Thanks for the reply, I agree completely.
This is i think a relevant part of the story. You also never hear people report that their amplifiers sound worse after 200 hours of running in, they always mention an improvement.
If there were any significant changes in sound character, it would statistically have to be a degradation about half of time. Changes in something as subjective as sound quality could not possibly be considered an improvement 100% of the time.
Not until it’s in active use in the device.
Much like a new car internal combustion engine. Brand new, unused, it takes time to wear in (literally, in this case).
Actually that’s not quite true insofar as many break-in stories involve it getting worse for a time too, i.e. it’s not a continuous improvement. I actually think I was experiencing this too (with all caveats applied). But yes, everyone says it’s better at the very end. (And when I had to borrow my dealer’s broken-in 252, I am pretty convinced it was better vs my new one)
…not really…I would have thought that the manufacturer actually markets products which sound better after burn in, as opposed to the converse.
I have repeatedly said that I definitely believe that audio electronic components will change in the first hours or even weeks of operation.
I can see a definitive case in point where electrolytic capacitors change over time. Initially their capacitance value will change fairly rapidly as the ‘forming’ process stabilises. After this point the minor properties (such as DA, ESR and possibly self-inductance) will continue to show reducing changes over a longer time.
It is also likely that there will be impurity migration at the junctions of semiconductors under the effect of heat (increases mobility) and electric fields (increases applied force), causing some changes in the majority carrier, and probably greater changes in the minority carrier.
Both of these are active components (although in different ways) relying on interface effects for their functioning, hence are particularly subject to change. This is not true of cables.
Please don’t try to hang on to discredited theories when you (by your own omission) don’t understand them or the context in which they are ‘supposed’ to operate.
The very term “Working out” implies trial and error and learning, this either requires an evolution like process (between generations) or intelligence (if in one occurrence of an item).
And also equally easily disproven.
See my post above and please refrain for ascribing views to me when you don’t know me.
Please stop giving impossible explanations about HOW things happen when you don’t understand those explanations. Say you hear the subjective effect and I won’t challenge that, if you hear it you hear it, I have absolutely no reason to doubt you on that. Hearing it doesn’t though explain HOW it occurs.
Explanation that a perceived effect cannot occur through a specific stated mechanism is a technical claim not a subjective one; therefore debunking that specific explanation is a technical issue and has no bearing on the subjective occurrence or otherwise of the effect.
I have never claimed that cable burn in is impossible. I have only stated that so far, all the proposed mechanisms don’t stand up to scrutiny. I’m still waiting for a valid explanation of the mechanism.
I will be delighted and fascinated to hear anyone provide such a valid explanation of the effect.
I have!
Unfortunately the mechanical analogy doesn’t hold up for electrical ‘burn in’.
The mechanical process is easily understood and the results can be seen and photographed with a simple optical microscope, indeed they can often be seen by the naked eye, felt with a fingertip, heard in the running of the machine, measured in the increased efficiency of the machine, and seen in changes in the amount / type of debris that accumulated in the oil. These are all simple testable changes.
Unfortunately that’s not the case for electronic ‘burn in’, the changes are in minor, difficult to measure properties. Properties that can often only be measured in a component in isolation, not in a complete assembled system.
Yes I see, thanks, a poor analogy.
I’ve learned a lot on this thread!
More complicated that it looks, isn’t it!
Here is another explanation of the cable burn in, by Galen Carol, from his site ( Galen Carol audio. com).
Curious how Mrs Xanthe will find that. And others too.
“ Cables: Most all cable manufacturers agree that break-in is a result of changes in the conductor and/or dielectric. According to one manufacturer: “The insulation (or dielectric) will absorb energy from the conductor when a current is flowing (i.e. when music is playing). This energy-absorption causes the dielectric’s molecules to re-arrange themselves from a random order into a uniform order. When the molecules have been rearranged, the dielectric will absorb less energy & consequently cause less distortion.”
Cardas has, for years, included a Cable Break-in Guide with their cables. In it they state: “All cables need a break-in and warm-up period. Better cables require longer break-in. With all cables, the more you play them and the less you move them, the better they will sound.” The unique geometry of Cardas cables require that “…the strands be of equal tension… Current flowing through the cable during break-in, and each warm-up period, will relax the structure of the strands.”
Another prominent cable designer believes that during the break-in process electrons are establishing new micro pathways through the conductor material and these changes in the conductor is the primary reason for the improvement realized through break-in. They believe that most of the signal travels across the surface of the conductor. Viewed under a microscope the surface that appears smooth to the naked eye is really a series of peaks and valleys. The irregular surface forces electrons along a circuitous path to their destination. When a cable is bent or twisted, new tears and fissures form, disrupting existing pathways and requiring new ones to be formed. This explanation lends credence to reports that cables need to be re-conditioned and being handled. I’ve seen this in a very real way.
Years ago, when break-in first became realized, we decided to complete the process before shipping our cables and advertised the service as a value-added benefit. It didn’t take before we started hearing back from customers who questioned whether we’d done what we promised since their cables indeed improved after a week or two of use. We believe that, at least in part, the act of coiling the cables for shipment and then uncoiling them after arrival, was the culprit.
While there is no hard data (that I am aware of) to prove to the engineers among you that break-in in exists, I’m sure 99.9% of audiophiles have heard the benefits of the process and believe strongly in its importance.”
Indeed the Emperor was observed to be wearing beautiful clothing.
…worth remembering that The Emperor’s New Clothes was a work of fiction?
Don’t understand, sorry
There is a great video series on Wondrium (formerly named The Great Courses) about these kinds of mental phenomena.
I don’t know if linking is allowed here, but you can find it searching for:
“Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills”
The episode guide is as follows (each around 30mins):
01: The Necessity of Thinking about Thinking
02: The Neuroscience of Belief
03: Errors of Perception
04: Flaws and Fabrications of Memory
05: Pattern Recognition-Seeing What’s Not There
06: Our Constructed Reality
07: The Structure and Purpose of Argument
08: Logic and Logical Fallacies
09: Heuristics and Cognitive Biases
10: Poor at Probability-Our Innate Innumeracy
11: Toward Better Estimates of What’s Probable
12: Culture and Mass Delusions
13: Philosophy and Presuppositions of Science
14: Science and the Supernatural
15: Varieties and Quality of Scientific Evidence
16: Great Scientific Blunders
17: Science versus Pseudoscience
18: The Many Kinds of Pseudoscience
19: The Trap of Grand Conspiracy Thinking
20: Denialism-Rejecting Science and History
21: Marketing, Scams, and Urban Legends
22: Science, Media, and Democracy
23: Experts and Scientific Consensus
24: Critical Thinking and Science in Your Life
Highly recommended!
…also, in the fictional work, the observers did not critically appraise their conclusions. We do.
…it’s a fictional piece, about mass delusion.
OK, challenge accepted! Lets deconstruct this.
As previously explained PTFE, PP and PE molecules have no polar sites and so aren’t affected by electric fields that are significantly below their dielectric strength. The effect described can occur with cables using PVC as the dielectric (i.e. some low cost cables only, and may account for why PVC is usually a less good choice for a dielectric in high quality audio cables).
This is just an assertion with no evidence or proposal of mechanism to back it up. As a simple assertion it’s not testable, and therefore there is nothing to verify. It is unsupported opinion only.
“Viewed under a microscope the surface that appears smooth to the naked eye is really a series of peaks and valleys.”
True
“The irregular surface forces electrons along a circuitous path to their destination.”
Not true at audio frequencies, disproven by field analysis.
True.
“disrupting existing pathways and requiring new ones to be formed”
May be partially true, see observation about field analysis.
“This explanation lends credence to reports that cables need to be re-conditioned and being handled. I’ve seen this in a very real way.”
This gives no reason to believe reconditioning occurs below temperatures needed for annealing (>200°C for copper). In other ways this is an unverifiable assertion that depends on an unspecified mechanism of “reconditioning”
This is based on the unverifiable assertion in the previous passage, hence itself becomes an unverifiable assertion.
“While there is no hard data (that I am aware of) to prove to the engineers among you that break-in in exists”
True - to the best of my knowledge at least.
" I’m sure 99.9% of audiophiles have heard the benefits of the process and believe strongly in its importance.”
A statement of opinion with which I neither agree nor disagree as I have insufficient evidence to support it or disprove it.
There are a few scientific errors or limitations, but still nothing to give a good explanation (as stated in the last paragraph).
In conclusion…
Inconclusive!
…and I am pretty sure that most of us have engaged Type II cognition in coming to our conclusions.