[Wayner]

The tonearm leads from my 40 year old AR turntable must be worth a fortune as they have been "burned-in" for......40 years!  aa

I'm also going to suggest tomorrow in our company machine design meeting that if we wait long enough for our machines to "burn-in" the performance is certainly to improve! After all, what is good for audio has to be good for everything that runs on electricity, right?  aa

[Daygloworange]

Good for you.

Cheers

[avahifi]

A bit off the point, but I am pleased to report now that the temperature here in Minnesota has dropped to near zero, all of our parts stored in unheated spaces until used are now cryogenically treated once again,  at no extra cost.

Regards,

Frank Van Alsitne

[jneutron]

degaussing

Degaussing???  Elaborate, please.

Cheers, John

[AJinFLA]

A bit off the point, but I am pleased to report now that the temperature here in Minnesota has dropped to near zero, all of our parts stored in unheated spaces until used are now cryogenically treated once again,  at no extra cost.

Regards,

Frank Van Alsitne

I said earlier that I was bowing out, but that was pretty dang funny Frank
I dare you to put that in your manual.
Of course when I said it, the thread was a mere 7 pages and lo and behold, we're up to 19,20,21

I guess I still have a question. If many of these things being heard can't be measured, because science can't measure everything (which I agree with of course, like any other rational human), why would we limit this paradigm only to things audible?
Why not things visible? Why not things we can see. I mean, we can't measure everything right? So if someone says they saw a ghost, or a goblin, or Santa Claus or whatever, why wouldn't this also be just as valid as someone hearing stuff? What if several people saw the same thing? Maybe millions? We can't measure it, so it might really be there, right?
How can we invalidate a claim just because we can't see it ourselves? Some folks have better vision than others,right? Plus, we can't measure everything, remember?
So why constrain this argument only to audibility? Let's expand our horizons, shall we?

cheers,

AJ

[JohnR]

This is the the kind of sneering that gets threads trashed.

[Daygloworange]

This is the the kind of sneering that gets threads trashed.

Just can't do it can you?

It never ceases to amaze me. The original poster very clearly requests no flame war please! and yet, for a bunch that claim to be very rational and perceptive, keep missing that request and turn others off from contributing. If you feel this is a fool's gold quest and that it's all psychological, what psychological compulsion makes you want to ridicule people who don't share your opinions? Why does it eat them up?

I'll never understand that one.

Cheers

[AJinFLA]

This is the the kind of sneering that gets threads trashed.

I ask a legitimate question and you call it sneering? Why the insult?
To quote Raja

To assert that the believers are just engaging in "magical thinking" is an insult. It implies that they are just weak minded individuals and their experience is not valid and they are just "hearing things".

Rather than that type of insulting comment, why not a direct answer to my question? Why is it less legitimate to see, rather than hear? I'm honestly interested to know. Your answer too JohnR.

cheers,

AJ

[Daygloworange]

I ask a legitimate question and you call it sneering? Why the insult?

I think he's refering to Frank's comment. Yeah, it's funny, ha, ha. But I don't go over to his forum and sneer at him, so I don't appreciate the party pooper attitude. Yeah, I get a chuckle out of it, but it's well known around these parts what his feelings are on the topic. It isn't necessary. We've all read what his experience have shown him .

I would like more people just simply giving their impressions as pertaining to the original question, without anything added. Aside from that, I've enjoyed reading what everybody here has to say about what they've noticed.

Cheers

[AJinFLA]

I think he's refering to Frank's comment.

Hmm,
it came right after mine and hrs after Frank's, but perhaps you are right.

Yeah, it's funny, ha, ha. But I don't go over to his forum and sneer at him, so I don't appreciate the party pooper attitude. Yeah, I get a chuckle out of it, but it's well known around these parts what his feelings are on the topic. It isn't necessary. We've all read what his experience have shown him .

I'm unfamiliar with what he has had to say previously, I just thought his comment was funny at face value.

I would like more people just simply giving their impressions as pertaining to the original question, without anything added. Aside from that, I've enjoyed reading what everybody here has to say about what they've noticed.

Ah yes, the original question.

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?

I generally don't change cables, since unless there is something malfunctional with one, I wouldn't see a need to change it. For me it's not a flavor of the week thing, that is in need of changing, that is always getting better with each new model/time. I can't say that the cables I listen with now sound any different form the cables I listened with 10 or 20 yrs ago (since so many other minor things that affect the sound, like loudspeakers and rooms, have changed also) although purportedly, there have been stunning advances, like as with amplifiers and preamps, etc.
Since every few months a newer, better sounding device comes along (such as a cable or amp), the cumulative effect must make these things monumentally better than the stuff 20+ yrs ago, never ming the burn-in effects as well.
If I did hear a subtle difference in my audio system over the period of a few weeks after installing a new cable, I would first check to see if there was a malfunction somewhere in the system, or maybe consider my mood or just wonder if my audio memory was fallible, which I think is quite possible.
A large difference would be a trip to the repair shop, a store for a new purchase or seek medical help.

Cheers,

AJ

[JohnR]

Some people hear voices. So what.

AudioCircle is about learning and sharing experiences. Close-minded people piss me off. So there it is.

[lonewolfny42]

A bit off the point, but I am pleased to report now that the temperature here in Minnesota has dropped to near zero, all of our parts stored in unheated spaces until used are now cryogenically treated once again,  at no extra cost.

Regards,

Frank Van Alsitne

Nice...cryo'd parts in all the new equipment ....and from the healthiest state in the Union.....perfect.

[Daygloworange]

There has been no data that I know of to substantiate that there are real measured changes.

http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.shtm

Cheers

[EarWax]

I don't typically reply here at the Circle but this was too good to pass up. I'll be honest - what troubles me most about this thread is that we have manufacturers responding here  - guys that make their living at this - who do not believe that break-in is a real component of audio design. Hey guys, put down your EE textbooks and pick up your material science and metalurgy texts books and study a bit about what happens to a piece of copper, steel, silver, etc. during the manufacturing process. I think you will find that in addition to the typical electrical properties there are also properties of grain structure within these metals which become disoriented during the manufacturing process. It is a proven fact that these grains re-align themselves over time and provide an "easier" path for electron flow.

OK, as far as the "your ears adjust argument" I have this to say: I have modified hundreds of pieces of equipment over the years using what many of you would consider "boutique" parts and have gotten to the point where during "Break-in" I first listen to the component immediately after I complete the modification, then place the component in the burn-in room with a CD on repeat for 200+ hours. Amazingly, when I re-install the component in the system after "Burn-in" it sounds smoother, more articulate, and most always has better bass depth and definition, amongst other things. The point is, I am obviously not adjusting to the sound over time because I am not listening to the component during this time.

Like I said, it troubles me that manufactureres will not allow themselves to think "outside the box" on this issue. Rest assured I would never purchase a product manufactured by any of these "shallow thinkers"

Fire away ..

[Dan Banquer]

...and still no one has thus far reported ever having measured the electrical specs of a new component's outputs and then taken the same measurements 500 hours later. So, while many poke fun at what others claim to hear, they haven't themselves tested the effect in question to scientifically put the notion to rest.

Why?

One would expect the engineer/technician/designer is best equipped to conduct such tests.

This is totally and utterly false. There have been lots of tests over the years to show that well designed solid state units do NOT change after 500 hours of use. Nelson Pass years ago measured an Ortofon unit for the pressing of records and found that after 20 years the unit was still meeting spec. I have tested my units after 5 or 10 years out in the field and have found nothing other than the electrolytic caps aging, but the units are still meeting spec.
After seeing a post like this one I really think posters need to do a bit of research before they make these wild unsubstantiated claims. 
             d.b.
           

[Daygloworange]

Dan,

I believe he was referring to AC manufacturers who don't believe in the theory of burn in. I think he respectfully was asking whether they were actually using empircal data they might have from their own testing.

EarWax,

Did your observations ever prompt you to perhaps find a way of quantifying what the differences might be?

I guess the thing here is, is if an EE doesn't hear something, he wouldn't make an effort to test it.

Cheers

[EarWax]

I use the only piece of test equipment that matters to me. My ears.

[Daygloworange]

I use the only piece of test equipment that matters to me. My ears.

As someone who has EE knowledge, I'll ask you, what parameters could be occuring during break in that might be measurable with current equipment?

Cheers

[sts9fan]

Do people here who believe in burn-in (thread hijackers) admit that SOME of what the perceive could be psychological?  Or do you think it is all definitely happening? I would think its funny how some people ALWAYS hear it and others NEVER hear it. Seems like the brain pulling a fast one to me...

[jneutron]

I'll be honest - what troubles me most about this thread is that we have manufacturers responding here  - guys that make their living at this - who do not believe that break-in is a real component of audio design. Hey guys, put down your EE textbooks and pick up your material science and metalurgy texts books and study a bit about what happens to a piece of copper, steel, silver, etc. during the manufacturing process. I think you will find that in addition to the typical electrical properties there are also properties of grain structure within these metals which become disoriented during the manufacturing process. It is a proven fact that these grains re-align themselves over time and provide an "easier" path for electron flow.

OK, as far as the "your ears adjust argument" I have this to say: I have modified hundreds of pieces of equipment over the years using what many of you would consider "boutique" parts and have gotten to the point where during "Break-in" I first listen to the component immediately after I complete the modification, then place the component in the burn-in room with a CD on repeat for 200+ hours. Amazingly, when I re-install the component in the system after "Burn-in" it sounds smoother, more articulate, and most always has better bass depth and definition, amongst other things. The point is, I am obviously not adjusting to the sound over time because I am not listening to the component during this time.

Like I said, it troubles me that manufactureres will not allow themselves to think "outside the box" on this issue. Rest assured I would never purchase a product manufactured by any of these "shallow thinkers"

Fire away ..

I will be quite honest.  It troubles me that people would provide such unsubstantiated (material science) statements and asserted that others are shallow thinkers because they do not believe such "hogwash".  While they may indeed be "shallow thinkers", you have not posted anything upon which to base that assessment.

I do indeed work with the EE books.  I also work with the material ones.  As well as the physics ones. And the cryogenic ones.

Conductors do not alter their resistivity to any degree through cryogenic processing (at least not down to 1.8 Kelvin, the farthest I've worked at).  Alteration of the grain structure does not alter resistivity at room temperature sufficiently to measure, it is about 8 orders of magnitude too low.  It is possible to measure the impact of grain boundaries as well as lattice defects, but that requires taking the conductor down to liquid helium temperatures to extend the mean free path, where phonon dispersion all but goes away leaving the defects.

But it is not possible to measure a cryo forced difference at room temperature electrically, nor is it possible to find a difference in the conductors as a result of burn in..  This is from experience. (Note:  I mention cryo as it has a large impact on many materials via stress relief of the lattice caused by manufacture.  Annealing also affects the lattice, but not too many mention annealing of wires to achieve some sonic result.  Use of room temperature current to achieve some difference has historically born no fruit, at least in the experience of those I work with.  Nor from my own experience, from 30 Kiloamps to attoamps, and kilovolt to nanovolt.)

The only method which alters a conductor is electromigration.  This occurs in aluminum which has current densities flowing through which are not sustainable beyond thick films bonded to silicon (the current density will vaporize normal metals.  Superconductors do not suffer this, as there is no impact energy, however if one does not make the end solder joints of sufficient area, the tin/silver solder can be affected (experience).  Even at 4.5 Kelvin, this level of current density will vaporize normal conductors in about 2 to 4 seconds (again, experience).

Your statement of experience with component burn in?  It is indeed possible what you state is true.  I do note, however, that you have made no mention of measurement of components before and after the burn in.

Was this burn in simply exercising the equipment under normal operating conditions?  Or, was it elevated temperature burn in designed to accelerate initial failures due to component reliability?  (experience)

I stated early on that the ears do indeed adjust to the localization parameters that are defined by the system.  I have also indicated in the past that all recorded material made to date provides localization cues which do not occur in nature, forcing us to adjust to this erroneous stimulus.

Care must be taken to distinguish perceptual drifts which are a human response to cue distortions from perceptual alterations as a result of real shifts.

To all the posters within this thread:

Calling others "shallow", or idiots, or naysayers, or whatever, has no place within an intellectual discussion..I make the  assertion (perhaps incorrectly) that most here wish that?  Bolstering such accusations with pseudoscience is also objectional behaviour, to which I have taken to task. 

Oh, one more thing..no matter how big the "box" you think within, you will find that others have a bigger box..

Cheers, John