Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › "Burn in" in amps (and all other electrical parts)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Burn in" in amps (and all other electrical parts) - Page 2

post #16 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielCox View Post
Remember while you can speculate and assume there isn't any real evidence to support your claim. It's like asking a roomful of scientists what the evidence for young earth creationism is - there simply isn't any.
First of all, there are some scientists who believe in young earth creationsim, and there is evidence to support young earth creationism. Second, the discussion of creationism, which is essentially involves or intrudes into religious areas, is prohibited on this forum. So let's not go there please (or take this any further).

Finally, why can't the discussion proceed along the lines of what the OP asked? He's not interested in hearing, "there is no evidence," or "anyone who believes there are explanations for amp burn-in is like a nut who believes in God or aliens." He wants to hear some possible explanations. Does every thread where someone asks a question like this have to be diverted with these kinds of comments? Geez.
post #17 of 48
Capacitors have been reported to need several hundred hours to perform their best. The claim is that the shape of the capacitor casing will change over time and the chemical properties need to "cook" at operating temperatures to form it's final operating characteristics.

Another thought is that cables and board traces will have oxidation that acts like resistance. Running at high current will help burn through these pockets and open the passageway to it's fullest.

I've not made a career on these topics so can't say they are accurate or not. Just reporting what I've heard.


http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f5/wha...period-225678/
post #18 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS View Post
First of all, there are some scientists who believe in young earth creationsim, and there is evidence to support young earth creationism. Second, the discussion of creationism, which is essentially involves or intrudes into religious areas, is prohibited on this forum. So let's not go there please.
So, to summarize, you get in the creationist debate, oppose some arguments, then close the discussion because it is against forum rules, just to be sure that you have the last word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS View Post
Finally, why can't the discussion proceed along the lines of what the OP asked? He's not interested in hearing, "there is no evidence," or "anyone who believes there are explanations for amp burn-in is like a nut who believes in God or aliens." He wants to hear some possible explanations.
He wants to hear scientific explanations. Which is a bit different, but unfortunately incompatible with his first requirement : no debate about the reality of the phenomenon.
post #19 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS View Post
First of all, there are some scientists who believe in young earth creationsim, and there is evidence to support young earth creationism. Second, the discussion of creationism, which is essentially involves or intrudes into religious areas, is prohibited on this forum. So let's not go there please (or take this any further).

Finally, why can't the discussion proceed along the lines of what the OP asked? He's not interested in hearing, "there is no evidence," or "anyone who believes there are explanations for amp burn-in is like a nut who believes in God or aliens." He wants to hear some possible explanations. Does every thread where someone asks a question like this have to be diverted with these kinds of comments? Geez.
Quite. And I don't want to break forum rules so you can PM me this evidence instead.

Secondly no-one here can provide evidence for burn in if burn in doesn't exist. That's not how science works. A few people here have provided the most likely explanation if it does exist and that's the best you'll get. Unfortunately the OP is going the wrong way to showing the existence of burn in so we can't provide any more information.
post #20 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pio2001 View Post
So, to summarize, you get in the creationist debate, oppose some arguments, then close the discussion because it is against forum rules, just to be sure that you have the last word.
I made my comment to prevent only side of the issue from being presented. I'm more than happy to have both comments deleted. Why don't you report the threads and ask the mods to edit it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pio2001 View Post
He wants to hear scientific explanations. Which is a bit different, but unfortunately incompatible with his first requirement : no debate about the reality of the phenomenon.
It's not inconsistent at all. It's only inconsistent if you feel compelled to advance a particular point of view, no matter whether it is asked for or not. Go back and read the other threads like this in the past. Here's what you find:

A. "I'd like to hear some possible explanations about why amps burn in."

B. "There are no scientific explanations, and anybody who believes otherwise is a fool."

A. "Please, I'd just like to hear some possible explanations, and I know there's folks who believe that there aren't any, but I think I've heard the effects of amp burn in, and I'd like to hear some possible explanations. I don't want this to turn into a believers vs. unbelievers thread."

B. "Any question you ask about amp burn in necessarily raises issues of science and therefore we don't care what you want, we're going to inundate this thread with comments to the effect that burn in is impossible, and that any explanations for burn in have no basis in fact, and we're not going to allow your question to be answered (without extensive counter-argument) by those folks interested in providing an answer because we have an agenda to advance, and we're going to advance that agenda anywhere and everywhere."

Again, can't some of you "skeptics" grow up and let one thread like this go without thread krapping. Just one? I mean, we get it. You think amp burn in is absurd, and there's no scientific explanation for it. Counting this thread, that's been said on this forum a total of 15,763 times.
post #21 of 48
Thread Starter 
HI guys! and thanks for the explanation and the link Happycamper.
I am sorry for turning this into an argument, i just thought that you non-believers can make some logical explanations for why "burn-in" is nonsence instead of just bashing the opposite side. we are all mature enough to have a nice adult disscution...right? beside..no one is obliged to post in this thread you know...

now,i want to make clear that although i am a "believer" i am also a thinking human being and willing to hear some comments about "burn-in" not true, not just comments that "Burn in" is true. i am very open minded and as an audiophile (i am proud to call myself that) it is very interesting for me, and i am sure others as well.

one more thing...when i said "scientific explanation" It sounded to me like the only reasenable way to say it. The way i see it, a "scientific explanation" doesn't have to be proved! although the science is about facts and formulas mostly....it also deals sometimes with "myths" and speculations as well, and taking on himself to prove them.
so i don't see any reason for the term "scientific explanation" to be wrong, and ofcourse that electricity is also related to science.
post #22 of 48
Thread Starter 
for me, the believe in burn -in (in headphones and in amps,tubes etc.) just makes this hobby a little more fun than it is thats all. probably some of you non-believers will say that all the believers is living outside of reality, but IMO there is nothing wrong with it, it's like religion! I think we can call it like that....the "burn-inisme".
and besides, i also think that some of the scientific explanations for this make a lot of sence, but i can't see why is it so hard to prove and why didn't anybody proved it already?? i mean..not prove by hearing (when others can claim for psycological effects and such) but rather prove it with numbers and tools and such.

i mean...if we all can say that the capacitors and resistors are changing, why is it impossible to be proved? or isn't it...
post #23 of 48
it's been discussed on this french hardware site a while ago : http://209.85.229.132/translate_c?hl...6D9fEzao78D9tA

basically, what seems to be happening is called "Annealing"/electro-migration

they only allow the pics to be shown on their own site, so you may wanna look at them on the french portion : http://www.hardware.fr/articles/165-...ng-rodage.html
post #24 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
it's been discussed on this french hardware site a while ago : Google Translate

basically, what seems to be happening is called "Annealing"
thank you..very interesting.
post #25 of 48
np

I hope the english translation won't be too broken because this article is very interesting indeed.

I've edited my post BTW
post #26 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
np

I hope the english translation won't be too broken because this article is very interesting indeed.

I've edited my post BTW
a lot of terms that i don't understand in this article but i will try to get what i can from it. the translation is cool though...never used that feature.
post #27 of 48
Thread Starter 
I noticed, and probably many of you that use headamps too , that when you starting a listening session, it takes the amp sometime (half an hour / hour) to sound it's best. maybe not all the amps but most of them...it is a well known fact that when the electronic parts are warm they functioning better and add to the dynamic of the sound.
so it's like a mini burn-in. maybe the whole big burn-in process is the same thing only in much more time and effect.

after an hour, the amp doesn't get hot anymore and stop at the temperature that it is at, and this is probably the ideal condition for operation of the amp.
post #28 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by plonter View Post
I am sorry for turning this into an argument, i just thought that you non-believers can make some logical explanations for why "burn-in" is nonsence instead of just bashing the opposite side.
What bashing? After reading this thread, the only one with an "agenda" and arguing is Phil.

My take on burn-in:
Given the absence of any real scientific explanation, I think the most logical theory is the brain acclimatization model that Koyaan discussed. I have experienced it as well. The brain does indeed like patterns.

I also have a question regarding burn-in. All the reports of burn-in are favorable. That is to say the sound always improves over x amount of time. This to me supports the acclimatization theory and any alternate theory would need to account for it to be valid, IMO. If burn-in was purely physical/mechanical in nature I would expect to see reports heading in both directions, ie: "They sounded fine when I bought them but after burn-in were too bass heavy" or some such. I haven't seen such reports.
Food for thought.
post #29 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Real Man of Genius View Post
What bashing? After reading this thread, the only one with an "agenda" and arguing is Phil.

My take on burn-in:
Given the absence of any real scientific explanation, I think the most logical theory is the brain acclimatization model that Koyaan discussed. I have experienced it as well. The brain does indeed like patterns.

I also have a question regarding burn-in. All the reports of burn-in are favorable. That is to say the sound always improves over x amount of time. This to me supports the acclimatization theory and any alternate theory would need to account for it to be valid, IMO. If burn-in was purely physical/mechanical in nature I would expect to see reports heading in both directions, ie: "They sounded fine when I bought them but after burn-in were too bass heavy" or some such. I haven't seen such reports.
Food for thought.
interesting thought... I can't comment on burn- in in any of my amps because i never noticed any (and i am still a believer), but what i CAN say is that sometimes i like the sound of my amp before it gets warm, and the sound is still cold and more analytical...it goes well with my denon AH-D5000.

BTW,maybe the word "bashing" was too much, i meant to say arguing.
post #30 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by plonter View Post
what i CAN say is that sometimes i like the sound of my amp before it gets warm, and the sound is still cold and more analytical...it goes well with my denon AH-D5000.
What you are referring to here would be "warm-up" rather than "burn-in" I believe. Burn-in being a semi-permanent (or at least gradually reducing) effect on *NEW* equipment.

Right?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › "Burn in" in amps (and all other electrical parts)