If one believes in burn in, isn't the only proper way to validate such performance differences is to conduct a controlled comparison between the burnt in model and a brand new one--thereby at least attempting to control for the psychoacoustic effects?

No, not that. Then we would would never be able to have heated debates on the subject again.

So has anyone ever heard a burn-in story where the sound got worse over time instead of better?

I'm led to believe that for electronics, this trend towards positive change reinforces the suspicion that electronics burn-in is very much a matter of the mind.

What about mechanical (speaker, etc) break in? Is this a double standard where always positive amp break in means plecebo while always positive mechanical break in is fact? No. The whole point is that they are different things, and should be called different things.

Mechanical should be called break in because things actually break out of rigidity, while burn should refer to electronics since people think capacitors BURN or something....

Why are those always positive, even though the drivers actually change? Because, speakers and headphones are designed and developed to sound the way they do after the initial loosening of the transducers, which means speaker/headphone break in is very much a design of the unit, and is accounted for since the process is relatively quick and neither the designer nor the consumer really has much time to do anything because speaker break in happens the moment it is used so it is a paradox- it is impossible to test speakers before the break in because the second you test it, it is broken in.

Thats why people should not bundle speaker/headphone mechanical break-in with electronic burn in. Capacitors don't "break in" over time. They just break. Or burn.

Quote from: The Monkey on Today at 04:00:18 AM

If one believes in burn in, isn't the only proper way to validate such performance differences is to conduct a controlled comparison between the burnt in model and a brand new one--thereby at least attempting to control for the psychoacoustic effects?

BUT WHAT IF THE EXACT SAME COMPONENTS HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT BURN IN CHARACTERISTICS?!

The more I think about it, if you can hear it, you should be able to record it......

and, Agreed on mechanical break in Vs electronic burn in.

Capacitors don't "break in" over time. They just break. Or burn.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what a capacitor is, or how it works?

I'm with Hirsh on this one. The behaviour of a dielectric is determined by its dielectric constant value. As the constant value changes over time, so will the output which in this case, is sound.

do you know what a humbug is and how he/she works?

you dont know me, but I assure you, aside from how batteries and light bulbs work, I have no clear cut clue about any kind of electronics.

From what limited knowledge I do have, I thought electrolytic caps do constantly degrade over time but I have never heard of any whose graph of change contains plateaus at fixed arbitrary number of hours, and then settle at some other, much smaller constant delta.

...but I assure you, aside from how batteries and light bulbs work, I have no clear cut clue about any kind of electronics.

Come on now, give yourself more credit. You were able to take apart my 3G Ipod, break it, and then fix it again. It doesn't work now, but you gave it a pretty good shot and I asked for no guarantees. That's a big step above saying you don't know about electronics. Soldering something as small as a pubic hair takes skill and courage.

Don't be shy now.

Why are those always positive, even though the drivers actually change? Because, speakers and headphones are designed and developed to sound the way they do after the initial loosening of the transducers, which means speaker/headphone break in is very much a design of the unit...

I've never quite understood the whole burn-in/break-in argument, I worked for a speaker manufacturer and it was never even a question, we knew the drivers needed a break-in period and that was accounted for when designing. We ran the speakers in for a number of hours before they went out the door but it was also stated in the manual that they might not sound their best until there was some time spent on them.

I'm not an electronics engineer and only have the basest knowledge of how all this stuff works. I've never really questioned whether burn-in/break-in applied to amplifiers, cd players, etc. I just figured the same applied to electronics in general. For the most part, to varying degrees I've experienced an amount of change with most of the electronics I've bought where I was actually able to pay attention to that sort of thing. Whether it was the piece of equipment or my brain I won't speculate too much on but I'd expect it's a degree of both. From my personal experience electronic break-in/burn-in has been fairly subtle while speakers/headphones have tended to exhibit the most change but again the difference hasn't been huge and the inherent character in both electronic and speaker/headphones doesn't tend to change so I have a hard time with these night and day comments that some people make and I also have a hard time believing that they can nail down changes in relatively short increments over long periods of time.

I will digress a bit, in some cases the difference may come across as a bit more dramatic because the change that occurs might be one of great importance to listener. For instance, I'm very sensitive to sibilance and highs in general so if I were to buy a headphone that I loved with the exception that it initially had a harshness in that region but that smoothed out to an acceptable level over time I would probably describe that as a more dramatic difference than someone who doesn't have that same sensitivity.

There's a first time for everything and I'll always cherish this moment

No, this is the second time -- I didn't jump down your throat on the Chinese electrostatic headphone post, neither.

you have to make sure that whatever you are using for measurement has a smaller margin of error than whatever you are measuring, though.

I think this is the key. You don't want to use just any old computer soundcard.

Someone knock some sense into me. Why would I have just bought a Tomahawk and Hornet (albeit used)? Am I taking advantage of the Predator/Pico craze and cashing in cheap RSA portable amps?

Someone knock some sense into me. Why would I have just bought a Tomahawk and Hornet (albeit used)? Am I taking advantage of the Predator/Pico craze and cashing in cheap RSA portable amps?

Is it because you want to be the one who gets to lose the most money on RSA amp value, so you got in on the drop early?

Haha. I just don't buy into the hype much, but as far as I'm concerned, 260 for a Hornet is pretty good value The Tomy did cost more than maybe I should've paid (240 including LOD and shipping) but oh well... I'm probably going to sell one or both if neither live up to my expectations and go for a Pico, which as far as I'm concerned is receiving utterly glowing reviews from just about everyone.

Haha. I just don't buy into the hype much, but as far as I'm concerned, 260 for a Hornet is pretty good value The Tomy did cost more than maybe I should've paid (240 including LOD and shipping) but oh well... I'm probably going to sell one or both if neither live up to my expectations and go for a Pico, which as far as I'm concerned is receiving utterly glowing reviews from just about everyone.

And call me crazy, but $50 for a mini^3 (under my iron) or $125 from Rockhopper is a MUCH better deal for a better amp.

I do not understand why anyone would buy a Tomahawk. Hornet, sure, it's a decent enough little piece but the T just doesn't make any sense to me.

I do not understand why anyone would buy a Tomahawk. Hornet, sure, it's a decent enough little piece but the T just doesn't make any sense to me.

Guess I have to find out myself Nothing hurts more than personal experience!

The Mini3 looks interesting. I think I'll get one somewhere down the line.

At least if you ever want to talk shit, they can't call you out for shitting on something you've never heard.

I'm with Hirsh on this one. The behaviour of a dielectric is determined by its dielectric constant value. As the constant value changes over time, so will the output which in this case, is sound.

Both true and meaningless in this context at the same time. If the capacitor was an audio

output cap, or coupling cap, then the change in the dielectric might be audible. Across

a battery with a relatively low output impedance none of this applies.

Both true and meaningless in this context at the same time. If the capacitor was an audio

output cap, or coupling cap, then the change in the dielectric might be audible. Across

a battery with a relatively low output impedance none of this applies.

Kevin, care to share a few common output cap values. Say the value used in the hornet or something? I'm going to test a few of these for shits and giggles, see what I measure.

Are AAA and 9V batteries under the classification of low output impedance?

hornet does not have any output capacitors. Neither does the tomahawk or

sr71.

raptor and b52 have output caps. 50 to 100uf. electrolytics.

all of mikhail's tube amps have output caps. He typically goes much bigger. 470uf.electrolytics.

the zana deux has a 50uf output cap (i think) Bigass film cap.

Are AAA and 9V batteries under the classification of low output impedance?

Certainly not compared to lithium batteries.

And call me crazy, but $50 for a mini^3 (under my iron) or $125 from Rockhopper is a MUCH better deal for a better amp.

Oh come on. Everybody knows that commercial manufacturers have magic solder that makes their equipment sound much better. Of course, only after it has been burned-in!

Rockhopper is a commercial manufacturer. 2x