burn in period of new hifi equipment

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
JoelSim:Are you suggesting that cable manufacturers don't employ scientists and other experts in this field? That it is all marketing guff?

I don't know who the big cable manufactorers employ. I know a little about some small ones.

I was once tempted to buy a certain interconnect cable, on sale from a small enthusiast company. According to the company's web site, this cable -- that was sold with the company's own brand, highly regarded among audiophiles -- has 'an open and clean sound, with brilliant high frequencies'. It looked very nice and were properly shielded, so I asked the company's chief engineer what kind of cables they used. He answered, 'I don't know. We buy all our cables cheap from Asia'.

In my experience, that's the normal attitude among sound engineers -- even if they work for companies that make or sell exotic stuff.

PS:

I bought the cable.
 
Brian123:the_lhc:Brian123:plastic penguin:

emotion-44.gif


And Nan?

Keema please! Although I'm quite partial to a Peshwari as well.
emotion-21.gif


Much prefer a Leema.....
 
chebby:

jaxwired:Are there other products with similar high percentages of dilusional buyers? Where else in the retail market are people being duped in large numbers due to human perception and marketing?

Cosmetics, skin creams, and hair shampoo where almost every month some manufacturer makes outrageous claims for yet another 'invented' pseudo scientific sounding ingredient that will make you younger, fresher, give hair more 'life' (hair is dead cells), more volume etc etc.

What you seem to be missing Chebby in this instance, is that you have to be able to prove a claim beyond doubt to advertise on broadcast media ie TV or radio with such a claim. You have to get scripts approved by the BACC/RACC or they will refuse to give you a clock number and without a clock number you can't advertise. I've had many dealing with them and you have to substantiate every claim you make with fact or research.
 
chebby:

jaxwired:Are there other products with similar high percentages of dilusional buyers? Where else in the retail market are people being duped in large numbers due to human perception and marketing?

Cosmetics, skin creams, and hair shampoo where almost every month some manufacturer makes outrageous claims for yet another 'invented' pseudo scientific sounding ingredient that will make you younger, fresher, give hair more 'life' (hair is dead cells), more volume etc etc.

What about just 'Give more hair'..
emotion-2.gif
 
idc:I have moved house a few times and have found each time I take everything apart and then set it back up again it takes a few weeks for the sound to settle down.

It's obvious that anyone moving house needs a few weeks to settle down after the stress. Our appreciation of music, as well as anything else, depends very much on our mood...

Also, moving a hi-fi set-up means we will hear it under different acoustical conditions. Two rooms do not sound alike. We might need time to adjust to a different frequency response, to recognizing it as 'our own'.

In short, as long as there's no measurable proofs that the sound of a said device changes with time/use, chances are any 'burn-in' effect are actually ourselves getting used to the sound.
 
jaxwired:

Such a large population of audio enthusiasts are cable believers.ÿ Are there other products with similar high percentages of dilusional buyers?ÿ Where else in the retail market are people being duped in large numbers due to human perception and marketing?

To answer the question above, I heartily recommend a book called "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre which pretty much nails the point you've made in a humorous and well-informed way (he's a doctor, although I don't know if that's always a good thing). Really enjoyable read and I reckon many of the folks on here would get a kick out of it. Although I seem to be singing from the same songsheet as Fahnsen here, I do happen to believe in the interconnect thing to an extent because I can't bring myself to disbelieve my ears that much and I've done a couple of informal blind tests at home, strictly unscientific but enough to suggest I can probably spot the difference pretty consistently between certain (but certainly not all) cables. Other stuff I'm a bit less sure of, and I'm fairly convinced a large proportion is in my brain and varies on a daily basis. To give you an example, last night I was just about able to persuade myself I could hear the difference between SACD and CD versions of a new purchase...but today I'm really not sure I can. By the way, why does every thread end up in a debate about cables?
 
Fahnsen:In short, as long as there's no measurable proofs that the sound of a said device changes with time/use, chances are any 'burn-in' effect are actually ourselves getting used to the sound.

We don't normally converge in our opinions but in this I agree.

Every month I dis-assemble the system to hoover and dust and polish behind it and under it.* I dust all the cables, reconnect everything, 'scrub' the volume pot and when the job is complete I sit back with a big mug of tea and the system always sounds better.

Of course it sounds the same. It is just me knowing everything is clean and being in a relaxed mood, sitting in a clean, polished room with the smell of beeswax and looking out through polished windows and washed curtains. All in the head. Satisfying though.

*Of course the room gets done more often but I only take the system apart and clean that thoroughly on a monthly basis. Same with all the computers and the TV/DVD etc.
 
Fahnsen:

idc:I have moved house a few times and have found each time I take everything apart and then set it back up again it takes a few weeks for the sound to settle down.

It's obvious that anyone moving house needs a few weeks to settle down after the stress. Our appreciation of music, as well as anything else, depends very much on our mood...

Also, moving a hi-fi set-up means we will hear it under different acoustical conditions. Two rooms do not sound alike. We might need time to adjust to a different frequency response, to recognizing it as 'our own'.

In short, as long as there's no measurable proofs that the sound of a said device changes with time/use, chances are any 'burn-in' effect are actually ourselves getting used to the sound.

We are in agreement here, I wish you had quoted my final line as well about the legend of burning in. I think that many cases of burning in are attributable to other causes and not the hifi. The main exception to that are speakers. Even then the running in is no where near as long as many alledge. The AKG K702s are supposed to take thousands of hours to burn in. I found maybe 100 hours at tops.
 
athenry:By the way, why does every thread end up in a debate about cables?

Because it's the one thing that can't possibly make a difference in sound -- still so many people seems to hear differences.

Also, audiophiles have the habit of drawing parallels that's not valid, like 'no-one can deny that speakers need running-in; how, then, can you deny that cables might need it?'

As for hearing differences, there's more aspects to consider than most people think of. If your comparing interconnects involves getting up from your chair and replace them physically, all of those aspects are violated.

One of the most important of those aspects, by the way, is time. To really compare a 'burnt-in' and 'non-burnt-in' component, one would have to listen to the two of them simultaneously. There's more trustworthy, real life tests of subjective sound than audiophiles seems to realize -- but I have never seen one testing a 'burnt-in' device against a 'non-burnt-in' one.

My bet is, that like any other such test I've seen, the score would be that of average guessing.
 
chebby:Every month I dis-assemble the system to hoover and dust and polish behind it and under it.* I dust all the cables, reconnect everything, 'scrub' the volume pot and when the job is complete I sit back with a big mug of tea and the system always sounds better.
Actually, from what I've read cleaning and reconnecting cables is actually one thing that might improve sound quality. Once every month seems to be over-kill though.

Connections are simply the weak spot of any hi-fi system, whether it's because of dirt or poor quality. That's also the reason why the cheapest cables actually might sound worse than a decent set.

Of course the room gets done more often

If you say so.
 
Fahnsen:Once every month seems to be over-kill though.

I don't do it monthly for the purpose of disconnecting and reconnecting cables or for any audio improvements. I do it because I hate the thought of dust behind and under all the gear. Same with computers.

In between times these are great for dusting hifi and computers etc. I also recommend a clean, dry, soft bristle shaving brush for keeping the back of hifi equipment clean.
 
Fahnsen:

athenry:By the way, why does every thread end up in a debate about cables?

Because it's the one thing that can't possibly make a difference in sound -- still so many people seems to hear differences.

It was a tongue in cheek question, honest!

Fahnsen:

As for hearing differences, there's more aspects to consider than most people think of. If your comparing interconnects involves getting up from your chair and replace them physically, all of those aspects are violated. My bet is, that like any other such test I've seen, the score would be that of average guessing.

Completely understand the pre-requisities for setting up an experiment to generate reliable and valid results, so I do agree with you, which is why I said it was unscientific and also caveated with the point that just because I *think* (rightly or wrongly) I can spot the difference between three sets of very differently priced cables which happen to be in my possession doesn't mean a jot for my possible or probable (in)ability to nail any other sets of cable comparisons. I don't therefore claim it's scientifically reliable or even valid, just enough to make me go "hmmm?" and had I the means to do so then I would love to investigate further and in a more scientific manner. Unfortunately, I don't have those means but it would be fun trying! For now, however, I have more evidence available to suggest that on my system and in my environment then I can spot a difference between those three sets of cables than to suggest I can't - so on balance of probability I'll go with it. However, I will equally refrain from generalising those weak results to any other set of cables with which I have no experience, or indeed from claiming that my evidence is anything other than weak. Perception is, as you said somewhere, an interesting area so I fully appreciate the tricks we play on ourselves.

Anyway, I'm really not trying to start a war or even an argument, mostly because I often have sympathy with your viewpoint and frankly don't know enough about it to be anything other than an interested spectator. Do try and read the Goldacre book though if you have some time to do so - it's good, very good.
 
athenry:

Fahnsen:

athenry:By the way, why does every thread end up in a debate about cables?

Because it's the one thing that can't possibly make a difference in sound -- still so many people seems to hear differences.

It was a tongue in cheek question, honest!

Fahnsen:

As for hearing differences, there's more aspects to consider than most people think of. If your comparing interconnects involves getting up from your chair and replace them physically, all of those aspects are violated. My bet is, that like any other such test I've seen, the score would be that of average guessing.

Completely understand the pre-requisities for setting up an experiment to generate reliable and valid results, so I do agree with you, which is why I said it was unscientific and also caveated with the point that just because I *think* (rightly or wrongly) I can spot the difference between three sets of very differently priced cables which happen to be in my possession doesn't mean a jot for my possible or probable (in)ability to nail any other sets of cable comparisons. I don't therefore claim it's scientifically reliable or even valid, just enough to make me go "hmmm?" and had I the means to do so then I would love to investigate further and in a more scientific manner. Unfortunately, I don't have those means but it would be fun trying! For now, however, I have more evidence available to suggest that on my system and in my environment then I can spot a difference between those three sets of cables than to suggest I can't - so on balance of probability I'll go with it. However, I will equally refrain from generalising those weak results to any other set of cables with which I have no experience, or indeed from claiming that my evidence is anything other than weak. Perception is, as you said somewhere, an interesting area so I fully appreciate the tricks we play on ourselves.

Anyway, I'm really not trying to start a war or even an argument, mostly because I often have sympathy with your viewpoint and frankly don't know enough about it to be anything other than an interested spectator. Do try and read the Goldacre book though if you have some time to do so - it's good, very good.

How can you possibly explain when I removed a vdh D102 III and put on a new Chord Chameleon that my initial impression was 'Blimey that sounds bassy' on a track that I've listened to hundreds of times.

And it wasn't a subtle change either. So much so that I sold the Chameleon on as I found it too bassy.
 
JoelSim:athenry:

Fahnsen:

athenry:By the way, why does every thread end up in a debate about cables?

Because it's the one thing that can't possibly make a difference in sound -- still so many people seems to hear differences.

It was a tongue in cheek question, honest!

Fahnsen:

As for hearing differences, there's more aspects to consider than most people think of. If your comparing interconnects involves getting up from your chair and replace them physically, all of those aspects are violated. My bet is, that like any other such test I've seen, the score would be that of average guessing.

Completely understand the pre-requisities for setting up an experiment to generate reliable and valid results, so I do agree with you, which is why I said it was unscientific and also caveated with the point that just because I *think* (rightly or wrongly) I can spot the difference between three sets of very differently priced cables which happen to be in my possession doesn't mean a jot for my possible or probable (in)ability to nail any other sets of cable comparisons. I don't therefore claim it's scientifically reliable or even valid, just enough to make me go "hmmm?" and had I the means to do so then I would love to investigate further and in a more scientific manner. Unfortunately, I don't have those means but it would be fun trying! For now, however, I have more evidence available to suggest that on my system and in my environment then I can spot a difference between those three sets of cables than to suggest I can't - so on balance of probability I'll go with it. However, I will equally refrain from generalising those weak results to any other set of cables with which I have no experience, or indeed from claiming that my evidence is anything other than weak. Perception is, as you said somewhere, an interesting area so I fully appreciate the tricks we play on ourselves.

Anyway, I'm really not trying to start a war or even an argument, mostly because I often have sympathy with your viewpoint and frankly don't know enough about it to be anything other than an interested spectator. Do try and read the Goldacre book though if you have some time to do so - it's good, very good.

How can you possibly explain when I removed a vdh D102 III and put on a new Chord Chameleon that my initial impression was 'Blimey that sounds bassy' on a track that I've listened to hundreds of times.

And it wasn't a subtle change either. So much so that I sold the Chameleon on as I found it too bassy.

That is not explained by burn-in, but by the differing characteristics of a different cables. That is scientific fact.

I apologise for my earlier erroneous comment, as a man with formal scientific training (degree level Physics) I have fallen into fallacy in my old age - mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
emotion-10.gif


Systems may warm up, which will take a few seconds for ics and a few minutes for valves or analogue parts in a power amp. Speakers need breaking in to run in the movable parts, such as speaker gaskets and cones, thought the amount of such running in will vary by material and the impact on sound quality will also vary similarly.

Unless the interconnects or speaker cables are getting very hot, or there is some quantum tunnelling effect of which I am not aware, burning in shouldn't make any difference.
 
scene:JoelSim:athenry:

Fahnsen:

athenry:By the way, why does every thread end up in a debate about cables?

Because it's the one thing that can't possibly make a difference in sound -- still so many people seems to hear differences.

It was a tongue in cheek question, honest!

Fahnsen:

As for hearing differences, there's more aspects to consider than most people think of. If your comparing interconnects involves getting up from your chair and replace them physically, all of those aspects are violated. My bet is, that like any other such test I've seen, the score would be that of average guessing.

Completely understand the pre-requisities for setting up an experiment to generate reliable and valid results, so I do agree with you, which is why I said it was unscientific and also caveated with the point that just because I *think* (rightly or wrongly) I can spot the difference between three sets of very differently priced cables which happen to be in my possession doesn't mean a jot for my possible or probable (in)ability to nail any other sets of cable comparisons. I don't therefore claim it's scientifically reliable or even valid, just enough to make me go "hmmm?" and had I the means to do so then I would love to investigate further and in a more scientific manner. Unfortunately, I don't have those means but it would be fun trying! For now, however, I have more evidence available to suggest that on my system and in my environment then I can spot a difference between those three sets of cables than to suggest I can't - so on balance of probability I'll go with it. However, I will equally refrain from generalising those weak results to any other set of cables with which I have no experience, or indeed from claiming that my evidence is anything other than weak. Perception is, as you said somewhere, an interesting area so I fully appreciate the tricks we play on ourselves.

Anyway, I'm really not trying to start a war or even an argument, mostly because I often have sympathy with your viewpoint and frankly don't know enough about it to be anything other than an interested spectator. Do try and read the Goldacre book though if you have some time to do so - it's good, very good.

How can you possibly explain when I removed a vdh D102 III and put on a new Chord Chameleon that my initial impression was 'Blimey that sounds bassy' on a track that I've listened to hundreds of times.

And it wasn't a subtle change either. So much so that I sold the Chameleon on as I found it too bassy.

That is not explained by burn-in, but by the differing characteristics of a different cables. That is scientific fact.

I apologise for my earlier erroneous comment, as a man with formal scientific training (degree level Physics) I have fallen into fallacy in my old age - mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
emotion-10.gif


Systems may warm up, which will take a few seconds for ics and a few minutes for valves or analogue parts in a power amp. Speakers need breaking in to run in the movable parts, such as speaker gaskets and cones, thought the amount of such running in will vary by material and the impact on sound quality will also vary similarly.

Unless the interconnects or speaker cables are getting very hot, or there is some quantum tunnelling effect of which I am not aware, burning in shouldn't make any difference.

M'Lud Mr Fahnsen doesn't believe that cables have different characteristics.
 
JoelSim:How can you possibly explain when I removed a vdh D102 III and put on a new Chord Chameleon that my initial impression was 'Blimey that sounds bassy' on a track that I've listened to hundreds of times.

I don't know. Perhaps the singing Genies or the mouse didn't like it?
 
chebby:

JoelSim:How can you possibly explain when I removed a vdh D102 III and put on a new Chord Chameleon that my initial impression was 'Blimey that sounds bassy' on a track that I've listened to hundreds of times.

I don't know. Perhaps the singing Genies or the mouse didn't like it?

May well be. I'm beginning to think that either my ears cheat me regularly or I'm banging my head against a brick wall. I just don't understand how some people are failing to hear differences. Anyway I'm not going to have this conversation any more as I just end up feeling frustrated.
 
JoelSim:chebby:

JoelSim:How can you possibly explain when I removed a vdh D102 III and put on a new Chord Chameleon that my initial impression was 'Blimey that sounds bassy' on a track that I've listened to hundreds of times.

I don't know. Perhaps the singing Genies or the mouse didn't like it?

May well be. I'm beginning to think that either my ears cheat me regularly or I'm banging my head against a brick wall. I just don't understand how some people are failing to hear differences. Anyway I'm not going to have this conversation any more as I just end up feeling frustrated.

Maybe your ears would be in better condition if you didn't bang your head against the wall?
emotion-5.gif
 
scene:JoelSim:chebby:

JoelSim:How can you possibly explain when I removed a vdh D102 III and put on a new Chord Chameleon that my initial impression was 'Blimey that sounds bassy' on a track that I've listened to hundreds of times.

I don't know. Perhaps the singing Genies or the mouse didn't like it?

May well be. I'm beginning to think that either my ears cheat me regularly or I'm banging my head against a brick wall. I just don't understand how some people are failing to hear differences. Anyway I'm not going to have this conversation any more as I just end up feeling frustrated.

Maybe your ears would be in better condition if you didn't bang your head against the wall?
emotion-5.gif


I'm half tempted to start drinking red wine through them! And listen through my mouth.
 
My Pioneer SA-9800 takes approx 1/2 hour to warm up and sound really good .... I have tested this several times and I do not need to play music, just need to switch it on and leave it for approx 1/2 hour before playing a cd... difference is huge

My Son's Pioneer A-300R Precision is the same, but takes approx 20 minutes to warm up

I have only bought 1 new interconnect (Silver High Breed Coherence) ... this took approx 30hrs to burn in .... the biggest difference is that the soundstage has increased considerably, bass and treble is better than when it was new ... Is this because my ears have become acustomed to the sound? .... I don't have a clue!

Why and how does this happen? .... I don't have a clue and was very sceptical when I first read about burn in and warming up etc
 
Kit needs to warm up. I'd say at least half an hour, if not an hour before my stuff is really on song. It sounds a bit disjointed when cold.
 
JoelSim:

How can you possibly explain when I removed a vdh D102 III and put on a new Chord Chameleon that my initial impression was 'Blimey that sounds bassy' on a track that I've listened to hundreds of times. And it wasn't a subtle change either. So much so that I sold the Chameleon on as I found it too bassy.

I honestly can't and don't seek to. I compared 3 sets of cables: (1) pre-packaged interconnects; (2) cheap Monster cables from Comet at £10; (3) Cobra 3 at £60. I thought I could hear a difference between 1 and 2 and a more marginal difference between 2 and 3. I can't prove it though. The results are not reliable and not valid, which is where I sympathise with Fahnsen, but they're the best evidence I've got so I'm sticking with my assertion that I have weak evidence to support the hyopthesis that I can tell the difference between those 3 sets of cables, which is where I diverge from Fahnsen. The rigour of the test was so weak however that I'm not claiming you can extrapolate my results to anyone else or to any other cables. I'm not even claiming I could repeat the successful test under more stringent conditions.

Put it this way - my wife said she couldn't tell any difference whatsoever between Monster and Cobra 3. She didn't do it blind though so I suspect she may have been influenced by thinking that I'd just wasted £60 on a bit of green wire. However, I can't be sure I wasn't influenced by my own need to justify the £60 purchase in the face of withering marital scorn, and therefore somehow managed to skew my own results. That's what I mean about not being scientific - a true test would have removed those confounding factors from the equation entirely. I think the comparison between cable 1 and 2 above was a much better test in some ways because I couldn't give a monkey's whether I'd wasted a tenner or not.

Come on WHF S&V team - there's a rigorous scientific double-blind test waiting to be conducted here, although then what would everyone discuss on the forum, so perhaps not...
 
If amplifiers sound different to the ear after a significant amount of running time then this difference should also be easily measurable by some criteria or other. (Distortions, frequency trace or whatever.)

Audible differences (all other things like room and ancillary equipment and listening position and room temp/humidity etc being equal) should show up well given how much more sensitive properly calibrated test equipment is compared to the vagaries of the human ear.

I am suprised no-one (press or manufacturers or independent 3rd party) has put this one to bed yet. It seems so simple. Measure when brand new from the box. Measure after an hour or two of warming up, and measure after a few weeks of continuous use. Then compare and report.

Any amplifier designer/manufacturer should know exactly which are the most important criteria to measure for. (Unless of course they already know the answer is.. 'no difference at all', and simply think the idea of 'burn-in' is not worth pursuing or is just plain laughable.)
 
JoelSim:Kit needs to warm up. I'd say at least half an hour, if not an hour before my stuff is really on song. It sounds a bit disjointed when cold.

JS - how do you know? Genuine question. Half an hour after I start a session I'm on a different track or album, an hour later it's a different album for sure. Different tempo, different production etc. Also, I've probably relaxed in that period so I'm definitely listening differently (kids to bed, glass of wine, chill etc). Maybe you can tell the difference - I'm not for a minute telling you your own system - but I know I can't tell the difference between 5 mins on and 5 hrs on. If you can spot the difference I'm actually quite envious that you have an insight which I don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Problems trying to burn CDs from my PC
Replies
3
Views
429
Computer Hardware & Software
abacus
abacus
Joe support
Lack of support
Replies
9
Views
2K
Music Streaming
record_spot
record_spot
A
Improve an existing system
Replies
8
Views
203
Hi-Fi
Fandango Andy
Fandango Andy
Jasonovich
How would you define an Audiophile?
Replies
32
Views
2K
Hi-Fi
Rui
Rui
V
Thinking of upgrading Hegel H600 for Pass Labs X250.8
Replies
39
Views
4K
Hi-Fi
Jasonovich
Jasonovich

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom