Burn-in time: it's no joke.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Groundbeef

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:

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audio amateur

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.

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.

[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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

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?

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audio amateur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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..

---

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....."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

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.

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.

I'd like to recall, Emaidel, that I wasn't mocking your original post in my first post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audio amateur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audio amateur

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by This Guy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

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

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

...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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightflier

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoadRunner6

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightflier

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:
Attachment 5125[

RR, I tried PMing you but your box is full

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.

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.

Cars have many moving parts, and the engine definitely has a break-in period. It's not a good example.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ajani

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

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)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by This Guy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by This Guy

...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:

1. All wires and circuit board connections are analog;
2. 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);
3. 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 might be helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Groundbeef

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightflier

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ajani

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightflier

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.

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.