Cable "burning": Real or VooDoo ???

Bruce,

Just so! That's exactly how I've approached it. Am currently looking for a sufficiently resolving IC for CD to pre/pro, having found good ICs between amps and pre. Of course, I should get help because 702 has told me the rules of physics and Ohm's law no longer apply. (Hadn't you heard, 702, that Ohm's law had been repealed after an aroused citizenry was mobilized?) Yep, we're all in wonderland now so you'll have to guide us. Bring on those charts and graphs.

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.

Jerie: What's your obsession with other people's gear? Is it evaluating performance by nameplate?

Jadem6: Please tell me what testing you find superior to DBT. If you can't tell me, perhaps you don't have a point to make?

Albertporter: And in what way am I not dedicated to music? Man, last week, Easter week, was my busiest time of the year musically.

I find solace in performance. And knowing and learning how to improve performance, the better to reproduce musical recordings. Knowing and learning involves understanding the technology, which involves the messy involvement with numbers and measurement and testing and experimenting. What's wrong with that?

If you've listened to recordings, attended concerts, gone to films, seen a Broadway show, or watched TV in the past 20 years there's a good chance you've heard some things I've been a part of developing.

Jadem6: I cannot question your ability to cut and paste. Certainly dielectrics have different properties. Knowing how they apply to audio cabling is key, and that's where you need to brush up, if possible. The purpose of a signal cable (IC or speaker) is to convey audio, in the form of electrical signals, from one component to another. The ideal cable will not affect the signal. Any cable will, though, because we are dealing with real properties of resistance, capacitance, and inductance. However, it's not at all difficult to make cable in such a way as to absolutely minimize the effects on the audio, although some people like high-capacitance cables that roll off the highs (because cables that don't would sound too "bright"). And it's not very expensive to do so, either. But there's not a lot of profit margin in selling cables inexpensively to the unsuspecting.

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.