Break/Burn in. Is it Real?

[allthumbs]

Going back to my post that you  quoted and its opening paragraph and given it  is more than likely my lack of ability to be articulate than your misreading of it but here it is again:

 

"It's kinda amazing how science is often co-opted on the basis of its ignorance and shortfalls of the undiscovered, the not yet found, the remaining unknown factors and the unprocessed new information that comes to light as science itself advances day by day,  to bolster a case for the purely subjectivist case.  Their is no lack of irony there. But why not hey? "

 

Perhaps you can explain how this tallies with your understanding of my intent when you write:

 

1 hour ago, rawl99 said:

BUT, to suggest that we know as much as you seem to suggest is curbing the avenues for further study and research.

 

 

[rawl99]

On 20/09/2020 at 2:09 PM, MLXXX said:

In retrospect it would have been good to have set up a pair of condenser microphones near the listening chair and to have made a recording immediately before and immediately after moving the speaker cable.

 

The dramatic degradation could then have been shared with people here by uploading the two recordings. (Or, alternatively, keeping an open mind, if the recordings sounded the same, that could have led to head scratching: "Why is the difference I heard not revealed in the recordings?". )

 

I note that the usual explanation provided for not making an audio recording of a change to an audiophile set-up is that the change would be too too subtle to be captured that way. However in your example, "a non-audiophile individual would have picked it in 2 seconds".  So presumably it would have been possible to hear some difference in a recording of the sound near the listening chair even, even if the recording were made with only semi-professional equipment (e.g. with microphones in the hundreds of dollars range, and an audio interface (with XLR mic inputs and say 96kHz 24 bit output) costing a few hundred dollars.

The example here is rather different to a "classic" burn-in scenario of listening to equipment after many hours of use (and possibly after a number of weeks have gone by) and comparing that with one's memory of the sound when the device was brand new and first switched on. However it would still be possible to record the different sounds of the classic scenario with microphones at the beginning and after a period of use. It would be important though that the microphones were not moved. Also, ideally, the air temperature and humidity would be the same for both recording sessions.

I would suggest that you wouldn’t have a sh#t show of measuring the difference with a couple of hundred dollar microphone on a sound card.  
This is the point that I am continually trying to get across to people.

When we are talking the differences between new-production valves vs NOS valves, differences between resistors, differences between capacitors, differences between pieces of wire and types of dielectrics, differences in vibration isolation, how does recording it on some rather ordinary mic and sound card and then playing it back on some rather ordinary sound system prove anything at all?

Most people apparently cannot hear the difference between power cables.  On a decently resolving system the differences can be quite obvious to the vast majority of listeners.  Yes I can give an example of exactly this.  Waiting on a response to another post before I share that one.

 

 

We are talking a million dollars worth of top-shelf equipment to get the performance we had.

In an expertly treated and tuned room

Add on top of that close to 200k of digital playback equipment.

And then you expect people to be able to play back that recording through their $5000 system with a home theatre receiver connected to home theatre speakers and be able to discern the difference.........

‘Give me a break.

One experience that amused me with this same system was that when sitting in the listening chair you could hear the effects (with eyes closed) of somebody opening or closing the lid of a laptop on a small table next to the listening chair.

It had a repeatedly noticeable impact on the sound staging.

Try that in your room.

 

Having said that, I have heard plenty of million dollar plus systems that I would not bother to sit down to listen to.  Lots of money does not equal a great system.  It merely means an expensive system

But a lot of money very carefully invested and a lot of trial and error can result in spectacular sound.

That I have witnessed and experienced many times.

Equally, great talent with tuning electronics, speakers and complete systems can result in spectacular performance for relatively modest outlay. Eg $20k to $50k rather than $500k to $1m.

The downside is that typically the time it takes to follow the dead-end pathways to achieving great sound and to then learn the skills to take you there can be decades.

How much does that invested time cost one in reality??

 

Till later Sir

Rawl

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

50 minutes ago, allthumbs said:

Well let's start with you pointing out precisely and exactly where I used the word "exactly" in regards to  what you say I claimed to know  and secondly where I suggested anything of the kind. 

 

I fail to see the point you are endeavouring to make.

 

 

As I see it the point is:

We don’t understand exactly how electricity works. Therefore if someone hears something that couldn’t possibly be caused by electricity (according to our understanding) then our understanding of electricity is lacking.

 

Similarly with gravity. The fact that some people can levitate is proof that our understanding of gravity needs updating  

[stereo coffee]

Amplifiers  do need a burn in time.

[sir sanders zingmore]

Well that settles it then 

[Assisi]

2 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Well that settles it then 

Good one @sir sanders zingmore.  I do not think that the expression "Burn in" is appropriate.  I consider that "Settle in" is more apt in the context of what actually happens over  a period of time as the sound can change and improve.

 

John

[sir sanders zingmore]

10 minutes ago, Assisi said:

Good one @sir sanders zingmore.  I do not think that the expression "Burn in" is appropriate.  I consider that "Settle in" is more apt in the context of what actually happens over  a period of time as the sound can change and improve.

 

John

Hi John

I'm not sure that I understand the distinction? Do you see "burn in' as something different from "settle in" or do you think that are the same thing and just that "settle in" is a more appropriate term?

[bob_m_54]

12 hours ago, rawl99 said:

That s a cop-out!

You have a truck-ton (technical term) of experience so please give me a specific gauge of wire where such thermal effects will harm the wire.

Current as related to resistivity as related to thermal heating such that it is detrimental- so awg please

That's my point though. In a very low current situation as you quoted, there is nothing to cause any change in the physical properties of the metal in the wire, unless you're using ridiculously small wire, down to single (hair sized) strands. Wiring that small simply isn't used in audio equipment. That's why I don't buy into such thing as wire "burn in" in amplifiers. ... burn out, yes that's real...

 

And no, I'm not going to sit and do the maths for you, as @Ittaku linked, there are plenty of wire charts and voltage drop calculators around for you to use. (admittedly, that one doesn't go to small enough units for your situation), but it isn't relevant to my point.

[Cloth Ears]

On 21/09/2020 at 12:16 PM, bob_m_54 said:

My example was a bit tongue in cheek. But the point I was making is that if the phenomenon of wire "burn in" is actual, then it would affect all types of electronics equipment, not just audio gear.

[sarcasm]But Bob, my refrigerator has now been plugged in and on for the better part of 12 months - and the food in there is so much cooler and tastier than is was at the end of last year.[/sarcasm]

 

I know of no amplifier manufacturer that recommends any amplifier usage requirement before use. Any reputable maker would do their own burn-in prior to offering them for sale if it were, indeed, required.

 

Ears often require burn-in time for new equipment.

[bob_m_54]

13 hours ago, rawl99 said:

Oh absolutely.

Which is why if you look at any of my posts where I have written about the burn-in process I will always test periodically with a known datum.

That way the comparison is between known datum (placebo if you wish) and DUT ie device under test.

The comparison time period is then a few hours (to allow for cable settling and device warm-up) and the ear/brain does not ‘adapt’ to the new sound.

As I mentioned earlier I seem to be blessed with a pretty good long-term audio memory.

Or perhaps I should say I used to have, and I am not too sure how good it is now.

I have mentioned elsewhere that a couple of years ago I was a rather sick little puppy and spent a couple of months ‘relaxing’ (trying not to die) in hospital.

That experience has done some unpleasant things to my long-term memory unfortunately.

So I shall need to test out my long-term music memory again and see how it rates these days.

It is a wee bit challenging to have that ability compromised - understatement for the year (decade......?)

 

Cheers boss

Rawl

See, this is something I find hard to come to grips with. How do you know your audio memory is/was that good? How did you test it? Surely testing with technical instruments has far more reliability than human perception.

 

Even over a just few hours the environment we are in and our physiology can change enough for us to perceive things differently.

[Assisi]

43 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Hi John

I'm not sure that I understand the distinction? Do you see "burn in' as something different from "settle in" or do you think that are the same thing and just that "settle in" is a more appropriate term?

Hi Trevor,

The latter. "Burn In" to me suggest that something becomes hot enough to burn.  That doesn’t happen of course.  I have said in this thread before, that I know that if I change or move anything in the system it is highly likely that there will be a degradation in SQ for a period of time.  My way of understanding what happens is that everything has a natural level of resonance.  Moving something can change the natural resonance level.  There will be a time period required for the resonance to settle back to it natural level and hence the SQ I expect.  That is why AB testing for me is not viable. 

I expect that others may be sceptical of my perspectives but so be it.  To me it is real.

John

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

12 hours ago, rawl99 said:

One experience that amused me with this same system was that when sitting in the listening chair you could hear the effects (with eyes closed) of somebody opening or closing the lid of a laptop on a small table next to the listening chair.

It had a repeatedly noticeable impact on the sound staging.

Try that in your room.

Thank goodness that doesn't happen in my room (or in any live, unamplified performance I've ever been to either).

How on earth do you get to enjoy music if the soundstage changes every time you scratch yourself? Sorry but that doesn't sound like a good way to spend a million dollars. 

[sir sanders zingmore]

23 minutes ago, Assisi said:

Hi Trevor,

The latter. "Burn In" to me suggest that something becomes hot enough to burn.  That doesn’t happen of course.  I have said in this thread before, that I know that if I change or move anything in the system it is highly likely that there will be a degradation in SQ for a period of time.  My way of understanding what happens is that everything has a natural level of resonance.  Moving something can change the natural resonance level.  There will be a time period required for the resonance to settle back to it natural level and hence the SQ I expect.  That is why AB testing for me is not viable. 

 

I expect that others may be sceptical of my perspectives but so be it.  To me it is real.

 

John

 

Thanks John, that makes sense. I agree that the term "burn' has some connotations that may change the way people think about what's supposed to be happening 

[PositivelyMusicallyGeared]

Run-in then.

[stereo coffee]

1 hour ago, Cloth Ears said:

[sarcasm]But Bob, my refrigerator has now been plugged in and on for the better part of 12 months - and the food in there is so much cooler and tastier than is was at the end of last year.[/sarcasm]

 

I know of no amplifier manufacturer that recommends any amplifier usage requirement before use. Any reputable maker would do their own burn-in prior to offering them for sale if it were, indeed, required.

 

Ears often require burn-in time for new equipment.

The infamous bathtub curve, gives reason why good manufacturers will test electronic components   https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/bathtub-curve

 

Different types  of test will minimize the time taken to approve a product as good to go, seen here at 31.30   https://duckduckgo.com/?q=PS+Audio+Factory+Tour&t=lm&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DRRs6OBAv5kQ

 

If we then go further & analyze individual components within any given amplifier, we find many individual temperature coefficients ( tempco ) 

applying, that can and do then change the conduction characteristics. The extent to which any amplifier manufacturer will go to  assess how these characteristics then combine with other components similarly exhibiting temperature coefficients, leads to certain designs being far better than others. 

 

The Quad 405 and current dumping amps in general,  as example set out to make no user adjustments necessary, which was as a result of the amplifier having good design with regard to the output transistors being controlled earlier in the circuitry.  http://hifisonix.com/peter-walkers-current-dumping-amplifier-from-1975/

 

However there are still temperature coefficients that are outside of the current dumping circuit, such as rectifiers.  Hence allowing amplifiers generally to have a burn in time is needed, simply as temperature factors to allow components to settle.  Which is not to say all amplifiers have sufficient design time or thought to adequately account for temperature.   https://e2e.ti.com/support/audio/f/6/t/501999?LM3886-abnormal-operation-at-low-temperature

[MLXXX]

22 hours ago, rawl99 said:

We are talking a million dollars worth of top-shelf equipment to get the performance we had.

In an expertly treated and tuned room

Add on top of that close to 200k of digital playback equipment.

And then you expect people to be able to play back that recording through their $5000 system with a home theatre receiver connected to home theatre speakers and be able to discern the difference.........

‘Give me a break.

One experience that amused me with this same system was that when sitting in the listening chair you could hear the effects (with eyes closed) of somebody opening or closing the lid of a laptop on a small table next to the listening chair.

It had a repeatedly noticeable impact on the sound staging.

Try that in your room.

The experience of the moving of a reflecting object creating a discernible audible impact is not restricted to uber expensive setups.

 

Another common way to change the perceived sound (including the apparent sound stage) is by rotating your head slightly, or -- if standing up -- by taking half a step to the left or to the right. Changes resulting from moving reflecting objects in the listening room or shifting the listening position or orientation can also be picked up with microphones and the differences detected on playback. This is easy to demonstrate by repeatedly playing a CD track, recording the sound with a stereo microphone on a tripod first in one part of the room, and then a few centimetres away. The stereo recordings made with one and the same tripod position will be able to subtracted from each other to create a null. Those recordings made with non-identical tripod positions will not null nearly as well (particularly for higher frequency components of the waveforms). 

 

However the fact that the sound can be audibly different to the human ear with these sorts of small changes is generally unimportant because multichannel sound in a listening room is never going to be uniform. It will always vary somewhat with listening position. For example, if a listening chair is moved a couple of centimetres as a result of vacuuming the floor and if a listener then sits in the chair with exactly the same posture as before the chair was moved, the listener's ears will be presented with slightly different sound fields than was previously the case. It's very possible (I'd suggest more likely than not) that the listener won't realise there's been a change because too much time will have elapsed since they were last seated in the chair (and with the same posture).  And in any case, such a change in the sound presented to the ears would typically be minor even if presented as an instantaneous A B test.

 

There are also perceptual differences in looking at a painting, if you tilt your head or move  a few centimetres in any direction. You are still able to appreciate the painting.  Even a very low resolution camera will be able to show the difference in viewing perspective arising from a shift in viewing position of a few centimetres, or a tilt away from a horizontal viewing orientation.  And if a laptop lid is moved such that sunlight is reflected onto the painting that very possibly will also show up in the camera image.

 

There are so many examples of changes being able to be recorded.  Your example of movement of a reflecting surface (a laptop lid) affecting the sound field in a listening chair would fall squarely within the capabilities of readily available microphones and ADC audio interfaces to detect. It would be necessary though for the microphone(s) to be very securely positioned. Also, the presence of other reflecting bodies (including any person making the recordings!) would need to be controlled.

 

You may have noticed how the sound in your listening room changes depending on how many other people are present in the room when a recording of music is being played.

Edited September 24, 2020 by MLXXX

[bob_m_54]

8 hours ago, stereo coffee said:

The infamous bathtub curve, gives reason why good manufacturers will test electronic components   https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/bathtub-curve

 

Different types  of test will minimize the time taken to approve a product as good to go, seen here at 31.30   https://duckduckgo.com/?q=PS+Audio+Factory+Tour&t=lm&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DRRs6OBAv5kQ

 

If we then go further & analyze individual components within any given amplifier, we find many individual temperature coefficients ( tempco ) 

applying, that can and do then change the conduction characteristics. The extent to which any amplifier manufacturer will go to  assess how these characteristics then combine with other components similarly exhibiting temperature coefficients, leads to certain designs being far better than others. 

 

The Quad 405 and current dumping amps in general,  as example set out to make no user adjustments necessary, which was as a result of the amplifier having good design with regard to the output transistors being controlled earlier in the circuitry.  http://hifisonix.com/peter-walkers-current-dumping-amplifier-from-1975/

 

However there are still temperature coefficients that are outside of the current dumping circuit, such as rectifiers.  Hence allowing amplifiers generally to have a burn in time is needed, simply as temperature factors to allow components to settle.  Which is not to say all amplifiers have sufficient design time or thought to adequately account for temperature.   https://e2e.ti.com/support/audio/f/6/t/501999?LM3886-abnormal-operation-at-low-temperature

Operating condition variations, due to temperature coefficient changes, would come into the realm of warm up though, not burn in.. All equipment will have a warm up period, even (especially) test equipment.

[Assisi]

10 hours ago, PositivelyMusicallyGeared said:

Run-in then.

We each may referring to two subtlety different or the same aspects of the topic.  I prefer Settling In.

John

[andyr]

1 hour ago, Assisi said:

We each may referring to two subtlety different or the same aspects of the topic.  I prefer Settling In.

John

 

But, John - shirley there's:

• 'run in' - aka 'burn in', and
• 'settling in'?

 

The former is the amount of time needed to change the way a component works - by, say mechanical break-in of a cone driver or a Maggie panel ... or a cartridge suspension.

The latter is the amount of time needed to bring circuit voltages up to spec, after switching on power.

 

Andy

 

 

[bob_m_54]

11 hours ago, andyr said:

 

But, John - shirley there's:

• 'run in' - aka 'burn in', and
• 'settling in'?

 

The former is the amount of time needed to change the way a component works - by, say mechanical break-in of a cone driver or a Maggie panel ... or a cartridge suspension.

The latter is the amount of time needed to bring circuit voltages up to spec, after switching on power.

 

Andy

 

 

And warm up.., LOL

[andyr]

31 minutes ago, bob_m_54 said:

And warm up.., LOL

 

"warm up" = "settling in", IMO.  

 

Andy

 

[Ittaku]

To me, settling in means grabbing a whisky or cognac to imbibe whilst listening.

[sir sanders zingmore]

28 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

To me, settling in means grabbing a whisky or cognac to imbibe whilst listening.

I like your thinking 

[Satanica]

48 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

To me, settling in means grabbing a whisky or cognac to imbibe whilst listening.

I'll take a nice cold IPA instead but I like your thinking.

[Assisi]

16 hours ago, andyr said:

The former is the amount of time needed to change the way a component works - by, say mechanical break-in of a cone driver or a Maggie panel ... or a cartridge suspension.

The latter is the amount of time needed to bring circuit voltages up to spec, after switching on power.

 

Hi Andy,

 

I am using the expression “settling in” in the context of what happens when you move components or cables.  To me the system takes a period of time from hours or days to settle again to what I consider to be its natural state or level.  For me it is not about what happens when a system is turned on and it takes a short period of time to warm up and reach full power charge and the consequential resulting benefits.   Below is a quote from a post from @rawl99earlier in this thread.  I think it is about the same thing that I consider to be settling in.  It is subtle but for me the phenomena exists.

"One reason I suggest this is because if I run cables in my system (any of them-power, speaker, Interconnect analog or digital) for say a period of a month and then I mechanically move the cable, there is a noticeable degradation in sound for a period of a few hours to a few days depending on the cable.

I can only guess that moving the cable is fracturing some of the microcrystalline junctions therefore affecting the signal conduction pathway.  As to how this fits in with the single crystal copper/upocc copper please bounce some ideas.

 

The other interesting observation is that if I run a cable in in a particular direction for a few weeks and then reverse the direction of the cable, it takes quite some hours or days for the cable to settle back to where it was prior to the direction reversal.  Is this due to the formation of some microscopic diodic junctions?

Or another mechanism? "

 

I said in an earlier post in this thread I am now reluctant to move things in my system due the potential to degrade the SQ for a period of time,

John

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Assisi