2. cables
  3. 140503-78269

Skeptic or just plain hard headed

So I purchased a pair of Morrow Audio phono cables. These are the PH3 with the Eichmann connectors. Wanted to start there to see if MA cables will be a viable option for my system.I think my story is not so unique to others who have purchased MA cables. So no need to go into the hu hum of burn-in in regards to MA cables, and how things sound bad at first, then gets better,  then excellent...yada yada yada. I know the story about this product.  I simply am one who is not a believer in electronics break in periods, or battery packs on cables, etc... Regardless of what side of the fence you are on in regards to that Im NOT trying to start that debate again please.. Anyway. After reading several reviews of the MA cables and understanding that most agreed that the cables needed a substantial burn-in time, and that the cables would not sound its best until this happens I decided to give them a try. Thinking ok lets get a jump on the burn-in period (if the concept is true). I paid for the 2 day burn-in service from MA. What I didn't expect is that when I got the cable it would sound as bad as it did in comparison to my existing name brand cable (not getting into that either, not relevant). I thought well the cable might not quite be up to snuff with all this talk about burn-in (if its true) but not that much of a difference.  I mean as soon as I dropped the needle on the record I immediately heard a profound difference in sound stage and clarity degridation. Needless to say this cable was destined to be returned to MA for a full refund and my thinking was "they are crazy if I am going to trade my cable for this cable" So I decided to give MA a call to setup the return. Talked with Mike Morrow (very nice guy by the way) and we had our differences in what I should expect out of his product. Now my Mother always told me that I have a hard head.. I heard that growing up all my life, and when you couple that with skepticism it makes a pretty, well lets just say not a very fun person to have a debate with lol. However Mike insisted that if I return the cable that I would be missing out on the fruit they would bare after 400 hours of break in. 400 hours??? really!. Oh at that point I was really ready to return them. I told all my friends "Mike must be nuts" (no offense Mike) no way am I going to wait a year to hear what this cable is capable of, AND I do not have any way to expedite the process...at least I thought I didn't until I found an old sound bar I don't use anymore with analog inputs. Ok I know you pro MA and  pro cable burn-in folks are chomping at the bit. Im almost done. Take your hands off the keyboard for just a few more lines. 

So here is the deal to be fair I am going to be open minded about this because Mike really made me feel like I would be missing out if I return the cable without a proper burn-in (great salesman), and since he had such conviction I now think I have to test this thing out right??. Now I know that there are testimonials out there about how the MA cable improved over 100s of hours in their system, and that they are now "blown away". However can you really hear a profound difference in a cable you play in your system over 170 hours or so?  I would think a gradual difference would be harder to detect. I mean my system seems to sound better to me everyday without making any changes. Is it because of  continued cable and electronics burn in?? maybe. Or maybe its just my brain becoming more intimate with the sound of my system. Well this test I'm doing should reveal a night and day difference from what the system sounds like today with the cable pre burn-in if there is any merit to the notion. In regards to does it sound better than my existing cable that is yet to be determined. I think my goal now is to prove or dis-prove if cable burn-in is a real thing. This whole idea has evolved from if it's an improvement or not over what I use today. We can discuss that later.

I now have the cable connected between a cd player , and a sound bar with a CD playing on repeat. The disc of choice for this burn-in is rather dynamic so it should be a good test. At the end of 16 days (384 hours) I will move the cables to my reference system and do about another 20 hours of additional burn-in to compensate for moving the cable. This will put a total of 452 hours of burn-in on the PH3. When I put this cable back in my system I sure hope it sings because this is a lot to go through to add a cable to your system. Mike if you are right I will eat crow and will preach from the highest mountain top that you are right, and that cable burn-in is REAL.  For me anyway the myth will be considered busted or reinforce my belief that cable burn-in is a bunch of BS. 

For those who will argue the point of cable burn-in I fully understand the concept, and I don't plan to get sucked down that rat hole and I won't argue that....yet because at the end of this test I may be in your camp and I don't want to have a steady diet of crow so for now I will remain neutral on the subject until the test is complete.  However I will be totally transparent and honest about the results. So not trying to make anyone angry as I know beliefs about audio are sensitive subjects, and rightfully so this hobby is expensive and I like you have a substancial investment in this. Just trying to get to the truth. I also understand that cable burn-in may actually happen when you consider it from a scientific perspective, but the real question is can you actually hear the difference.  

I will report back to this thread in 17 days from today (need at least one day to evaluate) with the results. 

happy listening!!

-Keith
barnettk
barnettk OP
410 posts
 

"Perhaps try it at the mid point of 200 hours? Then you'd have three samples to compare and contrast....!"

The more I think about it I am going to just let it finish. I wish I would have made two recordings pre burn in. I don't think it will be a fair assessment if I listen now. The only thing I can really compare after 4 days is the 2 cables, and I want to avoid doing multiple overwrites to the same tape. I doubt if I can still remember how the PH3 sounded 4 days ago to judge if it sounds the same or better. My first goal is to compare the MA cable pre/post burn in. Then if it does sound better after the 400 hours is to compare it then to the AQ cable to determine if I want to keep it or not.

ieales's avatar
ieales
1,201 posts
 
@barnetk - two pieces of copper

Cables are far more than two pieces of copper. They are also plastic, cotton, geometry, connector and join method. Cables can be designed or engineered. Most audiophile cables are designed and their defects sold as benefits. Said benefit then exposes a "flaw" in a perfectly good component and the merry-go-round begins anew.

Deltas which only apply at very low temperature/DC/RF/etc. are promulgated as essential for 20-20k when 2-200k suffice.

IMO, Audioquest is one of the worst offenders with specious malarkey.

And what's with naming every POS cable?
Is it your pal, your lover, your confidant ???.
It's just freaking WIRE!!!
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 

Elizabeth, I'm not sure what you are referring to when you stated, "After reading the article. my main criticism is they did this with just one component, a relatively low priced device. And that they assumed the not broken in device was not broken in. they admit it had some time already on it) So any extrapolation to the world of all devices is a stretch. But a nice attempt.      
ANd to say thee re variations in components. Some change a lot some not at all. So again one test does not offer enough to draw conclusions about all components."


To clarify; I worked clearly with three items; a set of cables, a CD player and an integrated amp. I had duplicates of all three, one set used and given additional burn in, and the others like new. There may have been up to 10 hours of use of the new components. It hardly matters, as whether new or 10 hours, versus the hundreds of hours that supposedly burn in is to change a component or cable, the comparison showed no difference, even when three items were used together. One set was as new, while the other had been used for hundreds of hours and given additional burn in, and used warmed up versus cold start for the new ones. 

My conclusion is that was a massive fail for the concept of burn in, and due to the multiplicity of items being compared together more strongly supports a tentative conclusion that no components actually change audibly (excepting the conditions mentioned in the article) over time with use.  

Additionally, if you were referencing my article in the second paragraph of your post, in response I clarify that there was not three levels of change; there was no change at all among three pieces being tested together simultaneously.  :)                     

barnettk OP
410 posts
 

"Cables are far more than two pieces of copper. They are also plastic, cotton, geometry, connector and join method. Cables can be designed or engineered. Most audiophile cables are designed and their defects sold as benefits. Said benefit then exposes a "flaw" in a perfectly good component and the merry-go-round begins anew.

Deltas which only apply at very low temperature/DC/RF/etc. are promulgated as essential for 20-20k when 2-200k suffice.

IMO, Audioquest is one of the worst offenders with specious malarkey.

And what's with naming every POS cable?
Is it your pal, your lover, your confidant ???.
It's just freaking WIRE!!!"


I hear you. I agree cables are designed and engineered. I get it.  I admitted that I do believe now that different ICs produce different sound. In regards to AQ that's your opinion cant argue that. I tend to like them. Why do they name them...Why does BMW have about 50 different series of cars with at least 3 models being in the same series..who knows.

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Wow!! That might possibly be the first time in recorded audio history that a negative of a proposition has been proven.
More to discover