Burn-in time: it's no joke.

[02audionoob]

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?

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

[Ajani]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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'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]

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?

I'm confused, too. Who said that?

rw

[emaidel]

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]

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]

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]

Isn't that a little redundant?

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


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

[Groundbeef]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[nightflier]

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]

@ Groundbeef - - 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.

[Groundbeef]

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]

.....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 ). 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

[simmel]

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]

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

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]

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. 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 ). 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]

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