I've often said to people: "Digital is Digital" - ones and zeros - on or off - And electrons don't have feelings, or minds like humans, or preferences, opinions, or worries.
However, humans can design either good, well-behaved circuits, or bad ones.
Overthinking and/or paranoia is a human trait, something electrons don't have.
This appears to be quite overstated. Perhaps consider the perceived existence of a strange heap of water in a river.
Here is the subjective description:
"I was observing the motion of a boat which was rapidly drawn along a narrow channel by a pair of horses, when the boat suddenly stopped – not so the mass of water in the channel which it had put in motion; it accumulated round the prow of the vessel in a state of violent agitation, then suddenly leaving it behind, rolled forward with great velocity, assuming the form of a large solitary elevation, a rounded, smooth and well-defined heap of water, which continued its course along the channel apparently without change of form or diminution of speed. I followed it on horseback, and overtook it still rolling on at a rate of some eight or nine miles an hour, preserving its original figure some thirty feet long and a foot to a foot and a half in height. Its height gradually diminished, and after a chase of one or two miles I lost it in the windings of the channel. Such, in the month of August 1834, was my first chance interview with that singular and beautiful phenomenon which I have called the Wave of Translation."
All between the ears, would you say? How could a heap of water sit a foot or a foot-and-a-half above all the other water in a river and not disperse? Impossible!?
Last edited:
The more I listen to my DIY stuff the more I like their sound. I also observe their weeknesses at the same time. Just like my shoes 😉 (Replace sound to design, comfort, whatever appropriate)
No, there is no need to explain. It happens like many things just happen. It is so normal and unavoidable that I choose not to judge new equipment at first power on. Be it be better or be it different: it is different from the state when switched on the first second. So it is called “better” as it won’t change to the first state.
Last edited:
John Scott Russell I believe, and explained by fluid flow by Rayleigh who formulated the expression for it decades later. Not a 'heap of water' independent of the main mass any more than a sea wave is, merely a bulge or increase in height in the canal's water mass accumulated in front of the barge in its narrow channel that was unable to escape to the stern whether the barge was moving or stationary, comparable to a tidal bore. In reality the barge is unlikely to have 'stopped suddenly' so again, a personal experience and interpretation not backed up by evidence (at the time) so scientifically dubious in itself despite what it led to.
It was a soliton wave: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton
However, that has nothing to do with the question I asked. You keep making baseless assertions to the effect that you know burn-in is 'between the ears.' You know no such thing, although you may believe it. Put in other words, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You are merely jumping to conclusions in absence of scientific evidence of burn-in. If you feel that type of thinking is logical, then by the same logic and based on the evidence in the paragraph I quoted you should have logically concluded that the first reported observation of a soliton wave occurred only between the ears of Russell.
However, that has nothing to do with the question I asked. You keep making baseless assertions to the effect that you know burn-in is 'between the ears.' You know no such thing, although you may believe it. Put in other words, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You are merely jumping to conclusions in absence of scientific evidence of burn-in. If you feel that type of thinking is logical, then by the same logic and based on the evidence in the paragraph I quoted you should have logically concluded that the first reported observation of a soliton wave occurred only between the ears of Russell.
I once shot a soliton wave with light bullets but they both emerged unchanged….there is a mountain of empirical evidence that a machine, mechanical or electric, performs best when new…but lets say your theory (without scientific basis) is correct and burning in changes the sound, what is the mechanism which would change the sound strictly for the better? Does the device know the sound YOUR looking for and reproduce it? How come you’ve never heard anyone say ‘god I burned this thing in and now it sounds like crap’….
I agree. Burn-in as in "change of sound due to component settling" is perfectly possible but there is no reason for the change to be only for the better. Burn-in as in "eliminate early failures" is sensible.
Individual components such as electrolytic capacitors usually 'settle in' almost immediately.
Other components like transistors, resistors, solid dry caps don't, unless they're inferior from the start.
Stresses caused by poor design can possibly cause small changes as things heat up.
All these things are correctable and manageable if any issues arise.
If a given product is tested under normal operating conditions for a while without issues, then it's a done-deal, and no need to worry about it further.
Unless of course, an individual has some issue with overthinking and worrying.
Straw man argument: you are putting an assertion in MrKlinky´s mouth which he did not say, only to boost your own side. Cheap and dirty.
1) it was not "perceived" (something *one*individual claims and we have to trust his word for it) but "seen" (meaning anybody there could see it too).
2) it can be reproduced at will in a Lab, in fact Scott Russell could and did.
3) it can be mathematically analyzed with precision.
4) why would anybody mention that scientific fact as "proof" of a very subjective opinion, which by the way "appears and lives in the space between the ears" is way beyond me. 🙄
Last edited:
Maybe you weren't listening or don't remember? Have described experiments that didn't turn out for the better myself. In fact most of them don't turn out well, but failures are not always reported. Could be kind of like with researchers often not wanting to publish unsuccessful research as discussed at: https://journal.trialanderror.org/pub/systemic-academia/release/2
Not at all. At the time of the original soliton observation there was no science to explain what was observed. Just like today with audible burn-in: there is no existing published science to verify personal observations of burn-in.
Thus, the two situations are quite similar if compared before the soliton science was known: There was no supporting science at the time of the original reported soliton observation, often multiple people can hear the same burn-in changes just as anyone present could have seen the soliton wave, etc. Multiple similarities exist.
The main difference for you is that you accept the soliton story now because the science for it is now understood. You don't seem to be able to imagine how you would feel about it if there was no science for it yet, and all we had was Russell's story. In that case we would expect you to most likely jump to the conclusion that he must have merely imagined the soliton.
I have never asserted this as fact but often as opinion without evidence. Guilty as charged on this one...
I have pointed out the very real ability of the brain to either get used to a sound, not be able to accurately remember or discriminate between subtly different sounds or pitches over even a very short time period, and easily be fooled by sighted /unsighted listening. What I do assert -again - is that the ear is a 'blunt instrument', and Golden Ears usually are not when put to a real test.
Last edited:
As far as I know, all knowledge in this field is derived from black gunkers' uncontrolled observations.
But as the op posted, it is about stress testing. I think a number of switch off/on cycles at high and low temperatures should be part of any reliability test.
Mark, the soliton observation was verifiable and repeatable. Thus, it could form the basis of scientific explanation, furthering human knowledge in the process.
All black gunk, bybee, burn in, wire colour, wire orientation, crystal and other Voodoo impacts on sound quality are neither verifiable, nor repeatable. Therefore, they are beyond physics. The discussion of metaphysics is not allowed on this site. But perhaps it may be said that the contribution of metaphysics to human knowledge is still under investigation.
All this being said, stress testing makes perfect sense, so kudos to the op.
All black gunk, bybee, burn in, wire colour, wire orientation, crystal and other Voodoo impacts on sound quality are neither verifiable, nor repeatable. Therefore, they are beyond physics. The discussion of metaphysics is not allowed on this site. But perhaps it may be said that the contribution of metaphysics to human knowledge is still under investigation.
All this being said, stress testing makes perfect sense, so kudos to the op.
IME some of the things you listed are verifiable and or repeatable. Maybe not by the typical audiophile though. You really never came across a highly skilled listener? Not even a trained musician that notices little details going by quickly that you miss? Maybe a little brief and or slight intonation or timing error? If you do know anyone like that, IME similar/analogous skills can be learned by a designer. For example, NP described Joe Salmon (RIP) as having the best ears of anyone he ever knew. NP also said different guy still had one of the best pairs of ears in the business. I know the second guy NP referred to. He is exceptionally good at designing by ear. Sure he does a check at the end with a FFT, scope, etc., but not until the very end as he doesn't want to be influenced to chase after little things that are easy to measure, but that aren't the biggest problem with the sound. As I pointed out before, looking at FFTs too soon is one way of listening with the eyes instead of the ears.
As far as I know there hasn’t yet been a declaration that we know everything there is to know about electronic music reproduction, so when people say they hear a difference because of ‘run in’ or ‘break in’ or just because of ‘warm up’, if you are a science boff just accept something might be going on that we have yet to discover and don’t get them in a twist.