From a teleological point of view, it makes great sense for our auditory system to be good at classifying sounds while ignoring minor differences. You needed to know if a predator or something to eat is is nearby. It wouldn't have served our survival well if we attended to small differences in sound. Audiophilia is but a recent pin point on the evolutionary scale.
My early research was concerned with testing theories of binaural hearing, so I've done lots of forced-choice listening under lab conditions. We can tricked into attending to small details, but we aren't all that consistent in doing so, and variability among listeners usually swamps those differences.
Count me with the skeptics, although I'd swear I can hear break in of disc players.
db |
06-16-14: Almarg
06-16-14: Zd542
I have some Cardas cables that take forever. 100's of hours.
ZD, as I'm sure you realize I have great respect for your experience and your sonic perceptions. But a question: How do you know that the improvement you are perceiving after 100's of hours is due to the cables, and not to something else in the system that has changed in the meantime? Or, for that matter, something that has changed in the AC power, or even the temperature or humidity of the room?
Best regards,
-- Al Yes as Al has pointed out this this greatly overlooked. Take any hybrid ESL speaker for instance, they are tuned for a certain sound by the factory. The esl panel on a day when the humidity is 70%-100% can loose as much as -3db efficiency, making the balance sound bass heavy as the dynamic bass driver has not lost this -3db. I have measured it on my new panels, dry day 5kv bias charge and on a humid day 3kv-4kv bias charge, I tend not to do any evaluations or serious listening on days when the humidity is above 70%. Or if I have to, I can with some trouble turn down the gain of the bass electronics by the appropriate amount so all is balanced again. Cheers George |
06-16-14: Zd542
I have some Cardas cables that take forever. 100's of hours. ZD, as I'm sure you realize I have great respect for your experience and your sonic perceptions. But a question: How do you know that the improvement you are perceiving after 100's of hours is due to the cables, and not to something else in the system that has changed in the meantime? Or, for that matter, something that has changed in the AC power, or even the temperature or humidity of the room? My question is prompted in particular by reports I have seen here from others about cables and power cords requiring seemingly absurd burn-in durations, e.g., 800 hours or more. Unless, and perhaps even if, that is done independently of operation of the system, such as with a cable cooker, or in a different system, or by using a power cord to power a refrigerator, etc., I don't see how any such changes can be distinguished from effects that may be occurring elsewhere in the system or its environment. And even if the burn-in is done via one of those alternative methods, given that 800 hours represents more than a month of 24/7 operation, it would still seem very possible that some unrelated effect might occur in the system or its environment in that period, that could be responsible for the perceived change. Best regards, -- Al |
"All I can think is ... if you can't hear it then maybe your system isn't as resolving as you think"
Maybe you're right but maybe your wrong and it's all in your head and you just happen to be a person that's easily duped? Could be, that's all I'm saying. |
"06-16-14: Ptmconsulting
To those who don't believe in, or who haven't heard a difference, with burn in:
- please sell me that brand new bad sounding $2500 phono cartridge with only 10 hours on it for 40% of what you paid for it"
In all fairness to some of the other posters, I believe they were mainly talking about cable break in. Typically, a new phono cart breaks in more than any other component. To me, they sound broken when they are new. Cable break in is usually much more subtle (but it definitely happens). But they're not all the same. For example, I don't notice that much break in with my AQ cables. There is some, but they get to where they should be fairly quickly. I have some Cardas cables that take forever. 100's of hours. |
To those who don't believe in, or who haven't heard a difference, with burn in:
- please sell me that brand new bad sounding $2500 phono cartridge with only 10 hours on it for 40% of what you paid for it
I can't even count the number of cables or electronic pieces or capacitors or other parts of all types that have continually changed with "burn in" use over time. The change isn't subtle from start to finish, though it can be subtle in degrees. 20-50 hours isn't usually enough time to get to the end of that change. More like 100-200 hours.
All I can think is ... if you can't hear it then maybe your system isn't as resolving as you think. |
"My point is not whether or not the sonic differences are real my point is that we don't know for sure and that there is a possibility that we can be fooled or deceived by our ears."
No doubt. Especially when the differences are subtle, as is often the case.
I'd say always trust your own ears above all else, but also realize that nobody is infallible and we all have our limitations. Also that some may use this information for less than altruistic purposes, especially when there is money to be made. |
"06-16-14: Jaxwired
Dragon I completely agree with you. My point is not whether or not the sonic differences are real my point is that we don't know for sure and that there is a possibility that we can be fooled or deceived by our ears. Since this is true, I like to consider more than just "did I hear a difference" when evaluating the worth of a product or concept like burn in."
Fine. I agree.
" For one thing, I throw common sense into the mix. Certain products and concepts certainly are counter to common sense. For instance, cable risers, expensive feet under components with no moving parts, totem beaks, $1000 / ft cable, etc..."
Common sense has nothing to do with this. There are plenty of things in science that don't make sense to us, but are still correct. If you want to disagree about what kind of differences you can hear with different cables, fine. But just because something like an expensive cable or tweak doesn't make sense to you, that doesn't mean you are right just because you are basing your answers on common sense. So if you want to get to what the truth really is, I think the only way to get there is with some well conducted listening tests. I've done them before and if carefully planned, I don't see why you can't get accurate results.
The only thing I would add is that you can't just lump everything all together. All cables, all components break in, all tubes, ... that kind of thing. I take everything on a case by case basis. Results vary. Sometimes you can hear a big difference, and some things, small or none. |
Dragon I completely agree with you. My point is not whether or not the sonic differences are real my point is that we don't know for sure and that there is a possibility that we can be fooled or deceived by our ears. Since this is true, I like to consider more than just "did I hear a difference" when evaluating the worth of a product or concept like burn in. For one thing, I throw common sense into the mix. Certain products and concepts certainly are counter to common sense. For instance, cable risers, expensive feet under components with no moving parts, totem beaks, $1000 / ft cable, etc... |
"Is an audiophiles aural memory infallible? Of course not. Therefore the differences you think you are hearing could easily not be real"
If that's the case I guess you could turn it around and say the differences you think you don't hear could easily not be real...ha ha. Sorry. |
An ABX Blind TestHere is but one example. Half got it right, half got it wrong, between highly rated Nordost Valhalla power cords and the cords that come in the box with the equipment. I am not suggesting sonic differences do not exist between equipment and cables but, like Jaxwired, I believe it is easy in this hobby to perceive tiny sonic changes when the real reasons may be related to other psycho-acoustical influences. Audio equipment testingWiki also provides some interesting discussion about objectivists and subjectivists. |
The change in the sound a new amplifier sends to the speakers as it gets more playing time is as real as it gets imo. Bass, for example, I've heard change substantially. The way bass loads a room can change and that change can be heard and felt several rooms away. why is it that burn in always Improves the sound quality. If we were to believe that the sonics of a component do indeed change during burn in, does it make sense that the change would 100% of the time be for the better??? Of course not, ridiculous. 06-15-14: Jaxwired Sound does not always improve with burn-in/break in. I've complained before that some power cords I've tried have lost bass weight and/or clarity as they had more playing time in my system. This was not a good thing in my book and a deal breaker. I can say too that the bass of some amplifiers I've tried tightened during break to the point that I did not care for it as much. Break in does not always bring about improvements in sound quality. |
Scientists tested a frog. They cut off it's legs and they said "jump!"
The frog didn't jump.
Scientist therefore concluded that when frogs lose their legs, they become deaf.
It's not mine but I had to borrow it.
High end reviews are full of burn in for cables before they are reviewed. Google practically any cable review and you'll find it.
Claims can and will be made that are false and they will have their followers. Does it follow that all claims are so?
Can it be that 100% of cable burn in reviews being always for the better simply back up the claim that cables need burn in, thereby validating the claim?
All the best,
Nonoise |
Zd,
Really, you want proof that audiophiles are easily fooled into believing in phantom sonic improvements? That's amusing. How about some proof that you can really hear the improvements from cable burn in? If any existed it would be the high end news of the century.
Let me ask you this, do you think there has ever been a fraudulent audiophile product making false claims of sonic improvements in the history of high end audio? I'll answer that for you, YES, of course. Next I'll ask you did that product have any true believers???? Again, I'll answer for you, of course it did. All fraudulent high end products have true believers that swear by the product for sonic improvements. Why? Simple, our ears can deceive us.
Let me conclude that a simple google search will reveal numerous ABX tests done in the past by reputable sources which consistently fail to produce any meaningful ability to distinguish differences in high end components. The onus is not on the person who rejects the claims of sonic improvements the onus is on the person making said claims. And believe me, if cable companies had any legitimate proof to offer it would be plastered everywhere. Does not exist.
Simply from a common sense perspective I can poke a large hole in the theory of burn in....why is it that burn in always Improves the sound quality. If we were to believe that the sonics of a component do indeed change during burn in, does it make sense that the change would 100% of the time be for the better??? Of course not, ridiculous. Yet never in decades of reading blogs and reviews have I heard someone report that a product sounded great out of the box but them after burn in it degraded. Nope, it's always better after burn in. That's one magical process I must say. |
"And by the way, I never said I didn't hear break in differences."
It looks like you did.
"I love audio and I still out no stock in burn in for electronics or cables."
Assuming you meant to say put instead of out, I can't think of any other way it can be taken.
"Your measuring device (ears and brain) are not accurate enough or reliable enough to be trusted for such subtle differences. To think it is, is simply an inability to believe an unpleasant truth. Few people are willing to submit to a blind ABX test for 2 wildly different amplifiers. Would love to see someone volunteer for a blind ABX test on new vs broken in cables.
I've heard these arguments before. Again, I'm not trying to be mean, but can you back them up? When it comes to the measurement/science/objective type of people, they never produce anything. For all the talk of science and blind test's, they never have anything real to support their claims.
I'm willing to keep an open mind. If you can show me some real tests that were done and documented somewhere, I'll set the test up myself and see if I can get the same results. If it turns out that I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it. |
I wish I could hear no difference because I would have saved thousands and would be happy with a boombox. |
Is an audiophiles aural memory infallible? Of course not. Therefore the differences you think you are hearing could easily not be real. Your measuring device (ears and brain) are not accurate enough or reliable enough to be trusted for such subtle differences. To think it is, is simply an inability to believe an unpleasant truth. Few people are willing to submit to a blind ABX test for 2 wildly different amplifiers. Would love to see someone volunteer for a blind ABX test on new vs broken in cables. The idea is absurd.
And by the way, I never said I didn't hear break in differences. I said that ears and brain alone are not to be trusted to determine such subtle differences. Especially when those differences are frequently pulled from listening sessions that have occurred days, weeks, or even moths apart.
Do I think high end audio offers better fidelity? Hell yes. I'm a dedicated audiophile. But to think I cannot be fooled into thinking I hear an improvement when none exists is delusional. It also explains the long line of foolish products marketed to audiophiles, often at great expense to the buyer. |
"I love audio and I still out no stock in burn in for electronics or cables. What it comes down to IMO is that with high end audio it's extremely easy to be self deluded."
I respect your opinion, but I would also suggest that just because you haven't been able to hear break in doesn't mean that others are deluded and what their hearing is not real. If you think about it, another issue with audio, is bridging what is fact and what is not real, based on personal experience. (I'm not trying to single you out here. We've all done it, myself included.) |
Our ability to hear differences is no less accurate than our ability to see or smell or feel differences. We'd all be dead at an early age otherwise. Those of us who enjoy this hobby have refined our hearing to a level more than the average person. The same goes for our other senses and those who employ them more than others on a regular basis be it due to hobby or employment.
With these differences come impressions that we catalogue in our memories. All it takes is a quick listen to something to familiarize oneself and then swapping out something to ascertain a difference. It's not that big a deal. The same goes for break in. It's right there, not going anywhere and we listen and listen and lo and behold, those tizzy highs are now softened; that midrange just opened up some: the bass just got tighter and more extended.
My hearing didn't just throw in the towel and told my brain to accept it. My brain didn't just say what the heck, it's not getting any better so let's move on. Nor am I now able to hear something that was always there and only realize it a week after. None of that makes any sense.
Someone should see how long it takes for this topic to resurface. Must be a slow news day, or Costco had a big sale on dead horses.
All the best,
Nonoise |
I love audio and I still out no stock in burn in for electronics or cables. What it comes down to IMO is that with high end audio it's extremely easy to be self deluded. This is due to the simple fact that our ability to perceive sound with utter consistent precision is poor at best yet we tend believe we are highly capable of detecting tiny changes. The brain ear combination is highly sophisticated but as a scientific measuring device capable of isolating tiny differences from one listening session to the next it's unreliable to say the least. That is the crux of the audiophile dilemma. |
I wouldn't waste too much time on explanations. These posts are from people who don't like audio and start arguments for fun. |
Search any topic on forum here and you'll see that there's overwhelming consensus on one's rig sounding best after about half an hour after turn on.
Cold, out of the box, not so good.
When brand spanking new, one can easily multiply that exponentially until, after awhile, half an hour is all you need.
Something has happened. Check out any spec on individual parts and you'll see optimum operating temperatures under which they are spec'd. That means they have to heat up some and not exceed those temps.
Again, cold out of the box, not so good. Warmed up, good. That should tell you something. Your pride and joy needs less time to sound good so what just happened?
I've heard the difference between brand new and broken in but others will tell you I'm crazy.
I assure you I'm not.
All the best,
Nonoise |
|
Are you saying that you don't hear components break in or that you do and just don't know why? |
you should visit Morrowaudio.com and read about cable burn in. Tons of great information, once read you will understand completely why this is required with all new equipment from cables to amplifiers. |
