[warnerwh]

I was having this discussion with someone the other day about burn-in.  Wanted to get some thoughts from ACers on it, but I really don't want this to dwindle into a flame war.  I am making no judgements; I simply want to ask a question and get some opinions.

My question is directed at the people who believe burn-in is a myth.  And it is based on comments I've heard from non-believers who say that burn-in is more about your ears "getting used to the sound".  Here is the question:  When you get a new component or cables, do you think things sound different from when you first put them into your system versus a week or two later?  In other words, do you hear changes and attribute them to your ears "getting used to the new sound"?  Or do you simply not hear any difference over time?

Am truly curious about your answers...

When it comes to speakers I'd swear they change for the better. It seems they're more relaxed over the next couple of months. When it comes to wire I can't hear any change over time but I've never tried either. All my electronics have been used so no opinion possible.

[AJinFLA]

I'm asking you to explain the changes from a technical perspective. I am not discussing psychological issues either.

How do you know that the differences (claimed) being heard are not psychological? How has this possibility been eliminated? Please explain. Thanks.

cheers,

AJ

[rajacat]

I guess that we all need state-of-the art testing equipment at our disposal to have any valid opinions about relative sound quality. Even if a non-believer actually perceives a sound difference, he would have to go consult his testing equipment to verify what his ears hear. Computers, no matter how advanced, have never been able to approach the subtly of the human brain so it seems reasonable that electronic testing equipment , at the present time, cannot distinguish fine differences as well as the ear. Perhaps there are some aspects of sound quality that are not measured at all.

Raja

[maxwalrath]

Deja Vu anyone?  Same thread from 6 months ago, and probably 6 months before that, with the same nay-sayer, and the same believers who haven't tested it.

[Dan Banquer]

Before I outline any of these measurements which can rather detailed, Do you have any training or education in either electrical engineering or Physics? Not that I mind DIY types at all but some rudimentary education would be helpful. You  may want to investigate the Belden website, www.belden.com  and the Audioholics website, www.audioholics.com for not only the informative articles but measurement techniques.
I certainly hope you take the time to not only read but to measure whatever you can and investigate as time and resources allow. It's your education, make the most of it that you can.
             d.b.

[JoshK]

Dan,

Not that I mind the objective measurement types, I am 80% there myself.  I studied math so I had exposure to a lot of engineering and physics applications indirectly (without the engineering).  I am also not a big cable freak, I think there are more important fish to fry.  But I have one question.  Have you ever tried a few audiophile cables, not the $10k/meter big name types but a well regarded cable?  Did you hear any difference that you couldn't easily explain with engineering/physics?   I think I have...maybe not super obvious, but not entirely subtle either.  Yeah it might be hard to consistently tell in a DB-ABX tests but that doesn't mean you couldn't hear it through long listening sessions. 

Just curious, not trying to bust any balls.  I know Dr. Geddes is a pretty hardcore measurement guy, in fact he leans towards the 'all amps sound the same' camp (which is a bit more right wing than yourself, if I understand correctly), but I still respect his opinion and know what it is based on and can even sympathize, if not entirely.

Josh

P.S.  I think your grounding idea having a lot to do with cable perception differences has a lot of merit and sense, and it should at the very least be controlled for (i.e. eliminated) when making cable listening tests.

[Scott F.]

....... 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.......
             d.b.

Dan,

I couldn't agree more.

Honestly, this subject goes absolutely nowhere every single time it is brought up regardless of which 'side' you are on. I usually ends up getting locked or tossed into the Fight Club. There is no point whatsoever in commenting on this topic no matter how it is couched. It's been beaten to death hundreds of times before on dozens of forums.

 

[toobluvr]

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.

Once again, maybe the correct measurements relating to the reality that we do hear have not yet been devised. Human hearing and perception are very complex.

Maybe science cannot yet measure what is acutally occurring in reality.  Is this such a stretch?
Maybe our hearing is so precise that we are able to pick up on a reality....however subtle....yet science has not yet sufficiently developed a methodology to measure, quantify and explain.  Is this not possible?

How do you measure pain?  Is there a machine that does so?  If you can't measure it, does it mean it doesn't exist?

Your arguement is curious...and the logic seems weak.
An inability to measure, does not on its own dismiss reality.

Examples abound:

When the earth was believed to be flat, was the earth not round just because it could not yet be measured, or seen, for what it actually was?

Before telescopes and the ability to look out into space, did other galaxies not exist because we could not yet measure or see them?

When it was believed that the earth was the center of the solar system, and all heavenly bodies revolved around it,  did the lack of science mean that the sun was not the center of the solar system?

Eventually we discover the truth.  But often it takes the advancement of science to get to that point.  An inability to measure reality does not necessarily mean the reality doesn't exist.  It may, but on its face, it doesn't. 

This measurement arguement may be right...but it may be wrong.
It is right if you believe science is now 100% complete and all-encompassing in its ability to fully understand and actually measure and quantify 100% of what we are hearing.

It is wrong if the science is not yet fully developed, and unable to fully and completely measure all things that are indeed real, and actually heard by humans.

Based on the incredible complexibility of the human machine, and the inadequacy of science in many many matters, I tend to believe the latter is the more likely scenario.

[Dan Banquer]

Dan,

Not that I mind the objective measurement types, I am 80% there myself.  I studied math so I had exposure to a lot of engineering and physics applications indirectly (without the engineering).  I am also not a big cable freak, I think there are more important fish to fry.  But I have one question.  Have you ever tried a few audiophile cables, not the $10k/meter big name types but a well regarded cable?  Did you hear any difference that you couldn't easily explain with engineering/physics?   I think I have...maybe not super obvious, but not entirely subtle either.  Yeah it might be hard to consistently tell in a DB-ABX tests but that doesn't mean you couldn't hear it through long listening sessions. 

Just curious, not trying to bust any balls.  I know Dr. Geddes is a pretty hardcore measurement guy, in fact he leans towards the 'all amps sound the same' camp (which is a bit more right wing than yourself, if I understand correctly), but I still respect his opinion and know what it is based on and can even sympathize, if not entirely.

Josh

P.S.  I think your grounding idea having a lot to do with cable perception differences has a lot of merit and sense, and it should at the very least be controlled for (i.e. eliminated) when making cable listening tests.

Not only have I tried "audiophile cables" but I have been to a few demonstrations, and I have posted some of my measurements. What really puzzles me most is that audiophiles are way too trusting and don't do enough investigations/measurements of their own. All too often I see someone quoting marketing literature as fact. As someone who ran a part time audio business I can tell you that consumer marketing literature is not the real theory and application I use.
         d.b.

Check this link for measurements: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/25273.html

[Dan Banquer]

Before I outline any of these measurements which can rather detailed, Do you have any training or education in either electrical engineering or Physics? Not that I mind DIY types at all but some rudimentary education would be helpful. You  may want to investigate the Belden website, www.belden.com  and the Audioholics website, www.audioholics.com for not only the informative articles but measurement techniques.
I certainly hope you take the time to not only read but to measure whatever you can and investigate as time and resources allow. It's your education, make the most of it that you can.
             d.b.

I am a layman. No training or education in electrical engineering or physics beyond a university freshman class.


Mr. Banquer, did you ever conduct a test on any of your products when they were new to determine if the circuit’s electrical properties changed during the first several hundred hours of use? Is this published somewhere?

If anyone could cite a report in which measurements were taken on a new piece of audio gear (Amplifier, Preamplifier, CD player, etc), and then taken on the same player at specific time intervals through, say, the first 500 hours of use to determine changes in the electrical properties of the circuit this would be helpful.

Also, I have read several articles on Audioholics.com which discussed wire break-in. I assume the Belden site discusses the same since wire is Belden's business. I am more interested in measuring changes in electrical circuits than wire.

On any well designed solid state unit there should be no significant measurement changes. The only thing that has any real aging properties are electrolytic capacitors, and after 500 hours of use they should be very close to original condition. Tube gear however is different, as tubes have a much faster decay rate. (BTW: no one knows how long transistors last) Check this link for electrolytic capacitors and aging and please google more on this subject.
http://www.audioholics.com/showcase/DIY/YamahaT-80p1.html

As far as my own products are concerned I have never measured or heard much of anything in 5 or 10 years of age. At fifteen years it's time to replace the electrolytic caps.

[fredgarvin]

Subjective, human perception is about the most intangible and inconstant factor existing. To feel that it should be favored over simple and verifiable measurements is fairly absurd. Because of this, I can not say you are wrong if you say you hear something. Or later when you hear it differently. But to say your "hearing" something precludes science is flatly wrong. Of course, the supernatural cannot be measured. Does it exist?

[Kevin Haskins]

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.

Once again, maybe the correct measurements relating to the reality that we do hear have not yet been devised. Human hearing and perception are very complex. 
Maybe science cannot yet measure what is actually occurring in reality.  Is this such a stretch?
Maybe our hearing is so precise that we are able to pick up on a reality....however subtle....yet science is not yet sufficiently developed a methodology to measure, quantify and explain what is indeed actually happening.  Is this not possible?

How do you measure pain?  Is there a machine that does so?  If you can't measure it, does it mean it doesn't exist?

Your argument is curious...and the logic seems weak.
An inability to measure, does not on its own dismiss reality.

Examples abound:

When the earth was believed to be flat, was the earth not round just because it could not yet be measured, or seen, for what it actually was?

Before telescopes and the ability to look out into space, did other galaxies not exist because we could not yet measure or see them?

When it was believed that the earth was the center of the solar system, and all heavenly bodies revolved around it,  did the lack of science mean that the sun was not the center of the solar system?

Eventually we discover the truth.  But often it takes the advancement of science to get to that point.  An inability to measure reality does not necessarily mean the reality doesn't exist.  It may, but on its face, it doesn't. 

This measurement argument may be right...but it may be wrong.
It is right if you believe science is now 100% complete and all-encompassing in its ability to fully understand and actually measure and quantify 100% of what we are hearing.

It is wrong if the science is not yet fully developed, and unable to fully and completely measure all things that are indeed real, and actually heard by humans.

Based on the incredible complexity of the human machine, and the inadequacy of science in many many matters, I tend to believe the latter is the more likely scenario.

Don't have time to address all of this but we have the ability to measure and quantify many of the things you reference.   There are a number of ways to study something.   Most people don't have a background in the basic techniques of scientific research.   These objections about the limits of science are largely based upon ignorance of the subject.   I don't say that in a negative way.... we only have so much time in life and there are only so many things you can be good at.

Just trust me when I say we can and have measured the limits of human hearing and we have way to study, quantify and test human preferences.   About 95% of what is published in audio magazines and touted by audio companies is utter and complete rubbish and if I had the money, time and inclination I could prove it beyond a doubt.  

Why don't I bother?   Simple... the human species is bound to ignore rational arguements over and over.   It doesn't matter that I can prove it or not.   Homo sapiens are both rational and irrational creatures with behavioral characteristics inherited from the stone age.    My ability to prove it or not won't make one bit a difference to the people who doubt.  

In a nutshell... it is a waste of time to try to convince people with logic for whom logic and the ability of to quantify something is a method that is not trusted.   It is like trying to convert the atheist or the atheist trying to convert the devout.   They both hold their positions  based upon faith and there is no moving either party.

[JoshK]

Not only have I tried "audiophile cables" but I have been to a few demonstrations, and I have posted some of my measurements. What really puzzles me most is that audiophiles are way too trusting and don't do enough investigations/measurements of their own. All too often I see someone quoting marketing literature as fact. As someone who ran a part time audio business I can tell you that consumer marketing literature is not the real theory and application I use.
         d.b.

Check this link for measurements: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/25273.html

My question was not whether you could measure a difference but whether you heard any.  Do you ever trust your ears? 

[AJinFLA]

Of course, the supernatural cannot be measured. Does it exist?

Yes. But other than the green marker stuff, you usually have to pay a lot for it.

cheers,

AJ

[fredgarvin]

Of course, the supernatural cannot be measured. Does it exist?

Yes. But other than the green marker stuff, you usually have to pay a lot for it.

cheers,

AJ

Amen brother!

[Dan Banquer]

Not only have I tried "audiophile cables" but I have been to a few demonstrations, and I have posted some of my measurements. What really puzzles me most is that audiophiles are way too trusting and don't do enough investigations/measurements of their own. All too often I see someone quoting marketing literature as fact. As someone who ran a part time audio business I can tell you that consumer marketing literature is not the real theory and application I use.
         d.b.

Check this link for measurements: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/25273.html

My question was not whether you could measure a difference but whether you heard any.  Do you ever trust your ears? 

Yep: and the formal music training I had when I was younger gets used, and it's my ears that made me  decide to start designing and building equipment. One final comment: Personally I have found that for my own designs that if it spec's well it sounds well. But I do have a bit different view on spec's than most of audio. If your question is do I listen and enjoy listening to music with my equipment? the answer is most unabashedly yes.
            d.b.

[JoshK]

I meant with cables....

[Kevin Haskins]

Not only have I tried "audiophile cables" but I have been to a few demonstrations, and I have posted some of my measurements. What really puzzles me most is that audiophiles are way too trusting and don't do enough investigations/measurements of their own. All too often I see someone quoting marketing literature as fact. As someone who ran a part time audio business I can tell you that consumer marketing literature is not the real theory and application I use.
         d.b.

Check this link for measurements: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/25273.html

My question was not whether you could measure a difference but whether you heard any.  Do you ever trust your ears? 

Only when buying something for myself.   

[totoro]

Not only have I tried "audiophile cables" but I have been to a few demonstrations, and I have posted some of my measurements. What really puzzles me most is that audiophiles are way too trusting and don't do enough investigations/measurements of their own. All too often I see someone quoting marketing literature as fact. As someone who ran a part time audio business I can tell you that consumer marketing literature is not the real theory and application I use.
         d.b.

Check this link for measurements: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/25273.html

My question was not whether you could measure a difference but whether you heard any.  Do you ever trust your ears? 

How about this: which do you trust? Your common sense experience of the world, or classical mechanics? The two in general aren't the same (google "naive physics" for more info: there was a movement in AI to use "naive physics" to model how people think).

Here are a couple examples of "common sense" beliefs from the wikipedia entry

# An object is either at rest or moving, in an absolute sense.
# Two events are simultaneous or they are not.


BTW, I don't mean this with any disrespect. I'm pretty sure you know how counterintuitive a fair amount of physics is. Probability is another good example of this. I'm not claiming I'm somehow immune to this, either.

[rajacat]

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.

Once again, maybe the correct measurements relating to the reality that we do hear have not yet been devised. Human hearing and perception are very complex.

Maybe science cannot yet measure what is acutally occurring in reality.  Is this such a stretch?
Maybe our hearing is so precise that we are able to pick up on a reality....however subtle....yet science has not yet sufficiently developed a methodology to measure, quantify and explain.  Is this not possible?

How do you measure pain?  Is there a machine that does so?  If you can't measure it, does it mean it doesn't exist?

Your arguement is curious...and the logic seems weak.
An inability to measure, does not on its own dismiss reality.

Examples abound:

When the earth was believed to be flat, was the earth not round just because it could not yet be measured, or seen, for what it actually was?

Before telescopes and the ability to look out into space, did other galaxies not exist because we could not yet measure or see them?

When it was believed that the earth was the center of the solar system, and all heavenly bodies revolved around it,  did the lack of science mean that the sun was not the center of the solar system?

Eventually we discover the truth.  But often it takes the advancement of science to get to that point.  An inability to measure reality does not necessarily mean the reality doesn't exist.  It may, but on its face, it doesn't. 

This measurement arguement may be right...but it may be wrong.
It is right if you believe science is now 100% complete and all-encompassing in its ability to fully understand and actually measure and quantify 100% of what we are hearing.

It is wrong if the science is not yet fully developed, and unable to fully and completely measure all things that are indeed real, and actually heard by humans.

Based on the incredible complexibility of the human machine, and the inadequacy of science in many many matters, I tend to believe the latter is the more likely scenario.

Very well said!