[miklorsmith]

Good point Nathan, we all struggle with exactly those questions.  I think we all want to know, with varying amounts of how much.  The proffered "answer" is always blind testing but that can of worms is the antithesis of what I find fun in audio.  I think a lot of folks feel the same.

[Spirit]

Ok!
Since I am the one who started this thread - I will now, hopefully, be the one to end it!
Ask a perceptually simple question and get a myriad of complex answers!
It pains me to read unnecessary nasty arguments that some of you partake in.
There really is no need for that.  It doesn't benefit the discussion at all.
I realize now that I will leave it to my own ears to determine the benefit, or lack of, of break-in.

[satfrat]

Ok!

I realize now that I will leave it to my own ears to determine the benefit, or lack of, of break-in.

Well isn't that what ultimately we all end up doing? Just enjoy the ride.


Cheers,
Robin

[Freo-1]

Good point Nathan, we all struggle with exactly those questions.  I think we all want to know, with varying amounts of how much.  The proffered "answer" is always blind testing but that can of worms is the antithesis of what I find fun in audio.  I think a lot of folks feel the same.

Most agreed!

Blind testing has too many shortfalls to quantify whatever changes one may or may not perceive.  Those of us who have read the likes of Stereophile, Absolute Sound, et al wiil recall reviews where the performance of a product under review varied from sample unit to the next of the same item!!

Many audio enthusiasts have experienced break in as "real", especially with tube gear, and to a lesser extent, speakers.

So, if you experienced it, by all means share that experience. If you have not, feel free to share that, but no one served when one tells others  how to think. 

[opaqueice]

Please stop.  I don't want to trash the thread, nor do I want to ask you to refrain from posting in Audio Central.  Know when enough is enough and stop.

Very well then.

[James Romeyn]

Real, for components & speakers both.  Some speakers seem to improve over as long as several months.   

Some PhD scientists say such is impossible.  That's fine, but saying others don't hear what they percieve to hear is pretty boneheaded. 

Go figure.

Just listen & make up your own mind.

[SwedeSound]

I imagine it's real.

[James Romeyn]

...My personal opinion is that scientists have quite a decent grasp on what's audible and what isn't (not that there can't be surprises still)...

Could not disagree more.

If scientists had reliable methods to predict sound quality there may be no such thing as audio shows.  We'd just examine such specs as "soundstage", "imaging", "natural musicality" & pick our gear out that way.  Oh?  Such specs don't exist?  That's interesting...

My personal experience doing this for about 40 years is science has few if any methods to predict listening pleasure for all this gear, esp speakers, amps, sources, rooms, treatments...did I omit anything?  (OTOH I do find purely subjective reveiws of gear to be often just as useless...)

Can any reader suggest any spec more useless than the ubiquitous THD in predicting pleasure in listening to a certain amplifier?  I doubt it. 

My friend's custom 300B made treble sounds to die for, like you became one w/ the cymbal's overtone shimmering...you could taste the tonal structure; probably THD was through the roof.  Specs are often comically useless.     

[James Romeyn]

Another scientist here (biologist).

Good sense and healthy skepticism are darned useful; deriding others, not so much. 

Provided there is a plausible mechanism for something being proposed, I consider it worth considering.  The guy on the video went from an observed pattern (hearing differences in blind tests) to a mechanistic explanation (microphonics within the component); nice work, I think, explaining the basis for the pattern others have observed for some time and could not previously explain...

You wouldn't believe perceived improvements by completely hiding virtually any passive or active internal component in as much pure clear silicone sealant as can fit in the available space (credit to the late Jay Weinberg). 

Everything believed is supported eventually by something unproven & unprovable (presupositionalism).  The defiinition of an inch is arbitrary because its defined as the distance light travels in _______ seconds.  Unfortunately all clocks have a margin of error.  Also, light travels at different speeds under different circumstances. 

So much for the vaunted science.  The list of scientific beliefs that are later overturned w/ new evidence is long & forever growing.  Explains the term "dueling scientists" at trial.  This is why, ultimately, science & religion are the same.  It's all just what you believe, which is ultimately simply a choice. 

[nathanm]

Good point Nathan, we all struggle with exactly those questions.  I think we all want to know, with varying amounts of how much.  The proffered "answer" is always blind testing but that can of worms is the antithesis of what I find fun in audio.  I think a lot of folks feel the same.

But then we're no further ahead are we?  We haven't learned anything about the gear or our own perceptions.  If a person doesn't want to test stuff that's fine, but then they ought not to make claims about factor X causing such and such change in the sound.  I'm all for pure subjectivity in music and how it makes us feel, but the realm of electronic playback and what electronics do to signals isn't in that camp.  There the scientific method can help us.  Otherwise we're just fumbling around in the dark.

ro7939, "Sound quality" is not the same as "what's audible", that wasn't the claim.  Audible could be be just the matter of identifying sample A from sample B, not a person's judgement of which they like better.  Testing is supposed to determine IF there is a phenomeon to test at all before we start asking WHY and HOW it occurs.  Nobody has claimed that measurements will correlate perfectly with listening pleasure about the sound, but they are still useful to have.  I myself like to equate album cover art with listening pleasure, but am often deceived!

[Niteshade]

I have a summary from this thread of things that have been brought up that are without a doubt true:

1) Capacitors do have a forming process they undergo. This is true for electrolytics, not 'dry' capacitors for the most part.
2) Electronics will work differently at their operating temperature vs the turn on temperature
3) Tubes will change characteristics throughout their lives
4) Transistors AND Tubes conduct differently at different temperatures (see #2)
5) Speakers and mechanical devices do have a break-in period

Most likely I left a few things out. The other contents, such as the capacitor video require further study.  Some of you have said, "Insufficient Data!" about various things and you're 100% correct!

I am a firm believer there's still plenty to learn. My observations as reflected through this thread are real but that doesn't mean more can't be added to them later on.

Also- I may add, since I design and manufacture tube equipment, everything that is used in construction has to be justified. I design around numerical, environment data and lab test results only. There are indeed parts with the same values BUT made for different jobs and enviroments. The right physical makeup has to be chosen for the job. For example- there are parts that are more stable in high heat conditions.

Please add to the above list, make changes if you like.

[Geardaddy]

It is interesting to me how technical discussions within audio forums eventually take on a metaphysical bent...like the late night philospohical arguments in college...is that chair really there or not?  Anyway, I pass on a big amen to the following comment:

My personal experience doing this for about 40 years is science has few if any methods to predict listening pleasure for all this gear, esp speakers, amps, sources, rooms, treatments...did I omit anything?  (OTOH I do find purely subjective reveiws of gear to be often just as useless...)

Can any reader suggest any spec more useless than the ubiquitous THD in predicting pleasure in listening to a certain amplifier?  I doubt it. 

My friend's custom 300B made treble sounds to die for, like you became one w/ the cymbal's overtone shimmering...you could taste the tonal structure; probably THD was through the roof.  Specs are often comically useless.     

This brings to mind an article (and thread from a few months ago) titled "God in the nuances."  Its worth reading for those who missed that thread:

http://www.stereophile.com/features/203/index.html

[Steidl Guitars]

This is why, ultimately, science & religion are the same. 

I could not agree less, so I will simply leave it at that. 

[timind]

...My personal opinion is that scientists have quite a decent grasp on what's audible and what isn't (not that there can't be surprises still)...

Could not disagree more.

If scientists had reliable methods to predict sound quality there may be no such thing as audio shows.  We'd just examine such specs as "soundstage", "imaging", "natural musicality" & pick our gear out that way.  Oh?  Such specs don't exist?  That's interesting...
     

The problem with this argument is that designers start with basic science to get the product up and running. Then the fine tuning to get the desired sound. Without the basic scientific/engineering knowledge how would anything get built. Maybe you could throw a bunch of components in a box, shake it up and see what happens.

[miklorsmith]

But then we're no further ahead are we?  We haven't learned anything about the gear or our own perceptions.  If a person doesn't want to test stuff that's fine, but then they ought not to make claims about factor X causing such and such change in the sound.  I'm all for pure subjectivity in music and how it makes us feel, but the realm of electronic playback and what electronics do to signals isn't in that camp.  There the scientific method can help us.  Otherwise we're just fumbling around in the dark.

Collectively, I don't think we are any "further ahead".  Each of us is on a personal journey.  We can learn from virtual places like this but at the end of the day we have to figure out for ourselves what we treasure in our own sound rooms.  Our perceptions have value, whether measured or not.  If we all subscribed to the scientific method to pass along our gear descriptions AC and every similar place would go VERY quiet overnight.  Testing sucks.  Nobody wants to do it.  And guess what?  If you do torture yourself this way and bother to post your findings the very next thing you'll be doing is defending and refining your methodology in the hopes that some day you have a valid test.  It's an end in itself, wholly separate from the joy of listening.

Anybody wanting to do so, I heartily applaud so long as it's not used as a weapon.

[bprice2]

Since I am the one who started this thread - I will now, hopefully, be the one to end it!

    No sense in trying to stop a train.  Might as well just get out of the way.  Besides, it looks like the conversation is turning metaphysical.

[satfrat]

Since I am the one who started this thread - I will now, hopefully, be the one to end it!

    No sense in trying to stop a train.  Might as well just get out of the way.  Besides, it looks like the conversation is turning metaphysical.

Fortunately he does have the say to his thread's demise. If he wants it closed, that usually gets done.

Cheers,
Robin

[JerryM]

Collectively, I don't think we are any "further ahead".  Each of us is on a personal journey.  We can learn from virtual places like this but at the end of the day we have to figure out for ourselves what we treasure in our own sound rooms.  Our perceptions have value, whether measured or not.  If we all subscribed to the scientific method to pass along our gear descriptions AC and every similar place would go VERY quiet overnight.  Testing sucks.  Nobody wants to do it.  And guess what?  If you do torture yourself this way and bother to post your findings the very next thing you'll be doing is defending and refining your methodology in the hopes that some day you have a valid test.  It's an end in itself, wholly separate from the joy of listening.

I agree completely. Critical listening makes me critical. Just listening is pleasing and relaxing.
It's all about the music.
Have fun,
Jerry

[EDS_]

Real.

IMO...
Solid state gear requires significant break-in times.
At least one aspect of speaker break-in seems inarguable.  Surrounds and maybe cones as well undergo a mechanical break-in period.  I was ready to ship my Spendor S5e speakers back to the dealer when brand new - 200 hours later they sound great.
Some tubes, to me especially "pre-amp" tubes, sound quite different after a few hours break-in.


I think the argument that "you ears just get used to the sound" is hogwash.  My washing machine has sounded the same from minute 1.  A new acquaintance's voice does not seem to change over the course of a lengthy conversation. 

[viggen]

I am always tired of these kinds of discussions, but, somehow, I always end up reading them. 

Quite frankly, human understanding both phenomenological and technological perhaps encompasses .000000000000000000001% of all events. 

Which provides more utility?  Do we base higher utility on what we hear or what we measure? 

I believe in my hearing over what is measured.

Does that mean measurements are totally thrown out the window?

No.  Measurements are used to approximate what I hear or predict what I will hear.  So, if measurements cannot not measure what I hear, then, there is something wrong with the measuring device. 

And, if no fault can be found within the measuring device, then that measuring device is useless as it cannot approximate anything tangible in terms of hi-fi.  It might be useful in other endeavors such as ultrasound or sonar...