In Reply to: RE: Just like marriage, Dr. Blank.... posted by audiomaniac on June 14, 2015 at 14:52:34:
...playing time did your new cables have, before you sent them to Alan? Moreover, were you able to listen to these cables, at all, pre-Cooking?
Back in 2003, when we first took receipt of a Cable Cooker, we had about a dozen identical 1-meter pairs of single-ended Kimber PBJ. Some had been used since 1993, others were new (both from the Ziplock older production, and some from the newer clamshell packaging).
Thus, we were able to compare treated versus untreated samples. We were also able to leave a given interconnect on for increments of 1-day, 2-days, 3-days, and so forth.
Back in 1986, I started with the Original Monster Cable, and Monster's IL-400. So if we do the math, I went about 17 years, before having access to the Cable Cooker. And that is too bad. Thanks to some of today's audiophiles, who have graciously located some of their old (>20 years) cables, we regret that cable burn-in devices were not available, back in the 80s and 90s. We currently have been treating these 20-year-old cables, and all these years, we did not see their true potential, got only a small fraction of what they are capable of. Back in the early 90s, we loved the AQ Lapis, XLO Reference Type 1, Kimber 4TC. As much as we liked the untreated samples, the treated versions are significantly cleaner, less grainy and distorted.
Kudos for making the effort, taking the time, and encumbering the expense to get your new cables treated. You are light years ahead of those who haven't.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- How Much... - Luminator 16:28:52 06/14/15 (3)
- RE: How Much... - audiomaniac 16:35:01 06/14/15 (2)
- LAT's are on their way back. :--} - alan m. kafton 15:04:14 06/22/15 (1)
- RE: LAT's are on their way back. :--} - audiomaniac 18:45:03 06/22/15 (0)