|
Unregistered guest | I recently purchased a new speakercable called Fantasy, in Bi-Wire configuration, from Harmonic Technology. With the cables connected to the entire multichannel setup I anxiously started playing a lot of music. But to my huge dissapointment the sound was clearly lacking of "body" and "weight" and also sounded a bit harsh compared to my older (and cheaper!) cables that had been running for six years. I contacted the manufacturer because I was not happy with my investment and wanted to return them. However, they were very clear on the importance of burning-in the cables properly and urged me to continue playing music for at least 100hs or more before judging. Hearing this I became very skeptical indeed. I have never heard anyone speaking of the necessity of burning-in something as "passive" as a cable. But nonetheless, I did as they instructed and played music non-stop around the clock for five days. And to my huge suprise - something happened to the sound. And it was anything but subtle. The "weight" and "body" had returned, but now it was more profound than with my old cables. And the difference of sound before-and-after brake-in was indeed very noticable. The sound had an almost uncanny smothness and natural tone that made me shake my head in disbelief. I am very glad I went beyond my disbelief of burning-in cables and tried it before I sent them back for a refund. Now my electronics and speakers can really show me what they can do. This cable has given me one step closer to audio-heaven (fully broken-in that is...). Anyone care to share their thought on this interesting topic of burning in cables...?! |
|
Silver Member Username: Arnold_layneMadridSpain Post Number: 192 Registered: Jun-04 | Full-scale wars have been fought on the issue, you'll find a couple of'em searching this forum. |
|
Unregistered guest | wire is a chunk of metal with plastic wraped around it. |
|
Sam_Lee Unregistered guest | This is interesting. I came across this "burning-in" thing when I bought my first budget amp, a Creek Audio C4040, some 20yrs ago. But I never objectively tested it. Then again how can anyone if you listen to it for so many hours that you have basically trained your ears to hear what you wanted to hear. Unless you have special measuring instruments. Rille, after you have burn-in the cables did you switch back to your old cables to compare again? If the old cable now sounds duller could it be because your ears have grown to like the new cable like when you first put in the new un-burn-in cable and found it dull as you have accustomed to the old cable? Now listen again to your old cables for another hundred hours and switch back to the new ones, which sounds better? So the argument goes around in circle. Really need to some measuring device to determine statisically whether any change happens after cable is used for a hundred hours. |
|
New member Username: DatarVanersborgSweden Post Number: 1 Registered: Jan-05 | The burn in process works. But i do not think you can hear it on all cables brands. I have my own DIY cables in my Hifi equipment and have sold some to my friends. I can notice a slightly difference in my own cables after a while but haven't heard it on other cables i have tested unless one speaker cable from Supra, The Supra Sword. |
|
Lester Unregistered guest | http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/speakercablebr eak-in.php |
|
E. Ramsey Unregistered guest | As a trained electronics technician, i can tell you that a"burn-in" process especially for speaker wires is snake-oil nonsense. The only way the average layman would notice a difference in speaker wires is to go from a smaller gauge wire to a larger one. In that instance a change in dynamics, bass impact, and overall clarity, might be audible. I myself switched from 16 awg to 12 awg for my surround channel speakers and noticed more depth, clarity,and overall cohesiveness from the upgrade. Forget about the nonsense manafacturers push to sell their brands such as capicitance and inductance. For the average 16 awg wire to exhibit a discearnible amount of capacitance it would have to be A half-mile long! I doubt any home or commercial theater would have or need speaker wires that ridiculosly long. Unless you have a 10k$ or more amp/reciever it just doesn't make sense to spend more than a few hundred bucks on speaker wire. E.Ramsey AAS industrial electronics. |
|
E. Ramsey Unregistered guest | From an electrical standpoint, conductivity in a wire is greatest when the wire is "fresh"-unoxidized. As the wire ages it oxidizes, this is why you may notice the clear jacket of a speaker wire turning green after many months/years of use. in time the copper reacts with oxygen and forms copper oxide. This is green substance that coats the copper of the wire. Even if the wire is "sealed" with many layers of insulation it will still be vulnerable to this naturally ocurring process because it will start at the connection end of the wire and move thruout it over time. In the case of bare wires connected to speaker posts it will be first noticed as a "dulling" of the copper from bright to brown. These so- called totally sealed wires will corrode eventually it will just take much longer. Speaker wire manufacturers will fill your head with nonsense jargon and junk such as low impedence and inductance and "time correct", this is how they market and sell their product. A wire is just a conduit to transfer electrons from your speaker outputs to your speakers. Buy no smaller than 16 awg and for runs of more than 50 feet go with larger gauge wire. These dyed in the wool purist types with their 20 thousand dollar tube amps will swear by their 3000 dollar speaker wires but they don't know squat, and most of them don't have the education or degrees to back it up. I have a two year technical degree in electronics and while this certainly does not qualify me as an authority on electronics and electricity, I will be honest and straight up with you. Here is my reccomendation just order that 100' roll of 14 awg or 12awg of clear jacket wire for about 30 bucks with some decent banana plugs for about 10 bucks more and this will be all you ever need. E. Ramsey AAS industrial electronics |
|
C. Jones Unregistered guest | Such strong words from a "technician" with a 2 year technical degree.... I am always amazed that those who think they know the most are always the ones with the least sense. Ramsey, there are engineers with decades experience, patents, and top secret NSA electronic inventions/devices who would laugh at your elementary perpective on this matter. Just because you dont understand it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Now, let the rage roll...... |
|
E. Ramsey Unregistered guest | I think you are highly mistaken C. Jones as Mr. Gene Della Salla the founder of Audioholics would concur with me that "burning in cables" is nonsense. As a electrical engineer with decades of experience in the audio industry Mr. Della Salla is quick to dismiss the cable burn in theory. You need to visit his Audioholics website and you will be educated on the myth of cable burn in. As far as my credintials go, my degree does not qualify me an an expert in electricity and electronics but you can rest assured my knowledge at least of industrial electricity,ac and dc, and robotics is leaps and bounds above your understanding. Is your ego hurt because you are one of those silly audiophile types who spend more on speaker wire than a European vacation. It's amazing how these people will argue that their 12 awg wire at $20 a foot is so much better than the same gauge zipcord available from Home Depot for 99 cents a foot, in spite of all the scientific testing and proof that it is not. I would refrain fom insulting people on this forum C. Jones it's unprofessional, ignorant and is reflective upon your lack of understanding and your lack of education in the fields of electricity and electronics. I would also add that people like me, with an electronics/electrical background are always more qualified to talk about subjects in this forum,than a layman such as yourself because we base our commentary on scientific fact and measurement not emotion and perception. E. Ramsey AAS industrial electronics |
|
C. Jones Unregistered guest | You're assumptions are wrong yet again. But I anticipated nothing less. Funny how you simply assume what you do not know, yet again. I assure you my degree, from one of the top engineering schools in the country, (University of Illinois, if you must know.) does in fact give me greater credibility than your own. And I am well aware of Audioholics and the things it claims. Just as I am equally aware of and personally know other engineers who far outclass what Della Salla may know. The proof is in the results. The fact that an engineer for the National Security Administration, with the absolute best test equipment on earth (by definition) was able to create devices that could discern recognizable signals from extreme noise and RFI polution, something previously thought impossible, proves his credibility. Certainly more credible than Della Salla. By the way, he was able to create these devices by exploring the ramifications of using various raw conductor types, various conductor geometries, and various connector types. (exactly the things those in the audio industry are manipulating) His most significant discoveries were not in the area of circuitry design but in the quality of the connections between the circuits. Incidentally, his first work in the civilian arena led to enabling you to send and recieve massive bits of information over the internet. Mostly through work in conductor and connector geometry and material. I make no excuses for the plethora of charlatens in the "audio" industry who make wild claims regarding their cables and the ridiculous prices they demand. However, it is also silly to assume that no such thing can make a difference simply because you cant hear it yourself. Della Salla has his own personal bias that certainly effects his position. But I can assure you that his credentials pale in comparison to other engineers who have actually proven their theories in practice rather than simply boasting claims on the internet. I dont see the NSA recuiting his talent as they did the certifiable genious of Cailin Gabriel, the man of whom I wrote about above. When was the last time you or Della Salla was awarded a patent or created a device that the US military saw fit to fully classify? BTW: My "insults" were nothing more serious than what you had already committed yourself. I was simply proving that point. I honestly could give a crap about this silly debate. I was prompted to reply not because I think I have anything to add that will convince the unconvincable, but because I am tired of seeing the less than credible making claims about things they truly do not understand. Regards, |
|
E. Ramsey Unregistered guest | My credentials, and your credentials aside, I think that we have strayed from the point at hand. I would hardly be suprised what NASA and the goverment are capable of in a classified labaratory. I am sure that these instuments/devices that were used are not available to the public and may be prototypes themselves. The point is that given the current instuments available in the audio industry, which are capable of very precise measurments, it has been proven extensively that any sonic differences in performance amoung speaker wire and interconnects is not discearnable except at a level far below that of human hearing. So it is ridiculous and flat out deceitful for these interconnect manufacturers to claim a tangible diffrence.I can promise you that these "top secret" cables used by NASA and the NSA are far diffrent from the cables promoted by manufacturers in the audio industry. What I would like to see is NASA and the NSA test audio and video cables with these "special classified instruments" that you claim are so much more capable and responsive than those available currently in the audio industry. Tell me then as an engineer, how a fixed, passive, non- mechanical device such as a speaker wire or cable requires a breakin period? Does copper as it ages and oxidizes conduct electrical current better than when it s new. Does the metal some how change itself to become more conductive over time?(This is laughable) If you are installing pvc pipe in the plumbing system in your home would it have better flow characteristics over time? Certainly an industrial electric motor could possibly benefit from a breakin period considering it has mechanical devices such as bearings and gear drives that settle over time. Sure diffrences can be measured but even so these diffrences between diffrent wires and cable are so utterly negligible to even be considered. I hardly think you are in a position to declare who the NSA or NASA would consider for employment. As an engineering professional you should refrain from commenting about the credibility of MR. Dela Salla who has proven his worth in the industry. E. Ramsey AAS industrial electronics |
|
E. Ramsey Unregistered guest | To add to what I have already stated, C. Jones there is no empiricle evidence to support a cable "burn-in" theory. I have no animosity towards the audiophile types who spend tons of cash on interconnects and speaker wire. If you can afford it ,go for it. The real point here is that there is no audible diffrence between a $30 Monster cable and these ultra high end niche brand cables costing thousands. The diffrences are only at the micro level. Considering this FACTUAL information, and that a tangible benefit,specifically an audible performance difference cannot be heard; then there is little justification for paying such a large amount of money for no real advantage. You are wrong to say that I am not at least somewhat qualified to talk about this subject in this forum, but you are right to say that I don't understand the cable burn in theory because it defies the principles of physics and electricity. Is a 1K$ cable of higher quality build than a $30 dollar Monster? Certainly, It better be! This is where the diffrence ends, however. E. Ramsey AAS industrial electronics |
|
Bronze Member Username: DeckerPost Number: 39 Registered: Jun-04 | Ramsey, what do you mean by "micro" level. Is that just a nickname for something? I am also qualified to talk about it. While I can say that if electrons are moved around from atom to atom, they don't end up in the same spot....they are always moving anyway. Randomly. In an electron cloud. It doesn't matter how many electrons pass through. It's not going to change because of it. Every other aspect of audio/video and any other consumer goods don't defy physics or chemistry. At all. Why in the world do these crackpots think that 'burning-in' is even valid. It has absolutely no place in a modern discussion of chemistry, physics, audio equipment, or most importantly condensed matter. Seriously, any of you who think that burning in cables is something that actually exists, go out and get yourself a dang education. It's truly pathetic that so many people can be suckered in and led like sheep to believe these idiotic theories. |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 2465 Registered: Dec-03 | I think it would be a lot easier to convince a grand knight of the klan that Jesus is actually a Jew than to convince anyone about audio cable properties. OOOOH, can I say that here??? Or perhaps I just opened a new can of intolerance??? |
|
E. Ramsey Unregistered guest | I totally agree with you Dr. Schirmacher! The cable "burn in" idea is total nonsense. What exactly is there to burn in? With a fixed conductor and an unchanging dielectric what is there to condition. Tell me doctor how an trained engineer like C. Jones,if in fact he really is one, could believe in this . E. Ramsey AAS industrial electronics |
|
E. Ramsey Unregistered guest | When I use the phase "micro level" I am referring to diffrences of impedence (z), inductance (L),and capacitance(c)) measured between cables. These are VERY small numbers and therfore mostly insignificant because they of course are not audible and their effect on relevant circuitry is quite limited. E. Ramsey AAS industrial electronics. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DeckerPost Number: 41 Registered: Jun-04 | C. Jones, I haven't seen you make a valid point yet. "Such strong words from a "technician" with a 2 year technical degree... I am always amazed that those who think they know the most are always the ones with the least sense. Ramsey, there are engineers with decades experience, patents, and top secret NSA electronic inventions/devices who would laugh at your elementary perpective on this matter. Just because you dont understand it doesnt mean it doesnt exist." Such strong words from a person who hasn't cited any evidence. I, with the rest of the sensible world have evidence based on condensed matter testing and theory to prove a point. In that firs tpost all you did was claim that there are people with more experience than E. Ramsey. So what? There are people with more experience than you too. Just the fact that you claimed there was some sort of top-secret electronic devices makes me sick. It's like listening to a late-night infomercial on amazing top-decret diet pills. If they are 'top-secret', then how the heck do you know about them? And if you are a part of this elite crowd that knows about them, why the heck are you talking about them? You haven't shown the slightest sign of understanding any of the topic at hand. It's not only rude, but just plain stupid to claim someone or some people don't understand something when you yourself haven't explained anything, and have shown no signs of comprehension. |
|
C. Jones Unregistered guest | A)If you are going to maline me, at least get the argument correct. (Or show a little imagination) Not all things that were once top secret still are. Also, I dont need to know how a "top secret" device works to know that it exists. But to answer your question, I happen to know the man who invented the devices, some of which are no longer "top secret", btw. The "top secret" part was NEVER the point. And I never said that it was "top secret" testing devices in top secret labs. To the best of my knowledge, the NSA uses the same test equipment we use. I simply stated that it was for the NSA to make the point that this guy is creating real world devices that the U.S. Government thought was special enough to classify and not some charlaten working out of his garage making wild claims. The point, if you go back to read, was that Mr. Gabriel was succesful at creating his equipment not through fancy schmancy cicuitry but by exploring the effects cable architecture and connection points had. By resolving the quality of raw material, cable geometry, termination quality, etc. he was able to create listening devices that could resolve signals previously thought impossible to pull from extreme noise and distortion. Again, the point is not that some genious in some top secret lab is doing things that none of us understand but that the things he did do apply directly to what audiophiles are trying to do with signal cables. I dont even have to know what any "top secret" device is to understand what the applications of his work are when he explains them to me personally. B)It was exactly the point in my first post to state that there are others with more experience, not only of Ramsey, but of me and probably most everyone that posts here. I THOUGHT I had summed that up by stating: "Just because you dont understand it doesnt mean it doesnt exist". I dont understand all things, and readily admit that. Why would I feel the need to list details of anything spefic when that was not the intent in the beggining? Clearly I failed in making the point that none of us always knows ALL that is going on in any given system. Incidentally, Ramsey, if you go back and read my posts, I NEVER said you werent qualified to post on this forum. I would never consider such an arrogant and silly statement. Simply that there are others with more experience who would argue agaist the claims you were making. |
|
C.Jones Unregistered guest | C)Perhaps there is no sonic difference considering "break in" of a $30 cable, perhaps there is no break in at all. I havent tried tests with this level of cables. But that is a totally different argument than stating: " ....there is no audible difference between a $30 Monster cable and these ultra high end niche brand cables costing thousands." (Ramsey) I once thought so. But I started to see particular consistencies that I considered worth exploring. So I expored. I did not go out and buy expensive cables. In fact I have not spent a single dime on a cable, EVER. So no one could ever say that I am biased towards any particular type because of investment. But I do have the luxury of free access to all sorts of differing cable designs. So I have made a point to understand these differences. And being a scientist I have followed the scientific process quite strictly. (Do I need to explain that in detail too or can I save the space and assume we all know scientific protocols?) Let me reiterate that I began this exlporation for self education and nothing else. It makes no sense to wittingly lie to ones self by knowingly distorting the process so as to engineer an outcome. What I found, through strict blind testing, was that people COULD consistently describe specific differences between cables. There were several differing types of tests I ran, and continue to run, with varying levels of information provided the listener. The most interesting to me and the one that really developed my desire to explore this was the several times that I was able to make changes to a system TOTALLY UNKNOWN to the listener and yet they, of their own accord, offered up how something was different. By way of example.... This particular test involved inviting a listener to "hear this new cd from XYZ I just got.", being careful to keep attention AWAY FROM the idea that they were there to listen critically to my system. Once listened to I would distract attention away from the room, such as "lets go get some lunch." While away I would have a different friend make a change that we had previously agreed upon. Getting back from "lunch", and without ANY prompting the listener would describe "there seems to be something different." Not only would they make that offering, but when I would ask for specifics of what they heard it would be consistent with what someone ELSE had offered under the same circumstances. At first this seemed ridiculous but the consistencies remained. Continued one last time......... |
|
C.Jones Unregistered guest | D) I could fill pages with discussion on the various tests I have conducted over the past 6 years. But it would take forever to write and no matter how clear I would try to be, there will be those who either dont want to believe me or completely miss the point. While I am no longer the hard line sceptic I once was, I continue to explore if for no other reason than obsesed curiosity. What I do know beyond any doubt are these few things.... 1) The human senses can be trained to be far more sensitive than we know, perhaps(?) beyond our lab test equipment. If an experienced wine taster can consistently and BLINDLY determine the region a particular sample came from and even the year it was made (Which is FACT) while chemical analysis cannot, then maybe we can hear things that we cannot test. Until I know for sure, I will coninue to test my ideas. 2) The older I get the more I notice that there are those in this world who claim things are impossible and those who prove the others wrong. No Olympic athlete, no significant inventor, nobody who ever did anything unique was ever caught claiming it was impossible. And THAT is my final thought. I am sorry people take life so seriously. I am sorry people get so upset. (myself included sometimes) But I would prefer to believe in the impossible than to believe against it. And regarding the cable debate, what I have experienced first hand is that there does seem to be audible differences between cables. I didnt believe it at first. In fact, like all you, I once thought it was BS. But I now have compelling evidence to the contrary. You dont have to believe me. I doubt any of you will because you havent been in my shoes for the past 6 years. And I dont want to argue and call names. So to go back to my first post and my original intent. I wanted to make the point that no one on this board can make any claim about cables based soley on textbook theory as it applies to audio. The lab and the listening room are different places and there is still the possibility of things we dont yet know. No man with a two year technical degree or a four year degree from a top ten institution (Ie: Me) can claim to have ALL the evidence. I have ontained through practice experiential evidence that would seem to contradict cable and signal propogation theory. I learned the same laws you did but I am willing to explore the fact that I DONT know everything. I would simply urge others to do the same. Finall, I have become increasingly bored with this thread. But if anyone would like to civilly discuss or would be interested in knowing more of the interesting things I have tested and experienced then I would be happy to conintue. Otherwise, I wish you all happy listening, regardless of what cables you choose to use |
|
New member Username: AstravitzJersey City, NJ Post Number: 2 Registered: Jan-05 | Hey, anyone that wants to buy snake oil you must visit this site: cableburner.com Pricing is: NEW or USED 1-2 meters = $30.00 per pair 3-4 meters = $40.00 per pair (Bi-wire add $10.00 per pair) Please call or e-mail us regarding longer cables. I'll make anyone a deal on this site, I'll offer the same service for 1/2 price. All you have to do is send me your cables (with a $20 bill & a self addressed shipping label) and I'll put them in my system for a week. I have a Rotel 1065 that weighs almost 50 pounds so that's a lot of power. My speakers are PSB's. That's over $5,000 in electical equipment burning in your speakers. Any takers??? |
|
New member Username: AstravitzJersey City, NJ Post Number: 3 Registered: Jan-05 | I meant burning in you cables. All this NSA talk and top secret discussion reminds me of the field of "TEMPEST" measuring emanations. Our government did spend millions of dollars in this field, although now the focus is more on fiber optics and wireless. Hey, there's an idea, power the speakers and all equipment and have only fiber interconnects, that would kill this entire discussion. Imagine how stupid people would feel if their speakers were connected with fiber channels. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 69 Registered: Nov-04 | only problem with fiber channels is you still need a source of power for the speakers. its the same problem with wireless speakers. and yes i do think "burning in cable" idea is bs. speakers understandablly have some sort of break in time whether it be two minutes or several hundered hours since it does have moving parts like a car does. |
|
Seanmeister Unregistered guest | The other problem with fibre is that there are already some who "hear" differences in various fibre connections as well. So the argument does not go away. Or so I'm told. Differing qualities in glass/plastic purity, I guess. Along those lines, I'm curious if anyone already having posted here agrees with the premise that there are audible differences with CD players. Being that zeros and ones are the same regardless, are there audible differences? Regarding cables, I know the following to be true. Applying a voltage gradient/ electric field stresses parts of the dialectric and causes the molecules to move around. Contining to do this will cause them to align differently than the stresses they were set with during manufacture. (Much like cryo but for different reasons) The result of this action lowers the capacitance but mostly lowers the losses in the cable. Does this constitute "Burn In"? I suppose the real question is one of audibility. There is no question that a cable "changes" with the application of electric fields. So the real question is, can humans hear it. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DeckerPost Number: 43 Registered: Jun-04 | Alright - lets get down to business. First of all, C. Jones, no one here is saying anything can't be done. It's not a matter of will people ever do something, or will people ever go somewhere. It's not about limitations like space or an olympic event. This is about science, chemistry, and condensed matter. Either it works one way or it doesn't. Denying the burn-in theory doesn't even suggest that one has any lack of ambition or open-mindedness. Second of all to you C. Jones, especially in cases such as these, first hand experience is the absolute worst kind of evidence there is, because perception is so susceptible to other factors. And third of all - Seanmeister. I don't know what you mean by "stresses". It doesn't seem to be any common term in the scope we are talking about (molecular level). Molecules don't "re-align" in any way. Molecules do move a bit because of something called electromigration. It's where the molecules can slowly become slightly misplaced and disrupt the circuit. However, that only happens on tiny tiny tiny circuits with microscopic wire sizes. It's absolutely, without a doubt insignificant in any wire size even capable of carrying speaker voltages. The only effect that that might really have is called triboelectric effect. It's where moving one molecule against another with different electrical properties can generate a static field. (This is the same as rubbing a balloon in your hair). However the insulation used would generate very little if any static electricity. Not enough to produce anything even detectable without very high-end electrical measuring equipment. And the electromigration effect is so small that, if we consider it, something such as a person bumping the cable with their foot would (relatively) be an absolutely cataclysmic event. Also, just to add: think about it a little, people. If burning in the cables really made them sound better, the cable makers would do it already in the factory. Lord knows it'd be very, very easy to do in an industrial setting. |
|
Anonymous | There has to be something better than wire to spend $1000 on. |
|
Unregistered guest | WOW!. yet we are clearly driven to audio nirvana. it is sad that many get lost along the way. I reccommend a single twisted pair of cat5e network wire (there are four twisted pairs ina a length). I have tried this on high watt and low watt systems. It works for prettymuch everything, even interconnect, etc. All I can suggest is a diy approach and try things out for yourself. Why can a gifted ameteur outdo 99% of audio companies? because they put all their money into marketing and they have crappy ears from damage at high volume levels. Your only qualifications are the two holes in your head. please those (and only concentrate on your own) first and beautiful sound will follow. Your best system might sound like crap to your freinds. there is no absolute sound. perfect transmission sucks. color rules. And I would argue that there exist greater differences between our ears and what they want than anything to do with cable differences. google sakuma, meta-gizmo, tnt-audio. these folks sometimes understand that it is necessary to say "farewell to theory" in order to get what they want. and by the way, cable burn in happens usually the most within the first few minutes but never finishes (it is a logarithmic function) and legitimately the more you play your audio system the better it will sound. period. and no, cable makers do not break in their cables unless it is reflected int he price, and they have ALOT of space and time and electricity on their hands. additionally, it takes a while for the glare to clear out of the cables frequently in each different setting you put them in. so A/Bing does not work either. look at your whole system as a giant fake Vagi*A with everything intertwined and interdependant. to say that using raw 10w30 motor oil would be better because it gives less friction than vasoline is ridiculous. now look at audio theory and the theory makers the same way... they all create fake Vagi*A ! that is why measurements rarely work. because no one measures the compression waves in the air! unfortunately, 70% of the time your only instruments are your ears. Clark |
|
E. Ramsey Unregistered guest | It,s good to see that others believe in the myth of cable "burn-in". Cat 5 cable will work for audio transmissions throught a home or building, but from an amp or receiver to speaker it is completely unsuitable, as the guage, 24 awg if I'm not mistaken is far to small for this purpose. Most manufacturers of speakers and receivers and amps recommend at least 16 awg minimum for speaker wire with larger gauges being more ideal. Also remember Clark that there is nothing that can be heard that cannot be measured. In a highly scientific business like consumer audio and video it is highly doubtful that any research and development team worth it's salt is going to throw away proven theory and method. Precise scientific testing and measurment in conjunction with mathematics will always be paramount over perception and opinion. The fact is that based on extensive testing and research within the audio industry, there is no empiricle evidence that a cable "burn-in" process works or is even valid. I challenge any one on this forum to produce any evidence from a relible, unbiased source that A cable "burn-in" theory is plausible or necessary. E. Ramsey AAS industrial electronics |
|
Unregistered guest | here is another thing about it. There is a manufacturer out there that makes cables a hundredth the width of a human hair. I was quite skeptical, but sure enough they sounded pretty good. also, the cardas gold reference "garden hose" interconnects sound great. so what is going on here? I got so into this that I went out and started making my own cables. try that cat 5e single strand into the cheapest radioshack solder type connectors possible. This design is on par with the best. I have given this design for free for some time out to people. additionally, since I can make them i have tried the whole burn in thing out of a cable with hundreds of hours on them versus still warm solder (identical length, etc. There was quite a difference, but then again, i have a pretty resolute system through a tube amp that i made and my own modified cd player. by the way, as far as equipment break in goes, it is totally true. when i first fired up my amp there was zero bass with tons of glare, and it took about 15 minutes to sound somewhat normal with several days to fully take its own character. all I can say is that people who do not beleive in cable break in probably don't listen hard enough or don't make their own cables. course I think that most of the break in happens to the solder joint, but that is just conjecture. I cannot physically bring my stereo to your house, so all i can say is to try it for yourself instead of giving opinion masquerading as science, which has limited use in either case. as i see things, measurements can only give a part of the picture. sure, a speaker can be measured with regard to frequency response, etc. but its ability to make you get naked and dance around your living room to santana is in another realm of study. additionally, who are you trying to please by your audio system? yourself or common electronic engineering etiquitte? if there is a psychological effect that is every bit as valid as instrumental results. what if when you turned on your amp, it smelt of rotting trash, it would not sound worse, but you would be driven out of the room. look at your audio system as a single cohesive whole that is meant to please many senses by pleasing your ears and higher results can be acheived. by the way, I have not heard much BETTER than cat5e for any audio application. it is that good. Silver has an effect that can be very pleasing to some people, not to others. all that cat5e is is just really nice copper that happens to be mass produced so that it is extrememly cheap. unless you are throwing true gobs of current at it, it will not pose a problem. also, the notion of actual r and d going on withing the audio business is horse crap. think of bose: better sound through market research... think outside the box... oh yeah, any of that equipment that can hear better than i can please let me know what it is. it would make all of us in the audio industry very very rich. my quetion is are you listening to your system or anylizing it? Clark |
|
Unregistered guest | by the way, the only reason that there is so much animocity and disagreement is that all of us have been pumped full of contradictory crap science from the audio industry marketing departements on a sales pitch. the new thing is "educational material" on cable web sites that is ever so slightly biased towards the "buy our product" side of the spectrum. that is the truely sad thing. because it ruins our community. are you guys trying to compare methods and sounds and ways of presenting music or are you trying to kill each other? I am glad i am not a member of this forum. |
|
E. Ramsey Unregistered guest | Clark, when you are referring to "any equiptment that can hear better than you" I assume you are referring to the highly accurate test instruments used extensively by the audio industry. Since a sound analyzer is capable of 1k times the sensitivity of good human hearing(20Hz-20 KHz) to follow your logic this is like saying that your eyes are better at observing stars than a high powered telescope! Of course the way a system sounds is very important to it's listener but let's face it perceived sound is pretty much purely subjective. Don't get me wrong Clark, i'm not one of those psycho's who are ready to go bare fisted over the cable burn in theory, However it really grouses me when people are ready to dismiss fundamental science,measurement,testing,mathematics and scientific fact over subjectivity,especially if they are like me and and have an electronics background, because they should know better! Cat 5 is the industry standard for streaming audio and video(both analog and digital) through homes and buildings. An rca interconnect hundreds of feet long is highly impractical because of problems of capacitance and extreme cost considerations. Cat 5 is used because it can be run hundreds to thousands of feet with very little signal degradation and is dirt cheap, I think I saw a 1000' spool on the internet for a mere $50! However I must maintain my position that cat 5 is quite unsuitable for speaker wire. I am sure it will work but it is not ideal. All manufactures I have come across recommend no smaller than 16awg from speaker output to speaker, with larger gauges being even better. Yes I do buy zipcord (12awg) for my system but I attach my connectors(gold bananas) myself,so in effect I do build my own cable,and I have yet to hear any diffrences in fresh cut(unoxidized)wire, and wire that is years old. In a tube amp cat 5 may work well since tube amps run more efficiently with heavy impedence loading characteristics, for solid state equipment the larger the wire the better since, if you are in the audio industry I am sure you are aware that a small wire is more resistive than a larger one. Sorry for being lengthy,but now I will get back to the subject at hand, cable "burn in". Once again no one has come forward with any scientific "proof" that cable burn in is more than just a high end audio trend or tshirt slogan. The manufactures of these cables that supposedly need a burn in period maintain that it is the dielectric that must be burned in rather than the conductor itself, that the molecules realign themselves as a voltage is continually applied to them. This is utterly ridiculous since the average voltage signal present in an working rca cable is only about 1 volt peak to peak! This is far too small a voltage to have an effect on the dielectric which is fixed. So to really "burn" a cable a quite large voltage would have to be applied in excess of hundreds,probably thousands of volts. This of course would melt the dielectric and damage it. I agree with you that a piece of equipment such as an amp or receiver needs a short break in period. Polarized DC capacitors must have their dielectric properly formed initially, to function properly,but this is usually ensured by quality control at the factory,however. This type of dielectric present in a capacitor is a completely diffrent animal than the dielectric of a wire or cable, because it is active depending on the charge state of the capacitor. If research an development weren't alive and well within the audio industry we as consumers would not have the wonderful things we have all come to know and love such as dvd,multi-channel surround, and dvd audio. I do not buy the snake oil pseudo science of cable burn in for one second. This does not make me narrow minded or unimaginative, it's just that scientific measurment and fact regarding the subject are what appeal to me and they show that cable burn in is an unfounded myth devoid of scientific credibility. E. Ramsey AAS industrial electronics |
|
Unregistered guest | granted. I was skeptical too, but there is the separate theory of the solder joint. the thing is that are the measurements taken electronically or auditorily. I once saw a site claiming there was no such thing as speaker burn in, however, I recently received a set of fostex full rangers, and sure enough, there were many people in the room, none of them except me music maniacs and i had not loaded their perceptions by telling them what would happen. they all thought my speakers were harsh and dull. a few days later they mellowed out into probably the best set of drivers I have heard. What my theory is about cable break in is that it is not in the cable per se. it actually takes place between components as they share a ground and my theory is that it takes a while for this to "settle down" additionally, if there exists magnetic charge on the copper, then it might take a while for this to dissapate. but then again, every system is different. and who knows? still I maintain that with measurements, though highly useful for designing equipment, things must be fine tuned by ear alone. the thing about taking measurements is that the data is extremely hard to break down into useful facts. even the best audio systems are chaotic messes of wires and junk in the way of the music. It can be intensely hard to see what noise is bad, because it will always be there. This is why i think that a gifted ameteur can receive higher results than most audio compaanies, because if he or she tunes the system well, then one automatically picks up points for not building it by measurements. I currently own an 800 dollar headphone system that some people (myself included) think is damn close to the orpheus in overall presentation, while lacking a tad in detail because it is not electrostatic. (the orpheus is a 15000 dollar system not even including cd player) now this is not the end all be all, but quite cool nonetheless. now this is comparing to a system that actually got things right. there are alot of crap systems out there, especially in the speaker world. I cannot tell you how many rooms I would walk in and straight out of at CES 2005. there were few that really caught attention of people other than dumb crap corrupt audio reviewers. I have used the cat5e as speaker wire primarily in systems with under fifteen watts. so i guess there might be a whole world out there that i am not touching, however, for rcas, cat5 rules. I hear you can create multistrand versions for the high watt systems. being a few pennies a foot, it is hard to go wrong. Many of my freinds here out in walla walla use single strand cat5e for about everything. my general rule now is to use it as patch cable until i can make ICs out of magnet wire, coax cable, or some other substance which ends up performing only slightly better than the cat5e. a good way of telling whether or not it will work is not by looking at the watt output of an amp, but rather the efficiency of the speakers you are using. If it is below 85db, i reccomend a multi strand version. resistance, by the way can be something quite useful to insert into speaker wire. I have heard some single drivers wired with lead and teflon wrapped tungsten. the whole purpose of this is to raise the q of the driver and give higher bass output. it does not affect the midrange a tad but gives prodigious bass output out of even the wimpiest speakers (as i use a single driver for the whole range, experimenting with this substance can be quite rewarding. course you have to use it with solid state because at peak levels you can get like 100 watts going to the driver and 100 watts going to the wire. It will make a three inch full range sound like a 10 inch sub though! my whole thing is to not dismiss a theory just becauese the method to measure it does not exist. additionally, I have never seen a truely controlled test of the materials instead of the consumer product. Truely it is overwhelming the LACK of actual valid science done with audio transmission. and the fact that this knowledge does not circulate well because of dogma, secrecy, etc, I see our audio systems as devolving into wall mounted ferrous magneted low sample rate distorting crap coming out of laptop speakers. there are precious few companies that really get into the sound and musicality of systems and peolpe who are willing to try anything and dismiss anything without results. I have been lucky to be freinds with some of these dudes, and have gained an appreciation for what it takes to actually break out and do something different AND significantly better than any one else. I still maintain that in some instances, and less to non existant in others, over the thousands of systems I have heard hooked up and brand new, that there is sometimes very prominent cable glare that eventually disappears with simple time. I guess as far as audio technology goes i am quite wary of embracing every new product to come out every month. the best amplifier I have ever heard had tubes in it made in the thirties, with little circuit design advancements, except the otl which was invented in the 50s by julius futterman. so i guess that gave me a little more caution into this whole scene. there are great things happening out there, but one must be prudent and side with yourself when embracing products. because the companies rarely look out for the customers. then there is the whole distortion thing. if audio systems distor only .01% course, i place little emphasis on the subject as I have found over time that actual hard soldering of components together gives the highest form of transparency. and doing actual electrical modifications and tweaks to equipment by hard eqing, etc.... this gives the best performence instead of spending multiple college tuitions on hundreds of cables trying to find the one that randomly fits the character of the system. I am sorry that so many people attacked you. You really do have an understanding of the physics at hand. One thing i found brought my listening up by leaps and bounds was to study music and to take piano lessons. It is hard to argue with comparisons to real instruments. |
|
E. Ramsey Unregistered guest | Thanks Clark!, I appreciate the sympathy,but i'm a big boy and I can take it. I really rather enjoy this forum,provided commentary and debate is in a "gentlemanly" fashion. Due to my training in industrial electronics and electricity ,I'm still not willing to accept the cable"burn-in" theory,because these cables only have a voltage signal of about 1 volt peak to peak when the operate. This is much too weak to alter the metal or the dielectric. Given that fact, a re-alingnment of the dielectric molecules as the cable manufacturers suggest is impossible and doesn't hold water. As I explained earlier,this type of action is possible in a capacitor which has an active dielectric,but the dielectric in a cable is fixed and passive,since it primary purpose is for insulation. You are right , a theory cannot be dismissed as false just because it is not proven, but I have not found any scientific evidence to support this theory other than the non-scientific opinionated garbage from vendors who sell these cables. You said that you use cat 5 for low wattage systems up to 15 watts , this really clarified things because I wouldn't use it for high wattage, high current multichannel amps and receivers because it would definately cause a degradation in performance, Although you could take the stands and wind them together, but this would require a lot of cat 5 because the strands are extremely thin and it would take many of them to build a thick speaker wire. Oh, by the way, copper cannot be magnitized, it has what is known in the field of electricity as "reluctance" which means that it is nearly impossible to make magnetic. I do agree that speakers can be "broken in" as they have moving parts(magnet,voice coil) in them. E. Ramsey AAS industrial electronics |
|
Unregistered guest | "they all thought my speakers were harsh and dull. a few days later they mellowed out into probably the best set of drivers I have heard." Could it be that you and your friends became accustomed to the sound of your new speakers? Sometimes the easiest explanation is the correct one. "my whole thing is to not dismiss a theory just becauese the method to measure it does not exist" Unfortunately, the lack of a proof of nonexistence is not a proof of existence. You may claim that the Easter Bunny exists, but the burden of proof lies with you; I don't have to waste my time proving that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. In a controlled double blind experiment, you would not be able to consistently distinguish between a brand new set of cables and one that has been "broken in". Although what your brain is perceiving cannot be measured, the sound waves that reach your ear can. If two identical wave forms sound different to you, the only logical conclusion is that your mind is playing tricks on you. If you can only perceive the "break-in" effect outside of a controlled, double blind experiment, then other factors (preconceived notions, visual stimuli, etc.) are coming into play. |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 159 Registered: Nov-04 | clark, i see where you are coming from but there are many instances where we have too much information. you said, "still I maintain that with measurements, though highly useful for designing equipment, things must be fine tuned by ear alone. the thing about taking measurements is that the data is extremely hard to break down into useful facts. even the best audio systems are chaotic messes of wires and junk in the way of the music." one example is the recently mapped out human genome. no we dont know what the sequences mean, no we can not break down the data at this point in time. but we are still able to analyze that information. just because something isnt understood by science now doesnt mean it wont be later. you say that even the best of uadio is chaotic. when has chaos ever made something unscientific? there is a reason for the chaos theory. also, i never knew that metal carried a magnetic charge with it that needed dissapation. how do you dissipate a magnetic charge by running a current? you also say. "sure, a speaker can be measured with regard to frequency response, etc. but its ability to make you get naked and dance around your living room to santana is in another realm of study." so i guess neurology and pshycology are sciences of the of the mystics. you explain to us that there is a difference and dispell science as proof, and yet you provide no proof of your own. all you have done is prove the point of e. ramsey, myself and others skeptical of cable break in. you have nothing but opinions. if you are going to expect everyone to believe cable break in on the basis of personal experiences there is going to be no level playing field in which we can try to relate with each other. of course i cannot listen to you system and you cannot listen to my system. that is why we are trying to use science to explore this idea. if something sounds different there has to be a reason. speaker coloration is something that can be explained using science. it makes sense. cable break in is something still very fuzzy. you have contributed paragraph after paragraph of writing and yet have said nothing new or particularly convincing in defense of cable break in. |
|
New member Username: GtfMoriches, NY USA Post Number: 1 Registered: Feb-05 | E. Ramsey Just for your information. I use cat 5 with a full range speaker system and a high power amp with no problem. My system is listed here on ecoustics. I have used a single strand of cat 5 to run a pair of transmission line subs capable of 10hz at 85db without any heating of the wire. GTF |
|
Bronze Member Username: DmwileyPost Number: 52 Registered: Feb-05 | Leave it alone already!!!! Some people believe in Christ, others Allah. If you think there's a difference, it really doesn't matter what others think. |
|
New member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 8 Registered: Feb-05 | Perhaps we are not talking about the same "cat5" George T. . When I said cat 5 I was referring to "cat5e", or the type of cable that is used for ethernet,telephone and computer networking. E.Ramsey AAS industrial electronics |
|
New member Username: GtfMoriches, NY USA Post Number: 3 Registered: Feb-05 | Yes that cat5. I purchased some from RS and stripped it down to it's single strands. It's used for ethernet. |
|
New member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 9 Registered: Feb-05 | I guess my next question , Mr. Fabbiani is WHY? When decent speaker wire is available for only pennies more by the foot,why use cat5 which is not designed to be used for speaker wire. Allow me to rephrase the question, why not use speaker wire 16 awg or larger which is certainly less resistive than cat5(24awg), in other words what advantage does cat5 offer over traditional speaker wire. E. Ramsey AAS industrial electronics |
|
New member Username: GtfMoriches, NY USA Post Number: 4 Registered: Feb-05 | Because the fella that made my speakers recommended them to me. It's what he wires his speaker with and suggested I try them myself. I obviously didn't beleive him until I tried them. I was using RS MegaCable. I've used cable as large as Fulton Gold. That cable made my car jumper cables look like inadequate! Try it. It's dirt cheap. BTW the speaker builder down by you somewhere. George |
|
Meropic Unregistered guest | I didn't have time to read everyone's bickering, so forgive me if someone mentioned this before. If I remember my high school physics class correctly magnates are pieces of metal in which the electrons are aligned in such away to produce polar attractions. Yes I know that wires are not magnets, but just hold on. One proven way to create magnets is to run electricity through them for long periods of time (I'm almost positive a DC current would be used, but high school was five years ago). Because the electrons are all being sent in one direction (positive to negative or vise versa, I'm feeling old forgetting these simple things) they eventually align themselves with the direction of the current flow. Instead of being jumbled about pointing in different directions like politicians looking for an answer they all point the same direction and work much more efficiently (By the way if you are still running windows and are frustrated with it take a new look a Macintosh they are running really smoothly now. A lot of the compatibility issues are no longer issues and you might not feel so uptight that you have to bicker about every little thing.). Think of it this way; there are a bunch of arrows in a pipe and all on stiff hinges and all pointing different directions. If you ran water through the pipe for a five minutes some arrows would shift to be pointing in the direction the water was flowing and of course some wouldn't. However if you were to run water for an extended period of time the arrows would gradually change to the direction of the flow of water allowing the water to flow easier. If you don't understand that there is a possibility that over time the electrons in a wire can become more efficiently aligned then you are an idiot or know more that I. Just make sure you don't just think you know more than me. |
|
Bronze Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 12 Registered: Feb-05 | Well, Meropic I'll have to say that there are few misconceptions in your argument. First of all in a dc circuit current flows from the negative to the positive-always. This is the electron flow theory which is widely accepted amoung the scientific community. Protons or positive charges do not flow only electrons which are negative charges. Protons are combined with nuetrons(no charge,just atomic "weight") to form the nucleus of an atom. While what you say is essentially correct that electrons will align themselves over time when forced through a wire, this is not the argument or the theory behind "cable-burn in". The proponents of this falsehood maintain that it is not the conductor that is "burned in" but the dielectric itself. Cable burn in proponents believe that the dielectrics atomic structure of a wire or cable is in random order when new and after x hours of use becomes "aligned". Since the signal through a cable or speaker wire is AC the current flow is essentially random itself,first in one direction and then another, and thus the only way for the atoms of the dielectric to be "aligned"to the signal would be for them to be in a random order in the first place. Of course this would then negate the whole idea for burn in. Another thing is that the voltage signal in an interconnect cable is only about 1-2 VAC peak to peak at a small current on the order of milliamps(ma) this is much too small an amount of electrical energy to change the conductor or the dielctric. Again you are right by saying that electrons will align themselves over time through a conductor, but you missed the point this is not the argument here. BTW I have a degree in industrial electonics,electricity and robotics so I am quite confidant with my level of knowledge. E. Ramsey AAS industrial electronics |
|
Unimpressed at WPAFB Unregistered guest | I think you are all morons. Just plug in a wire and be done with it. Or, better yet, get a job/life. I found this site while trying to buy magnet wire for a research project and, sadly, wasted my time reading a very small fraction of it. PS I'm 19, I work for DoD in AFRL, and I'm smarter than all of you combined. |
|
Silver Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 233 Registered: Feb-05 | Unimpressed at WPAFB:See if you smart enough to figure this one out- BLOMEPUNK |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 447 Registered: Nov-04 | and i work for TODFL in ALDKRON at the age of 4 months!! can you believe it?!?! moron |
|
west side rider Unregistered guest | I tried burning in the cat5 scheize on my 15" subwoofer with my 1600 watt amp. I put in my new trick daddy cd and the wires started smoking after 3 minutes. Does this mean it's burned in? The smoke really bothers my girlfriend when I drive, but I told her it's a small price to pay for sonic nirvana. She said, she hasn't heard that cd yet. Burning in makes your car smell like crap, and I wouldn't recommend cat 5 for anything over 1500 watts. By the way I am qualified to post on this topic because I have a degree in early childhood development, from solano community college. |
|
Per_M Unregistered guest | Just an semi-pro bassplayer, and hobby "soundman". Some thoughts/concerns just to connect this burn-in thread in realtion to listening conditions. I think these things are the most important factors that can change the "sound" over time in the listening-room: - Variations in temp and humidity (affects bouht the acoustics in the listening room and the soundequipment as transistors and speakermembrans) - The ear itself vax in the aural canal, how "rested" the ear is, and what freqencies (bacground noise) they have been "cancelling out" during the last ours. I've done some home recordings, and mixing for fun, and it seems to me that it is difficult to make right desicions about sound just with a/b comparisasion. Every move you take wil affect your mind and after hours of tweaks, you will not be able to tell whats better (There is a difference, but whitch i the better?). If youve got high definition speakers, mabe the sound will be to "harsh" with deacent cables? Mabe a hammoc/smiley curve at a eq is all that takes? or mabe some cheaper and more colored speakers? One thing is for sure, i dont trust what my ears/brain persipates after just one listening. Mabe i find the right sound after some weeks, or mabe my mind is some kind of "reset" after a period with other projects. It seems obvious to me, that the hearing calibrates itself so that it can recognise a given sound in total different situations an listening conditions. You simply get used to your equipment and listeningroom after a while. Especially if you listen alot to your fav "reference music" alot. It is impossible for me to see how some people can tell "the only truth" about how sound is or is not. And this mythic "cable-burning-theory" is irrelevant in my opinion. In fact most music productions are mastered in consideration of reprodusing well or OK through small mono-radiorecievers as well as better HiFi equipment. Cant see the relevance in not mesurable differnces in a signalcable. I think a standard cable for indor lightning is superb to the cd-format itself. apropos "harsh sound": A rested ear will propably experience a usable sound as harsh at levels >85 dB spl, but after a while more balanced. Less than perfect acoustics is allso an argument for keeping a mix a bit harsh, as this is needed to lift the mid-range above ambient/reverbant sounds and give extra clarity. Mixing real acoustics down to a stereo track also demands some lift in the mid-freqs. Conclusion: If there is any "burn-in-effect", it must be the occidation of the cabel, that damp those "harsh" higher-mid-freqs you've payd alot of money to make your speaker produce. |