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.

(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

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 |
| |

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

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
newsNrSa.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.

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

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.

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 |
| |

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 |
| |

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

"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

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
newsYVQa.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

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
newsYVQa.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

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 |
| |

"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 |
| |

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 |
| |

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 |
| |

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 he

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

"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.