Topic: Cable burn in?

[Kyle]

Teddy, thanks for the ToddR's! Did you get my package?

Onwards - I found a distinct differecne between the ToddR silvers and the Monster Standard. You can hear it. It is not in my mind or psycho acoustics (although I am psycho ) - The wires ahve a different sound. I am not saying one is better than the ther or spending $3000 is the magic answer - I just prefer the sound of the ToddR cables to the Monster., The Monster had a more rounded bottom end - a bit "warmer" for lack of a better term. The ToddR's did not have that sound. They were much clearer, more detailed, but not as bottom heavy.

My girlfriend is by no means an audiophile and as soon as I turned the system on she said "What happened in here? Iit sounds different. There is no bass." Changed cables - that's it. 

I will not spend $3000 on ic's - that's crazy. But different cables can sound different. Audition as many as possible and go with what you like.

[RebelRebel]

Yes, the todd rs have different materials than the monsters. Im not denying that cables made with different matreials will sound different...what I am rejecting is that two cables(well made) with the same materials shouldnt sound drastically different..., and also that a well built cable should be more than enough for any appllication...no matter if it is 60 bucks. Good that you wouldnt pay 3,000 for a cable. I wouldnt pay 300. Or 200. 100 is as high as I go.

Havent got the stuff yet, but no worries man!

Teddy, thanks for the ToddR's! Did you get my package?

Onwards - I found a distinct differecne between the ToddR silvers and the Monster Standard. You can hear it. It is not in my mind or psycho acoustics (although I am psycho ) - The wires ahve a different sound. I am not saying one is better than the ther or spending $3000 is the magic answer - I just prefer the sound of the ToddR cables to the Monster., The Monster had a more rounded bottom end - a bit "warmer" for lack of a better term. The ToddR's did not have that sound. They were much clearer, more detailed, but not as bottom heavy.

My girlfriend is by no means an audiophile and as soon as I turned the system on she said "What happened in here? Iit sounds different. There is no bass." Changed cables - that's it. 

I will not spend $3000 on ic's - that's crazy. But different cables can sound different. Audition as many as possible and go with what you like.

[Kyle]

Yes, the todd rs have different materials than the monsters. Im not denying that cables made with different matreials will sound different...what I am rejecting is that two cables(well made) with the same materials shouldnt sound drastically different..., and also that a well built cable should be more than enough for any appllication...no matter if it is 60 bucks. Good that you wouldnt pay 3,000 for a cable. I wouldnt pay 300. Or 200. 100 is as high as I go.

Havent got the stuff yet, but no worries man!

Teddy, thanks for the ToddR's! Did you get my package?

Onwards - I found a distinct differecne between the ToddR silvers and the Monster Standard. You can hear it. It is not in my mind or psycho acoustics (although I am psycho ) - The wires ahve a different sound. I am not saying one is better than the ther or spending $3000 is the magic answer - I just prefer the sound of the ToddR cables to the Monster., The Monster had a more rounded bottom end - a bit "warmer" for lack of a better term. The ToddR's did not have that sound. They were much clearer, more detailed, but not as bottom heavy.

My girlfriend is by no means an audiophile and as soon as I turned the system on she said "What happened in here? Iit sounds different. There is no bass." Changed cables - that's it. 

I will not spend $3000 on ic's - that's crazy. But different cables can sound different. Audition as many as possible and go with what you like.

Agreeed 100%

ToddR just hooked me with a set of speakers cables (extra stock laying around) -12' for $65 with bananas - sweet deal - couldn't say no...

[SparkE!]

You know, I've always been a sceptic of claims on cable burn-in, but I've never made a big deal about it.  I mean if someone thinks their cables sound better after using them for awhile, that's OK with me.  It doesn't cost much to do the burn-in and if it makes people comfortable, then what's the harm?

It always cracks me up when someone talks about how their cables sounded different after some amount of time of listening to music that has passed through them, but they can't really do an A/B comparison because the cables were so expensive that they only bought two of them (one for each of two channels) and they were both in use during the burn-in.

A real test would be to burn in some cables and then do A/B comparison, going back and forth between the ones that had been burned in and the ones that had not.  An even better test would be to make the switches blind, not knowing ahead of time which cables you listening to.  And the ultimate test would be to make the switches double blind so that neither the person running the switch nor the person listening would know which cable was in use at the time.

Is cable burn-in snake oi?  Probably.  Does it make a difference to me? Not at all.  I'm perfectly OK with letting people have their misconceptions if it makes them feel better.  Frankly, there are better things to argue about when it comes to audio.  I say if it makes you feel better, burn your cables in.  Do it for thousands of hours if you think it makes a difference.  Get it out of the way.  There's more important things to pay attention to when you actually go into the field to make a recording and you don't need the distraction of worrying about using cables that are not burned in.  If you're not worried about cable burn-in, then great!  All it means is that you get to skip that step.  No harm, no foul.

[Chuck]

I feel that there is some value in perception. For example, I have some Radio Shack RCA interconnects around and don't ever use them in my reference system. Will those cables let signal pass from one component to the other? Yes, but, I feel much better using the Canare star-quad cables that I hand solder myself. To me there is value in knowing that quality wire, insulation and jacketing is used in the Canare cables. When making RCA interconnects with this cable it is possible to use the two pairs of wires to connect the two sides of the wire to there proper connectors, leaving the shielding tied only to one end of the cable. This configuration allows the signal to pass between the components properly while having the sheild connected on the amplifier side for RF interference protection.
This is of value to me.

I personally have not heard any difference between cables that have been burned in vs. cables that have not.

[SparkE!]

Well, I just recorded three files.  All three files are recorded with the same two cables, one cable per channel.  One of the cables is brand new, pulled out of its packaging tonight.  The other one is well used with 100's of hours on it.  Both cables are exactly the same model of cable, purchased at the same time from the same vendor.  All three files are recorded at 24 bits/96 kHz and stored as Microsoft 32 bit floating point .wav files.  Two of the three recordings have the cables connected to the same channels and the remaining recording has the cables reversed with respect to the other two.  Anyone want to tell me which recording has the cables connected differently from the other two recordings?  Extra credit if you can also identify the cable that's burned in.

Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3

Each of these files is about 5 M in size.

[apd]

I guess I'll throw my $0.02 in, I'm relatively new here so I apologize in advance if I'm speaking out of line.

As someone who has at one time taught graduate courses in transmission line theory (at microwave frequencies), I have a hard time swallowing any burn-in claims.  The electrical model of any two-wire transmission line (coaxial or parallel conductor), is that of a series resistance and inductance due to the conductors and a shunt conductance and capacitance due to the dielectric material between conductors. Any cable manufacturer worth his salt will publish the per unit length values of all 4 parameters as part of the data sheet (at least at higher frequencies).

Essentially, every conductor (wire) will have some bulk resistance in ohms per unit length due to conductance of the particular metal it is comprised of, assuming impurities are kept to a minimum.  Any time you pass a current through a wire you will generate some inductance per unit length, but at audio frequencies this is negligble.

As for the insulating material (dielectric), it will have some loss per unit length which appears as a shunt conductance between the wires, as well as a shunt capacitance per unit length.

At high frequencies (tens of megahertz on up), you will generally see losses due to attenuation increase quickly unless the physical and electrical properties of the cable are optimized for transmission at much higher frequencies (at much higher cost).  This is why you don't use the same coaxial cable for cable tv as you do for satellite.

Assuming the diameter of the wire is sized correctly for the expected current it will carry (its ampacity), then very little heat will be generated due to conductor losses.  Heat generation is the main problem with dielectric materials.  After repeated heating/cooling cycles, the dielectric will become brittle which can lead to microscopic cracking when stressed, which reduces dielectric effectiveness and increases losses.  If the dielectric is chosen properly and the electric field breakdown properties aren't exceeded then arcing and dielectric breakdown shouldn't be an issue either.  I don't see how any significant aging effects can take place after 50-100 hours of use.

At microwave frequencies, currents flow along the outer surface of the conductor (skin effect), and the metal's conductance and the frequency of operation will determine the skin depth at that frequency.  99.4% of the current is carried in the first 5 skin depths.  At low frequencies, the skin depth is large enough to encompass the entire cross-sectional area of the cable, so current density is uniform.  So surface plating of the conduct or using Litz wire won't make a differnece.

The top of the audio band (20 KHz) has a wavelength of about 1500 meters, and it will increase at lower frequencies.  The electrical length of a typical speaker/interconnect/microphone cable is quite short, so the instantaneous voltage will be equal along its length.  So I don't see any odd charge storage effects happening. At microwave frequencies, where the wavelength is smaller than the physical length, voltage/current distribution along the length of the cable will be quite different.

The human ear requires much less power at higher frequencies than low frequencies to perceive the same loudness.  This is why radio and phono stages use pre-emphasis/de-emphasis circuits to improve signal to noise ratios.  Is it possible that someone with excellent hearing can hear the subtle difference in upper audio frequency attenuation between a cheap cable and a quality cable?  Maybe, but I can't (but I don't claim to have concert musician hearing).  Can someone hear the difference between a very good low-loss cable costing $50 and another costing $1000?  I doubt it.

If it makes people feel better to buy outrageously expensive interconnects then I don't see the harm in it.  People think I'm nuts for buying pocket knives made out of tool steel instead of cheap ones made out of scrap metal.  They both can cut common items.

[cshepherd]

Fully burned in cables will also require 3-5 minutes of warm up time after they've been out of the system.  Thought some of you guys might be interested in that tidbit of knowledge.

~crackpot

[SparkE!]

Well, I just recorded three files.  All three files are recorded with the same two cables, one cable per channel.  One of the cables is brand new, pulled out of its packaging tonight.  The other one is well used with 100's of hours on it.  Both cables are exactly the same model of cable, purchased at the same time from the same vendor.  All three files are recorded at 24 bits/96 kHz and stored as Microsoft 32 bit floating point .wav files.  Two of the three recordings have the cables connected to the same channels and the remaining recording has the cables reversed with respect to the other two.  Anyone want to tell me which recording has the cables connected differently from the other two recordings?  Extra credit if you can also identify the cable that's burned in.

Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3

Each of these files is about 5 M in size.

Anyone want to take a crack at this?  Perhaps someone who has used adjectives like "stunning", "amazing" or "dramatic" when describing the changes they heard in their cables after burn-in?

[RebelRebel]

 

Well, I just recorded three files.  All three files are recorded with the same two cables, one cable per channel.  One of the cables is brand new, pulled out of its packaging tonight.  The other one is well used with 100's of hours on it.  Both cables are exactly the same model of cable, purchased at the same time from the same vendor.  All three files are recorded at 24 bits/96 kHz and stored as Microsoft 32 bit floating point .wav files.  Two of the three recordings have the cables connected to the same channels and the remaining recording has the cables reversed with respect to the other two.  Anyone want to tell me which recording has the cables connected differently from the other two recordings?  Extra credit if you can also identify the cable that's burned in.

Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3

Each of these files is about 5 M in size.

Anyone want to take a crack at this?  Perhaps someone who has used adjectives like "stunning", "amazing" or "dramatic" when describing the changes they heard in their cables after burn-in?

[Brian Skalinder]

Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3

Okay, I'll play - I don't really care if I'm wrong, I just find this kind of stuff fun.  So for kicks I gave these three a listen, even though I've not heard "stunning", "amazing", or "dramatic" differences in my very, very limited cabling changes over the years:

To make sure I understand how this was setup, here's an example of how I comprehend the test - A, B, and C do not necessarily correspond to 1, 2, and 3:

Sample A = L burned in, R new
Sample B = L burned in, R new
Sample C = L new, R burned in

Assuming I understand the setup correctly (or even if I don't, I suppose it doesn't matter), here's my feedback...

FWIW, I first trimmed the start of each file - each had a slightly different delay before the music started, and I didn't want that to influence my testing.

After trimming, I hear a definite difference between 1/2 and 3.  I was quite surprised!  Whether or not the difference is due to the cables, I don't know since I'm not entirely sure how the samples were produced.  But, the difference is there and easy for me to pick out in an ABX test when focusing on specific portions of the sample.  For example, listen at the 3rd beat / ~1 sec mark when comparing 1 or 2 v. 3.  On the 3rd beat, the guitar in sample 3 reveals a higher tone than samples 1/2.

I ABX'd 1/3 and 2/3 ten times each and went 10/10.  However, I failed miserably ABX-ing 1 and 2 - total crapshoot on that comparison, I simply could not tell the difference.

While I'm confident of the differences I hear between 1/2 and 3, I really can't say which cable is burned in and which is new.  If I had to guess, I'd say in Sample 3, R = burned in, L = new, and the opposite for samples 1/2.

BTW, I don't feel I have especially good ears.  But I do think that over the years I've learned how to listen - this factor is probably more important than the specific gear used for playing back music.  I didn't do the testing on a terribly high end system.  My playback was:

PC soundcard >
AKG K501 headphones

and

Waveterminal 2496 digi-out >
Bel Canto DAC1.1 >
Audio Experiences Symphonies preamp >
McCormack DNA-1 power amp >
Von Schweikert VR-1s

SparkE! - PM me with the results?

[Chuck]

I don't think the source is the same on the three files.
Each file looks different, they are not all the same length and they all sound different to me.
I'm guessing it's three different/separate performances. Not the same exact source on each recording.

Sparke?

[Brian Skalinder]

I don't think the source is the same on the three files.
Each file looks different, they are not all the same length and they all sound different to me.
I'm guessing it's three different/separate performances. Not the same exact source on each recording.

It's a listening test, not a sight test.    Did you trim the start of the files so there isn't a different time delay before the first note starts?  I found that tipped me off right away as to which was which, hence my trimming of the files before listening again.  (I didn't bother trimming the ends since I didn't listen all the way through to each sample).  Are you able to distinguish between all three in an ABX environment?  I didn't fare well at all when ABX-ing 1 and 2.  Every time I think I figure it out after getting my ABX selection correct, I miss the next one!

Just curious:  what's your playback?

[Chuck]

I was playing it back through a DAW with CuBase using AKG K-240's and a pair of Audix powered monitors.
If you actually examine the files with an editor, they are quite different. I do have to admit to seeing the files before listening, but if you look at them they are obviuosly not the same source.

edit:

I alligned them all on separate stereo tracks in CuBase and A,B,C'ed them using the solo and auto replay features. I didn't listen enough times to distinguish each file from the other, but if I had more time, I would have been able to distinguish them. As in most cases of this kind of thing, it's all very subjective. Which file sounds best is anyone's guess/opinion. I think we spend too much time trying to determine good/better/best sometimes. Not that finding good/better/best is a bad thing, but it is very, very subjective and often elusive...

[cshepherd]

This is like watching an argument over wether or not the earth is flat.

Chris