Do you promise to post a video of that on here?
2 Likes
I note what you say but if your 50% definition is correct why has not this been reported by the listeners whether professional or not. Surely it would of been mentioned on forums by users of audio?
I agree with you. What I said is not absolutely true in general, but I was only referring to audio phenomena, like burn in, Ethernet cable soundā¦
My sentence is indeed a non sense if not integrated in the context of my post.
And thus the numbers of obese Americans and Brits (where diet and nil exercise is found to be the main causative) continues to waddle ever upwardā¦
2 Likes
I think one reason is that we are taught to expect that burn in improves sound, so we have a bias towards it. Our mind is not set to expect that it will deteriorate. In a physical sense however the burn in effect can equally improve or deteriorate the balance of the sound spectrum.
If the sound was already good to begin with, what would make it ābetterā? More bass? More highs etc? Many people subjectively feel that when something sounds louder it sounds better, so is that a good measure? There are no objective norms, so statistically there should be at least close to 50% reports that the sound didnāt improve after burn in. The fact that all pro reviews report an improvement is therefore not a good indication for the true degree of burn in effects.
ā¦there is a counter argument to this idea: when a product reaches the market, it is likely to be at its best, having been through repeated testing, improvement, retesting and so onā¦the component that we buy will be the final version made with new resistors, capacitors, i-cs etc etc, themselves needing to catch up with the development process, including its implicit burn-in
Thatās true, but all high-end equipment is tested when it leaves the factory to be within specifications, so it is supposed to sound āgoodā when it reaches your home. It is also designed to only degrade/transform minimally under use, since a larger degree of degradation would also makes it less predictable/reliable.
Since it cannot be exactly predicted how each individual transistor, resistor, capacitator, connector etc will degrade over the next 50-200 hours of playing, and how any changes will interact with each other, it wouldnāt be possible if every device would sound subjectively ābetterā after that period.
Very detailed opinion and I definitely agree with you. If speakers need burn in, do you have a suggestion what SPL level I should play them for example 2 m away from the speakers in the listening position? My normal listening level is 75 dB peak in music for example drums. I sometimes listen to rock or a genre that requires 85-90 dB peaks.
As John Hunter from REL suggests for the subwoofer, play them at louder levels for 1-2 hours, can be even around 90-95 dB I think he mentioned, not too sure about that level. But would you consider your speakers not run in before a certain level of ātortureā 
?
I would appreciate your answer.
I would guess that the āfactory gate referenceā version would equate to a new version of the development versionā¦that is, sounding good, but improving as burn-in progresses. This would also account for burn-in not resulting in a deterioration in performance.
1 Like
I often refer to my ears burning in, with new kit. I wonder how much of our perception of burn in is just that. Our perception change as we become familiar with the changed sound. Of course if we replace a piece of kit and we notice an immediate change then that is something different.
This could be another Ethernet cable thread.
I wonder how development engineers cope with the prospect of extended burn in. Letās say they change some components and wish to listen to check the effect. Do they check it immediately, or after a short (48hr) soak test? Surely they canāt wait the extended periods considered by some posters here. If not, would that mean that decisions regarding what to launch for production could be made on equipment which isnāt fully burned in?
1 Like
There is way too much focus on frequency respose at the expense of other ingredients to good sound. Nearly all amps have a flat frequency response to begin with, and still they donāt all sound the same. Obviously frequency response is not the only important thing - as we all know in fact.
Your theory of sometimes having to become worse for some listeners after burn-in hinges a lot on this overemphasize on frequency response, it seems to me. And in any case, if the āburn-inā is expected and involves the reaching of the stable designed target parameters, I donāt see why it should not get better as a rule.
Edit: what jlewis already said
1 Like
Iāve messaged you.
Yeah we know how. A randomized and comprehensive study of the disease trajectories that included visitors to Lourdes and those who didnāt visit would provide evidence (or not) for the efficacy of visits. We could say definitively and with high confidence whether-or-not it was worth visiting Lourdes in terms of the effect on diseases. Note that this is very different to being able to explain WHY a visit to Lourdes may have worked.
(I remain baffled at the lack of a large wheelchair and crutch recycling centre on the outskirts of the town)
However what I read online as to the actual period of the burn in seems to be a real roller coaster ride, where some users posted every day a sort of a diary record of eg new Naim Amp, reporting muffled bass and thin trebles one day, deep bass and shrieking treble next day, then all is good third day and then back to issues of sound while all others advise ādonāt worry this would last about a month and all eventually will be goodā So to some every one is fooled all in the mindā¦ I still find that difficult to believe even when I have never experienced this different of sound after burn inā¦ All very Freudianā¦
I think the OP has had their question more than answered, so Iāll close the thread now.
6 Likes