break-in--bane or boon ??

Trelja, nice conversation/argumentation; this is the way it can be on audio forums. :)

You seemed to be indicating there may be variances between hand built units. If there was zero variance, i.e. all two units were built at the same time with doubles of parts, then my point falls to the ground. It seemed, however, that you were referring to units built over a period of time, so I made my point.

I have been consistent all along, and I believe my comments about whether a cap shows signal change is also consistent. My point is that even if it does cause sonic change, 1. Does it pass the threshold of hearing, and 2. Does it show noticeably different sound when compared side by side to a new unit?

My points are quite straightforward, and I believe the only way to resolve the issue is not through logic and argumentation, but by simple comparison of units - which is why I did so. I wanted the answer, not opinion. :)

Regarding your last comment on cabling; Well, there you go. You think I sound like a skeptic, and I think you sound like a subjectivist. :)

The cable skeptic says, "There is no difference between the sound of an assortment of cables." Well, I say there is, and I am not depending upon data to know it.

I'm saying, "There is no demonstrable difference (i.e. audible) between IDENTICAL UNITS over time. You say the data exists, but I have conducted the test and didn't hear it.

The two propositions are not even remotely close. And you will note that the prototypical cable skepetic will not conduct even the most simple listening test. Why? Because they know! I think it's obvious I am willing to conduct the actual listening test.

I actually think people - and now I'm not directing this to you Trelja, but the community - are afraid to suggest that their perceptions can be unreliable over time. It's absurd to think that we have such perfect sonic recall that we can declare definitively that something we heard five weeks ago is changed from what we heard today, even though heard with the same set of gear, as if our perceptions are impervious to change! :(

It was earlier suggested by John that perhaps I was being influenced by anxiety or another psychological effect. Well,what about all those who are hopping in and out of the listening seat? Maybe their blood pressure is lower any given day? Maybe they didn't fight with the spouse and feel less tension, etc. Maybe they are less tired... You want to talk about ANXIETY - how about the guy who really isn't super excited about the sound of his new $XXXX toy, but is desperately hoping 300 hours of Burn In transform it! Can you say heart palpatation as he settles into the chair? Tee hee hee, man, I could run with this argument, but I think I've made my point.

Sorry, it's too simplistic to declare that Burn In is 'real' when it comes to temporally stretched out casual observations. :)

I would love to have someone do a a/b test between factory cables and burned in cables with me. I'm dying to hear this change in the presence of someone who's experienced it. I will not deny it but I'm sure its system dependant.

Mapman, I couldn't stop laughing at that one.
Aren't the Yankees damned anyway?
Thanks.

Al, I understand the other variables you mention but if the ones you list were the ones responsible, then the improvement wouldn't stick around as long as it has. The improvement would come and go depending on time, weather and what have you. What I hear is constant. Consistent.

As for my anticipating in other recordings what I hear in the first one that I hear an improvement in, it has never been of the same amount or degree due to the different quality levels of the recording and pressing. I'll even go to the trouble of bearing through some mediocre recordings to see if they benefit from the burn in improvement and most of the time, they don't. They're still bad.

It takes a really good recording that I'm familiar with and others of that ilk when it comes to evaluating and appreciating the improvements.

For the life of me, in all the years I've been listening, I can't understand why some people can't hear what I hear while others do. I'm glad I do and feel sorry for those who don't (please understand that I'm not condescending).

As for a methodology that would, or could, ascertain break in or burn in of a cap, wire, chip, etc. I don't see how it could be reliably done. Everyone would have to be present when it happens. And when would it happen? And would everyone have the hearing acuity to discern it? Would the system be of a revealing enough nature to demonstrate it? It wouldn't be repeatable as once it's burnt in, it wouldn't happen again. Everyone would have to be imminently familiar with all the recordings as one would not suffice. It would be too onerous a task.

I feel it would have to be in a relaxed setting that one is intimately familiar with, with recordings that one is intimately familiar with, with no time constraints, and no anticipation involved. The very nature of burn in would dictate this approach.

As for validity, I hate to sound like a politician, but trust me.

As for veracity, see above :-)

All the best,
Nonoise

Geoff, nope, not the "radio receiver" that you say is out of your control, but that last nth degree of soundstage dimensionality on a revealing system??...just possibly might be missed the first time around...who knows.

Doug, my point, and it's really more of a question for me than anything else, was: what if this phenomenon influences us at indeed a very low level and exists as a sort of 'noise floor' for our conscious state...something we are all so familiar with in our lives that we no longer notice its functioning yet, just possibly on occasion, we have been influenced by it even without any direct awareness that we were...no rhinos involved at this level, of course. I may indeed be off base, though, at best it's no more than my own supposition, really. No attempt to impune your results or efforts, btw. By that I mean that I was directing my comments at you, but not directing them at you, *personally*, (there is a difference).

All that aside and for the record, I DO find the results of your experiment intriguing exactly because they do strike me as counterintuitive. Even more so because so many different components were under test at once - I would've guessed an additive effect, if anything. Both the results and your conclusions do seem to go against my own experience (as I currently accept it, anyway). Either something is inconclusive or wrongly done with the test, or a huge (well, basic, maybe) tenant of audio should be, if not overturned, then completely re-examined(!). Have you done any sort of follow up experiment at all? I'd be curious.

Nonoise, your post perfectly sums it up for me and my own subjective experience with it all has so far mirrored every word of it!

Douglas_schroeder, I also appreciate the discussion, thank you. I believe in such a small world, this represents the route toward best sharing the hobby.

Though I may reference your comments directly (and to others in other threads), my true intent speaks to a much wider audience. For one whose minds have already decided, I do not hold on to false hope. However, I understand that many read the forums. The aim is to not only ensure that the other side's opinions do not solely exist so that they see no counterpoint, but to spur their own curiosity and potential toward experimentation and keeping an open enough mind to try new things.

Douglas_schroder, "I believe the only way to resolve the issue is not through logic and argumentation, but by simple comparison of units."

We agree completely on that point. In fact, that's EXACTLY where I'm coming from.

The DynaKits I've built are sometimes at the same time, from the same parts bins. My experience is that one obviously will get broken in first, sound the way it should, and the sound of the second will eventually catch up once it goes through the same process.

Just a quick diversion back to objectivism. The trend through my lifetime in the realm of high-end audio has moved away from science and engineering, and toward black magic. Because of the way this business works, there's no longer enough money from sales to attract research dollars from the big companies as in the past. Over time, those who remain to manufacture this gear have less of a scientific / engineering / mathematical background than at any point in the past century, it increasingly became a cottage industry. Not to go too far down this road, but we live in a field populated by folks who have gone as far as algebra yet we require calculus in order to move to the next level. By that, I mean improvements on the level such as SACD over CD.

Douglas_schroeder, "You think I sound like a skeptic, and I think you sound like a subjectivist. :)"

Absolutely! I do admit to that willingly. My past twenty five years lie in science and engineering, so you would think I must be an objectivist, and to a large measure I am. I live in the world of mathematics, and seek out the explanation for things we hear. I don't listen to square waves, but I do know that music is a far more (orders of magnitude, actually) complex phenomena than a sine or square wave, and so the static algebraic devices that simply measure those artifacts are incapable of painting the truer picture our ears provide us with. The Scientific Method revolves around observing what makes a difference in the truest sense of the word, and right now, regardless of whether one thinks my statement sounds silly, our ears, hearts, and minds remain the best measurement devices available. As my good friend, The Doctor (Mechans) likes to say, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." In other words, the sole aim of all of this is enjoyment of the music.

Finally, for those who need to see an example of capacitor break-in, please take a look at http://sozoamplification.com/break_in.html The article I've previously mentioned showed a much more involved and surprising trace than this via whatever computer program the author employed, but I hope that some will consider that this whole break-in thing might just involve something more than pixie dust.