Burn In = Voodoo?


I have been an obsessive and enthusiastic audiophile for 20 years, I am not averse to tweaking and The Audio Critic infuriates me. However, I must admit I get a little uncomfortable reading so many posts about "burn in". While I understand that amps may need to warm up, speaker components may need to loosen up, the idea of burning in a cable or say, an SACD player just seems ludicrous to me. Unless of course, the party suggesting the burn in is a snake oil equipment peddlar and needs to make sure someone owns and uses your product for a couple of months before they decide it's really no good. At that point, of course, no one could actually remember what it sounded like in the first place and even if you wanted to return it, it would be too late. Am I being too cynical here?
cwlondon

Showing 4 responses by jadem6

Great question. I hope someone has "the" answer, although I would bet most will be the same fuzzy science that seems to belong in the Audio field. I can see how anything moving, like speaker cones and phono cartrages might change over time, but the rest I don't have the "scientific" answer for. I have heard a number of explanations in books and magazines and tend to believe the principals, but for fear of being assulted by the "scientists" on this site, I will let others bring there theroies. I was told by two different dealers that it's the laser that requires "burn-in", I hope by sharing such radicail views I'm chastized.

Voodoo? Well in some parts of the world that is indeed a very strong "science". Maybe there is a doctor who over sees all audio voodoo. If that's not it, then the true explaination will arise, because to these ears, something does indeed happen to cables, wires, speakers and yes SACD. J.D.
J k thank-you for your insite and understanding of wire. The explanation you gave is the same one I've heard too, and it does indeed make sense to me.
Trelja, thank-you for your comments on absolute zero. I tend to not need alot of the physics and calc. I got in school, and absolute zero never seems to come up in design meetings. I thought I remembered it as you stated. I also thought that absolute zero is physically impossible. I thought I remembered that once atomic motion has ceased, the matter it self would fall apart. Am I wrong? J.D.
J_k, I had to answer my own question. Absolute Zero is the temperature at wich all molecular translational movement in a gas ceases. Now Helium has the lowest critical temparature -268 Degrees celsius, a point where a substance cannot exist in a liquid state, so a tempurature of abolute zero -273 degrees celsius has no physical meaning, just a point of reference on the absolute scale. What all this translates to in degrees fehrenheit is that these temps are much colder than the temp. your freezing cable to. So I'll buy the idea, but the "scientist" in you needs a bit more schooling. (oh yea, this is all subject to change in that my reference material is a bit dated. there were only 103 elements at that time, and from my kids books I believe that has changed, a bunch.)
Anyway, this was bugging me, sorry for taking the space in that I see from this and an earlier post a couple months ago that none of you care! J.D.
Of course it has no bearing on anything J_k. You know we're just sitting here waiting for one tinny screw up and BAMM! Got-cha. The only reason it even registered was that your idea was shared on a different post of mine. Same story and I wrote back asking him to please take my post seriously and how could he.... He got me back when a bunch of people jumped on me for my attack. Point was that that post and this one the term Absolute Zero was used. I thought it was a joke in that it's just a unachievable point on a scale. His whole suggestion lost credibility as did yours when the process is not possible. Sorry for jumping, if not me someone else. I hope you understand, I'll just go back into my hole now and hide untill the next victom comes along :-) J.D.