The problem with that scenario is you knew which were broken in and which were not.
I'd love to see a blind listening test comparing odd items like jumper cables, 4 awg aluminum wiring, 1/8" copper tubing, steel wire from an electric fence, aluminum foil, 16 awg lamp cord, rg-174 coax, stainless steel tubing, etc etc.
My personal choice of interconnects are made from copper salvaged from the Titanic wreck, although a friend of mine claims wire made from meteorite fragments sounds more lush. 😛
JC... the overiding thing in all this seems to me, is that you genuinely "believe" what you hear... and that's fine.
When you talk of the "broken in vs non broken in line cords and wires" I imagine you sat and listened knowing which was which. It's a trap I have fallen in many times myself, that you convince yourself the difference is real... and to you it genuinely is.
I wish would you would have taken part in the cable test in the other thread being so certain as you are that the differences are clearly audible.
When you talk of the "broken in vs non broken in line cords and wires" I imagine you sat and listened knowing which was which. It's a trap I have fallen in many times myself, that you convince yourself the difference is real... and to you it genuinely is.
I wish would you would have taken part in the cable test in the other thread being so certain as you are that the differences are clearly audible.
I hear Ya John (no pun intended). Back in the day when it was a challenge or important I could get excited about it. Now I prefer to do what this is all about - sit back and enjoy the show!!! I just turned off that critical listening part of the mental process and put in a mental loop around error condition flag. When the brain goes - "that doesn't sound quiet right" the loop around goes to the - yeah, but I don't really give a rats *** sub routine. 🙄
Sure but wires would start glowing red before that happens. A bit of a give-away.
Yeah - and I've known engineers - experienced ones - that couldn't figure out how to get the signals off of one PWB to it's mate. I had over 100 tech's working for me - 20% were problems waiting to happen - 60% showed up, did their job and went home - and the 20% did stuff that was often amazing and above the call. Several of them did pursue their degrees and became EE's. Many of the EE's and PhD's I worked with very much needed and appreciated a good engineering tech to help get things running and debugged.
When the EE's and PhD's were roaming around my shop they knew I had one rule - if they kept their hands out of the gear my techs would keep their hands out of the engineering drawings. 😀
Admit it John - you need good techs to help you get your job done - and they need your design and creative genius in order to have something to bang on. And if you ask the kids over in marketing or finance the whole world ends if they don't show up!!! We all need each other - and it helps when we respect each other. My 2c 😉
I WAS an electronic TECH, full time, for at least 1 year. I know, the qualities and limitations of techs, just like PhD's, I hired my first, (Ph'D) 36 years ago. ;-)
Last edited:
In my experience the PhD's take longer to deprogram and retrain than the MBA's. I could usually get the MBA's turned around in a couple of years. The PhD's can be ornery, determined, rather strong willed and often unreachable. AND they are darned sneaky rascals too!!! I know - I've got two of 'em in da family 'n it's hard to believe the ** those suckers can come up with! One day I deliberately wore a pair of mismatched socks and turned my underwear inside out - just so I could walk a mile in their shoes!!!
We actually have a great respect for each others role in things - they dream stuff up - I make it happen. Well - that was back in the day - now I'm just another old fart that's full of bull and old war stories.
1) None. Sometimes, these burn out though. The only devices that actually do burn in are vacuum tubes. It takes anywhere from a few minutes to hours for the bias to settle down after putting new tubes into service.
The one thing that did make a significant difference was to increase the Q-Point bias current of a 6BQ6GTB design. Loadline analysis confirmed a definite improvement in THD, and it did sound better.
If anything might change, it would be the result of running the transistors too hot. If the die gets hot enough, dopants can start to migrate. Given enough time, you have different junctions than the ones the designer intended. That's more likely to degrade performance, not enhance it. You don't want to skimp on heat sinks.
2) Never noticed anything concerning these. May be the mechanics can benefit from a period of run-in?
3) Speeks, being mechanical, can run in.
4 -- 5) Totally ridiculous. It's a length of wire, what's there to "burn in" anyway?
As for anything else, I haven't noticed. Once, after replacing a 1.0uF electrolytic with an AuriCap in a SS design I did, the improvement was immediate and obvious. I didn't notice any subsequent sonic improvement after that.
The time it takes something to burn-in is equal to the time it takes you to get used to the different, and likely inferior, sound of whatever fool item you were conned into buying. 😀
SY, I realize that nothing matters to you, but please don't exaggerate. You impress the less fortunate.
The term Burn-In
The traditional term of "burn-in" refers to a process where semiconductors and other electronic components are subjected to a variety of stresses including temperature to identify potential for early failure (in the context of electronic engineering anyway).
Quality manufacturers determined that reliability and more importantly proof of reliability testing would make more sales even though the production output in terms of quantity would be reduced.
The philosophy worked and the familiar term of 100% burn-in was inserted into the quality statements for the products they manufactured.
In a way not too dissimilar to the cosmetics industry a term originally intended for a logical process or science has been seized on by marketers (even those with engineering degrees) and used to describe a process where a product would improve over time. I.e. it will take time for this product to become perfect. It will take time for this skin cream to make you look younger. I will take time for this interconnect cable to align atomic crystalline structures into a cohesive transmission path. It will take time for this speaker cable to burn in.
Unfortunately the world is full of people who can express themselves so well and can make references to unrelated scientific facts in way that builds a seemingly sensible and seemingly logical argument. A couple of scratches below the surface and it all falls apart but many people wish so much for a better way (better sound, smoother skin) that they embrace this "psuedo-science" as a truth (faith?).
So the sad reality is;
Most things leave a factory at their peak and only go downhill from there (some food and drink etc. excluded). It might take a very long time even millennia but the deterioration is real and inevitable. Speakers can improve a little before they start to deteriorate as mechanical stiffness relaxes but beyond this it's a downhill slide.
The notion that copper or silver that has been subjected to extreme heat and forming can be changed by milliamps or amps of current is a bold statement indeed and is an example of how the original term of "burn-in" has been used by marketers to coerce the potential customer into taking the more expensive cables home and joining the faith. "Mr customer these cables will need about 7 days to burn-in, but the soundstage will be breathtaking" (and you're worth it).
Which brings me to my final point. The best sales and the stickiest sales are the ones where the client has to undergo a transition beyond the simple transaction, where they have to put skin in the game too. "Mr customer you will need to work with these cables for 7 days to achieve the best result". Now the client feels as if they are part of the results and that they can be proud of what they achieved. This client is now the advocate the clever marketers sought to secure. The new "word of mouth" client that believes and preaches his or her new discovery to peers, friends and family.
How often have we heard "I tried this new cream and it didn't do much at first, but I have never felt better. Here take some, I insist.....etc"
And really finally this time, anyone who thinks they cannot be influenced by marketers in the 21st century is utterly and absolutely naive.
In good humour and with cheers
Quasi
The traditional term of "burn-in" refers to a process where semiconductors and other electronic components are subjected to a variety of stresses including temperature to identify potential for early failure (in the context of electronic engineering anyway).
Quality manufacturers determined that reliability and more importantly proof of reliability testing would make more sales even though the production output in terms of quantity would be reduced.
The philosophy worked and the familiar term of 100% burn-in was inserted into the quality statements for the products they manufactured.
In a way not too dissimilar to the cosmetics industry a term originally intended for a logical process or science has been seized on by marketers (even those with engineering degrees) and used to describe a process where a product would improve over time. I.e. it will take time for this product to become perfect. It will take time for this skin cream to make you look younger. I will take time for this interconnect cable to align atomic crystalline structures into a cohesive transmission path. It will take time for this speaker cable to burn in.
Unfortunately the world is full of people who can express themselves so well and can make references to unrelated scientific facts in way that builds a seemingly sensible and seemingly logical argument. A couple of scratches below the surface and it all falls apart but many people wish so much for a better way (better sound, smoother skin) that they embrace this "psuedo-science" as a truth (faith?).
So the sad reality is;
Most things leave a factory at their peak and only go downhill from there (some food and drink etc. excluded). It might take a very long time even millennia but the deterioration is real and inevitable. Speakers can improve a little before they start to deteriorate as mechanical stiffness relaxes but beyond this it's a downhill slide.
The notion that copper or silver that has been subjected to extreme heat and forming can be changed by milliamps or amps of current is a bold statement indeed and is an example of how the original term of "burn-in" has been used by marketers to coerce the potential customer into taking the more expensive cables home and joining the faith. "Mr customer these cables will need about 7 days to burn-in, but the soundstage will be breathtaking" (and you're worth it).
Which brings me to my final point. The best sales and the stickiest sales are the ones where the client has to undergo a transition beyond the simple transaction, where they have to put skin in the game too. "Mr customer you will need to work with these cables for 7 days to achieve the best result". Now the client feels as if they are part of the results and that they can be proud of what they achieved. This client is now the advocate the clever marketers sought to secure. The new "word of mouth" client that believes and preaches his or her new discovery to peers, friends and family.
How often have we heard "I tried this new cream and it didn't do much at first, but I have never felt better. Here take some, I insist.....etc"
And really finally this time, anyone who thinks they cannot be influenced by marketers in the 21st century is utterly and absolutely naive.
In good humour and with cheers
Quasi
Last edited:
Mic, key, mouse! ;-) Please wake up and learn something new, everyone. Opinions, especially without any proof, objective or subjective is just out-gassing.
Just a fill in on a perfect explenation
@quasi
Thanks for that. I couldn't have put it better myself 🙂.
This is exactly what I think as well.
Many people beleive in something thats ... not there.
@quasi
Thanks for that. I couldn't have put it better myself 🙂.
This is exactly what I think as well.
Many people beleive in something thats ... not there.
JC... sorry to bring this up here again, but you yourself have just mentioned cables again so why will you not participate in the cable test ?
Your assertion that these differences are so very audible to yourself would do wonders for the credibility of the argument, and your reputation too.
To just be able to differentiate one from another is all that is required... and you say the differences are obvious in a system and surroundings of your choosing.
It's all good natured fun, so I can't see what the problem is... and you stand to gain more than anyone.
Your so sure John... so just put this to rest and prove it by accepting the challenge put foward in the other thread 🙂
Your assertion that these differences are so very audible to yourself would do wonders for the credibility of the argument, and your reputation too.
To just be able to differentiate one from another is all that is required... and you say the differences are obvious in a system and surroundings of your choosing.
It's all good natured fun, so I can't see what the problem is... and you stand to gain more than anyone.
Your so sure John... so just put this to rest and prove it by accepting the challenge put foward in the other thread 🙂
Mooly, you should read my responses, before challenging me further on this.
Personally, who cares whether you or anyone else hears differences? The fact that I have to worry about break-in on a daily basis as part of my work, has nothing to do with you, whether you are happy with your sound system, or whether you will actually learn something new in this area.
I have to stick by my 'reality' because it is part of what I do for a living.
What is sad, is that people, who have little or no experience, tell me what is real and what is not real.
Personally, who cares whether you or anyone else hears differences? The fact that I have to worry about break-in on a daily basis as part of my work, has nothing to do with you, whether you are happy with your sound system, or whether you will actually learn something new in this area.
I have to stick by my 'reality' because it is part of what I do for a living.
What is sad, is that people, who have little or no experience, tell me what is real and what is not real.
JC... it's about you being able to back up (in any way, whether that be subjective or by objective measurement) what you claim are easily identifiable differences.
I know you do this for a living... all that's being asked, is to see whether you can back up your own claims.
Surely that's a reasonable expectation 🙂
I know you do this for a living... all that's being asked, is to see whether you can back up your own claims.
Surely that's a reasonable expectation 🙂
@quasi,
thank you for the post.....why the term "burning-in" was hijacked by these so called audiophiles is beyond me...
i worked for Advnced Micro devices in the 80's and we had burn-ins as part of our testing procedures....to make sure that chips going out our door then meets costumer epxectations.....
thank you for the post.....why the term "burning-in" was hijacked by these so called audiophiles is beyond me...
i worked for Advnced Micro devices in the 80's and we had burn-ins as part of our testing procedures....to make sure that chips going out our door then meets costumer epxectations.....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.