Burn in - a myth?

Scientific understanding is simply the best working model of the world that we can come up with. It is not an absolute truth. It will change with time as we acquire greater knowledge and greater understanding.

First comes the observation. Then a hypothesis to try to explain it. Then comes experimentation to test the hypothesis. If it stands up to the test it becomes a theory.

None of which has anything to do with what we hear when we listen to our hi-fi systems.

I burn in, therefore I am.

1 Like

i guess we agree that all theories are provisional, that there are no absolute truths in science which is the fundamental point.

observations first then theory is the classical sequence, but i think that many new theories are purely mathematical developed without observations and can wait decades for observations to support them (or refute them) sometimes at a cost of millions or billions (large hadron collider c4.75 billion)
@anon55098131
the point is that there have been posts that appear to suggest science gives us some kind of absolute truth, which it can’t do

1 Like

Talk about burn in imagine if HI-Fi was a thing then. :scream: :rofl:

1 Like

I’m teetotal but would never be out the pub. :wink: :joy:

1 Like

More to the point, people, and I’m really talking about the people who do not believe in burn-in, since it those who are desperate to disprove it, reference ‘science’ to attempt to bring some sort of authority to bear on their views, in completely erroneous ways.

Statements along the lines of ‘there is no scientific reason for that’, ‘there is no scientific evidence for that’, ‘no scientific measurements for that’ etc. etc.

Sometimes these statements are just plain wrong, sometimes they are half-truths, sometimes they are indeed true but referenced completely out of context, sometimes they are true but of absolutely no relevance.

In all cases the perpetrators, in a misguided attempt to add weight to their views, actually demonstrate a lack of scientific understanding and of what science is really all about.

No big deal really and only to be expected on a forum such as this. It is not a forum for professional scientists to air their views. It is only to be expected that many here will lack the necessary scientific knowledge and understanding to present meaningful and valid arguments.

And that is OK. No slur on those people at all. The problem is with what I would guess is a small number of individuals who, although they lack the necessary knowledge and understanding, think for some reason that they do possess it and proceed as if they do.

I’m afraid that I have very little time for these people. If you don’t understand what you are talking about then it’s generally better for everyone, including yourself, to avoid saying anything.

1 Like

Ahem >cough<

Sorry Stephen, not sure what you’re getting at. Could you elaborate please?

Nothing personal to anyone, but to own a Naim system is to understand the actual burn-in or warm-up requirements :wink:

Ouch!

Well, quite. Pity that burn in isn’t confined to Naim. Life would be much simpler, especially for someone like myself who no longer owns a Naim system - save for Powerlines and two Muso QB2’s!

1 Like

When I put together my current system I ordered 2 Nordost Heimdall 2 power cables.
This was some 10 years ago.
The order had some difficulty with shipping from the US with one cable arriving a good few months before the other.
I have a simple source and integrated amp set up.
I used another audiophile cable to run the system whilst waiting for the second power cable to turn up.
After the second Heimdall power cable dropped. I thought I had a great opportunity to see for myself any difference in burn in - especially since Nordost are notorious for it.
I distinctly preferred the more run in cable on my source and the new one on my amp.

1 Like

Do you mean you preferred the new one to the run-in one on your amp rather than the other way around (ie. new one on the source) or that you just preferred the sound of the new cable over the run-in one on the amp?

1 Like

I don’t really have time to read through the whole thread.

Could you post a few bullet points of the meaningful and valid scientific arguments you’ve proposed in this thread, backing up your belief cable burn in exists. :blush:

I don’t really have the time to present a list of bullet points to you.

1 Like

How about two or maybe just one.

How about you read my post No. 506?

OK, I get it

You don’t actually have any scientific arguments to prove burn in exists. (Even though you are a scientist).

But because you are a scientist, you do know, the people who have scientific arguments that prove burn in doesn’t exist are incorrect.

Fatcat, I find your tone highly objectionable sir. I’m perfectly willing to address your points and to provide further clarification if required. Not a problem. But you need to learn civility and politeness first.

Apologise for being rude to me and then we can continue.

1 Like