Discovery comes exploring and verifying possibilities...
Otherwise we're not talinkg about science but philosophy, IMHO.
So.... Assuming break-in of passive components is real. Then it would follow that a component would be at peak sonic purity after the break-in period. Right?
Component aging is real. It is easily quantified and measured provided one has access to a few pieces of measurement gear. Aging starts when the component drops off the manufacturing line and ends when the component fails. It is accelerated by various things, temperature probably being the main factor.
Clearly, break-in and aging work against each other. So my question is, how long is the window of optimal sonic purity?
~Tom
Component aging is real. It is easily quantified and measured provided one has access to a few pieces of measurement gear. Aging starts when the component drops off the manufacturing line and ends when the component fails. It is accelerated by various things, temperature probably being the main factor.
Clearly, break-in and aging work against each other. So my question is, how long is the window of optimal sonic purity?
~Tom
Let us not forget that the burden of proof rests with those who claim clearly audible, yet unexplained by science, effects. This should begin with two steps:
1. establish that there actually is an audible effect - this requires somewhat more than (sighted) anecdotes.
2. do back-of-envelope calculations to show what order of magnitude of effect might be needed (e.g. capacitor film conductance change, dielectric non-linearity, mechanical flexing) and then do more calculations to explain why these have never been seen.
Simple bleating on about 'unknown unknowns' (in audio electronics, folks, we are not talking about rocket science) is not enough.
1. establish that there actually is an audible effect - this requires somewhat more than (sighted) anecdotes.
2. do back-of-envelope calculations to show what order of magnitude of effect might be needed (e.g. capacitor film conductance change, dielectric non-linearity, mechanical flexing) and then do more calculations to explain why these have never been seen.
Simple bleating on about 'unknown unknowns' (in audio electronics, folks, we are not talking about rocket science) is not enough.
OK, if you understand conduction in metals then please propose a mechanism by which feeding a small signal to a capacitor will modify the metal properties so greatly (yet so invisibly to conventional science) that a coupling cap behaves differently. If you don't understand conduction in metals then on what basis do you question the conclusions of those who do? (Hint: you need to modify the crystal structure, such as changing dislocations, or change the phonon spectrum to alter conductivity but even then the metal would still be a linear conductor. To make the metal non-linear would be much harder, as you would need to change its band structure to make it partly a semiconductor. Good luck!).ClaveFremen said:
Sorry, no. The burden of proof rest also with skepticals...
I don't have the knowledge to do so, I've only the empyrical experience.
It seem that you have the knowledge, then change your point of view and postulate molecular changes due to heating/freezing/electricity have an influence on signals passing through, how it can be?
Maybe you can make an hypothesis for us.
Why should I attempt to invent an explanation for a metal effect which has never been seen, probably does not exist, and would require a complete revision of the stuff I learnt nearly 40 years ago? Science has a big problem: it is constrained by facts. Those who question science do not feel similarly constrained.
Perhaps I should ask you to explain why claims of capacitor break-in are almost certainly wrong?
Perhaps I should ask you to explain why claims of capacitor break-in are almost certainly wrong?
I wasn't suggesting you to invent anything but simply to try a diffrent POV, just to avoid bias...
Obviously you state what you state because you measured, tested and verified it, isn't it?
I wasn't questioning science but dogmas.
How can I? I don't have the knowledge nor the needed measurement tools....
But I have my empirical experience which suggests the contrary, if every time I taste winegar I feel it sour, like most others, I don't need to prove it, it's still sour...
It's the scientist task to tell me why I feel it sour... and the answer it's not that I'm fooling myself.
I will not convince you and viceversa, I think we can live happily with it
The problem I have with much of the audio folklore and snake oil (snakelore?) is that most of it is presented as eyewitness accounts by individuals. Usually the individuals who claim results are the same individuals who modified the circuit or they make money from selling what they claim caused the improvement in sound quality. In most cases the individual who claims results is aware that the circuit has been modified and in which way it has been modified. If they just blew $200 on AudioPhool Capacitors they will perceive an improvement in sound quality. I know I would...
A blind test is not that hard to set up if you get a friend involved. A double-blind test would be harder. And, let's face it. Most of us would rather listen to music than get involved in a scientifically valid double-blind test.
For me, personally, I have an easier time believing the eyewitness accounts if they are backed up by measurements.
~Tom
A blind test is not that hard to set up if you get a friend involved. A double-blind test would be harder. And, let's face it. Most of us would rather listen to music than get involved in a scientifically valid double-blind test.
For me, personally, I have an easier time believing the eyewitness accounts if they are backed up by measurements.
~Tom
Last edited:
that is why personal accounts or anecdotes hold no water for me, i take them as entertainment only.....
Are you aware that such a generalization can sound offensive, are you?
I work in the IT field as a consultant, I don't sell nothing and I earn nothing from manifacturers, I'm simply sharing my hobby experience.
Yeah, must be for this reason that it happens that sometimes I choose the least expensive part in a comparison...and the most expensive other times...
Sorry but, IMHO, blind test applied to audio are overrated and easily impaired by the researcher bias while preparing the experiment protocol.
Quite the totality of such test are conducted by hard skeptics and the protocol used is, IMHO, influenced by their desire to obtain a negative result.
BTW I conducted several single blind test with my brother (an hobbyst musician) and while not everytime we agree on wich part is better we always agree if there's a difference or not.
Ah, one note.... he was an hard skeptic...I should have hypnotized him...
I would also read with interest research results/publications that support skepticals dogmas...
Until evidence from those making extraordinary claims is presented, there's nothing for skeptics to work with. Nor is it worthwhile wasting time trying to disprove claims made without any physical plausibility and no evidence. You're free to make faith-based decisions for yourself, but no serious practitioner is going to waste time chasing every silly audiophile notion thrown out there with zero to back it up. There's too many real problems out there- why waste time with fantasy?
Anthropomorphism is a deeply disturbing conduct humanity possesses.
No doubt once a cap is "broken in" it has a lively sound in its first few years of life. Over time it develops a mellow tone....& towards the end of its life it starts to sound "slow" & lethargic.
________________________________________________________Rick.......
No doubt once a cap is "broken in" it has a lively sound in its first few years of life. Over time it develops a mellow tone....& towards the end of its life it starts to sound "slow" & lethargic.
________________________________________________________Rick.......
I must have misunderstood the spirit of the forum...
BTW I would still read with pleasure some scientific research results that supports skepticals claims...
No, I suppose I can't since there's no research on fantasy...
I must have dreamed about Dr. Kunchur research on phase and the fact that he had to use audiophile parts to have consistent results...
I should have been on acid when I've thought I've read that study on copper made by silly people from Cracow University...
I've even imagined a white paper that pretends to demonstrate cable's directivity using Maxwell's equations made by mr. Hawksford, better than The Hobbit in 3D!.
A masterpiece is also Clarity Cap research on capacitors, they pretend that they move on transients!
My fantasy hero is mr. Ben Duncan from UK (sorry no links, articles are copyrighted)... in his alternate universe cables, resistors and caps are directional, metals have a sound and other fantasies!
My favourite audio-fiction readings are the US Patents accepted even if not backed up by scientific notions, like Jelmax's patent (US5057972), or Eichman's one (US6495763) or Cardas'one (US4628151).
As some of you can imagine from my nick I'm a science-fiction addict...
Shorter Clave: "I neither have nor can cite any actual evidence of audibility of 'break in' in capacitors."
It's not up to skeptics to disprove vague and unphysical claims made by audiophiles (and people preying on the gullibility of audiophiles) offered without evidence. It's a simple concept, really.
It's not up to skeptics to disprove vague and unphysical claims made by audiophiles (and people preying on the gullibility of audiophiles) offered without evidence. It's a simple concept, really.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.