REALITY CABLES ?

Following from Listener57's post, and taking it one step further, if the top performers in your shootout scored 10/10, then achieving 7/10 for 225 greenbacks gives you a tremendous price to performance ratio. I have tried Gregg's cables with other cables costing maybe 4 to 5 times more and can say that in my system Gregg's cables sound terrific throughout the entire sound spectrum and was about the only cable that could reproduce human voices, brass and stringed instruments and percussions with lifelike realism. Even if I could justify paying for cost of cables that are many times the price of my humble system, I don't think my system is resolving enough to show a substantial difference from what I am enjoying with Gregg's cables. You certainly have an uber highend system which justifies the cost of uber priced cables!It would have been interesting to know what your evaluation would have been had you used Gregg's tubed version ICs. Also, I have read elsewhere that Gregg's cables sound best with the synergy of Reality ICs and speaker cables hooked up and evaluated at the same time.

Best Regards
Dennis

Dennis(Denjo),

Good point. There is dimishing marginal return with many things especially in high end audio. People pay unbelievable amount of money for that last 10 per cent in performance improvement. So, yes on less than high end high resolution systems these cables may work perfectly. If you have less than perfect AC lines the difference factor may become even less. Your system is good as its weakest link. This is why a general rule of thumb for investing in cables is 10 to 15% of your system budget allocated. A set of Reality cables can be had for less than $1k and it will be perfectly fine for systems costing $15,000. My system costs well over $150,000 and it would have been too good to be true to have less than $1K set of cables outperform other high end cables that I have painstakinly taken long time to compare and choose for my system. I still would like to try NBS Black Label, Stealth Indra, and Pranawire speaker and interconnect cables to see how they compare but these are easily an order of maginitude more in price with only 20 to 30 per cent better in performance which is the price you have to pay to obtain diminshing marginal return on your money for performance.

I did try connecting all Reality cables at once and did not notice any synergy. Only lack luster uninvolving sound.

Anyway, after I posted this my personal opinion on cable evaluation, Gregg Straley does not want to give money back on speaker cable stating that I damaged his speaker cables using FryKleaner Pro burn in device. Funny I did not see any such disclaimers on his web site about using cable burn in device voids money back gurantee. What about all these magazine reviewers for cables, are they all damaging cables when they use cable burn-in devices? Sounds like a lame excuse for getting back at what I consider to be true and unbiased personal opinion as a consumer. I am not a dealer or any way in shape or form involved with audio industry or manufacturers of audio products.

Over the years, there have been postings in the various audio forums about the over-cooking of certain items of wiring.
Although I never kept close watch on this topic since I never owned my own burn-in gadget, it is not merely a convenient excuse for a manufacturer to question the effect of a particular gadget on a particular wire.
It is appropriate for each manufacturer to specify ahead of time any home trial ground rules. In this case, the manufacturer did not anticipate every possible contingency, nor were any formal constraints placed on the new user.
Sadly, it is possible audiophiles can still inadvertently alter the meticulously tuned work of a manufacturer. (Each reviewer may have to consider this possibility.)
For example, if during a home trial I were to coat a termination with Walker's Extreme SST, or re-terminate with an RCA connector, or speaker spade lug, of my own preference, then I clearly think of the wire as being altered. And, whether for better, or worse, I am the responsible party.
When the sound heard through a wire is changed by signal processing, this is more of a mystery. Is this additional alteration "better" or "worse," and does it constitute an irreversible alteration for which a manufacturer is justified in rejecting a product return?
In this case, I agree with the manufacturer that his product has been altered, but I understand that there were no specific limitation placed on the home trial.
Just because the manufacturer carries out his own burn-in, and material alteration (such as with cryogenic immersion), does not make it invulnerable to further alteration, either for the better, or for the worse.
This may be the first time this specific question about whether a user's choice to try his own preference in further cable conditioning constitutes damaging behavior during home trial. This situation really pushes at the boundaries of what constitutes correct customer service.
My bias is to side with the manufacturer's reluctance to take back altered products no longer able to serve in the future as typical wire samples of his handiwork for another audio system. Yet, there is no joy having to take sides when both parties are good people.
I have no connection with the manufacturer except as a long ago purchaser, and still satisfied user, advocating for affordable, high quality items on Audiogon.

I've asked Jim at FryKleaner Pro on his take on this and here is his reply:

> I have been enjoying your machine as it has been extremely useful...
> However, recently I have one menufacturer refusing to refund...

Well, I'm not sure what to say here. I have read through the
entire post and emails. I understand his concerns in that he believes he
cannot resell the cables, and that they are a loss to him. And I understand
your point that no mention of FryKleaner or any other device was in his
guarantee.

I'm not sure here what I can do for you. In my opinion, you stand on the
higher ground. Gregg did not make any disclaimer. I do not see where you
did anything wrong or out of the ordinary. If it were me, I would take the
cables back. But it is not me, and we all choose to run our businesses as
we see fit.

For small manufacturers it can be very difficult. I once took back a Chime
that was beyond the 30-day trial period. Ok, it was only a week past, so I
bit the bullet. That was $1750 cash I didn't have at the time. More
recently, I shipped a HagUsb to England. Never made it. Lost in customs, I
think. So I sent another one. That got lost too. I must say, the customer
was understanding. Anyway, he eventually moved back to Australia. I sent
him a third machine there. It arrived. For me, that's 3 machines out the
door for the price of 1. So I understand the pain. But still, you have to
do what is right, or it will come back to haunt.

There was one interesting comment in the emails:

"In my opinion the FryKleaner is not the best way to break in cables. If you
measure the voltage output it is not enough to fully break in the cables.
Take a volt meter and/or a scope, you will not see enough voltage or current
to make much of a difference."

And it appears to be true. However, there is more to break-in than raw
voltage. But not getting into the technical issues, Gregg virtually admits
here that a FryKleaner cannot be a problem.

jh

-------------------
Jim Hagerman
Hagerman Technology

I want to let everyone know that I received refund in entirety from Gregg Straley despite all the negative posts that I have made about Reality Cables. I have to admit that I was purposely harsh and tainted in my comments on his cables due to the fact that I was having problems obtaining refund which now I understand to be not Gregg's fault but someone hacking into his Paypal account that was causing the delay.

I want to appologize to Gregg for slamming on his products which I think is hell of a value for products in its price range. What I didn't mention in the post is that I also compared Gregg's cable with other high end cables that I had from the past such as MIT 330 shotgun interconnect, MIT MH750 Music Hose speaker cables, Monster Reference II IC, Monter M1000 speaker cables, and Cello Strings IC and speaker cables, Bel Canto Museas interconnect. All of these cable costs more than Gregg's cables yet my results showed that Reality cables clearly outperformed these cables by a good margin by being more open, dimensional with detail and being musical.