Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › best interconnect for the bang? (better than bluejean)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

best interconnect for the bang? (better than bluejean) - Page 5

post #61 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacd lover View Post
You cant understand how cables can make a difference so you declare they dont. But, you can go on and on, endlessly, about the need for burn in.

Myself, if there were ever something I would attribute to placebo .... it would be burn in. I remember when I disliked those totally weird sounding Ultrasone 2500's. I was told they need 300,400 or whatever hours of burn in and the presentaion will be transformed. Well a few weeks ago ... I heard a well burnt in pair (600 hour estimate) and the 2500's sounded just as awful as the first time I heard them .... and this was out of three different setups. So much for burn in.

I have also tried a brand new 701 vs a 701 with well over 500 hours burn in. I twisted the cords out of two completely identical setups and I could not tell them apart. The only hint they were different was the feel of the pads. But, if I ignored the feel of the pads and concentrated on the music I just could not tell them apart. Burn in, IMO, seems to be claim put forth to make people keep a product they dont really like in hopes their ears will finally come to accept the products aversive presentation.

Furthermore, back to your original statement, I have a couple different digital cables I am using right now with three Zhalou dacs and there is an unmistakeable difference. One, cable I like and one I dont. As soon as I put the non-preferred cable in the dynamics compress and the sound seems closed in and canned. I dont know how such a difference could be any easier to distinguish. Why? No clue .... but I have repeated the same preferance at least six times.

The moral of the story? Skip the preconceived notions and theories and to take the time to listen.
The differences in performance before and after burn in, in drivers and speakers, is a well known mechanical effect, it have been proved, discussed and mainly all audiophiles and non so audiophiles agree on that, that is a mechanical effect that could even be measured, as the freq extension is different, not sure if you are discussing this for the sake of it, or not, but you will probably know better than me, that this is true.

Now, even if the physical evidence were not so obvious to me, and were not so widely accepted as it is, I have tried personally speakers, several kinds, also the CD3K new and old, HD650 new and old, Editions new and old, 2500 new and old, Portapros, new and old, among the ones I recall. In all cases, of course in ones more than others, there have been differences, that after sometime they have vanished, and I'm not the only one that believes that, many others have experienced that effect as well. It is far more noticeable than the differences in the analog cables, which I have a really hard time hearing, whiles those I do easily...

Now to like or not a particular sound, presentation, etc...has very little to do with the burn in, the taming of the piercing highs you were complaining about is indeed, but not the liking or not of the sound at the end.
Maybe the 2500 were not your cup of tea, as the K701, HD650, nor any Grado are mine...Also as you say it is true that the "brain adjustment" to a given sound, has a role in the "burn in", we all are aware of that fact as well, but there is a true component, a physical easily discernible one, and that is not new for anybody neither...

Now you say that I can't understand how a cable can make a difference, but it seems that you guys are trying to make a very complex science out of a cable performance. Not sure if you are aware that cables have been around for maybe a century now, and there are hundreds of studies about them, and thousands of companies that produce them and live out of them for decades.
Now they seem to make a difference bigger everyday, and by coincidence, after hundreds of shady companies that promotes them with no facts, and live of those profits, had emerged, but the fact is, that till now none of them, and nobody in this whole green round planet has been able to show a single evidence of these differences, or the so claimed better performance. All tests we know off, have been miserable failures, and you still insist in hearing differences? And not even in the analog domain, that to me, could be more understandable, now you want to hear them in the 0-1 domain as well??? That is IMO simply absurd...

Sorry but I have better things to do that argue about this absurd topic, if you want to keep on going on this argument, please simply chose another of the hundreds of targets you can find here that will tell you exactly the same I do, as I will not go any further in the discussion of a digital cable difference...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OverlordXenu View Post
I completely agree with you. I think burn-in is the most damaging aspect of audiophoolia, simply because it can take you past the return period so you can't return whatever in case you don't like it.
Nah!!! 200 hours is how much? 9 days, you still have 21 left to return them, most of the times headphone companies gives you up to one month, that is not a problem, also don't forget that there is also "cable burn in" and even "cable cookers/conditioner"!!!
post #62 of 144
Audioholics wrote an article on loudspeaker break-in, and my interpretation of their conclusion was basically that when you first start using them, they break in, and any changes after that are actually negative. Speaker Break In: Fact or Fiction? — Audioholics Home Theater Reviews and News
post #63 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverlordXenu View Post
I completely agree with you. I think burn-in is the most damaging aspect of audiophoolia, simply because it can take you past the return period so you can't return whatever in case you don't like it.
cable burn-in is way overrated, and i'm a believer in cables.

PACE
post #64 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverlordXenu View Post
Audioholics wrote an article on loudspeaker break-in, and my interpretation of their conclusion was basically that when you first start using them, they break in, and any changes after that are actually negative. Speaker Break In: Fact or Fiction? — Audioholics Home Theater Reviews and News
I am of the opinion that speaker drivers will mechanically change somewhat with use. But, the hundreds and hundreds of hours people here claim is ridiculous. Furthermore, headphone drivers dont have nearly the excursion or handle the tremendous amount of power a speaker driver will ..... so the break in time should theoretically be less; not more. Burn in, however, has extended from speakers where there actually is a mechanical change to amps, cables, cd players .... and even specific parts like caps. How can this possibly be ascertained if there is no control for comparison?
post #65 of 144
The membranes of a headphone driver are a way more sensitive, than a paper cone (or any other stiffer material) also keep in mind that they should be able to reproduce nuances, and very small variations on the sound, with a lot less power, also a whole spectrum of frequencies, so they need to be closer to the optimal "physical shape" before they are able to get you to that point.
Those changes are not instantaneus, and also the power used is a lot less, so the variations are retarded, "the excursion" as you say, is a lot less, so that is why maybe they take more time.

Honestly I do not see any contradiccion here...even though I agree with you, that sometimes the periodo of time claimed to be as necesary for the process to be accomplished is a way off the logic....
post #66 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller View Post
The differences in performance before and after burn in, in drivers and speakers, is a well known mechanical effect, it have been proved, discussed and mainly all audiophiles and non so audiophiles agree on that, that is a mechanical effect that could even be measured, as the freq extension is different, not sure if you are discussing this for the sake of it, or not, but you will probably know better than me, that this is true.

Now, even if the physical evidence were not so obvious to me, and were not so widely accepted as it is, I have tried personally speakers, several kinds, also the CD3K new and old, HD650 new and old, Editions new and old, 2500 new and old, Portapros, new and old, among the ones I recall. In all cases, of course in ones more than others, there have been differences, that after sometime they have vanished, and I'm not the only one that believes that, many others have experienced that effect as well. It is far more noticeable than the differences in the analog cables, which I have a really hard time hearing, whiles those I do easily...

Now to like or not a particular sound, presentation, etc...has very little to do with the burn in, the taming of the piercing highs you were complaining about is indeed, but not the liking or not of the sound at the end.
Maybe the 2500 were not your cup of tea, as the K701, HD650, nor any Grado are mine...Also as you say it is true that the "brain adjustment" to a given sound, has a role in the "burn in", we all are aware of that fact as well, but there is a true component, a physical easily discernible one, and that is not new for anybody neither...

Now you say that I can't understand how a cable can make a difference, but it seems that you guys are trying to make a very complex science out of a cable performance. Not sure if you are aware that cables have been around for maybe a century now, and there are hundreds of studies about them, and thousands of companies that produce them and live out of them for decades.
Now they seem to make a difference bigger everyday, and by coincidence, after hundreds of shady companies that promotes them with no facts, and live of those profits, had emerged, but the fact is, that till now none of them, and nobody in this whole green round planet has been able to show a single evidence of these differences, or the so claimed better performance. All tests we know off, have been miserable failures, and you still insist in hearing differences? And not even in the analog domain, that to me, could be more understandable, now you want to hear them in the 0-1 domain as well??? That is IMO simply absurd...

Sorry but I have better things to do that argue about this absurd topic, if you want to keep on going on this argument, please simply chose another of the hundreds of targets you can find here that will tell you exactly the same I do, as I will not go any further in the discussion of a digital cable difference...



Nah!!! 200 hours is how much? 9 days, you still have 21 left to return them, most of the times headphone companies gives you up to one month, that is not a problem, also don't forget that there is also "cable burn in" and even "cable cookers/conditioner"!!!
I dont know what articles you read .... but this phenomena has not even been tested for headphones to my knowledge. A speaker driver is vastly different than a headphone driver in terms of mechanical compliance. The excursion of a speaker is many multiples of a headphone driver .... and the physical consruction of a speaker driver is MUCH heftier than any headphone driver. Most of the speakers drivers cited in those tests were large bass drivers. I have yet to see tweeter break in mentioned, which is more the equivalent comparison for a headphone driver.

Secondly, I would agree there are a lot of cable companies charging obscene amounts. So what .... let people use their common sense. But, that doesnt change people hear differences in cables be that an improvement or a disappointment. What is complex about that? You hear a difference or you dont.

Moving on .... there is no maybe .... the Ultrasone 2500 sucks, IMO, along with all the other Ultrasones I have tried. But, that wasnt the issue. The issue was I didnt like the 2500 from the beginning and I was told the reason I didnt like them was because the headphone didnt have hundred the hundreds of hours of burn in necessary. That once the 2500 had the prerequisite number of burn in hours the headphone would be magically transformed. That was not true and we do people a disservice convincing them to accept something they really dont care for.

200 hours .... that is nothing. Have you seen the 600, 800 and even 1200 hour claims lately. Burn in claims have reached ridiculous proportions yet no one questions them. How does anyone remember the sound 1200 hours ago. How do some people even know how many hours they have unless they record them .... which doesnt seem to be the case.

Finally, if you dont want to discuss why do you bother to comment in the first place? Particularly when you use examples that have nothing to do with the actual subject; example ... speaker drivers are not headphone drivers. Comparing the mechanical break in of a high excursion 15" woofer handing hundreds of watts with a 30-40 mm headphone driver handing a few hundred milliamps has what relevance?
post #67 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacd lover View Post
I dont know what articles you read .... but this phenomena has not even been tested for headphones to my knowledge. A speaker driver is vastly different than a headphone driver in terms of mechanical compliance. The excursion of a speaker is many multiples of a headphone driver .... and the physical consruction of a speaker driver is MUCH heftier than any headphone driver. Most of the speakers drivers cited in those tests were large bass drivers. I have yet to see tweeter break in mentioned, which is more the equivalent comparison for a headphone driver.

Secondly, I would agree there are a lot of cable companies charging obscene amounts. So what .... let people use their common sense. But, that doesnt change people hear differences in cables be that an improvement or a disappointment. What is complex about that? You hear a difference or you dont.

Moving on .... there is no maybe .... the Ultrasone 2500 sucks, IMO, along with all the other Ultrasones I have tried. But, that wasnt the issue. The issue was I didnt like the 2500 from the beginning and I was told the reason I didnt like them was because the headphone didnt have hundred the hundreds of hours of burn in necessary. That once the 2500 had the prerequisite number of burn in hours the headphone would be magically transformed. That was not true and we do people a disservice convincing them to accept something they really dont care for.

200 hours .... that is nothing. Have you seen the 600, 800 and even 1200 hour claims lately. Burn in claims have reached ridiculous proportions yet no one questions them. How does anyone remember the sound 1200 hours ago. How do some people even know how many hours they have unless they record them .... which doesnt seem to be the case.

Finally, if you dont want to discuss why do you bother to comment in the first place? Particularly when you use examples that have nothing to do with the actual subject; example ... speaker drivers are not headphone drivers. Comparing the mechanical break in of a high excursion 15" woofer handing hundreds of watts with a 30-40 mm headphone driver handing a few hundred milliamps has what relevance?
Why I cannot comment, without discussing, my opinion is as avalid as any other, if others can do it, why not me???

BTW I did not compare the cables peformance with the burn in, you did...and I never brought that burn in issue here, you were the one who brought it...I never used any example out of topic, you may be reading other poster, not me...


The burn in for the 2500 is indeed a pre-requisite, but nobody told you that will be a magic solution, at least not me. It is importnat as to any other heapdhone to judge its sound quality, as it is the "brain burn in" to the new presentation, as stated many times. But that second parameter is IMO more important, as the sound will slightly change with the time in quality, but the presentation will be the same, and you need to get used to it before. But if you do not like the sound why bother, that is the first step to like them, if you do not, so be it, that is your prerrogative and your preference, I have mine as well that excludes many good heapdhones, and do not say they suck, it is better to say IMO, that you do not like them, and period, but as you know, many professionals, with far better ears than yours and mine use them everyday to work, and I do not think that all of them are wrong...

IIRC you were complaining about the piercing highs at that time, and as I have heard the same comments about the 2500, and later on after the burn in, this problem was tamed, I told you to wait till the burn in was completed, but it is not a miracle, as you said...

If you have only one pair of heapdhone, I agree with you that it is not very accurate to speak of before an after, same as in any other burn in issue, that is why, while I speak about that particular topic, I always mention my expereince with two pairs, one stock from the box, and another used and old...that is the only real valid way, and trying several times.
Right now I still have one PP in the box and two of them in use, if you try them you will see the difference...Again those are not day and nigh disfferences, and chances are that if you do not like the sound before, you will not like it after neither..

The complexity on the science behind cables, is not of course, in the way you stated: to hear or not the differences, of course that is very simpe indeed, but is in the way people try to explain the existance of those diferences while asked, I have even read some guys stating the possible existance of parameters not discovered to the date by science, and just to justify these...Ok that could be possible, but honestly to me, it will be really complex if that is true...
post #68 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by TempleOfEar View Post
that was ridiculous. i just read thru the last 4 pages of my thread and there was nothing but rant and arguing. this thread outlived its usefulness after someone mentioned silver resolution. im gonna go order them right now.
I will still get your BJC if the price is right for me, I do not need them but I like them....
post #69 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller View Post
Why I cannot comment, without discussing, my opinion is as avalid as any other, if others can do it, why not me???

BTW I did not compare the cables peformance with the burn in, you did...and I never brought that burn in issue here, you were the one who brought it...I never used any example out of topic, you may be reading other poster, not me...


The burn in for the 2500 is indeed a pre-requisite, but nobody told you that will be a magic solution, at least not me. It is importnat as to any other heapdhone to judge its sound quality, as it is the "brain burn in" to the new presentation, as stated many times. But that second parameter is IMO more important, as the sound will slightly change with the time in quality, but the presentation will be the same, and you need to get used to it before. But if you do not like the sound why bother, that is the first step to like them, if you do not, so be it, that is your prerrogative and your preference, I have mine as well that excludes many good heapdhones, and do not say they suck, it is better to say IMO, that you do not like them, and period, but as you know, many professionals, with far better ears than yours and mine use them everyday to work, and I do not think that all of them are wrong...

IIRC you were complaining about the piercing highs at that time, and as I have heard the same comments about the 2500, and later on after the burn in, this problem was tamed, I told you to wait till the burn in was completed, but it is not a miracle, as you said...

If you have only one pair of heapdhone, I agree with you that it is not very accurate to speak of before an after, same as in any other burn in issue, that is why, while I speak about that particular topic, I always mention my expereince with two pairs, one stock from the box, and another used and old...that is the only real valid way, and trying several times.
Right now I still have one PP in the box and two of them in use, if you try them you will see the difference...Again those are not day and nigh disfferences, and chances are that if you do not like the sound before, you will not like it after neither..

The complexity on the science behind cables, is not of course, in the way you stated: to hear or not the differences, of course that is very simpe indeed, but is in the way people try to explain the existance of those diferences while asked, I have even read some guys stating the possible existance of parameters not discovered to the date by science, and just to justify these...Ok that could be possible, but honestly to me, it will be really complex if that is true...

You ONLY read half the comment. I never said anything close to .... you could not comment. I asked why bother.

I read you saying digital cables make no difference when I hear with my own ears they do. But, you tout burn in and Based on my experiences, I think burn in is one of the most bogus and unprovable theories on this board .... hence my comparison.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

sovkiller ....
IIRC you were complaining about the piercing highs at that time, and as I have heard the same comments about the 2500, and later on after the burn in, this problem was tamed, I told you to wait till the burn in was completed, but it is not a miracle, as you said...

sacd lover ....
and the highs remain peircing with burnt in 2500 based of the burnt in pair I just heard. Burn in = voodoo to deflect criticism of the real problem.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I wasnt trying to explain the performance at all. I said I had no clue why. But, given there seems to be real differences why is it hard to believe we cant currently measure or account for all differences.

I said, for the record ....
Why? No clue .... but I have repeated the same preferance atleast six times.
post #70 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacd lover View Post
sovkiller ....
IIRC you were complaining about the piercing highs at that time, and as I have heard the same comments about the 2500, and later on after the burn in, this problem was tamed, I told you to wait till the burn in was completed, but it is not a miracle, as you said...

sacd lover ....
and the highs remain peircing with burnt in 2500 based of the burnt in pair I just heard. Burn in = voodoo to deflect criticism of the real problem.
Well not really, IMO they are not piercing before and not piercing after, and if you asked me comming from the CD3k they quite the opposite, but as many people seems to beleive otherwise, and I'm in the minory, and as many people beleive they are gone after the burn in, I suggest you to try that approach, but to be honest with you, IMO the highs are not a problem at all in any Ultrasone...

About the digital cable, have you even try to measure the other digital cable or send it to be inspected by the manufacturer, to see if it is not defective, that could be the reason as well, and I'm being serious, a defective soldering point, and defective material inside the cable, etc...trust me that it is very unlikely that using any common length of digital cable, you hear any difference...all they carry is digital signal, no audio, this digital signal is later on converted to audio, as you know, and digital signals are very simple and easy to carry, and very unlikely to be degraded that is why I'm so hesitant to believe it. That is why they were created in the first instance, to eliminate the problems we have in analog signals, convenience was the reason of the existence of those...
post #71 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller View Post
Well not really, IMO they are not piercing before and not piercing after, and if you asked me comming from the CD3k they quite the opposite, but as many people seems to beleive otherwise, and I'm in the minory, and as many people beleive they are gone after the burn in, I suggest you to try that approach, but to be honest with you, IMO the highs are not a problem at all in any Ultrasone...

About hte digital cable, have you even try to measure the other digital cable or send it ot be inspected by the anufacturer, to see if it is not defective, that could be the reason as well, and I'm being serious, a defective soldering point, and defective material inside the cable, etc...trust me that it is very unlikely that using any common length of digital cable, you hear any difference...all they carry is digital signal, no audio, this digital signal is later on converted to audio, as you know, and digital signals are very simple and easy to carry, and very unlikely to be degraded that is why I'm so hesitant to beleive it. That is why they were created in the first instance, to eliminate the problems we have in analog signals, convenience was the reason of the existance of those...
The Ultrasones I have auditioned or owned have a piecing treble compared to any other headphones I use .... end of story. I am tired of messing with them, I dont own them and I would never buy another pair without a lengthy trial. I would like to hear an E9. But, comments outside the Ultrasone love fest thread, and on other websites, lead me to believe I will probably not like them either.

Well the cables I dont like are two new Blue Jeans coax; one standard and one stranded. They both pass the signal without any apparent data loss or dropouts so how are they defective? I have passed signal through them for many hours and I dont hear any change. The BJ's just dont sound as good as my other digital cable.
post #72 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacd lover View Post
Well the cables I dont like are two new Blue Jeans coax; one standard and one stranded. They both pass the signal without any apparent data loss or dropouts so how are they defective? I have passed signal through them for many hours and I dont hear any change. The BJ's just dont sound as good as my other digital cable.
I'm not saying they are, I just want to rule out that posibility, but if you have two, and both have the same effect (to your ears) that rules out a possible defect...unless both are, but knowing the outstanding manufacture of BJC, it is really unlikely...

Well in that case all I can say is "kudos to you, and your outstanding hearing!!! If by any chance and by coincidence you find the evidence of why this is happening, don't forget to keep us updated...
post #73 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller View Post
I will still get your BJC if the price is right for me, I do not need them but I like them....
If you don't get them, I want them.
post #74 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacd lover View Post
Well the cables I dont like are two new Blue Jeans coax; one standard and one stranded. They both pass the signal without any apparent data loss or dropouts so how are they defective? I have passed signal through them for many hours and I dont hear any change. The BJ's just dont sound as good as my other digital cable.
Do you attribute the poorer audio performance of the BJC to some difference in their jitter characteristics?
post #75 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by sejarzo View Post
Do you attribute the poorer audio performance of the BJC to some difference in their jitter characteristics?
I dont know. Both cables use carnare plugs and both are crimped construction. The cables are more similar than different.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › best interconnect for the bang? (better than bluejean)