Gotta say, after one week of burn in, the AQ Waters are at the same level (in some ways superior) to my best MIT $8500 IC I had a couple of years ago! The AQ’s are cleaner sounding and a smidge more present sounding with faster bass. I’m blown away
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
| Post removed |
@dave_b So Just got off the phone with Richard Vandersteen. Had a nice chat. So you are correct the DBS system is to keep the dielectric formed in the cable essentially keeping it burned in once it has completed its initial burn in. Which is why you notice that your system sounds better earlier in the play cycle. So now that I am a proponent of burn in which is what this whole thread is about I have to believe that the DBS works as advertised regardless of what the critics have to say in light of our conversation. However he did also say that the entire system also has to go through this same process as the system warms up. I guess my questions would be so if you are keeping the dielectric formed in the IC's and speaker cables does the standby mode of your processors, sources, and power amps do the same thing by keeping the caps charged in those components? I would think if not and you allow your system to sit for two weeks you would still have to go back through a period of burn in on the gear, but not the cables. Im willing to bet that it takes longer for the dielectric to form in an IC or speaker cable than an audio component. I suspect that caps in your components form quicker since there is higher current going through those components. So while the system may sound better at start up with DBS... the system should still also get better with play as the other component's caps form/warm up. Then he asked me what speaker I use and we went on about that. He is a very passionate person about his work in this business and it was nice talking with him. |
"The battery pack seems to allow the cable to sound consistent throughout the listening session. My MIT’s always sound dark on first listen but open up more as they play longer. Less of a capacitive effect with AQ!" I have heard people describe the same thing in regards to why the battery packs work. I think I am going to call Richard to see what he has to say about the subject, because there are two trains of thought on the matter. I will let you know what he says. If anyone will know it will be him. I met him once at a local event. Very engaging and just a very nice guy. |
@dave_b Yeah I put about 100 hours of burn in on them before putting them in my system just for good measure. I personally think they are a great cable. Im not sure if polarizing the dielectric is what makes them sound so good, or more that its just a good sounding cable period. I still think the battery pack is a little snake oily but Richard Vandersteen definitely believes in it. I think he actually came up with the technology and joint patented it with AQ. So I did a little research to see if he actually uses the technology in his own products and he certainly does. So if they work and make a difference fine, if they don't, they still make the cable look cool anyway. I don't care as long as they sound good to me. I will leave the whole battery pack conversation for others to debate and argue about lol. |
The AQ Water Interconnects are really opening up now with really exceptional midrange. Highs are now grain free and bass is fast, full and deep. Soundstage is huge and image placement phenomenal! Great detail and presence without crossing over into etched or drawing attention to itself. I’m blown away actually....I think AQ made a mistake by making the Water cables this good. No need for improvement over this level of performance. |
Update: So on my main system I have removed both the Morrow Audio cable and the Makenzie cable. Replaced with an Audio Quest Water series cable (the ones with the battery packs). Another poster commented on and Im paraphrasing here "what’s up with all the names AQ uses for their cables" I agree its kinda corney but hey I guess they have to be named something lol. I thought about that statement when I was paying for them..and thought that was funny. Now if you remember in my opening post I also said I did not believe in cables with battery packs, however after learning a little bit more about what they are supposed to do I found it rather irresistible to see how they would sound in my system. I am a huge fan of Richard Vandersteen, and since he was behind the technology for AudioQuest I said to myself "self lets give those cables a try" I put about 150 hours of burn in on them and they do sound very good I must say. I have not done any serious comparisons or anything, but I like the way the system sounds, with them and they should only get better with time. Plus as an added bonus asthetically its a beautiful cable hanging off the back of my VPI Prime. They come with a very nice hard cover carrying case (not sure why..its not like I will be taking them anyplace or carrying them around, but it is a nice touch). Now I am seriously considering doing a system wide IC upgrade on this system which will be expensive, but I am seriously considering it. I once said "I am done spending money on audio equipment" guess I was just fooling myself :) Seems like there is always something else to buy. As for the Morrow Audio cable: I installed them on my living room system which that turntable has a MM cartridge and the MA cable does seem to improve that systems SQ based on what I have heard so far. Possibly the lower capacitance of the MA cable makes the difference. Plus the cable I replaced on that system was a rather basic AQ cable (evergreen) and I have been meaning to upgrade that cable anyway. So everything worked out after all. Anyway I thought you would just like to know how things are shaping up. |
@mrdecibel Mr D. I am willing to do that power cable swap in a few weeks and report back. For now I am going to get back to the music for a while. I spent a month on this exeriement and I plan to simply "enjoy the music" as you say for a bit. There is a post that is going on now on this cable forum about "why power cables make a difference in sound"and I am going to listen in on that thread for a bit and Im sure that a lot of the conversations that come out of that thread will cover most of what I would talk about anyway. I have not read it yet but Im sure the conversation is rather interesting. @elizabeth "Swapping them all with stock cords... (I don't even own the stock cords anymore.. The real challenge would be toss in stock duplex receptacles.." Yea I keep them because If I ever sell the piece I want to be able to provide a power cable with it. Plus they work on other stuff. The recepticles are next. I actually may even go to a better electrical cable all the way back to the junction box. I have a dedicated line run to my equipment rack and since its in the basement its rather easy to do, and if I can find a audiophile grade breaker I will swap that as well. I am a true believer in getting the best power to the rack as I can. Not much I can do upstream of the junction box so at that point Im at the mercy of the grid. I saw a Youtube video or on some website where a guy in Japan ran a separate line from his house to the freaking pole.. lol.. not sure my power company and the county would be to happy with that lol, and not that I would even try it... but my point is some people go to great lengths for clean power. |
| Post removed |
Not only would you be the " skeptic king ", as you said, you will be known as the " listening test king ". Did you hear differences the 1st time around, when you replaced the ac cables, that you would need to repeat it ? If it makes you happy, just to be sure, and to document the % of differences between the stock cords and the aftermarket cords ! Enjoy ! MrD. |
| Post removed |
@mrdecibel Mr D. oddly enough I DO believe power cables make a difference and I have already upgraded all my power cables in both systems. However I will be happy to perform a listening test using the standard power cords that cane with my components. What would actually be amazing I think would be to replace all the power cords from front end to back end and listen. Then swap them all back to the upgraded cables. It would be intersting to see if we could quantify how much of a difference power cables actually make. |
barnettk, yes, it is all good. I do not think people being smarter than you is actually a true statement, as your test showed quite a lot of smartness. If anything, listening experience might be all that some of us have, to a greater degree. Your results told me that " you " do not need to be skeptical when listening for differences. Being the king of skepticism makes the test even more amazing. A truly great job. As your heard cable break in, and the differences between the AQ and Morrow, you stepped up a level or two. H.N.Y., and Enjoy ! MrD…………………………………………………………………….. I feel you are ready with the next adventure. Power cables. Start inexpensive. The test should not be a test at all. Just relax, listen, change, relax, listen, and repeat if necessary. 1 seqment, of 1 song, of your choosing ( creating engagement, enjoyment and is very familiar to you ). Do not listen " hard " , or intently. Be casual, stay relaxed, and just listen to the music. We will meet again my friend. Enjoy ! MrD,. |
Geoff "Can anyone answer the question I posed before - why do Morrow Cables require more burn in time than other cables? Or is it that other cable companies underestimate burn in time or burn in time is not specified? Or maybe MA overestimates burn in time? MA is in line with Duelund capacitors and wire if I’m not mistaken." I will be calling Mike at Morrow Audio on Wed and I will ask that question because im curious as well. "By the way I’m pretty sure I’ve never actually checked anything for burn in in terms of whether it’s real or not or how long it takes. At least not in the last 25 years. Certainly no blind tests. Is that wrong? " Nope not at all. Live and let live my friend ;) |
@mrdecibel Hey Mr D! its all good my friend. I took it serious but was not offended or anything. I actually appreciate the response. I did not take it the wrong way. However I still think that there are much smarter people that me that could have done a better job :). It was very nice talking with everyone for sure it was a lot of fun, and you all had a lot of great input which I appreciate. I learned a lot, and thats what counts. I look froward to talking to you guys again. I wish you a prospurous New Year, and if your going out tonight please be safe. -Keith |
Can anyone answer the question I posed before - why do Morrow Cables require more burn in time than other cables? Or is it that other cable companies underestimate burn in time or burn in time is not specified? Or maybe MA overestimates burn in time? MA is in line with Duelund capacitors and wire if I’m not mistaken. By the way I’m pretty sure I’ve never actually checked anything for burn in in terms of whether it’s real or not or how long it takes. At least not in the last 25 years. Certainly no blind tests. Is that wrong? |
barnettk. I appreciated your response, but I have to say, if you knew me from reading any of my posts, you would have seen that I was just playing devils advocate, and was completely messing with you. I hear pretty much everything ( specifically with music reproduction ). Without questions or doubts. I stated earlier on in your post the fact that Morrow cables needed 400 - 600 hours for break in to sound their best. I believe everything needs time to break in, and, warming up of components. I have been pro power cables on other threads, and have spoken about many different tweaks, making significant changes, for the better. My middle name is tweak, and again, I am sorry you took my post as serious. I hear things rather quickly, but I appreciate the test, it's completion and the end results. Good for you, and your buddy. I am a skeptic as well, but not about what I hear. So, in ending, have a wonderful New Year. Maybe try an upgraded power cable next, or experiment painting the edges of a cd you think is bright ( as many of them are ). Just...………..Enjoy ! MrD. |
| Post removed |
@marqmike you know now that makes all the sense in the world to me. I typically am that way as well. I rarely make changes however For some reason I thought I would try a better cable from my TT to my phono pre amp which brought about this whole thing. It was a learning experience and I did learn quite a bit about audio ICs. So all and all it was worth it. Thanks for the kind words and trust me I will be back to just enjoying the music because changes can be exhausting lol. Hey have a Happy New Year my friend. |
Barnettk I appreciate your good nature of responding to everyone. I get particular about how my system sounds for awhile, after I am happy, I just enjoy it. Doesn’t matter why really if I am enjoying it. I leave it for 5,10, 15, or 20 yrs and not worry to much unless something breaks and I need to fix or replace, then I may use it as an opportunity to improve things. That has served me well. I have been doing this higher grade of sound, since 1966. Cost wise my system is lower mid level I guess, who knows, about 16000.00 in my system. I do go to the audio shows, I have worked for some dealers, lived in a place that would be considered one of the bigs spots of highend audio manufacturing and dealerships, and my system sounds like I want, and most of the others I hear don’t. So I just worry about what sounds good to me. Enjoy your nice system and thanks for sharing your experience with us. |
@mrdecibel Mr D! first let me say that I can't believe that its 1AM and Im up replying to a post on Audiogon. There must be more to life. "I don’t know about this test. You and this audiophile buddy, discussed what it was you would be listening for : " imaging, dynamic range and overall SQ ". So, it was already " in your minds " that these differences would exist. 2ndly, 6 times ? Was that really enough times to make a determination, and to reach a conclusion that one was better than the other. Hogwash" Let's not forget who you're talking to. I am the KING of Skepticism. My birth mark is a "S" and if I were reading this I would probably say the same thing lol. Its all good tho. Im sure that there are MUCH MUCH smarter people on this forum than me who could have done this a lot better, and they still may. They may even have different results and I will respect that too. When doing something like this you hear what you hear for whatever the reason. No one is immune to Bias, and brand loyalty etc. When ever you play back a recording sure conditions can change from one minute to the next. The tubes in my phono stage could have gotten warmer towards the end of the test or a portion of the tape may have had a bit of degridatoin from the last time I listened, the room temp was definitely different from when i did the first recording, all these variables do play a roll im sure. The tape head was a tad bit more magnetized, and on and on. With all that going on I still heard a difference between the two recordings. Not easy to accept I know but my resolve and my integrity is the only thing I can say with certainty that is actually stronger now as it was then to get this as right as I could. One thing is for sure This is way way too much work to consider buying a cable and tell anyone about the experience. But hey it was fun, and I did enjoy talking to all you guys and gals so Im happy I did it if not for those reasons. Have a great New Year Mr D. |
| Post removed |
@vair68robert Thanks. Hopefully all the typos while replying on my cell phone did not annoy you too much. In regards to using a burn in device I think I’m burned out from burning in lol. In the future a new cable will just go where I put it in my system and I will live and let live. Happy New Year to you as well. Be safe. |
barnettk Great post and reading , may I suggest the Ayre CD called Irrational, but Efficacious ! for " burning in " . 400 hours for cables ? I do believe when burning something in that turning the power on for a few or more hours and off is just as important as the total hours . My Thiel speakers required 400 hours but I listened ( endured ) to them and heard them improve by the day , using the Ayre / Cardas CD or the Cardas record first thing . While it was torcher at first hearing them improve was a rewarding and after about 200 hours very satisfying . I didn't read where you were test listening them every day to hear if there was any improvement but all in all you gave them every chance and were very fair . Happy New Year To All |
@prof Ok DONE!! So here it is for what its worth. Here is the short of it. Comparing the MA cable with the AQ cable where the MA cable has been burn in for 400+ hours: We did 8 samples of the same record blind folded and leaving the room while my Son swapped between the 2 cables. He also said that he left the same cable on once during the session. The sample that the cable was not swapped was on the 6th session. Since you guys questioned our criteria for the tape test we agreed we would simply pick which one we felt sounded better for whatever reason, and not discuss it until after the test was complete. Below are the highlights. Me: I picked the AQ cable 8 out of 8 times for the cable that sounded better. Also the AQ cable is the cable that was left connected twice in a row. The difference to me was the AQ cable had slightly better highs and mids, and the ghost image was right were I thought it should be. Overall the music seemed to just sound more pleasing. More clear, and natrual. The MA cable sounded good but had heavier bass to me. The music overall just sounded heavier if that makes sense. Still subjective because i you like a heavier feel to your music then you may have picked that cable to sound better, but to me the AQ cable had the edge. Not very different than my initial comparison however then I felt that the MA cable had slightly better imaging. The MA cable did produce a decent sound stage but in a blind test the AQ did a better job with. My Friend: Also selected the AQ cable 8 out of the 8 times He felt that the MA cable sounded good, but just overall the AQ cable sounded a tab bit more clear. He also agreed that it was a little bass heavy that simply colored the music just a little to much. His suggestion was to turn the subs down and re-test until I explained to him the the subs were actually off. His comment was " it felt like there was just something missing" I tend to agree. MA claims you will hear things in your music that you never heard before. That was not the case in this comparison but just the opposite. My wife: Gave up after 2nd swap. I think she was simply tired of the whole thing honestly. The boy was swapping and had no vote. So what does it all mean? Not much different than my original findings. My conclusion is still that the MA cable did come up after burn in. The A/B on tape showed it. The very fact that the MA cable sounded very very close post burn in to my existing cable is also proof enough to me to say that burn in made a difference. Thats all I am trying to prove with this. The cable now sounds good enough to actually use but not good enough to spend the money on it to just switch cables. If you want to question my method Im sure some will do and thats ok. There is no way to do this in a vacuum, but it still does not make it less valid. I am not saying that the cable blows me away by any means, but it does sound better after the 400 hours and that should be a feather in MA's cap. I feel they are telling the truth about the need for the break in. Cheers and Happy New Year everyone |
| Post removed |
So for me the matter of if burn in of an aidio csble makes a difference. It’s settled for me anyway. I am stating that allowing your cables to go through a burn in does make a difference. Now whether you think that difference sounds better is subjective but it does change how the csble sounds. To us it was for the better. Cable swap has been done. Time to go listen and see if I can pick out which one I’m listening to. |
Well you have to listen for something. The bottom line is the second half of the recording sounds better. It’s really just that simple. I’m the general listening test where no criteria was set the second half of the recording sounded better to everyone. I did not even let them know which was which. It’s pretty simple when you boil it all down. |
I don’t know about this test. You and this audiophile buddy, discussed what it was you would be listening for : " imaging, dynamic range and overall SQ ". So, it was already " in your minds " that these differences would exist. 2ndly, 6 times ? Was that really enough times to make a determination, and to reach a conclusion that one was better than the other. Hogwash. Enjoy ! MrD. |
Tape test results: 1. Everyone that listened to the recording I made agree that the second half of the tape (post burn in) definitely sounds better than the first half (pre burn in). To me it was not even close, and to not repeat everything I said in my first post about my findings (you can read for yourself if you like) the outcome was exactly the same for me. One of the participants did not even feel it was necessary to do a blind listening test but I insisted that we be thorough. So Instead of me doing the listening I ran the reel to reel. I had them leave the room and positioned the tape to one half of the song, and zeroed the tape counter had them return to the room and played a section of the tape. This is an audiophile friend of mine and we agreed on the criteria in which to listen for. The criteria we came up with was: Imaging, dynamic range, and overall SQ. However the imaging is what he clued in on each time and was able to properly determine pre burned in vs burned in each of the 6 times. Now this does not necessarily constitute "sounds better" unless imaging is not important to you, but thats not the point. The point is that the cable's sonic value did indeed change post burn in. No need to continue as we have come to a conclusion on that. But for the sake of due diligence we are continuing on with comparing the cable I currently have with the MA cable now that the MA cable is burned in. Now for other news: This has been a very worthwhile experiment because I have discovered some other things about my system. One of the things we are measuring is noise. I will touch on this briefly because we are ready to actually do the next comparison. So between the two cables the MA cable is quieter. Seems to be better shielded. Running the volume up past zero DB on my pre-amp volume control I start getting interference with the AQ cable around +2DB the MA cable I don't get noise until about +4 DB. That is considerable. Thinking back on another post that someone else made either on this topic or another topic I started called "Bright or Dim" someone said that LED lights are notorious for noise. I have a LED light over my TT. After unplugging that light I was able to get zero interference that I could hear with the volume all the way up on both cables, but the MA cable was able to shield the interference at higher volumes than the AQ cable. Needless to say that light is coming out of my room. Chad soon. We have some more work to do. please excuse any typos Im getting tired and to lazy to proof this. -Keith |
Ah, the relentless pursuit by the blind test fanatics. No matter what happens, or how thorough, there’s always the next move. “You didn’t do the test properly,” “There were not enough trials,” or whatever. It never stops. Been there done that. Hey, no offense. I was pursued by the most relentless, ruthless blind tester of them all. He was like a Gila monster! Prof is a teddy bear by comparison. |
| Post removed |
@prof "Im sure I missed some previous details. What “recording?” It sounds like you used a cassette deck to record a music signal from....a DAC? Turntable?" yea so to do an A/B comparison between the pre burned in cable and the post burn in cable I made a recording of a song I am very failure with to my reel to reel. The phono stage was connected directly to the deck as to bypass the pre-amp. After the burn in I rewound the tape to the middle of the song, then dropped the stylus on the same record at about the same place in the song as the recording. This way I could splice in the performance of the cable post burn in. Playing the recording back there was no lapse of time between samples so if there is any difference in the recording I figured I could hear the difference. Doing this I was able to absolutely determine that the cable did indeed improve after burn in. After that I continued to listen to several other records that I am very intimate with and the cable was a lot better, but still not besting the cable I had previously. So that is what led us to today. results of the first test (tape test) following this post. |
@mrdecibel " You already observed the break in process. Or, were you imagining it the whole time. " Ha. No I was not imaging it, and yes they got me :) I am basically doing a more thorough listening test. "Prof" made some pretty compelling points that possibly I couldn't actually hear the difference due to the fact that my test was not a blind test so I decided to do that so I would not have any doubt about what in my mind at least that I am hearing the difference. Its a fair question so why not. However for the next person that challenges it....well I will just have to live with the doubt lol. |
| Post removed |
Cool. I’m sure I missed some previous details. What “recording?” It sounds like you used a cassette deck to record a music signal from....a DAC? Turntable? So your friend is going to choose which side of the cassette to play? You can blind test for preference but best when there is question of audibility at all is to test for that. The ABX sequence is best (where you know the identity of A and B as you listen, then next you have to identity if X is A or B). Lacking that you can just try to identify the cables “This is A or B cable.” 10 trials are the usual minimum for any statistical confidence. Ideally you should minimize communication between you and the switcher. Possible facial expressions can even be clues. Anyway sounds fun! If I can swing it I may blind test some more cables soon. |
@prof Ok the gangs all here. We are about to begin. First up is the A/B on the recording I made to compare pre/post burn in of the MA cable to itself. Going to do this a little different this time. 1. Everyone will listen to the recording. Simply want to get a feel for if anyone can hear a sonic difference between the two. Does it sound better overall? How is the soundstage effected, sheer amplitude, dynamic range. 2. I am going to leave the room and have my friend position the tape on any half he wants, listen, then I will lave the room again and have hime position the tape to the other half listen, and see if I, and the remaining participants can tell which part of the recording they like the best. We will then change so the person working the recording can have a turn. We will do this 6 times and record our findings on paper. Obviously this will take some time so bare with me. The next test will be to compare my existing cable to the MA cable to see how close they sound. This will also be a blind test. I think I will post the results of each test separately then give a quick summary after everything has been listed to otherwise this will read like a novel in one post. |
Here’s what George Cardas says about cable burn in. Check it out. http://www.cardas.com/insights_break_in.php |
Morrow, from their beginning, was always into burn in. Geoff, yes. After several years, he and his team, this summer, introduced " dramatic and improved " changes in his cable design. Read about it. Once on his website, click the box " About Technology ". Then click " Latest Improvements ". Now read " New vs. Old Design ". Everything has changed, except they have always used the individual stranded wire design. But this element of the design has drastically changed as well. After I read about all of the changes, it made me wonder if the original design had any " rightness " to it, or, were they wrong this whole time, as I do have half a dozen pr. of Morrows, which do sound good, but not the best I have. Enjoy ! MrD. |