suspect they do that for a reason. I also suspect that reason has something to do with sound quality. So I was curious IF you reverse the connection would it have an impact on sound quality. "Why would MA suggest reversing the cables?" I assume that he thought maybe it would improve the way the cable sounded since in our conversation I did not feel that the cable sounded that good from the start. |
elizabeth6,002 posts12-18-2018 7:22pmYou know Geoff, you could start a service to help with direction on cables..For a fee folks send you their cables and YOU figure out which way they go... If you were able to hear you could do it yourself. It’s not rocket science. 🚀 God helps those who help themselves. |
I only ask good questions. 😛 Why would MA suggest reversing the cables if he controls the cables for wire directionality? Sometimes arrows on cables indicate direction as regards *shielding*. Maybe he is not on board the directionality train. I don’t know. If a cable is unshielded and has arrows the arrows indicate direction of wire. But many cables don’t control directionality durIng the manufacturing process so for any cable the odds are 50% the cable will be in the correct (best sounding) direction when you hook it up. If the cable is not controlled for wire directionality but is directional due to shielding that is a conflict. I am saying all wire is directional, thus all cables are directional whether the manufacturer says so or not. |
@geoffkait Well that's a good question actually. I don't know for sure. I only know what the manufacture says. MA along with other manufactures sell "directional cables" some indicate the direction with an arrow on the connector, MA indicates the direction with a label placed on the cable. The label end connects to the destination (not the source side). Are you saying that cables are not directional?? Not disagreeing with you just want to make sure I understand the point you're making. |
| Post removed |
Reversing cables does not (rpt not) diminish the effects of burn in. Do it today! Question - how do you know both cables are in the same direction as regards the wire directionality? In other words, one cable have been put together reverse of the other, you know, if Morrow doesn’t control directionality? That would complicate things if true. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Yes you are correct, if the crystalline structure of the metal changed, the SEM should be able to observe it. For burn-in, I don't think there is enough energy to produce such physical changes. However, I believe changes can occur to the electronic structure of the metal surface or in this case the silver/copper interface. SEM would not be able to identify such changes. The metal/insulator interface may also play a role in the burn-in process but I am not sure how. |
| Post removed |
Proposition: A scanning electron microscope will reveal changes to cryo’d metal conductors or other metal items but won’t reveal changes to metal conductors resulting from burn in most likely because burn in of cables doesn’t involve the conductor. It’s an excellent example of measuring the wrong thing. If there were differences in the crystalline structure on the surface of the wire due to burn in a scanning electron microscope would be able to observe them. Agree, disagree? |
I doubt Scanning Electron Microscopy would detect any difference between new and burned-in cables. I don't think there is enough energy to produce physical changes durning burn-in but there may be enough to produce electronic changes. Morrow states that the PH3 cables are silver coated copper wire. I don't know how they coat the silver or how thick the silver layer is, but the silver/copper interface may be the key to the change during burn-in with these cables. Many years ago we did some experiments looking at evaporated silver clusters on copper using Photoelectron Spectroscopy. The silver/copper interface produced new electronic states near the Fermi Level that change on annealing at which point the surface conductivity increases. The long burn-in time with low current may have a similar effect on the electronic states at the silver/copper interface which may improve the conductivity. |
@mkgus haha. Actually not sure why I’m laughing because I actually thought about that and I wondered why no one has gone to those lengths to prove/disprove if anything physical actually does happen with cables after a long time use (at least I have not found that published anyplace yet). Perhaps that much research from the scientific community either A. Thinks its to expensive to invest the time and effort on the subject, B. Cable manufactures don’t want to because they might be afraid of the results. Even if they can prove a physical change happens to a cable or its dielectric during “burn in” then you would have to prove that change directly affects SQ, or C It’s just not that important of a thing to prove from the scientific communites point of view. Could be a little of all 3 among other things I guess. At any rate. In my case I can actually say there was a difference. What changed or how it changed, or if that change reverses or gets worst even is a possibility. After all according to MA after 50 hours of burn in the cable is supposed to get worst before it gets better. I mean it’s entirely possible that cables get better then worst then better then worst again during their life cycle. If it’s true at 50 hours it does beg the question. What’s so special about 50 hours?? What happens at 600 hours?? Does a cable have an end of life in regards to SQ? Shelf life? Like I said in my conclusion more questions than before. It’s an interesting subject but at this point for me anyway I’m just going to enjoy the system how it sounds now and enjoy the music. It is fun to talk about tho. |
@barnettk Thanks for a fun ride! I'm not quite sure why a cable could burn in. One thought I seem to gravitate to is that a new cable has grain boundaries that are rough and jagged and after you run electrical current through them for long enough, "smoother" paths form similar to a river smoothing out a riverbed. This should be measurable with the right tools. Who has a scanning electron microscope we can borrow in the name of cable science? |
@mrdecibel. MR D. I feel that power cables do indeed make a difference I SQ. It would be difficult for me to believe interconnects make a difference after burn in and not believe the same thing about a power csble. Unless you suggest otherwise. The components power supply is exteeemly important to SQ so it would make sense that what goes into it matters. I’m sure there are others on this forum with more knowledge in this subject than me but that’s my $0.2 |
Fair enough. Let’s just leave it at that. However you can’t tell me what I heard and what I didn’t hear. That’s just your opinion. Which is fine by the way. I knew going in that I would not please everyone. Not trying to. Just reporting as honestly as I can of how this went down. It’s up to you or anyone else to take it as you will. Like I said. Not trying to change anyone’s anyone’s mind about anything. Think what you will. |
