Of course not, no argument there. Its merely food for thought. Things can change a way that may or may not be audible over a time frame of less than years. There is no proof that days or weeks-long DA changes are always inaudible. What has mostly been studied over a years-long time frame is failure modes, not changes in sound. Thus claims that only years of change matter is clearly not based on research about sound changes. Personally, I am not aware that any such sound-change research exits. Does that mean sound change is proven impossible? I personally don't think that absence of research could prove anything (except perhaps about research funding priorities in the big picture, not just audio).
Again, the point is not the proof exists for one side or the other of this argument. There is simply not good applicable research I have found. Why? Probably no funding for capacitor effects on audio perception in universities today. They are busy with what are the hot topics of today in the greater world of academia, not this old audio forum stuff only old men care about.
Last edited:
For what it's worth, the Frybaby2 manual and schematic(!) are right here, the first hit on Google. Looks like a reverse-biased base-emitter junction for a noise generator and some oscillator and OTA circuit for amplitude modulating that noise - these components are cheap enough at Mouser and Digikey. If this were to use "quality components" it would use a VCA from THATcorp, the same ones that use the Blackmer cell circuit that analog recording consoles have used for decades.
https://www.hagtech.com/pdf/frybaby2.pdf
I don't see the 2 for sale, but there's this:
https://www.haglabs.com/collections...ducts/frycorder2-power-cord-burn-in-generator
https://www.hagtech.com/pdf/frybaby2.pdf
I don't see the 2 for sale, but there's this:
But Wait! There's Moar! Your system surely isn't Properly Burned In unless you've burned in your Power Cord!
https://www.haglabs.com/collections...ducts/frycorder2-power-cord-burn-in-generator
Can we please avoid the satire stuff? It can be funny, except some of what audiophiles claim is likely true while some other stuff is probably false. They are not a homogenous group after all. Some are more connected with reality than others. Maybe we can look at some of the more plausible stuff first before lumping all claims in to the "ridiculous basket." Otherwise the satire can be more of a debating trick -- Guilt by association.
Regarding FryBaby in particular, someone trying to make money off of it is not proof one way or the other as to its possible worth. I say that without knowing anything about the device, just saying that someone trying to make money from it is not proof of more than someone trying to make money.
Regarding FryBaby in particular, someone trying to make money off of it is not proof one way or the other as to its possible worth. I say that without knowing anything about the device, just saying that someone trying to make money from it is not proof of more than someone trying to make money.
Last edited:
Exactly what is it in the transformer that changes after some hours of use to make it sound right? Please be very specific about the what the actual part is - the windings, the core, the frame, the insulation, the connectors, etc.
And there are usually two transformers in an amplifier. One to deliver AC line voltage to the power supply and the other to transfer audio output to the speakers. Which are the ones that need the burn in?
Last edited:
For audio transformers it usually amounts to degaussing the core under operating conditions (just settling it in to the in-circuit zero/average B-H operating point). This was something discussed with Bill Whitlock as versus demagnetizing the core when has to be done in manufacturing.
Before an amplifier leaves the factory it is subjected to some amount of burn-in followed by a final test to check performance.
During all of that time the transformers are being fully used and are magnetized to their normal operating level.
Are you claiming that the factory then degausses them, and the buyer has to do something special before he can use the amplifier?
During all of that time the transformers are being fully used and are magnetized to their normal operating level.
Are you claiming that the factory then degausses them, and the buyer has to do something special before he can use the amplifier?
Last edited:
No.
However, if I buy an audio transformer from Lundahl or similar, I might give it some time to settle in.
However, if I buy an audio transformer from Lundahl or similar, I might give it some time to settle in.
I don't know what "settle in" means. It's not a technical term that I can assign any meaning to.
Sounds an awful like the earlier claim by andynor that transformers need some hours to sound right.
So far, I haven't seen any explanation or basis for that claim from him after asking for it above.
Sounds an awful like the earlier claim by andynor that transformers need some hours to sound right.
So far, I haven't seen any explanation or basis for that claim from him after asking for it above.
Last edited:
Okay, I suppose you have a point, though it's hard to resist pointing out the extreme unlikelihood of something "breaking in" a power cord and making an audible difference. My mind goes to "what possible difference could it make and what mechanism could possibly cause that difference?" No explanation comes to mind. This brings up the question of whether the designer believes his products do what he claims they do. This is quite possible. Here's a longish essay I've posted before - the more interesting part is several paragraphs down, as people come to her with various ideas that she examines.
https://www.susanblackmore.uk/chapters/why-i-have-given-up/
It doesn't take a lot of examination to determine that, with the claims made, charging ANY amount of money for it is a scam.
If the transformer is magnetized to any extent, operating it with program material (or any audio/varying AC signal) will tend to demagnetize it over time. For a consumer device, this would only apply to a Class AB tube output. It wouldn't usually be magnetized, but I can imagine a turntable "needle drop" giving a big DC pulse on the output that would magnetize it.
The Lundahl Mark mentioned is for a studio microphone and preamp, are expensive (okay, ALL transformers are expensive thesedays), and importantly as I understand it, quite sensitive to being magnetized, and will give a lot of distortion if magnetized. I've never heard of these used in home stereo systems.
In a Class A amp, there's a DC current always going through the primary, and as I recall the core is "specially made" for this service. I recall even with a desktop tube radio with a 50C5 output, the output transformer had a polarity for the primary wiring (red to the B+ and blue to the tube plate), and it presumably doesn't work well connected the other way. Now I need to find an old tube radio to find out exactly what it does.
Its coming, I promise you. And they will be very good indeed. I've been using some protypes for awhile. Never heard an audio transformer I liked before either. Pretty interesting stuff from a well recognized professional-audio transformer manufacturer (not necessarily Lundahl).
Also, other people use step-up transformers for MC vinyl. Maybe kind of like this: https://www.quadraticaudio.com/PDF/The-Ear-Quadratic-MC-1.pdf Its not a new idea.
Yet other people use transformers for DAC I/V.
Also, some people already use available mic/line level transformers for diy purposes.
Last edited:
The burn in period, is the time taken to forget your last items strong points, and learn to appreciate your new equipment's merits. This can take many days, or even weeks. As you go through your music collection, realising that which albums sound best, have actually changed. That actually, the new kit can do things better than the old kit, but you were yet to find them. Instead, you wanted the new kit to be better than the old, when doing it's party piece. That quirky nack it had for making a particular noise from a certain recording. A benchmark that was rightly unobtainable. Yet these are the expectations we place upon new kit. This, the burn it period, is also the 'go away and think about it' period. Used by all high end shops, that just took 10K from you, and are not ready to give it back the very next day.
Any research showing the equipment sound can't change, not even by .1dB in any measurable parameter? Reason I ask is very few people can hear a difference of .1dB, so it might be reasonable not to count changes smaller than that?
I would not expect components to change sufficiently during the periods talked about for burn-in to make the differences suggested. If they do, what guarantee is there that they will always improve the sound? If there is a science it points to the possibility of early failure followed by lifelong deterioration This site has many posts by people wanting to change out components to get back to an original sound. Interesting subject.
I know it doesn't always improve the sound; sometimes it gets worse. IME it can be interesting. Wish I knew what was going on with the dielectric in some capacitors during initial aging. Sometimes they go through a short period of time where I like the sound, then by the time they finish settling the sound has gotten worse. IME it can happen. Particularly with some electrolytics and or MU SMD film caps.
So, does this mean you have taken a piece of equipment that you are already familiar with, changed just the capacitors, and then heard significant differences?
If not, there is no basis to your claim that you can hear something, whatever it is, that is directly related to the capacitors.
If not, there is no basis to your claim that you can hear something, whatever it is, that is directly related to the capacitors.
I think the ones who make the claims should be the ones backing those claims up with evidence. If a manufacturer brings a burn-in device to market and claims that it makes a difference in the sound quality, the onus is on the manufacturer to show that the device causes a change in the equipment it claims to burn in. I'm willing to accept 0.1 dB as a reasonable target for minimum difference, so the manufacturer would need to show a minimum of 0.1 dB of difference after burn-in. I've yet to see any manufacturer who does this. Rather they rely on unverifiable claims of audio nirvana.
This also assumes that the test is accurate enough to show a 0.1 dB difference reliably if there is such a difference. Terms like test-retest validity come to mind...
You can't prove a negative, so your repeated requests for research that does NOT show any difference will continue to fall on deaf ears. Meanwhile, I haven't seen any scientific evidence that suggests that the burn-in devices do anything other than drain your wallet, so I'll continue to be skeptical of them.
Tom