[[email protected]]

In the current online stereophile there is a Moon amp review. Certain
claims there present the perfect chance for a listening alone test.

"As with other Simaudio components I have used, the sound of the W-7 was a
touch bright and forward when it was first turned on. It began to sound
more neutral over the next week or so--I'm told this "break-in" is a
function of the heavy, pure-copper circuit-board traces."

Hence we have two assertions to be tested, one of "break in" and the other
apparently from the manufacture as to why the first should be.

Take two amps, one fresh from the production line and another of the
requisite time suggested to provide the difference.

This would be a sighted test using the listener's choice of everything as
to gear, setting, music, etc.; except not knowing which amp is active.
Both amps would be in full view but with no indication of which was on by
removing status indicators.

For a period of days one of the new or "broken in" amps would be randomly
used. At the end of a days listening which of the two amps would be
declared. If that amp had been the new one, a new one would be used the
next time round to avoid any confusion ongoing "break in" might cause.

The above testing setup addresses all of the usual objections said to
exist in testing, including removing any of testing pressure, switching
interval etc. said to be flaws in other variations. The only variable
being at hand is the amp difference in operation time.

The second of the claims could be done by varying the thickness of the
traces in two different amps and/or using traces with different degrees of
"purity".

Listening setting and method would be as above.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message



In the current online stereophile there is a Moon amp
review. Certain claims there present the perfect chance
for a listening alone test.

Letsee - $1500 for a 50 wpc "entry level" integrated amp.

"As with other Simaudio components I have used, the sound
of the W-7 was a touch bright and forward when it was
first turned on. It began to sound more neutral over the
next week or so--I'm told this "break-in" is a function
of the heavy, pure-copper circuit-board traces."

If you believe balderdash like this...

Hence we have two assertions to be tested, one of "break
in" and the other apparently from the manufacture as to
why the first should be.

The first assertion that I would need tested is why I would pay so much for
so little?

Take two amps, one fresh from the production line and
another of the requisite time suggested to provide the
difference.

Sadly, Stereophile has a long track record of failing to even aspire to this
level of testing sophistication. Look at all the ways they blew it in the
Furutech LP demagnetizer debacle. Remember, with LPs there is *no*
controversy over the idea that their technical properties change
significantly with repeated playing, and Stereophile still didn't consider
this in their published tests.

This would be a sighted test using the listener's choice
of everything as to gear, setting, music, etc.; except
not knowing which amp is active. Both amps would be in
full view but with no indication of which was on by
removing status indicators.

IOW, a blind test with a limited number of trials - still not valid.

For a period of days one of the new or "broken in" amps
would be randomly used. At the end of a days listening
which of the two amps would be declared. If that amp had
been the new one, a new one would be used the next time
round to avoid any confusion ongoing "break in" might
cause.

The above testing setup addresses all of the usual
objections said to exist in testing, including removing
any of testing pressure, switching interval etc. said to
be flaws in other variations. The only variable being at
hand is the amp difference in operation time.

One thing that I've learned over the years is that when it comes to the high
end magazine reviewers, there is no end to their ability to complain about
testing methodologies making them suddenly incapable of demonstrating that
they are talking about much more than their fertile imaginations.

One of the funniest sets of recent Stereophile antics can be found he

http://www.stereophile.com/cables/805harm/index.html

Executive summary:

Mikey Fremer loves 'em.

John Atkinson measures them and find that they measure about as bad as LPs.

John Atkinson listens to them and decides that they also sound bad

Mikey Fremer is then forced to recant his initial glowing review.

[dave a]

wrote:
In the current online stereophile there is a Moon amp review. Certain
claims there present the perfect chance for a listening alone test.

"As with other Simaudio components I have used, the sound of the W-7 was a
touch bright and forward when it was first turned on. It began to sound
more neutral over the next week or so--I'm told this "break-in" is a
function of the heavy, pure-copper circuit-board traces."


Why is it that "breaking in" results in better sound? If indeed the
copper traces are changing their electrical characteristics, I would
expect the effect to be random - some better, some worse.

As a degreed electrical engineer who has designed many printed circuit
boards, I can say that the only time I have seen copper traces change
characteristics is when too much current was applied and they melted.
This did not improve the circuit.

[[email protected]]

After which, the only question would be "Why?".

Sadly, those prone to the delights of snake-oil are also precisely and
equally immune to the effects of tests, sighted and unsighted,
properly designed or not.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Walt]

wrote:
In the current online stereophile there is a Moon amp review. Certain
claims there present the perfect chance for a listening alone test.

"As with other Simaudio components I have used, the sound of the W-7 was a
touch bright and forward when it was first turned on. It began to sound
more neutral over the next week or so--I'm told this "break-in" is a
function of the heavy, pure-copper circuit-board traces."

Hence we have two assertions to be tested, one of "break in" and the other
apparently from the manufacture as to why the first should be.

"Break in" is a myth, most likely started by audio salesmen to deal with
customer returns. Instead of saying "hey, just tough it out, you'll get
used to it eventually" they claim that the gear needs a "break in"
period. Horse hockey.

What's breaking-in during the break-in period is the customer's
perception, not the gear. Put on a pair of yellow glasses - the whole
world will look yellow for a while but eventually you'll get used to it
and the yellow tint will seem normal. The same thing happens with hearing.

Note: speakers, being mechanical devices, do change their
characteristics with use. However, the break-in period is measured in
seconds, not days.

//Walt

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

[[email protected]]

On Jun 2, 8:19*am, Walt wrote:
wrote:
In the current online stereophile there is a Moon amp review. *Certain
claims there present the perfect chance for a listening alone test.

"As with other Simaudio components I have used, the sound of the W-7 was a
touch bright and forward when it was first turned on. It began to sound
more neutral over the next week or so--I'm told this "break-in" is a
function of the heavy, pure-copper circuit-board traces."

Hence we have two assertions to be tested, one of "break in" and the other
apparently from the manufacture as to why the first should be.

"Break in" is a myth, most likely started by audio salesmen to deal with
customer returns. *Instead of saying "hey, just tough it out, you'll get
used to it eventually" they claim that the gear needs a "break in"
period. *Horse hockey.

What's breaking-in during the break-in period is the customer's
perception, not the gear. *Put on a pair of yellow glasses - the whole
world will look yellow for a while but eventually you'll get used to it
and the yellow tint will seem normal. *The same thing happens with hearing.

That is not always the case. My old Martin Logan CLS IIZs needed a
break in period. I, in effect, did do the test that the original
poster suggested. The differences were not subtle.


Note: speakers, being mechanical devices, do change their
characteristics with use. *However, the break-in period is measured in
seconds, not days.

That would be a warm up not a break in. And that does happen with
electrostats as well but it seems tro take about 3 to 5 minutes. OTOH
it takes a good 15 minutes with the tube electronics.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 08:12:31 -0700, dave a wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
In the current online stereophile there is a Moon amp review. Certain
claims there present the perfect chance for a listening alone test.

"As with other Simaudio components I have used, the sound of the W-7 was a
touch bright and forward when it was first turned on. It began to sound
more neutral over the next week or so--I'm told this "break-in" is a
function of the heavy, pure-copper circuit-board traces."


Why is it that "breaking in" results in better sound? If indeed the
copper traces are changing their electrical characteristics, I would
expect the effect to be random - some better, some worse.

Oh, don't you know? One has to "form" the dielectric in all of the
electrolytic capacitors and "stabilize" the resistors for an esoteric amp
like this to sound its best. :-

As a degreed electrical engineer who has designed many printed circuit
boards, I can say that the only time I have seen copper traces change
characteristics is when too much current was applied and they melted.
This did not improve the circuit.

No it wouldn't. And if resistors and capacitors or semiconductors had to
burn-in in order to achieve their optimum operating parameters, the
manufacturers of these components would be obliged to do that before they
sold them.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 08:19:11 -0700, Walt wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
In the current online stereophile there is a Moon amp review. Certain
claims there present the perfect chance for a listening alone test.

"As with other Simaudio components I have used, the sound of the W-7 was a
touch bright and forward when it was first turned on. It began to sound
more neutral over the next week or so--I'm told this "break-in" is a
function of the heavy, pure-copper circuit-board traces."

Hence we have two assertions to be tested, one of "break in" and the other
apparently from the manufacture as to why the first should be.

"Break in" is a myth, most likely started by audio salesmen to deal with
customer returns. Instead of saying "hey, just tough it out, you'll get
used to it eventually" they claim that the gear needs a "break in"
period. Horse hockey.

Good point. "Keep listening. You'll get used to our crappy sound - or
rather, the equipment will get better." Solves a whole bunch of issues for
sales, doesn't it?

What's breaking-in during the break-in period is the customer's
perception, not the gear. Put on a pair of yellow glasses - the whole
world will look yellow for a while but eventually you'll get used to it
and the yellow tint will seem normal. The same thing happens with hearing.

I suspect that you are correct here. Many times I've put on a pair of
sunglasses, and after a while, forgotten I had them on. The sun went down or
I went Inside-with the glasses still on, and wondered why everything got so
dark all of a sudden. Then I'd remember that I had my sunglasses on, and I'd
take them off. Voila! Light! I see no reason why this phenomenon wouldn't
work for hearing as well. After all people with afflictions such as Meniere's
disease get used to huge amounts of tinnitus in their ears.

Note: speakers, being mechanical devices, do change their
characteristics with use. However, the break-in period is measured in
seconds, not days.

There was a time when the paper surrounds of speaker cones wore OUT as
opposed to "in", but that's hardly the same thing, now is it?

[Andrew Barss[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

: One of the funniest sets of recent Stereophile antics can be found he

: http://www.stereophile.com/cables/805harm/index.html

That's both really hilarious, and kind of sad.

: Mikey Fremer is then forced to recant his initial glowing review.

He does, and he doesn't -- he seems to want to do both (see
especially his reply to unpublished letter #5).

$1500 cables that introduce audible hiss, with one boosting the
volume and the other decreasing it, get promoted as "one of the
greatest technological breakthroughs in
high-performance audio that I have experienced in my
audiophile lifetime". That's just ... amazing.

-- Andy Barss

[[email protected]]

On Jun 2, 11:12*am, dave a wrote:
I can say that the only time I have seen copper
traces change characteristics is when too much
current was applied and they melted.
This did not improve the circuit.

I would disagree by pointing out the the sound of
some amplifiers is definitely more tolerable after
the fuse blows.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 2, 11:19*am, Walt wrote:

Note: speakers, being mechanical devices, do change their
characteristics with use. *However, the break-in period is measured in
seconds, not days.

Umm... I would beg to differ. Speakers break in very much the same non-
linear way that audio tubes break in (all numbers additive):

0-15 minutes: 80%
15-45 minutes: 10%
45min-3 hours: 8%
3 hours - 100 hours: 2%.

Points that may affect (new) speaker performance (break in):

Glues and solvents and materials requiring curing used in the
manufacture.
Moisture content in the cabinet and cone (if possible) materials.
Manufacturing stresses relieving with use - material annealing for
lack of a better word).
Environmental adjustments to their (presumably) final location.

Of course, some function of materials, temperature, humidity and so
forth will always have some effect on speaker performance depending on
type, and any extremes. So, yes, there is a break-in which will vary
based on any number of factors - and it ain't nohow 'minutes'. Could
well be hours, could be days - won't be much longer than that all
other things being equal - which they seldom are.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Walt]

wrote:
On Jun 2, 11:19 am, Walt wrote:

Note: speakers, being mechanical devices, do change their
characteristics with use. However, the break-in period is measured in
seconds, not days.

Umm... I would beg to differ. Speakers break in very much the same non-
linear way that audio tubes break in (all numbers additive):

0-15 minutes: 80%
15-45 minutes: 10%
45min-3 hours: 8%
3 hours - 100 hours: 2%.


See
http://www.audioholics.com/education...act-or-fiction
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yund9q

"Required break in time for the common spider-diaphragm-surround is
typically on the order of 10s of seconds and is a one-off proposition,
not requiring repetition. Once broken in, the driver should
measure/perform as do its siblings, within usual unit-to-unit parameter
tolerances."

//Walt

[Walt]

wrote:
On Jun 2, 11:19 am, Walt wrote:

Note: speakers, being mechanical devices, do change their
characteristics with use. However, the break-in period is measured in
seconds, not days.

Umm... I would beg to differ. Speakers break in very much the same non-
linear way that audio tubes break in (all numbers additive):

0-15 minutes: 80%
15-45 minutes: 10%
45min-3 hours: 8%
3 hours - 100 hours: 2%.


See
http://www.audioholics.com/education...act-or-fiction
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yund9q

"Required break in time for the common spider-diaphragm-surround is
typically on the order of 10s of seconds and is a one-off proposition,
not requiring repetition. Once broken in, the driver should
measure/perform as do its siblings, within usual unit-to-unit parameter
tolerances."


//Walt

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 6:23*am, " wrote:
Umm... I would beg to differ. Speakers break in very much the same non-
linear way that audio tubes break in (all numbers additive):

0-15 minutes: 80%
15-45 minutes: 10%
45min-3 hours: 8%
3 hours - 100 hours: 2%.

Where did these numbers come from and what exactly are they measuring?

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 03:22:54 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Jun 2, 11:12*am, dave a wrote:
I can say that the only time I have seen copper
traces change characteristics is when too much
current was applied and they melted.
This did not improve the circuit.

I would disagree by pointing out the the sound of
some amplifiers is definitely more tolerable after
the fuse blows.


Well, there is always that. Especially some SETs.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 11:52*am, Walt wrote:

"Required break in time for the common spider-diaphragm-surround is
typically on the order of 10s of seconds and is a one-off proposition,
not requiring repetition. Once broken in, the driver should
measure/perform as do its siblings, within usual unit-to-unit parameter
tolerances."

Walt:

That is for the drivers - not the entire system - which is what I took
the for the referral. Glues cure over time, caulks get harder over
time, solvents outgas over time and so forth - and this is all part of
the break-in. The individual drivers may be the largest part of it,
but they are not the entire system.

Note that I am not referring to crossover capacitor break-in,
interconnect wire break-in, magnet wire break-in nor any other
silliness, but simply the physical parts-and-pieces reaching their
final equilibrium after manufacturing is complete. And this is a non-
linear process with a very high proportion of it taking place in the
very first few minutes/hours of use.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[[email protected]]

Andrew Barss wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

: One of the funniest sets of recent Stereophile antics can be found he

: http://www.stereophile.com/cables/805harm/index.html

That's both really hilarious, and kind of sad.

And you didn't even touch on the really hilariously sad gyrations Mr.
Fremers went to in his replies, like:

"I didn't know the cables were adding extraneous material to the signal!
I thought I perceived a removal of certain extraneous qualities I hear
from cables.."

And this should highlight his "qualifications" as a professional review
how exactly? Or;

"I wrongly attributed the "purity" of what I heard to the loss of
additive problems..."

IOW, the added distortion resulted in the "purity" of the sound. Sounds
like a terminology problem to me. Not that the lack of objective
definition of such subjective terms has ever been discussed here ;-)
Or;

"... I also hear how I missed the subtle bass boost that JA measured,
which I can now hear. It is a coloration. I did make a mistake there in
thinking I was hearing an absence of colorations compared to other
cables,..."

So now he hears the colorations that the cables induce. But wait! Then
he says:

"Your last sentence sums it up, Mr. Wortman, but I don't think the
distortions measured in the CyberLight cable are audible..."

Make up your mind Mr. Fremer. He continues;

"you have to listen for yourself, though now that you know how they
measured it's easier to conclude you hear them...that's one of the
things I like about "observational" reviewing. I have no pre-conceived
notion based on the measurements."

No, you just change your mind about what you heard based on the
measurements, such as:

"Do I recommend the Cyberlight cables now, having read the measurements?
No."

What happened to recommendations based on *sound*, not measurements?

When a Mr. Peak wrote:

"Once again, Stereophile falls below its own set standards of honest
reviewing. If you were honest Mr. Fremer, you would of stood behind your
recommendation of what you heard and experienced. Not change your mind
because measured data does not support what you heard."

Mr. Fremer responds with:

"You are clueless, Mr. Peak. Your comment makes no sense. I am glad
you'd never recommend a product that introduces audible distortion.
neither would I."

Mr. Fremer confuses retracting a recommendation based on subsequent
objective data, with having never made the recommendation based on
now-acknowledged misguided subjective data. Well...OK, I guess Mr.
Fremer has also *never* recommended any tube amp (WAVAC anyone?) then,
since he also stated:

"While some tube amps measure better than others, compared to even
budget solid state gear, they are all "defective" in terms of
distortion, frequency response, noise, dynamics, and a host of other
specs. "

Simply amazing! Thanks for a good chuckle Arny.

Keith Hughes

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 11:23*pm, wrote:

Where did these numbers come from and what exactly are they measuring?

These numbers are an aggregate/average of some burn-in statistics from
WE, RCA and Sylvania that I ran across some time back collected into a
little pamphlet on the silliness of the entire break-in concept.

Essentially the point was that most tubes stabilize within measurable
parameters within a very few hours, and operationally within a very
few minutes.

WE made a point that their tubes were burnt-in at the factory.
Sylvania made the point that the matching process if done correctly
was enough for any burn-in.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 01:52:24 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

Andrew Barss wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

One of the funniest sets of recent Stereophile antics can be found he
http://www.stereophile.com/cables/805harm/index.html
http://www.stereophile.com/cables/805harm/index.html

That's both really hilarious, and kind of sad.

And you didn't even touch on the really hilariously sad gyrations Mr.
Fremers went to in his replies, like:

"I didn't know the cables were adding extraneous material to the signal!
I thought I perceived a removal of certain extraneous qualities I hear
from cables.."

And this should highlight his "qualifications" as a professional review
how exactly? Or;

"I wrongly attributed the "purity" of what I heard to the loss of
additive problems..."

IOW, the added distortion resulted in the "purity" of the sound. Sounds
like a terminology problem to me. Not that the lack of objective
definition of such subjective terms has ever been discussed here ;-)
Or;

"... I also hear how I missed the subtle bass boost that JA measured,
which I can now hear. It is a coloration. I did make a mistake there in
thinking I was hearing an absence of colorations compared to other
cables,..."

So now he hears the colorations that the cables induce. But wait! Then
he says:

"Your last sentence sums it up, Mr. Wortman, but I don't think the
distortions measured in the CyberLight cable are audible..."

Make up your mind Mr. Fremer. He continues;

"you have to listen for yourself, though now that you know how they
measured it's easier to conclude you hear them...that's one of the
things I like about "observational" reviewing. I have no pre-conceived
notion based on the measurements."

No, you just change your mind about what you heard based on the
measurements, such as:

"Do I recommend the Cyberlight cables now, having read the measurements?
No."

What happened to recommendations based on *sound*, not measurements?

When a Mr. Peak wrote:

"Once again, Stereophile falls below its own set standards of honest
reviewing. If you were honest Mr. Fremer, you would of stood behind your
recommendation of what you heard and experienced. Not change your mind
because measured data does not support what you heard."

Mr. Fremer responds with:

"You are clueless, Mr. Peak. Your comment makes no sense. I am glad
you'd never recommend a product that introduces audible distortion.
neither would I."

Mr. Fremer confuses retracting a recommendation based on subsequent
objective data, with having never made the recommendation based on
now-acknowledged misguided subjective data. Well...OK, I guess Mr.
Fremer has also *never* recommended any tube amp (WAVAC anyone?) then,
since he also stated:

"While some tube amps measure better than others, compared to even
budget solid state gear, they are all "defective" in terms of
distortion, frequency response, noise, dynamics, and a host of other
specs. "

Simply amazing! Thanks for a good chuckle Arny.

Keith Hughes


What bothers me the most is the notion that replacing a simple piece of coax,
which, in normal lengths (0.5 to 2 Meters) has no effect, either measurable
or audible, on any audio signal passing through it with an expensive, active
system consisting of TWO transducers (AC electrical to laser light and laser
light back to AC electrical) could possibly be seen as "better". No
conversion of signals can possibly take place with adding non-linear
characteristics to the original signal. No phonograph cartridge is distortion
free, no microphone, no speaker, no headphone. Although this is audio signal
to light (and vice-versa) the same rules are bound to apply: conversions
aren't perfect. And, as we see, they do apply. Now, even a "throwaway" audio
cable, the kind packed with FM tuners or cheap CD players doesn't add any
distortion. This is just fact, irrespective of one's "religious" convictions
about cable in general.

Now, I have no problem with DIGITAL optical cables because the kinds of
anomalies that Atkinson noted in his measurement tests of these cables, have
no effect on a digital signal. Digital cares about the integrity and timing
of the data stream and little else. I use a 25 foot long glass TOSLINK
connection between my Apple TV box which is connected to my video system and
the up-converting D/A converter in my separate stereo system, so that I can
access my iTunes library from my main stereo system without an electrical
link between them (and the potential for ground loops that can occur in such
a lash-up) and find that it works flawlessly. I also use good quality TOSLINK
cables between my various video components (DVD players, Apple TV box,
Satellite receiver) and my Harmon-Kardon AV-7000 surround receiver. Again,
this seems to work very well.

The entire idea of the Cyberlight cables seems extremely silly to me. Almost
as silly as those $4000/meter "Valhalla" passive interconnects from Nordost.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 11:25*pm, " wrote:
On Jun 3, 11:52*am, Walt wrote:

"Required break in time for the common spider-diaphragm-surround is
typically on the order of 10s of seconds and is a one-off proposition,
not requiring repetition. Once broken in, the driver should
measure/perform as do its siblings, within usual unit-to-unit parameter
tolerances."

Walt:

That is for the drivers - not the entire system -
which is what I took the for the referral.

I take as referral a quarter century of direct
involvement in the loudspeaker manufacturing
business.

Glues cure over time, *

GLues which take a long time, which, in the
speaker manufacturing business, is measured
in minutes, cost manufacturers money. If the glues
are not assembly cured in a few minutes, or
completely cured in 24 hours, they're not likely
to be used. I have seen cabinet manufacturing
facilities which use RF curing technique to get
complete cures in 30 seconds.

caulks get harder over time,

Which is why caulks are seldom used nowadays.

solvents outgas over time

Ditto.

and so forth - and this is all part of
the break-in.

No, it's not. Even if all the examples you cite,
in the worst imaginable case, are used, these
processes will happen no matter what. Using
the speaker WILL NOT change the rate at which
they happen.

The individual drivers may be the largest part of it,
but they are not the entire system.

Note that I am not referring to crossover capacitor break-in,
interconnect wire break-in, magnet wire break-in nor any other
silliness, but simply the physical parts-and-pieces reaching their
final equilibrium after manufacturing is complete.

And that final equilibrium is with the local
environment, which is changing constantly.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 4, 11:59*am, " wrote:
On Jun 3, 11:23*pm, wrote:
Umm... I would beg to differ. Speakers break
in very much the same non-linear way that
audio tubes break in (all numbers additive):

0-15 minutes: 80%
15-45 minutes: 10%
45min-3 hours: 8%
3 hours - 100 hours: 2%.
what exactly are they measuring?

These numbers are an aggregate/average of some
burn-in statistics from WE, RCA and Sylvania that
I ran across some time back collected into a
little pamphlet on the silliness of the entire break-in
concept.

I think you miss the point of his question. The
numbers, as stated, are completely meaningless.
There are no units, no conditions, nothing. As
such, they are no more useful than randomly
selected numbers.80%, 10%, 2% of WHAT?

They could mean nothing more than log base X
of error from 100 hours.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 12:00*am, wrote:
On Jun 4, 11:59*am, " wrote:





On Jun 3, 11:23*pm, wrote:
Umm... I would beg to differ. Speakers break
in very much the same non-linear way that
audio tubes break in (all numbers additive):

* * 0-15 minutes: 80%
* *15-45 minutes: 10%
* *45min-3 hours: 8%
* *3 hours - 100 hours: 2%.
what exactly are they measuring?

These numbers are an aggregate/average of some
burn-in statistics from WE, RCA and Sylvania that
I ran across some time back collected into a
little pamphlet on the silliness of the entire break-in
concept.

I think you miss the point of his question. The
numbers, as stated, are completely meaningless.
There are no units, no conditions, nothing. As
such, they are no more useful than randomly
selected numbers.80%, 10%, 2% of WHAT?

They could mean nothing more than log base X
of error from 100 hours.

Whatever the numbers mean, what is really unclear is how they would in
any way relate to speakers and speaker burn in. There is no question
that tube characteristics change over time which may or may not be
significant for audio reproduction. That this same temporal property
somehow also relates to speakers is much harder to follow given the
very different physical processes involved.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 2:52*pm, wrote:

Whatever the numbers mean, what is really unclear is how they would in
any way relate to speakers and speaker burn in. There is no question
that tube characteristics change over time which may or may not be
significant for audio reproduction. That this same temporal property
somehow also relates to speakers is much harder to follow given the
very different physical processes involved.- Hide quoted text -


YIKES~!~

Point of all of this is that, whereas there are some *__VERY SMALL__*
changes that may be related to
'burn-in", those processes are simple, very fast, and for the most
part already completed before the speaker reaches the end-user.

Same as with tubes. The processes are very different, of course being
mostly chemical and mechanical with speakers, but the similarity is
how very small they are and how quickly they are over.

Of course, one could argue that once burn-in is complete, decay begins
- and that is entirely another discussion...

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Walt]

Sonnova wrote:

What bothers me the most is the notion that replacing a simple piece of coax,
which, in normal lengths (0.5 to 2 Meters) has no effect, either measurable
or audible, on any audio signal passing through it with an expensive, active
system consisting of TWO transducers (AC electrical to laser light and laser
light back to AC electrical) could possibly be seen as "better".

Agree that for normal lengths this product is an unnecessary
complication. However, there are some advantages of a technology like
this if you're running long interconnects (i.e. hundreds of feet)
between systems that have different ground sources. An optical
interconnect effectively eliminates ground loops and induced signals
(hum and buzz) as well as eliminating hf rolloff due to cable capatance.
In that case, the overhead of additional circuitry may be worth it.

So my take is that this technology is not necessarily useless, but
misapplied if you're using it in a typical home environment.

//Walt

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

What bothers me the most is the notion that replacing a simple piece of
coax,
which, in normal lengths (0.5 to 2 Meters) has no effect, either
measurable
or audible, on any audio signal passing through it with an expensive,
active
system consisting of TWO transducers (AC electrical to laser light and
laser
light back to AC electrical) could possibly be seen as "better". No
conversion of signals can possibly take place with adding non-linear
characteristics to the original signal. No phonograph cartridge is
distortion
free, no microphone, no speaker, no headphone. Although this is audio
signal
to light (and vice-versa) the same rules are bound to apply: conversions
aren't perfect. And, as we see, they do apply. Now, even a "throwaway"
audio
cable, the kind packed with FM tuners or cheap CD players doesn't add any
distortion. This is just fact, irrespective of one's "religious"
convictions
about cable in general.

Not only that, but this equipment does not seem to be particularly good by
modern standards.

Its dynamic range is about 70 dB which is actually pretty good for pure
analog modulation/demodulation to/from light, but poor by modern standards.

The logical way to do this would involve digital, which is probably anathema
to the intended audience. Frequency response up to 100 KHz or more, and with
110+ dB dynamic range would be possible.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 07:28:12 -0700, Walt wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

What bothers me the most is the notion that replacing a simple piece of
coax,
which, in normal lengths (0.5 to 2 Meters) has no effect, either measurable
or audible, on any audio signal passing through it with an expensive,
active
system consisting of TWO transducers (AC electrical to laser light and
laser
light back to AC electrical) could possibly be seen as "better".

Agree that for normal lengths this product is an unnecessary
complication.

Not just unnecessary, but according to Atkinson's measurements, actually not
as good as a cheap Radio-Shack molded interconnect cable of the same length.
Cheap interconnects do not alter frequency response or introduce distortion.
This product, apparently, does AND charges the user an arm and a leg for the
privilege.

However, there are some advantages of a technology like
this if you're running long interconnects (i.e. hundreds of feet)
between systems that have different ground sources.

Agreed that this type of technology certainly COULD be good for this purpose,
but I think I would convert the analog signal to digital before making an
optical run that long.

An optical interconnect effectively eliminates ground loops and induced
signals
(hum and buzz) as well as eliminating hf rolloff due to cable capatance.
In that case, the overhead of additional circuitry may be worth it.

Yes, of course. Still converting the signal to digital on the sending end and
back to analog on the receiving end is better yet, and I know it would be
cheaper than this product.

So my take is that this technology is not necessarily useless, but
misapplied if you're using it in a typical home environment.

That it certainly is.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 09:55:27 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

What bothers me the most is the notion that replacing a simple piece of
coax,
which, in normal lengths (0.5 to 2 Meters) has no effect, either
measurable
or audible, on any audio signal passing through it with an expensive,
active
system consisting of TWO transducers (AC electrical to laser light and
laser
light back to AC electrical) could possibly be seen as "better". No
conversion of signals can possibly take place with adding non-linear
characteristics to the original signal. No phonograph cartridge is
distortion
free, no microphone, no speaker, no headphone. Although this is audio
signal
to light (and vice-versa) the same rules are bound to apply: conversions
aren't perfect. And, as we see, they do apply. Now, even a "throwaway"
audio
cable, the kind packed with FM tuners or cheap CD players doesn't add any
distortion. This is just fact, irrespective of one's "religious"
convictions
about cable in general.

Not only that, but this equipment does not seem to be particularly good by
modern standards.

Its dynamic range is about 70 dB which is actually pretty good for pure
analog modulation/demodulation to/from light, but poor by modern standards.

The logical way to do this would involve digital, which is probably anathema
to the intended audience. Frequency response up to 100 KHz or more, and with
110+ dB dynamic range would be possible.



My sentiments precisely. I know, for a fact you could do the A/D and D/A and
encode it optically far more cheaply than this product sells for.

[Walt]

Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 07:28:12 -0700, Walt wrote

Agree that for normal lengths this product is an unnecessary
complication.

Not just unnecessary, but according to Atkinson's measurements,
actually not as good as a cheap Radio-Shack molded interconnect cable of
the same length.

Agreed. Like most unnecessary complications it degrades performance.


However, there are some advantages of a technology like this if
you're running long interconnects (i.e. hundreds of feet) between
systems that have different ground sources.

Agreed that this type of technology certainly COULD be good for this
purpose, but I think I would convert the analog signal to digital before
making an optical run that long.

Yep. Back in the day before digital was widespread some people were
expirementing with this approach. Today, it's usually much simpler and
cost effective to just digitize it and call it a day.

//Walt

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

Yes, of course. Still converting the signal to digital on the sending end
and
back to analog on the receiving end is better yet, and I know it would be
cheaper than this product.

Note that the technique of converting the signal to digital for optical
transmission is used for virtually all modern communications involving any
type of signal (voice, music, video, data, telemetry) that is transmitted
any significant distance, anywhere in the world. There are a number of
legacy technology exceptions related to broadcasting to consumers. Somehow,
generally accepted digital technology isn't good enough for a few
audiophiles.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:28:40 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

Yes, of course. Still converting the signal to digital on the sending end
and
back to analog on the receiving end is better yet, and I know it would be
cheaper than this product.

Note that the technique of converting the signal to digital for optical
transmission is used for virtually all modern communications involving any
type of signal (voice, music, video, data, telemetry) that is transmitted
any significant distance, anywhere in the world. There are a number of
legacy technology exceptions related to broadcasting to consumers. Somehow,
generally accepted digital technology isn't good enough for a few
audiophiles.


Maybe not, but it's certainly GOT to be better than this EXPENSIVE analog
optical transmission system tested by Stereophile.