[Exacoustatowner]

My 2¢

"The website states that the sound is stable once it's reached it's operating temp."
This is not the same as burn in, which can take several hundreds hours of playing music thru The Rok.

"…I can say mine sounded great right out of the box."
So did mine, but it did noticeable improve as hours were accumulated, due to burn in.

YMMV

JJ

You're mileage varies differently than mine.

 

[US Blues]

 

The website states that the sound is stable once it's reached it's operating temp.
They also burn them in for a week to make sure all is well before shipping. I like most mortals, don't have a perfect audio memory but  I do try and warm it up for an hour or so before listening. I just go by feel on the volume control

My 2¢
 
"The website states that the sound is stable once it's reached it's operating temp."
This is not the same as burn in, which can take several hundreds hours of playing music thru The Rok.
 
"…I can say mine sounded great right out of the box."
So did mine, but it did noticeable improve as hours were accumulated, due to burn in.
 
YMMV
 
JJ

+1  Looks like we get similar mileage.

 

[Gibsonmac]

My 2¢

"The website states that the sound is stable once it's reached it's operating temp."
This is not the same as burn in, which can take several hundreds hours of playing music thru The Rok.

"…I can say mine sounded great right out of the box."
So did mine, but it did noticeable improve as hours were accumulated, due to burn in.

YMMV

JJ

+1 burn in did yield improvements

 

[Pidgeon]

Out of curiosity, how much? 5-10-20% better? 

 

 

[fire2368]

  Out of curiosity, how much? 5-10-20% better? 

 

Hard to say, its more like letting steak rest before you eat it. It's better, but hard to measure.
 
If I had to put a number it would be 10%, it just makes everything that little bit better.

 

[johnjen]

Quantifying such changes is difficult.
Mostly because with some aspects there might be no perceptable changes (≤10%) while in others a very noticeable change.
While in others the change was quite dramatic.
 
But if pressed I'd say 30-50% in certain areas of the audio envelope with an overall ∆ of 20-30% of change in my system.
 
The single most notable improvement was in the bass and not just in how much (amplitude) but resolution, extension, definition, impact, and integration with the rest of the FR spectrum. 
 
JJ

 

[Pidgeon]

Really interesting, thank you! I asked this because I've read that Yggdrasil, for example, changes from night to day after 200+ hours of burn-in, I was curious if something similar happened to Ragnarok, too.

 

[Exacoustatowner]

Hard to say, its more like letting steak rest before you eat it. It's better, but hard to measure.

If I had to put a number it would be 10%, it just makes everything that little bit better.

I guess I approach it from science background that makes it hard to believe in audio memory lasting 200 hours- especially for slight changes (10%). But as they say YMMV! I think my audio memory falls in the average range. A big change? Bad to Good? I can believe that. Unless you measured it before and after?

 

[johnjen]

  Really interesting, thank you! I asked this because I've read that Yggdrasil, for example, changes from night to day after 200+ hours of burn-in, I was curious if something similar happened to Ragnarok, too.

The Jggy's degree of improvement seems to be of a much greater magnitude that The Rok's.
Or maybe its just that it delivers such a dramatic improvement over other dacs in its 'class'.
 
But if the rest of the system is able to scale and 'keep up' with these 2 pieces of Schiit, then the increases in SQ of the entire system will be that much more demonstrable.
 
And it took more than 200hrs for The Rok to fully 'blossom'.
And I suspect, based upon the reports thus far, that this same expanded time frame also applies to Jggy.
 
JJ

 

[johnjen]

I guess I approach it from science background that makes it hard to believe in audio memory lasting 200 hours- especially for slight changes (10%). But as they say YMMV! I think my audio memory falls in the average range. A big change? Bad to Good? I can believe that. Unless you measured it before and after?

For some it seems that "audio memory" is the gold standard for determining if something has changed.
There is however, another way to approach this.
 
When playing a familiar track and you hear, not just a slight shift or new subtle nuance, but a whole nuther level of the performance, and it is blatantly obvious, THEN "audio memory" takes a back seat.
 
As to measuring these sorts of changes, well, thus far I have not found any measurement that corresponds to, or can be directly linked to, these kinds of changes.
 
How can anyone and by what technique can you measure when the harmonic structure of an instrument becomes more 'real' when all you do is change a fuse or a power cable?
And by 'real' I mean it is blatantly obvious that the instrument being presented has more harmonic content and at the same time it becomes more cohesive and coherent.
 
That some don't experience these sorts of changes seems all to evident.
That doesn't mean these changes don't happen nor that they are necessarily the result of confirmation bias nor a host of other rationalizations.
And it would appear that some simply can't or certainly don't hear these sorts of changes, at all, no matter what.
But I suspect that those who simply can't hear these sorts of changes aren't into tunes as 'serious' hobby in the first place.  
Or they reach nirvana much much sooner than those of us who are addicted to chasing 'better'.
 
Additonally the requirement for 'proof' is along the lines of the logical proposition that you can't prove a negative.
Meaning just because something isn't noticed, doesn't mean it can't be noticed, perhaps by someone else, in another context or circumstance etc.
 
It's also pertinant to note that the 3rd 'step' in the 'scientific method' is observation, which follows the step of devise an 'apparatus' with which to make observations.  
Our playback systems are the 'apparatus' and our observations are in part based upon how well it serves our purpose at making observations.
 
And the next step is to then formulate theories and the like from the observations and subsequently refine and incorporate further observations into the theory that better reflect the observations themselves.
This is a form of feedback loop.
 
But observations are absolutely essential in this process,  and so to arbitrarily dismiss observations because they don't match ones own experience, merely means the first 3 steps (1. propose a question, 2. devise an appartus to explore the question, 3. make observations) doesn't match up with others processes of evaluation.
 
And not that the observations are necessarily fraught with errors or are the results of wishful thinking, confirmation biases, or the like.
 
JJ
ps Note: This post isn't aimed at Exacoustatowner, but rather is a general collection of thoughts to ponder, or not.

 

[Exacoustatowner]

  For some it seems that "audio memory" is the gold standard for determining if something has changed.
There is however, another way to approach this.
 
When playing a familiar track and you hear, not just a slight shift or new subtle nuance, but a whole nuther level of the performance, and it is blatantly obvious, THEN "audio memory" takes a back seat.
 
As to measuring these sorts of changes, well, thus far I have not found any measurement that corresponds to, or can be directly linked to, these kinds of changes.
 
How can anyone and by what technique can you measure when the harmonic structure of an instrument becomes more 'real' when all you do is change a fuse or a power cable?
And by 'real' I mean it is blatantly obvious that the instrument being presented has more harmonic content and at the same time it becomes more cohesive and coherent.
 
That some don't experience these sorts of changes seems all to evident.
That doesn't mean these changes don't happen nor that they are necessarily the result of confirmation bias nor a host of other rationalizations.
And it would appear that some simply can't or certainly don't hear these sorts of changes, at all, no matter what.
But I suspect that those who simply can't hear these sorts of changes aren't into tunes as 'serious' hobby in the first place.  
Or they reach nirvana much much sooner than those of us who are addicted to chasing 'better'.
 
Additonally the requirement for 'proof' is along the lines of the logical proposition that you can't prove a negative.
Meaning just because something isn't noticed, doesn't mean it can't be noticed, perhaps by someone else, in another context or circumstance etc.
 
It's also pertinant to note that the 3rd 'step' in the 'scientific method' is observation, which follows the step of devise an 'apparatus' with which to make observations.  
Our playback systems are the 'apparatus' and our observations are in part based upon how well it serves our purpose at making observations.
 
And the next step is to then formulate theories and the like from the observations and subsequently refine and incorporate further observations into the theory that better reflect the observations themselves.
This is a form of feedback loop.
 
But observations are absolutely essential in this process,  and so to arbitrarily dismiss observations because they don't match ones own experience, merely means the first 3 steps (1. propose a question, 2. devise an appartus to explore the question, 3. make observations) doesn't match up with others processes of evaluation.
 
And not that the observations are necessarily fraught with errors or are the results of wishful thinking, confirmation biases, or the like.
 
JJ
ps Note: This post isn't aimed at Exacoustatowner, but rather is a general collection of thoughts to ponder, or not.

I most certainly cannot-(and won't) tell you you are wrong. I am by no means a 100% committed ABXer but I do try and take into account "audio memory" That said, I don't believe that all reasonably built audio equipment sounds "the same."
 
I have spent quite a bit of time comparing my Ragnarok to my Lyr (with my best tube pairs) and have adjusted the volumes to level match sound out to my HiFiman He-560's (unbalanced) . I spend a silly amount of time A/bing (with less than a second delay) various 2-3 second snippets (on endless repeat with my source). I CAN hear differences- slight. They both sound superb and a little different. Sometimes I prefer the Ragnarok and sometimes the Lyr (with some top of the line NOS tubes).  I cannot compare the balanced headphone cables (XLR Ragnarok only) and the unbalanced 1/4 inch TRS Lyr as quickly as it takes me close to 30 seconds to change cables and reconnect. That said I "sense" the Balanced out sounds "better." By strict ABX rules my sense is not valid-because 30 seconds is deemed too long.  By strict ABX rules, I have 1) sighted evaluation and 2) too much delay between listening (30 seconds). Yet I stick to my assertion that the balanced out sounds "better" to ME. 
The most significant effect of all this A/bing is that I get super critical of the sound and don't enjoy it quite as much. In the end it is all about ENJOYMENT. If you find more enjoyment your way-then I applaud you. 

 

[reddog]

I most certainly cannot-(and won't) tell you you are wrong. I am by no means a 100% committed ABXer but I do try and take into account "audio memory" That said, I don't believe that all reasonably built audio equipment sounds "the same."

I have spent quite a bit of time comparing my Ragnarok to my Lyr (with my best tube pairs) and have adjusted the volumes to level match sound out to my HiFiman He-560's (unbalanced) . I spend a silly amount of time A/bing (with less than a second delay) various 2-3 second snippets (on endless repeat with my source). I CAN hear differences- slight. They both sound superb and a little different. Sometimes I prefer the Ragnarok and sometimes the Lyr (with some top of the line NOS tubes).  I cannot compare the balanced headphone cables (XLR Ragnarok only) and the unbalanced 1/4 inch TRS Lyr as quickly as it takes me close to 30 seconds to change cables and reconnect. That said I "sense" the Balanced out sounds "better." By strict ABX rules my sense is not valid-because 30 seconds is deemed too long.  By strict ABX rules, I have 1) sighted evaluation and 2) too much delay between listening (30 seconds). Yet I stick to my assertion that the balanced out sounds "better" to ME. 
The most significant effect of all this A/bing is that I get super critical of the sound and don't enjoy it quite as much. In the end it is all about ENJOYMENT. If you find more enjoyment your way-then I applaud you. 

+1 well said sir.

 

[Gibsonmac]

I most certainly cannot-(and won't) tell you you are wrong. I am by no means a 100% committed ABXer but I do try and take into account "audio memory" That said, I don't believe that all reasonably built audio equipment sounds "the same."

I have spent quite a bit of time comparing my Ragnarok to my Lyr (with my best tube pairs) and have adjusted the volumes to level match sound out to my HiFiman He-560's (unbalanced) . I spend a silly amount of time A/bing (with less than a second delay) various 2-3 second snippets (on endless repeat with my source). I CAN hear differences- slight. They both sound superb and a little different. Sometimes I prefer the Ragnarok and sometimes the Lyr (with some top of the line NOS tubes).  I cannot compare the balanced headphone cables (XLR Ragnarok only) and the unbalanced 1/4 inch TRS Lyr as quickly as it takes me close to 30 seconds to change cables and reconnect. That said I "sense" the Balanced out sounds "better." By strict ABX rules my sense is not valid-because 30 seconds is deemed too long.  By strict ABX rules, I have 1) sighted evaluation and 2) too much delay between listening (30 seconds). Yet I stick to my assertion that the balanced out sounds "better" to ME. 
The most significant effect of all this A/bing is that I get super critical of the sound and don't enjoy it quite as much. In the end it is all about ENJOYMENT. If you find more enjoyment your way-then I applaud you. 

Your results, I would say, are because of the cans your using(easy to drive). Try the same exercise with HE6's and you will see a world of difference.

 

[Exacoustatowner]

Your results, I would say, are because of the cans your using(easy to drive). Try the same exercise with HE6's and you will see a world of difference.

Hi Gibsonmac
I've never heard the 560's called "easy to drive!" 

 

[fire2368]

  Hi Gibsonmac
I've never heard the 560's called "easy to drive!" 

 

Your results, I would say, are because of the cans your using(easy to drive). Try the same exercise with HE6's and you will see a world of difference.

 
I agree with this. Hard pressed to find difference between many amps on my LCD-XC; night and day on the Abyss. Some sounds just don't get presented well on certain amps. Rag does really well, definitely punches above its weight.