Earlier: I posted, "I should have mentioned what a waste of keystrokes, I now believe it to be, to engage (a polite, scientific, term I’ve coined, for rock-headed individuals) and their blather." Apparently, someone felt that was, "offensive to a member"(probably, because they couldn’t understand it) and deleted it, though the post addressed NO ONE, in particular. Welcome to the CANCEL CULTURE. Let me expand that, to ALL the blather, generated on this site, in general. Is that more acceptable?
Why no “Break in” period?
If people say there’s a break in period for everything from Amps to cartridges to cables to basically everything... why is it with new power conditioners that people say they immediately notice “the floor drop away” etc. Why no break in on that?
I’m not trying to be snarky - I’m genuinely asking.
I’m not trying to be snarky - I’m genuinely asking.
162 responses Add your response
@rodman99999 I suspect your post was deleted because the forum attempts to maintain a policy of encouraging conversation, rather than exchanges of insults. So a post that is essentially comprised of insult, even if it doesn’t name the individual it is directed towards, is seen as counterproductive and such posts are discouraged by being deleted. I dislike "cancel culture" as much as anyone, but I have no problem with a forum attempting to keep some level of decorum to promote productive conversations rather than trolling or insulting ones. When you are discouraged from resorting to ad hominem and insult, it encourages you (or should) to produce actual reasoned content and interact with the points made by other people. If you have an idea that you can actually support through reason, argument, evidence, best to do that rather than through insult (or without adding insults). I see millercarbon still can not resist the impulse for insult. That’s a shame. |
I repeat: "Bias" is bias, regardless of the viewpoint or subject. ie: Those that are so adamant, regarding their beloved theories/opinions/biases(regardless of the source), while refusing to acknowledge that ONLY experimentation(the heart of the Scientific Method), provides PROOF, regarding anything discussed. Most of those are proffering their opinions, without ever having tried what’s being discussed. What you hold true, in your listening room, is all that matters. Experiment and trust your ears. Anyone that discredits another’s abilities to hear improvements, in their own systems, in their own listening environments, with their own ears, should be considered condescending, insulting and/or(probably), simply projecting their own ineptitude. Perhaps, to be pitied. That’s just logic, which is anathema to the Counter Culture. Far as, "....big, high falutin’ words"; Higher Education improves one’s vocabulary. Some here should try it! Sorry for lack of paragraphs. Case didn’t offer typing classes, back in the day. |
OK, let's look at this another way. Who turns on their Class A amp, immediately starts playing music and expects to hear optimal sound? While I don't go nearly as far down the road as @millercarbon, the initial response was perfectly reasonable: a new component, any new component, swopped into a system is more likely than not to produce a different sonic presentation, better, worse, or just different. After "settling", there are likely to be further changes, typically less radical than those initially noted. All the rest is an argument that has stretched over dozens and dozens of recent threads. |
Prof, very eloquent. After all this nobody has given us a proven reason why a purely electronic device needs to "break in" after the manufacturer's burn in. Most of us who do not believe in electronic's breaking in do so because there is not a viable reason why they should. Prof has noted that it is easy to hear minor differences in real time like when he is adjusting a mix. Otherwise it is not so easy. You can not remember a sound. You remember your characterization of that sound, a very low resolution method. Try remembering the sound of a particular instrument without having a picture of that instrument pop into your head. Only superior individuals like millercarbon can do this. The way we characterize sounds is not accurate enough to make fine distinctions on a remote basis. We can all tell the difference between a cat meow and a dog bark. Can you tell the difference between two Siamese cats or two German Shepards on a remote basis? It is impossible to approach this enterprise without bias. I dislike unipivot tonearms. My rational may or may not be legitimate but it is certainly viable and I am not alone in that thinking. There are many who believe electronic equipment breaks in sonically. I wish someone could give me a viable reason why. In reality the only reason they have is that they have heard it on a remote basis and as Prof eluded, that is purely subjective and we are not good enough at characterizing sounds we have heard to make that distinction accurately. Mke |
After all this nobody has given us a proven reason why a purely electronic device needs to "break in" after the manufacturer’s burn in. after the manufacturer’s burn in. "after the manufacturer’s burn in." ???? For what purpose would a manufacture need to "burn in" a piece of electronic equipment, wasting his/her time and money for such a purpose? Circuitry adjustments yes..... "Burn in", though?? Again for what purpose? What is meant by "forming" of an electrolytic capacitor? |
For those who believe that one cannot remember a sound, tell that to someone who's pitch perfect and can tell you instantly what note is playing. 5 in 10K people have that ability. The rest of us come close. We can remember sounds. Ask any early hominid if he remembers the sound of that big cat who ate his friend last week. All the best, Nonoise |
Everyone (pretty much) who makes electronics "burns in" their equipment at least a few hours, sometimes even 24 or 48 to eliminate early failures caused by component anomalies and manufacturing defects. I think they mean reforming. When an electrolytic capacitor sits unused for a long time (many months to years depending on quality), they can develop high leakage current due to aluminum oxide formation on the foil electrodes. That can have bad effects including circuit malfunction or worst case capacitor failure. Reforming is applying the rated voltage with current limiting to remove the oxide. Modern electrolytics can go years before this is a problem. If the manufacturer has good controls, they will use a FIFO system for part usage and should scrap older electrolytic caps. Andy2, best rule in a forum, attack the content, not the person. It is a simply rule to follow that many don’t seem to understand. jea483,191 posts12-09-2019 1:52pm |
nonoise, What you are describing appears to be mainly recognizing a sound, which is different from remembering subtle characteristics of that sound. You can recognize a sound or image even when it is very distorted, like a persons voice on a noisy phone line, or being able to read sentences even when every 5th character is removed. nonoise5,164 posts12-09-2019 2:22pmFor those who believe that one cannot remember a sound, tell that to someone who's pitch perfect and can tell you instantly what note is playing. 5 in 10K people have that ability. The rest of us come close. |
atdavid"What you are describing appears to be mainly recognizing a sound" That is what audio is all about you seem to be confused, disoriented, or distracted this is so obvious it is painful! |
1+ atdavid. I was going to make that response but you beat me to it. We all can recognize a cat meow or a dog bark. Some of us can recognize middle C. That is a far cry from remembering what a complex set of noises sounded like and comparing them to another set of complex noises. clearthink as I explained above making an audio evaluation is a lot more complex than identifying a tone or recognizable pattern like the cat meow or your wife yelling at you to turn the volume down. atdavid is anything but confused, disoriented or distracted. It is your comment that is painful. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
"Politely attacking somebody is still attacking. It seems like millercarbon has received a lot of that, not that I am agreeing or disagreeing with him. Hiding under the umbrella of "politeness" is not going to cut it with me." +1 Andy BTW, I'm perfectly okay with the "subjective" improvements I hear during break in periods. Also, what mill stated about listening to the first side of a record album is spot on. If you can't hear the difference, it's your system or ears. |
Those that are so adamant, regarding their beloved theories/opinions/biases(regardless of the source), while refusing to acknowledge that ONLY experimentation(the heart of the Scientific Method), provides PROOF, regarding anything discussed. Most of those are proffering their opinions, without ever having tried what’s being discussed. What you hold true, in your listening room, is all that matters. Experiment and trust your ears. That’s a common misstatement about the nature of science (typically used by people who place undue levels of confidence in their own subjectivity). "Try it for yourself and see if it works" is an empirical method. But it’s not the SCIENTIFIC empirical method. Everything that underlies the power of science, it’s success, and what makes science more reliable lies in that difference. The problem is that people are prone to all sorts of biases and cognitive errors and laziness when discerning cause and effect. "I wished on my magic crystal last month that I’d get a job...and what do you know, I got a job, my crystal must have done it!" "I put on my magnetic bracelet, and eventually my cold went away. The bracelet works!" In other words, we tend to be very sloppy in attending to all the variables in our explanations, which is why countless contradictory belief systems flourish. The Scientific method arose largely as a response to this problem by proposing hypothesizes with testable consequences, using parsimony to select among explanations, controlling for known or possible other causes, etc. This is why, as I pointed out to rodman before, a scientific study on a new drug would not consist of simply giving him the drug and asking rodman if rodman feels like it works. The test would control the effects of bias, placebo effect and/or other known variables. The work of a scientist who did sloppy work, not controlling for known variables, would be dismissed, for good reason. If rodman *really* wanted to test his findings consistent with the scientific method, he’d be acknowledging the reality of bias, and controlling for it. Blind testing being such a method. A method he and many audiophiles seem to instead reject. (Which is ironic, since the more rigorously controlled method would ACTUALLY rely on "trusting your ears" and not your "eyes and ears.") There is of course nothing wrong with just buying gear and trying it, feeling like it makes a difference we like, and buying it. As I’ve pointed out a million times, I don’t go trying to test everything I buy with scientific rigor. But let’s be intellectually honest and understand and admit when we aren’t doing so with a "scientific" mindset. And it’s intellectually honest to calibrate our claims and beliefs with the quality of evidence we have.The problem arises when people simply insist their subjective inferences aren’t or can’t be wrong because "my ears don’t lie! you can’t tell ME I didn’t hear it," which is a plain refusal to face the reality of the strength of sighted biases. |
Thanx Prof. It is not just sighted biases but intellectual ones also. Another mistake people frequently make is confusing causation with association. Just because two events happen at the same time does not mean one caused the other even if logic says it does. The media does this all the time. When I have a question whether or not something sounds better I try to arrange AB comparisons. I have many switch boxes I have built over the years to test predominantly wires from the listening position. I have one for preamps. Unfortunately it is impossible to do this for break in so we are left with no way to prove and no rational reason why break in should occur with electronic devices. Why doesn't anything sound worse when it breaks in? |
SO; the bottom line of all this discussion(according to some) would be, "It’s a waste of time, trying to upgrade your system/listening pleasure, by actually auditioning(LISTENING), since YOU’RE too inept to tell if there’s an improvement in sound, without a degreed Scientist present, to PROPERLY conduct experiments on your proposed purchase and determine(for you) if it’s POSSIBLE for that component/tweak, to positively affect what you might hear." Right? |
rodman99999 SO; the bottom line of all this discussion(according to some) would be, "It’s a waste of time, trying to upgrade your system/listening pleasure, by actually auditioning(LISTENING), since YOU’RE too inept to tell if there’s an improvement in sound, without a degreed Scientist present, to PROPERLY conduct experiments on your proposed purchase and determine(for you) if it’s POSSIBLE for that component/tweak, to positively affect what you might hear." Right?You're pretty close. Variations of the theme include the insistence that the listener himself conduct various scientific, controlled, double-blind listening tests to suit the sensibilities of the "scientist," and/or the rejoinder that it's fine to proceed without such validation so long as you understand that you are suffering from delusions or any one of a number of other mental maladies. |
@prof Yes, it’s true, I liked it but not for the reasons you were hoping for. I liked it for its pomposity and irony. 😛 I just calculated you’re in a dead heat, so to speak, with atdavid for the most posts exhibiting high degrees 🔝 of pomposity and irony. I’ve been using your posts and others as a journal, but also as a joke diary if I have any thoughts or frustrations. think I told you, I’m pursuing a career in standup comedy. You know, for when the whack a mole game on audio forums dries up. 🤡 |
markpop12275 posts @ markpop1227 Take it with a grain of salt..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJFnlDTtsBA FWIW Capacitor Forming https://www.tdk-electronics.tdk.com/download/185386/6ad5ed9e1ff4f727c328cb92da2adf2b/pdf-generaltech... . |
Why doesn’t anything sound worse when it breaks in?Probably the reason may be similar to why most equipment will sound "better" fully warmed up although that doesn’t really have to be the case. I intentionally used the word "most" since if I say "all", somebody will come in and say "... but, but, but I know something sound worse ... so on". If everything I say has no exception then I am "God". On the other hand, I am pretty sure (and you cannot argue with me on this) I am much better not "warmed up" at all. And even much better with sip of wine. |
None of us are saying that you should not evaluate equipment through as many measures as you can reasonably apply. The problem for back seat audiophiles like geoffkait is that there are mountains of absurd junk and snake oil out there that they want to believe will make a miraculous improvement in the sound quality of their systems. More so than buying the newest Boulder amplifier which they can't possibly afford. Neither can I for than matter. Prof, atdavid and I are just not delusional enough. I do keep my ARC phono amp on all the time because I do think it sounds better warmed up and I can afford the tubes. In reality I just hate waiting for it to warm up:) Oh and geoffkait, I would look for another profession. You might try being a psychologist. They are excellent at being wrong. |
This is all coming down to being a great case of helicopter parenting amped up by a surfeit of hubris. Ya'll need to come down a few rungs on that ladder of abstraction to relatable and personal levels, like in the old days. I'd hate to go have a meal with some of you as you'd ruin the experience. 😄 All the best, Nonoise |
Electronics do not have a break in period. You are only accommodating to the sound of your system. This is also my thoughts. For those that believe there is a break in period of electronics, please explain: 1. What is actually happening electronically that causes the equipment to sound better? 2. Why does the breakin process ALWAYS result in improved sound quality? Why is it not possible for whatever the breakin process is, to result in a less good (when compared to brand new) sounding piece of equipment at the end of its breakin process? 3. What prevents whatever the breakin process is, to stop when the equipment sounds better? Why doesn't it continue to breakin for its entire life and continue to improve? |
SO; the bottom line of all this discussion(according to some) would be, "It’s a waste of time, trying to upgrade your system/listening pleasure, by actually auditioning(LISTENING), since YOU’RE too inept to tell if there’s an improvement in sound, without a degreed Scientist present, to PROPERLY conduct experiments on your proposed purchase and determine(for you) if it’s POSSIBLE for that component/tweak, to positively affect what you might hear." Right? Wrong. The problem is you'll need to actually accept nuance, rather than black-and-white answers, in order to understand the point that keeps being made. As I'd repeated: no one needs to do science in being an audiophile. Practice it however you wish, whatever makes you happy. Buy a new power conditioner and it seems your system sounds better? Enjoy. But the more a claim enters the realm of "controversial" (and by that I mean "controversial among experts who have relevant knowledge and expertise"), if you really care about truth and having intellectual humility, then you would simply admit that, though personal experience seems to validate a positive claim, it isn't the type of data that would settle the matter, due to all the issues already pointed out. If you say "I heard a difference and I'm good with that"...fine. But when people leap to objective claims "therefore my experience has verified the claim and anyone who doesn't hear what I hear is at fault" then, that's going to get some pushback for the hubris it is. As I've said: I have plenty of gear I haven't scientifically tested, and I have not advocated it's necessity for enjoying high end audio. |
This is all coming down to being a great case of helicopter parenting amped up by a surfeit of hubris. You haven't indicated who you are talking too. But... Tell me: Who in this thread has been admitting "I don't know the asnwer. I haven't decided yet. I'm still looking at the evidence." Who has admitted to the "other side": You could be right in reporting what you hear. Is this admission of fallibility, tentativeness, and allowing the other person could be correct coming from millercarbon? Rodman? I'd hate to go have a meal with some of you as you'd ruin the experience. 😄 Not me. I'm nuts about food, restaurants, fine dining etc, and I dine out regularly with a large variety of family, friends and acquaintances. Just this weekend I had a 14 course tasting menu meal with a pal at the best restaurant in the city (not something I can regularly afford) that I'm still dreaming about. Had tons of fun talking food with the rest of the diners at the table. Most attempts to psychoanalyze other people on a forum fail because, especially when we find they disagree with our view, the impulse is to characterize them in a way that makes us feel superior. Personally, I'm sure millercarbon, rodman, and most others here are terrific people when not engaged in audiophile turf battles, and they are likely plenty smarter than I am overall. |
Prof, I wish I was as eloquent as you are and Simonmoon I believe you are absolutely right. Everyone is entitled to their own experience. My problem comes when people try to sell stuff to other people that are less knowledgeable and perhaps more gullible. Companies take advantage of this to sell products that are somewhat more than ridiculous. Then one of us thinks it made his system sound better and away you go. I think the Walker turntable is a very interesting design but I would never consider one based on the other crap they sell on their web site. Buy Music, Mike |
At dinner one night, second bottle of wine comes, finish my glass and pour another and.... what the? Sharp, astringent, acidic, had to double-check. Yeah same wine. Wife still had some of hers from the first, try this, sure enough, first ones better. Huh. Little while later, pour myself some more, now it tastes like the first bottle. Does wine really need to "breathe"? I guess if wine drinkers were like eloquent audiophiles there’d be someone at the table pontificating on how if you say it tastes better fine but don’t go try and tell me it tastes better harumph harumpf. When in fact after a little more conversation and investigation it turns out the wine does in fact taste better, and I’m not gonna go into the whole story of how we demonstrated this but we did in fact demonstrate this. Turns out the issue is not after all anything like its being made out to be, however eloquently the illogical dog chasing its own tails narrative is told. What we were able to show is really going on is the difference was there all along. Some just weren’t paying attention. There’s always gonna be people who aren’t paying attention. Which is fine. Makes the world go round. Only funny thing, pretty much always turns out the more you pay attention the better you do. Which is why I’m always recommending people go and listen. To DYODD. To listen and audition and buy what you like and not what some random interwebber recommends. Over and over again. To disregard the vast number of times I’ve said this, well that is beyond not paying attention. We’re talking downright willful ignorance here. And for what? To make a cheap audio turf war point? Nah. Couldn’t be. That would never happen. Would it? |
3. What prevents whatever the breakin process is, to stop when the equipment sounds better? Why doesn't it continue to breakin for its entire life and continue to improve?Can you step into the same river twice? Can you listen to the same cable twice? "Break-in" is a difficult thing to accept. The word "aging" is more universally accepted. |
rodman Note I said "But when PEOPLE leap to objective claims..." I didn’t say you had made that explicit claim. Though millercarbon has made essentially that claim many times, continually insulting people who "can’t hear" the obvious sonic differences of various tweaks he tells us about. But you seem to have conveniently forgotten the nature of your own posts in this thread, filled with invective against those of us voicing skepticism. There was indeed have a similar apparent point implicit in what you keep writing:
And that an example of this was just testing out devices in your system: What you hold true, in your listening room, is all that matters. Experiment and trust your ears. So, you are trusting your ears to tell you the truth. Then you are moving from that to discredit anyone who raises any skeptical challenge to this method:
In other words: someone skeptical of the conclusions you’ve drawn from your experience is at fault. And you’ve included all sorts of insults and invective against those of us skeptical about your claim. So, really, yeah...you also seem to be an example of the problem I pointed to, where you have decided based on your "trusting your own ears" that what you hear is "true" and then you go on to cast aspersions at anyone who may doubt as being "rock-headed." Why the dogma regarding subjective experience, where instead of admitting we can be wrong, you seem to promote first-hand subjective experience as "the only way to truth" about what is going on in an audio system? Why is it *so hard* to admit you could be in error? That’s not the same as admitting you *are* in error. Just that it’s possible. We’re human right? Give it a whirl: It’s good for the soul. ;-) |
rodman99999- Relax. He's out of his league. And boy does it ever show. |
simonmoon-When you hear something, do you hear it? Or are you required to explain "what is actually happening" that accounts for your hearing it? Could you even do that? Really? 2. Why does the breakin process ALWAYS result in improved sound quality? Why is it not possible for whatever the breakin process is, to result in a less good (when compared to brand new) sounding piece of equipment at the end of its breakin process?Who said this is not possible? 3. What prevents whatever the breakin process is, to stop when the equipment sounds better? Why doesn't it continue to breakin for its entire life and continue to improve? More stuff nobody ever said. Certainly not me. Sorry to say, but there's an awful lot of people out there just aren't very good listeners. Not because they're hard of hearing. Their ears are probably fine. But because they never bothered to work and develop the listening skills to recognize and differentiate among all the different details they're hearing. Often times people do hear something, but their ability to verbalize just what it was that they heard is lacking. When this happens they themselves aren't even really sure what's going on. This fascinating aspect of human perception hardly ever gets discussed in all the petty harping and irrelevant needling trying to force technical explanations. I sometimes imagine these guys with their wives, honey the coefficient of friction seems a little off tonight, but lets get Larry in here to double-blind you so I can be sure. I've explained very clearly before what happens, and will do so again, but not in BS terms of "what is actually happening" which let's face it no one knows that about anything, but in terms of "what I'm actually hearing." When something is brand new, and it could be a fuse, power cord, amp, pretty much anything, when first turned on the sound is pretty chaotic, fuzzy, grainy. The essential character, whatever that is, is there, but out of focus and out of balance. Then within minutes the sound changes rather dramatically, so that by the end of the first song its quite a bit different than at the beginning. This process continues, always in my experience for several days, often for several weeks, sometimes even longer. Hard to say exactly, for two very different yet related reasons. One is, dramatic early changes rapidly give way to much more gradual incremental differences. This is not, by the way, always a one-way street. Plenty of gear gets better and better, then inexplicably something goes off for a bit, then still later gets back on track and its better than ever. Not the norm but it happens. Another reason its hard to say is its not just one thing going on. The component isn't just accumulating hours, like miles on a car. Its also being turned on and off. Warming up and cooling down. Being played. Sitting idle. Turned off. And even if left on and always playing music, still there are the cycles of night and day. You haven't learned to listen for and appreciate how much different your system sounds late at night? Not to mention all this other stuff? Not my problem. Believe me, I wish it weren't so. Wish I could just turn everything on and have it sound great right now, instead of half an hour later. Really wish I didn't have to endure the first few minutes with the cartridge each night. Or maybe not. Maybe if it wasn't like that it also wouldn't be as divine as it is a few hours later on that same night. Who can say? Who cares? I only care to the extent knowing enables me to make it sound even better. Which there is the difference. One cares only how it sounds. To make it sound better. The other cares why it sounds that way. To.... win arguments? Such a waste. |
millercarbon ...
That's the post of the month. LMAO. Good one, millercarbon. :-) Frank |
