Schiit Fire and Save Matches! Bifrost Multibit is Here.

[earnmyturns]

  Someone doesn't understand burn in...

Does anyone? I've read plenty of hypotheses about burn in, but very little concrete information. The makers of gear I've bought in the last couple of years (Schiit, Bel Canto, MrSpeakers, Sonore, Teddy Pardo) all recommended >100h of burn in for their products, but they never gave much of an explanation. I did hear some of the differences as burn in proceeded, and I can hypothesize some bs about electrolytic capacitors and the like, but it would be great to have a rational explanation. 

 

[Ableza]

Burn-in is a post-manufacturing process designed to test devices like ICs for early-life failure.  It usually involves thermal stressing the device for a predetermined period of time and number of cycles at a temperature designed to simulate max or worst-case operating conditions.  For more complex devices (and for many assemblies) it also involves dynamic testing such as multiple power on-ramp to max-power off cycles.  It is done by every competent component and equipment manufacturer.
 
I know this is not the way audiophiles often use the term, but technically (in this as in many other things) they are wrong. 

 

[bixby]

  Does anyone? I've read plenty of hypotheses about burn in, but very little concrete information. The makers of gear I've bought in the last couple of years (Schiit, Bel Canto, MrSpeakers, Sonore, Teddy Pardo) all recommended >100h of burn in for their products, but they never gave much of an explanation. I did hear some of the differences as burn in proceeded, and I can hypothesize some bs about electrolytic capacitors and the like, but it would be great to have a rational explanation. 

why are there black holes?

 

[theveterans]

Have you guys compared the Coax and Schiit USB Gen 2?

 

[earnmyturns]

  I know this is not the way audiophiles often use the term, but technically (in this as in many other things) they are wrong. 

So, what's this something else that audio equipment manufacturers like Schiit recommend? 

 

[Ableza]

  So, what's this something else that audio equipment manufacturers like Schiit recommend? 

In my opinion it's a combination of several things, including equipment warm up, system stabilization, component drift, semiconductor uncertainty, and in rare cases mechanical compliance changes.  It is also largely about building user familiarity and meeting user expectations.  While it is undeniably true that some equipment performance parameters will change with use (and not always in completely predictable ways) it is also undeniably true that most effects (except for those directly related to thermal performance and mechanical compliance) are many times exaggerated by users due to perceptual bias and expectation, and should be evaluated with large grains of salt.

 

[landroni]

  In my opinion it's a combination of several things, including equipment warm up, system stabilization, component drift, semiconductor uncertainty, and in rare cases mechanical compliance changes.  It is also largely about building user familiarity and meeting user expectations.  While it is undeniably true that some equipment performance parameters will change with use (and not always in completely predictable ways) it is also undeniably true that most effects (except for those directly related to thermal performance and mechanical compliance) are many times exaggerated by users due to perceptual bias and expectation, and should be evaluated with large grains of salt.

@johnjen has a nice chapter on Break In and Thermal Equilibrium that addresses the changes in sonic performance with operating time:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/781268/the-diyrs-cookbook/300#post_12384903

 

[Sam Lord]

  Someone doesn't understand burn in...

 
 

  Burn-in is a post-manufacturing process designed to test devices like ICs for early-life failure.  It usually involves thermal stressing the device for a predetermined period of time and number of cycles at a temperature designed to simulate max or worst-case operating conditions.  For more complex devices (and for many assemblies) it also involves dynamic testing such as multiple power on-ramp to max-power off cycles.  It is done by every competent component and equipment manufacturer.
 
I know this is not the way audiophiles often use the term, but technically (in this as in many other things) they are wrong. 

 
No, there is no uniform meaning.  Manufacturers use various terms to describe the testing period, while the informed consumer uses the same process for a longer time for SQ purposes.
 

  In my opinion it's a combination of several things, including equipment warm up, system stabilization, component drift, semiconductor uncertainty, and in rare cases mechanical compliance changes.  It is also largely about building user familiarity and meeting user expectations.  While it is undeniably true that some equipment performance parameters will change with use (and not always in completely predictable ways) it is also undeniably true that most effects (except for those directly related to thermal performance and mechanical compliance) are many times exaggerated by users due to perceptual bias and expectation, and should be evaluated with large grains of salt.

 
IMO the major changes occur within dielectrics.  Nearly every component has dielectric in contact with conductors, so it is no surprise that performance improves with time.  Wire is a simple example, there is a vast surface area of contact between dielectric and conductor, and its SQ improves with time.  Like with all complex systems, certain parts deteriorate as others improve.  Noise in an amplifier will decrease until its burn-in ends, then will slowly increase.  But the quality factor of many components improves over time, and the result is slightly noisier but improved SQ over years.  Comparing an amp with 24 hours of burn-in with a 5-year-old model that has been running nicely warm in the field just isn't a fair fight.
 
But I agree about how people use hyperbole in describing the burn-in process.  Descriptions are variations for a given piece of equipment.  When we built class AB amps with major circuit upgrades, the new ones cold often beat the fully-burned-in old units.  But new units always have a reduced soundstage and less-clear imaging compared to burned-in units of the same generation.  With lesser gear you can discern a nasal, i.e. constricted quality to brand-new pieces.     

 

[Ableza]

I run manufacturing company.  In my world, there is only one meaning of "burn in" and it has nothing to do with the way audiophiles use the term to describe their perceived changes in audio devices over time.

 

[Sam Lord]

Time for a bigger world.  I helped to design and build some of the best amplifiers and preamplifiers in the world.  Burn-in is not a term limited to manufacturers.

 

[landroni]

  I run manufacturing company.  In my world, there is only one meaning of "burn in" and it has nothing to do with the way audiophiles use the term to describe their perceived changes in audio devices over time.

Technical terms evolve over time and over fields. Even when a specific term has appeared in a specific field with a specific meaning, that field has no monopoly over its meaning when the term is adopted in a different field. Surely those working in agriculture can't get overly mad at computer science types for corrupting the meaning of "bugs"...

 

[Ableza]

 
Technical terms evolve over time and over fields. Even when a specific term has appeared in a specific field with a specific meaning, that field has no monopoly over its meaning when the term is adopted in a different field. Surely those working in agriculture can't get overly mad at computer science types for corrupting the meaning of "bugs"...

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree.  Technical terms once defined do not usually evolove over time, although they might become expanded or adjusted: it's their use and misuse by non-technical (or pseudo-technical) types who coopt the terms that evolves.  That bugs me, as does making up terms to try and describe a subjective reaction or perception in a seemingly-technical fashion.  Oh, and any claims of "infinite." 

 

[landroni]

  I understand what you are saying, I just disagree.  Technical terms once defined do not usually evolove over time, although they might become expanded or adjusted: it's their use and misuse by non-technical (or pseudo-technical) types who coopt the terms that evolves.  That bugs me, as does making up terms to try and describe a subjective reaction or perception in a seemingly-technical fashion.  Oh, and any claims of "infinite." 

Yes, I see what you mean. As for the making up terms part, I think this review is fairly exact:
"reviewing audio equipment must be like trying to describe sex with smoke signals. Unless you actually experience it for yourself, it’s just a bunch of pointless puffing."
 
More seriously, though, when it comes to describing perceptions and their subtleties (auditory, olfactive, gustative, etc.), humans will often necessarily lack off-the-shelf technical terms for doing that (how do you technically describe "beauty"?). Which is why we see the proliferation of terms like "bright", "dark", "burn-in", "sweet spot", etc., and more recently "superglue" and the like. Just because people use oddball analogies or terms doesn't mean that the underlying perception isn't real, significant or otherwise genuine --- it simply means that any attempt to put it into human vocabulary for someone else's understanding is always going to be an uphill battle... For the simple reason that different people have different sensitivities, which colours their reality one way or the other.

 

[Ableza]

 
Yes, I see what you mean. As for the making up terms part, I think this review is fairly exact:
"reviewing audio equipment must be like trying to describe sex with smoke signals. Unless you actually experience it for yourself, it’s just a bunch of pointless puffing."
 
More seriously, though, when it comes to describing perceptions and their subtleties (auditory, olfactive, gustative, etc.), humans will often necessarily lack off-the-shelf technical terms for doing that (how do you technically describe "beauty"?). Which is why we see the proliferation of terms like "bright", "dark", "burn-in", "sweet spot", etc., and more recently "superglue" and the like. Just because people use oddball analogies or terms doesn't mean that the underlying perception isn't real, significant or otherwise genuine --- it simply means that any attempt to put it into human vocabulary for someone else's understanding is always going to be an uphill battle... For the simple reason that different people have different sensitivities, which colours their reality one way or the other.

I agree completely.  I just object to using industry-defined terms in undefined ways, as I also object to using subjective terms like "beauty" to describe purely technical phenomenon for which other terms already exist.  Laymen will do this, of course; however it becomes not just annoying but downright disturbing when those laymen elevate themselves to some sort of expert status via blogs or forums and their "reviews" are filled with pseudo-technical gibberish that has no real meaning.

 

[Sam Lord]

Very good point.
 
Quote:

  I agree completely.  I just object to using industry-defined terms in undefined ways, as I also object to using subjective terms like "beauty" to describe purely technical phenomenon for which other terms already exist.  Laymen will do this, of course; however it becomes not just annoying but downright disturbing when those laymen elevate themselves to some sort of expert status via blogs or forums and their "reviews" are filled with pseudo-technical gibberish that has no real meaning.