View Full Version : Burn In?
icehockeyboy
18-05-2012, 22:13
During a conversation with a mate about cable burn in, he asked me a question that I did not know the answer to.
He asked me if the volume level makes any difference with the burn in process, and does running in at a low volume in the case of speaker cable, work the same as if done at a higher volume level.
:scratch:
That is an excellent question. Watching this with interest... ;)
Reid Malenfant
18-05-2012, 22:21
During a conversation with a mate about cable burn in, he asked me a question that I did not know the answer to.
He asked me if the volume level makes any difference with the burn in process, and does running in at a low volume in the case of speaker cable, work the same as if done at a higher volume level.
:scratch:
I'm not sure that the volume level would matter unless you were talking about breaking in a drive unit (speaker), when it would as it has a mechanical resonance. If you make it move a good bit, it'll run in faster.
As for cables, I don't know, good question! :)
I tend to use a high-ish volume when burning in speaker cables as it does happen more quickly. Line level interconnects are easier as they always run at maximum signal level, except for the preamp to power amp interconnect where I turn the volume up and switch the speakers off.
Phono cables take the longest time to burn in, which tallies with their very low signal levels.
I've never heard any digital cable burn-in effect.
Reid Malenfant
18-05-2012, 22:38
I've never heard any digital cable burn-in effect.
That made me think :)
I concur, though only for audio & it wasn't audio that was affected :cool:
Wakefield Turntables
18-05-2012, 22:44
i have no answer to this, I listen at high volumes also. You can just tell when a cable changes.
Reid Malenfant
18-05-2012, 22:57
That made me think :)
I concur, though only for audio & it wasn't audio that was affected :cool:
Made me think a bit more...
Different connections & cables sound different, some better, some worse. But they don't tend to change over time - agreed :)
erchie84
19-05-2012, 06:32
The burn in service applied by many manufacturers are done by a machine are they not ? With no volume
Makes no difference what the volume is - there's no such thing as cable burn in, it is just your ears getting used to the new sound.
:sofa:
;)
The burn in service applied by many manufacturers are done by a machine are they not ? With no volume
The machine applies a burn-in signal to the cable to simulate lots of hours of play. The bit in bold doesn't make sense since if there was no signal drive there'd be no burn-in.
Makes no difference what the volume is - there's no such thing as cable burn in, it is just your ears getting used to the new sound.
:lol:
icehockeyboy
19-05-2012, 08:29
Alex, I also thought the bit about getting used to the sound was the reality.
But what about when someone, (I'm think of Effems findings here for want of anyone else's)
first gets their cable, and describes missing features, like Frank did with his TQ Black, which were there with the Blue, but then after a number of hours burn in, tells of how it is starting to come on song?
Surely that is not just getting used to it, if details which were not there start to be audible?
The problem is its not a controlled 'test', what would be needed is two identical cables one thats been used for X hours and the other brand new and untouched....then you can form a semi meaningful comparison otherwise its just hearsay I'm afraid.
I think that cable "burn in" has nothing to do with "getting used to the new sound". The "burn in" process, usually does not involve any listening. Anyway, I am not sure if there is any benefit from "burn in" overall (personally I haven't experienced any changes).
"Break in" often involves some listening during the process and makes a bit more sense in having a real effect on the cable.
Here is a rather intereting explanation by Cardas:
http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=12&pagestring=Cable
As I've suggested on numerous previous occasions, a solid test that you can run yourself is usually very straightforward and proves cable directionality.
Simply reverse one of your speaker cables, leaving the other one alone. Now listen. Reverse back and listen again.
If you can hear directionality, the thought experiment eventually leads to a proof of burn-in (otherwise, how could it gain directionality).
My engineer's take on it is that there is some degaussing and electrostatic discharge effect from running a signal through a cable. Once you're happy with it, leave it alone since using it in a different position (i.e. for a different source component) might need it to be burn-in again.
Ali Tait
19-05-2012, 09:06
As I've suggested on numerous previous occasions, a solid test that you can run yourself is usually very straightforward and proves cable directionality.
Simply reverse one of your speaker cables, leaving the other one alone. Now listen. Reverse back and listen again.
If you can hear directionality, the thought experiment eventually leads to a proof of burn-in (otherwise, how could it gain directionality).
Any perceived change could be down to making and breaking of the contacts more than any directionality perhaps.
I am not given to having delusions about the sound of my system, so whenever I plug a brand new cable in and it sounds horrid then after a few hours of running they begin to sound less so, I am totally confident it is not me that is becoming accustomed to the horrid sound :ner:
I suppose you could apply the simple test of disconnecting that same cable and reconnecting it a SHORT while later and if it sounds horrid still, then perhaps it might well be that you did in fact get used to that horrid sound in the short term and a break away from it has confirmed that hypothesis.
However, I did highlight the word "SHORT" in that statement above because my own experience suggests that not only is burn in from new a real phenomenon, it also repeats when the cable has not been used for a long while and that period could be anything from 6 - 12 months onwards. I have a mains cable in my store that exhibits this trait and it sounds rather dreadful for the first minute or so of being connected up again, with distortion that very quickly clears and then sounds perfectly OK. All through it's life I have measured the resistance and checked all the connectors for sound connections and these readings have remained constant with no obvious gain in resistance that could account for this.
Intrigued by this I bought a new pair of speaker cables a couple of years ago specifically for this experiment, that I have used for around 50 hours or so for the burn in process until I perceived it was complete (They didn't sound all that hot from new but did after 50 hours) and then stored them away. After a couple of years in storage now it would be interesting to dust them off and find out if what I reckon has any substance to it :eyebrows: Silver cables in particular have a clear discernable burn in although it is short term.
Any perceived change could be down to making and breaking of the contacts more than any directionality perhaps.
So break both cable's contacts but reverse only one.
This is from personal experience -
If you have a static system in use, where things don't get unplugged and reconnected all the time, it's interesting how doing this a few times periodically can make the sound as if you've changed a cable or something. The sound can take a day or two to settle back down I've found. Of course, all this is moot if you chop and change stuff all the time and still hear differences..
As for cable "burn in," we've been here so many times, some hearing all sorts of refinements with time and others not. I should say that solid-core cables MAY just take a little while to settle into their direction, AC signal or not, although I'd argue that a single ended music signal is a positive wave to "0," rather than a plus and minus signal around "0" - HELP from an engineer PLEASE :lol: - so the electrical "wave" would appear to be travelling one way down a cable????????
Oh gawd, I think I'd better troll back under my rock before the fires of hell open...
A few years back one of our local cable manufacturers put his money where his mouth is and sent packs of three cables in various states of burn in around the country to members of the AudioEnz forum and the consensus was that yes the cables sounded different.
There is a long thread on AudioEnz about this which I will dig out and post if anybody is interested, just not tonight please as I am enjoying a few beers and lots of sounds.
A music signal is +ve and -ve around zero, as far as cables are concerned. If there is DC on it, all bets are off.
As for directionality, I simply can't explain it. But I can hear it.
A music signal is +ve and -ve around zero, as far as cables are concerned. If there is DC on it, all bets are off.
As for directionality, I simply can't explain it. But I can hear it.
I can just about cope with the notion of burn in, but directionality and the hearing of it thereof has eluded me. According to Mr Wonfor, the TQ cable has a sort of inherent diode effect and reversing the direction of the cable has an audible difference. If I can be fussed to grope around the back of my system I might take him up on his observations one day.
The problem is its not a controlled 'test', what would be needed is two identical cables one thats been used for X hours and the other brand new and untouched....then you can form a semi meaningful comparison otherwise its just hearsay I'm afraid.
I have actually done this. I own quite a few sets of our favourite Belkin IC's, three sets of which were still in their original packaging and unused (two now) so I was curious to determine whether cable burn in is fact or fiction. Well, my findings are that cable burn in is not a myth. The new cables sounded bright and brash in comparison with the ones I've been using for a little over a year now and bass was a lot less defined ;)
Ali Tait
19-05-2012, 15:32
So break both cable's contacts but reverse only one.
Have you tried that Martin?
ColinWonfor
19-05-2012, 15:59
Try a different experiment,
Heat the cable in hot water, then cool fast.
I have had some interesting result by doing this.
The cable did sound better.
I have since found out why, lets see if you come to the same conclusions just for fun.
This is a fun experiment only so now laugh but do try it. :lol:
realysm42
19-05-2012, 16:41
I once unplugged my speaker cable and played my music without it. Sounded alright.
erchie84
19-05-2012, 16:47
[QUOTE=MartinT;327315]The machine applies a burn-in signal to the cable to simulate lots of hours of play. The bit in bold doesn't make sense since if there was no signal drive there'd be no burn-in.[/
Yep but going back to the original op's post he's asking whether volume control affects the burn in period.... You can burn a cable in with a signal but when it's on a machine there's no control of volume
Reid Malenfant
19-05-2012, 16:51
Yep but going back to the original op's post he's asking whether volume control affects the burn in period.... You can burn a cable in with a signal but when it's on a machine there's no control of volume
Why not & do you really need one anyway?
If you are burning them in on a rig you can subject the cables to far more current (if you wanted to) than they'd normally pass to a speaker.
You just need a nice low resistance resitive load & a power amp driven by an oscillator or music source.
Mr Kipling
19-05-2012, 16:55
Hi. Iv'e read of a cooker being used to burn-in speaker cable. The idea is to induce a heavy current flow which lines-up and has a linearising effect on the molecules of the wire. An electric cooker works better than a gas one.
Kind Regards,
Stephen
I have actually done this. I own quite a few sets of our favourite Belkin IC's, three sets of which were still in their original packaging and unused (two now) so I was curious to determine whether cable burn in is fact or fiction. Well, my findings are that cable burn in is not a myth. The new cables sounded bright and brash in comparison with the ones I've been using for a little over a year now and bass was a lot less defined ;)
Who swapped the cables over? You or did you get somebody to do it for you IE: blind test....
Why not & do you really need one anyway?
If you are burning them in on a rig you can subject the cables to far more current (if you wanted to) than they'd normally pass to a speaker.
You just need a nice low resistance resitive load & a power amp driven by an oscillator or music source.
Simpler and cheaper still, wire the speaker cable up to a 100 watt light bulb and plug it into the mains :eyebrows:
*THIS IS A JOKE BEFORE ANYONE TRIES IT*
Who swapped the cables over? You or did you get somebody to do it for you IE: blind test....
I swapped them over myself Neal, the difference between the two was not subtle. As I mentioned, the existing cables had been in use for just over a year within my system and they are really good performers for the money. The new cables were brash and bass light in comparison...
Just some thoughts on burn-in. I recently got a Pure DAB radio (Evoke 1S) for the kitchen & to listen to BBC 6 Music.
When I first started using it I thought it was broken, tinny distorted sound... over time though the sound has become much more acceptable.
It absolutely wasn't the radio set changing character, but more my ears adjusting to sound of it vs. my main system.
This isn't the first time I've experienced this. The question then is how much of burn-in is a HiFi specific phenomenon, and how much of it is our brains 'burning in' to accept a change in sound from the norm?
Oldpinkman
18-09-2013, 09:40
Just some thoughts on burn-in. I recently got a Pure DAB radio (Evoke 1S) for the kitchen & to listen to BBC 6 Music.
When I first started using it I thought it was broken, tinny distorted sound... over time though the sound has become much more acceptable.
It absolutely wasn't the radio set changing character, but more my ears adjusting to sound of it vs. my main system.
This isn't the first time I've experienced this. The question then is how much of burn-in is a HiFi specific phenomenon, and how much of it is our brains 'burning in' to accept a change in sound from the norm?
Wow. Advanced common sense. A specific answer, like 4.3 kilos, is hard to give. But to state that perceived differences which are not measurable or demonstrable by reliable test methods are caused by the variability of the perceptions of the auditioner - only using much simpler language - was a work of genius! I must buy you a drink sometime :cool:
Rare Bird
18-09-2013, 09:52
Burn in time! i nearly choked on mi tea, that was funny..
realysm42
18-09-2013, 10:10
My system sounded horrible, until my brain got used to it, now I think it's great.
StanleyB
18-09-2013, 11:17
My system sounded horrible, until my brain got used to it, now I think it's great.
Technology has moved on since the days of your Amstrad music system. Try something a bit more up to date and brand new.
Rare Bird
18-09-2013, 11:50
Technology has moved on since the days of your Amstrad music system. Try something a bit more up to date and brand new.
Another funny one, i must stop drinking tea while reading these threads :lol:
Clive197
18-09-2013, 13:22
I'm not convinced about cable burn in but leaving that aside I have in the past been given a number of Burn-In discs with the reps saying it does not matter about volume, just needs a signal to be passed though. That it seems applies to burning in CD players and amps as well. Speakers are a slightly different thing in that you need a bit of welly to get the mechanical parts run-in.
I have experienced "burn in" with cables many times myself, particularly with silver cables.
It was not any form of "expectation".
It was not a case of placebo - whatever that is.
I was not delusional.
I have never ever "got used to the sound over time" either.
After many years of handling many thousands of cables I speak from personal experience.
Explain it, I cannot and don't give a toss why either.
realysm42
19-09-2013, 12:27
"But if you can't meeasure it, Frank, it can't be true. Don't you know that we know everything?"
"But if you can't meeasure it, Frank, it can't be true. Don't you know that we know everything?"
I can't be arsed to measure it myself, but I did ask the local university to have a go and the price they quoted was terrifying :eek:
Richard Kimber
19-09-2013, 16:46
I have experienced "burn in" with cables many times myself, particularly with silver cables.
It was not any form of "expectation".
Indeed. I've experienced this too, with a pair of pure silver analogue interconnects. When I first connected the cables and switched on the sound was, frankly, TERRIBLE. It was so awful that I thought I'd made a bad mistake buying them (circa £200) and thought about returning them immediately. However, I was aware of the possibility of burn-in, so I left the system on for a few hours while I was out of the room. When I returned a few hours later the sound was really excellent and I've not regretted the purchase since.
- Richard.
realysm42
19-09-2013, 16:58
When I was demoing a DAC, I had to buy some unbalanced cables for it and it sounded good, but very bass light. A week later it was thunderous!
I must be delusional.
Clive197
19-09-2013, 17:32
I purchased 0.5m Binary Star Digital Cable from The Missing Link which is a silver cable. It sounded great out of the box and I don't think it's changed over the 6 months I've been using it. So I still have my doubts about burn-in.
bobbasrah
19-09-2013, 18:12
The logical assumption that cable sounds different or needs burned in presumes that the parts either end to which it connects are static and stable, despite containing circuits and components... A very big assumption...
Explain it, I cannot and don't give a toss why either.
Not even a teeny-weeny tiny little smidgen of a 'tossette'? :eyebrows:
Marco.
Not even a teeny-weeny tiny little smidgen of a 'tossette'? :eyebrows:
Marco.
Just for you Marco, one fifth of a tossette and that is my best offer :lol:
Wow, that's *almost* as much as I care (for not knowing the same thing) :D
Marco.
When I was demoing a DAC, I had to buy some unbalanced cables for it and it sounded good, but very bass light. A week later it was thunderous!
I must be delusional.
Not delusional but to cite such a difference between 'bass light' and 'thunderous bass' means one of them was not fit for purpose nevermind burning in!
More and more I keep reading about such massive differences in cables. When I first got into HiFi I bought a Gotham iPod cable, I was wowed by the huge richness and extra bass. Now I realise that it slightly tilted to a smooth balance, but I was pursing better sound.
I notice that the stanch objectivists are asking for ABX only and arguing about very real phenomena such as expectation bias (conscious and unconscious), our awful auditory memory and the adaptive qualities of our minds that work to make music believable out of its constituents. Staunch Subjectivists fall into the trap of believing their ears too much and not accounting for how our mind, mood etc. affect us.
I am a firm cable believer, but if changes were blatant there would be no argument as to whether they make a difference or not. I do think that people should invest in decent cables, but not to succumb to tales of 'wow an RCA cable transformed my system'. You might get a bit less grain or a tad leaner, tighter bass, maybe you want a tad richer, but not fundamentally altering things. The icing on the cake as I like to put it.
Oldpinkman
19-09-2013, 19:37
Not delusional but to cite such a difference between 'bass light' and 'thunderous bass' means one of them was not fit for purpose nevermind burning in!
More and more I keep reading about such massive differences in cables. When I first got into HiFi I bought a Gotham iPod cable, I was wowed by the huge richness and extra bass. Now I realise that it slightly tilted to a smooth balance, but I was pursing better sound.
I notice that the stanch objectivists are asking for ABX only and arguing about very real phenomena such as expectation bias (conscious and unconscious), our awful auditory memory and the adaptive qualities of our minds that work to make music believable out of its constituents. Staunch Subjectivists fall into the trap of believing their ears too much and not accounting for how our mind, mood etc. affect us.
I am a firm cable believer, but if changes were blatant there would be no argument as to whether they make a difference or not. I do think that people should invest in decent cables, but not to succumb to tales of 'wow an RCA cable transformed my system'. You might get a bit less grain or a tad leaner, tighter bass, maybe you want a tad richer, but not fundamentally altering things. The icing on the cake as I like to put it.
No - if I read the first post right, especially given the context of the thread, it was the same cable burnt in. Your other comments accordingly apply in spades :doh:
realysm42
19-09-2013, 20:45
Neil, would that what you said were 'true', either I'm a fucking idiot for what I say or people are too stubborn in their objectivism to ever change their minds, life's too short to worry I guess.
I might start a HFS account so I can slag everyone off here when they don't agree with me too, seems the trend right about now.
Odd places, forums.
Let's take it easy, chaps. This is too interesting a discussion to let it descend into a squabble.
For my part, I definitely hear the effects of burn-in. However, with cables I would qualify the changes as being mostly subtle.
I've never heard cable burn-in, but then again I use Maplins mains blocks, so what do I know?
Maplins, eh? Hark Mr Fancy Pants! Clearly the B&Q ones are only good enough for peasants.
Marco.
Oldpinkman
20-09-2013, 06:12
Maplins, eh? Hark Mr Fancy Pants! Clearly the B&Q ones are only good enough for peasants.
Marco.
Go on - rub salt in the wound. Half a working day lost, and £10 up the swanny fitting a bloody MK double socket instead of a nice B&Q bodge because of bullying on this forum...:D
Yes, you're learning, lol! Just make sure that you plug your main source into the side that sounds the best ;)
Marco.
Oldpinkman
20-09-2013, 06:35
To address the subjectivist / rationalist conflict Martin has stepped into referee, and restore some proper balance and perspective to, I will have a go at being uncharacteristically brief. (I have returned to this point to note I have again failed :()
It is not a question of challenging peoples hearing. We all hear what WE hear, and in the final analysis, in our system, that is all that matters. The ears are the final arbiter. (It complicates a bit when, as now, you find a lady in your life sharing your interest unbidden, and a tad inclined to call a spade a spade, but that's for another day)
I would go further - down the Steadman path - that what matters is listening to and enjoying the music, and not endlessly evaluating equipment INSTEAD of listening to music. With many things to sort out in my recently reborn musical experience, and being busy with work after a fairly obscene 5 week holiday, I am falling victim to this "fetishism" aspect. It was a price to be paid from working in the business too.
But to reiterate - the ears are the final arbiter - for each of us as Individuals.
When it comes to sharing those experiences, and in particular, when you work in the business and have to schlep round dealers and reviewers, it starts to matter to you a bit more that those experiences are consistent and repeatable, and not "in the moment".
It also matters that the natural excitement and exuberance experienced from something making music sound extra special doesnt translate into hyperbole. I think this was Martin's (MartinT) point to Martin (Realysm42) about just how big the difference might be (and Marco's point to me, usually, regarding mains cables)
But the key issue for a "real" difference - as a sharing experience, or a basis for a product development, is repeatability. Often - we get used to an idea or sound. Especially if we have spent a lot of money on something, it "grows on us". Often, as ordinary punters, we are not in a position to go back and objectively confirm that our subjective impressions are valid. When I dipped a toe into these discussions earlier in the year, I used my priviliged position to have 2 techies to compare side by side (with original arm, and F5. With original arms and original platter and funk platter). But generally that is not available to us. We don't swap back and forth between a burnt in cable and a fresh one. We don't whip the Mike New bearing on and off the turntable, back and forth between auditioning sessions. So what we "hear" - or more precisely - what we perceive or experience, is shaped over time, both by our actual hearing experience, our expectations, and cognitive dissonance ( a need to justify the rationality of our purchases or decisions). This - I think - was Yomanze's point.
So - to go for the short point I originally intended, Martin (either of you) - if I bought a fresh wrapped, straight out of the fridge version of the cables you have heard "burnt in" - are you SURE - would you stake your house on it - that you could tell whether the fresh version or the burnt in version was playing over the course of an afternoon if you couldn't see and didn't know which one it was?
From a professional product development perspective that was the criteria we faced, and is my background in this business, and I hope explains my "take" on many threads in this forum.
In my experiences of facing similar challenges (usually backed by my "techies" quoting impenetrable science to me - although they had the decency to have a stab at dumbing it down for me), in my experience, I learned that a whole series of subjective factors can influence our perception of what we hear at any time. That subjective response may lie at the heart of enjoying music. But it is not very helpful in separating real equipment changes from fantasy.
Back to the day job :cool:
From a professional product development perspective that was the criteria we faced, and is my background in this business, and I hope explains my "take" on many threads in this forum.
In my experiences of facing similar challenges (usually backed by my "techies" quoting impenetrable science to me - although they had the decency to have a stab at dumbing it down for me), in my experience, I learned that a whole series of subjective factors can influence our perception of what we hear at any time. That subjective response may lie at the heart of enjoying music. But it is not very helpful in separating real equipment changes from fantasy.
Indeed, Richard, and I understand that. What also isn't helpful are threads here, which don't 'fit' with your mentality, being continually derailed in order for you to outline the above like a broken record, at every available opportunity, with a rather thinly disguised disdain for mindsets that are opposed in content to yours...
What you have to realise and accept is that AoS isn't your personal playground to use to challenge and attempt to 'rectify' what you consider are examples of "fantasy", nor is it some formal 'scientific assessment centre' in which all aspects of audio are analysed and dissected for 'rationality'.
It is a place where a group of hi-fi and music enthusiasts gather for an informal chinwag and to relate their valid experiences in audio (no matter how 'fanciful' you consider those may be), to each other in a relaxing, respectful and friendly environment. Most importantly of all, it's meant to be FUN! :exactly:
Essentially, and you've been told this before (and not just from me either), you must find a way of expressing your valid opinion without simultaneously attempting to undermine that of others which doesn't conform to your ideals.
Therefore, I suggest you have a good think about that and decide whether or not, in that respect, you fit in here, as I'm simply not willing to host any more of this type of input from you and the continual disruptions that it's bringing to discussions.
Marco.
To address the subjectivist / rationalist conflict Martin has stepped into referee, and restore some proper balance and perspective to, I will have a go at being uncharacteristically brief. (I have returned to this point to note I have again failed :()
It is not a question of challenging peoples hearing. We all hear what WE hear, and in the final analysis, in our system, that is all that matters. The ears are the final arbiter. (It complicates a bit when, as now, you find a lady in your life sharing your interest unbidden, and a tad inclined to call a spade a spade, but that's for another day)
I would go further - down the Steadman path - that what matters is listening to and enjoying the music, and not endlessly evaluating equipment INSTEAD of listening to music. With many things to sort out in my recently reborn musical experience, and being busy with work after a fairly obscene 5 week holiday, I am falling victim to this "fetishism" aspect. It was a price to be paid from working in the business too.
But to reiterate - the ears are the final arbiter - for each of us as Individuals.
When it comes to sharing those experiences, and in particular, when you work in the business and have to schlep round dealers and reviewers, it starts to matter to you a bit more that those experiences are consistent and repeatable, and not "in the moment".
It also matters that the natural excitement and exuberance experienced from something making music sound extra special doesnt translate into hyperbole. I think this was Martin's (MartinT) point to Martin (Realysm42) about just how big the difference might be (and Marco's point to me, usually, regarding mains cables)
But the key issue for a "real" difference - as a sharing experience, or a basis for a product development, is repeatability. Often - we get used to an idea or sound. Especially if we have spent a lot of money on something, it "grows on us". Often, as ordinary punters, we are not in a position to go back and objectively confirm that our subjective impressions are valid. When I dipped a toe into these discussions earlier in the year, I used my priviliged position to have 2 techies to compare side by side (with original arm, and F5. With original arms and original platter and funk platter). But generally that is not available to us. We don't swap back and forth between a burnt in cable and a fresh one. We don't whip the Mike New bearing on and off the turntable, back and forth between auditioning sessions. So what we "hear" - or more precisely - what we perceive or experience, is shaped over time, both by our actual hearing experience, our expectations, and cognitive dissonance ( a need to justify the rationality of our purchases or decisions). This - I think - was Yomanze's point.
So - to go for the short point I originally intended, Martin (either of you) - if I bought a fresh wrapped, straight out of the fridge version of the cables you have heard "burnt in" - are you SURE - would you stake your house on it - that you could tell whether the fresh version or the burnt in version was playing over the course of an afternoon if you couldn't see and didn't know which one it was?
From a professional product development perspective that was the criteria we faced, and is my background in this business, and I hope explains my "take" on many threads in this forum.
In my experiences of facing similar challenges (usually backed by my "techies" quoting impenetrable science to me - although they had the decency to have a stab at dumbing it down for me), in my experience, I learned that a whole series of subjective factors can influence our perception of what we hear at any time. That subjective response may lie at the heart of enjoying music. But it is not very helpful in separating real equipment changes from fantasy.
Back to the day job :cool:
I really don't understand your *take* on the subject Pinky why you feel compelled to analyse everything that WE here need to do to justify what we hear. For me, it really is black and white, so if it allows a "better" sound to be heard that pleases me it stays and if it doesn't, I kiss it goodbye - smartish and will always be that way. Now that also applies to ANY new component I may add to my system, so your veiled derision about cables has to apply equally to any other component in the chain, so we could then logically extend the objectivist approach to say for example a turntable, so would you then be pleased by the sound from a new turntable purchase and then proceed to conduct wow, flutter, rumble, etc., measurements upon said turntable to justify that you are indeed hearing a "better" sound? What's good for the goose . . . . . . . .
To me the only real difference between the new turntable purchase and a new cable purchase examples cited above is that there is a clearly defined set of parameters and measurements to keep the objectivist camp happy for the turntable, whereas there are NONE for the cable, yet both MUST have the subjectivist final arbiter, your ears. Warped logic there somewhere from my perspective, being a subjectivist anawl :eyebrows:
I really don't understand your *take* on the subject Pinky why you feel compelled to analyse everything that WE here need to do to justify what we hear.
Indeed, Frank. That's the crux of the matter, and Richard must stop this. People hear what they hear (or not), which doesn't require to be continually justifed or 'rationalised'.
Marco.
So - to go for the short point I originally intended, Martin (either of you) - if I bought a fresh wrapped, straight out of the fridge version of the cables you have heard "burnt in" - are you SURE - would you stake your house on it - that you could tell whether the fresh version or the burnt in version was playing over the course of an afternoon if you couldn't see and didn't know which one it was?
That's not quite what I have ever claimed. It's possible (although I haven't come across an example yet) that a cable could burn-in and sound worse. What I am certain of is that cables change over the course of the first few hours of their operation. Silver cables take longer than copper. Small signal cables like tonearm cables take longer still. Speaker cables vary, and so do power cables, as to how long they settle, but again silver seems to take longer.
To answer your question obliquely, I am quite sure that I can hear the difference between a fresh cable and a similar burned-in example. Some of us have tried this experiment with each other. The effect is real.
Oldpinkman
20-09-2013, 11:02
That's not quite what I have ever claimed. It's possible (although I haven't come across an example yet) that a cable could burn-in and sound worse. What I am certain of is that cables change over the course of the first few hours of their operation. Silver cables take longer than copper. Small signal cables like tonearm cables take longer still. Speaker cables vary, and so do power cables, as to how long they settle, but again silver seems to take longer.
To answer your question obliquely, I am quite sure that I can hear the difference between a fresh cable and a similar burned-in example. Some of us have tried this experiment with each other. The effect is real.
Thanks Martin. I appreciate a straight answer to a straight question. I'll keep scratching my head about why, and looking for opportunities to replicate the effect myself. I have used a few cables in my time, and never heard a difference myself. Perhaps I just use the wrong cables. I am certain that whether cables, or other components - if I listen hard enough long enough I change my views about what I think I heard. A:B's are a pleasure sapping pain, but the only way I have ever been sure in my own mind that a difference I heard, was consistent. As I have noted elsewhere - important for product development - tiresome domestically, and so the only differences that matter to me are big ones (which will be capable of "proof" on an A:B - but don't need it to be confident) where I can walk in the room and know. Top of that list at the moment is a certain Arcam amplifier...
So where does this thread go? The question was "what pace do cables burn in at?". I would only approach that by taking 3 cables , one not burned in, one burned in slow, and one burned in fast, and evaluating them with test procedures which Marco doesn't appreciate. How does the question get answered subjectively? Or isn't it meant to be? Is it just one of those interesting questions not meant to have an answer?
Thanks Martin. I appreciate a straight answer to a straight question. I'll keep scratching my head about why, and looking for opportunities to replicate the effect myself. I have used a few cables in my time, and never heard a difference myself. Perhaps I just use the wrong cables. I am certain that whether cables, or other components - if I listen hard enough long enough I change my views about what I think I heard. A:B's are a pleasure sapping pain, but the only way I have ever been sure in my own mind that a difference I heard, was consistent. As I have noted elsewhere - important for product development - tiresome domestically, and so the only differences that matter to me are big ones (which will be capable of "proof" on an A:B - but don't need it to be confident) where I can walk in the room and know. Top of that list at the moment is a certain Arcam amplifier...
So where does this thread go? The question was "what pace do cables burn in at?". I would only approach that by taking 3 cables , one not burned in, one burned in slow, and one burned in fast, and evaluating them with test procedures which Marco doesn't appreciate. How does the question get answered subjectively? Or isn't it meant to be? Is it just one of those interesting questions not meant to have an answer?
The more I read your posts the more bemused I become :scratch:
Where does this compulsion come from that demands you know the answer to everything? I have been in the trade too, yet I can still enjoy and appreciate any component without plunging into cynicism or self-analysis over why I did or did not hear any differences. This applies particularly to magazine reviews where they claim awesome sonic attributes for a component, yet it sounded truly dreadful to me, or at least a grossly watered down version of what was written in the review.
I said in a previous post that I have heard this "burn in" process many countless times over the years, yet not once have I had the urge to drag another new cable off the shelf and A-B ing the two cables, I just accept that it happens. No fuss, no drama, no questioning my own hearing acuity, no gazing at my navel for hours on end and least of all worrying about what others might think. I know full well that nobody has bothered to do any research into whether this phenomena exists or not, probably because we have major diseases to cure as a priority first, so when the objectivists start yelling "Proof, proof, proof!" they do so knowing there isn't any, believing they hold the higher moral ground in the argument from that same lack.
I have mentioned this trait a few times on this forum and no doubt the readers will form their own opinions over what I have written, but most of all they understand what is written above the door when we all entered this forum and by and large we manage to accept each other's viewpoints without getting anal about it, because we are a bunch of like-minded noodle-heads chewing the fat and exchanging yarns about a pastime we love, not conducting in-depth autopsies over WHY any one of us hears what we hear. We could ALL be wrong :lol:
walpurgis
20-09-2013, 12:08
Ho, Hum. I think I'll take the dog for a walk. :eyebrows:
Rare Bird
20-09-2013, 12:14
:lol: ThInk i'll go service the wife.. :eyebrows:
realysm42
20-09-2013, 12:15
The funny thing (and no, its not measurable, sorry) is it was my brother that highlighted the bass lightness with the new cables in. He came round a week or so later and commented on how much fuller the bass sounded.
I wonder if he was getting used to them, even in their absence?
Oldpinkman
20-09-2013, 12:24
The more I read your posts the more bemused I become :scratch:
Where does this compulsion come from that demands you know the answer to everything? :lol:
I'm going through a funny spell. Normally I am far less concerned about other peoples views on HiFi. (As in - completely disinterested). With lots of broken bits, I am rebuilding my system. I might do it again when I move to France. I'm unlikely to make a habit of it. So I'm interested in anything that's good. But not so interested I plan to spend all my life trying everything everywhere. So I am interested in making the process reasonably efficient. I find the opinions of some people helpful. Others not.
In the process of trying to understand and evaluate what I am being told, it seems I offend a few people. I apologise. No offence meant. Just trying to make sense of my world and decide what is reasonably likely to be worth pursuing. The areas that have caused conflict make big claims, and so are attractive to investigate. My investigations leave me finding that I can't share the experiences claimed. It's a bit disappointing.
Other areas still interest me. Especially the claims made by Martin and Paul for the Shelter cartridge. I'd still rather hear it for myself, but I
The question was "what pace do cables burn in at?".
Nope. What Craig (the OP) actually wrote was this:
During a conversation with a mate about cable burn in, he asked me a question that I did not know the answer to.
He asked me if the volume level makes any difference with the burn in process, and does running in at a low volume in the case of speaker cable, work the same as if done at a higher volume level.
Note in particular the following part of the bit I've highlighted: "with the burn in process". In terms of the OP, the existence of the burn in process appears to have been taken as a given. However, what he's asking is if increasing the volume of the listening level helps to accelerate that process.
What you've done, however, is not only not offered him any relevant experience you have of that specific aspect of the process he's referring to, but have proceeded to question the very existence of the process in the first place - and not only that, you've used the opportunity yet again to drone on about how you can't hear any difference between actual cables themselves, a fact which we already know all too well, and as such doesn't need repeating again and again, and again, all over the forum, to people who are quite clearly convinced of the opposite! :rolleyes:
It's tantamount to thread crapping, Richard, and it has to stop. If you wish to demonstrate to everyone the conviction of your opinions on that matter, then start a separate thread which deals solely with that aspect of the argument, and leave other threads alone, which are not centred around that particular area. It's really as simple as that.
I would only approach that by taking 3 cables , one not burned in, one burned in slow, and one burned in fast, and evaluating them with test procedures which Marco doesn't appreciate. How does the question get answered subjectively? Or isn't it meant to be? Is it just one of those interesting questions not meant to have an answer?
It's got absolutely nothing to do with me not appreciating test procedures, and everything to do with what Frank pulled you up on earlier, which you must learn to acknowledge and then apply the necessary action in future to prevent others from accusing you of it again:
I really don't understand... [snip] ...why you feel compelled to analyse everything that WE here need to do to justify what we hear.
If that "necessary action" is unclear, then allow me to spell it out for you:
Only comment on threads where you have some form of valid direct experience of the subject being discussed, and then only in a way that doesn't attempt to discredit or devalue the equally valid direct experience of someone else. Otherwise, PLEASE leave those threads alone and concentrate on contributing to others where you are able to add some genuine value.
I trust that this is now perfectly clear, and that I won't have to repeat myself again on this matter in a day or two days time?
Marco.
In the process of trying to understand and evaluate what I am being told, it seems I offend a few people. I apologise. No offence meant. Just trying to make sense of my world and decide what is reasonably likely to be worth pursuing. The areas that have caused conflict make big claims, and so are attractive to investigate. My investigations leave me finding that I can't share the experiences claimed. It's a bit disappointing.
I for one am not in the least offended by what you write, I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.
I accept fully that you personally have heard no cable differences yourself and have no problems at all with that - it is perfectly normal. If we then resorted to calling you a "deaf twat" or similar epithets, I am sure you would find that disparaging and offensive, but to the best of my knowledge none of us have done that.
I cannot understand though why having heard no differences, you then seek finding an objective answer to that, based upon what others say they have heard, yet you cannot. When others find it difficult to express in quantifiable (objective?) terms what they are hearing, you slip into the default situation that it must be "fantasy", "snake oil", et al and it is that which causes the upset, not your puzzlement over not hearing what others claim to be hearing. We all have different hearing acuity and interpretations of what we perceive to be hearing, so it is utterly wrong for either side of the debate to make generalisations.
I for one am not in the least offended by what you write, I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.
Just to be clear, neither am I offended (heaven forbid). I'm simply pointing out to Richard what is and isn't acceptable on AoS, in terms of contributing to discussions.
Marco.
I cannot understand though why having heard no differences, you then seek finding an objective answer to that, based upon what others say they have heard, yet you cannot. When others find it difficult to express in quantifiable (objective?) terms what they are hearing, you slip into the default situation that it must be "fantasy", "snake oil", et al and it is that which causes the upset, not your puzzlement over not hearing what others claim to be hearing.
Nail > head. Maybe I'm speaking a different language....?
I've been trying to get that through to Richard for ages, but as he's obviously an intelligent chap, his failure to grasp it leads me to no conclusion other than he's being deliberately obtuse.
Perhaps THIS time it will sink in?
Marco.
Going off on a tangent somewhat, this debate is similar to the one that dogs my other interest, UFO's. Dyed in the wool skeptics argue until they are blue in the face that witnesses to UFO sightings either imagine what they experience or mis-identifiy mundane objects as fantastical craft. 95% of the time they would be correct, however the remaining 5% absolutely defy any rational explanation and in the majority of these cases the experience is backed up by multiple witnesses, radar evidence or physical evidence, sometimes all three, and yet still they harp on about swamp gas, balloons and meteorites... :rolleyes:
I guess some folk consider that continually inflicting their 'world view' on an unappreciative audience, with polar opposite views to theirs, is somehow both rewarding and in some way useful :rolleyes:
Marco.
P.S I'll be getting to your PM later. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about it! ;)
realysm42
20-09-2013, 14:19
I had a big debate with a friend the other day, he couldn't get past the fact that everyone's entitled to an opinion, regardless of how educated or not they are on the subject. He got pissed off, I laughed :)
I guess some folk consider that continually inflicting their 'world view' on an unappreciative audience, with polar opposite views to theirs, is somehow both rewarding and in some way useful :rolleyes:
Marco.
P.S I'll be getting to your PM later. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about it! ;)
As an addendum to my previous post, I in no way claim these objects or 'beings' are interstellar spacecraft or alien lifeforms, although I am open to the possibility. I do not have enough data to either prove or disprove this theory, however I will strongly argue that what these people have experienced is utterly out of the ordinary and warrants serious scientific investigation...
Cheers for the update on my PM Marco. I realise there is much to digest and I await your reply with interest ;)
kininigin
20-09-2013, 14:32
Going off on a tangent somewhat, this debate is similar to the one that dogs my other interest, UFO's. Dyed in the wool skeptics argue until they are blue in the face that witnesses to UFO sightings either imagine what they experience or mis-identifiy mundane objects as fantastical craft. 95% of the time they would be correct, however the remaining 5% absolutely defy any rational explanation and in the majority of these cases the experience is backed up by multiple witnesses, radar evidence or physical evidence, sometimes all three, and yet still they harp on about swamp gas, balloons and meteorites... :rolleyes:
It has always baffled me that type of thinking,if you don't agree/believe with certain claims,then move on! What's to be gained from by trying to convince others of their claims,that they are wrong and deluded?
I had this sort of conversation with someone on here about an experience i had ( i saw an orb in my front room!) I was then told that i hadn't seen it and then given explanations on what i had seen :rolleyes:
Oh well,that's the way of the world i guess.I will check your website out Dave,right up my street! :D
If people were a bit more realistic and down to earth about their cable observations then there'd be a lot less conflict. It certainly irks me when people get really hyperbolic about things. Too many wows, critical, fundamental, transformed adjectives...
If you are hearing such blatant differences then there are other forces at work, and it isn't down to cables.
Back to cable burn in, even if it does occur it is NOT a major change unless there are extra components in the cable such as capacitors, and even then am not sure. There is certainly no need to 'wait' for a cable to burn in. My TQ Black (infamous for burning in) did not improve over time, if it did it was a small difference, and it remained coloured and smoothed off.
kininigin
20-09-2013, 14:54
I must say,i have never experienced cable burn in! I think they can sound different,but burn in i'm not convinced of!
It has always baffled me that type of thinking,if you don't agree/believe with certain claims,then move on! What's to be gained from by trying to convince others of their claims,that they are wrong and deluded?
I had this sort of conversation with someone on here about an experience i had ( i saw an orb in my front room!) I was then told that i hadn't seen it and then given explanations on what i had seen :rolleyes:
Oh well,that's the way of the world i guess.I will check your website out Dave,right up my street! :D
You would be most welcome Darren. It's still early days yet so things are a little quiet but we welcome all comers on the site, even skeptics as their viewpoint is as valid as the next persons :)
realysm42
20-09-2013, 14:55
That's part of the problem with words, they are pretty much approximations.
If you are hearing such blatant differences then there are other forces at work, and it isn't down to cables.
Spot on, Neil. If your system sounds off, then look elsewhere to correct it. A cable swap is not going to bring it all magically into focus. Cables are fine tuning for when your system is already performing well. Then, and only then, will you appreciate the differences between cables and be able to make an informed decision.
Oldpinkman
20-09-2013, 15:21
What you've done, however,... but have proceeded to question the very existence of the process in the first place - and not only that, you've used the opportunity yet again to drone on about how you can't hear any difference between actual cables themselves,
Marco.
Where ?:scratch:
Where in post 60 have I droned on about not being able to hear the difference between cables?:scratch:
Where else, at any point in this thread have I "droned on" regarding that point?
I can hear differences in speaker cables - and have posted several times on this forum to that effect regarding QED, Talk 3 and the chord flats I have
I can hear the difference in interconnects, and have posted of experiments we did that demonstrated to us that the substantial differences we could hear were replicated by adjusting electrical values. But I could still hear the differences between the cables
I have never heard a burn-in effect for cables
I have heard burn-in effects for other hifi components
Whilst the issue might be my hearing, I am not too surprised I haven't heard a burn in effect for cables.
You know what they say - never let the truth get in the way of a good story :)
Sorry on the train will add my post to this chopped up one!
Where ?:scratch:
Where in post 60 have I droned on about not being able to hear the difference between cables?:scratch:
Where else, at any point in this thread have I "droned on" regarding that point?
I can hear differences in speaker cables - and have posted several times on this forum to that effect regarding QED, Talk 3 and the chord flats I have
I can hear the difference in interconnects, and have posted of experiments we did that demonstrated to us that the substantial differences we could hear were replicated by adjusting electrical values. But I could still hear the differences between the cables
I have never heard a burn-in effect for cables
I have heard burn-in effects for other hifi components
Whilst the issue might be my hearing, I am not too surprised I haven't heard a burn in effect for cables.
You know what they say - never let the truth get in the way of a good story :)
Richard,
Frank has already explained exactly what the issue is, as have I. I cannot be arsed going over things again. Therefore, the matter is no longer up for debate. If you wish to remain here, then do what I have asked. If not, then you won't be here. It's as simple as that.
If you continue with this argument, your reply will be deleted and you'll be out for a week. I only have so much patience.
Marco.
realysm42
20-09-2013, 16:50
Sorry on the train will add my post to this chopped up one!
:lol: was that a post to let us know you're going to post in a bit?
Cables are fine tuning for when your system is already performing well. Then, and only then, will you appreciate the differences between cables and be able to make an informed decision.
Hear, hear, especially your last sentence! :clap:
Marco.
He asked me if the volume level makes any difference with the burn in process, and does running in at a low volume in the case of speaker cable, work the same as if done at a higher volume level.
I would say it makes no difference for two reasons. First, I have never heard cable burn in despite listening for it (I have heard, but not always, burn in for other components.)
Second, it is hard to understand how the electricity can make a difference. There is such as thing as annealing which will change the arrangement of the atoms, presumably for the better. But the process of running electricity? I don't think it could change the wire - the copper in a meaningful way. It would be handy if the resident AOS metallurgist could have some input here.
:lol: was that a post to let us know you're going to post in a bit?
It was a post that got sent accidentally with all of 3 words before hitting a tunnel on the dreaded Glasgow Euston train line. I can't even remember what it was now! :D
Incidentally, just to clear this up, as I hate 'loose ends'.............
Where ?:scratch:
Where in post 60 have I droned on about not being able to hear the difference between cables?:scratch:
I wasn't just referring to what you wrote in post #60 (that just happened to be the post I quoted); I was referring to the rest of what you've written throughout this thread, but more specifically the tone of what you've written, together with the less than subtle inferences against those who've formed legitimate views that are different from yours.
However, if you want specifics, re-read your post #65, noting this comment in response to Martin:
I'll keep scratching my head about why, and looking for opportunities to replicate the effect myself. I have used a few cables in my time, and never heard a difference myself. Perhaps I just use the wrong cables.
Please get it into your head that we KNOW that you can't hear any difference, and you're entitled to that view, but we're simply not interested in reading about it in every cable discussion that comes up. This thread is specifically about cable burn-in, not about whether one can or cannot hear the difference that cables (mains cables) or whatever, make in general.
"I have never heard a burn-in effect for cables."
So, given that's the case, how exactly did you propose to assist the OP with his enquiry, if you've never even experienced the process he's referring to??
Incidentally, that was a rhetorical question (i.e. it doesn't require an answer)!!
Marco.
Rare Bird
20-09-2013, 19:05
Didnt A&R Cambridge used to soak test their amplifiers years ago? do they still do this?
Didnt A&R Cambridge used to soak test their amplifiers years ago? do they still do this?
In yesterday's economic climate it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they did soak test them, but I would imagine they only get a brief functional test after assembly nowadays. I watched a programme on telly a few months ago about building LCD televisions and was stunned just how quickly they put a newly assembled product through it's paces while still travelling along a conveyor belt. Sheesh, it was FAST!
Rare Bird
20-09-2013, 19:33
I think i remember seeing picture of a Rack full of 'A60's soaking
I think i remember seeing picture of a Rack full of 'A60's soaking
I clearly remember when the A60 was first sold a lot of them turned their toes up within a short space of time, but it was quickly realised that owners were a bit untidy with stray speaker wire whiskers shorting out due to the closeness and placement of the speaker terminals. Having the top cover overhanging the connections didn't help :rolleyes:
Rare Bird
20-09-2013, 19:43
The original ones used the 2 Pin Din speaker output plugs..
Second, it is hard to understand how the electricity can make a difference. There is such as thing as annealing which will change the arrangement of the atoms, presumably for the better. But the process of running electricity? I don't think it could change the wire - the copper in a meaningful way.
It has to be the electricity if you accept that you can hear burn-in at all, since it is the effect of using the cables where we hear a change. if it was environmental, then cables could arrive already settled just from lying in storage for a while. We wouldn't be able to put one cable aside and test it alongside a cable that had been well used and hear a difference. It's running the cable which changes it.
walpurgis
20-09-2013, 21:50
however the remaining 5% absolutely defy any rational explanation and in the majority of these cases the experience is backed up by multiple witnesses, radar evidence or physical evidence, sometimes all three, and yet still they harp on about swamp gas, balloons and meteorites... :rolleyes:
No Dave. It's actually a worldwide conspiracy. Our respective governments have a secret international pact whereby they each put something in the water which makes us vulnerable to subliminal programming via TV. They then condition us to see and experience things that don't actually happen or exist and then test us with the UFO thing. It ensures that when 'Corporate World Government' takes over, we can all be subdued easily! :eyebrows:
It has to be the electricity if you accept that you can hear burn-in at all,
This does not take the matter much further - a bit like saying you must be scared because you are running away. It does appear it must be the electricity if it exists. But the issue for me is how. Electrically charged particles (the electrons I think) move in the wire. What difference would that make?
Oldpinkman
23-09-2013, 05:26
This does not take the matter much further - a bit like saying you must be scared because you are running away. It does appear it must be the electricity if it exists. But the issue for me is how. Electrically charged particles (the electrons I think) move in the wire. What difference would that make?
There is no scientific explanation for it. Scientifically it doesn't happen. It's not just that you can't measure it. There are no theoretical explanations within science. You just have to hear it and accept science (well physics) can't explain it. Strictly there are other branches of science which might have theories - but they are not in the electron movement explanation field. You knew that though.
It's taken a little over fifty years so far and I still haven't burnt in... :eyebrows:
This does not take the matter much further - a bit like saying you must be scared because you are running away. It does appear it must be the electricity if it exists. But the issue for me is how.
Not really. Cables change when you use them. They don't when you don't use them. That's empirical evidence. The issue is that they do change. The how, we don't know yet (just as we don't know how to measure many audible parameters). In my engineering mind, it bugs me. However, when I'm listening to music I don't care.
There is no scientific explanation for it. Scientifically it doesn't happen.
Your second statement does not automatically follow from the first. We can't explain 'dark matter', yet many astronomers are convinced that something is making up for a lot of unexplained mass in the universe.
It's taken a little over fifty years so far and I still haven't burnt in... :eyebrows:
LOL - I think I'm just peaking, Dave. Or is that peaky?
:lol: Good morning Martin :)
Oldpinkman
23-09-2013, 06:10
Your second statement does not automatically follow from the first. We can't explain 'dark matter', yet many astronomers are convinced that something is making up for a lot of unexplained mass in the universe.
Hmm - I accept the language in the 2nd part is imprecise. There is no scientific explanation offered , nor is there one that is consistent with our current knowledge of physics or chemistry.
Your statement about dark matter was also possibly "too quick". Dark matter is scientifically accepted, and consistent with existing theories. Nobody has put it in a bottle yet, and its existence requires a currently unidentified sub-atomic particle - akin to the Higgs bosun. The search for this particle is at the heart of much particle physics today. Theoretical physics is not perfect, final or consistent - there is still no unified theory - but clinging to that truth allows some to argue water flows up hill, which I think misses the point.
It is stretching a point to extend the "not yet identified component of matter" argument to audible effects of electric current in wire. There is no aspect of science currently engaged in researching that. It could be because how we hear music is less important than weighing the universe. But it is probably also fair to say, in the context of science, that the existence of dark matter has been measured and observed by documented reliable scientific procedure, and the quality of scientific control for experiments regarding burn-on on electric cables is less rigorous.
The point I keep getting put in the naughty corner for is NOT that I rubbish what so many on here can hear, it is to note that , like demonstrating the existence of dark matter, given that it is so evident and important, it should be fairly trivial to conduct reliable experiments to demonstrate the point conclusively. At which point the cry of "burn the witch" goes up. :(
Your second statement does not automatically follow from the first. We can't explain 'dark matter', yet many astronomers are convinced that something is making up for a lot of unexplained mass in the universe.
Yup. It would've been more accurate if Richard had written: "There is no current scientific explanation for it." – meaning that the phenomenon may exist, but as yet is currently unproven.
We need to rid ourselves of the notion that there is nothing new to learn in audio and that everything is already a 'done deal', as not to do so, IMO, makes us both guilty of naivety and rather simplistic (wishful?) thinking.
Only those seeking 'certainty' in life require the comfort of considering that all current scientific evidence in audio is conclusive, and therefore requires no further scrutiny. The genuinely inquisitive and open-minded amongst us, however (let's call them 'free thinkers'), entirely comfortable with the existence of doubt, have a somewhat different stance on the matter! ;)
Marco.
I burnt a 'Which!' once, I was annoyed because I'd bought the wrong dunking stool... I really should stop now... :uhho: :D
The point I keep getting put in the naughty corner for is NOT that I rubbish what so many on here can hear...
Well, Richard, let me assure you, that you *have* been guilty of that in the past (or rather, not so much 'rubbishing', but rather attempting to undermine and devalue what many on here can clearly hear), but you're learning now to curb those tendencies, simply because they are unacceptable, so keep up the good work! :)
"...it should be fairly trivial to conduct reliable experiments to demonstrate the point conclusively..."
Yes, *providing* that we know exactly WHAT to assess and HOW to assess it! How can you test for something that you don't yet know exists?? ;)
Anyway, we're starting to wander wildly off-topic again, and very much in danger of entering into a pointlessly circular 'objectivist vs. subjectivist' debate, which this thread is not about.
Therefore, I must (finally) insist that the discussion remains on-topic from this point onwards - and "on-topic" here means discussing the accepted (to some) phenomenon of 'burn in', not questioning the existence of it in the first place.
If you want to do that, Richard, then start a separate thread on the matter, along the lines of: 'Does burn-in exist or is it a figment of our imagination?' This is the last time I will tell you this. I'm not trying to gag you; merely disciplining you to post your comments in the appropriate places.
Marco.
Cables change when you use them. They don't when you don't use them. That's empirical evidence.
I am sure you did not mean that an assertion that cables change with use is empirical evidence. I would interested to know what that empirical evidence is.
I am sure you did not mean that an assertion that cables change with use is empirical evidence.
I'm sure I did! It may not be empirical evidence for you but it certainly adds to my acquired set of experiences.
...and ultimately *that* is what it's ALL about! :exactly:
Marco.
Oh dear, having heard the results of burn in myself I wonder why others aren't experiencing the same thing. Not that I worry about it mind, these are my ears and they tell me it does occur. Couldn't really give a stuff about the science behind it to be honest.
anthonyTD
24-09-2013, 11:58
What ever your opinion is on electronic components needing burn in time, it is a known fact that anything with a speaker driver in will indeed sound different as the speaker suspension, and cone break in etc.
Lets not get "known and understood facts" mixed up with individually perceived differences...:)
A...
Oldpinkman
24-09-2013, 12:36
Just a quick note that I've started a new thread if anyone is interested in related matters not directly relevant to this thread :)
I'm sure I did! It may not be empirical evidence for you but it certainly adds to my acquired set of experiences.
I find often that an individual's experience is equated with fact - that is the human condition I suppose. If (to you) empirical evidence means your subjective experience then we are back to square one - or to put it as I suggested earlier - we have not got any further. From your earlier post I was hoping for some objective evidence. But not to worry; I know this is a hi-fi forum and not an electrical engineering symposium so I did not get my expectations too high.
Andrei, I think what Martin meant (and he can correct me if I'm wrong), is that he's fully aware that empirical evidence and his acquired set of subjective experiences, are two very different things. However, like me, he's not overly concerned about the former, as the latter is what is most important to him, and also valid to his enjoyment of listening to recorded music.
Like you correctly say, this is a hi-fi and music forum, where enthusiasts gather to chat informally to other enthusiasts about subjects that they're passionate about, and to relate their valid experiences to one another, not an "electrical engineering symposium"; nor does AoS double as a formal debating society. Most people here are simply interested in enjoying listening to music and couldn't give a flying toss about 'evidence' and/or 'proving' anything that they can genuinely hear.
In the final analysis, they simply trust their ears and accept it as real (to them), and worry not any further!
Therefore (and this is not aimed at you) I would suggest that some people here embrace that fact and lighten up, without seemingly spending all their waking hours debating subjects that are both not currently within the realms of provability and unlikely ever to be agreed upon by the protagonists from either 'side'.
Basically, there is a time to walk away from a debate and simply 'agree to disagree' with the opposition, as life is too short, but that sentiment seems to be escaping certain very stubborn and pernickety people! ;)
The term 'a broken record' comes to mind......
Marco.
Just a quick note that I've started a new thread if anyone is interested in related matters not directly relevant to this thread :)
No :)
From your earlier post I was hoping for some objective evidence.
I understand your desire but what objective evidence could I provide to you? We've already established that we can't measure what we hear, in terms of subtle effects like those in cables.
Sadly, I think that some people need some form of 'objective evidence' to get out of bed in the morning....
Marco.
StanleyB
24-09-2013, 21:37
Sadly, I think that some people need some form of 'objective evidence' to get out of bed in the morning.....
Now, what would you call "morning"?
I guess the answer is whatever 'objective evidence' dictates it as being!
Me? I just draw open the curtains and look outside... ;)
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
25-09-2013, 06:45
l wish it was as simple as that .......l have to wait for a peer reviewed paper.
.............l don't get out much though.
The Grand Wazoo
25-09-2013, 06:46
l wish it was as simple as that .......l have to wait for a peer reviewed paper.
.............l don't get out much though.
StanleyB
25-09-2013, 06:53
I heard you the first time Chris. No need for the echo ;).
The Grand Wazoo
25-09-2013, 07:18
The second one was an experimental 'control'.
Oldpinkman
25-09-2013, 07:46
The second one was an experimental 'control'.
At the risk of being accused of posting "off thread" I did find that very funny :lol:
The Grand Wazoo
25-09-2013, 07:54
It's me education in science Richard - I likes a bit o' rigour in the long mornings in bed.
Ooh-er misssus!
l wish it was as simple as that .......l have to wait for a peer reviewed paper.
Cool, but I bagsie the sports pages!
Marco.
Audioman
30-09-2013, 11:00
I came across what I think is a very good explanation off 'burn in' and why it may be audible depending on type of cable. Comes from a well known hi-fi manufacturer and designer.
..............though the effect of dielectric is explained in this link as I have posted before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric and a small extract for those who can't be ***** to read it yet still use derogatory terms like b*******.
"When a dielectric is placed in an electric field, electric charges do not flow through the material as they do in a conductor, but only slightly shift from their average equilibrium positions causing dielectric polarization. Because of dielectric polarization, positive charges are displaced toward the field and negative charges shift in the opposite direction. This creates an internal electric field that reduces the overall field within the dielectric itself.[1] If a dielectric is composed of weakly bonded molecules, those molecules not only become polarized, but also reorient so that their symmetry axis aligns to the field."
It is capacitance but as you both say it is very very small, the problem is dielectric effect. Small amounts of signal are stored at the conductor dielectric boundary and phase delayed and fed back in as signal, QED creating information masking or distortion, and the effect of that boundary area forms or deforms over time, as it says in the article. So a non insulated cable does not have this problem which I have proved and is why I use as much tinned copper bar in my internal amp wiring as I can.
Now twisting and fine stranding conductors. First read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twisted_pair and you will see that twisting creates a filter to remove RF. Well that affects the music and makes the cable directional. Fine stranding twisted has similar effect on the music due to skin effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect which shows you even uninsulated wire has changes when you finely strand it and then you compound that by twisting or braiding it. These are all largely inductive effects
Extra reading http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Sco ... page1.html (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/part7/page1.html)
If this is not enough on the technical side then I give up. Just look at the effects talked about here for which we have no means of measuring only to a degree calculating.
As I said I can build or use cable at will that does some of this, loads of this, or none of this, and I have proved it over and over again IT IS NOT A MYSTERY. I can build cable that burns in, is directional, warms up all together or separately or does none of the above, and I know why. I know how these effects affect how we hear music and I use them in my designs and have for decades. Mostly i select and design for no effect but sometimes practicality (like trying to use uninsulated cable outside the box) stops some of it. Good electronic design is the art of compromise.
Also note the reasons why some cables are clearly directional and this makes no difference in others. So apparent changes in sound referred to as 'burn in' depend on the design of the cable in use. To be honest this is a fairly subtle and gradual effect and you can't practically go back and A/B unless you buy a second new set for comparison. Also removing and plugging in cables will clean contacts also likely making a subtle difference.
Paul.
Beobloke
30-09-2013, 12:09
Hmm, said "hi-fi manufacturer and designer" wouldn't happen to make cables would he (or she)?
Not only cables, but shall we say, 'challengingly designed' amplifiers. However, I believe that the vast majority of the sales on his ebay shop are generated from sales of cables... He's also famous for carrying out rather humourous 'mating rituals' with fat blokes on YouTube.... ;)
Marco.
Beobloke
30-09-2013, 13:18
Ah, I would have put money on it that the person in question, whoever he is, sold or made cables. The rest I would file under "too much information"!
The rest I would file under "too much information"!
:lolsign:
Trust me, it's not 'work safe', and nor should it be viewed by any children, before the watershed! :lol:
Marco.
Audioman
30-09-2013, 13:35
Ah, I would have put money on it that the person in question, whoever he is, sold or made cables. The rest I would file under "too much information"!
Well it does attempt to equate real or imagined change with theory. I have heard what I perceive as a slight change over time after a new cable is inserted then really forget about it. Whether any perceived change is actual or just psycho acoustical I am not sure. I do think it's pretty insignificant compared with changing equipment, isolation or room interaction. Even the mood we are in when trying to listen. What we get is people who religiously swear by burn in and those who call it all bollocks. Frankly I don't think it matters that much unless ears are focused on the equipment rather than the overall presentation of the music.
Paul.
Oldpinkman
30-09-2013, 14:49
Not fair, cos I'm not allowed to post here "off thread" like everyone else. Come and talk on my thread :ner:
Don't be daft, carry on, as long as you behave yourself! ;)
Marco.
Beobloke
30-09-2013, 14:53
Well it does attempt to equate real or imagined change with theory..
I'm not questioning the theory in the links. Skin effect, the dielectric effect and the advantages of twisted pair wiring are scientifically provable facts.
What I am questioning is the way the person in question has interpreted some of these aspects - many of the aspects he lists will only have a pronounced effect at radio frequency and/or over very long cable runs.
But if it suits his commercial agenda as a cable 'designer'.....
Marco.
realysm42
30-09-2013, 15:11
Should be called 'Non Value Add'.
Beobloke
30-09-2013, 15:23
Oh good grief, have I really inadvertently stumbled into another petty inter-forum squabble? If so, I would greatly prefer to not be involved in such a thing and will bow out of this thread.
Oh good grief, have I really inadvertently stumbled into another petty inter-forum squabble? If so, I would greatly prefer to not be involved in such a thing and will bow out of this thread.
Eh - what gave you that idea? :scratch:
Maybe some 'in-jokes', but defo no squabbles!
Marco.
Oldpinkman
30-09-2013, 16:16
I'd like a bit more time before I comment fully (Ok Ok - I want to look at my crib sheet, ie ask Jones and K, and they're both busy with Denver). I should also respond to the original where it was posted. And whilst the author is a cable manufacturer - there is this bizarre aspect that surely burn-in is bad for cable manufacturers - the obvious conclusion being buy 2nd hand where possible (unless returning to the start of this thread, it is possible to burn in badly) But - a few preliminary comments
It has a lot in, because I asked for that in my post which triggered this response, so that's a reasonably fair cop.
It drifts off topic a bit, if not for deliberate obfuscation, with that effect. I wanted to stick strictly to burn-in in cables, not directionality, whether they sounded different at all, or anything else.
I have a feeling that the heart of the issue lies with the reference to the dielectric forming "over time".
Even without cribbing I knew a bit about dielectrics forming "over time" (charging an electrolytic capacitor). But I hadn't understood that to mean "over the two weeks after you unwrap them, if you run music through them, and then it stops". I had understood that to mean (and I could yet be wrong) that each time you turn it on (run an electric field through it) the effect occurs over time. More cable warm up, than burn-in. And I rather thought the time in question was down in nanoseconds rather than hours.
The point is - if you look at those theoretical models of the atom on the Wiki-link (and you are forgiven if you don't) whilst there is a change in "state" as the current flows - it changes back afterwards - and there is no permanent change in state. This is perhaps no surprise, even if you are not "scientifically minded" because cables always burn in. How do they know which way to go? Why don't they get built "perfect" and the "burn" effect take them slightly off the boil?
In the final analysis - if there is a real phenomena, and we can't measure it, and can't reliably describe it ( the description of the formation of the field NOT describing a "burn in" effect) then we need to demonstrate it can be heard using a test akin to the one I described in my other thread. (Or stop worrying about it :scratch:)
But for now - that's as much as I want to risk - could be wrong, but I'll research and report back. Bob (Cloth Ears) - feel free to chip in since you plainly know what you're talking about without asking your friends ;)
StanleyB
30-09-2013, 16:17
It reminds me of those Guardian commercials about not seeing the whole picture, but coming to firmly ill informed conclusions.
The point is - if you look at those theoretical models of the atom on the Wiki-link (and you are forgiven if you don't) whilst there is a change in "state" as the current flows - it changes back afterwards - and there is no permanent change in state. This is perhaps no surprise, even if you are not "scientifically minded" because cables always burn in. How do they know which way to go? Why don't they get built "perfect" and the "burn" effect take them slightly off the boil?
Hi,
Not sure if this is a correct interpretation - still trying to get my head around some aspects of the theory - but here we go.
On the wiki link, the explanation concentrates on the effect of an electric field on the atoms which make up the dielectric (remember that the "distortion" of the "electron cloud" in the basic model given only refers to the probability of finding an electron/s in that volume).
However, if the polymer molecules are then aligned in some way, as a result of the "pull" on the atoms from the "distortion" of the "electron clouds" then the effect could become semi-permanent as steric effects could stop the molecules springing back once the signal has been switched off. This is the part which causes me some difficulty :scratch:
I think that the best analogy would be the way in which the magnetic domains are aligned in "soft" Iron when stroked by a permanent magnet. Once the permanent magnet is removed the field remains in what was the non magnetic "soft" Iron.
What would be interesting is if people have noticed the positive effects of "burn in/run in" being reduced or reversed if the cable is subsequently bent/manhandled/heated or reversed in connection. Any of these would be supporting evidence (in my view) for steric hindrance making run in permanent.
Guy.
Stratmangler
30-09-2013, 19:49
Is it the cable running in or is it components at either end changing to accomodate a different LCR component in the cabling?
Oldpinkman
30-09-2013, 19:57
Does anyone have an aspirin?
Stratmangler
30-09-2013, 20:01
Nope - health and safety ruling says that first aiders cannot administer pain relief in the form of aspirin or suchlike.
You'll have to provide your own :eyebrows:
Does anyone have an aspirin?
why/ what's the matter?
why/ what's the matter?
He's going to sprinkle aspirin on the plugs to see if it speeds up burn-in.
anthonyTD
30-09-2013, 21:51
Extending the stable high frequency response capability of Audio equipment and cabling to well outside of our normal hearing' will have a marked affect on how we perceive Audio frequencies, and even though some manufacturers in the past have argued that Audio equipment need only have a frequency response just outside of our natural hearing ability,:rolleyes: many' including myself continue to design and build equipment that have flat frequency response capabilities many times greater than the best human hearing, It all makes sense when you look at the factors involved that lead to frequency response limitations.
Cable insulation, and the dielectric affect it has on frequency response has been well documented else where, However, where it is possible to remove much of the insulation from wiring in relatively low voltage equipment, unfortunately' when dealing with Valve equipment [ as a few of us here do] in many areas of the circuit, bare wiring is not recommended...:)
A...
Oldpinkman
01-10-2013, 05:35
why/ what's the matter?
Actually that should have been an indigestion tablet. This is not my day job or the subject I have my bsc in:rolleyes:
Have now looked at nva ebay listings, reference to genesis report, panel reviewing inc prof hawksford, his 1995 essex echo. Its a lot to take in. I need a friend and he is busy with hus day job. (Incidentally he spent a large part of his career at essex in hawksfords team although I think working on active noise cancellation research at the time that paper was published)
anthonyTD
01-10-2013, 08:42
Something i should have made clear in the earlier post [for those who may wish to use it as a prodding stick] ,,:rolleyes:,My comment above on the bare wire not being advisable relates to modern standards...
And yes, original valve amplifier technology [of which i still repair much of] used in common radio, and television is like rats nests, that does not mean it was better, just cheaper, and allowable for the standards of the time...
Today, there are those who still adhere to similar practices, however, they use the guise of class 2 regulations as justification to hide their abominations in sealed boxes...
Anthony,TD...
As an aside, one wonders how genuinely qualified a failed architect is in commenting on issues relating to amplifier design....?? ;)
Marco.
Something i should have made clear in the earlier post [for those who may wish to use it as a prodding stick] ,,:rolleyes:,My comment above on the bare wire not being advisable relates to modern standards...
And yes, original valve amplifier technology [of which i still repair much of] used in common radio, and television is like rats nests, that does not mean it was better, just cheaper, and allowable for the standards of the time...
Today, there are those who still adhere to similar practices, however, they use the guise of class 2 regulations as justification to hide their abominations in sealed boxes...
Anthony,TD...
The amps with rats nests inside need to be compared to samples that have been 'tidied up' to see if there is indeed a drop in sound quality. I don't mean tieing the cables tightly together in neat geometric shapes as naim and Quad did for decades, but just making the things look as if the assembler cares about the way they're made. never did Glenn croft any harm, and his amps are very neat inside, especially my old preamp wired with maplin telephone solid cores, geometrically laid out as much as possible and often different lengths each channel!
Indeed, Dave.
The thing is, when someone has little real skills in amplifier design, and instead simply 'tarts up' (very basic) established electrical circuits, used by many in the industry 30 years ago, they need to invent something which portrays them as an 'artisan', and thus bolsters their 'guru' status, in the eyes of the faithful...
Basically, if you can't cut it at the business end of amplifier design, by being genuinely innovative, then you respect your limitations and instead create an 'air of mystique' around secondary considerations, such as cable looms! ;)
Marco.
SteveTheShadow
01-10-2013, 12:41
Cable looms increase stray capacitance, which can couple RF hash into sensitive audio stages.
It would be interesting to know how you "tart up" a basic amplifier circuit. IME the simpler the better.
The power supply is 95% of how successful your amp design is. The better your PSU the better the sound you get. The electron management system that modulates that power supply should be as simple and direct as you can get it.
Audioman
01-10-2013, 13:44
Indeed, Dave.
The thing is, when someone has little real skills in amplifier design, and instead simply 'tarts up' (very basic) established electrical circuits, used by many in the industry 30 years ago, they need to invent something which portrays them as an 'artisan', and thus bolsters their 'guru' status, in the eyes of the faithful...
Basically, if you can't cut it at the business end of amplifier design, by being genuinely innovative, then you respect your limitations and instead create an 'air of mystique' around secondary considerations, such as cable looms! ;)
Marco.
Marco. I thought this discussion was about burn in of external cables not internal amp design. For what it's worth the stand out example of using old basic designs is Naim. I don't think there has been any revolutionary developments in a simple power amp design for decades in any case (excl component quality) unless you include class D or additional electronics to accommodate fancy displays and remote control. The NAD 3020 was pretty untidy inside but sounded better than most of those beautifully made jap amps of the time. I think the Artisan claim relates to the product you are thinking of being hand crafted by an individual. Probably results in a few rough cosmetic edges compared with product with millions of investment and hundreds of employees producing. It would be interesting as Dave suggests to 'tidy' one up to see if SQ is affected. We can then get on to the argument for acrylic v metal cases and so on and so on.
The power supply is 95% of how successful your amp design is. The better your PSU the better the sound you get. The electron management system that modulates that power supply should be as simple and direct as you can get it.
Spot on, Steve.
Oldpinkman
01-10-2013, 14:44
I don't think there has been any revolutionary developments in a simple power amp design for decades in any case (excl component quality) unless you include class D or additional electronics to accommodate fancy displays and remote control.
The cascode output stage of the ?????? offers a number of benefits. The power handling and transfer function determining functions of the output stage are split, allowing the power transistors to be better optimised for their particular role. The transfer function is primarily determined by the emitter follower section of the output stage. This operates at lower voltage and power, so a faster, higher gain, more linear transistor can be employed, improving output stage non-linearity as well as reducing non-linear loading on the driver stage. The main power handling occurs in the common base section and this transistor can be chosen for its ruggedness, in the knowledge that its transfer characteristics have only a secondary effect upon the output stage characteristics.
'Conventional emitter follower output stages normally employ emitter resistors to ensure thermal stability by providing local feedback to the individual transistors. This worsens crossover distortion by sharpening up the turn-on knee of the transistors. In the cascode configuration, the emitter follower temperature cycling is lower than normal due to its reduced operating voltage and its thermal stability is therefore greater. This characteristic has been taken advantage of in the Integral to allow these resistors to be reduced in value, broadening the crossover region and linearising the output stage, thereby reducing the severity of the higher order distortion products
Probably not...:rolleyes:
anthonyTD
01-10-2013, 15:23
This is a typical example:
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/9248/jrqd.jpg
Its an amplifier from a 1958/9 Ami jukebox, one of many i have repaired and rebuilt over the years, as you can see, the components have mainly been attached where their natural wire lengths would allow, and not i fear with any thought to capacitive, or inductive canceling affects,:eyebrows: however, these amplifiers' when working correctly sound incredibly good for the time, despite their rather alarming build quality...
Anthony,TD...:)
The Black Adder
01-10-2013, 15:47
;)
Blimey... I wouldn't know where to ruddy start with that ol chap.
anthonyTD
01-10-2013, 17:06
Not sure how the pick ended up in Joe's post and not mine, :scratch:no worries...
A...
Actually that should have been an indigestion tablet. This is not my day job or the subject I have my bsc in:rolleyes:
Have now looked at nva ebay listings, reference to genesis report, panel reviewing inc prof hawksford, his 1995 essex echo. Its a lot to take in. I need a friend and he is busy with hus day job. (Incidentally he spent a large part of his career at essex in hawksfords team although I think working on active noise cancellation research at the time that paper was published)
Not my day job either (although did work in polymer research many years ago) still not sure what the problem was that caused the initial need for an aspirin (or even indigestion tablet).
Now I take it that I have done something to deserve the eye rolling treatment, but still not too sure what. Oh well such is life.
Not sure how the pick ended up in Joe's post and not mine, :scratch:no worries...
A...
Now sorted! :)
Marco.
Oldpinkman
01-10-2013, 17:59
Not my day job either (although did work in polymer research many years ago) still not sure what the problem was that caused the initial need for an aspirin (or even indigestion tablet).
Now I take it that I have done something to deserve the eye rolling treatment, but still not too sure what. Oh well such is life.
Absolutely - not at all. It was nothing to do with you. It was me struggling to understand physics way over my head, without the benefit of help from my friends who I not only trust for their competence, but enjoy the humour and shared experiences they bring to trying to enlighten a thickie like me. I'll go through it with them before Christmas, maybe, or not...
Anyway, I got a call out of the blue from my 18 year old son I have had a few issues with in the past, had a superb lunch hour in the gym with him, and lunch after, just heard he has got the career place he was really keen on, and I have concluded I need to get out more, and care about cables less :)
sorry, just me being too sensitive:)
This is a typical example:
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/9248/jrqd.jpg
Its an amplifier from a 1958/9 Ami jukebox, one of many i have repaired and rebuilt over the years, as you can see, the components have mainly been attached where their natural wire lengths would allow, and not i fear with any thought to capacitive, or inductive canceling affects,:eyebrows: however, these amplifiers' when working correctly sound incredibly good for the time, despite their rather alarming build quality...
Reminds me a wee bit of this stuff:
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/8126/fiwc.jpg
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/1186/srpm.jpg
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4977/z4tw.jpg
...which one could argue is also probably best 'seen and not heard'. Dunno what it is... I just Googled and found those images. Like your example, above, whatever it is probably sounds very good, but visually it certainly doesn't inspire much confidence.
Marco.
This one below must sound truly horrible :rofl:
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/DSJR_photos/Croft4PPrecap1.jpg (http://s132.photobucket.com/user/DSJR_photos/media/Croft4PPrecap1.jpg.html)
Audioman
01-10-2013, 19:24
http://i68.servimg.com/u/f68/13/48/07/74/nva_ap13.jpg
NVA AP50 - The wiring looks very neat while shortest path used - can't see any problems here. :)
SteveTheShadow
01-10-2013, 20:11
This one below must sound truly horrible :rofl:
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/DSJR_photos/Croft4PPrecap1.jpg (http://s132.photobucket.com/user/DSJR_photos/media/Croft4PPrecap1.jpg.html)
Can't see anything wrong with that.
Let's take it from the top eh shall we?
Green earth wires going to the star are all at 0V so no capacitance issues there to mess up with RF pickup.
Orange wires look like high tension feeds. These are are well away from the green wires so no interaction
going on.
White wires look like heater feeds, not twisted, which suggests a DC heater supply.
common-mode choke at lower right hand side of mains transformer tends to reinforce this unless it is part of the EMI suppression.
Yellow capacitor fitted to mains transformer suggests spike suppression has been taken seriously
so there should be very little EMI going on
EL84 valve looks like it is a regulator. Could be wrong, there though, but the dark glass tube behind the EL84
might be a glow tube reference for the EL84 to lift its cathode to a precise voltage above ground. The fact that it is
a narrower bottle than the other small valves and it is in a socket meant to have a metal shield suggests a seven pin miniature glow tube maybe' or a miniature pentode error amp for the EL84
The number of valves plus the presence of solid-state regulation at bottom right suggests we are looking at a line level preamp with a built in phono stage.
It has been carefully thought out in terms of layout and positioning of major components to facilitate
short signal paths.
It is highly likely that it will sound superb, and have very low inherent noise.
Not sure whether the above post was ironic in its intentions, but whatever the circuit is, it is well designed.
the fact that it looks neat is a consequence of its thoughtful layout. Not a wiring loom in sight, wires with a high potential between them kept well apart, signal wires kept at opposite end of chassis to power supply. Good design.
I could be entirely wrong about what it is but if the intention was to use this as an example to
contest the fact that wiring looms can be a source of problems in a circuit, then it don't work as there are no looms I can see.
That designer knows what he is on about . The poster of the pic?
Hi Paul,
Marco. I thought this discussion was about burn in of external cables not internal amp design.
Yup, although the discussion has extrapolated a little since post #154, for the benefit of all those "knowledgeless idiots" out there ;)
I think the Artisan claim relates to the product you are thinking of being hand crafted by an individual. Probably results in a few rough cosmetic edges compared with product with millions of investment and hundreds of employees producing.
I totally agree. Glued-down cases certainly add to that 'home-made' charm and can also hide a 'multitude of sins' from prying eyes :)
It would be interesting as Dave suggests to 'tidy' one up to see if SQ is affected. We can then get on to the argument for acrylic v metal cases and so on and so on.
Indeed - that would definitely make for an interesting comparison, on all counts...
I guess, at the end of the day, all that matters is the sonic performance a particular amplifier design produces, as a result of the cumulative effect of the sum of its parts, and how the technical aspects of its design contribute to that sonic performance. In that respect, a 'sonically optimised cable loom', as it were, is unlikely to make up for the existence of any fundamental deficiencies elsewhere, which are ultimately more influential.
Marco.
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/DSJR_photos/Croft4PPrecap1.jpg (http://s132.photobucket.com/user/DSJR_photos/media/Croft4PPrecap1.jpg.html)
Looks kinda Croft-y to me.
I could be entirely wrong about what it is but if the intention was to use this as an example to
contest the fact that wiring looms can be a source of problems in a circuit, then it don't work as there are no looms I can see.
That designer knows what he is on about.
Hi Steve,
The picture is of a Croft preamp - and yes, Glenn certainly knows his stuff :)
To answer your question, what the picture shows (as you've correctly outlined) is that it is possible to create neat and tidy cable looms inside an amplifier, which don't increase stray capacitance or couple RF hash into sensitive audio stages, providing that the designer cares enough and takes sufficient pride in his work!!
Quite simply, good audio designers can make superb sounding amplifiers without the need for creating internal 'rat's nests', in the name of addressing capacitive or inductive cancelling effects. Some of their designs even contain bizarre things such as protection circuitry, as they consider the safety of their customers as paramount.
Marco.
SteveTheShadow
01-10-2013, 20:44
Sonically optimised cable loom?
That's a nice oxymoron.
wait till google's crawler finds that.
The marketing men will be all over it.
:lolsign:
Don't forget you heard it here first!! :D
Marco.
Oldpinkman
02-10-2013, 06:46
Now Marco,
I'm not moaning, you know I wouldn't moan, No No , not moaning - mind I should BLOODY well moan (Bruce Forsyth)
When I posted about subjects which interested me, even in direct relevant response to other peoples posts, but NOT relevant to the original thread topic, I got put on the naughty stool. :unfair:
If you want to talk about amplifier design or rats nests you should really start a new thread.... :sofa:
Actually, if you want to talk rats nests, Bev might let you post on her "pesky mice" :lol:
Good morning, Richard.
There's a difference between thread drift, in the AoS tradition (as you will see many examples of throughout the forum), where sometimes the most innocuous of subjects can quickly descend into references to the wearing of frocks and toilet humour :eyebrows: and the sort of antics you were up to before (that thankfully now seem to have stopped), which as you say, put you on the naughty stool.
Therefore, this discussion will evolve naturally in that tradition. Besides, you can hardly say that your own thread has stayed rigidly on-topic, with amongst other things, references to the 'Hair Bear Bunch', and now Cybermen, so shut it!! :ner:
Marco.
P.S If you wish to target genuine inconsistency, you may get more joy from challenging the 'powers that be' elsewhere on how they apply the ad hominem rule ;)
Oldpinkman
02-10-2013, 07:50
Good morning, Richard.
There's a difference, between thread drift, in the AoS tradition (as you will see many examples of throughout the forum), where sometimes the most innocuous of subjects can quickly descend into references to the wearing of frocks and toilet humour :eyebrows: and the sort of antics you were up to before (that thankfully now seem to have stopped), which as you say, put you on the naughty stool.
Therefore, this discussion will evolve naturally in that tradition. Besides, you can hardly say that your own thread has stayed rigidly on-topic, with amongst other things, references to the 'Hair Bear Bunch', and now Cybermen, so shut it!! :ner:
Marco.
P.S If you wish to target genuine inconsistency, you may get more joy from challenging the 'powers that be' elsewhere on how they apply the ad hominem rule ;)
Nope - they just remove the post ! ;)
Oldpinkman
02-10-2013, 07:53
And for the record, m'lud - my thread was quite deliberately labelled "richards stuff, including". I decide what's on and off thread on that one buster! :eyebrows:
Nope - they just remove the post ! ;)
That's typical at 'Censorship City' (where hypocrisy is alive and kicking). Try challenging the management on why your post was removed and see what happens!!!
Marco
And for the record, m'lud - my thread was quite deliberately labelled "richards stuff, including". I decide what's on and off thread on that one buster! :eyebrows:
Lol... Well, buster, ultimately I decide what's written ANYWHERE on this forum, including here! :king:
;)
Marco.
That's typical at 'Censorship City' (where hypocrisy is alive and kicking). Try challenging the management on why your post was removed and see what happens!!!
Marco
I tried that, care to guess what the outcome was? :lol:
Are you talking about the forum we're not allowed to talk about?
Dunno, man, everything here is like a dream... :peace:
Marco.
The Black Adder
03-10-2013, 09:21
Thread drift is O.K so long as the OP doesn't mind and I'm sure if he/she did mind then they would pull it back in line. It's all cool.
I tried that, care to guess what the outcome was? :lol:
Hi Synsei,
I was rather concerned by your comment (quoted in full above), so I have checked and it appears that you are still a member and were given a two week suspension for "ad hominem".
Not that great a punishment in the scheme of things - I seem to have been banned from PFM for quite a lot less:scratch:
icehockeyboy
07-10-2013, 21:28
Thread drift is O.K so long as the OP doesn't mind and I'm sure if he/she did mind then they would pull it back in line. It's all cool.
I'm fine with it, I lost track of what was being spoken about ages ago.......:bike:
sq225917
29-10-2013, 16:52
I've just powered up a new Paradise phonostage for the first time. There's a op-amp based servo near the output stage that corrects for any imbalance in the RIAA gain stage. It's fed by a bank of 6800uf electrolytics caps that only get a tiny bit of voltage through them to charge them up. When brand new the voltage on the output of the op-amp swings upwards and downwards as the caps form for the first time. it's currently sat swinging between +/- 4.6v. I know I have matched this set well and fully expect it to drop to less than a volt over the next hundred hours.
I'll take a sequence of videos, every ten hours or so showing the progress. it should put to bed forever the question "do capacitors burn in"...
hifi_dave
29-10-2013, 17:07
Very .....:interesting:
Love it, Simon... We await the results with interest!
Marco.
I've just powered up a new Paradise phonostage for the first time. There's a op-amp based servo near the output stage that corrects for any imbalance in the RIAA gain stage. It's fed by a bank of 6800uf electrolytics caps that only get a tiny bit of voltage through them to charge them up. When brand new the voltage on the output of the op-amp swings upwards and downwards as the caps form for the first time. it's currently sat swinging between +/- 4.6v. I know I have matched this set well and fully expect it to drop to less than a volt over the next hundred hours.
I'll take a sequence of videos, every ten hours or so showing the progress. it should put to bed forever the question "do capacitors burn in"...
Presumably you could form them at or near their rated voltage out of circuit prior to fitting if its going to take a 100 hours? I would have thought 1 hour or so should be enough...it would be interesting to see if the voltage swing still occurs...
Love it, Simon... We await the results with interest!
Marco.
So what will you do when you read the results dude, show your bare bum in Wrexham town centre? :lol:
Aye, that would certainly frighten the kids at Halloween!! :eek:
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.