If this subject is impossible to answer then making objective claims of gear "burn in" is a tacit admission that this circus tale is pure wheel spinning on the audiophiles part. I think you have our roles switched here - the real trolling is insisting we take a "hypothesis" seriously based on no actual credible evidence and then demanding the other side to prove their case wrong (aka proving a negative - a logical fallacy). That is trolling.
How much of burn-in/ break-in (in hours) is objective vs. getting used to sound?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
If this subject is impossible to answer then making objective claims of gear "burn in" is a tacit admission that this circus tale is pure wheel spinning on the audiophiles part. I think you have our roles switched here - the real trolling is insisting we take a "hypothesis" seriously based on no actual credible evidence and then demanding the other side to prove their case wrong (aka proving a negative - a logical fallacy). That is trolling.
Why, Goliath, I could have sworn you said earlier you believe in all sincerity that people do hear changes.
Don't you think establishing a minimum level of credibility of character first might help in your mission to bring others down to your lowest common denominator performance level?
BTW, I was trying to be kind when I used the term hogwash.
Zero reading comprehension I see. I said I believe people are hearing differences. Just that the differences may not have anything to do with "burn in". That was too difficult for your audiophile mind to comprehend?
The folks claiming the equipment is "burning in", ie you. Hopefully you can see the distinction. The gear... perhaps? As opposed to ... "other factors", conveniently ignored, evaded, per usual ... while ... "listening", casually?
As far as performance levels go, you still haven't demonstrated hearing purported gear "burn in".
Just a paragraph of "I can hear this and that [my hearing is amazing ...] 20 years of experience ... etc" . Rhetoric along the lines of "I have proven it to myself", circular reasoning. Very entertaining stehno. Bravo!
Positive, constructive dialog can't take place if there is a failure to comprehend what is written.
I remember a review by Fred Crowder of the Emm Labs DA2, where Crowder speaks with Ed Meitner about 'Break in'. Seems like Meitner had a technical explanation, and i believe his Head of Sales recommends 250 hours or so.
"The EMM XDS1 which I heard for comparison has the newest software, so I believe that the comparison was valid. I should also note that I have used the XDS1 as a transport for the DA2 and for those who already own an XDS1 that is an excellent, cost effective solution. I have spoken with Ed Meitner about “break-in”. He does not particularly like that term and feels that what is actually happening is that the boards and components within the unit are reaching “dielectric equilibrium” and that this takes about 250 hours. In any event, my DA2 has continued to improve, particularly..."
"The EMM XDS1 which I heard for comparison has the newest software, so I believe that the comparison was valid. I should also note that I have used the XDS1 as a transport for the DA2 and for those who already own an XDS1 that is an excellent, cost effective solution. I have spoken with Ed Meitner about “break-in”. He does not particularly like that term and feels that what is actually happening is that the boards and components within the unit are reaching “dielectric equilibrium” and that this takes about 250 hours. In any event, my DA2 has continued to improve, particularly..."
He "feels"? I guess 250 hours (??) is at least enough time to void the return policy. Clever strategy.
I've unwittingly done a blind test on cable burn-in when I first started... my litz wire cables have horrendous burn-in due to the large surface area interface between the conductor and dielectric. I got many questions and several phone calls about it, as the cables sounded just very bad right out of the box. After getting a cable burner, it got rid of the initial period of burn-in that was really bad and nobody has mentioned it since then.
As a cable manufacturer I get data no one else does... i.e. lots of reports about the exact same cables and this data answers many fiercely debated aspects of cable performance and burn-in.
Also, I do believe manufacturers should burn-in their components and cables before shipping. Years ago I almost returned a Schiit DAC because it sounded SO BAD. Well, it never did sound good but it did get a lot better over a few hundred hours...
As a cable manufacturer I get data no one else does... i.e. lots of reports about the exact same cables and this data answers many fiercely debated aspects of cable performance and burn-in.
Also, I do believe manufacturers should burn-in their components and cables before shipping. Years ago I almost returned a Schiit DAC because it sounded SO BAD. Well, it never did sound good but it did get a lot better over a few hundred hours...
Honestly, i am no techie...but I dont get the sense that Ed Meitner whose name is one of the premier innovators in DSD and digital technology and whose ADCs are used in countless studios is going to BS his consumers over 10 days of burn-in. His list of existing clients:
Abbey Road Studios
Acoustic Sounds
Airshow Mastering
Ambient Recording Co.
Andrea Bocelli
ATMA Classique
AudioQuest Music
Bernie Grundman Mastering
BIS
Bob Ludwig
Bruce Botnick Productions
Buzz Records
Canada Promedia
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Challenge Records
Chesky Records
Chick Corea
Delos
Denon
Diana Krall
Digidance
Disques Lyrinx
DMP Records
DMT Rentals
DTS Pro
EMI
Exton
fone
Gallo Acoustics
Gateway Mastering & DVD, Bob Ludwig
Groove Note Records
In-Akustik
Indigo
Kimber IsoMike
Linn Records
MasterMix
Merging Technologies
Mobile Fidelity
Octavia Records
Opus 3
Pentatone
Philips SACD
Pink Floyd, James Guthrie (Das Boot)
Polyhymnia International
Pure Mastering
Right Track Recording
Sadie
Saidera Records, Seigen Ono
Sony Music
SoundMirror
Sterling Mastering Studios
Steve Marcussen Mastering
Studio Champagne
Telarc Records
Tracy Chapman, Paul Du Gre (Engineer)
Universal Mastering
Universal Music
Virgin Records
Water Lily Acoustics
Wind Over the Earth
Wonderland (Stevie Wonder)
Zen Mastering in Vancouver
Equilibrium is the name of the game, and always has been for me - the sound of a system is constantly changing for myriads of reasons, the whole time it operates - getting better, getting worse, in constant flux as long as it is switched on. The only way out of the 'madness', for me, is to have all the various "flavours" of quality that a system goes through while it's operating to be good enough that it's always satisfying to listen to - work towards reducing the times that the system sounds "off" to an absolute minimum.
LL21 said:
Ed Meitner has no controlled evidence that his products need 10 days of "burn in" else this discussion would be done and dusted a long time ago. Based on ... a feeling, he thinks it takes 10 days which of course is anecdotal.
If Ed Meitner set up a controlled test to demonstrate clear audibility between non-"burned in" and "burned in" gear over a 1 week (or however long it requires, 500 hours+?) isolating "other factors" from "gear burning in" with strong statistical success, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. We would have clear data supporting the claim. Of course there are no controlled tests. There will never be any controlled tests. We will have none of that.
BTW, his big name clients likely don't give two hoots about "burn in". Have way more important matters in life to worry about than audiophile melodrama on discussion forums.
The system sounding better or sounding worse can be explained by the listener, being in flux, changes in mood/state of mind, health, expectations, any number of biases etc. The "other factors".
One moment the system is sounding great, the next it sounds different, not great, but different ... could it be that the listener - the ear/brain interface (where all the post processing effects take place) are responsible? If not, why not? If not, what controls were in place to prevent them from influencing the listening results?
(...) Of course there are no controlled tests. There will never be any controlled tests. We will have none of that.
There are no controlled tests on tube burn-in either. Do you also discard tube burn-in?
There are clear physical changes that can affect the sound of one's system from day-to-day. Things as simple as temperature, humidity etc. may affect the sound of one speaker system. This is something that cannot be denied, these physical changes are real, not everyone imagines things or are delusional.
As far as break-in phenomenon this also is not imagined but clearly evident to anyone who really wants to take the time to bother to listen, read and understand the science. Yes there is science behind understanding dielectric materials and how they react. This is not some imagined, made up or delusional phenomenon.
I remember after building my first 300B amplifier and turning it on, it sounded like a portable transistor radio at first. After a while the sound start to open up and become listenable, and eventually sounded excellent. After 15 years in the hobby this was not imagination, delusion, or any of those things. It was simply thousands of turns of wire on transformers and various dielectric materials breaking in. Not everyone is so foolish to deny simple facts and actually can hear these things clearly. To deny the obvious makes no sense.
Hello Bob
Please explain the science of dielectric burn-in?? I work in the electronics industry and have been screening components for use in manned space flight and satellites for over 30 years. Part of screening for the components is burn-in but we are talking resistors, capacitors, inductors and all active components. Do you know how much burn in wire and cables get?? Zero, it is used right off the spool. So if no burn in is required to fly in space because there is no significant change why is it needed here??
Rob
No, there NO science that shows audible "break in". None. Whatsoever. There are measureable changes of equipment "warming up" / "burning in", but not everything that is measurable is audible. No demonstrations so far. The fact that you won't even entertain the possibility that yes, your imagination was a causal factor in the uncontrolled listening evaluation shows a level of arrogance (and ignorance) I fully expect from an audiophile. Believing yourself and your hearing to be perfect, self-shielded from listener bias displays a level of naivety that is frankly quite entertaining.
And for the 10th time, what you are doing is not listening. You are ... peeking, knowing and expecting, memory, priming the pump (and who knows what else is going on in your casual observations) as well as listening. Once again, no one is disputing that electronic parameters can drift. No one is disputing that gear shows measurable changes over time. We are talking about audible burn-in. No evidence yet, and if we are honest with ourselves none will be forthcoming. Just the same lame, unsupported rhetoric wishful thinking, audiophile apparition tales about "listening" when clearly you aren't just listening. A whole lot more is going on besides just using ears to listen.
Not everyone imagines and are delusional? And pray tell, HOW would you know if you were imagining a sound or not? What method do you use for verification? Never mind, you don't believe you can be fooled.
But please, spare us the rhetoric about "clear" differences - differences no one can seem to demonstrate in ears-only listening. At least the entertainment is priceless, bravo!
Last edited:
Different applications, different requirements.Hello Bob
Please explain the science of dielectric burn-in?? I work in the electronics industry and have been screening components for use in manned space flight and satellites for over 30 years. Part of screening for the components is burn-in but we are talking resistors, capacitors, inductors and all active components. Do you know how much burn in wire and cables get?? Zero, it is used right off the spool. So if no burn in is required to fly in space because there is no significant change why is it needed here??
Rob
“Burn in” factor—the idea that speakers or electronics sound better after X hours of use—is likely a delusion.
• “Capacitors polarize within seconds of applying voltage. Beyond that, I dare them to explain what will change in an opamp, cable or PCB as the result of applied voltage and signal. Rubbish.” – Audio Myths & Marketing Tricks: Burn In @ ColdCraft ? Under renovation/adjustment coordinates.
• “Running your components and cables for some arbitrary length of time when they are first purchased isn’t helpful.”
– The Mythical Burn-In Period @ eCoustics
• “In this article we’ll look at a typical electrodynamic driver’s operation as seen largely from the mechanical side, with a view to assessing the validity of various claims frequently made regarding driver break in. We’ll also see why it’s in a manufacturer’s best interest to ensure their products are broken in long before leaving the factory warehouse and how that bears on subsequent attempts at burning a driver in.” – Speaker Break In: Fact or Fiction? @ Audioholics
• “Our audio memory is notoriously short, and it is simply impossible to hear a change that takes weeks to occur. What really happens is that we become ‘acclimatised’ to the sound – there is rarely any significant change at all. This is doubly true of cables – there isn’t any reason whatsoever to break-in an interconnect or speaker cable, because they don’t change enough to create a measurable change, let alone one that’s audible.” – Audio Myths by Rod Elliott
? Numeral Nine Music and Audio Blog: A Brief Guide to Audio for the Skeptical Consumer
_________
"For electronic components, burn-in is frequently conducted at elevated temperature and perhaps elevated voltage. This process may also be called heat soaking. The components may be under continuous test or simply tested at the end of the burn-in period.
There is another use of the term by some audiophiles, who leave new audio equipment turned on for multiple days or weeks, to get the components to achieve optimal performance. However, many debates have arisen about the benefits of this practice."
* Wiki
• “Capacitors polarize within seconds of applying voltage. Beyond that, I dare them to explain what will change in an opamp, cable or PCB as the result of applied voltage and signal. Rubbish.” – Audio Myths & Marketing Tricks: Burn In @ ColdCraft ? Under renovation/adjustment coordinates.
• “Running your components and cables for some arbitrary length of time when they are first purchased isn’t helpful.”
– The Mythical Burn-In Period @ eCoustics
• “In this article we’ll look at a typical electrodynamic driver’s operation as seen largely from the mechanical side, with a view to assessing the validity of various claims frequently made regarding driver break in. We’ll also see why it’s in a manufacturer’s best interest to ensure their products are broken in long before leaving the factory warehouse and how that bears on subsequent attempts at burning a driver in.” – Speaker Break In: Fact or Fiction? @ Audioholics
• “Our audio memory is notoriously short, and it is simply impossible to hear a change that takes weeks to occur. What really happens is that we become ‘acclimatised’ to the sound – there is rarely any significant change at all. This is doubly true of cables – there isn’t any reason whatsoever to break-in an interconnect or speaker cable, because they don’t change enough to create a measurable change, let alone one that’s audible.” – Audio Myths by Rod Elliott
? Numeral Nine Music and Audio Blog: A Brief Guide to Audio for the Skeptical Consumer
_________
"For electronic components, burn-in is frequently conducted at elevated temperature and perhaps elevated voltage. This process may also be called heat soaking. The components may be under continuous test or simply tested at the end of the burn-in period.
There is another use of the term by some audiophiles, who leave new audio equipment turned on for multiple days or weeks, to get the components to achieve optimal performance. However, many debates have arisen about the benefits of this practice."
* Wiki
Last edited:
No, there NO science that shows audible "break in". None. Whatsoever. There are measureable changes of equipment "warming up" / "burning in", but not everything that is measurable is audible. No demonstrations so far. The fact that you won't even entertain the possibility that yes, your imagination was a causal factor in the uncontrolled listening evaluation shows a level of arrogance (and ignorance) I fully expect from an audiophile. Believing yourself and your hearing to be perfect, self-shielded from listener bias displays a level of naivety that is frankly quite entertaining.
And for the 10th time, what you are doing is not listening. You are ... peeking, knowing and expecting, memory, priming the pump (and who knows what else is going on in your casual observations) as well as listening. Once again, no one is disputing that electronic parameters can drift. No one is disputing that gear shows measurable changes over time. We are talking about audible burn-in. No evidence yet, and if we are honest with ourselves none will be forthcoming. Just the same lame, unsupported rhetoric wishful thinking, audiophile apparition tales about "listening" when clearly you aren't just listening. A whole lot more is going on besides just using ears to listen.
Not everyone imagines and are delusional? And pray tell, HOW would you know if you were imagining a sound or not? What method do you use for verification? Never mind, you don't believe you can be fooled.
Sounds like voices from the past. Seems like we have an EW replacement. Oh well.
Bravo.
We all think we are infallible and have impeccable hearing with long term memory (or close to it) but the greatest variable in the system is the listener.
Similar threads
