I know that caps need time for the dielectric to form.. or so I've been told.
Do resistors also need to "break-in"? Specifically, wire-wound or any other type?
Do resistors also need to "break-in"? Specifically, wire-wound or any other type?
In my experience, I have found that EVERYTHING needs time to "settle" after any change has been made to any part of any audio circuit. Is that comprehensive enough? Probably controversial enough.
The time varies from one device or element to another, but there is ALWAYS a gradual change in sound, anywhere from a few minutes to a few weeks after making a change. New or used parts, a piece of wire, even simply reheating solder joints will change the sound initially, and then it will adjust and find a "normal" state. There might be several reasons (or no known reason) for it, and I can't explain it. I have heard it every single time I change something, sometimes after only moving something around, unplugging and plugging something back in. This is not the power of suggestion, growing accustomed to the new sound, the placebo effect, or any other such nonsense. If you don't want to hear it, chances are you won't. If a technician wants to measure it, chances are he can't.
Resistors settle pretty fast, whatever type. I wouldn't expect much difference after only a few minutes, certainly not more than an hour, of regular function. Caps can take an hour or a month, depending on their composition and construction.
Peace,
Tom E
The time varies from one device or element to another, but there is ALWAYS a gradual change in sound, anywhere from a few minutes to a few weeks after making a change. New or used parts, a piece of wire, even simply reheating solder joints will change the sound initially, and then it will adjust and find a "normal" state. There might be several reasons (or no known reason) for it, and I can't explain it. I have heard it every single time I change something, sometimes after only moving something around, unplugging and plugging something back in. This is not the power of suggestion, growing accustomed to the new sound, the placebo effect, or any other such nonsense. If you don't want to hear it, chances are you won't. If a technician wants to measure it, chances are he can't.
Resistors settle pretty fast, whatever type. I wouldn't expect much difference after only a few minutes, certainly not more than an hour, of regular function. Caps can take an hour or a month, depending on their composition and construction.
Peace,
Tom E
Hi
Any proof to back up? Or just a subjective opinion? 😕
Resistors will surely change the sound signature with use, because they drift, But that could easily be measured...
I knew that my response would be countered by experts who have seen it all and heard it all, and can prove it all. I don't understand their motivation, other than to demonstrate that they are somehow more sophisticated than those of us who merely listen carefully. Frankly, I am really tired of their smug attitude, and I will not be drawn into an argument over this. Let them sit on their throne of "knowledge" and scoff at those of us who want to share our own experience.
To those of you who cannot read, or don't care to when a post runs counter to your own beliefs: I stated at the very outset that this is my EXPERIENCE. I guess I should have been more specific and stated SUBJECTIVE experience, but I didn't think it was necessary. I stated elsewhere that it probably cannot be measured, and I cannot explain it. I was not writing about drift, and I think you probably know that.
Can any of the skeptics prove that this is NOT a real phenomenon? I have made hundreds, perhaps thousands of adjustments to different components in electronic circuits. Have I been fooled every time by the same psychological mechanism? Perhaps. Perhaps I am the fool.
But I am not a simpleton. I don't believe in all the magic audio elixirs and potions and crystals. Some do, and I leave them in peace. Why can't you do the same? I see the same repressive attitude in this and other forums, at other sites as well, where self-righteous objectivists seek to crush the inquisitive, the impressed, the expressive experimenter under the boot of measurement and formula. Why not just leave us audio idiots wander in the wilderness of ignorance? My belief in break-in is not hurting anybody; it's not dangerous, and it doesn't cost anything other than varying amounts of time and minimum effort.
Peace,
Tom E
To those of you who cannot read, or don't care to when a post runs counter to your own beliefs: I stated at the very outset that this is my EXPERIENCE. I guess I should have been more specific and stated SUBJECTIVE experience, but I didn't think it was necessary. I stated elsewhere that it probably cannot be measured, and I cannot explain it. I was not writing about drift, and I think you probably know that.
Can any of the skeptics prove that this is NOT a real phenomenon? I have made hundreds, perhaps thousands of adjustments to different components in electronic circuits. Have I been fooled every time by the same psychological mechanism? Perhaps. Perhaps I am the fool.
But I am not a simpleton. I don't believe in all the magic audio elixirs and potions and crystals. Some do, and I leave them in peace. Why can't you do the same? I see the same repressive attitude in this and other forums, at other sites as well, where self-righteous objectivists seek to crush the inquisitive, the impressed, the expressive experimenter under the boot of measurement and formula. Why not just leave us audio idiots wander in the wilderness of ignorance? My belief in break-in is not hurting anybody; it's not dangerous, and it doesn't cost anything other than varying amounts of time and minimum effort.
Peace,
Tom E
Problem is, these kind of guys are the ones that invent magnetic recordings, make lasers possible, build transmitters, etc.
They make the world function, and this functionning is not based on impressions or subjective opinions, but on hard maths, verifiable scientific hypotheses and technical abilities.
Some beings have chosen another way: they peck, they listen, they smell, they rub , they scratch their way in life, and they are all around us:
they are called animals
who has got the smug attitude?
Can you prove it is?
Your claims are extraordinary. So you have to supply evidence they exist - or stop making such claims. You cannot measure it, but it exists? Is it supernatural then, beyond investigation? What about ABX or AB testing? Still there?
You basically claim that you heard the difference based on subjective impressions, but declare further that those impressions are not open to investigation or discussion.
You simply declare yourself infallible, not even considering you might hear something that is based on very biased audio processing in your brain.
If that is not smug - I do not know what is.
Last edited:
No, they don't.
People that discover and model things, called Scientists, first observe nature at work through their senses and instruments and try to find a measurement system that can track such behaviour and a mathematical model that represent it.
People that project things, called Engineers, do use the models made by Scientists and their creativity for creating new pratical applications of such models.
And lastly there are Technicians, people that had the minimum knowledge necessary for troubleshoot what engineers created upon scientists' models.
Sometimes Technicians and even some Engineers make the mistake of thinking that the simplified model of reality they use for their work describe exactly and completely what happens in nature.
Those people are trapped in their model of the world made by others.
People that thinks that what can't be measured by mere diagnostic tools, such an oscilloscope, don't exists are simply fooling themselves.
From Wikipedia on Scientific Method:
The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
Last edited:
Being fooled is NOT the same as being a fool. It means you're a human with a human brain. So don't denigrate yourself that way, it's not justified.
Believing that one is incapable of being fooled (especially by oneself) IS being a fool. Don't fall into that trap.
Science has always been at odds with so-called believers........." my belief in ...is not hurting anybody, is not dangerous..."
Galileo would have rolled his eyes hearing this, as he sat imprisoned in his home.....by "believers".
Today we still suffer from such thinking.........us "infidels", suffering at the hands of believers.
_____________________________________________Rick...........
Galileo would have rolled his eyes hearing this, as he sat imprisoned in his home.....by "believers".
Today we still suffer from such thinking.........us "infidels", suffering at the hands of believers.
_____________________________________________Rick...........
Here an example why I am allergic to statements in audio: EVERYTHING makes a difference:
I have tested an old quad 405 poweramp vs. a Bryston 4bST amp on a pair of celestion 44.
I am sorry to say - I was not able to hear which amp was playing.
Yeah, right, EVERYTHING makes a difference. The question is only - can you hear it
when you test it blind?
I have tested an old quad 405 poweramp vs. a Bryston 4bST amp on a pair of celestion 44.
I am sorry to say - I was not able to hear which amp was playing.
Yeah, right, EVERYTHING makes a difference. The question is only - can you hear it
when you test it blind?
Actually, Murphy is the inventor of all things new. New discoveries are made when the carefully laid plans of scientists and engineers, plans that are based on "how things have to be", go awry. If it weren't for math errors, spilled chemicals, accidental short circuits and mis-communications, we'd probably still be in the stone age. OK, too pessimistic. Now and then a genius wanders through, with some supernatural clarity of thought, and moves us forward. Da Vinci, Euclid, Newton, Feynman, Palin... I dunno.
If they do, logic would say it takes one H of an audio set to make the difference distinguishable, and two H of an ear to actually tell it's there.
Other way to break-in a resistor is hitting it with a hammer.
Dario, a very eloquent statement amongst all the babble and fury.
I did not intend to imply that engineers and technicians have no value. Of course they do, but their conclusions are only as valid as their models and calculations. If something is not measured properly or adequately, any conclusions drawn from those observations might not be valid. Those who state unequivocally that something cannot be heard because it cannot be measured are smug. To compare anyone who doesn't bow down before technology and accept its absolutes to an animal is absurd and insulting.
I certainly have made AB comparisons. I have two monoblock amps, two speakers. I change something in one or the other, call it A. It immediately sounds different from B. Maybe better, maybe worse. I play music for a while, listen again. The modified item A now sounds different, maybe the opposite in terms of quality or improvement compared to how it sounded initially compared to item B. That means the sound of the modified item A has changed since it started playing music. I still have item B for a reference, and it sounds the same as it did before. I know my hearing has not changed or adjusted because B sounds the same. Therefore, item A has changed from its initial state. How complicated is that?
This is not religion, which is based on faith alone. (Audio religion might say that everything that costs more sounds better. I know people who believe that, and act accordingly without questioning the actual results.) This is a conclusion drawn from careful, controlled observation, and that is just as scientific as any conclusions drawn from laws of physics or calculations or other technical means. Science and technology would never progress without someone asking, "Why did this happen, when I expected that?" Invoking Galileo or other notables who have questioned the staus quo makes no sense at all. Comparing those who question the validity of every "scientific" principle and belief to infidels is muddled thinking.
I never claimed infallibility. You are drawing your own conclusions and trying to attack me personally. I have been fooled and wrong many times, and I think I know the difference between brain tricks and careful observation.
I never stated that everything makes a difference. I stated that everything needs time to settle after being changed: to make a judgment before allowing adequate playing time is wrong. Why is that concept so contrary to standard electronic design principles? Do you really "know" after one second of listening that everything sounds exactly as it will after an hour or more? I would call that blind belief, and very unscientific.
Peace,
Tom E
I did not intend to imply that engineers and technicians have no value. Of course they do, but their conclusions are only as valid as their models and calculations. If something is not measured properly or adequately, any conclusions drawn from those observations might not be valid. Those who state unequivocally that something cannot be heard because it cannot be measured are smug. To compare anyone who doesn't bow down before technology and accept its absolutes to an animal is absurd and insulting.
I certainly have made AB comparisons. I have two monoblock amps, two speakers. I change something in one or the other, call it A. It immediately sounds different from B. Maybe better, maybe worse. I play music for a while, listen again. The modified item A now sounds different, maybe the opposite in terms of quality or improvement compared to how it sounded initially compared to item B. That means the sound of the modified item A has changed since it started playing music. I still have item B for a reference, and it sounds the same as it did before. I know my hearing has not changed or adjusted because B sounds the same. Therefore, item A has changed from its initial state. How complicated is that?
This is not religion, which is based on faith alone. (Audio religion might say that everything that costs more sounds better. I know people who believe that, and act accordingly without questioning the actual results.) This is a conclusion drawn from careful, controlled observation, and that is just as scientific as any conclusions drawn from laws of physics or calculations or other technical means. Science and technology would never progress without someone asking, "Why did this happen, when I expected that?" Invoking Galileo or other notables who have questioned the staus quo makes no sense at all. Comparing those who question the validity of every "scientific" principle and belief to infidels is muddled thinking.
I never claimed infallibility. You are drawing your own conclusions and trying to attack me personally. I have been fooled and wrong many times, and I think I know the difference between brain tricks and careful observation.
I never stated that everything makes a difference. I stated that everything needs time to settle after being changed: to make a judgment before allowing adequate playing time is wrong. Why is that concept so contrary to standard electronic design principles? Do you really "know" after one second of listening that everything sounds exactly as it will after an hour or more? I would call that blind belief, and very unscientific.
Peace,
Tom E
sounds to me like everything makes a difference...
sounds pretty much like claiming to be infallible, or correct, or being unable to humbly doubt your own senses - which are after all fallible to a large extend.
No, it isn't. Just claiming it do be so doesn't make it so. That is the method quacks of all stripes use. It is just reporting a subjective impression, nothing else, no significance whatsoever.
To be considered scientific by any means you have to establish a working hypothesis based on your impression, design a test protocol that is able to either confirm or refute the hypothesis, run the test under controlled conditions and then evaluate the results with proper statistical methods.
What you are doing and claiming to be scientific is simply nothing of the sort.
Last edited:
Thanks, Tom. 🙂
Nor do I. In a different field I'm a technician too (Microsoft Certified System Engineer).
I've pointed out that some pretend that the model is more true than reality...
Hi SY,
do you mean that it's not a complete or correct scientific protocol?
Probably you're right.
But if a difference is heard consistently and repeatedly there is a concrete possibility that something really changes.
Pretending that who hear such difference is fooling himself simply because it can't be measured with a diagnostic tool or it can't be explained with the simplified model used for electronic components is all but scientific.
A correct scientic approach requires careful observation and research of the right measurement system to assess or disprove something.
Probably most, if not all, of us don't have access to an electron microscope or an ultra precise distortion analyzer and probably most of us don't have the necessary knowledge of physics to even speculate about the possible explanations.
Most of the times skepticals negate even assessed reality.
For example is known that most components are subject to value changes when temperature varies.
So it's quite obvious that in the first minutes after a device is turned on, until it reaches a stable temperature, it could change it's behavior and thus its sound.
Too much times Galileo is cited inappropriately.
Galileo gone againt the 'scientific establishment' of the time that refused to accept his eliocentric theory because it was against their model of reality...
There was no such thing as a "scientific establishment" in the time of Galileo. There was a church. And indeed, faith is no way to make judgments about the physical world.
Nor is any of that needed to do a listening test that actually has some basis in reality, as opposed to Cargo Cult "science."
Nor is any of that needed to do a listening test that actually has some basis in reality, as opposed to Cargo Cult "science."
- Status
- Not open for further replies.