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

[microstrip]

(...) Cable used was ZenWave Audio SL17 speaker cable which uses an aggregate 17g of UPOCC copper litz wire. Litz wire has a much larger surface area in contact with the dielectric vs conventional wire and burn-in effects are very pronounced with this cable vs cables made using conventional wire. (...)

Interesting. You are correct that litz wire should be very sensitive to burn-in - you use more than 1000 insulated strands of 50 micron diameter, meaning that you have a very significant contact area between metal and insulator. The varnish used to insulate the wires is usually an "imperfect" dielectric, with relatively high dielectric absorption - a good candidate for dielectric defects!

The difference you report can be easily seen in the electrical domain- and them people will not question the measuring technique and repeatability. We could even carry a null test between a new and a burned-in cable. Unfortunately I sold my Cello String cables long ago - I remember they were heavy litz type - otherwise I would try to duplicate your experiment.

 

[DaveC]

Zoomed In:

 

[fas42]

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?

 

[Robh3606]

Hello Dave

So we have a gated and smoothed impulse response curve? How many milliseconds is the gate? Smoothing is 1/6 octave? So what exactly is going on especially above 1.8K? So after burn-in you have an overall level boost with the greatest change above 1K with a peak at 10k. How do the raw ungated curves look?

Rob

 

[DaveC]

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?

No and No. Did you read that the cables were burnt-in with an AudioDharma Cable Cooker for 5 days, then tested again? The speakers had not been used for a while before the test and were not used while the cables were being burned-in. These speakers are 8-10 years old at this point and I don't think break-in is an issue unless they had been stored for a long time, which isn't the case.

Hello Dave

So we have a gated and smoothed impulse response curve? How many milliseconds is the gate? Smoothing is 1/6 octave? So what exactly is going on especially above 1.8K? So after burn-in you have an overall level boost with the greatest change above 1K with a peak at 10k. How do the raw ungated curves look?

Rob

5 ms. Yes. IDK. Omnimic does not show raw, ungated curves at all. The settings I used seem to be more than adequate for showing the changes.

 

[DaveC]

Actual proof of wire burn-in and surprisingly few comments...

I've seen huge debates on this topic many times on almost every audio forum and AFAIK this is the only measurement that's been posted that supports the fact that wire actually does burn-in...

 

[LL21]

Actual proof of wire burn-in and surprisingly few comments...

I've seen huge debates on this topic many times on almost every audio forum and AFAIK this is the only measurement that's been posted that supports the fact that wire actually does burn-in...

Personally, i am no techie so not qualified to comment...but it sure looks very interesting. Nice effort for having measured and posted...thanks...it does help a lot when too much arguing occurs without any substantive measurements from either side...just postulating. Thanks for taking the time!

 

[fas42]

No and No. Did you read that the cables were burnt-in with an AudioDharma Cable Cooker for 5 days, then tested again? The speakers had not been used for a while before the test and were not used while the cables were being burned-in. These speakers are 8-10 years old at this point and I don't think break-in is an issue unless they had been stored for a long time, which isn't the case..

Understood. Sorry, I didn't appreciate that the Cable Cooker was used independently of the speakers - this indeed makes the results very interesting ...

 

[microstrip]

Actual proof of wire burn-in and surprisingly few comments...

I've seen huge debates on this topic many times on almost every audio forum and AFAIK this is the only measurement that's been posted that supports the fact that wire actually does burn-in...

You must consider August is holiday time! I am still trying to interpret your measurements, de-convoluting them with the impedance of the S1-EX measured by Stereophile. http://www.stereophile.com/content/pioneer-s-1ex-loudspeaker-measurements#E5v3DUBFMufXSeEQ.97. It is interesting that the curves approach at the point of maximum impedance around 5 kHz, IMHO increasing the credibility of your measurements.

 

[Robh3606]

I've seen huge debates on this topic many times on almost every audio forum and AFAIK this is the only measurement that's been posted that supports the fact that wire actually does burn-in...

Whats going on?? Why the change??

Rob

 

[Goliath]

No and No. Did you read that the cables were burnt-in with an AudioDharma Cable Cooker for 5 days, then tested again? The speakers had not been used for a while before the test and were not used while the cables were being burned-in. These speakers are 8-10 years old at this point and I don't think break-in is an issue unless they had been stored for a long time, which isn't the case.

Apologies for not replying sooner to this abortion of an actual "test". This is what we call "pathological science". No actual science involved!

So you took a measurement ... then took another measurement 5 days later ... and then decided to correlate whatever change took place to "burn in" with zero method of verification outside of "I think it was burn in!". :b Your "test" included ... not a single control. Not even ... the bare minimum of samples. It's a single data point with 100% margin of error. With no control group, and 5 days of elapsed time for burn-in" there are countless variables introduced that can result in the change noted and errantly attributed to cable burn-in. Bravo.

Actual proof of wire burn-in and surprisingly few comments...

Actually, you proved no such thing. All you proved is that *something* changed after 5 days! Attributing a change to burn-in requires controls and your "test" (not really a test in the scientific sense) included none. Before you decide to declare your "test" to be some slam-dunk proof it would first help to familiarize yourself with science and testing. Any person can take a measurement, then take another measurement ... holding nothing constant, then ... measure a change. Wow, anything may have been the chief cause behind it, but you believe the change was somehow tied to "burn in"?

Based on what? Zero method of verification, zero controls, zero samples (oh wait, 2 samples!!!! LOL!) And you declare this to be "actual proof"? This is entertaining stuff that you can't make up.

* Folks, since the 'tester' has a vested financial interest in 'proving' the value of cable burn in I'd put no faith in his results, even without my being aware that his (and all cable burn-in) claims defy long known laws of physics. Thanks for the entertainment!

 

[microstrip]

(...) even without my being aware that his (and all cable burn-in) claims defy long known laws of physics. (...)

Which are the "known laws of physics" that are defied by burn-in?

 

[DaveC]

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?

Apologies for not replying sooner to this abortion of an actual "test". This is what we call "pathological science". No actual science involved!

So you took a measurement ... then took another measurement 5 days later ... and then decided to correlate whatever change took place to "burn in" with zero method of verification outside of "I think it was burn in!". :b Your "test" included ... not a single control. Not even ... the bare minimum of samples. It's a single data point with 100% margin of error. With no control group, and 5 days of elapsed time for burn-in" there are countless variables introduced that can result in the change noted and errantly attributed to cable burn-in. Bravo.



Actually, you proved no such thing. All you proved is that *something* changed after 5 days! Attributing a change to burn-in requires controls and your "test" (not really a test in the scientific sense) included none. Before you decide to declare your "test" to be some slam-dunk proof it would first help to familiarize yourself with science and testing. Any person can take a measurement, then take another measurement ... holding nothing constant, then ... measure a change. Wow, anything may have been the chief cause behind it, but you believe the change was somehow tied to "burn in"?

Based on what? Zero method of verification, zero controls, zero samples (oh wait, 2 samples!!!! LOL!) And you declare this to be "actual proof"? This is entertaining stuff that you can't make up.

* Folks, since the 'tester' has a vested financial interest in 'proving' the value of cable burn in I'd put no faith in his results, even without my being aware that his (and all cable burn-in) claims defy long known laws of physics. Thanks for the entertainment!

Calm down, jeez. You're no authority on "laws of physics" either. You seem to be extremely biased yourself.

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

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...

 

[amirm]

Which are the "known laws of physics" that are defied by burn-in?

That one that says a cable has no state, or memory. If a cable could remember past activities, the computer you are using right now to view this would stop working. After all, we are talking about interconnects inside your CPU carrying unbelievably small amount of electrons.

Take any text on conductivity of cable and there is no mention of any lasting effect (other than destroying the lattice structure through too much heat). Neither using conventional model or quantum physics, can one explain any burn-in effect that comes, and then stays at that level.

Even harder to explain is that any such state change comes at audio frequencies. The drift frequency of electrons is much slower than it, and speed of propagation near speed of light. Nothing in either mechanism allows for storage of state in the conductor that occurs at audio frequencies.

But let's put aside all of this and see if it passes the "sniff test." We are saying that there is a readily detectable effect here that makes huge difference to many. We go on to say that such an effect is not measurable. Yet somehow, this so small of a difference manages to travel through a blunt instrument called a mechanical speaker, to make it vibrate differently. And those vibrations then have no trouble conveying a different movement in air molecule, to then move another mechanical instrument called our inner ear. All of these things happen, but we can't electrically measure what is different in the wire after burn-in, with instruments that can measure the most minute changes?

So no, laws of physics do not allow such a phenomena or every physics text book would talk about this hysteresis effect.

Make up your own rules of the universe as you what you think is going on here. But for heaven's sake, don't try to imply there science of connectivity is somehow supportive of it with that comment. It is not.

 

[stehno]

We have some pretty good examples here but I wonder if science can prove that the mind is capable of being educated beyond its intelligence level.

 

[DaveC]

That one that says a cable has no state, or memory. If a cable could remember past activities, the computer you are using right now to view this would stop working. After all, we are talking about interconnects inside your CPU carrying unbelievably small amount of electrons.

Take any text on conductivity of cable and there is no mention of any lasting effect (other than destroying the lattice structure through too much heat). Neither using conventional model or quantum physics, can one explain any burn-in effect that comes, and then stays at that level.

Even harder to explain is that any such state change comes at audio frequencies. The drift frequency of electrons is much slower than it, and speed of propagation near speed of light. Nothing in either mechanism allows for storage of state in the conductor that occurs at audio frequencies.

But let's put aside all of this and see if it passes the "sniff test." We are saying that there is a readily detectable effect here that makes huge difference to many. We go on to say that such an effect is not measurable. Yet somehow, this so small of a difference manages to travel through a blunt instrument called a mechanical speaker, to make it vibrate differently. And those vibrations then have no trouble conveying a different movement in air molecule, to then move another mechanical instrument called our inner ear. All of these things happen, but we can't electrically measure what is different in the wire after burn-in, with instruments that can measure the most minute changes?

So no, laws of physics do not allow such a phenomena or every physics text book would talk about this hysteresis effect.

Make up your own rules of the universe as you what you think is going on here. But for heaven's sake, don't try to imply there science of connectivity is somehow supportive of it with that comment. It is not.

Sniff test? Sounds like useless conjecture to me Amir. And then you use your "sniff test" to proclaim the laws of physics decree whatever it is you believe. Lol... I think you're the one making up your own rules. Saying that one CANNOT explain via ordinary or quantum mechanical, blah, blah, blah... like you're some sort of expert and know all there is to know. Maybe someone more knowledgeable and smarter than you CAN? But you just discount that possibility, which means you believe you are the ultimate authority and expert? Gimme a break... This is a perfect example of science becoming just like a faith-based belief system.


Look, this was a super simple test that showed relatively massive differences, more than enough to form a hypothesis and test it. Whatever other speculation folks want to make is fine with me, but let's get off the high horses, ok? Nobody here is some sort of expert or authority on the subject or there would be lots of information on it, but there isn't... Probably because it really doesn't matter in the context of anything but audio systems, and even there it doesn't matter so much because it's a curiosity that goes away with use of the equipment, so there's very little incentive to put money and effort into testing.


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.

 

[BobShermanEsq]

Sniff test? Sounds like useless conjecture to me Amir. And then you use your "sniff test" to proclaim the laws of physics decree whatever it is you believe. Lol... I think you're the one making up your own rules. Saying that one CANNOT explain via ordinary or quantum mechanical, blah, blah, blah... like you're some sort of expert and know all there is to know. Maybe someone more knowledgeable and smarter than you CAN? But you just discount that possibility, which means you believe you are the ultimate authority and expert? Gimme a break... This is a perfect example of science becoming just like a faith-based belief system.


Look, this was a super simple test that showed relatively massive differences, more than enough to form a hypothesis and test it. Whatever other speculation folks want to make is fine with me, but let's get off the high horses, ok? Nobody here is some sort of expert or authority on the subject or there would be lots of information on it, but there isn't... Probably because it really doesn't matter in the context of anything but audio systems, and even there it doesn't matter so much because it's a curiosity that goes away with use of the equipment, so there's very little incentive to put money and effort into testing.


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.

Some people just know everything and we must acquiesce.

 

[jkeny]

Some people just know everything and we must acquiesce.

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.

In other words this is measured evidence of burn-in.

Now Self is not exhaustive in his article stating things like "Firstly what's going on here? Obviously some long-term change in the capacitor dielectric. But that hardly answers the question. The way that the distortion, partly - but only pertly - returns over time implies that there might be two two linearisation mechanisms - one giving a permanent improvement while the other decays over time"
He only uses a "1KHz signal for convenience", stating that "this is not the frequency of maximum distortion"

The article is behind a paywall but you should be able to read it on Google Books "Self on Audio: The Collected Audio Design Articles of Douglas Self"

Totally agree, Dave - the phrase "I don't know" seems to be the most deprecated phrase in this modern era. There is an interesting article which pertains to this, I believe https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.bh3rtl3ph

 

[RayDunzl]

this was a super simple test

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

 

[microstrip]

That one that says a cable has no state, or memory. If a cable could remember past activities, the computer you are using right now to view this would stop working. After all, we are talking about interconnects inside your CPU carrying unbelievably small amount of electrons.

Take any text on conductivity of cable and there is no mention of any lasting effect (other than destroying the lattice structure through too much heat). Neither using conventional model or quantum physics, can one explain any burn-in effect that comes, and then stays at that level.

Even harder to explain is that any such state change comes at audio frequencies. The drift frequency of electrons is much slower than it, and speed of propagation near speed of light. Nothing in either mechanism allows for storage of state in the conductor that occurs at audio frequencies.

But let's put aside all of this and see if it passes the "sniff test." We are saying that there is a readily detectable effect here that makes huge difference to many. We go on to say that such an effect is not measurable. Yet somehow, this so small of a difference manages to travel through a blunt instrument called a mechanical speaker, to make it vibrate differently. And those vibrations then have no trouble conveying a different movement in air molecule, to then move another mechanical instrument called our inner ear. All of these things happen, but we can't electrically measure what is different in the wire after burn-in, with instruments that can measure the most minute changes?

So no, laws of physics do not allow such a phenomena or every physics text book would talk about this hysteresis effect.

Make up your own rules of the universe as you what you think is going on here. But for heaven's sake, don't try to imply there science of connectivity is somehow supportive of it with that comment. It is not.

Please tell us what is this law, not stories about your computer

Real audio cables are built with dielectrics. In order to minimize noise due to leakage current and long term behavior the best even use Teflon - that curiously is an horrible material for cables as it is high in the triboelectricity scale. Dielectrics are non ideal materials, filled with impurities, and have memory effects - it is written in books about dielectrics. I think it is why the people from JBL polarize film capacitors with batteries or DC generating circuits.

We can debate weather these effects have magnitude enough to be audible - and we can have different opinions on this. But physics tells us cables can change when we apply signals to them.