PDA

View Full Version : Cable 'Burn In'.



Mike
14-07-2010, 04:04
How does it happen, and why? :scratch:

Quite frankly, I've stopped believing in it! :confused:

goraman
14-07-2010, 04:44
after passing an electrical signal through wire with dilectric in contact with the sureface,
It would seam on some nano level the flow of power becomes smoother,I belive the well traveled path becomes charged.I can tell you that silver cables change very dramaticly after a year of use or more and a new pair by the same manufacture can be sonicly picked out of 4 older pairs,so silver dose settle in (This guy can explain it better than me.)www.whitezombieaudio.com
His name is Tom,you can email him he has been in radio for years and has built thousends of cables.

Effem
14-07-2010, 11:57
This is my opinion and personal observation so you can accept it or not.

Not only do new cables have a burn in period (especially silver ones) they also have to be burnt in all over again if they have not been used for a while.

I have a mains cable down in the basement that sounds horrid for about a minute or so if it hasn't been connected up for a while. I'm not entirely sure what that period might be, but I do know that the last times I used it was around 3 years ago, then again a year ago. I am reluctant to keep on "testing" it as it sort of bypasses my theory over the timescale (if that makes any sense). It isn't just a case of lack of dynamics either with this cable during this "burn in" period, it distorts the entire sound so it's unintelligible. Within a minute though it behaves as a normal cable would. Strange. It would be interesting to know what element is the culprit for this effect.

Ali Tait
14-07-2010, 12:02
I wonder if this effect is more down to the dielectric than the conductor.

DSJR
14-07-2010, 15:56
Don't forget how bad our hearing is compared to our sight and we are VERY easily fooled where our hearing is concerned (been there and done it many times).

I'm not saying that there's no difference, but my Mark Grant cables didn't seem to change since I fitted them (some may say my setup isn't good enough and :upyours: to them) and I've just got used to them - same with the new cables I've just made up for the ton-up Quad 33...

Just get cables sensibly made with sensible bits and I doubt you'll go wrong. I understand silver self-oxidises and although it's not as bad as copper when it goes off, the conductivity is apparently altered *slightly* from what I've read.

Mike
14-07-2010, 20:02
Hmmm... lots of viewing but not so many opinions. I suspected as much! ;)

Dave, I tend to agree with you. I'm beginning to think it's our heads that are 'burning in' rather than the cables!

Mike
14-07-2010, 20:52
I found this rather wonderful bit of text today, have a read and see if any of it makes sense.



It is critical to not only concentrate on the conductor, but also the dielectric. Ideally, cable burn-in needs to force electrons into all areas of the cable; this is something that simply playing music through an audio system can never achieve.

The <name delated> cable burn-in accelerator from <name deleted> not only dramatically reduces the burn-in time of all cables, but also fully prepares them like no music ever can. <gadget in question> does more than simply synthesise music; using specially-developed technology, the unit generates a sequence of unique ultra-low frequencies to penetrate the core of the conductor, and ultra-high frequencies that penetrate both the conductor and the dielectric.

Using conventional methods, it’s extremely difficult to condition the dielectric of a cable, yet this is exactly where effort should be focused. Using carefully controlled energy levels and frequencies, electrons are forced and attempt to enter the dielectric. Imagine a high-frequency, high-energy force zipping along the conductor surface in a corkscrew fashion between the conductor and into the dielectric; the malingering electrons and negative charges are then forced to join the procession.


Eh, what? :scratch:

The Vinyl Adventure
14-07-2010, 22:19
I just don't care any more... If I don't listen to try and hear anything in burn in of things like cables then I don't hear anything... By that merit I guess nothing is happening... But like I said I don't care anyway... I have only ever heard a few cables and the only ones that sound like they don't do anything are marks, that happend when I got them ... And I can't see how they could possibly sound more like they are doing nothing when they already do nothing ... That wouldn't make sense... So yeah... That's my inarticulate view on the subject!

Mike
14-07-2010, 22:49
I just don't care any more... If I don't listen to try and hear anything in burn in of things like cables then I don't hear anything... By that merit I guess nothing is happening... But like I said I don't care anyway... I have only ever heard a few cables and the only ones that sound like they don't do anything are marks, that happend when I got them ... And I can't see how they could possibly sound more like they are doing nothing when they already do nothing ... That wouldn't make sense... So yeah... That's my inarticulate view on the subject!


I agree... I think!

goraman
15-07-2010, 02:24
This is my opinion and personal observation so you can accept it or not.

Not only do new cables have a burn in period (especially silver ones) they also have to be burnt in all over again if they have not been used for a while.

I have a mains cable down in the basement that sounds horrid for about a minute or so if it hasn't been connected up for a while. I'm not entirely sure what that period might be, but I do know that the last times I used it was around 3 years ago, then again a year ago. I am reluctant to keep on "testing" it as it sort of bypasses my theory over the timescale (if that makes any sense). It isn't just a case of lack of dynamics either with this cable during this "burn in" period, it distorts the entire sound so it's unintelligible. Within a minute though it behaves as a normal cable would. Strange. It would be interesting to know what element is the culprit for this effect.


A silver cable my sound thin,brittel or even a little animic when green but should not distort or become unintelligible,That sounds like a sheild crossing the signal or return to me.A copper sheild crossing a termanel will do what you discribed.


I did find this to be good reading and supports Mikes current veiw,I really like the bit at the end.


http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/audio-cable-break-in-science-or-psychological



I think this would cover both cables and capacitors during a break in prosess,but capacitors can show a very radical change unlike any audio cable I have heard.
I do feel there is a very small differance between a green and a seasoned cable the biggest differance may not be a change in scale,dynamics or bass but ease of presentation and they do become somewhat less forward sounding.It could be in my head but I like to think there is still some bit of undiscovered majic in the world.Remember it's all majic till sience figures it out.I really think at the end of the day it dosen't really matter at all if you like your cables.

This is intresting http://www.morrowaudio.com/breakin_2.html

Who the hell would wait nearly 17 days of playing music 24 hours a day to decide if they like there cables?
400 hours of break in,If you listened to music 2 hours a day on avrage it would take 200 days or 3/4 of a year!
I belive we should all demand a 1 year return policy based on manifactures own claims or tell them to burn them in for free before delivery.
How menny people would get fully burned in cables do you think, if this was requred by all cable salesmen?

Effem
15-07-2010, 07:01
A silver cable my sound thin,brittel or even a little animic when green but should not distort or become unintelligible,That sounds like a sheild crossing the signal or return to me.A copper sheild crossing a termanel will do what you discribed.


I did find this to be good reading and supports Mikes current veiw,I really like the bit at the end.


http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/audio-cable-break-in-science-or-psychological



I think this would cover both cables and capacitors during a break in prosess,but capacitors can show a very radical change unlike any audio cable I have heard.
I do feel there is a very small differance between a green and a seasoned cable the biggest differance may not be a change in scale,dynamics or bass but ease of presentation and they do become somewhat less forward sounding.It could be in my head but I like to think there is still some bit of undiscovered majic in the world.Remember it's all majic till sience figures it out.I really think at the end of the day it dosen't really matter at all if you like your cables.

This is intresting http://www.morrowaudio.com/breakin_2.html

Who the hell would wait nearly 17 days of playing music 24 hours a day to decide if they like there cables?
400 hours of break in,If you listened to music 2 hours a day on avrage it would take 200 days or 3/4 of a year!
I belive we should all demand a 1 year return policy based on manifactures own claims or tell them to burn them in for free before delivery.
How menny people would get fully burned in cables do you think, if this was requred by all cable salesmen?

Fine if it was silver, fine if it had a shield, but this is a bog standard freebie mains "kettle lead" :lol:

The longest burn in period I have experienced is around 10 hours for a solid core silver speaker cable, with the greatest majority of that happening within an hour on an exponential level.

DSJR
15-07-2010, 07:13
Every so often, unplug everything and plug it all back in - lo and behold, your wires will need "burning in" all over again...

John
15-07-2010, 07:43
How about a simple test to find out same interconect one pair really burned in the other not burnt in and then listen
I certainly believe in equipment burn in, as for cable burn I just do not know one way or the other

YNWaN
15-07-2010, 09:06
In my experience, cable 'burn in' does not exist. However, peoples perception filter certainly does 'burn in'.

A little while ago a novice to the world of hi-fi (a journeyman if you will) visited me and listened to my system. After a few sides he said "oh, it sounds better now that the amps have warmed up"; in actual fact it didn't sound any different (the amps are never turned off) - he had just relaxed a bit more.

Steve Toy
15-07-2010, 11:04
The test is burnt-in versus non-burnt-in. Quick A/B comparisons. Leave the virgin cable a while to be deflowered and recommence.

This should iron out a bit of expectation bias.

YNWaN
15-07-2010, 11:55
Yes, a reasonable suggestion.

Ali Tait
15-07-2010, 12:25
In my experience, cable 'burn in' does not exist. However, peoples perception filter certainly does 'burn in'.

A little while ago a novice to the world of hi-fi (a journeyman if you will) visited me and listened to my system. After a few sides he said "oh, it sounds better now that the amps have warmed up"; in actual fact it didn't sound any different (the amps are never turned off) - he had just relaxed a bit more.


Interesting.Speaking for myself,I have no doubt that any valve amp I've heard switched on from cold improves over the first 20 mins to an hour.Maybe it's me that's warming up then.

Effem
15-07-2010, 12:38
Cable burn in does exist but not to each and every cable out there.

My experience says it is predominantly pure silver cables that have a short and exponential burn in rate, with the greater percentage of the process contained within 10 hours or less then a tailing off to miniscule perception rates for another 10 which are very hard to detect.

I have around a dozen or so all copper and copper/silver plated cables that have never shown any signs of burn in.

As for people saying they need 100+ hours then that really is a crock of sh*t :scratch:

DSJR
15-07-2010, 13:00
Equipment from cold is a different matter and it depends on the design I think.. A Quad 33/303 was tested and shown to take 15 minutes from cold before settling fully down (I suspect the 303 mainly from my experience) and that was forty years ago, my AVI stuff was "there" withing a couple of minutes. The Crowns don't need warm-up, yet both Quad 405-2's I owned (both fully serviced) needed seven to eight hours from switch-on to lose a slight "sting" in the sound. Older multi-bit CD players need a couple of hours at least and many prefer to be left on 24/7 if at al possible.

John
15-07-2010, 13:36
Hi Frank
I use 99.99% silver and must admit in my system this does not happen

YNWaN
15-07-2010, 14:13
Interesting.Speaking for myself,I have no doubt that any valve amp I've heard switched on from cold improves over the first 20 mins to an hour.Maybe it's me that's warming up then.

Ah indeed, I did wonder if my post would confuse matters. I didn't mean to imply that some equipment did not sound different when it is warmed up (which is why my system is always on). The example was to show how people ascribe equipment changes to changes in themselves. In this instance the listener decided that the improved sound was due to the equipment warming up. He didn't realise that the equipment was already warm.

Effem
15-07-2010, 14:25
Hi Frank
I use 99.99% silver and must admit in my system this does not happen

Hi John, upon thinking back now, it was generally the solid cored pure silver cable that exhibited this trait mostly (The ones I sold under Krystal Kables especially), rather than multistrand core cables. In actual fact I don't recall having to wait for any burn in at all with the set of UK Audio Note AN's I bought a few years back. Straight out the packet and up against a "seasoned" set of the original Audio Note (Japan) equivalents I couldn't tell them apart.

It is difficult to generalise about this burn in thing and not all cables exhibit the trait. In any event, I am long since past getting into a froth over the whole cables issue and I regard them as just another integral part of the whole component chain these days.

Ali Tait
15-07-2010, 14:30
Ah indeed, I did wonder if my post would confuse matters. I didn't mean to imply that some equipment did not sound different when it is warmed up (which is why my system is always on). The example was to show how people ascribe equipment changes to changes in themselves. In this instance the listener decided that the improved sound was due to the equipment warming up. He didn't realise that the equipment was already warm.

Oh I agree,a lot of this is down to people warming up rather than the kit IMO.

YNWaN
15-07-2010, 15:05
The thing is, just because the difference actually lies with the listener, doesn't make it any less real. If one genuinely believes that placing ones CD's under a cardboard model of a pyramid will make them sound better then they probably will. By the same token, if one is determined that no difference could exist, then it is unlikely that one will be heard. One of the forum 'experts' (on another forum) recently stated that all half decent turntables sound the same - when I would say that they pretty obviously do not (and for good technical reasons). I also read (some time ago) a chap who claimed the problem with home dems were that they were too short and that it usually took him months to decided if he liked a piece of equipment; I can usually make my mind up in five minutes!
_______________

Silver does not oxidise (in air) as such, but it does react with the hydrogen sulfide present in air. As many silver cables use an air dialectic it is possible that the 'burn in' process is actually the cable reacting with the hydrogen sulfide.

Ali Tait
15-07-2010, 15:22
I try to keep an open mind on such matters.

Effem
15-07-2010, 16:11
The thing is, just because the difference actually lies with the listener, doesn't make it any less real. If one genuinely believes that placing ones CD's under a cardboard model of a pyramid will make them sound better then they probably will. By the same token, if one is determined that no difference could exist, then it is unlikely that one will be heard. One of the forum 'experts' (on another forum) recently stated that all half decent turntables sound the same - when I would say that they pretty obviously do not (and for good technical reasons). I also read (some time ago) a chap who claimed the problem with home dems were that they were too short and that it usually took him months to decided if he liked a piece of equipment; I can usually make my mind up in five minutes!
_______________

Silver does not oxidise (in air) as such, but it does react with the hydrogen sulfide present in air. As many silver cables use an air dialectic it is possible that the 'burn in' process is actually the cable reacting with the hydrogen sulfide.

We could also argue that a sound does not exist until it is heard :scratch:

I tried hopping up and down on one leg this this afternoon in the unshakeable belief that my system would sound better. I was simply BURSTING with expectation bias that it would, but despite an hour of one leg hopping it actually sounded worse, Oh dear, bang goes that theory :(

I totally agree though if you have set your mind to thinking it never will hear a claimed difference, then it won't. The brain uses the EXACTLY same mechanism that decreases the sound level from loud noises like a road drill or a nagging wife :lol:

The cables that I have heard burn in didn't have an air dielectric, although your summary of silver's reaction with Hydrogen Sulfide is correct. Even so, a tarnished silver cable performs no differently than one that isn't.

My own pet theory for this trait is found down at crystal boundary level where the metal's crystals which I see as being arranged like little individual "islands" and the current is effectively forming little voltage/current "bridges" across each boundary between individual crystals. This also falls in line with my theory why a silver cable produces less background hiss than a copper one when used as a mains cable and to a lesser obvious degree in interconnect and speaker cables.

Mike
15-07-2010, 17:12
I am long since past getting into a froth over the whole cables issue and I regard them as just another integral part of the whole component chain these days.

Well said, that man! :)

Incedentally... I was wondering if you were the same Frank of Krystal Kables. Now I know! :eek:

I actually have a pair right here that I was thinking of selling. I've never tried them though. :doh:

YNWaN
15-07-2010, 17:32
I tried hopping up and down on one leg this this afternoon in the unshakeable belief that my system would sound better. I was simply BURSTING with expectation bias that it would, but despite an hour of one leg hopping it actually sounded worse, Oh dear, bang goes that theory :(

Except, you didn't genuinely believe (as in, have faith) that it WOULD work - so it did not.




Perhaps you should try it for a few more hours :).

Mark Grant
15-07-2010, 17:58
I dont really worry about it :)

Some people notice differences over time, some people dont, it's no problem though.

Mark.

John
15-07-2010, 18:19
Has this debate suddenly moved into quantum physics;)

Ali Tait
15-07-2010, 18:20
Put the cable in the box with the cat..

John
15-07-2010, 18:21
Put the cable in the box with the cat..
:lol:

Ali Tait
15-07-2010, 18:31
:)

Mike
15-07-2010, 18:32
Ah!... Schrodinger's Cat I think you must mean! ;)

Good book, as long as you don't mind your head having corners by the time you've finished reading it!

Ali Tait
15-07-2010, 18:39
Yes indeed!

Alex_UK
15-07-2010, 21:58
Put the cable in the box with the cat..

I thought for a minute we'd had another pet disaster! :eek:

Mike
15-07-2010, 22:04
I thought for a minute we'd had another pet disaster! :eek:

Well... that might happen. And it might not. The cat might not be in the box. Or the cat could BE the box! And if no-ones there to hear the cat, does the cat exist?

Or is the cat a corkscrew gathering the malingering electrons and negative charges and forcing them to join the procession?

I'm fucked if I know! :scratch:

Ali Tait
15-07-2010, 22:12
The cable might be good,the cable might not be good...

Sahib
19-07-2010, 22:53
I found this rather wonderful bit of text today, have a read and see if any of it makes sense.




It is critical to not only concentrate on the conductor, but also the dielectric. Ideally, cable burn-in needs to force electrons into all areas of the cable; this is something that simply playing music through an audio system can never achieve.

The <name delated> cable burn-in accelerator from <name deleted> not only dramatically reduces the burn-in time of all cables, but also fully prepares them like no music ever can. <gadget in question> does more than simply synthesise music; using specially-developed technology, the unit generates a sequence of unique ultra-low frequencies to penetrate the core of the conductor, and ultra-high frequencies that penetrate both the conductor and the dielectric.

Using conventional methods, it’s extremely difficult to condition the dielectric of a cable, yet this is exactly where effort should be focused. Using carefully controlled energy levels and frequencies, electrons are forced and attempt to enter the dielectric. Imagine a high-frequency, high-energy force zipping along the conductor surface in a corkscrew fashion between the conductor and into the dielectric; the malingering electrons and negative charges are then forced to join the procession.


Eh, what? :scratch:


You are not alone. I have a strong electrical engineering background and it still does not make any sense. It is a warble.

The gentleman in that text is referring to forcing the electrons towards the surface of a conductor. A conductor has a property called an inductance and the inductance in the center of a conductor is greater. As the frequency increases the inductance takes greater effect and the current experiences greater opposition, forcing the electrons towards the surface of the conductor to flow. But when the current flow ceases eveything goes back to normal. You do not open up new frontiers to the electrons by applying that so called magic burn in signal.

If one thinks he/she hears a difference by applying that magic burn in signal to a conductor then it is his/her affair. But as soon as one enters into psuedo scientific lecturing then the problem starts. Let's discuss the effects of cable resistance, capacitance and inductance, but if we are going to get down to electron theory let's make sure we have sufficient physics credentials.

However, equipment heating time is real but there are no magics in it. It is as simple as the components reaching to a stable tempereture and consistent functioning. I don't start testing as soon as I turn my scope or oscillator on. I have a minimum heat up time of half an hour.

Mike
19-07-2010, 23:01
You are not alone. I have a strong electrical engineering background and it still does not make any sense. It is a warble.

The gentleman in that text is referring to forcing the electrons towards the surface of a conductor. A conductor has a property called an inductance and the inductance in the center of a conductor is greater. As the frequency increases the inductance takes greater effect and the current experiences greater opposition, forcing the electrons towards the surface of the conductor to flow. But when the current flow ceases eveything goes back to normal. You do not open up new frontiers to the electrons by applying that so called magic burn in signal.

If one thinks he/she hears a difference by applying that magic burn in signal to a conductor then it is his/her affair. But as soon as one enters into psuedo scientific lecturing then the problem starts. Let's discuss the effects of cable resistance, capacitance and inductance, but if we are going to get down to electron theory let's make sure we have sufficient physics credentials.

However, equipment heating time is real but there are no magics in it. It is as simple as the components reaching to a stable tempereture and consistent functioning. I don't start testing as soon as I turn my scope or oscillator on. I have a minimum heat up time of half an hour.

Yes!... Thank you! :youtheman:

I was particularly impressed by this bit... But NOT favourably...


Imagine a high-frequency, high-energy force zipping along the conductor surface in a corkscrew fashion between the conductor and into the dielectric; the malingering electrons and negative charges are then forced to join the procession.

Complete drivel! :mental:

Marco
19-07-2010, 23:13
Yes, some excellent insight there, Cemal :)


However, equipment heating time is real but there are no magics in it. It is as simple as the components reaching to a stable tempereture and consistent functioning.


Could you expand more on that, please? The existence of cable 'burn-in', however, is the subject of many heated debates on forums, so it would be nice to have some objective evidence to confirm subjectively what many of us can easily hear! Certainly I can with power cables, although not so much with interconnects.

Or maybe you don't believe in this?

Marco.

Barry
19-07-2010, 23:20
I'm keeping well out of this discussion! :rolleyes:

Mike
19-07-2010, 23:25
I'm keeping well out of this discussion! :rolleyes:

Too late, you just joined in!

Now 'spill the beans'! :lolsign:

Mike
19-07-2010, 23:30
it would be nice to have some objective evidence to confirm subjectively what many of us can easily hear!

That's what I thought for years, but now I'm not so sure.

... I'm becoming more and more convinced it was my head 'burning in' all along! :hmm:

Marco
19-07-2010, 23:42
Lol - I already know Barry's thoughts on this!

Mike, I hear the sonic effects of 'burn-in' more with power cables than I do with signal cables, where the effect is still there, but rather more subtle.

When I put a new cable in it's nearly always the same sequence of events which follows: if the new cable is better than my existing one, then I always hear that effect straight away, then usually a couple of days later (or sometimes the next day) the sound will deteriorate, sometimes quite badly, before finally stabilising and returning to as good as it was on the first day (usually a bit better), and then maintaining that standard from then on.

Sometimes performance fluctuates a little more than this, but that's usually how it goes. I've observed this phenomenon happening over many years with many different cables in many different systems, and not always my own either. The acid test of whether I was imagining this or not is always when I switch back to the cables I was using previously and see whether I still perceive the improvements I heard when the new cables first went in.

However, there's not much point getting bogged down with it, though - if you hear it, you hear it, if you don't, you don't....

I was simply interested in seeing any objective evidence Cemal could bring to the discussion regarding cable 'burn in', as his background in electrical engineering clearly shows that he knows what he's talking about :)

Marco.

Mike
20-07-2010, 00:00
Cemal's opinion seems pretty clear to me. :)


You are not alone. I have a strong electrical engineering background and it still does not make any sense. It is a warble.

He then goes on to describe what is usually know as 'skin effect'. A well known phenomenon.

The claims for that 'burn-in device' is just "warble", as he put it!

The equipment warm up he mentions at the end of his post is just that! 'Equipment warm up'! For example an amplifier, CD player etc. (or more precisely, their internal components) reaching optimal temperature before sounding their best. I don't think anyone would take issue with that! :)

Mike
20-07-2010, 00:02
I hear the sonic effects of 'burn-in' more with power cables than I do with signal cables

I'll give that a try... I've never really given it much attention.

Marco
20-07-2010, 00:04
Please do and report back. Perhaps there's more logic to it when electricity is involved?

Marco.

Mike
20-07-2010, 00:07
Please do and report back. Perhaps there's more logic to it when electricity is involved?

Er, say what!?!

Do your interconnects conduct water or summat? :D

Mike
20-07-2010, 00:10
And don't go modifying your post! :lolsign:

I'm off to bed with that little gem in mind... It's been a long time since I fell asleep giggling! :lol:

Marco
20-07-2010, 00:25
Er, say what!?!

Do your interconnects conduct water or summat?

Lol - no... What I meant was that perhaps electricity altered the 'electron flow' within cables more than audio signals did - or whatever....!

I don't really like trying to explain these things, as one usually ends up talking gobbledygook :eyebrows:

I just know what I hear and trust my ears (and experience in audio) implicitly. I'm also lucky to own a system capable of resolving the smallest of subtle details (and fortunately have acute hearing), which helps somewhat in these matters :)

Marco.

Steve Toy
20-07-2010, 02:29
Aye. In my logical mind :eyebrows: there's more electricity involved in a power cable than in a signal cable.....

Ali Tait
20-07-2010, 07:40
From what I've read,skin effect doesn't occur at audio frequencies so it's not an issue as far as we are concerned.

Sahib
20-07-2010, 08:44
I will try to answer without referring to every single poster but I will start with Ali's point.

Yes, what I stated relates to the skin effect. However, as soon as there is alternation in current flow, which means frequency then there is the skin effect. Skin effect does not happen in DC. So, there is skin effect in audio frequencies. However, the amount of effect is not significant to cause audible difference in audio frequencies. At least there is no scientific evidence of it.

Just a little note here. I am not saying this from an "objectivist" point of view. I also have subjectivism in my life. I make and listen to music and I believe in god whatever the form it might be in. But I do not go around and lecture people because there is the tree hence there is god and he has a long beard and sitting on a chair.

Therefore if one hears a difference, then it should stay in the subjectivist domain. But as soon as one starts to bring scientific credibility then one should make sure that the evidence is there. I am not a mathematician but I can assure you it does not lie. We also have test equipment and again I can assure you that anything that can be perceived by human sensory system can be tested. At least anything we hear can be tested.


In terms of mains voltage, hence the conductor. Obviously the mains frequency is 50 or 60Hz depending which part of the water we are. As I stated above there is skin effect in that too. However, the skin effect manifests itself as AC resistance to current flow. For the mains frequency to experience significant effect the conductor diameter should be well above 25mm and at much higher current levels that we would never use in our home audio systems. Anything below that, then the current uses the whole core of the conductor. I won't bog you down with mathematics but trust me, it is there. Formula is well available on the internet too. Besides the formula I know from a practical point of view. My father was an electrician and I have been in electrical engineering since I started to walk. Three of my other brothers are all electrical an electronics engineers and one particular extended family member, though has beome an older gentleman used to be one of the experts in HV transformer design in Europe in his heydays, and probably still is. I am not showing off. I am just indicating that I have sufficient experience in this matter to say that the effect is indeed not significant to cause audible difference. But I also have very close friends who swear it is. Then my answer is always the same. Let's keep it in the subjectivist domain.

In terms of cable burning process. I would like to say more but let's say that I don't believe in it. A guy who actually copied one of those burning machines and made a lot of money was very enthuisastic about showing me the schematic. It was simply, err, an oscillator. I have been using an oscillator for almost thirty years now and still no difference in my test probes. I will leave the moral responsibility with whoever makes and sells them.

I am sorry that it is not possible to bring objective evidence subjectively to a subjective claim. Not compatible. If you say you hear a difference then I look at what you are hearing. Say it is increase in high frequency range. I look at what we have in the conductor. Take the resistance. If the change in resistance, hence the current flow adds up to say fempto amp levels then I can tell you that you can't possibly hear the change. I can put you on a chair and test it. It would not be difficult. Your speaker wouldn't be able to re-produce it. Or the amplification you woudl require would alert the airforce to scramble few jets in your direction. But if you hear, you hear I can't argue with that. However, one area that I would invite you to consider looking at. Placebo effect. It is real.

This was supposed to be a short answer but I got to go. You already hooked me onto this forum.

Take care.

Mike
20-07-2010, 09:10
From what I've read,skin effect doesn't occur at audio frequencies so it's not an issue as far as we are concerned.

It's actually quite an in-depth subject. Here's a little 'light reading': http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page1.html

Ali Tait
20-07-2010, 11:23
Oh yes,I realise it's quite in-depth,and most of it goes straight over my head quite frankly! I did however glean the fact that skin effect has no practical effect as far as we are concerned.

Sahib
20-07-2010, 12:16
Sorry, I have noticed some spelling mistakes in my previous post and I will try to correct.

Ali you are correct in saying that the skin effect has no concernable effect in audio frequency.

Unfortunately the academic language can be exteremely heavy unnecessarily. So I wouldn't ask anybody to get into its depth unless one has particular interest. But the simple fact is there. It is the AC resistance that the conductor exhibits.

Effem
20-07-2010, 12:17
I

But if you hear, you hear I can't argue with that. However, one area that I would invite you to consider looking at. Placebo effect. It is real.



Hi Sahib, I won't disagree with your thoughts on skin effect, because it is cogently explained.

I will however raise the issue of "Placebo effect" because yes, it is real and no, it isn't a rational tool you can use to brush off the unexplained. For a start, it only relevant in studies of treatments on medical patients and as far as this particular subject is concerned, placebo has a VERY limited shelf life; Patients CAN be fooled they are taking prescription medicines WHEN THEY ARE UNAWARE it is occurring, but once they have been told, placebo effect disappears, but here we are talking about repeatable effects, cycles of countless times, spanning many years, amongst a very large sample group, so your placebo theory is already looking mighty shaky because it cannot survive that sort of test routine.

One of the biggest problems with the objectivist viewpoint is that they only see things in microcosm contained within a tiny environment (for ease of study) and only look amongst their own library of knowledge for the answers, hence why Placebo and Expectation are reverted to in the absence of supporting data. The data really is there and OK it might be empirical, it might be wholly subjective, but they were the same seeds that led to great discoveries and to dismiss it is entirely unscientific. Unless of course all these many thousands of audiophools around the globe are part of a huge concerted conspiracy?

Steve Toy
20-07-2010, 12:46
Either way the placebo effect or expectation does not last.

Real differences are more enduring and as such the placebo effect/expectation bias can be readily eliminated and that can leave the objectivist kind of fucked if he has no other explanation to offer.

Scientific explanations are always there because this aint voodoo or foo but sometimes you have to be a true scientist rather than a mere technocrat and dig quite a bit deeper for your answers.

Cemal, you have outlined your credentials but you've stopped short of presenting your case out of concern (how touching) that you may blind us with science.

There is no fear of that if you are able to communicate your argument effectively. However, you may out of preference attempt to blind us with technocracy.

Ali Tait
20-07-2010, 13:05
Not apropos to burn in,but I have noticed that the dielectric used on an i/c makes a difference to the sound.

Mike
20-07-2010, 14:14
Either way the placebo effect or expectation does not last.

Real differences are more enduring and as such the placebo effect/expectation bias can be readily eliminated and that can leave the objectivist kind of fucked if he has no other explanation to offer.

Scientific explanations are always there because this aint voodoo or foo but sometimes you have to be a true scientist rather than a mere technocrat and dig quite a bit deeper for your answers.

Cemal, you have outlined your credentials but you've stopped short of presenting your case out of concern (how touching) that you may blind us with science.

There is no fear of that if you are able to communicate your argument effectively. However, you may out of preference attempt to blind us with technocracy.

Perhaps, Steve, you might be able to offer an opinion as to why it does happen, rather than attempting to take the subjectivists sarcastic stance and attempting to demean the objective viewpoint? As usual! ;)

I believe Cemal's comments are mainly aimed at the quote I posted earlier, BTW. I notice no attempt from anyone to support the claims made therein! I would have thought that such 'scientific' claims would be easy to confirm should they be based on anything of substance?:confused:

Do I take that we are agreed that the claims are bullshit? :eyebrows:

Effem
20-07-2010, 15:03
Bullshit is rather a strong word Mike, so I would prefer the word "unproven", that lets all of us off the hook :lol:

I know someone who is a uni lecturer and a while ago I asked if he could look into this "cables thing", so his response was "You expect me to quantify what you claim to hear, with some primitive measuring tools and using primitive inadequate measurements like resistance, capacitance and inductance?"
:lolsign:

Mike
20-07-2010, 15:17
Hi Frank,


Bullshit is rather a strong word Mike, so I would prefer the word "unproven", that lets all of us off the hook :lol:

OK, I'll give you that one at least in principal. ;)

With one small exception, however. This bit:


Imagine a high-frequency, high-energy force zipping along the conductor surface in a corkscrew fashion between the conductor and into the dielectric; the malingering electrons and negative charges are then forced to join the procession.

...is pure bovine turd!

IMHO, of course. :)

Effem
20-07-2010, 17:02
Hi Frank,



OK, I'll give you that one at least in principal. ;)

With one small exception, however. This bit:



...is pure bovine turd!

IMHO, of course. :)

Yep that plainly is a bovine turd without icing :lol:

goraman
20-07-2010, 20:12
I don't belive we know everything about electricity or audio signals yet.
Till that time comes somethings just are what they are.
When I look at the inside of AMP or CDP it all seams a merical it works at all,really.
Untill someone can really explain why cables do become less forward sounding after some time,I'm just happy to understand it happens.I've heard it with my own ears.

YNWaN
20-07-2010, 20:46
I am a subjectivist at heart, although I am not against measurements and I certainly feel that they have their place.

Over the last 25+ years I have heard a lot of cables, been given some cables and loaned many more - some cheap, some expensive and some very expensive. I have no political axe to grind on this issue and am happy to accept any of the following; A/cable 'burn-in' exists for all cables, B/cable 'burn-in' does not exist for any cable, C/cable 'burn-in' exists for some cables but not all cables.

All I can say is that, in my current experience and from a subjective perspective, none of the cables I have tried have changed sound at all during the time that I have used them. As such, my current conclusion is that cable 'burn-in' does not exist.

Sahib
20-07-2010, 22:17
Ha! I can take sarcasm no problem. Again I will respond without referring to each poster. I will also not "quote".

As I mentioned in my post I did not mean to show of with my ceredentials. I merely indicated that I was raised in the business and with a solid education. I have responded to subjective claims that are decorated by few psuedo scientific jargon to make them appear as if they actually make sense. They do not. I am not the one who starts talking about pushing electrons into the areas within a conductor that no man has ever travelled before. Tell me how it is done in real money.

All I indicated that the subjectivist claims should stay in the subjective domain without any reference to science. If you walk into the area of scientific explanation then make sure you have the evidence.

When I am back in Istanbul, I visit my dad's grave and I pray. I have no proof if the old man hears it or feels better because I showed up. But you know what? When I leave the cemetery I damn feel good. You hear an audible difference on a so called burned in mains cable? No problem. Are you happy? You are. Then cool. Who cares if the amplifier actually experiences any difference.

On the other hand, I take an electrical quantity and explain its effect which ultimately affects the signal integrity. You may think well, I'll use ten times thicker speaker cable because the resistance will go down. True, but now the cable has greater inductance. May be it made the things worse from objective point of view. But the end result is liked and appreciated. That's subjective and there is nothing wrong with that. I gave this example few times and I'll give again. The fuzzbox is a terrible circuitry from a signal integrity point of view but gives a great rock sound. Now, I can explain what it does to the signal and how that manifests itself audibly to our hearing system. But if you start talking about a some magical circuitry that pushes the electrons beyond those black holes in a conductor, you'd better explain to me what that circuit is. Let me tell you. One of them that was shown to me was an oscillator and another incarnation turned out to be a sweeping pulse generator. Tell me how does a square wave do that magic on a cable? Its not me who has to explain.

Diaelectric hence the reference to capacitance was made. What does it tell you in terms of electrons flowing in a conductor? Nothing. Yes the cable has a capacitance parallel to ground and with the series resistance of the conductor exhibits low pass filter characteristic. So what? You calculate the cut off frequency and what it does becomes apparent. Here you go. If you heard a difference then it is explained. But you tell me that the cut off frequency is at hundred kilohertz and you hear a change in hight frequency content then I kind of go, hmmmmmm? Yes the harmonics beyond audio range bang with each other and create all these sorts of marvellous effects but you know what? The higher the harmonic the lower the amplitude. If it happens to be at a level that is below our hearing range then I question your hearing. I don't bash you. All I say is, that's fine you hear it. Cool but don't start talking about burning in process.

On the issue of that university lectrurer and his comments on " primitive" measuring tools and "inadequate" measurements. Well, ask him next time if he ever heard a test system called AP. Femto level tests are a just a routine in electronics business. I have a multimeter that has six digit resolution which cost just under 500 quid. You tell me that you perceive one in millionth?

I am not hear to bash subjectivism, nor do I have a religious mission to convert people into science. I don't really give a shit. Life is too short. Let's get to know each other and have a good time.

Mike
20-07-2010, 23:54
Great post, Cemal. Thanks.

I find myself in a bit of a strange position with one foot in the subjective camp and the other in the objective camp. IF cable burn-in is a real phenomenon I'd love to know what's really going on, but some recent 'experiments' really do make me think it's all (or at the very least, mostly) in the head!

Objectivity V's subjectivity arguments aside... I'm finding the whole thing very interesting! :)

Alex_UK
21-07-2010, 06:07
I'd echo that Mike, as long as it doesn't become "handbags at dawn" it is an interesting (thorny) topic. I think I'm with you Mike in that I've got a foot in each camp I guess - or I was undecided, but now I'm not sure...:). I have definitely (possibly?) not fooled myself when I've heard my Caiman, various speakers, headphones etc. "settle down" over a few days, or even weeks, and whilst I would call this "burning in" I of course cannot guarantee it wasn't me getting used to the sound.

I think most of us if not all (and certainly all Caiman users?) would agree that electronics improve after time, and of course this is a lot more plausible to an electronics numpty like me because of the electrical components, and from an engineering angle for diaphragms in speakers/headphones "wearing in". But I do struggle to understand how an audio cable can "burn in" with such low signals passing through it, but that doesn't mean I don't think it has happened with speaker cables, possibly power cables, but I don't recall ever having noticed it in an interconnect.

Effem
21-07-2010, 06:32
I am not hear to bash subjectivism, nor do I have a religious mission to convert people into science. I don't really give a shit. Life is too short. Let's get to know each other and have a good time.

That's what I find refreshing about THIS forum that you can throw your opinions and perceptions into the pot and nobody wants to roll their sleeves up and sort you out over your opinions and perceptions.

I am not a pure subjectivist because I am still burning with curiosity why there isn't some objective data that aligns with what I am actually hearing. I can relate how LCR parameters can act as filters because most if not all cables have either an emphasis in the bass or treble regions which results in "bright" or "warm" sounds and you can pick that series of 'defects' in a cable design to tailor the sound you prefer (NOT as a Tone control though Marco!).

It is when we get down to things like background noise, imaging height and bass overhang (dare I say burn in) which ably resist the LCR explanations that the frustrations set in with me and the objectivists in the absence of an answer start resorting to personal insults and irrelevances like placebo and expectation because even they don't have the answers to my questions :(

Marco
21-07-2010, 11:20
I'm enjoying Cemal's contributions so far. It's refreshing that someone from a scientific background is able to express an objective viewpoint, whilst at the same time showing respect for the subjective opinions of others, without the need for ridicule. That, in my experience, is a rather rare treat! :)

Although I do agree with Frank's point here:


I will however raise the issue of "Placebo effect" because yes, it is real and no, it isn't a rational tool you can use to brush off the unexplained.


Whilst undoubtedly the placebo effect exists, as does I believe 'expectation bias' (we're all human and therefore fallible, after all), I also firmly believe that there exists phenomena in audio, the effects of which we can genuinely hear but as yet cannot fully measure or 'scientifically prove'.

Why, for example, do cables sound different one way round from the other (I'm referring here to 'cable directionality')? I can clearly hear this effect with any cable I use in my system.

Mike, if you remember, one time you sent me some cables which were unmarked, in terms of directionality, and when I listened completely unprompted, I told you which end sounded best plugged into the source component (i.e which way round they sounded best). You said that made sense based on the way the cable was constructed (at the time of using it, I had no idea how it was constructed). I forget exactly what you gave as the reason. I can clearly hear this too with Mark Grant's cables, because when they are used the 'wrong' way round the sound deteriorates quite markedly.

Can we measure and/or scientifically 'prove' this effect which others and I can genuinely hear? Not that I'm aware of.

Can science fully explain microphonic effects in audio and why components benefit, sonically, from being isolated from vibrational energy (airborne and otherwise) when placed on purpose-built equipment supports? Can this phenomenon currently be measured and fully understood? Not as far as I'm aware, and yet many others and I can clearly hear the sonic benefits of isolating equipment from the effects of microphony when specialist racks and stands are used that successfully address the problem.

Can science fully explain why the last 2m or so of cable powering the components we use makes such a significant difference in terms of its sonic performance? Why equipment sounds 'broken', in comparison, when using bog standard 'kettle leads', as opposed to power cables specifically designed for the job that deal with issues, amongst other things, such as RFI? Can that sonic phenomenon currently be measured and fully understood by science?

I could go on and cite numerous other effects in audio I can genuinely and consistently hear, yet science currently can't fully explain or 'prove'....

Yes, sometimes people do imagine hearing certain 'hi-fi effects', for a variety of reasons, but I don't think we should completely dismiss those effects which are repeatedly and genuinely heard by many people, under various different conditions, simply because as yet there isn't a ready-made scientific explanation for them. What we need to do instead is try and identify the mechanism behind their existence and find a way of measuring what's happening in an audio sense.

No, I believe we have much more to learn in the field of audio which as yet cannot be neatly pigeonholed into any specific known audio phenomena. And to automatically (and ignorantly) dismiss unexplained phenomena genuinely heard by a listener as being 'imagined', due to the placebo effect or whatever, not only displays rather simplistic thinking, but goes against the methodical investigation into a subject in order to discover facts, or to establish a credible theory for phenomena, that scientists worthy of the name would consider as a prerequisite to justify their title.

Let's also not forget this fact (as stated in Our Ethos):


We do not listen to music in the way in which scientific apparatus measures sound.

I think that some of us would do well to consider this more when discussing what we can hear vs. what we can measure in audio ;)

Marco.

Steve Toy
21-07-2010, 11:28
So if the frequency cutoff is at 100 Khz, couldn't that cause phase anomolies within the audible range?

Phase anomolies are perceived as nasty to some and inaudible to others.

Steve Toy
21-07-2010, 11:40
...And then there is the issue of microphony which is an electro-mechanical phenomenon.

The problem with wires is they don't just transmit electrical signals or current along with RFI if this isn't addressed.

They also transmit vibration and this needs to be addressed. It won't be picked up by the oscilliscope either because it doesn't directly affect the signal until it finds its way inside sensitive electronic components dealing with low-level signals. Its effect is a blurring of definition (time smear) and a raising of the noise floor masking detail, sitting on dynamics and shrinking the soundstage.

Sahib
22-07-2010, 00:43
I had my share of having a go at people but never ridiculed anybody. There is no need for that. However, there are times one gets frustrated because one is not able to communicate with the opposition on the same level. Please do not take this as being arrogant. Its just a plain fact. And this indeed is the point that I would like to start with. Which is the points Steve adresses.

Steve, again please do not take this as an insult but truly, what you are saying has no reality what-so-ever. You either heard these from somebody who appeared as if he knew what he was talking about or, you are trying to bring answers to your questions without really knowing enough about them.

Anything that you can perceive as a human can be picked up by an oscilloscope. The price of scopes that operates in many GHz range came down considerably, although some can cause quite a dent in the wallet. And there is not a chance that you can perceive a change in Gegahertz level.

In terms of vibration. Yes, indeed the electrons of course create vibration as they bang to each other when they are excited. With this banging they heat-up and create thermal noise which is also called a Johnson noise as the guy discovered it. Now the thermal or Johnson noise manifests itself as hiss that you hear when you fully turn up your amplifier without any signal in the input. There are techniques to reduce that hiss, starting with keeping your resistor values as low as possible because the higher the resistance is the greater the thermal noise. Paralelling transistors in the input stage or even paralelling opamps. These are standard, well established procedures as parelleling resistances reduces the overall resistance and the thermal noise decreases. So this is what happens inside a say amplifier.

Now, inside a conductor there is not a single, remote possibility on this earth that you can detect the thermal vibration with your sensory system. Please just take my word for it and look for your answers somwhere else. Very basic fact is that the resistance in conductor is in miliohms level at highest. So if you had bat ears then you would detect it as increase in hiss. But there are very few organisations in the world which could test and detect that sort of activity and my wife's cousin works in one of them. He is a scientist, chemist and he carries out tests at atomic levels. Although he is also a fine physicist, when I ask him a specific question he often says "well let me ask the real physicists" as his main subject is chemistry. I can assure you this is not something a human can detect and or perceive by ear. Those kind of activities can only be detected in nitrogen level temperature because they are so small that they are buried way below under the noise floor which is way below the level that you can detect with your ears. So stop it there.

My friendly recommendation will be to start to learn basics of electrics. As you understand a little a bit a new door will open, then another door then another door. As you learn more, the more you realise that it is not the way you think. Now we'll wrap up your concerns here and move on.

I seem to have skipped the placebo. Well, you may have a point saying that it does not last, it actually does depends how you condition yourself but I won't go any further on this. However, one thing is sure that I am not brushing off any claim. I am going head on with it.

Cable directionality. Let's not forget I am not just a guy who has a soldering iron in his hand. I had a studio (being moved at the moment) and I am involved in practical aspects of audio manufacture. I play guitar, sing, write and record. I have never experienced such difference. Call me a non-believer. Besides this let's have a look what could be the cause for such claim. Audio signals are AC signals, they have frequency, therefore they change direction. They alternate. This alone disputes any claim that a conductor can be directional. It can not be. So, your word against mine. You say you hear I say I don't. But my point rests on a proven activity yours is I just can hear it. So at this point I have no choice but to absolve myself from the discussion unless you bring an axplanation to your experience. You are asking me to measure what you hear when I don't hear what you hear. But that AC alone is sufficient for me to say that you are wrong because there is no directionality in the signal itself.

Microphony. Is a so simple occurance that I am surprised you are making such a fuss about it. When you hit a solid object of course you are exerting force into the atomic structure which in return manifesting itself as noise. The electron activity is just another physical activity but being at so magnute level does not make it exempt from an activity like hitting a drum. What happens you smack a microphone? It thumps. You hit a capacitor that is on the signal path it thumps. If the gain of the circuit is high enough you'll hear a thump from the speakers. That is more apparent in valves. That's simple and nothing special about it.

But if you are asking me to explain in numbers we can do that too, though I would have to spend a bit time to pull out some formulas and work them out. Unfortunately not for the next month because I am going on holiday within a week and I am up to my neck with work.

Kettle lead. Every single lead in my studio equipment is what you call a kettle lead and I can assure you, I tried all these expensive cables and I did not detect any difference. I can not say anymore than that. I can do AB test on the fly. However, I must say that a guy whom I used to call a friend one day exchanged cables in his room and asked me if I detected a difference. I said no and he was amazed as he was sure he did. Well, my problem was that removing one cable and installing another one after a time lapse is not really a test is it? You may have done a proper tests I do not know. We just have to get together one day and do a proper AB test.

However, despite all these I am not dismissing point blank. At the end of the day you train your ear by listening and in my view an experienced listener is an experienced listener whether he/she is an audiophile or a mastering engineer. Music electronics came to these heights not only because of technically trained design engineers, but also by the amateurs such as you guys. I still consider myself an amateur in that sense. I still buy a junk, take it apart and try to do things with it. It's just what I did when I was fifteen and still what I do at almost fifty.

Anyhow, although it is going to be out of topic I'll mention something that I used to do when I was a kid. I used to watch the vu meter on the tape recorder while having my hand on the level knob trying to record slightly over 0dB to have higher dynamics without getting into too much distortion. Of course I was completely oblivious to the fact that once you saw it you missed it. But, it was still a good exercise and I got to understand how a compressor worked better in later years.

Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 02:16
Anything that you can perceive as a human can be picked up by an oscilloscope. The price of scopes that operates in many GHz range came down considerably, although some can cause quite a dent in the wallet. And there is not a chance that you can perceive a change in Gegahertz level.

In terms of vibration. Yes, indeed the electrons of course create vibration as they bang to each other when they are excited. With this banging they heat-up and create thermal noise which is also called a Johnson noise as the guy discovered it. Now the thermal or Johnson noise manifests itself as hiss that you hear when you fully turn up your amplifier without any signal in the input. There are techniques to reduce that hiss, starting with keeping your resistor values as low as possible because the higher the resistance is the greater the thermal noise. Paralelling transistors in the input stage or even paralelling opamps. These are standard, well established procedures as parelleling resistances reduces the overall resistance and the thermal noise decreases. So this is what happens inside a say amplifier.

Now, inside a conductor there is not a single, remote possibility on this earth that you can detect the thermal vibration with your sensory system. Please just take my word for it and look for your answers somwhere else. Very basic fact is that the resistance in conductor is in miliohms level at highest. So if you had bat ears then you would detect it as increase in hiss. But there are very few organisations in the world which could test and detect that sort of activity and my wife's cousin works in one of them. He is a scientist, chemist and he carries out tests at atomic levels. Although he is also a fine physicist, when I ask him a specific question he often says "well let me ask the real physicists" as his main subject is chemistry. I can assure you this is not something a human can detect and or perceive by ear. Those kind of activities can only be detected in nitrogen level temperature because they are so small that they are buried way below under the noise floor which is way below the level that you can detect with your ears. So stop it there.

You've really missed the point here. We are not talking about vibrations caused by the motion of individual electrons but by the vibrations you can actually feel let alone hear - those coming from your speakers while the music is playing.

Why do we call it microphony?

Answer: That sound coming from the speakers is traced back through the audio chain via all the electronic components that in turn determine what emerges through the speakers and so it creates a loop. Equipment is affected by what it sits on and and by the amount of vibration it picks up either from the ground via the support, anything plugged into it or otherwise making physical contact with it and also through the air.

You could take an interconnect cable, plug one end into an unused input of your preamp and the other end into a house brick shoved against the wall and this source of vibration would be audible. An interconnect touching a wall or a speaker cable making contact with the skirting boards will likely muddy the bass or muddle the midrange giving a slightly quacky coloration through revealing systems, for it is providing a quicker route to ground for vibrations from the speakers than simply passing through the air. Along the way this vibration then passes through sensitive electronics, all of which is microphonic, not just valves.

On the subject of valves, some of mine will make a noise through the speakers if you tap them, others don't but they are all microphonic with regards to low level signals that give us the kind of info that enables us to discern dynamics decay, harmonics and space between instruments. All components carrying a signal or supplying current are microphonic because all sources of vibration raise the noise floor which is not a level of audible noise but a threshold below which detail in a recording is not reproduced through the audio chain. Lower that threshold and more information on the disc will be reproduced via your audio system!

A lower noise floor improves dynamics, timing, definition and sheer sense of realism in recorded music. It makes music more involving and enjoyable to listen to.

In other words, microphony has nothing directly to do with the signal passing through a cable!

The effect of this is clearly audible and this is no idle theory.

I've spent nearly ten years experimenting with different forms of isolation and was even part of a small group of people auditioning different designs for acrylic shelves with slightly different shapes. The final design was determined entirely through subjective listening. I've heard materials improve dynamics, detail and coherence and I've also heard the opposite effect against my expectations. I've experimented with isolation platforms that by sheer mass try to absorb vibration, I've heard materials that cushion vibration and those which provide the quickest route to ground for vibration. The latter is most effective to my ears and I suspect this is because it deals also with internal vibration from moving parts like CD transports or turntables as well as transformers inside power supply units. The grounding approach also deals more effectively with vibration entering equipment via the air.

AOS is essentially not a forum for arguing with technocrats, it is one where we trust our ears and invite real scientists (of a more empirical persuasion) to explain our observed phenomenon beyond the quick and easy dismissive and highly condescending suggestion that the phenomena are imagined.

You are clearly an objectivist on a subjectivist site and you are in danger of turning into one of the few sneering and condescending ones we've had pass through here. We've already encountered such characters and they've not lasted very long for the simple reason that those kind of discussions are plentiful on just about every other forum. Here we want to dig deeper into precisely what differences we are likely to hear if we change the way our systems are set up and this includes cables, connections, mains supply and isolation of components from sources of vibration without being side-tracked by yet another objectivist/subjectivist debate.

Our discussions aim to extend beyond the simple differences and whether something is just better or worse. We also seek objectivity through consensus rather than arbitrary measurement, often of completely wrong thing, no matter how accurate the apparatus is for so doing. It's no use having a powerful electron microscope or super-dooper telescope if it is pointing in the wrong direction!

There are many aspects to reproduction of recorded music and this tends to behave differently to single test tones picked up on a oscilliscope. A 'scope doesn't pick up time smear, no matter how sensitive it is. A 'scope won't tell you if an analogue recording is being played backwards, in which case you lose the impact of transients or even the very notion of music as a series of phenomenological events to be captured temporally intact and as an integral and cohesive whole.

The human ear/brain cannot memorise individual noises or test tones but will identify the relationship between different sounds heard in association with each other. This is called music for which the auditive memory extends way beyond quick-fire A/B/A or X demonstrations although these can in themselves be useful tools to really highlight the most audible differences in the relationship between different sounds - a little bit like blowing up a picture and/or circling the part of any given significance which is useful to highlight a single element. However, you still need to revert back to viewing the picture as a whole in order that the individual detail be allowed to exist in its proper context.

These two paragraphs below give me cause to feel that you are not a lost cause on AOS as you demontrate here that your mind (and ears) are not completely closed. In a revealing system I'm sure that we can demonstrate to you some, if not all of the differences we can perceive quite readily and repeatably.



Kettle lead. Every single lead in my studio equipment is what you call a kettle lead and I can assure you, I tried all these expensive cables and I did not detect any difference. I can not say anymore than that. I can do AB test on the fly. However, I must say that a guy whom I used to call a friend one day exchanged cables in his room and asked me if I detected a difference. I said no and he was amazed as he was sure he did. Well, my problem was that removing one cable and installing another one after a time lapse is not really a test is it? You may have done a proper tests I do not know. We just have to get together one day and do a proper AB test.

However, despite all these I am not dismissing point blank. At the end of the day you train your ear by listening and in my view an experienced listener is an experienced listener whether he/she is an audiophile or a mastering engineer. Music electronics came to these heights not only because of technically trained design engineers, but also by the amateurs such as you guys. I still consider myself an amateur in that sense. I still buy a junk, take it apart and try to do things with it. It's just what I did when I was fifteen and still what I do at almost fifty.



Regarding the kettle lead, it isn't just the lead itself that determines what is heard through the speakers, it is how it is physically connected to your equipment at one end and the incoming mains at the other...

The Vinyl Adventure
22-07-2010, 07:38
I think Sahib is right when he says


I seem to have skipped the placebo. Well, you may have a point saying that it does not last, it actually does depends how you condition yourself...

I'm not sure why this is never concidored?
I'm about as open minded as it comes ... Il give a scientologist the time of day ... (although after that day I'm might seek to have them taken away by men in White coats ;) ). .... ....
But if you walk into a room where your hifi is set up and you tell your self every day that you have ticked every box of hifi set up ... Better mains, isolated cables, special rack etc etc... You are conditioning your self that it is set up perfectly ... Take one of those things away and the psychological impact could(would) have an effect...
Now I'm not saying for certain either way.... I am open minded to all this cable stuff (despite never hearing cable burn in happen).
I'm just saying that conditioning is a possibility... And it can last... Conditioning can last a life time... (and this is a comment I really hesitate to mention... I really don't mean to offend .... But look at religion... Many people have a religion that they are born into and stay in all there life with no science to back it up... Yet belive in it... That's a form of conditioning... It's not a placebo that wares off!
Before anyone has a go at me... Please remember how open minded I am, and indeed that I do have "belifes" my self ....

John
22-07-2010, 09:17
One of my best audio friends is a mains sceptic.
He wanted to play around with different options in my system Anyway I forgot to plug the phono stage back through the mans unit (ps audio p500 at the time) after awhile we both commited about the sound it lacked its depth and coherence then my friend reminded me we were listening to the phono stage without the mains unit as soon as we plugged it in everything came back
Yet when i went round to my friends house the unit made no difference that we could hear
I cannot really explain this we both have similar systems the only difference is he lives in a modern house I live in a pre war house
I could give lots more crazy examples of this and have no logical or scientific answer to it but paying attention to these small details makes a huge difference to what I hear.
I only know what I do works for my system and my musical taste I listen to a lot of music I want it to be non tiring and alive as possible and have now reached a point in which I am very happy
Like Marco I am interested in how science can back this up
I am open minded enough to kearn from both camps

Mike
22-07-2010, 09:27
:offtopic:

Gent's, could we stick to "cable burn in" please?

Steve, please go and start your own bun fight thread if that's what you are looking for...

Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 09:28
Conditioning is only possible if you simply follow the advice of someone else.

If you keep repeating the tests and getting the same or similar results that's not conditioning.

Also, if you repeat the test, find that the result is not as expected but discover another variable before addressing it and then the system performs according to you expectations, you know you are not being conditioned.


It also helps to know exactly what you hear and to be able to describe it. You leave yourself wide open to short term expectation bias or long term conditioning if you do not progress in your analysis beyond better, worse, same or just different.

If you perceive a change before you decide on whether this is better or worse describe the exact nature of the change before you decide whether or not this is an improvement. Listen to different strands of the recording and see how you can both tell them apart and how they are portrayed as playing together. Listen out for temporal as well as spatial cues. Can you follow the rhythm and/or melody of backing instruments more easily? Can you locate them more precisely in the soundstage?

Are there any trade-offs, e.g. A bigger, but perhaps more diffuse soundstage but poorer instrumental definition and a bass that's slightly (but irritatingly) out of tempo and perhaps a touch boomy with it?

If you think OTOH that there really is an overall improvement, go back. What's missing?

Are you noticing certain instruments e.g. snare drum strikes at the expense of other instruments? Do you still derive a sense of everything in the mixplaying together (assuming the recording was mixed properly and/or certain band members weren't stoned at the time the recording was made :lol:)

John
22-07-2010, 09:29
sorry mike

Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 09:30
Mike, it's called thread drift and it's in response to issues raised. It's also not a bunfight!

Also, such issues of perception in more general terms related to cables/microphony/isolation etc. are also applicable to cable burn-in. Moreover, if the phenomenon of cable burn-in is real then this creates a problem with evaluating cables in a system for we are essentially dealing with a moving target. Thus cable burn-in exists in the context of subjective evaluation as a whole.

Does speaker run-in exist?

Does component burn in (valves caps etc) exist?

What's the difference between warm up and burn in?

Do solid state components change with warm up?

Stick to simplistic better/worse analysis though and you WILL be fooled!

Mike
22-07-2010, 09:36
Mike, it's called thread drift and it's in response to issues raised. It's also not a bunfight!

Excellent... please could we keep the 'this is not a forum for objectivists, they don't last long' type threats out of it? That is my main 'off topic' complaint. Thanks.

Joe
22-07-2010, 09:53
Surely, in the context of a subjectivist forum, if an individual can detect an effect, be it cable burn-in or anything else, then that finding is valid for that individual. Similarly, if an individual cannot detect such an effect, that is also a valid result for that individual.

Neither finding, however, is scientifically valid, unless the effect, or absence of it, can be recorded or measured, because without such recording or measurement all you have is a series of anecdotes. To argue otherwise is to misunderstand the scientific process.

Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 09:58
John,

What have you got to be sorry for?

Everything you said was relevant even if only tangentally so - it's all an issue of perception.
Mike is just trying to take HIS ball home that's all ;)

John
22-07-2010, 10:05
It was just me going off on one ....nothing else
As Joe points out what I perceive is what I percieve its not science but means I have a system i love

Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 10:06
Joe, good post. The issue on a subjectivis forum is when an objectivist without simply stating his own personal experience hits you with the bumblebees can't fly therefore you imagined it logic.

The fact that we've repeatedly seen bumblebees fly is enough from an empirical perspective (I.e. That of a true scientist rather than a mere technocrat.)

The true scientist will then seek a plausible explanation for the observed phenomenon, perhaps ruling out the obvious dismissive explanation rather than just jumping to that particular conclusion in that rather sneering and arrogant fashion.

Effem
22-07-2010, 10:09
Excellent... please could we keep the 'this is not a forum for objectivists, they don't last long' type threats out of it? That is my main 'off topic' complaint. Thanks.

I will agree with that.

Cemal has so far shown a lack of dogma and intransigence, so give the guy a break chaps ;)

Mike
22-07-2010, 10:09
John,

What have you got to be sorry for?

Nothing at all...


Mike is just trying to take HIS ball home that's all

No he's not... but he was aware, when he started the thread, of the potential 'growling and barking' that might ensue. He's is just trying to keep it in check and isn't too keen on threats, however veiled they may be.

Anyway, it is entirely Mike's business what he does with his balls! :ner:

Mike
22-07-2010, 10:17
Joe, good post. The issue on a subjectivis forum is when an objectivist without simply stating his own personal experience hits you with the bumblebees can't fly therefore you imagined it logic.

Fine, but lets keep it a two way street and play nice, eh? ;)

The subjectivist is no more able to 'prove' his point of view any more that the objectivist can disprove it. And vice versa!

So... what the hell is going on with a cable when someone says they can hear a definite 'change' after a period of burn-in. If there are so many people who can hear this over such a length of time, then surely 'something' must be going on?

Could we have some theories from those that CAN hear these changes, please? :)

The Vinyl Adventure
22-07-2010, 10:34
Conditioning is only possible if you simply follow the advice of someone else.



its not... you can condition your self... there are huge portions of psychotherapy dedicated to re-conditioning the mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness-based_cognitive_therapy

without scientific proof there is as much chance that cable burn in is down to a personal belief structure as anything else.

mearly maturing as a person is an example of reconditioning of the mind

Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 10:47
Hamish, in the context of evaluating individual pieces of hi-fi conditioning can be avoided if you take the precautions I outlined above that's all.

Cable burn-in is a difficult one because we are dealing potentially with a moving target. My position on this is undecided as my experiences so far have not been conclusive enough to be able to eliminate some form of conditioning.

Perhaps Marco could jog my memory a bit...

As it happens I'm evaluating some Mark Grant interconnects at the moment with different connectors. They have all arrived here brand new so perhaps the burn-in effect as a possibility needs to be eliminated at least to ensure that I'm not evaluating moving targets.

Either way, any conclusion derived from just a belief system on this issue simply won't be good enough.

For this reason I shall simply play safe and not come to firm conclusions straight way. I shall give each interconnect set at least enough time in my system to eliminate the possibility of burn in.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-07-2010, 10:49
i wonder if there has ever been anyone who has experienced cable burn in before being told of its possible existence?

Marco
22-07-2010, 10:56
Guys,

I'm perfectly happy with the way the discussion is going so far and see no evidence of a 'bun fight'.

Steve has made some excellent points, which although not necessarily related to cable 'burn-in', I feel Cemal (and others) should analyse and consider.

However, Steve, I would leave the 'this is not a forum for objectivists, they don't last long' thing out of the discussion, as Cemal is doing fine so far and I wouldn't like him to feel that he's being pigeonholed into a category he doesn't belong in.

Cemal,

I would ask that you keep this fact at the forefront of your mind when dealing with points raised in this discussion:


We do not listen to music in the way in which scientific apparatus (oscilloscopes, for example) measures sound.


Steve is right when he says:


There are many aspects to reproduction of recorded music and this tends to behave differently to single test tones picked up on a oscilliscope.


And:


We also seek objectivity through consensus rather than arbitrary measurement, often of completely wrong thing, no matter how accurate the apparatus is for so doing. It's no use having a powerful electron microscope or super-dooper telescope if it is pointing in the wrong direction!


I also said before - and I truly believe this to be the case:


I also firmly believe that there exists phenomena in audio, the effects of which we can genuinely hear but as yet cannot fully measure or 'scientifically prove'.


What are your thoughts on that? I would like you to tackle this concept in some detail.

Surely you don't think that we already know everything there is to know in the field of audio; that we've measured everything that needs to be measured, and that's it, job done? This would be rather simplistic thinking, no?

The fact is, we are constantly learning and discovering new things all the time in this sometimes thorny hobby of ours, some of which I am convinced is not currently provable solely by scientific analysis via measurement on oscilloscopes or spectrum analysers.

Mikey,


Could we have some theories from those that CAN hear these changes, please?


I don't see the point in subjectivists doing that, as it will likely come across simply as gobbledygook. All we can do is describe what we hear with certain effects and justify why we think that is the case. The sort of theories you're looking for just won't work.

Hamish,

With regard to cables, leaving the effects of 'burn-in' aside for a moment, you've heard the difference replacing those crap 'kettle leads' you were using with the Mark Grant DSP 2.5s Steve and I brought round, and the sonic improvement wasn't exactly subtle, was it? ;)

I presume that you've since bought some of your own? :)

You've also heard the huge sonic improvement proper equipment supports make, and yet I'm almost certain that the effects of microphony can't be measured on an oscilloscope..............................

Marco.

martin_kbh
22-07-2010, 11:02
Its all in your head...it's a mind game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

The Grand Wazoo
22-07-2010, 11:07
The true scientist will then seek a plausible explanation for the observed phenomenon, perhaps ruling out the obvious dismissive explanation rather than just jumping to that particular conclusion in that rather sneering and arrogant fashion.

And a good scientist will recognise that just because he doesn't have the tools to measure a parameter, that is not a reason for dismissing it's existence. That scientist, if they are sufficiently motivated, will continue to explore phenomena bearing in mind the possibility that the science is incomplete.

A bad scientist, on the other hand, (or a pseudo-scientist, which is in fact what naysayers in the hi-fi world often are) may assume that all the science has been done and if something can't be explained or measured then it does not exist. That's not science; it's blinkered stupidity because our knowledge of science is a moving target too.

Mike
22-07-2010, 11:18
I don't see the point in a subjectivist doing that, as it will likely come across simply as gobbledygook. All we can do is describe what we hear with certain effects and justify why we think that is the case. The sort of theories you're looking for just won't work.

And yet you would demand of the objectivists that they address their claims with 'proof'?... C'mon, play fair? ;)

If it happens there must be a reason for it. What do the subjectivists think might be happening, as you've all pretty much flat out denied any form of conditioning or placebo effect and said the phenomenon is 'REAL', so lets explore some possibilities, eh? :)

Mike
22-07-2010, 11:29
Does speaker run-in exist?! Yes, they have mechanical components and the suspension loosens up. There are also capacitors in the crossovers which DO certainly require a period of conditioning.


Does component burn in (valves caps etc) exist? Yes, This is well known, small changes in values can also often be measured.


What's the difference between warm up and burn in? For burn in see previous. Warm up is just that. It gets warm. Most electrical components will change characteristics slightly with temperature, this is not rocket science and can be measured.

[/QUOTE]Do solid state components change with warm up?[/QUOTE]

Yes, see previous.

Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 11:40
Thanks Mike. I think we can now begin to see where the notion of burn in for a cable may have come from - the fact that it happens to the bits inside the boxes as we attempt to evaluate them so why not the wires too?

Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 11:44
And yet you would demand of the objectivists that they address their claims with 'proof'?... C'mon, play fair? 

Seems fair to me. After all they are the ones seeking objective proof so they can therefore lead by example.

We OTOH seek proof through consensus of opinion derived from collective experience.

DSJR
22-07-2010, 11:48
I'm sure that Paul Millar has had a good go at measuring cables at rf etc and found noticable differences that have gone some way to describing the more wacky examples out there.. Just puttin ferrites on can cause a repeatable effect, if only a small one.

As for burn-in, I'll leave my mind open on this one as, per my previous post, just unplugging and reconnecting the connectors can make quite a difference, far more IMO than any changes in the cable, real or imagined.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-07-2010, 11:49
Marco

if you have a look back through my threads you will see a thread i posted where i commented i didnt care why i heard a difference, i did hear one, but i didnt care if i was indeed fooling my self.... i dont know either way ... and i dont care... im just contributing my feelings to the argument

Effem
22-07-2010, 11:55
So... what the hell is going on with a cable when someone says they can hear a definite 'change' after a period of burn-in. If there are so many people who can hear this over such a length of time, then surely 'something' must be going on?

Could we have some theories from those that CAN hear these changes, please? :)

I already did, a few pages back :lolsign:

martin_kbh
22-07-2010, 12:01
Maybe were just parroting each other....

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/top-ten-signs-an-audio-cable-vendor-is-selling-you-snake-oil

martin_kbh
22-07-2010, 12:18
If expensive cables affect you psychologically and thus makes your system sound better...by all means spend the money. Paint the room in a nice colour, get a good chair too and enjoy your favourite beverage as well...it all helps.

I personally aim for good solid and mechanical connections...rest is snakeoil in my book.

The Grand Wazoo
22-07-2010, 12:35
I can't say I've ever experienced the phenomena of cable burn-in, but can I suggest that we might look at this from a slightly different angle for a moment? – Well two different angles actually.

The first one is to note that no-one – not a single person I have ever discussed the issue of any sort of burn-in with, has ever said that burn-in made things worse. This suggests to me that in many cases, it's all in the mind. With some components I'm sure there is something different going on in addition to this.

Here's the second thing - Does anyone here have any experience of a change in the sound of a transformer when inserted into the audio chain?
If so, since, from the point of view of an electrical current, a transformer is simply a load of wire, I would think that it might have some bearing on the matter.

I've tried a lot of different MC step-up transformers in the past and I think that I have been able to discern some change in the sound after some of them have been in use for some time – but I can't be sure as I wasn't listening out for it. What I do know is that John Chapman at Bent Audio, who I bought my Mu's – my final SUT from - hooked them up to what he calls 'The Cooker' in order to burn it in. Now, I didn't ask him to do this & he doesn't charge for this. He could just tell people that the component will burn in as it is used. I don't think he's deluded or mad or fooling anyone & I don't believe he'd do this if he didn't feel it was beneficial.

Marco
22-07-2010, 12:40
Hi Mike,


And yet you would demand of the objectivists that they address their claims with 'proof'?... C'mon, play fair? ;)


You misunderstand me.

First of all, I'm not asking objectivists for proof of anything; merely that they respect the validity of our genuine subjective observations in audio without the need for ridicule. And also that they consider that not everything we genuinely hear in audio can currently be 'proven' by scientific measurement, as I believe some of it falls out with of known audio phenomena and the currently available parameters for measuring such.

That last bit is specifically what I'm asking Cemal to consider. There is no request by me for him to supply 'proof' of anything.

Secondly, as Cemal correctly says:


However, there are times one gets frustrated because one is not able to communicate with the opposition on the same level.


That is absolutely true, so any subjectivist (unless they possess an in-depth academic knowledge of the subject in hand, out with of simply being able to describe what they hear) attempting to supply scientific theories to explain their subjective observations, is always going to end up sounding ridiculous.

Remember you laughed at me (quite rightly) when I attempted to do so! Therefore I'll leave the theorising to those who are qualified, and stick to what I know best, which is describing my subjective observations with audio in language which others can relate to, in the hope that they 'get' where I'm coming from and thus are tempted to explore my findings for themselves. Hopefully, once done, they will then have sufficient faith in their hearing acuity to arrive at an informed conclusion.


What do the subjectivists think might be happening, as you've all pretty much flat out denied any form of conditioning or placebo effect and said the phenomenon is 'REAL', so lets explore some possibilities, eh?

I've certainly denied no such thing. I've already said that I believe that the placebo effect is a very real phenomenon. I also believe that all of us here at some point have been a victim of it when judging certain aspects of audio. But at the same time I will not 'have' objectivists (not necessarily Cemal) using it as a convenient excuse to pooh-pooh and automatically dismiss effects genuinely heard by people simply because they don't conform to currently known audio phenomena.

That smacks of way too simplistic thinking: as if we already know all there is to know, which is of course nonsense. Anyone who thinks differently in that respect is definitely not adhering to true scientific principles.

We can explore possibilities until the cows come home, Mike, but I doubt we'll get any nearer to proving anything. Therefore, I'll be staying out of that side of the discussion and allow others that privilege, if they wish.

Aside from anything else, although it's interesting to debate these matters, I have no need of further 'proof' for what I hear in audio other than what my ears tell me. I'm very relaxed and comfortable about my own situation in that respect, so for me, discussions such as this equate to little more than some amusing entertainment :)

Marco.

Marco
22-07-2010, 12:43
And a good scientist will recognise that just because he doesn't have the tools to measure a parameter, that is not a reason for dismissing it's existence. That scientist, if they are sufficiently motivated, will continue to explore phenomena bearing in mind the possibility that the science is incomplete.

A bad scientist, on the other hand, (or a pseudo-scientist, which is in fact what naysayers in the hi-fi world often are) may assume that all the science has been done and if something can't be explained or measured then it does not exist. That's not science; it's blinkered stupidity because our knowledge of science is a moving target too.

Hear, hear, Chris! :clap:

Marco.

Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 12:49
Its all in your head...it's a mind game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ)


I've not had time to watch the entire hour-long video but I did hear the demonstration a few minutes in by the smily bespectacled woman about 30 years old. The word "legislature" was meant to have an s in it which we were supposed to think we heard but in fact did not because it wasn't there.

Each time I heard the recording I heard a cough at exactly the moment the s was to be uttered. I heard the cough not the s so didn't fall for this obviously contrived little trap.

If you use your ears the way we would normally use our eyes (although I accept they can also be fooled with optical illusions) you don't fall into the traps. Use your ears and pay bloody attention to what's there ffs!

On the subject of optical illusions I remember when we were trying to incorporate Google ads into the banner. Some folks said the shade of yellow around the ads was different to that around the Art of Sound logo. It wasn't and I never thought it was (have a look!)

Why? Because I bloody looked properly!

If you don't use your sensory inputs propeerly don't be surprised if they fail you :rolleyes:

martin_kbh
22-07-2010, 12:50
And a good scientist will recognise that just because he doesn't have the tools to measure a parameter, that is not a reason for dismissing it's existence. That scientist, if they are sufficiently motivated, will continue to explore phenomena bearing in mind the possibility that the science is incomplete.

A bad scientist, on the other hand, (or a pseudo-scientist, which is in fact what naysayers in the hi-fi world often are) may assume that all the science has been done and if something can't be explained or measured then it does not exist. That's not science; it's blinkered stupidity because our knowledge of science is a moving target too.

I think everyone agrees on this...but it would it not make the debate so much more interesting if both sides could present facts and science instead of mere woodoo and hurt feelings?

Marco
22-07-2010, 13:05
Hi Martin,


but it would it not make the debate so much more interesting if both sides could present facts and science...


Perhaps - it depends what you mean by "interesting". Trouble is, not all of us here are scientists, so we can't pretend to be what we're not. I also see no "voodoo" or "hurt feelings" in evidence. Perhaps you would direct me to it?

Moreover, experience tells me that "facts and science" don't tell the full story when it comes to our appreciation of audio and music, so if we were simply to stick to that, the content and likely outcome of the discussion would be incomplete.

Incidentally, have you read 'Our Ethos'?

If not, I'd suggest you do, as you'll get a better handle on the mindset of the majority of our members, and the subjectivist principles in audio at the heart of AOS: The Art of Sound; i.e. we believe that enjoying realistic music reproduction through a hi-fi system is as much an ART as it is about science.

Marco.

Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 13:09
I personally aim for good solid and mechanical connections...rest is snakeoil in my book.

Such a book is nothing more than a belief set unless supported by some kind of sound empirical process, and by that I don't mean the mere possibility that you have observed the fact in the past that our perception of things can be fooled. We all agree this is possible and indeed commonplace, but to reach that conclusion only in light of your above belief set could lead to reaching erroneous conclusions.

Admit it, it is a lot more convenient to dismiss differences between interconnects in terms of materials used in their construction, including the conductor insulation and shielding, apart from the connections, as being snake oil or as a result of flawed sensory perception, and this helps you to reach a conclusion with which you feel most comfortable.

Fortunately good doctors are more thorough than that when they diagnose a patient's illness, looking beyond their own belief set.

martin_kbh
22-07-2010, 13:41
Hi Martin,

you'll get a better handle on the mindset of the majority of our members, and the subjectivist principles in audio at the heart of AOS.....

Being objective about your subjective “Ethos”....how do you guys get anywhere if any odd and vague argument can be justified with freedom of art?

Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 13:53
Martin, read a bit more of the ethos and you'll see precisely how!

Marco
22-07-2010, 13:55
Hi Martin,

I'm not sure what you mean by 'any odd and vague argument'. Could you provide an example of such? And is this likely to come before or after an example of "voodoo" and "hurt feelings", which I'm still waiting for from earlier? ;)

However, I sincerely hope you're not referring to the results of someone's perfectly valid listening experiences. We trust our ears on AOS, not necessarily the readout on an oscilloscope.

No offence, but if you've read Our Ethos, it doesn't seem that you've grasped its concept very well.

Marco.

Effem
22-07-2010, 14:31
The first one is to note that no-one – not a single person I have ever discussed the issue of any sort of burn-in with, has ever said that burn-in made things worse. This suggests to me that in many cases, it's all in the mind. With some components I'm sure there is something different going on in addition to this.



Don't believe I have ever said this, but yes, I have found that after burn in the cable in question went from one I enjoyed from brand new to one that displeased me after a few hours of running and continued to do so.

It was a prototype cable sent to me by a distributor for evaluation and it was a refinement of an existing design they produced with a thicker gauge of primary conductor. Expectation should, if proved valid, would have meant I was expecting an improvement but the exact opposite was true and based on my findings the prototype design was dropped.

Bear in mind that I probably have more cable experience than the rest of the forum members put together and as I said a few pages back I don't get het all up about whoever decides to disagree with me.

Marco
22-07-2010, 14:49
Hi Chris,


The first one is to note that no-one – not a single person I have ever discussed the issue of any sort of burn-in with, has ever said that burn-in made things worse.


You must’ve missed what I wrote in my post #45 on page 5:


When I put a new cable in it's nearly always the same sequence of events which follows: if the new cable is better than my existing one, then I always hear that effect straight away, then usually a couple of days later (or sometimes the next day) the sound will deteriorate, sometimes quite badly, before finally stabilising and returning to as good as it was on the first day, and then maintaining that standard from then on.


I find it's usually a bit of a rollercoaster ride for a few days, after which the sound stabilises and the results of my first impressions of a cable are usually confirmed, and indeed superceded (in a positive sense).

However, I've never come across a cable yet which initially I liked, and after 'burn-in', hated.

With interconnects the effect of 'burn-in', for me, is fairly subtle, although significant. Much bigger differences with 'burn-in', in my experience, occur with power cables; where I have observed some major sonic differences in that respect.

Marco.

The Grand Wazoo
22-07-2010, 14:53
Marco,
Actually....



You must’ve missed what I wrote in my post #45 on page 5:


.....I did read your post, but what I meant was this......



However, I've never come across a cable yet which initially I liked, and after 'burn-in', hated.


Cheers!

Marco
22-07-2010, 15:08
No problem, but that however doesn't necessarily mean what I'm hearing is "all in the mind" ;)

I simply think that, in order to reach their full sonic potential, cables require to have a signal put through them for a period of time, hence 'burn-in'. It's as simple as that. I really don't need to know why it happens.

I'm a music lover, not a scientist. Therefore the increase in my enjoyment of music, as a result of the sonic improvement given by any new cable, is always ample enough reward :)

I sometimes think that those of a scientific persuasion, once departing the lab, struggle to leave their 'scientific head' behind where it belongs (in the lab). Their insistence on analysing the buggery out of everything else outside of that environment, in my opinion, is often completely unnecessary and not conducive to long-term contentment.

How can one ever be truly happy if one doesn't trust one's senses and intellectual judgement, and instead is constantly searching for conclusive 'proof' for everything experienced in life, in audio or otherwise? Bollocks to that pish.

My view? Have faith in your hearing acuity and trust your senses implicitly - it's what makes us human. And as an end user of audio products, enjoy what you hear if it enriches your enjoyment of music, and worry not about the whys and wherefores of 'unexplained' effects!

Marco.

The Grand Wazoo
22-07-2010, 15:18
No problem, but that however doesn't necessarily mean what I'm hearing is "all in the mind" ;)

Marco.

Agreed, and that's why I put it this way:

This suggests to me that in many cases, it's all in the mind. With some components I'm sure there is something different going on in addition to this.

Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 15:25
OK, has anyone ever liked the sound of a piece of equipment running cold only to dislike it once it had warmed up?

Ali Tait
22-07-2010, 17:37
I can't say I've ever experienced the phenomena of cable burn-in, but can I suggest that we might look at this from a slightly different angle for a moment? – Well two different angles actually.

The first one is to note that no-one – not a single person I have ever discussed the issue of any sort of burn-in with, has ever said that burn-in made things worse. This suggests to me that in many cases, it's all in the mind. With some components I'm sure there is something different going on in addition to this.

Here's the second thing - Does anyone here have any experience of a change in the sound of a transformer when inserted into the audio chain?
If so, since, from the point of view of an electrical current, a transformer is simply a load of wire, I would think that it might have some bearing on the matter.

I've tried a lot of different MC step-up transformers in the past and I think that I have been able to discern some change in the sound after some of them have been in use for some time – but I can't be sure as I wasn't listening out for it. What I do know is that John Chapman at Bent Audio, who I bought my Mu's – my final SUT from - hooked them up to what he calls 'The Cooker' in order to burn it in. Now, I didn't ask him to do this & he doesn't charge for this. He could just tell people that the component will burn in as it is used. I don't think he's deluded or mad or fooling anyone & I don't believe he'd do this if he didn't feel it was beneficial.

I've certainly heard differences when trying different output transformers on an amp,having heard a couple of different trannies on the Mr Liang I used to have on a visit to Nick's.Best were the AE amorphous core,which are not cheap nowadays.The surprise was the stock trannies,which sounded better than a pair of James,which are generally regarded as a good make.The AE's edged it,but not by much.There were however,easily perceived differences in the sound from each.Having heard a direct-coupled amp though,I've come to the conclusion that the best trannie is no trannie!

The Grand Wazoo
22-07-2010, 17:44
Hi Ali,
I've certainly heard differences between transformers, but did you notice them improving with use?

Marco
22-07-2010, 17:55
Chris,

I hadn't considered SUTs would come in that category, but now you mention it, there is a definite improvement in the sound of the brand new A23 (SPU) transformer I've been using recently from when I first got it, so I will examine this more closely in the coming weeks and see whether its performance improves any further or not :)

Marco.

The Grand Wazoo
22-07-2010, 18:00
Great!
I'll try & find something about John Chapman's 'cooker' in case anyone's interested.

Ali Tait
22-07-2010, 18:07
Hi Ali,
I've certainly heard differences between transformers, but did you notice them improving with use?

Didn't really listen long enough to say with certainty,and in any case it would be hard to say as I wasn't familiar enough with the different sounds they were making.

I can say that to my ears I have no doubt that the valve amps I've owned all sounded better after about half an hour of playing music. How much of that is down to the transformers warming up is impossible to say.

One thing I do remember from first getting the Liang was that it sounded very bass light for the first few days,so much so I was concerned there was something wrong.I talked to Nick about it,and he mentioned that he'd heard the same thing from new transformers before,so yes,I'd say there is indeed a burn in period for trannies.

Mike
22-07-2010, 22:37
Blimey, quite a bit more has been written since I last checked in!


I'll catch up and then explain the entirely subjective experiences* that prompted me to start this thread with the "Quite frankly, I've stopped believing in it! :confused:" comment in post #1.

:)

* I've a feeling some folk probably weren't expecting that! :eek:

Sahib
22-07-2010, 22:53
You've really missed the point here. We are not talking about vibrations caused by the motion of individual electrons but by the vibrations you can actually feel let alone hear - those coming from your speakers while the music is playing.

Why do we call it microphony?

Answer: That sound coming from the speakers is traced back through the audio chain via all the electronic components that in turn determine what emerges through the speakers and so it creates a loop. Equipment is affected by what it sits on and and by the amount of vibration it picks up either from the ground via the support, anything plugged into it or otherwise making physical contact with it and also through the air.

You could take an interconnect cable, plug one end into an unused input of your preamp and the other end into a house brick shoved against the wall and this source of vibration would be audible. An interconnect touching a wall or a speaker cable making contact with the skirting boards will likely muddy the bass or muddle the midrange giving a slightly quacky coloration through revealing systems, for it is providing a quicker route to ground for vibrations from the speakers than simply passing through the air. Along the way this vibration then passes through sensitive electronics, all of which is microphonic, not just valves.

On the subject of valves, some of mine will make a noise through the speakers if you tap them, others don't but they are all microphonic with regards to low level signals that give us the kind of info that enables us to discern dynamics decay, harmonics and space between instruments. All components carrying a signal or supplying current are microphonic because all sources of vibration raise the noise floor which is not a level of audible noise but a threshold below which detail in a recording is not reproduced through the audio chain. Lower that threshold and more information on the disc will be reproduced via your audio system!

A lower noise floor improves dynamics, timing, definition and sheer sense of realism in recorded music. It makes music more involving and enjoyable to listen to.

In other words, microphony has nothing directly to do with the signal passing through a cable!

The effect of this is clearly audible and this is no idle theory.



I am glad I missed the point because I wouldn't have wasted my time to aswer such warble. Throwing technical terminology like dynamic range, noise floor, harmonics, definition..... aaaand, we end up at

.....All components carrying a signal or supplying current are microphonic because all sources of vibration raise the noise floor which is not a level of audible noise but a threshold below which detail in a recording is not reproduced through the audio chain.

What the hell is that? Somebody just explain to me in plain English. ...is not a level of audible noise, but in the recording and not reproduced? And you are worrying about that? Why? If it is below the threshold of hearing it means it is burried way below. The guy is dead. Why are you worrying about him? What is your point? What does it add to the discussion?




I've spent nearly ten years experimenting with different forms of isolation and was even part of a small group of people auditioning different designs for acrylic shelves with slightly different shapes. The final design was determined entirely through subjective listening. I've heard materials improve dynamics, detail and coherence and I've also heard the opposite effect against my expectations. I've experimented with isolation platforms that by sheer mass try to absorb vibration, I've heard materials that cushion vibration and those which provide the quickest route to ground for vibration. The latter is most effective to my ears and I suspect this is because it deals also with internal vibration from moving parts like CD transports or turntables as well as transformers inside power supply units. The grounding approach also deals more effectively with vibration entering equipment via the air.


You've spent ten years experimenting and ended up with



The grounding approach also deals more effectively with vibration entering equipment via the air.


?????? Oh dear. Now we are onto vibrations entering an equipment through the air. I tell you what, if a level of vibration that entered through the air into your equipment you would hear nothing. Because you would be deaf.




AOS is essentially not a forum for arguing with technocrats, it is one where we trust our ears and invite real scientists (of a more empirical persuasion) to explain our observed phenomenon beyond the quick and easy dismissive and highly condescending suggestion that the phenomena are imagined.


Sorry. Just forgive me. Obviously I ended up in the wrong neighbourhood. I was just passing through and saw the sign, art is a kind of thing that I am very much involved in. I consider myself also an artist (as opposed to technocrat), I come from a highly artistic family and my wife happens to be working in the arts. And an overwhelming majority of people I am in contact with, well, work in the arts. But you are so clever that you blew my cover after a couple of post in which " I HAVE NEVER SAID I WAS A TECHNOCRAT"



You are clearly an objectivist on a subjectivist site and you are in danger of turning into one of the few sneering and condescending ones we've had pass through here.


You were not a member of Warren Commission at some point were you? What is this? Commie witch hunt? Where the hell you get the right to label me with that? Just because I expressed my views and concerns using few light weight technical terminology?



We've already encountered such characters and they've not lasted very long for the simple reason that those kind of discussions are plentiful on just about every other forum.


Well I've got a bad news for you. I am going to hang around this forum much longer than those guys, who obviously had an attitude very much like you have, except on the opposite side.




Here we want to dig deeper into precisely what differences we are likely to hear if we change the way our systems are set up and this includes cables, connections, mains supply and isolation of components from sources of vibration without being side-tracked by yet another objectivist/subjectivist debate.


Yeah. I'll keep repeating myself. I never said I was an objectivist and I never side tracked anybody. I have just joined in the discussion. But if you are referring to my comments on that magical cable burning in device. Yeah, hang me for this. It is garbage. Until the designer of it comes over here and explains to me his circuitry I will keep saying it is a garbage.




Our discussions aim to extend beyond the simple differences and whether something is just better or worse. We also seek objectivity through consensus rather than arbitrary measurement, often of completely wrong thing, no matter how accurate the apparatus is for so doing. It's no use having a powerful electron microscope or super-dooper telescope if it is pointing in the wrong direction!


Really? You refuse to look through that electron microscope to understand what's inside a conductor because it will tell you something "OBJECTIVELY". Don't talk to me about arbitrary measurements. Give me an example. Walk me through where you think the weak points are. Don't give me the word "arbitrary" alone.



There are many aspects to reproduction of recorded music and this tends to behave differently to single test tones picked up on a oscilliscope. A 'scope doesn't pick up time smear, no matter how sensitive it is. A 'scope won't tell you if an analogue recording is being played backwards, in which case you lose the impact of transients or even the very notion of music as a series of phenomenological events to be captured temporally intact and as an integral and cohesive whole.


Thank you for reminding. You obviously missed the bits in my previous post that I owned a recording studio. I not only consume music I also produce music. You think you have fancy hi-fi in your room? You ain't seen nothing yet. But I am not listing what I have because it is not a done thing. I have just joined the forum. I am trying to find a seat and make friends with the guys sitting around me. In my circle you don't show off what you've got as soon as you step into somebody's house.

Ayhow, I am well aware that there are so many things that you don't see on the scope and that is why I mentioned trained ears. But we can still take a singal apart and analyse it. It does not tell the whole story but still tells a lot to build upon.




The human ear/brain cannot memorise individual noises or test tones but will identify the relationship between different sounds heard in association with each other. This is called music for which the auditive memory extends way beyond quick-fire A/B/A or X demonstrations although these can in themselves be useful tools to really highlight the most audible differences in the relationship between different sounds - a little bit like blowing up a picture and/or circling the part of any given significance which is useful to highlight a single element. However, you still need to revert back to viewing the picture as a whole in order that the individual detail be allowed to exist in its proper context.


Yeah. I agree. I also agree that quick-fire A/B/A or X demonstrations can not be relied upon. It happens that almost all the people I met who refuse to hear scientific side of the story happens to be the ones do these tests. I carry out tests in an acoustically reasonably well treated room and I don't detect a change but a guy in his living room takes one wire off and puts another one and tells me that I talk rubbish. Just read my previous post. That is why I said may be we get together one day and carry out some tests.



These two paragraphs below give me cause to feel that you are not a lost cause on AOS as you demontrate here that your mind (and ears) are not completely closed. In a revealing system I'm sure that we can demonstrate to you some, if not all of the differences we can perceive quite readily and repeatably.


Hallelujah. Thank you lord. You saved my soul. Show me the contribution bucket, I surely must drop few bucks.

Don't patronise me with that lost soul crap. You just worry about yourself.




Regarding the kettle lead, it isn't just the lead itself that determines what is heard through the speakers, it is how it is physically connected to your equipment at one end and the incoming mains at the other...

Yeah I know that too well. And this is one area I am sure we can explore in depth because interconnections in an audio equipment contribute to sound quality. But not in a magical way. We can identify the areas and bring logical explanations to them.

Now there is the small print. Yes, this post have been quite strong but not offensive. I have not been offensive. I don't have to be and I have no reason to be. It is just strong points that's all. But I won't take any crap from anybody who 1. Labels me without getting to know me 2. Patronises me.

I am also sorry for the other forum members to whom I wanted to reply to but I am afraid I have to go. I have only a week before I go on holiday and I am working every single possible minute of the day. I have not even had my tea yet and still a lot to do. So, I'll continue tomorrow night.

The Grand Wazoo
22-07-2010, 23:01
Blimey, quite a bit more has been written since I last checked in!

...............ahem..............there's even more now, Mike!

Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 23:27
I. Think you began with the patronising tone in your first sustained missive about 23 hours ago. Rather than state this I just decided to respond in kind.

Professional musicians tend not to seek realism from recorded music the way audiophiles do because they know the music by heart and can mentally fill in the gaps left by the inadequate means of reproduction.

Many are objectivists perhaps because for them recorded music is always the poor relation. For musicians the art is creating the music. For us the art is reproducing it as faithfully as possible, losing as little as possible. It's not black magic or voodoo, but it is not an exact science either.

When equipment is effectively isolated it reveals via the speakers information on rcordings you hitherto did not know was there. This is my experience. Perhaps by trying to offer an explanation for what I hear I leave myself open to scorn on the part of more seasoned rationalists from a more scientific persuasion.

I can't offer proof. I can only be candid with my experience and maybe share it one day - if you are sufficiently open minded that is.

Marco
22-07-2010, 23:40
Perhaps by trying to offer an explanation for what I hear I leave myself open to scorn on the part of more seasoned rationalists from a more scientific persuasion.


Now you know why I told Mike that I wouldn't be offering any such 'theories'! ;)

Anyway, dude, cut Cemal some slack (I don't believe he intended to be patronising), as I feel that with time he will become a valued contributor to AOS by providing an alternative insight into discussions.

He's just feeling his way in at the moment, and you guys need to get used to each other's different ways of expressing your equally valid opinions :)

Marco.

Ali Tait
23-07-2010, 06:21
Nice post Cemal!

Steve Toy
23-07-2010, 06:44
I wouldn't describe it as 'nice' but it certainly added something.

HighFidelityGuy
23-07-2010, 11:24
I've been looking in on this thread from time to time but have yet to join in with the discussion. The perceived affects of cable burn-in and microphonics are both things I'm quite interested in. Unfortunately they are both topics that are difficult to discuss as they create such polarised opinions. People naturally tend to pick a side and then fight for that. Here we seem to have decided that audiophiles are subjectivists and scientists are objectivists. Personally I think that's too much of a generalisation and a simplistic view.

While I'm not a "scientist" by profession, I do generally think of myself as an objectivist, as I believe that there is usually a best way to do something. This is easy to apply to something like microphonics as it stands to reason that there is one specific best way to isolate a piece of equipment from vibration. You stick it in a perfect vacuum. That's hardly practical though. So you try to find the closest method to this that still allows the equipment to function properly. That is then the best method of reducing vibration and therefore microphony.

The problem comes when you try to apply objective principles like this to a subjective area such as perceived sound quality. Just because you have succeeded in isolating your piece of equipment from vibration in the best possible way doesn't mean that everyone will think the results are better than before you bothered. Different people will prefer it one way or the other and some of those people will trick themselves into thinking it sounds better simply because they think it ought to.

You also have the problem of “synergy”, where a particular piece of equipment or cable will not match with other components. This can mean that for example a cable may sound great at first in your system but then start to negatively affect the sound quality after a period of time. The same cable in a different system may exhibit the opposite effect. So the fact of whether the changes made by burn-in are positive or negative will depend on the other components in the system and the listeners taste.

Personally I don't think there's any point going round and round trying to say that the objective view is better than a subjective view or vice versa. In my opinion, sticking to one side is rarely productive when it comes to this type of topic. The audiophiles and the scientists simply need to understand that both sets of people are looking for different things. The scientist refuses to believe something exists unless he can measure it on an instrument. The audiophile doesn't care about that as long as they can hear a difference. This doesn't make either side wrong.

The effects of burn-in and microphony have been experienced by many people. So many so that I don’t believe they can all be attributed to the placebo effect. So if these effects exist, something must be causing them and this must be measurable somehow. It may be that the method of measurement has not yet been invented but that doesn’t mean the source does not exist. The Higgs boson particle is only a theory at this stage but that hasn't stopped a $9 billion budget from being allocated to the Large Hadron Collider project. ;)

What I would really like is for someone with a scientific background to put their beliefs to one side and start to look into what causes these effects. That way, methods of reducing or harnessing these effects could be designed more affectively. I’m particularly interested in what properties of a cable assembly change over a period of use that causes the sonic signature to change (for better or worse) and why some cables exhibit this characteristic more than others.

Last year I started to look into building a cable burn-in machine to do some testing in this area. Perhaps I should re-visit that project. :)

Joe
23-07-2010, 12:31
Science starts from observation: apples fall to the ground; why? (No-one disputes that apples fall from the ground rather than float in mid-air). This leads to the development of a theory about the cause of the phenomenon, which is tested by experiment.

Therefore, to interest a scientist in investigating cable burn-in you would firstly need to convince him/her that such effects are real rather than imagined (unlike apples falling to the ground, not everyone can detect the effects of cable burn-in; many people claim to have seen a ghost, but there is no scientific evidence that anyone ever has). I'm not sure how you'd go about proving the existence of the burn-in effect; rigorous testing of a control group, maybe?

HighFidelityGuy
23-07-2010, 13:35
I'm not sure how you'd go about proving the existence of the burn-in effect; rigorous testing of a control group, maybe?

I guess we'd first have to find a cable that was widely reconised as sounding quite different before and after burn-in. Preferably something that's not too expensive. Then you would need to get hold of a bunch of these new and then burn-in half of them. The burnt-in cables would be marked with one colour and the factory fresh ones marked with another colour. Only the person who did the burn in would know which was which. The cables would then be independently "listened to" by as many different people as possible, who would each right down the characteristics they heard and decide which colour was better. The results of these tests would then be collected before it was revealed which colour was which. If the majority of people chose a particular colour then you could say that there was a consensus that burn-in had an affect.

We would also need to decide what method and period of time to use for the burn-in process and ensure that each cable was given exactly the same treatment. One flaw in this method is that as the cables were passed around, the factory fresh ones would get burnt-in during the testing. So we'd need a lot more of them to make sure each person got a totally unused cable.

Perhaps we could get a cable maker like Mark Grant to lend us some cables for such an experiment? I'm not sure if his cables generally benefit much from being burnt-in. I just used him as an example. :)

Marco
23-07-2010, 13:46
I wouldn't describe it as 'nice' but it certainly added something.

A little frisson of anticipation, peut-être? ;)

Marco.

Sahib
23-07-2010, 14:37
I. Think you began with the patronising tone in your first sustained missive about 23 hours ago. Rather than state this I just decided to respond in kind.
.

Show me which line it is.


There is not a single phrase I have in my previous posts suggests that I patronised anybody. I don't. That's not my style and more the guys in this forum will get to know me the more they will realise that I hate patronising. Yes I may do it within a context of a joke but not in the real meaning. And I would certainly not joke in an environment that I am the new kid in town.

Alex_UK
23-07-2010, 14:52
I don't want to take sides here (I'm not) but the written word can be difficult to interpret sometimes, especially if you are already in a particular mindset when you read something. As an impartial observer, I didn't personally think Cemal was being patronising, but then I wasn't 100% sure that it was with humorous infliction. Either way, hopefully we can move forward amicably and positively.

I wonder, could there be anything to do with oxidisation of the contacts, or some form of "process" on the actual connections that changes the sound, (maybe induced by heat) rather than some change in the conductor itself? Not thought it through, just off the top of my head - I tend to look at things logically, but with an open mind ;)

Joe
23-07-2010, 14:56
I don't mind being patronised. It makes me feel young again!

HighFidelityGuy
23-07-2010, 15:33
I wonder, could there be anything to do with oxidisation of the contacts, or some form of "process" on the actual connections that changes the sound, (maybe induced by heat) rather than some change in the conductor itself? Not thought it through, just off the top of my head - I tend to look at things logically, but with an open mind ;)

I wouldn't have thought oxidation would be the cause personally. This usually happens over a longer period of time and causes negative effects to the sound due to the signal being impeded. Usually on an older cable the application of contact cleaner (which removes the oxidation) has a positive effect.

I guess some other change in the connector could be the cause though. Or the relationship between this and the socket and/or the cable. There are lots of variables that could affect the result. It could be the connectors, the conductors, the dielectric etc, or the relationship between various types of all of these. I guess the first stage is to prove that burn-in actually exists and then try to narrow down which part of a cable has the biggest influence on the burn-in. Then you could start to look at what materials these are made of. It would be a long process. :doh:

Ali Tait
23-07-2010, 17:58
I wouldn't describe it as 'nice' but it certainly added something.

Well I think Cemal has been very patient with you Steve.I've said it before,but you can come across as arrogant and condescending at times.I guess a lot of it may not be meant, but it comes across that way nontheless.I'm not trying to bait you,just offering MHO.

Sahib
23-07-2010, 19:39
O.K. On the issue of patronising I wasn't but if there was such impression then again I confirm that I did not intend to be. I thought I was being careful. Anyhow, let's call it a little grey cloud and put it behind.

I will stand my ground on the issue of cable burning in. Although it is the topic of the thread, things started to move away towards interconnection. I have also taken a break at work so if you find it appropriate I'll chime in.

Oxidisation is a resistive layer over the say connector surface. This has no difference than an ordinary resistor. You could think of it as literally cutting the wire (which is the mating point of the male and female connectors) and inserting a resistor in between. Now this resistor in series leg of the signal path and with the input resistance (I am deliberatley not using impedance) of your, say amplifier, forms a voltage divider. So the signal at the point, where the input of your amplifier meets the connector will be attenuated. Therefore we'll have a reduced amplitude. We call this a loading effect, because we are introducing load to the signal path. The signal is being opposed by this load. The resistive load does not discriminate any frequency. It presents exactly the same resistance to AC (audio signal) as it shows to DC.

The connector obviously has two connections. Let's talk about RCA type. The inner pin is the hot signal and the outer edge is the ground. There will be a capacitance between these two. No matter how small it will be, there will be a capacitance. This is simply the wonder of the nature. You have two (metal)surfaces paralel to each other? You'll have capacitance.

This capacitance is in parallel to the signal path. As I mentioned above the resistive oxide layer is in series. Now we have a low pass filter there. This is not a resistive load. It is reactive. Therefore it discriminates frequencies. There is a particular frequency when this discrimination starts to take effect. This is called the cut off frequency. When the signal is below this frequency nothing happens, it just sails along straight into the amp. But as soon as the signal reaches to that frequency the resistive/capacitive characteristic of the connector starts to take effect and starts to attenuate the signla. Anything above this frequency is attenuated such that at some point there will be no signal going into the amplifier because it will be shorted to the ground through the connector capacitance. Therefore we have high frequency loss.

Imagine you did not solder the signal cable but you crimped it into the connector and the copper got oxidised, you introduced another resistor in to the signal path. Or the cable broke and you twist joined it, taped it over and by time the joint oxidised. You introduced another resistance. And so on.

Now, I have used a very simple explanation to help you visualise what could the problem be at a connector junction. The signal obviously does not stop dead to zero (brick wall) at this cut off frequency. It gradually starts to fall and eventually is attenuated completely.

This cut off point is defined by a very simple formula. f= 1 / 2pi x C x R. If you know the resistance of this oxide layer and the capacitance of the connector then you can find the cut off frequency where this attentuation starts to take effect by smply re-arranging the formula.

If this cut off frequency happens to be above the audio frequency then theoretically you should not be able to detect any change in high frequency loss, because the logic is that you don't hear them anyway. Well, some of us will say yes I will and some of us will say no you won't. If the signal was a simple sine tone than you would not hear it. But things are different in music signals as they are composed of many different frequencies and their harmonics which all interact with each other.

So in terms of the connector what comes into play is the resistive value of the oxidisation because it will have direct bearing as per the above formula. You can clean the contacts and improve it.

Now this is all so called the objective part of the story. How do we bridge it to subjective part . Assume I walked in to your room and cleaned the contacts completely. We calculate the cut off frequency and the mathematics say 25KHz. I'll listen to you because that is close. But it says 50KHz. We'll have a tough time there in agreeing. So we take a listening test. We base the criteria not objectively but subjectively too as the test is just as subjective as the objective. Then we get good ears from every walks of life, put them in a room and carry out the test. If the overwhelming majority does not detect then we accept that. If it is opposite then we accept that too. If it is close then there is something there that we have to explore. But what fundamentally we'll have is an objective data at the end. By saying that I don't dismiss subjective view. When they work together they produce a result which is objective. But if you look at the claim from a totaly subjective point of view by dismissing objective view (which incidentally does not have to be), then not only you are just as bad as the objective who dismiss subjective, but you are also creating anarchy. Eventually there becomes no boundary to logic.

Sorry I have to go now but I'll catch up with you tomorrow.

Steve Toy
23-07-2010, 19:44
Good post Cemal. I'll give a more detailed response later. (Un)fortunately, pub beckons :cool:

aquapiranha
23-07-2010, 20:30
Great to see a well reasoned debate going on here without the usual ' you must be deaf ' type arguments. I will watch with interest.

Effem
23-07-2010, 21:06
Hi Cemal,

Your explanations will apply to cables that have seen a lot of use and in an undisturbed state, so yes indeed a pull out and re-insertion of an RCA plug will act as a contact scrub. Very plausible and no doubt very objectively measurable too.

A wonderful explanation too about the effects of oxidisation and resistance there as well, but way off beam to the subject of cable burn in which by and large occurs in brand new unused cables.

The fundamental problem with burn in is, not all cables have this burn in phenomena to begin with and catching one of the buggers in the act that DO, when it does it, is harder still because it is a one shot opportunity.

My take on it is that pure silver cables more than any other type exhibit the trait and solid cored conductor pure silver cables more so. It is also exponentially incremented, so by the time you have whacked a test probe on it and twiddled some knobs, a serious percentage has already passed you by and by it's exponential nature, harder to detect in a sufficient quantity of the phenomena thereafter which could be spread over many hours.

I'm sorry to say this, but you are selecting the "best fit" objective solution and attempting translating that towards how we are describing the burn in phenomena, instead of doing it the other way round, or being as honest as I am in saying "I am Donald Ducked if I know what causes it"

Clive
23-07-2010, 21:43
I agree that solid silver cable changes significantly. I've had silver cables sound unbearable for the first 10 to 50 hours, it's especially bad when it's a tonearm cable as the current involved is so low such that burn-in takes ages. Most other cables don't seem to burn-in IME.

YNWaN
23-07-2010, 22:55
In fairness, my previous 'anti' cable burn-in does not include the solid silver cables Clive refers to as I have had very little experience of such cables.

AlanS
23-07-2010, 23:07
And now for something completely different.

Rather than having the I can hear it posts, some dedicated persons do the following. I guess it would only be of use for interconnect or mains leads observations.

Obtain a new cable you believe you experience burn-in with. Record some tracks to lossless files within the first hour of cable use. Either periodically or if you know the time it takes for this cable to burn-in wait until then and burn another lossless file (using the same tracks).

Post before and after on this forum, perhaps not identifying which is which. Members download and form their views as to whether they notice any differences (and what).

It is the nearest you are going to get to looking at the same thing (visually).

Lets see if the experiences of a poster of pairs of files are shared by others when listening to the same thing i.e. on the same system that does reveal differences.

Those posts could also be used to silence/focus new threads that address the cables topic

Stratmangler
23-07-2010, 23:16
And now for something completely different.

Rather than having the I can hear it posts, some dedicated persons do the following. I guess it would only be of use for interconnect or mains leads observations.

Obtain a new cable you believe you experience burn-in with. Record some tracks to lossless files within the first hour of cable use. Either periodically or if you know the time it takes for this cable to burn-in wait until then and burn another lossless file (using the same tracks).

Post before and after on this forum, perhaps not identifying which is which. Members download and form their views as to whether they notice any differences (and what).

It is the nearest you are going to get to looking at the same thing (visually).

Lets see if the experiences of a poster of pairs of files are shared by others when listening to the same thing i.e. on the same system that does reveal differences.

Those posts could also be used to silence/focus new threads that address the cables topic

This is a very well outlined experiment, and removes the touchy feely bollocks that frequently goes on with such matters.

If there really is a change in cable characteristics with burn in then things would be readily audible in a recording.

Marco
23-07-2010, 23:24
I agree, Chris - presuming one can discern such differences via the Internet, through the artifice of cheapo computer speakers on a laptop or whatever ;)

The differences, sonically, between a 'burnt-in' cable and one that isn't, are likely to be rather more subtle than the 'needle drops' you're used to analysing, showing the sonic signature between various T/Ts.......

Still, I'd like to hear the results! :)

Marco.

AlanS
23-07-2010, 23:26
This is a very well outlined experiment, and removes the touchy feely bollocks that frequently goes on with such matters.

If there really is a change in cable characteristics with burn in then things would be readily audible in a recording.

Thanks for your positive reception of the idea.

I don't have a view either way but have never observed a change due to burn-in too many other factors affect how I hear something. Not a defining list but mood, time of day, weather (air pressure/sunlight/wind) to name a few. I am conscious that I am not the same person each day and my environment isn't either. If someone can provide some examples I am happy to be open to observing the burn-in effect.

AlanS
23-07-2010, 23:34
I agree, Chris - presuming one can discern such differences via the Internet, through the artifice of cheapo computer speakers on a laptop or whatever ;)

The differences, sonically, between a 'burnt in' cable and one that isn't, are likely to be rather more subtle than needle drops showing the sonic signature between various T/Ts.......

Still, I'd like to hear the results! :)

Marco.

The files to be downloaded and played through your own system (assumes you have a DAC and software to feed the file to the DAC) not played over cheapo equipment as suggested some may do.

If the differences are so subtle then we have the answer before listening to anything. Some people are just not into some levels of subtlety. It is an entirely subjective experience perhaps like the finer points of some wines or whiskies.

Stratmangler
23-07-2010, 23:46
I agree, Chris - presuming one can discern such differences via the Internet, through the artifice of cheapo computer speakers on a laptop or whatever ;)

The differences, sonically, between a 'burnt-in' cable and one that isn't, are likely to be rather more subtle than the 'needle drops' you're used to analysing, showing the sonic signature between various T/Ts.......

Still, I'd like to hear the results! :)

Marco.

The fact that the files are posted on the internet is of no consequence - quality wise there is no difference between you accessing files I'd posted on the 'net and files I'd send you on a CD.

The limiting factor is likely to be the A/D interfacing of the computer - I, like you, have an EMU0202 USB ADC/DAC, and it is far superior to the inbuilt stuff on either of my PCs.
Results of vinyl transcriptions I've done since fitting the big rubber band you sent to me (thanks again) to my Thorens TD125 are that the band makes a big, big difference, it's an improvement, and what's more it is a consistant and repeatable effect.

The other limiting factor is going to be playing this stuff back on the computer - you'd need to either become conversant with burning up CDs (Dinosaur approach), or try and work some kind of computer playback into your system.
I use a Squeezebox, so I don't listen to this stuff using the computer's interfaces.

Marco
23-07-2010, 23:49
Hi Alan,


The files to be downloaded and played through your own system (assumes you have a DAC and software to feed the file to the DAC) not played over cheapo equipment as suggested some may do.


I'm not sure that I have what's necessary, so what's needed exactly? Normally I just listen to downloaded files people post on my laptop.


If the differences are so subtle then we have the answer before listening to anything. Some people are just not into some levels of subtlety. It is an entirely subjective experience perhaps like the finer points of some wines or whiskies.

Some may indeed perceive it that way. We're definitely not talking 'night & day' sonic differences here (especially with interconnect 'burn-in'), therefore the effect could be somewhat dliluted during the transfer of files into the computer domain, and then playback from such....

Unfortunately it's likely to be a flawed test, but definitely worth trying anyway :)

However, the effect of 'burn-in' can be significant with the right cable. It's also that last few percent when tuning a system, in my experience, which is often the difference between having merely good sound, and a great sound.

Therefore, I think such subtlety is important; especially in a system belonging to others and me which is genuinely wide-open, unfailingly musical, and set-up to reveal the most minute of details.

Marco.

Marco
23-07-2010, 23:52
The limiting factor is likely to be the A/D interfacing of the computer - I, like you, have an EMU0202 USB ADC/DAC, and it is far superior to the inbuilt stuff on either of my PCs.
Results of vinyl transcriptions I've done since fitting the big rubber band you sent to me (thanks again) to my Thorens TD125 are that the band makes a big, big difference, it's an improvement, and what's more it is a consistant and repeatable effect.

The other limiting factor is going to be playing this stuff back on the computer - you'd need to either become conversant with burning up CDs (Dinosaur approach), or try and work some kind of computer playback into your system.
I use a Squeezebox, so I don't listen to this stuff using the computer's interfaces.

I can't disagree with that, but it sounds problematic and likely to skew results compared to the effect someone hears with cable 'burn-in' in their system at home......... Like I said, worth a go though!

Glad the rubber band is doing its stuff! :)

Marco.

Sahib
24-07-2010, 12:48
Just chiming in before going to collect my son.

I am keeping my distance from the cable burn in issue which I have tested subjectively many times before and I believe strongly no such effect exists. From a technical point of view it never held water anyhow.

However, I have just read the posts and although out of topic I noted an important point which takes me back to the issue of mechanical vibration entering the audio chain.

As it was suggested previously the mechanical vibration entering the audio chain through the active solid state components, such as diodes, transistors and ICs is not a go area. On exteremely high gains if you tap them perhaps but not by having the amplifier on your tabletop. And we do not have this exteremely high gain in any amplifiers in home audio. If it was a highly sensitive instrumentation amplifier such the ones used in medical devices then perhaps.

The capacitor is the same. You can tap on it and experience thump. The gain again has to be pretty high. And also do not forget, although it may sound like a small tap to you, the force that you are hitting the capacitor with is very high and proportionaly equivalent force reaching the capacitor through the tabletop is next to impossible.

However, I arrive at a point which is the turntable. What you have there is a mechanical coupling by the stylus and the vinyl. This is obviously a no brainer. A mechanical vibration through the solid surface will reach to the point where stylus meets the vinyl and through the cartridge get into the signal chain and be amplified through the amp. Minimising the contact point surfaces between the turntable and the solid surface such as the table top will equally minimise this vibration. So rubber feet will greatly help. I am sure I am not the first one to think about it but you can even have small bicycle tyres under your turntable.

Joe
24-07-2010, 13:15
To my mind there are several stages of experiencing cable burn-in:

1) You hear it yourself, but aren't bothered if others don't, or why it happens

2) You hear it yourself, and want others to acknowledge that they hear it

3) You hear it, others hear it, and you want the effect independently verified, eg by the use of a control group

4) As 3, but you also want a scientific explanation for the effect.

The trouble is that people want to go from 1) to 4): 'I hear cable burn-in, so it must be a real effect, it must be measurable and there must be a scientific explanation'.

Ali Tait
24-07-2010, 13:25
Perhaps it's not the cable,but the interface of phono plug to socket changing resistance over time.

Dave Hewitt
24-07-2010, 13:52
Hi,anyone tried using their expensive mains lead to power the kettle a few times? Also it cant be that hard to knock up a circuit to load an interconnect at a few volts amps to see if there is an improvement to the sound of it.
Dave.

YNWaN
24-07-2010, 14:20
I remember reading a report from a well recognised capacitor manufacturer that had looked into microphonic effects on capacitors. They concluded (as I remember) that capacitors were not microphonic as such; but they did ring from the signal passing through them. In fact, they concluded that the damping of this internal resonance largely accounted for the noted sound difference between like capacitors.

Marco
24-07-2010, 14:44
To my mind there are several stages of experiencing cable burn-in:

1) You hear it yourself, but aren't bothered if others don't, or why it happens


I'm firmly (and very happily) in the above camp! :)

But for the sake of interesting discussion, I don't mind 3) and 4) being suitably explored.

Marco.

Steve Toy
24-07-2010, 14:48
The effects of reducing microphony in components is audible and repeatable.

Just hearing a thud is only part of the story - that's a lot of microphony.

I'm talking about much lower levels that do nevertheless raise the noise floor and thereby reduce dynamic contrast.

Reduce the level of vibration feedback in the hi-fi chain and the noise floor drops.

The noisefloor is an almost abstract concept in audio, perhaps even a misnomer because what it refers to is a threshold below which the minutae of detail present on a recording are simply not reproduced or heard through the speakers. I don't know how to explain it in scientific terms and I'm not going to try but I have experienced the effect of reducing microphony and the resulting increase in detail. I've also heard the opposite where this threshold is raised and low level detail is masked.


Think not only of the cliche of inky blackness but also unexpected transients on a recording, i.e. percussive strikes having a greater element of surprise subjectively and a sense of the start of a note played or sung coming from nowhere.


This heightens the involvement and enjoyment factor of listening to recorded music. Achieving such results without being aware of the science behind it is what makes this process an art as much as science.

Sahib
24-07-2010, 18:49
Steve,

You can't explain it in a better scientific way than this. Your point is perfectly valid.

I am sure you don't need to hear it from me but I would say always keep the factor "amplitude" in your mind when you are analysing the sound level. That is your anchore. Your one foot is clamped to this while the other one explores the surroundings, but you always know what your reference is. And your reference is the lowest amplitude that you can perceive.

There are of course exceptions where people with exceptional abilities can detect levels way beyond the ordinary, run of the mill human being. My son is autistic. He has great musical abilities that sometimes stunns us. I am sure he has more than that but at the moment his interest is not in that direction. If he gets into the music business I am sure he'll have golden ears. I'll give you an example of one of his other abilities. His sense of place and direction. He was about five and I took him to Istanbul as we always go. We were walking to the ferryboat terminal which is about a mile from my mum's house. Half way through I took a picture of him walking with his baloons in his hand. The following year we went back. We were walking to the ferries again and at the very point that I took his photograph, and I am talking about a couple of inches accuracy here, he said daddy you took my picture here. Now what are the chances of a child of six years remembering an event and the place in that accuracy that happened a year ago? It was scary. So, how do we know this boy can not detect the level of signals that we are not suppose to detect under normal conditions. So I have an open mind to a lot of things which fall into subjective area. But as it stands I have to clamp my one foot onto something to refer to. And that is the minimum amplitude level that I can detect. This will not be very difficult to establish foryourself even in your living room. A sine oscillator will help you.

Now, automatically one will say, aha! the music signals are complex and testing your hearing level with a sine wave is meaningless. One would be wrong. All the soundwaves when broken down comes down to a single sine wave. So the sine wave is the purest sound we can get and that is why we use it for certain tests, as there is no other.

Take a square wave. The reed of the clarinet produces a sound pretty close to a square wave. Square wave is composed of all the odd harmonics of the fundamental. The fundamental is a sine wave. All the odd harmonics are individual sine waves added onto the fundamental. Fundamental is the strongest in amplitude. The higher the harmonics gets the lower their amplitudes become.

Imagine you are listening to a program material that is the recorded music and it happens to be a clarinet. You minimise the physical contact of your amplifier with the table top by applying say a rubber mat and detect change in the sound of clarinet. Say it becomes brighter and thinner. It becomes brighter because some other sound that muddled it is removed. It becomes thinner because the harmonics that were not heard are started to be heard.

Now, it will be very labour intensive but not particularly difficult to test and quantify this change. Using a spectrum analyser and a filter you can seperate the noise from the program material and establish its level. You can strip the clarinet sound right down to its fundamental and work out the levels of each harmonic. Say if the change you detect happens to be at a level that is below your hearing level then you have to think about the whole thing very carefully.

I realise it has been a pretty long post just to get to the point but I wanted to stress the importance of our hearing level. I will discuss every single aspect of a claim but I will refer to the simple hearing level. If the claim points me in the direction that we are dealing with levels that are way beyond our hearing abilities, then I'll come off it. Although we have been referring to vibration here the main topic the cable burn in hence and the change it introduces is my stop. I come off the bus.

Because the only factor it can change to improve a cable's conductance is making change in its resistance. As it is claimed with that burn in process, if the electrons are zapped into the areas within the conductor, then the areas that were not being used previosuly are started to be used, hence the resistance is lowered. Measure the resistance. Is there any change? A good ohmmeter that measures cable resistance (or contact resistance) down to micro ohms level costs around £500. It is not very difficult to do. My guess is won't make a dime difference.

I am aware of other claims in terms of micro diodes etc. in a conductor. These do not hold a drip of water either. I looked into it. However, by the way, to the surprise of many scientifically minded people this has a theoretical possibility. I was surprised to hear it from my wife's cousin too when I asked him. He said that, yes it is possible for a copper conductor to exhibit semiconductor characteristics in its cyrstal structure boundaries. But this should not fool you. One, they will be shunted, which means short circuited. (Imagine short circuiting a diode or any component. Its function ceases) Two, if for some reason one was not then to be able to detect its effect it would require to be tested at nitrogen level temperature. And even then it would not be so easy and there is no possibility of a creature on this earth to detect the change. It is impossible. So that comes down to the level of change again.

Marco
25-07-2010, 00:32
Hi Cemal,


There are of course exceptions where people with exceptional abilities can detect levels way beyond the ordinary, run of the mill human being.


That may be the case, but I certainly don't believe that either Steve or I come into that category, even though we can both clearly hear the effect of microphony in hi-fi equipment. His summary of his experience in that area mirrors my own.

I have both a question and a suggestion.... Here's the question first:

If the effect of microphony in equipment was demonstrated to you in such a way that you could clearly and indisputably hear it with your own ears, would you trust your ears and accept what you heard was genuine, or would you reject it because it doesn't conform to your current scientific knowledge?

And now for the suggestion:

My parents live in Glasgow, and I'm going up to visit them in couple of months. If you like, we could meet up and I could attempt to demonstrate to you, using your system, that hi-fi equipment is indeed susceptible to the effects of microphony and thus benefits, sonically, from being isolated from 'vibrational energy'.

I can do this in a number of ways either by bringing some things with me or altering the set up of your existing system in such a way that I'm confident you will quite easily hear the effect for yourself.

We can also do the 'kettle lead' vs. 'audiophile power lead' thing at the same time, if you like, as I'm confident I have a cable which will show exactly the sonic benefits of one specifically designed for audio purposes.

If this works, and I successfully demonstrate the effect, you will have learnt something very interesting, which as a scientist you can then investigate further and attempt to find the relevant mechanism responsible, and I will have proven a point. If it doesn't work, then you can smugly tell me, and everyone here, that you were right all along and that all this stuff is, as you call it, "warble".

In any case, it would also be good to meet up and listen to some tunes! :)

As far as I can see you have nothing to lose, so what do you say?

Marco.

Effem
25-07-2010, 06:51
The effects of reducing microphony in components is audible and repeatable.

Just hearing a thud is only part of the story - that's a lot of microphony.

I'm talking about much lower levels that do nevertheless raise the noise floor and thereby reduce dynamic contrast.

Reduce the level of vibration feedback in the hi-fi chain and the noise floor drops.

The noisefloor is an almost abstract concept in audio, perhaps even a misnomer because what it refers to is a threshold below which the minutae of detail present on a recording are simply not reproduced or heard through the speakers. I don't know how to explain it in scientific terms and I'm not going to try but I have experienced the effect of reducing microphony and the resulting increase in detail. I've also heard the opposite where this threshold is raised and low level detail is masked.


Think not only of the cliche of inky blackness but also unexpected transients on a recording, i.e. percussive strikes having a greater element of surprise subjectively and a sense of the start of a note played or sung coming from nowhere.


This heightens the involvement and enjoyment factor of listening to recorded music. Achieving such results without being aware of the science behind it is what makes this process an art as much as science.

Pretty much sums up my experience with isolation, especially with components you would least expect to be affected, like solid state amplifiers which by their definition should be immune. You could wallop them with a hammer and still produce no huge audible thumps or bangs unlike say a valve which you might expect a tap to reveal any microphony.

I first noticed this profound effect on a Rotel Michi power amp at one of my bakeoffs where the sound was boomy and indistinct until a dealer friend of mine put a set of cones under it and by crikey that pulled the sound together. Then he put put a Vertex Super Kinabulu support under it and the change was so dramatic I nearly got my cheque book out there and then to buy it off him, even though I couldn't afford it :)

At one of my recent bakeoffs Jerry brought along an Alesis power amp which sounded a different beast altogether with a a set of isolating stainless steel "cups" and balls that were custom for me made which transfer energy out of the amp and connect it to the rack.

Sahib
25-07-2010, 09:32
Hi Cemal,

If the effect of microphony in equipment was demonstrated to you in such a way that you could clearly and indisputably hear it with your own ears, would you trust your ears and accept what you heard was genuine, or would you reject it because it doesn't conform to your current scientific knowledge?



Hi Marco,

Let's clarify the fundamental. I do not dispute microphony in equipment. It is the certain claims of it that I find difficult to accept. But if I hear it then of course I would accept. Then we could look into the cause and try to bring rational explanations.




My parents live in Glasgow, and I'm going up to visit them in couple of months. If you like, we could meet up and I could attempt to demonstrate to you, using your system, that hi-fi equipment is indeed susceptible to the effects of microphony and thus benefits, sonically, from being isolated from 'vibrational energy'.

I can do this in a number of ways either by bringing some things with me or altering the set up of your existing system in such a way that I'm confident you will quite easily hear the effect for yourself.

We can also do the 'kettle lead' vs. 'audiophile power lead' thing at the same time, if you like, as I'm confident I have a cable which will show exactly the sonic benefits of one specifically designed for audio purposes.




Done. I am going on holiday and I'll be back on 17th August. Until the end of August I am up to my neck. But begining to mid September would be perfectly fine.





If this works, and I successfully demonstrate the effect, you will have learnt something very interesting, which as a scientist you can then investigate further and attempt to find the relevant mechanism responsible, and I will have proven a point. If it doesn't work, then you can smugly tell me, and everyone here, that you were right all along and that all this stuff is, as you call it, "warble".

In any case, it would also be good to meet up and listen to some tunes! :)

Marco.


Hold on here. I am not a scientist. I am just few steps ahead of some of you in terms of holding the soldering iron and that is not a big deal. I also get panicky from the word "smug". I hope I am not being smug. Anyhow, when we meet up we'll hopefully get to know each other better and you'll know I am not that kind of a guy.

Out of topic. You don't have an Italian connection do you?

Snoopdog
25-07-2010, 11:09
This is indeed an interesting discussion and very timely from my point of view in my current system investigations.

I regard my own sytem as pretty well sorted in terms of the fundamentals of mains supply/conditioning, cabling infrastructure, component supports and room treatment, however a recent read of the freebie Vertex 'Big Book' got me seriously thinking about the issue of vibration passed around the system from the very efficient metal cables that we all use.

I have recently employed a Vertex HiRez Roraima silver mains lead to get my power out of the AC socket and into my Vertex Elbrus balanced PSU. The HiRez Roraima makes some hefty claims about reducing EMI, RFI and absorbing vibration from the cable itself by one of their unique and novel boxes that are the Vertex trademark.

I don't want this to sound like an advertisement for a particular brand but I respect the theory and design considerations that have gone into the Vertex range and have peronally experienced the Vertex demonstration of cable microphony which is their party trick using a coin and stethoscope to listen to vibration trasmission along a length of ordinary cable compared to their own offerings.

The rest of my mains loom is currently MusicWorks Recoil cables customised with the ultra-bling Furutech 13amp and IEC connectors which have bee the susbject of debate on this forum.

Indeed, it was the audition of a Vertex Roraima HiRez mains cable nearly 18 months ago which inspired me to fit the Furutech connectors to my existing Music Works cables.

The price of admission for the Vertex HiRez mains lead was prohibitive at that time (£2800 for a 2M power cord!) but I remembered what it brought to the party and when an ex-dem item became recently available for £900, I snapped it up!

Curious as to what other Vertex components could do to improve my system further, I have been kindly loaned by a dealer, a box of Vertex goodies which I have been lending a critical ear to this past week.

The item that I am most excited about and particularly germane to this thread, is the Vertex Silver Moncayo speaker link, supplied as a pair, and intended to be installed between the users own speaker cables and speaker terminals (see picture below).

The idea is that considerable vibration is created by the speaker operated at volume, which is then effectively transmitted, via the speaker cables back to the amplifier and in turn via interconnects and mains cables around the rest of the system causing intermodulation distortion and significant smearing of the sound.

Vertex's own Moncayo speaker cables employ two such vibration absorbtion modules at each end to limit the amount of vibration passed from the speaker back to the amplifier and so on.

For those like me, who are happy with their chosen speaker cables, Vertex have made available an effective vibration blocker to prevent damaging vibration transmission from the speaker terminals. In my own case with the use of MIT Magnum MA network boxes and speaker lead 'tails' the benefits have been demonstrable and a significant improvement in the system presentation.

I intend to explore further with utilising Vertex mains cables between various components in the quest to reduce micrphony in my system.

As an aside and in keeping with the question of 'cable burn in', last year I borrowed from a friend, an Audioharma Cable Cooker which I then proceeded to 'cook' my mains cables/connectors and significantly a new Graham silver tonearm lead for a week.

All I can say (before I am condemned to be burnt at the stake) is that I am a believer and after cable burn in the system presentation was noticeably more relaxed. A subtle improvement, but audible all the same.

Snoopdog
25-07-2010, 11:17
Oops! Internet Explorer failed as I was trying to upload my picture:steam:

Here it is:)

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/crystalref/011-2.jpg

Mark Grant
25-07-2010, 11:44
We also have test equipment and again I can assure you that anything that can be perceived by human sensory system can be tested. At least anything we hear can be tested.



A question and I am not trying to cause an argument :)

How are you measuring the sound quality emitted from a pair of speakers with oscilloscope ?

Are you taking electrical measurements on the cable feeding the speakers etc rather than measuring actual in room sound that has been emmitted by the speakers ?


(I am neutral with cable burn in, not concerned either way really :) )

Mark.

DSJR
25-07-2010, 11:55
I have heard the effects of proper isolation, but only certain products (excluding turntables) seem susceptible to this I found.

Please remember guys that "fine detail" and "inky blackness" is only around 30 - 40db down on the signal. All cone-dome speakers distort at 40 - 60db down and this will mask anything going on with regards to microphony I reckon.

aquapiranha
25-07-2010, 12:03
Vertex's own Moncayo speaker cables employ two such vibration absorbtion modules at each end to limit the amount of vibration passed from the speaker back to the amplifier and so on.

For those like me, who are happy with their chosen speaker cables, Vertex have made available an effective vibration blocker to prevent damaging vibration transmission from the speaker terminals. In my own case with the use of MIT Magnum MA network boxes and speaker lead 'tails' the benefits have been demonstrable and a significant improvement in the system presentation.



I have problems understanding how ADDING electronics and/ or other devices to the speaker cable is somehow able to remove 'vibration' from the cable, assuming this phenomenon even exists. I would like to belive that if you put something in the passive cable, it isnt adding anything. Personally, I like to keep things as simple as I can (notwithstanding the fact I am using an active crossover at the moment) and have in the past used 'no crossover' whatsoever into full range drivers.

I am not casting aspertions, I just dont personally believe, and have never experienced this 'effect' and don't intend lining the pockets of vertex to prove myself correct. :rolleyes:

Marco
25-07-2010, 12:19
Hi Cemal,


Let's clarify the fundamental. I do not dispute microphony in equipment. It is the certain claims of it that I find difficult to accept. But if I hear it then of course I would accept. Then we could look into the cause and try to bring rational explanations.


That sounds good to me! I believe that we could all hear the effect of microphony in equipment ('golden eared' or not) as long as:

a) the test system has the requisite resolution to identify it, and:

b) the person conducting the listening test outlines the nature of the effect in more detail once the listener has identified it for himself or herself first without being prompted, and then later demonstrates it again more effectively when the listener has a better handle on exactly how music reproduced is affected.

I believe that the effect is always present and heard by everyone; it's just that it's missed by some people because they're concentrating on other things.


Done. I am going on holiday and I'll be back on 17th August. Until the end of August I am up to my neck. But begining to mid September would be perfectly fine.


Nice one - I look forward to that. PM me with a suitable date and I'll put it into my diary :)


Hold on here. I am not a scientist. I am just few steps ahead of some of you in terms of holding the soldering iron and that is not a big deal.


Lol - no worries, so you don't own a white lab coat then and have a mad hairdoo, like you've had one electric shock too many? :lol:


I also get panicky from the word "smug". I hope I am not being smug. Anyhow, when we meet up we'll hopefully get to know each other better and you'll know I am not that kind of a guy.


Nah, I don't think you're smug at all, which makes a refreshing change from the blinkered and belligerent 'objectivists' I normally have to deal with when it comes to these matters. That was just me being funny!


Out of topic. You don't have an Italian connection do you?

Yes, I sure do.... I'm part of the Glaswegian Italian mafia! :eyebrows:

Incidentally, where in Glasgow are you? My parents live on the south side in Thornliebank.

Marco.

Steve Toy
25-07-2010, 12:29
Steve/Snoop, interesting.. That cable interface, could it further benefit from being plonked on a ReJig?

Snoopdog
25-07-2010, 12:31
I have problems understanding how ADDING electronics and/ or other devices to the speaker cable is somehow able to remove 'vibration' from the cable, assuming this phenomenon even exists. I would like to belive that if you put something in the passive cable, it isnt adding anything. Personally, I like to keep things as simple as I can (notwithstanding the fact I am using an active crossover at the moment) and have in the past used 'no crossover' whatsoever into full range drivers.

I am not casting aspertions, I just dont personally believe, and have never experienced this 'effect' and don't intend lining the pockets of vertex to prove myself correct. :rolleyes:

Steve

There are no electronics ADDED to the signal path with the Moncayo Speaker Links I am auditioning. The cable remains unbroken as it passes through the 'box'. Not having looked inside, I couldn't describe what is in there, but it is heavy and the theory/design is well described on the Vertex website http://www.vertexaq.com/pdf/Speaker%20Leads%20PDF%20Jan%2010%20v2.0.pdf

I agree with your desire to keep things simple, but I approach all potential purchases with an open mind. I try it and if the item delivers a SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT, not just an audible change and the price is right, I buy.

I am not promoting Vertex products but Steve Elford has an established background in his chosen field and I believe that he has pioneered research into an area of hi fi system performance that has been hithertoo neglected by the competition.

I believe that Vertex dealers will offer you a 30 day money back guarantee if their products fail to float your boat.

Snoopdog
25-07-2010, 12:34
Steve/Snoop, interesting.. That cable interface, could it further benefit from being plonked on a ReJig?

Steve

I am trying that very idea this afternoon:)

aquapiranha
25-07-2010, 12:37
Steve

There are no electronics ADDED to the signal path with the Moncayo Speaker Links I am auditioning. The cable remains unbroken as it passes through the 'box'. Not having looked inside, I couldn't describe what is in there, but it is heavy and the theory/design is well described on the Vertex website http://www.vertexaq.com/pdf/Speaker%20Leads%20PDF%20Jan%2010%20v2.0.pdf

I agree with your desire to keep things simple, but I approach all potential purchases with an open mind. I try it and if the item delivers a SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT, not just an audible change and the price is right, I buy.

I am not promoting Vertex products but Steve Elford has an established background in his chosen field and I believe that he has pioneered research into an area of hi fi system performance that has been hithertoo neglected by the competition.

I believe that Vertex dealers will offer you a 30 day money back guarantee if their products fail to float your boat.


I am not knocking your choice, but I do find it strange that you would spend a very significant amount of money on a box of tricks without knowing what is inside it even. I remeber seeing a report on one of these in-line speaker 'box' thingies that were built into a VERY expensive cable, and all that was in there was a cheap cap and resistor....

Snoopdog
25-07-2010, 12:51
I am not knocking your choice, but I do find it strange that you would spend a very significant amount of money on a box of tricks without knowing what is inside it even. I remeber seeing a report on one of these in-line speaker 'box' thingies that were built into a VERY expensive cable, and all that was in there was a cheap cap and resistor....


A very curious stand point in my view! Do you really insist on knowing exactly what components are inside every piece of equipment before you consider purchasing?

My criteria for purchase has always been, if it delivers a SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT and the price is right, I buy. I don't need to know how something is manufactured if it simply delivers an audible improvement.

I don't think the detailed explanation is on the Vertex website but the FREE book (just ring them and they will post you a copy) describes in detail (with schematics) the design of the acoustic 'labrynth' built into their acoustic absorbtion boxes. It is the same principle involved in their Kinabalu platforms where the intention is to 'drain' energy from a component via a single contact point where it is disappated by the labrynth.

The 'report' you refer to was where someone opened a 'box' on a Transparent cable only to find some cheap electrical components and glue-like substance inside.

MIT openly publish photographs of the contents of their network boxes and attempt to explain the theory on their website.

aquapiranha
25-07-2010, 12:56
A very curious stand point in my view! Do you really insist on knowing exactly what components are inside every piece of equipment before you consider purchasing?

My criteria for purchase has always been, if it delivers a SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT and the price is right, I buy. I don't need to know how something is manufactured if it simply delivers an audible improvement.

I don't think the detailed explanation is on the Vertex website but the FREE book (just ring them and they will post you a copy) describes in detail (with schematics) the design of the acoustic 'labrynth' built into their acoustic absorbtion boxes. It is the same principle involved in their Kinabalu platforms where the intention is to 'drain' energy from a component via a single contact point where it is disappated by the labrynth.

The 'report' you refer to was where someone opened a 'box' on a Transparent cable only to find some cheap electrical components and glue-like substance inside.

MIT openly publish photographs of the contents of their network boxes and attempt to explain the theory on their website.

Hi Steve. I have read quite a bit of the info on the vertex site in the past when it was mentioned a while ago. There is nothing on there that can be proven, it is all just pure conjecture and assumption. But, if you believe it improves your system then more power to you.

Transparent, that was it thanks, I will have a read of their explanation if I can find it cheers.

aquapiranha
25-07-2010, 13:19
anyway, back OT. If cable burn in is an actual phenomena, when does it actually end? days? weeks? years? I ask because if it continues, then surely you would reach a point where you would have a cable that bears little or no resemblance to the one you bought in the first place?

Sahib
25-07-2010, 13:27
Yes, I sure do.... I'm part of the Glaswegian Italian mafia! :eyebrows:

Incidentally, where in Glasgow are you? My parents live on the south side in Thornliebank.

Marco.


Oh shit! Just leave the guns at home will you? My wife is half Italian. We live in the West End, Byres Road. My late mother-in-law and her brother/sister used to own the famous Grovner Caffee. They are Zanottis.

Marco
25-07-2010, 13:35
Hi Cemal,

Byres Rd, eh? You must be a posh boy! :eyebrows:

snapper
25-07-2010, 13:36
My late mother-in-law and her brother/sister used to own the famous Grovner Caffee. They are Zanottis.

:eek:

During the '90's and '00's I used to eat at the Grosvenor Cafe 3 or 4 times a week.

IMO part of the West End died when the Grosvenor closed.

Joe
25-07-2010, 13:44
I had an interesting discussion with my children a few weeks back on the subject of ghosts. One is definitely a 'believer'; she has seen a ghost herself, and is fascinated by the subject. The other is an absolute non-believer. I asked her how she would react if she saw a ghost. "I'd know I was hallucinating' she replied. So, if you start off with an open mind, the same experience will have a different effect on you than if you take a more sceptical approach.

Personally I've never seen a ghost, or heard the effect of cable burn-in, but I don't draw the conclusion that those who have had such experiences are lying or deluded.

aquapiranha
25-07-2010, 13:49
Joe, that is an interesting analogy.

I was thinking about cable burn in and I have come to the conclusion that ultimatly, if it exists, you are going to be listening to a totally different cable to the one you auditioned at the dealer, no? And also, when taliking about it, why is it always a positive thing? If a cable can change it's character in the space of a few days or weeks, why does it always seem for the better? funny that.

Joe
25-07-2010, 13:53
I also wonder why cables aren't sold with the burn-in done, otherwise how can the purchaser know what he's buying?. I believe Nordost dealers can 'toast' cables, but they charge (no pun intended) for the service.

aquapiranha
25-07-2010, 13:56
I also wonder why cables aren't sold with the burn-in done, otherwise how can the purchaser know what he's buying?. I believe Nordost dealers can 'toast' cables, but they charge (no pun intended) for the service.

I know you can have them 'pre-burnt in' but for how long?

Can't believe anyone would pay for such a thing, considering it may not even exist. But then, that is my opinion.

Joe
25-07-2010, 13:59
I know you can have them 'pre-burnt in' but for how long?

From the HiFi Collective site:

'Burning in cables can be a frustrating task, with some cables taking weeks of normal use to reach their full potential. Just when you think things have settle down, strange things can begin to happen!!! So we at Hi-Fi Collective are offering a Cable toasting service which is available on all audio cables including interconnects (phono and XLR terminated) and speaker cables. We use the highly regarded Nordost CBID-1 for toasting. We charge £15.00 exc. vat and carriage, for a 72 hours session. This in our experience is sufficient for most cables to reach their ultimate performance.'

Snoopdog
25-07-2010, 14:02
just how the hell od you get to the conclusion that I have no experience in these matters? are you omnipitent? I have always approached many things and not just in audio with a healthy dose of caution. Others, it seems will accept the word of others without question.

when was the last time you read some of the utter bunkum on some of these manufacturers websites? utter tosh the lot of it! Quantum physice to explain sky high cable prices? hilarious!

Steve you have your belief system and I have mine. If you want to spend thousands on bits of plastic that I could have knocked up in the garden shed to rest your 'quantum seismic super linear ofc elctron misfire' mains leads on then that is up to you, just don't expect everyone else to do the same? after all, were they all that fab we would all be using them and there would be no need for this discussion would there?

anyway, back OT. If cable burn in is an actual phenomena, when does it actually end? days? weeks? years? I ask because if it continues, then surely you would reach a point where you would have a cable that bears little or no resemblance to the one you bought in the first place?

Steve

With regard to your last paragraph, there is some interesting information on the Audioharma website. This is the 'cable cooker' I borrowed from my friend last year.

http://www.audioexcellenceaz.com/cookerfaq.htm

aquapiranha
25-07-2010, 14:06
Steve

With regard to your last paragraph, there is some interesting information on the Audioharma website. This is the 'cable cooker' I borrowed from my friend last year.

http://www.audioexcellenceaz.com/cookerfaq.htm

Thanks Steve, I will have a read.

Steve Toy
25-07-2010, 14:26
Joe, good posts :)

Effem
25-07-2010, 16:05
If a cable can change it's character in the space of a few days or weeks, why does it always seem for the better? funny that.

The answer is simpler than you might think. If a cable behaved in that manner then it would not sell :eyebrows:

Any cable vendor worth their salt will prototype, test, test and then test some more before putting it on sale and for the life of me I cannot imagine a cable that sounds WORSE after burn in being a viable commercial proposition.

Sahib
25-07-2010, 18:20
A question and I am not trying to cause an argument :)

How are you measuring the sound quality emitted from a pair of speakers with oscilloscope ?

Are you taking electrical measurements on the cable feeding the speakers etc rather than measuring actual in room sound that has been emmitted by the speakers ?


(I am neutral with cable burn in, not concerned either way really :) )

Mark.


I am not.

Sound quality is subjective.

But that does not warrant one to go wild and have no boundaries.

Even to come to a subjective conclusion you must have objective criteria. Otherwise it is just a subjective view not a conclusion. Views do not produce results, conclusions do.

Let's go wild and assume that you sit in a jury of fanatically subjective group of people to decide on the best sounding speaker. They say we do not recognise any criteria, that is an objective shit. Pick the best speaker for us with your ears. You start to listen. You like one over another because it gives you deeper bass. Well, you set the criteria and it is damn objective. Then you come to me and say how come this has deeper bass. I measure it and I tell you why. It is also objective.

Now, with my above statement do not think I am favouring objective views or I am a objectivist. I do not and I am not. Because the life is not purely objective. Even the most objective person will have subjective in him or her. But what is important that even to come to a subjective conclusion you will require a criteria which itself is objective.



Steve

There are no electronics ADDED to the signal path with the Moncayo Speaker Links I am auditioning. The cable remains unbroken as it passes through the 'box'. Not having looked inside, I couldn't describe what is in there, but it is heavy and the theory/design is well described on the Vertex website http://www.vertexaq.com/pdf/Speaker%20Leads%20PDF%20Jan%2010%20v2.0.pdf

I agree with your desire to keep things simple, but I approach all potential purchases with an open mind. I try it and if the item delivers a SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT, not just an audible change and the price is right, I buy.




My view on your purchase would be that you are happy as a customer and he is as the seller and it is none of my business.

I have connected onto that company's web site to see what it is but my pc decided to go slow. My son is also jumping on my head to get onto play his game. So I'll log off just now and once I had a look at that web site I'll come back with comments.

goraman
25-07-2010, 21:16
This seems to be a good place to post this...
I ordered some Kimber PBJ wire and teflon braid ect... from a place in Canada 3 weeks ago. When ever I make a small cable I like to use this stuff because its great for the money.

I got sick of waiting for the mail mans donkey cart to drop my package so I built a cable from my spair parts crap drawers and some 18 awg multi strand A/C cord of very high quality.
I stripped the black sheilding away exposeing 3 wires and heavy strain releif.
I removed the wire and braded it.

Even the worst possible dilectric would have a capacitance in the nano farads in a six inch run so that was not a concern.
I used WBT 4% silver solder and a couple of Canary F12 1/8 3 pole stereo male conectors and some extra shrink tubeing.

I was stunned to find it sounded as if there was no cable at all.
No,roll off,and no colorization.
All for under $10.00 in spare crap.


http://www.aloaudio.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_39_49&products_id=93
My wire is not Crio treated but it uses the same F12's do you think you could hear a difference in a 6 inch cable?

Sahib
25-07-2010, 22:03
Hi Steve,
P.S Cemal. Byres Rd, eh? You must be a posh boy! :eyebrows:



Well, I am not sure about that. When I arrived at Byres Road twentyone years ago from London it was indeed quite a posh place to be in. But now the story is different. Broke students, drunks pissing on your door step, danger of skidding over puke and breaking your neck...


I have noticed an error in my previous post, corrected now.


I have also had a look at vertexaq.com. I have nothing against people making goods and selling them. What takes my attention is the amount of "not really true" claims. But, there you go, you can not correct all the wrongs of the life. When one starts to bullshit there comes a time one starts to believe his own bullshit. As a consumer it is your responsibility to find your way among them.

Marco
26-07-2010, 11:23
Thread pruned to revert discussion back to the OT.

Steve (T) has admitted that he read Aquapiranha's initial post wrongly, which caused the kafuffle, and will apologise for this.

As you were, chaps! :)

Marco.

Marco
26-07-2010, 11:26
Hi Cemal,


Well, I am not sure about that. When I arrived at Byres Road twentyone years ago from London it was indeed quite a posh place to be in. But now the story is different. Broke students, drunks pissing on your door step, danger of skidding over puke and breaking your neck...


I know what you mean.... Well I guess that's what happens when you let the oiks in! ;)

Anyway, I'm looking forward to meeting up in my old home town sometime in September. Like I said, PM me with a suggested date and I'll put it into my diary :)

Marco.

Steve Toy
26-07-2010, 11:39
Thread pruned to revert discussion back to the OT.

Steve (T) has admitted that he read Aquapiranha's initial post wrongly, which caused the kafuffle, and will apologise for this.


Yup, sorry to everyone for this in particular to Steve (Aquapiranha). Having got the wrong end of the stick things escalated but the origin of the problem was definitely with me.

Heart-felt apology here. No duress.

:o

Note to self: read carefully before responding even when loooking in from the f*%$£#* Blackberry although I don't wish to be blamin' me tools :eek:

goraman
26-07-2010, 12:32
Would running 120 volts through A/C cable burn it in?
Could an audio signal really affect it after that?

aquapiranha
26-07-2010, 15:54
Yup, sorry to everyone for this in particular to Steve (Aquapiranha). Having got the wrong end of the stick things escalated but the origin of the problem was definitely with me.

Heart-felt apology here. No duress.

:o

Note to self: read carefully before responding even when loooking in from the f*%$£#* Blackberry although I don't wish to be blamin' me tools :eek:

No problem Steve, water under the bridge... :)

aquapiranha
26-07-2010, 15:58
Jeff, I would have thought that any effect in the cable would be increased if the cable was longer? I am not sure of course, just supposition based on LCR.

I answer to your question re. 120V, I have no idea sorry.

Ali Tait
26-07-2010, 16:46
Would running 120 volts through A/C cable burn it in?
Could an audio signal really affect it after that?

Are you talking about running an interconnect at 120v? I wouldn't,the cable will not be specced for this voltage and you could get hurt!

goraman
26-07-2010, 22:11
Are you talking about running an interconnect at 120v? I wouldn't,the cable will not be specced for this voltage and you could get hurt!
Go back one and look at post #193.
I made a cable from 18 AWG 3 conductor used for extention cords and decrative lighting. It is rated for 120V my point is after a year of pushing 120 at 60hz. do you think any audio signal would do sqwat?(as far as break in).

Effem
27-07-2010, 08:30
Go back one and look at post #193.
I made a cable from 18 AWG 3 conductor used for extention cords and decrative lighting. It is rated for 120V my point is after a year of pushing 120 at 60hz. do you think any audio signal would do sqwat?(as far as break in).

Definately not

AlanS
27-07-2010, 10:36
Having had the storm pass can I refloat my suggestion in post 148?

If some dedicated soul(s) who have the facility to do so and experience what for them is significant cable burn-in produce a couple of lossless files a) when cable is new in it's first hour say and b) after the observed period of burn-in. They would have to be source/preamp interconnects or even mains cables at the source end.

Whilst my system may be far from the quality necessary to distinguish differences readily I am sure there are enough members with finer systems who would be able to detect differences.

Marco had doubts about these but I cannot see what his concerns are apart from unfamiliarity with the lossless file format in his own system. To anyone keeping music collections on a computer based system this is as valid as having an original and remastered version of an album - and I don't even have a system like that myself.

Whilst it is fine to talk/post and surmise/theorise the proof of the matter is in the hearing.

Cheers

Marco
27-07-2010, 11:14
Yes, let's go for this. My only concerns were, as the effect of 'burn-in' is subtle in comparison to even whole cable changes, then some of what is easily discernable in one's system at home could be diluted when transferred digitally into the computer domain.

However, there's only one way to find out! :)

Marco.

Effem
27-07-2010, 21:30
I still don't understand why cables are such a hot topic that gets argued over countless times :scratch:

Start a thread about tube rolling and the sceptics and cynics offer not a peep of comment, yet that same subject is every bit as subjective as an observation of cable performance because I haven't set seen a single anaylsis of why one valve should sound any different to another and the specs (when there are any) don't give any indicator either.

DACs, amps, CD players and turntables all sound different, yet those components don't get a handbagging each time they are mentioned. They too are all subjectively designed and refined, so nobody could ever convince me that they are the finished article straight off plan from a purely objective design brief.

Is it so hard to accept that cables are but a mere component in a whole chain of components and that each and every component WILL have an effect upon the final perceived sound?

AlanS
27-07-2010, 22:31
I still don't understand why cables are such a hot topic that gets argued over countless times :scratch:

Start a thread about tube rolling and the sceptics and cynics offer not a peep of comment, yet that same subject is every bit as subjective as an observation of cable performance because I haven't set seen a single anaylsis of why one valve should sound any different to another and the specs (when there are any) don't give any indicator either.

DACs, amps, CD players and turntables all sound different, yet those components don't get a handbagging each time they are mentioned. They too are all subjectively designed and refined, so nobody could ever convince me that they are the finished article straight off plan from a purely objective design brief.

Is it so hard to accept that cables are but a mere component in a whole chain of components and that each and every component WILL have an effect upon the final perceived sound?

You may have overlooked that this thread is cable burn-in not do cables sound different. Do cables go through a burn-in process like the more often recognised components like valves, cartridges which from the moment of first use go through a process of adjustment from manufactured state to used. Valves as I am sure you well know will have filament changes just by applying a working voltage, similarly the anodes will alter due to the electronic stream applied. Cartridges - stylus lapping in to vinyl groves and suspension becoming used by the vibrations of stylus/cantilever. One member has been enthused by what he believed was the burning in of his DAC over a period of weeks.

Unlike the more complex components named above a cable is a simple static construction and does not experience much by way of physical stressors as it is used so to my mind it has less opportunity to go through a burn-in. I am not saying it does not just that whilst a car engine runs in, tyres, and countless other mechanical parts of a car run in to different degrees a gear knob for example doesn't (it just plain wears out over a long period of time) and it doesn't alter in the way it performs it's function.

I think Marco has flagged a key point - these changes are subtle and may not be recorded and reveal by the playback process. I accept the subtle element perhaps thats why I have never observed cable burn-in - I am too busy listening to the music to recognise it. But I am happy to listen to examples of where there is a more noticeable change. Others can also be directed to these examples whenever the subject is raised again as I am sure it will be.

Best

Steve Toy
28-07-2010, 01:35
The jury is still out for me too on this cable burn-in issue.

I've witnessed my own system have ups and down in the past to which I become more receptive when in analytical mode as opposed to just kick-back-and-listen mode but since having dedicated mains + star earth in the garden I derive far greater consistency.

Furthermore I've introduced no fewer than four different sets of i/cs into my system since May as I've been evaluating different connectors on Mark Grant G1000HDs and the changes I've heard have been consistent to each i/c wihout any perceptible fluctuation in performance while each i/c has been in place.

Each i/c has been left in place for around four weeks at a stretch without being disturbed. This has allowed me to evaluate each on a long-term basis and to rule out the moving target implication of the possible phenomenon of burn-in or simply disturbing the setup during that period.

I can also rule out the possibility of improvements being derived from simply cleaning contacts each time I swap interconnects because the sonic changes each time I've made a swap have not been consistent at all.

I find myself concurring with Mike's OP of this rather protracted thread.

goraman
28-07-2010, 02:14
I will only say this,
All my cables are silver except my ground cable for the phono stage and tone arm wires.
All the Cables in my system are exactly the same and made by the same man.When I added a stand alone head phone amp I ordered up another cable exactly the same as my 2 year old cables with menny hours on them.The new cable seemed thin sounding and forward,I knew the headphone amp sounded better than that as I had listened to it useing a set from the CDP.So I swapped cables and there was better bass and it seemed much less in my face.I ran the headphone amp for a couple of days by setting the CDP to repeat,after 2 days it got better and now there is no differece at all.I don't know about copper but silver dose sound better with some use. Was it a huge differance NO but it was noticable, It just sounded fuller and more laid back after a couple of days.

On another note I have a pair of Grado 325i headphones and even after days of burn in they haven't changed one little bit,there still shrill and animic and makes music sound like Fred. for those who don't know who Fred is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EiM8Pa91SQ

Snoopdog
28-07-2010, 08:54
Steve

I am trying that very idea this afternoon:)

Interesting!

While I find the ReJig to be beneficial when placed under the MIT network cable boxes which contain circuitry, the same experience does not extend to the ReJigs under the Vertex Moncayo speaker links.

I think that this is down to the design of the Vertex boxes and what they are trying to achieve. Vibration from the cable inside is drained via the acoustic labrynth inside the box which has lossy rubber feet to provide a path through which energy cannot easily pass and ensuring that vibration cannot enter the labrynth from the support upon which it is placed.

By coupling the Vertex boxes to the floor via a ReJig, that high acoustic impedance provided by the soft rubber feet is disrupted, interfering with the ability of the box to do it's designed job.

Just my two penneth!

Steve Toy
28-07-2010, 09:59
It makes perfect sense Steve. Thinking about it the principle is the same as my speaker stands provided by Breckland Audio.
They are slabs of MDF sitting on dense foam pads. The speakers themselves are unspiked on top with rubber pads in place of the spikes. This serves to ground vibration in the speaker cabinets through the floor. My guess is this serves also to reduce vibration re-entering the electronics via the speaker cable as the best route to ground for the vibration is through these stands.

They only cost me 80 quid and I recommend them with most conventional column-type floorstander.

However, because speaker vibration is grounded in this way, it is more critical to isolate everything else from the floor which is why all my PSUs and mains block are raised on acrylic supports although the block itself seems to make the system sound more focussed positioned on the rack itself.

Having all-offboard PSUs in itself for the CD player and preamp probably helps too.

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1500/g1000hdconnectors011.jpg (http://img638.imageshack.us/i/g1000hdconnectors011.jpg/)

Snoopdog
28-07-2010, 19:59
There are very few dealers out there who appreciate the significance of these fundamental setup steps. Blade Audio and their close ally, The AudioWorks are two that spring to mind.

Without spending a great deal, AOS members can read the experiences of fellow enthusiasts and experiment for themselves. It costs nothing but time and effort to carefully align speaker position with respect to room interaction and to dress cabling carefully and attend to critical support options.

The benefits of careful system setup are real and there to be heard.

Sahib
28-07-2010, 22:09
Hi Cemal,

Anyway, I'm looking forward to meeting up in my old home town sometime in September. Like I said, PM me with a suggested date and I'll put it into my diary :)

Marco.

Likewise Marco.

I will pm you but if I can find the damn pm button. I just got a pair of glasses but it seems they already need replaced.

Anytime from the first week of September. As I work for myself I am flexible. All at your convenience.

Sahib
29-07-2010, 00:00
I still don't understand why cables are such a hot topic that gets argued over countless times :scratch:

Start a thread about tube rolling and the sceptics and cynics offer not a peep of comment, yet that same subject is every bit as subjective as an observation of cable performance because I haven't set seen a single anaylsis of why one valve should sound any different to another and the specs (when there are any) don't give any indicator either.


You have to look in the right direction. There are a lot of good information in the internet. You can also pick up dirt cheap books on e-bay. I have not counted but I must have about 30 books on valve. I have nearly thousand books in my library, all hard print and that does not include the service manuals.

The difference between the valves is due to the nature of the technology. Valve parameters can vary up to 20% and that is why it is sufficient to use a graph paper and a set square to design valve circuitry. It's just the way that technology is. You can't design solid state that way.



DACs, amps, CD players and turntables all sound different, yet those components don't get a handbagging each time they are mentioned. They too are all subjectively designed and refined, so nobody could ever convince me that they are the finished article straight off plan from a purely objective design brief.


Not quite right. Yes the manufacturers do take the subjective brief into account but after they design the circuitry. You can not design a circuitry with a sound in your mind. You have design parameters and mathematics to stick to to build a stable circuit. Then you start to tweek.

All these devices sound different because ultimately the retail price shapes the product. You can obviously never achieve the same sound from a 29.99 cd player that you get from the one costs 2,000.

Even in the most expensive design if the manufacturer can get away by saving a resistor without upsetting the circuit stability, he will save it. It is very easy to reach out to the most expensive component for a high performance product. But the art lies in getting the best performance out of the cheapest available.

This obviously opens door to upgrade industry. There is nothing wrong with it, in contrary I think it is good that in times like this when disposable is the trend the people are able to make a living. So you replace that opamp and change this transistor and shape the sound of the equipment to your taste. But this does not necessarily mean that you are making it better from the performance point of view. But the whole point of listening to music is to get pleasure out of it, so why not. In my book whatever works.

But the most expensive is not necessarily the best one for the job. Also some people are charging arm and a leg for so called high end capacitors that are re-dressed muttons that you could pick up from your regular suppliers at a fraction of the cost. That reminds me AliG interwieving Al Fayed. Shop RS or Farnell, same shit half the price. So, be aware.




Is it so hard to accept that cables are but a mere component in a whole chain of components and that each and every component WILL have an effect upon the final perceived sound?

It is not. But there is a reason why each and every component makes difference to sound. More, the reasons are very well established from technical and scientific point of view. But brushing these off leads to misinformation and that is not right. I believe we have responsibility with every word we utter. You ask me to build a cable for you. I'll do it and I will say it will cost you a grand for the pair. I'll say I'll use the best copper available and make custom connectors and even 24 carat gold plate them. That is what it costs because all hand made and custom. I have a family and have to make a living. ButI will never say this cable has the electrons zapped into the areas that were not utilised before. You plug them in and think it made a huge difference to your hearing. Cool. We are both happy and there is a mutual honesty there. But if I start hanging psuedo scientific tags onto what I did and impress you because you are not technically minded, that is not right. And that is where I stand. Otherwise as I said before I don't really care. Its your pleasure and money.

Effem
29-07-2010, 08:22
A good post Cemal.

Sadly, it is the accountants that dictate how much Quality is to be found in ANY product these days :( The designers can design and specify a superb product but as is most often the case, they are forced to "re-design" it afterwards to meet strict costing criteria, even though the savings are fairly nominal unless we are talking huge volumes.

I don't actually brush off or dismiss any objective data regarding cables, but I do call into question the facts that are aligned to a phenomena which are entirely wrong yet still being used as fact when it is only the closest fit, yet still way off the mark in my view. As we are talking about burn in with cables, I have heard so many hypothesis put forward on the same closest fit basis that I know are to me the equivalent of a lucky dip because current thinking has no objective answer for it. That to me IS psuedo science in it's purest form because it is dishonest through certain people not being able to utter the words "I don't know".

Mykhailo M
17-12-2015, 00:45
In my personal experience, I had some brand new cables for auditioning some years ago and to my surprise they sounded very different between themselves, on one occasion when I was auditioning a Malbru Copper cable I was taking over by the sound even though the cable was absolutely new. I kept the cable in powered up system and played music a few hours every day I have noticed that only after about a week or so the sound settled so to say. Same experience with silver cables I auditioned only it took much longer for some reason to sound their best.

Richard Kimber
17-12-2015, 16:17
Same experience with silver cables I auditioned only it took much longer for some reason to sound their best.

In my experience silver cables have settled down very quickly. YMMV.

twickers
17-12-2015, 19:12
http://www.aesica.net/random/thread-necromancy.png

Reffc
17-12-2015, 19:20
http://www.aesica.net/random/thread-necromancy.png

Please God, NO!!!!

walpurgis
17-12-2015, 19:46
Please God, NO!!!!

Oh yes!

http://i65.tinypic.com/15nx91h.jpg

Oldpinkman
18-12-2015, 06:26
What fuel are you using in your lighter Geoff for interconnects? Do you use a different one for speakers? ;)

Reffc
18-12-2015, 06:51
I fear that Geoff may have gone too far with the burn-in process Richard......

http://www.roger-russell.com/mcfire.jpg

Oldpinkman
18-12-2015, 09:18
I fear that Geoff may have gone too far with the burn-in process Richard......

http://www.roger-russell.com/mcfire.jpg

:lol::lol:

Marco
18-12-2015, 09:45
I fear that Geoff may have gone too far with the burn-in process Richard......

http://www.roger-russell.com/mcfire.jpg

Ha - they must've been connected to the amps of an infamous 'bodger', well known around these parts!! :D

Marco.