My mantra: Trust your ears, but don't trust your lying brain.
Online Articles
See the article "Testing, One, Two, Three..."
Online Articles
See the article "Testing, One, Two, Three..."
I agree with Scutterflux in the sense that not all audible changes can be measured.
You can take a half dozen tone capacitors, mount them on a carousel switch and rotate them in real time, mounted to a guitar or bass. The differences in caps with the same rating is dramatic. Price does not always mean better. This is a test where a PIO cap will stand head and shoulders above all other caps, in my opinion. The way it bleeds of the treble is smooth and woody, it makes all the other capacitors sound like they are "clipping" the treble away in an erratic fashion. It's the best way I can describe it.
-I think we can agree that different capacitors sound differently.
So now the issue is, can an individual capacitor sound differently over the course of it's life?
I suspect the answer lies in the chemical composition of the specific capacitor. Let's consider the capacitor's close cousin, the DC rechargeable battery.
A NiCad, (Nickle Cadmium) battery has a memory. For maximum life, a NiCad should be discharged as far as possible before recharging. If you charge it when it is half way full, the cells will eventually develop a memory that will not longer give you more then half the batteries rated capacity. Right there you can have two quite different outcomes depending on how the battery "forms" for lack of a better word. This suggests that it is at least possible. One operator can have a completely different legitimate experience then another using the identical parts in the identical tool.
By comparison a Lithium battery does not care when you charge it, however you will render it useless if you let the voltage get too low. This is the complete opposite then the NiCad, which is also a DC "battery" of the same voltage.
Try and show me the difference of either one of these partially discharged batteries hidden behind a curtain with a DMM or scope. Not easy to do with static or charting measurements.
Both technologies have a finite lifespan, only so many voltage swings, each swing changing the cell in a subtle fashion. Neither battery will ever be the same as the day it was new.
Perhaps it is not something being gained that is heard, rather some trait being lost.
Who has the burden of proof? I suppose we each have to evaluate our own situations.
For the record I do not believe, nor disbelieve in capacitor break in. But if you are going to use science to disprove something, then use science to disprove it.
The point I was trying to make is; the OP made one post in three years which had much more useful information compared to the empty nature of the arguments against what he heard.
You may be right, but your case is weak. I am going to have to side with the ear-witness on this one.
You can take a half dozen tone capacitors, mount them on a carousel switch and rotate them in real time, mounted to a guitar or bass. The differences in caps with the same rating is dramatic. Price does not always mean better. This is a test where a PIO cap will stand head and shoulders above all other caps, in my opinion. The way it bleeds of the treble is smooth and woody, it makes all the other capacitors sound like they are "clipping" the treble away in an erratic fashion. It's the best way I can describe it.
-I think we can agree that different capacitors sound differently.
So now the issue is, can an individual capacitor sound differently over the course of it's life?
I suspect the answer lies in the chemical composition of the specific capacitor. Let's consider the capacitor's close cousin, the DC rechargeable battery.
A NiCad, (Nickle Cadmium) battery has a memory. For maximum life, a NiCad should be discharged as far as possible before recharging. If you charge it when it is half way full, the cells will eventually develop a memory that will not longer give you more then half the batteries rated capacity. Right there you can have two quite different outcomes depending on how the battery "forms" for lack of a better word. This suggests that it is at least possible. One operator can have a completely different legitimate experience then another using the identical parts in the identical tool.
By comparison a Lithium battery does not care when you charge it, however you will render it useless if you let the voltage get too low. This is the complete opposite then the NiCad, which is also a DC "battery" of the same voltage.
Try and show me the difference of either one of these partially discharged batteries hidden behind a curtain with a DMM or scope. Not easy to do with static or charting measurements.
Both technologies have a finite lifespan, only so many voltage swings, each swing changing the cell in a subtle fashion. Neither battery will ever be the same as the day it was new.
Perhaps it is not something being gained that is heard, rather some trait being lost.
Who has the burden of proof? I suppose we each have to evaluate our own situations.
For the record I do not believe, nor disbelieve in capacitor break in. But if you are going to use science to disprove something, then use science to disprove it.
The point I was trying to make is; the OP made one post in three years which had much more useful information compared to the empty nature of the arguments against what he heard.
You may be right, but your case is weak. I am going to have to side with the ear-witness on this one.
I think this quote from user Kahoona says it best:
Kahoona
06-29-2011, 07:41 PM
I vote for the break in time any day. Besides it gives my ears time to get used to the sound:music:
New Capacitor breakin ? [Archive] - AudioKarma.org Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums
Kahoona
06-29-2011, 07:41 PM
I vote for the break in time any day. Besides it gives my ears time to get used to the sound:music:
New Capacitor breakin ? [Archive] - AudioKarma.org Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums
Here's a list of all the verified audible differences that could not be measured:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, whaddaya know. Not one. Ever. Including tone caps.
I gather that you're not a scientist. It's up to someone making a remarkable claim to offer evidence. Just because you claim to have seen a unicorn and offer no evidence doesn't mean that a biologist is going to spend even a minute trying to search the entire surface of the earth to show that it wasn't there.
I gather that you want me to gather that you are a scientist? Gathered.
He says he saw a unicorn, you say he didn't, I don't believe either one of you.
He says he saw a unicorn, you say he didn't, I don't believe either one of you.
When he comes up with a unicorn DNA sample, I'll pay some attention. Lacking that, he's just a sad wacko.
OK here is a theory, perhaps one of us could perform an experiment.
So basically here is what I suspect some people may be experiencing. Steel parts and tin wire coatings in and around the amplifier have a small magnetic charge developed during use, they essentially become temporary magnets.
What is the Curie temperature of these temporary magnets?
Probably lower then the temperature of the soldering iron that installed the boutique caps.
How long would it take for these parts to develop a temporary magnetic charge significant enough to make an audible difference? (Good or bad)
lol 100-300 hours.
Can you advise on the apparatus to perform such an experiment?
So basically here is what I suspect some people may be experiencing. Steel parts and tin wire coatings in and around the amplifier have a small magnetic charge developed during use, they essentially become temporary magnets.
What is the Curie temperature of these temporary magnets?
Probably lower then the temperature of the soldering iron that installed the boutique caps.
How long would it take for these parts to develop a temporary magnetic charge significant enough to make an audible difference? (Good or bad)
lol 100-300 hours.
Can you advise on the apparatus to perform such an experiment?
Don't you mean, you did? Or you didn't, but you want us to. Or if we don't then don't come sayin' it ain't so... Or you mean you saw someone do it so it's done been proved already...?
That's a fancifull image...
What does "dramatic" mean?
Imagine how unpredictable the sound quality of any modern amp would be if that were true... with the thousands of parts.
What's the "test" part of that?
.."all" the other capacitors...?
I can send you plenty of Plain Jane old $0.79 coupling caps that do their job with 100% effectiveness and nothing added or lost.
I have already compared capacitors on a switch and am more then satisfied that there are dramatic differences. I now understand or could at least appreciate all the fuss about Russian PIO. Dramatic= 5 sound similar and "distorted" while one sounds completely "different" and nice. It's not really a hard concept to grasp.
Who are you do dice up my response as to suit whatever point you were trying to make 3 pages ago.
Did I ever say I was doing a scientific "test", no silly I was simply selecting a tone capacitor for a guitar and had an unexpected and delightful surprise from my experiment.
You should try it some time.
As far as you last line, "I can send you plenty of Plain Jane old $0.79 coupling caps that do their job with 100% effectiveness and nothing added or lost" What does this even mean?
"all the other capacitors" were the 5 assorted film caps I tried.
Who are you do dice up my response as to suit whatever point you were trying to make 3 pages ago.
Did I ever say I was doing a scientific "test", no silly I was simply selecting a tone capacitor for a guitar and had an unexpected and delightful surprise from my experiment.
You should try it some time.
As far as you last line, "I can send you plenty of Plain Jane old $0.79 coupling caps that do their job with 100% effectiveness and nothing added or lost" What does this even mean?
"all the other capacitors" were the 5 assorted film caps I tried.
Ya I skimmed it for now, it's interesting and some good points, there's certain issues, like when he (is that you SY, Stuart Yaniger, who wrote the article?) didn't change anything but his wife thought she noticed a change in sound, rather than attributing that to burn in he attests it to the song he was playing, kinda like ring a bell watch the dog drool... perhaps, perhaps not, I guess that's the beauty of psychology, does your wife know your implications? Did he mention burn in anywhere, if he did I glossed over that part? Maybe some of the suggested tests and his personal results are effected by such things as humidity, atmospheric pressures, and the subtle electromagnetic effects on currents, also the psychology of the studied in blind tests, and hearing fatigue, and other factors he mentions, allot that could effect perceived and actual sound changes during the test. Also a significant factor in the testing was the only person who did the test was also the author? Was it only two tests? and they where done by the author, with potentially misleading results.
Do you believe in warming up an amp and it's effect on sound? I used to warm mine up and solder in a certain cap while amp was warm, cap cold, to get 30min of a wonderful sound that would again only work in that scenario before the cap would warm up and then whole sound would turn to a mushy blob. I did it 3-4 times to confirm what I heard, and again got a friend to listen and noticed too. I'm positive that wasn't made up, it was a pain in the *** to do and a fluke to discover and something that will live in my memory now. What I'm suggesting is some of those experiments could over the length of the experiment have a preference for one component and changing throughout the experiment to another, thereby skewing the results to appear more random. I believe I can hear my amp warm up.
Was anything measured regarding changes in sound? This just seems to relate most of it to a psychological affect, which no doubt exists, but does that mean burn in isn't real. The personal testing w/ assistant reveals a less than confident result, does this mean you don't believe different components with similar ratings have a significant effect on sound quality?
Here's a thought, what about an audible spectrum phase response? (is that what it would be called?) I'm thinking very subtle changes in very narrow bands of very little amplitude would be noticeable by ear and easily overlooked by the eye on a chart/graph, if a blind human can learn to echo locate and tell you what is in front of him without seeing it in a strange environment that's a detailed picture the ears can paint that I'm sure instruments can't, otherwise seismology would be allot easier, but we're getting closer with full wave inversion (as I understand it). You'd probably have to run a second derivative to pick out changes, or maybe just subtract the differences to know where to zoom in and look. But then again I guess we don't need to pay that close attention as there are other more easily measured differences taking place with burn in.
So anyway, I don't think the OP's experiment is worthy of scientific accolade, but it's a record of his experience and observations over that length of time he recorded his observations. It's a soft science method like psychology.
I guess I just don't like the way so many people where jumping on the OP about his methods and the comments regarding burn in as voodoo and magic, and his methods suck, etc etc. No one hear has attempted to measure what he heard and immediately dismissed it, it seems like no one here can hear burn in and or admit to measuring it and so it doesn't exist. It's been suggested everything can be measured but then suggested in that article noticeable auditory experiences are mostly psychological? What's the point of hifi, tubes etc... I'm not sure I understand what you're telling me?
If they can't hear it I say they've not learned to listen well enough yet. I still practice listening to certain frequencies and sometimes songs can come to life in a new way by honing in just right. I would say that is psychological muscle rather than effect because it's one that can be controlled and effectively a tool used to analyse, it's similar to focusing your eyes. Some people need glasses, and others tube swap.
So why hasn't anyone addressed burn in the last 70 years in a truly measurable objective manner with numbers if it's so easy? Because who cares that's why! But it's real and it's not voodoo or magic, it's distortion, harmonic content, phase variances, hysteresis, parts wearing out, and I'll bet there is non-measurable or ignored phenomena as well, but somethings happening. 1,000,000,000 audiophiles agree!
Do you believe in warming up an amp and it's effect on sound? I used to warm mine up and solder in a certain cap while amp was warm, cap cold, to get 30min of a wonderful sound that would again only work in that scenario before the cap would warm up and then whole sound would turn to a mushy blob. I did it 3-4 times to confirm what I heard, and again got a friend to listen and noticed too. I'm positive that wasn't made up, it was a pain in the *** to do and a fluke to discover and something that will live in my memory now. What I'm suggesting is some of those experiments could over the length of the experiment have a preference for one component and changing throughout the experiment to another, thereby skewing the results to appear more random. I believe I can hear my amp warm up.
Was anything measured regarding changes in sound? This just seems to relate most of it to a psychological affect, which no doubt exists, but does that mean burn in isn't real. The personal testing w/ assistant reveals a less than confident result, does this mean you don't believe different components with similar ratings have a significant effect on sound quality?
Here's a thought, what about an audible spectrum phase response? (is that what it would be called?) I'm thinking very subtle changes in very narrow bands of very little amplitude would be noticeable by ear and easily overlooked by the eye on a chart/graph, if a blind human can learn to echo locate and tell you what is in front of him without seeing it in a strange environment that's a detailed picture the ears can paint that I'm sure instruments can't, otherwise seismology would be allot easier, but we're getting closer with full wave inversion (as I understand it). You'd probably have to run a second derivative to pick out changes, or maybe just subtract the differences to know where to zoom in and look. But then again I guess we don't need to pay that close attention as there are other more easily measured differences taking place with burn in.
So anyway, I don't think the OP's experiment is worthy of scientific accolade, but it's a record of his experience and observations over that length of time he recorded his observations. It's a soft science method like psychology.
I guess I just don't like the way so many people where jumping on the OP about his methods and the comments regarding burn in as voodoo and magic, and his methods suck, etc etc. No one hear has attempted to measure what he heard and immediately dismissed it, it seems like no one here can hear burn in and or admit to measuring it and so it doesn't exist. It's been suggested everything can be measured but then suggested in that article noticeable auditory experiences are mostly psychological? What's the point of hifi, tubes etc... I'm not sure I understand what you're telling me?
If they can't hear it I say they've not learned to listen well enough yet. I still practice listening to certain frequencies and sometimes songs can come to life in a new way by honing in just right. I would say that is psychological muscle rather than effect because it's one that can be controlled and effectively a tool used to analyse, it's similar to focusing your eyes. Some people need glasses, and others tube swap.
So why hasn't anyone addressed burn in the last 70 years in a truly measurable objective manner with numbers if it's so easy? Because who cares that's why! But it's real and it's not voodoo or magic, it's distortion, harmonic content, phase variances, hysteresis, parts wearing out, and I'll bet there is non-measurable or ignored phenomena as well, but somethings happening. 1,000,000,000 audiophiles agree!
Last edited:
I would like to thank all those individuals who took time to respond to my original post. Each has his own opinions and we are free to express.
Regarding a couple follow on points:
1. Right or wrong, my intended use of the word "objective" refers to the numerical scorecard I submitted in the original post. The scorecard is based upon my subjective interpretation of sonics that are then quantified into a score, thus my usage of he word "objective". Technically, the scorecard is subjective. But the intention is to give a p received value to each of my sonic criteria. Use it as you will or discard.
2. The entire thrust of the original post is to convey my experience of how cap and resister components changed over time. It's that simple.
Thanks again for any responses.
Regarding a couple follow on points:
1. Right or wrong, my intended use of the word "objective" refers to the numerical scorecard I submitted in the original post. The scorecard is based upon my subjective interpretation of sonics that are then quantified into a score, thus my usage of he word "objective". Technically, the scorecard is subjective. But the intention is to give a p received value to each of my sonic criteria. Use it as you will or discard.
2. The entire thrust of the original post is to convey my experience of how cap and resister components changed over time. It's that simple.
Thanks again for any responses.
Comparatively, you could swap 4 of these in the circuit and I my self could not really tell a difference between them. The 5th one was similar to the other 4 but with a pronounced sparkle for lack of a better word. The PIO as I mentioned earlier, just sounded earthy, woody, and the treble would bleed off really nice, it sounded "attenuated" rather then removed. I suspect this could be measured.
Anyhow I don't know why we are discussing this as is does not relate to "burn in", rather I was using it for illustration purposes.
Anyhow I don't know why we are discussing this as is does not relate to "burn in", rather I was using it for illustration purposes.
I know right? I guess these guys got it all figured out.
Right? it just changes, sometimes you like it better sometimes you don't.
No! prove that you heard a difference! (That was sarcasm on my part, lol)
Nickel too, that's also ferromagnetic and in some resistor end-caps, they develop hysteresis, but so small you'd need a physics lab to measure.
Hey and I've heard dramatic differences with a single part change of same value too. Literally dramatic, not even subtle, I wager a A/B test with this scenario.
I wonder with all the parts in some of these amps these guys are listening to if they aren't missing the subtleties individual parts can offer. I noticed you suggest tone cap in guitar straight to amp, that would probably give a significant change in tone, think how little parts there are influencing the sound already, every part could be significant in that chain, which is what a single cap and I hope a simple tube amp maybe an old Traynor😉 Not like the modern stereo amps with a tonne of parts can't even tell if they're turd for a resistor or carbon.
All this change in only 100 hours.... I have been at this hobby for more than 40 years and I am still waiting for my capacitors to break in. Maybe those who disagree will say "he bought the slow changing variety", I say BS. Mickeystan
Invariably several quotations come to mind. Only two for now:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Hitchens) (.... at least in science)
"Entrenched belief cannot be changed by fact" (Dick Francis)
..... and so forth. To reply to all the suppositions here will require a small book - but large books have been written, better explaining things than I will ever be able to; reams of research exist; PhDs have been awarded, both on acousto-medical and in the auditory-psycho field. If these have not been read ....? And if these are not believed regardlessly, then one is back to the subjectivist manifesto of: "Whenever subjective observations contradict science, the latter may be dismissed". Welcome to scientific thinking in 2013.
I would address just one simple matter, which as far as I noticed, has not been mentioned here: Capacitors in the (so-called) signal line (all capacitors are in the signal line in amplifiers, otherwise why are they there? But never mind ....)
The purpose of these (e.g. coupling capacitors) is to have negligible resistance/impedance in the signal path, at least in the audio pass-band. That is how their values are chosen when I last heard. Let us say (please bear with me): A 100nF coupling capacitor terminated by a 1 meg resistor to common. At 1 kHz the cap has an impedance of 1,6K.ohm. In combination with a 1 meg resistor this equates to a contribution of 0,014 dB (if we are at least allowed to accept logs as O.K.) So if that capacitor was so horribly constructed as to 'burn in' from 100nF to 200nF, the difference would still be 0,014 dB. That is what I am asked to believe to be audible by some folks - or something similar. (Smearing, di-electric effects and other artifacts will be of the same order if present in audio at all - such capacitors do not charge/discharge - they work as shorts!).
I feel like someone is saying: ....but just do the test! Do investigate whether 4+7 still equals 11 - just to please me (or whatever) .....
There is no argument worth the electricity used in typing an analysis of that. I read several statements of 'I believe ....' That is your right. But science is not democratic. And folks still contending that 'there are things that one cannot measure' in this subject, must for a change come up with proof themselves instead of always leaving the burden of proof to scientists! I assure you there will be an invitation to Oslo, Norway in your postbox in due time.
Yes, in frequency control circuits (and only there) do capacitors have a 'capacitive' effect. Again, let there be proof that what can be measured these days is insufficient to explain audible effects. I think that is a fair request?
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Hitchens) (.... at least in science)
"Entrenched belief cannot be changed by fact" (Dick Francis)
..... and so forth. To reply to all the suppositions here will require a small book - but large books have been written, better explaining things than I will ever be able to; reams of research exist; PhDs have been awarded, both on acousto-medical and in the auditory-psycho field. If these have not been read ....? And if these are not believed regardlessly, then one is back to the subjectivist manifesto of: "Whenever subjective observations contradict science, the latter may be dismissed". Welcome to scientific thinking in 2013.
I would address just one simple matter, which as far as I noticed, has not been mentioned here: Capacitors in the (so-called) signal line (all capacitors are in the signal line in amplifiers, otherwise why are they there? But never mind ....)
The purpose of these (e.g. coupling capacitors) is to have negligible resistance/impedance in the signal path, at least in the audio pass-band. That is how their values are chosen when I last heard. Let us say (please bear with me): A 100nF coupling capacitor terminated by a 1 meg resistor to common. At 1 kHz the cap has an impedance of 1,6K.ohm. In combination with a 1 meg resistor this equates to a contribution of 0,014 dB (if we are at least allowed to accept logs as O.K.) So if that capacitor was so horribly constructed as to 'burn in' from 100nF to 200nF, the difference would still be 0,014 dB. That is what I am asked to believe to be audible by some folks - or something similar. (Smearing, di-electric effects and other artifacts will be of the same order if present in audio at all - such capacitors do not charge/discharge - they work as shorts!).
I feel like someone is saying: ....but just do the test! Do investigate whether 4+7 still equals 11 - just to please me (or whatever) .....
There is no argument worth the electricity used in typing an analysis of that. I read several statements of 'I believe ....' That is your right. But science is not democratic. And folks still contending that 'there are things that one cannot measure' in this subject, must for a change come up with proof themselves instead of always leaving the burden of proof to scientists! I assure you there will be an invitation to Oslo, Norway in your postbox in due time.
Yes, in frequency control circuits (and only there) do capacitors have a 'capacitive' effect. Again, let there be proof that what can be measured these days is insufficient to explain audible effects. I think that is a fair request?
I suspect that it is the region that the capacitor rolls off that has the most effect on overall sound.
A blind man can tell what's in front of him by the echo it makes, a siesmologist can suggest a density/velocity contrast and there's billions of dollars spent on that.
With a single clicking noise and a microphone can our instuments remake the structure of a room like a blind guy paying attention.
Good thing science is always changing.
With a single clicking noise and a microphone can our instuments remake the structure of a room like a blind guy paying attention.
Good thing science is always changing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.