John....although I trust very much what my test equipment tells me....in the end....I agree with your above statement.
No worries Curly. I hate to see you get so worked up. In the end...it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about what we hear. I will in the future just ignore the "polite" ridicule as John puts it. But I do appreciate any sincere input on what I post. Even if it doesn't agree with what I state.
For the purpose of clarity, yes, there is no experimental proof that Teflon capacitor burn-in period changes the audible characteristics of said capacitor for the simple reason that no one has ever conducted such an experiment. On the other hand, it is well known among serious audiophiles that Teflon capacitors do change in terms of sonic character over time. It usually takes about 200 hours of normal listening for a Teflon capacitor to quit changing. I've experienced this myself, even though I initially didn't believe it would happen. You could say that my expectations were once again not met, which is usually the case in the audiophile world despite what diehard skeptics would have you believe.
John
John
question - if "burn-in" improves the quality of a component to such a degree, why do the manufacturers not perform this function as a part of their production process?
Can't be cost, since the ones that seem to require burn in are already eye-wateringly expensive and a few hours, or even days on in automatic burn-in process would be cheap after paying for the rolling of hte component's consituent parts between the thighs of 16 year old virgins.
Or at least, not a cost with any supportable benefit. Which then implies that to do so would be a cost, but with no benefit...
This sort of thing always ends in tears, and I think i have figured out why. Its religious in nature. Some people choose to believe cables have a sound, or caps need burning in, or lighting a candle will lead them to a peaceful afterlife, based on what they perceive (not know, perceive). This is all fine and good as long as their statements on the subject are wholely understood in that context.
Others ask for proof - faith is not enough, faith being a steadfast belief in the frankly unbelievable.
It gets ugly when we bring personal stuff to it - strongly held opinions on the efficacy or otherwise of our ears as measuring instruments. Then the questioning of a belief becomes an attack on credibility.
I believe John C thinks he hears a difference. He has no reason to claim otherwise, and I have no reason to question his integrity on this. But I cannot logically beleive his claim that over a longtitudinal period of 300 to 500 hours listening he can maintain a specific recollection of what he heard in the first hour.
Here is a test to the concept though, and it doesn't require massed double blind trials. Go ahead and insert a new conmponent into a known circuit, and then record an hour of the output from that circuit. Choose any representative musical form you like. Record digitally at as high a resolution as you can acheive. Now follow your chosen burn-in process, repeating the recording process every, say, 50 hours.
Once completed, run two comparisons - a data analysis of the digital file, and a listening test of the files' audio output. The differences will either be there, or not.
Tweaks are surely aimed at improving the performance of a system, be it a car, a computer program, or an audio reproduction system. Without reliable evidence that a tweak actually DOES improve performance, its not a tweak. Its merely a change. In which case, shouldn't tweakers who make claims for improvements be required to demonstrate that improvement?
Or does tweak just mean religious experience?
The OP asked for opinions on his chosen break in set-up. Sy and others have given a valid opinion, albeit couched in somewhat sarcastic terms. Their place (and the place of all iconoclasts and heretics) in a tweakers forum is relevant - especially since the OP didn't ask for his process (or even his belief) to be validated, but opened it to critique.
Can't be cost, since the ones that seem to require burn in are already eye-wateringly expensive and a few hours, or even days on in automatic burn-in process would be cheap after paying for the rolling of hte component's consituent parts between the thighs of 16 year old virgins.
Or at least, not a cost with any supportable benefit. Which then implies that to do so would be a cost, but with no benefit...
This sort of thing always ends in tears, and I think i have figured out why. Its religious in nature. Some people choose to believe cables have a sound, or caps need burning in, or lighting a candle will lead them to a peaceful afterlife, based on what they perceive (not know, perceive). This is all fine and good as long as their statements on the subject are wholely understood in that context.
Others ask for proof - faith is not enough, faith being a steadfast belief in the frankly unbelievable.
It gets ugly when we bring personal stuff to it - strongly held opinions on the efficacy or otherwise of our ears as measuring instruments. Then the questioning of a belief becomes an attack on credibility.
I believe John C thinks he hears a difference. He has no reason to claim otherwise, and I have no reason to question his integrity on this. But I cannot logically beleive his claim that over a longtitudinal period of 300 to 500 hours listening he can maintain a specific recollection of what he heard in the first hour.
Here is a test to the concept though, and it doesn't require massed double blind trials. Go ahead and insert a new conmponent into a known circuit, and then record an hour of the output from that circuit. Choose any representative musical form you like. Record digitally at as high a resolution as you can acheive. Now follow your chosen burn-in process, repeating the recording process every, say, 50 hours.
Once completed, run two comparisons - a data analysis of the digital file, and a listening test of the files' audio output. The differences will either be there, or not.
Tweaks are surely aimed at improving the performance of a system, be it a car, a computer program, or an audio reproduction system. Without reliable evidence that a tweak actually DOES improve performance, its not a tweak. Its merely a change. In which case, shouldn't tweakers who make claims for improvements be required to demonstrate that improvement?
Or does tweak just mean religious experience?
The OP asked for opinions on his chosen break in set-up. Sy and others have given a valid opinion, albeit couched in somewhat sarcastic terms. Their place (and the place of all iconoclasts and heretics) in a tweakers forum is relevant - especially since the OP didn't ask for his process (or even his belief) to be validated, but opened it to critique.
Last edited:
Well, one could be forgiven for naively thinking that that should go without saying; especially with these alledgedly audible effects that are so subtle that the audiophiles immediately protest that they can't discern them under the stress of any kind of DBT (say a 'burnt-in' cap Vs a brand new cap).
In 99.9999% (in which the homebrewed electronics isn't unstable and duff) of cases, burn-in is just a psychological phenomenon.
Last edited:
This idea of yours has no real bearing on the argument. It is of course difficult for a person to maintain a "specific recollection of what he heard" over long intervals but listening (to anything, not just stereo equipment) is more a process of recognition - recognizing differences and similarities and, even more subjectively, quality. The latest electronic voice recognition equipment available to the CIA tells us that Bin Laden is still alive but no one really believes that, certainly people who can recognize him speaking with their own ears/brain.
My last living grandparent died over twenty years ago, but I would certainly recognize her voice today if she were able to call me via a highly distorted long distance phone line. Your high resolution digital recording would tell you from comparing who I hear on said phone line to her speaking into a high-quality microphone are not the same person.
John
Last edited:
Well, Glen, you act as though this test has actually taken place. I don't believe any proper double blind (or even just blind) capacitor comparison test has ever been done.
John
nice idea john, but bin laden is irrrelevant, and the rest of what you say asks for the brain to do just two things that it is not designed to do:
1 - Recall intricate detail of a presentation precisely and accurately and retain that recollection intact and unaltered for significant periods of time;
2 - Compare in real time the recollection with a current possibly identical, but maybe not, itteration of the same complex presentation and identify any changes in the detail.
Here's the problem you have. To be able to recognise differences and similarities you MUST recall all details exactly, since the changes you are comparing are after the fact. Moreover, you cannot go back to the original (unless you did as I suggest and made a high resolution recording). You are now highly susseptable to the suggestion of a subtle change.
Our brains (including our hearing) are designed to look for patterns. They are also designed to be accepting of (in fact actively seek) itterative change. These two things absolutely mitigate AGAINST the idea of being able to identify subtle differences over time by individual listening alone.
I leave aside the possible external variables such as temperature, air pressure, time of day, lighting and the behaviour of your wife/dog/boss in the previous 12 hours, all of which have subtle but real impacts on our perceptions.
Us audio types are not alone in this problem. Visual artists have the problem of matching colour and shape from memory. Ever painted a house and gone to get a particular colour of paint, having selected from the colour chart at home? Did you ever leave that colour chart behind? And then buy paint based on what you recall the colour to be, only to find yourself 3 or more shades out? Same thing.
That doesn't change my belief that John C, perhaps yourself, and others percieve a difference over time and attribute that difference to burn-in.
Personally, I have to say that the physiological and psychological evidence not to mention psycho-acoustic evidence points to the brain being burnt in, not the capacitor. Until someone comes up with some solid research to the contrary, that is the state of the science, and hence rational belief, at this point. Anything else is religion at best, dogma at worst.
But why worry about rationality when this is about the music?😉
1 - Recall intricate detail of a presentation precisely and accurately and retain that recollection intact and unaltered for significant periods of time;
2 - Compare in real time the recollection with a current possibly identical, but maybe not, itteration of the same complex presentation and identify any changes in the detail.
Here's the problem you have. To be able to recognise differences and similarities you MUST recall all details exactly, since the changes you are comparing are after the fact. Moreover, you cannot go back to the original (unless you did as I suggest and made a high resolution recording). You are now highly susseptable to the suggestion of a subtle change.
Our brains (including our hearing) are designed to look for patterns. They are also designed to be accepting of (in fact actively seek) itterative change. These two things absolutely mitigate AGAINST the idea of being able to identify subtle differences over time by individual listening alone.
I leave aside the possible external variables such as temperature, air pressure, time of day, lighting and the behaviour of your wife/dog/boss in the previous 12 hours, all of which have subtle but real impacts on our perceptions.
Us audio types are not alone in this problem. Visual artists have the problem of matching colour and shape from memory. Ever painted a house and gone to get a particular colour of paint, having selected from the colour chart at home? Did you ever leave that colour chart behind? And then buy paint based on what you recall the colour to be, only to find yourself 3 or more shades out? Same thing.
That doesn't change my belief that John C, perhaps yourself, and others percieve a difference over time and attribute that difference to burn-in.
Personally, I have to say that the physiological and psychological evidence not to mention psycho-acoustic evidence points to the brain being burnt in, not the capacitor. Until someone comes up with some solid research to the contrary, that is the state of the science, and hence rational belief, at this point. Anything else is religion at best, dogma at worst.
But why worry about rationality when this is about the music?😉
btw - I fully accept that different brands, types and sizes of cap (or anything else) may introduce subtly different signatures to a sound. Likewise cables may also change sound patterns.
My question then becomes one of qualitative change - so often we hear about cables swapped leading to revelatory experiences and the discovery of the one true sound, although this Road to Damascus event may take a little "burn-in". We almost never hear of a degraded sound following a purchase, installation and burn in. Why is that?
It seems implausible that almost every new cable brings only good, or at worst no difference. This implies a performance curve that over time will lead only to audio-nirvana (tm) and the death of audio hell. All I have to do is wait and perfection will be with us.
On a balance of probabilities, the scenario is unlikely. So using Occams razor as my guide, i am left with the most likely situation - our brains are tricking us - we are in the aural equivalent of vertigo, unable to identify true up or down and disbeleiving our instruments because they don't concur with our failing ability to perceive reality.
Or not. I'm secure enough for questions and doubt.
My question then becomes one of qualitative change - so often we hear about cables swapped leading to revelatory experiences and the discovery of the one true sound, although this Road to Damascus event may take a little "burn-in". We almost never hear of a degraded sound following a purchase, installation and burn in. Why is that?
It seems implausible that almost every new cable brings only good, or at worst no difference. This implies a performance curve that over time will lead only to audio-nirvana (tm) and the death of audio hell. All I have to do is wait and perfection will be with us.
On a balance of probabilities, the scenario is unlikely. So using Occams razor as my guide, i am left with the most likely situation - our brains are tricking us - we are in the aural equivalent of vertigo, unable to identify true up or down and disbeleiving our instruments because they don't concur with our failing ability to perceive reality.
Or not. I'm secure enough for questions and doubt.
My example represented something of an extreme, but what you say here is near the extreme at the opposite end of the spectrum. Why don't you perform the test you propose and in three or four months from now provide us with the results?
John
Bzzt. That’s pretty much what the audiophiles claim. I don’t get the relevancy of your example either, unless, of course, these boutique capacitors you guy save up for are so bad that they make grandma sound like Bin Laden.
Because I don't need to - the science I rely on for my pov already exists and my contention is that it represents reality. On top of that, I don't care enough to be bothered - as I have pointed out, if you perceive a difference and you feel the difference is positive, that is your prerogative. Me, I'm too busy listening to new and interesting music to worry about whether I am hearing the final 0.000001% of its presentation.
I'm a gourmand not a gourmet!
And besides, my very first statement holds - if there was such an amazing (or even ordinary) improvement after burn-in, manufacturers would do it routinely. Obviously, they don't, since many have a need to do it themselves. Occam's Razor again then.
All I ask is that if you are advising others, add the caveat that this is your perception, not necessarily the actual case.
Last edited:
maybe so John, by why don't the component manufacturers who make the bits being "broken in" break them in?
Last edited:
It is painfully obvious that many of you see no value in what the intent of this forum was intended to be, so why do you come in here to tell us all that we are not hearing what you believe does not exist? Do you honestly believe that your ideals are ours? If you do not have any constructive comments that pertain to the topic, why do you continue to post here? I can not grasp what your intent is to continue to post your thoughts about things that you simply can not understand or "hear". Your arguments are not new, nor are they ever going to change what "tweakers" believe, so why waste your time and efforts.
We listen to music and attempt to make our hi-fi's achieve a better synergy with our environments. It is art vs science and it simply boggles your minds. I am simply thankful that many of the most gifted audio designers actually "listen" to what they build and recognize differences that may fall outside of their "known" realm of engineering and work with it to achieve their desired final result. High end audio is fueled by great minds that also have definite ideas as to what they want their products to sound like. Otherwise this industry would die as I know of no one that buys based upon data sheets, looks or brand name! We listen to equipment, not discuss why it can not sound any different.
I personally think that is time for those that have the intelligence to dig deeper and gain a new understanding of what we as tweakers "claim" to hear and find out the reasons, rather than sit back and demand DBT, claiming that these things that we hear can not exist, etc. Wake up folks, we are here and we are not going away! You stay on your side of the street and we will do our best to allow you your latitude. It is really simple. If you do not agree, then gather in one place and express your self until you are black and blue in the faces if that makes you feel that is best for "you". Otherwise please take your closed minded attitudes and your unwillingness to accept that we do hear differences and that after all of these years, we still hear. Your continued dissertations have grown old and extremely tiresome.
Last edited:
Au contraire, many constructive comments have been made. You just don't agree with them. It might be useful if you deal with the ideas rather than repetitively attack people and demand that opinions contrary to yours be suppressed.
Constructive to you SY, derogatory to those that came to this area of the DIY forum to discuss our part of the audio hobby. Do you routinely butt into conversations with your thoughts and ideas when no one wants to listen? Why is it so hard for you to accept that your thoughts and ideals are not ours?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.