Also I believe it's been discussed that everything can be measure, but apparently no one has measured the burn in process other than in tubes, so you can be the first to do this. I mean it's a fact this occurs in tubes because it's been measured, but all the other effects are hocus pocus because no one measured it yet so no one believes it. So there you go, get to it, start measuring, and you could claim you discovered the burn in effect.
I don't get it why are their so many willingly ignorant people on this board?
The proof is in the pudding, now quit talking about it and taste it.
I don't get it why are their so many willingly ignorant people on this board?
The proof is in the pudding, now quit talking about it and taste it.
Last edited:
Blind Man Teaches Himself to See Using Echolocation, Lives Normal Life - TechEBlog
This guy is riding a bike with two prosthetic eyes.
This guy is riding a bike with two prosthetic eyes.
I think they have been measuring that for over 70 years :roll eyes:
What this guy is doing is using a well known phenomena that is well researched, used every day and is certainly very measurable. In fact, the measurability of the phenomena is what makes it useable.
I really don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Last edited:
They've been measuring that with bench top equipment for 70 years? And that's why it's usable? :roll eyes:
Uhm, no... It is because the phenomena that sound (or radio waves) act according to the laws of physics are predictable and measurable is what makes echolocation possible. The measurable time differences in the reflected wave are what the biological (in the case of whales, bats and humans) or electronic computers measure to 'see' the environment around them.
So yes, standard measuring devices that have been around for over 70 years are quite capable of measuring what is going on with echo-location. How many windows do you think there are on most naval submarines?
If you are trying to use the echo location ability of that man as an analogy to make some kind of statement about the subjective impressions of component burn-in, then I think your analogy is very poor.
Scutterflux,
To be kind (I am trying) - are you for real? You postulate something at will, next moment it is fact, and now science must 'adapt' to measure it or we are stupid?
Did you read my previous post? Then kindly start there, please? I say again, science is not democratic. It does not prove the hypothetical. We cannot measure things that are not there. One must not endeavour to prove that whatever might exist, if one has already proved that it does not exist.
What exactly is it in that statement that you cannot understand?
And I have not experienced that 'science is always changing'. At least not in 58 years as a professional. But perhaps you have been there longer .....
Define science. Its tools are improving, not its dogmas changing.
😀 😀 😀: I will let that one ride for now - but we might have to come back for it .... 😉
Wow ! You guys get old over there !! What is your secret , That's much more important then Amps, sources and speakers ! So we can enjoy them longer 🙂
Give us some tips 😉
Cheers,
Rens
Just to clarify, and summarize:
So none of you guys think burn in is a real phenomena? (I think only 2 of us, OP and myself and one on the fence think it is real, and apparently us three are the only ones who can hear a difference between component selection)
If burn in was real science would have measured it?
Science has not measured any burn in effect therefore it is not real?
There is definitely no audible phenomena that is has gone unmeasured or untested by science in the last 70 years regarding burn in?
The fact that some people claim to hear burn in is not a real effect, but a psychological one?
There is no difference between a $5 cap and $80 or $500 dollar capacitor at least not a measurable one, and definitely not an audible one, and 100hrs doesn't change it's measure and even if it did it wouldn't be enough to hear it?
Oh and everything can be measured with benchtop equipment otherwise it's voodoo?
BTW in the last 70 years there is not an instrument that can model what the human hears with echo location, don't kid yourself. But yes the past 70 years they can put blip on a screen relative to the time of the soundwaves return, or hypothesis and measure echos, some 2D phase measurements where possible, here is link to where we're at now, looks like this year they finally designed a program that I'm sure still has some ambiguity to map a room, but I bet everything has to be perfectly still and without reading it I bet there's an array of microphones. Despite the science I believe Russians (maybe others) used human ears to echo locate subs as well mmm.
Science is great, it can help explain allot of things, but the more science you know the more you realize it's just a bunch of guessing and best explanations and full of close enoughs, like ohms law.
Echolocation technology maps rooms in a snap - NBC News.com
So none of you guys think burn in is a real phenomena? (I think only 2 of us, OP and myself and one on the fence think it is real, and apparently us three are the only ones who can hear a difference between component selection)
If burn in was real science would have measured it?
Science has not measured any burn in effect therefore it is not real?
There is definitely no audible phenomena that is has gone unmeasured or untested by science in the last 70 years regarding burn in?
The fact that some people claim to hear burn in is not a real effect, but a psychological one?
There is no difference between a $5 cap and $80 or $500 dollar capacitor at least not a measurable one, and definitely not an audible one, and 100hrs doesn't change it's measure and even if it did it wouldn't be enough to hear it?
Oh and everything can be measured with benchtop equipment otherwise it's voodoo?
BTW in the last 70 years there is not an instrument that can model what the human hears with echo location, don't kid yourself. But yes the past 70 years they can put blip on a screen relative to the time of the soundwaves return, or hypothesis and measure echos, some 2D phase measurements where possible, here is link to where we're at now, looks like this year they finally designed a program that I'm sure still has some ambiguity to map a room, but I bet everything has to be perfectly still and without reading it I bet there's an array of microphones. Despite the science I believe Russians (maybe others) used human ears to echo locate subs as well mmm.
Science is great, it can help explain allot of things, but the more science you know the more you realize it's just a bunch of guessing and best explanations and full of close enoughs, like ohms law.
Echolocation technology maps rooms in a snap - NBC News.com
Last edited:
i have seen burn-in up close and personal having worked for a semiconductor fab house, it is real......
the object of burn-in is to weed out imperfect semicon builds by subjecting them to temperature extremes under power that they will likely see in the outside world...
these semicon manufacturers would rather have those devices fail in their testing department than when already installed in costumer's equipment...
started out a process requirement by the military, the object is high reliability, when electronics using them fail in the heat of battle, the consequences are too grim to contemplate....
now comes the audiophile crowd/vendors and hijacked this legitimate process for them to sell snake oils.....
this capacitor debate has nothing to do with capacitors, but rather what you believe in....
if you are happy with your choice so be it, i will leave you alone....
even if i can hear a difference, i will never go around telling people....
my experience is just my anecdote, and not a proof of anything....
my enjoyment in this hobby has everything to do with me...and no one else....
if you are happy with your choice so be it, i will leave you alone....
even if i can hear a difference, i will never go around telling people....
my experience is just my anecdote, and not a proof of anything....
my enjoyment in this hobby has everything to do with me...and no one else....
AJT,
Certainly - I have worked for most of my professional career as a researcher (CSIR, South-Africa - Council for Scientific and Industrial Research). So agreed with semiconductors - and apology if my statements sounded too general. I was concerned mainly with the passive component field.
Certainly - I have worked for most of my professional career as a researcher (CSIR, South-Africa - Council for Scientific and Industrial Research). So agreed with semiconductors - and apology if my statements sounded too general. I was concerned mainly with the passive component field.
You might want to read to whom my replies are directed to. I will try to use more quotes in the future.
Well, that's a twisted way of saying it but that's kinda how science works.
1)make observations and collect facts, as the OP did,(what he experienced is a fact and he recorded his observations, but about 20 people jumped on him saying that's bad)
2)Make a Hypothesis and attempt to explain (which I did, but again was met with strong opposition to such suggestions)
3)Use Hypothesis to make predictions (I wagered a few bets to test this, but was met with more opposition and willing ignorance)
4)Test Your prediction, (which I have personally and subjectively like the OP and found burn in to be a real auditory effect whether I measured it with bench-top tools or not it was found to be audibly measurable (and more opposition and argument perused))
5) Reject or improve your hypothesis (good enough for me I know burn-in is real, my girlfriend knows it's real, my friend August, and Jeff and some guys I was discussing this with from Bryston knows it's real, my brother knows it's real, 1,000,000 audiophiles know it's real, many cable manufactures and capacitor manufacturers etc...) BUT for some reason it's still not real because no one has posted an oscilloscope, or spectrum analysis, proving so. So my argument has turned into; you know the ear is a pretty powerful tool, so let's just leave it at that.
^good lord...
Ummm, to clarify with somewhat greater fidelity.
Burn in is an understood phenomenon in several settings, all reasonably well documented. Electrolytic caps, tubes, speaker drivers. All have good, relatively easily explained and rational explanations. They also have very limited range, typically maintaining the component within its specification limits.
So, no, you over-reach in claiming total dismissal of burn-in. Similar with the science.
There is no proof of any other audible phenomenon attributable to a self-limiting burn in in other components such as wire, resistors, active components, capacitors (except as noted).
Sans an effect, there is nothing for science to test.
Science does have a great set of explanations for claims of burn in made in uncontrolled situations. Unfortunately, that science is generally discounted by the burn-in hearers.
There is very little difference between components of identical specification. There is no guarantee that an expensive component will perform any better than one of lower cost. This is easily testable.
100 is a figure with special significance in our thinking, but there is no logical or electrochemical reason that any capacitor will perform better after exactly 100 hours of use. There is a very good body of knowledge on teh tendancy of humans to attach significance illogically to specific numbers.
Anything that cannot be measured is, by its very nature, unverifiable. But quit confusingthe use of technical measurement devices with objectivity. You can easily perform a a series of blind listening tests with nothing more technical than a pencil to record the results. Reasonably performed, these tests would confirm (or not) your claim to be able hear a difference.
As far as echo-location is concerned you are right. Most instruments in this field are now far beyond the capacity of human echo-location. For a start, they use much higher frequencies and so get better resolution.
Science is great. It can even explain why individual people (or even groups) hear differences when they sit speakers on marble cones, reverse the direction of cables, or take detailed listening tests over time to confirm changes in a component.
Of course, if you choose to deny the science that is relevant, you lose access to that knowledge and hence are just that little bit less informed, less skilled, less rational, less relevant.
Ummm, to clarify with somewhat greater fidelity.
Burn in is an understood phenomenon in several settings, all reasonably well documented. Electrolytic caps, tubes, speaker drivers. All have good, relatively easily explained and rational explanations. They also have very limited range, typically maintaining the component within its specification limits.
So, no, you over-reach in claiming total dismissal of burn-in. Similar with the science.
There is no proof of any other audible phenomenon attributable to a self-limiting burn in in other components such as wire, resistors, active components, capacitors (except as noted).
Sans an effect, there is nothing for science to test.
Science does have a great set of explanations for claims of burn in made in uncontrolled situations. Unfortunately, that science is generally discounted by the burn-in hearers.
There is very little difference between components of identical specification. There is no guarantee that an expensive component will perform any better than one of lower cost. This is easily testable.
100 is a figure with special significance in our thinking, but there is no logical or electrochemical reason that any capacitor will perform better after exactly 100 hours of use. There is a very good body of knowledge on teh tendancy of humans to attach significance illogically to specific numbers.
Anything that cannot be measured is, by its very nature, unverifiable. But quit confusingthe use of technical measurement devices with objectivity. You can easily perform a a series of blind listening tests with nothing more technical than a pencil to record the results. Reasonably performed, these tests would confirm (or not) your claim to be able hear a difference.
As far as echo-location is concerned you are right. Most instruments in this field are now far beyond the capacity of human echo-location. For a start, they use much higher frequencies and so get better resolution.
Science is great. It can even explain why individual people (or even groups) hear differences when they sit speakers on marble cones, reverse the direction of cables, or take detailed listening tests over time to confirm changes in a component.
Of course, if you choose to deny the science that is relevant, you lose access to that knowledge and hence are just that little bit less informed, less skilled, less rational, less relevant.
Was your statement. My response was, sure, been doing it for years.
So now, this somehow becomes 'model the environment based on echolocation and an oscilloscope'? Yes, the brain can do some amazing things with the data (even a small bat's brain), but it does not change the fact that the phenomena that is being manipulated by the brain is completely measureable, which what this discussion appears to be about.
Are you talking to me?
Resistors-carbon comp has measurable differences with time and burn in.
Not sure about the active components and you covered caps a bit.
I blind test my girlfriend all the time, she's actually quite accurate in her descriptions and can usually tell me what I did, the other day I was switching power cables one with a gold socket the other silver, wire cut from the same spool and same male ends. She could accurately tell me which one was which, and when I switched to a completely different chord she couldn't tell anymore and was confused it didn't sound the same "which one is this again" she asked, "it doesn't sound right" she said.
Also I have not confused objective "soft science methods" to "hard science" in fact I believe i was for it. I just think it takes more than one guy testing himself to discredit audible differences between components, even if he did write a 10-12 pg paper. How do we know his hearing is any good?
The only science I questioned is the psychological factor and the argument that it's all in your head. I also question our ability to measure all audible differences with bench-top tools but that's not rejecting science that's a limitation of the tools. Which is what I meant to clarify by my reply
Also the word stupid was also put in my mouth.
I also never called anyone stupid, I just said there's a number of willingly ignorant. That's not stupid it's just not important enough for those people to care, which is fine, just don't tell the OP he's wrong, or myself, or the other two guys who said they can hear a difference.
Yes, and it makes an audible difference, where are these papers, perhaps some could be posted?
Have you read the thread and what's been said? Are you talking to me?
Wire-talk to certain interconnect manufacturers typically ones that use teflon as an insulator, does that count as wire. What about nickel plated wire, that would experience hysteresis, but i think we covered that. Also there are tin/copper alloys that experience ferromagnetic properties.
Resistors-carbon comp has measurable differences with time and burn in.
Not sure about the active components and you covered caps a bit.
What constitutes identical specification, same capacitance like a1uF PIO vs electrolytic have same specifications. Also note that Burn in does not guarantee better performance either like I have already mentioned a few times. Also are you saying there is no audible difference in similar rated components lets say of different materials?
Now I don't think you're talking to me again?
I blind test my girlfriend all the time, she's actually quite accurate in her descriptions and can usually tell me what I did, the other day I was switching power cables one with a gold socket the other silver, wire cut from the same spool and same male ends. She could accurately tell me which one was which, and when I switched to a completely different chord she couldn't tell anymore and was confused it didn't sound the same "which one is this again" she asked, "it doesn't sound right" she said.
Also I have not confused objective "soft science methods" to "hard science" in fact I believe i was for it. I just think it takes more than one guy testing himself to discredit audible differences between components, even if he did write a 10-12 pg paper. How do we know his hearing is any good?
That's not what I said, they can't distinguish material like a human ear can. I just said they've come along way. I personally wouldn't go for a bike ride using a computer to echo locate for me, would you?
The only science I questioned is the psychological factor and the argument that it's all in your head. I also question our ability to measure all audible differences with bench-top tools but that's not rejecting science that's a limitation of the tools. Which is what I meant to clarify by my reply
Because no were did I suggest science need to change, (although in certain areas of study I believe this, this is not one of them) what I had suggested was the bench top tools be used to measure these claims and the word "bench top tools" was replaced with "science" and put in my mouth so to speak, so I was just responding with my initial words in mind.
Also the word stupid was also put in my mouth.
I also never called anyone stupid, I just said there's a number of willingly ignorant. That's not stupid it's just not important enough for those people to care, which is fine, just don't tell the OP he's wrong, or myself, or the other two guys who said they can hear a difference.
Last edited:
this thread is going nowhere and needs to close....- Status
- Not open for further replies.