[bigshot]

The truth...we don’t know if burn-in exists on certain products, speakers aside. I can’t prove to you that burn-in, say on orthodynamic headphones, exists, b/c I can‘t measure it. But no one has proven to me that it doesn’t exist.

How would one go about proving it *doesn't* exist? You can't go back in time and measure the before and after of the amp you are using now; and even if we could and we found out it didn't change with burn in, you'd just say maybe some other amp does... and we can't go out testing every amp in the world to find out.

You can't prove a negative. But you can prove burn in does exist. Go out and buy two copies of the same amp. Turn them on and do a controlled listening test to see if you can hear a difference. If they sound exactly the same, as they should, turn one off and let the other one play for a couple hundred hours, and then compare them again. Is it audible now?

People have done these sorts of tests and haven't found audible differences. People who have never done a controlled test in their life say "a veil has been lifted". Whose opinion do you want to go with until someone actually finds proof of audible burn in? I know whose opinion I will go with.

Some electrical components are known to change over time, from batteries to capacitors. I don't know that this should be called burn in

As long as we live in a world where the second law of thermodynamics exists, that is going to be the case. I call that "wearing out", and it is both clearly measurable and clearly audible. Also, it degrades, sound- it doesn't improve it. Not at all the same as burn in.

 

[IEMusic]

How would one go about proving it *doesn't* exist? You can't go back in time and measure the before and after of the amp you are using now; and even if we could and we found out it didn't change with burn in, you'd just say maybe some other amp does... and we can't go out testing every amp in the world to find out.

You can't prove a negative. But you can prove burn in does exist. Go out and buy two copies of the same amp. Turn them on and do a controlled listening test to see if you can hear a difference. If they sound exactly the same, as they should, turn one off and let the other one play for a couple hundred hours, and then compare them again. Is it audible now?

People have done these sorts of tests and haven't found audible differences. People who have never done a controlled test in their life say "a veil has been lifted". Whose opinion do you want to go with until someone actually finds proof of audible burn in? I know whose opinion I will go with.

That‘s where statistics would come into play, and why trying to prove a negative is often not worth it. In order to prove a positive, within a reasonable statistical margin of error (Type I error, or error of a false positive), you don’t need a large sample size. Take your study as you listed above. Say your N=10, so ten sets of tests (involving 10 people and 20 amps). If 9 out of 10 people say they hear a difference, you probably have statistically proven the theory of audible burn-in. However, if 9 out of 10 didn’t hear it, you still may not have statistically proven that it doesn’t exist (Type II error, or error of a false negative). Your N would have to be much larger, say 50. So If you had 50 people and 100 new amps, and 45 didn‘t hear any difference, but 5 did, you probably statistically have proven that there is no difference. Now, these are all made up numbers, and I’ll have to defer to a statistician for any sort of accuracy, but that’s the gist.

So what are we left with? “Whose opinion do you want to go with until someone actually finds proof of audible burn in? I know whose opinion I will go with.“ That’s your opinion, and I fully respect it, and may even share it. However, in the absence of proof, would you concede that perhaps some people have noticed an obvious change in certain aspects of sound of 1 or 2 of their dozens of HPs, and perhaps if sensitive measurement equipment were hooked up in those instances, it could’ve registered some measurable difference? If not, then you have very strong opinion, that is still based on your beliefs. If you do concede that point, that definitely doesn’t make “burn-in” any sort of rule.

From a practical perspective, as I stated earlier, what harm is there in giving new equipment a period of time to settle in, whereas there could be some benefits, even if it is only brain burn-in. Everything else is debatable.

With regards to other “myths” of audiophilia, if science can’t prove it, my wallet tips the scales to make be believe that it doesn’t exist. And if one considers me ignorant b/c I can’t understand an unproven difference, than I am simply happy in my ignorance. I’m a pragmatist.

 

[castleofargh]

My 2c.

The truth...we don’t know if burn-in exists on certain products, speakers aside. I can’t prove to you that burn-in, say on orthodynamic headphones, exists, b/c I can‘t measure it. But no one has proven to me that it doesn’t exist. My pet peeve is when so-called “scientific minds” state that “there is no evidence of X” as an argument to prove that X doesn‘t exist. Lack of evidence for something, is NOT the same as evidence against that something. Now granted, to prove the absence of something would involve a huge study, as the N would have to be a large population, so it’s rarely worth it. It is also true that the burden of proof is on the person trying to support a hypothesis. However, in the absence of proof for or against a hypothesis, the answer is...we don’t know. It is absolute hubris to think that just because our current science can’t prove something, it must not exist. I personally just so happen to not believe in ghosts/hauntings, but I can’t prove that it doesn’t exist, so if someone else believes in it, that’s perfectly fine with me, and I will not dismiss them as an “un-scientific fool”. The reality is “the more I know, the more I know that I know nothing”. When there is lack of proof, evidence is just anecdotal, and ultimately comes down to personal experience and belief. A debate is interesting, and in some cases necessary, but face it, any NEED to convince the opposition of our position is simply pride/arrogance.

Regarding audio equipment specifically, why not let all products “burn-in” instead of coming to conclusions prematurely? The cost is negligible, you somewhat test if the product will fail (as others have mentioned), and if you believe that perceived changes are just “brain burn-in”, then let that occur before you come to a conclusion. Whether burn-in exists is just an interesting debate.

Lastly, there are so many variables within one type of product, say dynamic speakers, that one cannot make a rule that encompasses all such equipment. Personally, I have often not perceived any difference over time with a speaker’s burn in. A few times, however, I have perceived very significant changes. The speaker sounded horrible at first. Most of the time, it’s probably somewhere in between and I just don’t notice it.

....interesting topic

about

...why not let all products “burn-in” instead of coming to conclusions prematurely? The cost is negligible...

That's what con artists and snake oil sellers say ^_^. Of course we can try stuff if we feel like it, and sure enough playing pink noise and Rachmaninoff symphony n°2 in a loop for 133.7hours will not ruin anybody. But it's such a slippery slope to reason like that. It opens the door to all sorts of superstitions and pseudo science.

Someone offered me a knife for my birthday, and apparently that's bad luck to be gifted a knife(no idea if it's a French thing or if it's wide spread?). So I was told that I should give a coin back and make it a transaction instead of a gift(apparently it doesn't take much to cheat fate). When "warned" about that, I laughed it off and went back to eating. But the person insisted quite heavily, as if I was acting irresponsible and playing with my life just to save a coin. Sure enough I could have given a coin, that's not for what it costs. It seems easy enough to reason like this. But where does it stop? If I start to give in to any random myth and legend, by next week I have a rabbit foot attached to my keys, I've killed the black cat in my street, I have aluminum surrounding my entire house, and I've joined 5 different cults just in case they're right about whatever it is they claim will happen.

In the end I kept my coin. And outside of the few times I did it to try and measure something relevant on transducers, my unique burn in method is called using the device.

I could be wrong, but I'd rather be wrong about a few things that lacked supporting evidence, than live in fear of my own shadow. It's clearly a personal choice, I'm not telling others how to live their lives.

 

[IEMusic]

“Someone offered me a knife for my birthday, and apparently that's bad luck to be gifted a knife(no idea if it's a French thing or if it's wide spread?). So I was told that I should give a coin back and make it a transaction instead of a gift(apparently it doesn't take much to cheat fate). When "warned" about that, I laughed it off and went back to eating. But the person insisted quite heavily, as if I was acting irresponsible and playing with my life just to save a coin. Sure enough I could have given a coin, that's not for what it costs. It seems easy enough to reason like this. But where does it stop? If I start to give in to any random myth and legend, by next week I have a rabbit foot attached to my keys, I've killed the black cat in my street, I have aluminum surrounding my entire house, and I've joined 5 different cults just in case they're right about whatever it is they claim will happen.”

Yea! Congratulations, your were probably right, and you may have lost a friend in the process. Even if you don’t believe it, if they do, maybe It’s wiser to just go along with it if there’s no harm. Going along with it doesn’t mean you believe it too. Yes, it can be a very slippery slope, and there are tons of unscrupulous people out there trying to get your money, but consider each issue individually rather than make any blanket judgements that if one cannot prove it, it must not exist. For instance, It is much easier for me to accept the idea of speakers changing sound initially over time, than the speaker wires changing the sound during their initial use. The speaker concept makes logical sense. I haven’t heard, read, or though of any reasonable explanation for the wire concept,

 

[IEMusic]

I think the term "break in" is better for speakers.

I agree, like new shoes.

 

[bigshot]

If 9 out of 10 people say they hear a difference, you probably have statistically proven the theory of audible burn-in. However, if 9 out of 10 didn’t hear it, you still may not have statistically proven that it doesn’t exist

You've just fallen into Sound Science's rabbit hole! It's just as deep and just as impractical and counter-productive as the audiophools' rabbit hole.

Proof schmoof... The practical reality of the situation is that if people can't hear something better than that kind of statistical degree, it just doesn't matter. Let the bean counters worry about the decimal points. All I care about is whether my home audio system is operating in a way that it is giving me optimal performance for my ears and my music. I'm not an engineer. I'm not a statistician. I'm not a scientist. I am a hi-fi nut who has over 40 years of experience in this hobby and has applied scientific principles to put together and optimize my system to my ears. I am offering advice based on my application of scientific principles to other hi-fi nuts who want to get the most out of their systems for their own ears. That is what many people come to this forum to get from us, not roundabout wordplay and inapplicable theory.

I have never ever in my life improved the sound of my system by worrying about the tiny stuff. There are too many broad strokes to worry about than to worry about single grains of sand on the beach. The most important skill to develop in home audio is to learn to understand scale- have a sense of what those numbers mean and don't mean. Identify the clear problem first, and then look for a solution. But no. People argue about what the numbers *might* mean in some completely unlikely scenario. They try to think up a solution and then look for a completely theoretical and unlikely problem for it to solve. We see this kind of nonsense pop up here over and over. It's amazing how many people have upside down thinking in this world.

If you want proof, prove it to yourself by doing a controlled test using your own ears. Be intellectually honest and do a fair test. Ask those of us who want to help for help. Be practical and only fret the stuff that counts. If you do that, the abstract theory might just produce real world results. But it will never accomplish anything turning it into some sort of OCD mind game.

I don't bother helping some people. I give you a chance or three or four and then I just give up on you and move on to more productive discussions. It's impossible to prove anything to people who live down deep in rabbit holes, regardless of whether they have gone down the one marked "fantasy" or the one marked "statistics and numbers". There is no point arguing with argumentative people. But you can prove it to yourself, and it's not expensive or complicated. The only reason people don't bother to do a simple test and just keep blathering about abstract stuff is because they don't want to know. They find it more comfortable living in a world of "what ifs". I've moved on from that world. I'm making my audio system work for me by doing things the smart way. I'm looking for people who are interested in that too, so we can share notes and learn from each other. That is the only reason I'm here.

But that said, I have both given and received pocket knives as gifts. I got a nice set of Japanese chef's knives for my birthday a few weeks ago. I've never had any bad luck. In fact, I would describe myself as blessed. You can add that to the statistics on knife hoodoo if you want.

 

[hodgjy]

If we're gonna start throwing around statistics, let's at least use the correct terminology. "Proof" does not exist and nothing can ever be proven. It can only be disproved. In terms of statistics, there are only two options: reject the null hypothesis or fail to reject the null hypothesis. If one rejects the null hypothesis, they may have support for the research hypothesis.

In this case, the null hypothesis is, "There is no difference before and after burn in." The research hypothesis is, "There is a significant difference before and after burn in."

All burden to support the research hypothesis falls on collecting sufficient data to reject the null hypothesis. If one cannot collect sufficient data, the null hypothesis has failed to be rejected.

Let me restate. If one truly believes that burn in is real and makes real differences, they bear all burden to collect and analyze all data in a sufficient manner that allows one to reject the null hypothesis. There is no burden whatsoever to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Sorry, but these are the rules when it comes to statistics, logic, and science.

 

[KeithPhantom]

there are only two options: reject the null hypothesis or fail to reject the null hypothesis. If one rejects the null, hypothesis they may have support for the research hypothesis.

That is true in terms of statistics, but remember, one statistic ratio or measure is never enough, that's the reason we say "correlation is not equal to causation". Logic works similarly, the opposite will be a fallacy of the burden of proof, you can only falsify a positive. Null testing also has to comply with the underlying test and its conditions to be accepted as a correlation test (doesn't matter if it t-test or a z-test).

In this case, the null hypothesis is, "There is no difference before and after burn in." The research hypothesis is, "There is a significant difference before and after burn in."

A null hypothesis is what in logic we call as a de facto, where the position is actually to reject any claims of change or positivity until evidence including but not limited to statistics is included, and even with the inclusion of evidence, nothing can be asserted to be true in an absolute manner. So logic and statistics actually agree in the treatment of a de facto (null) position.

To finish, remember that correlation may explain causation, but it is not.

 

[hodgjy]

That is true in terms of statistics, but remember, one statistic ratio or measure is never enough, that's the reason we say "correlation is not equal to causation". Logic works differently, where applying the same precepts of statistics will be a fallacy of the burden of proof, you can only falsify a positive. Null testing also has to comply with the underlying test and its conditions to be accepted as a correlation test (doesn't matter if it t-test or a z-test).

A null hypothesis is what in logic we call as a de facto, where the position is actually to reject any claims of change or positivity until evidence including but not limited to statistics is included, and even with the inclusion of evidence, nothing can be asserted to be true in an absolute manner. So logic and statistics actually agree in the treatment of a de facto (null) position.

To finish, remember that correlation may explain causation, but it is not.

I said absolutely nothing about correlation. Not one word. And correlation has absolutely nothing to do with testing for a significant difference between a treatment and a control.

 

[KeithPhantom]

I said absolutely nothing about correlation. Not one word. And correlation has absolutely nothing to do with testing for a significant difference between a treatment and a control.

That's true, I got confused, but still, the treatment of the null position to test a difference is the same in both branches of science. Sorry.

 

[bigshot]

Which side of the egg is better to crack, the pointy end or the round one?

 

[IEMusic]

You've just fallen into Sound Science's rabbit hole! It's just as deep and just as impractical and counter-productive as the audiophools' rabbit hole.

Proof schmoof... The practical reality of the situation is that if people can't hear something better than that kind of statistical degree, it just doesn't matter. Let the bean counters worry about the decimal points. All I care about is whether my home audio system is operating in a way that it is giving me optimal performance for my ears and my music. I'm not an engineer. I'm not a statistician. I'm not a scientist. I am a hi-fi nut who has over 40 years of experience in this hobby and has applied scientific principles to put together and optimize my system to my ears. I am offering advice based on my application of scientific principles to other hi-fi nuts who want to get the most out of their systems for their own ears. That is what many people come to this forum to get from us, not roundabout wordplay and inapplicable theory.

I have never ever in my life improved the sound of my system by worrying about the tiny stuff. There are too many broad strokes to worry about than to worry about single grains of sand on the beach. The most important skill to develop in home audio is to learn to understand scale- have a sense of what those numbers mean and don't mean. Identify the clear problem first, and then look for a solution. But no. People argue about what the numbers *might* mean in some completely unlikely scenario. They try to think up a solution and then look for a completely theoretical and unlikely problem for it to solve. We see this kind of nonsense pop up here over and over. It's amazing how many people have upside down thinking in this world.

If you want proof, prove it to yourself by doing a controlled test using your own ears. Be intellectually honest and do a fair test. Ask those of us who want to help for help. Be practical and only fret the stuff that counts. If you do that, the abstract theory might just produce real world results. But it will never accomplish anything turning it into some sort of OCD mind game.

I don't bother helping some people. I give you a chance or three or four and then I just give up on you and move on to more productive discussions. It's impossible to prove anything to people who live down deep in rabbit holes, regardless of whether they have gone down the one marked "fantasy" or the one marked "statistics and numbers". There is no point arguing with argumentative people. But you can prove it to yourself, and it's not expensive or complicated. The only reason people don't bother to do a simple test and just keep blathering about abstract stuff is because they don't want to know. They find it more comfortable living in a world of "what ifs". I've moved on from that world. I'm making my audio system work for me by doing things the smart way. I'm looking for people who are interested in that too, so we can share notes and learn from each other. That is the only reason I'm here.

But that said, I have both given and received pocket knives as gifts. I got a nice set of Japanese chef's knives for my birthday a few weeks ago. I've never had any bad luck. In fact, I would describe myself as blessed. You can add that to the statistics on knife hoodoo if you want.

Fair enough. I’m really not trying to take any sides, just keeping an open mind. FWIW, I happen to agree with you on most things, and I thought my posts were pretty balanced. I‘m sorry if I have offended any of you. This has been an interesting discussion.

Hope you had a good Memorial Day weekend. Have a great week!

 

[bigshot]

Not at all offended! Hope you had a nice Memorial Day holiday too. I did a 17 hour BBQ smoke overnight yesterday. I smell like pulled pork!

 

[pstickne]

Human perception has been proven to burn in.

This is the “burn in” I can attest too.

 

[jagwap]

Not at all offended! Hope you had a nice Memorial Day holiday too. I did a 17 hour BBQ smoke overnight yesterday. I smell like pulled pork!

That burn in is only in your head!