How much of burn-in/ break-in (in hours) is objective vs. getting used to sound?

But 'Detlof' the question is?
How do you pin the changes you hear down to burn-in of one component.
There are so, so many more likely reasons for the audible differences than many of hours of burn-in.

With all due respect, this is simply not true for components that have teflon capacitors.

Best.
 
Agreed Kevin, but you can narrow down the chances of "other factors" being the cause, if the equipment is new or moved, there is a sudden change after a while and that change stays on, to be possibly followed by a next change, which again allows the music to come through more clearly.

Please walk us through your method of "listening through" these other factors. Do you listen one moment and think "the equipment is beginning to burn in", and the next think "my perceptions are changing, hence the change in presentation"? How do you know?

That is the crux of the situation. Without isolating the other possible causes, you can't rule them out as possibilities, yet .. some are doing exactly that. Without knowing. Please bear in mind I'm not disputing any claims of hearing. In fact, I believe in all sincerity that people do hear changes.

The question is - are the changes that are heard due to the gear changing or due to you changing (as per the thread title)? So far I've seen no evidence presented to support the former outside of "I heard it, I said so".
 
Goliath, there is no method and if there were one, I could not be bothered. My agreement with Stehno is based on a reasonable assumption. No more no less. I do not listen for changes nor do I monitor my perceptions. I listen to music and if I am startled by a sudden change in the flow under certain definite circumstances I will form a hypothesis for its cause. That' s all.
So you are perfectly right of course, I have no way at all to prove that my explanations for the change taking place are right, not even - as it has happened before to me - this phenomenon was heard within a group of listeners, who heard it as well. However, if this experience under similar circumstances is repeatable, there is a good chance that the assumtions for its cause can be maintained unless proven wrong of course.? so perhsps it is not a case of I heard it, I said so, but rather a case of I heard it, I assume so, which is certainly not the same thing, because it leaves the necessary room for doubt.
 
Last edited:
That is the crux of the situation. Without isolating the other possible causes, you can't rule them out as possibilities,

The question is - are the changes that are heard due to the gear changing or due to you changing (as per the thread title)?

Please reference Post No. 61 above.
 
Please walk us through your method of "listening through" these other factors. Do you listen one moment and think "the equipment is beginning to burn in", and the next think "my perceptions are changing, hence the change in presentation"? How do you know?

That is the crux of the situation. Without isolating the other possible causes, you can't rule them out as possibilities, yet .. some are doing exactly that. Without knowing. Please bear in mind I'm not disputing any claims of hearing. In fact, I believe in all sincerity that people do hear changes.

The question is - are the changes that are heard due to the gear changing or due to you changing (as per the thread title)? So far I've seen no evidence presented to support the former outside of "I heard it, I said so".


You said my perceptions are changing over time and are entirely outside of my control. The obvious implication being that my perceptions are just happenstance and therefore, entirely unreliable. That’s your perception. IMO, that is a rather unbright and presumptuous statement that has little to do with anything of significance. That’s my perception.

For example. You don’t know me so how I react to and interpret any stimuli in any situation is just a silly wild ass guess on your part. So if you’re talking about me specifically, we should stop right here lest you thoroughly embarrass yourself.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume you are speaking for the population at large.

When unbright statements such as yours are brought to the table, we have to look at their potential as well as actual implications. After all, you did say, entirely outside of our control, right?

Potentially, if our perceptions are entirely outside of our control as you claim, they could easily lead to irrational and out of control reactionary behavior. And if it’s entirely outside of our control, as you claim, then nobody can be legitimately held accountable for their resulting behavior and hence the judicial and penal systems should be done away with. At the very least maybe we should all be wearing safety helmets so as not to harm ourselves or others.

Are our perceptions changing over time and entirely outside of our control only when listening to music on our playback systems? Or is this entirely out of our control phenomena occurring in potentially all facets of our lives? If all facets of our lives, then what’s the relevance of mentioning it here in this thread? Shouldn’t it go without saying? Or do you find audio threads boring and prefer to discuss things mental?

Yes, there is a method I follow toward a burn-in process and it consists of just a few matters:

1. Maturity. Hopefully possessing a certain level of maturity which includes a certain open-mindedness. If I were 5 years old, it would be rather difficult to care for or grasp any of these things, much less articulate them to others. If I were closed-minded, why would I even attempt changes to my system?

2. Stability. My playback system’s configuration is generally quite stable. In other words for months and often times several years, my system generates a predictable level of musicality that remains essentially unchanged for extended periods of time. Dare I say, most times my system may well be the most stable aspect of my life.

3. Training. I’ve a handful of music tracks that I’ve literally played over a thousand times each and hence I know them well. In my earlier days they alone were my references for comparing change. After years of training my hearing to listen for certain coveted and then other characteristics, I rarely need to rely on my reference music for comparison. Now I generally only use those reference recordings for bringing me additional assurance and pleasure after a reasonable improvement has been determined.

4. Homework. I do what I reasonably can to ensure I am always in possession of a simple yet well-thought-out playback system with a level of musicality that allows for many (not all) changes to be easily apparent.

5. Focus / Isolation. Changes / upgrades are most always limited to a single area only, e.g. a single component, only all fuses, only all AC plugs, outlets, etc. If I upgraded / downgraded multiple areas at the same time, my environment is no longer controlled and any audible results are just speculation.

6. Common sense. In order to maximize minimums, there are things to consider when installing an upgrade that could easily affect the upgrade’s results. For example, I always ensure cables are not in close proximity with other cables or components. Or when I receive a new/used component and before mounting it, I always ensure every last external and internal fastener is tight or taut. A lamp ain’t gonna function well if its connectors are loose and the same goes for our sensitive instruments.

7. Experience. Having spent 14 years doing part-time R&D, I’ve literally encountered several thousand distinct audible improvements during that time. In fact, in my current 2-component and 2-channel system I estimate roughly 350 distinct audible changes and I’ve even published that list including the sources on another website. My areas of focus are on AC mgmt and especially vibration mgmt. A change in AC mgmt. is usually accountable for one or 2 improvements and that’s it. On the other hand, and depending on how extreme the execution, a single change in vibration mgmt can lead to dozens, if not more than a hundred distinct audible improvements over extended periods of time. For example, one vibration mgmt. change to my amps resulted in over 120 distinct audible improvements over a nearly 5 month time period.

Compare these numbers to your average “audiophile” who might experience maybe 100 or 150 distinct audible improvement over an entire lifetime and if all the planets are aligned just right.

And when I make a change, say upgrading AC plugs, IEC connectors and inlets, fuses, etc. It’s not like I’ve only done this only 1 or 2 times. I’ve probably swapped out outlets 5 or 6 times. AC plugs, IEC connectors, fuses maybe 10 – 15 times, various cables maybe 60 – 75 times, cryo’ed products maybe another 40 times. And since I used to sell products I’d perform some of these changes for customers as well, so I sometimes had opportunity to hear changes on their systems as well as receive customers’ feedback as they listened in their “controlled” environment. Feedback, which most but not always substantiated my findings. IOW, everything I do pertaining to my system is but one more bit of experience that many lack.

Moreover, changes in at least the AC mgmt or vibration mgmt sectors are most always quite predictable. Hence, this supposed evidence would seem to negate your out-of-control perceptions claim.

So yes, I do have a method. Is it foolproof and does it work every time? No, but I don’t think anybody here can fault me for doing my reasonable best at performing due diligence to control my environment and educate myself stemming first and foremost from much experience.

As for your saying, you believe in all sincerity that people do hear changes? That’s hogwash and you’re not being intellectually honest with yourself yet again. If you really believed that, you never would have posted your statements about perceptions.

Rather, I speculate and IMO the real crux of the matter is that you and those like you have yet to encounter such audible changes some of us report here. Hence, when you read of those encountering such changes, you and guys like you are left frustrated and in a state of disbelief. And rather than look within to see if you’re the problem, you choose to look without e.g. measurements, the human psyche, etc and bring everybody down to your lowest common denominator level. Maybe it’s arrogance, laziness, immaturity, self-deception, or naiveté or perhaps some combination thereof.

Let me ask you this about human beings’ ability to interpret stimuli. Why do you suppose insurance companies generally charge more to insure teenage drivers more than adult drivers?
 
Last edited:
Best post ? I've read for a very good while.

Could not agree more! If i were sitting in a jury, Stehno would have me firmly on his side. (He has anyway in this argument) But let me repeat all the same:
In science, if under the same circumstances ( here it üis new equipment and or cables being moved as well ) a definite observation is registered ( here is it is break in ) and this observation is repeatable, you can form a hypothesis for its cause, which will hold good unless proven wrong, using exactly the same circumstances. So far this proof has not been forthcoming to my knowledge. Hence it is safe to assume that this phenomenon, called break in exists.
 

You said my perceptions are changing over time and are entirely outside of my control. The obvious implication being that my perceptions are just happenstance and therefore, entirely unreliable. That’s your perception. IMO, that is a rather unbright and presumptuous statement that has little to do with anything of significance. That’s my perception.

For example. You don’t know me so how I react to and interpret any stimuli in any situation is just a silly wild ass guess on your part. So if you’re talking about me specifically, we should stop right here lest you thoroughly embarrass yourself.


Well, you have ignored, entirely side-stepped and evaded the psychological component of hearing, affecting all humans, except apparently you. "Unbright" you say?

When unbright statements such as yours are brought to the table, we have to look at their potential as well as actual implications. After all, you did say, entirely outside of our control, right?

Ah, yes, being in denial of your own humanity and it's implications on "hearing" escapes your comprehension. As a human being you (your subjective perceptions) waver over time. Unless you believe you remain static over time? :)

Potentially, if our perceptions are entirely outside of our control as you claim, they could easily lead to irrational and out of control reactionary behavior. And if it’s entirely outside of our control, as you claim, then nobody can be legitimately held accountable for their resulting behavior and hence the judicial and penal systems should be done away with. At the very least maybe we should all be wearing safety helmets so as not to harm ourselves or others.

Stop embarrassing yourself now.

Are our perceptions changing over time and entirely outside of our control only when listening to music on our playback systems? Or is this entirely out of our control phenomena occurring in potentially all facets of our lives? If all facets of our lives, then what’s the relevance of mentioning it here in this thread? Shouldn’t it go without saying? Or do you find audio threads boring and prefer to discuss things mental?

When people like you start making outrageous claims about gear "burning in" for which there is no audible evidence, and never is, a trend begins to emerge. You clearly have zero cognisance of aural sciences on perception. You appear to believe what you "hear" is some unerring representation of physical reality, that external to your perceptions, the gear actually changes the sound field.

Evidence to be found where?

1. Maturity. Hopefully possessing a certain level of maturity which includes a certain open-mindedness. If I were 5 years old, it would be rather difficult to care for or grasp any of these things, much less articulate them to others. If I were closed-minded, why would I even attempt changes to my system?

If you were open-minded you would have accepted the possibility that you, the somehow static, never-changing human being, are responsible for the changes that you are hearing external to the gear changing the sound. You are not open to this possibility - whether due to vanity or ego, or plain arrogance.

"Burn in" could be a result of ... expectations changing, prior knowledge, what you read, your biases, priming the pump, memory, etc, etc, etc - but, you have somehow managed to rule out these possibilities in favor of the gear "burning in" the sound. I asked you what method, controls, etc you used to isolate these variables from the "listening" and your evasion tells the true story.

You don't know. Your listening, being entirely uncontrolled, could be a result of any, or all these variables, all unaccounted for. Yet, you claim to be open-minded? :b

2. Stability. My playback system’s configuration is generally quite stable. In other words for months and often times several years, my system generates a predictable level of musicality that remains essentially unchanged for extended periods of time. Dare I say, most times my system may well be the most stable aspect of my life.

Ah yes, "musicality", entirely subjective, being whatever you imagine it to be.

7. Experience. Having spent 14 years doing part-time R&D, I’ve literally encountered several thousand distinct audible improvements during that time. In fact, in my current 2-component and 2-channel system I estimate roughly 350 distinct audible changes and I’ve even published that list including the sources on another website. My areas of focus are on AC mgmt and especially vibration mgmt. A change in AC mgmt. is usually accountable for one or 2 improvements and that’s it. On the other hand, and depending on how extreme the execution, a single change in vibration mgmt can lead to dozens, if not more than a hundred distinct audible improvements over extended periods of time. For example, one vibration mgmt. change to my amps resulted in over 120 distinct audible improvements over a nearly 5 month time period.

Of course, none of which can be verified. Tell me, how do you know it is an audible improvement - sound waves changing, as opposed to a perceptual improvement? We know the answer there. Time to dodge the ball...

Moreover, changes in at least the AC mgmt or vibration mgmt sectors are most always quite predictable. Hence, this supposed evidence would seem to negate your out-of-control perceptions claim.

You - the listener - perceptions/psychology - the part of this equation your mind/brain can't wrap itself around, being an audiophile this is understandable. Are you in control of your expectations? No you aren't. Can you control your subconscious? No you can't - sub, meaning not conscious of. Can you control your biases? Since your listening is done casually and sighted, and entirely uncontrolled, the possibility is zero.

But you, being the open-minded, logical, "bright" audiophile have ignored several logical possibilities explaining what you are "hearing" - due to vanity and/or ego. No controlled evidence, as per usual, just sweeping claims of audibility. Just "I heard it, I said so". :)

As for your saying, you believe in all sincerity that people do hear changes? That’s hogwash and you’re not being intellectually honest with yourself yet again. If you really believed that, you never would have posted your statements about perceptions.

Yes, psychogenically, people can "hear" things. All normal. Part of the human condition - we are all susceptible to the effects of our humanity. However a certain group of individuals, "open-minded" and "bright" believe themselves to be self-shielded, the audiophile, having no cognisance of this, understanding etc, etc.

I'm perfectly open to the possibility that I am wrong. That the gear can "burn in" and change, but ... no evidence so far outside the anecdotal "I heard it, I said so". Being "bright" and "open-minded", have not accounted for yourself in the "listening" as a variable. Bravo.

Rather, I speculate and IMO the real crux of the matter is that you and those like you have yet to encounter such audible changes some of us report here. Hence, when you read of those encountering such changes, you and guys like you are left frustrated and in a state of disbelief.

No, actually what you experience is fully in line with the psychological component of hearing and aural science. It explains why people "hear" these tales in uncontrolled listening. What you conveniently ignore. And once again you have not established that the gear is changing the sound waves one iota.

And rather than look within to see if you’re the problem, you choose to look without e.g. measurements, the human psyche, etc and bring everybody down to your lowest common denominator level. Maybe it’s arrogance, laziness, immaturity, self-deception, or naiveté or perhaps some combination thereof.

Right, the person who discounts, evades/ignores all other logical possibilities in the casual, uncontrolled listening isn't arrogant, closed-minded and naive? No evidence beyond the psychogenic to support any of this hogwash and no evidence will be forthcoming, let us be honest here.

However, if you have controlled, imagination-free listening tests supporting gear "burning in", as opposed to you, the static, unchanging human, over time, please present it.
 
In science, if under the same circumstances ( here it üis new equipment and or cables being moved as well ) a definite observation is registered ( here is it is break in ) and this observation is repeatable, you can form a hypothesis for its cause, which will hold good unless proven wrong, using exactly the same circumstances. So far this proof has not been forthcoming to my knowledge. Hence it is safe to assume that this phenomenon, called break in exists.

You don't seem familiar with the null hypothesis. An experience is registered - assumed to be "break in" or "burn in". An experience. Not yet established, hence the controversy over the subject.

Did you know that millions of people world-wide "hear" ghosts? The fact that people experience it, independently from each other, is evidence that ghosts exist? :) Interesting.

Let me repeat - no matter how insistent, or vocal the claim, no evidence has been presented to date supporting the claim that the equipment itself is burning in. No controlled evidence of people hearing sound waves changing due to just gear "burning in". There is a method to find out - blinding, as used and accepted throughout science.

Isolating "burn in" from the "other variables' taking place in the "listening". The other possible variables being ... peeking, expecting, knowing, wishing/imagination, what you read ... memory, day dreaming etc. What is being conveniently ignored/evaded, even now.

Very entertaining thread. Lots of dancing around, red herrings and no actual evidence supporting the OP.
 
Goliath, hypotheses are not anecdotal.
 
Detlof said:
If i were sitting in a jury, Stehno would have me firmly on his side.

LOL. If this were a court case the anecdotal "I heard it, it must be true" findings would be laughed at. The case would be thrown out for an overwhelming lack of reliable evidence and Stehno would be fined for wasting the courts time.
 
Hypotheses remain hypotheses unless proven wrong. And why all this exitement?
There is no definite proof either way.
 
Hypotheses remain hypotheses unless proven wrong. And why all this exitement?
There is no definite proof either way.

Anyone can make a "hypothesis". :) Proving negatives is a logical fallacy, I'm sure you know. If there was evidence to support the "hypothesis" that gear "burns in" and physically affects the sound waves audibly, as opposed to psychologically, to human ears , it would have been presented decades ago. This subject would be done and dusted and there would be no controversy.

Instead, we are still left with "I heard it, I said so ... end of story." Compelling evidence to be sure. As for me? I'm just having a cordial discussion and find this very entertaining. Stehno literally blew up with a barrage of insults simply because I asked him a simple question. Still unanswered.
 
Anyone can make a "hypothesis". :) Proving negatives is a logical fallacy, I'm sure you know. If there was evidence to support the "hypothesis" that gear "burns in" and physically affects the sound waves audibly, as opposed to psychologically, to human ears , it would have been presented decades ago. This subject would be done and dusted and there would be no controversy.

Instead, we are still left with "I heard it, I said so ... end of story." Compelling evidence to be sure. As for me? I'm just having a cordial discussion and find this very entertaining. Stehno literally blew up with a barrage of insults simply because I asked him a simple question. Still unanswered.

From decades of my professional experience I would say, that your " simple question " is anything but simple. In fact it is a well placed trap, because it is impossible to answer. I would call it a very clever way of trolling and I admire your intelligence for having had success with it. I proposed a third way, that of conflicting assumptions or hypotheses, impossible to prove right or wrong. Obviously you will not have it so. So have fun with your "cordial discussion". As for me, I am out. Must warm up my system......
 
Could not agree more! If i were sitting in a jury, Stehno would have me firmly on his side. (He has anyway in this argument) But let me repeat all the same:
In science, if under the same circumstances ( here it üis new equipment and or cables being moved as well ) a definite observation is registered ( here is it is break in ) and this observation is repeatable, you can form a hypothesis for its cause, which will hold good unless proven wrong, using exactly the same circumstances. So far this proof has not been forthcoming to my knowledge. Hence it is safe to assume that this phenomenon, called break in exists.
Who has repeated his experiment that burn in of some products occurs like clockwork at certain hour and minute?

Who has surveyed statements of break-in across audiophiles of the same product to see if they all arrive at the same answer?

The answer is no one. In the universe of extreme subjectivity where we throw out the accepted science of audio, any rule can be invented and be considered as right as any other. A power cable breaking at 35 hours? Why not. He could have said 3.5 hours and you are forced to accept that just the same. It is a universe without law and order of any kind. Any statement by definition of belonging to that universe is accepted at face value. After all, those are the rules of that universe. One without provable governing laws.

If I said that I keep my room at 80 degrees for best sound and that at 75 the sound is "cold" and without detail, you must accept that, lest you want to not be from the same universe.

Actually I am wrong: one that is paramount is defending the existence of this universe without rules. That is what we do by defending each other in this manner.

So no, we don't get to use the word "science" to describe the rules of this universe because the only rule there is that there are no rules! You cannot belong to this universe without first dismissing what accepted audio science says. Let's believe what we want and enjoy the music. But don't mix the worlds of the two universes. :)
 
LOL. If this were a court case the anecdotal "I heard it, it must be true" findings would be laughed at. The case would be thrown out for an overwhelming lack of reliable evidence and Stehno would be fined for wasting the courts time.

Lol :D ...No such things in audio discussions/forums. No one is going to jail, no one is getting a fine to express his personal judicial/fundamental/experienced/subjective/scientific/physical/mathematical/electronic/objective/social/moral/audio/economical/musical opinion. :b

Anyway it was an excellent reply because many times we interpret from our own perception and belief what others hear and not hear.
It is the same with words without pictures/gestures/intonations that we read on our screens. :b
And that, was a realistic and logical and intelligent reply. And the time and effort he took to express it in words as the best he can is not everyone's given.
Many times I would like to take that time to explain myself more clearly but I don't make the effort to take that time to better communicate, and that, is often a downfall in our audio discussions.

You brought yourself few good points to the discussion, and without mentioning them it wouldn't have been that informative, maybe, in that advancing subject.
So you are deserving kudos as well.
________

* I don't have a degree in audio burn-in science; its effects over time @ different periods, and for each piece of electronic audio gear including the loudspeakers and speaker wires and interconnects...analog/digital, and the type of connection (USB, HDMI, opt, coax, balanced analog, unbalanced, ...) and with all the various AC power chords, external power supplies, DACs burn-in, DSP chips, crossovers, ...a million miles of electronic circuit boards and parts.

Say you play an album on your turntable; how many times do you have to spin that same album till it reaches the perfect audio readiness/burn-in time?
Is the needle tracking the grooves needs a certain amount of time to be optimal, the phono preamp, the four tiny wires tunneling inside the tonearm, the phono interconnects, etc., etc., etc.? Where do we start and stop?

Everything is different, even the time we listen to the same music from the same system twice, and in particular from analog LPs.
But those tiny differences are mostly insignificant to the point of having no valid effect on our perception of music reproduction.

The burn-in factor's main significance is from accurate measurements @ different intervals in time. And even then they'll be mostly minuscule.
D'accord, few audio products do require burn-in time for some parts to reach their optimal potential...say from five minutes to five months...depending.
No doubt that objective measurements are not the end of all ends because of many factors affecting those measurement machines...even the measurement tools most likely need their own burn-in to accurately graph what audio signals they get with less than perfect voltages from our electricity grids.
Where you connect the measurement oscilloscopes, etc., and the AC power chord used to connect them, that too have their slight variables of importance.

Without defining all the components comprising a system, and where that system is; we are floating above mid-air in audio waves.

Even our ears are influenced by burn-in time. ...Time of the day/night, how many hours, etc.
The acoustics of the room from various materials; with time those materials would have an auditory transformation from expansion and compression...from humidity, dryness, temperature.

How much burn-in is required before humans reach their optimal performance potential? I know, it has nothing to do with electronics, only with experimental variables from other pieces of gear connected in sync with the audio electronic component under burn-in test. But it is us the humans with our ears who perceive slight transformations in sounds. And they are as hard to define as the number of sand particles on the beaches of Rio.

How much of bun-in/break-in is measurable objectively in comparison to the sounds we hear? The ear is our best measurable tool in audio, and time is different each second after the next previous one.

To me burn-in is EQuing, acoustically treating, measuring, re-measuring, listening, and more listening.
I will wait three months before I can make a fair assessment of what I am hearing from my system. Before that the music is not playing @ its full potential; the speaker drivers, the crossover parts, the wiring in the circuit boards, the resistors, capacitors, transistors, coils, transformers, copper and silver and gold chemical compositions with the internal and external temperature, the filaments in the tubes, the foil paper, the driver's materials, the rubber surrounds, ...with micron value differences over time might have a psychological influence over our hearing.

Science is all we only have to be most assured of our senses and how we interpret with them.
Plus in audio/music, the emotional level we get from each recording and @ different times when our moods are constantly changing, is impossible to measure with total accuracy and definition...simply impossible. So it's only us, what we feel from our hearing that is the true essence. And the amount of burn-in effect it has on that essence is relative to each piece of electronic audio gear with time measured intervals, or not.

There is no doubt that 'some' audio components measured very different from the first time they are measured and from another time much later on.
It can even be dramatic. In those cases, our human hearing is good enough to notice.

http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/breakin.html
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - Albert Einstein.

http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/speaker-break-in-fact-or-fiction
http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/173455.html
http://www.stereophile.com/content/breaking-new-speakers-4
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=86387.100
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/parts/81355-capacitor-burn-break.html
http://www.tested.com/tech/accessories/459117-science-and-myth-burning-headphones/
http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/forums/physics.9/
? http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/subjective-and-objective-measures-hearing-891
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables/audio-cable-break-in-science-or-psychological
 
We have good scientific reasons to believe in physical changes in dielectric films during the so called burn-in time - migration of defects and recombination of charge carriers during this phase, reducing noise. I think it is also the reason behind the practice of biasing film capacitors as used in many JBL speakers, and described in the JBL 4367 Studio Monitor White Paper - one of the few documents to report such effects clearly, although I disagree with their use of "class A" designation for capacitor biasing.

However we all know we do not have perceptual data on its audibility taken under controlled conditions. Thousands of audiophiles (me included) have however enough evidence of the phenomena to believe in it, and it is now a generally accepted practice. IMHO and YMMV, of course.
 
Who has repeated his experiment that burn in of some products occurs like clockwork at certain hour and minute?

Who has surveyed statements of break-in across audiophiles of the same product to see if they all arrive at the same answer?

The answer is no one. In the universe of extreme subjectivity where we throw out the accepted science of audio, any rule can be invented and be considered as right as any other. A power cable breaking at 35 hours? Why not. He could have said 3.5 hours and you are forced to accept that just the same. It is a universe without law and order of any kind. Any statement by definition of belonging to that universe is accepted at face value. After all, those are the rules of that universe. One without provable governing laws.

If I said that I keep my room at 80 degrees for best sound and that at 75 the sound is "cold" and without detail, you must accept that, lest you want to not be from the same universe.

Actually I am wrong: one that is paramount is defending the existence of this universe without rules. That is what we do by defending each other in this manner.

So no, we don't get to use the word "science" to describe the rules of this universe because the only rule there is that there are no rules! You cannot belong to this universe without first dismissing what accepted audio science says. Let's believe what we want and enjoy the music. But don't mix the worlds of the two universes. :)

I've been waiting for you to chime in, in fact and I will mix the universes in the way I see fit. I can look at it in the way of my old profession and will regard our universe as a free for all looney bin or in terms of science. If I do so, I can accept and form hypotheses outside of " accepted audio science ". With all due respect, I neither like nor need thought police. Besides, I did use "science" only to point out the fallacy of the entire argument in the sense that it is impossible to find proof for which side is right or wrong. A
"Accepted audio science" merely proves that you have statistically the numbers on your side, but that does not explain the phenomenon in question, it simply discounts it as far as I can see.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu