[brianknewbie]

Hi Ray,

I had PM'd you before returning the Hornet, with question of whether I needed more time to evaluate it or whether I was seeing its true signature -- I did not receive response so this is why I returned it.

Anyways, now after skimming through this thread, I wonder if I returned it too soon.

I just sent another PM and hope to hear from you.

Thanks and happy holidays to you & your family,
Brian

 

[munkong]

I just burn The Hornet through [size=x-small][size=xx-large]600[/size] hours[/size]
this time, I think it settle and stable,
sound not change in anything
but I still to burn it more [size=x-small]1000 hours[/size]

if The Hornet damage with my burn-in
are Ray still in guaranty ??

.

 

[spike33]

I've noticed whenever I put in new opamps, they sound harsh and calms down after 100 hrs or so. For example, when I was swapping out well burned in AD8610 for new OPA627s, I noticed the 627s sounded much brighter.

 

[recstar24]

I believe that opamps need burn in. I believe with the Hornet the major issue is the huge 15,000 mF cap of filter capacitance - it takes a long time to settle.

Keep in mind capacitors consist of a dialectric between two plates. In order for the capacitor to store up to its fullest charge, that dialetric needs to be broken in, until that the capacitor is working to its fullest ability.

It appears that after 300 hours or so the capacitor is able to work somewhere near 100% of its capabilities, 15,000 is a good amount of capacitance and you should give that honker the time needed to reach its potential.

 

[909]

When I would get a new pair of glasses or contacts before my corrective laser surgery, my brain and eyes would always go through an orientation period where objects appeared unusually closer then they actually were. To provide a specific example, the floor felt and looked much closer, yet in all actuality (and everyone knows) it was my mind perceiving that the floor was closer even though it wasn’t. Basically, my brain needed an adjustment period in which it took time to get itself accustomed to the new and corrected vision my glasses or contacts were feeding my mind.

Is it possible that ears go through a similar experience when your brain perceives the sound produced by a new or different piece of audio equipment such as an amp? I think it is a safe assumption that your ears (and brain) need time to adjust to a new amp just as your eyes (and brain) need time to adjust to a new pair of glasses or contacts. Could your mind initially make you believe the sound is one way and then days or weeks later another? In a word, yes. It can’t be dismissed that the brain plays a very important and major role in what we perceive.

However, one of the main differences between glasses/contact and audio equipment is that corrective vision such as glasses/contacts usually stay consistent whereas what I believe the theory behind burn-in is that the audio equipment as a result of having an electric current flow through it changes and results in a sound presentation improvement. Under the foundation of this theory, it should also be possible that a burn-in period could just as likely result in some sound quality diminishment. It would appear to be a relatively simple task to compare a burn-in speaker cable against a new speaker cable of the same make and substance. On a molecular level would a scientist find any difference? I don’t know, but seriously doubt it. Would the scientist be able to tell the difference? Maybe. Would the current run differently between the two cables? Again, I would say probably not and if it did the difference might be minimal.

It seems somewhat hard to believe in burn-in, but just because it seems hard or impossible to measure doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I’ve experienced burn-in with headphones some more than others, but how much is my brain adjusting to the sound signature of a new piece of gear and the gear actually changing is very difficult to ascertain. Therefore, I can’t dismiss that there is some truth behind an actual transformation after a piece of audio gear has burned for a few hundred hours, but how much of a change depends on many variables and specific to each piece of gear.

 

[carlflow]

It seems somewhat hard to believe in burn-in, but just because it seems hard or impossible to measure doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I’ve experienced burn-in with headphones some more than others, but how much is my brain adjusting to the sound signature of a new piece of gear and the gear actually changing is very difficult to ascertain. Therefore, I can’t dismiss that there is some truth behind an actual transformation after a piece of audio gear has burned for a few hundred hours, but how much of a change depends on many variables and specific to each piece of gear.[/QUOTE

I for one believe you. I always thought there is nothing to a burn in. I always beleived Headphones and most speaker sound best new. I used to burn them in. It never sounded better. I try to buy all Cardas Gold Ref cable and it said to sound better with age. It sounds good right out of the Zip lock.

 

[tezzla]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 909 Is it possible that ears go through a similar experience when your brain perceives the sound produced by a new or different piece of audio equipment such as an amp? I think it is a safe assumption that your ears (and brain) need time to adjust to a new amp just as your eyes (and brain) need time to adjust to a new pair of glasses or contacts. Could your mind initially make you believe the sound is one way and then days or weeks later another? In a word, yes. It can’t be dismissed that the brain plays a very important and major role in what we perceive. ...It seems somewhat hard to believe in burn-in, but just because it seems hard or impossible to measure doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I’ve experienced burn-in with headphones some more than others, but how much is my brain adjusting to the sound signature of a new piece of gear and the gear actually changing is very difficult to ascertain. Therefore, I can’t dismiss that there is some truth behind an actual transformation after a piece of audio gear has burned for a few hundred hours, but how much of a change depends on many variables and specific to each piece of gear.

I thought the whole point of this thread was that the poster had an amp which had been burned in and the identical make amp which had practically no time on it, and when he listened to one, then the other, there was a palpable difference. I dont see how that can be linked to his mind slowly adapting to the sound. One sounds like X to him, and one sounds like Y, why should his mind try to trick him? To use the glasses example, it sounds like he is saying when he tries one on, it feels like -4 power, and when he tries on the other, its like -3. He can see the difference, it isnt his brain slowly getting use to using a new set of glasses. One explanation for this difference (other than burn in) might be that the amps were very different to start off with, and always will be different...

Btw, i havent experienced the burn in phenomenon, so im not saying it is or isnt real, just your post didnt seem to make logical sense in the context of this thread.

 

[sxr71]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 909 When I would get a new pair of glasses or contacts before my corrective laser surgery, my brain and eyes would always go through an orientation period where objects appeared unusually closer then they actually were. To provide a specific example, the floor felt and looked much closer, yet in all actuality (and everyone knows) it was my mind perceiving that the floor was closer even though it wasn’t. Basically, my brain needed an adjustment period in which it took time to get itself accustomed to the new and corrected vision my glasses or contacts were feeding my mind. Is it possible that ears go through a similar experience when your brain perceives the sound produced by a new or different piece of audio equipment such as an amp? I think it is a safe assumption that your ears (and brain) need time to adjust to a new amp just as your eyes (and brain) need time to adjust to a new pair of glasses or contacts. Could your mind initially make you believe the sound is one way and then days or weeks later another? In a word, yes. It can’t be dismissed that the brain plays a very important and major role in what we perceive. However, one of the main differences between glasses/contact and audio equipment is that corrective vision such as glasses/contacts usually stay consistent whereas what I believe the theory behind burn-in is that the audio equipment as a result of having an electric current flow through it changes and results in a sound presentation improvement. Under the foundation of this theory, it should also be possible that a burn-in period could just as likely result in some sound quality diminishment. It would appear to be a relatively simple task to compare a burn-in speaker cable against a new speaker cable of the same make and substance. On a molecular level would a scientist find any difference? I don’t know, but seriously doubt it. Would the scientist be able to tell the difference? Maybe. Would the current run differently between the two cables? Again, I would say probably not and if it did the difference might be minimal. It seems somewhat hard to believe in burn-in, but just because it seems hard or impossible to measure doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I’ve experienced burn-in with headphones some more than others, but how much is my brain adjusting to the sound signature of a new piece of gear and the gear actually changing is very difficult to ascertain. Therefore, I can’t dismiss that there is some truth behind an actual transformation after a piece of audio gear has burned for a few hundred hours, but how much of a change depends on many variables and specific to each piece of gear.

I used to think the same thing as I too have experienced the new glasses phenomenon. It usually takes 24-48 hours to adjust. However with this comparison of the same model of amp in different stages of break-in you can't just say his ear got used to the amp over time.

I really was pretty sure myself that "break-in" was just your ears getting used to the sound and that's why it just sounded better. The more I read about these comparisons of amps in different stages of break-in sounding different and of the theory of capacitors needing some current passing through them for a while to reach designed values, I am open to the idea of a real one-time break-in.

If he just got used to the Hornet sound then the one with 0 hours on it should have sounded identical as he is now used to its sound. That wasn't the case and he is not the only user reporting this.

Sure the amount of change is specific to each piece of gear as you say, and pieces of gear with large capacitors or certain types of capacitors are likely more prone to larger changes and needing longer burn-ins.

 

[boodi]

I don't understand why is difficult to understand burning in time

 

[tezzla]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boodi I don't understand why is difficult to understand burning in time

my brain is slowly adapting to the theory, give it a hundred hours and it might start sounding plausible...give it another couple of hundred hours and i should be properly settled in on the idea

 

[fewtch]

I believe burn-in has both subjective and objective aspects. There is a LOT to be said for giving oneself time to get used to the sound of a new component or headphone (and yes, IME it can make the difference between hating and loving the sound). At the same time, there are some electromechanical changes going on. Who knows how much of which aspect makes the biggest difference with a given piece of gear and really, who cares? The end result is the same either way.

 

[909]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tezzla One explanation for this difference (other than burn in) might be that the amps were very different to start off with, and always will be different...

I agree, that it would have been beneficial if both Hornet amps were compared first (preburn-in) and then only one was burned-in afterwards then the comparison. It might be the case that these two amps had some differences before hand, yet no one will ever know. You and I will also never know what these perceived differences actually are because we both haven't heard either of these Hornets. And even if we did, we might come to different conclusion about the way they sound and how they compare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tezzla I thought the whole point of this thread was that the poster had an amp which had been burned in and the identical make amp which had practically no time on it, and when he listened to one, then the other, there was a palpable difference.

If you take the time to review some of the other posts in this thread you will find others discussing topics related to burn-in. Yet you haven’t taken issue with them. It wasn’t as if I started a discussion completely unrelated to the topic at hand or something that wasn’t discussed in the few previous posts. Based upon your assessment and criteria, even your post would be considered off topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tezzla I dont see how that can be linked to his mind slowly adapting to the sound. One sounds like X to him, and one sounds like Y, why should his mind try to trick him? To use the glasses example, it sounds like he is saying when he tries one on, it feels like -4 power, and when he tries on the other, its like -3. He can see the difference, it isnt his brain slowly getting use to using a new set of glasses.

If my post is supposedly not on topic, how is it that you are able to find it applicable to this particular person’s experience with these Hornets? Also, you must realize since you read my post that I never once made the comparison between my opinion on the burn-in phenomenon and this particular individual’s experience with the Hornets. So please, next time don’t take the liberty to misconstrue the context within which I presented my analogy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tezzla Btw, i havent experienced the burn in phenomenon, so im not saying it is or isnt real, just your post didnt seem to make logical sense in the context of this thread .

As we all are, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree.


Quote:

Originally Posted by 909 It seems somewhat hard to believe in burn-in, but just because it seems hard or impossible to measure doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I’ve experienced burn-in with headphones some more than others, but how much is my brain adjusting to the sound signature of a new piece of gear and the gear actually changing is very difficult to ascertain. Therefore, I can’t dismiss that there is some truth behind an actual transformation after a piece of audio gear has burned for a few hundred hours, but how much of a change depends on many variables and specific to each piece of gear.

After reading the posts in response to my post, I thought it necessary to clarify my position since I believe some aren’t realizing the focus of my issue with the burn-in process in general. The crux of the issue I presented is that burn-in it’s easily measured via scientific means and changes that one hears may depend upon many different variables some of which are specific to each piece of gear in the chain.

For those in the know, does the burn-in process always result in an improvement in sound quality? What about the sound having no perceivable change or isn’t it also equally possible that after burn-in the sound quality might diminish? It doesn’t seem reasonable to say that 100% of the time the burn-in process results in an improvement; period.

 

[solvexyz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 909 I For those in the know, does the burn-in process always result in an improvement in sound quality? What about the sound having no perceivable change or isn’t it also equally possible that after burn-in the sound quality might diminish? It doesn’t seem reasonable to say that 100% of the time the burn-in process results in an improvement; period.

Hi,

I believe the point of this post is not saying that burn-in in general always results in a better sound, but rather how burn-in affects one specific product, namely the Hornet.

Also, this post is just to try to comfirm what Ray has stated that 300 hours of burn in is required to achieve the true sound signature of the Hornet. This post shows that Hornet is one of the product that will benefit from a long time break in.

Furthermore, I believe the way bhd812 did the test is very convincing. While we can not say 100% that break-in will result in an improvements in sound for every product, the RSA Hornet is the product that will benefit from the break-in. Therefore, I think the debate of whether break-in in general results in better sound is left to another separate threads.

 

[TooNice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 909 For those in the know, does the burn-in process always result in an improvement in sound quality? What about the sound having no perceivable change or isn’t it also equally possible that after burn-in the sound quality might diminish? It doesn’t seem reasonable to say that 100% of the time the burn-in process results in an improvement; period.

That is the reason I haven't embraced the idea of burn-in. From all the comments I have read so far, burn-in is usually associated with improvements.

But we also know that people have largely different tastes, so surely, if burn-in makes enough difference to make some people say there is a huge improvement, then surely, there should be at least a small number of people who do not welcome those changes. For instance, the 200h Hornet is described as being less forward. But shouldn't there at least one person of all who have an Hornet who might prefer the more forward, non burnt in sound? Yet I have yet to see anyone, be it for the Hornet or other amps/headphones/etc. speak negatively of post burn-in sound.

 

[Jammin72]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooNice That is the reason I haven't embraced the idea of burn-in. From all the comments I have read so far, burn-in is usually associated with improvements. But we also know that people have largely different tastes, so surely, if burn-in makes enough difference to make some people say there is a huge improvement, then surely, there should be at least a small number of people who do not welcome those changes. For instance, the 200h Hornet is described as being less forward. But shouldn't there at least one person of all who have an Hornet who might prefer the more forward, non burnt in sound? Yet I have yet to see anyone, be it for the Hornet or other amps/headphones/etc. speak negatively of post burn-in sound.

This makes sense in that if you're looking for a more forward sound then perhaps the burn in process would make you less satisfied in that particular sense. I would conjecture that so much of what else happens is an improvement to the point that the individual might not make this the priority. The removal of the glare or harsh elements in the higher ranges will be more than welcome. Keep in mind that there is also the issue of image stability so that even for amps that are designed for a more forward sound they would improve in this character, ie the placement will become more defined across the soundstage and localization elements will improve so that the notes or sources become more points rather than blobs. So even for an amplifier that has a more forward sound there will be improvements in that character as it burns in. I guess that even if the more open sound is not your bag of tea the trained ear would hear the improvements overall as better, they just might not decide that this or that amp has the sound that they are looking for.

It would be interesting to hear if folks have had the experience of... "Where did all of that wonderful brightness go?" Actually the term that I came across more and more that people would use to describe a sound that I would find harsh that they felt desireable was "crisp".

We also have to remember that there are pieces of equipment (Aural Exciters for one) who's only job is to add a layer of carfully placed distorition in the high end to give a recording "That CD sound". Warm, open, and dead queit backgrounds aren't for everybody.