Break In Period???

[Florian]

People belive in a thing called "GOD" and whatever facts are against such an existance they will not move from their believe.

PS: I dont believe in GOD but do believe in burn in....and you know why ? A: Because it makes me happy and i enjoy spending 500$ on a cable and want to believe it sounds better.

[Shwamdoo]

No, it doesn't mean his observations are invalid. However, without some scientific rigor you can't claim the observations are valid either.

True, you can't claim something to be a fact without having proof. However, you can observe two different speakers and come to the conclusion that one outperforms the other. You may not have proven it, but it can be accepted as true.

"Scientifically" the CD is a far superior format than the LP. "Scientifically" the solid state amplifier is far superior to the tube amplifier. Yet scores of audiophiles utilize these technologies simply because they sound better to them. Not because of how they perform on paper. Music is about sound, not numbers.

[FLZapped]

FLZapped, it may be true that Kaboom did not perform his comparison of his friends expensive system with the Radio Shack stereo in a scientific manner, but does that mean that his observations are invalid? Do you not agree that a "mega buck system" will outperform a Radio Shack stereo?

Perhaps, perhaps not. I was pointing out that he should also consider the acoustic environment in which these two systems were being listened to in. One would hope that a person who spent mega-bucks on a system would have put some thought into the acoustics. On the other hand, the RS system may have been in a garage......

He admitted that there were exceptions, as I previously observed. What was he overlooking? Why didn't he question himself on that?

-Bruce

[noddin0ff]

Actually, scientifically speaking his observations are invalid. Anecdotal evidence or obervations under uncontrolled conditions are simply not accepted as useful evidence (i.e., they are worthless).

True, you can't claim something to be a fact without having proof. However, you can observe two different speakers and come to the conclusion that one outperforms the other. You may not have proven it, but it can be accepted as true.

OK, a few comments on the Scientific Method. Scientifically speaking his (Kaboom's) observations are neither valid or invalid. They are simply observations. They may be dead-on accurate by all known criteria or they may be wacked. They can be accepted as true, or accepted as the ravings of a lunatic. To scientifically assess their validity, you need to perform listening tests in a way that removes, to the greatest degree possible, subjectivity, extenal influences, and random variation. If you want to survey a correlation between cost and quality you need a sufficiently large sample size that covers the cost range of interest. Do that and you can say with a fair amount of certainty that, within your ability to measure, the conclusions are valid. But who wants to ruin their hobby with all that rigor?

"Scientifically" the CD is a far superior format than the LP. "Scientifically" the solid state amplifier is far superior to the tube amplifier. Yet scores of audiophiles utilize these technologies simply because they sound better to them. Not because of how they perform on paper. Music is about sound, not numbers.

Let's not confuse scientific with subjective. 'Superior' is subjective. 'Better' is of course subjective. Define your criteria and you can begin to talk 'scientific'. There is likely a well established scientific correlation between what people believe sounds better and how components 'perform on paper'. Numbers are just symbols used to describe quantities. Numbers can be subjective. Sound can be quantified. Music can by symbolized. What goes on between you ears is subjective, but can be scientifically assessed and correlated to the measurable performance of the components producing the sound. Enjoy your music.

[Kaboom]

heyheyhey halt it boyz!!! it wasnt me talking about radio shack!
in fact i've never auditioned an audioshack stereo. the speakers quoted were heard using the same amp, source and cabling in the same room in the same shop, and the cartridges (well except the koetsu, dang...) were not only auditioned but OWNED, meaning they were heard with my OWN system that, after a couple of years, i think i've gotten to know pretty well.
however, the musical fidelity and the rotel were auditioned with different systems, although in the same room. However i would find it pretty hard to be unable to tell the diff between the bottom-of-the-line rotel and the near-the-top-of-the-line Musical fidelity.
cheers!

[noddin0ff]

Sorry Kaboom, probably sloppy referencing on my part. I think the radio shack components were hypothetical so there's no actual shame in hypothetically listening to them!

[A-Audiophile]

Cable Theory

[DGillies]

I wonder if the concept of "burn in" is more a case of familiarisation with a product. I think it was in a Soundstage review of the Odyssey Stratos that I read which proposed this theory. Does the product's sound actually change, or is it that, over time, we become more accustomed to it's characteristics over the product which it replaced? Maybe it is our brain and ears that burn in to these new qualities.

I guess the only way to "prove" this theory is to purchase two identical products, burn one in and leave the other in the packaging, and then do direct A/B comparisons. Given that most of us cannot afford to do this and that results could still be subjective this may not be practical anyway.

I am no physicist, but could their be even a brief burn in period for cables as the atoms and their electrons are subject to current flowing through them which energises them? Even a small change in heat may also make the atoms move faster and therefore affect the sound. A theory I had was that each listening session had a period of burn in, however brief, for the cables. I have no proof, only opinions, but when leaving my my equipment powered up in idle for some time, I still feel that the sound mellows a little after half an hour or so. As the electronics were already warmed up it wasn't any of these although it may be the speaker's drivers warming up too.

Also, let's not forget that sound quality is a matter of taste just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One persons listening nirvana can sound dreadful to another. Do most agree that different cables can sound different and that the same cable can sound different in another system? It's all good fun isn't it?

[RobotCzar]

Of course people are welcome to read the Audioquest PDF, but you would be wasting your time. It is full of misdirection and technobable without one whit of evidence. If you don't want to waste your time consider these quotes:

"Sometimes we are faced with empirical data that we simply don’t understand. However, such a lack of understanding doesn’t mean the phenomenon is magical or incomprehensible."

Then again, sometimes we are not faced with any emprical data at all--such as in this article. Lack of understanding of emprical data also doesn't mean claims are true.

"There is some disagreement as to whether skin-effect is relevant at audio frequencies. The argument concerns whether skin-effect causes damage other than simply power loss."

Just who is in disagreement is not clear. I suggest that physicists and EEs are in desagreement with audiophiles and marketeers about "damage" done. The fact that there is "some disagreement" does not, however, stop Audioquest from continuing on to discuss the importance of skin-effect.

"Probably the biggest obstacle to predictably assembling a high performance audio or video system is too much thinking...."

For sure too much thinking is a problem for the ridiculously misleading statements in this article. Actually, any thinking is likely to expose this farce.

I admit I could not bring myself to read all of this dreck, but in case you would like to know how what it says about cable "run-in" consider this:

"A cable’s performance takes time to optimize because of the way a dielectric behaves (the way the insulating material absorbs and releases energy), changes in the presence of a charge. Cables will continue to improve in sound or picture quality over a period of several weeks. This is the same reason amplifiers, preamplifiers and CD players also require an adjustment period. The key difference between “adjusting” and “breaking-in” is that things don’t “un-break-in”, however, electrical components do “unadjust”. Several weeks of disuse will return a cable to nearly its original state. "

Note the claim with zero empirical evidence. A little too much thinking will indicate that the time to "optimize" the "way a dielectric behaves" is pretty damn short (tiny fractions of a second). Nothing is said to indicate that the performance of a dielectric changes significantly over repeated use--which is the real question. The paragraph moves quickly to imagined benefits and made up defiinitions (un-break-in indeed) after nonsensical technobabble.

This article is a disgrace and evidence of how screwed up home audio really is. You certainly cannot trust a document written by a marketing department. Don't take my word for it (I'd prefer you didn't beleive anything said in this opinion forum), ask a real physicist or EE, NOT any audiophile, recording "engineer", or salesman.

[RobotCzar]

I need a completely new post to discuss the foolish, unscientific statements regarding ABX testing in the audioquest article. There are three pages of diatribe regarding the supposed flaws of ABX testing. This response is required as ABX testing contradicts all the claims made in article. Consider this:

"In an ABX set-up, the listener does not know whether or not there has been any equipment change at all. ABX testing is not a question of how a fixed but blind “A� compares to a fixed but blind “B�. Because there are too many unknowns, the ABX test becomes primarily an opportunity for embarrassment. Context is everything, and the ABX set-up is one very distorted context, much too far removed from the purpose of an audio system. ABX fans believe that a lack of repeatable hierarchy proves there are no valid differences. Others of us believe the same evidence proves that the ABX test is an invalid methodology. "

First off, this paragaph is rambling, just what is the point? Why does a listener need to know if there is an equipment change? Can't he hear the difference due to skin effect, oxygen pollution, lack of run-in, etc. etc.? Well, that is embarassing now isn't it? How ironic that the quote complains of "too many unknowns", the truth is that ABX testing removes all the unknowns except for the different components (e.g., cables). There are no unknowns available to provide audible differences. Contnext is everything? It certainly is when it comes to audioble cable differences, the context of expecting to hear differences can work miracles.

What this heck is "repeatable hieracchy"? Yes, rational people including scientists look for repeatable evidence, what exactly is audioquest offering--optimal performance when the context is right?

Who are the "others" that believe that the failure to distinguish cables in ABX testing "proves" that the test is invalid? Not scientists, they wouldn't accept any evidence but a blinded test. Not judges, blind testing is accepted as valid proof in courts, subjective evaluation is not. Could it be high end audio fans that find that valid testing is invalid because it does not confrim their beliefs and opinions? So much for "empiricial data". ABX testing is THE most valid empirical data available, but it doesn't fit with the "theory" presented by maketing reps and audio crackpots so it must be invalid. Right.

You know, I don't care what you think about scientific proof, one can use common sense to understand that a claim must have some evidence or it is just hot air. The audioquest article is enough hot air to lift a battleship.

[shokhead]

People belive in a thing called "GOD" and whatever facts are against such an existance they will not move from their believe.

PS: I dont believe in GOD but do believe in burn in....and you know why ? A: Because it makes me happy and i enjoy spending 500$ on a cable and want to believe it sounds better.

Wow! I was trying to wake up until i read this post.

[shokhead]

I dont belive in burn in of new electronics,maybe older tube stuff. I do think its a good idea to let stuff warmup abit before you use it.

[JoeE SP9]

I have found that components do sound different after a burn in. Several years ago I purchased a very highly rated portable CD player. Because of the rave reviews I plugged it into my rig. After using it for about a week I heard a very audible difference (playing background music) from one song to the next. I replayed the first selection and it sounded different. I realize this is all subjective but when the change is enough to bring me out of the latest edition of the Dune series there is something going on. When I was working as a biomedical engineer we always burned in new electronics for 100 hours. This was mostly to weed out premature failure. I don't think it made any HP heart rate monitor display a crisper picture on the CRT.

[RobotCzar]

I have found that components do sound different after a burn in..

Joe,

I don't doubt that you found the compoents sound different after burn in. But, I do question the source of that difference. I mean, it could be that your hearing or perception changed. Considering that your mood, your health, the weather, what you ate, etc. could all affect how well you hear (or what your hear) we could be talking about a change in you rather than in the components. (Changes in the compoents can be measured and we could be sure of their changes after "burn in".).

Scientists have long ago established that your beliefs and expectations can and do affect what you hear. You could be expecting a difference and therefore "hear" one. Perhaps your perception improves after listening for a time, that is possible isn't it?

So, you actaully found that components sound different TO YOU after a time. And, you can't be sure what the cause is. Isn't that a more accurate statement?

[JoeE SP9]

Joe,

I don't doubt that you found the compoents sound different after burn in. But, I do question the source of that difference. I mean, it could be that your hearing or perception changed. Considering that your mood, your health, the weather, what you ate, etc. could all affect how well you hear (or what your hear) we could be talking about a change in you rather than in the components. (Changes in the compoents can be measured and we could be sure of their changes after "burn in".).

Scientists have long ago established that your beliefs and expectations can and do affect what you hear. You could be expecting a difference and therefore "hear" one. Perhaps your perception improves after listening for a time, that is possible isn't it?

So, you actaully found that components sound different TO YOU after a time. And, you can't be sure what the cause is. Isn't that a more accurate statement?

I was only reporting on one specific component. A portable CD player. The difference in sound was from one selection to the next while playing music at background levels. Your attempt to rephrase what I said is inaccurate and rather presumptuous. I did not believe that components could change their sound as much as the one portable did. I have never heard that sort of change before. I purchased my first piece of audio equipment in 1967 and this was the first and only time I've heard an difference like that. I am a BS EE and have a decent knowledge of components and circuit design. I am at a loss to explain the difference that I heard. This is/was not a case of "wishfull" thinking. I neither wanted nor expected to hear any difference. I was distracted from the novel I was reading by the change in sound character. If someone had told me they had experienced this kind of change I would be skeptical also.

[shokhead]

Batteries?

[JoeE SP9]

Batteries?

Good one but I was running off the wall wart. At the time I had read about 100 pages and it was the second CD of that session.

[noddin0ff]

So, you actually found that components sound different TO YOU after a time. And, you can't be sure what the cause is. Isn't that a more accurate statement?

I have never heard that sort of change before.... I am at a loss to explain the difference that I heard... If someone had told me they had experienced this kind of change I would be skeptical also.

I don't see the inaccuracy or the presumptuousness. He's only suggesting that factors other than the component influence the perceived sound, as any skeptic would. It's a neat story; we'd all like to try to figure out what caused the difference.

[Critofur]

The primary purpose of "break in" is for the customer to keep the product longer rather than returning it quickly for a refund, after the customer has had the product for a while they are less likely to bother to return it at that point.

Now, there are some changes in a speaker, or a tube amp over time of course. But cables? well, they could corrode or the connections could get dirty and that would increase resistance.

Do electrons become finer with aging, like cheese or wine? :P I guess smaller electrons give you better "microdynamics"? :P

[JoeE SP9]

I feel a need to clarify. The change I heard was not over a period of time. It was from one selection to the next on the same CD. I immediately replayed the selection before the change and it had also changed. As I said, this was not a subtle difference but a change dramatic enough to divert my attention from a new novel while music was playing at background levels.When this happened I did check all cables connectors and tubes and found nothing amiss. Although I do not subscribe to the expensive cable or exotic capacitor school of thinking, I have replaced resistors caps and cables over the years and have never noticed much if any difference other than increased self satisfaction. Those subtle changes we think we hear over time have always for me become non-existant after close inspection. A different case is output tubes going bad or pre-amp tubes becomming microphonic as these things are easy to hear.

[RobotCzar]

I feel a need to clarify. The change I heard was not over a period of time. It was from one selection to the next on the same CD. I immediately replayed the selection before the change and it had also changed. As I said, this was not a subtle

I'm still not sure I understand what you experienced, but it seem you are saying that the first track you play sounds bad and then things get better? I am not sure what that has to do with burn in (or "run in") but it does indicate that electronics can go bad and effect the sound of what we end up hearing (I realize no one has ever claimed otherwise). It sounds to me that your player is simply defective, which is probably the case with any unsubtle audible changes in audio electronics. Do you see a connection with the problem you heard and the idea of burn-in or run-in?

I suppose it is necessary to make the point that, in my opinion, it is possible to have audible differences due to electronics. And, I don't know anybody who has ever claimed otherwise. The contention is that properly performing components (i.e., components that are performing within their spec AND have specs that are reasonable) do not have audible differences. I think there are plenty of components that make it past Q/A that have audible problems--these could contribute to the belief that there are major audible differences among electronic audio components.

I grant that a problem that only occurs on the first track played is strange. I have a CD player that consistently mistracks (briefly) after about playing for 5 minutes and then has no problem regardless of how long it is played. I assume it is defective, but the problem is too trivial to pay to fix (but is damned annoying).

[JoeE SP9]

I'm still not sure I understand what you experienced, but it seem you are saying that the first track you play sounds bad and then things get better? I am not sure what that has to do with burn in (or "run in") but it does indicate that electronics can go bad and effect the sound of what we end up hearing (I realize no one has ever claimed otherwise). It sounds to me that your player is simply defective, which is probably the case with any unsubtle audible changes in audio electronics. Do you see a connection with the problem you heard and the idea of burn-in or run-in?

I suppose it is necessary to make the point that, in my opinion, it is possible to have audible differences due to electronics. And, I don't know anybody who has ever claimed otherwise. The contention is that properly performing components (i.e., components that are performing within their spec AND have specs that are reasonable) do not have audible differences. I think there are plenty of components that make it past Q/A that have audible problems--these could contribute to the belief that there are major audible differences among electronic audio components.

I grant that a problem that only occurs on the first track played is strange. I have a CD player that consistently mistracks (briefly) after about playing for 5 minutes and then has no problem regardless of how long it is played. I assume it is defective, but the problem is too trivial to pay to fix (but is damned annoying).

Please don't rephrase what I said. I heard a difference from one track to the next. Nowhere did I say anything about the first track on a CD. The change was permanent. It sounded as if blankets had been removed from my speakers. Stop trying to read things other than what I said. To re-iterate: I have been an enthusiast since 1967. I have owned many varieties of speakers and electronics. I have scratch built amps and preamps and I have modified regular production gear. I am a BS EE and have some knowledge of circuits. The portable in question is a Technics. I would be the first to say that all properly functioning gear sounds alike. My lady friends may not agree with me on that. They seem to have a preference for tube gear. Some of you will attribute that to a roloff in the high end of tube gears frequency response. If that is so neither my ears nor my test gear can hear/measure it. Once again I will say "If I hadn't heard the dramatic change firsthand I would not have believed someone else reporting it". I think I'm going to build a better power supply than the wall wart and listen for any more differences.

[RobotCzar]

Please don't rephrase what I said. I heard a difference from one track to the next. Nowhere did I say anything about the first track on a CD. The change was permanent. It sounded as if blankets had been removed from my speakers. Stop trying to read things other than what I said. To re-iterate: I have been an enthusiast since 1967. I have owned many varieties of speakers and electronics. I have scratch built amps and preamps and I have modified regular production gear. I am a BS EE and have some knowledge of circuits. The portable in question is a Technics. I would be the first to say that all properly functioning gear sounds alike. My lady friends may not agree with me on that. They seem to have a preference for tube gear. Some of you will attribute that to a roloff in the high end of tube gears frequency response. If that is so neither my ears nor my test gear can hear/measure it. Once again I will say "If I hadn't heard the dramatic change firsthand I would not have believed someone else reporting it". I think I'm going to build a better power supply than the wall wart and listen for any more differences.

Rephasing is a very good way to clarify miscommunication. And, if you are going to post in forums like this, get used to rephasing--it happens a lot. I am sorry if you think I am trying to read something into what you said. I can't figure out the point of your post in regard to burn-in.

Actually, your lady friends seem like a more interesting topic. You say they prefer tubes? Anybody else notice if women seem to have a preference for tube sound?

[JoeE SP9]

Rephasing is a very good way to clarify miscommunication. And, if you are going to post in forums like this, get used to rephasing--it happens a lot. I am sorry if you think I am trying to read something into what you said. I can't figure out the point of your post in regard to burn-in.

Actually, your lady friends seem like a more interesting topic. You say they prefer tubes? Anybody else notice if women seem to have a preference for tube sound?

My first wife awakened me to the sensitivity that she had in the sound of my rig. She could come in the front door and tell when I had changed my power amps. She thought that tubes sounded better and would not hesitate to say so. She also played music very loud. Once she blew the 5 amp fuses I had in the speaker lines. As for me, the more tube stages I use the less my lady friends complain and the more they ask for music. This has been quite good for my personal life.

As for my original post, I had thought that I heard minor differences in gear as it burned in but that was subjective and I couldn't rely on that as an true indicator of differences. What I heard was such a difference I have been curious since.

[Critofur]

...They seem to have a preference for tube gear. Some of you will attribute that to a roloff in the high end of tube gears frequency response. If that is so neither my ears nor my test gear can hear/measure it....

Hmm ~ that's interesting, I haven't really enjoyed music much anymore since I lost my tube amp more than 10 years ago. Rarely, once in a while, I will still experience that tingly bliss feeling listening to a song but just sitting down and listening to a whole CD is not pleasurable anymore. I've got an Onkyo TX-DS787 reciever which I find to be completely awesome for home theater use but somehow tedious to listen to music on.