So psychoacoustics are ruled out completely? I’m not saying it doesn’t sound better, just that there is a potential 1% bias effect at minimum. It can never bee completely ruled out. This has been studied quite extensively, i.e. https://www.acousticresearch.org/psychoacoustics
It’s like reading a book when you are angry vs when you are relaxed. Your impression is impacted by mood.
Tom, what you say is true, but another is saying that burn in doesn’t exist, which isn’t true. Component burn-in is real, and was even shown to be true when comparing a brand new MU2 to a borrowed (and fully broken in) MU2.
A builder I respect says the main culprit for both break-in and returning-to-splendor-after-a-break is the capacitor.
I’ve got no quarrel with that. It’s the absolutes that rattle my cage. I’m probably just pissing in the wind.
That makes sense.
Sure, it’s a possibility it’s psychoacoustics, but not every time for every person over all the decades.
So…agree to disagree?
How about those PMG amps!
Looking forward to trying one.
Yes but it is an example of 1, which as I pointed out could be due to an inherent difference between the same two components. After all, if there is burn in changes, then having the same level of difference between units would certainly be understandable. In all my readings on HiFi this is the only example of burn in SQ changes that is not based on auditory memory over substantial time periods.
I’m burned out on burn-in.
The engineers at bell labs/western electric that designed the 300b tube measured changes in the tube for up to 500 hours of burn in, so burn is nothing new.
As this discussion evolved from my comments on the S200, I presumed that we were focused on semiconductor circuitry, not tubes.
I am all for getting back to the topic at hand. I’ll refrain from interjecting my thoughts about that other stuff, I promise.
I just got home after a 2 week trip, all equipment powered off and unplugged. Got home, fired it all up and it sounded so sweet. What me worry?
What other thoughts are you talking about? I’m burning to know.
Or it could have been that the Sun was shining when I borrowed the component and the Sun wasn’t shining on the day my new component arrived.
Oh please tell me you listened to both components at about the same time on the same day? But more seriously, new possible variable: bumpy car ride. Which of us hasn’t cured an ailing piece of electronics with a good wack or two?
Well, as it appears that now most if not all of the worms have left the can I will depart the discussion relating to burn in with two observations. 1) I did not say I do not believe in burn in, only that the only evidence that I had seen was based on auditory comparisons over time periods probably exceeding reliability; 2) every example advanced in this discussion of change over time was of a positive SQ outcome.
Cheers all. I’m going back to my current exploring of Mahler’s symphonies. S200 does seem to be presenting a more defined sound stage than the M700 monoblocks, especially apparent with orchestral and small group vocal music.
Is that assessment based on your listening impressions or measurements?
If just listening impressions, maybe you’re just imaging that the S200 is presenting a more defined soundstage because it cost more, and it’s a newly released peice of audio gear. Could it be that your biases are swaying your judgment? Have you done double blind listening tests?
I can tell it sounds better without having heard it!