Component Burn in....(long as ever)

[maxg]

Over the years I have proved to myself, time and again, that this phenomenon actually exists.

Each time I have bought a new component the nature of its playback has, sometimes subtely and sometimes not too subtely, changed.

Just for interest, more than anything else anyway, I decided to monitor the Burn in process for my new SACD player a bit more closely.

In order to do this I played Beethoven's Symphony No.3 on the SACD player, then the CD player and then on vinyl and mentally noted the sonic differences between them in a fairly complex regime that will become apparent later.

For the last week or so the SACD player has been playing almost incessantly, whilst my TT and CD player have languished on the back burner. Between my SACD's and Chuckie's (my daughter) DVD's and DIVX movies along with the freebe CD's that come with Sunday papers around here it has hardly been off at all.

Just to add to the mix a little I also left the unit on repeat on SACD overnight on 3 occasions with the volume off.

The other night I sat down to do some critical listening to the Beethoven for the first time since the initial run using the SACD disk.

After listening to the disk all the way through I recognised the soundstage was wider, the depth greater and the clarity a leap forward. I was especially struck by how the strings came through now as opposed to before - now that the unit has run in to a great extent.

What I was convinced of, above all, was that the sound was now much closer to the vinyl recording and further from the CD. SACD was really starting to sound good to my ears and the bass had come on in leaps and bounds. Were it not for my large vinyl collection, my thoughts were running, I could live without a TT altogether.

I was so convinced that the changes were real that I almost gave up on the comparison altogether. This unit has come on massively since I bought it - of that I had no doubt.

So, it was with a fair degree of confidence that I placed the vinyl on the TT - sure that the differences in playback would now be significantly reduced. I had prefered various aspects of the vinyl playback before and was interested to see if that was still the case - ignoring the actual music performance issues as far as possible - as they were present in the initial comparison.

I could not believe what I heard from the first notes. The differences were as plain now as they were before. All the things I had noted about the vinyl playback being different were still EXACTLY as they were. All the warmth that the SACD has apparently gained disappeaed with each and every bar passing under the cartridge.

To say I was puzzled and surprised is a huge understatement.

I switched to the CD on the original CD player. Now I was sure that the bass emphasis of this player was being matched by the SACD player - I had definitely heard the improvement.

Er.....no....in a word that is. As before the bass on the CD player was significantly greater than the SACD player. Impossible!!

I then loaded the SACD into the SACD player and the CD into the CD player, started them off virtually together and switched from one to another every 30 seconds or so - very much as I had done in the initial testing.

Chalk and cheese. All the areas that the CD bested the SACD were as clear as ever and vice versa. Nothing seemed to have moved at all.

I then loaded up the Opera exerpts SACD disk on track one - the Aida track and managed to find the same aria on the Aida full opera on the vinyl and started switching again. Just as different!

Suddenly the warm tones the SACD player had developed wrapping Leontyne's voice vanished just as they had done for the Beethoven Orchestra.

Now it is important to understand that I am not trying to do a comparison of SACD Vs vinyl quality persay. What I am trying to do is to establish run-in or burn-in as a real phenomenon. The testing process is greatly flawed - I can see that - I should have kept notes rather than relying on memory.

My format preference is also not the issue. There are aspects of the SACD playback that probably are better than the vinyl (at least in the absence of surface noise and the consequent enhanced clarity).

The issue is this. I was convined burn-in was a real phenomenon - I have heard it many times. This is the first time I have really put it to the test and, despite my conviction that the effect had yet again proved itself in isolation, appears not to have done in comparison with other, presumably non-changing sources.

That burn in is real I have no doubt. The only thing I am less certain about is whether it is the equipment, or my ears that adjust.

I just have too much difficulty at the moment in reconciling this finding with previous experience. I remember when I first bought the Marantz CD6000 player - it sounded so bad out of the box I took it back. The salesman suggested I give it another try - allowing it to play on repeat for 3 days solid without listening to it and then see how I felt. If I still did not like it he would take it back. I followed his instructions to the letter and kept the unit.

How did my ears adjust in that case?

The whole thing now makes no sense to me at all. It can only have been my ear adjusting to the sound in the case of the SACD but it cannot have been the case for the CD player - or at least I do not see how it could have been.

Confused!!

[maxg]

"Just how good and accurate is our acoustic memory?"

I think I just proved mine is appalling. In fact I am not at all certain it isn't actually almost zero.

I am beginning to think that what we actually remember is not the sound at all - but the emotions, feelings and overall ambience the music engendered, alongside a few particular parts that caught our ear - an excess of bass perhaps, a shrill violin or a dramatic cressendo.

Of course the above is the negative side - add in some positives - a particuarly sweet aria, a sense of envelopment in the music and you might just have the sum total of acoutic memory mapped out.

It also certainly varies from one person to another. Some have better recall of a greater part of the audio experience than others and for longer. Personally I think I have good days and bad day at this, but I am not totally sure this was a bad day.

[Cal Blacksmith]

Founded solely on what MY logic says to me, a device that has moving parts such as a speaker, or a TT cartridge, will likely change from new to a worn in condition but things like electronics will not. There just isnt anything to wear in with solid state electronics, for me, the jury is still out on tubes wearing in.

I have a real hard time with all the psychoacoustic changes, like multi thousand dollar wire being better than a good grade reliable wire that sells for much less. I think the differences we hear are very much in our minds, we get used to something and that makes it sound better to us. Something about being familiar.

[dodger]

In reading there has been a test finding that as a person is reading along if a letter is missing or a word mis-spelled, the brain inmany, many cases either inserts the word or sees the correct spelling.

If we take a premise as that, I can see how people notice changes in sound after "burn in."

A portion is the expected sound change. As most talk of "burn in" denotes improvement, that may explain the point that there are few reports of poorer sound.

If we take an analogy to a car, the car runs better when warmed up. Perhaps it isn't a long "burn in" process but just a warming up.

The audio memory is better tha given credit. If so short how do we recognize a person's voice with only one or two words spoken.? How or why can we recognize a song within a couple of notes or a drumbeat or two.

As tubes reach the end of their lifespan, distortion goes up, output goes down. And we cherish Vintage Audio Gear. Back in the 50s and 60s "burn in" was not anything really thought of, yet we take tubes (NOS and new production) and "burn them in." Even after a factory on time of 24 hours then checking for output, distortion, etc..

It is confusing. And it makes me go back to the mis-spelled word theory that we either correct, or expect the proper spelling or sound.

dodger

[mark1101]

I agree with all this from what I experience too. Some days the system is "at its best" never sounding better, and other days the same system same CDs "just not quite right" and sometimes frustrating to listen to. I can't explain it.

As for burn in, it is a funny thing (like Mark mentions) that it supposedly "always gets better" once broken in, but hardly ever worse. My take on that is that it is pretty darn good or excellent already when new or newly rebuilt. The period of so called burn-in is a period when changes in the sound of the system are most evident. Although I agree the system is changing continuously over it's life cycle, the most prominent period of noticeable change is the so called early use or burn-in period. Maybe we are all just conditioned to expect this behavior and and so we tend to perceive it most during early use. And maybe the sound is actually getting worse in reality if diagnosed closely, but our ears just perceive it to sound better that way. hmm....

[mark1101]

In fact I am not at all certain it isn't actually almost zero.

Max,

You should be a poet. So well said.

[maxg]

Win,

I like where you have taken this. My brain expects changes and improvement - it hears changes and improvement. That would work for the CD player example I gave too.

Kinda neat - too neat - must be wrong!!

Certainly something to think about.

Less sure about your audio memory examples. Yes you can identify a song from just a couple of notes or recognise a voice in an instant - but how many notes to be able to recognise the stereo that song played on - an hour ago - a day ago - a month ago??

Possibly you cant at all....even if you get the song within the first 3 notes...

Remember we are not talking about sound content here -we are talking about sound reproduction - it is different - not something our brains could posibly have evolved to appreciate in the normal run of things - and therefore - I venture - something we are actually very bad at.

In some ways this goes to explain the poor performance almost every audio test achieves in double blind testing. I hear differences in cables on my system - but I have no doubt I would fail a DBT if only because everyone that has tried it, to my knowledge - has failed miserably.

[D-MAN]

I have decided from experience that everything that has electricity running through it eventually develops an "area of predictable performance". Like tubes, lightbulbs, TV's, radios, etc. they all "settle in" to a specific level of performance, like a car that runs best at the speed it goes most of the time.

If that doesn't make sense, well, nothing new there!

DM

[maxg]

Our posts overlapped - thanks Mark,

CaB,

I dont think I want to take this over to all the other claimed differences that cant be proven. It is just to big a picture to paint and nothing gets covered properly. I' like to keep this one on run-in or burn-in we can cover cables elsewhere...

Unless you want to eulogise on cable burn-in? I have been hit with that one more than once.

OH - you are using SILVER cables - they need at least 500 hours burn-in!

Huh? You have got to be joking - 500 hours? Why? Are electrons very slow moving in silver or what?

Actually even better than that one - when I switched from the Synergistic cables to the Van Den Hull's (making a real demonstrable change - I know - leave it) and switched back sometime later I was told that as they had not played for over 6 months they would need to be burned in from the beginning again.

Win's explanation, of course, fits this delightfully too - it really has to be wrong!!

[Guest Anonymous]

here is something that you can consider.... in a complete tech point of view... saying that your brain doesn't expect to hear improvemennt and your judging completely objectivly

as current passes through any part the electrons are flowing through, but they may not be passing through the most effiecient way, therefor there is that impedenace that is so low that it is usually not considered or measuerd across the circuit, as the unit is run for longer and longer the electrons will slowly find the best way to pass through the circuit, therefore that impedence that isn't being measured in the first place has now all of a sudden changed due to the unit being run for so long.

The other thing is though as soon as the unit is turned off and the electrons start over they have to start that same entire process of finding the best path to travel to go back to that incredibly low resistance b/c it is always changing

i forgot where i read this article, but that was the premsis of it, and further more there is a company that makes speaker wire that basis all of their wire around this theory that speaker wire has a warm up period where everything is adjusted and back to peak performance

in relation to sacd, this may help to prove your theory of burn in maybe not if i track down that article i will post it up

[dodger]

Thank you Max, from You I find it a compliment.

In my examples of notes, I feel that they fit into the reproduction range. My examples can come from songs played yesterday or twenty years ago. My wife thought That I was full of it until we tried.

20 out of 20 songs, some not played before on my CD, only on TT. That dates back to before marriage - 23 years in April.

Since she knows my favourites, she chose the more obscure. Out of 500 + CDs she had a wide range.

Perhaps I have an edge from inheriting Perfect Pitch from my Mother. That would throw another ball into the mix. But makes me think about how the notes are stored in brain to determine pitch.

Friends bought wind chimes. The chimes were in a chord. I was asked what chord, listened, gave correct answer. Now a serious thought brought by this thread - How do I do that? There was no reference. So for those with that curse and blessing, depending on what you are listening to.

Reproduction of voice alone is a toss up - there are some spoken parts in some music. Thus that is reproduced.

One very good answer in this thread feels there may be a degradation (paraphrased) after the burn in. But since we are in the mode to think we are improving, we accept the degredation as a positive. That is worth a 5 minute silent thought and a very good point.

So I go back to thinking perhaps a 15 or 30 minute warm up period is enough. That is worth trying.

I still am not a believer in a "burn in process." If heat is degrading to components, having them on for that length of time would definitely build up some heat. Cables and Inter-Connects excluded unless carrying a huge signal.

So there are good things to think on in this thread. A very positive and containing good questions type.

Win dodger

[dodger]

----------------

On 12/7/2004 2:42:59 PM mdeneen wrote:

"...perhaps a 15 or 30 minute warm up period is enough."

=======

Win---right. Warm up is very different than break in. Most gear requires some warm up time. I can easily measure a 45-minute period with my stuff in which the transformer takes nearly an hour to rise to final temperature. (everything else takes only 5 minutes).

mdeneen

----------------

Hi Mark,

In light of your measurements, I would extend the warm up period to 45 minutes.

Thanks for that input.

Win

[maxg]

Burn in and warm up are definitely not the same thing. Think of your car - first thing on a winter's morning it coughs and splutters and rumbles - even the best of engines does this. Give it 5 minutes or so and let it warm up and it is a different story.

Of course they used to advise you when you bought a new car to take it easy for the first 1000 miles or so. "Dont take it over 3000 RPM" - not easy without a meter to know but it used to be doctrine for new cars. I am not sure they still advise it anymore. In fact the last car we bought - a Mercedes A160 - the little one - doesnt even have a first service - well it does have a first service of course - but it used to be at around 1200 miles and this is at 10,000 - normal service interval stuff.

Back to audio - despite the fact that I have all but proved there has not been any real change in the sound of the SACD player over the last week - guess what - it still seems better than it did - listening in isolation, now, as I type.

Weird huh?

[dodger]

Acknowledged that warm up is different than "burn in."

The next point to ponder in my trailing mind - each part of the Audio Reproduction is a part of the trail.

I don't think it's weird at all. As one with allergies, I know that both my vision and my hearing are affected by how well I'm doing or how strong an attack is and how it affects my sinuses which affect my hearing.

The meds I take also have an effect. And I learned a piece of knowledge yeaterday. For some reaon I have started grinding my teeth while sleeping. That affects your jaw joint TMJ which adds to tinnitus. As my dentist noted, you can pick up 1, 2, or 3 extra tones due to the tension while grinding. He asked if I noticed a change in the tinnitus that I do have. I have, a secondary tone, not related in harmonics to the first.

So ANOTHER ingredient is added to how, what, why and when we hear Audio Reproduction.

So perhaps your sinuses are a bit different thus affecting what you hear. As I looked at my dental x-rays, my sinuses extend down to the gum line. Gives a little poorer image to the film. But an absurd thought comes to mind - the number of fillings or crowns that one has.

I know that in live sound I have found that those with braces (metal) or a number of fillings will get a feedback faster with an opened mouth than those with fewer.

It is not dependent upon the brand of microphone. Remember this is in live sound not recording studio.

More reflection from the metal is what I have chalked it up to.

But I am fully moving away from the question posed. My apologies, but a few things for me to think about.

Max, my wife would tell the both of us that we have too much time on our hands when we start pondering the things that affect sound (Audio) and reproduction. I have the laundry in I'm productive today.

Win

[Parrot]

----------------

On 12/7/2004 10:09:50 AM maxg wrote:

"Just how good and accurate is our acoustic memory?"

I think I just proved mine is appalling. In fact I am not at all certain it isn't actually almost zero.

----------------

Ha! Well then you have mine beat. My acoustic memory is represented by a negative number.

[dodger]

----------------

On 12/7/2004 3:30:36 PM paulparrot wrote:

----------------

On 12/7/2004 10:09:50 AM maxg wrote:

"Just how good and accurate is our acoustic memory?"

I think I just proved mine is appalling. In fact I am not at all certain it isn't actually almost zero.

----------------

Ha! Well then you have mine beat. My acoustic memory is represented by a negative number.

----------------

Paul,

I truly doubt that, in all sincerity. I like your new avatar.

Win

[Parrot]

Thanks.

I can remember if I liked some particular speaker I heard years ago, sure, but to discuss the subtler points of difference between two amps I heard in the 1970s, I could no more do that with any hope of accuracy than describing the difference between the 140th steak I ate and the 173rd steak. I'd just remember that at one particular restaurant I had a very enjoyable meal and the steak was cooked "just right." But how to differentiate or compare memories of that "just right" from another "just right" steak eaten at home three years earlier, when no circumstances were the same?

[dodger]

----------------

On 12/7/2004 3:08:58 PM mdeneen wrote:

It's just because you are in a more receptive mood. Your biorhythm is peak coherence and your astrological signs are lined up - face the facts!

mdeneen

----------------

Now which phase is the moon in?

Additionally what differences can be expected when you have your speakers on a North Wall vs placement on a West wall. Would placement on a North wall be more favorable to the magnets?

I need all the facts. These are important.

Thanks,

Win

[DrWho]

"I know that in live sound I have found that those with braces (metal) or a number of fillings will get a feedback faster with an opened mouth than those with fewer.

It is not dependent upon the brand of microphone. Remember this is in live sound not recording studio.

More reflection from the metal is what I have chalked it up to."

Are you trying to say that metal in the mouth causes feedback to happen sooner? I have a real hard time believing that, wow.

As far as the changes in quality of equipment over the days, I think the biggest factor is that of your hearing. There's this one really interesting website that talks about psychoacoustics and how it explains a lot of the topics in question. Keep in mind that psychoacoustics is "science" (or at least tries to be). The most important thing is that music sounds better when we're relaxed, and worse when we're uptight. A lot of it has to do with our bodies' "willingness" to be influed by the sound pressure.

[DrWho]

Found it:

http://www.anstendig.org

It's a lot of reading I know, but almost every article in there pertains to this discussion.