soongsc said:
Not in the hifi sense, no; as with many other bits of actual technical jargon, the high end community has adopted a term and given it a peculiar colloquial meaning.
There IS a real engineering term called "burn-in," and it does relate to having equipment turned on, but it's a reliability process (see "bathtub curve" and "mtbf"). Modems don't follow the bits better after being operated for 24 hours.
salas said:
Hi,
If you are saying "I don't believe cables...." then you are starting out with a pre-concieved idea and then you will never hear a difference because you do not want to? Is that what you're saying?
Gareth
There are phenomena with cables. It cant be mass delirium. It would have been deflated after so many years of practicing cable substitutions by so many people all over the world.
The real problem is that no real science has evolved so to describe and predict those phenomena positively and securely.
This is bad soil. Hence the urban myths and snake oil. Good cable is proper cable. Not expensive per se. Some scientific body must be formed in the industry and put things into perspective. Long due.
The real problem is that no real science has evolved so to describe and predict those phenomena positively and securely.
This is bad soil. Hence the urban myths and snake oil. Good cable is proper cable. Not expensive per se. Some scientific body must be formed in the industry and put things into perspective. Long due.
SY said:
Hi,
This is what I understand 'burn-in' to be also. When we install electrical systems (both large and small) then we burn-in the equipment to see if any faults arise, sometimes these faults may appear immediately or after a day or too.
I always thought that 'burn-in' in the audio sense was offered by companies who sell rather expensive cables and want you to believe that it will perform even better after this burn-in period. Which kind of defies the laws of electrical physics.
Copper is copper from the day you unwrap from the packaging to the day you upgrade to the next cable, the only time copper changes it's state is when it's temperature exceeds 800C when it's atomic structure changes state.
Gareth
salas said:
Hi,
But surely if people all over the world did not change their cables then there would be no audio cable industry and we would be using standard annealed copper as in the installation industry.
Please don't misunderstand what I am saying here (I would not like to see the audio cable industry collapse, and I am sure that it would not).
A scene from the film 1984 (George Orwell) comes to mind......"how many fingers do you see?" reply "four" answer "no,there are five, if the system says there are five then there
are five" Richard Burton
Gareth
gareth said:
The problem is that without any secure knowledge, we cant judge value for money. So any industry that puts out a non quantifiable product can take advantage of its clients.
The purpose might be different, but the action is pretty much similar. For Mil stuff, the process is much more complicated.SY said:
salas said:
Hi,
Thats the point I am trying to make, I have been reading another post on here about come little black box with a valve, resistor and capacitor..which to me is kind of similar in theory to what is being debated here.
To my mind the way forward here is to perhaps have some major group test involving audio- and non-audiophiles, man and woman, utilising the same source and playback equipment set at particular levels and then (as was previously suggested) using identical cables...one burnt-in and one fresh out the box and see what conclusions can be drawn.
Just a suggestion
Gareth
"The purpose might be different, but the action is pretty much similar. For Mil stuff, the process is much more complicated."
Well it depends on how you look at it. Burn in is associated with part screening for reliabillity purposes. Where I work we build Mil and Commercial satellite hardware. Most of it has a 15yr on orbit life expectancy. We test damn near every component that goes into one of these assemblies. Each transitory, Diode, Resistor, Inductor, Connectors and PCB's as examples.
Guess what is exempt from this testing?? All the internal wiring!! Aside from a VSWR check or harness buzz out it's OK to go right out of the box. No special test requirements for the wires beyond that we purchase the appropriate wire types.
I don't buy into cable break in as the audio industry defines it. If you don't do it on a 200+ Million dollar satellite it's simply not a factor of any real importance.
Rob🙂
Well it depends on how you look at it. Burn in is associated with part screening for reliabillity purposes. Where I work we build Mil and Commercial satellite hardware. Most of it has a 15yr on orbit life expectancy. We test damn near every component that goes into one of these assemblies. Each transitory, Diode, Resistor, Inductor, Connectors and PCB's as examples.
Guess what is exempt from this testing?? All the internal wiring!! Aside from a VSWR check or harness buzz out it's OK to go right out of the box. No special test requirements for the wires beyond that we purchase the appropriate wire types.
I don't buy into cable break in as the audio industry defines it. If you don't do it on a 200+ Million dollar satellite it's simply not a factor of any real importance.
Rob🙂
Robh3606 said:
Hi Rob,
Sounds like you have got a really interesting job there...Could I ask you what seperates Mil components from standard consumer grade?
Gareth
analog_sa said:
Analog - why not? ONE of the changes I hear during burnin - ie bass attenuated and treble harsh and hard - is clearly a fr change. OK it's a room response, but if the room conditions are kept unchanged then what's the problem?
If changes were confirmed, it would put an end to the argument for ME: because at least one of the changes I hear is verifiable. If not - and I still hear FR changes - then I have had a lesson in the power of delusion. Either way it is done for ME only, not to end the global argument about this once and for all (I'm not that naive!).
And your "identical cable" idea - would only give before + after, as well as twice the work/expense and the nagging doubts that perhaps they were not absolutely identical. No - much more information in a sequence of FRs during burn-in.
And my burn-ins have NOT all been for the better - my woven CAT5 cables sounded great on first listen - but progressively more smeared and dull over a few weeks use. Eventually I abandoned them. Boy this is one complex delusion!
ps - Before you jump in with big tackety boots on I realise full well that my suggestion has limitations. I have no control over mains voltage fluctuations, environmental temp effects, changes in background EMF, amount of wax in my ears etc etc etc.
Alan
SY said:
True statement. It could be directly applicable as a check point in a discussion about Alnico drivers for example.
But cables is an ongoing process, not an old myth. People do change cables everyday. They must be getting some sonic change. Its highly probable at least. I remember the electronics professor in my tech uni saying 'everything in analog electronics is a filter'.
salas said:
So then maybe some cables are better 'suited' to some system combinations than others, due to the inherent reactances etc.
Gareth
Alan Hope said:
This is the type of claim which only gives more and deserved fuel to objectivists.
Your perception of a FR change does not in any way mean there is an actual FR change. While i agree that cables sound astonishigly different, in tonal balance as well, to suggest that this is the result of a simple measurable change in FR is beyond naive. And why involve a mike, speakers and a room anyway?
"Could I ask you what seperates Mil components from standard consumer grade?"
Hello Gareth
That's not as simple as it sounds depending on the part types. If you look at it the traditional sense like a QPL part like lets say a JANS 2N2484 and a commercial 2N2484 they can be quite profound. A QPL part has to be manufatured on a QPL line that is monitored by a US government agency.
The lower quality levels get sample tested and in the upper levels each individual part also has to be tested to a strict test regiurement that changes depending on the Quality level of the part. You have JAN, JANTX, JANTXV and JANS which is space level. Each part has more screening requirements as you go up the line. These can include life testing DPA SEM ect. and then you have periodic 3 and 6 month life testing on parts to keep the QPL line certification and process control. Obviously these parts are much more expensive.
Commercial parts do require any of this. That doesn't mean there is no testing. There is but it's more sample testing vs each device or as an example, no individual part burn in's or visual die inspection ect.
Some part manufacturers that have QPL lines use the same line for there commercial product but they don't do the any or only some of the part and lot testing.
Some "Commercial" parts have almost as much screening as a QPL part. Some get very minimal testing to keep cost down. In that case they would have a heavy emphasis on process control and do a lot of inline testing. It really depends on the manufacturer and what his target market is, be it Radio Shack, Medical, or satellite.
There are many Hi Rel parts that are not manufactured on QPL lines. Many manufacurers have stopped maintaining the QPL line certification because of cost. That doesn't mean they they have abondoned the process control though. You don't want your parts involved in a recall. If Sony has 10,000 TV sets fail in field from you can kiss that account good bye.
The differences are not as clearly defined as they used to be. All the parts have to work that's the bottom line.
I won't get into ROHS as that's another issue completely. Hope I answered your question.
Rob🙂
Hello Gareth
That's not as simple as it sounds depending on the part types. If you look at it the traditional sense like a QPL part like lets say a JANS 2N2484 and a commercial 2N2484 they can be quite profound. A QPL part has to be manufatured on a QPL line that is monitored by a US government agency.
The lower quality levels get sample tested and in the upper levels each individual part also has to be tested to a strict test regiurement that changes depending on the Quality level of the part. You have JAN, JANTX, JANTXV and JANS which is space level. Each part has more screening requirements as you go up the line. These can include life testing DPA SEM ect. and then you have periodic 3 and 6 month life testing on parts to keep the QPL line certification and process control. Obviously these parts are much more expensive.
Commercial parts do require any of this. That doesn't mean there is no testing. There is but it's more sample testing vs each device or as an example, no individual part burn in's or visual die inspection ect.
Some part manufacturers that have QPL lines use the same line for there commercial product but they don't do the any or only some of the part and lot testing.
Some "Commercial" parts have almost as much screening as a QPL part. Some get very minimal testing to keep cost down. In that case they would have a heavy emphasis on process control and do a lot of inline testing. It really depends on the manufacturer and what his target market is, be it Radio Shack, Medical, or satellite.
There are many Hi Rel parts that are not manufactured on QPL lines. Many manufacurers have stopped maintaining the QPL line certification because of cost. That doesn't mean they they have abondoned the process control though. You don't want your parts involved in a recall. If Sony has 10,000 TV sets fail in field from you can kiss that account good bye.
The differences are not as clearly defined as they used to be. All the parts have to work that's the bottom line.
I won't get into ROHS as that's another issue completely. Hope I answered your question.
Rob🙂
gareth said:
In my view, the audio cables would have been far less diverse as filters , if the home audio interfaces were standardized.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.