Burning-in vs. brainwashing?

Huh? Why do you assume that acclimating to something makes it more enjoyable?

Certainly an hour on a bicycle seat doesn't make your butt feel better.

Ever been in a stagnant relationship that gets worse with time?

When I discover a new, favorite food, I binge for a while but after a few weeks, I grow tired of it. It becomes not as tasty.

Acclimation, by definition, means you get used to something. It has nothing to do with pleasant or unpleasant.

I can think of jobs I acclimated to but they never became pleasant. They remained tedious and boring. I couldn't wait for them to be over. Acclimation did not make them better.

 

I don't think your argument is convincing!

If you set up a new stereo how are you to know that when it sounds 'better' it is due to 'burn in' or you getting used to it?

After one week (or any other time) away you are refreshing your memory so it may sound different on first use but you would have been unlikely to have completely forgotten its sound. Would it sound the same after, say, one year away, or better still, if somehow your memory of that stereo was erased?

The only way I can think of to show things one way or the other is either:

1. Listen to two identical systems - they should sound identical. Then leave one off whilst the other is burnt in for x number of hours, then re-listen to each system again. If burn in is real there should be some difference.

or 2. Listen to two identical systems. Then listen to one of them for X number of hours whilst leaving the other one turned off. Then listen to both of them. If there's a difference it must be burn in. If they sound the same it must be your brain adapting.

I would think the only real proof would be in some measurable behaviour, such as a capacitor.

 

I don´t know if I wrote this; but as I see it it´s just a matter of what we believe. And what we believe is not really important.

 

Another factor is how manufacturers and retailers see it.

Surely when I go to listen to a set of speakers, say, the seller will want me to hear it at its best. If you hear speakers that sound crap, would you believe a salesman when he says they'll sound brilliant after 200 hours of burn in so give us your money!?

 

Did we have this guy in the thread? He is trying a methodology and measuring the difference.



One thuth that he do not know is that temperature and air pressure alter the sound. So the difference between the two days can be because of that.
He has been so wise that he still has his reference to measure!

 

An hour on a bicycle seat may make your rear hurt, but you do it (typically) for the reward of improved physical fitness.

A stagnant relationship isn't typically easy to switch-off (if only, right?).

Listening to the Hi-Fi, though, that can be easily avoided, and we're doing it purely for enjoyment. So you'd think that if, at any given time, a new component was becoming less and less enjoyable, that we'd simply switch it off and return it.

But, that so rarely seems to happen.

 

Maybe I don't understand that question. If there was a very dramatic measurable change in objective performance in electronics after only 100-200 hours don't you think many people would be either be looking to get their equipment fixed or a refund because it failed to performed at spec for A reasonable period of time? If I bought a car that touted 42 mpg but after 200 hours only got 38 mpg's I would demand a full refund. Same with an amp that failed to perform at spec after just 200 hours. Over time I realize capacitors drift etc. but I would hope it would last a lot longer than 200 hours!

 

The fatal assumption made here is that a simple face-on impulse response tells us everything we need to know about how a speaker sounds.

If only that were true.

 

Component burn-in is the ultimate passive-aggressive topic because even if it’s an actual widespread phenomenon, there’s absolutely nothing to be done about it apart from driving yourself crazy thinking about it.

If it happens, nothing.

If it doesn’t happen, nothing.

 

I like either of your experiments but they will have to exist as just thought experiments, that is, until I hit the lottery. But then, if I had all that money, I could go back to school and become a materials scientist, and then might be able to explain to all of us how a capacitor will more quickly and fully charge and discharge after a week of use.

 

Firmly in the 'burning in' and 'running in' camp having owned loads of pieces of kit.... and each showing these characteristics, could go into detail but l won't.

 

It doesn't . Are you sure this thread wasn't meant to be click-bait?

 

I agree that everyone has bias and prejudice about some things, but not about everything. Why is it so incomprehensible that someone actually heard something that some others do not? Why does this have to turn into " you are wrong, you didn't hear what you thought you did?"

 

^ Thank you, @Warren Jarrett.

I guess I don't get why some people stubbornly insist that without posting a simple, scientific explanation (which, BTW, might well exist), that burn-in isn't real? Why is it important to some to insist we can't be hearing what we are hearing, but instead, are deceiving ourselves?

I don't try to tell someone who likes craft beers that Miller Lite is just as good. Why is the audio equivalent considered acceptable?

If I came into a Twisted Sister thread and said Dee Snyder was a no-talent, that would be considered thread crapping. Why is posting that I can't be hearing what I'm hearing not the same thing?

 

By the same token, what is so frightening about discussing it?

 

I don't think anyone is saying that, at least I'm not.

I'm pointing out the rather marvelous union between your ears, mind, and eyes. And simply noting that when it comes to our hearing, our mind relies an awful lot on our eyes.

 

Not a science person, eh.

 

That, I will agree with completely. I have left my stereo in mono more than once and not noticed it for quite a while. Delusion, thy name is Gregg.

But I also can hear that burn-in is real. I don't need a scientist or an A/B test to tell me that it is. I've heard it.

 

Funny. I've always found it easy to hear not only the results of burn-in as it is happening (or sometimes not happening) and when it has ended. Over and over, decade after decade. Tubes burning in, carts breaking in, speakers, you name it. Also warm-up is real and as variable as the number of pieces of gear I have. No hard and fast rules, but in general it seems like the better the piece is the more noticeable burn-in tends to be. Most things audibly stabilize fairly quickly, some not so much. I've yet to hear anything still changing to a noticeable degree after "hundreds of hours" mind you!

 

Tubes and some capacitors do require some burn in.

Wires do not.

It doesn't concern me either way.

Audio equipment is just like getting a new pair of shoes anyway. When I buy shoes, I wear them, they break in. With audio equipment, I listen to it, whether or not there is "break-in" required or not.

I always give myself some time to evaluate a new piece of gear anyway.

After a few days, if it doesn't sound good, for whatever reason, it goes away. Hopefully, by that time, if it needs breaking-in, it will have broken in.

If a manufacture thinks their product requires a longer break in period, then their product is not for me.

 

Right - and if I was a manufacturer selling a product that I could make more effective/better for the customer right out of the box by, say, 25%, by doing nothing more than running it for a few days... I'd be crazy NOT to do it for the customer before putting it into the box. Wouldn't that position me ahead of all my competitors who are NOT doing this? And if it actually made a difference then every manufacturer would do the "break-in" themselves and this actually would no longer even be a talking point.

 

I've always felt that it's a matter of me becoming accustomed to a new component . . . so, brainwashing?

 

As an aside I don't think burn in to me means what it might be to others. To me burn-in is basically a form of stress or acceptance testing used to provide the data to enable electronics and semi conductor manufacturers to detect early failures in their products caused by the manufacturing process.

 

It would be really fun to do a well controlled experiment with those who can hear the effects of burn in. Gather some of them up in a room with the test equipment. Set up a live broadcast and a live betting system. If the subjects can identify components that have been burned in, they win $ from non-believers. If they can't, non-believers take $ from the believer subjects. It's called 'putting your money where your mouth is'. Would folks really volunteer to do this if they stood to lose $? Would any manufacturers supply gear?

 

Because I am getting tired of being criticized for expressing what I have sincerely heard, by people who have explanations that I am mentally impaired for hearing anything that they don't believe in.

Common problem: I hear something, and I explain it; it attracts the scorn of someone who has not had that experience (for whatever reason) and doesn't believe that I could possibly have heard it the way I described. I think that maybe I have a skill, sensitivity or insight that is more developed than theirs, but no, they cannot accept that possibility. So they quote technical jargon to explain my over-active imagination.

I am simply insulted by this, and the feeling gets worse as it happens over and over. For example, thinking that I am more patient with other peoples' interests, I don't criticize people who flaunt their Rolex watch and think it is better than other watches. I appreciate that they get enjoyment from it, even though, for me, it is an expense that would not be worthwhile.

Is that understandable? I like people to congratulate me for having a developed sense that they do not have. Or, I like it when someone just makes a face and moves on to talking about THEIR favorite hobbies, that THEY know more about than I do. But criticizing me for expressing my opinion about a pastime that is near-and-dear to me is extremely disrespectful, and just plain rude.