I am somewhat open minded to burning in cables,but when a manufactuer tells you 100hrs or more i begin to wonder about that. Where i hear a difference is more in different type of manufactuers of interconnects after some burn in time. I use only different types of copper interconnects in my system solid core or twisted,braided ics. I have used gold,silver copper combination ics and found them more bright sounding overall IMO. But i like a warm sounding system anyways. When useing a horn loaded speaker. |
It is real! Happy Listening! |
2016 and still burning man! No voodoo here. |
Ray, thanks, I understand. The phenomenon is real enough. |
|
Detlof,Question was simple enough.I do not have any interest in proving anything.I have heard drastic changes and wondered if anyone has tried to capture this on a recording. |
|
I dunno. I had all my power cords and interconnects burned in on the AudioDharma Cable Cooker and cryo'd as soon as I bought them so I never got a chance to A/B the things. |
Record it to what end Ray? To prove that the break -in phenomenon exists? |
Has anyone ever tried to record the "breaking in " ? I have had new cables change sound dramatically, after so many hours of playing music . I do not know why,,,but I have noticed it . More with some cables that others. It would seem that there would be a way to record it . Just a thought,,, |
Frank, cables -shnabels- you're right, listening to Hejira again--after many years- was quite an experience. Thanks for reminding me.
Regards, |
Kevin: I'll ship "Jingle" to you along with my HTS2000 (after I totally screw it up trying to add a male IEC plug and upgrade the sockets:-). On another note: I have been burning in a power cord by running my computer with it. Is this doing a good job or is it a lame way to do it? I ran out of audio gear to run some new cords in on (and now have two pieces in the shop). |
hey 702, *relax* man, it's a *yoke*! as i said before: "sorry, couldn't resist." seriously, tho, other than knowing ewe have contributed to the music scene, but knowing *nothing* about your tastes in music *or* equipment, my *yoke* has yust as much chance at being close to the truth as anyting else, for all i know... regards, doug s. |
Kev, so how's Max doing after all the tests? |
Detlof, where would this site be without you? Thank you for your, as usual, kindness.
Regarding JM, I admit "Blue" as well as "Ladies of the Canyon" and "For the Roses" were the great works of her early folk years, but the middle period that included "Court & Spark" ," Hissing of Summer Lawns"(WOW!!), and "Hejira", she seemed to reinvent herself so to speak. Talk about music that stood the test of time, this was it. "Hejira" though, is rather incredible IN MY OPINION>.........Sorry , I know this has nothing to do with cables....Frank |
Kev, there are at least TWO psychiatrists amongst us. Maybe they could recommend a suitable canine colleague. You must move fast: your dog's residual audio memory surely has its limits.
Sean, sorry: pls excuse this departure from seriousness.
Cheers, Greg. |
Frap: Don't worry about your rating. I just looked at mine for the first time and I have a -10!!! I just don't understand what I've said that is so offensive. |
Dekay: I may need more music as my first test have been inconclusive. With the expensive cables he starts with a growl. Sort of a low grrrrr from his chest. Both ears are fully perked and then he gives a quick yap. With the Walmart brand he goes straight to yapping.... I'm not sure how to interpret these results. If there are any animal behavior specialist reading please email me to help me unravel these results. |
Kevin: I have "Jingle Cats" if you would like to borrow it for your test. The five "little men" have not been good lately and they will not be needing it. |
Frap, I've evened you out, though I prefer her "Blue" to Hejira. But that album got me on to her and I'll dig it out and listen to it tonight. Thanks for reminding me of its existence. Cheers |
Whoever gave me double negative 2s for this one, really does need a life. |
While your at it, might as well listen to the rest of "HEJIRA" could be the lady's best album ever. |
Kevperro, please do get back with us and post which cables are the "cats meow." I also suggest that once your have played all the cat sounds that you can stand, try "Furry Sings The Blues," by Joni Mitchell. |
I'm going to burn a set of my cables tonight and after the smoke clears I will do some blind testing with my dog. He is too stupid to recoginize which of my cables are expensive burned-in cables and which are the Walmart Brand. I have a CD with just cat noises that drives him crazy which I can play. I'll monitor his response to the cat CD with the expensive designer cables and then try it again with the Walmart Brand and get back with you guys on the results. |
Here again 702, I must follow in the footsteps of no money and second his request. Apart from that, even if that will get me minus points, I am glad that your back. I would wish though, that you would be more open about your listening habits, your preferences and the gear you like and listen to. Regards, |
702.... I must have missed the posts letting us know what cables you have tried with what equipment. If you could post that again, that would be great. I haven't been able to find that post. Thanks. |
Albertporter: I can't control what you infer from what I write. If you want to infer that I love numbers more than music, go ahead, it can be your own little alternative to reality.
My insistence on ABX testing is to determine what, if anything, sounds different between two devices, systems, etc., in strict terms of what can be heard, and not influenced by marketing hype, pretty appearances, pricing, ego, etc. With essentially side-by-side comparison, it can resolve even fine distinctions more reliably than can sequential absolute evaluations of the type you advocate, which is prone to false detection of non-existant differences through bias, suggestion, or even fakery. Note also that ABX testing, as I had described earlier but it apparently didn't sink in, has nothing to do with numbers, measurements, or specs. Also contrary to Redkiwi's misunderstanding, ABX testing is not limited to short listening periods, but is at the listener's own discretion. Laugh if you like, but you're the one buying $$$$ cables and can't prove they improve anything.
Sedond: If that's what you want to believe I've contributed to audio, go ahead and believe it. Again, reality does not follow what you or I or anyone imagines, however desperately synthesized.
Sean: Resistance in series with an amplifier output does NOT raise the damping factor; it lowers it. The resistance of the speaker wire is parasitic and can be considered part of the output impedance. In particular, it will decrease the amplifier's ability to absorb the back EMF from the woofer. It will also cause a voltage-divider phenomenon, in which frequency-dependent variations in the speaker impedance cause its frequency response to become more irregular. |
This post is in two parts, first part to express my opinion that yes cable "burning" does have an effect as I have experienced at my local dealer a direct comparison of a virgin cable and one that had been given some +100 hours of "burning". I noticed more spatial detail amongst others. The second part going partially off topic and I hope not being too confrontational I wish to direct a question at the above post from stevemj. My question to this stevemj being what are your thoughts regarding electrical and sound signals in so much as they are both forms of energy and are therefore subject to external disturbance and/or alteration of energy fields, particle path motion patterns, etc.? We could even go on to ask questions concerning the interaction and alteration of energy fields that may be present in our own molecular makeup and could this form part of the listening experience which even you have aluded to in your post? What say you? If you would care to email me I may be able to direct you to further written matter that could help redress the imbalance caused by your relentless quest for facts and figures to boost your apparent belief that we mere mortals do not measure up to your contradtitory ramblings and that the feelings and emotions we experience whilst attempting to enjoy and appreciate our hobby are misjudged, misguided, akin to the alchemists search for fools gold, whatever. Jo. |
Sean - I believe our ears are very sensitive to changes in frequency response. If something can be shown to effect frequency response it is a valid subject, as, of course, are many others. What I don't believe that many audiogoners do, is that there is something intrinsic in the molecular structure of the metal itself that alters the sound. It's that "silver has a laid back sound" kind of talk that drives me nuts. (People seem to not undertand that it is an electrical and not a sound signal traveling the wire). Since cable manufactures have no explanations for why one cable sounds better than another, they promote psuedo scientific explanations. I have an email from a manufacturer with just this kind of nonsense in it.
While I am ranting, let me tell you a an experience I am having with my new B&W Nautilus speakers. I hooked them up and got ready for something wonderful to happen. They sounded so bad to me I thought, hmmmm I must have gotten them out of phase. Wouldn't be the first time. I checked. Nope not out of phase. So I listened for a while and well the accuracy seemed very good. I listen for a few days and they sounded better but I'm still troubled. So I check the phase with a battery. Yep, they are in phase, at least the woofers. It's a couple of weeks now and they seem to have some bass now, it seemed totally absent at first. They are used speakers so "burn in" isn't involved.
Have I discovered a new phenomenon?... Speakers have to get used to their new suroundings before they begin to sound OK.... Or is it perhaps that the complicated, imperfect blob of protoplasm that I am is changing and the speakers are performing exactly the same as they did when first connected. |
How is it then that i remember you as being one of the "wire is wire" crowd ? Am i mistaken ? Sean
> |
Sean - I used the 8 ohms just to make the example easier to think about. I'm not sure but a damping factor of one may be similar to the results with an 8 ohm resistor. You won't get any naysaying from me about phenomena that can alter the frequency response. |
Steve, your example takes things to an extreme. How much "small gauge" wire would you have to run to increase the line loss to the level that you mentioned ??? I took and measured appr 20' of 21 gauge wire. This would be equivalent to a 10' run of cable to and from the speaker. Series resistance was less than 0.3 ohm. While a smaller wire would be higher in resistance and a longer run would also contribute to this, it would take a LOT of wire to produce even just a FEW ohms of resistive loss.
Even with that in mind, i'm NOT discounting your theory that various speaker cables DO alter the load that the amp sees. As such, the amp CAN respond differently to specific impedance combinations that it is presented with due to different speaker / speaker cables / cable lengths required in various installations. As such, you have only helped me to prove that wires CAN sound different and ARE completely system dependent due to the stability of the circuit driving it.
THANKS for the help in clarifying this situation, as i never knew you had it in ya..... : ) Sean
> |
Steve, mostly all of the mid to late 70s high power SS superamps used tons of negative feedback. Whatever benefits derived from excessive amounts of it,were all negated by the God awful sonic results. The spec sheets were always the same; i.e. incredibly low static distortion figures at very high power...damping factors up in the hundreds!!! and low slew rates (remember when slew rates were the most important specs?). The tank amplifier that Sean was referring to, was, for sure, the Mark Levinson ML-2. There was simply no better made SS amp in that era. |
Sean - I think you are right that the output voltage of the amp will be more regulated with the small wire. However, I believe the voltage at the speaker terminals will not. Instead of small wire just imagine that an 8 ohm speaker has an 8 ohm resistor in series with it. Now half the amplifiers output voltage will be dropped across the speaker. AS the output impedance of the speaker falls less voltage is dropped across the speaker. As the speaker impedance rises the voltage across the speaker increases. The speaker is no longer connected to a voltage source. As seen by the speaker the 8 ohm resistor trashes the damping factor of the amp.
Low impedance loads are a problem for all amps that are not designed for them. Even springing power supplies optimized for 8 ohms will deliver enough current to smoke output devices if the impedance falls low enough. The designer either has to use more output devices and drivers or provide an effective protection circuit that limits the current vs. time the output sees.
Frap - I didn't mention the connection between damping factor and feedback. Basically, the more feedback the higher the damping factor. SS amps have higher damping factors and lower distortion because more feedback can be used. It is difficult to wrap much feedback around a tube amp because of the output transformer. Output transformers are a designer's nightmare. One of the transformer's problems is the unavoidably large phase shift at low frequencies. This will turn negative feedback into positive feedback if very much is used. |
Stiffly regulated supplies in SS power amps typically DO NOT do well with low impedance loads, large changes in dynamics, severe impedance swings, peak power output, etc... UNLESS the amp is built like TWO tanks with a MASSIVE power supply reserve. The supply and regulators would have to be MUCH larger than an unregulated supply to achieve similar results under dynamic conditions. As such, it would cost about as much as a tank to build something like that.
Given that most people do not have the budget for such things, most "common" SS amps will perform best in an unregulated design with the "killer regulation" or "stiff" supply reserved for "price no object" and "esoteric" designs. As to which design sounds better ( tight regulation, moderate regulation or no regulation ), there are proponents in every camp that are quite vocal.
Tubes, on the other hand, typically don't pull much current and need higher and stable voltages to work best. As such, building regulators for a reasonable amount of current for tube use is much simpler and cost effective than building the monster circuit that would be required for a beefy SS design.
As to damping factor, that is determined by the output impedance of the amp vs the overall load impedance of the speakers. Given that fact, damping factor changes AS THE LOAD CHANGES. If you look at specs for amps, they will state the damping factor at a very SPECIFIC impedance for this very reason. As such, damping factor will ALWAYS be higher as impedance of the speaker is increased.
This is the very reason that tubes, which typically have a higher output impedance, don't do well with lower impedance loads. The damping factor is pretty low and the speaker can now "modulate" the load that the amp sees with greater ease. As such, you get less bass control with a reduction in definition.
Steve's suggestion of using tiny wire WILL alter the damping factor of the system, but not with the results that he speculates at. Putting more resistance at the output of the amplifier in effect RAISES the damping factor of the amplifier. You haven't raised the output impedance of the amp itself, you've raised the load impedance that the amp sees. Since bass requires higher current levels to reproduce than high frequencies do, the smaller gauge wire and higher series resistance will produce a much thinner, leaner and "taught" bass simply because current flow has been "choked". This is NOT due to a "reduced damping factor" as explained above, but due to lack of overall bass output.
Now compare this to an amp with a low damping factor and your results would be the opposite. Low damping factors are typically associated with an increase in round, mushy bass that rings. In effect, the tonal balance has now become warm and full, not thin and lean as would occur with the "thin wire" substitution recommended above. Sean
> |
frap - I enjoyed hearing your take on the Ampzilla. I'm not a EE either but I have had the luxury of working with several. Here are a few things I've learned that relate to power supplies, voltage sources and damping factors. You may already be familiar with this.
It is a high damping factor that makes an amp a true voltage source. Damping factor is the measurement of change in output voltage as load impedance varies. In the case of the Ampzilla as the speaker impedance climbed from say 8 ohms to possibly 30 ohms at resonance (closed box), the output voltage of the amp increased. You got to have more bass without feeling guilty about using the tone controls :-) Naturally there is a price to be paid, two actually. One, the speaker impedance doesn't always change in a favorable way. This is probably why the electrostats sounded bad. The amp is changing the frequency response based upon speaker impedance. No one will argue that even tiny changes in frequency response are not easily detected. Second, when a dynamic driver overshoots or rings (as they all do) they generate a correction signal that acts like a shock absorber to dampen the overshoot. If an amp has a low damping factor much of this signal is lost. This may be the whoopyness you refer to. If you want to fool around and see what your amp would sound like with a lower damping factor, hook you speakers up with 24 or 27 gauge wire. Even that may not get the DF as low as the Ampzilla.
As I understand it, in SS amps stiff power supplies are a benefit to the designer but not to the listener. Suppose you want to get all the power you can from your output transistors. In that case you design a rock solid (expensive) power supply that parks the power supply voltage near the maximum voltage the output transistors can handle. As transistors got better it became possible to have a higher voltage spongy (less expensive) power supply. It would sag and deliver the rated power of the amp and under music conditions operate at higer voltages and deliver greater power to the speakers than a stiff supply of the same RMS rating. I'm not sure but it may be that this technique doesn't work so well with tubes. I think the tubes are biased to operate at a particular voltage and to have the power supply bouncing around one or two hundred volts could screw up the amps performance. |
Steve, funny you should bring up Jim Bongeorno's GAS Ampzilla. The reason that amp developed such a cult following in 1976/77, was because of just that reason (not because of the apes in the ads). It was highly listenable and had some very judicious tradeoffs that juggled between transient detail and a rounded loose and whompy bottom. Sounds like that Damping factor of 1 to me. Trying very hard for the tube sound again. Terrible amp for running electrostats even though it did handle low impedance loads very well. Why was that the case? dont know.
One thing I can say though, is that the ingrediants for good amp sound have remained the same for years.
1) Little use of negative feedback
2) Stiff Power Supply that can supply the current required to make the amp a TRUE voltage source regardless of load. The importance of the Supply can't be stressed enough. Its a fact that no amp can is gonna be better than the stuff travelling down the supply rails. I am not an EE, just what I have observed over time that has proved consistently true.......Frank |
doug - I wasn't jesting. I was just musing. I'm not up to date on amplifier designs. So, it is interesting to hear that some of what I mentioned has been tried. There was an amplifier some time ago called "Ampzilla". It sounded different. The trick that amp's designer had used was to set the damping factor to one. Typically, this will increase the low end. With the advent of cheap powerful processors there maybe a lot of interesting possibilities. The processor looking at the music and dynamically fiddling with the an amplifiers characteristics. I'm gonna think about this a little. |
albert, i have a suspicion that stevemj's post *was*, in fact, in jest. ironic, that, as you show, it's actually what smart designers *do*. seems to me they know something *isn't* "technically perfect", as stevemj purports, if it in fact cannot accurately portray *the real event* of live music. regards, doug s. |
Stevenj, I cannot tell if your post is in jest, or you are sincere. If you are suggesting that lowering and raising the damping factor with a switch is a joke, I can assure you that it is not.
Controlling an amplifiers damping factor is not novel. The Wolcott Presence amplifiers have had this feature for two years. The user has easy access to a toggle switch for both high and low position, and a rotary knob that adjusts within each range. Adjustment of these controls provides performance changes that are not only easy to hear, but at the discretion of the listener.
The man who invented this product is an engineer who values specifications, but is also aware that the reproduction of music is an art as well. If it is of any interest to you, the switch changes the positive control feedback voltage internally, without affecting the load to the output transformer. |
Stevenmj: I believe that most of what you mention has already been used in past and present designs (both tube and SS). You may want to go through the Tweaker's Asylum at AA and see what you can find on these concepts. I suspect that the "air" that you mention is really a type of re-verb that is most noticeable in quite a few tube designs which incorporate low to zero feedback and which may also stem from the types of tubes used in the designs (many small signal tubes types are somewhat microphonic, even those that test well, and may add to this sense of air/reverb). There are also quite a few tube designs in which you can "dial in" the feedback, though I am not aware of any SS designs with this feature off hand. Once again I am not a technical person, just your average theorist. |
Sean - If I were a designer with a design that was as technically perfect as the state of the art would allow and yet some audiophiles complained that it "wasn't right" or wasn't musical or wasn't lifelike here's what I would think about trying.
First, I would consider injecting noise into the output. Now, no one likes noise during the quite passages so I would make it a smart noise injector that varied its output with with volumn and perhaps energy in the high frequencies. The noise spectrum would probably not have lower frequencies - one would have to experiment. The circuit would recognize testing conditions and not operate. I suspect that noise gives music an airy lifelike quality that many like.
Next, I would lower the damping factor. As the damping factor lowers the amplifier begins to get involved in the music. Lower damping factor may or may not have a pleasant effect, so, a damping factor control knob could be an attractive feature. From a marketing standpoint I would give it a name something like "Voicing".
I would also experiment with increased harmonic distortion. I don't know if it is possible to increase lower harmonic distortion without increasing itermodulation distortion. IM creates unnatural frequencies and is always unpleasant. Harmonic distortion on the other hand is what music is all about. All musical instruments owe their sonic character to harmonic distortion of the fundamental. Just the right kind of harmonic distortion could, I suppose, make an amplifier seem more musical. |
Audiofrk, I have a Duo-Tech and a Mobie. While the Duo-Tech is more versatile in terms of what you can hook up to it and "burn in", I prefer the Mobie.
As to Steve's question, what else would a "good" engineer do when something doesn't "feel right" even though it is functionally perfect ? They "tweak" and "re-engineer" !!!
By this, i mean altering components by make, model or specifications, re-arrange component & wire layout, try various voltage and bias levels, etc... Call it "circuit evolution", "upgrading", "modifying", etc... but it takes place EVERY day. They do this until they feel comfortable with the results and then send out the unit for production.
Those that DON'T take the time to refine and perfect their products are simply the "whores" of the industry and out to make a quick buck. This is why we have "off the shelf" companies like Pioneer, Kenwood, Technics, etc... and "refiners" like many of the "esoteric" or "specialty" brands. This is not to say that crooks and shysters don't abound in either circle, some more than others.
For reference purposes, let's go back to a piece of "audio history". We'll use the Perreaux PMF series of amps. The PMF-2150 was the first production stereo amp to use Mosfets for output devices. By doing further refinement using the same basic output circuitry but "finessing" the overall design, Peter Perreaux was able to DRASTICALLY alter EVERY aspect of the amp. He played games with the power supply, voltage & bias levels and lay-out of the parts. His "re-design" of the same basic circuit ( same type and number of output devices per channel as the original 2150 ) was called the PMF-3150.
As such, the 3150 performs NOTHING like the 2150. ANYONE that has listened to these two amps within the same system will testify to this fact. ANYONE that looks inside the amps will easily be able to see their similarities due to the majority of parts that were retained. At the same time, they would also notice the differences due to those same parts being configured quite differently within the chassis. Besides ALL of that and what is most important to YOU, the units also MEASURE very differently. Same chassis, majority of the same components, very similar designs in terms of schematics but quite different performance overall.
This brings us to another point. Since most "basic" audio designs have already been done, all that is left for most companies to do is to "tweak" or put THEIR "signature" onto an existing topology, circuit or design. As you are well aware, there are only a "few" folks that are truly "stretching" the audio design "cookbook". With that in mind, most of these "new models" are simply refinements and improvements to "tried & true" models. As such, some of these "new models" do sound MUCH better than the originals even though they might MEASURE poorer or make use of parts that share the same exact "parts values". As such, we've come a LONG way even though much of it "appears" to be the same. Sean
> |
Afrk: Sorry I have no answer for you regarding DouTech. Music Direct has Mobie in stock, but insists on list price. I was able to order the Mobie from AudioNut @15% discount, but it's backordered. No big savings, but M.D. acted so snobbish on the phone that I couldn't stomach the attitude & went to AudioNut instead. G&D transforms will sell directly to the consumer, FYI. |
Anyone know where to buy a DuoTech?
I seem to remember hearing that they don't make them anymore, but maybe someone out there knows... |
THANK YOU Steve for posting this question. While i don't have time to respond right now, BELIEVE me, i WILL when i get back from work tonight. Sean
> |
I have a question for the type of engineer to whom Sean is giving Kudos.... When you have designed an amplifier that has very low harmonic and intermodulation distortion, no transient imtermodulation distortion, low noise, stable under all loads, flat frequency response, low phase shift, in other words when all the specs are great; what kinds of things do you think about changing when you decide that it doesn't sound very good? |
702 sez, among other tings: "If you've listened to recordings, attended concerts, gone to films, seen a Broadway show, or watched TV in the past 20 years there's a good chance you've heard some things I've been a part of developing." so *that* explains why there's etched highs, unnaturally forward midrange, over-boosted mid-bass, compressed dynamics, flat soundstage in so much commercial audio... ;~) sorry, couldn't resist; doug s. |
Red, the VAST majority of Engineers and Techs that i know are FAR from being "scientists". They only know what their books and teachers taught them and that's where most of their "education" stopped. That is why many of the products that we have today are the way that they are: VERY limited and not real flexible. They look good on paper but are not practical or realistic in real world situations.
Part of this is because "adaptability", "practicality" and the "hands on approach" are not taught in schools anymore. They simply give you the basics and shove you out into the working world. Hell, most of the time if you can pay your tuition and show up, you will graduate. Who cares if you really know enough to do the job !!!
As such, it is up to the "techs" and "engineers" to do TWO things. Apply what knowledge they have AND learn more as they go along. Since many engineers simply do a design and do not get to put the actual end product through its' paces in actual field use, they don't have the "hands on" that many "commoners" have to deal with on a daily basis. Since they get very limited feedback on the design from the end user ( if ANY at all ), they assume that their "creation" is near perfect. As such, they learn to live by their "textbook" education and the limited feedback that trickles back to them from management. Anything else that does not conform to their limited point of view and desktop experiences is strictly considered to be "heresy", "snake oil" or "impossible". They've closed their minds, eyes and hearts to the opportunities and knowledge that confronts them on a daily basis.
To those engineers and techs that are NOT like this, KUDOS to you for breaking the mold. To those that this offends, maybe it's because it hits too close to home. Sean
> |
|
