Why does burning in work
- Thread starter Loheswaran
- Start date
As I have often said, some burn-in physical effects are real and can be measured with adequate instrumentation. However, the question is how can we correlate that minimal physical difference, that according to official audio science is orders of magnitude bellow the threshold of audibility, with perceived sound quality. IMHO until we have such model burn-in mostly a religious war between believers and non-believers.
Audio science is in many aspects in its childhood or perhaps even in the dark ages. Warm-up of electronics is a much less controversial aspect than burn-in and IMHO induces nigh and day subjective differences. However I have never seen a good article, that could be considered a reference on the subject, correlating detailed measurements with subjective sound differences. As always, IMHO and YMMV.
I used to think burn in was needed on everything, but now I'm not so sure.
12 months ago, my bespoke psus to tt and phono seemed to need 80-100 hours to sound of their best.
Other than these, my other changes have worked the moment I installed them.
Including Stacore isolation platforms, SR Black fuses, RevOPods footers to my Zus, Sablon Bocchino PC and IC, and Tubulus Argentus DB25 cbls.
12 months ago, my bespoke psus to tt and phono seemed to need 80-100 hours to sound of their best.
Other than these, my other changes have worked the moment I installed them.
Including Stacore isolation platforms, SR Black fuses, RevOPods footers to my Zus, Sablon Bocchino PC and IC, and Tubulus Argentus DB25 cbls.
I'm not saying that's appropriate, and even if the thread was on the subject I'm not sure I'd participate. However, it's absolutely true and pretty much a proven fact to me that differences in sound can be imagined to some degree. I've sent people cables to test for over 6 years now and have some data on the subject. However, I've found most times if differences are heard, they are real.
As a maker of cables I find it difficult to NOT test the popular theory that differences heard in cables and burn-in are all made-up, as I'm not a fan of sticking my head in the sand... I want to know what's actually true to the best of my ability. I mention this just so reports of burn-in are taken in proper context, there are likely to be exaggerations and outright imaginary things reported, but that doesn't mean all burn-in reports are born out of an overactive imagination and the result of bias.
That said, I have data that burn-in of wire is a very real phenomenon, both the measurements I posted as well as correlations between customer's experiences as well as customer reactions when shipping cables that are burned vs not burned. Descriptions of burn-in sound characteristics match closely and customer reactions to the cables also significantly change depending on whether they receive cables that are burned-in vs not.
I have problems with the term imagination. If we take the parable of "The Emperor Has No Clothes.'" I suspect everyone new the king was nude. I think people can just be wrong rather than delusional. If someone actually saw clothes on the king, they should see their mental health professional.
We have beat this horse to death on this forum.
We have beat this horse to death on this forum.
I never realised that my question would turn into such a long thread. My question was specific and two-fold:
1. do components measurably
2. do they just carry on in that way hence deterioration
The reason I asked is that given the burn in - does the deterioration continue at the same rate. By way of comparison sports car tyres need warming up - they keep wearing at certain rate - meaning that they perform optimally for a short/fixed period of time and keep wearing (technically until bald). Does that then mean that the burn in/deterioration that goes on at the same rate? Or is it a case that there is the burn in and then it plateaus. Now we all now that very old components in audio systems can have electrolytic capacitors go for instance.
With the exceptions of vacuum tubes, transducers, mechanical moving parts and some electrolytic capacitors, NO the don't measurably change.
With the exceptions noted above, electronic units don't deteriorate.
According to Vishay some precision resistors measurably change during the fist few hundred hours - typical audiophile burn-in time. I would not be astonished if many components show this type of behavior, but no one cares about it, as it does not affect the equipment performance. It was studied in depth in this case because it is relevant for instrumentation designers, not because of audiophiles.
See http://www.vishaypg.com/doc?49568
Oops! I should have written 'meaningful change'.
Of course now with high resolution test equipment, over time, temperature, humidity, voltage and current there very well may be measurable changes in any part or unit.
But then the question is what means "meaningful" in audiophile electronic equipment.
People love debating burn-in, a disputed effect, but no one even wants to address technically in depth the well accepted warm-up time of equipment.
Interesting graph, thanks for posting. In most equipment resistor accuracy has no bearing upon perceived sound quality, but there is one prominent exception: discrete R-2R DACs. It would appear that such devices, if built with new parts, will be subject to a considerable deterioration after the first 300-500hrs. Never heard that a manufacturer grades the resistors after a burn in, but of course they may do this without advertising.
+1, really fascinating. We have been wildly experimenting with platforms / footers. There are undeniable mechanical settling "burn in" effects with a remarkable similarity to effects reported from equipment /cable burn in. These experiments are being carried out across a large variety of systems / users.
Also take note of this re XO stability:
Thanks. I perceive tho art highly intelligent and rather open-minded.
Congratulations on your discoveries. I've been dabbling with these matters for 17 years and have taken things to the utmost extreme regarding platforms, footers, materials, and various methodologies. Superior versions can lead to potentially huge sonic differences while inferior versions cause things to fall flat on their face.
My latest gig started in June of 2017 when I mounted my line conditioners to my custom racking system using a far more extreme method than the prior one. The small passive line conditioners responded with small but distinct audible improvements averaging about every other day and took nearly 18 months to fully settle. But when done the line conditioners were performing at perhaps 3 times their already excellent freestanding performance levels. That installation translates to roughly 250 small but still distinct sonic improvements where each little improvement might equate to a very minor IC cable upgrade or maybe 10 small iimprovements equates to one reasonable and musical IC cable upgrade.
My racking system has already been achieving similar performance levels with my componentry for some time now, but who woulda' thunk that one so-called "accessory" could so dramatically improve the performance levels of another so-called "accessory" ?
One thing worth noting. Mechanical settling-in times and electrical burn-in times are remarkably similar when just scratching the surface. But the more extreme the method for managing mechanical energy, the longer it takes to reach a substantially fuller maturity / substantially greater performance levels. But the sonic benefits are so worth the wait because your playback system's level of musicality will be in uncharted waters.
A few years ago I responded in another forum regarding resonant energy mgmt by stating the following,
"The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy."
I think that sums things up pretty well.
It seems we're travelling similar paths. An interesting thing I noticed is playing your system at higher volume levels reduces mechanical settling times. I'm in an industrial area so I can leave my system playing at high volume levels out of office hours.
Would you mind if I contact you directly to exchange notes? We may learn something from each other.
Audio components & cables benefit from "cool-out" periodically.
The aluminium layer within optical discs need to be burn-in (a permanent status), and after a certain period, the polycarbonate exterior need to be "refreshed" to remove accumulated static residue.
The aluminium layer within optical discs need to be burn-in (a permanent status), and after a certain period, the polycarbonate exterior need to be "refreshed" to remove accumulated static residue.
Somewhere, somewhen, someone had mentioned that the piece of cheapo orange coloured rubberband that Meitner supplied as digital interface between his ultra expensive transport and dac needs to be run-in too....
Jerome
I had the Meitner DA2 and TX2 and don't recall an orange rubberband of any kind coming with the units. Are you referring to the proprietary Meitner optical glass link that had (I think) an orange plastic termination on each end ?
Marty
Yes the meitner combo comes with this very cheapskate orange colour single-mode st to st optical cable that looks more like rubber band from far.
Came across this person saying st optical cable needs 300 hours run in...
G'day maties, greetings from down.
This is a very interesting topic, although discussed several times, arriving at different answers and points of view, I think at the end of the day it settles towards one's own level of perception as to what point their system reaches optimisation.
A few decades ago I believed in a few hours of burn-in but not hundreds of hours... Back then my system was quite different to what it's now, however there was obviously a certain duration of warm up required, especially with Tubes and Stats or full range panels such as Apogee Diva's and Maggie's.
Over a period of two years, I gradually upgraded the CJ monoblocks starting with an output tube change over, then a Teflon cap change over, then onto a further Teflon cap full layout and a full Vishay resistor change over, that was finalised only this Feb. When the amplifiers got back, things sounded great and they were nicely settling in. However, JF at CJ mentioned that I've not heard anything yet, and wait for the 100hr mark or so... and so I did.
Wow, oh my goodness! Stop the train! Just had that moment only today, and so it took from Feb to mid May to settle in. I was initially explaining this to the good wife in Feb and she just laughed, thinking I was completely nuts. Then this evening, she wanted to listen to a few tunes from Cassandra Wilson, Sting and Jessica Williams on piano. So I popped in the CDs and hit play, hold onto your seats maties! This thing just shifted several gears, as if a dynamic acceleration from 0 to 100 happened in few seconds, lighting fast transients, extended airy highs, an even more palpable midrange and bullet speed bass with definition and superb agility. The soundstage depth increased even further on the CLX's, and I asked her, now what she thinks? Her reply, "as if you're there with the musicians seated right in the middle!" And that's all she wrote!
I'm not sure exactly what it is or how it happens but there's definitely something towards the overall burn-in process. Now according to JF, he claims that CJ's Teflons don't deteriorate over time, rather they only improve. I'm not too sure about that but all I know is that they take an awful long time to really settle in, and the biggest most significant change in overall performance are those Vishays. Each monoblock has about a dozen of them, and once these settle in, the performance is just on another dimension! You really have to experience it to know what I'm referring to.
Nothing I've ever owned in the past comes this close, not even CJ's previous top of the line monoblocks Premier 8A, which I owned driving the Diva's. However, CJ's current top of the line ART amplifiers embody this kind of performance. Teflons and Vishays are a full layout in each of these amplifiers and they come at a high cost.
Another reason why I brought this up, is that my CJ phonostage the TEA2SE, also has more than a dozen Teflons and Vishays in it as well, and this thing took several months towards optimal performance. There was another chap on CJO who had just ordered the same SE phono-preamp version but was underwhelmed by its performance, stating that it had lost some LF detail. He checked with CJ and JF had advised not to worry, give it plenty of time and things will change dramatically. Well I guess he's still burning in because we haven't heard anything from him yet...
So, at the end of the day, I guess there's some science and truth towards it but I'm still not sure why the 100hr mark. There are other brands that require far more than just 100hrs, and go to lengths of several 100hrs... I'm not sure about such claims.
One thing I'm sure about is that CJ's ART300's won amplifiers of the year awards, plus a few other units, such as the ART150, the CAV45 and ART27A have all been truly remarkable, given what they have to offer. I guess JF has his reasons. So cheers to Teflons and those Vishays, they're mighty fine indeed! In a class of their own.
Big WOOF! RJ
This is a very interesting topic, although discussed several times, arriving at different answers and points of view, I think at the end of the day it settles towards one's own level of perception as to what point their system reaches optimisation.
A few decades ago I believed in a few hours of burn-in but not hundreds of hours... Back then my system was quite different to what it's now, however there was obviously a certain duration of warm up required, especially with Tubes and Stats or full range panels such as Apogee Diva's and Maggie's.
Over a period of two years, I gradually upgraded the CJ monoblocks starting with an output tube change over, then a Teflon cap change over, then onto a further Teflon cap full layout and a full Vishay resistor change over, that was finalised only this Feb. When the amplifiers got back, things sounded great and they were nicely settling in. However, JF at CJ mentioned that I've not heard anything yet, and wait for the 100hr mark or so... and so I did.
Wow, oh my goodness! Stop the train! Just had that moment only today, and so it took from Feb to mid May to settle in. I was initially explaining this to the good wife in Feb and she just laughed, thinking I was completely nuts. Then this evening, she wanted to listen to a few tunes from Cassandra Wilson, Sting and Jessica Williams on piano. So I popped in the CDs and hit play, hold onto your seats maties! This thing just shifted several gears, as if a dynamic acceleration from 0 to 100 happened in few seconds, lighting fast transients, extended airy highs, an even more palpable midrange and bullet speed bass with definition and superb agility. The soundstage depth increased even further on the CLX's, and I asked her, now what she thinks? Her reply, "as if you're there with the musicians seated right in the middle!" And that's all she wrote!
I'm not sure exactly what it is or how it happens but there's definitely something towards the overall burn-in process. Now according to JF, he claims that CJ's Teflons don't deteriorate over time, rather they only improve. I'm not too sure about that but all I know is that they take an awful long time to really settle in, and the biggest most significant change in overall performance are those Vishays. Each monoblock has about a dozen of them, and once these settle in, the performance is just on another dimension! You really have to experience it to know what I'm referring to.
Nothing I've ever owned in the past comes this close, not even CJ's previous top of the line monoblocks Premier 8A, which I owned driving the Diva's. However, CJ's current top of the line ART amplifiers embody this kind of performance. Teflons and Vishays are a full layout in each of these amplifiers and they come at a high cost.
Another reason why I brought this up, is that my CJ phonostage the TEA2SE, also has more than a dozen Teflons and Vishays in it as well, and this thing took several months towards optimal performance. There was another chap on CJO who had just ordered the same SE phono-preamp version but was underwhelmed by its performance, stating that it had lost some LF detail. He checked with CJ and JF had advised not to worry, give it plenty of time and things will change dramatically. Well I guess he's still burning in because we haven't heard anything from him yet...
So, at the end of the day, I guess there's some science and truth towards it but I'm still not sure why the 100hr mark. There are other brands that require far more than just 100hrs, and go to lengths of several 100hrs... I'm not sure about such claims.
One thing I'm sure about is that CJ's ART300's won amplifiers of the year awards, plus a few other units, such as the ART150, the CAV45 and ART27A have all been truly remarkable, given what they have to offer. I guess JF has his reasons. So cheers to Teflons and those Vishays, they're mighty fine indeed! In a class of their own.
Big WOOF! RJ
Similar threads
