Now, this is not a advertisement, just a posting sharing my experience on some well made great sounding cables at a very reasonable price. Besides, I don't think Cerious Technologies is set up for a big influx of cable orders.
But, if you get the chance to try these cables, please do.
I have been interested in the newer cables coming out that are using Graphene as a conductor. SR cables seemed interesting, but I always hated the way there cables had all those extra wires (with the active shields and such). I then noticed an ad early in I think November or December from Cerious Technologies for Graphene cables. I investigated how the cables were assembled and it seemed like quite a laborious process.
I ordered (with a 30 day money back guarantee) the balanced Graphene interconnects, and boy did they impress me. Such depth, soundstage, realism, frequency smoothness, effortless sound. I was truly impressed! I now have a complete loom of the Cerious Technologies Graphene cables. That is; interconnects, speaker cables, digital cables and power cords.
I ended up selling all of my other cables and to those of you who have read my postings know that cables have always been my curiosity.
So, as I began this post, let me again iterate, I have no alliance to the company, my posting is for those of you looking for an great alternate high quality Graphene made cable without spending a fortune.
Hellooo. What this about Cerious Technologies ""fraudulent"" claims as to their invention of 'ceramic domes' and "fluid damped enclosures". Is anyone in this thread serious?
lancelock A layman speaking here. I'm not concerned with the scientific jibber jabber. I know the impact these cables have made in my system and my ears are very happy. I also like Bob. He is a classy guy.
Whoa! What? Hey, keep your shirt on. I am not attacking the effectiveness of the Graphene Cables or Bob. Let's keep this civil.
A layman speaking here. I'm not concerned with the scientific jibber jabber. I know the impact these cables have made in my system and my ears are very happy. I also like Bob. He is a classy guy.
I am positive Bob knows about photons. He used electrons because he was not writing a scientific paper, but trying to make something very complex understandable to an audience that is mostly laymen.
ptss In response to R. Grosts statements in his Feb 11 post. It appears he is not familiar phonons; a rather basic part of the movement of signals in cables. Strange.
Undoubtedly you meant to say, "It appears he is not familiar with PHOTONS; a rather basic part of the movement of signals in cables."
Anyone taking a cursory look at the Cerious Technologies website will see fraudulent claims by Grost as to their invention of ceramic domes and fluid damped enclosures. Thank goodness the internet reveals patent documents,history,etc. Serious crap.
In response to R. Grosts statements in his Feb 11 post. It appears he is not familiar phonons; a rather basic part of the movement of signals in cables. Strange.
Charles, That's exciting, if I may be so geeky to say so. I really truly had a very noticeable improvement from the Afterburner, and I'm really happy that you are finding it effective as well. The price is really reasonable for the performance improvement. John
Roxy, By the way I bought the Avatar Acoustics Afterburner 8 AC outlet that you've mentioned in the past on this site. It was a very good decision, thanks. Charles
Hello Roxy, I certainly trust your impressions. I may at some point try the GE Yellow power cord from the wall outlet to my BPT balanced AC transformer/power conditioner. My entire system is plugged into it. It requires a 20 amp plug. The Ocellia Silver Reference cord is much more expensive but their IC and SC have served me so well it seems a natural fit. If the GE cord is equally good it would represent tremendous value given its cost. Charles
HI Charles, I don't count as a useful opinion in this case, because the only other aftermarket power cord I have used is Pangea, but I now use the Cerious Nano Reference cords (2 years) which are certainly superior. I would like to have the Graphenes instead now, because I do have the Graphene digital interconnect and it is wonderful, as well as being actually affordable,
Allan I'm an advocate of the SR fuses due to their performance in my system. I am actually a supporter of the idea of better fuses in general. The Beeswax and Audio Horizon fuses are likely just as good as what I have. Charles
Hello Allan, I have been quietly following this thread and there are posters here who's opinions I respect and trust. I believe that the cables discussed are as good as is written here. I'm sure that these products would be very fine in my system as they've been for others.
I'm so content with my current cables' Ocellia Silver Reference IC and SC (4 years) Coincident power cables (7 years) that there's little motivation to change. If I were to make a move it would be with the power cables. The Graphene cords do interest me as do the latest Coincident Statement power cords or Ocellia's own power cords. There's no shortage of very good options. Charles
Al, thank you for the explanation. This helps me (and others, I'm sure) better understand how power cords effect an audio compoient and system. I was hoping you might once again enter this discussion :-) Muchas Gracias...
I think it’s [prioritization of power cord upgrades among different kinds of components] a matter of system synergy and probably other technical aspects of equipment that I’m not capible of explaining but I’m hoping other more knowledgable will jump in here and explain it for us?
From a technical standpoint what I would find surprising would be if there **were** a high degree of consistency among reports of where in a system power cord upgrades are found to be most efficacious. There are simply too many dependencies and interactions that are involved, relating to the designs of the specific components, how they are interconnected, the technical characteristics of the particular power cords, and the voltage and noise characteristics of the incoming AC. Many of these dependencies and interactions, such as those involving electrical noise, have little if any predictability.
To cite just a few examples:
1) Bandwidth differences among power cords will affect different components differently. Wider bandwidth may improve the performance of many power amplifiers and integrated amplifiers, due to increased responsiveness of the cord to abrupt changes in demand for current (Shunyata has published some interesting papers and measured data on this), but may increase the bandwidth and overall amplitude of electrical noise that may enter or leave the component via the cord. Responsiveness to abrupt changes in demand for current will be significant mainly in the case of power amplifiers and integrated amplifiers, to a degree that will vary depending on their bias class (A, AB, or D) and on how much internal energy storage is provided in their design, among other design-dependent variables, while having little if any significance in the case of line-level components. On the other hand, power amplifiers and integrated amplifiers can feed significant amounts of electrical noise back into their power cords (as can DACs, CDPs, and other digital components), and bandwidth limitations in a power cord presumably may be helpful in limiting how much of that noise may couple into other components in the system. So there are design-dependent tradeoffs that come into play.
2) The significance of differences in shielding effectiveness among different power cords will depend on the amplitude and frequency spectrum of RFI that may be fed back from a particular component into its power cord, on the paths that may be available for that RFI to couple into other parts of the system, on the RFI sensitivity of other parts of the system, and on RFI that may be picked up from other parts of the system. All of this has essentially no predictability.
3) Voltage loss due to resistance in the cord will vary depending on how much current is drawn by the component, and a given amount of voltage loss will certainly have differing effects depending on the function and the design of the specific component. And of course differences in the AC line voltage at different locations will further lessen the predictability of all of this. In past threads, btw, Ralph (Atmasphere) has described having measured remarkably large reductions in the power capability of certain amplifiers resulting from relatively small voltage drops across some power cords. While line-level components having well regulated internal power supplies, and that draw minimal amounts of current, will likely have no sensitivity to this.
And of course all of this is in addition to the variables of listener preference, the intrinsic sonic characteristics of the components in the system, room acoustics, preferred listening volumes (which can affect the frequency response characteristics of our hearing mechanisms), the kinds of recordings that are listened to, etc.
Are you guys going to try the GE cables? Just curious since you guys are both big supporters of the SR black fuses. I am considering to pull the trigger myself:)
t_ramey you described what I'm hearing from the GE speaker cables and interconnects perfectly. Removal of the harsh grunge was the biggest improvement for me as that really grates on my nerves. Lower noise floor, increased detail and musicality....ditto. Better tonal balance for me also. I still need to switch over to GE power cords.....all in due time. I will say the speaker cables offered a much bigger improvement than the IC's for me. Maybe that's due to the fact that I added them first? I'm hoping the PC's take things up another notch, that would be sweet!
To add to the discussion I also think to a certain extent adding the first of Bobs power cables is a wow moment. As you accumulate them in your system the improvements become more subtle. I am running 3 Nano Sig cords first one on my preamp was a wow, next on my dac was more like aaaaah, last on my power conditioner was yes that's a bit better. Obviously as always YMMV.
Yeah, doesn't really matter as long as you get there. These cables are about as satisfying of an upgrade as I can remember. The ability to lower the noise floor, take out the hash or grunge, and increase detail all while having more or better musicality.
I think it's a matter of system synergy and probably other technical aspects of equipment that I'm not capible of explaining but I'm hoping other more knowledgable will jump in here and explain it for us?
Interesting on lak's order of improvement. Mine is kinda the opposite. The blue pc on my amp was a real wow moment with the speaker cables a close second. The yellow pc on the wall outlet to my surge protector just bloomed and it's awesome whereas the red pc on my dac was the least impressive. Almost to the point I was going to send it back but it was still better than the former cable. I was going to ask Bob if a blue pc would be a possible option for dacs with larger than normal power supplies but everything sounds so good right now I haven't bothered.
Allan. I only have the Blue to date, Red is on order, so I can not make any comparisons. Tommylion correctly mirrored my understanding of the types of power cords Bob offers.
BTW, I asked Bob which PC to order next, for amp or DAC as my second cord, and he suggested DAC, which is the Red CT cord. In my small experience, DACs were especially sensitive to PCs so I think his suggestion is a good one. We shall see. Also, as tommylion mentioned, the Blue did impart just a bit more sweetness to the sound, but just a little. I think issues with system noise, guessing backwash, cloud it.
The Blue is the High Current version for amplifiers. The Red is Low Current, for DAC, preamp etc. There is also a Yellow, for use with power conditioners. If you’re unsure which one to use for a particular component, email Bob. He is very responsive & helpful.
I have Reds on my CD transport & DAC, and a Blue for my amp. I hear benefits very similar to what jas described. I would say the overall improvement in clarity and engagement includes a "sweeter" midrange.
thanks for your quick reply. Wow, I think you got my attention now. I am a long time Audience fan too. I have all Audience power chords (except one to my sub) and AU24 interconnects. I am also looking for a little more sweeter midrange too. Should I try the red instead of the blue?
Allan. How much better? In my system it was considerable. I am an Audience fan and have used several of their products for years. But with the Blue, the music became more engaging and immersive and I found myself thinking during the day about the music I wanted to try at night, and I wasn't thinking that way with the power cord SE. I was looking for a sweeter midrange when I bought the Blue, but what I got was a more engaging sound and a soundstage that opened up in width and height and gave better clarity. I was convinced the Audience was very clear but the Blue is clearer. Overall, adding the Blue was far more of an improvement than upgrading the Audience power cord to the SE, which I've done twice. I am still amazed that a single cord can do so much to a system. Hope this helps.
I have not posted here in a long time. But, my recent experience with Bob's Blue PC HC warrant one. It replaced an Audience power cord SE--a decent but admittedly lesser cord than the higher end products used for comparison here--and the difference was, as you might expect, transformational. I'm posting for those that may not happen to own one of these better cords to compare to.
For context, my system consists of an Ayre pre and amp, Gumby DAC, Aerial speaks, Audirvana +. The Blue connects a BPT power center to the wall that runs the electronics.
I would characterize the Red's improvements as giving the sound a vast increase in dynamics, a tangible increase in base definition and an extension of the upper regions. I am pulled into the music more and voices create goose bumps where there were none. It sounded so much better I wondered how one cord of a half dozen in the system could do this!!
Break-in in my system was different than often reported here. At first, everything sounded confused and muddled, but, at the same time, I also heard immediate improvements in dynamics. At 8 hours confusion waned, and vanished at 20. At 40 hours, it all sounded really good--clear and immediate and tangible--only to improve in these specific aspects at hour 60. I began to think that the flaws I heard--such as a need for tighter bass control that had improved, too--were not due to the Blue but to the other cords/equipment.
I try to keep price out of qualitative judgements but then, it is darned attractive and can't be ignored Regarding Bob's service that has gotten a lot of ink here: At 12.38 PM CDT today I emailed Bob to ask which cord should be next. At 4.09 PM, he said Red (for the DAC). Service response time rating? Same day response has to be considered premier league. Can't wait for Red.
Since Graphene is defined as a two dimensional material, meaning that it’s thickness is only one molecule, the slurry of Graphene infused liquid ceramic used to surround the backbone metal conductors is not really Graphene any longer, but some other graphite based material. The special properties of Graphene, I.e., high strength and high conductivity are based on the premise that the material is only one molecule thick. Thus, I conclude the Graphene infused ceramic is acting as an anti vibration jacket and/or as an RFI/EMI shield. Please note I’m not impugning the efficacy of the Graphene cables. I actually think the cables would be superior to many deigns, but for the reasons I just mentioned which, by no coincidence, are the same reasons Graphene is employed in the SR Black fuse.
Thanks to Al for pointing out the audio signal travels at near light speed. Of course that means that the signal must be comprised of photons, not electrons. Massless photons are *compelled* to travel at the speed of light in a vacuum and at somewhat lower velocities in other mediums like water or copper, the actual velocity depending on the physical characteristics of the medium.
Thank you Al for taking the time to explain this subject so clearly. It has always been difficult for me to understand how much difference in sound a wire and dielectric can make in the near instantaneous passing of a signal. And I do think I hear a difference in cables. I am keeping this short to not show more of my lack of understanding of physics but really appreciate your explanations. George
Jetter 2-11-2017 But if I remember correctly Al has mentioned that the music signal, whatever it is made up of, like electricity in general, travels the path of least resistance.
Hi George,
Thanks for thinking of me, but no, I never would have said that, in this thread (which I have not participated in until now), or in any other thread. The old saying that electricity follows the path of least resistance is a somewhat misleading oversimplification. Electric current flowing between two points will utilize all of the paths that exist between those points, and will divide up between those paths in inverse proportion to their resistance. (And that’s even a bit of an oversimplification, because at frequencies other than zero Hz, i.e., other than at DC, inductance, capacitance, and impedance enter the picture, in addition to resistance). So a greater fraction of the current will utilize a lower resistance path than the fraction of the current that will utilize a higher resistance path between the same points, but all available paths between those points will be utilized to some degree.
Also, as Geoff indicated information in an electrical signal is conveyed in the form of an electromagnetic wave, which propagates along a cable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light in a vacuum. Generally somewhere between 50% and 98% of the speed of light in a vacuum (which is about 186,000 miles per second), depending primarily on what is called the "dielectric constant" of the insulation that surrounds the conductors in the particular cable.
So for example the time required for a musical signal to propagate from one end to the other of a 10 foot cable having a propagation velocity of 75% of the speed of light in a vacuum would be approximately 0.000000014 seconds. In other words, essentially instantaneously. (Consider the fact that just one cycle of what is considered to nominally be the highest audible frequency, 20 kHz, is several thousand times longer than that, with mid-range and bass frequencies having cycle times that are far longer still). Any differences in that 0.000000014 second figure due to whatever effects strand jumping may have on the electromagnetic wave therefore figure to be completely insignificant.
That said, based on the experiences that have been reported in this thread I don’t doubt or question that Bob’s cables are outstanding performers, whatever the reason may be.
If the signal traveled the path of least resistance it would travel down the Graphene, assuming the Graphene is acting as a conductor in the first place, and not the metal backbone metal wires, which one assumes are actually nothing more than structural reinforcement. And if that were the case, then Bob could use coat hangers for the backbone. It’s also possible, as I mentioned before, the Graphene is simply acting as an RFI/EMI shield and not as a conductor at all. Which is the case in the SR Black fuse.
Furthermore, the distinction between electrons and photons in the explanation of how things work is not trivial, especially in light of the fact that many folks seem to believe that the signal travels back and forth in AC circuits. Follow?
I have no knowledge of electricity, which I am sure you will quickly agree to. But if I remember correctly Al has mentioned that the music signal, whatever it is made up of, like electricity in general, travels the path of least resistance. If I understand what Bob said, the graphene offers the path of least resistance. Basically, geoff, are you are saying that Bob is correct other than you would rather he not refer to the signal travelling as electrons?
As much as I might somewhat admire your bravery for attempting to shed some light on the dodgy subject of how Graphene enhances the signal, I feel it only fair to post out that elections actually don’t travel down the length of the conductor, even ones with Graphene in them. Electron drift velocity is actually quite slow. Painfully slow, in fact. On the order of a few centimeters per minute in copper wire.
To exacerbate things even further with respect to your explanation, in AC circuits such as speaker cables the electrons travel TO AND FRO and are therefore at a virtual standstill. Now, if you incorporate how photons, not electrons, behave in your cables then I might scramble on board. You know, since the electromagnetic wave - I.e., the music signal - that’s traveling from one end of the cables to the other is comprised of photons, not electrons.
geoff kait machina dynamica we do the difficult quickly, the impossible takes a little longer
Hi Bob, This is my first post on this tread, and I would like to say that your explanation above is really fascinating, and just not something that I would have ever imagined.
Is there a particular sonic signature to the graphene itself? Just as cables may have different sonic signatures, is it possible that there is a better, middle and worse sounding graphene?
Cables are not one single strand of conductor. They are virtually always multiple strands of finer wire or other materials twisted together like a rope. When a musical signal is sent through this bundle electrons tend to stay within each individual strand - until - a transient (a louder pulse of music) hits and that is when all heck breaks loose. This added energy causes electrons to "jump" from strand to strand destroying the time constant of the bundle as a whole. If we keep in mind that music is virtually all transients we can see that a signal sent down our bundle will have random electrons arriving on the other end at different times depending on their travels ACROSS the bundle. This just kills imaging and the relationship of initial note and decay which is what makes music sound REAL. At Cerious we use Graphene under high pressure to "fill in" the gaps between individual strands creating a single conductor. Since the Graphene is even lower resistance than the strands themselves the signal tends to flow through the Graphene itself which is surrounded by wire strands of higher resistance. The wire acts almost as a barrier channeling the signal and keeping it within the Graphene strings since the signal wants to travel in the path of least resistance. Here I must add that this is the theory at least which has been borne out by listening tests. Every cable I have designed was approached through this theory and the closest I have been able to produce a real world cable to this design has sounded better than the previous iteration. I am a researcher at my core and work everyday to correlate design to real world performance so I can understand why cables sound the way they do. Graphene has added an incredible tool to the tool chest and we at Cerious will continue to unlock the potential of this breakthrough material. Bob Grost
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
