How can you say that?
Can you prove your statement?
This is a possibility, not a fact.
In my opinion, the fact that a person has an engineering degree does not automatically make that person extraordinarily intelligent, but only educated enough.
I studied Mechanical Engineering in my city even though I was unable to graduate due to external factors.
I've seen graduating both stupid engineers and smart engineers, if you know what I mean.
Then there are even brilliant people, but those are rare.
The onus is on the non-technical people who are claiming burn-in can actually make a difference that can be heard. It is not on the engineers who design the equipment and reject those claims.
To the best of my knowledge the burn-in advocates have never done a well-controlled test to prove their claims. That's where the onus lies, not with the designers.
To the best of my knowledge the burn-in advocates have never done a well-controlled test to prove their claims. That's where the onus lies, not with the designers.
Another item that comes to mind, is a clone as good as the original or even better or its just down right terrible. For you see even with the same circuit but different parts there can be serious differences
Last edited:
Yes, I realize what you mean.
But then, if we already know the answer why do you keep asking?
So, my point is the following.
Any empirical observation becomes science when it is demonstrated through the scientific method.
If right now no one can prove otherwise, that burn-in is just a placebo effect, then we are still in the realm of empirical observation (possibly to prove one day if someone will spend money to prove it).
Yet it is not an observation of a single observer, there are several ones who state in perfect good faith they have perceived it.
So no one can know a priori which empirical observation it will prove right or wrong tomorrow.
Again, if we already know the answer why do you keep asking?
One could simply say, I don't believe it because I only believe what is first proven.
But then, if we already know the answer why do you keep asking?
So, my point is the following.
Any empirical observation becomes science when it is demonstrated through the scientific method.
If right now no one can prove otherwise, that burn-in is just a placebo effect, then we are still in the realm of empirical observation (possibly to prove one day if someone will spend money to prove it).
Yet it is not an observation of a single observer, there are several ones who state in perfect good faith they have perceived it.
So no one can know a priori which empirical observation it will prove right or wrong tomorrow.
Again, if we already know the answer why do you keep asking?
One could simply say, I don't believe it because I only believe what is first proven.
Thank you. Finally someone who understands. And it's funny because in this very moment I was about to write the same thing. Not believing what other people say/hear/perceive to me is telling more about their ignorance and mistrust towards other people than about anything else. There is no such thing as objectivity, not in audio and not in life. Though I understand that sometimes we are thriving to seek it anyways. As a Gestalt therapist I strongly believe - and know from experience - that "we don't see things as they are, we see them as we are" (quote by a famous person, probably Anais Nin). So for me, if YOU don't hear something doesn't mean I CANNOT hear it and vice versa. And there is actually no need at all for either of us to state the other one's "wrongness". Why are there always these endless discussions and fights between people wanting to be right? It's like politics, every party wants to be right and in the end, people kill each other. But I digress.
I have been in the audio hobby for about 15 years now and still there are certain things I perceive that I can barely put into words, either because there are no words for it or it is a language I still have to learn. My intention with this post was not to start a discussion on burn in, I simply wanted to know from your experience if you consider it a thing that changes the sound of your builds or not. So the answer could be "in my experience it's not real, I don't hear it" or "in my experience it takes xxx hours and is quite audible especially in the lower frequencies" and so on. I am just trying to figure out what it is that I am hearing, because the sound of the three amps IS different to my ears, no doubt about that.
Maybe I didn't say it explicitly, but I believe in the burn-in of any piece of equipment because I believe in the fact that I have always hear it both with transducers and electronics.
Indeed, it seems impossible that use does not change the sound of anything, with what else on Earth does this happen (that's, that use does not change the intended functioning of something)?
I can't say if it is an objective or subjective fact, though.
But at this point what changes? 🙄
Indeed, it seems impossible that use does not change the sound of anything, with what else on Earth does this happen (that's, that use does not change the intended functioning of something)?
I can't say if it is an objective or subjective fact, though.
But at this point what changes? 🙄
Well the absolutely most likely thruth about this thing is that both ”conclusions” are true:
1. The human ”audio perception system” do adjust to the sound to a new audio system over time. We get used to the sound, and it ”normalises”.
2. The electronic components absolutely do change and drift over time, due to different temperature, voltage, current, and time.
Question: Any Electronic components or Materials used in speakers that does not change over time?
Answer: Simply DOES NOT EXIST on this planet or any where else in the now known universe.
🎷🙂🎸
1. The human ”audio perception system” do adjust to the sound to a new audio system over time. We get used to the sound, and it ”normalises”.
2. The electronic components absolutely do change and drift over time, due to different temperature, voltage, current, and time.
Question: Any Electronic components or Materials used in speakers that does not change over time?
Answer: Simply DOES NOT EXIST on this planet or any where else in the now known universe.
🎷🙂🎸
@classicalfan
I just noticed that @OnAudio posted while I was typing, but this post #44 is the reply to your comment, not to his one as it seems instead. 😉
I just noticed that @OnAudio posted while I was typing, but this post #44 is the reply to your comment, not to his one as it seems instead. 😉
Answer the question about burn in is likely not.
It is what it is.
Something more technical be is we don't know if it is stable
dont know if it has DC offset, Maybe overbiased and getting hot.
Maybe it is just class AB with bias to high for no reason.
Not that you need new speakers.
Maybe they are low impedance
or have wild impedance curve.
Solid state can tolerate these things.
Having owned very efficient speakers
and also low impedance speakers with less efficiency.
Very simple amps with just 2 output transistors didn't
drive more difficult loads at higher listening volumes very well.
Or speakers that needed more power for average to higher listening levels
just sounded spongy with certain amps
And yes could be described as slow or sluggish.
Low volumes not so notable.
Otherwise as mentioned maybe needs basic check
of DC offset or maybe was or appeared stable design in sim.
But real life application is unstable.
Combined with too much heat from overbias
it is spongy and needs more output devices or just
turn down bias to normal class A/B
Or needs more compensation so it is stable.
It is what it is.
Something more technical be is we don't know if it is stable
dont know if it has DC offset, Maybe overbiased and getting hot.
Maybe it is just class AB with bias to high for no reason.
Not that you need new speakers.
Maybe they are low impedance
or have wild impedance curve.
Solid state can tolerate these things.
Having owned very efficient speakers
and also low impedance speakers with less efficiency.
Very simple amps with just 2 output transistors didn't
drive more difficult loads at higher listening volumes very well.
Or speakers that needed more power for average to higher listening levels
just sounded spongy with certain amps
And yes could be described as slow or sluggish.
Low volumes not so notable.
Otherwise as mentioned maybe needs basic check
of DC offset or maybe was or appeared stable design in sim.
But real life application is unstable.
Combined with too much heat from overbias
it is spongy and needs more output devices or just
turn down bias to normal class A/B
Or needs more compensation so it is stable.
classicalfan:
You seem wedded to the notion that burn-in is nonsense. How rigid you are in your mindset is of interest to me. Would you be open to an experiment? I am leaving on a vacation in a few hours and won't return home until August 18, but upon my return I would be happy to box up and mail to you my prized FryBaby2 for testing in your stereo. You would need to commit to playing the FryBaby2 continuously in your system for 96 hours at a low to moderate volume, after which you would then assess whether there was any discernible change, positive or negative, to the sound of the music produced by your stereo. You could then support or debunk the notion of burn-in from personal experience on this thread.
I'll pay to mail the FryBaby2 to you and you'll pay to return it to me unless you live anywhere near Philadelphia, in which case we could effect the trades in person.
Interested?
Regards,
Scott
You seem wedded to the notion that burn-in is nonsense. How rigid you are in your mindset is of interest to me. Would you be open to an experiment? I am leaving on a vacation in a few hours and won't return home until August 18, but upon my return I would be happy to box up and mail to you my prized FryBaby2 for testing in your stereo. You would need to commit to playing the FryBaby2 continuously in your system for 96 hours at a low to moderate volume, after which you would then assess whether there was any discernible change, positive or negative, to the sound of the music produced by your stereo. You could then support or debunk the notion of burn-in from personal experience on this thread.
I'll pay to mail the FryBaby2 to you and you'll pay to return it to me unless you live anywhere near Philadelphia, in which case we could effect the trades in person.
Interested?
Regards,
Scott
Attachments
I have only a little personal experience with this , though I have seen it talked about by others online in the past a few times - that a frequency response dip, somewhere just above 400Hz if I remember it rightly, can make for a slow or sluggish sound. You might try searching more along those lines.
G'luck
This is fascinating.
Makes sense from a component reliability/manufacturing standpoint to shake out early failures but I’m still having a hard time understanding how/where amp performance is shifting during that period, and what’s causing the change.
Does Pass Labs do the same?
M2 was for me, a classic example of breaking in, also noted by teabag, who has group buy for the boards. Upon initial fire up, amp sounded muddy and bass not so good. It still sounded "good", just not what I was expecting based on others description s. He told me he had experienced the same, just let it cook, which did indeed result in all being well in the end.
That amp, may be a wild card here, it has a transformer in signal path. Perhaps that caused this effect? Who knows, sounds fine now!
No one is disputing the fact that electronic components or materials used in speakers may change over time.
That is an entirely different issue from whether initial burn-in makes any difference in the sound.
I didn't say that, so stop trying to twist my words to make your argument.
What I said is that the idea of "burn-in", meaning a significant change in the performance of a new piece of electronics due to its early use, is unfounded.
Over long periods of time certain components, namely capacitors, can change their value and performance. But we are talking about years for this to happen, not 100 or so hours.
What I said is that the idea of "burn-in", meaning a significant change in the performance of a new piece of electronics due to its early use, is unfounded.
Over long periods of time certain components, namely capacitors, can change their value and performance. But we are talking about years for this to happen, not 100 or so hours.
Thanks, but no interest.
If you want to waste your time and money on ridiculous gimmicks like the FryBaby2, please go ahead. But I don't want to waste my time with it.
My equipment already has several thousand hours of use on it and there is nothing, I repeat nothing, that the FryBaby2 or any similar gimmick can do to change its performance.
Here is some of what can happen over a minute or so:
https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/dissertations/bk128b79h
This proves absolutely nothing about the subject being discussed.
Yeah, big surprise. When you apply a sudden voltage to a capacitor is takes a few seconds to charge up and stabilize. Anyone who understands capacitors would know and expect exactly that to happen. I'm not sure that you really understand them.
But the subject at hand, which you continue to ignore, is whether capacitors change their value and performance over long periods of time as they age and get used.
Yeah, big surprise. When you apply a sudden voltage to a capacitor is takes a few seconds to charge up and stabilize. Anyone who understands capacitors would know and expect exactly that to happen. I'm not sure that you really understand them.
But the subject at hand, which you continue to ignore, is whether capacitors change their value and performance over long periods of time as they age and get used.