resistor break-in

[BigE]

I know that caps need time for the dielectric to form.. or so I've been told.

Do resistors also need to "break-in"? Specifically, wire-wound or any other type?

[Tube_Dude]

Originally Posted by BigE

I know that caps need time for the dielectric to form.. or so I've been told.

Do resistors also need to "break-in"? Specifically, wire-wound or any other type?

No!

[madisonears]

In my experience, I have found that EVERYTHING needs time to "settle" after any change has been made to any part of any audio circuit. Is that comprehensive enough? Probably controversial enough.

The time varies from one device or element to another, but there is ALWAYS a gradual change in sound, anywhere from a few minutes to a few weeks after making a change. New or used parts, a piece of wire, even simply reheating solder joints will change the sound initially, and then it will adjust and find a "normal" state. There might be several reasons (or no known reason) for it, and I can't explain it. I have heard it every single time I change something, sometimes after only moving something around, unplugging and plugging something back in. This is not the power of suggestion, growing accustomed to the new sound, the placebo effect, or any other such nonsense. If you don't want to hear it, chances are you won't. If a technician wants to measure it, chances are he can't.

Resistors settle pretty fast, whatever type. I wouldn't expect much difference after only a few minutes, certainly not more than an hour, of regular function. Caps can take an hour or a month, depending on their composition and construction.

Peace,
Tom E

[audio-kraut]

This is not the power of suggestion, growing accustomed to the new sound, the placebo effect, or any other such nonsense

Alternative explanations are always anathema to the true believer.

[Tube_Dude]

Originally Posted by madisonears

In my experience, I have found that EVERYTHING needs time to "settle" after any change has been made to any part of any audio circuit. Is that comprehensive enough? Probably controversial enough.

The time varies from one device or element to another, but there is ALWAYS a gradual change in sound, anywhere from a few minutes to a few weeks after making a change. New or used parts, a piece of wire, even simply reheating solder joints will change the sound initially, and then it will adjust and find a "normal" state. There might be several reasons (or no known reason) for it, and I can't explain it. I have heard it every single time I change something, sometimes after only moving something around, unplugging and plugging something back in. This is not the power of suggestion, growing accustomed to the new sound, the placebo effect, or any other such nonsense. If you don't want to hear it, chances are you won't. If a technician wants to measure it, chances are he can't.

Resistors settle pretty fast, whatever type. I wouldn't expect much difference after only a few minutes, certainly not more than an hour, of regular function. Caps can take an hour or a month, depending on their composition and construction.

Peace,
Tom E

Hi

Any proof to back up? Or just a subjective opinion?

Resistors will surely change the sound signature with use, because they drift, But that could easily be measured...

[madisonears]

I knew that my response would be countered by experts who have seen it all and heard it all, and can prove it all. I don't understand their motivation, other than to demonstrate that they are somehow more sophisticated than those of us who merely listen carefully. Frankly, I am really tired of their smug attitude, and I will not be drawn into an argument over this. Let them sit on their throne of "knowledge" and scoff at those of us who want to share our own experience.

To those of you who cannot read, or don't care to when a post runs counter to your own beliefs: I stated at the very outset that this is my EXPERIENCE. I guess I should have been more specific and stated SUBJECTIVE experience, but I didn't think it was necessary. I stated elsewhere that it probably cannot be measured, and I cannot explain it. I was not writing about drift, and I think you probably know that.

Can any of the skeptics prove that this is NOT a real phenomenon? I have made hundreds, perhaps thousands of adjustments to different components in electronic circuits. Have I been fooled every time by the same psychological mechanism? Perhaps. Perhaps I am the fool.

But I am not a simpleton. I don't believe in all the magic audio elixirs and potions and crystals. Some do, and I leave them in peace. Why can't you do the same? I see the same repressive attitude in this and other forums, at other sites as well, where self-righteous objectivists seek to crush the inquisitive, the impressed, the expressive experimenter under the boot of measurement and formula. Why not just leave us audio idiots wander in the wilderness of ignorance? My belief in break-in is not hurting anybody; it's not dangerous, and it doesn't cost anything other than varying amounts of time and minimum effort.

Peace,
Tom E

[Elvee]

Originally Posted by madisonears

I knew that my response would be countered by experts who have seen it all and heard it all, and can prove it all. I don't understand their motivation, other than to demonstrate that they are somehow more sophisticated than those of us who merely listen carefully.

Problem is, these kind of guys are the ones that invent magnetic recordings, make lasers possible, build transmitters, etc.
They make the world function, and this functionning is not based on impressions or subjective opinions, but on hard maths, verifiable scientific hypotheses and technical abilities.

Some beings have chosen another way: they peck, they listen, they smell, they rub , they scratch their way in life, and they are all around us:

they are called animals

[audio-kraut]

This is not the power of suggestion, growing accustomed to the new sound, the placebo effect, or any other such nonsense

Frankly, I am really tired of their smug attitude,

who has got the smug attitude?

Can any of the skeptics prove that this is NOT a real phenomenon

Can you prove it is?
Your claims are extraordinary. So you have to supply evidence they exist - or stop making such claims. You cannot measure it, but it exists? Is it supernatural then, beyond investigation? What about ABX or AB testing? Still there?

You basically claim that you heard the difference based on subjective impressions, but declare further that those impressions are not open to investigation or discussion.
You simply declare yourself infallible, not even considering you might hear something that is based on very biased audio processing in your brain.

If that is not smug - I do not know what is.

[ClaveFremen]

Originally Posted by Elvee

Problem is, these kind of guys are the ones that invent magnetic recordings, make lasers possible, build transmitters, etc.
They make the world function, and this functionning is not based on impressions or subjective opinions, but on hard maths, verifiable scientific hypotheses and technical abilities.

No, they don't.

People that discover and model things, called Scientists, first observe nature at work through their senses and instruments and try to find a measurement system that can track such behaviour and a mathematical model that represent it.

People that project things, called Engineers, do use the models made by Scientists and their creativity for creating new pratical applications of such models.

And lastly there are Technicians, people that had the minimum knowledge necessary for troubleshoot what engineers created upon scientists' models.

Sometimes Technicians and even some Engineers make the mistake of thinking that the simplified model of reality they use for their work describe exactly and completely what happens in nature.

Those people are trapped in their model of the world made by others.

People that thinks that what can't be measured by mere diagnostic tools, such an oscilloscope, don't exists are simply fooling themselves.

From Wikipedia on Scientific Method:
The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

[SY]

Originally Posted by madisonears

Have I been fooled every time by the same psychological mechanism? Perhaps. Perhaps I am the fool.

But I am not a simpleton.

Being fooled is NOT the same as being a fool. It means you're a human with a human brain. So don't denigrate yourself that way, it's not justified.

Believing that one is incapable of being fooled (especially by oneself) IS being a fool. Don't fall into that trap.