I guess this would be a why?,Question: Burn in

PolkClyde

I have had the new tweeters for a couple of years now,just got the chance to burn them in,really.over a 100hrs of non stop music.but first,I was a little disappointed in the new RDO's,no highs. I said to myself, bring back my SL2000.I want my highs back.But baby,let me tell you, this burn in stuff,works. I'm a fan of the RDO's Now,WOW.I don't know any other words right now,but WOW. The RDO's Rock. Will you guys explain the burn in process to me.can't believe the highs I'm hearing.I know I can do a Google,but You guys are better then Google.Shall I say,Audiophile GODS. Thanks

jcandy

PolkClyde wrote: »

I have had the new tweeters for a couple of years now,just got the chance to burn them in,really.over a 100hrs of non stop music.but first,I was a little disappointed in the new RDO's,no highs. I said to myself, bring back my SL2000.I want my highs back.But baby,let me tell you, this burn in stuff,works. I'm a fan of the RDO's Now,WOW.I don't know any other words right now,but WOW. The RDO's Rock. Will you guys explain the burn in process to me.can't believe the highs I'm hearing.I know I can do a Google,but You guys are better then Google.Shall I say,Audiophile GODS. Thanks

There is no need for tweeter burn-in. A tweeter's electrical or mechanical parameters do not change in some permanent way over time. On the other hand, a tweeters electromechanical parameters are temperature-dependent, so driving it hard will change the sound as the voice-coil temperature increases. What might be changing over time is your brain's processing of the loudspeakers.

The only break-in effect is related to the woofer's suspension. If you measure Fs for a woofer "cold", and then after driving 10min at Xmax with a 40Hz test-tone, the value will be seen to decrease slightly. This is a largely negligible thermal effect which is typically at the limit of perception.

BlueFox

Break-in is a more accurate term for speakers than burn-in, although they are used interchangeably. In my mind at least, burn-in refers to electrical components reaching their optimal performance after some period of time. On the other hand, speakers, being a mechanical device, need to loosen up, break-in, before working at their peak.

jcandy

BlueFox wrote: »

Break-in is a more accurate term for speakers than burn-in, although they are used interchangeably. In my mind at least, burn-in refers to electrical components reaching their optimal performance after some period of time. On the other hand, speakers, being a mechanical device, need to loosen up, break-in, before working at their peak.

Yes, I agree with that distinction.

20hz

I have seen people selling speaker wires on ebay and have wrote "they have had the burn in so the sound is now 100%"
I realize in their world they are convinced it helped but its their mind only .
I have wanted to write them asking how non moving parts are more compliant but didnt want to open a can of worms .
With my subs I never ran a burn in disc I figured I would know (maybe) when they are compliant but why wear them out sooner ??

PolkClyde

20hz wrote: »

I have seen people selling speaker wires on ebay and have wrote "they have had the burn in so the sound is now 100%"
I realize in their world they are convinced it helped but its their mind only .
I have wanted to write them asking how non moving parts are more compliant but didnt want to open a can of worms .
With my subs I never ran a burn in disc I figured I would know (maybe) when they are compliant but why wear them out sooner ??

to burn in or break in my MIT Shotguns. As of now,I have continously played music,for over 100hrs now,non stop.

decal

aaren253 wrote: »

Could be because sodium burns yellow and that would make the flame look brighter as alcohol (isopropyl I think is what you were looking for) doesn't have much flame colour.

^^^^^^ reported ^^^^^^

fishbones

Yeah,...must be your brain changed PolkClyde :rolleyes:.

Trust your ears PC, they are not deceiving you. Burn-in does exist, but since it's something that can't be measured scientifically, there are a lot of naysayers, especially electronic engineers that learn through their own careers that the only way to prove something in their line of work is to show it can be measured. But there are also EE's on this forum if you did some digging, you would find they believe very much in burn-in, because they are willing to "listen", and realize that not everything that exists on this planet is measurable.

PolkClyde

fishbones wrote: »

Yeah,...must be your brain changed PolkClyde :rolleyes:.

Trust your ears PC, they are not deceiving you. Burn-in does exist, but since it's something that can't be measured scientifically, there are a lot of naysayers, especially electronic engineers that learn through their own careers that the only way to prove something in their line of work is to show it can be measured. But there are also EE's on this forum if you did some digging, you would find they believe very much in burn-in, because they are willing to "listen", and realize that not everything that exists on this planet is measurable.

I love it,just Like "God".well,that's another subject.I'm not crazy,I know what I hear and it's just amazing.MIT Cables are all that,well to me,they are. Burn in or break in,what ever you want to call it,is "Real." I have never heard these tweeters,sing like this,and not shut down.I thought I needed to replace my Polly Switches.Well,maybe I still do,they are over 20 years old.but the sound,is awesome.I hope the MIT cables are compatible with the Infinity Kappa 9's.they should be here today or tomorrow.I'm going to stick with this burn in process for my cables,MIT,of course.Hey,the non audiofile CD's are even sounding good. I know what some of you might say.PC,it's the new Adcom GTF 750 in passive mode,or it's this of that.But,what ever it is,it's all good and I don't feel like I wasted all of this money, for nought. Love you guys.you all taught me everything I know,but not everything you know,hahaha(having fun with you).I'm honored to be a member of the forum.

jcandy

fishbones wrote: »

Yeah,...must be your brain changed PolkClyde :rolleyes:.

Trust your ears PC, they are not deceiving you. Burn-in does exist, but since it's something that can't be measured scientifically, there are a lot of naysayers, especially electronic engineers that learn through their own careers that the only way to prove something in their line of work is to show it can be measured. But there are also EE's on this forum if you did some digging, you would find they believe very much in burn-in, because they are willing to "listen", and realize that not everything that exists on this planet is measurable.

Can't be measured scientifically? Honestly, how do you know its not your mind playing tricks on you; for example, doesn't the brain eventually filter out tinnitus?

BlueFox

jcandy wrote: »

Can't be measured scientifically? Honestly, how do you know its not your mind playing tricks on you; for example, doesn't the brain eventually filter out tinnitus?

Unfortunately, no. I have had slight tinnitus in my left ear since waking up one morning in March 2002 and wondering where that noise was coming from. After some time I realized it was my ear. While it is primarily noticeable only when there is no background noise, it is always there. For whatever reason, string music (violins, cello, etc.) sooth it, and pure piano music irritates it.

I really wish the brain could filter it out, but it doesn't work that way.

jcandy

BlueFox wrote: »

Unfortunately, no. I have had slight tinnitus in my left ear since waking up one morning in March 2002 and wondering where that noise was coming from. After some time I realized it was my ear. While it is primarily noticeable only when there is no background noise, it is always there. For whatever reason, string music (violins, cello, etc.) sooth it, and pure piano music irritates it.

I really wish the brain could filter it out, but it doesn't work that way.

I'm sorry about that. Perhaps not for everyone.

I recall that there is therapy based on noise with appropriate spectral content to alleviate tinnitus. Don't have time to Google to look in more detail. Nevertheless, I believe there are further examples from vision; when one eye has a defect the brain will sometimes correct for the anomaly. My uncle recently had surgery to repair muscle in his right eye, now that the eye is pointing in the correct direction, he is waiting for the brain to stop "correcting" for the previous state in which the eye was pointed in the wrong direction.

Certainly sounds like a more plausible scenario than burn-in.

ben62670

jcandy wrote: »

Can't be measured scientifically? Honestly, how do you know its not your mind playing tricks on you; for example, doesn't the brain eventually filter out tinnitus?

Everything can be measured. The problem is we have not figured out how to measure everything. It's very nice that you had an education that taught you only to believe in things that you can presently measure. Who knows maybe in 10-20-30- or even 100 years from now people will look back at your statements and laugh because they did figure out a way to measure sonic changes after burnin-breakin. Enjoy having a closed mind and not trusting your ears. I would give the recipe analogy again, but I don't feel the need to repeat myself every time someone who thinks numbers tell all shows up.

RuSsMaN

Another one of these threads? Really?

heiney9

RuSsMaN wrote: »

Another one of these threads? Really?

Yep, appears J-Candy is on a roll to save us all from ourselves. What a selfless individual that J-Candy person is.

Holy Audio Messiah, he has risen and is posting all over the board about all our audio "sins". :rolleyes::rolleyes:

All must repent now, before it's too late.

H9

ben62670

I am repenting. I am repenting. Thanks J-Candy. I almost bought something that I thought sounded good. Apparently it was a mind trick, and I bought something with the same specs that saved me from myself...

fishbones

jcandy wrote: »

Can't be measured scientifically? Honestly, how do you know its not your mind playing tricks on you; for example, doesn't the brain eventually filter out tinnitus?

I do understand and believe that the brain is an amazingly powerful thing, and can make you percieve things that aren't even there, but...a good example of why I believe in it (besides experiencing it many times throughout the many years I've been fooling around with good quality audio components), is on an occasion when I had to replace a tweeter in the left speaker for some Boston Acoustic's I had that was pushed in by my toddler. The right side was not damaged, so I didn't touch that speaker.

I recieved the replacement tweeter (from BA) and installed it. I fired it up. It sounded like it wasn't working. Sounded absolutely awful! There was almost no treble at all. The whole left side of the soundstage sounded like it was being cut off at 8K hz. I walked up to the speaker putting my face in it - sounded just as awful, but there was definitely "sound" coming out of it, so it was functioning. Put my face to the other (untouched) right speaker - sounded beautiful, extended, with air around all the instruments. The left side sounded dead, flat, dark, veiled, no air around anything, cutoff. I had experienced burn-in on many things before, but I still almost doubted that I didn't get a dud, because it was such a striking difference of sound from the right tweeter.

I let it burn-in overnight (8 hours). There was a noticable improvement from the night before, but they still had a long way to go. At about 20 hours the tweeter was 3 times better sounding than it was new. Keep in mind I am even walking up to the speakers and comparing the right and left channels to each other. Finally, after about 100 hours, I could not distinguish the two different sides from each other anymore. They both sounded great.

That is as good of an example as I can give to try and explain that it does exist.

On3s&Z3r0s

If there's any truth to the break-in / burn-in phenomenon then I'm kinda peeved, especially with something like cables. With replacement parts like drivers, ok, whatevs. Maybe they need some time to loosen up or whatever to blend with something that might have been put together 20 years before they came off the factory line, but if MIT cables need to be broken in, or even benefit from it, that's an excellent reason for me not to buy them.

If I buy something, I want it to work as well as it's going to work the day I buy it. Ideally, it would keep working just like it did on the day I bought it for a good long time. I don't want to buy something and then wait for it to magically get better at some undisclosed time in the future depending on how I use it.

I don't discount that there could be an effect like what is being described even if scientific instruments can't measure it. Of course our brains and scientific instruments are going to work differently, so of course what happens in our brains is going to be different than what happens on the screen of an oscilloscope or whatever. But if I'm paying you $300 for six feet of cable and burn-in is real, then for chrissakes burn the @#!@# thing in at the factory!

fishbones

On3s&Z3r0s wrote: »

But if I'm paying you $300 for six feet of cable and burn-in is real, then for chrissakes burn the @#!@# thing in at the factory!

Then they would double for the same cable.

On3s&Z3r0s

fishbones wrote: »

Then they would double for the same cable.

For one thing, I doubt that. Whatever the manufacturing process is that fabricates the cable has to far outweigh what it would cost them to pump a small amount of electricity through it for a week or whatever it takes. Computer manufacturers burn-in the machines they make as a quality control measure, so it's not like this is unheard of in manufacturing.

But I'm sure at some point somebody thought about doing it and decided there wasn't any point to it in economic terms, and they should do whatever they think works for their business. To me it just seems lazy and sloppy and adds to the shadiness and snake oil perception of a lot of high end audio.

Also, I think the dissenters like jcandy should be able to share their viewpoint without encountering the level of derision that he has. He has a different viewpoint on a matter that is totally subjective. He's entitled to that viewpoint. Is it impolite to tell a relative stranger that they are imagining things? Maybe. But the ad hominem going back in his direction is lame.

Toolfan66

I agree with you about being entitled to a veiw point, but to be pushing your veiwpoint in many threads the last couple days is trolling IMO! knowing full well that it will do nothing but stir the pot. my guess is jcandy is someone that has been here before and has an agenda...

Just my veiwpoint.

On3s&Z3r0s

TOOLFORLIFEFAN wrote: »

I agree with you about being entitled to a veiw point, but to be pushing your veiwpoint in many threads the last couple days is trolling IMO! knowing full well that it will do nothing but stir the pot. my guess is jcandy is someone that has been here before and has an agenda...

Just my veiwpoint.

Could be... I just skimmed a few of his other posts, it's kinda hard to tell what's outright trollish and what is just insistence that science trumps experience. I don't mean to pick or get in the middle of a fight... was just saying... carry on burning in, or flaming, or whatever it is we've been discussing.

JRLowey

jcandy wrote: »

Can't be measured scientifically? Honestly, how do you know its not your mind playing tricks on you; for example, doesn't the brain eventually filter out tinnitus?

True, the brain does.... until some fool mentions the word 'tinnitus'

Thanks alot...

jcandy

ben62670 wrote: »

It's very nice that you had an education that taught you only to believe in things that you can presently measure.

I don't know why this always has to be about "me" rather than the issue. I am the messenger, not the message, and I believe in all sorts of things I can't "presently" measure. One example would be another person's brain and its propensity to filter visual and aural signals (a few examples were mentioned above) and otherwise play strange and wonderful tricks on its owner. Most remarkably, you accuse me of being close-minded, but I wonder if any of you are willing to concede that some of things you hear are not "real".

Seriously, what part of the tweeter gets "burned in" during burn in?

jcandy

JRLowey wrote: »

True, the brain does.... until some fool mentions the word 'tinnitus'

Thanks alot...

I'm sorry. Last time I use that as an example on an audio forum.

But it does illustrate the power of the mind. Another example is heart palpitations -- as soon as you think you have them, you'll get them. Some people wind up in the ER because of it.

silvertuner

recently i upgraded my factory 1974 crossover components, including binding posts and de-ox'd a few parts, for some newer technology and fresh caps and resistors. after showing the comparison to my step-father, i told him "expecting 80ish hours for total break-in before its totally enjoyable, maybe 100". his response...

I've always been curious about the break-in period thing. I would think that optimally, a speaker would be at its beat the day you buy it and slowly and gradually degrade from that point.

i am having a hard time thinking of a GOOD way to explain this, i have a case of mild retardation when it comes to teaching, i just KNOW what it is, and cant explain it typically. how about a little help from those of you technically inclined. he is very much involved in audio, even allowing me to modify his crossovers in his sony ss-mf515's and he LOVED what it did for them. so please, tell me WHY there is a break-in period, what happens during this break-in period, and how to PROPERLY break them in. very interested in the different responses!

fishbones

It can't be explained, cause it can't be measured (yet). Do some digging in the archives (especially DarqueKnight's threads) and you'll learn alot. But, you still won't be able to answer him with a logical answer.



The ears don't lie! ...*runs off into the distance yelling - fists pumping into the air*...The ears don't lie!

mdaudioguy

Why not?

silvertuner

mdaudioguy wrote: »

Why not?

its easier to say "there is a break in" and people accept it than it is to explain WHY there is a break in period.

jcandy

This excerpt is from a thread titled The big 'burn-in' fantasy, from the Harbeth forum. The author is the owner of Harbeth Audio, Alan Shaw:

I have explained the reality of the so-called burn-in issue. As far as loudspeakers that I know of are concerned, the issue is 100% in the mind. It is entirely about acclimatisation. I am so sure of this that I am willing to eat any Harbeth speaker that you or anyone else can demonstrate changes its character after a so-called burn in.

This is one of those wretched non-issues that has been hijacked by marketeers as a cover for poor speaker design. They've cunningly switched the responsibility from the designer to the consumer saying 'if you, the consumer can't hear how wonderful these speakers are then you, the consumer are in the wrong'. In fact, the design is wrong.

Speaking as a designer, it is 100% my responsibility - my duty, my job to design you a speaker that you will enjoy from the moment you open the carton. It is not your responsibility to have to endure some half-baked, ill-conceived excuse for a quality speaker for hundreds of hours until you are so ground down by the experience that you can't tell right from wrong. Sorry, but that's the reality - poor design covered-up by marketing BS: that's the top and bottom of the 'burn-in' fantasy!

=============================

P.S. I've been thinking through my own listening experiences over many years. It's occurred to me that mine are the completely opposite of the burn-in brigade that you mention. The BIB you say is often seduced over a long period of acclimatisation (or maybe not) - that is, the more they listen the less faults they hear; the less pimples, spots and blemishes they notice on their new speaker girlfriends. However, during either my own product design and development phase (or evaluating other speakers) my personal experience is the exact opposite of the BIB's. Initially I am under my new design's mesmeric spell, because I've created this beautiful baby and it charms me ... but the more I listen the less the spell binds me, the more issues I can hear. Sometimes it takes hours, sometimes days and in the case of a complex speaker months for them to bubble up from my subconscious. Then one has to roll up ones sleeves and resolve those subtle and concealed problems until finally the design is truly ready to go to market. Unresolved issues irritate me. They're unprofessional. But I have the huge luxury of being my own judge, juror and executioner. I never invite anyone to listen at any time during the design phase over perhaps a year or more. How could a brief exposure to a well intentioned visitor contribute meaningfully to the design cycle when it's taken me innumerable hours to identify issues? But that's not the way anyone else I know works - they have pressure form other departments and hence the outcome is a speaker designed by committee with latent technical issues that nobody takes ownership of. And those are the ones that you need to acclimatise to. Not a Harbeth.

Alan A. Shaw
Designer, owner
Harbeth Audio UK

silvertuner

but does that go for modifications done to crossovers on older speakers, ie 1974 altec's lol. caps and resistors and inductors is what im mostly referring to. i have a hard time believing surrounds dont open up over time and get a bit more excursion in woofers after they get a little more use and flexibility, but that isnt what i am referring to