[Daygloworange]

The main problem is that in the absence of an objective standard snake oil and scams tend to thrive.   Whenever something cannot be quantified it opens up the field for snake-oil and those less savory individuals and companies willing to exploit people.   It opens up wild claims with little to support them.    That is pretty much the atmosphere we have in high-end audio these days.    That type of atmosphere doesn't lend itself to improving products.   It doesn't lend itself to the advancement of the art

The flip side to that is that if there was nobody to question the status quo we would all be listening to wax cylinders through a horn.

But seriously, If it weren't for people that for which, good is not good enough, we wouldn't have advancement and research and innovation. It takes a certain type of person that doesn't just stop because someone said there is nothing beyond. There is always so much more to investigate.

Again, another flipside to your comments would be that some people argue in order to simply discredit others who are marketing something else, and try to pass them off as charlatans.

Cheers

[jneutron]

Banquer, you wouldn't know a piece of test equipment if it fell on your head.  Who do you think you are, spoutin all that eeeelectrical junk??HMM??

Don't you have better things to do with your life???  (like e-mailin your friends to let them know how you're doing???)

Sup, Dan?  Hope all is well.  Hope ya had a good turkey day.

Hmmm..wires..


Wires don't burn in.  Your ears do...actually, the brain does..localization re-learning takes time, especially with artificially generated localization cues typical of the recording process..

We hear ITD to 2 uSec, and IID down to about .5 dB.(I suspect smaller, but no proof yet..

Cheers, John

[Daygloworange]

PhilNYC,

I posted my observations on speakers as they are breaking in, and switching to a broken in set and seeing if I got accustomed to the sound.

No, I did not get accustomed to the sound of the broken in pair. They did not sound better over time. But newly assembled speakers, yes, I find that they do settle down and smooth out.

I have some new IC's coming in a few days and will experiment with those. I have new speakers at the moment, but will be putting in a pair of my older ones that I like. I will then listen to them for a few days with my system that's been stable for over a year,( no component or cable swaps ). then put in the new IC's, note my observations, then take them out, replace with original IC's, burn in the new set on a second system, then swap after a few hundred hours in my main system.

I'm as curious as you, seeing as I've never done it with IC's before. I'll post my thoughts. I'm 50/50 on if I hear a difference. Not because I'm a believer or a not believer, just don't know if I'll hear one.

Cheers

[rajacat]

Perhaps in the future we will all have audio systems which are tailor-made to account for our individual hearing characteristics. These flexible systems would operate like a super preamp. that outputs a subjective signal that would adjust the sound quality so that our unique hearing would more closely conform to "objective" audio reality. This would be similar to how hearing aides are designed now. Maybe this would satisfy both the number crunchers and the more artistically inclined subjectivists.

Raja

[gooberdude]

Hey Phil,

In my experiences burn-in is real.  Its audible.  Its repeatable.  AND, its verifiable through listening experiments.   most new cables or gear i've purchased requires 30 days of break-in...  

When i tweak or change anything in my system, I make a CD-R from an LP.  This way, the changes can be heard through a CDP which has a stronger output than my phono set-up & more in-your-face dynamics.  i can listen to changes on any stereo i choose and the strong cdp signal lets me know real quick how the tweak affected the sonics.  i give them to friends to get their opinions & keep the CD's for future reference.

Way back when I made 2 CD's of the same LP after getting a new power cord for the phono preamp. I made 1 when the cable was a few days old and the 2nd again after a month of burn-in.  The change is undeniable: the 'burned-in' CD has a larger soundstage, more depth/layering to the musicians on stage and better bass.  when new, the cables are fatiguing.   after a month they are smooth & dynamic.

If its all mental, then i'm crazy like a fox!

i understand that folks are keen on measurements - i let my ears do all the testing though.  


GD

[Daygloworange]

Perhaps in the future we will all have audio systems which are tailor-made to account for our individual hearing characteristics. These flexible systems would operate like a super preamp. that outputs a subjective signal that would adjust the sound quality so that our unique hearing would more closely conform to "objective" audio reality. This would be similar to how hearing aides are designed now. Maybe this would satisfy both the number crunchers and the more artistically inclined subjectivists.

Raja

There are systems like that already. The TactT, I believe, does that, and I believe the VMPS speakers allow tweaking to suit tastes. Then there's the good old 1/3 octave Eq that's been around for eons.

Cheers

[rajacat]

Now if we could just all agree on what is "objective" audio reality.

[SET Man]

Hey!

  Wow! 12 pages already!

   This is a tough one. It seem like you either you believe it or you don't. I think most audiophile do.

   But still I try not to get in to this endless subject discussion.

    As for myself... yes I do believe in break in process. Hey! this break-in thing work with my shoes and sneaker. So, that goes with most things in audio world too.

   Well, I just got a new glass optical toslink cable..... I think I will give it a 100hr of break-in process than compare it to the cheaper plastic type one

    Okay... joking aside. I do believe in break-in process for audio components and cables.... well maybe not for optical cable... or should I

Take care,
Buddy

[Daygloworange]

Buddy,
 
I know one thing for sure. Your avatar kills me everytime I see it. 

That cat is a rockin' !

Cheers

[sts9fan]

i think its funny that the poster asked a question of "non-believers" but most of the posts are from people defending breakin theory.

[DeeCee]

I know one thing for sure. Your avatar kills me everytime I see it. 

That cat is a rockin' !

No doubt!

And in the context of break in, I'm fairly sure that I heard differences, but then I didn't perform any true scientific tests to determine that I really heard differences...

(Besides according to physical theory the observer effects the observed anyway... Can anyone say "D'oh!"??? )

- DeeCee

[Daygloworange]

i think its funny that the poster asked a question of "non-believers" but most of the posts are from people defending breakin theory.

I was a non believer at first. I thought maybe driver break in was a possibility, but didn't think that caps and IC's and such was even a possibility.

Cheers

[bprice2]

I have purchased almost all my equipment either manufactured, or modded by folks here on AC.  I have an SB3 modded by Wayne at Bolder, an amp manufactured by Vinnie at Red Wine Audio, and speakers by Louis at Omega.  These guys have two things in common.  First, they and their work are very well respected on these pages, and second, they all claim that their products require burn-in time to sound their best. 

Do the non-believers mean to imply that these guys are charlatans...that they prey off of simpleton audiophiles?  If this is the case, will a non-believer please call these guys out and expose them for the carpetbaggers they are?  For the sake of science, damn it!

[Daygloworange]

VI have purchased almost all my equipment either manufactured, or modded by folks here on AC.  I have an SB3 modded by Wayne at Bolder, an amp manufactured by Vinnie at Red Wine Audio, and speakers by Louis at Omega.  These guys have two things in common.  First, they and their work are very well respected on these pages, and second, they all claim that their products require burn-in time to sound their best.

Did you replace the components one by one? And can you describe any changes during the burn in?

Cheers

[Kevin Haskins]

I have purchased almost all my equipment either manufactured, or modded by folks here on AC.  I have an SB3 modded by Wayne at Bolder, an amp manufactured by Vinnie at Red Wine Audio, and speakers by Louis at Omega.  These guys have two things in common.  First, they and their work are very well respected on these pages, and second, they all claim that their products require burn-in time to sound their best. 

Do the non-believers mean to imply that these guys are charlatans...that they prey off of simpleton audiophiles?  If this is the case, will a non-believer please call these guys out and expose them for the carpetbaggers they are?  For the sake of science, damn it!

First off we are not necessarily non-believers.   My position is just that we should be sceptical of something that has zero acceptance by those who do research on the subject.   There is a body of people who measure, study and do research on the audibility of these things and for the most part, that body of people discount many of these break-in experiences as a psycoacoustic effect.   In other words they feel that it has more to do with the listener than the equipment you are listening too.   

I wouldn't call Wayne or anyone else a charlitan.   People can have honest beliefs that are not necessarily correct.   All of us, including me, hold beliefs that are not correct.    It just pays to recognize our fallibility.   

On the subject of break-in though.   Why doesn't equipment sound worse when broken-in?   It always seems to improve.   You would think that if there was a real physical quantity that was changing sometimes it would change for the better and other times for the worse.   Yet.. we rarely hear someone claim "It sounded great until it was broken -in and then I had to return it".   The vast majority of the time the product improves.   Which either suggest that our brain becomes accustomed to the sound over time (much as you would adjust to an initially annoying background noise) or that there is something that physically changes that improves the product always.    I find it hard to square with material science that a physical change would always lead to an improvement.

[toobluvr]

I have purchased almost all my equipment either manufactured, or modded by folks here on AC.  I have an SB3 modded by Wayne at Bolder, an amp manufactured by Vinnie at Red Wine Audio, and speakers by Louis at Omega.  These guys have two things in common.  First, they and their work are very well respected on these pages, and second, they all claim that their products require burn-in time to sound their best. 

Do the non-believers mean to imply that these guys are charlatans...that they prey off of simpleton audiophiles?  If this is the case, will a non-believer please call these guys out and expose them for the carpetbaggers they are?  For the sake of science, damn it!

Well said!

The proposition I see constantly put forward by the measurement folks is:

subjectivism  =  accepting of, and victimization by, snake-oil malarky

Read the thread, it is there many times, and it is quite tiring.

Believe me, I despise the hocus-pocus-snake-oil b/s that is all too common in the industry.
I for one barely buy into any of the pseudo-science, and I certainly don't spend ridiculous $ on gizmos aimed at the neurotic set. 

Yet I am a subjectivist.  Why?  Because I trust my ears and my experiences.   I do not know why a  fully burned cable sounds better than a cold new one.  But I do know that it is not due to expectations or a predispostion to hear improvement.  I know this because I am cynical and doubting by nature (especially w/r/t audio) and I never expect to hear an improvement.  Yet I do.  Why is that?  If anything, I am predisposed to hear no change. 

And it is not my brain "becoming adjusted" to something.  I do not listen to cables as they burn in.   I burn them in a separate system silently.  I listen to it briefly brand new, and then again after several hundred hours. 

If science cannot verify what I am hearing, so what?  Science is ever-evolving...it just means it has not fully figured things out yet.  I do not find this at all hard to believe or accept.

Hyperbole and exaggeration do exist in this industry, particularly on the marketing side. And yes, many people do fall for it.  But it is ridiculous to characterize all subjectivists as gullible snake-oil-victims, or that they have somehow fallen prey to audio marketing hype.  And its a lazy way to argue your point because it is an under-handed insult, typically resorted to when one can't win the arguement, and a diversionary tactic.   It is seen all the time in the political arena.  When you can't win the arguement, tear down your opponent with personal attacks.

Hey objectivists!
If all it comes down to is specs, measurements and numbers, may I suggest that on your next visit to your local audio shop to audition gear that you leave your ears at home and bring nothing but scientific measureing devices.  I'm sure you will assemble a very satisfying system!     

[Dan Banquer]

Banquer, you wouldn't know a piece of test equipment if it fell on your head.  Who do you think you are, spoutin all that eeeelectrical junk??HMM??

Don't you have better things to do with your life???  (like e-mailin your friends to let them know how you're doing???)

Sup, Dan?  Hope all is well.  Hope ya had a good turkey day.

Hmmm..wires..


Wires don't burn in.  Your ears do...actually, the brain does..localization re-learning takes time, especially with artificially generated localization cues typical of the recording process..

We hear ITD to 2 uSec, and IID down to about .5 dB.(I suspect smaller, but no proof yet..

Cheers, John

Yo John; still trying to hear with your eyes? Well we have to be kind to the untrained.
In any case expect a rough draft along with a brief note in the e mail in the near future. I know you EM guys are just up on all the latest when it comes to negative feedback
                                 d.b.

[Kevin Haskins]

Hey objectivists!
If all it comes down to is specs, measurements and numbers, may I suggest that on your next visit to your local audio shop to audition gear that you leave your ears at home and bring nothing but scientific measureing devices.  I'm sure you will assemble a very satisfying system!     

Actually both listening and measurements are the best way to arrive at the best results.   It doesn't have to be one or the other.   

[Dan Banquer]

"Hey objectivists!
If all it comes down to is specs, measurements and numbers, may I suggest that on your next visit to your local audio shop to audition gear that you leave your ears at home and bring nothing but scientific measureing devices.  I'm sure you will assemble a very satisfying system! "

Well some of us don't need or want the local hifi shop; we stay home and use those "scientific measuring devices" to build our own systems. Believe it or not it makes some us very happy, and believe it or not I actually have customers that are very happy with units that they purchased form me. And yes some of them after 15 years of use are sending them in for new electrolytic caps so they can run for another 15 years or so. And if you bother to search the archives you might actually find a couple of reviews from AC folks on RE Designs.
But heck; what do I know, I'm just another stupid ignorant objectivist.
                      d.b.

Try reading this link: http://www.redesignsaudio.com/PosFeed.html and after you finish please have long think before you respond.

[toobluvr]

But heck; what do I know, I'm just another stupid ignorant objectivist.
                      d.b.

touchy, touchy, touchy!   

Hey Dan, since you build gear, let me ask you this:
Do different brands of caps with identical specs/measurement/numbers ever sound different to you?

If so, how do you explain it?

If not, would you just choose the cheapest one?

PS:  you are being extreme in your arguement.  Of course you need scientific devices and measurements to build audio gear.   I have never said anything to the contrary, or denied the importance of science in general.  Nor have I said that satisfying gear cannot be built with the use of science alone.  I have merely said that I think it is plausible that science may be inadequate in fully explaining what and how we hear.

You are misrepresenting my point of view, and  anyone who reads my posts will see that.