Seems to me that if we have break-in mechanisms for cables; shouldn't there also be a wear-out mechanism at play as well.
Surely someone should be able to hear when their cables are worn out. I am really surprised that the cable manufacturers haven't studied this as well and told us what to look (listen) for.
Surely someone should be able to hear when their cables are worn out. I am really surprised that the cable manufacturers haven't studied this as well and told us what to look (listen) for.
poobah said:
Oh no, I totally am waiting to see it in an ad in stereophile 6 months from now. I can see it now:
"How old are your cables? Are you still using cables from 10 years ago? We all know the proven effects of Cable Burn-in. However, groundbreaking research by the Nostrum Cable Company has shown that continuous use of audio cables leads to detrimental effects. We have shown that due to magnetic phase shift properties caused by eddy currents in the cable, your dielectric may be migrating into your cable substrate! This leads to a collapsin of the soundstage, and greatly affects the Pace, Rhythm and Timing of your cables!"
"By using our new Cable Rejuvenator 3000, we can subject your cable to reversal of this process. The Cable Rejuvenator 3000 will recondition your cables to sound like they did right after you initially burned them in! "
"The Cable Rejuvenator 3000 utilizes quantum purification principles initially discovered by Jack Bybee. By combining Bybee's research with materials research from Shun Mook and C37, we've managed to create a device with unparalleled cable improving effects! Furthermore, if your new cables aren't broken in yet, Cable Rejuvenator with automatically find the sweet spot and break your cables in for you!"
"Cable Rejuvenator works it's magic on any cables! We include Cardas RCA connectors for Interconnects, Cardas 5-way Binding posts for speaker cables, Wattgate connectors for power cables, and even premium BNC jacks for you S/PDIF afficianados out there, and even high-grade RJ-45 jacks so that you can improve your Cat5/6/7 cables and increase your data transmission rates by up to 3%!"
"8 out of 10 audio reviewers agree that the Cable Rejuvenator is the best thing to happen to cables since Zip Cord!"
You got me laughin' man. And you know you're right... my idea too...
And now I'm wondering... were I to make cables for $100 and sell them for $5,000... I guess I would break them in for my customers. Why don't these guys do this... seems like the least they could do? Or is that like getting a new car with a 1,000 miles on it and french fry grease on the back of the mirror?
And now I'm wondering... were I to make cables for $100 and sell them for $5,000... I guess I would break them in for my customers. Why don't these guys do this... seems like the least they could do? Or is that like getting a new car with a 1,000 miles on it and french fry grease on the back of the mirror?
poobah said:You got me laughin' man. And you know you're right... my idea too...
And now I'm wondering... were I to make cables for $100 and sell them for $5,000... I guess I would break them in for my customers. Why don't these guys do this... seems like the least they could do? Or is that like getting a new car with a 1,000 miles on it and french fry grease on the back of the mirror?
Thanks.. That's a good question -- why aren't they burning them in for you?
I do think it's funny how cables that cost maybe $100-200 for a DIYer to make get resold at $5k, and everyone lauds what miracles they work. Pretty sad stuff.
Cable Brakes
Hello all,
For my first post I'd like to donate my $0.02 worth on a subject I have a little experience with.
Cables can sound old and dull. I once forgot to take an interconnect off of a cable break-in rig I made...oh, more than a half dozen years or so ago, and it was on there for a whole day.
That doesn't sound like much but I was using a speaker level source--about 15 watts average. Normal interconnects never see that much voltage or current.
Well, I couldn't use that pair of interconnects for much of anything to do with a stereo any more--the one was so much darker sounding than the other it wasn't funny. (It was the one that was left on the break-in rig for way too long that was the dark sounding one.)
The concept of break-in is controversial in lots of areas, audio and musical. Engineers often listen with their calculators.
Hello all,
For my first post I'd like to donate my $0.02 worth on a subject I have a little experience with.
Cables can sound old and dull. I once forgot to take an interconnect off of a cable break-in rig I made...oh, more than a half dozen years or so ago, and it was on there for a whole day.
That doesn't sound like much but I was using a speaker level source--about 15 watts average. Normal interconnects never see that much voltage or current.
Well, I couldn't use that pair of interconnects for much of anything to do with a stereo any more--the one was so much darker sounding than the other it wasn't funny. (It was the one that was left on the break-in rig for way too long that was the dark sounding one.)
The concept of break-in is controversial in lots of areas, audio and musical. Engineers often listen with their calculators.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
CABLE COOKER[tm]
The Cable Cooker[tm] speeds up burn in of signal-, speaker- and power cables.
Without making any sounds!
You should observe correct direction of cables. From input to output.
If we are to believe feedback from buyers
they are very please with results.
Note!! This is not an advertise, but an information
and food for our discussion on eventual burning in effects in audio gears.
That I know, the intention of any good forum (as here) is to debate things or different points of view as adult people.analog_sa said:
If you are not able of this, because you are not able to control your temperament, even the point to insult, then simply, you don't debate.
The insults without justification will not help to you in your explanation, all the opposite.
The only thing that "burst into flames" without necessity was your temperament.analog_sa said:
Yes, they sound amazing.. And this has been my work for a long time; but probably, you don't understand it, because you don't have the experience.analog_sa said:
I'm sorry that you think of this way.analog_sa said:
The transfer functions of triodes and mosfets are not very different.Tweeker said:
Ironically; the more common single-ended class A triode amplifiers in the market have in average levels of harmonic distortion around of 10%
in nominal power output. In addition, these amps. can't maintain the output voltage gain levels constant with the frequency; in other words, these amps. don't have a linear frequency response; and this is due to the fact that the triode can't maintain the voltage gain levels constant independently of the load impedance, due to the low damping factors what commonly these amps. exhibit; and this is what you call a linear device? C'mon!! I could not consider that any amp. with high levels of distortion and a non-linear frequency response could be an Hi-Fi amplifier.
The basic concept of Hi-Fi audio is to reproduce of music signal as faithfully as this is possible, and these type of amps. are poor in this.
On the other hand, a well-designed Hi-Fi transistor audio amplifier is able to maintain a flat frequency response, independently of the load impedance. This is due to the fact of a good damping factor, very common in the transistor amps. well-designed, which many tubes amps. lack. In addition, very low levels of harmonic distortion are present in these well-designed transistor audio amps.; (less than 0.1% typical); as also an excellent signal to noise ratio, around 90db to 120db typical.
In conclusion, a well-designed transistor amp. is most similar to which would be an ideal amplifier; and by a fraction of the cost of an tube amplifier with inferior performance.
I remember an anecdote, which happened in the beginning of the 80's decade. Bob Carver, a excellent and recognized audio amplifier designer put in evidence the truth about of the myth tube amp.
In that moment, Stereophile magazine was promoting a model of tube amp. to being supposedly the top of the art of audio (of course, very expensive). Bob Carver, with the intention to demonstrate that this amp. was not nothing special invited to the audience of Stereophile magazine to a double-blind audio test, in where was compared the mystic tube amp. with a very cheap low performance transistor amp. The results were that the audience was not able to distinguish a difference between the two amplifiers.. In other words.. both sounded equal !!!
You readers, draw their own conclusions from this.
do you really believe this?
quote: It just occured to me. Were cables sold broken in, there would no plausible reason to account for the fact that they sound the same as the cables they replaced. Weeks go by, expectations morph into observations... all is well.
Have you never even once found a cable that you believed sounded better than what you have been using? Does this mean that you are using what ever came in the box? Have you ever changed interconnects for any other reason than one of them wore out or broke? Do you mean us to understand that all interconnects and speaker cables or power cords sound the same in your system? I ask in all sincerity as I find that I have never known that to be always the case. Or perhaps you have noticed differences but have felt that the sound was different not better?
Differences that I have heard have in some cases have been astounding while in other situations far less convincing. For the most part though I have found that good interconnects can and most often do make the difference in any given system.
I might also ask if you do or do not believe that components benefit from a burn in period?
There are obviously differences in opinions and that's fine. I would think though that long before anybody thinks to enter into a scientific study of some perplexing oddity that it was all brought about by repeated comments/observations of non scientific types. So I have difficulty with the attitude toward non scientific comments presented on this forum. Would it not be just as easy for the non scientific observers to call the scientists to task to explain everything since science has all the answers? That obviously is not the case nor is it a reasonable posture. I feel though sometimes that that is the kind of stance that those with a degree or two may infact be taking. I was under the impression that it was science's tact to take the high road. If you can prove yourself correct and even if you cannot you can hold onto your beliefs but I sence there are at times some smug attitudes. That comment can apply to both sides of the debate and it helps neither side.
I hope that we can discover what is going on as that then becomes a win win situation. Otherwise we end up with a group on either side of a fence pointing and calling out at the other side while nothing changes. This can't go on forever can it? Regards Moray James.
quote: It just occured to me. Were cables sold broken in, there would no plausible reason to account for the fact that they sound the same as the cables they replaced. Weeks go by, expectations morph into observations... all is well.
Have you never even once found a cable that you believed sounded better than what you have been using? Does this mean that you are using what ever came in the box? Have you ever changed interconnects for any other reason than one of them wore out or broke? Do you mean us to understand that all interconnects and speaker cables or power cords sound the same in your system? I ask in all sincerity as I find that I have never known that to be always the case. Or perhaps you have noticed differences but have felt that the sound was different not better?
Differences that I have heard have in some cases have been astounding while in other situations far less convincing. For the most part though I have found that good interconnects can and most often do make the difference in any given system.
I might also ask if you do or do not believe that components benefit from a burn in period?
There are obviously differences in opinions and that's fine. I would think though that long before anybody thinks to enter into a scientific study of some perplexing oddity that it was all brought about by repeated comments/observations of non scientific types. So I have difficulty with the attitude toward non scientific comments presented on this forum. Would it not be just as easy for the non scientific observers to call the scientists to task to explain everything since science has all the answers? That obviously is not the case nor is it a reasonable posture. I feel though sometimes that that is the kind of stance that those with a degree or two may infact be taking. I was under the impression that it was science's tact to take the high road. If you can prove yourself correct and even if you cannot you can hold onto your beliefs but I sence there are at times some smug attitudes. That comment can apply to both sides of the debate and it helps neither side.
I hope that we can discover what is going on as that then becomes a win win situation. Otherwise we end up with a group on either side of a fence pointing and calling out at the other side while nothing changes. This can't go on forever can it? Regards Moray James.
Moray,
Would you agree that if there is a break-in mechanism, which indicates a tangible physical change on some level, that there might also be a wear-out mechanism based on a continuation of the same, or other, physical changes? We have one report of a wear-out mechanism.
My question would be, if there are indeed changes taking place in a conductor, why have these changes only shown themselves in audio and not in other fields that demand greater accuracy? It is often the exceptions, rather than the norms, that expose hidden truths.
I suspect that any legitimate testing done in the name of resolving these issues would be summarily dismissed because the test probes for the instruments might not have been broken in properly.
Would you agree that if there is a break-in mechanism, which indicates a tangible physical change on some level, that there might also be a wear-out mechanism based on a continuation of the same, or other, physical changes? We have one report of a wear-out mechanism.
My question would be, if there are indeed changes taking place in a conductor, why have these changes only shown themselves in audio and not in other fields that demand greater accuracy? It is often the exceptions, rather than the norms, that expose hidden truths.
I suspect that any legitimate testing done in the name of resolving these issues would be summarily dismissed because the test probes for the instruments might not have been broken in properly.
sure perhaps
A cap can form and if you leave it long enough it can to some degree get itself unformed. Cables can burn in or charge up so why not the reverse. I would suspect the dielectrics are at the root of things in a cable.
Now how about answering those questions? I might also add to the list. Did you ever believe that all amps sound the same because they measured the same?
In most areas there are many who do a fine job at what they do however a select few for what ever reasons excell far beyond the norm. Does that make them wrong because statistics say they are just an odd group outside of the norm?
The human brain is as good as it gets on this planet and nothing can touch it yet. The ear/brain combination is a wonderous thing. Show me a machine that can match the brain. This is really getting to be a bit of a drag. New year comming up there is time yet. Regards Moray James.
A cap can form and if you leave it long enough it can to some degree get itself unformed. Cables can burn in or charge up so why not the reverse. I would suspect the dielectrics are at the root of things in a cable.
Now how about answering those questions? I might also add to the list. Did you ever believe that all amps sound the same because they measured the same?
In most areas there are many who do a fine job at what they do however a select few for what ever reasons excell far beyond the norm. Does that make them wrong because statistics say they are just an odd group outside of the norm?
The human brain is as good as it gets on this planet and nothing can touch it yet. The ear/brain combination is a wonderous thing. Show me a machine that can match the brain. This is really getting to be a bit of a drag. New year comming up there is time yet. Regards Moray James.
Hello all,
Engineers LIKE to listen with their calculators. OK. That's fine. Here goes another $0.02...
Now, distortion is a concept that is supposed to help designers to make a better sounding what ever. The key word is "supposed-to."
"If it sounds good and measures good, it is good. If it sounds good and measures bad, you are measuring the wrong thing."
A quote from the chief engineer of H. H. Scott, many many moons ago.
Double blind audio tests are invalid. Unfortunate but true. They use a multi-stimulus approach. Traditional double blind tests use a single stimulus--only.
Audio is not a single stimulus. 3-D qualities, image specificity, midrange tonal quality, bass tonal quality, HF tonal quality, image size, overall tone, etc. There are a vast array of things to pick out and listen to with music. You get to pick only one for the subject matter of a properly handled audio double blind test--no one does though. "Better" is not specific, it is vague. The multi-stimulus approach alone renders any audio double blind test invalid.
Double blind audio tests are done in strange settings (to the participants) with unfamiliar equipment, and often with unfamiliar music. How do you know when something is more to your liking? When you've lived with it in your situation. This is another reason double blind audio tests are invalid.
The sound of the power changes so you can't use wall power. Batteries are a must. Anyone use them for the entire system, or any part of them--I doubt it.
Everything in the room is part of the sound of that system. People move around. Things come and go and no one "thinks" this is a problem... More reasons why current double blind tests for audio are fatally flawed.
Measurements are a tool, not the art.
Engineers LIKE to listen with their calculators. OK. That's fine. Here goes another $0.02...
Now, distortion is a concept that is supposed to help designers to make a better sounding what ever. The key word is "supposed-to."
"If it sounds good and measures good, it is good. If it sounds good and measures bad, you are measuring the wrong thing."
A quote from the chief engineer of H. H. Scott, many many moons ago.
Double blind audio tests are invalid. Unfortunate but true. They use a multi-stimulus approach. Traditional double blind tests use a single stimulus--only.
Audio is not a single stimulus. 3-D qualities, image specificity, midrange tonal quality, bass tonal quality, HF tonal quality, image size, overall tone, etc. There are a vast array of things to pick out and listen to with music. You get to pick only one for the subject matter of a properly handled audio double blind test--no one does though. "Better" is not specific, it is vague. The multi-stimulus approach alone renders any audio double blind test invalid.
Double blind audio tests are done in strange settings (to the participants) with unfamiliar equipment, and often with unfamiliar music. How do you know when something is more to your liking? When you've lived with it in your situation. This is another reason double blind audio tests are invalid.
The sound of the power changes so you can't use wall power. Batteries are a must. Anyone use them for the entire system, or any part of them--I doubt it.
Everything in the room is part of the sound of that system. People move around. Things come and go and no one "thinks" this is a problem... More reasons why current double blind tests for audio are fatally flawed.
Measurements are a tool, not the art.
gamma said:
So, do you mean this test was done in the way I suggested earlier in this thread?
I strongly suspect this referred either to the forming process, which is a necessary step in the manufacturing, or to a burn-in phase for reliability reasons, which is commonly done with many components to reduce early failures. AFAIK, RIFA do not manufacture any capacitors intended specifically for audio use, so we can rule out that they burn in any capacitors to supposedly sound better. They do specialize in high-reliability, long-life capacitors though, so burning in for reliability purposes is to be expected.
The usual argument to avoid the dreaded blind test.
Beause deep inside most those who say they can hear
they know they might hear nothing.
If they were sure, they wouldnt be so hostile to blind test.
They would have nothing to fear from a test.
They are afraid to know the truth.
It really is a pity.
Because we should not believe in illusions and take them for real.
It is to deceive your self.
Within medical industry, to test medicin they use blindtests.
They have at least two groups.
One get sugar pills and one get the medicin.
It would hardly be great for results
if telling each group what type of pills they have got.
As I've said over and over, we routinely do just this kind of controlled tasting in the wine business. No excuses about blind tests, you either can get a difference or you can't.
The main issue with controlled testing in audio is that it's a pain to set up and do properly, and that's not as entertaining as speculating about phonon-meson resonances in cable dielectrics.
The main issue with controlled testing in audio is that it's a pain to set up and do properly, and that's not as entertaining as speculating about phonon-meson resonances in cable dielectrics.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.