esldude
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Posts
- 569
- Likes
- 35
I thought my final statement in my previous post made adding tongue in cheek sarcasm unnecessary. Maybe it didn't.
I thought my final statement in my previous post made adding tongue in cheek sarcasm unnecessary. Maybe it didn't.
I thought my final statement in my previous post made adding tongue in cheek sarcasm unnecessary. Maybe it didn't.
"[COLOR=FFA500]Cable Burn-in[/COLOR]
All cables will require a break in period, depending on the materials used this can take upwards of 400 hours with some types of cable. The conditioning process can be at best inconvenient if being done using your audio system. Some applications such as speaker cables and phono cables can be very difficult to properly condition with normal use in an audio system due to the signal levels required to completely burn in these types of cables. For instance, very few people play their system loud enough to properly condition speaker cables, and phono cables will never completely burn in with the small signal from a phono cartridge. The CABLE COOKER produces a signal approximately 2000 times higher than the average MC cartridge!
[COLOR=FFA500]We use the audiodharma CABLE COOKER[/COLOR] versions 3.0 and 2.0 Pro for all our cable and outlet conditioning. The CABLE COOKER will expose the cables to continuous signal levels they will not experience during normal use in an audio system. This improves the sound quality of all forms of interconnects, speaker cabling, and power cabling beyond any normal break-in cycle.
The CABLE COOKER 3.0 uses a swept square wave which starts at 0 DC and is calibrated at just over 40KHz. This frequency sweep improves on every sonic parameter, translating into more transparency and dimensionality, a deeper/wider soundstage, and deeper/tighter bass information. We use the CABLE COOKER 3.0 for all our interconnect, powercord and speaker cable burn-in."
How can people peddle this rhubarb and why do people believe it? Even the most ardent cableist must smell that!!!
I just know that if I ever go and listen to a friends sound system and hear him describe how he paid to have his cables burnt in, I'm walking out of the room immediately.
I don't take a review seriously any more if someone starts talking about the improvement a cable made.
If we accept that, I don't see how a review from someone who heard a cable change the sound is any different than a total objectivist user, so to speak.
You lost me on that last sentence, but I do believe there is an anticipation of change that usually holds the keys to any perceived effect.
There is a benefit to ergonomically comfortable cables though, don't get me wrong, but I'm not relying on them to change the sound...aside from possible microphonics into an IEM.
So, to me the benefits of a well made headphone cable are: durability/longevity, ease of use (ones not prone to tangling, etc.) and the limiting of microphonics (particularly with IEMs, as mentioned.)
That's it.
It's not that I think their ears suck. (!) it's rather that I question whether they are able to tell me what a phone sounds like independently of expectation bias, mood or other phsychological factors.There are people here that will dismiss reviews if someone mentions anything about cables changing the sound. The thought is that "If they hear a difference from cables, how can I trust anything else they hear? Obviously, their ears must suck."
I don't think that's a valid response.
I definitely agree that there are ergonomic benefits to cables and their microphonics, though.
I just don't want to get in a screaming match with some of the cable heads.
There's a considerable amount of knowledgable people here though, and it's just a matter of finding someone who speaks in terms of measurable performance and cling to that person's word like a hobbit to a wizard.
With any luck we'll all be able to learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff on this forum (my gluten free friends can make their own analogy.)
Best,