Tchernov cables. Anyone knows anything about them?

190 hours. They sound less burnt-in that Classic did after 190 hours. I think, recommended 230 hours for all models is inaccurate, but I'll see. Reference has a complex dialectric, much more so than Classic, and I will run it for 275-300 hours before critical listening regardless of how it sounds at 230 hours mark.

The Reference MK II now have 280 hours on them, and I think they are burnt-in. They start opening up fully at about 200 hours. I'll put them back on the phono stage tomorrow and will follow up with my impressions. A reminder - whatever I hear, the last cable in the chain is Purist Colossus fluid, and it's an excellent one but not a reference level at all. I am sure that with my system I cannot hear everything that the Reference is capable of, or Purist Neptune, for that matter. I think, the Classic, as good as it is, was a small step below the level of my rig, and I am happy about it.
The Reference has exactly the same sound signature as the Classic but it takes the sound much further. The striking clarity, balance and low distortion continue to impress me. There is a precision of the presentation that is never exaggerated or 'analytic'. Notes are separated as they should yet the flow of the music is convincing. Silence is played as silence. Wide soundstage. As for the soundstage depth and layering, I have a tribal/ambient recording with so many different sounds and spaces, and it is played as if the depth had no boundaries. The cable strives to be as neutral as possible according to the designer's understanding of the neutrality. It will reveal the shortcomings of the recordings and all that digital BS, no illusions here, but it will not throw the negatives in your face so you wouldn't want to continue listening. You hear them but the focus on music is not interfered with much. 

Much Thanks! for the update- inna
it appears that you have discovered a very fine cable indeed.
As a Jazz fan, specifically, I enjoy drummers who use brushes on their kits.
These are quiet to almost silent musical passages, challenging to reproduce in any system. For me, this is the ultimate compliment to any cable/power cord's faithful reproduction.

I look forward in reading more on your thoughts/impressions.
Happy Listening!

300 hours. I am tired, I feel like I've been doing the work together with the Tchernov Reference.
The damn thing has a great openness and exquisite upper midrange and tremble, to the point that it seduces you into something you are not really aware of. It's almost like being inside the sounds. And this is with mid-level transistor set-up. Very precise, fast, dynamic and harmonically correct. Not a trace of harshness, except for that usual metallic-like transistor equipment signature. Exemplary soundscape presentation. When three singers are singing together you clearly hear each of them and all of them together, just as you do in reality. Vocal, violins and acoustic guitars are particularly impressive. I don't have a well-recorded piano so can't say. Bass lines are fine, bass goes much lower than my speakers can handle, and it is tight if not as full as I might want it to be, but not at all lean either. Generally speaking, the cable lets the music flow and in a sense it steps out of the way. This is a truly passive component, very reserved, it doesn't try to be more than what it should be, it's a cable after all not an amplifier or some other kind of sound processor. Unlike Purist Neptune fluid. While listening to the Neptune I always have an odd thought that there is a small tube in it somewhere, it makes an impression as a 'mini tube preamp' of a sort. This is not necessarily negative, it depends. Neptune's midrange is very sophisticated, and the cable's presentation has more weight. And less neutrality.
They are both great cables and they are very different.
But you know what? In my rig the best sound I get is when I run them both in the chain with the Tchernov Reference on the phono and Purist Neptune on the deck that works as an active preamp in this case. These cables work perfectly together. But the Tchernov is on the source not the other way around, that was not that good. I can't be sure but I think the Reference is higher resolution than the Neptune, and it is definitely sharper. My Redgum integrated has a passive preamp, so yeah I do lose a little of resolution when running the signal thru the deck but it's worth it.
I would guess that the Reference would work even better with tube and hybrid electronics, and it certainly likes analog source more than digital, but what doesn't ? Another guess is that if you like Quad or other panel speakers you will like what Tchernov cables do. Yes, Classic MK II is an excellent cable but you can't compare - Reference MK II is indeed on a much higher level. So, yeah, I would like it to have a bit more fullness and weight, but it is possible that in fact I want it from my phono stage and amp. I also got used to Neptune, which though doesn't distort the neutrality much, definitely exaggerates some things, and it does it in a very appealing manner.
Both the Tchernov and the Purist are class acts. Good for me that I don't have to choose. I wouldn't mind having Nottingham arm rewired with the Reference, by the way. 
If the Tchernov is general than the Purist is admiral. Give them a try.