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.
Ah. Ok I like that. I am also putting some other criteria to go with it when I do the comparison to the AQ cable but for the primary question of does it sound different pre/post burn in. I will use that scale. Actually if I hear no difference or If the difference very small I will not even waste time comparing it to the AQ cable. Thanks.
lets see I started the process on Sat around noon so that would be 144 hours I have put on them and they had 48 hours from MA so that is 196 hours to the minute almost. I tell you what. I will do a quick listening test today. I will not do it from tape but I will take a listen to see how they sound now and compare it to what I have to see if they are catching up to the AQ cable. It will be totally subjective tho so take what I report back with a grain of salt. The real test will be the A/B against what the cable sounded like when it only had 48 hours of burn in. Give me a few hours.
"Re AudioQuest - I didn't say anything their product, just their copy.
AQ Hard RCA Splitter : "This Male RCA to Stereo Female RCA connector provides a space-conscious, compact brass link for a secure, high-performance, 90 degree connection."
Elsewhere they ramble on about the need for Extra Special Copper with magic properties as being essential for digital timing in an analog cable.
Brass has ~25% the conductivity of copper, so wotsupwitdat?
Their kind of malarkey got the patent medicine [Snake Oil] industry shut down in the early 20th century."
Re AudioQuest - I didn't say anything their product, just their copy.
AQ Hard RCA Splitter : "This Male RCA to Stereo Female RCA connector provides a space-conscious, compact brass link for a secure, high-performance, 90 degree connection."
Elsewhere they ramble on about the need for Extra Special Copper with magic properties as being essential for digital timing in an analog cable.
Brass has ~25% the conductivity of copper, so wotsupwitdat?
Their kind of malarkey got the patent medicine [Snake Oil] industry shut down in the early 20th century.
@czarivey not hardly unless you speed up the process like I’m doing. It’s no way I could put 400 hours of play on a phono cable in 60 days with normal play.
Not convincing at all Mildly interesting Very interesting The preponderance of the evidence Beyond a reasonable doubt Overwhelming (almost a certainty)
@dorkwad hi Bob. Intersting handle lol. I am going to try to finish Doug’s article today. It’s an interesting concept but I have to admit I am a little Leary to try solutions on my system that come with warnings. If I do decide to try it, it would be on a custom made tube amp I have that is 100% point to point wired, and not my SS McIntosh gear. This amp is an integrated amp with volume control and 1 input. However I do have it connected to a passive pre amp that only provides line level connectivity for other components. I already have the AQ splitters and I would do it with cables I already own for the test. I would think if it produces an improvement that it will work with any two cables. If I do I will create a separate post with the results as not to take this thread to far off topic. I need to do a little more research first tho. I know someone I can run this by to see what they think about the idea. Thanks for sharing.
I am one of the dudes Doug mentioned in his post on the Schroeder method of the double Teo's for ICs--he ran into a friend of mine and myself at last years Axpona. We were outside the Teo room and Taras of Teo Audio came out and joined our conversation. Doug told us of the results of the double ICs used with Audioquest splitters along with warning us of using them to connect to an amp or integrated amp. My friend Scott had an extra set of Teo GC ICs and he decided to try this in his system. His results paralleled Doug's. He brought his extra set of GC's to my house about a month later. The single Teo ICs made a very noticeable difference in sound to my all silver wired system when we demoed it a few months ago. The double Teo GCs made an even bigger difference in sound improvement in all ways to a very transparent, detailed, and dynamic system that I had loved prior. By the way, I used to have 2 different sets of Morrow ICs--the MA-3 and MA-4's prior to using Darwin or Amadi silver cables. The silver cables were the first ICs to make a significant difference in sound to lower cost copper cables.
Personally, for me, I don't really care if you try this double IC or not. I will most likely never know most of the posters in the forum because of location. Those who don't try this are just plain missing out on WAY more excellent and realistic sound. If you get your Teo cables used, you can do this at mid priced cost for sure. Taras says that GC II Jr., their current lowest cost cables, doubled up will sound better than many of their costlier cables in single form. My opinion of Morrow is it is very tough to tell any sound improvement as you go up the line--impressive marketing however.
My system is VMPS RM40 BCSE MLS speakers, TRL DUDE preamp, Nuforce Ref 9 V3 SE mono amps with TDSS level 3 upgrades, fully upgraded Modwright 5400 Signature Truth, Lenco TT with most of Jean Nantais' mods or upgrades, Pete Riggle Woody arm, Benz Micro Ruby 3, and Whest 3.0 RDT SE phono pre. All have been modded with SR Blue fuses, some with Audio Magic Pulse Gen ZX's, upgraded tubes, and Star Sound's trans mod with Audio Points. The differences in already very good components was obvious to anyone who was there to hear. We loved it. Did I want to spend the money to buy the extra cables? NO! Can I tell you technically anything of importance? NO! I was a PE teacher and coach for 38 years--BUT...I can definitely hear. I bought my buddies extra pair on the spot at used prices. He keeps wanting to have me move up the Teo line and double those. Tried it, the rule of less improvement as you pay more kicked in.
I used the Purist Audio burn in disc and the Ayre burn in disc....they did nothing that I could hear for the new cables......time with signal made a great deal of difference.
@viridian Sounds reasonable to me. However (I know I am going to catch it for this) Ones interpretation does matter. for example if I asked you if your system is turned on and playing in your room and no one is there to listen is it producing sound? (same as the ole if a tree falls in the woods question)
@geoffkait wait. What post are you referring to lol. My comment was in case you were referring to what I said about admitting there are differences sound between two cables. Just want to be clear we are in the same page.
"Cables are far more than two pieces of copper. They are also plastic, cotton, geometry, connector and join method. Cables can be designed or engineered. Most audiophile cables are designed and their defects sold as benefits. Said benefit then exposes a "flaw" in a perfectly good component and the merry-go-round begins anew.
Deltas which only apply at very low temperature/DC/RF/etc. are promulgated as essential for 20-20k when 2-200k suffice.
IMO, Audioquest is one of the worst offenders with specious malarkey.
And what's with naming every POS cable? Is it your pal, your lover, your confidant ???. It's just freaking WIRE!!!"
I hear you. I agree cables are designed and engineered. I get it. I admitted that I do believe now that different ICs produce different sound. In regards to AQ that's your opinion cant argue that. I tend to like them. Why do they name them...Why does BMW have about 50 different series of cars with at least 3 models being in the same series..who knows.
Elizabeth, I'm not sure what you are referring to when you stated, "After reading the article. my main criticism is they did this with just one component, a relatively low priced device. And that they assumed the not broken in device was not broken in. they admit it had some time already on it) So any extrapolation to the world of all devices is a stretch. But a nice attempt. ANd to say thee re variations in components. Some change a lot some not at all. So again one test does not offer enough to draw conclusions about all components."
To clarify; I worked clearly with three items; a set of cables, a CD player and an integrated amp. I had duplicates of all three, one set used and given additional burn in, and the others like new. There may have been up to 10 hours of use of the new components. It hardly matters, as whether new or 10 hours, versus the hundreds of hours that supposedly burn in is to change a component or cable, the comparison showed no difference, even when three items were used together. One set was as new, while the other had been used for hundreds of hours and given additional burn in, and used warmed up versus cold start for the new ones.
My conclusion is that was a massive fail for the concept of burn in, and due to the multiplicity of items being compared together more strongly supports a tentative conclusion that no components actually change audibly (excepting the conditions mentioned in the article) over time with use.
Additionally, if you were referencing my article in the second paragraph of your post, in response I clarify that there was not three levels of change; there was no change at all among three pieces being tested together simultaneously. :)
Cables are far more than two pieces of copper. They are also plastic, cotton, geometry, connector and join method. Cables can be designed or engineered. Most audiophile cables are designed and their defects sold as benefits. Said benefit then exposes a "flaw" in a perfectly good component and the merry-go-round begins anew.
Deltas which only apply at very low temperature/DC/RF/etc. are promulgated as essential for 20-20k when 2-200k suffice.
IMO, Audioquest is one of the worst offenders with specious malarkey.
And what's with naming every POS cable? Is it your pal, your lover, your confidant ???. It's just freaking WIRE!!!
"Perhaps try it at the mid point of 200 hours? Then you'd have three samples to compare and contrast....!"
The more I think about it I am going to just let it finish. I wish I would have made two recordings pre burn in. I don't think it will be a fair assessment if I listen now. The only thing I can really compare after 4 days is the 2 cables, and I want to avoid doing multiple overwrites to the same tape. I doubt if I can still remember how the PH3 sounded 4 days ago to judge if it sounds the same or better. My first goal is to compare the MA cable pre/post burn in. Then if it does sound better after the 400 hours is to compare it then to the AQ cable to determine if I want to keep it or not.
richopp totally agree, more bs than I can stand on most of these forums.meanwhile back at the ranch those of us in reality have to pay bills & eat food.
So the MA cable has now been playing for 96 hours plus the 48 from the burn in service from MA (144 hours total). I am very tempted see what it sounds like now.
Well regardless of the outcome One thing I can say that this whole experience has done for me is convince me that not all cables sound the same. So I have at least been able to dismiss the whole coat hanger theory. Not to get to far off topic and start a different debate but I used to think that there should not be much difference between two pieces of cooper to the point that you have to spend an enormous amount of money on cables. I would like to add that I have also learned that dollar amount does not necessarily equate to better sound. Case and point, the cable I was considering replacing with the MA cable is an Audioquest Mackenzie. The Mackenzie cost half as much as the MA cable but the MA cable did not even come close to the AQ cable in sound quality (in my system). Douglas also brings up a excellent point that component matching even down to the cable level is also very important. It may be that the MA cable would sound better under different circumstances matched with different gear/ICs. So in my case the MA cable might just not be a good choice for MY system. To his point about making large changes as opposed to small changes...If I had maybe replaced all the cables down stream with MA cables maybe I would have had a different initial experience. Who knows. To an earlier point Elizabeth made moving forward I plan to now audition several different cables for this upgrade and go with the one that sounds better out of the box and stick with that. After all it should only get better from there as I become more intimate with the sound of the change (notice I did not say burn in)
I’ve oft mentioned this on similar threads - that it would be exceedingly difficult to determine the sole effects of burn-in of cables or any other audio thing, speakers perhaps especially, since there are simply too many variables that affect the sound, even day to day and week to week. Or to attribute all changes to burn in. Variables include those that aren’t normally considered or aren’t deemed very important. I am quite sure we don’t know all the variables that affect sound quality. If someone says, oh, the sound was better in such and such ways after two weeks does that mean he’s done nothing whatsoever to his system in all that time, just waited around for burn in changes to occur? You mean he just sits there and watches the paint on the wall peel? Who keeps careful logs? Answer at 11.
@douglas_schroeder I actually saw that article and started reading it. It looked rather interesting. Never thought to try that approach. I will finish the article and may have to give it try myself, pending if it was a favorable outcome. I attempted to sign up on the site to comment but the site is not allowing new members I suspect. There is a a lot of interesting reads so it would be fun to join those conversations.
barnettk, thank you for the complement. I used to be "hard headed" many years ago, then decided to try things rather than give an opinion. There have been many surprises, and what I learned about burn in was among them.
Currently I am engaged in an ongoing experiment, if you will, about a method I named the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement in which I use splitters to literally double the interconnect cables. See discussion of it at my article, Audio Blast: The Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement, and also in the thread here in the cable forum with my name attached to it. You will likely find that to be challenging to logic, but simple comparison would yield quite a different result than what I expect the burn in test to yield. (Not trying to sidetrack the entire discussion, just adding for your benefit, as you are now interested in my thoughts. But please see the warnings, caveats, etc. associated, i.e. with class D amps.)
There are some things in audio that result in different outcomes than one expects. Opinions abound, but fewer are those who actually try. It is the trying that has made the journey so amazing to me. :)
I use Morrow cables and I might like them a little better BEFORE break-in, although I have to admit they can sound fine after break-in...Still...I simply use them for a while and then swap them out hoping they will "un" break-in so I can put them back in the rotation, but have to constantly monitor them to make sure they don’t get "too" broken in as that just ruins everything until I swap them out for ones that have rested and lost their broken-in sound. This involves careful listening, and the ability to jump up and swap out the cables fast to insure no excessive break-in has occurred.
Some items are more given to burn in improvement than others. Case in point; cartridges and speakers have always sounded better after > 60 to 100 hours in my systems.
Those are mechanical systems, like shoes, and take time to loosen up.
Cables, OTOH, are like a rain coat. It either keeps you dry or it doesn't. It may have other properties like being too heavy or too hot, but those are secondary to its primary purpose.
@douglas_schroeder (modified/reposted to correct spelling) Very interesting article. Well written and exactly in line with my thinking. I think you nailed it with acclimation being what most consider a result of burn in (My thinking as well). I also feel that in my test hearing samples of the two versions of the cable seamlessly will definitely be a good way to detect if there is any difference. The brain will not have a chance to reset between swapping the cables and if there is a difference it will be immediately apparent. Off topic but relevant there is an excellent book I recommend in regards to how our brains tell us what we hear, and how we hear it when we listen to music. You may have read it, its titled "This is you brain on music" (the science of human obsession) by Daniel J Levitin. Very good read. Basically we intuitively know when we are hearing music correctly even though we may not know anything about how music is made or how to play it. We have learned it from birth. For evaluation phase of my test I am also going to use another "audiophile" and someone who is not into the hobby because you do not have to be an audiophile in order to detect if there is a change in the quality the sample. Hopefully that will add some validity to the test, but Im sure as you pointed out that there will be people who doubt the results. Nice article, and nice work Douglas.
Some items are more given to burn in improvement than others. Case in point; cartridges and speakers have always sounded better after > 60 to 100 hours in my systems. One that really surprises me is the Audience Adept Response ar2p conditioner. I have 340 hours on it now running to ss single ended mono amps. The first change started at about 40 hours then another at 200. Since then the stage has developed nicely. I've read somewhere on this forum it takes about 400 hours to fully break in. Doesn't matter at this point if it gets any better or not, it's already a keeper. My experience with cables (although there) has been less dramatic.
barnettk, I predict you will hear no difference in the recordings. Why would I say that? Because I did my own set of comparisons between "burned in" gear and new gear. While you wait your additional 400 hours you can read my article at Dagogo.com entitled, "Audiophile Law: Thou Shalt Not Overemphasize Burn In". I believe you will find much to consider there. :)
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.
