2. cables
  3. 132249-75518

Opening a can of worms

Here is the can filled with opinions. It's been hashed and rehashed to infinity and beyond with no clear result. Since I am a seeker of truth I'll post my thoughts here for the yea and naysayers to debate over. Question is: Are expensive speaker or any other cable in a system worth the exorbitant cost over a reasonably priced cable loom? I thought I'd  experiment myself to find out. My comparison is between Transparent Ultra cable loom and Blue Jeans cable loom on a pure stereo system comprised of Proceed PAV,  Proceed PDSD,  Krell Kav 250, Musical Fidelity A3cd, Sony Ps4300 TT and B&W 803D2 speakers. All sources were used by this experiment using identical playback material. Cables had in excess of 200 hrs burn time and all were identical in lenght. The only variation were the connector manufacturers.
One change that occurred during this 4 week long endeavor was that I'm firmly seated on the sharpest picket on the fence.
My result is that I'm now a believer that there are audible differences in cables. I also believe that these differences are minute and one has to really listen carefully and for a long time to discern these differences.
Now to the crutch of the matter, $$$$$, As we all know Transparent Cables would reside in the upper tier of Audio Cable expense.  Blue Jeans Cable on the other hand falls into the lowest tier of expense (well maybe not lowest but low nontheless )
One would think then that the Transparent would be far superior to the BJs. Not really! Yes the highs were a little cleaner, mids a little tighter and lows a tad more pronounced but not by as much as one would expect. Soundstage was somewhat more open and airy and depth was somewhat more defined with the higher priced cable but again less than one would expect. 

Now for my personal opinion regarding the cable debate: expensive cable looms are slightly better than reasonable priced looms, if a dollar equals a penny to you then by all means opt for the higher priced loom, if a penny equals a penny don't be ashamed for opting for the best you can do. The differences are so minute that it's not worth going into debt over. BOTH looms sounded superb on my test system and I would be happy with either loom.

Now let the debate begin, just know I'm a fence sitter and not in one camp or the other
128x128gillatgh
whitestix
720 posts
 
Greg,
You miss my point, but  do live vintage gear so thanks for the suggestions.  I have heard lots of SQ differences with speakers, components and tubes, and to a lesser extent, with IC's, power cords, and speaker wire.  That is why I recently upgraded to a Pass Labs amp.  My point was that a 300-500 hour of break-in for wire is absurd.   I often hear folks espouse these run-in beneficial claims, but I never hear about anyone that says after X number of hours that the "components", particularly wire, sounds worst than it did in the beginning.  Statistically, it is an even chance that that the is the outcome.  I still say that the most of the "love" for a set of wires after 500 hours  of burn-in is merely confirmation bias.  
greg22lz
182 posts
 
I didn't miss your point and in fact you used physics to justify your point. let me say that physics cannot describe most of what we hear and neither can an EE.There are so many nuances to sound that are. Or understood at all. if you read about it you will often see statements accepting that "these things are not understood" by engineers, I have a pair of CT GE speaker cables. I moved them from where they were and rearranged them. it took four daus for them to settle back I. And sound good. you can disagree, or say there is nothing in science that can support it BUT it is the case and I can hear it. I have no reason to make this statement other than scientific observation. wire isn't wire, recordings are all different, rooms are all different, sound is always different. if you can not hear these differences, and frankly I think you can, then why would it be that big of a stretch that a cable would need 100 hours, or more, to settle in? 500 hours? Not my experience but confirmation bias isn't always true and with audiophiles who listen intently why would you assume this is NOT true? Anyway, my experiences are that everything changes sound. room treatments, wires, power cords, every little thing, makes changes. 
Greg

rja's avatar
rja
2,371 posts
 
Hey, maybe I should start one of these threads, but I don't generally consider myself to be a pain in the ass.
hifiman5's avatar
hifiman5
1,832 posts
 
@whitestix      "I often hear folks espouse these run-in beneficial claims, but I never hear about anyone that says after X number of hours that the "components", particularly wire, sounds worst than it did in the beginning.  Statistically, it is an even chance that that the is the outcome."  

What?  Why would run-in EVER make wire sound worse?  How often does appropriate aging make Scotch or Bourbon taste worse?  How about wine?  Why do the best steakhouses age their steaks?  Oh...so they taste worse and can go out of business.

It is sad if you have never experienced the benefits of proper run-in.  I don't think I have ever heard, in over 40 years in this hobby, a manufacturer not encourage the purchaser to allow for run in of their components/wires whatever.  BTW, many of those manufacturers allow a 30-60 day trial period.  Why?  So you have an opportunity to hear their gear over time to experience how their components/wires get worse?

😲


itzhak1969
515 posts
 
From my experience cables have the shortest break-in period usualy 10 to 50 hours are enough.
Speakers need the longest break-in 500 hours at least.
Dacs,power amps and pre amps do need substantial break in period as well but less than speakers.
More to discover