"Burn in" Are you serious?

It never ceases to fascinate me at the ultimate degeneration of virtually all audio forums into a widespread bitch session about 'cables'. With almost religious fervor the two camps bellow and dispute & very rarely do the twains meet, even for a cup of tea. I am quite frankly amazed that people can really care THAT much about what other folks beliefs are with regards to the topic. I have personally concluded, through my modest experimentation in the audiophile realms, that we are dealing with a very abstract notion here. I think components and systems do ultimately rely on an intricate synergy of wire, transformers, capacitors, plugs, etc. which all combine and interact in a unique fashion that certainly creates a particular sonic character. Is this character 'better' than another system? Maybe...maybe not. One system's technical specs may measure out in a most immaculate fashion, but sound good to no-one. I will say, and this is not simply my notion, that we cannot conclusively measure everything we hear with empirical scientific data. Just as you cannot measure everything you taste, feel, and smell with your other senses and how they are thus interpreted by your mental faculties. Specs could probably measure out equally on two different units but exhibit entirely different characters. Why? I don't really know. It is a very complex issue. The audiophile hobby often approaches a passion akin to that of the alchemists from days long past. It may have been their ultimate quest to "turn lead into gold" as it were but the ultimate result was a transformation of themselves in the process. I leave you with one notion to ponder. It is a field of scientific thought that enters the realm of abstraction inherent in fields such as quantum physics but is certainly food for thought. A gentleman by the name of Heisenberg established the principle of Indeterminism which, recognized the discovery that the act of measuring always alters that which is being measured. This, of course, turns our everyday experiences into a continuous and unrepeatable evolutionary process. On that note, I've just gotta say happy listening to all and Merry Christmas.

I always subscribed to the idea of burn-in previously, having experienced the sound of a new component blooming and evolving over time. I've also put new components into my system that never became appealing no matter how long they seasoned (usually cables). As a result of this thread I tried a little experiment with new and burned-in cables. I bought a new set of Cardas Golden Reference interconnect, 1m length, for my turntable. Instead I thought it would be better to use the new cable on the CD player and transfer my existing identical but burned-in cable from the CD player to the turntable. This gave me an opportunity to compare the two cables to each other with relative ease by listening carefully to the old cables on the CD then replacing them with the new. Much to my surprise I heard very little difference, if any. The new cables sounded great right out of the box. And Cardas is one of the strongest proponents for burn-in. Go figure. Given the disparity of experience expressed here it's clear that burn-in has many complex variables. My simple experiment can hardly be extrapolated to the broader context of burn-in but it's got me thinking. Great thread!

Jostler3, well said.

Brulee: You ask a very fair question, and the answer is, No. If I had experienced the same change that Perfectimage experienced, I would not conclude that burn-in was a real phenomenon. The reason I wouldn't should be obvious from my previous posts: I could not be sure whether the change I perceived was caused by a physical change in the equipment or by my own acclimation to the sound. I would be more willing to attribute that change to burn-in if some physical explanation were available. I'd also be more willing to attribute it to burn-in if someone were to demonstrate that acclimation doesn't really happen. Until that time, I remain a skeptic. You're free to remain a believer. And anyone who's on the fence (lurkers, obviously, not posters) can consider both our points of view, do their own listening, do their own reading, and make up their minds for themselves. You and I are both helping them do that, which is why I think these theological arguments really are worthwhile.

Do we know the boundaries of quantum physics? Did Max Planck explain it fully or just make us aware of its existence for others to expand on? Will we ever understand it fully? Yes indeed Bmpnyc here we go round and round in the "Circle Game". I agree with the proponents, for whatever its worth. Have heard it on some gear and not on others. Why? It is one of those things that hasn't and to date can't be fully described scientifically. Those inquiring minds that do hear it and ask why and are perservering enough to find an answer may one day be able to explain it to the rest of us.

BTW, in my above post, I did not listen to my cables while I burned them in, so there is no way that I got used to them. I listened to them, flinched, disconnected them, used other cables while I connected mine to device I have that generates pink noise for several days, put them back in, and did not flinch.

Brulee - my question would then be, have you given up any interest in determining the reason for burn-in? I'm not being critical if you have given up any interest in examining the technical possibilities behind what you've experienced and attributed to burn-in, but it would confirm the point several have made that this discussion is pointless since it has no possibility for resolution. The parallel reference to the existence of God suggests that point of view is that burn-in has to be taken solely on faith, since the cause of its effects can't be proven, but the effects have been experienced.

I'm guessing the Jostler3 HAS taken the time to do the comparison as we all have to when we buy a new component and, like many, did not hear an effect. This has been my experience as well. If I had heard major differences, I believe I would be very aware of them as I have made many changes to my system that caused changes, both profound and subtle, that I noticed. Every time I hear a change, I try to explain it to myself, and I'm sure I don't always identify the reasons correctly. That's why I like this type of board. In any case, my point is that I don't think anyone who heard a difference would attempt to deny the difference just to stick to making a point that a certain phenomena doesn't exist.

Jostler3, you are right, I do not have a technical reason why burn-in exists, I have never seen God but that does not mean God does not exist. If you had experienced what Perfectimage did with the two pre-amps would that have convinced you of burn-in or do you need the reason for burn-in to be explained and some how, if possible, scientifically explained. In other words, would you believe what you heard. I think debating this is silly when you can take the time, if you really wanted to and do the comparison yourself. I hope you don't think I am trashing your views, I am not. As you pointed out, I do not have an explanation for burn-in. I don't need one cause I hear it.

The BurnS Sisters (as in plural): Jeannie, Marie, and Annie.

After stumbling upon their great concert a few weeks back, I recently bought some CDs of THE BURN SISTERS, a trio of folk/rock/country/blues genre-bending crooners who spout forth 3 part harmony with genetically-coded ease so satisfying that my wiggling has caused burn-in of the upholstery of my listening chair! Check 'em out (Philo Records), and happy holidays! Ernie

I think that you may be on to something Redkiwi. While many burn in beleivers think that they have been upgrading their systems all of these years, they have in reality been doing just the opposite. May as well just chuck it all in and go back to the crystal radios of our youth. I wonder if they can be tweaked, upgrade the crystal, find a taller floor lamp to clip it to...

And how come my buddy says he enjoys music on my gear, is he just humouring me? Or does listening to each others' stereo three times in the last three months constitute burning our brains in. Something does not compute.

Call me a fool, but I can't help myself, I have to re-enter this debate... oh please stop me Lord!!! If burn-in was just getting used to the sound, then my system must be really bad. Because this means the unmusical sound I heard when I first plugged my gear in is still there, only I am not noticing it anymore. Yet when I go to someone else's place, who knows how to put a system together, I often enjoy music on their system straight away. This clearly means their systems are so much superior to mine that even while my brain is getting burned into its sound, I can really get into the music. This leads me to the conclusion that when my best buddy leaves these shores to head up a consultancy in Singapore, I should just buy his stereo and his house so that I can get a hold of his wonderful system - then wait a couple of weeks for my brain to burn-in and the half mill or so it all cost will have been worth it. Tell me where I am wrong, quickly before I write the cheque.

Or perhaps if he just exercised more, he wouldn't jostle so much.

Jostler: Expectation Bias is a two way street and may explain why you do not hear burn in. Although it seems that many of the members at this site appear to be well versed in white papers, most have progressed beyond their limitations to the real world of hearing and believing -vs- reading and believing. Many of our scientific principals are also in fact faulty and have been proven to be so over the past 25 years or so not necessarily to be replaced by new correct theories, but disproved nonetheless. IMO much of the modern technology that we take for granted today crashed to earth in the late 40's and has been being reverse engineered for the past 53 years or so (yes, I am one of those). If you do not hear a difference, then fine, but how about letting us in on more of what you do hear for a change? Don't you think that this approach might be a little more rewarding to everyone involved.

Here we go round the merry go round. Happy holidays to all.

Perfectimage: Yes, people who firmly believe that two things will sound the same are more likely to hear no difference between them. But I'm not saying," It can't be true because I can't hear it." What I'm saying is, the most plausible explanation for what you are hearing is that you become accustomed to the sound. If you want to present a more plausible explanation, feel free, but you have to do better than "that doesn't mean it doesn't exist." What physical changes take place in a wire after an electrical current passes through it, and how do those changes affect subsequent currents that are passed through it?

If it goes to reason that if someone can hear a diffrence because they want to couldnt the reverse be said that some people dont here the difference because they dont want to. Just because there is a science to pchycoacoustics doesnt mean it applies in every instance their is a disagreement. Just because I cant explain it in a way that convinces you doesnt mean it doesnt exist. And lastly just because someone cant hear the difference doesnt mean someone else cant. I use to run a small metal fabrication plant. The properties of metal changes during anneling at certain tempatures and after passing current through it. I think someone above had it right. Go out to Radio Shack and buy two pairs of cables and compare them after one set is burned in.

Jostler; Read, reread, and reread Redkiwi's above post. I'm outta' here. Have fun. Craig.

Brulee: There is no physical explanation for why most categories of audio equipment would behave in the manner you and others describe. (Though there is a lot of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo about "protons and electrons aligning" and such.) But there is a very simple psychological explanation for why you might think burn-in was happening even if it weren't. It's called "expectation bias." Now, that explanation might not be correct, but at least I have an explanation. You don't.

Jostler3, I think many of these posters do not need to read about psychacoustics, they know what they are hearing. I like to think that my mind is open and what I hear is what I hear. I sometimes wish this was not true as burn-in would not be so painful. In many of the manuals of my equipment, the manufacturer will mention the burn-in process. How do you explain the post that Perfectimage left. Was he hearing things. I think it is simple to find out for yourself, Quit reading and start listening. I can't believe anyone who has been doing audio has not experienced burn-in. I hate to think that I have been fooling myself for all these years.

Craig, et al.: Anyone who's convinced that he has developed his hearing beyond that of mere mortals is not going to be convinced by an appeal to scientific evidence. But anyone who maintains an open mind on the subject should get himself down to his local college library, find an introductory text in psychoacoustics, and start reading. You'll soon understand why some of us treat claims of burn-in with such skepticism.

Redkiwi, I feel your pain, and hope I have not contributed to it. As to the relative nature of my perceptions of my equipment when new as compared to a period following electron streaming, I can forcefully and authoritatively enjoin the "burn in" camp, I think. Of course, since the entire universe is simply a concept within the confines of my own consciousness, and you all are but figments of my imagination, I can only say "bravo" to myself for creating such interesting characters to entertain and cajole. Hurry, before I wake up, and send me to Circuit City.

Bravo, Redkiwi. Jostler, If a stereo system sounds fuller (more bass) after breaking in a cable you say I have no way of knowing if there truly is more bass or if I am imagining it, I don't think so. I will not debate the obvious. If my toe hurts more today than yesterday, I know I am not imagining it, and if my stereo system has a different sound with the same source at the same volume, I am not imagining that either. I am not talking about subleties that only a seasoned pro can discern, I am talking about obvious differences that can be percieved by almost any person.

Boy do I get tired of these endless and pointless debates on whether or not someone's opinion about their own experience is deluded or real. What do you hope to gain - petty points scoring? Certainly noone is winning any of these debates. Some believe they have heard the sound change during burn-in, or when comparing new equipment to burnt-in equipment. Some believe this cannot be so, either because they have never heard it themselves, or because it takes them out of their comfort zone where they thought everything was explainable. This thread looks like the Monty Python skit where the chap pays for an argument and just gets meaningless contradiction. We have posts from people who seem to me to be simply trying to be right, and not listening to the posts of others at all. Is that what you are here for?

Charlie.... that's heavy! Have you been nipping on the "cooking sherry"?...Hitting the egg nog a little early?.... listening to too much "Joshua Judges Ruth"? Forgot to turn the hounds out tonight? or what? I'll be ashamed to come back to "the Forum" until I understand it... I'm too long removed from academia. I hope it means that in some cases, burn-in differences are real-- in your opinion of course. Cheers :>) Craig.

Relativism: a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing and hence not true to the nature of independent reality and that holds that absolutely true knowledge is impossible because of the limitations and variability of sense perceptions or that reality as it is in itself can not be known by minds whose modes of thinking and perceptions are essentially subjective or that thinking and perceptions sees relations of one thing to another only and not the intrinsic nature of an object and hence are merely symbolic.

Hi Jostler; It took me several years to acquire "critical listening skills", and using these skills is quite a bit different than listening for pleasure IMO. Perhaps you haven't expended the time and effort necessary to learn these, but many audiophiles have. If you are going to quote scientific evidence to support your position, then please do so. So far you've just stated opinions (even about the "scientific evidence")-- like the rest of us. I would think that someone reading/participating on this site would either have a different opinion on this issue, or more specific evidence for their "contrarian" view. No? Cheers. Craig.

I think perfectimage just answered the question quite perfectly.

I had the oppertunity to compare a brand new pre amp with the stores demo pre amp in my home. Although both were the same brand and make preamp there was a huge difference. The one that was broken in was more open and a lot smoother.

Sorry, guys, but the laws of nature apply to "somewhat experienced audiophiles" just as much as they do to everyone else. It is quite common to hear changes in the sound of an audio system over time. But there is no way for you to know whether that perceived change is the result of a change in the sound of the system or a change in your perception of the system. (Unless you simply assume, contrary to all scientific evidence, that your memory for sound is perfect--but that's not knowing, that's believing.)

Jostler, It is true that people will grow accustomed to certain types of sound over time, but that does not mean that they cannot tell the difference in sound quality before and after a break in in period. Also we are not really talking about the same "people" here. We are mostly talking about a group of somewhat experienced audiophiles, as it would not even be an issue with the majority of consumers. But even an "average Joe or Jane" listening to a component or a cable before, in between and after a break in period would probably notice a difference if asked to pay attention to the quality of sound for a few minutes. I have occasionally asked my wife to compare sound, and for a non- audiophile with little patience for my my audiophile leanings, her observations are keen and are almost always similar to mine. Also, the components I have bought (DVD player, Mini Disc recorder, Reciever) showed no change at all after 10, 100 or 300 hours, but the cables I have bought did show a definite change after a while.

Just wanted to see if you were awake Jostler. Actually, your assertion could be proven with a carefully controlled study (maybe it has been been?), but not likely by you or me, IMO. It would cost a lot in terms of time, money, effort, committment etc. So, that leaves us with those that can tell the diference between new and burned in "stuff", and those that can't-- therefore the "issue" exists. Cheers. Craig.

Craig: In my dictionary, a statement is incontrovertible if its truth cannot be disproven. Just because some people deny a truth doesn't make it untrue. You are welcome to prove me wrong. But note that I while I think burn-in is a myth, that's not what I said was incontrovertible.

A bold claim Jostler3 (see your statement re: incontrovertible). Incontrovertible means: indisputable, factual, and accepted without contoversary. If your statement were true, this thread wouldn't exist? I suggest that this issue (burn in)is very controversial, eg see all the above posts. Craig

Joe C.: It has nothing to do with your room. Burn-in is popular with dealers (and some manfuacturers, though certainly not all) because it gives them a way to talk customers out of returning things. It's popular with many audiophiles because it feeds their "everything sounds different and my ears are good enough to hear it" egos. In truth, their ears are probably worse--since they've spent their lives imagining nonexistent differences, they wouldn't know a real difference if it jumped up and bit them on the earlobe. Mechanical systems, like speakers, do change over time--gradualy and perpetually, not suddenly reaching perfection after 100 hours. But it is incontrovertible that people do grow accustomed to a certain sound over time, which is what makes any and all testimonials to these remarkable changes suspect.

Joe: The room would explain it if many people did not listen in the near field. I don't ordinarily, but do when I am testing new stuff to buy at home. On the otherside of the coin I have also experienced "burn out" on older tube stuff that I have kept for over ten years. It was, I thought, well maintained. I don't know how revealing the systems were on a whole, but they weren't a match for my ears, that's for sure. If you still have the Silverline's that you mentioned in another thread, I am suprised that you do not hear a difference in new cables. Try reversing a pair of IC's sometime when it's quiet and you have the time to listen. I did this by accident once with a pair of silver IC's and was very upset with the results until I figured out what happened, which only took a few mintes of backtracking.

By the way, I am not referring to speaker break-in, which is obvious. I am referring to solid state and cable "burn-in" which I cannot really detect.

Redkiwi and the rest, I will postpone my veredict on burn-in until I have a better room. All I am saying is that at least some of those who are hearing burn-in effects can't possibly because they do not have a revealing enough system-room combination.

Hi Waldhorner, Yes I think I would expect a difference between an old receiver and a new high end piece. Would you expect a different ride from a new Mercedes when compared to a 78 Chevy? Of course. But that would not prevent me from acknowledging any aspect that might turn out to be superior in the Chevy. Over time and thanks to a few unusual experiences of mine I have learned to trust my ears before trusting my eyes. I know this is hard to do. One example: 28 years ago my band was making our first album in the studio at the top of Radio City Music Hall (same one where Toscanini conducted the NBC Orchestra). I had a "name" producer and one of the most experienced and sought after engineers at the time. The pressure of performing and of being surrounded by "more experienced" ears than mine did not stop me from complaining constantly about something being wrong with the sound. I did not have the tools to describe it but I insisted that they pay attention to my feelings. After a few hours of recording the engineers reluctantly checked into it and found that a 5 hertz tone was being put on tape unbeknownst to them. This discovery prevented problems later on down the reproduction chain, and saved us from losing many takes... I began to trust my ears and my hunches after that and hundreds of similar experiences. It was also a lot of fun watching the Rockettes run around the changing room next door! I would be interested in a clear scientific explanation of break in, but I would not deny its existence in light of my personal experience and the thousands of testimonials here and elsewhere. Objective testing has as many flaws as subjective listening.

I agree that not everyone is equally influenced by the effects of burn it. I unfortunately, am one of the more sensitive to this problem, and really have to exercise caution when testing. This is not a new or revolutionary thought within the audio industry. Even in the early 1980's, people such as Steve McCormack, Bill Lowe (Audioquest), Jim Aud (Purist) and Richard Vandersteen, among others, advised us about the existence of break in. These manufacturers have more recently been followed by a majority of the high end community, in recognizing the fact that this is a real part of the evolution of the sound.

We KNOW our system's sound: We KNOW how does the system sound compare with live sound, we KNOW where the shortcomings are and we also KNOW burn-in is for real.( Inside that is. Outside we might brag whatever)

I suspect your hearing is not sensitive to it Joe. This is not implying you don't hear well, because the effect is not gross, is not like the difference between having the blinds shut or open, or like the difference between two components. It is a quality that flattens images, takes a feeling of weight out of bass, adds a mechanical/electronic quality. And I don't care if you are convinced or not. I don't visit this forum to win arguments (which is not to say I don't fall into the trap of becoming embroiled in them from time to time) - just to share experiences with others - and your experience (and that of others) of not hearing components burn in is interesting and perplexing. But I feel no need to require you to prove that burn in does not exist. I cannot quite understand your concern about proof.

If burn-in exists, I have no proof or indication. My psychological state seems to have more of an effect on how my system sounds than any burn-in. After the second beer my system sounds much better. If burn in exists, it is likely to be very subtle and gradual. With all due respect I am not convinced by any of those above who argue that there is a huge burn-in effect. Opening or closing a cabinet door neer my room reflection points, changing the position of the blinds, etc. has a much bigger effect on the sound than burn-in could possibly have. Do you have an anechoic chamber ? Then I may be convinced that you can detect burn-in.

Recently replaced my preamp/amp with an integrated unit (a demo, presumably already broken in) and my first impression was that the integrated had slower, more rounded bass and slightly elevated extreme high frequencies than the units it replaced. As the weeks have passed the amp no longer sounds this way. Is it burn-in, or have I acclimated myself to the sound of the amp? I can't really say it's one or the other. Probably a little of both.

Waldhorner, I hesitate to make this seem even more wacky to you, but if you take a "burnt-in" cable out of a system and coil it up for a period and then put it back in the system it will go through the burn-in process again, albeit more mildly. I presume this has something to do with physical compression/decompression of the dialectric - whatever. You may doubt this effect, but you should take it into account when doing your tests between new and burnt-in cables. Personally I have not found a huge difference between new and burnt-in versions of cables like say DHLabs, but the differences seem to be more noticeable with more expensive cables. Perhaps the difference is quite subtle and only stands out against an otherwise pristine performance. The differences can sometimes be very unsubtle in the bass, but the nauture of the change is not usually a gross frequency response issue, but a change in grain structure or a change from seeming mechanical/electronic, to becoming more natural musically. The process is so repeated and unwelcome with any new product that it is hard to ascribe it to anything other than a "real" source. I know the following experience does not meet your objective test criteria, but in repeated visits to a friend's house I have heard how his system has burnt in. You may scoff at the aural memory required to support this claim - but I can recall how much more I was able to enjoy the music at each visit. How come my burn-in, if that was what it was, had the same gestation period as my friend's when he had an order of magnitude (or two) more exposure to his system? It is not this one experience that convinces me, but the many times I have observed the burn-in process.

Bmpnyc:What I trust is my hearing and my mind. Feelings can undermine the evaluative process considerably. I've done the cable comparison many times with variously priced wire. New on trial and well-aged loans from curious and cooperative friends. I also have a significant part of a twelve guage roll which has never to my knowledge had a single electron flow through it. Equal unused lengths compared to identical original cut lengths (aged about 3to4 hrs. daily for 7 or 8 years) sound identical to my well seasoned ears and measure the same also. I do admit that I've not personally done this experiment with hyper expensive wire(over about $300 a meter(that's hyper expensive to me)). Perhaps physics and the "burn in" effect are cost sensitive. As I've said, I'm open to convincing proof otherwise. If the test is not truly blind to the listener, then it cannot be considered objective. Let me finish with two simple questions. Would you say that you honestly would not have ANY expectations when doing (e.g.) a sighted comparison between a Krell and a 1978 Pioneer receiver?...or between multistranded solid silver cable and a straightened-out coat hanger? ( if doable,try the coat hanger.You might be surprised) Best to all for the Holidays.

Do I change or does the system? Maybe its a little of both.

.......yes, I realize that my above post argues for both sides of this issue. That's part of my point. Craig

Robba; respectfully; listening to/enjoying music is somewhere beyond science, at least at our present state of knowledge. Music, IMO, is an art form. When you look at two paintings and like one but not the other can that be explained scientifically? But as your appreciation grows, maybe you'd like the 2nd painting? This has happened to me many times with music-- sometimes it grows on me-- as I grow personally. Except to say it's psychologic, I can't expalin this phenomena "scientifically", and it can't be "tested". Craig.