But you weren't talking about the short circuit of a capacitor. That's something I brought up to point out the rather bizarre relationship you were trying to make between lightning strikes and component burn-in.
I love the auditory illusions. I came across quite a few of them in Psych 101 and Cognitive Psych.
Tom
So, its impossible to reliably hear the difference between a tweety bird chirping and a fog horn blaring without a blind test?
Regarding auditory illusions, there are also visual illusions. Does that mean no one can safely drive a car because vision is highly unreliable?
Seems to me like people tend to decide what they think about the reliability of hearing first, then look for information and expert opinion to confirm that belief. By the same token, information and opinion to the contrary tends to be dismissed and or ignored. Just something else to be learned about in psychology class. And, yes, it works both ways.
Last edited:
No. You are not aware of the complexity of the process current.
No shame, the majority here is not aware of it.
I would also change the approach in: first think, then reply;-)
There are some key tests that an audio enthusiast and engineer should know and practice. One test is the connection of channel-separated power supplies. Many already have: "dual mono psu". Others would have to build them quickly. These are connected with a switch. And then you listen, and occasionally these channel-separated psus are connected and then disconnected again. Everyone can then comment on the results and conclusions, interpretations and explanations. Unfortunately, it turns out that very few people are able to carry out this test. There is obviously a lack of knowledge about how to connect two power supply units;-) Even experienced electronics engineers here in this forum are not able to do this, even under recommendation and instruction;-)
It does seem to me that the discussion has become inexorably about subjectivity and objectivity, but I could even be wrong.
And we've had so many similar discussions in the past, but it still seems that it is not enough, and I find this particularly interesting.
Trying to sum up, here there are those who say that burn-in does not exist and therefore if it does not exist it is obviously impossible to hear it.
Others (including me) say they have experienced it and therefore for them burn-in exists.
Now the first ones state that those who say that burn-in exists do so because they perceive something that is not related to burn-in, but to their habit of listening to that particular system and that after a few days/weeks that same habit will also involve other illusory sensations compared to the immutable reality of the facts that the devices are material objects that do not change over the time and therefore their sound quality does not change either.
The interesting/funny thing is that there is no proof of any of the previous statements.
Yet the discussion in similar threads preceding this one gets so heated that the thread itself ends up being closed.
Before that happens (even though I hope it doesn't happen), I would like to ask the following questions.
If listening to a device is subjective and instead take (not complete at all) measurements are objective, where is their meeting point?
Why is there an apparent point of conflict instead of a meeting point, as it should reasonably happen?
In other words, those who build their own devices will have to listen to them sooner or later, right?
And if despite excellent values of measurements their device still does not sound satisfactory, what do they do?
On what incontrovertible and proven scientific fact do they base their possible future changes in order to improve the sound quality of their pieces of equipment?
On listening to them.
And we've had so many similar discussions in the past, but it still seems that it is not enough, and I find this particularly interesting.
Trying to sum up, here there are those who say that burn-in does not exist and therefore if it does not exist it is obviously impossible to hear it.
Others (including me) say they have experienced it and therefore for them burn-in exists.
Now the first ones state that those who say that burn-in exists do so because they perceive something that is not related to burn-in, but to their habit of listening to that particular system and that after a few days/weeks that same habit will also involve other illusory sensations compared to the immutable reality of the facts that the devices are material objects that do not change over the time and therefore their sound quality does not change either.
The interesting/funny thing is that there is no proof of any of the previous statements.
Yet the discussion in similar threads preceding this one gets so heated that the thread itself ends up being closed.
Before that happens (even though I hope it doesn't happen), I would like to ask the following questions.
If listening to a device is subjective and instead take (not complete at all) measurements are objective, where is their meeting point?
Why is there an apparent point of conflict instead of a meeting point, as it should reasonably happen?
In other words, those who build their own devices will have to listen to them sooner or later, right?
And if despite excellent values of measurements their device still does not sound satisfactory, what do they do?
On what incontrovertible and proven scientific fact do they base their possible future changes in order to improve the sound quality of their pieces of equipment?
On listening to them.
These discussions are already failing because the majority of the involved deny experience and learning. They do not pursue their task of repeating, testing experiments and statements. But this is not how discussion works, not even in "audio". This is not how "science" (discussion, especially about methods of generating statements) works. There is obviously a lack of attitude and motivation. In "ALL" discussions, "sciences"! The majority is looking for the majority and not just any "truth"-) Global. Mechanisms? E.g.: Everything and everyone takes the path of least resistance;-?
The involved generally do not have nearly the same level of experience and interest.
Regarding burn-in. Several categories can already be found here, e.g. short-term, long-term. Or also sender (device) and receiver (human).
In mechanics, "burn in processes" are known. Short-term and long-term effects that e.g. "soften" the material, i.e. change its vibration behavior. But how can we understand electric current? The modulation of the electrical current, the signal by mechanical swing should be known, empirically. Do we take the usual atomic models as a basis: "electrons" "move", or do we only look at the conceptual level: movement, frequency, wave...?
And others and more;-)
The involved generally do not have nearly the same level of experience and interest.
Regarding burn-in. Several categories can already be found here, e.g. short-term, long-term. Or also sender (device) and receiver (human).
In mechanics, "burn in processes" are known. Short-term and long-term effects that e.g. "soften" the material, i.e. change its vibration behavior. But how can we understand electric current? The modulation of the electrical current, the signal by mechanical swing should be known, empirically. Do we take the usual atomic models as a basis: "electrons" "move", or do we only look at the conceptual level: movement, frequency, wave...?
And others and more;-)
Last edited:
Any controlled research to determine if perceived burn-in effect is a real thing or just usual unreliability of our auditory ‘sensor’ + ‘processor’?
That ‘processor’ is the culprit for all controversy littering audio field. As well said here many times, we can measure what no human being can hear, but audiophiles can allegedly hear what no existing science can or know how to measure. Right.
(Just don’t pull soundstage as an example. You know well that soundstage doesn’t exist, rather is an illusion conjured by our brain and for that reason can’t be reliably measured by any method).
About measurements, for the record, I will say that I don’t accept SINAD (or any single measurement) as a method to determine sound quality of any audio equipment. It is incredibly foolish as is any belief that a piece of wire can be ‘burned-in’ to change properties of a passing signal.
Complex electronic circuits, depending on their design and components used, will have a short or longer period to settle in after first power-up and that’s the fact. How much of that process will be audible depends. Often, It will be audible for a certain time. Everything else are just our expectations, adaptation to different sound, change in other parameters affecting audible result or just imagination.
I missed that claim in the AES presentation. 😉
Ridiculous exaggeration won’t succeed as an ‘argument’ against anything in that well founded presentation and you know it. So, what’s the point?
BTW, I drive a car but I don’t claim that I can read license plates of a rainbow colored car 1 mile ahead of me, that nobody else is able to ever see.
In effect, you claim that all engineers in the world and all members of AES society have no proof or even foundation for what they discuss, and opinion of any audio enthusiast is equally founded as is theirs.
Research and proofs exist but are not just made available and arranged simple for our convenience.
My understanding is that there never will be agreed upon convergence as subjective includes also personal preferences. Some like ‘musical’ amplifier with right amount and spectrum of distortion. Other prefer clean sound. Any convergence point between measurements and listening would be therefore different for different people.
How is the line determined that separates between what is an obvious difference in sound and when blind testing is needed?
Localization cues are physical and thus should be measurable. There is a short list of what the cues are somewhere around here, but a couple of them are ITD and direct to reverberant ratio. IME many systems do not reproduce such things well, even if they have good SINAD numbers.
EDIT: Please see "Objective assessment of phantom images in a 3-dimensional sound field using a virtual listener," by Malcolm Hawksford. https://aes2.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=7317 There is also more recent work on the subject.
Last edited:
It’s easy. If one really wants to know if perceived detail is real, arrange a proper DBT (almost impossible task, I know). Otherwise, accept our perception limitations, relax and enjoy knowing that maybe it is there or maybe it is not. Still can be enjoyed. 🙂
I’m very conservative in accepting for real sound improvements. Any change must be there, not on the verge of existence, audible on some occasions, but any time I listen. Than I know it’s likely real.
If someone claims, in example, that piece of wire undeniably produces better sound after xxx hours of operation, I’ll require some acceptable proof. He can provide measurements or a proper DBT test. Otherwise, everything is just an opinion, which is fine with me. Anyone can believe what they like.
No. And nobody has made that claim. I think you might have it backwards: It is possible to hear the difference between a tweety bird and a fog horn in a blind test, therefore there is a difference in sound between a tweety bird and a fog horn.
It is not possible to hear any effect of various audiophile myths in a blind test, therefore they make no audible difference.
How many accident reports start with, "it came out of nowhere"? Cars don't appear out of nowhere. That's a physical impossibility. Yet, many have that experience in an accident. The reason is that we can only pay attention to one thing at a time. Maybe our focus was on opposing traffic and not on the cross-traffic that ran a red light.
If we're trying to use our senses as precision instruments I think it would be prudent to learn their shortcomings and take them into account during the measurement. Just as we'd compare a THD+N measurement of a DUT with the loop-back test of the distortion analyzer to make sure we aren't measuring an artifact of the analyzer.
Tom
I agree that something could be measured but if system is not measured in anechoic chamber (or at least at open field), that measurement would contain specific room or environment acoustics effects and those would affect ITD and direct to reverberant ratio. Question is how it would be possible to compare measurements done in different conditions, as there is no standard how to measure what is recreated during audio reproduction that our brain uses to create soundstage illusion.
You were part of discussion with forum members that can’t ever perceive soundstage illusion. They allays hear two distinct sound sources.
Although, I immensely enjoy in effects of recreated soundstage, I don’t think that trying to somehow measure audio equipment soundstage recreation abilities is worth an effort. Depends on to much variables.
With my limited experience, I agree that not all amplifiers reproduce necessary localization cues with the same quality, although they are super linear to above audio band and have very low distortion. With everything else the same, exchanging amplifiers, provides results enough and consistently different that I accept them for real.
Its well known by measurements that crystal oscillators stabilize over a period of days or weeks. Iancanada recommends to let his clocks run for a few days before use. By my count it was 6-days before his clocks settled enough to get a good idea of how they were going to sound (with a DSD only dac, which is more senstive to jitter than multibit). The thing is, if someone is unfamiliar with what good clocking can sound like with a DSD only dac, they may be likely to demand DBT more out of ignorance than anything else. For me at least, they can come here and listen or send a representative they trust. That would probably be a lot more convincing than me reporting some casual BT process was conducted.
Last edited:
Which parameters were measured and how do they impact the audio performance?
An OCXO (oven controlled XO) does take time to stabilize as its temperature needs to settle. That's another "few hours to maybe a day" type of thing. Certainly not multiple days or weeks. I could be wrong but I would be very surprised if Ian uses an OCXO. Maybe a TCXO (temperature compensated XO). TCXOs hardly need any stabilization time as they measure the temperature and compensate the output frequency accordingly.
Which parameter did you measure on those clocks? Frequency? Jitter?
Tom
Phase noise. IIUC this is in the literature, at least according to Andrea Mori. Rubiola has a lot of info on the subject: https://rubiola.org/
How it impacts dac performance is a very interesting question. When jitter is bad enough it sounds like distortion. But what about when its low enough not to cause audible distortion? IME it affects tonal textures and transient dynamics, among other things. Localization cues can be very much affected too. People expecting to hear a difference in distortion may hear no difference at all since they are focused on the wrong thing.
IMHO the thing about listening is to take a deep breath, let it out slowly, empty the mind, relax, and just listen. An experienced listener will notice whatever goes by, even if the noticed event only lasts for a moment. But the noticing of things doesn't happen by conscious effort; it happens by letting a trained System 1 do the work. System 2 is merely the passive recipient (if that model is reminiscent of psychology class).
Last edited:
Here is an extensive article by a reputable scientific source that strongly supports the idea that burn-in is much more a human phenomenon than any appreciable change in the equipment itself.
Cureus | Beyond the Sound Waves: A Comprehensive Exploration of the Burn-In Phenomenon in Audio Equipment Across Physiological, Psychological, and Societal Domains | Article
It is a very long article, so I have captured and posted a few of the key paragraphs below if you don't want to read the whole thing:
"Audio burn-in, often referred to as the process by which audio equipment undergoes a series of played sounds to achieve optimal performance, remains a topic of significant debate within both audiophile communities and relevant scientific fields. While some attribute perceived changes in sound quality to actual physical changes in the equipment, an emerging perspective points to the interplay of physiological, psychological, and social factors that might influence these perceptions."
"Burn-in, as a concept, has long intrigued and perplexed the audiophile community. While the debate over mechanical changes in audio equipment endures, the real crux of the matter may lie within the listeners themselves. Delving deep into our auditory system’s physiology provides insights, both evident and subtle, about how our bodies and brains might experience and interpret prolonged sound exposure."
"In light of the lack of substantial evidence supporting mechanical changes during burn-in, the onus shifts to human physiology. Our auditory system is a marvel of evolutionary engineering, designed not just for sound reception, but for optimization and adaptation. While it is tempting to attribute perceived sound changes solely to the equipment, the labyrinthine complexity of our ears and the dynamic processes within them suggest a more nuanced narrative. The burn-in phenomenon, when viewed through the lens of human physiology, becomes a symphony of potential adaptive mechanisms, individual variabilities, and intricate biophysics"
"To truly grasp the essence of burn-in, we must not merely tune into the sounds around us but also attune ourselves to the symphony playing within, where psychology and physiology converge in harmony."
"The phenomenon of audio burn-in sits at a fascinating crossroads of empirical science and personal experience. While debates continue within the audiophile community, it is evident that our perceptions are shaped not just by equipment mechanics but also by our unique auditory physiology and sociocultural influences. By appreciating these complexities, we can foster a more comprehensive understanding of sound perception and its implications."
Cureus | Beyond the Sound Waves: A Comprehensive Exploration of the Burn-In Phenomenon in Audio Equipment Across Physiological, Psychological, and Societal Domains | Article
It is a very long article, so I have captured and posted a few of the key paragraphs below if you don't want to read the whole thing:
"Audio burn-in, often referred to as the process by which audio equipment undergoes a series of played sounds to achieve optimal performance, remains a topic of significant debate within both audiophile communities and relevant scientific fields. While some attribute perceived changes in sound quality to actual physical changes in the equipment, an emerging perspective points to the interplay of physiological, psychological, and social factors that might influence these perceptions."
"Burn-in, as a concept, has long intrigued and perplexed the audiophile community. While the debate over mechanical changes in audio equipment endures, the real crux of the matter may lie within the listeners themselves. Delving deep into our auditory system’s physiology provides insights, both evident and subtle, about how our bodies and brains might experience and interpret prolonged sound exposure."
"In light of the lack of substantial evidence supporting mechanical changes during burn-in, the onus shifts to human physiology. Our auditory system is a marvel of evolutionary engineering, designed not just for sound reception, but for optimization and adaptation. While it is tempting to attribute perceived sound changes solely to the equipment, the labyrinthine complexity of our ears and the dynamic processes within them suggest a more nuanced narrative. The burn-in phenomenon, when viewed through the lens of human physiology, becomes a symphony of potential adaptive mechanisms, individual variabilities, and intricate biophysics"
"To truly grasp the essence of burn-in, we must not merely tune into the sounds around us but also attune ourselves to the symphony playing within, where psychology and physiology converge in harmony."
"The phenomenon of audio burn-in sits at a fascinating crossroads of empirical science and personal experience. While debates continue within the audiophile community, it is evident that our perceptions are shaped not just by equipment mechanics but also by our unique auditory physiology and sociocultural influences. By appreciating these complexities, we can foster a more comprehensive understanding of sound perception and its implications."
Last edited:
It is that too. Accommodation to a particular sound can happen pretty quickly, IME. However, I believe a clever engineer can figure out how to disentangle the two effects, listener accommodation, and burn-in. Of course the problem with some of the so-called scientific studies is that the so-called scientists don't know how to measure real burn-in, and they they don't know how find skilled listeners, nor do they try to train people off the street as to what to listen for. Nor do they test people on a system that the listener is already very familiar with. There are many problems with studies that create an appearance of doing science without being actual science. This is an old problem, and one according to the philosphy of science is something that should work itself out over time. The bad science should eventually be discovered and corrected. That's because science is a process, not a particular result.