I'd love to try that George. |
"ZD cited just above." Is again not a technical explaination. Could conscrewed as getting used to the sound so you don't take it back for refund.
As for trimpots Peter (Csontos), yes if they are left in one position for a while they do tend to loose contact between the wiper contact point (metalic), and track (carbon or conductive plastic) because of current flow between dissimilar materials.
Part of the same reason for the Lightspeed Attenuator, no contacts of dissimilar materials (diode effect). When ever I see this, I take out the single turn trimpots and replace with Bourns multiturn, they last a bit longer but still have the same problem after a while. Maybe we should use the Lightspeed system as bias pots as well, now you've given me another idea.
Cheers George |
06-23-14: Georgelofi
So it seems like we are in agreement, that to us "break in" for better or worse can occur with the mechanical devices such as speakers drivers, cartridges, and tubes, as you also said.
And you and I will not commit without skirting around the edges and state to "break in" periods of semiconductors or active components can get "better sounding" with said "break in" times of 100's of hours, unless some technical proof is brought forward, forgetting hearsay of friends and customers. George, that is not quite what I said. Note particularly item no. 2 in my previous post, which is entirely consistent with what is stated in the references ZD cited just above. Peter (Csontos), the potentiometer-related effect you described certainly strikes me as being plausible, and a clever observation, but my suspicion is that it is just one of a great many effects that can occur. Best regards, -- Al |
I know this won't be good enough, but I'll try one last time.
This is directly out of the manual for my Ayre V-5.
"Break-In
100 to 500 hours of music
played through the system will
ensure full break-in.
Due to the manufacturing processes used for the
printed circuit boards, wires, and capacitors, a
break-in period is necessary for the amplifier to
reach its full performance potential."
Here's one from Pass Labs.
"Amplifiers
Do the amps need to break in. Yes. Most improvement comes in the first 24-36 hours, after which the amps will continue to improve as long as they are left on.
Preamplifiers
How long do the preamps need to break in?
That depends. The XP-10, XP-20 and XP-15 need about 24 hours to fully warm up. The XP-25 and XP-30 take closer to 36 hours. After initial warm up period the preamps will continue to improve as long as they are left on."
If you want more examples like this, there are thousands. All you have to do is look for them. If you read reviews from magazines like TAS and Stereophile, break in details are included in almost every equipment review they publish. (I haven't read reviews for about 10 years now. I'm assuming they still talk about break in.). You can also call a manufacturer directly. They are usually happy to answer any break in questions pertaining to their equipment.
Other that that, I don't know what more I can offer on this topic. |
There is a certain semi-conductor I do believe undergoes burn in, but as an exception to the rule. And I seriously look forward to yours, George, and Al's comments on this. I've brought up the offset and bias trim pots which are variable resistors, on a couple of other threads but not in regards to this topic. I'm suggesting that because they are always adjusted after recap/refurb, that the perceived short term progressive improvement heard even with new gear is a result of the wiper contact on the pad of the trim pot 'seating' and thus improving it's contact point until optimal and it is this action that is being tracked sonically by the user. The change is real but simply mis-attributed to stationary components. I regularly experience this phenomenon. It's easily observable and you George may be able to relate to this as the same issue pertains to basic mechanical attenuators. The very issue your own product addresses. On a single turn trim pot where you have direct contact with the wiper against your screw driver, you can press on it at the point of correct adjustment and hear improvement. Leave it alone and it will slowly reach that same quality over the short term. I incidentally noticed this a long time ago as another position I hold on bias adjustment requires that I do that procedure while listening. Sq has always continued to improve for up to a month or so after I adjust offset/bias pots. I'm thinking this has to be some how measurable. Without knowing the specifics as I don't recall the text, volume pots have contact issues such that optimization is apparently next to impossible and I'm hoping George can speak on this. |
So it seems like we are in agreement, that to us "break in" for better or worse can occur with the mechanical devices such as speakers drivers, cartridges, and tubes, as you also said.
And you and I will not commit without skirting around the edges and state to "break in" periods of semiconductors or active components can get "better sounding" with said "break in" times of 100's of hours, unless some technical proof is brought forward, forgetting hearsay of friends and customers.
Cheers George |
George, what I was disagreeing with were the three assumptions I listed that your disagreement with ZD appeared to be based on. As far as my own beliefs are concerned, I think we are all agreed that speakers, cartridges, and tubes will change their behavior significantly as they break in. Beyond that I canÂ’t particularly speak from experience, as the only major components IÂ’ve bought new in many years have been speakers. But since youÂ’ve asked, FWIW my beliefs concerning other kinds of components, and cables and power cords, are as follows:
1)I have made the point in dozens of threads over the years here that it is extremely easy in audio to attribute a perceived change to the wrong variable. And I believe that many reported perceptions of changes due to “break in,” especially those involving many hundreds of hours, are the result of incorrect attribution, made possible by experimental methodology which is not adequately thorough and disciplined. Of course, I also assume that in a significant number of cases such reports are simply the result of misperception. And all of that is fostered by a goodly amount of what I perceive to be mythology and technical misconception that is pervasive in audio.
2)Concerning electronic components (solid state as well as tube), as I said I canÂ’t speak from experience. However, a considerable majority of those audiophiles whose opinions I have come to particularly respect, and who also have vast amounts of experience with excellent equipment, believe based on that experience that new electronic components generally require a breakin period of at least tens of hours, and in many cases hundreds of hours. While my technical background and my understanding of how this stuff works does not enable me to precisely explain that, it also does not provide me with any definitive reason to refute it. Therefore I believe that solid state and tube electronic components can be expected to undergo significant amounts of breakin, perhaps several hundred hours for some components.
As I implied earlier in the thread, however, my strong suspicion when I see reports of 800 or 1000 hours or thereabouts being necessary is that either there has been a misperception, or something else has changed in the system or its AC power or its environment (e.g., temperature or humidity, as we both cited earlier in the thread).
3)Concerning cables and power cords, I would say that IÂ’m somewhere in the skeptical part of the spectrum, but I donÂ’t completely rule out the possibility. Among various explanations that tend to be offered, effects related to the dielectric, such as dielectric absorption, are perhaps the most commonly cited. However I have never seen any QUANTITATIVE analysis or measurements offered which would either establish or negate the possibility that such effects may be great enough in degree to have a reasonable chance of being audibly significant. It is very easy to conjure up explanations when they are not, or as a practical matter can not be, subjected to quantitative scrutiny.
The bottom line: As with most things in life, I believe that the truth depends on the specifics that are being considered, and generally lies somewhere in the middle part of the ideological spectrum.
IMO, YMMV, FWIW, etc.
Regards,
--Al |
So Al, by disagreeing respectfully, are you saying that you believe that "breakin phenomena" does exist??
Or just to my assumptions that there should be a measurable difference in component specification?
And if so, in which do you believe the "breakin phenomena" exists, passive cables or active electronic components?
Cheers George |
George is right.
But you need to let your computer screen break in to fully understand the concept. |
The effect of burn in on dielectric materials and how it affects the dielectric constant is well understood and can be found all over the Internet by a simple Google, so you can just about ignore all the hoopla surrounding burn in of cables, anything with wires side, capacitors, transformers, things in that vein. |
I get that, Al. I read an inference suggesting a below spec target goal in order to achieve the desired end result. It was disputed but I don't buy it. In terms of "measurable", I was referring to wires and cables as I'm sure you recognize. All in all, I think it went well:) |
George & Peter (Csontos), I would respectfully disagree with what appears to be the logic behind your recent posts, at least with respect to electronic components (amps, preamps, digital sources, etc). It seems to me that implicit in your logic are the following assumptions:
1)The alleged breakin phenomena which you dispute would result in changes that are measurable, at the component level (as distinguished from the piece part level).
2)As long as the component measures within the +/- tolerances defined by its specifications it will sound as the designer intended, meaning that it will sound the same as his or her prototype sounded when its development was completed.
3)Therefore for the alleged breakin phenomena which you dispute to exist, the component must measure outside of the +/- tolerances defined by its specifications when it is delivered to the customer.
In the case of electronic components I see no reason to expect any of those assumptions to be true.
Regards,
-- Al |
Csontos, I didn't know what to take and am sorry if I inferred incorrectly.
No harm, no foul.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Infer, imply, suggest. Call it what you will but I know what I read. Perhaps you misread the previous post? |
Nonoise, you didn't take that personally, did you? I was of course generalizing. No offense. |
I get that certain technical specs are sometimes required and that there is a descending scale of quality. I was referring to the unmeasurables. You know, those invisible attributes that always exponentially increase cost more than materials and labor. |
It makes no sense that the expectation is for parts to fall out of spec in order to.... That was never said or implied. All that was is that things don't stay new. Tubes aren't the only things that age due to heating up. Anything electricity encounters the slows down it's travel heats it up. So cold, out of the box won't and can't sound the same as when on for awhile. A really stupid attempt... Really? Is this baggage from some older thread? Nothing I know of sounds best, functions best, drives best, or operates best until broken in. Please name one thing that does.Then there is a long period of great performance. To say that it only doesn't apply to electronics is goofy, to be polite. The signal doesn't magically travel through cables, capacitors, tubes, traces and the like and not leave a trace or have an affect. That affect is the lessening of the time it takes to sound it's best. All the best, Nonoise |
Interconnects can sometimes alter things, all are different in construction, and parameters such as impedance, capacitance and inductance, of the cable can have filtering effects when used on high output impedance devices, such tube preamps and passive volume controls.
But anyone who says they need "burning in" with burn in gadgets and burn in cd's needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Cheers George |
A stupid attempt at lending credence to the notion that wires and cables have a wacky ability to magically alter performance. |
06-22-14: Csontos
It makes no sense that the expectation is for parts to fall out of spec in order to fall into a desired lower cumulative level of performance. Ridiculous. And how would this be accomplished within a reasonable time frame? By using inferior quality parts? Again, ridiculous. Exactly, when a unit is tested and adjusted up before it leaves the factory, it should stay this way for some time, for years we all hope. To say that components change their characteristics after this because of "burn in" hours, means those adjustments will out out of spec, after the burn in. Brand new capacitors do what's called "form" but this only takes minutes and they should already be "formed" by the time it takes to do the final spec adjustments in the factory before shipping. The only thing in audio I know of that degrades relatively quickly from the first time it's switched on is tubes. And if they don't have auto bias circuits to keep them in spec, they need to be measured and adjusted every now and again. As they do loose the bias adjustment, depending on how many hours they are on. Cheers George |
It makes no sense that the expectation is for parts to fall out of spec in order to fall into a desired lower cumulative level of performance. Ridiculous. And how would this be accomplished within a reasonable time frame? By using inferior quality parts? Again, ridiculous. |
On the contrary, the units are built to the spec that is finally agreed upon. It's just that anything new will not remain so and will alter over time until it's "broken" in.
Just because something is electric in nature and we can't see it doesn't mean that's there's no aging: wear and tear so to speak, over the short term. It's a big learning curve and we are just on the upward part of that curve.
I'm curious as to this: if we all experienced and agreed that the burn in was of a universally short nature, say a day or so, that there'd be general agreement. Using that as a priori, would it be so difficult to consider that some things take longer?
All the best,
Nonoise |
06-22-14: Zd542
"Ok lets say things do change after "burn in", how does any designer compensate for this, in his calibrations, measurements, tests and design????"
They compensate for this by breaking the prototypes in before they listen and measure. For example, a designer may want to try several different capacitors when building an amp to see which one sounds the best. If they want to try 5 different options, they break the amp in 5 different times. They don't do any serious listening or measurements until they break the amp in first. This is the way they all do it. I don't think you could find one company that doesn't break their equipment like this. You don't have to take my word for it, either. Call some manufactures and ask them. Ok if this is true, then this means all production units sent out that are not "burnt in" have been purposely miss-adjusted/calibrated for currents, bias, dc offset etc, NOT for the best ideal performance. Hoping then that all these parameters of adjustments will all come together after the customer has "burnt it in" for a few weeks??? I think not. Cheers George |
As I see it, it can be expected that by the time developmental testing is completed on the prototype of a new design, including final tweaking/voicing of the design, the prototype is likely to have accumulated a MUCH greater number of hours of operation than production units accumulate prior to leaving the factory. Both as a matter of necessity, due to the nature of the development process, and because the designer will want to assure that final tweaking/voicing takes into account any possible breakin phenomena.
Therefore if in fact breakin phenomena occur for a given design over a number of operating hours that is greater than the number of hours of operation of production units prior to shipment from the factory, those phenomena will continue to occur after the component is placed in service by the end user. And the component will not perform as its designer intended until after some period of use by the end user.
I would be very surprised if any of that were not the case, particularly when it comes to speakers, cartridges, AND major electronic components. So I am in essential agreement with ZD on this point.
Regards,
-- Al |
"Changing out parts for different effect has nothing to do with so-called burn in. The same issue would apply."
Like I said, don't take my word for it. Call some manufacturers and see what they say. |
Generalizations are the source of all wisdom. |
I love it when people speak in absolutes. It's like when people demand. Limited life experiences are one source of this behavior or in this case, limited listening experiences.
Having a closed mindset implies one is not open to learning (hearing) something. Speaking in absolutes (or stating) demands no other course but the one proffered. It's akin to generalizing, which I do my best to avoid. It requires constant discipline.
All the best,
Nonoise |
I think the compensation issue is apples and oranges. Break in at the manufacturer is about ensuring it stays in spec. Changing out parts for different effect has nothing to do with so-called burn in. The same issue would apply. |
"Ok lets say things do change after "burn in", how does any designer compensate for this, in his calibrations, measurements, tests and design????"
They compensate for this by breaking the prototypes in before they listen and measure. For example, a designer may want to try several different capacitors when building an amp to see which one sounds the best. If they want to try 5 different options, they break the amp in 5 different times. They don't do any serious listening or measurements until they break the amp in first. This is the way they all do it. I don't think you could find one company that doesn't break their equipment like this. You don't have to take my word for it, either. Call some manufactures and ask them.
|
"Burn in" believers imply that something will change for the better after a period of time.
The only way this can happen is if the characteristics of the components change.
All good equipment is measured, tested, calibrated and designed to perform it's best before it leaves the factory.
If any of the above characteristics change after this with "burn in". Then this equipment will not test the same, be in calibration, or measure the way the designer wanted it to remain when it left the factory. And could only sound worse after "burn in".
Ok lets say things do change after "burn in", how does any designer compensate for this, in his calibrations, measurements, tests and design????
The only thing in audio I know of that can change "sound" for better or worse, are mechanical things like speaker suspension systems
Cheers George |
Obviously, like most industries with a long history,there are a lot of quality companies and people in high end audio.
Then there are the pure charlatans and everything in between.
It is what it is, not that much different really than most things. |
I don't know what you guys are talkin about. Burn 'out' is more like it. As soon as I get a component back from rebuild, it's awesome for the first little while and then loses that pinnacle of peak performance, settling down to long term stability. Sheesh. WAKE UP! |
With the cost of patents these days running around $10,000 bucks a pop that's a lot of spinach to get some supposed credibility. Besides, one stipulation for a patent is you actually have to describe in excrutiatingly detail how the things works. Furthermore, if someone in some godforsaken part of the world is clever enough to knock it off there's not a helluva lot you can do about it. Not to mention curious little audiophiles with too much time on their hands. Lol |
"Prescription drugs are marketed to us continuously these days. You get a brief summary of the drugs benefits and then you get the many possible side-effects.
At least companies that push drugs are regulated to the extent that they have to disclose pros and cons fully. No such luck with high end audio. THe stakes are just not high enough to regulate anything so its pretty much the wild wild west where anybody can claim anything at anytime with no substantiation and get away with it perhaps."
That's a good point, but I do get a good laugh sometimes when I read the list of side effects. They say just about anything that could ever possibly happen; known and unknown. Of course, its done for CYA purposes. This drug: may make you hot, may make you cold, may give you a headache, may make you head numb, may make you happy, may make you sad.... the list goes on. What I really like about claims audio companies make, is that they're always positive. lol. No way out cables are going to give you headaches. Not even the silver ones.
"THe stakes are just not high enough to regulate anything so its pretty much the wild wild west where anybody can claim anything at anytime with no substantiation and get away with it perhaps."
With regards to that statement, in particular, it may be true in some cases, I don't think the overall situation is quite that bad. Up till this point, I don't think anyone has mentioned patents. Most audio companies do get patents on their work. I'm not a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure you can't just get a patent on anything you want. There has to be some qualifications. The patent has to be on something unique and not conflict with any other patents. Also, I think that you need to show that whatever you are getting a patent on has to do what you say it will. Even is its only on paper and in the design stages.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that patents are guarantee's that you will get a certain level of performance from your audio gear. They may, however, give some credibility to a design and maybe even take it out of the wild west category. Something to consider, that's all. |
Mapman, not really sure what you hope to achieve in this discussion other than to reiterate common naysayer qualms and angst related to unconventional audio activities. Yes, it is a democratic hobby, so even those folks who have stopped trying to improve their sound a long time ago can express contempt or skepticism or whatever as it's a free country. If you wish to be recognized as the leader of the pseudo skeptics that's fine with me. |
Mapman, not really sure what you hope to achieve in this discussion other than to reiterate common naysayer qualms and angst related to unconventional audio activities. Yes, it is a democratic hobby, so even those folks who have stopped trying to improve their sound a long time ago can express contempt or skepticism or whatever as it's a free country. If you wish to be recognized as the leader of the pseudo skeptics that's fine with. |
"The difference being I have experience in cryoing audio items, 15 years of experience. "
Geoff, saying something doesn't make it true. It applies to everyone.
What I see from you is all words, doubletalk as needed, and hoaky products with only words to justify them.
That doesn't make that true either.....but I would play the odds.... |
Mapman wrote,
"... its pretty much the wild wild west where anybody can claim anything at anytime with no substantiation and get away with it perhaps."
The difference being I have experience in cryoing audio items, 15 years of experience. Whereas you have, uh, none. So I guess it's actually YOU. who are claiming anything at any time with no substance. Duh!
Al gets a big -1
:-) |
06-18-14: Bifwynne
What are your views about electronic gear? FWIW, ARC maintains that its gear requires a considerable amount of break-in. FWIW, my instinct would be to consider their recommendations as credible, certainly for their own products. Tubes, capacitors, and (I suspect) transformers and transistors, and perhaps even resistors, can be expected to change their characteristics to an audibly significant degree during some period of burn-in. To a greater or lesser extent depending on the specific circuit design, the specific parts that are used, and on how much testing and burn-in is done at the factory. There must be a lot of material science going on here that is way over my head. As far as cables and power cords are concerned, is it possible that running current through the cables and cords in some ways affects the metallic crystalline structure?? That is a serious question? My feeling is that it's over everyone's head, in the sense that all kinds of explanations can be hypothesized, one of them being dielectric absorption effects which are commonly cited, but given the difficulty or impossibility of establishing (either analytically or empirically) that a given hypothesized explanation is great enough in degree to have a reasonable chance of being audibly significant, any such hypothesis is unlikely to be either provable or disprovable. Which is one reason why: 06-19-14: Mapman
... its pretty much the wild wild west where anybody can claim anything at anytime with no substantiation and get away with it perhaps. +1 Best regards, -- Al |
"The problem with your analysis is that in reality tubes are cryo'd everyday in cryo labs around the country without experiencing any problems. "
Seldom does anything happen without some problems, except in a perfect world, so something a bit more concrete than saying it is so would be useful. Saying something is so does not make it true. Especially when there is money to be made.
Prescription drugs are marketed to us continuously these days. You get a brief summary of the drugs benefits and then you get the many possible side-effects.
At least companies that push drugs are regulated to the extent that they have to disclose pros and cons fully. No such luck with high end audio. THe stakes are just not high enough to regulate anything so its pretty much the wild wild west where anybody can claim anything at anytime with no substantiation and get away with it perhaps. |
George, I can certainly understand your concern and your analysis seems like it might hold water. The problem with your analysis is that in reality tubes are cryo'd everyday in cryo labs around the country without experiencing any problems. |
06-18-14: Bifwynne
Btw, maybe not so crazy. I understand that low temp cryo "cooking" of metallic parts like gun barrels, engine parts and so forth changes the crystalline structure. The result is stronger and longer lasting parts, so the cryo proponents maintain. I think cryo'ing has been overdone in audio, it's fine to do material of one substance like a gun barrel. But when people start doing tubes, this is just not on. As the rates of expansion and contraction of unlike materials like metal tube pins that are an air tight seal with the plastic base and the glass that is a seal with it, just think of what happens to the vacuum in the tube when this is cryo'ed. Then lead solder on plated metal interconnects with silver or copper wire three different materials all contracting at different rates, solder is bound to get cracks in it. Cheers George |
Al, Zd... and George ... I realize that the more recent posts are speaking to burn in of cables and power cords.
What are your views about electronic gear? FWIW, ARC maintains that its gear requires a considerable amount of break-in.
I'm not sure what is happening inside the box, but there must be something to it ... at least with respect to electronic gear. Maybe the caps are settling in?
There must be a lot of material science going on here that is way over my head. As far as cables and power cords are concerned, is it possible that running current through the cables and cords in some ways affects the metallic crystalline structure?? That is a serious question?
Btw, maybe not so crazy. I understand that low temp cryo "cooking" of metallic parts like gun barrels, engine parts and so forth changes the crystalline structure. The result is stronger and longer lasting parts, so the cryo proponents maintain. |
I tend to agree with Jaxwired. Humans are extremely fallible regarding subtle sensory perceptions and despite what some people allege, high end audio is about subtle differences. This doesn't mean cable break-in doesn't occur, but that we should take these observations with a grain of salt. |
ZD, thanks for the thorough response. I will say that when it comes to reports of phenomena that are difficult or impossible to explain, I would have a good deal more confidence in yours than in those of many others, who often seem to not consider the possibility that the perceived change may be caused by something other than what is being assessed.
George, thanks as well for the inputs in your two posts. All I can say is "wow," to both of them.
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.
**************************************
Jax ... in some cases I might agree with you, but in others the change is so profound that there is no way to mistake the change. Dull, uninvolving, 1 dimensional, no dynamics, no top or bottom end slam ... changes to ... open, airy, extended, 3 dimensional, exciting, slamming sound that you just can't stop yourself from getting up and dancing musical enjoyment.
It doesn't matter that it took 2 weeks to get there, you can easily hear it. |
"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?"
As far as knowing for certain that the sound I get with Cardas cables before and after break in, is actually due to break in, is that I can't know for certain. That said, its the only explanation that makes sense; at least to me. My system's usually don't change too much, so I don't have to deal with trying to listen around other changes in equipment (For the most part. I'm sure that there were some cases where I changed equipment during the burn in process.). The main thing that leads me to believe the results I get are due to break in is consistency. With my Cardas cables (Golden Reference), the cables have a sound when they are new, and a different sound when they are broken in. But its always the same. Also, they all take about the same time to notice the change. I wouldn't say 800 hours, though. Somewhere between 300-400. That's with a CD player on repeat playing white noise, 24 hours a day.
Could the break in really be due to a change in the AC? Its possible, but I don't think its very likely. I've done multiple pairs of the exact same cable, all with the same results. If the AC was to blame, you could just as easily get the sound that is the end result (after burn in) first, and then burn in to what the cables sound like originally, when new. Or, there could just be no change at all. Even if you've had issues with sound changing due to AC, it doesn't mean it has to be a factor every time. So, that's why I rule out AC. The results seem to be too consistent.
Temperature and humidity? Al, you have me on that one. I never checked. lol. I have no idea how much of a factor that will be. Some of my equipment is in FL, and the rest in NY. Humidity and temp in FL is fairly consistent. In NY it is not.
Just to sum up, break isn't something that any audiophile should be worried about. I feel that time is much better spent focusing on other topics. In the end, everyone gets the same results. If break in does happen, it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not. It will take care of itself all on its own, with a little time. And if it doesn't happen, or you can't hear it for some reason, you still have the same end result. |
06-17-14: Mapman
Makes sense.
I do think I hear a difference with some new power cords, but so subtle its hard to be certain. These can be a bit different sound, as they have earth, neutral and live. Some shifty mains cable makers swap the neutral and live around, while all still works, they are attached then different within the primary winding of the equipment's mains transformer, as it has an outer feed and inner feed. And this even though it's AC can this sound different, making the user think it's the actual mains cable itself causing the difference. You can prove this to yourself with some cdp's that only have a two wire main cable with a reversable 2 pin mains plug on the back of them, each way sounds different to the other even though it's the same cable and plug. Cheers George |
I guess it is the term "burn-in" that piqued my interest - I inferred a physical change, and there very well may be - whether magnetism, heat, or some "alchematic" result, lol. Anyway, it is very interesting, and I wonder if the those changes have ever been measured? I assume possibly resistance, and other qualities surely have, over time. My equipment has most always been pre-owned, so I have not really experienced the change. I appreciate the discussion and I definitely didn't start this thread to instigate argument. |
Makes sense.
I do think I hear a difference with some new power cords, but so subtle its hard to be certain.
I definitely hear differences with different analog ICs. DIgital ones, less so.
And rolling tubes in my tube DAC....absolutely no doubt.
I think burn in is a real consideration for mechanical devices, like speakers. ALso for some electronic components, like caps and probably transistors.
I suspect there is "burn-in" aspect with wires as well, but to a lesser extent that might matter less practically in most cases.
It's shades of grey, not black/white. No two things are exactly the same nor do they remain 100% constant over time, but practical effect may still be insignificant or even nonexistent in many cases.
Almarg is correct to point out that there can be many factors at play to account for perceived differences over time, and isolating each is difficult in practice, especially outside of a highly controlled envrionment, like a laboratory. When the differences are subtle on teh grand scale of things, one must always wonder and not be too quick to associate cause and effect. |
