I'm not much of a believer of burn in myself.. But,one more than one occasion I've had amplifiers make odd noises on the first power up,or after replacing parts. Once after I replaced the coupling caps in a tube amp with some new ones,and switched it on,it made a couple "ticking" and "thumping" noises during the first minute or so,and then settled right into normal operation again,never heard any noises at switch on since.
I assume it's just the parts "settling in" to thier new home and getting used to the voltages/signals around them. It doesn't seem to take very long,certainly shorter than tens/hundreds of hours,if minutes.
"Burn in" on a newly built piece of equipment is always a good idea,IMO. Not so much for changes in sound,as for checking the reliability,and making sure it's oprerating correctly,and doesn't have any issues with being powered on for long periods,thermal issues,etc.
I assume it's just the parts "settling in" to thier new home and getting used to the voltages/signals around them. It doesn't seem to take very long,certainly shorter than tens/hundreds of hours,if minutes.
"Burn in" on a newly built piece of equipment is always a good idea,IMO. Not so much for changes in sound,as for checking the reliability,and making sure it's oprerating correctly,and doesn't have any issues with being powered on for long periods,thermal issues,etc.
janneman said:
Dear Mr. Didden,
thank you very much for your extremely kind and precious opinion.
But this approach smells of audiophile eh, eh, eh.
Anyway I think that audio designers should carry out some kind of measurements, at least to know if they are going in the right direction.
Thank you very much indeed.
Kind regards,
beppe61
Re: A suggestion
I trust them, but the comment I made should not be taken out on it's own like that, away from the preceeding context that I laid down saying that mood influences the sound. Maybe, I don't trust myself to hear the same thing the same twice over a long period, would be better
analog_sa said:It may prove very productive if a separate thread "I don't trust my ears" is started. I try to keep count of such members but there are obviously new entrants to that exclusive club daily
I trust them, but the comment I made should not be taken out on it's own like that, away from the preceeding context that I laid down saying that mood influences the sound. Maybe, I don't trust myself to hear the same thing the same twice over a long period, would be better
Dear Sir,
thank you very much for your kind and valuable comments.
>
I hope this settling-in is the culprit of the harsh (but really more powerful and dynamic) sound I am hearing from my amp with the new Rifa caps in.
Thank you very much for your precious advice.
Kind regards,
beppe61
Italy
thank you very much for your kind and valuable comments.
>
DigitalJunkie said:
I hope this settling-in is the culprit of the harsh (but really more powerful and dynamic) sound I am hearing from my amp with the new Rifa caps in.
Thank you very much for your precious advice.
Kind regards,
beppe61
Italy
Re: A suggestion
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/AudioScience.pdf
See page 10. Blind vs Sighted tests, seeing is believing.
Welcome to the club!
Jan Didden
analog_sa said:
It may prove very productive if a separate thread "I don't trust my ears" is started. I try to keep count of such members but there are obviously new entrants to that exclusive club daily
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/AudioScience.pdf
See page 10. Blind vs Sighted tests, seeing is believing.
Welcome to the club!
Jan Didden
Burn in
After reading the posts I thought I would offer my 2 cents worth.
Burn in of equipment does ZERO. The brain does not have the ability to remember what the equipment sounded like 5 minutes ago not even 10 seconds ago. Please note the issue of double blind listening tests where switchover is done in less than 1 second between 2 peices of gear. Anyone who believes that burning in amplifiers etc makes them sound better needs counseling. The question to ask is what actually gets burnt in?
The power transformer simply supplies power. The large electrolytics in the power supply simply hold charge and the charge remains the same after 10 seconds or 10 days. Yes yes after many years these bad boys go bad (no pun intended) but even then if an electrolytic loses 30% of it's value, one would never know this. Transistors/Mosfets/ICs do not change much with change in temperature (only safe operating area and gain) are really affected. Any good designer takes these changing parameters into account when designing (I do). Resistors the lowest form of life in the electronics world change so little with change in temperature that their performance is basically unaffected by temperature. Coupling capacitors do not change over time either.
So what else can affect the "sound" of the equipment after leaving it on for 832 days? Maybe the chassis or the RCA sockets?
Those reviewers in the audiophile magazines (you know who you are) who write about how they "burnt" in the equipment for xxxx days and "wow it opened a new dimension of sound" bla bla bla. Do they actually believe the nonesense they write?
We burn in sample amplifiers off our production line only to make sure that mechanically the amplifier is solid. The electronics by design will be reliable.
Now burning in cables is a whole nother issue. Cables DEFINITELY sound better after being burnt in with a 276.825KHz square wave which has been modulated by a 47Hz sinewave at 69% modulation and the burn must be done for no less than 746 hours at an ambient temperature of 4 degrees Celsius!
For those interested please visit our website and read some of the topics under "Techtalk" where I discuss some of the fairytales which have come about over the years. WWW.ZEDAUDIO.COM
Regards
Stephen Mantz
After reading the posts I thought I would offer my 2 cents worth.
Burn in of equipment does ZERO. The brain does not have the ability to remember what the equipment sounded like 5 minutes ago not even 10 seconds ago. Please note the issue of double blind listening tests where switchover is done in less than 1 second between 2 peices of gear. Anyone who believes that burning in amplifiers etc makes them sound better needs counseling. The question to ask is what actually gets burnt in?
The power transformer simply supplies power. The large electrolytics in the power supply simply hold charge and the charge remains the same after 10 seconds or 10 days. Yes yes after many years these bad boys go bad (no pun intended) but even then if an electrolytic loses 30% of it's value, one would never know this. Transistors/Mosfets/ICs do not change much with change in temperature (only safe operating area and gain) are really affected. Any good designer takes these changing parameters into account when designing (I do). Resistors the lowest form of life in the electronics world change so little with change in temperature that their performance is basically unaffected by temperature. Coupling capacitors do not change over time either.
So what else can affect the "sound" of the equipment after leaving it on for 832 days? Maybe the chassis or the RCA sockets?
Those reviewers in the audiophile magazines (you know who you are) who write about how they "burnt" in the equipment for xxxx days and "wow it opened a new dimension of sound" bla bla bla. Do they actually believe the nonesense they write?
We burn in sample amplifiers off our production line only to make sure that mechanically the amplifier is solid. The electronics by design will be reliable.
Now burning in cables is a whole nother issue. Cables DEFINITELY sound better after being burnt in with a 276.825KHz square wave which has been modulated by a 47Hz sinewave at 69% modulation and the burn must be done for no less than 746 hours at an ambient temperature of 4 degrees Celsius!
For those interested please visit our website and read some of the topics under "Techtalk" where I discuss some of the fairytales which have come about over the years. WWW.ZEDAUDIO.COM
Regards
Stephen Mantz
Dear Mr. Mantz,
First of all congratulations for your creations!
thank you very much for the very interesting comments.
I understand that Burn-in is not so popular at www.diyaudio.com.
The comments are very valuable because they come from very talented designers like I understand you are.
Honestly I must confess that this thread has been very "enlightning" for me.
I had accumulated a lot of doubts spending my free time with my audiophile friends.
Usually they are not at all technicians and they are preys of devils dressed like sellers (sometimes they are very clever indeed).
Maybe the harshness I listen now tells me that a bias check is due. After all it is always a almost 30 years old power amp !
Thank you very much again.
Kind regards,
beppe61
First of all congratulations for your creations!
thank you very much for the very interesting comments.
I understand that Burn-in is not so popular at www.diyaudio.com.
The comments are very valuable because they come from very talented designers like I understand you are.
Honestly I must confess that this thread has been very "enlightning" for me.
I had accumulated a lot of doubts spending my free time with my audiophile friends.
Usually they are not at all technicians and they are preys of devils dressed like sellers (sometimes they are very clever indeed).
Maybe the harshness I listen now tells me that a bias check is due. After all it is always a almost 30 years old power amp !
Thank you very much again.
Kind regards,
beppe61
Speakers also need an extended period of 'burn-in', or call it what you like, and some can sound very bad when brand new.
The explanations are very simple, like stiff suspentions of the new drivers, and the caps in the crossover.
Even then, some people swear they have never heard the 'burn-in' effect on speakers.
Go figure!
So, what's the conclusion?
Each one takes his own.
The explanations are very simple, like stiff suspentions of the new drivers, and the caps in the crossover.
Even then, some people swear they have never heard the 'burn-in' effect on speakers.
Go figure!
So, what's the conclusion?
Each one takes his own.
I was fairly sceptical about 'burn-in' until I tried the SI T-amp.
On first use, it sounded so awful and harsh that I'd have thrown it out! Several hours of playing music later (WITHOUT listening), I came back to it, and it was sounding much more acceptable. A couple of days more, and I could hear what all the fuss was about - it was sounding rather good. I've never before heard such a difference - like that between absolute junk and a pretty decent amp.
I can't explain the effect, but I don't think it's (primarily) psychological, particularly as I WANTED it to sound good out of the box.
When I eventually get round to building the AMP3, I'll try some fairly comprehensive analysis when new and some time later, to see if anything shows up.
On first use, it sounded so awful and harsh that I'd have thrown it out! Several hours of playing music later (WITHOUT listening), I came back to it, and it was sounding much more acceptable. A couple of days more, and I could hear what all the fuss was about - it was sounding rather good. I've never before heard such a difference - like that between absolute junk and a pretty decent amp.
I can't explain the effect, but I don't think it's (primarily) psychological, particularly as I WANTED it to sound good out of the box.
When I eventually get round to building the AMP3, I'll try some fairly comprehensive analysis when new and some time later, to see if anything shows up.
Like CarlosFM already mentioned, some speakers do need some time to free up. Fostex drivers are notorious for this phenomenon and it is a strange experience to listen to these drivers 'burning in' and changing from telephone-like quality to their open and natural sound. This change might be much easier explained however (because of mechanics) than the change of characteristics in electronic components. If they change at all that is.
DocLorren said:
Right, but even then, some claim not to hear any change.
As for electronic components, well, the first time I installed a Tent clock on a CDP, years ago, I was shocked because it sounded like junk.
Untight bass, bassy sound, no detail... a very 'jittery' presentation.
After around an hour playing a CD, I got back and listen.
I almost fell off the chair.
This has been consistent every time I install a Tent clock on a CDP.
LC-Audio clocks are consistent since the first second.
What's goin' on here?
For me, it's the on-board PSUs, and mainly the caps.
IMO the Tent clock is superior to the LC-Audio.
I think you are all generalizing that it does or does not make a difference on amplifiers (or whatever).
It may make a marked difference on some, undetectable on others.
Every component that is very dependent on the PSU quality (and most are) will have a marked difference after burn-in.
Depends on the construction, components used, etc.
The same goes for speakers, even if it can be for other reasons, like the materials used on the cones/domes and surrounds.
Some take more than a week to start delivering, some take less than a day.
Well its all fine and dandy, but those changes in speakers as mentioned (telephone quality, sound very bad) for speakers should easily be measureable. Indeed, we can measure a change in mechanical things like speaker resonant frequency and Q during the first couple a days of use. However, these changes are normally less than the variation between units (even if you have matched drivers there are unit-to-unit differences of easily 10% or more).
Anyway, these are measureable. Can you hear the difference between an Fs of 45 Hz and 41Hz? Possibly, in direct A-B comparison. Does it mean it changes from "telephone quality" to hifi? What do YOU think?
And as for caps in the xover, they don't change. These are normally pretty good quality, and may change a few % with temperature, but again, would we hear a change in xover frequency from 3500Hz to 3450Hz? Over several days?
There are a number of good explanations for the perception of change over time. They have been documented. There are also a few good proofs of the influence of equipment design, color, reputation, price etc on the perception of the sound. These have also been documented, see for instance the link I gave somewhere above.
ALL people that swear they hear great burn-in differences conveniently ignore the great body of evidence, and fail to produce anything themselves other than "I clearly heard it, you must be deaf" type of statements. Go figure, indeed.
Jan Didden
Anyway, these are measureable. Can you hear the difference between an Fs of 45 Hz and 41Hz? Possibly, in direct A-B comparison. Does it mean it changes from "telephone quality" to hifi? What do YOU think?
And as for caps in the xover, they don't change. These are normally pretty good quality, and may change a few % with temperature, but again, would we hear a change in xover frequency from 3500Hz to 3450Hz? Over several days?
There are a number of good explanations for the perception of change over time. They have been documented. There are also a few good proofs of the influence of equipment design, color, reputation, price etc on the perception of the sound. These have also been documented, see for instance the link I gave somewhere above.
ALL people that swear they hear great burn-in differences conveniently ignore the great body of evidence, and fail to produce anything themselves other than "I clearly heard it, you must be deaf" type of statements. Go figure, indeed.
Jan Didden
Jan,
You are right that if sound quality changes that dramatically it should be easy to measure. This may actually be a pretty interesting thing to do. Trying to translate the subjective observation into something that can be quantified. The subjective observation on speakers 'burning in' (wrong term here, more like freeing up or something vague as well) is not that absurd however if one is to compare that with a car being 'run-in'. They get smoother, shift easier, become more economical and faster. The last two are actually easy to measure. Again you're right: if it makes a difference someone should be able to document it in a scientifically sound way. Anyone?
You are right that if sound quality changes that dramatically it should be easy to measure. This may actually be a pretty interesting thing to do. Trying to translate the subjective observation into something that can be quantified. The subjective observation on speakers 'burning in' (wrong term here, more like freeing up or something vague as well) is not that absurd however if one is to compare that with a car being 'run-in'. They get smoother, shift easier, become more economical and faster. The last two are actually easy to measure. Again you're right: if it makes a difference someone should be able to document it in a scientifically sound way. Anyone?
janneman said:
Jan, it's all very well documented, etc, but most of that goes against my experience, and you repeat your links everytime this discussion arises.
But take that as my experience, and don't call me and others ignorants.
My experience may or may not mean anyting for you, but who cares?
You can pull in all your white papers that you won't convince me. Blind tests are not reliable, and anyone who does them with lots of people knows this!
Also, people that get fooled by the looks of the gear should not be taken seriously, they are not insterested in listen to the music.
Yes, some speakers sound HUGELY different after some days. But you can't admit this, because it goes against all your beliefs. And your mind is stronger than your ears.
I begin to question your experience in the audio field (and I'm not talking about your knowledge of electronics).
It's not a question of calling other people deaf, nobody said that, but I've made and participated on too many blind tests to know that they are not reliable, and also there are people that can't detect a huge difference if they can't switch between A-B very quickly. These guys will never detect the burn-in effect, because they don't concentrate on the musical presentation (instead of just listening to the hi-fi) and don't have the training and listening experience to remember it after a few hours.
My opinion, for what its worth...
I've just built a my-ref amp, and obviously wanted it to better my current amp (audiolab). At first it was veiled, fuzzy and unfocused. Sounded like a £200 rotel. It stayed like this for about 20 hours of play. After another 30 hours ( i got bored, so I used a power resistor) it was a different amp. All the fuzz dropped away. After about 100 hours the amp seems better still, with notable improvements in the bass as well as the mid. No doubt now of the better amp. Burn in is real.
This conclusion is valid (at least to me ) because the new amp was compared to another reference amp at regular intervals. Without the comparison I think the changes would have been audible, but could be dismissed as acclimatisation- or blamed on mood, earwax, mains, etc.....
I've had exactly the same experience as Carlos with the tent clock also.
I can't say what needs to burn in, but I'm certain it happens in some cases.
Not cables though. Thats gotta be ballcocks.
I've just built a my-ref amp, and obviously wanted it to better my current amp (audiolab). At first it was veiled, fuzzy and unfocused. Sounded like a £200 rotel. It stayed like this for about 20 hours of play. After another 30 hours ( i got bored, so I used a power resistor) it was a different amp. All the fuzz dropped away. After about 100 hours the amp seems better still, with notable improvements in the bass as well as the mid. No doubt now of the better amp. Burn in is real.
This conclusion is valid (at least to me ) because the new amp was compared to another reference amp at regular intervals. Without the comparison I think the changes would have been audible, but could be dismissed as acclimatisation- or blamed on mood, earwax, mains, etc.....
I've had exactly the same experience as Carlos with the tent clock also.
I can't say what needs to burn in, but I'm certain it happens in some cases.
Not cables though. Thats gotta be ballcocks.
OK, I see I didn't make myself clear. I don't want to say that the burn-in effect doesn't exist, in the sense that your perception can (and mostly does) change over time. I am familiar with it, because I experienced it again and again myself.
What I mean is that it is not a result of any physical changes in the equipment (because that would be needed to change the sound).
The effect of change of perception over time is well documented. It is not a matter of hearing changes, but of perceiving changes.
Let me try to explain. Your perception of the sound from your system is NOT just a result from the air vibrations impeding on your tympany in your ear. It is the result of a multitude of factors including your body state (how do I feel? stressed, relaxed?), your expectations, the vast memory you have of similar situations and the recall of similar equipments (like your old amp which you are now replacing, for instance) in all its facets (not just sound). You just have to have some time to settle with the new situation in many different facets, NOT just the sound (which may, objectively speaking, not change anything).
This is not just audio, it is in any field of experience and the effect is stronger if you are more personally involved emotionally. The key is to realise that what you perceive is NOT what you hear, but what you experience with your whole body, literally, your senses, your body state (relaxed, stressed, indifferent) etc. So, it is not a matter of saying "you hear wrong", there's nothing wrong, its just the way we tick. And knowing and realising this does not diminish our facilities. Rather, knowing and realising it, and being critical to ourselfs allows us to be better judges.
So, the perception of new or unfamiliar equipment may change over time. It will do so regardless whether you burn it in or not. The bottom line is that you, the listener, are burned in. And it also means that statements like "after burn-in for so-and-so it sounds much better" have no value. The period is different for every individual and has no relation to the actual sound of the equipment.
Jan Didden
What I mean is that it is not a result of any physical changes in the equipment (because that would be needed to change the sound).
The effect of change of perception over time is well documented. It is not a matter of hearing changes, but of perceiving changes.
Let me try to explain. Your perception of the sound from your system is NOT just a result from the air vibrations impeding on your tympany in your ear. It is the result of a multitude of factors including your body state (how do I feel? stressed, relaxed?), your expectations, the vast memory you have of similar situations and the recall of similar equipments (like your old amp which you are now replacing, for instance) in all its facets (not just sound). You just have to have some time to settle with the new situation in many different facets, NOT just the sound (which may, objectively speaking, not change anything).
This is not just audio, it is in any field of experience and the effect is stronger if you are more personally involved emotionally. The key is to realise that what you perceive is NOT what you hear, but what you experience with your whole body, literally, your senses, your body state (relaxed, stressed, indifferent) etc. So, it is not a matter of saying "you hear wrong", there's nothing wrong, its just the way we tick. And knowing and realising this does not diminish our facilities. Rather, knowing and realising it, and being critical to ourselfs allows us to be better judges.
So, the perception of new or unfamiliar equipment may change over time. It will do so regardless whether you burn it in or not. The bottom line is that you, the listener, are burned in. And it also means that statements like "after burn-in for so-and-so it sounds much better" have no value. The period is different for every individual and has no relation to the actual sound of the equipment.
Jan Didden
To Carlos:
I am trying to grasp your statements above, is it correct to summarise your views as follows:
"Many people hear huge differences between equipment. When we do double blind tests, where neither the listener nor the test leader knows which equipment is listened to at any one moment, the differences can no longer be reliably identified. Therefore, double blind tests are unreliable"
Jan Didden
I am trying to grasp your statements above, is it correct to summarise your views as follows:
"Many people hear huge differences between equipment. When we do double blind tests, where neither the listener nor the test leader knows which equipment is listened to at any one moment, the differences can no longer be reliably identified. Therefore, double blind tests are unreliable"
Jan Didden
carlosfm said:
ALL people get fooled this way. You also, it's in your genes man! Read again the Harman paper. Experienced listeners in that panel, who said at the start, hey, I'm an experienced listener, I don't fall for that! You know what? They fell for it. Like when you fall, you CANNOT prevent stretching out your arms. It's in your genes!
Jan Didden
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.