Burn In

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks ladies and gentlemen for tickling me, been laughing crazily for 30 minutes, a phenomenon not documented in standard university course texts would make any book worm shout out snake oil, illiterate, quack science etc, we need to have a beer over some barbecue sometime and play scrabble or solitaire to explore this mater further, your stand is right so long as the evidence is not plain enough to draw you in, however this does not necessarily mean the other side is wrong, we should set up a committee and publish a paper about this
 
I described changes that I found evident after circuit initial static calibration operation and subsequent stepped level and brief clip event that I would call initial burn in permanent change.....perhaps there are some low level magnetisations going on that from then on influence system low level behaviour.

Dan.
Get us some data, graph it and serenade us, lets see those peaks and frequencies
I don't think that I can have a stake in 'break-in'. I just defend it because so many of my fellow audiophiles have found it important. At a basic physics level it seems to make sense, as just another form of 'annealing' that is already covered by heat treating metals and cryoing metals and other materials. People generally do not look with electron microscopes as to what the action is in metals, even at room temperature and without any electrical signal through them. Small segments are actually moving (slowly) around at that level to find their lowest energy placement. This has been shown in electron microscope photos. It would seem that actually putting electrical signal through wires, etc, could make even more difference, but it would not change the resistance much or distortion at the operating levels that we normally measure it. But most audio signals operate BELOW the standard measurement levels that are most convenient, like 1V or more. Maybe we are missing something?
Get us some data, graph it and serenade us, lets see those peaks and frequencies

Is strange how the free rta program on my cell phone can display peaks in the output that disappear after use, when new parts with considerable surface area are introduced.

Still don’t know why.
Get us some data, graph it and serenade us, lets see those peaks and frequencies
Tony, we have worked with 'break-in' for decades. It is all too real for many people to ignore, and it has foundations in basic physics.

Get us some data, graph it and serenade us, lets see those peaks and frequencies

5. It exists and no one has a clue how and why it works.

The first few hours for wire, transformers, chokes and capacitors are usually excruciating for me. After 5-6 hours of usage i can listen to a component, after 20 it has pretty much stabilised as far as my ears are concerned. The sound definitely changes but harshness often remains, no matter how long is the break-in. Often changes are not in the direction i would like them to be.

How this process works, we sadly have no idea, despite a lot of hand waving.

I wish we knew even obvious stuff, like per example what breaks wire in? Is it current? Is it voltage? Is it important that the voltage is high? What about wire which never sees much of voltage or current: why does it not sound horrible?

A lot of questions and practically no answers. Sometimes i wish for the smug satisfaction the deaf exhibit in these threads.

Very interesting, does this happen with all equipment
 
Originally Posted by analog_sa
Sometimes i wish for the smug satisfaction the deaf exhibit in these threads.
There is two kinds of deafness, acting differently on people suffering them, but don´t despair, both can be treated.

* Type one: you do not hear what is there, is treated by Otolaryngologists.

* Type two: you "hear" what is NOT there , treated by Psychologists.

Interesting side note: those suffering from Type Two, accuse everybody else of suffering from Type one, go figure ;)
 
OnAudio said:
a phenomenon not documented in standard university course texts would make any book worm shout out snake oil, illiterate, quack science etc,
I find it interesting that almost everyone who objects to "standard university course texts" turns out never to have read any of them, or in a very few cases has read them but not properly understood them. Just to help us, which of these two categories do you fall into?

your stand is right so long as the evidence is not plain enough to draw you in, however this does not necessarily mean the other side is wrong
The evidence does not clarity; it lacks existence. 'Evidence' is not the plural of 'anecdote'. No evidence, no plausible theory, so why should we even discuss a non-phenomenon?
 
do not pin your hopes up high.....anecdotes and more anecdotes are all you are ever going to get.......this issue has been discussed here many many years running out....and all there is are anecdotes and more anecdotes...

anecdotes are amusing....
anecdotes can have something, most of the time nothing...
and anecdotes will always remain anecdotes....
 
As not to be seen to be rude, its probably polite to answer the query about doping, 'probably' the semiconductor settles/decays during burn in, meaning that different semiconductors will exhibit different behaviors depending on the process of doping, studying this phenomenon may require an emf monitor that can take magnetic field, electric field and radio wave measurements from probably 20Hz to 8GHz
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.