[b0ck3n]

Who stands to gain here? The manufacturer who sells audio equipment to turn a profit, or the people posting in this thread? 

 
Quote:

First I'm told that people who know anything about amps don't believe in break-in. When I ask the people who actually know about my amp -- i.e., the manufacturer -- then I'm told they're lying. It's nice to have your cake and eat it too isn't it. Maybe it's not the manufacturer who's full of it but people on this thread.
 
 

 

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Who stands to gain here? The manufacturer who sells audio equipment to turn a profit, or the people posting in this thread? 
 

It is customary for those whom I have informed of cable scams and other audio myths to donate to me $5 for having saved them so much money.
 

 

 

[milosz]

As someone who is very interested in just which perceived differences are "demonstrable" and which are "not able to be reliably shown to be perceived as different," I applaud this thread.  I am building an A/B/X comparator for use with headphone amps and hope to be trotting it out to some meets and other club events, both to see if differences can really be heard and also to increase my sample size, as well as a way to include some self-style 'golden ears' in my sample.  I've also done some "sighted" A/B comparison, which I think will make an interesting contract with my own upcoming blind A/B/X listening tests of the same gear.  You can read these 'sighted' A/B comparisons in the "AMP A/B TESTS" thread I started on Head-Fi  or on a website I've set up for this purpose, ABTESTS.ORG
 
In the original post of this thread, I particularly like what the Australians had to say:   
 

"CONCLUSION:There is bugger all between the two..."   

​

 ​

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

First I'm told that people who know anything about amps don't believe in break-in. When I ask the people who actually know about my amp -- i.e., the manufacturer -- then I'm told they're lying. It's nice to have your cake and eat it too isn't it. Maybe it's not the manufacturer who's full of it but people on this thread.
 
 

If you tried a sofa in a furniture store and it was really uncomfortable, but the salesman said, "Don't worry, it will soften up in three months," what would you do?
 
If an amp needed burn-in, the manufacturer would do it in the factory.  It's inconceivable that anything would be sent out to market less than its best.
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Furniture will mould itself to your shape, as will shoes. Burn in is fraught with bad analogies, one of the reason why the debate on burn in will always rage on.

 

 

[EthanWiner]

Quote:

[size=small]Your appeal to numbers is rather pointless here, as neither one of us could make those calculations.[/size]

 
It's not calculations, it's measurements. And I certainly know how to do that.
 
"Numbers" is the only way to truly sort out what, if anything, changed about the amp over time. I'm sure you don't understand why this is true, but that's irrelevant. As long as you continue to believe your ears are somehow more accurate and more reliable than test gear, your knowledge of audio will remain stagnant. I don't know a nicer way to put it.
 
--Ethan

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

Furniture will mould itself to your shape, as will shoes. Burn in is fraught with bad analogies, one of the reason why the debate on burn in will always rage on.

 

Yeah, bad analogy, I agree.  It's more the sales person's BS I was focusing on.  Suppose the shoes were too small.  Would you believe a salesman who said they'd get two sizes larger after 300 hours?  People wouldn't believe this stuff in any other walk of life.

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

 
It's not calculations, it's measurements. And I certainly know how to do that.
 
"Numbers" is the only way to truly sort out what, if anything, changed about the amp over time. I'm sure you don't understand why this is true, but that's irrelevant. As long as you continue to believe your ears are somehow more accurate and more reliable than test gear, your knowledge of audio will remain stagnant. I don't know a nicer way to put it.
 
--Ethan

How would you measure what is already gone? The amp sounds fantastic now. But when I first got it, it sounded horrible, and I mean really horrible. I didn't need to ask the manufacturer about break-in; I heard it with my own ears. The difference between the sound of the amp brand new and after break-in is not only obvious but dramatic. Still, I wanted to see what the manufacturer had to say about it. He just confirmed what I already knew. Had you been able to do your measurements (for instance, if, as NickCharles observed, I had recorded the sound the amp was making before break-in), then you would have been able to plot the difference on a graph. So it's not a question of my ears being more accurate or reliable than test gear. Had proper measurements been taken, they would have confirmed the difference. But, had I recorded it, all you would have needed to do was listen and you would have heard it. The measurements would have just been confirming the obvious.
 

 

[Heidegger]

 
Quote:

Who stands to gain here? The manufacturer who sells audio equipment to turn a profit, or the people posting in this thread? 

 


You're starting with the premise -- that is, the assumption -- that the manufacturer is dishonest. I question that assumption. In any case, they already knew who I was and knew that I purchased the amp at least two months ago. Thus, I couldn't have returned it. They didn't stand to make a nickel. In any case, I don't believe in break-in because they told me it was real; I believe in it because I heard it with my own ears. You guys on this thread are full of theory, but seem to have relatively little experience compared with the audiophiles. I certainly don't consider myself an audiophile (this is only my second headphone amp), but it seems to me that audiophiles are the ones actually out there buying and testing all the products. They are the ones spending the money, bringing all that new equipment home, and actually using it. That is, they are the ones with the actual experience, and plenty of it. If audiophiles believe that you have to let a particular piece of equipment (a speaker, an amp) break-in, it's because they are the ones who have actually purchased and used a great many amps and speakers. Practically every review I have read -- even by established and well regarded audio experts -- begins with a statement about how they let the amp and/or headphone break in first. Not all equipment will have to break in, and, even for the stuff that does need to be broken in, it will be more dramatic with some than with others. For intance, I hardly noticed the break-in of my other amp. But with the Lehmann it was dramatic. Meanwhile, it's usually (though not always) the people with little to no experience of brand-new equipment who think they know what they are talking about.
 

 

 

[Heidegger]

 
Quote:

 
Just like the manufacturers of all the crap keanex just posted above really know how green markers make your CDs sound better, right?  Its such a shame they're hiding it from the Nobel Prize committee.  Just think what else those magic (literally!) markers must be good for!  While we're at it, why doesn't Furutech license its secrets about magnetic polymers?  That's got to be good for more money than low volume runs of degaussing platters.
 
The safe bet is that they're making it all up to sell to gullible consumers.

Although I've never tried the green pen or the polishes, there are some people over at another forum who swear by them. The theory, as I've heard them explain it, is that the optical disc scatters a lot of the laser light inside the CD player, and the thin side of the disc contributes to this scattering. By applying the green pen to the sides of the disc you reduce the amount of stray light inside the player since the sides are no longer able to reflect and scatter as much of the light. Whether that is true, whether it really makes the music sound better, I have no idea since I've never tried it. But the only way to find out for yourself is to try it, not to make an assumption about it beforehand: "Oh, that's impossible." Many things that today are considered possible were formerly considered impossible. How would you even know whether it's impossible or not.
 

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

Yeah, bad analogy, I agree.  It's more the sales person's BS I was focusing on.  Suppose the shoes were too small.  Would you believe a salesman who said they'd get two sizes larger after 300 hours?  People wouldn't believe this stuff in any other walk of life.

That's an even worse anology. I've had many pairs of shoes that have needed to break in. Of course, if you only wear used sneakers from Goodwill, then you will not know what I am talking about. You might even consider shoe break-in to be impossible.
 

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

That's an even worse anology. I've had many pairs of shoes that have needed to break in. Of course, if you only wear used sneakers from Goodwill, then you will not know what I am talking about. You might even consider shoe break-in to be impossible.
 

So you would believe a shoe salesman who said your new shoes would grow two sizes larger after 300 hours?  Is there a limit to your credulity?
 

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

So you would believe a shoe salesman who said your new shoes would grow two sizes larger after 300 hours?  Is there a limit to your credulity?
 

No, but I would believe -- or at least not automatically disbelieve -- a salesman who told me that the shoe might need a little while to break in and feel comfortable. I have also had shoes that never felt comfortable.
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Heidegger, sorry but in this section of the forum, your opinion on amp burn in etc is not proof. It is barely evidence as you cannot discount your own senses as opposed to the amp cauing the change.

 

[danroche]

Quote:

Many things that today are considered possible were formerly considered impossible. How would you even know whether it's impossible or not.
 

Yes, but you're just getting around to challenging people to prove a negative.  Burden of proof belongs on someone proving this kind of this DOES have a benefit, which with the CD-pen effect is fairly straightforward to do.  Same with any number of audiophile claims.  When the theory of relativity was introduced, it was repeatably and predictably demonstrated. This doesn't mean that physicists before the 20th century were cynical idiots.
 
If you're going to demand that others prove a negative, you can claim anything.  This is what cults do.  I can think up in my head right now a theory that, say, extremely large quantities of pop tarts cure some forms of cancer.  You can't disprove that.   I can't PROVE it either, but if I tell someone what they want to ear, they might cling to the "hope" that my statement holds and justify what they want to believe.