For Your Edification and Enjoyment re "Burn In", etc.

I addressed "break in" and "burn in" in the article as it pertains to the phenomena under assessment. 

The phenomenon of thinking one hears change to a system over time is universal, and I experience it, too. I happened to question whether it was in fact equipment changing. I conducted informal testing and learned that it is not the equipment changing, but inconsistent impressions of the audiophile. It's quite simple, but with significant implications. 

mijostyn, ssjj49 and russ69 all make some pertinent, salient points. Thank you. I appreciate such contributions, even when they do not fully agree with me. 

audition_audio, that was a well thought out, inoffensive reply, so I will respond further.  :) 

I am replying to your statement, " When you add this preconceived notions, personal and professional industry affiliations with the need for ad revenue we have a fundamentally broken model in which true objectivity is illusive." 

There are standard presumptions in regard to reviewers, and I see some of these in your statement, and I think it colors your understanding of my article and motives. I have said before, and I'll say again, that I am not paid to write. That changes the ball game entirely imo. I feel zero pressure to conform to some expectation of a publication, aside from integrity at a high level. I doubt seriously that the article would have even made it into print in a physical magazine, frankly, something for which the community should be grateful that I and Dagogo.com had the guts to do so.

I was not assigned the topic, and it's entirely disassociated from anything, quite literally, that happens at Dagogo.com in terms of advertising and income. I have no clue about those aspects of the publication - and I do not wish to! I want to be entirely free of the pressures, politics and associated issues with the public in regard to the business. I wish to write and explore audio. Constantine Soo, Publisher of Dagogo.com has been wonderful in that he has allowed me to explore and has published my work, even if it is not appreciated by all. 

I do not know what it is about the community, but no matter how many times I stress that I have zero involvement or interest in the advertising, or any business aspect of the publication, the inferences on up to insinuations keep coming. It seems an unavoidable result, given that there are new eyeballs here regularly. The easy thing is to apply the standard presumption and full bore skepticism in reply. 

What, precisely, do "industry affiliations" have to do with this? In a word, nothing. I do my articles such as this out of my interest. No one asks me to do this with their equipment. Some of it I have owned, as in the first article, so I can do as I wish. Some is on loan for review, and frankly, I don't have to tell the company I'm going to do the comparisons. It's a separate article, and it could be done with any components, cables, speakers, etc. In this instance I did tell the amp and cable companies, and they were elated, thinking it would be an interesting project. That gave the opportunity if they were afraid, to block it. I don't think their company would be hurt by it, but some manufacturers are paranoid of community reaction. It's a real treat dealing with them. :( I get zero benefit from the industry or affiliations doing the additional work, aside from my learning and desire to share it. It has no impact on reviews, or industry accommodation. 

So, maybe you can dial back some of the skepticism with which you approach me and this topic.  

Finally, I will correct you once again; I'm not going to keep doing this, as you seem deaf to it. It is NOT one opinion versus the other; its an opinion (yours) without any attempt to verify, versus informal testing which confirms or falsifies an opinion. Obviously, it's all conducted by listening impressions; you're not making a salient point by continuing to state that. It's convenient for you to discount the testing process and refer to it merely as an opinion, but it's not true. We certainly do have a difference of "opinion", but mine is a conclusion informed by testing/comparision, while yours is not. BIG difference. If you can't accept that reality, and continue to misrepresent it, I'll stop talking to you. I'm not here to waste my breath on people who are resistant to correction on patently clear things. You could make yourself useful, and do a couple comparisons if you wish to have something more important to say.  :) 

My "model" how I conduct myself and produce such articles, is not broken, and now you know.   :) 

Actually, your continued skepticism and misjudgments have allowed me to once again clarify for the community the integrity behind the articles. So, there is some benefit to having to explain this all again. Then, there will be the people so jaded they won't believe me. So be it. 

musicaddict, a lovely post, thank you! If you are newer here, welcome! 

You strike me as the sort of hobbyist who would have an interest in setting up their own informal comparisons. It's not that hard to do. It's fun! 

Perhaps a case of mistaken identity.  I do not know the man, but several times have been mistaken for Doug Schneider,  who is also a reviewer.  Not sure of pertinency to your situation.  

DeKay, nope, not me. I don’t smoke, have never touched a Vantage Audio product, and have nothing to do with beta products and the public. :)
Seems an awful experience!

oldhvymec, wonderful, you have made your point. Now, I presume you will be silent, unless you have something pertinent to the article to discuss.   

bluemoodriver, thank you! I seem to occupy a position in the industry and community that is fairly vacant, that of eschewing most forms of system enhancements/methods called "tweaks", and endorsing other methods that some ridicule. It all comes out of building hundreds of systems, not theory.

I will disgruntle those who take a hard objectivist position in terms of components, and disgruntle those who take a hard position on tweaks. So be it. OTOH, I have split the difference once again in not only this article, but also a cable review that has just been submitted. It reveals with very strong evidence, if one explores the materials the company has made public, that 1. Geometry, conductor material, etc. do make an audible difference, and 2. That when well designed according to strict parameters (measurable), it sounds better than other cables. So, that article steps a bit into both camps.

I recall my father, who when discussing particular subjects would opine, "There are a lot of left fielders, and a lot of right fielders, but not a lot of center fielders." I’m trying to play center field. BTW, can we please for once have our reactionist politically motivated disturbers hold their tongue? The comment has zero relevance to politics, and I don't care what your opinion is on the matter. The topic is tweaks. Thank you!  :)

It matters not whether the individual is an industry member or not. Their assessment of change of the sound of a system over time is pretty well worthless. The longer the time period, the less worth to their opinion of the change to the system.   :)

It's an eminence front.

Reubent, ah, one of my generation; good job! 
I suspect you get my intent; it's a big "put on" by all these people who want to make a big impression about what they can hear, about how break in/burn in is SO important, and how it makes SUCH a big difference, and... there's nothing much behind it.  People forget, indeed, that they are as susceptible to floating impressions and wandering subjectivity as anyone else. I have demonstrated it. 

It's not a very comfortable discussion for all the manufacturers, dealers, etc. who lean heavily on these concepts in support of their products and/or services. Notice how break in and burn in is never demonstrated, that is, the purported benefit/change etc. is never actually shown in a side by side comparison? Because they can't - or won't. I have demonstrated that it is relatively easy to get to the bottom of it. The average audiophile can do so for themselves with 2 pair of cables, or two amps, etc. Many have the means to see for themselves whether their impressions have any basis in reality. Most prefer to avoid such a clear test of their impressions. They would rather sit in their smug confidence that they are able to hear equipment changing. Whatever.  

I'm far from an enemy of the industry; I have worked with many manufactures and have good relationships with them. It's the nonsense, the peripheral, tangential, useless aspects that I have no need, nor respect for, and I see them as hindrances, not aids. The average audiophile has believed a lot of crap that is actually counter-productive in setting up superior systems. The average audiophile would never discover this. I had to set up hundreds of rigs to get to the point where I was clearly questioning the process, and had the equipment available to conduct a more involved comparison. I would not expect that of the average HiFi enthusiast. I would, however, expect that some might be open to the suggestion that they are changing rather inconsistency. But, of course, that is beyond the pale of most enthusiasts; their ego can't take consideration of that outcome.   :(

audition_audio, I did not seek reviewing, and I am not paid to write/review, so you are off the mark with your assertion. Perhaps you would like to spend 1,000+ hours doing the work associated with reviewing unpaid! I spent thousands of my money attending shows so that I would become familiar with the gear offered in North America. So, you can walk back your insinuation/assertion. :)

The community can see my body of work over the past 14 years at Dagogo.com, which I humbly offer is the evidence of building hundreds of systems, learning what does and does not work in building systems. It is not necessary to have a degree, apprenticeship, etc. to reach the conclusions I have, but it is necessary to build hundreds of systems and conduct dozens of interviews (unpaid, conducted of my own impetus). I suggest that your inference that I have nothing more to offer than the average hobbyist is incorrect.

Many years ago I used to have an attitude similar to yours. An interesting thing happened to me, however; I was offered an opportunity to review. Along the way, I realized that I was able to conduct comparisons, to learn things I never would have been able (or, more accurately, would not have spent the money on) if not for reviewing. Now, gratis, I am sharing them with a community rife with skepticism on some topics and hubris on other topics. So be it. A few will see the wisdom in my approach, and will benefit.

Thank you for sharing your opinion here, and I invite to to go back and reread my two articles to gain more insight. :)

Clearly, the article shows that I am not simply dismissing opinions, even going to the point of saying sincerely that if the results contradicted those of the first test, I would have to reevaluate. Is that dismissing opinions? I am respecting the opinion of those who insist tweaks have efficacy when I am wiling to humble myself enough to set up a test, rather than laugh at them and ignore putting it to the test.

I have sent a review request to audioexcellence in AZ, laying out clearly my intent to test the cooker in regards to cooked vs. uncooked cables in direct listening comparison. I shared the link to my article, as I wish to respect the company and not attempt to spring a surprise article on them. That would be duplicitous and in conflict with my principles.

I pointed out to the company that this is an opportunity to demonstrate the efficacy of the product, and that there is a possibility I would be embarrassed publicly in having to declare its efficacy. I am open to that possibility, as I cannot state definitively that cookers cannot change the cable; I have not used one. Now, I intend on doing so. 

mijostyn, thank you for posting our thoughts. I suggest that what the supporters of tweaks/methods I compared preset anecdotal evidence and opinion. I did informal testing, which is entirely different. I agree that if conducted in the industry, it would be a much more tight study. Yes, the numbers could be bolstered by further study, but the grouping of the tweaks/methods is far stronger evidence and cannot be easily dismissed. It does support the contention that a far larger number of tweaks are also likely ineffectual. 

I am not concerned about explaining the "why" of the phenomenon involving perception that equipment seems to change performance. As I said, I also experience it and believe it is universal. Studies have been conducted often in regard to adaptation to stimuli, but in this regard audiophiles's egos seem unwilling to accept that their impressions can change over time and that might be the experience, versus the equipment changing. 

Will the industry jump on board with this? I doubt it; too much money in sales/reputation riding on the perception that there is audible "profound", "huge" etc. change over time. Many of the industry members believe it themselves to the degree that they wouldn't question their own experience. There is little hope of changing the opinion of someone so overconfident - even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. It is simply too painful for most audiophiles to consider that they really can't accurately tell whether there has been a change in sound quality over time. 

A while back, when I last visited the topic of burn in of cables, I contacted the company that makes the Audio Dharma cable cooker and requested  a demo. I tried to get a reply several times, and never heard back from the company. Perhaps the company would wish for a commitment to a review, and I could do that in order to procure a unit. 

If the company would be wiling to send me a unit, I will conduct a straight comparison, similar to the one that I did for the recent article, and will do a proper article on it. If the unit works as advertised, and cables really can be "cooked" so as to cause a different sonic signature, then I wish to assess this through my direct comparison evaluation. I think I am on solid ground with the presumption that if the cooked cables have efficacy, then they should sound discernibly different from the uncooked ones. If they do not, then it would be strong evidence that cooking cables is not efficacious and does not result in a change in sound.

I would like to hear from the company in this regard. I will attempt to contact the company once again, and if anyone has connections with the company, tell them that I am seeking an evaluation of one of their units. I could do XLR or RCA. One would think that if there is easily identifiable change to the sonic character of a cable through use of this device, then the company should be happy to allow me to conduct such a review.  I have enough equipment to conduct a comparison with identical amps and cables. 

Caps and tubes are covered in component assessment between the two articles. Evidently you did not read the first article.  I have a digital source, so someone else, maybe you, can test cartridges.  Have fun with that one.. Speakers I have not compared yet, but have considered.  

The topic is clearly the tweaks and methods discussed in the articles. I'm not interested in off topic discussion here. 

I have made no reference to time frame; the hundreds of hours are over the course of the 14 years of reviewing. Obviously, when a person waits for "settling", which of course, has not been demonstrated, but has been shown not to occur via my informal testing, they will get much more of nothing done. 

I expected that at some point the straw man argument of appeal to analogue might arise. ".. polishing a turd." Beautiful; I'm being called out for condescension by my opponents here, and then that kind of comment is made. An appeal to analog versus digital is a weak argument, a straw man, that has zero impact on the testing.

This paragraph is evidentially wrong, " I might be willing to send you my Audio Dharma cooker but I dont [sic] think from this whole exchange you have indicated that you would be willing to admit any error. Kind of like sending a cable to Frank Van Alstine for review."

When Frank was visiting my home, I specifically demonstrated detachable power cords to show him the efficacy of using different aftermarket PCs, and encouraged him to put IECs on his equipment. At the next show, when I entered his room he called me over and had me look behind his component. There was an IEC! 

Further, Frank made a component called the ABX Comparator, that was designed to do the same kind of testing as I did, but with more rigor. Does that sound like a man who prejudges, who shouldn't be trusted in evaluating things? BTW, I did a review of the ABX Comparator. Guess why? I wanted to see if all the talk about cables and ABX was true, and whether I could distinguish between cables in a blind/random testing environment.

Now, I just finished the article returning to further assessment of tweaks and methods such as burn in and break in. I'm doing all this voluntarily, and my judgment is not to be trusted? I revisited the topic to see if further testing would confirm or falsify, and I'm not able to have a balanced perspective? I am not interested in an ongoing defense of myself for you in the face of that heavy of skepticism. Take it or leave it, so be it. 


I would appreciate it if you tried to rein in your wild, unsubstantiated judgments of me. I appreciate the thought of loaning the cooker, but if I work with one, I will source it elsewhere.  :)




 

oldhvymec, have you read the articles? If not, as your posts seem to indicate, I am finished discussing with you. 

This is not a thread on ABX; that was a directed response to cynicism about my methods and reliability. Thank you!   :) 

This comment. "I should not have gone back to your original article. Really a Peachtree component," and the repeated appeal to analog, confirms what I suspected initially.

I am finished with this discussion.

bluemoodriver, while not an authority, I do not believe the presumption that flooding a room with two channels with opposing polarity will result in cancellation. Audiophiles have many times mistakenly played speakers that have one channel out of phase, and the result is not cancellation. I do not see how switching to mono will cause the sound to disappear, cancelling as with matter/antimatter. 

Perhaps my understanding is not nuanced, but I suspect this test will not do what is suggested. Those more knowledgeable than me may disagree and instruct.  

In the meantime... I have this past two weeks been working once again with the distinctly different modes of the Legacy Audio Whisper DSW Clarity Edition speaker. 

Guess what I have been doing? Building systems, and comparing active x-over to passive x-over setups. I will tell you now, this kind of activity is quite fun! Lots of different sound experiences, and some great insights into systems. Using the identical speaker for both modes is a distinct advantage. 

Similar to the comparisons with the methods/tweaks that I wrote about in the articles. There is no replacing experience in many respects, and having the experience of actually informally testing such things gives clarity to what is important in building a superior system, and of course, enjoying to the fullest the system.   :) 

My findings in regard to the tweaks and methods I assessed are applicable to all systems,  and cost of system is irrelevant.  So, there is no point in a debate on that subject.  

Audio_audition, Building hundreds of rigs of all levels, from lower end HiFi (i.e. approx. 5K) to much more significant (100K) all systems have capacity to reveal changes from such things as power cords, interconnects, treating CDs (Back in the day; it was one of the very few cheap activities - I distinguish it as a treatment rather than tweak - that did result in an audible change), etc.

The system I did the testing for the current article was approx. $60K MSRP. You were happy to dismiss the article/findings with a mocking comment of the Peachtree integrated used in the first article. That turns out to be a great choice now, as persons such as your self who express skepticism about the quality of the system used in the comparisons are shown to be wrong, as several of the variables under comparison were the same in both tests. The rig used in the second article was approx. $60K. This demonstrates nicely how systems at lower MSRP can teach the audiophile the same principles as rigs at higher MSRP. One might expect that, as this is all HiFi gear. Now, if you want to talk about testing a $300 plastic fantastic system from Best Buy, all bets are off! :)

You seem to find glee in argument, even when shown to be wrong several times. I’m not interested in extending correction to you indefinitely.

Daveb, thanks for your reply, but you seem to have missed the point entirely. Allow me to explain. It is necessary when writing an article on methods/tweaks that purportedly cause audible change, when comparing two systems, to report on whether there is an audible change. 

Perhaps you don't find that terribly important, or helpful. Great, thanks for your input. But if you haven't noticed, there is an audio industry that has a very healthy tweaks market, and many methods that are questioned/debated with regularity. That someone should step up and write about it, combined with comparisons, may have pertinence to many. Maybe not you, fine. You have made your point, which was oblivious. Enjoy your listening.    :)