Pro 'Burn in' time.

[thumb5]

...
Actually, I can see two sides of this argument.  Many times I have seen one person reporting that they have tried A, then tried B and noticed an improvement.  Then someone comes along and says 'it's just expectation bias'.  OK, sometimes it might be expectation bias, but if I were to say that I listened to a full dCS rig with 100K amps and speakers and found it to sound better than the same song played via my iPad speakers, this would be because it does indeed sound better, so expectation bias does have it's limits.

Yes, I take your point.  By way of counter-argument: I'd be surprised if you couldn't also measure an objective difference and/or distinguish between the two in a blind test -- isn't that really what you mean by "does indeed sound better"? -- so there would be no need to appeal to expectation bias anyway in that case.

I do recall a microRendu thread on the Roon forum, whatever anyone said something about how the thing sounded, one guy responded 'it's just expectation bias', this gets annoying because although expectation bias exists, it works two ways and does have it's limits.

Just to be clear, by referring to psycho-acoustics I'm not trying to diminish what anyone hears, nor am I saying that it's necessarily expectation bias (which often seems to be used in a pejorative way, unfairly I think, because it implies some kind of lower-quality listening ability).

Overall, I think my stance could be summarised as: if one hears a difference, and it can't be measured or explained objectively, then it's most likely in one's head (which is of course still real).  Corollary: I don't feel the need for any as-yet-unknown-to-science effects to explain differences in what people hear.

Probably the most interesting area would be sound differences that can be repeated in a blind test but are not objectively measurable.  I'm not sure what, if anything, currently falls into that category.   Maybe amplifier burn-in...?  [he says, in a desperate attempt to get back on topic...]

[Hifi_swlon]

Overall, I think my stance could be summarised as: if one hears a difference, and it can't be measured or explained objectively, then it's most likely in one's head (which is of course still real).  Corollary: I don't feel the need for any as-yet-unknown-to-science effects to explain differences in what people hear.

I'm with you. Problem is (IMO) 100% of it would be measurable with the right kit, people, time, and carefully designed experiment. But pretty much none of us has acess to any of the required tools, generally we have our ears and the playback equipment. Hence it's easy to get stuck in a 'is it or isn't it real' with the usual stalemate positions.

Personally I'm fascinated by it and would be up for being a guinea pig in any experiment or blind test, whatever the outcome. I think some people might be scared (wrongly) that the scientific outcome might prove then wrong (either way). I'm a very open minded person so would just be interested to see what was in my head and what was real. Of course, if we were forced to take mind altering drugs as part of the process, so be it (in the name of science).

Assuming we believe in burn-in, do they need to be thrashed at high power/load. My problem is speaker sensitivity. I did once wire my speakers out of phase and sit them opposite with a duvet over them, but that was a different point in my life and that just seems a step too far now (and impractical). Otherwise I guess music with lots of deep, hard, bass uses the most power?

[just to add I changed very little since getting the 250. I tried to keep SAM, bass, and treble as set previously, but I've found the need to adjust more often than on the 200. I've changed the toe-in angle on the speakers slightly too - which is far easier I can actually visualise the 3D much more easily with some music, the 200 was a bit 'foggy' in that respect. I had recently added the SR3 so I can't do much about that]

[Confused]

Something occurred to me.  As reported elsewhere, Devialet measure their amplifiers using lab equipment.  Therefore, surly they must know if the amplifiers need 'burn in' time, they would be able to observe this phenomenon in their lab tests.  So, I decided to send a query to the Temple of Truth. To this query, I have received a clear response.:

'Our amplifiers actually do not need any running time. I did double check with team of engineers which did confirm this information.
Regarding your second point, we indeed have measurements that cannot unfortunately be communicated at the moment.'

So there you have it!  Issue solved and closed.  They do not need running in time, we are all imagining it, or at least it is part of the psychological journey of having new kit.

(Although I suspect that this issue may not be closed)

[GuillaumeB]

Something occurred to me.  As reported elsewhere, Devialet measure their amplifiers using lab equipment.  Therefore, surly they must know if the amplifiers need 'burn in' time, they would be able to observe this phenomenon in their lab tests.  So, I decided to send a query to the Temple of Truth. To this query, I have received a clear response.:

'Our amplifiers actually do not need any running time. I did double check with team of engineers which did confirm this information.
Regarding your second point, we indeed have measurements that cannot unfortunately be communicated at the moment.'

So there you have it!  Issue solved and closed.  They do not need running in time, we are all imagining it, or at least it is part of the psychological journey of having new kit.

(Although I suspect that this issue may not be closed)

I'm glad you've cleared this up for us Confused. 

Guillaume

[ogs]

(IMO) 100% of it would be measurable with the right kit, people, time, and carefully designed experiment. But pretty much none of us has acess to any of the required tools, generally we have our ears and the playback equipment.

Yes, with the right kit - which has not been invented yet! It should be possible to measure this as it can be quite a difference, but I do not think the equipment exists. Or it may exist, but the measurement methods does not reveal these differences.

[ogs]

Something occurred to me.  As reported elsewhere, Devialet measure their amplifiers using lab equipment.  Therefore, surly they must know if the amplifiers need 'burn in' time, they would be able to observe this phenomenon in their lab tests.  So, I decided to send a query to the Temple of Truth. To this query, I have received a clear response.:

'Our amplifiers actually do not need any running time. I did double check with team of engineers which did confirm this information.
Regarding your second point, we indeed have measurements that cannot unfortunately be communicated at the moment.'

So there you have it!  Issue solved and closed.  They do not need running in time, we are all imagining it, or at least it is part of the psychological journey of having new kit.

(Although I suspect that this issue may not be closed)

I'm glad you've cleared this up for us Confused. 

Guillaume

+1
We can trust Devialet on this one I'm sure!

[Hifi_swlon]

Something occurred to me.  As reported elsewhere, Devialet measure their amplifiers using lab equipment.  Therefore, surly they must know if the amplifiers need 'burn in' time, they would be able to observe this phenomenon in their lab tests.  So, I decided to send a query to the Temple of Truth. To this query, I have received a clear response.:

'Our amplifiers actually do not need any running time. I did double check with team of engineers which did confirm this information.
Regarding your second point, we indeed have measurements that cannot unfortunately be communicated at the moment.'

So there you have it!  Issue solved and closed.  They do not need running in time, we are all imagining it, or at least it is part of the psychological journey of having new kit.

(Although I suspect that this issue may not be closed)

I'm glad you've cleared this up for us Confused. 

Guillaume

Me too.

Now I just hope my brain makes the right adjustments to fine tune the 250 how I like it.

[yabaVR]

'Our amplifiers actually do not need any running time. I did double check with team of engineers which did confirm this information.
Regarding your second point, we indeed have measurements that cannot unfortunately be communicated at the moment.'

 

Ha, ha, ha... "I did double check with team..." (and they did double 'Quantum Measurments' on it)...they can be so funny.
That made my day evening. They do know nothing. Let's meet with 'em and show 'em.

gui

[Antoine]

They also said different power cables have no effect on the sound quality performance of the device. I and many others beg to differ. Today they supply an entry level Audioquest power cable.

They also said the device performs the same at all temperatures. I'm sure they'll also say that all digital inputs will sound the same.

You gotta love those lab rats...

[thumb5]

Well, from a pragmatic point of view, that is exactly what I'd expect them to say officially (about burn-in, cables, etc.). If they said otherwise, their support people would be deluged with questions about what burn-in time is required, what are the best cables, and so on. Since this is all more or less subjective anyway, in the sense that different people will quite justifiably have different preferences, it would be a waste of their time to engage in that discussion. Just my opinion, of course.