Cable "burning": Real or VooDoo ???

Great points Bruce. First I'm in 100% agreement that cables are a tweak, not a base component. Once the system is created, then is the time to try cables and I.C. to bring out the last potential from the equipment. Assuming that was completed, I'm wondering if you take bass for instance. A recording that sounds tight and full on your system may be the sum correlation to the cables used during the recording process and the cables used on your system. I am wondering if a cable with a strength in bass such as the one used on the tape machine by Mapleshade, combined with a cable in your own system that also accentuated the bass. Would the net result become too much base? Then taking that same recording to a system that didn't accentuate the bass might make the overall result extremely pleasing. Food for thought, and maybe an explanation of why some pieces touted as great reference recordings can be lifeless to some.

Bruce: Nice post. I will soon be in a position where the final addition or tweak to my system will be the speaker cables. I am satisfied with my (very) reasonably priced IC's and will just have to find a pair of speaker cables that sinc with the rest of the system as well as outperform my budget Kimber Kable. I also just finished emails with another member "off" forum in which we discussed the importence of our systems sounding good to very good on a variety of source material. This is something that often gets left to the way side and is one reason that I have had to reject some of the hyper detailed cables for use in my system. If Mitch Ryder does not sound half way decent, then the piece of equipment is not for me.

Will someone please conduct some tests? All we need is an electron microscope (one of you must have access to one) and some copper samples.

1. Have one control sample, one sample that you apply a signal to for 30 days, and one sample that you subject to mechanical stress followed by applying a signal for 30 days.

2. Get an image of what each sample looks like before the tests.

3. Get an image of what they look like after the tests.

Did the crystal structure change in any of them? Did orientation of crystals change? Did the magnitude of angles at crystal junctions change? Did the gaps between crystals change?

I'll be the first to admit I've heard some cables that sounded bright at first, but then "broke-in". But I'd like to see if anyone can find real evidence of such phenomena.

702, you are obviously coming from different side of the business. Our request for you to discuss your choices in equipment is to determine whether you actually listen to music.

If you are blessed to hear exclusively live performances, then that is just wonderful ( for you). The rest of us must contend with the parts and pieces that make up our systems in a never ending attempt at perfection. You continue to dismiss anyone's opinion that offers their experience as to the performance differences in cables (or whatever). The problem is that you never try to enter into our world, where we are trying to make it right with the tools we have at hand.

Perhaps at your place of employment numerical data is the only truth you need, as it allows your projects to pass or fail, becoming self fulfilling in your experiences. I have no clue as to what role you actually play in the audio community, as you are vague about that as well.

I do know that If you continue expressing your data only point of view, and never touch on the hard knock experiences of making your music system work, you will never get any converts. You are undoubtedly Intelligent and strong willed, but you obviously lack experience in the specific areas we are discussing at this site.

My comments about your lack of dedication to music refers to your insistence (particularly) of ABX testing. You never discuss the pleasure of new software, or the real life choices you have had to make to get your system right. You make it appear that you are not involved in our labor of love, but rather for the love of the scientific aspect, and the shelter it seems to provide you. I can never relate to someone who enjoys the numbers more than the experience of making long term choices that evolve the music toward greatness.

I have a true story to relate. My best friend spent much of his youth, racing cigarette boats. These are the ultra high speed variety, powered by large auto racing engines. One Sunday during a competition, he and his mechanic had spent two weeks prepping the "perfect' engine for their boat. The dyno tests proved that it had the most horsepower possible, the hull was the perfect design for the weight and drive system, and they had worked out the exact fuel mixture for the temperature and humidity. They felt absolutely assured that their work of art would sweep all the competitors aside.

The very first run, with perfect execution in every driving skill, they met with severe defeat. His mechanic charged over to the competitors boat, and returned with a report. "That guys engineering is absolute crap, he is using the wrong fuel injection, his camshaft is not the right grind for that engine, and drive train is a mismatch for the hull."

My friend just stared at him silently for a moment, and then replied, "Why don't you go explain all that to him, maybe he will give up and go home instead of sticking around here kicking our butt all day."

Often, the guy that keeps experimenting, focusing his experience, and continuing to discover and educate himself as to what works, wins the prize. Numerical data is just a guideline, it is not a substitute for long term listening, or the free exchange of ideas among those trying to solve the problems of musical reproduction.