|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I can't help wondering if 'burning-in' for cables, tubes, transformers, caps, etc is really real. I can understand speakers burning in because they are moving parts (and the compliance change change can be measured empirically)Could it be that we just get used to the sound of a change in equipment.
Examples
1) A new speaker cable might sound harsh. Does it get less harsh or do we learn to except it.
2) A new tube lacks bass. Does the balance improve, or do we learn to except it.One reason why I think that we are just leaning to accept the new sound of an equipment change is because reports of changes due to 'burning-in' are almost invariably improvements!
Have you ever heard 'It sounded worse afer burn-in'?Is there any empirical evidence of burn-in for any device? I would love to see it.
Follow Ups:
Cable burn-in:Take one fact and ad it to another hypothesis, (assertion), can and do make people believe that the unsubstantiated assertions are true. The standard method of demagoge and others.
As my grandma would say: Half the truth is often a more severe lie than a stright lie.So what is true: a lot. Examples:
1. Copper changes structure when bend, hammered, machined. The resistens of the material will rise a little, maybe 0.001%. To get copper back to where it want to be, to get the stored tension out of the material, you need to heat it up, this process ia a function of temperature and time. I heat copper up to 350 deg. F. for 2 hours in order to get it "soft". At lower temperatures it will take forever.
NOTE: If the copper is bend or stretched in any way, you have to repeat the "softening" treatment.2. Copper and copper oxide layer can act as a diode, but only if the electrons can not find a nother rout. This effect will break down at a temperature above 150 deg. F.
3. Others.......
Draw your own conclusion. I can not make the statment that burning in cables has absolutly no sonic effect. I, am not qulified to do that.
Jens. MSc from DTU + + +
You may wait a long time for replicable proof that it makes an audible difference.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
nt
ja
It never ceases to fascinate me how nearly all audio forums will, at some point, degenerate into a widespread bitch session about 'cables' and 'burn in'. With almost religious fervor the two camps bellow and dispute & very rarely do the twains meet, even for a cup of tea. Although it is a very relevant concept to consider and well worthy of debate, I am still rather amazed that people really care THAT much about what other folks beliefs are with regards to the topic, (as many others would concur with their "just enjoy the music, alright" :) summaries).I have personally concluded, through my modest experimentation in the audiophile realms, that we are dealing with a very abstract notion here. I think components and systems do ultimately rely on an intricate synergy of wire, transformers, capacitors, plugs, etc. which all combine and interact in a unique fashion that certainly creates a particular sonic character. Is this character 'better' than another system? Maybe...maybe not. Are you hearing what I'm hearing? Probably not. One system's technical specs may measure out in a most immaculate fashion, but sound good to no-one. I will say, and this is not simply my notion, that we cannot conclusively measure everything we hear with empirical scientific data. Just as you cannot measure everything you taste, feel, and smell with your other senses and how they are thus interpreted by your mental faculties. Technical specs can certainly relay valuable, even crucial, information with regards to equipment performance, but Reality (ie. that which one hears, sees, experiences, and enjoys) cannot be measured with data and statistics.
Specs could probably measure out equally on two different units but exhibit entirely different characters. Why? I don't really know. It is a very complex issue and many of the hard-core audio tweakers would probably argue that they have experienced a realization that the interaction of materials and their relation to and interaction with sound is something that steps into the abstract at times. I have even, in my minor tinkerings, come up with some results that really did make me scratch my head and wonder "what the...".
The audiophile hobby often approaches a passion akin to that of the alchemists from days long past. It may have been their ultimate quest to "turn lead into gold" as it were but the ultimate result was a transformation of themselves in the process. I have encountered references to an interesting field of scientific thought that certainly enters the realm of abstraction inherent in fields such as quantum physics. A gentleman by the name of Heisenberg (if I remember correctly) established the principle of Indeterminism which recognized the discovery that the act of measuring always alters that which is being measured. This, of course, turns our everyday experiences into a continuous and unrepeatable evolutionary process. So, as they say, "just enjoy the music".
I agree with you. - I listen to the music. In fact I'm listening to it right now.
It does seem to me that the alleged phenomenon would not be the same with the different sorts of equipment. So, instead of one issue, there are really a number of separate issues. In other words, taking a position on one does not entail taking the same position on others.I can see that speakers may show a measureable difference, especially the woofers, with some break-in time, which might be audible under some circumstances. My dealer believes in this, but I have not noticed any difference in his broken in and unbroken in speakers.
When it gets to interconnects and cables, well it is an alternating current signal, after all. I haven't seen anyone come up with a reliable, repeatable test to show that cable burn-in is real and audible.
CDPs and amplifiers? Well, I can assure you that my CDP and amplifier sound the same warm or cold, and so did their predecessors. So did virtually every other SS amplifier I have ever heard.
I did meet one SS amplifier that needed warm up for a few minutes, an old used Mission 60 watt power amplifier with 'Mission' sculptured on the cover in front--don't know the model no. This on consignment amplifier happened to be the most robust one in store during the slow season, and I wanted to listen to the Mirage 3si. This thing did not even have a stable stereo image until it has warmed up for a few minutes: wierd! My dealer remarked that this is a peculiarity of that particular model. It worked fine after after a few minutes.
I don't do tubes, but I understand they take a little warm up. Another good reason for me not to bother with tubes.
As just about everyone knows, their systems sound different to them at different times. There have been a couple of threads on this within living memory, and that was the constant theme of the replies. Yet, few seem to think this has any implications for auditioning equipment, and making judgments about alleged effects like burn-in.
So, without more objective proof, the most probable explanation is that most of it is in the mind. So, yes, burn-in exists, but mostly in the mind.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
I agree with part of this. Burn-In is not a single phenomenom, but a whole range of effects ranging from obvious and measureable to pseudo-scientific voodo magic. There are many effects that are directly related to burn-in that are measureable and audible (n my experience), speaker suspension, electrolytic capacitors, rubber vibration attenuation grommets in CD players. Even transistors will experience measureable drift with changes in temperature. Cables and power cords however I have yet to experience any observable difference, and to me the explanations start getting into the whole "I heard something, I'm sure of it, let's see if I can find some sort of rational sounding reason for it". Yes dialectric materials can change, stresses in metals can cause minute changes in electrical properties, are any of these effects significant enough to cause an audible difference? In my opinion and experience, nope.
Thank you, Kelly. You seem to be the first person who has actually understood my main points.The alleged phenomena do not seem to all be the same thing, and so it seems to me many must be considered separately.
And certainly, it would only be proper method to ensure that an audible phenomenon exists before looking for explanations for it.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
Pat, you are full of crap! Now, have I got your attention? Serious audiophiles have found burn-in to be important. I have personally heard examples of burned-in power cords and nonburned -in power cords, and the burned-in ones were better. Why? It lies in the physics of materials, rather than in electronic engineering textbooks. Read (if you can) "Electronic Properties of Materials" by Rolf Hummel to get some answers.
We can't convince a 'doubting Thomas' of anything. It is the listening response that counts.
Hi John,I admit to being on the sidelines regarding the verity of burn-in.
I wonder: if audible burn-in of for instance, power cords, is both clearly audible and supported by physics, can not a simple test or clear demonstration of the effect be designed to demonstrate it?
Even to the undecided or skeptical? If not, I would have to wonder why.I mean, scientists have proven to be damn clever, having constructed tests and "proofs" of phenomena that would seem to present *far* more difficulties to human investigation than the meager issue of cable burn-in (jeez - atoms, electrons, relativity, x-rays, DNA testing, carbon dating, drug development and on and on). If burn-in is true, someone come up with a reliable, repeatable test to prove it. If this isn't possible, I'd like someone to explain to me why not, within the context that many, much more subtle phenomena seem to be scientifically explicable.
If burn-in were true, reliable and demonstrable, there's no reason for it to hover in the same noise floor as other unproved, fringe (e.g. New Age) beliefs.
BTW, I'm not being snide. I'm open to the idea of burn-in. I just haven't experienced it (I've tried), and no one seems to pony up convincing tests to prove it, so I hold off on my opinion.
Rich H.
The apparent reason that it is difficult to measure burn-in of cables is because it is a physics measurement, rather than an audio measurement. I would LOVE to be able to consistently measure cable differences, including burn-in. I know that material scientists run tests like the ones that should show something at major universities. I think that a real laboratory could measure consistent differences, but I don't have the millions of dollars to invest in one. I keep trying within my own budget of a few thousand dollars. I now have a TDR meter, and I have compared cables with it. Of course, there are differences. I have done low level spectrum analysis and found that Radio Shack is awful at a 10mv signal, and I can prove it! The AES doesn't give a damn about this sort of thing, so I don't write papers about it anymore. What's the use? I know and have spent time with Dr's: Hawksford, Otala, and Van den Hul . These guys are all PhD's in physics or engineering. Eves B. Andre, of YBA and Vecteur cable, teaches at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, I'm pretty sure, and consults about wire for the French Military. My good friend, Jack Bybee has a masters degree in physics and did some serious work for the military, and worked for awhile with Richard Feynman. Every one of these individuals takes wire differences seriously. When I talk to them, I don't have to 'prove' anything. Why do you demand proof? If you can't hear the differences, just enjoy the music with what you have at hand. It is this continual demand on our time and effort to prove something to a bunch of doubters that is why I am replying to this topic. I just accept what I hear, and try to measure differences when practical. If I can't measure it with my test equipment, so what?
"Why do you demand proof? If you can't hear the differences, just enjoy the music with what you have at hand."Because:
1. Because, well, like many people, I'm curious about the natural world. An interesting, controversial phenomena has been posited by many people and I'm interested if it's "true."
I note that my questions, which weren't raised in the spirit of confrontation, still managed to raise your hackles. I understand: you deal with this question a lot. Still, it's also frustrating that simply asking logical questions about burn-in typically brings some measure of vitriol. They're just honest questions that I hope anyone would ask when faced with curious, controversial issues.2. The burn-in issue has tremendous practical impact. How often have I heard one person trying to explain their experience or impression of
an audio system, only to see another say "but was the --- sufficiently burned in? If not, your opinion is worthless." In this manner, the burn-in issue often seems to create a disconnect, or barrier in the communication between audiophiles who believe equipment needs burn in, and those that don't. Which I find saddening.Also, if a high-end manufacturer recommends hundreds of hours of break-in time for a component, that creates practical problems for the consumer -- as if he not allowed to make judgment on the sound until a vaguely determined period of playing the device "is the piece I'm auditioning burned in? Can I make a sufficient judgment of the sound now?" "I just paid a lot of money for this cable and I don't like the sound, but is the sound going to change soon?"
The burn-in issue creates problems for reviewers (I do some myself for Stereotimes) - and thus for the thousands reading that reviewer. I'd love to just plunk a piece of gear in and "enjoy the music." But if I did so, and I didn't like a product, many high end manufacturers have an 'out,' they'd complain - "you didn't burn the product in long enough." So I conscientiously follow every manufacturer's advice on burn-in time. A recent product sounded unacceptable, and I told the manufacturer. His reply - "needs more burn in." I kept burning it in, checking and reporting my dissatisfaction to the manufacturer. "Needs more burn-in" came the replies. 450 hours of burn-in later, no change to the sound. This was, frankly, a much more arduous a process than simply plunking the product into the system and listening to it. This has happened, in variations, with other products too - all this fun I can lay at the lap of the burn-in phenomenon.
Check out "Manufacturer's Comment" in the recent Stereophile from Coincident Speaker Technology's Israel Blume. Michael Fremer didn't like Coincident's phono cable? That's because, to paraphrase Blume "his cable was only burned in for 225 hours. Our cable needs up to 500 hours of burn in, before which it sound like crap."
(Even better: this particular phono cable, says Blume, can't be burned in with a turntable, it needs these burn in hours from the high level signal of a CD player!!! - hope everyone buying knows that!).
500 hours of burn in - can you say "practical problems for the manufacturing of such a product, as well as for the consumer"?
Shall we simply take such manufacturer's pronouncements at face value, or are we not allowed to think critically about such claims, as they impact our audio activities?John, I respect your work immensely, and I'm not being confrontational. And thank you for the listing the credentials of the other individuals who support burn-in. But would you not agree that burn-in, whether real or not, creates many practical problems that are hard to ignore for anyone steeped in the world of high-end audio?
Thanks,
Rich H.
> > > So, without more objective proof, the most probable explanation is that most of it is in the mind. So, yes, burn-in exists, but mostly in the mind.I find it intellectually disingenuous to simply dismiss a phenomenon because you don't have a scientific study to site or because you have only experienced it with one piece of equipment. If you haven't experienced it, then say so. Don't suggest that others are imagining it.
Rod, you show little comprehension of what I have actually said.First of all, I question that there could be one phenomenon that would be at issue, here. It is not evident that speaker break in, amplifier warm up, and wire burn-in could the same phenomenon, and indeed this would seem to be extremely unlikely.
Second, I have never said that people are imagining "it," whatever "it" may be (which is the first problem). You are only imagining that I have said so. The problem is to relate what is heard or focussed on to the equipment.
As well, I seriously doubt that what was happening with that Mission amplifier had any particular similarity to what most people talk about with warming up an amplifier. I have never heard them saying that there were intermittent drops in level with each channel, etc., so as to really upset the musical signal. In that case, it was so evident the my dealer felt he had to offer some explanation. So, it remains to be seen whether I heard "it" with even one amplifier.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
No, I thought I read it quite clearly. You just said:> > Second, I have never said that people are imagining "it,"
Yet, that's exactly what you said in your post:
> > So, without more objective proof, the most probable explanation is that most of it is in the mind.
I dunno, but that sure sounds like you think folks imagine it. I would agree that it seems to vary a lot depending on whether you're talking about cable burn in or speakers or amps and the specific item in question. I just wouldn't make a blanket statement which is what I seem to have taken your post to be.
I am sorry, but mind and imagination are not equivalent terms, especially in this context. If you think they are, that is hardly my problem, but I'll try.The celebrated story of Buridan's donkey can be employed in to illustrate the point. Jean Buridan (circa 1295-1356) held a kind of determinism in which a person must choose what appears best. But, his opponents argued, suppose a donkey is placed equidistant between two equal bales of hay. Per hypothesis, both should appear equivalent, and so the donkey will not be able to make a choice and will starve to death. Of course, even those ignorant medievals would know that a hungry donkey would just go over to one of the piles of hay and start munching. You can refer to the article "Burdidan, Jean," by Nicholas Rescher in Paul Edwards, "The Encyclopedia of Philosophy," New York, MacMillan, 1967.
Why does the donkey choose one over the other? Well, maybe it has a predisposition to choose something on the right rather than on the left. Perhaps it notices something in one pile of hay that it doesn't remember in the other, that makes it look more attractive. Well, I hardly need to speculate any further to be able to say that the donkey need not be imagining something about the bales of hay to decide one is preferable, even though there is nothing objectively different about them.
Q.E.D. Rod M.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
yeah, after 8 years of Clinton, I'm quite familiar with mind games and what 'is' is game. GMAB.
That's not an argument Rod. That's just labelling.Funny you don't jump on Cutthroat for using the same terminology . . .
If you want to put inherent human tendencies, social pressures, and so on under the category of imagination, you go right ahead.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
Yeah, maybe, but you're being complete disingenuious. You said people just imagined it and then you said that it was not imagined, but only in their minds. I'm calling you on it because you playing word games. Read what you said, it's all there in black and white.
You know, cyclic debates with a robot.You don't get to post enough, no reason to revisit a discussion line you have seen several thousand times before. If you get that hankering, just think orange! Its a 24/7 type activity in orange land.
Yup, I woke up this morning......Is that the same tune on the radio?
I look out the window......same paperboy petaling down the street.
Noooooooo, it's Groundhog Day!
The contrast is between what is due to the human subject and what is due to the equipment, Rod. Imagination doesn't cut it, Rod.I'm sorry you don't understand the issues involved.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
> > The contrast is between what is due to the human subject and what is due to the equipment, Rod. < <Is it, Pat? Or is it purely an issue of perception and its influence on preference? Think about it.
Best Wishes,
Felix
That's another issue, and thankfully, a substantive one.Rod is trying to saddle me with the silly position that perceiving differences where there are none, or that are too small to actually distinguish, is the same as imagining them. And, he's not taking "No" for an answer.
Not only can perception influence preference, but it also seems that preference can influence perception. You think about it.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
> > That's another issue, and thankfully, a substantive one. < <Actually, it's the same issue; you just have to look past your blinders. That's why I asked you to think about it.
> > Rod is trying to saddle me with the silly position that perceiving differences where there are none, or that are too small to actually distinguish, is the same as imagining them. < <
Err...that's what you said, isn't it?
> > Not only can perception influence preference, but it also seems that preference can influence perception. < <
Of course, Pat! If an individual perceives a difference, than in turn that difference becomes very real, not imagined as you claimed, whether it exists on a purely sonic level or not.
> > You think about it. < <
LOL!
Best Wishes,
Felix
Two comments:1) Mind and imagination are not the same term. Mind is a more general term than imagination.
2) I have always agreed with the substance of your statement:
"Of course, Pat! If an individual perceives a difference, than in turn that difference becomes very real, not imagined as you claimed, whether it exists on a purely sonic level or not."
I have no idea why you 'imagine' I think otherwise. Indeed, this is integral to my position. You are not telling me anything new.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
> > Mind and imagination are not the same term. Mind is a more general term than imagination. < <If something occurs solely in one's mind, how is that not one's imagination at work? TIA
Best Wishes,
Felix
As I said, we have used the term to make a distinction between what is belongs to the human subject, this is precisely as a knowing and desiring subject, and the equipment (and environment).
Our external and somatic senses are not imagination.
Illusions are not imagination.
Expectations are not imagination.
Social pressures are not imagination, though internalized.
Habits are not imagination.
Moods are not imagination.
Emotions are not imagination.
Feelings are not imagination.
A predisposition to prefer what is louder is not imagination.
A predisposition to choose between different things is not imagination.
In some uses, intellect is not imagination.
And so on.Nevertheless, these are usually classed as mental. And, they can affect how we perceive high fidelity equipment and a lot of other things.
I have no wish to impose a particular philosophical psychology on you, such as that of Aristotle or Merleau-Ponty, but there are a whole host of functions and activities to be accounted for.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
> > snip < <It seems that your definition of imagination differs from those who read and understand English.
http://www.thesaurus.com/roget/IV/515.html
This should cover every mildly relevant example you posted.
You wrote:
"So, without more objective proof, the most probable explanation is that most of it is in the mind. So, yes, burn-in exists, but mostly in the mind."i·mag·i·na·tion (i-maje-na'shen) n.
1.The formation of a mental image of something that is neither perceived as real nor present to the senses.2.The mental image so formed.
I really do not like to argue semantics, Pat. Whether you meant to say something else, or chose your words improperly is only known to you. This is either a case of you failing to grasp the thrust of your own position, or perhaps you simply have not thought it through in enough detail.
Best Wishes,
Felix
I think Pat is trying to differentiate the term "imagination" and the phrase "in your mind" in that imagination is that which forms a new idea and "in your mind" is misinterpreting sensory information. I think his point lacks any pragmatic value for this discussion as both phrases have the same connotative meaning to 99.999% of the english speaking population of the world (hence the thesaurus entry). Like what was expressed earlier, it's fodder for the philosophers and not for the 'philes.Now I'm going to heat my tube amps up, laugh at philosophy, and writhe in my ignorance with a big shit-eating grin,
Tom §.
> > > > Our external and somatic senses are not imagination.
Illusions are not imagination.
Expectations are not imagination.
Social pressures are not imagination, though internalized.
Habits are not imagination.
Moods are not imagination.
Emotions are not imagination.
Feelings are not imagination.
A predisposition to prefer what is louder is not imagination.
A predisposition to choose between different things is not imagination.
In some uses, intellect is not imagination.
> >and yet imagination makes all those traits possible.
Without imagination, we are andriods.Adi
Our different cognitive and affective powers (this includes choice in my view) work together in different ways.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
I think (at least in my mind) what's at issue is your statement:> >
perceiving differences where there are none, or that are too small to actually distinguish
< <That reads to me that you're claiming:
Burn-in does not exist as an objective phenomemon apart from a subject's perception of burn-in or, if it does, we cannot actually perceive it because it is so subtle.
Which, to just about anybody other than a trained philosopher, is really stating that burn-in is all in the mind, or the imagination.
The little voices told me that soap is the hallmark of civilization.
Notice even you have to say mind or imagination, which implies that they may not be the same thing. They certainly are not the same word, and mind seems is the more general term.Now, if we want to talk about "disingenuous," as Rod M. does, thus showing he can spell the big word, let's look at some usage in this thread. Cut-Throat introduced the term "mind" into the discussion, and he/she obviously did not mean imagination by it:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/101144.html
"I don't believe it's audible expect maybe speakers (but that's a stretch too) The only burning in that is happening is in the mind.
I believe that last meal you just had affects the sound more than anything that can be done to a cable. "
And I said in a reply:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/101268.html
"A day at work, come home dehydrated, and the system sounds lousy. A good drink of water, a nice meal, time to relax, and the system sounds great."
From this, one would conclude that Cut-Throat and I believe that physical conditions in the body are one thing that could influence what we hear--one thing that by no means comes under the term imagination. Therefore, neither of us could possibly consider mind and imagination to be equivalent terms in the context of this discussion. But that just isn't good enough for Rod M., Fear3000 and now maybe you.
I do not have to deny, and do not in fact deny, that at different times people are subjectively hearing something different, not to mention noticing something different, even though the equipment and program material or test signal has not changed. In fact, I think our hearing changes quite often. Indeed, many people here say that sometimes their systems sound different to them than at other times.
It seems as if Rod M, Fear3000, and apparently you, have decided that there are only a few positions possible, and find it hard to conceive of any other possible positions. Therefore, you try to fit my position into some pre-existing matrix of permitted positions. This is, in fact, a fairly natural tendency, but it is not reasonable.
BWT, I do not think that ordinary language usage is designed to deal with these sorts of problems.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
MIND: the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills and esp. reasonsPERCEIVE: to become aware of through the senses
IMAGINE: to form a mental image of something not present
Whether components "burn-in" is not a belief system. It is simply a matter of very simple testing and observation.I will often ask people if they have noticed a difference in sound qualities after a period of "burn-in". This tells me volumes about that person's system or about the person's listening acuity.
----
cg
"I will often ask people if they have noticed a difference in sound qualities after a period of "burn-in". This tells me volumes about that person's system or about the person's listening acuity."Can you clarify what you are saying - seems to me you saying that if they say they heard burn-in, then they heard it; but if they didn't hear any change then they weren't listening hard enough?
Cheers
John K
Can you clarify what you are saying - seems to me you saying that if they say they heard burn-in, then they heard it; but if they didn't hear any change then they weren't listening hard enough?Not at all. If they don't or can't hear a shift in the characteristic of the component during burn-in then experience has shown that there is usually one of two issues:
The first is system related. I have had systems and have visited peoples homes where it was very difficult or impossible to hear the differences between interconnects, power cords and other component swaps. In about 50% of the cases there were severe room acoustic problems that were obscuring much of the ambient detail and subtle low level information in the music. The other half of the cases were caused by a component or cable that has a significant roll-off in the high frequencies or has a bad case of time smear or phase shift (speakers).
When I moved to a new facility, last year, I sent up the reference system a room that seemed that it would be a good audio room. In this room, I could hardly hear the difference between our lowest priced product and our reference product - very disturbing to be sure. After months of tweaking and messing with sound treatment I moved the system to another room - bamm, everything snapped into focus and even the slightest tweaks were easily discernable.
I never put someone down or discount their opinion when they say that they cannot hear this or that. I realize that if you or I were to go to that person's house and listen to their system, that we may very likely come to the same conclusions as they have. I've been there - I know that there are sometimes vast differences between systems and the people that are doing the listening.
Which brings me to the second issue: the person and their preferences and their listening abilities. I have been in a room with several people. We were all listening to the same system and the same music. Later i would ask them what they thought of the sound. Some might say that it was one the best systems they had ever heard. Others might say that it was truly awful and that they couldn't wait to get out of the room. The rest were somewhere in the middle. I believe that the term "personal preference" needs to be more fully examined and explored. It is sometimes used in passing conversation as if it were a subtle or insignificant issue. It is not - it is huge!
I question the people further to try and determine "exactly" what it is that they are focusing upon when listening to the system. Many audiophiles have trained themselves to listen for very subtle variations in frequency response. This is one of the major differences that separate many loud speakers. There are other variations that are quite audible including transient blur, phase anomalies and various forms of noise. There are simply some people that are either not sensitive to these last variations or they are not important to them. Burn-in (except for speakers) does not usually affect the frequency balance of the system. Rather, it is the purity, transient blur and subtle noise distortions that do shift. If a person is not sensitive to these variations then they will not perceive a difference during burn-in. Very often the same people are also not sensitive to cabling changes. (I use the term "sensitive" loosely meaning that they either do not hear a difference or that they DO hear a difference but it is not significant within the context of their personal preferences inventory)
That being said, I do find it quite amazing that people that don't hear something believe that the other 50% of the population have gone into a trance, been hypnotized or drugged just because they can hear a certain characteristic.
----
cg
But events over the past 9 months have really started to make me rethink this.In May, I upgraded my CD player. Upon receipt of the new player, I thought I noticed a change in the sonic signature after about 100 hours of play.
Note: when I say "thought", I mean I'm convinced I heard the phenomenon, but not convinced of my mind's contribution.
Then in October I bought a new preamp. Once again, I thought I heard a change after about 200 hours of play.
So I started to think that maybe there was something to burn-in.
Currently, I'm trying new cables in my system; after 30 hours, I'm noticing changes that are not subtle. These changes are not all positive. In fact, I plan on relistening to some of the initial CD's I played when I first installed the cables to determine to what extent the soundstage is collapsing-but I really think that it has lost some depth compared to the first couple of days.
So either my mind is playing pretty consistent tricks on me, or there is something to the theory.
I think that the phenomena of audiophools hearing burn-in is well documented. Now we have to decide between (at least) a couple of competing theories: (1) it's all in the subjects' heads, and (2) the gear in question goes through some change.
While (1) is attractive for simplicity's sake, please note that the simplest explanation for everything is that all of us, and all of our "reality", is nothing more than the figments of a powerful being.
As a side note, I find it interesting that you would "love to see" empirical evidence for burn-in. Why do we so readily revert to visual terms when discussing sound? Would you accept the evidence of your own ears, or does it have to be seen?
The little voices told me that soap is the hallmark of civilization.
x
A particular radio station touts that their weatherman was "voted" most accurate. Being voted the most accurate has no real bearing on whether he actually is or not. Same thing with burn-in. People may believe what they want, but there's only one true answer, and it isn't determined by a vote.
Highs in the 70s, overnight lows in the 60s. How can he go wrong except for the dozen or so rainy days a year and even then, the temperature is right.Oh, btw, since you're so sure about the answer, how about a little proof? Or is that just your opinion?
But nowhere in this thread have I stated whether I think it's real or not.
We had the best weatherperson. Cute, nice outfits, personable, spoke clearly. But the CBC downsized and she was out of a job.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
Well, Clark, Kelly at least seems ambiguous on the issue, and besides, I haven't posted yet.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
Sometime ago i bought a new set of speakers. I ran my test cd through them. The test Cd has set tones that step down. At 35Hz i could here it find, 30hz it was lower but could still be heard, at 25hz I could just make it out, 20hz no sound that could be heard. After 8 hours of pink noise this is what I heard. 35Hz I heard it fine, 30hz I heard just like 35hz, 25hz louder than before, 20Hz lower than 25 but there now. Ok, breakin may not be exactly like burnin but close enough to show that things change quickly when they're new. Another example might be my bobwire interconnects. These we found when we were testing them needed to warm up for at least four minutes after be plugged in! I figure that they needed that time to charge the dielectric, and the leakage current went down. They always sounded better after that time. We also saw that if we unplugged them but put them back just a short time later, that they took less time to charge up again. On the other end of the scale we have old equipment that goes bad after warm up. i see all the time here in the lab. We bring in a module from the field and it works fine when we test it, but after and hour or so it goes bad. At the beginning of our lives we burn in, at the end we burn out! bobwire
nt
Hi,i have heard that the chemicals burn and go into the current gas inside the tube. Meanshile the metals in the tube go though heat cycles and expansion/reduction as the tube is used (tunred on and off cycles).
Tube can last a LONG TIME if the suporting circuity is done well.
Enjoy the music,
Steven R. Rochlin
You're right. I remember reading somewhere the plate on the WE 300B had to cure and the tube didn't reach its peak operating potential for days or months or years or something like that...plus they have like a 40 thousand hour life!I just got a pair of my very own AVVT 2A3 meshpates and was told they need some time to sound best.. they sound lovely-- hope it's true! I really dig this stuff.
Mike
is real? Moreover, does it matter?
If it's all in the head:
1. we would hear new recordings break in as well;
2. when you buy used equipment, it will break in as much as new.FWIW, my limited experience is that:
* more often than not, I hear new equipment break-in, including cables;
* I don't hear recordings break in,
* I did not hear break in of demo cables on loan from a dealer.
Possible reasons are1. your system is not revealign enough,
2. you did not listen long enough.
I'm not claiming that it is all in your head, but the whole basis of the "it's all in your head" is the expectation effect. If you don't expect recordings or used equipement to break-in then it won't happen. What would really be an accurate test would be to give someone a new product and claim that it was used or broken in (or vice versa) and see what people claim to hear.
Yes, many questions.........
How come nobody ever posts about how their speaker cables or ICs are worn out and they need new ones?
I've read some theories about cable burn-in which seem fine, about how the insulation has to settle and properly relax on the wires before their full dielectric properties can be realised.
However, after 200 hours of burn-in, if you move the cables around or move your speakers, amp whatever, you have to start the burn-in again.Tell me when you have a good answer.
John K
There's those that hear it and believe it and ther's those that don't. Nobody is wrong. However, what is true for one may not be for another. If somebody did a search for 'break in' in the archives, they would find a ton of posts with arguments for and against. Whatever the opinion, I trust that is correct FOR THAT PERSON.I just think it's silly for someone to say (no offence to the fellow who said it below) that's it's all in the head. How the heck can one person know what is going on in my or anybody else's head?
That said, I think this topic isin't really worth discussing anymore. A search of the archives would have yeilded the same responses. BTW - no offence to the original poster intended.
Guess this is my last break in post, as it pertains to the "is it for real" aspect of it.
I have had items that sounded great but once "burned in" lost the magic and no longer sounded the same. Did the electrical device change or did my perception of what I was hearing? My SO who could give a hoot about my system, has noticed when the sound became better after a period of time had elapsed in which a component had "burned in". (she had not listened to the system and gotten use to the sound). I have a very sensitive amp and if anything is wrong the bass goes to s..t. I can rewire something within the amp and it takes a couple of days for the wire to "burn in" before the bass gets tight again. This is very noticeable and believe me, I am not just getting use to bad bass because I cannot stand boomy bass.I do not know exactly what is going on but I have heard it enough to appreciate that there is something dealing with electrons and dielectrics (forming) that influences the sound that changes with time.
ja
See if they want to take a 10 miles cross country hike in a brand freaking new pair of hiking boots. :-)Alex
True, THis is because your shoes move physically. They take a couple miles of walking to get them to conform to your feet. Same with speakers. Let them run a bit and their surrounds soften a tad, the drivers might become slightly less stiff, etc. I still have a hard time buying the "cable burn in" theory, but since I havent tried it I wont say it doesnt happen.
I don't know about cable burn-in. May or may not be necessary.But loudspeakers and electronics (amps.) burn-in is very real.
I know a lot of people complains B&Ws metal dome tweeters to be bright. They're not. They become a totally different animal after 150 hours of use.
And decent electronics with hugh current are needed, for almost all B&W speakers to sing properly. Mass marketed mail order/Circuit City types receivers are not recommanded.
Same with ss amps.Alex
Having owned Proacs and now 'speakers that use Eton drivers I can tell you that loudspeakers definately need break in, sometimes in the hundreds of hours.Have a listen to a brand new set of Proacs or nOrh's and then listen to a pair of either 'speaker with a couple of hundred hours on them and tell me that there is no such thing as break in.
Pre-amps, power-amps, CD players also need burn in and capacitor forming with a Variac is a plus with power-amps.
I have also used a Variac to re-form the capacitors in a pre-amp with great improvement in smoothness and general musicality.
Speaker and interconnect cables, I think so.
Tony D.
Yes, I agree with you that this burn in thing is a little crazy. Speakers - sure, maybe a few hours or a day or two. Cartridges, about the same. Maybe even electronics need a bit of burn in. But hundreds of hours to "burn in" a cable, as some manufacturers claim, or a new CD player? Give me a break.I recently had an opportunity to compare a highly regarded set of speakers cables to my trusty old Tara labs. Both my son, who has good ears but is definitely not an audiophile, preferred the Tara. The owner of the other cable pointed out that it was quite new and that, with only about 50 hours of burn in, it was clearly not a fair test. So we agreed to run this comparison again in a few months time to see how things have changed, if indeed they have. This is hardly a scientific comparison but it will be interesting to see if the newer cable has changed enough to overtake the Tara or if, as I suspect, it will have changed at all relative to the Tara.
Hell, musical instruments need it too! An article a couple years ago in JAES (!) described a *violin* that had taken eighty years to reach respectable performance.And yes, there are reported cases of over-burn-in -- ask Alan Kafton, who sells a burn-in machine!
clark
"Hell, musical instruments need it too! An article a couple years ago in JAES (!) described a *violin* that had taken eighty years to reach respectable performance."That has nothing to do with cables. Violins produce sound from string vibration and the resonance of the body, cables move electrons. There's no similarity at all.
Cable conductors BOTH vibrate AND resonate. Different materials, whether copper or silver, and different gauges of wire resonate at DIFFERENT frequencies. Period.Geez. Everything vibrates, and every material has its own frequency/signature. I believe it's called one of the laws of nature.
alan m. kafton
If they vibrate or resonate, so what. It's the electrical signal inside that gets amplified that you listen to, not the vibration of the cables. So what if a cable has a resonant frequency. That won't change the electrical signal inside. You seem to be confusing something that actually makes sound with something that conducts an electrical signal.
I'm not arguing that burn-in is real, but if two parallel conductors (speaker cable) are held apart rigidly, then the force due to the currents between them will not cause movement, and hence no EMF.
Rubbery dielectric will allow the force to cause movement (strain) and hence EMF. The result is an impedence that depends on the compliance at each frequency.Is this audible?? I have a feeling that it isn't at anything less than 15 billion amps, but if someone is willing to measure it, .....
"Is this audible??"Ah yes, that is the question, isn't it? Don't get your hopes up that someone will come up with proof that it is!
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
The Stradivarius violin took 80 years, after the death of its designer, before it's outstanding harmonic qualities revealed themselves and got recognized by the music community as a whole.
But I happen to agree with you. It does seem odd that it's always for the better doesn't it? -I don't believe it's audible expect maybe speakers (but that's a stretch too) The only burning in that is happening is in the mind.
I believe that last meal you just had affects the sound more than anything that can be done to a cable. I think we should be discussing the affects that steak vs. Lobster has on the sound. Pasta with a good Pesto Sauce etc etc.
God is in the cables and she's bringing the music!
Well, Clark said it was 12 to 1 against you, but I agree with you, so that makes it however many against the 2 of us. Burn-in exists, all right, but mostly in the mind.A day at work, come home dehydrated, and the system sounds lousy. A good drink of water, a nice meal, time to relax, and the system sounds great.
____________________________________________________________
"A dry soul is wisest and best."
--Heraclitus, trans. Wheelwright
Try a nice bottle of Chianti Classico and the system sounds even better.Salute!
ja
Scott,Better believe it---especially for the filter caps. Never put in new caps and crank the amplifier to full blast until you've slowly "formed" the caps using a Variac.
I've seen folks blow out brand new electrolytic caps, by not shaping or forming them in, slowly, on guitar amps.
Tubes also change their tone, along with power transformers and output transformers (in tube stuff) as they get more and more exposure to current.
Not sure about sepaker cables or interconnectors, though.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: