Break In Period???

[RobotCzar]

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

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).

Speaking outside of science, his observations are also invalid as we have no idea what factors matter in making a cheap system sound cheap. Some of us claim that only the speakers, room, and recording matter. So, if you spend more money for those things, you could improve quality significantly. If you spend more money on things that do not matter (do not result in audible differences or improvements), then no improvement in system quality can be expected. It make no common sense to say "everything matters" any more than it does to say "nothing matters" (every system sounds the same).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.