Im going to disagree here somewhat. Theres one type of item in an amplifier that can be said to "burn in" without too much controversy. Electrolytic capacitors, they may reform under operating conditions.
Of course, some of the folks who really obsess over these things would rather have a sharp poke in the eye than use an electrolytic.
Re burn-in, another area for investigation concerns dielectrics, which can store electrical charges created during construction and handling. Capacitor and cable burn-in, so called, might in fact relate to eliminating or reducing these stored charges. Here's what Lynn Olson thinks of the matter:
On a related note, Bob Pease has written about static charge build-up in teflon which, as the article describes, confounded the workings of certain very sensitive pieces of electronics, thus confounding the operators of that equipment who got X readings when they expected Y. You can read his article here.
On a related note, Bob Pease has written about static charge build-up in teflon which, as the article describes, confounded the workings of certain very sensitive pieces of electronics, thus confounding the operators of that equipment who got X readings when they expected Y. You can read his article here.
There might be one or several very small changes in a few components.
But they would most probably not have any possibility to effect overall performance at all.
Even if it was confirmed scientifically
that amplifiers need to burn-in to be able to deliver output
according to specifications,
I doubt I would worry and do anything different.
I would use my amplifier as normal.
And allow me to doubt, I suddenly one day ( when 'burnt-in-state' has arrived )
would notice a significant improvement in performance.
These theories and speculations are not, as far as I have seen, yet validated and documented.
For now, I have no good logical reason to buy them.
So I will wait with doing this.
But they would most probably not have any possibility to effect overall performance at all.
Even if it was confirmed scientifically
that amplifiers need to burn-in to be able to deliver output
according to specifications,
I doubt I would worry and do anything different.
I would use my amplifier as normal.
And allow me to doubt, I suddenly one day ( when 'burnt-in-state' has arrived )
would notice a significant improvement in performance.
These theories and speculations are not, as far as I have seen, yet validated and documented.
For now, I have no good logical reason to buy them.
So I will wait with doing this.
I have to take partial exception to this regarding Rod Elliot. Looking through the articles section of his website it's pretty clear that "argument by assertion" is generally not his style. He has put a lot of effort in to publishing experimental data behind his conclusions. If one is going to debate Rod convincingly it's a good idea to put a similar effort in to generating your own data.
It is true that when he reaches a conclusion that suggests someone is charging customers disproportionate amounts of money for equipment having an obviously minimal cost of manufacture he tends to take great offense. This is probably a sign of personal integrity as much as anything else. By contrast, I'm much more cynical by nature and get a chuckle out of some fool with more money than sense who pays thousands (of US$) for a pair of LM3886's plus assorted caps and resistors all inside a pretty box. I take a simple confirnation of BF's dictum that "A fool and his money are soon parted." (This is not a knock on the LM3886 just a recognition that one of special and remarkable virtues is that it *IS* cheaper than dirt.)
Could you clarify me why an engineer is "stupid or deaf" by this?widowmaker said:
I have at least 10 years designing and building audio amplifiers without problems; and I can say to you that I agree with the author of this article.
In this point;
Could you explain me why any engineer with experience that considers the tubes (in audio amplifiers) as obsolete technology is "stupid or deaf"?
I wait for your answer.
Hmmm I think "burn-in" is a reality. I'm member in a swedish hifi-forum. We had a meeting for a half year ago. Two identical tweeked DVD-player with diffrent "burn-in" time sounded diffrent. The player which was used longer sounded more open.
Besides..when I lived in gränna (a small town in sweden) a friend worked in capacitor-factory (RIFA) there. And they used a "burn- in" process which lasted for few hours.
Besides..when I lived in gränna (a small town in sweden) a friend worked in capacitor-factory (RIFA) there. And they used a "burn- in" process which lasted for few hours.
sam9 said:
I'm glad it's partial sam9 because it's not really what I wrote.
It was in reference to the tendency of both (in Aczel's case 'tendency' is a soft word) to cast manufacturers of devices they consider ineffectual as snake-oil salesmen and charlatans. I made no comment on Elliot's methodology regarding physical devices, just people.
"Tubes are great for high-powered
RF transmitters and microwave ovens
but not, at the turn of the century, for
amplifiers, preamps, or (good grief!)
digital components like CD and DVD
players."
Many deaf and stupid engineers write a lot of meaningless nonsenses...
Well, even now, at the turn of the century, and nearing its own centenial, the triode is still the most linear gain device.
All of these active parts be they tubes, fets, or bjts have different character engineers can exploit to achieve their end goal.
RF transmitters and microwave ovens
but not, at the turn of the century, for
amplifiers, preamps, or (good grief!)
digital components like CD and DVD
players."
Many deaf and stupid engineers write a lot of meaningless nonsenses...
Well, even now, at the turn of the century, and nearing its own centenial, the triode is still the most linear gain device.
All of these active parts be they tubes, fets, or bjts have different character engineers can exploit to achieve their end goal.
By second thought, burn-in could have an effect, speaking silver wire.
Note: This does not automatically apply to amplifiers.
Could be because of one or both of these things:
1) Dielectric forming
2) Quantum tunneling effect
From this we see and learn that
what some people like to call Audio Lie
is in fact no lie at all.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.