Cable Run In and LIfters

[dennist]

Whenever I make a change as at in recent times the Hugh Dean Maya mark 4 amp modules , I usually haul out my speaker cables and ic's and swap around to find my best combo. Previously I had made up some Analysis Plus Oval Nine speaker cables for mids and bass (I can triwire my speakers but always use ultra thick cables for bass).  

 

At the time I found them just a bit harsh so swapped them out.   This time with the new Maya amps I left them in for a bit longer and they slowly came together to an extent where not only have they stayed in the system, but I made up another pair so the speakers are now triwired, so my advise is that some patience is sometimes required with new cables.

 

The other thing I tried recently were "cable lifters". I did'nt want to spend too much so cut up some $2 seed trays.  With my system with concrete floor, thick carpet on top and only 1.2 metres cable length they made nil difference so they have been recycled, maybe the result will be measurable with different floors and longer lengths.urable with a different type floor and longer lengths.

[robmid]

I found this article on Why Cables Sound Different that has helped me during my recent  interconnect experiments.

 

https://www.audioresurgence.com/2019/09/why-audio-cables-sound-different.html

 

Cheers, Rob

[dennist]

Thanks rob, an informative article, what interconnects did you end up with?

 

After going full circle, I have ended up with my very old Metaxas Cat 5 based cables between the preamp and power amps.

[robmid]

When I was enjoying my Son of Beast OTL valve amp with VAF DCX Gen 4s, interconnect changes made very little difference to SQ and it wasn't until I discovered the StereoCoffee passive LDR, that I realised interconnects DO make a difference. 

 

I've settled on Aurealis Dragon R1 interconnects after trying to better their superbly balanced and dynamic performance over the past eight years without success.

 

However, the most fun combination I have found is Duelund 16WG tinned copper combined with a grafted, shorter 24WG fly lead that connects to my passive LDR attenuator input end. 30WG teflon coated wrap wire is wrapped around the signal wire. The ground return is made from the shiny, pure copper from the stranded shield that is found, wound around Mogami 4 core microphone cable.

 

16WG Duelund in the signal and return wires produced dynamic, full, 3d mids but treble sparkle was lacking. The 30WG thin wrap wire around the signal wire, combined with the shiny copper return wire balances everything nicely with a nice sparkle on top of the mids.  Magically, it still retains the unique Duelund character. I have all tried thinner Duelund wires but they didn't have the unique imaging that 16WG does.

 

My Duelund versions are only about 250mm in length. I haven't had quite as much enjoyment with 500mm lengths but it would probably be great using a powered preamp.

 

High quality silver, that I tried, seemed to have a nasal character with some noticeable ringing on some instruments and bass was a bit flabby compared to copper.

 

I also mess with some DIY,  8mm wide coated copper foil signal and ground return interconnects, which also have beautifully transparent imaging but they lack some weight in the mids.

 

I must add that my passive LDR attenuator responds to different ICs with very noticeable differences and I sometimes switch back and forwards between the Aurealis and Duelunds for a different experience.

 

The Aurealis ICs have superior SQ and are keepers but the Duelunds are more fun to me.

 

Cheers, Rob

 

 

 

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

13 minutes ago, robmid said:

I must add that my passive LDR attenuator responds to different ICs with very noticeable differences and I sometimes switch back and forwards between the Aurealis and Duelunds for a different experience.

I wonder if that's an "issue" with passive attenuators rather than anything to do with passive attenuators being "more revealing" of IC differences. By that I mean that, as I understand it, passive attenuators are more sensitive to impedance matching - an issue which (again as I understand it), active preamps are less prone to - (or at least can be less prone to).

 

 

[robmid]

2 hours ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

I wonder if that's an "issue" with passive attenuators rather than anything to do with passive attenuators being "more revealing" of IC differences. By that I mean that, as I understand it, passive attenuators are more sensitive to impedance matching - an issue which (again as I understand it), active preamps are less prone to - (or at least can be less prone to).

 

 

That's an interesting comment and possibly correct, but I wouldn't call it an 'issue', more of a benefit, from my own point of view.

 

I now have at my fingertips, the flexibility to explore alternate audio sound signatures with the ability to return to a known high SQ by switching to my Aurealis Dragons.

 

During my long DIY audio journey, which started in the mid 1950's, I've never been able to  'fine tune' a sound signature to my own liking by simply swapping cables, without degrading the finer nuances and punch of musical performances.

 

Over the years, I've heard a bunch of super high end, audio club systems that may be accurate but they didn't have the soul or musicality I was seeking, and they often sounded harsh because they were pumping out music at a painful level. 

 

Unfortunately, my lounge isn't acoustically treated. It's a generous sized room with a tile floor, large windows and furniture plus an acceptable WAF (just).

 

The BIG plus for me is that I can get the same sound signature that I enjoy, at low levels ...with less sub bass, or high levels, where everything becomes massively powerful and enveloping, but there is no audible harshness or distortion.  NOTE:  I can barely hear above 9khZ but my distortion detection is acute.

 

I'm super critical of all SQ and it's taken me a long time, and very few dollars to get where I am fully satisfied. Even though I'm still an OTL valve amp fanatic, practicality issues have halted that and I'm enjoying an $800, integrated LDR/ Hypex NC122MP, more than I ever thought possible.

 

The magic of audio is that we all hear music differently, and that is why I like to tailor my SQ to match my own preferences.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[crisis]

On 14/09/2024 at 9:23 PM, robmid said:

I found this article on Why Cables Sound Different that has helped me during my recent  interconnect experiments.

 

https://www.audioresurgence.com/2019/09/why-audio-cables-sound-different.html

 

Cheers, Rob

This is really good. Perhaps because I agree with it..

I’ve always questioned breaking in cables. How does a piece of wire change its characteristics by having a current pass through? And if it does, why doesn’t it continue to change?

I am a reformed cable sceptic. Since actually putting my hand in my pocket and purchasing some not inexpensive cables I have heard differences. Differences I like. I will, like most, claim its not confirmation bias etc but it certainly could be. The first “real” cables I bought were speaker jumpers. I didn’t believe that a two inch piece of cable would “sound” any different to the metal plates on my speakers. It was more of an experiment to prove my theory. But the result was increased bass. I tried a few CDs that I was very familiar with and I couldn’t get around the result. It didn’t take any “burning in” time. It was there. Still happy to concede it was in my head but that doesn’t matter now. I like the result.

With this experience I lashed out, for me, on better speaker and interconnect cables. This may be more subjective because I was slowly becoming a convert. As per the article I did notice differences. Improvements? Well that’s hard to quantify. I thought my system was more revealing and the sound of instruments, cymbals is a good one for me, was cleaner and less smeared.

So now I’m a convert.

I still question the cable” burning in”. And the article kind of describes what I think about it. The longer we listen the more we become accustomed to the sound. If we already believe the cable will sound better, because it costs heaps and the marketing told us what to listen for, then it will sound better.

I suspect some cable manufacturers have latched onto this early in the piece. Imagine we buy a thousand dollar cable and place it in our system and listen for the first time. And we admit we cant hear a difference or perhaps don’t like the sound! We want to return it because it “doesn’t work”. Now if the manufacturer says it needs 60 hours of “burn in” we have the opportunity of getting used to the sound. Almost inevitably. Has it changed or has our perception changed?

Ultimately who cares as I have experienced I like my system better now and even if I have been taken for a ride, I’m happy.

Edited October 23, 2024 by crisis

[gemini07]

Great article - thanks @robmid

 

Not sure it says much about cable burn-in but I do agree with the gist of everything else mentioned, especially the price / performance equation not necessarily being linear. Also, the statements around cables being an integral part of the overall system and needing to be system matched, by listening.

 

I think the best way to identify any SQ differences after a period of use would be to buy two identical sets of the same cables, eg speaker cables, use one pair for eg six months and then compare the two. Repeat after another period of time, and be sure to keep all variables the same, whilst taking notes. (Has anyone done this?)

 

I use cable lifters for my speaker cables in my integrated HT and stereo system, but mainly to avoid contact with power cables, power strips, etc. But I'm not sure I could prove any SQ difference using them. 

[muon*]

11 minutes ago, gemini07 said:

I think the best way to identify any SQ differences after a period of use would be to buy two identical sets of the same cables, eg speaker cables, use one pair for eg six months and then compare the two. Repeat after another period of time, and be sure to keep all variables the same, whilst taking notes. (Has anyone done this?)

I think some have, but they likely will not voice their opinions on a forum due to the kind of push back in the past.

[dennist]

I have again tried lifting my triwired speaker cables and comparing, but cannot detect any advantage in my setup, so they have been removed, I have done a lot of comparing of cables to the bass speakers and definately will be sticking to my thick 4 gauge cables for bass, it does make a difference with the higher current demands of the woofers.

[David A]

I prefer neutral, natural and tonally well balanced cables which don't act as tone controls. I currently use Jorma cables, but plan to go in a different direction with my new system.

 

The primary purpose of cable lifters is to reduce floorborn vibrations and vibrations coming from the speakers, as well as static charge from the floor. Though not all cable lifters are created equal. Personally I use Acoustic Revive cable lifters which are made of hickory and mahogany (incl: vibration control material), and have a compartment with a mix of natural ores which they claim absorbs electromagnetic waves and radiated noise from the cables. All I know is they seem to work. The fact they also look nice doesn't hurt either.

 

[dennist]

Yes I suppose the fact that I have a thick concrete slab floor with thick carpet on top means there is nil vibration affecting the speaker cables.

[Gryffles]

On 23/10/2024 at 1:53 PM, muon* said:

I think some have, but they likely will not voice their opinions on a forum due to the kind of push back in the past.

Depends on the forum in my experience

[David A]

23 hours ago, dennist said:

Yes I suppose the fact that I have a thick concrete slab floor with thick carpet on top means there is nil vibration affecting the speaker cables.

Though bare in mind carpet generates static charge which can negatively impact cables. Cable risers in theory will help reduce the deleterious effect of floor-born static. But that is all relative to the level of your system and how effective your cables are at insulating against static charge.

[muon*]

A concrete slab does not stop the transmission of vibrations.

[acg]

18 minutes ago, muon* said:

A concrete slab does not stop the transmission of vibrations.

 

Yep.  Concrete is certainly not as inert as you might think given its weight, and is certainly not less prone to vibration than a decent wood floor.

 

Edited October 24, 2024 by acg