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 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 |
| |

-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

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 |
| |

-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

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.

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

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 |
| |

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 |
| |

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.

"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

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.

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.

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
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.

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

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.

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.

"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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 |
| |

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 |
| |

"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

-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

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.

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

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 |
| |

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

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 |
| |

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.

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

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

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.

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 |
| |

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.

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.