Liquid Ceramics cables Has anyone heard these?

Jfz,

There's only one problem with your logic here:

"I genuinely think people are hearing what the REST of their system sounds like when they use these cables....I find the best components reveal problems elsewhere(one of the great by-products of them!)"

I would agree with your rationale if Stanhifi and myself said we heard MORE detail and extension with the CTs in place. But we both heard LESS information with the CTs in place which sort of shoots a hole in your theory. The CTs simply weren't as REVEALING as my current cables.

And there was also this nagging sense that the attack or leading edge was subdued. The CTs just didn't seem to hit hard anywhere across the frequency range. In my opinion that is why some may describe them as smooth. They are smooth, just to smooth for my taste.(And the piano tonality didn't work for me either, as I mentioned earlier.)

When I ordered the CT cables, Bob Grost said they did not need any burn-in since they are metal free. He advised me that they would sound best after 2-3 days time and he was right. Right out of the box they were extremely bloated, but they did improve greatly over the first few days.

The CT's have a very pleasing musicality about them, but they round off the ends and plump up the middle in my system. They remind me of the way Van Den Hul The First Ultimates sound (also metal-free IC's.) Actually, I think the VDHs sound better overall (at least more accurate), but the CTs do have better bass control than the VDHs. But neither the CTs nor the VDHs are nearly as good in my system as my HMS Gran Finales I have been using for some time.

As I said earlier, I am not trying to bash CTs here, but I do think there are better cables available for the money, IMHO. But as always, everything is system dependent. If the CT cables work for you in your system, who am I to say you are wrong. If they sound good to you, I'm happy for ya.

Mr. Essential Audio....is it your custom to comment on products you've never owned, let alone never used? Ozzy is a long-time Cable Cooker owner, and has infinitely more experience with the unit, and with multiple models and brands of audio and video cabling. Further, he's a pretty smart cookie and may not need your "help" regarding these cables....you're not even a dealer for them. Did you not reason at all, that since he ordered the interconnects directly from Cerious (and therefore may have talked with Mr. Grost himself), that he might ask some questions as to their need for any break-in or conditioning?

You've been making these types of comments over and over the last several years (both on Audiogon and AA), usually making baseless and/or completely inaccurate statements about the Cooker....one might think you have an agenda.

Ozzy- I'm glad you decided to try them. Based on my own experience I think you will be quite pleased. From what I've read and in talking to Bob, I'm not sure too many people other than Fiddler have returned their cables.

You won't get any other answers from Stanhifi on his system. We've all asked before. IMO and in speaking with Bob, he never even auditioned them.

Ozzy - I wouldn't put them on your Audiodharma. I asked Bob Grost about this specifically, and he said "no". They need a few days to "settle in" (has to do with the liquid ceramic), but do not need the usual break-in per se.

Fiddler - Your results fascinate me, as I've been using the HMS Grand Finales for a long time as well! Just to clarify: my comments were not a theory, just my belief from experience. What is fascinating to me is that I had opposite results, although I posted sometime ago on another thread that initially I thought the CTs were rolled off in the highs as well. In the end (after tweaking!), I find the CTs have all the information of the HMS, but the fact that the CTs are much cleaner/quieter made me think at first that there was missing musical information (especially in the highs). The piano sound REALLY puzzles me, since in my system the CT's piano tonality is MUCH better than it was with the HMS. The leading edge or attack part makes much more sense to me, but again, - after making some changes, such as removal of room treatment - I find the leading edge and attack are even better (and far more REALISTIC) than with the HMS. My conclusion was that the HMS exaggerates and bloats the bottom end (fooling me for a while that it goes deeper than the CT) and hypes the highs a bit, but who REALLY knows which is more neutral. Just two different experiences in two different systems, I guess. The great news is that synergy is always important, i.e. so we both can enjoy our systems. Thanks for you thoughts. Hopefully both of our experiences will benefit others.

To others who might try the CTs: my suggestion is to give them a lot of time, and play with making other changes in the system, room, power conditioning, power cords, etc.

Jfz,

My belief is there is no right or wrong in this hobby, only preferences. The fact that we had opposite experiences can be chalked up to different systems in different rooms with different ears and brains listening. I have learned to take all comments or reviews with a grain of salt when it pertains to audio equipment and I would highly recommend that anyone take my comments with a whole shaker of salt.

I'm happy to hear that the CT cables have worked so well in your system and I certainly wish Bob Grost well with his cable and speaker endeavors.