Being a true scientist, I do not need a scientific explanation in order to observe something happening. Here's a little experience I had with a cable, from which you can draw any darn conclusion you like.
I was putting a new system together and using Alpha Core MI2 Python Speaker Cable. I perceived the system too sound a little too warm and lacking immediacy. I then bought a pair of used Coincident TRS speaker cable, in the expectation that it would eliminate the problem. The TRS was put in the system on a Thursday, and immediately I perceived the sound to be thick and lumpy in the bass, with some thickness in the mids too. This was directly after listening with the Alpha Core in place. So the sound seemed to go noticeably in the wrong direction when the TRS was hooked up.
By Saturday I was perceiving the sound to be opening up and beginning to provide much more detail and more articulation. Round about Saturday evening the I perceived the sound had gone too far and that the upper mids were etched and dry. I persisted with the cable through to the following Thursday but was getting frustrated at how I was enjoying none of the music. The TRS was now consistently irritating me with an apparent harshness in the upper mids, almost unlistenable. I was not surprised at the change in apparent sound since I have experienced it before with second-hand cables that had travelled thousands of miles but I was hating it so much, and had hated it every day for 5 days, that I took the TRS out and put the Alpha Core back in. The Alpha Core sounded to me exactly as I remembered it - nice but a little too warm and lacking immediacy - but mercifully musical and very welcome after the horrid experience with the TRS.
About a week or so later I put the TRS back in the system. It sounded pretty good to me immediately - more detail than the Alpha Core and just as musical - and it seemed to get better over the next three days. After a week I was very satisfied with it and felt the system was sounding just right - which it has continued to do over the months since then. So I had to try the Alpha Core again - sure enough the Alpha Core sounded to me exactly as before. But going back to the TRS, the perceived improvements in detail, immediacy, etc were noticeable, and really made the system boogie. No perception of harsh upper mids at all - totally gone.
So how come the perceived sound of the TRS moved about so much? It appeared to go in one direction, then another, then wound up on the button! Yet the Alpha Core, despite being stored did not seem to change at all.
Funny thing though, my wife observed the exact same phenomena that I did - noticing each change that I described above. She wanted me to ditch the TRS but now agrees it is better. Yet she listened only about 25% of the time that I listened for. So if the effect is psychological, then either; my wife needs 75% less time to get used to the sound of a new component than I do; or elapsed time is the factor not listening time; or my wife senses how I feel about a component and, unprompted, manages to state what I think (could be true, these females are perplexing indeed "life Jim, but... " thinks... maybe she fakes in bed too..); or, perhaps something about the sound really did change. Each of these explanations is quite fantastic given what we know. Hence, perhaps, the answer lies in something that what we do not know. |
And are we just arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin? Which ever it is that is burning in, the point is we have to be careful to spend time with components before we make judgements. This is what makes this hobby so hard, and why we need to listen with open minds to the experiences of others - and not dismiss experiences of others through lack of proof. |
I will try and answer it Ben - not because I know the answer, but because my experience of break in and different people's opinions on it seem to converge on a particular conclusion, in my mind.
First, I believe that both component and psychological break-in occur. But I cannot prove either.
I have experienced the phenomena of a CD sounding odd on first listen and then sounding more 'right' after a few more listens. I believe that this is not due to anything else changing than my brain getting accustomed to decoding the particular distortions on that CD. I believe that this is essentially what the brain does when it processes sound information it receives from the ear. It tries to correlate it with sounds it is more familiar with and then decides to 'hear' the sound in a way that the brain has determined is the sound of the true event.
This is a little like the way when you record music you have to keep the sound of the recording acoustic low in the mix. I believe the brain finds it easy to keep the sound of reflections out of the way of the sound of the source of that sound when it is in the same acoustic environment, but when listening in one environment, to an event recorded in another, the reflections in the recorded acoustic are difficult to put aside at the same time as putting aside the acoustics in the current environment. This is why you hear lots of sound reflection when you listen to a simple recording of your voice.
So when I hear a new CD - I am not saying the issue is reflections, that was just an analogy - my brain takes a while to get used to hearing past the distortions that are unique to that particular disc.
I have no doubt that this happens when we hear a new stereo system or just a component change to a new stereo system.
But I do not accept that this phenomena explains the changes I hear while a component breaks in. The following observations are what I base this on.
- I don't hear CDs change their sound from thin brittle and bassless, then thick and murky, then hard and edgy, suddenly soft and mushy and then finally sharpen up to sound about right, in the way that some new components do. The alternative explanation is that the distortions of a component are manifold and my brain learns to decode them one at a time and so the sound moves around each time it deals to a particular type of distortion. Maybe.
- I take much less time to decode the sound of a friend's system than I do to decode the sound of a new system I put together. The alternative explanation is that I am either less critical of my friend's system than when my money and future musical enjoyment is at stake, or I am just atrocious at putting systems together such that my brain needs way longer to deal with it. Hmm, unlikly Ben, and fairly conclusive evidence for component break in - in my mind.
- Whereas when taking a CD out of the system for a month or two my brain has no trouble finding it to sound like the last time I heard it, taking a cable out of the system and curling it up in the cupboard for a month results in me hearing a break-in occurring for anything between two days and two weeks. The alternative explanation is that the distortions of a cable are more complex for my brain to decode than the distortions of a CD. The measurement freaks will have trouble with that one.
- I also respect the validity of other peoples' conclusions from their experiences, not just my own. I observe that many who claim that there is no component break in also state they hear little or no change during break in, and that many who claim that component break in exists, also state that they hear significant differences during break in. This is explained if you accept some people are more irritated by the distortions that go away as a component breaks in. The alternative explanation is that some people have brains that immediately decode the distortions in a new system and others are handicapped in this ability and take 300 hours. Being biased I don't like the thought of being handicapped in the brain department, so you can guess which one I prefer.
- The 300 hours burn in is the most persuasive point for me. How come the burn in appears to occur whether we listen to it while it is burning in or not. The alternative explanation is... we are deluded by our prevailing belief in burn in, or I guess we are just lying to prove our point. I can imagine how you could make that assumption. But you can imagine why I don't.
The interesting thing is there seems to be a correlation between those that deny burn in and those that believe the component that makes the most difference in a stereo system is the speakers. In fact I find this very interesting. I suspect we listen for different things, have different musical values or simply are irritated by different distortions. You see I find most speakers that survive commercially today in the high end are capable of sounding musical. Whereas I cannot say that of amplifiers - the very opposite of what the measurements would lead you to believe. Therefore I strongly suspect that there are distortions that irritate me, and many like me, that do not pop up as significant in conventional measurement (which pro-rates distortion issues rather liberally), are endemic in electronics and less measurable than speaker mechanical distortions, and that reduce dramatically during burn in.
Finally, I have experienced components sounding more pleasing in tonal characteristics during burn in than after burn in - but there is nevertheless something else wrong during burn in. Perhaps it is a form of phase distortion that upsets my brain (and others like me). |
Spluta, you clearly take yourself very seriously - you mistake me for someone that was responding to your post - I was not.
I am at a loss to know which of my words were directed at you, because I cannot remember reading your post(s). Nothing you wrote in any of your posts was in my head when I wrote my post.
Frankly you flatter yourself when you say I called you a liar. I can assure you I called you nothing and did not give the idea a second's thought. All I can assume is that you found my post contradicted yours and then for some reason believed I meant to make a personal attack on you. What I did was try to describe my beliefs and why I believe them. Is that OK with you? If your reading of my post drew you to the conclusion I was belittling your opinion then I apologise for my clumsiness, but there was no intent.
Without going back and reading your earlier posts I expect it was my term 'measurement freaks' that did it? If it was not that then I am at a loss to understand what has offended you and you will have to explain. Perhaps I should go and read your posts and see if I can work it out. If it was the 'f' word, then I have to admit the word 'freak' is insulting so withdraw it. How about 'measurement zealot'? Perhaps still too negative. 'Measurement guys' just lacks a certain ring to it, if you know what I mean.
On the subject of measurements, as Bob says, the intention of most of us in this hobby is to enjoy listening with our ears. If measurement helps identify which equipment will be better or worse for that purpose, then it has value. I think that shelf life past several years ago, except to assist equipment designers. So far I am unconvinced of the connection between audible abberations and measurements, with most modern gear having a level of competence that goes well beyond the distinctions that measurement appears able to identify.
What I find annoying is the fact that 'measurement guys' repeatedly insist on spoiling the party here by interrupting the sharing of experiences and opinions, by entering with a "I'm an electrical engineer (pause for oohs and aahs), and my text books don't tell me about what you just said so it must be wrong." And no, Spluta, relax - this is not directed at you. I have no idea whether you ever said anything of the kind. It is directed generally at the several who take that position. |
Now I'm really confused. I just skim-read Splutas posts and didn't find anything obvious that I even disagreed with let alone contradicted in my post. You are going to have to help me here Spluta. |
Thanks Paul - I was definitely reaching with that 'freak' comment, I forgot there were so many of you good guy freaks out there, till I came back to Audiogon, even if you cannot hear the sound change with new components. I secretly envy you - I hate the burn in period. |
That's totally cool Spluta, and pleased to make your acquaintance. There is no bias against engineers that I can see, just a bias against those with closed minds that always assume posts here that don't match their knowledge must be the ravings of deluded fools.
I am surrounded by hundreds of engineers at work and I can see why the issues arise. While there are fantastically clever and interesting engineers in the team, most are worker-bees by comparison (not their fault, just dipped out in the gene pool) who are trained to work within engineering rules that have been established by others - nothing wrong with this, just good practise. But the years of not questioning their boundaries seem to me to take them far from being experimental scientists and they get evry rigid in their thinking. Now I am not saying you are like this. When I read your posts I can that is unlikely. But we do get one or two here who like to pounce on someone who is honestly expressing their experiences and beliefs and demand scientific proof or a retraction and a thousand hail Marys. |
That's totally cool Spluta, and pleased to make your acquaintance. There is no bias against engineers that I can see, just a bias against those with closed minds that always assume posts here that don't match their knowledge must be the ravings of deluded fools.
I am surrounded by hundreds of engineers at work and I can see why the issues arise. While there are fantastically clever and interesting engineers in the team, most are worker-bees by comparison (not their fault, just dipped out in the gene pool) who are trained to work within engineering rules that have been established by others - nothing wrong with this, just good practise. But the years of not questioning their boundaries seem to me to take some of them them far from being experimental scientists and they get very rigid in their thinking - only some.
Now I am not saying you are like this. When I read your posts I can see that is not so. But we do get one or two here who like to pounce on someone who is honestly expressing their experiences and beliefs and demand scientific proof or a retraction and a thousand hail Marys. Their justification for taking a 'holier than thou' attitude is often a statement about how they are engineers and our poor dumb fools should just listen up - hence the occasional cringe factor.
Now being mainly an economist, I can understand the sentiment. Boy do you hear some really dumb theories from 'bush' economists. But it is simply rude, arrogant and self-defeating to say - your opinion does not count, because I am the economist and you are not, and I say you are wrong. |
The reason why I leap into these discussions about burn in is that I believe that failing to allow for burn in is the cause of so many bad mistakes by audiophiles. The problem is if we cannot even agree that burn in exists then we will not agree that even burnt in components take a while to settle after shipping, and then it becomes pretty difficult to warn newer audiophiles about the perils of hasty auditioning.
I have no doubt that fears, Marakanetz, that marketers and salespeople exploit the burn in story to pull the wool over peoples' eyes, have some foundation in fact. What I am more concerned about is that without an appreciation that burn in is a factor, then many will come to quite erroneous conclusions about components and cables that they try.
Take for example, the comment I have heard that the Plinius SA102 lacks PRAT. One that has been used for less tha around four months sounds exactly so - soft and sluggish. The fact that it sounds so is utterly obvious in any competent system. But equally, a burned in SA102 has PRAT in spades, and that is again quite obvious.
So if you suspend your disbelief for a moment, you may understand why I believe that nay-saying on burn in will cause newbies to be quite confused and waste a lot of time if they rely on an overnight trial of equipment before buying. |
