Resistors shift value, diodes will alter their point of conduction, transistors will alter their point of conduction and their gain curves, the dielectric in capacitors are forming, etc... All of these things do this on an individual basis on their own schedule and the differences between new and "broken in" might seem quite small on their own. When all of these "shifts" are added up and combined though, both the measured and sonic results can be quite different for the entire circuit.
Just bare in mind that stressing any given component, whether it be due to amplitude of signal, thermal changes, etc.. will cause further shifting of value on some components. This can have a domino effect as the newer shifts in value can cause other circuitry to respond differently. As such, it is possible for a device to change even further ( measurably and sonically ) after you think that it is "fully broken in". This is especially true if you start running it harder or in a very different manner than what you used to.
In extreme cases, these "value shifts" for individual parts can be significant enough to cause the unit to operate erratically or not at all. The fact that components do shift in value is what causes them to "wear out" and need repair. I have even seen where a 6" piece of wire inside of a unit developed a resistance of appr 50 ohms. While i could not explain how this happened, it did. To be quite honest, this threw me for a loop for quite a bit of time too. The last thing that one would ever expect would be resistive wire in a low voltage / low current circuit, yet stuff like this happens.
Other than that, anybody that tells you that components don't break in or "settle" is either uneducated about the subject at hand and throwing out a guess at your expense ( IF you believe them ) or knows better and is blatantly lying to you. When it comes to subjects like this, you either know what you are talking about based on book smarts and education and / or first hand experience or you are talking out of the top of your hat. Given the fact that i've been making money by troubleshooting / repairing / modifying / designing electronic circuitry for 25 years now should give you some idea of where i'm coming from in terms of experience. Sean
>
PS... I'm sorry if this comes across as "confrontational" to some, but when you try to pass off bullshit or a personal opinion that can't be verified in any way, shape or form as fact, i have little room for compassion. |
Pbb: you bring up valid questions that i addressed above. We were probably typing at the same time and our posts "crossed in the mail". Sean
> |
Dmitrydr: I know nothing of metalurgy. I can't explain what happens to cables scientifically using test bench equipment taking measurements either or tell you how / why cables "settle" in terms of theory. I do know that i can hear a difference before and after "burning" cables on the various "cooking" devices that i have though. I will not try to pass this off as fact as it is strictly my opinion that i've stated here a dozen times before. Evidently, some people share this point of view while others don't.
Some folks have sent me cables to burn for them and then done A/B comparisons between identical cables ( burned vs un-burned ) once they returned. The differences before and after burning were always quite audible. Some of the identical cables being compared were fresh out of the box whereas other cables had hundreds / thousands of hours of actual use on them. In each comparison, the cables that were cooked were deemed to sound more natural with improved harmonic structure. I've never had anybody tell me that the results of "burning" the cables were anything less than beneficial.
Having said that, those that have an opposing point of view never seem to want to put their money where there mouth is or learn from experience. That is, i've offered to burn cables for them free of charge several times and not one of the "nay-sayers" has ever contacted me once. As such, my guess is that they prefer to spout off rhetoric without doing any form of research on the subject or seeing for themselves what others are talking about. Instead, they chatter away with no personal experience to support their point of view rather than experiment / find out for themselves what the "real deal" is. Kind of hard to argue / debate with someone that refuses to view evidence contrary to their point of view. Actually, it's more than hard to argue or debate with someone like that, it's more like talking to a brick wall. Sean
>
PS... My offer still stands to those that are interested. If you really want to see / hear the differences for yourself though, just be prepared to go without the interconnects for several weeks. I can "burn" them for however long you want, but my experience with most cables is that the longer that they are on the burner, the bigger the differences are. |
Part of the problem with measuring or "charting" component settling is that audio is a very dynamic signal. As such, there is little consistency in amplitude, frequency or duration of the signal being passed through these devices. On top of this, one might listen for a few hours on Monday and then not have the chance to put the system to use until the week-end. Once the week-end comes around, the system gets a good work-out. As such, the duty cycle and consistency of use also come into play.
The reason that i bring this up is that i've had people come in with units that were 10 years old but were never used much at all. When i put them on the bench, they operate like brand new units. Within a matter of minutes or multiple hours ( depending on the specific unit ), i can sometimes see HUGE differences in how the circuits perform. In effect, those 10 year old but barely used units are going through break-in just like a brand new unit would.
Along those same lines, i work on many units right out of the box. After a reasonable warm-up period, i calibrate and align the circuitry and send them out the door. It is VERY common for a customer to come back in with a unit a month or two later with that same unit and it measures and performs very differently. Since i told them that this would happen and i cover this under warranty, i re-align the unit again from top to bottom. Once i do this, it will typically hold these settings much better / more consistently than if it were brand new. It may require further adjustments later on down the road, but not with the drastic shifting that it underwent during initial use. That is because most of the parts had fully "settled in" but a few others were still shifting at a reduced rate.
For the record, i get to watch digital "phase locked loop" and "quartz locked" circuitry drift all over the place every day of the week on multiple units a day. While these types of circuits are supposed to be "rock solid", and that's why they use them for generating reference frequencies and speed control stability, some designs are MUCH better than others. Some circuits are right on the money in a matter of minutes whereas some take several hours of actual use to stabilize. The funny thing is, some of those that are the least stable can be found in some of the more expensive gear. Like anything else, you don't always get what you pay for. Unfortunately, not every audiophile or consumer electronics enthusiast know and realize this.
The only thing that you can be assured of when you buy electronic componentry is that it WILL "settle" at least a small amount. That is why each individual component that went into making the assembled component and the assembled component itself is alloted a specific "tolerance" for normal operation. If the unit does not meet spec and is out of tolerance, that is because parts have "settled" or "shifted" further out of tolerance than they should have. As mentioned above, this typically happens due to thermal or amplitude stress in most cases. Sean
>
PS... I'm done on this subject pretty much forever. If someone can't follow along with the information presented in this thread or in the archives, so be it. They are either too dumb to comprehend the subject at hand or are too stubborn to admit the truth. I don't think that you'll find ANY Electrical Engineer or service technician with any amount of experience that will argue with any of the points that i've brought up. That should tell those that challenge the "theories" that were presented here where they really stand. |
Sheesh... As the components shift to their natural point of settling, the sound or performance of a circuit typically improves as the circuit itself reaches its' natural "plateau" of operation. In other words, the circuitry finds its' own "groove" and settles there. Since the device is now running at a point that it has reached via normal use and is no longer changing values during normal operation, the presentation tends to sound more natural and relaxed due to increased circuit stability. Everything is done shifting and is now working together. This is kind of like "neighbors" that have had time to become fully familiar with one another and know what to expect out of each other. If the relationship between any given components are pushed beyond the point of initial settling, deterioration and / or "re-settling" takes place but this is usually not without good reason. If pushed to an extreme, damage occurs and the circuit is no longer usable as is. Sean
>
|
By the way, the brand new units that come back in for "re-alignment" after a few months typically work better than they did when i took them out of the box and aligned them the first time. I am not talking about small incremental improvements in selected areas of performance, but "better" in most every aspect once they've been "dialed in" after "breaking in". Sean
> |
In a missile guidance system, are the components simply responding and looking for a signal that acts as a command / response arrangement or is the quality of the signal being quantified and judged along with the basic data being provided ? This is where the difference lies between data devices and how our brain interprets sound impulses.
I'm assuming that the guidance system has some type of system that checks in and verifies data and responds accordingly, doing this on a phenomenally frequent basis. As such, this would be akin to high quantities of negative feedback in an amplifier circuit. While the system measures phenomenally well and does everything it is supposed to in terms of measured data and responds promptly to changes in detected signal, it just so happens to sound like hell. All of the bench tests in the world can't tell us why ( at this point in time ), but the computer aided test equipment connected between our ears that deciphers such input makes this all too clear.
I hope that at least some of you get the point. That is, we don't know everything there is to know about everything : ) Sean
>
|
Paulwp: I have posted a small portion of my background in an Agon thread entitled "Who R U". For further info, you can also read this thread over at AA's "General Asylum". I only mention this as it gives further information as to my background in the field of electronics that i didn't mention in the Agon thread. http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=general&n=270072&highlight=DHT+amps&r=&session= While you're over at AA, you can search for a post that i made within the last few months that publicly challenged any EE / designer / product manufacturer to post commentary pertaining to the effects of "break in" / measurable parts value shift NOT taking place in new components. I have done a search for it but can't find it, otherwise i would have provided a link. Either way, there was not ONE response posted to that "challenge" because everyone that works on / uses gear for a living knows that it is the truth. Most of the engineers / designers / manufacturers that read and post on AA are "hands on" kind of folks and know what is really going on. Since they know the truth, they didn't bother to respond. It is only the "desk jockeys" that design gear and never use it that think that things always work as they should in theory. As far as the EE's that you talked to and bought their schpiel, i make my living working on the products that they design. By "working on", i mean repairing the failures in under-designed circuitry that wasn't well thought out to begin with and / or modifying that same circuitry so that it performs in a more optimized manner. Other than that, you can believe / trust whom you want to. Whether you want believe or disregard my opinions, that is up to you. Having said that, the wide bandwidth scopes, $15,000 signal generators, $35,000 spectrum analyzer, etc... that i have and use on a daily basis are basically impartial witnesses to my testimony. The results that i've obtained using this test equipment and past experiences with hands-on use are what i've based many of my opinions on. Other than the opinions of others that you've repeated here, do you have any first hand experience or technical references that explain what YOU base YOUR thoughts about the subject on ? I think that i've more than explained how parts shift / circuits change over time and use and done so in an easy to understand manner. Sean > |
Here's my last post to this thread. I am not an EE, nor have i ever claimed to be. I will only add that i have almost 2500 posts on this forum and who knows how many at AA. Having said that, there have been less than a handful of those posts that an EE posted something contrary to what i had referenced when talking on strictly technical terms. To take that a step further, some of these disagreements have been due to poor wording on either my part or theirs and we really were in agreement when all was said and done. As such, one does not have to have a piece of paper to tell you what they know or don't know. On the other hand, having that piece of paper simply means that someone knew enough to respond correctly to specific questions on tests. This does not give them practical experience when trying to design electronic circuitry or deal with real world problems and situations that arise in such circuitry. My business partner, who does have his degree, has stated many times over that school taught him the basic fundamentals of theory but most of his knowledge of how things operate has come from hands on experience. My personal opinion is that many EE's will share that opinion as they are smart enough to realize that wisdom and knowledge come with experience. Anybody can read books ( as i did ) but applying that knowledge in a real world scenario is what seperates those that have "book knowledge" and those that can solve real world problems. Having said that, I don't know of any College that issues degrees in "common sense", "problem solving" and "application of knowledge". What College degrees do verify is that someone understands the basics of the subject at hand and that the College that issued the degree is willing to put their name behind that fact. What someone does with that basic level of understanding is up to them. Having that piece of paper does not necessarily mean that they know everything that there is to know about the subject at hand. It simply means that they knew enough to graduate. Mind you, one can graduate with an "A" or a "D-" average also. Other than that, here's a thread on AA that discusses this very subject. An EE and i both come to the same conclusions there, much as what we have done on many, many hundreds and even thousands of threads. Hasta la vista, baby.... Sean > http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=general&n=52730&highlight=EE+Sean&r=&session= |
Until i can get people to stop putting words in my mouth, I'll never be able to get out of this thread : )
Let's clear things up here. I never said that i discounted a College ( or any other type of formal ) education. I have a great amount of respect for the majority of "educated professionals". Anybody that thinks differently has never read any of my posts where i've lauded praise on various designers / engineers / manufacturers or commented on specific products in a positive manner. It was Paulwp that ( effectively ) said that he discounted any form of knowledge outside of College that one doesn't obtain a degree for. His words were that if one doesn't have a degree, one doesn't know what they are talking about. I can't think of a more pompous comment ever being made here on these or any other audio / electronic based forum.
I also never stated that units that have "shifted value" or "broken in" would not meet spec before or after "shifting" or "settling in". Most specs are written in a manner that makes the unit look good on paper yet allows enough variance in production to let "less than optimum" performing units still get by quality control. Those companies that set tolerances phenomenally tight undoubtedly have a far higher amount of unacceptably products. Since the rejection rate goes up, the profit margin goes down.
Since most companies are more worried about the bottom line ( profitability ) rather than the ultimate quality of their products, specs and production techniques become a juggling act in terms of what can be made to pass without having a high quantity of rejects and monetary losses. The end result is that specs are typically "slightly loose" so as to let the majority of products manufactured fly out the door yet "tight enough" to maintain respectability by professionals in that specific field by weeding out the "lemons". As a side note, most of those "lemons" end up getting sold as "factory refurbished" units because most manufacturers don't want ANY loss in profitability. That is, if they can help it.
By the way, anybody that thinks that only tubes begin to deteriorate once they are fired up has very limited understanding of electronics and how / why parts and circuitry fail.
As to El's comments, how many manufacturers follow "Taguchi's rule of mass production and quality control" ? Just because he is aware of these guidelines does not mean that every manufacturer follows them or is even aware of them. Should anyone doubt this, please see the example sited above regarding specifications and factory refurbs. Sean
> |
I have no experience with the Lightstar II. I've been told that the Lightstar amps "might" be slightly more transparent sounding than the Sunfire's but with very similar circuitry. This was told to me by an employee of Sunfire.
As far as your comments about your friend the EE and amp designer, all i can say is that he either needs better test equipment or to run some different tests. Prior to improving the tools that i had to work with, i was not able to measure differences in equipment once a certain threshold was achieved. Even though the equipment that i was previously using was nowhere near "state of the art", i was still able to measure and discern differences in performance above the aforementioned threshold ( which was actually quite low ) with good accuracy. Going to better test equipment simply gave me better resolution. This enabled me to measure and discern the differences in performance between components to an even greater extent. Granted, the increased resolution of the newer test equipment set me back a good chunk of money, but it also opened my eyes / ears / mind to the fact that i was not able to see / measure everything as well as i thought i was previous to the upgrade.
When all is said and done, i guess that we will just have to agree to disagree. Sean
>
PS... If some of you are under the impression that all audio designers, manufacturers, designers have a full assortment of high quality test equipment at their disposal, guess again. I've seen some of the "test benches" and "design labs" that various "manufacturers" use. Some of the gear that these "techs" and "engineers" are using to design and test their products is equipment that can be found at flea markets. This is NOT to say that the gentleman that Paulwp is referring to is in this boat, but given the point of view being expressed here, it "might" not be far off.
PPS... If gear wasn't changing in a measurable manner as we used it, it would never break down. Parts are shifting and decaying and that is why circuits fail or go out of tolerance. Whether or not you want to call this "break-in" or "settling" is a matter of semantics. Sean
> |
Aball: "However, I hate to say it but the design uses a given value and not every component is matched when installed in your amp (and it drifts anyway), thereby making burn-in moot for amps and preamps."
If i sum up your statement here, it reads as the following to me: "Components are typically not precision matched upon installation and will shift in value over time. Due to the shifting values, measured performance and possibly sonics may vary from the time that you first start using a brand new product till the time that it breaks down and needs repair". Does that sound about right ? If you are in agreement with that "interpretation" of what you said, would you say that most electronic components typically reach a plateau and stabilize in value for a period of time before reaching a point where decay starts to set in ?
Other than that, I agree with two of other points that you made that aren't really open to interpretation. The first one is that caps typically show the widest variance in measured value over time. I will also add that they typically display one of the highest, if the not THE highest, failure rates of any given component. The second point was "the more you know, the more you realize you don't know". I think that this saying is pretty self explanatory. Sean
> |
