"Burn in" Are you serious?

Craig: In my dictionary, a statement is incontrovertible if its truth cannot be disproven. Just because some people deny a truth doesn't make it untrue. You are welcome to prove me wrong. But note that I while I think burn-in is a myth, that's not what I said was incontrovertible.

Sorry, guys, but the laws of nature apply to "somewhat experienced audiophiles" just as much as they do to everyone else. It is quite common to hear changes in the sound of an audio system over time. But there is no way for you to know whether that perceived change is the result of a change in the sound of the system or a change in your perception of the system. (Unless you simply assume, contrary to all scientific evidence, that your memory for sound is perfect--but that's not knowing, that's believing.)

Brulee: There is no physical explanation for why most categories of audio equipment would behave in the manner you and others describe. (Though there is a lot of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo about "protons and electrons aligning" and such.) But there is a very simple psychological explanation for why you might think burn-in was happening even if it weren't. It's called "expectation bias." Now, that explanation might not be correct, but at least I have an explanation. You don't.

Joe C.: It has nothing to do with your room. Burn-in is popular with dealers (and some manfuacturers, though certainly not all) because it gives them a way to talk customers out of returning things. It's popular with many audiophiles because it feeds their "everything sounds different and my ears are good enough to hear it" egos. In truth, their ears are probably worse--since they've spent their lives imagining nonexistent differences, they wouldn't know a real difference if it jumped up and bit them on the earlobe. Mechanical systems, like speakers, do change over time--gradualy and perpetually, not suddenly reaching perfection after 100 hours. But it is incontrovertible that people do grow accustomed to a certain sound over time, which is what makes any and all testimonials to these remarkable changes suspect.

Craig, et al.: Anyone who's convinced that he has developed his hearing beyond that of mere mortals is not going to be convinced by an appeal to scientific evidence. But anyone who maintains an open mind on the subject should get himself down to his local college library, find an introductory text in psychoacoustics, and start reading. You'll soon understand why some of us treat claims of burn-in with such skepticism.

Perfectimage: Yes, people who firmly believe that two things will sound the same are more likely to hear no difference between them. But I'm not saying," It can't be true because I can't hear it." What I'm saying is, the most plausible explanation for what you are hearing is that you become accustomed to the sound. If you want to present a more plausible explanation, feel free, but you have to do better than "that doesn't mean it doesn't exist." What physical changes take place in a wire after an electrical current passes through it, and how do those changes affect subsequent currents that are passed through it?

Brulee: You ask a very fair question, and the answer is, No. If I had experienced the same change that Perfectimage experienced, I would not conclude that burn-in was a real phenomenon. The reason I wouldn't should be obvious from my previous posts: I could not be sure whether the change I perceived was caused by a physical change in the equipment or by my own acclimation to the sound. I would be more willing to attribute that change to burn-in if some physical explanation were available. I'd also be more willing to attribute it to burn-in if someone were to demonstrate that acclimation doesn't really happen. Until that time, I remain a skeptic. You're free to remain a believer. And anyone who's on the fence (lurkers, obviously, not posters) can consider both our points of view, do their own listening, do their own reading, and make up their minds for themselves. You and I are both helping them do that, which is why I think these theological arguments really are worthwhile.