A question regarding burn-in for non-believers (no flame war please!)

Daygloworange · « **Reply #20 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 06:26 pm »

Let's not get this thread killed.

I like having one thread that list everyones findings and opinions, rather than having to scour to find info on a topic.

LightFire and I obviously have different opinions but I like the way he put his response together. It doesn't offend me. Let's remember that a newbie could be reading this thread and want to know more from people who have a bit more exposure to audio, and want to read a thread that has a lot of opinions and data, and links and so forth.

Cheers

shep · « **Reply #21 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 06:41 pm »

I hear things that don't exist. Should I feel strange, defective? I bought a heavily modded cdp,a total rebuild. It wasn't burned in and it sounded like a bad nose bleed fresh out of the box. 200 hours or so later it did and does sound wonderful. Am I mad? I added some caps to the power supply and the bass took on more weight and extension. (immediately) I bought a pair of new ic's. They were so-so at first.
A week later the sound had opened up, sweetened and relaxed. I guess I need new meds. The moral of the story is simple. Some people have what to them are serious grounds for disbelieving. Others have no grounds other than their perception (hearing) to support their experience. Never the twain shall meet. This argument has been going on for 30 years. I say live and let live.

fredgarvin · « **Reply #22 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 06:47 pm »

what flames? Anyway it is innate in the psychology of the human being (as well as in the various body systems), to adapt to its environs, a type of survival mechanism. I think we are all aware that adapting to a particular sound is something we do, naturally. to some degree. The only breakin I can attest to is a pair of speakers with aluminum drivers. I put them in my 2ch system in a comparison with the speakers there and then relegated them to the Home Theater, sounded ok there. Six months later I put them back in the 2ch out of curiousity. The midrange had become much warmer sounding. Quite obvious, nothing subtle. Still not really a better speaker but a definate change. It may be the over-the-top language that many use to desribe the changes they hear in eveything that rouses amusement in the rest of us. "totally transformed", "leagues apart", "It now blows away the xxx". You know what I'm talking about.

rajacat · « **Reply #23 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 06:57 pm »

[

--Ethan
[/quote]

Maybe science has not yet developed a way to measure certain parameters, and changes in those parameters, that perhaps our ears/brains are able to detect. Isn't this possible? And if it is, doesn't it render scientific measurement as woefully inadequate in explaining what our brains/ears are hearing? Just a thought.....

.
[/quote]

I agree that the evolution of testing equipment is not over. Perhaps new devices will be developed that will be able to measure changes in sound quality that have been only perceivable by our ears. It is most likely that the discoveries of quantum physics have not worked their way into such applications as electronic testing so it is retrograde to think that contemporary testing gear has already achieved the maximum stage of real world accuracy.

Raja

fredgarvin · « **Reply #24 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 07:09 pm »

I think it is dangerous to say that scientific measurement is woefully inadequate and then to imply that subjective experience is not. If anything, human objectiveness is woefully lacking and subjectivity is, by nature, not verifiable or accountable. That's probably why we get to enjoy so many choices.

JohninCR · « **Reply #25 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 07:09 pm »

My video system is far more sensitive to connections, cable lengths and quality
than my audio system, yet burn-in has no affect on this far more complex and
sensitive system. Someone please reconcile this with audio component burn-in.

rajacat · « **Reply #26 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 07:22 pm »

Quote from: fredgarvin on 3 Dec 2006, 07:09 pm

I think it is dangerous to say that scientific measurement is woefully inadequate and then to imply that subjective experience is not. If anything, human objectiveness is woefully lacking and subjectivity is, by nature, not verifiable or accountable. That's probably why we get to enjoy so many choices.

I did not say that contemporary scientific equipment is "woefully inadequate". What I did imply is , as with all electronic gear, there is room for improvement and to say otherwise is to ignore history and the scientific method. The current equipment forms an excellent foundation but to assume that all of the parameters of sound quality are now measurable is folly. If all could be measured, then assuming equal financial constraints and competent engineering, all speakers would sound the same, and there would be no room for design. Don't you have to have test equipment to test the testing equipment?

Rajah

opnly bafld · « **Reply #27 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 07:36 pm »

Quote from: JohninCR on 3 Dec 2006, 07:09 pm

My video system is far more sensitive to connections, cable lengths and quality
than my audio system, yet burn-in has no affect on this far more complex and
sensitive system. Someone please reconcile this with audio component burn-in.

I have a question along these lines.
Last spring I wanted to move a TV (cable TV use only) to another location, so I bought a 25' coax cable with F connectors and replaced my 10' wire. At first the picture was horrible and thought it was because of the length of the wire. But after a few days the picture got better and later became as good as any TV in the house.
What would cause this?

Lin

JoshK · « **Reply #28 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 07:55 pm »

Quote from: friend2alldogs on 3 Dec 2006, 04:57 pm

I wouldn't worry too much about flame wars on AC if I were you. After all, you can flame a well respected audio journalist for 7 pages about his spiritual beliefs before the thread gets locked by the Borg, so I doubt any burn-in discussion will even show up on the radar of the crappy moderators here.

Moderators here are volunteers. We do our best but it is hard to watch each and every post, afterall we generally watch what we are interested in, so it may take a tiny bit before we see something or someone points it out to us. It is afterall a self policed forum. It is the responsibility of the members also to point out abuse of the forum to the moderators too.

Instead of criticizing a free site whose work is done by those who volunteer to do so, why don't you volunteer and make it better yourself? If you can do so much better of a job, then quite bitching and do something about it. If not, well then you know what you can do with your opinions.

JohninCR · « **Reply #29 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 08:19 pm »

Quote from: opnly bafld on 3 Dec 2006, 07:36 pm

Quote from: JohninCR on 3 Dec 2006, 07:09 pm
My video system is far more sensitive to connections, cable lengths and quality
than my audio system, yet burn-in has no affect on this far more complex and
sensitive system. Someone please reconcile this with audio component burn-in.

I have a question along these lines.
Last spring I wanted to move a TV (cable TV use only) to another location, so I bought a 25' coax cable with F connectors and replaced my 10' wire. At first the picture was horrible and thought it was because of the length of the wire. But after a few days the picture got better and later became as good as any TV in the house.
What would cause this?

Lin

Maybe the kids or wife got tired of the poor picture and tightened the connection while you were out.
If it truly went untouched and wasn't wiggled by an earthquake or something, then I don't have a clue
....maybe some moisture in the connection that dried over time, or the cable company boosted
the signal somewhat, or something else that was causing interference was moved or changed???

There's no way I'm ever letting a cable installer out of the house leaving a bad picture on the TV, by
saying "the cable needs to burn in before the picture reaches full quality".

opnly bafld · « **Reply #30 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 08:29 pm »

Quote from: JohninCR on 3 Dec 2006, 08:19 pm

Quote from: opnly bafld on 3 Dec 2006, 07:36 pm
Quote from: JohninCR on 3 Dec 2006, 07:09 pm
My video system is far more sensitive to connections, cable lengths and quality
than my audio system, yet burn-in has no affect on this far more complex and
sensitive system. Someone please reconcile this with audio component burn-in.

I have a question along these lines.
Last spring I wanted to move a TV (cable TV use only) to another location, so I bought a 25' coax cable with F connectors and replaced my 10' wire. At first the picture was horrible and thought it was because of the length of the wire. But after a few days the picture got better and later became as good as any TV in the house.
What would cause this?

Lin

Maybe the kids or wife got tired of the poor picture and tightened the connection while you were out.
If it truly went untouched and wasn't wiggled by an earthquake or something, then I don't have a clue
....maybe some moisture in the connection that dried over time, or the cable company boosted
the signal somewhat, or something else that was causing interference was moved or changed???

There's no way I'm ever letting a cable installer out of the house leaving a bad picture on the TV, by
saying "the cable need to burn in before the picture reaches full quality".

Not any of these.

Any wire/electrical experts?
Not saying I am a "believer", just wanting an explanation, if anyobody has one.

Lin

Wayner · « **Reply #31 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 09:38 pm »

I might as well chime in on this one. Tubes burn-in, because they actually burn, that old anode/cathode thing you know. Wires and electronics are the same the last day as the first day. I can't hear any difference and know one yet has any rational scientific evidence to prove otherwise, IMHO. Electro-mechanical devises, like speakers and stylus may be a different story. I do think that materials used in the manufacturing of these types of products "loosen up". Just like buying a new pair of blue jeans that is stiffer than blue blazes, after wearing them a few times and washing them, they start to break-in. I think some speaker surrounds exibit this because I think I have experienced it once on a pair of Paradigm speakers.

Other than that, I am one of them prove it to me guys. I don't want to be a prick but I do live by this old motto: "If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything".

I'm going to go listen to my 50 year old AR turntable burn in some more. aa

rajacat · « **Reply #32 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 09:45 pm »

Are you really sure that your Paradigm speakers were not breaking in your ears? Did you conduct an A/B test? Where is your scientific proof?

Raja

WEEZ · « **Reply #33 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 09:55 pm »

'Burn-In' is a mixed bag, IMO. Like Wayner, I think speakers & cartridges need some time to 'loosen-up'. It's definately audible.

I didn't used to think electronics needed 'burn-in'; and some don't seem to. BUT...if you've ever had a component that uses Blackgate caps, you will experience a definate 'chameleon' effect for 75-150 hours. Fortunately, they 'settle down' and make for a worthwhile improvement.

As for wires...well, maybe if the capacitance is high and/or the insulation is heavy teflon..but in my case, a few hours of play and the sound was relaxed and good to go.

Dan Banquer · « **Reply #34 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 10:08 pm »

I would like to know just exactly when audiophiles are going to think/study/realize just how much factors such as the output and input impedance of the units that the cable is connected to play a role in what some people call break in. I would like to know just exactly when audiophiles are going to think/study/realize how much the grounding schemes of the two units play a role in what some people call break in.
Then again; I'm probably asking way too much, because it appears that endless debate about issues that are of little or no consequence appear to be preferred, and real time major issues are given a lowly status.
d.b.

launche · « **Reply #35 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 10:19 pm »

Quote from: Dan Banquer on 3 Dec 2006, 10:08 pm

I would like to know just exactly when audiophiles are going to think/study/realize just how much factors such as the output and input impedance of the units that the cable is connected to play a role in what some people call break in. I would like to know just exactly when audiophiles are going to think/study/realize how much the grounding schemes of the two units play a role in what some people call break in.
Then again; I'm probably asking way too much, because it appears that endless debate about issues that are of little or no consequence appear to be preferred, and real time major issues are given a lowly status.
d.b.

Amen brother
Wish I came across the real nitty gritty info. (not that I fully understand it all) alot earlier in the game. But I also don't rule out anything (because I have much to learn.) As my dad once told me "Son, things are happening and they are real... I just don't know how to explain them to you."

Dan Banquer · « **Reply #36 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 10:29 pm »

I am not going to debate or respond to any psychological issues. If you have any technical issues such as actual measured changes, then I will respond.
d.b.

Dan Banquer · « **Reply #37 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 10:41 pm »

I cannot explain the changes you attest to without measured data. If you strongly feel that there is a real change than I would hope you would take the time to do some measurements: if anything for your own satisfaction.
d.b.

warnerwh · « **Reply #38 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 10:46 pm »

Quote from: Dan Banquer on 3 Dec 2006, 10:08 pm

I would like to know just exactly when audiophiles are going to think/study/realize just how much factors such as the output and input impedance of the units that the cable is connected to play a role in what some people call break in. I would like to know just exactly when audiophiles are going to think/study/realize how much the grounding schemes of the two units play a role in what some people call break in.
Then again; I'm probably asking way too much, because it appears that endless debate about issues that are of little or no consequence appear to be preferred, and real time major issues are given a lowly status.
d.b.

Well I'm curious as to what you're talking about. Do the things you're talking about change over time enough to affect the sound audibly or even measureably? Thanks

Dan Banquer · « **Reply #39 on:** 3 Dec 2006, 10:49 pm »

Not that I or anyone else are aware of. There has been no data that I know of to substantiate that there are real measured changes.
d.b.