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

At the end of the burn-in, were the conditioned cables exchanged with 'green' cables matching the condition of the ones being tested, at the start of the trial - fairly quickly, and the response again plotted? IOW, had the speakers also been conditioned by the process, to any degree?

How about taking another measurement - another example of the "after" - now that a month has passed?

I need 2 identical cables, one that's burned in... which I do not have right now. One issue is how much play time does the unburned cable get before it changes significantly... From my observations maybe an hour or so but it's been so long since I bothered to listen to an unburned cable. I could also measure the cable at time intervals, it'll be interesting to watch the curves come together... ;)

I could also post measurements of identical cables so you can see the resolution of the measuring system. It's far more resolving than the data I posted, I can tell you that right now! Close enough you have to really zoom in to see it, where the results of my test were visible and obvious with the data from 20-20kHz unzoomed on a small monitor. Mic was placed about 2" from the drivers, the data was gated 4ms ( should have reduced it, oh well), and the transducers are made by TAD and the mic was not moved while the cables burned in. It's not the best way to capture data but it's enough to do the job and the results are tangible, average audiophiles know what a FR graph is and how it translates into what you hear. I feel the difference in intelligibility, grain, harshness, and resolution are far more important than SPL but I don't know how to measure the other stuff and don't have the equipment even if I knew. I do know it's not standard THD, and I do have equipment to measure that, nor is it IMD nor does it show up on a FT. I hope in time folks smarter than I will be able to explain it and measure it.
 
I need 2 identical cables, one that's burned in... which I do not have right now. One issue is how much play time does the unburned cable get before it changes significantly... From my observations maybe an hour or so but it's been so long since I bothered to listen to an unburned cable. I could also measure the cable at time intervals, it'll be interesting to watch the curves come together... ;)

I could also post measurements of identical cables so you can see the resolution of the measuring system. It's far more resolving than the data I posted, I can tell you that right now! Close enough you have to really zoom in to see it, where the results of my test were visible and obvious with the data from 20-20kHz unzoomed on a small monitor. Mic was placed about 2" from the drivers, the data was gated 4ms ( should have reduced it, oh well), and the transducers are made by TAD and the mic was not moved while the cables burned in. It's not the best way to capture data but it's enough to do the job and the results are tangible, average audiophiles know what a FR graph is and how it translates into what you hear. I feel the difference in intelligibility, grain, harshness, and resolution are far more important than SPL but I don't know how to measure the other stuff and don't have the equipment even if I knew. I do know it's not standard THD, and I do have equipment to measure that, nor is it IMD nor does it show up on a FT. I hope in time folks smarter than I will be able to explain it and measure it.



There you go showing off your true colors again, DaveC.

I've burned in maybe 50 or so various cable types over the past 16 years and I also know of a number of friends and colleagues with well-enough trained ears who've burned in a lot more cables than I have. Let me just say that if a cable of any sort "changed significantly" after just one hour of play time, that would be borderline miraculous. The quickest burn-in I've ever experienced with any cable is roughly 4 or 5 full days of round-the-clock play time. And with cables it's generally not a serious of sonic jumps but most always just one significant change, maybe two.

Shoot even the simplest electrical parts like fuses, plugs, outlets, connectors, inlets, etc, which I've also done many times, take just over 2 full days of round-the-clock play time before they "change significantly". That's every time bar none.

If significant changes ever occurred in just one hour I seriously doubt there would be any desire to use a cable cooker.

I don't mind you speaking erroneously, but when you spout such nonsense and then others who think you might know what you're talking try to burn in a cable for 1 hour and nothing changes, then they become convinced burn-in is folklore and that discredits at least some people who know better.
 
Calm down, jeez. You're no authority on "laws of physics" either. You seem to be extremely biased yourself.

And you aren't? You set out to prove that cable "burn-in" makes a measurable difference and failed to show that the measurable difference had *anything* to do with cable "burn in". LOL.

Your "test" was so irresponsibly conducted that it's results are meaningless. It tells us nothing about cable "burn in" which is what you sought out to prove.

Yes, the claim of proof is way overstated. ;) But it is evidence and the measurement system is fully capable of resolving the rather large differences in FR seen.

Yes, evidence of being irresponsible. Your "test" was so poorly done that you can't even verify whether the change in measurement had *any* correlation to "burn in"! :D

Relatively large FR differences could have been a result of *anything* within that 5 day time period. Only two samples taken. As I said, irresponsibly done, and then you put the cart before the horse and jumped to conclusions which I would expect from "someone in the biz".

I wouldn't say there's no science involved but yes the testing could be a lot better.

Pathological science.

Pathological science is an area of research where "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions." The term was first used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, during a 1953 colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory.
Pathological science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

But why put time and effort into something that shows no promise? This test shows a lot of promise and is indicative that better testing is worth the effort.

What promise???? You took 2 samples of measurements 5 days apart! But it's one measurement really (not even two because known variables were introduced in one test), the margin of error is 100%.

Simply put, Margin of error= 1/(sq.root of number of tests)
If you had done two tests of each condition, the margin of error would be 70.7%. See how much more work would have to be done?

None of the above includes a control group. Again, the data you presented only proves how irresponsible you are.

I've never seen such evidence presented...ever. Thought that might make someone happy that it's being attempted, but no, you're just bitter, lol...

Anyone - let me repeat - *anyone* can take a frequency response measurement one day, then take another frequency response measurement 5 days later - and wow is me, can measure a change. This proves absolutely nothing.

All you have is a set of conditions tested, then a new set of conditions (after "burn in") tested 5 days later. We need at very least a control without burn in to see the delta. Otherwise there's no telling if conditions changed that would have resulted in a difference without burn-in.

Absolutely zero application of the scientific method here. Bravo! :)
 
Why can't objectivists EVER just admit they don't know what is going on? It's ok to NOT know the entirety of both classical physics and quantum mechanics and admit that maybe someone else knows a lot more than you do, and maybe is more intelligent as well? It's ok to NOT form a strong opinion on every topic under the sun and retain an open mind.

If you could show just one person who could hear (not imagine) hearing their daydreams in a controlled, ears-only, imagination-free listening test of cable burn-in you would have a case. At the *very* least.

You don't even have that. :) There is no evidence of anyone having "heard" cable burn-in witch effects. Not one. Anywhere. It's your job to show that these "effects" exist since you Dunning-Kruger types engineered them out of thin air. You cant even do that! :D You can't even put together a test to prove your hypothesis. It's sad, but after 20-30 years now, this is all you have to show us.

As always, very entertaining! Bring up quantum mechanics and string theory to explain your audiophile apparition tales. Bravo! Posit your daydreams as being some unerring representation of physical reality and expect all the rational disbelievers to try to disprove these wacky assertions. :D
 


There you go showing off your true colors again, DaveC.

I've burned in maybe 50 or so various cable types over the past 16 years and I also know of a number of friends and colleagues with well-enough trained ears who've burned in a lot more cables than I have. Let me just say that if a cable of any sort "changed significantly" after just one hour of play time, that would be borderline miraculous. The quickest burn-in I've ever experienced with any cable is roughly 4 or 5 full days of round-the-clock play time. And with cables it's generally not a serious of sonic jumps but most always just one significant change, maybe two.

Shoot even the simplest electrical parts like fuses, plugs, outlets, connectors, inlets, etc, which I've also done many times, take just over 2 full days of round-the-clock play time before they "change significantly". That's every time bar none.

If significant changes ever occurred in just one hour I seriously doubt there would be any desire to use a cable cooker.

I don't mind you speaking erroneously, but when you spout such nonsense and then others who think you might know what you're talking try to burn in a cable for 1 hour and nothing changes, then they become convinced burn-in is folklore and that discredits at least some people who know better.
Excellent post and I agree with you entirely.
 
At the end of the burn-in, were the conditioned cables exchanged with 'green' cables matching the condition of the ones being tested, at the start of the trial - fairly quickly, and the response again plotted? IOW, had the speakers also been conditioned by the process, to any degree?



There you go showing off your true colors again, DaveC.

I've burned in maybe 50 or so various cable types over the past 16 years and I also know of a number of friends and colleagues with well-enough trained ears who've burned in a lot more cables than I have. Let me just say that if a cable of any sort "changed significantly" after just one hour of play time, that would be borderline miraculous. The quickest burn-in I've ever experienced with any cable is roughly 4 or 5 full days of round-the-clock play time. And with cables it's generally not a serious of sonic jumps but most always just one significant change, maybe two.

Shoot even the simplest electrical parts like fuses, plugs, outlets, connectors, inlets, etc, which I've also done many times, take just over 2 full days of round-the-clock play time before they "change significantly". That's every time bar none.

If significant changes ever occurred in just one hour I seriously doubt there would be any desire to use a cable cooker.

I don't mind you speaking erroneously, but when you spout such nonsense and then others who think you might know what you're talking try to burn in a cable for 1 hour and nothing changes, then they become convinced burn-in is folklore and that discredits at least some people who know better.

Wow, the irony! Showing true colors? Anyone can look at your post history and see the hatred you've spewed in the past. You've treated me like crap and I can't believe you haven't been banned. Of course you can't resist and are now doing it again. What you posted is completely inappropriate. "Spouting nonsense" "showing true colors". This kind of stuff has to stop. You were good for a while and now you're the one showing your true colors, stehno. And 50? I've got you beat by a pretty huge number.

I never said an hour would do for full burn in, that's just the point at which you'll start hearing changes. And for the wire I'm using that's definitely true. Unlike you, I have enough experience to know that different things burn-in at different rates and take different amounts of time.

Why don't you say something useful or just go away. Or at least keep your mouth closed and learn something. ;)
 
At the end of the burn-in, were the conditioned cables exchanged with 'green' cables matching the condition of the ones being tested, at the start of the trial - fairly quickly, and the response again plotted? IOW, had the speakers also been conditioned by the process, to any degree?

If you could show just one person who could hear (not imagine) hearing their daydreams in a controlled, ears-only, imagination-free listening test of cable burn-in you would have a case. At the *very* least.

You don't even have that. :) There is no evidence of anyone having "heard" cable burn-in witch effects. Not one. Anywhere. It's your job to show that these "effects" exist since you Dunning-Kruger types engineered them out of thin air. You cant even do that! :D You can't even put together a test to prove your hypothesis. It's sad, but after 20-30 years now, this is all you have to show us.

As always, very entertaining! Bring up quantum mechanics and string theory to explain your audiophile apparition tales. Bravo! Posit your daydreams as being some unerring representation of physical reality and expect all the rational disbelievers to try to disprove these wacky assertions. :D

Wow, I'm just not going to respond to anything you've said.

"After 20-30 years"? This is just a passing curiosity that I honestly don't care about that much. It's a minor inconvenience, nothing more. I have no vested interests in proving anything, burn-in existing or not doesn't do anything whatsoever for my business one way or the other. BTW, I do have an engineering degree and understand statistics, so take your condescending tone elsewhere. Even if anything you said was worth responding to, you're a nasty person and I'm not going to engage with nasty people on the internet. I have way better things to do with my time.

I suggest you and stenho talk about it. I have no desire to respond to either one of you two and will be ignoring both of you from here on out. ;)
 
Wow, I'm just not going to respond to anything you've said.

Rather limit or avoid embarrassment by keeping quiet. I can respect that. :cool:

This is just a passing curiosity that I honestly don't care about that much. It's a minor inconvenience, nothing more. I have no vested interests in proving anything, burn-in existing or not doesn't do anything whatsoever for my business one way or the other.

No vested interests? So you don't own a business selling cable? I'm sorry, I was mistaken then. I noticed your posts "proving" wire burn-in on several other forums too. No vested interests or is that denialism creeping in?

BTW, I do have an engineering degree and understand statistics, so take your condescending tone elsewhere. Even if anything you said was worth responding to, you're a nasty person and I'm not going to engage with nasty people on the internet. I have way better things to do with my time.

Well, I'd rather be "nasty" and honest than dishonest and in denial, but to each their own. :) Good luck with future "tests" of this sort and I hope more than 1 trial is conducted per measurement. Preferably 2 or more. :D

Good luck Dave.
 
Last edited:
@ Dave, when you use the multiquote feature, each time after using it you have to uncheck them, so that they don't repeat in successive posts.
For example, Frank's post kept repeating itself in your successive posts; it is slightly confusing for readers.

* It's a glitch in the system, and for now it's best to manually fix it ourselves.
...Just a simple tip.
 
Last edited:
""
No vested interests? So you don't own a business selling cable? I'm sorry, I was mistaken then. I noticed your posts "proving" wire burn-in on several other forums too. No vested interests or is that denialism creeping in? ""


Where does vested interested play in this. Pretty foolish comment actually. At least you are consistent.

If a manufactures sells an item that needs burn-in or functions 100% out of the box, what's the benefit to him either way???

In fact burn in might be a detriment for some.

Schiit recommends their multibit DACs sound best after hours or in some cases days of burn-in. For most people best to just leave them on 24/7. This does concerns some people who may live in areas with unreliable power delivery, etc, and might stop them from purchasing one. Where is there a benefit, or vested interest??? SMH...
 
Last edited:


There you go showing off your true colors again, DaveC.

I've burned in maybe 50 or so various cable types over the past 16 years and I also know of a number of friends and colleagues with well-enough trained ears who've burned in a lot more cables than I have. Let me just say that if a cable of any sort "changed significantly" after just one hour of play time, that would be borderline miraculous. The quickest burn-in I've ever experienced with any cable is roughly 4 or 5 full days of round-the-clock play time. And with cables it's generally not a serious of sonic jumps but most always just one significant change, maybe two.

Shoot even the simplest electrical parts like fuses, plugs, outlets, connectors, inlets, etc, which I've also done many times, take just over 2 full days of round-the-clock play time before they "change significantly". That's every time bar none.

If significant changes ever occurred in just one hour I seriously doubt there would be any desire to use a cable cooker.

I don't mind you speaking erroneously, but when you spout such nonsense and then others who think you might know what you're talking try to burn in a cable for 1 hour and nothing changes, then they become convinced burn-in is folklore and that discredits at least some people who know better.
There is nothing at play that makes your views on burn in more correct than Dave's. Dave tried to add some data to the conversation which I appreciate. You have not. Do you have any data or references to show your experience is correct?
 
""
No vested interests? So you don't own a business selling cable? I'm sorry, I was mistaken then. I noticed your posts "proving" wire burn-in on several other forums too. No vested interests or is that denialism creeping in? ""


Where does vested interested play in this. Pretty foolish comment actually. At least you are consistent.

If a manufactures sells an item that needs burn-in or functions 100% out of the box, what's the benefit to him either way???

In fact burn in might be a detriment for some.

Schiit recommends their multibit DACs sound best after hours or in some cases days of burn-in. For most people best to just leave them on 24/7. This does concerns some people who may live in areas with unreliable power delivery, etc, and might stop them from purchasing one. Where is there a benefit, or vested interest??? SMH...

Audio con men have a vested interest in instilling fear, uncertainty, and doubt into their buying public:

"Maybe I can't hear the improvement the audio reviewers and sales people say they hear because my gear isn't good enough. . .yet. All I have to do is get that new better power amp and speakers that go to 40kHz (they've been suggesting I should get) and then suddenly it will all come into focus. I'm excited for that and can't wait. Won't I be special and gifted, then!"

or

"Maybe I can't hear the improvement the audio reviewers/dealers say they hear because I'm not using the right music. . .yet. All I have to do is get that new, proper, Hi-Res music and then suddenly I will hear the difference. Obviously it would be foolish of me to return this product under their money-back guarantee because I haven't given it a fair chance, plus I will be humiliated and embarrassed to face them and admit that I don't hear a difference. Returning the gear is admitting my inferiority and they will look down on me."

or the most recent one they've tacked on to their decades long, established arsenal of tactics:

"Maybe I can't hear the improvement the audio reviewers and dealers tell me they hear because I need more training. They made it a point to show me that AES papers show training is important so maybe if I just listen a little longer or undertake a training program I too will be one of the gifted people who can appreciate the better gear. I will have a refined taste and I will be a big boy and part of the club: the elite few who are talented and gifted to discern subtle micro-details which elude others."

or

"Maybe I can't hear the improvement in that fancy new cable I just bought because it lacked sufficient burn-in. All I have to do is let it continue playing for several days (or several weeks, months ...) for the full sound quality to be revealed! I'm excited and can't wait! If it doesn't sound good then there is an exclamation! Not enough burn-in time!"."

Etc .... etc...
 
""

Audio con men have a vested interest in instilling fear, uncertainty, and doubt into their buying public:

"Maybe I can't hear the improvement the audio reviewers and sales people say they hear because my gear isn't good enough. . .yet. All I have to do is get that new better power amp and speakers that go to 40kHz (they've been suggesting I should get) and then suddenly it will all come into focus. I'm excited for that and can't wait. Won't I be special and gifted, then!"

or

"Maybe I can't hear the improvement the audio reviewers/dealers say they hear because I'm not using the right music. . .yet. All I have to do is get that new, proper, Hi-Res music and then suddenly I will hear the difference. Obviously it would be foolish of me to return this product under their money-back guarantee because I haven't given it a fair chance, plus I will be humiliated and embarrassed to face them and admit that I don't hear a difference. Returning the gear is admitting my inferiority and they will look down on me."

or the most recent one they've tacked on to their decades long, established arsenal of tactics:

"Maybe I can't hear the improvement the audio reviewers and dealers tell me they hear because I need more training. They made it a point to show me that AES papers show training is important so maybe if I just listen a little longer or undertake a training program I too will be one of the gifted people who can appreciate the better gear. I will have a refined taste and I will be a big boy and part of the club: the elite few who are talented and gifted to discern subtle micro-details which elude others."

or

"Maybe I can't hear the improvement in that fancy new cable I just bought because it lacked sufficient burn-in. All I have to do is let it continue playing for several days (or several weeks, months ...) for the full sound quality to be revealed! I'm excited and can't wait! If it doesn't sound good then there is an exclamation! Not enough burn-in time!"."

Etc .... etc...
Audio paranoia... next up on the 11PM news...

You really think everyone is stupid... LOL
 
BobShermanEsq said:
You really think everyone is stupid... LOL

No, not stupid (although some may disagree) just gullible, poorly informed and easily suggestible. :D This certainly doesn't apply to all audiophiles, but many are.

Will believe in anything, hence all the melodrama.
 
No, not stupid (although some may disagree) just gullible, poorly informed and easily suggestible. :D This certainly doesn't apply to all audiophiles, but many are.

Will believe in anything, hence all the melodrama.

And what facts, studies, etc. substantiate your claims?

PS: And since there are many audiophiles who participate in this forum, are you suggesting that many of these WBF folks are gullible, poorly informed, and easily suggestible who will believe in anything?
 
Last edited:
Okay gentlemen. Let's stick to the technical merits of the discussion and refrain from any more personal commentary and/or generalizations. Please allow other forums to do so. We are better than this.

Thank you.

Tom
 
Isn't that the truth but then they seem to not be aware of (or choose to ignore) scientific measurements from Douglas Self which shows the burn-in of polyester capacitors (something Cyril Bateman had already studied & measured some time before). An article published in Linear Audio "Douglas Self - Self-improvement for capacitors" can be found in which he shows measurements that show a reduction in non-linearity over the short term & over long term & furthermore shows that a certain percentage of the improvement in non-linearity is retained 90 days later & a build up of further reductions in non-linearities are found & mostly retained with usage.
To quote Doug Self on these matters, is to quote Surgeon General in defense of cigarette companies :). Have you read his book on amplifier design? The preface to the book is nothing but railing against audiophile concepts such as we are talking about. He goes point by point damning any such claims. Here is the bit on capacitors:

"Capacitors affect the signal passing through them in a way invisible to distortion measurements.

Several writers have praised the technique of subtracting pulse signals passed through two different sorts of capacitor, claiming that the non-zero residue proves that capacitors can introduce audible errors. My view is that these tests expose only well-known capacitor shortcomings such as dielectric absorption and series resistance, plus perhaps the vulnerability of the dielectric film in electrolytics to reverse-biasing. No one has yet shown how these relate to capacitor audibility in properly designed equipment."


Self, Douglas; Self, Douglas. Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook (Kindle Locations 956-959). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

So you think a guy with this kind of view about capacitors, would support burn-in in them resulting in audible differences? I don't think so.

Right after that, he talks about cables:

"Concern over cables is widespread, but it can be said with confidence that there is as yet not a shred of evidence to support it. Any piece of wire passes a sine wave with unmeasurable distortion, and so simple notions of inter-crystal rectification or ‘micro-diodes’ can be discounted, quite apart from the fact that such behaviour is absolutely ruled out by established materials science. No plausible means of detecting, let alone measuring, cable degradation has ever been proposed."

Self, Douglas; Self, Douglas. Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook (Kindle Locations 962-966). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

He has the harshest words for the entire concept of subjectivity:

"Articles of Faith: The Tenets of Subjectivism

All of the alleged effects listed below have received considerable affirmation in the audio press, to the point where some are treated as facts. The reality is that none of them has in the last 15 years proved susceptible to objective confirmation. This sad record is perhaps equalled only by students of parapsychology."

Self, Douglas; Self, Douglas. Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook (Kindle Locations 940-943). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

Back to you using his tests of polyester caps to justify burn-in, no need for that because Doug does the same in pages you can't view online:

"Finally, have I stumbled on an effect that explains why some people insist on the need to burn-in so-called high-end hifi for days before it sounds right? Could it be that lurking
in that high-end equipment there might be some polyester capacitors that need straightening out? Well, let’s see. The effect only applies to capacitors acting to define time-constants, so it would be restricted to RIAA equalisation networks, tone-controls if you have them, and just possibly sub-sonic filters. It would also only work if the ‘burn-in’ was accomplished by having signals of 9 Vrms or so continuously present in the circuitry. Unless your preamplifier has a very funny gain structure indeed, this is not going to happen, though you could put some extra amplification between the cartridge and the preamplifier input. You would also need to change the vinyl continuously to keep the signal coming in. That is not, as far as I know, what even the most devoted audiophiles do.

Looks like the hypothesis is untenable. A lot of questions remain unanswered. Will a 10 kHz test signal linearise capacitors ten times as fast? Would exercising the capacitors with a sawtooth waveform be equally effective? Presumably it would-it’s not as if the capacitor is being taught what a sine-wave looks like. However, given the availability of polypropylene capacitors that never distort at all, it’s questionable how much time should be devoted to this interesting effect.

Self, Douglas. Self on Audio: The Collected Audio Design Articles of Douglas Self (pp. 171-172). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

So as you see John, he doesn't make a good witness for this topic.
 
To quote Doug Self on these matters, is to quote Surgeon General in defense of cigarette companies :). Have you read his book on amplifier design? The preface to the book is nothing but railing against audiophile concepts such as we are talking about. He goes point by point damning any such claims.
And that is exactly why I used his article & measurements as evidence - he's a well recognised objectivist
Here is the bit on capacitors:

"Capacitors affect the signal passing through them in a way invisible to distortion measurements.

Several writers have praised the technique of subtracting pulse signals passed through two different sorts of capacitor, claiming that the non-zero residue proves that capacitors can introduce audible errors. My view is that these tests expose only well-known capacitor shortcomings such as dielectric absorption and series resistance, plus perhaps the vulnerability of the dielectric film in electrolytics to reverse-biasing. No one has yet shown how these relate to capacitor audibility in properly designed equipment."


Self, Douglas; Self, Douglas. Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook (Kindle Locations 956-959). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

So you think a guy with this kind of view about capacitors, would support burn-in in them resulting in audible differences? I don't think so.

Right after that, he talks about cables:

"Concern over cables is widespread, but it can be said with confidence that there is as yet not a shred of evidence to support it. Any piece of wire passes a sine wave with unmeasurable distortion, and so simple notions of inter-crystal rectification or ‘micro-diodes’ can be discounted, quite apart from the fact that such behaviour is absolutely ruled out by established materials science. No plausible means of detecting, let alone measuring, cable degradation has ever been proposed."

Self, Douglas; Self, Douglas. Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook (Kindle Locations 962-966). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

He has the harshest words for the entire concept of subjectivity:

"Articles of Faith: The Tenets of Subjectivism

All of the alleged effects listed below have received considerable affirmation in the audio press, to the point where some are treated as facts. The reality is that none of them has in the last 15 years proved susceptible to objective confirmation. This sad record is perhaps equalled only by students of parapsychology."

Self, Douglas; Self, Douglas. Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook (Kindle Locations 940-943). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
None of which are quotes from the article. Fine in a debating contest but not sure what they are meant to bring to the discussion other than an attempt to sway the reader rather than deal with the article itself. So Self states " Capacitors affect the signal passing through them in a way invisible to distortion measurements." & yet proceeds to prove himself wrong in his article I cited.
You change my argument to suit your needs "So you think a guy with this kind of view about capacitors, would support burn-in in them resulting in audible differences? I don't think so." I never said any such thing or argued any such thing. What you are demonstrating is your failure to follow what Self's article & measurements show - evidence of distortion dielectrics & a burn-in mechanism - something you have denied could possibly exist.

Back to you using his tests of polyester caps to justify burn-in, no need for that because Doug does the same in pages you can't view online:
Finally you begin to address Self's article. I cited the article to give people the measurements & evidence that directly counters those who claim that " Neither using conventional model or quantum physics, can one explain any burn-in effect that comes, and then stays at that level." or "So no, laws of physics do not allow such a phenomena or every physics text book would talk about this hysteresis effect."

"Finally, have I stumbled on an effect that explains why some people insist on the need to burn-in so-called high-end hifi for days before it sounds right? Could it be that lurking
in that high-end equipment there might be some polyester capacitors that need straightening out? Well, let’s see. The effect only applies to capacitors acting to define time-constants, so it would be restricted to RIAA equalisation networks, tone-controls if you have them, and just possibly sub-sonic filters. It would also only work if the ‘burn-in’ was accomplished by having signals of 9 Vrms or so continuously present in the circuitry. Unless your preamplifier has a very funny gain structure indeed, this is not going to happen, though you could put some extra amplification between the cartridge and the preamplifier input. You would also need to change the vinyl continuously to keep the signal coming in. That is not, as far as I know, what even the most devoted audiophiles do.
And this is why I already said in my post that "Self is not exhaustive in his article" He "investigates" a phenomena, measures it at 1KHz (not because this is where the optimal distortion exists but because it is convenient), states that "this is not the frequency of maximum distortion" but gives no indication what is. Furthermore he states "An ideal capacitor is distortion free but some real types of capacitors have easily measurable distortion across them when significant voltage across them. For electrolytics this is as low as 80mV....."

So he admits to the concept that distortion in dielectrics is a known phenomena & proceeds to measure this in polyester capacitors @ 1KHz. His measurements & statements clearly show burn-in effects at this 1KHz frequency - we don't know the distortion level, voltage level, frequency or any of the characteristics of his stated maximum distortion level.

He then, in his conclusion does what all good card-carrying, closed-minded objectivists without inquisitiveness, do, generalise his specific measurements into global, dogmatic statements that mis-represent the specificty of his tests. He generalises that all burn-in effects noted could only happen in circuits that include time-constants defined by polyester capacitors & furthermore only those with 9Vrms continuously across them. Having built this strawman he then proceeds to tear it down - classical tactics.

Looks like the hypothesis is untenable. A lot of questions remain unanswered. Will a 10 kHz test signal linearise In other words capacitors ten times as fast? Would exercising the capacitors with a sawtooth waveform be equally effective? Presumably it would-it’s not as if the capacitor is being taught what a sine-wave looks like. However, given the availability of polypropylene capacitors that never distort at all, it’s questionable how much time should be devoted to this interesting effect.

Self, Douglas. Self on Audio: The Collected Audio Design Articles of Douglas Self (pp. 171-172). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

So as you see John, he doesn't make a good witness for this topic.
Yes, & he does state that he doesn't know the mechanism at play here & does proceed to pose some questions as you itemised & even states that it is an "interesting effect" but then closes off this inquisitiveness by stating that people can use polyprop capacitors instead - the text that you also found the need to embolden & highlight

I have no direct experience of cable burn-in happens but I can attest to capacitor burn-in & can envisage how what is happening to the dielectric in capacitors can perhaps have some effects in cables. In other words, I don't know & it's not of huge importance to me but I will pushback when anybody states that they know for sure & that the laws of physics, etc......... noble prize, etc.........science on our side, etc..........etc, etc or whatever is the current stock quote from the objectivists bible
 
Last edited:
Since the OP was about the objectivity of the burn-in process. has anyone observed capacitor burn.. in any repeatable way? Not anecdotal, not of the trust-me variety? Measured, repeatable result?
 
Since the OP was about the objectivity of the burn-in process. has anyone observed capacitor burn.. in any repeatable way? Not anecdotal, not of the trust-me variety? Measured, repeatable result?

Eh, hello - have you read the Doug Self article I linked to in this post containing measured repeatable results of capacitor burn-in?
 

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