Burn-in time: it's no joke. [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Burn-in time: it's no joke.



emaidel
02-11-2009, 05:32 AM
When I first purchased my Marantz SA-8001 SACD player, I inquired of Marantz what the burn in time was. I experienced improvement with other components over time, and expected the same with this player. I was quite surprised with the response that for CD playback, the burn in time was 200 hours, but was a whopping 300 hours for SACD playback.

I noticed a decided improvement in CD playback as time progressed, but little in SACD since I had so few discs. Over the last year, I've purchased 37 SACD's, and devote my listening primarily to those recordings, especially my most recent purchases of all of Beethoven's symphonies on BIS, conducted by Osmo Vanska with the Minnesota Orchestra. Christoph Esenbach's recording of Tchaikovsky's 6th (the Pathetique) is another stunner.

I guess it's safe to say that I've surpassed that 300 hour mark, and spent a little time yesterday comparing the two layers on hybrid discs to see if there was much difference. In the past, I thought the SACD layer always sounded better, but sometimes that difference was just marginal. That's certainly not so now. I have to fully agree with Paul Blakemore of Telarc (actually Concord Music now) that, on a decent system, the CD layer on a hybrid disc "pales by comparison" to the SACD layer.

I've also found another website - sa-cd.net - consisting of listings of all available SACD's, and places to buy them, as well as a forum much like that here, except that each and every member is an avid supporter of the SACD medium. Some are even amongst those who have, and still do, detest the sound of CD's.

Still, despite the huge improvement the DSD-mastered SACD's bring to the sound of a symphony orchestra, unless other musical formats and artists start recording via this medium, its future doesn't bode well. I've said this before, and I feel even more strongly now saying it again, that's a crying shame.

Groundbeef
02-11-2009, 09:58 AM
I'm willing to consider that perhaps speakers sound better after a "break in period". There is room to make an arguement that the cones etc, soften up, or loosen up.

However, I'm gonna have to call bull**** that a digital device such as a cd player/sacd player needs to be "broken in".

Apart from the mechanical motion of the laser eye, there isn't anything to break in. It is a digital signal that is either "on" or "off".

Nothing to wear, nothing changes over time.

I would further argue that after 300 hours of listening, you have simply become accoustomed to your specific sound system, and may be more in tune with how the sound is reproduced on your system.

And, there certainly might be a difference in sound between a CD and SACD, but it ain't because the player is "broken in".

Your sales person is simply good. He knows what a customer will ask, and will answer in an appropriate manner. Customer expects a "break in period", make one up. After 300 hours, do you REALLY remember how it sounded on hour 1? Doubtful. You may remember what you thought is sounded like. But you don't really "remember" the exact sound.

I enjoyed your post though.

theaudiohobby
02-11-2009, 10:19 AM
I would further argue that after 300 hours of listening, you have simply become accoustomed to your specific sound system, and may be more in tune with how the sound is reproduced on your system.

And, there certainly might be a difference in sound between a CD and SACD, but it ain't because the player is "broken in".



Amen :14:

audio amateur
02-11-2009, 11:16 AM
I have to admit that i'm a little sceptic myself about 'burn-ins' in equipment other than speakers. But if you think you hear improvements, good!

emaidel
02-11-2009, 11:53 AM
I have to admit that i'm a little sceptic myself about 'burn-ins' in equipment other than speakers. But if you think you hear improvements, good!

Aside from your inadvertent grammatical howler, suggesting something horribly malodorous rather than a possible disbelief, I have to state that I did, and still do hear a difference now that my 8001 is sufficiently burned in, despite what others tell me I'm not hearing.

I didn't speak to a salesperson when I asked the question of Marantz as to the length of burn in time, and thought that 200 hours and 300 hours of suggested burn in time were down and out nuts. Now, previously dull and lifeless sounding SACD's (those Telarc discs which used the awful Sennheiser MKH-800 microphone) sound quite a bit better with more sparkle and punch.

If I, or anyone else, plays a recording of anything (LP, CD or SACD) for the first time in many months, or even years, and hears things he's never heard before, or hears as I do, an all new level of clarity and detail, then the improvement is real, and not imagined. Even my wife, who's sick and tired of me constantly asking "which sounds better" whenever I switch things around hears a difference.

My Parasound preamp (PLD-1100 Line-Drive) has a statement in the owner's manual that says that, while the unit will sound very good right out of the box, it will take at least 72 hours of continuous use for the electrical components to form appropriate electrical paths to provide the best performance. And, after a while, though I didn't specifically measure out 72 hours, the unit did sound better.

Luvin Da Blues
02-11-2009, 12:26 PM
In my limited electronic experience some components will "stabilize" over time, especially silicone based components (ie; chips) and dielectric film in caps etc. Not sure how much this affects SQ tho.

This Guy
02-11-2009, 01:48 PM
[QUOTE=emaidel]

If I, or anyone else, plays a recording of anything (LP, CD or SACD) for the first time in many months, or even years, and hears things he's never heard before, or hears as I do, an all new level of clarity and detail, then the improvement is real, and not imagined. Even my wife, who's sick and tired of me constantly asking "which sounds better" whenever I switch things around hears a difference.

QUOTE]

If you hear something for the first time in many months, that just furthers the argument that you didn't remember what you heard. There are too many variables that could have presented themselves between the time you heard it a few months ago and when you last listened to it. The only real improvement that you heard was in your head. Digital devices will not need a burn in. The sound you hear are just 1's and 0's or like what someone else said, translates to, on or off. "Burning in" will not affect this, because like I just said, it can be either on or off (the bits), and it's the combination of these on's and off's that translates into the sound that you hear that ultimately come out of your speakers. The human mind is very powerful, as you know, and can make you "hear" things you haven't before. Especially if you "want" to hear something.

audio amateur
02-11-2009, 02:07 PM
Aside from your inadvertent grammatical howler, suggesting something horribly malodorous rather than a possible disbelief, I have to state that I did, and still do hear a difference now that my 8001 is sufficiently burned in, despite what others tell me.
Excuse me for speaking more than one language and having lived 18/20ths of my life in France.
Now, what exactly was wrong with what I said?

Ajani
02-11-2009, 02:10 PM
My feeling is that equipment without moving parts (so most gear other than speakers) don't need burn in... I suspect the improvement is a result of the listener getting more used to the sound of the equipment over time... so even if you haven't played a particular track in months, you can still hear improvements because you are now more in tune with the equipment...

This Guy
02-11-2009, 02:18 PM
Excuse me for speaking more than one language and having lived 18/20ths of my life in France.
Now, what exactly was wrong with what I said?

Nothing. You spoke the truth, and he didn't want to hear it.

Groundbeef
02-11-2009, 02:46 PM
If I, or anyone else, plays a recording of anything (LP, CD or SACD) for the first time in many months, or even years, and hears things he's never heard before, or hears as I do, an all new level of clarity and detail, then the improvement is real, and not imagined. Even my wife, who's sick and tired of me constantly asking "which sounds better" whenever I switch things around hears a difference..

No, that is anecdotal evidence. Just because you are hearing it now, doesn't preclude you are either 1)hearing it before and forgetting that you heard it or 2) imagining you are hearing a difference now.

As for your wife, I would imagine its the "Yes you look lovely in those pants". She is damned if she does (not hear a difference), and damned if she does (think your crazy). She is probably simply tired of your constant questioning. Its the path of least resistance. "Oh yes dear, there is a HUGE difference. Now stop asking me....."




My Parasound preamp (PLD-1100 Line-Drive) has a statement in the owner's manual that says that, while the unit will sound very good right out of the box, it will take at least 72 hours of continuous use for the electrical components to form appropriate electrical paths to provide the best performance. And, after a while, though I didn't specifically measure out 72 hours, the unit did sound better.

Again, subjective. Did is sound better because it did, or did you "percieve" a difference. And pray tell what is "appropriate electrical paths". Are we to belive that the electrons pave a new path as they are used more frequently? Please.

atomicAdam
02-11-2009, 02:49 PM
to be a devil,

what about the argument that the laser and motor per say don't change over time - but what about the other circuits. how about the audio source out circuits, technically depending on how they were made, after a while of heating up and use they could physically change. remember how things can go pop after a while and you have to send your stuff in for repair. well, that is a change in what is happening on the inside. that might not make the zeros and ones off the CD any different but it could make the amount of zeros and ones that come out of the box different. But remember, CDs will change over time as well. everything has a halflife.

on this note - it could make the sound sound different, not better or worse, just different. maybe it adds some noise to it. i can't see it reducing any over time and use. maybe this change in sound is what he hears and he thinks it is better.

audio amateur
02-11-2009, 02:58 PM
I'd like to recall, Emaidel, that I wasn't mocking your original post in my first post.

emaidel
02-11-2009, 03:26 PM
Excuse me for speaking more than one language and having lived 18/20ths of my life in France.
Now, what exactly was wrong with what I said?

I meant no disrespect to you. In your thread, you said you were "sceptic," as opposed to "skeptic." Sceptic is awfully close to the word "septic," which has a completely different meaning, and refers to the material in cesspools, as well as to the manner in which they smell. I was making a joke, not trying to insult you.

emaidel
02-11-2009, 03:28 PM
I'd like to recall, Emaidel, that I wasn't mocking your original post in my first post.

I didn't think you were. Hopefully, my post just prior to this one will straighten things out a bit, n'est-ce pas?

emaidel
02-11-2009, 03:36 PM
Nothing. You spoke the truth, and he didn't want to hear it.

Wrong. Dead wrong. Read my response explaining why I said what I did.

audio amateur
02-11-2009, 04:11 PM
I didn't think you were. Hopefully, my post just prior to this one will straighten things out a bit, n'est-ce pas?
I didn't catch the play on words, rather, I wrongfully sensed hostility in your wording. My bad.

RoadRunner6
02-11-2009, 04:30 PM
Aside from your inadvertent grammatical howler..........If I, or anyone else, plays a recording of anything (LP, CD or SACD) for the first time in many months, or even years, and hears things he's never heard before, or hears as I do, an all new level of clarity and detail, then the improvement is real, and not imagined...........And, after a while, though I didn't specifically measure out 72 hours, the unit did sound better.

Since we're into correcting grammar...Father Murphy would have made you stay after school for that unecessarily long sentence. Furthermore, starting a sentence with the word and is a mortal sin! :)

That being said, I have to agree 100% with Groundbeef.

For AA: The correct word would have been the adjective sceptical or skeptical in your sentence. You actually used the noun sceptic by mistake. Either spelling of the word is correct. Both are considered alternatively acceptable spellings and are pronounced the same. He mistakenly thought you mispelled the word skeptic. So in the end, the joke is on him! Correcting other's grammar here is a little over the top. However, he was amused by what he thought was your humorous unintentional mistake that he mispronounced as septic. I mentioned his mistake in a humorus manner and no harm intended by anyone.

RR6

Jimmy C
02-11-2009, 04:57 PM
...how about your system (as a whole) sounding better after a bit of warm-up? I feel this one everytime I sit down for an extended listen.

I usually do low/moderate SPLs (I feel my rig is "in the zone" here), but I can't help notice everything "comes together" after a certain period of time. By that, I mean warmer, more mellifluous (sp?), and a feeling of less grain... smoother, I suppose.

Well, I have read some intro/baby books on quantum physics... photons of light actually "know" when they are being watched (they behave differently observed or not).

"Break-in" doesn't seem so crazy...

Bottom line? I can't be sure.

Rich-n-Texas
02-11-2009, 05:17 PM
...I've also found another website - sa-cd.net - consisting of listings of all available SACD's, and places to buy them, as well as a forum much like that here, except that each and every member is an avid supporter of the SACD medium. Some are even amongst those who have, and still do, detest the sound of CD's...
Thanks for that link emaidel. It led me to a Genesis Box Set of their music from 1970 - 1975. Their best years IMO, unfortunately the set cost over $100. which isn't good for me right now.

nightflier
02-11-2009, 05:51 PM
I'll second what JimmyC said. But again, that could also be me getting used to the sound.

On the other hand, when using a tubed component, the system changes. This is most noticeable in the first 20 minutes, of course, but I also think that as the tubes burn over time, they also change. Now couldn't the same be true with capacitors and ICs? I really don't know and I can't say I have heard this, but I'm certainly curious about it.

Audio Amateur, 18/20th of your life you've lived in France and yet your system doesn't have a single French component. Surely a Focal or Triangle could have made its way into your home? Or did you have to leave the country because, oh I dunno, you maybe suggested that California wines were better, LOL?

Luvin Da Blues
02-11-2009, 06:54 PM
I...... Now couldn't the same be true with capacitors and ICs? I really don't know and I can't say I have heard this, but I'm certainly curious about it.....

I have already posted on this. Discrete components such as caps DO change values (ie; stabilize) after a warm up period. Some of these changes are quite measurable, albeit very small, with the right equipment.

audio amateur
02-12-2009, 01:54 AM
Since we're into correcting grammar...Father Murphy would have made you stay after school for that unecessarily long sentence. Furthermore, starting a sentence with the word and is a mortal sin! :)

That being said, I have to agree 100% with Groundbeef.

For AA: The correct word would have been the adjective sceptical or skeptical in your sentence. You actually used the noun sceptic by mistake. Either spelling of the word is correct. Both are considered alternatively acceptable spellings and are pronounced the same. He mistakenly thought you mispelled the word skeptic. So in the end, the joke is on him! Correcting other's grammar here is a little over the top. However, he was amused by what he thought was your humorous unintentional mistake that he mispronounced as septic. I mentioned his mistake in a humorus manner and no harm intended by anyone.

RR6
Well, there's nothing quite like knowing your english on a forum :yesnod:
I understood my mistake when Emaidel answered my first post. I think I use a lot of 'frenchisms' in my English, that's why I said 'sceptic' and not 'sceptical'. Thanks

audio amateur
02-12-2009, 02:33 AM
Audio Amateur, 18/20th of your life you've lived in France and yet your system doesn't have a single French component. Surely a Focal or Triangle could have made its way into your home? Or did you have to leave the country because, oh I dunno, you maybe suggested that California wines were better, LOL?
You're right I should represent my 'mother land' a little better, but I do in other ways :yesnod:
I'm sure I wouldn't be unhappy with a Focal or Triangle but I haven't heard either..
The real reason is I'm in the UK at the moment. I want to hear one of the Utopias or Magellan :3:
5125[

audio amateur
02-12-2009, 03:09 AM
RR, I tried PMing you but your box is full

emaidel
02-12-2009, 05:09 AM
Well, let's see if I can bring this thread back on track. As for my poor attempt at humor, and my lack of knowledge that "skeptic" and "sceptic" are acceptable spellings for the same word, I sincerely apologize and admit my error.

As for the rest of the comments on this thread, save those from LivinDaBlues, why is it that none of you can accept that I do hear these things I'm stating, and that maybe I just may have a point here (as many others elsewhere do), and that I'm not just imagining things? I've been around long enough to know the difference between simply adjusting myself to the sound of my system, or to legitimate changes - good or bad - over a period of time. While audio memory is notoriously short, there exists the very real fact and sensation that when listening to a favorite piece of music, and hearing certain details and/or instruments that I didn't hear previously, then something is making a difference.

I didn't invent the term 'burn-in," and I didn't give it much credence at first. My first experiencee with the phenomenon was with a set of very costly Audioquest speaker cables. Initially, I found the sound harsh and unpleasant, but noticed a "softening," or "sweetening" of the sound over time. Only when questioning folks at Audioquest did I realize that the cables were "burning-in,"

Now that I've had the same piece of equipment in my system for almost a year (The Marantz SA-8001), and am hearing sonic details that were either missing, or obscured previously, I attribute that to the unit having sufficiently burned-in over time as per statements directly from Marantz. Any and everyone is entitled to agree or disagree with me, but for heaven's sake, please stop telling me I'm imagining all this, and basically out of my mind. I may be 64, but I've still got a good chuck of that mind left.

Invader3k
02-12-2009, 05:43 AM
It's because no one has offered a good scientific reason for solid state components "burning in". What exactly is "burning in" on these devices? The chips? The transistors? The internal wiring? I agree with others who feel that you're probably just becoming more accustomed to the device's sound. It's believable that a device might take a bit to reach peak operating temperature...but for the device to actually somehow become physically altered to produce improved sound after several hundred hours? I haven't heard any real evidence to that.

Really, any manufacturer of many products is going to tell you there's a burn in period with your new purchase. It's so you don't immediately think, "Oh, this sounds no good," and return it soon after. They want to make sure you take the time to get used to it. I remember when I bought my last car they said there was a "break in" period. TVs supposedly have a break in period too.

But if you're enjoying your system more, that's all that really matters in the end.

audio amateur
02-12-2009, 05:54 AM
Cars have many moving parts, and the engine definitely has a break-in period. It's not a good example.

Invader3k
02-12-2009, 05:56 AM
That I do get...I'm just saying the dealer went out of their way to mention that. I think it's a tactic they use to get people to not be dissatisfied if they immediately don't like the performance of their purchase.

And, as pointed out before, other than the laser, how many moving parts are in a CD transport?

Ajani
02-12-2009, 06:09 AM
Well, let's see if I can bring this thread back on track. As for my poor attempt at humor, and my lack of knowledge that "skeptic" and "sceptic" are acceptable spellings for the same word, I sincerely apologize and admit my error.

As for the rest of the comments on this thread, save those from LivinDaBlues, why is it that none of you can accept that I do hear these things I'm stating, and that maybe I just may have a point here (as many others elsewhere do), and that I'm not just imagining things? I've been around long enough to know the difference between simply adjusting myself to the sound of my system, or to legitimate changes - good or bad - over a period of time. While audio memory is notoriously short, there exists the very real fact and sensation that when listening to a favorite piece of music, and hearing certain details and/or instruments that I didn't hear previously, then something is making a difference.

I didn't invent the term 'burn-in," and I didn't give it much credence at first. My first experiencee with the phenomenon was with a set of very costly Audioquest speaker cables. Initially, I found the sound harsh and unpleasant, but noticed a "softening," or "sweetening" of the sound over time. Only when questioning folks at Audioquest did I realize that the cables were "burning-in,"

Now that I've had the same piece of equipment in my system for almost a year (The Marantz SA-8001), and am hearing sonic details that were either missing, or obscured previously, I attribute that to the unit having sufficiently burned-in over time as per statements directly from Marantz. Any and everyone is entitled to agree or disagree with me, but for heaven's sake, please stop telling me I'm imagining all this, and basically out of my mind. I may be 64, but I've still got a good chuck of that mind left.

One thing I should clarify is that getting more in tune with the sound of your system over time is not the same as 'imagining a difference'... it doesn't mean you're losing your mind...

It's like a job... at first you might be totally overwhelmed by the amount of work, but a year later, you might be able to handle all those responsibilities without breaking a sweat.. It's not that the work changed, but that you got better at doing at...

I believe some part of burn-in is not about the equipment burning in, but you burning in (so to speak)... So on first listen, there is no way you could have heard all the detail the system was offering, but a year down the road, you can pick up all those minor details you were missing out on...

I think of it kind of like E-Stat's audiophile test.... the first time I tried it, I got the average score of -12db, but after a bit of practice I was down into the - twenties...

Groundbeef
02-12-2009, 06:22 AM
As for the rest of the comments on this thread, save those from LivinDaBlues, why is it that none of you can accept that I do hear these things I'm stating, and that maybe I just may have a point here (as many others elsewhere do), and that I'm not just imagining things? I've been around long enough to know the difference between simply adjusting myself to the sound of my system, or to legitimate changes - good or bad - over a period of time. While audio memory is notoriously short, there exists the very real fact and sensation that when listening to a favorite piece of music, and hearing certain details and/or instruments that I didn't hear previously, then something is making a difference..

I can appreciate your comments. But I would like to point out something in relation to your last statement. Your statement is in no way different that this statement. I LOVE "National Lampoons Christmas Vacation". I've seen it probably 20 times. Watch it every year with the family, and everyone has a hoot. Just this year, I realized that Hank (Chevy Chase's cousin in the film) is wearing a black dickie under his white sweater. Now, I've seen this film 20 times. Never noticed it. Should I profess that now my DVD player has "burnt in" enough that now it has made a new scene in the film? Would you support that asertation? Probably not. And I am not going to entertain the notion that after 300 hours, your SACD/CD player is suddenly producing new sounds.

It has always been there. But after repeated listens, you no longer notice what is in the forefront of the piece. You are comfortable in the music, that your mind now has time to wander, and pick up subtle sounds that were either missed, or forgotten from other listens.



I didn't invent the term 'burn-in," and I didn't give it much credence at first. My first experiencee with the phenomenon was with a set of very costly Audioquest speaker cables. Initially, I found the sound harsh and unpleasant, but noticed a "softening," or "sweetening" of the sound over time. Only when questioning folks at Audioquest did I realize that the cables were "burning-in,".

It was invented to keep picky audophiles out of the store long enough to exhasust the 30-90 day return policy.

Cables don't "burn in". Thats like saying my lamps burn brighter after 200 hours because the cord is more "accustomed" to electricity passing through. It's bunk.




Now that I've had the same piece of equipment in my system for almost a year (The Marantz SA-8001), and am hearing sonic details that were either missing, or obscured previously, I attribute that to the unit having sufficiently burned-in over time as per statements directly from Marantz. Any and everyone is entitled to agree or disagree with me, but for heaven's sake, please stop telling me I'm imagining all this, and basically out of my mind. I may be 64, but I've still got a good chuck of that mind left.

Your not out of your mind. Belive what you will. I've already stated earlier that I would entertain the notion that speakers can/do change their reproduction capabilites over time as they age, and are used. But wire/solid state components/lasters DON'T. Your 300 hour example has less to do with "burn in" as you "buying in" to the salesmans snake oil.

I'm glad however, that you are enjoying your music. That is what it is all about. That, and polite debate. Good day sir.

Feanor
02-12-2009, 06:27 AM
One thing I should clarify is that getting more in tune with the sound of your system over time is not the same as 'imagining a difference'... it doesn't mean you're losing your mind...

I believe some part of burn-in is not about the equipment burning in, but you burning in (so to speak)... So on first listen, there is no way you could have heard all the detail the system was offering, but a year down the road, you can pick up all those minor details you were missing out on...
...
The theory that we accomodate ourselves to the characterist sound of our system is just that: a theory. Perhaps it is a testable hypothesis though I'm not a scientist and can't think of how to design a relevant, DBT-type experiment. However I suspect it would be about as difficult as for burn-in.

There are times when I've been pretty sure that I heard burn it. One of the more obvious was the case of brand new vacuum tubes -- definitely (it seemed to me) a big difference after a dozen hours or so.

The lengthiest burn in that I believe I heard was from my Panasonic SR-AX25 receiver which as at least 500 hours. I have never noticed any burn-in on cables; (in fact, I have rarely notice any sort of differences among cables in the low- to high-medium price range, Blue Jeans cable versus Kimber PBJ for instance).

Ajani
02-12-2009, 07:19 AM
The theory that we accomodate ourselves to the characterist sound of our system is just that: a theory. Perhaps it is a testable hypothesis though I'm not a scientist and can't think of how to design a relevant, DBT-type experiment. However I suspect it would be about as difficult as for burn-in.

There are times when I've been pretty sure that I heard burn it. One of the more obvious was the case of brand new vacuum tubes -- definitely (it seemed to me) a big difference after a dozen hours or so.

The lengthiest burn in that I believe I heard was from my Panasonic SR-AX25 receiver which as at least 500 hours. I have never noticed any burn-in on cables; (in fact, I have rarely notice any sort of differences among cables in the low- to high-medium price range, Blue Jeans cable versus Kimber PBJ for instance).

The reason we can debate burn in is because this is all theory anyway...

Groundbeef made an excellent point about the DVD... why do we assume burn in with audio electronics but not for TVs and DVD players? I've never seen an improvement on a TV or DVD over time (I have seen them get worse, however)...

This Guy
02-12-2009, 07:32 AM
Now that I've had the same piece of equipment in my system for almost a year (The Marantz SA-8001), and am hearing sonic details that were either missing, or obscured previously, I attribute that to the unit having sufficiently burned-in over time as per statements directly from Marantz. Any and everyone is entitled to agree or disagree with me, but for heaven's sake, please stop telling me I'm imagining all this, and basically out of my mind. I may be 64, but I've still got a good chuck of that mind left.

I'm not saying you're crazy, I'm just saying your mind is playing tricks on you. My mind plays tricks on me, too and I'm only 20. But if you would read my first post in this thread, it explains that a SACD player isn't going to sound any different unless it's broken/faulty. That's one of the huge advantages of digital devices. If you would take a moment and understand how these devices work, you would understand that. Perhaps you did hear something different, but to say that the cause of the change is a sacd player burning-in is an invalid and unsound argument. Either something else in your system changed or you changed. I notice this with most "audiophiles" including my dad, and even myself sometimes. Example. He buys a new piece of equipment, say a receiver, and hooks it up for the first time. He wants the purchase to be worth his money, so within 3 minutes of listening to it, he'll say something like "wow that sounds a lot warmer. Almost like we put new tweeters in the speakers." Where I don't notice much of a difference, and may not even notice that there was a new receiver added to the system unless I saw it. I'm fully aware of the psychological effect of getting something new and wanting to like it, so your mind invents things to reinforce your need for the newly bought equipment. It happens to everyone, consciously or unconsciously (most audiophiles in my opinion). And just because a manufacturer tells you something, it doesn't mean it is completely true. These companies also put a lot of money in marketing, too. Cables do Not need burn-in, the buyers of expensive cables need burn- in. Don't worry, this happens to a lot of people that are passionate about audio. And you also can't forget, your ears are just going to keep getting worse and worse as you age.

Feanor
02-12-2009, 10:39 AM
I'm not saying you're crazy, I'm just saying your mind is playing tricks on you. My mind plays tricks on me, too and I'm only 20. ...
It's because you're only 20. :p


...But if you would read my first post in this thread, it explains that a SACD player isn't going to sound any different unless it's broken/faulty. That's one of the huge advantages of digital devices. If you would take a moment and understand how these devices work, you would understand that. ...
Guy, emaidel isn't saying that the digital logic burns in. More likely it would be the analog circuitry. Given that the Marantz has different signal paths for CD and SACD, there will be analog differences. Consider that:

All wires and circuit board connections are analog;
Chips receive only analog signals and must construct bits from the analog. The process might not work perfectly by dropping bits (rare) or causing jitter (more common);
Chips output only analog voltage/current.It has been explained to me that wire can more or less subtly change their transmission specifications due to changes in the diaelectic properties on the surrounding insulation (for example) which changes over time and depending on the direction of current flow. I can't explain this further, but AudioQuest's cable theory discussion (http://www.audioquest.com/pdfs/aq_cable_theory.pdf) might be helpful.

nightflier
02-12-2009, 12:13 PM
Cables don't "burn in". Thats like saying my lamps burn brighter after 200 hours because the cord is more "accustomed" to electricity passing through. It's bunk.

The physics of this example disprove your point. A lightbulb will measurably change over time. I suppose that this is true of tubes for the same reason. So for example, the bulb will have less brightness after x number of hours, and likewise the tube will have less edge to it after x number of hours as well. While the bulb loosing brightness is typically considered "deterioration", the tube loosing its edge is typically called "burn-in". In both cases, it's downhill from there, but for an audiophile, that may be an audibly acceptable, maybe even preferable. It's just a function of the equipment being worn over time. Just as there's no debate (at least I hope there isn't) over a phono cartridge being worn down by use, there shouldn't be any debate over the lightbulb or tube being worn down either.

Now whether this is true for cables, and whether that is audible, I doubt it. I have a hard time even hearing differences between cables to begin with. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised if a certain highly sensitive measurement was found that would indeed change in a cable over time, although I would still have a hard time believing that it was audible. I've been told that different materials like silver, affect the sound, and while I've never heard it, I don't have any reason to believe otherwise. With that in mind, different materials have very different properties (and as someone mentioned, half-lifes), so it follows that the sound of these could very well change over time as well. But, I've never heard this.

In any case, if it isn't audible to me or any one else, then why split hairs over that? And if emaidel hears a difference, then that's all fine for him. The physics support the theory that sound can change in a component, even a CD player. Whether this is audible is impossible to debate since we will never know without actually being inside the brain of someone who does hear it, and that is physically impossible. To borrow from my college logic class: I know that it is possible, but I have yet to experience it and I could very well never experience it. However, that does not mean it's impossible.

Ajani
02-12-2009, 12:51 PM
The physics of this example disprove your point. A lightbulb will measurably change over time. I suppose that this is true of tubes for the same reason. So for example, the bulb will have less brightness after x number of hours, and likewise the tube will have less edge to it after x number of hours as well. While the bulb loosing brightness is typically considered "deterioration", the tube loosing its edge is typically called "burn-in". In both cases, it's downhill from there, but for an audiophile, that may be an audibly acceptable, maybe even preferable. It's just a function of the equipment being worn over time. Just as there's no debate (at least I hope there isn't) over a phono cartridge being worn down by use, there shouldn't be any debate over the lightbulb or tube being worn down either.

Now whether this is true for cables, and whether that is audible, I doubt it. I have a hard time even hearing differences between cables to begin with. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised if a certain highly sensitive measurement was found that would indeed change in a cable over time, although I would still have a hard time believing that it was audible. I've been told that different materials like silver, affect the sound, and while I've never heard it, I don't have any reason to believe otherwise. With that in mind, different materials have very different properties (and as someone mentioned, half-lifes), so it follows that the sound of these could very well change over time as well. But, I've never heard this.

In any case, if it isn't audible to me or any one else, then why split hairs over that? And if emaidel hears a difference, then that's all fine for him. The physics support the theory that sound can change in a component, even a CD player. Whether this is audible is impossible to debate since we will never know without actually being inside the brain of someone who does hear it, and that is physically impossible. To borrow from my college logic class: I know that it is possible, but I have yet to experience it and I could very well never experience it. However, that does not mean it's impossible.

Hmmm... interesting theory and it actually seems plausible.... I'm interpreting your comments to mean that burn in is not actually the improvement in performance of a component over time, but is actually a deterioration due to normal wear and tear that is often preferred by audiophiles...

So kind of like buying a new pair of shoes... at first they may feel too stiff and uncomfortable, but with regular use they deteriorate first to the point of being extremely comfortable and eventually until they are useless..

Luvin Da Blues
02-12-2009, 01:11 PM
So kind of like buying a new pair of shoes... at first they may feel too stiff and uncomfortable, but with regular use they deteriorate first to the point of being extremely comfortable and eventually until they are useless..

I just bought new shoes...I'll get back to ya on my findings. :cornut:

Groundbeef
02-12-2009, 01:14 PM
The physics of this example disprove your point. A lightbulb will measurably change over time. I suppose that this is true of tubes for the same reason. So for example, the bulb will have less brightness after x number of hours, and likewise the tube will have less edge to it after x number of hours as well. While the bulb loosing brightness is typically considered "deterioration", the tube loosing its edge is typically called "burn-in". In both cases, it's downhill from there, but for an audiophile, that may be an audibly acceptable, maybe even preferable.

Actually, you are reading more into my post than I expected. The example is not about the lightbulb. You are correct in that a lightbulb is on a 100% slope to total uselessness upon being lit up for the 1st time.

My arguement was on the actual wire bringing the current to the bulb itself.

If you have read all of my posts, you will see that I have been very careful on what I am talking about. I have stated numerous times, that I would entertain suggestions that over time, speakers evolve through use.

And, I would even go as far to entertain the possiblity that a tube could in-fact change the sound characteristics over time.

However, that is where I draw the line. With an analog source (record player, tube amp) there are lots of things that can affect the sound. Worn needle, old tube, new tube. But with a digital source such as a CD/DVD/SACD, what you get on day one is what you get on hour 300, or 3000. This is of course not including DVD/CD rot. But in that case, you are losing digital bits, not increasing.

The point of the OP was that his digital source had "burnt in". And after "burn in" his SACD/CD player is now playing more sounds than initially on the first play. And that is baloney. A digitial signal is either "on" or "off". Its not "halfway there", "all the way there after burn in".

That would be like suggesting that my casio digital watch tells better time after 300 hours because the circuitry has figured out a way to better channel the electrons from the battery to the cpu inside.

Or, in my instance, that my lamps look better after 300 hours of use because the cables are now used to carrying power.

nightflier
02-12-2009, 01:37 PM
Well let's make this even simpler, let's isolate the discussion to just the part that handles the bits, that is the DAC. Even this component has analog parts like capacitors that do change over time, as LDB correctly pointed out. There is no doubt in my mind that this is measureable with extremely sensitive equipment.

Whether it's audible is a matter of endless debate. Who knows, maybe emaidel's genetic code was blessed with bat-like hearing and the rest of us grunts got the standard issue. We simply will never know.

audio amateur
02-12-2009, 01:51 PM
...
Who knows, maybe emaidel's genetic code was blessed with bat-like hearing and the rest of us grunts got the standard issue. We simply will never know.
:lol: I love the choice of words

Groundbeef
02-12-2009, 05:23 PM
Who knows, maybe emaidel's genetic code was blessed with bat-like hearing and the rest of us grunts got the standard issue. We simply will never know.

I think in another thread he noted that he sleeps hanging from the ceiling....

E-Stat
02-12-2009, 05:58 PM
... why is it that none of you can accept that I do hear these things I'm stating, and that maybe I just may have a point here (as many others elsewhere do), and that I'm not just imagining things? I've been around long enough to know the difference between simply adjusting myself to the sound of my system, or to legitimate changes - good or bad - over a period of time. While audio memory is notoriously short, there exists the very real fact and sensation that when listening to a favorite piece of music, and hearing certain details and/or instruments that I didn't hear previously, then something is making a difference.
I'm with you. I don't obsess over break in effects, but have experienced them. The most recent example was when I replaced the cable between CD transport and DAC from an old Monster cable to a super wide bandwidth video cable sold by Blue Jeans. Initially, it was intolerably bright. I may have a slightly different perspective in that I have three systems and don't have to rely on any one as a point of reference. I can instantly compare one to another. I temporarily replaced the main transport with a spare cheapo Toshiba DVD player and let it spin a disk unattended to the DAC for about a week or so. That did the trick.

There is a retired engineer over at AA who goes by the moniker of Bold Eagle who coined the term "non-bright, non-loud" to denote what he believes is the audio truth. I agree and had the pleasure of meeting him and spending a most enjoyable evening at his house when business took me to Ohio where he lives. Whether we're talking audio or video, I find that the majority of folks I know prefer an exaggerated "technicolor" version of the truth. The very best examples of either I've experienced are at first blush most unimpressive. They are simply natural. No sizzling highs or vivid reds. Subtlety is the order of the day.

rw

RoadRunner6
02-12-2009, 11:11 PM
It was invented to keep picky audophiles out of the store long enough to exhasust the 30-90 day return policy...........(then Nightflier adds..maybe emaidel's genetic code was blessed with bat-like hearing and the rest of us grunts got the standard issue)..........I think in another thread he noted that he sleeps hanging from the ceiling

LMAO, really hard!

Don't really think it is possible to prove or disprove the break-in theory in this case from subjective opinions. I'll wait for an objective test that can prove the changes over time by measurable data. In the meantime I'm not going to hold my breath. IMO those who claim to have the experience and precision hearing to detect the changes also have the most active imaginations.

RR6 :biggrin5:

theaudiohobby
02-13-2009, 02:17 AM
I'm with you. I don't obsess over break in effects, but have experienced them. The most recent example was when I replaced the cable between CD transport and DAC from an old Monster cable to a super wide bandwidth video cable sold by Blue Jeans. Initially, it was intolerably bright. I may have a slightly different perspective in that I have three systems and don't have to rely on any one as a point of reference. I can instantly compare one to another. I temporarily replaced the main transport with a spare cheapo Toshiba DVD player and let it spin a disk unattended to the DAC for about a week or so. That did the trick.

Why is that burn-in is nearly always positive and the process stops stone dead when device owner is finally very satisfied with the sound? :confused5:

emesbee
02-13-2009, 04:06 AM
I'm fairly convinced that burn-in is genuine in regard to speakers. Its quite plausible that new speaker cones may be a bit stiff, and need a bit of usage before they loosen up and sound their best. I'm less convinced about burn-in with electronic components though, and completely sceptical about the idea of it applying to cables.

emaidel
02-13-2009, 05:02 AM
Well, let me see now that I've climbed back upright from my hanging perch inside my cave what all of this boils down to. Rather than eviscerate me by stating that my belief that I'm hearing improvements from my SACD player over time by saying that it's "pure B.S." or "bunk," or "baloney," perhaps it would be somewhat more politic to say that those of you who feel I'm not hearing what I believe I am hearing simply feel otherwise and dispense with the slurs.

If any of you choose to believe that burn-in is a non-existent phenomena, then that's fine. Just don't blast me, or others, who feel otherwise. The entire purpose of this thread was to state that my SACD player sounds better now than it did when I first connected it. Those are my observations, and I chose to share them with members of this forum. This is a forum of people who share great enthusiasm for audio, and the components that bring us sonic pleasure in our homes. Rarely have people unanimously agreed on anything in this industry, and opinions have always run from one extreme to another. If one disagrees, then it's best to say simply, 'I disagree," and leave it at that.

Ajani
02-13-2009, 05:31 AM
Well, let me see now that I've climbed back upright from my hanging perch inside my cave what all of this boils down to. Rather than eviscerate me by stating that my belief that I'm hearing improvements from my SACD player over time by saying that it's "pure B.S." or "bunk," or "baloney," perhaps it would be somewhat more politic to say that those of you who feel I'm not hearing what I believe I am hearing simply feel otherwise and dispense with the slurs.

If any of you choose to believe that burn-in is a non-existent phenomena, then that's fine. Just don't blast me, or others, who feel otherwise. The entire purpose of this thread was to state that my SACD player sounds better now than it did when I first connected it. Those are my observations, and I chose to share them with members of this forum. This is a forum of people who share great enthusiasm for audio, and the components that bring us sonic pleasure in our homes. Rarely have people unanimously agreed on anything in this industry, and opinions have always run from one extreme to another. If one disagrees, then it's best to say simply, 'I disagree," and leave it at that.

:thumbsup: You can't prove burn in exists, but neither can anyone prove it doesn't... so we really should keep this debate civil...

Anyway, the important fact is that you are clearly happier with the Marantz now then when you first bought it... It's always good to see an audiophile/enthusiast really just enjoying a purchase, instead of immediately wanting to upgrade it....

If I hadn't gone down the Music Server route, the Marantz SA8001 would definitely have been my CD/SACD Player...

I kind of hope that for the Model after the SA8003, Marantz includes the optical input now on the SA15S2 (and hopefully a coaxial as well)... Having Digital inputs on the 8001 is about the only thing that could have made it even more of a bargain... (well, that or stuffing the disc draw with $100 bills)...

Kevio
02-13-2009, 05:54 AM
:thumbsup: You can't prove burn in exists, but neither can anyone prove it doesn't... so we really should keep this debate civil...There is measurement equipment sensitive enough to to determine whether or not the signal changes over time. The performance over time of many of the components used in systems is well understood by manufacturers who do accelerated testing as part of their quality assurance processes. I believe we could get to the bottom of this if we were sufficiently determined.

Even though I've not done the measurements,I have to say that circuit theory, physics and manufacturer specifications do not predict a burn-in effect in modern solid-state electronics on the 200-300 hour timescale that you're talking about.

Is that sufficiently civil?

Groundbeef
02-13-2009, 06:10 AM
Well, let me see now that I've climbed back upright from my hanging perch inside my cave what all of this boils down to. Rather than eviscerate me by stating that my belief that I'm hearing improvements from my SACD player over time by saying that it's "pure B.S." or "bunk," or "baloney," perhaps it would be somewhat more politic to say that those of you who feel I'm not hearing what I believe I am hearing simply feel otherwise and dispense with the slurs.

If any of you choose to believe that burn-in is a non-existent phenomena, then that's fine. Just don't blast me, or others, who feel otherwise. The entire purpose of this thread was to state that my SACD player sounds better now than it did when I first connected it. Those are my observations, and I chose to share them with members of this forum. This is a forum of people who share great enthusiasm for audio, and the components that bring us sonic pleasure in our homes. Rarely have people unanimously agreed on anything in this industry, and opinions have always run from one extreme to another. If one disagrees, then it's best to say simply, 'I disagree," and leave it at that.

Emaidel:

Your title of "Burn-in time: it's no joke" was enough to drag me in. If you feel that your equipment is working better after time, I am happy that you are enjoying it better now than initially.

However, that doesn't "prove" that burn in is a real action.

As I have pointed out, why don't DVD's show more detail, or produce new scenes as they are used more often? Shouldn't "burn-in" be supported in video, as well as audio?

As asked by another poster, why does "burn in" suddenly stop at just the right time, for every beliver of the theory. Why are not audio boards lit up with stories of audiophiles disappointed that after "burn in" the equipment doesn't sound better, or perhaps even worse? Why is "burn-in" a wholly positive action? And why does it suddenly stop? Wouldn't one think that it continues with more use?

And finally, as far as civil discourse goes (with the exception of the grammer/spelling police) this thread that been nothing but civil. You ought to check out HDTV threads if you want to see some fireworks.

Simply saying "I disagree" gives absolutely no credence to my opinion. Just as you imply that your subjective, anecdotal experience is a substitute for facts, I am entitled to offer mine. As I, and others have stated, if you are happy with the performance of your equipment now, we are happy for you.

But to pass it off as the work of "burn in" is baloney. In my opinon.

02audionoob
02-13-2009, 06:29 AM
Why is that burn-in is nearly always positive and the process stops stone dead when device owner is finally very satisfied with the sound? :confused5:

Because the owner got accustomed to the sound and stayed accustomed to the sound. :idea:

Ajani
02-13-2009, 06:47 AM
Because the owner got accustomed to the sound and stayed accustomed to the sound. :idea:

This is what makes this debate so much fun... lots of possible explanations of what is actually occurring:

1) Burn in (other than with moving parts) is just in people's imagination.

or

2) Components sound better over time, like how a shoe feels more comfortable over time (until it falls apart) or like running water wearing down a stone in the river bed.

or

3) We get more in tune with the sound of our systems over time... so we are able to hear detail that we previously never noticed...

or

4) Any combination of the three...

GMichael
02-13-2009, 06:47 AM
I think that enjoying your equipment is a good thing. If it gets better over time, that's a great thing. It doesn't matter why.

This Guy
02-13-2009, 06:56 AM
Well, let me see now that I've climbed back upright from my hanging perch inside my cave what all of this boils down to. Rather than eviscerate me by stating that my belief that I'm hearing improvements from my SACD player over time by saying that it's "pure B.S." or "bunk," or "baloney," perhaps it would be somewhat more politic to say that those of you who feel I'm not hearing what I believe I am hearing simply feel otherwise and dispense with the slurs.

If any of you choose to believe that burn-in is a non-existent phenomena, then that's fine. Just don't blast me, or others, who feel otherwise. The entire purpose of this thread was to state that my SACD player sounds better now than it did when I first connected it. Those are my observations, and I chose to share them with members of this forum. This is a forum of people who share great enthusiasm for audio, and the components that bring us sonic pleasure in our homes. Rarely have people unanimously agreed on anything in this industry, and opinions have always run from one extreme to another. If one disagrees, then it's best to say simply, 'I disagree," and leave it at that.

Ok. I agree to disagree. I don't know how you hear the world as you don't know how I hear mine. I just know that I won't spend as much money as you do on cables, and I won't believe that digital devices like (SACD's) need a burn-in time until I see some evidence and/or until I hear a difference in sound after a "burn-in" period. Cheers.

Luvin Da Blues
02-13-2009, 06:57 AM
Just want to point out that with speakers(or any mechanical device for that matter) it is called Break In.

With electronics it's called Burn In. Big difference and not even comparable.

While I do believe that electronic components will stabilize their electrical characteristics, I don't think this is in the hundreds of hours, more like in the range of 1 to 10 hours.

Groundbeef
02-13-2009, 07:00 AM
I think that enjoying your equipment is a good thing. If it gets better over time, that's a great thing. It doesn't matter why.

The only caveat to this arguement is when companies capitalize on ignorance. If people perpetuate the myth that a pair of 12' cables that cost $7,250. (In 2007, I'm sure there are more expensive ones now).

http://most-expensive.net/speaker-cables

It does matter "why". If a member feels that sprinkling pixie dust on his receiver makes sound better, that's up to him. But if they are selling dreams, then they should be called on the carpet.

While beliving in "burn in" is harmless, and doesn't affect anyone, suggesting that paying too much for parts is harmeful for consumers, and the industry as a whole.

BTW, I've been passing out greenies for all in this thread. I've been enjoying it. So, if your inclined don't be shy about passing some to me. Click the "User CP" on the upper left if you don't know what I'm talking about.

GMichael
02-13-2009, 07:12 AM
The only caveat to this arguement is when companies capitalize on ignorance. If people perpetuate the myth that a pair of 12' cables that cost $7,250. (In 2007, I'm sure there are more expensive ones now).

http://most-expensive.net/speaker-cables

It does matter "why". If a member feels that sprinkling pixie dust on his receiver makes sound better, that's up to him. But if they are selling dreams, then they should be called on the carpet.

While beliving in "burn in" is harmless, and doesn't affect anyone, suggesting that paying too much for parts is harmeful for consumers, and the industry as a whole.

BTW, I've been passing out greenies for all in this thread. I've been enjoying it. So, if your inclined don't be shy about passing some to me. Click the "User CP" on the upper left if you don't know what I'm talking about.

You're gonna get in trouble Mr.

Feanor
02-13-2009, 07:59 AM
The only caveat to this arguement is when companies capitalize on ignorance. If people perpetuate the myth that a pair of 12' cables that cost $7,250. (In 2007, I'm sure there are more expensive ones now).

http://most-expensive.net/speaker-cables

It does matter "why". If a member feels that sprinkling pixie dust on his receiver makes sound better, that's up to him. But if they are selling dreams, then they should be called on the carpet.

While beliving in "burn in" is harmless, and doesn't affect anyone, suggesting that paying too much for parts is harmeful for consumers, and the industry as a whole.
...

Maybe we could debate the difference between "pixie dust" and "snake oil" for a while, ;) , you green chicklet hound, you.

Yes, you can pay 'way more than $7200. These Transparent Opus MM2 (http://www.transparentcable.com/products/show_product.php?catID=1&recID=24&modCAT=1)'s run over $30,000 if I'm not mistaken.

You and I agree, though, that there is a lot of imagination involved when comes to detecting small differences in sound quality. I'm skeptical when people talk about "huge" differences between interconnects for example.

E-Stat
02-13-2009, 08:13 AM
Why is that burn-in is nearly always positive and the process stops stone dead when device owner is finally very satisfied with the sound? :confused5:
I'm confused, too. Who said that?

rw

emaidel
02-13-2009, 10:08 AM
If a member feels that sprinkling pixie dust on his receiver makes sound better, that's up to him. .

But, doesn't the quality of the pixie dust make a difference? As for me, only the highest rated pixie dust will do...

Groundbeef
02-13-2009, 10:38 AM
But, doesn't the quality of the pixie dust make a difference? As for me, only the highest rated pixie dust will do...

I hear that Monster Cable and Bose have almost cornered the the market on Pixie Dust. However, Vizio is gaining market share buy only buying in bulk, and from low cost Chinese Suppliers.

I hear the next best things are cables that are bundled in rooms filled not with argone, but instead the flatulance of virgin pixies. Electricity almost has a magical capacity to flow through the wiring at twice the speed of light.

GMichael
02-13-2009, 10:45 AM
I hear that Monster Cable and Bose have almost cornered the the market on Pixie Dust. However, Vizio is gaining market share buy only buying in bulk, and from low cost Chinese Suppliers.

I hear the next best things are cables that are bundled in rooms filled not with argone, but instead the flatulance of virgin pixies. Electricity almost has a magical capacity to flow through the wiring at twice the speed of light.

Isn't that a little redundant?

Ajani
02-13-2009, 10:48 AM
Isn't that a little redundant?

You'd be surprised.... There are a lot of very promiscuous fairies running around...


@ Groundbeef - :dita: - that's for not giving me any greenies!!!

Groundbeef
02-13-2009, 10:59 AM
Isn't that a little redundant?

Just because you can't get a little pixie action doesn't mean the rest of us can't. Maybe your unit isn't "burnt-in" enough.

02audionoob
02-13-2009, 11:18 AM
But, doesn't the quality of the pixie dust make a difference? As for me, only the highest rated pixie dust will do...
I use only high-capacitance pixie dust made by hand in the Czech Republic.



You'd be surprised.... There are a lot of very promiscuous fairies running around...

I assume you'd find them in San Francisco.

GMichael
02-13-2009, 11:21 AM
Just because you can't get a little pixie action doesn't mean the rest of us can't. Maybe your unit isn't "burnt-in" enough.

I was thinking more along the lines of our very own little Pixie not being able to score any....

Groundbeef
02-13-2009, 11:23 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of our very own little Pixie not being able to score any....

I think he's swallowed enough Vizio dust, that all systems are corrupted. All circuits have been re-wired to provide minimal coherance, and system stability is suspect.:out:

nightflier
02-13-2009, 11:42 AM
However, that doesn't "prove" that burn in is a real action.

Nor does it disprove it.


As I have pointed out, why don't DVD's show more detail, or produce new scenes as they are used more often? Shouldn't "burn-in" be supported in video, as well as audio?

Good point. But has anyone actually tested this out? It would seem that this should be easier to test for than audio, since we are visually-oriented creatures and tend to be more critical of video. On the other hand, perhaps as a result of having to evade predators in our distant past, our hearing is actually much more sensitive to change than our vision. I'd like to see some more info on this topic.


As asked by another poster, why does "burn in" suddenly stop at just the right time, for every beliver of the theory. Why are not audio boards lit up with stories of audiophiles disappointed that after "burn in" the equipment doesn't sound better, or perhaps even worse?

It doesn't. I went back to some articles in Stereophile and they describe burn-in as a point when the audio reaches a level of acceptability. As I've said, with my concert-abused hearing, I'm no expert on this. But I do see the burn-in process as sort of a bell curve and that as the equipment ages, there is probably a gradual decline in clarity/definition and perhaps a gradual increase in warmth and even fuzziness. And that brings me to another point: how many of us really still have equipment, kept it since the beginning, and that has started that decline? Most of us upgrade too often to really notice it. Perhaps it is true that equipment that is 20-30 years old has declined to the point that we would never even own it anymore?



Why is "burn-in" a wholly positive action?

Only with respect that the sound becomes warmer and more palatable to our ears.


And why does it suddenly stop? Wouldn't one think that it continues with more use?

It probably doesn't stop, but rather follows a bell curve rise and then a slow gradual decline (see above)


But to pass it off as the work of "burn in" is baloney. In my opinon.

Well, if we all agree that the physics of "break-in" are not baloney, can we then not at least accept the possibility that "burn-in" is real?

We should also consider that all our systems are different. My systems tend to be on the warm side, because that is my preference. But if I had gone a different direction, for example and selected, oh I dunno, Avantgarde speakers, a flea-watt tube amp, and an ultra sensitive passive preamp, I suspect that my experience with burn-in would be heightened considerably. Maybe before we post our opinions about burn-in, we should take a look at what we're using to evaluate the effect. If you haven't listed your equipment, or haven't updated your profile in a while (I haven't either), perhaps a quick review is in order as well.

My "current" system:

- Audio Refinement CD Complete
- Music Hall MMF7 TT
- Goldring Eroica cartridge
- Musical Surroundings Phonomena phono preamp
- Plinius CD-LAD preamp
- (also: Odyssey Candella Preamp)
- Monarchy Audio SM-70 pro amps
- (also: Spectron Audio D1 amp)
- Talon Audio Khite Speakers
- lower-end Audioquest, Dayton & Tributaries interconnects
- Kimber 4TC speaker cables

Now it's quite possible that my current configuration is too dim (for lack of a better word) to let me hear the effects of break-in. It's also quite possible that my interconnects are, as a result of being so cheap, just not able to convey the necessary information. Honestly, I've done so much testing of different cables, components, and speakers, that I would probably disagree. The fact is, that all my testing is still nowhere near representative of the amount of testing I would need to have done to be an authority on the subject.

But the one thing I do know is that I like my current setup and I'm enjoying my music, and I'm guessing that emaidel is too. In the end, that's what matters. Testing can be a never-ending process eventually ending up in insanity. Sometimes, we just need to stop and listen to the music to get our bearings straight again.

I'm saying this as I am about to spend the better part of this weekend setting up a new sub... aaaarrrgghhhh!

Groundbeef
02-13-2009, 01:42 PM
@ Groundbeef - :dita: - that's for not giving me any greenies!!!

@ Ajani:


You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

I tried. My gun jammed.:frown2:

Groundbeef
02-13-2009, 01:46 PM
I'm saying this as I am about to spend the better part of this weekend setting up a new sub... aaaarrrgghhhh!

Thank God this is a family board. Because if not, that could have a completly different meaning.

RoadRunner6
02-13-2009, 04:03 PM
.....dispense with the slurs.....Just don't blast me.....If one disagrees, then it's best to say simply, 'I disagree," and leave it at that.


Groundbeef adds: "with the exception of the grammer/spelling police." That perhaps was directed at me but should have said referee rather than police.

Let me add that I think Emaidel is being a little overly sensitive here to the manner in which people posted in response to his thread. After all, he started it by "blasting" (oh yes, in a humorous way) Audio Amateur by what he thought was an error in spelling (actually grammar). It was only then that I decided to set the correction comment straight by explaining that AA had made a noun/adjective error rather than using the wrong word. Plus, the corrector himself was actually making some "inadvertent grammatical howlers" as well as using words very few of us (at least not the Pix) understand such as "malodorous."

One who starts the old "my experienced ears tell me that I can hear a difference between" my equipment after it is broken in, my speaker cables, my video cables, my audio cables, etc., etc., etc,, thread, should know by now that many here will respond with words like nonsense, baloney, etc (although with not any foolish bat humor :frown2: ). It will usually progress into an old fashioned donnybook. If you want the thread to remain ultra civil and polite then maybe you should post the rules at the beginning of your thread. For examples of very civil and polite posts check out some of the exchanges between the Pix and Woochifer. I don't really expect anyone here to simply say "I disagree" and "leave it at that." They usually will explain why they disagree. Aren't you interested in their side of the discussion?

If you are going to correct others spelling/grammar (even in a humorous way) then be aware of the old saying: "if you can't take it, don't dish it out."

RR6 :biggrin5:

simmel
02-13-2009, 11:18 PM
I meant no disrespect to you. In your thread, you said you were "sceptic," as opposed to "skeptic." Sceptic is awfully close to the word "septic," which has a completely different meaning, and refers to the material in cesspools, as well as to the manner in which they smell. I was making a joke, not trying to insult you.


"Sceptic" person who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs.

Collins English Dictionary

emaidel
02-14-2009, 05:26 AM
If you are going to correct others spelling/grammar (even in a humorous way) then be aware of the old saying: "if you can't take it, don't dish it out."

RR6 :biggrin5:

I realized my error, apologized, and the apology was accepted and that did, or at least should have, ended that aspect of the thread

The concept of burn in as being fantasy, nonsense, or a very real phenomenon has adherents on all sides. At least one other member (nightflier) has posted comments suggesting the possibility that it at least could exist. I believe it does, but I have no scientific proof that it does, nor any documentary evidence either. There are manufacturers out there who support my belief (Marantz, Parasound and Audioquest), but that doesn't place them, or me, in any special class or category. And no, I don't have the hearing capabilities of bats....

In the meantime, I'll continue listening to, and enjoying, my Marantz SA-8001. It's one of the best pieces of audio equipment I've ever purchased and is the only piece of gear that has a Stereophile Class-A Recommendation, which I consider quite something, especially when one looks as the astronomical price tags (often over $25,000) for other gear with the same recommendation. And if, as I've read elsewhere on this site, used 8001's can be had for $500, then anyone who doesn't have a good CD or SACD player shouldn't hesitate to snap one up.

Peace.

SlumpBuster
02-14-2009, 09:14 AM
Excuse me for speaking more than one language and having lived 18/20ths of my life in France.
Now, what exactly was wrong with what I said?

Not only is your command of english poor, so is your math. You have lived 9/10ths of your life in Fance, not 18/20ths. :thumbsup: j/k

My problem with the concept of break in or burn in for digital systems and electrical systems is pretty simple.

If it were true, entire industries and scientific fields would come to a schreeching halt.

Aerospace, communications, computer systems, astronomy, ect. all demand very strict tolerances in testing equipment and manufacturing. Break in suggests that not all information is being properly transmitted initially and that better transfer is occuring over time.

I don't see anyone at NASA saying "We have to delay this launch because the avionics system is not burned in yet!"

Digital systems and electrical systems replaced mechanical systems precisely for that reason. For example, fly-by-wire and drive-by-wire replaced mechanical systems because they are more precise, more reliable, and don't need to be broken in. Or, for example, no one suggests that you should not play Call of Duty 5 on your graphics card until you've logged 100 hours of word processing. Or even that Call of Duty 5 will get better over time (although it does :D). However, plenty of such rules exist for mechanical systems. No jackrabbit starts for 500 - 2000 miles, no clutch dumping for 500 - 2000 miles, ect.

E-Stat
02-14-2009, 10:49 AM
I don't see anyone at NASA saying "We have to delay this launch because the avionics system is not burned in yet!"
Given that their stuff is tested often years in advance, I'm not at all surprised. It's not a case of working or not working. The differences I and others hear are by qualitative degrees.

Regarding the spelling gaffes, how about "Fance" and "schreeching"? :)

rw

E-Stat
02-14-2009, 11:03 AM
"Sceptic" person who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs.

Collins English Dictionary
There are quite a few English words that have slightly different accepted spelling depending upon which side of pond you reside, such as:

sceptic -- skeptic
analise -- analyze
organise -- organize
favourite -- favorite
rumour -- rumor
centre -- center
theatre -- theater
manoeuvre - manuever
catalogue -- catalog
anaemia -- anemia
tyre -- tire

We Americans wonder things like why is "lieutenant" pronounced with an "F"? :)

rw

RoadRunner6
02-14-2009, 12:00 PM
Not only is your command of english poor, so is your math. You have lived 9/10ths of your life in Fance, not 18/20ths

I think AA (he is a university student) was trying to relate that the first 18 of his 20 years on the planet Earth were spent living in France. I think his English is excellent considering this fact, especially knowing that if he had uttered even a single word of English in those first 18 years it would have been off to the guillotine for him. In fact, his English is so good, I had no idea for a long time that he was not a native English speaker.

RR6 :biggrin5:

02audionoob
02-14-2009, 03:09 PM
I too found no problems with AA's grammar...and wondered why the criticism.

jrhymeammo
02-14-2009, 04:19 PM
In the meantime, I'll continue listening to, and enjoying, my Marantz SA-8001. It's one of the best pieces of audio equipment I've ever purchased and is the only piece of gear that has a Stereophile Class-A Recommendation, which I consider quite something, especially when one looks as the astronomical price tags (often over $25,000) for other gear with the same recommendation.

Peace.

I'm glad that you continue to enjoy the SA-8001. But, dont buy into that Stereophile's classification. It's absolutely meaningless without considering rest of the system. I, too, own the SA-8001 and it sounds muddy in my system, but it sounds like a perfect match in your system though. Class A in your system, Class C in mine. I think I need to get a different player, instead of complaining about. Anyhow, congrats.

JRA

emesbee
02-15-2009, 03:35 AM
There are quite a few English words that have slightly different accepted spelling depending upon which side of pond you reside, such as:

sceptic -- skeptic
analise -- analyze
organise -- organize
favourite -- favorite
rumour -- rumor
centre -- center
theatre -- theater
manoeuvre - manuever
catalogue -- catalog
anaemia -- anemia
tyre -- tire

We Americans wonder things like why is "lieutenant" pronounced with an "F"? :)

rw

One thing that throws me sometimes is the American use of the word 'check'. To me, the word 'cheque' and 'check' have two quite different meanings, whereas Americans use the word 'check' in both cases. ie: I might write a cheque for $100, but make a check on the weather, for example.

I remember as a student reading a passage in a textbook, which said something like 'a check is made for the balance'. It didn't make any sense at first, until we realised that the book was American.

Feanor
02-15-2009, 11:21 AM
There are quite a few English words that have slightly different accepted spelling depending upon which side of pond you reside, such as:

sceptic -- skeptic
analise -- analyze
organise -- organize
favourite -- favorite
rumour -- rumor
centre -- center
theatre -- theater
manoeuvre - manuever
catalogue -- catalog
anaemia -- anemia
tyre -- tire

We Americans wonder things like why is "lieutenant" pronounced with an "F"? :)

rw



We Canadians tend to be somewhere mid-Atlantic. So for example we tend to use ...
cheque
centre
theatre
favourite


on the one hand, but on the other ...
tire, (viz. "Canadian Tire Corporation")
catalog
manuever
analyze
criticize (vs.UK, criticise)
civilization (vs. UK, civilisation).

E-Stat
02-15-2009, 12:20 PM
One thing that throws me sometimes is the American use of the word 'check'. To me, the word 'cheque' and 'check' have two quite different meanings, whereas Americans use the word 'check' in both cases. ie: I might write a cheque for $100, but make a check on the weather, for example.
The word "check" is one of those words with lots of meanings both as noun and verb. Like one of our ex-presidents said of another: It depends... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0) :)

rw

Rich-n-Texas
02-15-2009, 12:56 PM
Huh. :idea:

A derailed thread that I had nothing to do with.

I must be getting old. :sosp:

emesbee
02-15-2009, 10:13 PM
We Canadians tend to be somewhere mid-Atlantic. So for example we tend to use ...
cheque
centre
theatre
favourite


on the one hand, but on the other ...
tire, (viz. "Canadian Tire Corporation")
catalog
manuever
analyze
criticize (vs.UK, criticise)
civilization (vs. UK, civilisation).





I tend to use the English spellings, because that was the way I was taught. (I was also born there.)

Here in Australia, the following are fairly standard usage:-

cheque
centre
theatre
favourite
tyre

American style spellings seem to be creeping in for some other words, although both spellings are often used, eg:-

color (UK colour)
harbor (UK harbour)
criticize (UK criticise)

etc.

audio amateur
02-16-2009, 07:21 AM
Thanks for the defence guys:D it feels like I'm back in time being confronted by my parents and having my elder siblings take my defence and speak for me :ciappa:


I think AA (he is a university student) was trying to relate that the first 18 of his 20 years on the planet Earth were spent living in France. I think his English is excellent considering this fact, especially knowing that if he had uttered even a single word of English in those first 18 years it would have been off to the guillotine for him. :
:yikes: okay, there's a little exageration in that :lol:
Actually both my parents are native English speakers, one being American and the other British. Even though I spoke most of the time in French (at school etc), I would speak mostly English with my parents.

nightflier
02-19-2009, 12:49 PM
Actually both my parents are native English speakers, one being American and the other British. Even though I spoke most of the time in French (at school etc), I would speak mostly English with my parents.

9/10, or 18/20, peu importe. Je croix que c'est un peu injurieux que vous ne possédez pas au moins une seule pièce d'équipement Français. Ce n'est quand même pas qu'il n'y a pas assez de choix! Et ce serais utile d'avoir une autre voix pour leur description - on en a bien besoin après avoir jeté tout ce bon vin Français à la demande du Cowboy de Texas ces dernières années, :p .

audio amateur
02-19-2009, 04:59 PM
9/10, or 18/20, peu importe. Je croix que c'est un peu injurieux que vous ne possédez pas au moins une seule pièce d'équipement Français. Ce n'est quand même pas qu'il n'y a pas assez de choix! Et ce serais utile d'avoir une autre voix pour leur description - on en a bien besoin après avoir jeté tout ce bon vin Français à la demande du Cowboy de Texas ces dernières années, .
:lol: What a suprise! Did you get any help writing that? ;)
Yes, I guess it is a little insulting to not have any French equipment. Actually, i'm not sure 'injurieux' is the correct expression, but I sure understood.
Are you talking about Rich in the last sentence? :p

nightflier
02-19-2009, 05:19 PM
Just practicing my French. Lived in Andrésy, a little spec on the Seine in the same department as Versailles for a few years. But at least I've owned a Micromega CDP, Monsieur!

Yes, that was a jab at Tex, but don't tell him. Once he finds someone to translate it, he might get angry enough to drive down here with his Hummer, break into my wine cellar, pour out my priceless collection of Bordeaux, and fill the bottles with Wallmart-brand whiteZin-in-a-box, just to screw with me. And then I'd have to kick him where it counts, and, well, people here like him to much to let him live the rest of his days screeching like a soprano.

E-Stat
02-19-2009, 05:28 PM
Did you get any help writing that? ;)
Maintenant pour le version pathetique! J'ai trois ans du Francais a l'ecole trente ans le plus hier. Ce probleme est il n'est pas le temp pour utiliser le Francais ici a d'Etats Unis. Merds pas. ?Quelle surprise.

raoul

Je ne sais pas ecrivez les accents egu et grave sur le keyboard. :)

RGA
02-19-2009, 08:25 PM
There are quite a few English words that have slightly different accepted spelling depending upon which side of pond you reside, such as:

sceptic -- skeptic
analise -- analyze
organise -- organize
favourite -- favorite
rumour -- rumor
centre -- center
theatre -- theater
manoeuvre - manuever
catalogue -- catalog
anaemia -- anemia
tyre -- tire

We Americans wonder things like why is "lieutenant" pronounced with an "F"? :)

rw

If you're Canadian it's worse because there is a mix of rules between the two countries. Argghhh We spell Tire as Tire but we spell Center as Center and I personally use the Z in organize but some Canucks use S.

audio amateur
02-20-2009, 08:13 AM
Maintenant pour le version pathetique! J'ai trois ans du Francais a l'ecole trente ans le plus hier. Ce probleme est il n'est pas le temp pour utiliser le Francais ici a d'Etats Unis. Merds pas. ?Quelle surprise.

raoul

Je ne sais pas ecrivez les accents egu et grave sur le keyboard. :)
A+ for the effort. 30 years since your French classes eh? Well bravo. I can imagine it ain't easy to practise it in the US.
So your name's Raoul? :p
Indeed, accents are a little tricky to do with a US Keyboard. Actually, I can't do them most of the time unless I switch to the French layout (I have a US Dell). I can however with Word and msn messenger, among other programs. For the aigu, it's Ctrl and ' at the same time then e. For grave, Ctrl with ` and then e.

GMichael
02-20-2009, 08:41 AM
To get back on topic; If you were to set me on fire, I'm sure that my sound would change as I became burned-in.

Ajani
02-20-2009, 09:21 AM
To get back on topic; If you were to set me on fire, I'm sure that my sound would change as I became burned-in.

I'd like to test that theory...

E-Stat
02-20-2009, 09:34 AM
A+ for the effort. 30 years since your French classes eh? Well bravo. I can imagine it ain't easy to practise it in the US.
I tried a bit two years ago on a Air France flight to Edinburgh when ordering wine, but when the attractive flight attendant responded, she went over my head tres vite and returned to speaking English when she saw the deer-in-the-headlights look on my face. I can read it s-l-o-w-l-y and digest, but it seems Parisian French is run at light speed. :)


So your name's Raoul?
Rough equivalent.

rw

GMichael
02-20-2009, 09:45 AM
Do I get to go Up in Smoke?

JoeE SP9
02-20-2009, 10:01 AM
Time to shake things up!

A couple of years ago I made some speaker cables from some CAT-5 Ultra I had laying around. About 30 hours into using them I heard a dramatic change in the middle of a song. It was as if a lot of spiky nasty sounding grit went away. I know you may be wondering what I was smoking. That's irrelevant. I heard a dramatic change. I was playing my Gold 20Bit Sony re-issue of Kind Of Blue. This is music I'm so familiar with I hum the solo's as they're being played. I have heard no other changes since then with those cables.

How about that, burn in and cable differences in one shot. I've got my bullet proof vest on. Let's hear it!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Ajani
02-20-2009, 10:10 AM
TI know you may be wondering what I was smoking. That's irrelevant.

It's very relevant... cuz I want some of that stuff!!! It might even make setting GM on fire more enjoyable (assuming that's possible)...

JoeE SP9
02-20-2009, 10:58 AM
I was smoking a cowboy killer (Marlboro). I was also drinking a Chimay.

GMichael
02-20-2009, 10:59 AM
For some reason, I don't feel safe anymore.

JoeE SP9
02-20-2009, 11:10 AM
Chimay never hurt anyone.

GMichael
02-20-2009, 11:20 AM
And what about the fire?

Auricauricle
02-20-2009, 11:48 AM
Je ne sais pas ecrivez les accents egu et grave sur le keyboard. :)

Mah lady can help you out with that one, mon frere! She is trilingual: German, le francaise and good, ole Southern American! Quelquefois, nous parlons en francaise parce que ils sont trop de gens ici, dans la centre ville...Horrible, simplement horrible, non?*

*Don't shoot me if this is f***d up, dudes....I'm burned out...

Ajani
02-20-2009, 12:04 PM
And what about the fire?

That might hurt a tad....

GMichael
02-20-2009, 12:58 PM
Hey! You know. Burn-in is no joke.

Ajani
02-20-2009, 01:06 PM
Hey! You know. Burn-in is no joke.

Depends on who you ask...

E-Stat
02-20-2009, 02:37 PM
Mah lady can help you out with that one, mon frere! She is trilingual...
Wow, fluent in three tongues! :)

rw

Luvin Da Blues
02-20-2009, 02:47 PM
Depends on who you ask...

If ya ask me, burn in is the little twisted paper bit B4 ya gets to the herb?

GMichael
02-20-2009, 02:49 PM
That's harsh.

Auricauricle
02-20-2009, 05:25 PM
Bitter herbs...

JoeE SP9
02-20-2009, 05:40 PM
If ya ask me, burn in is the little twisted paper bit B4 ya gets to the herb?

No! Your fingers get to burnin' if you don't pass. That's why I'm an audiophile. When I pass it I say to the other guy "cough ear, ear cough".:ihih:

nightflier
02-20-2009, 05:48 PM
That's why they make roach-clips. They're even more popular in France....

Luvin Da Blues
02-20-2009, 05:50 PM
That's why they make roach-clips. They're even more popular in France....

Have ya every tried to catch one of those little buggers? Then try to put a clip on them, Just nuts.:crazy:

I'm stickin' to me peep.

GMichael
02-21-2009, 06:24 AM
Pro-toe-pipe.