Burn in nonsense

See these responses:

Last year on the thread rollercoaster-ride-why? I ventured my view:

Over the decades I've changed bits of kit many times - and The ONLY times I have experienced the sound of my system seeming better one day, worse another, has been when there was a clear biological cause such as a cold affecting ear internal pressure, or a clear mechanical cause of wear on a CD mechanism causing misreading apparently variable with temperature, worse when cold.

And I simply would not buy something that sounded worse than existing gear in the belief it should sound better, or if I had bought without auditioning I would simply sell it on.

Whilst some things can change during use due to bedding in of mechanical things, like the compliance of speaker cones, or where heat-sensitive electronic devices are heated, the effects are in most if not all cases gradual, and rarely major, and apart from the possibility of sounding different when hot vs cold, they will not be up and down like a yoyo from day to day. The only ecplanations for that are biological, if something is affecting your hearing, electrical interference for example intermittant or variable RF noise, whether induced directly or carried through the mains or other wiring, or psychological.

And for anyone who retains something that they are disappointed with at first because they believe it should sound better, psychology is a likely explanation for the so-called burn-in as they learn to like it, especially where significant expense is involved.

Why am I not affected by the psychological ups and downs like some other people seem to be, judging by the frequent reports on this forum? I don't know, but possibly for the same reason that adverts never persuade me to buy something (the reverse more often than not), or that I am immune to the sheep mentality of large crowds, or that It takes something really exceptional to excite me (which does not mean I don't get emotionally stirred by certain things, including good music).

This leads me to an interesting query: if the process is not predominently psychological, whether that be getting used to and accepting the different sound. Any other psychological explanation, why invariably is it reported that changes are for the better? Surely if it is components changing value slightly or even mechanical shifts, it is likely to yield a proportion of cases where the result is a deterioration, yet i have never heard such a report?????

To add to that, some manufacturers do a 'soak test for anything from a day to a week. That should take care of any significant initial 'burning in' of components, and I wouldn't expect ANY further detectable change in the short term with such gear. And any quality manufacturer of expensive gear should surely do such a soak test, both for the primary purpose of ensuring that any faulty components or joints manifest themselves before supply to the consumer, and to ensure the consumer gets the equipment already at its normal operating standard.

More interestingly, perhaps, a couple of years ago there was a thread where glass burn-in was suggested, relating to a shelf!

https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...e-s-nothing-to-burn?

perizoqui posted:

Hi there,

...Except... except... my 300 sounds very very different after a month of almost constant use! I'm sitting here listening to Bach's partitas for violin (Grumiaux) and my goodness... I've been playing music non-stop these past two weeks, largely as my initial disappointment with the 300 has day-by-day changed to a love affair with what it does in my system. I've heard the change and it has been dramatic. I know, I sound crazy. ....

---Pedro

I am a long time audiophile/crank/music lover/interested observer. I too am skeptical about burn in. And having done hundreds, if not thousands of comparative equipment demonstrations over the years, and dealt with thousands of clients along the way, many of whom have been on 5-10-20-40 year long upgrade paths that we get into with hifi, I offer the following thoughts:-

Most of my clients upon hearing a decent, well set up comparative demonstration ( say swap a power amp from A to B to A to B), can then make a decision as to where they will go regarding the upgrade. And if a product is truly better you can pick it, within a fairly reasonable period of time. The comparative process promoted by decent hifi manufacturers and dealers is the way to go, but trying to make sure all components are burnt in prior to demo is generally logistically impractical if not impossible on occasion.

And most hifi components on the retail floor don't get hundreds and hundreds of hours use. This particularly applies to the higher end components. You can't keep a $20,000 component on demo for a few hundred hours use, and a couple out the back to sell. You sell the one you have because they don't turn over that often. And honestly, you may be breaking out a superior brand new component from the box to compare with a lesser one that may have had a fair amount of use. Never have I experienced say a brand new NAP 135 pair sound worse than a burnt in NAP250.

If the differences between components was so hard to pick, requiring hundreds of hours of burn, endless bedding in, tweeking, weeks of demo and back and forthing, well actually no one would survive financially. Real difference is always evident.

I do believe that long term listening can allow you to appreciate more of the qualities that good audio can bring. My modus operandi for a comparative demo always, (time permitting), would involve playing some good music on the system "as is" for 30 minutes or so, before putting on any demonstration tracks for comparative purposes. It takes a while to just relax into a listening session. And just like it takes a while to sleep comfortably in a new bed, so to when a new toy comes into your lounge it does take a while to settle with it.

Buyer's remorse is a well known response to many purchases. Even when it was a well considered and correct choice. I have had so many clients tell me that "it's not what I expected" or "is there something wrong" or "this was a mistake" when I know that the step that was taken was actually a good choice. Often the platitude of "give it some time" works to get the client through, and hey presto, they settle in. And are content.

I agree it does take a while to actually form a complete opinion/evaluation or whatever you want to call it, of a high quality component. Yes I believe it is generally pretty easy and clearto say that a NAP200 is not as good as a NAP250, (my next step as part of my upgrade path and based on a 10 minute demo). I also know that when I do upgrade the "extra" that the 250 brings will be progressively expand with time. Because I will be further down the track with listening to my library of music, more settled, less inclined to be playing the "wow" tracks, and over the shock to the bank account, (the source of most buyer's remorse angst). My NAP200 is three years old, the NAP250 I have been offered is four years old, so there is absolutely no "electronics burn in" happening here. it's just the "comfort burn in"

...Except... except... in all the above, there is room for "burn in". It may be real, and given the crazy stuff that I have come to believe, (cables, stands, et al), well why not? But I am sure a lot of the attributes of burn in are due to the effects I have outlined above. Where is the truth? Not sure.

A final observation. I bought my system three years ago as a way to get back into the world of hif/music. I went in thinking, well this system sounds ok, but really I was taking a punt. I figured it's just a way to get orientated and familiar with decent sound. Three years on I am very happy, but only just now thinking I am comfortable with judging upgrades.

from new a short burn would tend to find any weak spots ,decades of installing electronics/electrical tells me after this bath tube time of hours/ few day  the performance is stable   all this discussion is subjective after that period

Huge posted:

OK, I am an engineer (OK, well I was).

Some electronic components do show small long term changes going from unpowered storage conditions to long term powered condition, but principal among these are electrolytic capacitors.  Their leakage currents, noise and series resistance all decrease over a period of time when power is applied after a period of unpowered storage.  This effect reaches an asymptote, before eventually the ageing process of the components starts to reverse these beneficial changes and the unit then needs to be serviced (principally a 'recap') to restore previous performance.  The effect in the components may be small and subtle, but it is quite audible due to the amazing discrimination of the human ear/brain combination.

once an engineer always an engineer  

Just on burn in again, I would like to add, that I strongly believe that a warmed up component sounds better, (again with the caveat that we are talking "real" hifi). It's not huge, say compared with a NAP200/NAP250 upgrade, but it's real to me. So I leave my little boxes on 24/7.

When I go away for a holiday though, they get turned off. You get home and switch them on, and it's bitter sweet. Ah! Real music again! Bah! Not as good as I remember? Audio memory is fickle, your mood has changed, but even so I think I hear a change.

My estimate is that the system sounds "right" about 6-8 hours after switch on. I wonder if the initial "burn in" effect is simply the components warming up?

steve95775 posted:

I am a long time audiophile/crank/music lover/interested observer. I too am skeptical about burn in. And having done hundreds, if not thousands of comparative equipment demonstrations over the years, and dealt with thousands of clients along the way, many of whom have been on 5-10-20-40 year long upgrade paths that we get into with hifi, I offer the following thoughts:-

Most of my clients upon hearing a decent, well set up comparative demonstration ( say swap a power amp from A to B to A to B), can then make a decision as to where they will go regarding the upgrade. And if a product is truly better you can pick it, within a fairly reasonable period of time. The comparative process promoted by decent hifi manufacturers and dealers is the way to go, but trying to make sure all components are burnt in prior to demo is generally logistically impractical if not impossible on occasion.

And most hifi components on the retail floor don't get hundreds and hundreds of hours use. This particularly applies to the higher end components. You can't keep a $20,000 component on demo for a few hundred hours use, and a couple out the back to sell. You sell the one you have because they don't turn over that often. And honestly, you may be breaking out a superior brand new component from the box to compare with a lesser one that may have had a fair amount of use. Never have I experienced say a brand new NAP 135 pair sound worse than a burnt in NAP250.

If the differences between components was so hard to pick, requiring hundreds of hours of burn, endless bedding in, tweeking, weeks of demo and back and forthing, well actually no one would survive financially. Real difference is always evident.

I do believe that long term listening can allow you to appreciate more of the qualities that good audio can bring. My modus operandi for a comparative demo always, (time permitting), would involve playing some good music on the system "as is" for 30 minutes or so, before putting on any demonstration tracks for comparative purposes. It takes a while to just relax into a listening session. And just like it takes a while to sleep comfortably in a new bed, so to when a new toy comes into your lounge it does take a while to settle with it.

Buyer's remorse is a well known response to many purchases. Even when it was a well considered and correct choice. I have had so many clients tell me that "it's not what I expected" or "is there something wrong" or "this was a mistake" when I know that the step that was taken was actually a good choice. Often the platitude of "give it some time" works to get the client through, and hey presto, they settle in. And are content.

I agree it does take a while to actually form a complete opinion/evaluation or whatever you want to call it, of a high quality component. Yes I believe it is generally pretty easy and clearto say that a NAP200 is not as good as a NAP250, (my next step as part of my upgrade path and based on a 10 minute demo). I also know that when I do upgrade the "extra" that the 250 brings will be progressively expand with time. Because I will be further down the track with listening to my library of music, more settled, less inclined to be playing the "wow" tracks, and over the shock to the bank account, (the source of most buyer's remorse angst). My NAP200 is three years old, the NAP250 I have been offered is four years old, so there is absolutely no "electronics burn in" happening here. it's just the "comfort burn in"

...Except... except... in all the above, there is room for "burn in". It may be real, and given the crazy stuff that I have come to believe, (cables, stands, et al), well why not? But I am sure a lot of the attributes of burn in are due to the effects I have outlined above. Where is the truth? Not sure.

A final observation. I bought my system three years ago as a way to get back into the world of hif/music. I went in thinking, well this system sounds ok, but really I was taking a punt. I figured it's just a way to get orientated and familiar with decent sound. Three years on I am very happy, but only just now thinking I am comfortable with judging upgrades.

I think you're right on the money with your excellent post Steve. I'm more and more convinced that by far the main component in the "burn-in" process is your own brain. Other factors swing into play as well, such as mood, state of your electricity supply on the day, what stimulants you have just consumed, the state of your health. I'm also certain that, given time, you do become accustomed to what might actually be a faulty sound, and as time goes on it become more and more difficult to accept a different sound, even though that might ultimately be better. Having stated the above, there is still a definite element of components settling in, mostly in regard to capacitors as previously mentioned.

Dielectric absorption anyone? 

I got my 250.2 back after being upgraded to DR .... it sounded horrendous .... slow washed out very poor stereo ... it took a full week on 24/7  to start to improve by week 3 it sounded amazing. This was not my imagination it was not subtle, incidently I then changed to a 500 then I updated this to DR same again but worse......i suggest those who claim there is not  a change to get their hearing checked!!!

Dielectric absorption in electrolytic capacitors is complex as it occurs by electrolysis rather than the mechanical and electron storage mechanisms in plastic film capacitors.

On the other hand plastic film capacitors aren't chemically affected by their working voltage and have much more stable properties, particularly in early life.

Adam Meredith posted:

Basil Inc. posted:

Dielectric absorption anyone? 

Mine's a pint.

That'll be 500,000?F, thank you.

Just attach t bolts in my neck......and switch on..

Innocent Bystander posted:

 

This leads me to an interesting query: if the process is not predominently psychological, whether that be getting used to and accepting the different sound. Any other psychological explanation, why invariably is it reported that changes are for the better? Surely if it is components changing value slightly or even mechanical shifts, it is likely to yield a proportion of cases where the result is a deterioration, yet i have never heard such a report????? 

Because (if Huge and I's exchange above is correct), change in electrolytic capacitor value, ESR, and leakage with time is predictable. So Naim designs their electronics around steady-state values which take a while to get to in normal usage, last for many years, and eventually are left behind when re-caping is necessary.

perizoqui posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

 

This leads me to an interesting query: if the process is not predominently psychological, whether that be getting used to and accepting the different sound. Any other psychological explanation, why invariably is it reported that changes are for the better? Surely if it is components changing value slightly or even mechanical shifts, it is likely to yield a proportion of cases where the result is a deterioration, yet i have never heard such a report????? 

Because (if Huge and I's exchange above is correct), change in electrolytic capacitor value, ESR, and leakage with time is predictable. So Naim designs their electronics around steady-state values which take a while to get to in normal usage, last for many years, and eventually are left behind when re-caping is necessary.

Spot on.

Plus when an electrolytic capacitor is in the process of re-forming (e.g. after a period without a polarisation current), its small signal AC characteristics are very slightly non-linear, causing a small (but perceivable) degradation of sound.

steve95775 posted:

 

...Except... except... in all the above, there is room for "burn in". It may be real, and given the crazy stuff that I have come to believe, (cables, stands, et al), well why not? But I am sure a lot of the attributes of burn in are due to the effects I have outlined above. Where is the truth? Not sure.

Thanks Steve, for a lovely response. Including the last bit quoted above. I'm inclined to fully agree. And perhaps I was so impressed with the 175 because it cost me $500 and less with the 300 because it cost me $8,000. Expectations were low going into the 175, and high going into the 300. But still, I could swear there's been an improvement, and I like Huge's explanation for the possible source of an improvement. Nevertheless, I'm sure you're right and there are many aspects to the perceived improvement: some real and physical (electrolytic and such), some real and neural (what I refer to as auditory burn-in above), and some psychological (getting over sticker shock and so on.

steve95775 posted:

When I go away for a holiday though, they get turned off. You get home and switch them on, and it's bitter sweet. Ah! Real music again! Bah! Not as good as I remember? Audio memory is fickle, your mood has changed, but even so I think I hear a change.

I leave mine on 24/7 except when away just like you. But when I come home I always think my system sounds amazing, because when I travel I'm limited to in-ear-monitors and my laptop. The trick is to set the bar low

Yeah I am on holiday and suffering withdrall...

I live across two homes. S400s in one and N-sats in the other. Boy am I conflicted at times. Hear an album on the N-sats and think, wow! Must try this on the bigger system, it will be even better. But then when I play the album on the S400s it maybe it isn't as great as I expected. Opposite happens too. The N-sats are no slouch, but there are times when it just sounds really dire.

S400 system retailed here for $20k, and N-sat system retailed for $4.5k. Go figure. N-sats are driven by a Harmon Kardon receiver too. Shite!

I generally back myself regarding ranking a hifi. Know all about recording variances, how to glamourize a system by picking the music carefully, (an evil trick learned whilst a retailer), and the effect your mood will play. But there are times when I wonder.

Drink way too much red wine too, and same thing happens. A modest red one night is heavenly, and then a week or so later a second bottle of the same is not so great. Got some truly amazing reds in the rack, and you sit down with a glass of what you KNOW is an outstanding nectar in your hand of a special evening, take a few sips and... meh! I sold a kidney for this????

The remarks about holidays are true too. Absence does make the heart grow fonder.

perizoqui posted:

 

...  I'm having a hard time concentrating on work. Keep finding myself staring into space and listening... just listening ...

A bit off topic, but: known problem for me too. I found that certain music works well during my work. In general, Mozart does not disctract me but still passively please me and allows me to go on.

Good posts Steve.

I am more a believer of warm up rather than burn in.  An hour is usually enough to my ears after a power down, often faster.

Slightly off topic, but my last dem at my dealer of decades standing I really struggled to hear an improvement on the upgrade. His room is well known to me so a bit of a surprise. Took a gamble and went for it anyway. Loved it at home so no issue. But I do wonder if I am reaching my hi fi limits of discerning future upgrades.

Just for info, it was the fruit box being upgraded, not my amps.

Anyone else think they honestly must be close to the end of upgrading as they struggle to hear real improvements?

Stu

Well here's a minefield to step into for my 2nd post

I've been around hi-fi since I bought my first Quad system in London in 1974 and shipped it to my place in the sun -  Johannesburg.  Back in those days, there was no such thing as burn in, you just plugged it in, played records, drank beer or wine and enjoyed.

As hi-fi has progressed we've seen the gradual introduction of much tweakery, including magic cables, the efficacy of which many deny, racks and stands, power cords and power conditioners, isolation devices, speaker spikes, contact cleaners and enhancers, acoustic treatments, degaussers and a whole host more. We've also seen the development of an audiophile belief system, including cable directionality, burn-in, oxygen free copper, bi-wiring etc. vibration control etc.

There's no doubt that hi-fi was a lot more enjoyable without all the angst the above now creates. In some respects, ignorance was bliss, but unfortunately, at least some the above have genuine benefits and some of the effects are real and we ignore them at our peril.  Burn in. Does it exist? Could it be buyers remorse? How about acclimatization? And if things change with burn in, how come they don't occasionally sound worse?

Over the years, I've heard many components change due to what I've considered to be burn-in. Speakers, interconnects, amps, CDPs, power cables, power conditioners, fuses (for heavens sake), mains supply cable. Yes, I've heard all of them change after installation. Why? I've absolutely no idea, but I doubt an engineer will ever solve the mystery. A metallurgist perhaps, a physicist maybe, but never an engineer. Why? Because if the changes are happening at all, they are most certainly happening at the molecular, crystal or atomic level. But there are some categories of products where I've heard significant changes, but none that I would describe as burn-in. Racks, speaker spikes, amp stands, room treatments, record clamps, turntable mats have all wrought changes to my system, but those changes were instant, immediately recognisable and stable.   They required no adaptation....they didn't sound worse then better, or even better then much better. They immediately changed the way the system sounded and that was that.  Initial conclusions?  Simply changes to a system's sound is not sufficient to trigger the 'burn-in phenomenon'.  Only changes that involve an electrical signal are subject to burn-in phenomena i.e. the gradual improvement of sound quality with time....so that seems to rule out psychological phenomena.

Personally I hate the burn-in phenomenon, because of all the angst it causes.  Have I bought the wrong product? Is it always going to sound this harsh/edgy/amusical/stilted?  Is the system working properly? So I did something about it.  I stopped listening to products burning in and arranged my hi-fi in such a way that it could play music with normal power without me hearing it? How? Set a reference volume, then switch off, place the speakers together facing one another about 3cm apart, reverse polarity of 1 speaker cable and play the system for the requisite number of hours to effect burn in.  Result?  Just like a rack, acoustic treatment or turntable mat the improvement was instantaneous, clear to hear, and totally stable....never angst inducing.  But why given that the system changed was it never for the worse? Because I was buying upgrades; components that were fundamentally better than those they replaced. Did anything ever sound worse? Yes...in the case of a dedicated spur I installed.... it sounded worse and continued to sound bad until I replaced the cable I'd used with something more hi-fi orientated and burned that in.  But that wasn't a burn-in phenomenon, because it never got to the sounding better stage...it was just crap cable. So does burn-in exist? Yes, to my thinking it does. How long does it last? I've never had a product that needed more that 120 hours (some very stubborn power cables), so if something has played that long or longer, its had its chance and you need to look for other reasons for bad sound.

I don't think we need an explanation for Burn in.

I don't think anyone who has just spent 2k,3k,4k,5k? on a black box upgrade, wants to switch on and conclude, this sounds terrible... and yet that is exactly what happens.

And then after a week or two, we suddenly feel a great sense of relief because the black box purchase has now started to sing...

The reality is 'burn in'  happens, it's a fundamental truth.... It's not ones ears, brain, playing tricks on us.....

It's just the way it is........

I'm not going to win any friends here, but I have to say that if Richard Feynman were still alive and you asked him if he knew everything there is to know about the physics of electromagnetism he would answer "Not even close," and Feynman knew more about the subject than 99.9% of all the people who have ever lived.  So when somebody here says they know all there is to know about burn in, cable directionality, etc. ask to see their Nobel Prizes - they should have quite a few.