CPU Burn-in

[All Ears]

I am seeing a lot of interesting claims about burn-in issues, also audio
compared to other electronic equipment.

Those who has been trying to over clock a CPU, will know that often it is
possible to tweak extra MHz out of the CPU, after it has been working
several hours. This would indicate to me, that YES computers do burn-in as
well. However, nobody notice this, unless trying to run it above
specifications!

Saying that the burn-in issue is imagination, is something of a statement to
claim. I get the feeling that those who states "there is no such thing"
really does not have the equipment to reveal this very obvious phenomenon.

KE

[Richard D Pierce]

In article <oYVQa.70709$Ph3.7225@sccrnsc04>,
All Ears > wrote:
>I am seeing a lot of interesting claims about burn-in issues, also audio
>compared to other electronic equipment.
>
>Those who has been trying to over clock a CPU, will know that often it is
>possible to tweak extra MHz out of the CPU, after it has been working
>several hours. This would indicate to me, that YES computers do burn-in as
>well. However, nobody notice this, unless trying to run it above
>specifications!
>
>Saying that the burn-in issue is imagination, is something of a statement to
>claim. I get the feeling that those who states "there is no such thing"
>really does not have the equipment to reveal this very obvious phenomenon.

That's an interesting claim. Do you have data to back it up.

For myself, I have measurement data that I have personally taken
on several thousand loudspeakers and drivers. This was measured
using a variety of Bruel & Kjaer, ACO and General Radio
laboratory condensor microphones through measurement systems
including a DRA MLSSA system, a Clio industrial system, B&K and
GR acoustical analysis systems, with support equipment from HP,
and many others. Would I, perchance, fit in your category of
those who "do not have the equipment to reveal this very obvious
phenomenon?"

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[All Ears]

-Snip-

> That's an interesting claim. Do you have data to back it up.
>
> For myself, I have measurement data that I have personally taken
> on several thousand loudspeakers and drivers. This was measured
> using a variety of Bruel & Kjaer, ACO and General Radio
> laboratory condensor microphones through measurement systems
> including a DRA MLSSA system, a Clio industrial system, B&K and
> GR acoustical analysis systems, with support equipment from HP,
> and many others. Would I, perchance, fit in your category of
> those who "do not have the equipment to reveal this very obvious
> phenomenon?"
>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |

Yes, I have been fiddling a lot with over clocking of CPUs, all the way from
486 up to Pentium 4. A fresh CPU will generally only go to a certain point
before it becomes unstable. If kept at the maximum stable clock freq.. for a
week or two, it is usually able to be pushed further and run stable at a
freq. previously unstable. So "something" is changing over time.

I agree that burn-in of audio equipment are also partly getting used to the
"new sound image" but it is also more than this. I am in the business as
well, and gets a lot of new stuff in, so it is relatively easy to compare
burned-in demo equipment with fresh equipment, and I assure you that there
is a difference from a listening point of view. I am not saying that it is
measurable in a conventional manner, but it sure is audible, at least to my
ears. Furthermore I would say that it is not slightly audible, but clearly
and obviously audible.

I can see that you have access to a lot of serious measuring equipment,
which of course are useful in many situations. It is however my personal
opinion that we must trust what we are hearing, and not blindly trust that
best technical specifications equals the most realistic and satisfying sound
or that we can fully explain or understand what happens as the brain decodes
a sound impression.

KE

[Richard D Pierce]

In article >,
All Ears > wrote:
>I can see that you have access to a lot of serious measuring equipment,
>which of course are useful in many situations. It is however my personal
>opinion that we must trust what we are hearing, and not blindly trust that
>best technical specifications equals the most realistic and satisfying sound
>or that we can fully explain or understand what happens as the brain decodes
>a sound impression.

So it's your assertion that instead of blindly trusting, as you
say, equipment whose characteristics, limitations and
innaccuracies we know fairly well, we should blindly trust our
ears, thet we KNOW to be highly variable, fairly low resoultion,
quite variable and inconsistent. That's what you're saying, yes?

It's also interesting that FIRST uyou assert no one has the
equipment to prove your assertions, and then when I come along
WITH that equipment and more, you simply discount its value. You
can't have it both ways.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[All Ears]

-snip-

I am not saying that it is
> > measurable in a conventional manner, but it sure is audible, at least to
my
> > ears. Furthermore I would say that it is not slightly audible, but
clearly
> > and obviously audible.
>
> Great, then it should certainly be conventionally measurable. Have you
> tried measuring for difference? You claim to have the equipment to do so.

Nope, Dick has all the fancy stuff, and he cannot hear or measure any
difference...

>
> > I can see that you have access to a lot of serious measuring equipment,
> > which of course are useful in many situations. It is however my personal
> > opinion that we must trust what we are hearing, and not blindly trust
that
> > best technical specifications equals the most realistic and satisfying
sound
> > or that we can fully explain or understand what happens as the brain
decodes
> > a sound impression.
>
> You leave out one very important factor: perceptual bias. If you are
> doing 'sighted' comparisons, you *aren't* actually trusting your hearing.
>
> --
> -S.
>

You are right, I did not do a blind test, but then again, the difference is
so significant that it would seem foolish to do so...I am not into this for
the science, but merely because i enjoy listening to good music.

KE

[Steven Sullivan]

All Ears > wrote:
> -snip-

> I am not saying that it is
>> > measurable in a conventional manner, but it sure is audible, at least to
> my
>> > ears. Furthermore I would say that it is not slightly audible, but
> clearly
>> > and obviously audible.
>>
>> Great, then it should certainly be conventionally measurable. Have you
>> tried measuring for difference? You claim to have the equipment to do so.

> Nope, Dick has all the fancy stuff, and he cannot hear or measure any
> difference...

Sorry, I'd misread the post initially. I thought you'd written that *you*
also had such equipment. But Mr. Pierce didn't claim to have measured the
particular units YOU claim to have heard 'obviously audible' differences
in. Nor has he ever claimed that he cannot hear of measure any
differences *generally*.

>> > I can see that you have access to a lot of serious measuring equipment,
>> > which of course are useful in many situations. It is however my personal
>> > opinion that we must trust what we are hearing, and not blindly trust
> that
>> > best technical specifications equals the most realistic and satisfying
> sound
>> > or that we can fully explain or understand what happens as the brain
> decodes
>> > a sound impression.
>>
>> You leave out one very important factor: perceptual bias. If you are
>> doing 'sighted' comparisons, you *aren't* actually trusting your hearing.
>>
>> --
>> -S.
>>

> You are right, I did not do a blind test, but then again, the difference is
> so significant that it would seem foolish to do so...I am not into this for
> the science, but merely because i enjoy listening to good music.

If the difference is that significant, it would require an overthrow of
known laws of physics for those differences NOT to be measurable.
Do you realize that?

--
-S.

[Dennis Moore]

I don't know Mr. Pierce, he said he trusts his hearing.
Meaning if your equipment doesn't reveal something I gather
he doesn't trust your equipment. So he isn't necessarily
having it both ways. He probably would deem despite all
of your equipment you don't have the equipment to measure
it with. Now of course you don't agree with his assertion.
Thinking if your equipment doesn't measure it, it likely isn't
so. But nothing really inconsistent with his position. It simply
is based upon different assumptions than yours.

He is oh so right about those CPU's by the way. You don't usually
get max stable mhz until they are burned in a bit. Something
must being going on for that to be. I have no idea if anyone
has or is trying to figure out why that is. And what they might
be measuring do determine it. But no matter what the equipment
and expertise used, if they tell you it isn't so, they aren't going to
have much credibility with someone who has seen the effect
many times.

Dennis

[All Ears]

Actually, yes, I think we should allow ourselves to judge audio equipment
with our ears. Would you like to flavour your food after the best
"measurable" result?

We will probably never agree, because we have fundamental different ideals
in audio reproduction. I respect your very technical approach, we need your
kind for the systematical research. On the other hand, you must accept that
I like to connect the speaker (or whatever) to a real system, that I know,
and can use as a reference. This way I can judge how it sounds, to me. I do
listen to other peoples opinions also, sometimes something is pointed out to
me that I did not notice before, at other times it confirms my own
impressions. I also use my 4 year old daughter, she gives a pretty good
unspoiled feed back. If the musicality is there, she will dance and be
happy, pointing out the musicians in the recordings etc.

BTW, I meant play back equipment, not measuring equipment.

KE

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> All Ears > wrote:
> >I can see that you have access to a lot of serious measuring equipment,
> >which of course are useful in many situations. It is however my personal
> >opinion that we must trust what we are hearing, and not blindly trust
that
> >best technical specifications equals the most realistic and satisfying
sound
> >or that we can fully explain or understand what happens as the brain
decodes
> >a sound impression.
>
> So it's your assertion that instead of blindly trusting, as you
> say, equipment whose characteristics, limitations and
> innaccuracies we know fairly well, we should blindly trust our
> ears, thet we KNOW to be highly variable, fairly low resoultion,
> quite variable and inconsistent. That's what you're saying, yes?
>
> It's also interesting that FIRST uyou assert no one has the
> equipment to prove your assertions, and then when I come along
> WITH that equipment and more, you simply discount its value. You
> can't have it both ways.
>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |

[Richard D Pierce]

In article <9R_Qa.71915$ye4.48033@sccrnsc01>,
All Ears > wrote:
>-snip-
>
>I am not saying that it is
>> > measurable in a conventional manner, but it sure is audible, at least to
>my
>> > ears. Furthermore I would say that it is not slightly audible, but
>clearly
>> > and obviously audible.
>>
>> Great, then it should certainly be conventionally measurable. Have you
>> tried measuring for difference? You claim to have the equipment to do so.
>
>Nope, Dick has all the fancy stuff, and he cannot hear or measure any
>difference...

Now, precisely WHEN did I say this? (Hint: I DIDN'T) WHy do make
the false claim that I did?

Sir, I measure HUGE differences between LOTS of things every
day, and I would thank you not to make false claims about what I
can and cannot do, about what I have and have not done. It is
clear, sir, that you have little, if ANY data to make such
claims.

You're in a pretty precarious position having made the claim
that others don't have the equipment necessary to detect the
difference, when it seems that YOU, indeed, are lacking such.

>You are right, I did not do a blind test, but then again, the difference is
>so significant that it would seem foolish to do so...

If the difference is, as you claim, so large, it seems patently
foolish NOT to employ a technique that would remove as much
doubt and variability as possible. If it's as big as you claim,
having reliable results, results that could be trusted an
repeated by others would do nothing but bolster your assertion.

>I am not into this for the science, but merely because i enjoy
>listening to good music.

So go listen to your music stop making "scientific"
proclamations.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Joseph Oberlander]

Richard D Pierce wrote:
> In article <oYVQa.70709$Ph3.7225@sccrnsc04>,
> All Ears > wrote:
>
>>I am seeing a lot of interesting claims about burn-in issues, also audio
>>compared to other electronic equipment.
>>
>>Those who has been trying to over clock a CPU, will know that often it is
>>possible to tweak extra MHz out of the CPU, after it has been working
>>several hours.

CPUs are made to work at one temperature range well. You can push
them, but any "burn in" is likely hurting it.

It seems the height of idiocy to take a $400 CPU/MB combo and
shorten its life by half to squeeze out 5-8% more speed.

[normanstrong]

"All Ears" > wrote in message
news:9R_Qa.71915$ye4.48033@sccrnsc01...

> You are right, I did not do a blind test, but then again, the
difference is
> so significant that it would seem foolish to do so...I am not into
this for
> the science, but merely because i enjoy listening to good music.

This is the famous argument that "you don't need a blind test because
these differences are so great that you'd have to have 'cloth ears'
not to hear them." Let's just do the tests, if for no other reason
than to establish firmly the truth of this argument.

When I've done the tests I've found that I have cloth ears, and
strangely enough, so have all the other audiophiles taking the test
alongside me.

Norm Strong

[All Ears]

I actually never succeeded in harming a CPU by over clocking. With the P4
CPUs there is not much idea in over clocking, they are normally fast enough.
Back in the the "old days" there was a lot to gain. Big difference in
running a 486 at 25 MHz or 40 MHz.
Anyway, who cares if the lifetime of the CPU is reduced to 5 or 10 years,
never used the same CPU more than 2-3 years anyway.

KE

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
news:He4Ra.73741$ye4.50750@sccrnsc01...
> Richard D Pierce wrote:
> > In article <oYVQa.70709$Ph3.7225@sccrnsc04>,
> > All Ears > wrote:
> >
> >>I am seeing a lot of interesting claims about burn-in issues, also audio
> >>compared to other electronic equipment.
> >>
> >>Those who has been trying to over clock a CPU, will know that often it
is
> >>possible to tweak extra MHz out of the CPU, after it has been working
> >>several hours.
>
> CPUs are made to work at one temperature range well. You can push
> them, but any "burn in" is likely hurting it.
>
> It seems the height of idiocy to take a $400 CPU/MB combo and
> shorten its life by half to squeeze out 5-8% more speed.
>

[Joseph Oberlander]

All Ears wrote:
> I actually never succeeded in harming a CPU by over clocking. With the P4
> CPUs there is not much idea in over clocking, they are normally fast enough.
> Back in the the "old days" there was a lot to gain. Big difference in
> running a 486 at 25 MHz or 40 MHz.
> Anyway, who cares if the lifetime of the CPU is reduced to 5 or 10 years,
> never used the same CPU more than 2-3 years anyway.

It's actually 4-5 years down to maybe 2-3 if run hot. Note how
those AMDs tend to fry after a couple of years.

[All Ears]

A quick google search gave this result:

http://people.freenet.de/s.urfer/conditioning.htm#why

KE

"Gary Rosen" > wrote in message
...
> "All Ears" > wrote in message
> news:oYVQa.70709$Ph3.7225@sccrnsc04...
> > I am seeing a lot of interesting claims about burn-in issues, also audio
> > compared to other electronic equipment.
> >
> > Those who has been trying to over clock a CPU, will know that often it
is
> > possible to tweak extra MHz out of the CPU, after it has been working
> > several hours. This would indicate to me, that YES computers do burn-in
as
> > well. However, nobody notice this, unless trying to run it above
> > specifications!
> >
> > Saying that the burn-in issue is imagination, is something of a
statement
> to
> > claim. I get the feeling that those who states "there is no such thing"
> > really does not have the equipment to reveal this very obvious
phenomenon.
>
> If the "CPU burn-in" phenomenon is real, I guarantee that there is an
> explanation
> for it and that someone knows what it is - most likely the people who
> designed
> the CPU. CPU design is incredibly complicated, but it ain't black magic.
>
> - Gary Rosen

[Joseph Oberlander]

All Ears wrote:
> A quick google search gave this result:
>
> http://people.freenet.de/s.urfer/conditioning.htm#why

Again, look at all of the warnings.

I still maintain that it is idiocy to overclock a modern CPU to
gain 5-10% more speed at the expense of a much shorter lifespan.

It's like taking a car and racing it - it's going to fall apart
a lot faster. Considering that a few hundred dollars seperates
the bottom CPUs from the very top, it's like hopping up a Civic
and stressing it versus getting a M3 and doing it right - just
to save a thousand dollars.

[All Ears]

The real point with this tread, was to prove that something actually does
happen during burn-in of electronic equipment.

Seems like, even with computers, that all aspects of this phenomenon cannot
be explained from a technical point of view, but it is generally accepted
that the issue exist.

Regarding over clocking, the different versions of CPU models are made to
handle up to a certain max. freq., but only the best of the batch will
actually reach top specifications, the rest are sold as lower freq. types.
So kept within the limits of the maximum specifications of a given version
of CPU, I would consider it safe to over clock.

KE

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
news:xOARa.74126$OZ2.13363@rwcrnsc54...
> All Ears wrote:
> > A quick google search gave this result:
> >
> > http://people.freenet.de/s.urfer/conditioning.htm#why
>
> Again, look at all of the warnings.
>
> I still maintain that it is idiocy to overclock a modern CPU to
> gain 5-10% more speed at the expense of a much shorter lifespan.
>
> It's like taking a car and racing it - it's going to fall apart
> a lot faster. Considering that a few hundred dollars seperates
> the bottom CPUs from the very top, it's like hopping up a Civic
> and stressing it versus getting a M3 and doing it right - just
> to save a thousand dollars.
>

[Gary Rosen]

"All Ears" > wrote in message
...
> The real point with this tread, was to prove that something actually does
> happen during burn-in of electronic equipment.
>

People also claim the phenomenon of speaker "burn-in". Would this be the
same mechanism that causes an IC to burn-in?

- Gary Rosen

[Audio Guy]

In article >,
"All Ears" > writes:
> The real point with this tread, was to prove that something actually does
> happen during burn-in of electronic equipment.

The difference between this and audio equipment is that you have an
easily measurable parameter here that shows the change, i.e. clock
speed, while the supposed effects of burn-in or break-in of audio
equipment don't show up in performance related measurements.

> Seems like, even with computers, that all aspects of this phenomenon cannot
> be explained from a technical point of view, but it is generally accepted
> that the issue exist.

Yet it is measureable and so is certainly a real effect as opposed to
audio equipment.

[Blaster]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
...
> All Ears wrote:
> > I actually never succeeded in harming a CPU by over clocking. With the
P4
> > CPUs there is not much idea in over clocking, they are normally fast
enough.
> > Back in the the "old days" there was a lot to gain. Big difference in
> > running a 486 at 25 MHz or 40 MHz.
> > Anyway, who cares if the lifetime of the CPU is reduced to 5 or 10
years,
> > never used the same CPU more than 2-3 years anyway.
>
> It's actually 4-5 years down to maybe 2-3 if run hot. Note how
> those AMDs tend to fry after a couple of years.

My son (7 years old) uses an AMD 166 MHz overclocked to 200 MHz--it's still
going strong since 1997.

[chung]

All Ears wrote:
> The real point with this tread, was to prove that something actually does
> happen during burn-in of electronic equipment.
>

The purpose of "burn-in" in the electronics industry is to eliminate
infant mortality problems or early failures. It is NOT to improve
performance of components/systems. "Burn-in" provides stress, in the
form of higher operating temperature that accelerates failures, that
will expose weak (by design or by fabrication errors)components/systems.

> Seems like, even with computers, that all aspects of this phenomenon cannot
> be explained from a technical point of view, but it is generally accepted
> that the issue exist.

No, there is really nothing in the "burn-in" process of electronics that
cannot be explained by existing knowledge. When something fails during
burn-in, failure analyses are usually performed to pinpoint culprits.

>
> Regarding over clocking, the different versions of CPU models are made to
> handle up to a certain max. freq., but only the best of the batch will
> actually reach top specifications, the rest are sold as lower freq. types.
> So kept within the limits of the maximum specifications of a given version
> of CPU, I would consider it safe to over clock.
>

I do not believe "burn-in" improves the ability of a CPU to be
overclocked. What you were observing is that due to slight changes in
operating temperature, and/or slight adjustments of BIOS parameters,
and/or slight changes in the system (like different memory chips or
video cards), the ability of the system to run at a higher clock
frequency is changed. It is NOT that letting the CPU run for a while
will improve the performance of the CPU. You will also find cases when
after a while the system appears to NOT be able to run at as high as
speed as before, for example when the ambient temperature gets higher.

Overclocking in all likelihood will not damage the CPU chip. The risk is
that you lose valuable data, or you lose work, when your system crashes
unexpectedly. It is foolish to overclock if you are depending on the PC
to run reliably.

[Dennis Moore]

Mr. Oberlander,

Overclocking is often 50% more speed. 30-40%
is pretty easy. You usually need to put in larger fans and
heatsinks. Use a case with better airflow. Then you also
have elements to monitor the temp of the CPU. Often with
all the cooling improvements you can OC a cpu with very
little temp rise. If I remember correctly you half the life
of such chips for each 10 degree centigrade increase.

As someone stated, you are taking something built to last
8-10 years, and possibly lowering that by 50 percent. By which
time it will be hopelessly obsolete. So you just saved money
or achieved a speed of operation before it would normally be
available.

If this performance gain sounds like idiocy to you don't do it.
But many people don't agree with you. Which CPU will over-
clock generously and which won't vary greatly from different
production runs and assembly lines. This information is
empirically developed by people who get a kick out of OC'ing.

Dennis

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
news:xOARa.74126$OZ2.13363@rwcrnsc54...
>
> I still maintain that it is idiocy to overclock a modern CPU to
> gain 5-10% more speed at the expense of a much shorter lifespan.
>
> It's like taking a car and racing it - it's going to fall apart
> a lot faster. Considering that a few hundred dollars seperates
> the bottom CPUs from the very top, it's like hopping up a Civic
> and stressing it versus getting a M3 and doing it right - just
> to save a thousand dollars.
>
>

[Joseph Oberlander]

Blaster wrote:
> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>All Ears wrote:
>>
>>>I actually never succeeded in harming a CPU by over clocking. With the
>>
> P4
>
>>>CPUs there is not much idea in over clocking, they are normally fast
>>
> enough.
>
>>>Back in the the "old days" there was a lot to gain. Big difference in
>>>running a 486 at 25 MHz or 40 MHz.
>>>Anyway, who cares if the lifetime of the CPU is reduced to 5 or 10
>>
> years,
>
>>>never used the same CPU more than 2-3 years anyway.
>>
>>It's actually 4-5 years down to maybe 2-3 if run hot. Note how
>>those AMDs tend to fry after a couple of years.
>
>
> My son (7 years old) uses an AMD 166 MHz overclocked to 200 MHz--it's still
> going strong since 1997.

I was referring to the newer, hotter running models that AMD
massively overclocks to begin with.

[Uptown Audio]

You leap to assume that because you do not know what to measure or how
to measure it that it is immeasuable. Also further it by stating that
is does not exist. Not being able to measure something is not proof of
its non-existance. It could be proof of our ignorance, insignificance,
stubborness, arrogance, self-importance, etc. I am not directly
lableling you, just pointing out other possiblities. Let's not close
our minds to what many see as real alternatives. Better yet, challenge
ourselves to discover those causes and effects to better understand
the science of it rather than to waste time on what we already know.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Audio Guy" > wrote in message
news:SqERa.83344$N7.10085@sccrnsc03...
> In article >,
> "All Ears" > writes:
> > The real point with this tread, was to prove that something
actually does
> > happen during burn-in of electronic equipment.
>
> The difference between this and audio equipment is that you have an
> easily measurable parameter here that shows the change, i.e. clock
> speed, while the supposed effects of burn-in or break-in of audio
> equipment don't show up in performance related measurements.
>
> > Seems like, even with computers, that all aspects of this
phenomenon cannot
> > be explained from a technical point of view, but it is generally
accepted
> > that the issue exist.
>
> Yet it is measureable and so is certainly a real effect as opposed
to
> audio equipment.
>

[Audio Guy]

In article >,
"Uptown Audio" > writes:
> You leap to assume that because you do not know what to measure or how
> to measure it that it is immeasuable. Also further it by stating that
> is does not exist. Not being able to measure something is not proof of
> its non-existance. It could be proof of our ignorance, insignificance,
> stubborness, arrogance, self-importance, etc. I am not directly
> lableling you, just pointing out other possiblities. Let's not close
> our minds to what many see as real alternatives. Better yet, challenge
> ourselves to discover those causes and effects to better understand
> the science of it rather than to waste time on what we already know.

While you leap to assume that becuase someone thinks they've heard a
difference, then it exists. Who is taking the bigger leap and more
likely inccorrect leap, he who has no technical knowledge of the
subject or he who has over 20 years of schooling, training, and
experience combined in the subject matter?

> "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
> news:SqERa.83344$N7.10085@sccrnsc03...
>> In article >,
>> "All Ears" > writes:
>> > The real point with this tread, was to prove that something
> actually does
>> > happen during burn-in of electronic equipment.
>>
>> The difference between this and audio equipment is that you have an
>> easily measurable parameter here that shows the change, i.e. clock
>> speed, while the supposed effects of burn-in or break-in of audio
>> equipment don't show up in performance related measurements.
>>
>> > Seems like, even with computers, that all aspects of this
> phenomenon cannot
>> > be explained from a technical point of view, but it is generally
> accepted
>> > that the issue exist.
>>
>> Yet it is measureable and so is certainly a real effect as opposed
> to
>> audio equipment.
>>
>

[Richard D Pierce]

In article >,
Uptown Audio > wrote:
>You leap to assume that because you do not know what to measure or how
>to measure it that it is immeasuable.

YOU leap to assume that the phenomenon exists as claimed. THAT
assumption is simply not supportable.

>Also further it by stating that
>is does not exist.

But you further it by stating that it MUST exist. Prove it.

>Not being able to measure something is not proof of
>its non-existance.

Not providing ANY substantiation of its existance, after being
asked time and time and time again is pretty seriously damning
evidence that the emperor is quite naked.

>It could be proof of our ignorance, insignificance,
>stubborness, arrogance, self-importance, etc.

variability, gullibility, susceptibility to suggestions,
preconceived notions, expectations, lack of rigor, wishful
thinking herd mentality, fantasy, you name it.

>I am not directly
>lableling you, just pointing out other possiblities.

Yes, and tghose possibilities also include the fact that the
phenomenon as claimed, especially for the likes of wire SIMPLY
DO NOT EXIST. And Occam would have us prefer those explanations.

>Let's not close
>our minds to what many see as real alternatives.

Which is PRECISELY what you have done. You have assumed that the
phenomenon MUST exists and simply are not willing to entertain
ANY other possibility. People like me simply say you're making
an extraordinary claim, in light of the fact thatv applications
with signal FAR more fragile than those encountered in audio
NEVER suffer from this phenomenon.

And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Where is
it?

>Better yet, challenge
>ourselves to discover those causes and effects to better understand
>the science of it rather than to waste time on what we already know.

And the realm of high-end audio is about as anti-science and
scientifically illiterate as one can get.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Richard D Pierce]

In article >, chung > wrote:
>All Ears wrote:
>> Seems like, even with computers, that all aspects of this phenomenon cannot
>> be explained from a technical point of view, but it is generally accepted
>> that the issue exist.
>
>No, there is really nothing in the "burn-in" process of electronics that
>cannot be explained by existing knowledge. When something fails during
>burn-in, failure analyses are usually performed to pinpoint culprits.

More to the immediate point, it is ONLY the claims of bnurn in
for compoenents such as wires, and ONLY in the realm of high-end
audio, where the claims of burn-in are utterly unaccompanied by
ANY rational technical explanation, are devoid of ANY supporting
physical evidence, and have NEVER been subjected to any true
verification.

Burn in of electronic components in the rest of the electronic
industry is a well-understood phenonenon accompnied by real,
objective, hard data that is verifiable and repeatable. Until
the likes of "all ears" and others substantiate their claims of
"obvious differences" with real data, it remains nothing more
than unsubstantiated claims. If it is so obvious, why have they
not come forth with the obvious data.

This group has also failed to answer the objection that there
are application outside of high-end boutique audio whosen
signals are FAR more sensitive than anything found in audio, and
there is NO SUCH break-in phenomenon of the likes of wires
observed. Why is it that the ONLY ones making thses claims are
the manufacturers of wires, self-infatuated magazine wonks, and
the random salesperson here and there, and NOT A ONE of them
ever once applying any means of substantiating there claims.

Why is that "all ears?"

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Bob Marcus]

"Uptown Audio" > wrote in message >...
> You leap to assume that because you do not know what to measure or how
> to measure it that it is immeasuable. Also further it by stating that
> is does not exist. Not being able to measure something is not proof of
> its non-existance.

No, but it's a good start. If you can't measure a phenomenon, AND you
have no scientifically plausible explanation for why the phenomenon
should even exist, then you don't really have much to hang your hat
on, do you? That's when "you're probably just imagining it" becomes
the most reasonable explanation. Especially since the phenomenon of
"imagining it" is so well documented in the literature.

> It could be proof of our ignorance, insignificance,
> stubborness, arrogance, self-importance, etc. I am not directly
> lableling you, just pointing out other possiblities. Let's not close
> our minds to what many see as real alternatives. Better yet, challenge
> ourselves to discover those causes and effects to better understand
> the science of it rather than to waste time on what we already know.

Dreaming up bad explanations to substitute for good ones seems the
real waste of time to me.

bob

[All Ears]

-snip-

> This group has also failed to answer the objection that there
> are application outside of high-end boutique audio whosen
> signals are FAR more sensitive than anything found in audio, and
> there is NO SUCH break-in phenomenon of the likes of wires
> observed. Why is it that the ONLY ones making thses claims are
> the manufacturers of wires, self-infatuated magazine wonks, and
> the random salesperson here and there, and NOT A ONE of them
> ever once applying any means of substantiating there claims.
>
> Why is that "all ears?"

To start with, I would say that it is pretty much proven that many
microprocessors will operate faster after some hundred hours of burn-in. The
real funny part, is that even in this world, it is considered a
controversial subject.....and it gets better.....the reason it is
controversial, it that nobody has proven what it is that really happens. So
we have a proven phenomenon, with a non proven reason. If there are no
scientific proof, it can't be true?.....It is just difficult to say that our
imagination will make a CPU work faster :)

Also please clarify: Are you only doubting burn-in of wires, or are no audio
components subtle to changes in the burn-in period, after your opinion?

KE

[Audio Guy]

In article <mS%Ra.80029$OZ2.14175@rwcrnsc54>,
"Uptown Audio" > writes:
> To answer your question directly; the one who assumes he is correct
> because he cannot hear a difference.

Sorry, but that's the same as saying that the earth seems flat, but
since science tells us it isn't, then science needs to look further
because it sure seems to be flat to many people who walk on it every
day.

> More empirically, I'm not making
> any leaps.

Actually you are make gigantic bounds to those who understand the
operation and design of electronics.

> You again are assuming what must be from your own static
> point of view.

Actually you are making assumptions, I'm making very knowledgeable
statements.

> Your expererience simply does not mirror the experience
> of many others; others that are engineers, doctors and scientists,
> which account for only a portion of our customers whom we have had
> direct contact and discussion with about the effects.

First of all, how many were electrical/electronic engineers? The list
of fields in engineering is large. Same for doctors or scientists,
quite a few have no training in electronics and so wouldn't
necessarily understand it such that they would know what is possible
and what isn't. And as I've mentioned before, I tended to believe in
such things myself until the reality of thinking I heard a noticeable
difference due to a change I'd made in my system wasn't actually
connected. Without the use of controls it is easy to be mistaken
about audible differences.

> So you have a
> difference of opinion. So what?

Mine is not an opinion, it's statement of professional knowledge,
training, and experience. Big difference.

> - Bill
> www.uptownaudio.com
> Roanoke VA
> (540) 343-1250
>
> "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
> news:IwXRa.91759$ye4.65299@sccrnsc01...
>> In article >,
>> "Uptown Audio" > writes:
>> > You leap to assume that because you do not know what to measure or
> how
>> > to measure it that it is immeasuable. Also further it by stating
> that
>> > is does not exist. Not being able to measure something is not
> proof of
>> > its non-existance. It could be proof of our ignorance,
> insignificance,
>> > stubborness, arrogance, self-importance, etc. I am not directly
>> > lableling you, just pointing out other possiblities. Let's not
> close
>> > our minds to what many see as real alternatives. Better yet,
> challenge
>> > ourselves to discover those causes and effects to better
> understand
>> > the science of it rather than to waste time on what we already
> know.
>>
>> While you leap to assume that becuase someone thinks they've heard a
>> difference, then it exists. Who is taking the bigger leap and more
>> likely inccorrect leap, he who has no technical knowledge of the
>> subject or he who has over 20 years of schooling, training, and
>> experience combined in the subject matter?
>>
>> > "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
>> > news:SqERa.83344$N7.10085@sccrnsc03...
>> >> In article >,
>> >> "All Ears" > writes:
>> >> > The real point with this tread, was to prove that something
>> > actually does
>> >> > happen during burn-in of electronic equipment.
>> >>
>> >> The difference between this and audio equipment is that you have
> an
>> >> easily measurable parameter here that shows the change, i.e.
> clock
>> >> speed, while the supposed effects of burn-in or break-in of audio
>> >> equipment don't show up in performance related measurements.
>> >>
>> >> > Seems like, even with computers, that all aspects of this
>> > phenomenon cannot
>> >> > be explained from a technical point of view, but it is
> generally
>> > accepted
>> >> > that the issue exist.
>> >>
>> >> Yet it is measureable and so is certainly a real effect as
> opposed
>> > to
>> >> audio equipment.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

[chris]

Right All Ears

You are correct it is a demonstratable fact (using empirical science) not
pseudo or BS.
it al known stuff call "ionic migration" "metallic diffusion" you can read
lots about it on the net and to make DICK happy the manufacturers CAN and DO
MEASURE IT, thats one of the processes they use to guesstimate the life
expectancy of the chip.
but over clocking a CPU that was not designed to go that fast ( as apposed
to one that is just "labelled up" at a lower speed) will shorten its life
expectancy.

On the other subject of Pride and Prejudice.
Subjective evidence is EVIDANCE. especially when it is reproducible. -even
if you can't measure it.
You maybe measuring the wrong thing.
Would you go hunting for elephant with a microscope or study insects with
binoculars (both instruments make things bigger). -rhetorical question

Failure to provide a valid rational explanation of something; is NOT a
failure of science but of human wit.

Chris.

Once you are open to extreme possibilities, one also becomes aware of all of
life's opportunities - - Fox Mulder

"Dennis Moore" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know Mr. Pierce, he said he trusts his hearing.
> Meaning if your equipment doesn't reveal something I gather
> he doesn't trust your equipment. So he isn't necessarily
> having it both ways. He probably would deem despite all
> of your equipment you don't have the equipment to measure
> it with. Now of course you don't agree with his assertion.
> Thinking if your equipment doesn't measure it, it likely isn't
> so. But nothing really inconsistent with his position. It simply
> is based upon different assumptions than yours.
>
> He is oh so right about those CPU's by the way. You don't usually
> get max stable mhz until they are burned in a bit. Something
> must being going on for that to be. I have no idea if anyone
> has or is trying to figure out why that is. And what they might
> be measuring do determine it. But no matter what the equipment
> and expertise used, if they tell you it isn't so, they aren't going to
> have much credibility with someone who has seen the effect
> many times.
>
> Dennis
>

[Richard D Pierce]

In article >,
chris > wrote:
>Failure to provide a valid rational explanation of something; is NOT a
>failure of science but of human wit.

What do you call the failure to provide a rational explanation
for claims of spontaneous human combustion? Of human
self-levitation? Of green cheese from the moon? Of alien
visitation?

So, you have this here claim. Nobody can explain it. You think
it's real. Fine. Now here's the next step, listen carefully:

THE CLAIM IS YOURS. YOU PROVIDE FIRST THE EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE CLAIM, THEN YOU PROVIDE THE EXPLANATION
FOR IT.

As far as many of the claims regarding burn in of wires and the
like, you have failed utterly to provide even the first step,
that the phenomenon you claim even exists. End of story until
YOU come up with something better than the claim.

YOU are making the extraordinary claim, if you want to be taken
seriously, YOU need to some up with the extraordinary evidence.

It's that simple. Why are you having problems with that, other
than the fact that you apparently can't meet the criteria?

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Jón Fairbairn]

chung > writes:

> All Ears wrote:
>
> >
> > To start with, I would say that it is pretty much proven that many
> > microprocessors will operate faster after some hundred hours of burn-in.
>
> Proven? Care to provide reference to a technical paper? If chips run
> faster after burn-in, wouldn't you expect the semiconductor companies to
> research this phenomenon to try to take advantage of it? Has anyone
> heard from Intel or AMD about CPU burn-in?

Well, I think it's fairly obvious that among the ones that
haven't burnt out after "some hundred hours of burn-in" are
the ones that can be run faster ;-)

--
Jón Fairbairn

[Richard D Pierce]

In article <mS%Ra.80029$OZ2.14175@rwcrnsc54>,
"Uptown Audio" > writes:
> Your expererience simply does not mirror the experience
> of many others; others that are engineers, doctors and scientists,
> which account for only a portion of our customers whom we have had
> direct contact and discussion with about the effects.

So, when I need to learn about how a signal is conducted down a
cable, I should talk to me doctor, right? WHich of the engineers
and scientists have experience in the relevant field? Why did
you not include lawyers and accountants? CEO's and CFO's?
Plumbers? Why, hell, why did you forget electricians? They must
know a LOT about speaker wire!

> So you have a difference of opinion. So what?

Because despite your fervent wish to the contrary, all opinions
of a technical nature are NOT created equal, and whether you are
willing to accept the fact or not, claims about the performance
of physical performance of objects such as speakers and wires
are technical in nature. And technical claims ARE subject to
technical verification.

In that light, the "opinion" of a doctor or a structural
engineer or a molecular biologist or a hi fi salesman about the
nature of the conduction of signals down a speaker wire has
a MUCH lower value than the INFORMED TECHNICAL opinion of an
electrical engineering or a solid state physicist.

The hi fi world has "invented" such explanations as
"microdiodes" and the necessity of the signal to "jump" across
strands and such. SOlid state physicists, who, when they go to
that bathroom, forget more about this stuff then the entire
hi-wnd realm ever knew, have never ONCE observed "microdiodes"
nor the claimed effects at signal level orders of magnitude
lower tha what would be significant in audio. A basic knowledge
of Ohm's law will show why the "strand jumping" claim is
completely bogus.

Are you claiming that a doctor knows more about how signals
propogate down wires than electrical engineers or solid state
physicists? Are you claiming that a hi fi store salesman is in
posession of knowledge that trumps that of experienced engineers
working for the likes of Tektronix, Hewlett Packard, Bruel &
Kjaer. If so, you could make MILLIONS by showing these companies
how wrong they are.

These, sir, are TECHNICAL claims, and subject to TECHNICAL
verification. And when subjected to such, those making the
claims are embarassed by them.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Uptown Audio]

You have elevated your sense of your own knowledge and professionalism
to such a point that it is humorous. None of your analagies are
appropriate
and are there simply to suit your agenda. Your failure to include
evidence that supports another result cripples your ability to make an
informed decision. I have a host of second, third, and so on opinions
from those who actually hold PHD degrees in electronics, mathematics,
medicine who disagree with you. Most of the engineers that frequent
here are electronics engineers. We are an hour away from a very well
respected engineering college with loads of professors and students
alike who visit and discuss audio with us. Many also hold jobs at
companies working in high tech fields of physics and engineering to
design and manufacture cutting edge products for use by the military
and other organizations. I don't BS anyone and rely on only
overwhelming evidence to make recommendations. Those guys know when
you are telling it straight and when someone else fabricates or
misunderstands something. That is one reason why they shop here, we do
it right. We often consult with them and then test their theories when
using our products. Sometimes their recommendations are helpful and
sometimes they are not and we only use those that are. By your way of
thinking, because you say it is so, then it must be. That makes my
side hurt. Perhaps I am imagining that as well... If you are not
willing to accept any other input then you should not seek it, nor
should you worry with trying to analyze what data you have as it is
incomplete. I would rather trust my own vast experiences which point
to the same conclusions than rely on hearsay from those with a set
agenda. Surely just because you cannot hear a difference does not mean
that others cannot. People are unique and you are simply trying to
make every situtaion and person fit into a specific mold. That cannot
be done with any credibility nor can it be ignored. Lastly, I am not
asking you to accept my opinion or advise. You are the one stating
that your opinion is fact. Again, - so what? You further nothing in
that way.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Audio Guy" > wrote in message
news:zj4Sa.82063$GL4.20834@rwcrnsc53...
> In article <mS%Ra.80029$OZ2.14175@rwcrnsc54>,
> "Uptown Audio" > writes:
> > To answer your question directly; the one who assumes he is
correct
> > because he cannot hear a difference.
>
> Sorry, but that's the same as saying that the earth seems flat, but
> since science tells us it isn't, then science needs to look further
> because it sure seems to be flat to many people who walk on it every
> day.
>
> > More empirically, I'm not making
> > any leaps.
>
> Actually you are make gigantic bounds to those who understand the
> operation and design of electronics.
>
> > You again are assuming what must be from your own static
> > point of view.
>
> Actually you are making assumptions, I'm making very knowledgeable
> statements.
>
> > Your expererience simply does not mirror the experience
> > of many others; others that are engineers, doctors and scientists,
> > which account for only a portion of our customers whom we have had
> > direct contact and discussion with about the effects.
>
> First of all, how many were electrical/electronic engineers? The
list
> of fields in engineering is large. Same for doctors or scientists,
> quite a few have no training in electronics and so wouldn't
> necessarily understand it such that they would know what is possible
> and what isn't. And as I've mentioned before, I tended to believe in
> such things myself until the reality of thinking I heard a
noticeable
> difference due to a change I'd made in my system wasn't actually
> connected. Without the use of controls it is easy to be mistaken
> about audible differences.
>
> > So you have a
> > difference of opinion. So what?
>
> Mine is not an opinion, it's statement of professional knowledge,
> training, and experience. Big difference.
>
> > - Bill
> > www.uptownaudio.com
> > Roanoke VA
> > (540) 343-1250
> >
> > "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
> > news:IwXRa.91759$ye4.65299@sccrnsc01...
> >> In article >,
> >> "Uptown Audio" > writes:
> >> > You leap to assume that because you do not know what to measure
or
> > how
> >> > to measure it that it is immeasuable. Also further it by
stating
> > that
> >> > is does not exist. Not being able to measure something is not
> > proof of
> >> > its non-existance. It could be proof of our ignorance,
> > insignificance,
> >> > stubborness, arrogance, self-importance, etc. I am not directly
> >> > lableling you, just pointing out other possiblities. Let's not
> > close
> >> > our minds to what many see as real alternatives. Better yet,
> > challenge
> >> > ourselves to discover those causes and effects to better
> > understand
> >> > the science of it rather than to waste time on what we already
> > know.
> >>
> >> While you leap to assume that becuase someone thinks they've
heard a
> >> difference, then it exists. Who is taking the bigger leap and
more
> >> likely inccorrect leap, he who has no technical knowledge of the
> >> subject or he who has over 20 years of schooling, training, and
> >> experience combined in the subject matter?
> >>
> >> > "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
> >> > news:SqERa.83344$N7.10085@sccrnsc03...
> >> >> In article >,
> >> >> "All Ears" > writes:
> >> >> > The real point with this tread, was to prove that something
> >> > actually does
> >> >> > happen during burn-in of electronic equipment.
> >> >>
> >> >> The difference between this and audio equipment is that you
have
> > an
> >> >> easily measurable parameter here that shows the change, i.e.
> > clock
> >> >> speed, while the supposed effects of burn-in or break-in of
audio
> >> >> equipment don't show up in performance related measurements.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Seems like, even with computers, that all aspects of this
> >> > phenomenon cannot
> >> >> > be explained from a technical point of view, but it is
> > generally
> >> > accepted
> >> >> > that the issue exist.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yet it is measureable and so is certainly a real effect as
> > opposed
> >> > to
> >> >> audio equipment.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 19 Jul 2003 15:15:03 GMT, "chris"
> wrote:

>Failure to provide a valid rational explanation of something; is NOT a
>failure of science but of human wit.

That's correct, BUT - first, you need to show that an effect exists,
which needs explanation. In the case of cable 'burn-in', no such
effect has *ever* been shown to exist, when subjected to normal tests
of reliability, repeatability, and falsifiability.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 19 Jul 2003 17:20:59 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

>I suppose asprin didn't really work all those years since they didn't have any
>explination for how it worked or any way to measure it except by human
>perception. But now that pain can be measured by other, more scientific means
>and asprin has been fgured out it now works just fine.

Of course it worked. That was readily observable. That's the
difference.......................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[chung]

All Ears wrote:
> "chung" > wrote in message
> ...
>> All Ears wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > To start with, I would say that it is pretty much proven that many
>> > microprocessors will operate faster after some hundred hours of burn-in.
>>
>> Proven? Care to provide reference to a technical paper? If chips run
>> faster after burn-in, wouldn't you expect the semiconductor companies to
>> research this phenomenon to try to take advantage of it? Has anyone
>> heard from Intel or AMD about CPU burn-in?
>
> Here are some references
>
> For additional reading regarding hot electron effects in PMOS, I suggest:
>
> Y.-H. Lee, et al., "Channel-Width Dependent Hot-Carrier Degradation of
> Thin-Gate pMOSFETs,"
> IRPS, 2000, pp. 77-82.
>
> J. Chen, K. Ishimaru, and C. Hu, "Enhanced hot-carrier induced degradation
> in shallow trench isolated narrow channel pMOSFET's,"
> IEEE Electron Device Lett., vol. EDL-19, 1998, pp. 332-334.
>
> G. Rosa, et al., "NBTI - channel hot carrier effects in pMOSFETs in advanced
> CMOS technologies,"
> IEEE/IRPS, 1997, pp. 282-286.
>
> K. Quader, P.K. Ko, and C. Hu, "Simulation of CMOS circuit degradation due
> to hot-carrier effects,"
> IRPS, 1992, pp. 16-23.
>
> M. Koyanagi, et al., "Hot-carrier induced punchthrough (HEIP) effect in
> submicrometer pMOSFETs,"
> IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. ED-34, 1987, pp. 839-844
>
> KE
>

Excuse me, these are papers that talked about degradations, eventually
leading to failures, in CMOS circuits due to excessive operating
conditions. Nowadays the process design rules are provided so that these
effects are minimized in a properly designed circuit. Hot carrier
effects, as well as ionic migration effects, are well-quantified and
repeatable. Please provide proof that such degradations lead to CPU's
running at a higher performance level.

[Richard D Pierce]

In article >,
All Ears > wrote:
>"chung" > wrote in message
...
>> All Ears wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > To start with, I would say that it is pretty much proven that many
>> > microprocessors will operate faster after some hundred hours of burn-in.
>>
>> Proven? Care to provide reference to a technical paper? If chips run
>> faster after burn-in, wouldn't you expect the semiconductor companies to
>> research this phenomenon to try to take advantage of it? Has anyone
>> heard from Intel or AMD about CPU burn-in?
>
>Here are some references
>
>For additional reading regarding hot electron effects in PMOS, I suggest:
>
>Y.-H. Lee, et al., "Channel-Width Dependent Hot-Carrier Degradation of
>Thin-Gate pMOSFETs,"
>IRPS, 2000, pp. 77-82.
>
>J. Chen, K. Ishimaru, and C. Hu, "Enhanced hot-carrier induced degradation
>in shallow trench isolated narrow channel pMOSFET's,"
>IEEE Electron Device Lett., vol. EDL-19, 1998, pp. 332-334.
>
>G. Rosa, et al., "NBTI - channel hot carrier effects in pMOSFETs in advanced
>CMOS technologies,"
>IEEE/IRPS, 1997, pp. 282-286.
>
>K. Quader, P.K. Ko, and C. Hu, "Simulation of CMOS circuit degradation due
>to hot-carrier effects,"
>IRPS, 1992, pp. 16-23.
>
>M. Koyanagi, et al., "Hot-carrier induced punchthrough (HEIP) effect in
>submicrometer pMOSFETs,"
>IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. ED-34, 1987, pp. 839-844

WOW! Look at that, real references MEASURING REAL EFFECTS!
Totally unlike the claims of wire breaking and the like. TOTALLY
unlike the claims of hi-fi salespersons, magazine wonks and the
general high end audio, where wild-ass unsupported claims of
extraordinary and often contradictory effects are made, with NO
documentation, NO supporting evidence, NO credible explanations.

Mr. All Ears, you provided exactly the sort of evidence that
completely refutes your position.

WHere, precisely, is work at a similar level supporting the
notion, say, of wire break-in effects? Please cite for us the
articles from the relevant IEEE, IRPS, AES, ASA, ASP and other
journals that support your and other's assertions of the effects
you claim. Where are they? Please, we all await them. WHy are
you denying us a list of such studies of the effects of breaking
in audio equipment, the effects of green ink on CD players, of
wooden pucks, magic bricks, water-filled speaker cables and
more.

(Now, whether the articles mr All Ears cites have ANY relevance
to his claims or whether he even understands them is another,
possibly irrelevant issue)

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Audio Guy]

In article >,
"Uptown Audio" > writes:
> You have elevated your sense of your own knowledge and professionalism
> to such a point that it is humorous. None of your analagies are
> appropriate
> and are there simply to suit your agenda. Your failure to include
> evidence that supports another result cripples your ability to make an
> informed decision. I have a host of second, third, and so on opinions
> from those who actually hold PHD degrees in electronics, mathematics,
> medicine who disagree with you.

The ideas of those in electronics I would like to hear, but those in
mathematics or medicine are likely to have had the training to be as
knowledgeable about the field.

> Most of the engineers that frequent
> here are electronics engineers. We are an hour away from a very well
> respected engineering college with loads of professors and students
> alike who visit and discuss audio with us. Many also hold jobs at
> companies working in high tech fields of physics and engineering to
> design and manufacture cutting edge products for use by the military
> and other organizations. I don't BS anyone and rely on only
> overwhelming evidence to make recommendations. Those guys know when
> you are telling it straight and when someone else fabricates or
> misunderstands something.

As do I. But let me state my approach to audio equipment. There is
most definitely differences in speakers, amplifiers, CD players, and
other active devices. As to wires, unless either unsuited to the
application and/or purposely designed to effect the signal, there
really isn't any difference between them. And in all cases, if there
is a difference, then it is measurable, period.

> That is one reason why they shop here, we do
> it right. We often consult with them and then test their theories when
> using our products. Sometimes their recommendations are helpful and
> sometimes they are not and we only use those that are. By your way of
> thinking, because you say it is so, then it must be.

You misunderstand my position. As I said above, when there is a true
difference, it is measurable. That is wwere my disagreement with the
previous author began, when he said that things broke in or burned in,
but there was no measurements that would show the change.

> That makes my
> side hurt. Perhaps I am imagining that as well... If you are not
> willing to accept any other input then you should not seek it, nor
> should you worry with trying to analyze what data you have as it is
> incomplete. I would rather trust my own vast experiences which point
> to the same conclusions than rely on hearsay from those with a set
> agenda. Surely just because you cannot hear a difference does not mean
> that others cannot.

See above, I just advocate that true differences are measurable,
either via test equipment or via a controlled test. If neither show a
difference, then it doesn't exist.

> People are unique and you are simply trying to
> make every situtaion and person fit into a specific mold. That cannot
> be done with any credibility nor can it be ignored. Lastly, I am not
> asking you to accept my opinion or advise. You are the one stating
> that your opinion is fact. Again, - so what? You further nothing in
> that way.

I just can't accept people who insist that just because there is no
formal way of determining a difference it still exists, and blame
engineers and scientists for being unable to detect it.

> - Bill
> www.uptownaudio.com
> Roanoke VA
> (540) 343-1250
>
> "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
> news:zj4Sa.82063$GL4.20834@rwcrnsc53...
>> In article <mS%Ra.80029$OZ2.14175@rwcrnsc54>,
>> "Uptown Audio" > writes:
>> > To answer your question directly; the one who assumes he is
> correct
>> > because he cannot hear a difference.
>>
>> Sorry, but that's the same as saying that the earth seems flat, but
>> since science tells us it isn't, then science needs to look further
>> because it sure seems to be flat to many people who walk on it every
>> day.
>>
>> > More empirically, I'm not making
>> > any leaps.
>>
>> Actually you are make gigantic bounds to those who understand the
>> operation and design of electronics.
>>
>> > You again are assuming what must be from your own static
>> > point of view.
>>
>> Actually you are making assumptions, I'm making very knowledgeable
>> statements.
>>
>> > Your expererience simply does not mirror the experience
>> > of many others; others that are engineers, doctors and scientists,
>> > which account for only a portion of our customers whom we have had
>> > direct contact and discussion with about the effects.
>>
>> First of all, how many were electrical/electronic engineers? The
> list
>> of fields in engineering is large. Same for doctors or scientists,
>> quite a few have no training in electronics and so wouldn't
>> necessarily understand it such that they would know what is possible
>> and what isn't. And as I've mentioned before, I tended to believe in
>> such things myself until the reality of thinking I heard a
> noticeable
>> difference due to a change I'd made in my system wasn't actually
>> connected. Without the use of controls it is easy to be mistaken
>> about audible differences.
>>
>> > So you have a
>> > difference of opinion. So what?
>>
>> Mine is not an opinion, it's statement of professional knowledge,
>> training, and experience. Big difference.
>>
>> > - Bill
>> > www.uptownaudio.com
>> > Roanoke VA
>> > (540) 343-1250
>> >
>> > "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
>> > news:IwXRa.91759$ye4.65299@sccrnsc01...
>> >> In article >,
>> >> "Uptown Audio" > writes:
>> >> > You leap to assume that because you do not know what to measure
> or
>> > how
>> >> > to measure it that it is immeasuable. Also further it by
> stating
>> > that
>> >> > is does not exist. Not being able to measure something is not
>> > proof of
>> >> > its non-existance. It could be proof of our ignorance,
>> > insignificance,
>> >> > stubborness, arrogance, self-importance, etc. I am not directly
>> >> > lableling you, just pointing out other possiblities. Let's not
>> > close
>> >> > our minds to what many see as real alternatives. Better yet,
>> > challenge
>> >> > ourselves to discover those causes and effects to better
>> > understand
>> >> > the science of it rather than to waste time on what we already
>> > know.
>> >>
>> >> While you leap to assume that becuase someone thinks they've
> heard a
>> >> difference, then it exists. Who is taking the bigger leap and
> more
>> >> likely inccorrect leap, he who has no technical knowledge of the
>> >> subject or he who has over 20 years of schooling, training, and
>> >> experience combined in the subject matter?
>> >>
>> >> > "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
>> >> > news:SqERa.83344$N7.10085@sccrnsc03...
>> >> >> In article >,
>> >> >> "All Ears" > writes:
>> >> >> > The real point with this tread, was to prove that something
>> >> > actually does
>> >> >> > happen during burn-in of electronic equipment.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The difference between this and audio equipment is that you
> have
>> > an
>> >> >> easily measurable parameter here that shows the change, i.e.
>> > clock
>> >> >> speed, while the supposed effects of burn-in or break-in of
> audio
>> >> >> equipment don't show up in performance related measurements.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Seems like, even with computers, that all aspects of this
>> >> > phenomenon cannot
>> >> >> > be explained from a technical point of view, but it is
>> > generally
>> >> > accepted
>> >> >> > that the issue exist.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yet it is measureable and so is certainly a real effect as
>> > opposed
>> >> > to
>> >> >> audio equipment.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

[Steven Sullivan]

S888Wheel > wrote:
> <<
> What do you call the failure to provide a rational explanation
> for claims of spontaneous human combustion? Of human
> self-levitation? Of green cheese from the moon? Of alien
> visitation?

> So, you have this here claim. Nobody can explain it. You think
> it's real. Fine. Now here's the next step, listen carefully:

> THE CLAIM IS YOURS. YOU PROVIDE FIRST THE EVIDENCE TO
> SUPPORT THE CLAIM, THEN YOU PROVIDE THE EXPLANATION
> FOR IT.

> As far as many of the claims regarding burn in of wires and the
> like, you have failed utterly to provide even the first step,
> that the phenomenon you claim even exists. End of story until
> YOU come up with something better than the claim.

> YOU are making the extraordinary claim, if you want to be taken
> seriously, YOU need to some up with the extraordinary evidence.

> It's that simple. Why are you having problems with that, other
> than the fact that you apparently can't meet the criteria?

> -- >>

> I suppose asprin didn't really work all those years since they didn't have any
> explination for how it worked or any way to measure it except by human
> perception. But now that pain can be measured by other, more scientific means
> and asprin has been fgured out it now works just fine.

I wish guys like you would stop this silly line of reasoning.

Things can be demonstrated to *work* and phenomena can be demonstrated
to *exist* without there
being a explanation for *why*. Levitation et al don't
even meet the first criterion, though -- they haven't been demonstrated
to *exist*.

--
-S.

[chris]

Asprin explanation ?
That's easy: It's the placebo effect; well know and documented :¬)

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> <<
> What do you call the failure to provide a rational explanation
> for claims of spontaneous human combustion? Of human
> self-levitation? Of green cheese from the moon? Of alien
> visitation?
>
> So, you have this here claim. Nobody can explain it. You think
> it's real. Fine. Now here's the next step, listen carefully:
>
> THE CLAIM IS YOURS. YOU PROVIDE FIRST THE EVIDENCE TO
> SUPPORT THE CLAIM, THEN YOU PROVIDE THE EXPLANATION
> FOR IT.
>
> As far as many of the claims regarding burn in of wires and the
> like, you have failed utterly to provide even the first step,
> that the phenomenon you claim even exists. End of story until
> YOU come up with something better than the claim.
>
> YOU are making the extraordinary claim, if you want to be taken
> seriously, YOU need to some up with the extraordinary evidence.
>
> It's that simple. Why are you having problems with that, other
> than the fact that you apparently can't meet the criteria?
>
> -- >>
>
> I suppose asprin didn't really work all those years since they didn't have
any
> explination for how it worked or any way to measure it except by human
> perception. But now that pain can be measured by other, more scientific
means
> and asprin has been fgured out it now works just fine.

[Bob Marcus]

(S888Wheel) wrote in message news:<b5sSa.103791$N7.14243@sccrnsc03>...
> I said
>
> <<
> > I suppose asprin didn't really work all those years since they didn't have
> any
> > explination for how it worked or any way to measure it except by human
> > perception. But now that pain can be measured by other, more scientific means
> > and asprin has been fgured out it now works just fine.
> >>
>
> Steven said
>
> <<
> I wish guys like you would stop this silly line of reasoning.
> >>
>
> The reasoning is sound. I wish guys like you would stop assuming that all
> observation is meaningless if it isn't done double blind and acompanied with a
> full scientific explination. Do you believe that observations without
> explinations are automatically imagined? There was a time when the only
> evidence to support the effectiveness of asprin was bsed on experience of those
> using it.

Absolutely. And there were plenty of other nostrums in use in those
days whose names have been forgotten because they ultimately proved
ineffective. Casual observation isn't meaningless. But given its
overall track record, it is highly suspect.
>
> Steven said
>
> <<
> Things can be demonstrated to *work* and phenomena can be demonstrated
> to *exist* without there
> being a explanation for *why* >>
>
> Explain this to those who demand an emediate explination for those who simply
> offer observations.

The demand is usually for either an explanation or a meaningful
demonstration of the effect (i.e., one that eliminates any obvious
alternative explanations). And the demand is not made for all
observations here, but only for observations that run directly
contrary to current scientific understanding.
>
> Steven said
>
> << Levitation et al don't
> even meet the first criterion, though -- they haven't been demonstrated
> to *exist*. >>
>
> Nor had the effectiveness of asprin with the exception of testimony for many
> years. Absence of proof is not proof of absence until the issue has been
> sufficiently investigated.

The big difference between aspirin then and high-end hokum now is that
the latter HAS been sufficiently investigated. We know how electronics
work and we know what the limits of the human hearing mechanism are.
The only reason the fanciful end of the high-end business exists is
that many consumers (and possibly a fair number of producers) remain
willfully ignorant of the results of those investigations.

bob

[Richard D Pierce]

On 19 Jul 2003 22:16:59 GMT, "Uptown Audio" >
wrote:
> I don't BS anyone and rely on only
>overwhelming evidence to make recommendations.

WHAT overwhelming evidence? Where is it?

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:07:35 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

>I said
><<
>> I suppose asprin didn't really work all those years since they didn't have any
>> explination for how it worked or any way to measure it except by human
>> perception. But now that pain can be measured by other, more scientific means
>> and asprin has been fgured out it now works just fine.
> >>
>Steven said
><<
>I wish guys like you would stop this silly line of reasoning.
> >>
>The reasoning is sound.

No, the reasoning was spurious, as it was based on a false premise.

> I wish guys like you would stop assuming that all
>observation is meaningless if it isn't done double blind and acompanied with a
>full scientific explination.

That was of course *not* what was said.

> Do you believe that observations without
>explinations are automatically imagined? There was a time when the only
>evidence to support the effectiveness of asprin was bsed on experience of those
>using it.

Those were however accurate observations, and were later *proven* by
the use of classic double-blind trials.

No such parallel observations exist for 'cable sound', despite the
huge commercial benefits that would accrue to the 'audiophile' cable
companies if the efficacy of their cables could actually be *proven*.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Uptown Audio]

Actually, whether or not the opinions come from our customers in the
scientific community or the artistic community is not so important to
me as we are disscussing the sound of components and music. The
opinions of musicians that play with the symphony are also important
as are those of other players and composers who frequent here. I just
mentioned the professions of those few as they seemed to be the only
opinions that you had found valid and it illustrated the fact that
just because a load of engineers and scientists do not post on these
boards does not mean that they agree with you. I have not brought up
wire and nor has anyone else in this thread but you and Richard, who
drag it out at every convenience. We were discussing complete
components and the circuits within (or so I had tried to keep it on
track). Burn-in is not even an appropriate term as it is misused for
the purpose of this thread, but that is just an oversite. The real
meat and potatoes here (after being generated by a CPU observation) is
whether or not components can change sound after being operated for a
certain number of hours, which will vary depending upon the specific
component. Obviously CPU are not being listened to and electric
shavers are not either so they are by their nature off-topic for this
forum and can only offer some perspective although I fail to see the
relevance as they have been illuded to thus far. I don't disagree with
anyone who likes to measure things to back-up or evaluate what they
are hearing, but to say that because one cannot measure something does
not mean that they themselves did not here it. It simply does not
support the sound and the sound does not support the measurement. So
what? I say get over it and go test yourself if you are in doubt about
your own perception (that is what is being tested in those
double-blind tests as much or more than the sound of the gear) and
leave the others who can hear a change to their own devices, which you
are free to agree or disagree about their devices superiority to your
own. As the final use (let's not overlook intended use either shall we
not?) for audio equipment is listening, then listening should also be
the final test. It is just this listening that you couple of guys are
complaining about. That seems ironic to me and counter-productive,
unless that is of course your objective. I've grown wearing of this
thread as it is obviously a thing that is going to never be resolved
by typing and it has also obviously been resolved to each others own
satisfaction. I'll listen and you'll measure and we will both be happy
with the results. That sounds like a win-win situation to me.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Audio Guy" > wrote in message
news:oNrSa.90550$OZ2.19563@rwcrnsc54...
> In article >,
> "Uptown Audio" > writes:
> > You have elevated your sense of your own knowledge and
professionalism
> > to such a point that it is humorous. None of your analagies are
> > appropriate
> > and are there simply to suit your agenda. Your failure to include
> > evidence that supports another result cripples your ability to
make an
> > informed decision. I have a host of second, third, and so on
opinions
> > from those who actually hold PHD degrees in electronics,
mathematics,
> > medicine who disagree with you.
>
> The ideas of those in electronics I would like to hear, but those in
> mathematics or medicine are likely to have had the training to be as
> knowledgeable about the field.
>
> > Most of the engineers that frequent
> > here are electronics engineers. We are an hour away from a very
well
> > respected engineering college with loads of professors and
students
> > alike who visit and discuss audio with us. Many also hold jobs at
> > companies working in high tech fields of physics and engineering
to
> > design and manufacture cutting edge products for use by the
military
> > and other organizations. I don't BS anyone and rely on only
> > overwhelming evidence to make recommendations. Those guys know
when
> > you are telling it straight and when someone else fabricates or
> > misunderstands something.
>
> As do I. But let me state my approach to audio equipment. There is
> most definitely differences in speakers, amplifiers, CD players, and
> other active devices. As to wires, unless either unsuited to the
> application and/or purposely designed to effect the signal, there
> really isn't any difference between them. And in all cases, if there
> is a difference, then it is measurable, period.
>
> > That is one reason why they shop here, we do
> > it right. We often consult with them and then test their theories
when
> > using our products. Sometimes their recommendations are helpful
and
> > sometimes they are not and we only use those that are. By your way
of
> > thinking, because you say it is so, then it must be.
>
> You misunderstand my position. As I said above, when there is a true
> difference, it is measurable. That is wwere my disagreement with the
> previous author began, when he said that things broke in or burned
in,
> but there was no measurements that would show the change.
>
> > That makes my
> > side hurt. Perhaps I am imagining that as well... If you are not
> > willing to accept any other input then you should not seek it, nor
> > should you worry with trying to analyze what data you have as it
is
> > incomplete. I would rather trust my own vast experiences which
point
> > to the same conclusions than rely on hearsay from those with a set
> > agenda. Surely just because you cannot hear a difference does not
mean
> > that others cannot.
>
> See above, I just advocate that true differences are measurable,
> either via test equipment or via a controlled test. If neither show
a
> difference, then it doesn't exist.
>
> > People are unique and you are simply trying to
> > make every situtaion and person fit into a specific mold. That
cannot
> > be done with any credibility nor can it be ignored. Lastly, I am
not
> > asking you to accept my opinion or advise. You are the one stating
> > that your opinion is fact. Again, - so what? You further nothing
in
> > that way.
>
> I just can't accept people who insist that just because there is no
> formal way of determining a difference it still exists, and blame
> engineers and scientists for being unable to detect it.
>
> > - Bill
> > www.uptownaudio.com
> > Roanoke VA
> > (540) 343-1250
> >
> > "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
> > news:zj4Sa.82063$GL4.20834@rwcrnsc53...
> >> In article <mS%Ra.80029$OZ2.14175@rwcrnsc54>,
> >> "Uptown Audio" > writes:
> >> > To answer your question directly; the one who assumes he is
> > correct
> >> > because he cannot hear a difference.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but that's the same as saying that the earth seems flat,
but
> >> since science tells us it isn't, then science needs to look
further
> >> because it sure seems to be flat to many people who walk on it
every
> >> day.
> >>
> >> > More empirically, I'm not making
> >> > any leaps.
> >>
> >> Actually you are make gigantic bounds to those who understand the
> >> operation and design of electronics.
> >>
> >> > You again are assuming what must be from your own static
> >> > point of view.
> >>
> >> Actually you are making assumptions, I'm making very
knowledgeable
> >> statements.
> >>
> >> > Your expererience simply does not mirror the experience
> >> > of many others; others that are engineers, doctors and
scientists,
> >> > which account for only a portion of our customers whom we have
had
> >> > direct contact and discussion with about the effects.
> >>
> >> First of all, how many were electrical/electronic engineers? The
> > list
> >> of fields in engineering is large. Same for doctors or
scientists,
> >> quite a few have no training in electronics and so wouldn't
> >> necessarily understand it such that they would know what is
possible
> >> and what isn't. And as I've mentioned before, I tended to believe
in
> >> such things myself until the reality of thinking I heard a
> > noticeable
> >> difference due to a change I'd made in my system wasn't actually
> >> connected. Without the use of controls it is easy to be mistaken
> >> about audible differences.
> >>
> >> > So you have a
> >> > difference of opinion. So what?
> >>
> >> Mine is not an opinion, it's statement of professional knowledge,
> >> training, and experience. Big difference.
> >>
> >> > - Bill
> >> > www.uptownaudio.com
> >> > Roanoke VA
> >> > (540) 343-1250
> >> >
> >> > "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
> >> > news:IwXRa.91759$ye4.65299@sccrnsc01...
> >> >> In article >,
> >> >> "Uptown Audio" > writes:
> >> >> > You leap to assume that because you do not know what to
measure
> > or
> >> > how
> >> >> > to measure it that it is immeasuable. Also further it by
> > stating
> >> > that
> >> >> > is does not exist. Not being able to measure something is
not
> >> > proof of
> >> >> > its non-existance. It could be proof of our ignorance,
> >> > insignificance,
> >> >> > stubborness, arrogance, self-importance, etc. I am not
directly
> >> >> > lableling you, just pointing out other possiblities. Let's
not
> >> > close
> >> >> > our minds to what many see as real alternatives. Better yet,
> >> > challenge
> >> >> > ourselves to discover those causes and effects to better
> >> > understand
> >> >> > the science of it rather than to waste time on what we
already
> >> > know.
> >> >>
> >> >> While you leap to assume that becuase someone thinks they've
> > heard a
> >> >> difference, then it exists. Who is taking the bigger leap and
> > more
> >> >> likely inccorrect leap, he who has no technical knowledge of
the
> >> >> subject or he who has over 20 years of schooling, training,
and
> >> >> experience combined in the subject matter?
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
> >> >> > news:SqERa.83344$N7.10085@sccrnsc03...
> >> >> >> In article >,
> >> >> >> "All Ears" > writes:
> >> >> >> > The real point with this tread, was to prove that
something
> >> >> > actually does
> >> >> >> > happen during burn-in of electronic equipment.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The difference between this and audio equipment is that you
> > have
> >> > an
> >> >> >> easily measurable parameter here that shows the change,
i.e.
> >> > clock
> >> >> >> speed, while the supposed effects of burn-in or break-in of
> > audio
> >> >> >> equipment don't show up in performance related
measurements.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Seems like, even with computers, that all aspects of this
> >> >> > phenomenon cannot
> >> >> >> > be explained from a technical point of view, but it is
> >> > generally
> >> >> > accepted
> >> >> >> > that the issue exist.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yet it is measureable and so is certainly a real effect as
> >> > opposed
> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> audio equipment.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

[Uptown Audio]

I have not made any claims about cable burn-in or three minute mile
runs. Richard brought up cable ("As far as many of the claims
regarding burn in of wires and the like, you have failed utterly...")
and you brought up running ("equivalent of running a three-minute
mile.") So I have not defended any cable claims nor made any. If you
think we sell expensive cable, have a look at our website and and
choose some. You cannot support your argument. My customers know what
my cable recommendations are, not you. As I have just mentioned to
whoever "Audio Guy" is, I'm tired of the crap being spread here in
this thread and it is really getting deep now. You generally have some
good information to share when it is helpful and invited. I am
disappointed to hear you creating invalid arguments to further an
agenda that is not accepted as appropriate or honorable by many others
here. You are just making assumptions about my wire position and sales
strategy, but to stereotype someone for your own purposes is still
conterproductive and selfdefacing. If you want to argue about wire,
select a partner who holds a more diametrically opposing viewpoint.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
news:0dtSa.90907$OZ2.19399@rwcrnsc54...
> On 19 Jul 2003 22:16:59 GMT, "Uptown Audio" >
> wrote:
>
> >You have elevated your sense of your own knowledge and
professionalism
> >to such a point that it is humorous. None of your analagies are
> >appropriate
> >and are there simply to suit your agenda.
>
> Actually, his analogy regarding 'flat earthers' is exceptionally
> appropriate. He is not the one with an agenda, *he* is not the one
who
> is running a hi-fi store selling expensive cables............
>
> >I have a host of second, third, and so on opinions
> >from those who actually hold PHD degrees in electronics,
mathematics,
> >medicine who disagree with you.
>
> So what? Have they applied their professional skills to setting up
> properly controlled listening tests? Clearly not.
>
> > Most of the engineers that frequent
> >here are electronics engineers. We are an hour away from a very
well
> >respected engineering college with loads of professors and students
> >alike who visit and discuss audio with us. Many also hold jobs at
> >companies working in high tech fields of physics and engineering to
> >design and manufacture cutting edge products for use by the
military
> >and other organizations.
>
> So what? I've been in the electronics business for more than thirty
> years, mostly in the military market with Marconi and Hughes, and
I've
> heard many eminent professionals say the dumbest things about audio
> that you ever heard!
>
> > I don't BS anyone and rely on only
> >overwhelming evidence to make recommendations.
>
> Oh, really? Please specify where is the 'overwhelming evidence'
> regarding 'cable sound', let alone break-in.
>
> > Those guys know when
> >you are telling it straight and when someone else fabricates or
> >misunderstands something.
>
> Actually, they're just as gullible as anyone else, when outside
their
> own very narrow specialist field.
>
> > That is one reason why they shop here, we do
> >it right.
>
> Not if you sell expensive cable, you don't........
>
> >I would rather trust my own vast experiences which point
> >to the same conclusions than rely on hearsay from those with a set
> >agenda. Surely just because you cannot hear a difference does not
mean
> >that others cannot.
>
> Indeed so - but there are instances such as 'cable sound', where *no
> one* has been able to demonstrate that they can hear differences.
>
> > People are unique and you are simply trying to
> >make every situtaion and person fit into a specific mold. That
cannot
> >be done with any credibility nor can it be ignored.
>
> However, you appear to be claiming that you and your customers can
do
> the aural equivalent of running a three-minute mile. This is beyond
> the ability of *any* human.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>

[Steven Sullivan]

S888Wheel > wrote:
> I said

> <<
>> I suppose asprin didn't really work all those years since they didn't have
> any
>> explination for how it worked or any way to measure it except by human
>> perception. But now that pain can be measured by other, more scientific means
>> and asprin has been fgured out it now works just fine.
> >>

> Steven said

> <<
> I wish guys like you would stop this silly line of reasoning.
> >>

> The reasoning is sound. I wish guys like you would stop assuming that all
> observation is meaningless if it isn't done double blind and acompanied with a
> full scientific explination.

No one here, AFAICT, has made that assumption.

> Do you believe that observations without
> explinations are automatically imagined?

No. But they are certainly not automatically accurate observations, either.

> There was a time when the only
> evidence to support the effectiveness of asprin was bsed on experience of those
> using it.

That was rather a long time ago.
The active analgesic ingredient in aspirin was identified in the 1820's.

> Steven said

> <<
> Things can be demonstrated to *work* and phenomena can be demonstrated
> to *exist* without there
> being a explanation for *why* >>

> Explain this to those who demand an emediate explination for those who simply
> offer observations.

I don't have to. But those who 'offer observations' must recognize that
in the end, the 'observations' have to be verifiable.

> Steven said

> << Levitation et al don't
> even meet the first criterion, though -- they haven't been demonstrated
> to *exist*. >>

> Nor had the effectiveness of asprin with the exception of testimony for many
> years. Absence of proof is not proof of absence until the issue has been
> sufficiently investigated.

So, when are audiophiles going to admit that 'sufficient investigation' involves
more than sighted listening?

And what about the fact that whenever these issues *are* investigated, the story
often turns out to be *quite* different from the audiophile line? THis puts
aduiophilia more in the same realm as ESP investigations,than aspirin.

--
-S.

[chris]

>but the record of high-fi dealers making any
>important discoveries or innovations in the fields of acoustics,
>conduction physics, auditory perception, the reproduction of
>sound and such is abysmally poor.

This comment is pure conjecture. Where is your evidence to support such a
claim ?

and secondly why are you off subject, this thread is about CPU's not the
wires that connect them or anything else .

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
news:UCfSa.85122$OZ2.15023@rwcrnsc54...
> In article >,
> All Ears > wrote:
> >Also please clarify: Are you only doubting burn-in of wires, or are no
audio
> >components subtle to changes in the burn-in period, after your opinion?
>
> I am stating, through the current example, that there are many
> things in the high-end audio realm that are "given," "widely
> accepted," "obvious" and so forth that are out and out bunkum,
> that the high-end audio realm with many of its extraordinary
> and, in many cases, outrageous claims, is very much a backwater
> child of technology, and sits decades out of touch with its
> roots, that the high end is devoid of any fantastic
> "discoveries" that have overturned any established science.
> Wires merely provide one of the more egregious examples of many
> where extraordinary claims have been made and not a single shred
> of credible evidence has been advanced to support the claims.
> All due respects, but the record of high-fi dealers making any
> important discoveries or innovations in the fields of acoustics,
> conduction physics, auditory perception, the reproduction of
> sound and such is abysmally poor.
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |
>

[Richard D Pierce]

In article <YeBSa.93442$OZ2.20020@rwcrnsc54>,
Uptown Audio > wrote:
>I have not made any claims about cable burn-in or three minute mile
>runs.

Now, Mr. Uptown Audio, I never said YOU did, now, did I? Why
would you go and say otherwise, I suppose?

I was addressing the general tenor of the thread. If you chose
to take it as a personal attack, that's YOUR problem resulting
from YOUR misperceptions.

>Richard brought up cable ("As far as many of the claims
>regarding burn in of wires and the like, you have failed utterly...")

No, I DID NOT. This thread is a direct follow on to the thread
that has the curious title of:

"Speaker cable burn in."

Now, isn't that interesting...

>So I have not defended any cable claims nor made any. If you
>think we sell expensive cable, have a look at our website and and
>choose some. You cannot support your argument.

And what argument was that? (Please, do us a favor, don't
PARAPHRASE what you THINK the argument MIGHT have been, please
QUOTE the argument your are referring to.)

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:32:24 GMT, "Uptown Audio" >
wrote:

>I have not made any claims about cable burn-in or three minute mile
>runs. Richard brought up cable ("As far as many of the claims
>regarding burn in of wires and the like, you have failed utterly...")
>and you brought up running ("equivalent of running a three-minute
>mile.") So I have not defended any cable claims nor made any.

You *have* claimed that you and your customers hear things that the
rest of us mere mortals (under controlled listening conditions) cannot
hear, so just where is the 'overwhelming evidence' that you claim is
your substitute for BS? I note that you carefully avoided answering
*that* question from my post.

We mere mortals cannot run a three-minute mile, which was my *analogy*
for your claim. So, do you in fact claim that 'audiophile' cables
sound different from 12AWG 'zipcord'?

> If you
>think we sell expensive cable, have a look at our website and and
>choose some. You cannot support your argument.

Which argument is that?

> My customers know what
>my cable recommendations are, not you.

True, since you have failed to share this information with this 'high
end' forum. So, just what *are* your recommendations for cables?

> As I have just mentioned to
>whoever "Audio Guy" is, I'm tired of the crap being spread here in
>this thread and it is really getting deep now.

Well, at least we can agree on *that* score! :-)

> You generally have some
>good information to share when it is helpful and invited. I am
>disappointed to hear you creating invalid arguments to further an
>agenda that is not accepted as appropriate or honorable by many others
>here.

Agenda? What agenda? Unlike other contributors to this thread, I have
no commercial interest in promoting expensive cables. Hence, my only
'agenda' is to help others to achieve the best possible sound quality
within their system budgets. This implies absolutely minimal spending
on cables. Do you disagree with this 'agenda'?

> You are just making assumptions about my wire position and sales
> strategy

Fine, so what *is* your position on wire?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[R. J. Salvi]

"chung" > wrote in message
et...
> All Ears wrote:
> > "chung" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> All Ears wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > To start with, I would say that it is pretty much proven that many
> >> > microprocessors will operate faster after some hundred hours of
burn-in.
> >>
> >> Proven? Care to provide reference to a technical paper? If chips run
> >> faster after burn-in, wouldn't you expect the semiconductor companies
to
> >> research this phenomenon to try to take advantage of it? Has anyone
> >> heard from Intel or AMD about CPU burn-in?
> >
> > Here are some references
> >
> > For additional reading regarding hot electron effects in PMOS, I
suggest:
> >
> > Y.-H. Lee, et al., "Channel-Width Dependent Hot-Carrier Degradation of
> > Thin-Gate pMOSFETs,"
> > IRPS, 2000, pp. 77-82.
> >
> > J. Chen, K. Ishimaru, and C. Hu, "Enhanced hot-carrier induced
degradation
> > in shallow trench isolated narrow channel pMOSFET's,"
> > IEEE Electron Device Lett., vol. EDL-19, 1998, pp. 332-334.
> >
> > G. Rosa, et al., "NBTI - channel hot carrier effects in pMOSFETs in
advanced
> > CMOS technologies,"
> > IEEE/IRPS, 1997, pp. 282-286.
> >
> > K. Quader, P.K. Ko, and C. Hu, "Simulation of CMOS circuit degradation
due
> > to hot-carrier effects,"
> > IRPS, 1992, pp. 16-23.
> >
> > M. Koyanagi, et al., "Hot-carrier induced punchthrough (HEIP) effect in
> > submicrometer pMOSFETs,"
> > IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. ED-34, 1987, pp. 839-844
> >
> > KE
> >
>
> Excuse me, these are papers that talked about degradations, eventually
> leading to failures, in CMOS circuits due to excessive operating
> conditions. Nowadays the process design rules are provided so that these
> effects are minimized in a properly designed circuit. Hot carrier
> effects, as well as ionic migration effects, are well-quantified and
> repeatable. Please provide proof that such degradations lead to CPU's
> running at a higher performance level.

Good points, Chung.

....AND, the ability to overclock to a certain level takes into account the
following parameters:

A.) speed of on-die cache (L2, etc.)
B.) PSU output and linearity
C.) linearity of on-board regulation stages
D.) manufacturing run tolerances
E.) effectiveness of thermal dissipation (HS/F)
F.) component resistance to oscillation
G.) ad infinitum.

The bottom line? When overclocking a CPU, overdriving it is *only*
decreasing its effective life. Although most modern BIOSs have the
flexibility to change only the CPU FSB while locking the PCI and RAM bus
speeds, you are in effect overclocking not just the CPU, but also its
supporting circuit subsystem by increasing its load.

In cases where an individual claims that overclocking for a sustained period
of time allows them to eventually push the machine further -- and they
attribute it to "burn-in" -- one might take a closer look at the thermal
pad/paste between the CPU and HS. The increase in heat may have very well
changed the bond (melted the pad more or squeezed out excess paste) between
mating surfaces in such a manner that it transfers heat more
efficiently...just to name one possibility.

--
Robert J. Salvi, Ambiance Acoustics
http://www.ambianceacoustics.com
San Diego, CA USA
(858) 485-7514

[GRL]

Well, I'll tell you, cpu's are NOT a good analogy to audio. Assuming you
really do observe what you say you do, the explanation is most likely heat
history caused . Over-clocked cpu's can get warm to hot. Things expand when
heated and may not come back exactly the same way when they cool down.
Further, the makers of heat transfer compounds like Arctic Silver tell you
that their heat-transfer ability improves over time when first used. Reason
is that the compound better bridges the cpu/heat sink gap (thins out) as it
flows a bit under heat and the pressure of the clamp. No mystery.

Sometimes works the other way, too. I have an over-clocked P-4 1.6 (to 2.4
GHz) and PC2700 slightly over-clocked as well. The computer often restarts
itself from a cold boot. Once warmed up, it is dead stable. I figure
something is warping with heat build-up (probably in a DIMM) and in my case
the warped configuration is more stable than the unwarped cool
configuration. Odd, but true.

--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"All Ears" > wrote in message
news:oYVQa.70709$Ph3.7225@sccrnsc04...
> I am seeing a lot of interesting claims about burn-in issues, also audio
> compared to other electronic equipment.
>
> Those who has been trying to over clock a CPU, will know that often it is
> possible to tweak extra MHz out of the CPU, after it has been working
> several hours. This would indicate to me, that YES computers do burn-in as
> well. However, nobody notice this, unless trying to run it above
> specifications!
>
> Saying that the burn-in issue is imagination, is something of a statement
to
> claim. I get the feeling that those who states "there is no such thing"
> really does not have the equipment to reveal this very obvious phenomenon.
>
> KE
>

[All Ears]

You could try (on your own responsibility) to lower the clock speed, and
raise the voltage to the CPU for a week or two, then lower the voltage again
and raise the clock, with a little luck, your CPU will perform more stable.
(If it is not your RAM or board that sets the limit)

KE

PS a search on Google on the subject, will give you plenty of detailed
instructions on how to do this.

"GRL" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I'll tell you, cpu's are NOT a good analogy to audio. Assuming you
> really do observe what you say you do, the explanation is most likely heat
> history caused . Over-clocked cpu's can get warm to hot. Things expand
when
> heated and may not come back exactly the same way when they cool down.
> Further, the makers of heat transfer compounds like Arctic Silver tell you
> that their heat-transfer ability improves over time when first used.
Reason
> is that the compound better bridges the cpu/heat sink gap (thins out) as
it
> flows a bit under heat and the pressure of the clamp. No mystery.
>
> Sometimes works the other way, too. I have an over-clocked P-4 1.6 (to 2.4
> GHz) and PC2700 slightly over-clocked as well. The computer often
restarts
> itself from a cold boot. Once warmed up, it is dead stable. I figure
> something is warping with heat build-up (probably in a DIMM) and in my
case
> the warped configuration is more stable than the unwarped cool
> configuration. Odd, but true.
>
> --
>
> - GRL
>
> "It's good to want things."
>
> Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
> Visual Basic programmer)
> "All Ears" > wrote in message
> news:oYVQa.70709$Ph3.7225@sccrnsc04...
> > I am seeing a lot of interesting claims about burn-in issues, also audio
> > compared to other electronic equipment.
> >
> > Those who has been trying to over clock a CPU, will know that often it
is
> > possible to tweak extra MHz out of the CPU, after it has been working
> > several hours. This would indicate to me, that YES computers do burn-in
as
> > well. However, nobody notice this, unless trying to run it above
> > specifications!
> >
> > Saying that the burn-in issue is imagination, is something of a
statement
> to
> > claim. I get the feeling that those who states "there is no such thing"
> > really does not have the equipment to reveal this very obvious
phenomenon.
> >
> > KE
> >
>

[Richard D Pierce]

In article >,
All Ears > wrote:
>You could try (on your own responsibility) to lower the clock speed, and
>raise the voltage to the CPU for a week or two, then lower the voltage again
>and raise the clock, with a little luck, your CPU will perform more stable.
>(If it is not your RAM or board that sets the limit)
>
>KE
>
>PS a search on Google on the subject, will give you plenty of detailed
>instructions on how to do this.

And who's to say that ANY of this information represents data
from careful, controlled and informed sources. Google, just like
any other unqualified source, provides a large pile of
information on ANY topic you care to explore. SOme if it's
right, and some of it's wrong. And, without the real data inb
hand, who's to say which is which.

For example, I just did a google search on "bigfoot combustion"
and got 1,860 hits. Does that mean that flaming sasquatches is a
subject of legitimate study and, with so many hits, must be
right? Do a search on "CLinton abduction" and you'll even find a
book written by a "doctor" on the topic.

How does getting google hits legitimize anything?

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[All Ears]

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
news:aRnVa.4269$uu5.738@sccrnsc04...
> In article >,
> All Ears > wrote:
> >You could try (on your own responsibility) to lower the clock speed, and
> >raise the voltage to the CPU for a week or two, then lower the voltage
again
> >and raise the clock, with a little luck, your CPU will perform more
stable.
> >(If it is not your RAM or board that sets the limit)
> >
> >KE
> >
> >PS a search on Google on the subject, will give you plenty of detailed
> >instructions on how to do this.
>
> And who's to say that ANY of this information represents data
> from careful, controlled and informed sources. Google, just like
> any other unqualified source, provides a large pile of
> information on ANY topic you care to explore. SOme if it's
> right, and some of it's wrong. And, without the real data inb
> hand, who's to say which is which.
>
> For example, I just did a google search on "bigfoot combustion"
> and got 1,860 hits. Does that mean that flaming sasquatches is a
> subject of legitimate study and, with so many hits, must be
> right? Do a search on "CLinton abduction" and you'll even find a
> book written by a "doctor" on the topic.
>
> How does getting google hits legitimize anything?

As to most aspects in life, common sence applies to this issue also....

KE

>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |
>

[Wylie Williams]

As I recall this CPU burn in discussion started because there is a faction
that believes that electronic products do not change with break in. As the
problem is measurement of change the phenenomenon of CPUs runnng faster as
time went on was offered as proof that at least one electronic device breaks
in with favorable measurable results. Somehow it has been turned into /
evolved into a wrangle about overclocking, CPU longevity, etc. I see
everything but admission that it is possible for electronic devices to
change performance in a measurable way with break in. As a newcomer to RAHE
it is begining to look like a free for all debate in which some very active
participants never grant points to anyone.

Wylie Williams

"All Ears" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
> news:aRnVa.4269$uu5.738@sccrnsc04...
> > In article >,
> > All Ears > wrote:
> > >You could try (on your own responsibility) to lower the clock speed,
and
> > >raise the voltage to the CPU for a week or two, then lower the voltage
> again
> > >and raise the clock, with a little luck, your CPU will perform more
> stable.
> > >(If it is not your RAM or board that sets the limit)
> > >
> > >KE
> > >
> > >PS a search on Google on the subject, will give you plenty of detailed
> > >instructions on how to do this.
> >
> > And who's to say that ANY of this information represents data
> > from careful, controlled and informed sources. Google, just like
> > any other unqualified source, provides a large pile of
> > information on ANY topic you care to explore. SOme if it's
> > right, and some of it's wrong. And, without the real data inb
> > hand, who's to say which is which.
> >
> > For example, I just did a google search on "bigfoot combustion"
> > and got 1,860 hits. Does that mean that flaming sasquatches is a
> > subject of legitimate study and, with so many hits, must be
> > right? Do a search on "CLinton abduction" and you'll even find a
> > book written by a "doctor" on the topic.
> >
> > How does getting google hits legitimize anything?
>
> As to most aspects in life, common sence applies to this issue also....
>
> KE
>
> >
> > --
> > | Dick Pierce |
> > | Professional Audio Development |
> > | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> > | |
> >
>
>

[Richard D Pierce]

In article <wWQVa.19820$o%2.10482@sccrnsc02>,
Wylie Williams > wrote:
>As I recall this CPU burn in discussion started because there is a faction
>that believes that electronic products do not change with break in.

No, that would be your interpretation. The SPU burn in
discussion started as an attempt at some sort of proof or
support that what people claim to hear is associated with some
physical phenomenon. The fact is, the CPU burn-in thread is
irrelevant to the discussion involving audio.

Further, no one stated the belief that electronic components do
not change. What was stated is that the burn-in claims for
things like wire is are unsupportable, that there are plenty of
reasons why the perception of such might exist, and no reliable
supporting evidence has been advanced that it is a real
phenomenon under many circumstances.

Further, it has been shown in the past that while speaker
drivers have been shown to have substantial parameter changes
with operation, in many of not most cases (such as suspension
compliance and loss), those parameter changes are fully
recovered once the speaker is allowed to sit idel fro a small
period of time, and that simple environmental changes have at
least as much of an effect.

But, to date, bot a single shread of credible evidence has been
advanced, despite "experts" with 22 years experience in a store,
that components such as wires, inductors, capacitors and
resistors change in any way that is audibly significant that is
not also due to component degradation and ultimate failure.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[chung]

Wylie Williams wrote:
> As I recall this CPU burn in discussion started because there is a faction
> that believes that electronic products do not change with break in. As the
> problem is measurement of change the phenenomenon of CPUs runnng faster as
> time went on was offered as proof that at least one electronic device breaks
> in with favorable measurable results. Somehow it has been turned into /
> evolved into a wrangle about overclocking, CPU longevity, etc. I see
> everything but admission that it is possible for electronic devices to
> change performance in a measurable way with break in.

Several points here:

1. Why would one accept that it is possible for electronic devices to
change performance in a measureable way, without proof being supplied?
If it is measureable, shouldn't there be results of those measurements
backing up the claims? In the case of CPU burn-in, so many factors come
into play that it is simplistic to think that the CPU chip somehow runs
faster jsut because it has been running for a while. BTW, this effect is
unlike burn-in of audio components, because at least a change in clock
speed is observed.

2. Some of us believe that even if there were measureable aging
effects in audio components, those may not translate into audible
effects. Posters here have brought up some minor changes in speaker
parameters that have no audible effects.

3. You will find that there are long-term posters on this newsgroup
who are not technically challenged. Any time an unusual claim is
presented, the responses tend to be skeptical, because those claims
contradict existing scientific and engineering knowledge. This is one of
the values of this newsgroup: if you are intellectually curious, you
will get useful information here, although that information may run
counter to what is accepted in the "high-end". The skepticism in this
newsgroup is very healthy, especially for those who are less technically
inclined.

> As a newcomer to RAHE
> it is begining to look like a free for all debate in which some very active
> participants never grant points to anyone.
>

If you want to see a free-for-all forum, check out rec.audio.opinion.

Those very active participants, together with the moderators, make this
forum one of the better places on the internet to exchange technical
information, without excessive noise. We almost never challenge personal
preferences here. It is only when such preferences are presented as
facts, with highly questionable scientific support, that you will see
strong rebuttals.

> Wylie Williams
>

[Aldo Pignotti]

"All Ears" > wrote in message news:<oYVQa.70709$Ph3.7225@sccrnsc04>...
> I am seeing a lot of interesting claims about burn-in issues, also audio
> compared to other electronic equipment.
>
> Those who has been trying to over clock a CPU, will know that often it is
> possible to tweak extra MHz out of the CPU, after it has been working
> several hours. This would indicate to me, that YES computers do burn-in as
> well. However, nobody notice this, unless trying to run it above
> specifications!
>
>

I've overclocked cpus in a lab environment many times. I've seen this
effect also and I have investigated it. I'm pretty sure that
it is because that after 20 or thirty minutes, the power supplies
(usually) start running cleaner. I can put a filter on a system's
power supply and get the same results. cpus don't really burn in,
it's just that at a system's clock limits, you are probably going to
find noise somewhere that is going to trip something up, usually
reading or writing from RAM. Decrease the noise level and the system
will be able to run faster.

btw, overclocking a cpu will decrease its life expectancy because the
chips
run hotter. remember, the light that burns twice as bright burns half
as
long. Some chips though, just keep running.