You, and everyone who thinks they hear equipment breaking in, need to read my articles about this topic at Dagogo.com;
Audiophile Law: Thou Shalt Not Overemphasize Burn In
and
Audiophile Law: Burn In Text Redux
The community needs to gain some perspective on how much of a range of perception humans have from day to day while listening. It's complete nonsense to think that we are more consistent than electronics, or that we can definitively assess changes to systems over days, weeks, etc. A great deal more humility/experience is needed in the audiophile community. :(
Enjoyment/perception of an audio system can change significantly, while there is no change in actual performance. This should be obvious as a result of establishing a very pleasing system and hearing more music on it over time. I have this experience perhaps two dozen times each year as I set up discrete systems and adjust to their performance. :) |
clearthink, to clarify for you, I do not believe you would be able to provide any evidence wherein I claim to be "independent, unaligned" as if unassociated with any magazine. I have disclosed consistently that I write for Dagogo.com.
Objective - I believe the community would see that to be the case, given the impossibility of any of us to rid ourselves of personal biases and preferences.
"promote and advertise" - Promote, certainly. Advertise. No, sir, absolutely wrong. I have no involvement whatsoever with anything associated with advertising, either with Dagogo.com, or any entity in the industry. If you have the perception that I have any involvement in advertising, or have conducted any activity remotely associated with advertising, then please correct that misperception.
I do not have an audio blog, so you are correct, no one reads a blog that does not exist.
I have no clue whether Doug Schneider (note the spelling difference) is as you claim, and this is yet another case of mistaken identification. Perhaps that is why this all strikes you as strange, odd, and unusual. If that has been the case, then perhaps it will all be resolved now. What I find strange, odd, etc. is that for all these years in the industry, I have never met Doug Schneider.
Finally, it is ironic to me that articles that I was not commissioned to write, nor were solicited, but were written simply as informative guides based on work done for my own benefit, experience, are questioned in regard to my motives and association as a reviewer. :(
|
atmasphere, thanks for the reasoned input! I conducted my comparisons, which satisfy my quest to discover whether break in is a real phenomena. Perhaps more accurately, it should be discussed as whether it is an audible phenomena. In my articles wherein I compared several products that were broken in to identical ones that were not - simultaneously, the outcome was not good for break in.
YMMV and it’s fun to explore such things! :)
|
invalid, that is precisely the comparisons I have done, not only with an amp, but with several components together! Read my articles "Audiophile Law: Thou Shalt Not Overemphasize Burn In", and "Burn In Test Redux" at Dagogo.com, and you will see that even multiple components and tweaks were unable to cause change to the sound quality.
I subjected all these items to what I call the Imbalanced System Test, wherein IF there is a significant change, there will be damage done to the soundstage, tonality, center image, dynamics, etc. Example; I recently had a niggling issue with the sound of a speaker system that influenced the entire presentation. I discovered that one of the small discs I place under the rear footer was not in place. Once put in place, the presentation was normal. Similarly, if there was, as claimed by so many�, significant improvement in sound quality, then when multiple products that are broken/burned in are used alongside the other channel where they are not, there should be a noticeable, significant difference resulting in poor sound quality.
There was not, which leads me to the conclusion that all the machinations and concern about break in is a waste of life. :) |
I'm not denying atmasphere's discussion of measured differences. In fact, I have heard of it before. No surprise. The question is whether those differences are resulting in audible differences, and whether that can be demonstrated. If it could be shown that the measured differences in the internal parts affected the measurements of the component, then that would be strong evidence that an actual change has happened. Do we have such a study? If not, why not? If the community is so hot to prove break in is real, then wouldn't we think that those with the equipment to measure should have already done so? What's the delay? And, what if it turns out that the changes to internal parts do not change the overall measurements, or do so in such a seemingly insignificant way that it does not support strongly the contention that the components sound has changed? I'm open to discovery by measurements. I'm also open to discovery by actual system building. :)
You guys disdain as if 1. measured differences in internal parts must verify perceived changes to prove the gear sounds differently. That is not demonstrated until my above criteria has been met. 2. Perception of break in proves the gear is really changing. That also is not demonstrated. It is quite possible, given that I have discussed in my articles the very strong possibility that "break in" is a subjective process, that the measured changes to internal parts is not audible/measurable, and that my comparison which shows no perceptual difference between multiple pieces of gear, some broken in and some not, is upheld.
I have said all along that anyone can do the comparison. Go ahead, mockers, do it. See, I mean, hear, what happens (or not). Just be prepared to be humbled. Your big, major, sizable, etc. break in changes when actually compared in a more controlled setting are imperceptible. You can apply your own golden hearing to assess. :)
BTW, some of you can't help yourselves in applying cynical religiously related analogies. I'm not so soft that I can't take it. But, remember, it can go both ways. I hope you will show the same grace if the tables are turned sometime. :)
|
rodman99999, by your comment, " If I'm found religiously putting my faith in measurements and theories. developed in the 1800s and found sorely lacking, in the early 1900s, to explain what was so commonly being observed in the universe," that is a mischaracterization (intentional or out of ignorance I cannot tell) of the state of the scientific debate. I put a great deal of weight in current science. You seem misinformed. The bulk of the scientific evidence supporting my faith has developed in the past fifty years in sciences such as Information Theory, Astrophysics, and Molecular Biology that were in their infancy half a century ago. Perhaps you are unaware of books such as "Carved in Stone," which use data from the oil industry's drilling in another developing science, Lithography (pertaining to study of the Earth's rock layers) to create a coherent model of the Flood. I suggest you take a look at Michael Behe's "A Mousetrap for Darwin" to see how the playing field has shifted in molecular biology.
I'm not flaming you, I'm informing you.
When I was a more ignorant, arrogant audiophile I had extreme confidence that I was indeed hearing changes to gear. Time and experience - well, actually, building hundreds of systems - taught me that I needed to test, albeit informally, received wisdom of the community. I discovered many of the things in regard to system building that are deemed to be true simply do not advance audio systems all that well. Some, like belief in break in, actually are disadvantages to building better systems. I'm not interested in explaining it all here, but persons who wish to contemplate it will realize the strength of my assertion. I conclude that one of the reasons break in is so much defended in this community is because it is a primary way to satisfy the seemingly insatiable hubris of audiophiles. There are few things more arrogant in this hobby than declaring you can hear changes to gear over long periods of time and being unwilling to accept evidence that disproves it simply because YOU did not do so. :)
If your pride is so fragile that you will only believe it if you hear it for yourself, then by all means go ahead! Be precisely like those cable deniers, with the same arrogance and skepticism, who won't believe unless they experience for themselves. If you have no interest in such a comparison to demonstrate to yourself, then I would be wasting my time to continue to debate it with you. :)
|
rodman99999, thank you for the correction, that you were specifying electrical theory. I appreciate the clarification. Ok, I'll "untrigger" on that topic. In regard to physics and QM, take a look at Spephen Meyer's "Return of the God Hypothesis". My guess is you would chew through the math pretty easily.
Now, when it comes to my term "Law" as applied to my principles for audio system setup, who's triggered? ;) I use it tongue in cheek, obviously, because my testing is informal and not measurement driven, not strong enough to produce real laws. However, when I have set up dozens of systems and they all react the same with my methods, then I have much more happening than coincidence. Ergo, laws. You certainly have principles you espouse here, with some force (pun!), I add. So, lighten up, too. :)
Decades ago, I was an overconfident audiophile, and I would have argued vociferously the exact opposite, the popular perspective, on break in. It's stunning how building many systems opens up discoveries and allows one to dismiss misnomers. I do not expect anyone who has not built many systems to discover such things, and I expect the average hobbyist to vehemently disagree with me. They simply do not have the means - without a direct comparison - to gain the one thing they will trust, their own experience. They choose to accept their own thought process over reported results. Everyone determines the authorities they will or will not accept, and that determines much of one's results. Certainly sensory adaptation plays no possible role in it. :(
I guess audiophiles have never experienced wearing Blue Blocker sunglasses, and over time adapting to them so thoroughly that they no longer are weird in terms of their effect on the environment. We all know that the chemical structure of the glasses is changing, the color is shifting. Nothing like that could possibly be happening in terms of adaptation to sound over time. No, we are much more consistent than electronics. You wills say that changes to internal parts are the cause. I have made challenges to that argument.
To consider the influence of sensory adaptation to have no involvement is circular reasoning. It changes because I hear it! I hear it, so it's obviously changing! I used to be like that. :) |
