"Burn in" Are you serious?

Jostler3, I think many of these posters do not need to read about psychacoustics, they know what they are hearing. I like to think that my mind is open and what I hear is what I hear. I sometimes wish this was not true as burn-in would not be so painful. In many of the manuals of my equipment, the manufacturer will mention the burn-in process. How do you explain the post that Perfectimage left. Was he hearing things. I think it is simple to find out for yourself, Quit reading and start listening. I can't believe anyone who has been doing audio has not experienced burn-in. I hate to think that I have been fooling myself for all these years.

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.

Jostler; Read, reread, and reread Redkiwi's above post. I'm outta' here. Have fun. Craig.

If it goes to reason that if someone can hear a diffrence because they want to couldnt the reverse be said that some people dont here the difference because they dont want to. Just because there is a science to pchycoacoustics doesnt mean it applies in every instance their is a disagreement. Just because I cant explain it in a way that convinces you doesnt mean it doesnt exist. And lastly just because someone cant hear the difference doesnt mean someone else cant. I use to run a small metal fabrication plant. The properties of metal changes during anneling at certain tempatures and after passing current through it. I think someone above had it right. Go out to Radio Shack and buy two pairs of cables and compare them after one set is burned in.

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?

Here we go round the merry go round. Happy holidays to all.

Jostler: Expectation Bias is a two way street and may explain why you do not hear burn in. Although it seems that many of the members at this site appear to be well versed in white papers, most have progressed beyond their limitations to the real world of hearing and believing -vs- reading and believing. Many of our scientific principals are also in fact faulty and have been proven to be so over the past 25 years or so not necessarily to be replaced by new correct theories, but disproved nonetheless. IMO much of the modern technology that we take for granted today crashed to earth in the late 40's and has been being reverse engineered for the past 53 years or so (yes, I am one of those). If you do not hear a difference, then fine, but how about letting us in on more of what you do hear for a change? Don't you think that this approach might be a little more rewarding to everyone involved.

Or perhaps if he just exercised more, he wouldn't jostle so much.

Call me a fool, but I can't help myself, I have to re-enter this debate... oh please stop me Lord!!! If burn-in was just getting used to the sound, then my system must be really bad. Because this means the unmusical sound I heard when I first plugged my gear in is still there, only I am not noticing it anymore. Yet when I go to someone else's place, who knows how to put a system together, I often enjoy music on their system straight away. This clearly means their systems are so much superior to mine that even while my brain is getting burned into its sound, I can really get into the music. This leads me to the conclusion that when my best buddy leaves these shores to head up a consultancy in Singapore, I should just buy his stereo and his house so that I can get a hold of his wonderful system - then wait a couple of weeks for my brain to burn-in and the half mill or so it all cost will have been worth it. Tell me where I am wrong, quickly before I write the cheque.

And how come my buddy says he enjoys music on my gear, is he just humouring me? Or does listening to each others' stereo three times in the last three months constitute burning our brains in. Something does not compute.

I think that you may be on to something Redkiwi. While many burn in beleivers think that they have been upgrading their systems all of these years, they have in reality been doing just the opposite. May as well just chuck it all in and go back to the crystal radios of our youth. I wonder if they can be tweaked, upgrade the crystal, find a taller floor lamp to clip it to...

After stumbling upon their great concert a few weeks back, I recently bought some CDs of THE BURN SISTERS, a trio of folk/rock/country/blues genre-bending crooners who spout forth 3 part harmony with genetically-coded ease so satisfying that my wiggling has caused burn-in of the upholstery of my listening chair! Check 'em out (Philo Records), and happy holidays! Ernie

The BurnS Sisters (as in plural): Jeannie, Marie, and Annie.

Jostler3, you are right, I do not have a technical reason why burn-in exists, I have never seen God but that does not mean God does not exist. If you had experienced what Perfectimage did with the two pre-amps would that have convinced you of burn-in or do you need the reason for burn-in to be explained and some how, if possible, scientifically explained. In other words, would you believe what you heard. I think debating this is silly when you can take the time, if you really wanted to and do the comparison yourself. I hope you don't think I am trashing your views, I am not. As you pointed out, I do not have an explanation for burn-in. I don't need one cause I hear it.

Brulee - my question would then be, have you given up any interest in determining the reason for burn-in? I'm not being critical if you have given up any interest in examining the technical possibilities behind what you've experienced and attributed to burn-in, but it would confirm the point several have made that this discussion is pointless since it has no possibility for resolution. The parallel reference to the existence of God suggests that point of view is that burn-in has to be taken solely on faith, since the cause of its effects can't be proven, but the effects have been experienced.

I'm guessing the Jostler3 HAS taken the time to do the comparison as we all have to when we buy a new component and, like many, did not hear an effect. This has been my experience as well. If I had heard major differences, I believe I would be very aware of them as I have made many changes to my system that caused changes, both profound and subtle, that I noticed. Every time I hear a change, I try to explain it to myself, and I'm sure I don't always identify the reasons correctly. That's why I like this type of board. In any case, my point is that I don't think anyone who heard a difference would attempt to deny the difference just to stick to making a point that a certain phenomena doesn't exist.

BTW, in my above post, I did not listen to my cables while I burned them in, so there is no way that I got used to them. I listened to them, flinched, disconnected them, used other cables while I connected mine to device I have that generates pink noise for several days, put them back in, and did not flinch.

Do we know the boundaries of quantum physics? Did Max Planck explain it fully or just make us aware of its existence for others to expand on? Will we ever understand it fully? Yes indeed Bmpnyc here we go round and round in the "Circle Game". I agree with the proponents, for whatever its worth. Have heard it on some gear and not on others. Why? It is one of those things that hasn't and to date can't be fully described scientifically. Those inquiring minds that do hear it and ask why and are perservering enough to find an answer may one day be able to explain it to the rest of us.

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.

Jostler3, well said.

I always subscribed to the idea of burn-in previously, having experienced the sound of a new component blooming and evolving over time. I've also put new components into my system that never became appealing no matter how long they seasoned (usually cables). As a result of this thread I tried a little experiment with new and burned-in cables. I bought a new set of Cardas Golden Reference interconnect, 1m length, for my turntable. Instead I thought it would be better to use the new cable on the CD player and transfer my existing identical but burned-in cable from the CD player to the turntable. This gave me an opportunity to compare the two cables to each other with relative ease by listening carefully to the old cables on the CD then replacing them with the new. Much to my surprise I heard very little difference, if any. The new cables sounded great right out of the box. And Cardas is one of the strongest proponents for burn-in. Go figure. Given the disparity of experience expressed here it's clear that burn-in has many complex variables. My simple experiment can hardly be extrapolated to the broader context of burn-in but it's got me thinking. Great thread!

It never ceases to fascinate me at the ultimate degeneration of virtually all audio forums into a widespread bitch session about 'cables'. With almost religious fervor the two camps bellow and dispute & very rarely do the twains meet, even for a cup of tea. I am quite frankly amazed that people can really care THAT much about what other folks beliefs are with regards to the topic. I have personally concluded, through my modest experimentation in the audiophile realms, that we are dealing with a very abstract notion here. I think components and systems do ultimately rely on an intricate synergy of wire, transformers, capacitors, plugs, etc. which all combine and interact in a unique fashion that certainly creates a particular sonic character. Is this character 'better' than another system? Maybe...maybe not. One system's technical specs may measure out in a most immaculate fashion, but sound good to no-one. I will say, and this is not simply my notion, that we cannot conclusively measure everything we hear with empirical scientific data. Just as you cannot measure everything you taste, feel, and smell with your other senses and how they are thus interpreted by your mental faculties. Specs could probably measure out equally on two different units but exhibit entirely different characters. Why? I don't really know. It is a very complex issue. The audiophile hobby often approaches a passion akin to that of the alchemists from days long past. It may have been their ultimate quest to "turn lead into gold" as it were but the ultimate result was a transformation of themselves in the process. I leave you with one notion to ponder. It is a field of scientific thought that enters the realm of abstraction inherent in fields such as quantum physics but is certainly food for thought. A gentleman by the name of Heisenberg established the principle of Indeterminism which, recognized the discovery that the act of measuring always alters that which is being measured. This, of course, turns our everyday experiences into a continuous and unrepeatable evolutionary process. On that note, I've just gotta say happy listening to all and Merry Christmas.