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
prof
3,471 posts
 
@barnettk

Exciting!

As to finally putting the ac cable issue to rest, whatever result you get will not lay it to rest. My “negative” results for detecting sonic differences do not settle that AC cables can’t alter the sound in either my or other peoples systems. All I can say is that I failed to find support for the hypothesis that they change the sound (or that the particular ones I tried did not do so).


And if asked I detail the method of evaluation for inspection. Someone else should be wary of just accepting my results - I could be fibbing, or exaggerating, or I could have honestly screwed up somewhere in the method. That’s why replicable results by other parties have a place in empirical research. The same would go for your results.

After condicting tests it’s up to me to situate my experience in the bigger picture so far as I’ve investigated it: for me this fits best with the fishy style of claims made by after market cable sellers, with the fact I’ve seen many with accredited knowledge of electronics convincingly debunk the technical claims, and with the fact that in decades of looking in to the controversies I have not once seen a credible report of someone detecting a difference in controlled conditions - and have seen failure to do so in controlled conditions.
I’ve seen a couple times before someone on the net claims to have discerned ac cable differences in blind tests, only to find out after extended questioning that they were exaggerating or naive about how to do blind tests.

One person I believe back in this thread claimed to have easily passed blind tests
for AC cables numerous times. As he would be a complete anomaly in doing so, I’d want much more detail and documentation that he did so than just his say-so.

If your results - truly blinded - suggest you hear a difference then it’s reasonable for YOU to use that as a data point in favour of aftermarket AC cables, and it’s up to others as to how strong your case is in terms of adding evidence for audible differences.

Have fun!
barnettk OP
410 posts
 
Geoff and Prof, 

Let me re-phrase. it will put it to rest for me for the moment at least. I realize that this is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to this topic. I am trying to keep in mind the objective. So for "if burn in actually improves a cables performance" I think my result will solidify my opinion personally. Now in regards to the other questions that surround the issue Im sure that will remain debatable forever. But for me I will stand firm on one side or the other. Im trying not to allow my bias from the first test I did interfere which is why I agreed to do the bind test to just see how accurate/inaccurate I was initially. 
stevecham
3,340 posts
 
Obviously, it’s the quality of those zeros and ones that makes all the difference.
barnettk OP
410 posts
 
@prof  

"And if asked I detail the method of evaluation for inspection. Someone else should be wary of just accepting my results - I could be fibbing, or exaggerating, or I could have honestly screwed up somewhere in the method. That’s why replicable results by other parties have a place in empirical research. The same would go for your results."

you are 100% correct. People don't know me from Adams house cat.. lol so asking people to trust that im being honest is a stretch to say the least. First and foremost Im really doing this for "me" however if it sheds any light at all on the subject for those who are on the fence at least its one more thing that they can refer to and consider. Maybe others will perform the same types of test such as yourself and then we can start to build a concensus on some of these highly debated subjects.   Now its up to you to trust in the fact that I did the test honestly (which I am) but I know trust is hard to come by :)  I get it and I would not be insulted at all if someone called BS.. I tried to set my expectations that would happen before I started this post. I realize how strongly some feel about these things. 
stevecham
3,340 posts
 
In my experience, what DOES make a difference is the balance of the disc. I had several discs modified by the Audio Desk Systeme device and listened before and after. In each case, much to my skepticism and surprise, the sound was smoother with more bass and dynamic punch. Rotational balance puts less strain on the transport so less error corrective action is needed. Makes sense.
More to discover