Just ordered a new phono preamp from Jolida (J9II). Is there a break in process I should be aware of? Or do I simply play normal and realistically believe that it will open up as time goes on. Also, how much can one expect this pre will improve over time?
Perhaps unmeasurable, but never the less, still perceptible
Thank you for being open minded. It is exactly as I posted. The good news is that there is proof of concept. If you have read my white paper you will see that I absolutely held back making such an astounding claims until I had actual evidence for just this reason. EVERY attempt 100% to reproduce sound in a way that it sounds "live" or 3 dimensional has fallen by the wayside. Why? because there have been a plethora of designers who dabble in the smoke and mirrors method of making the sound stage wider or tricking you into believing that an instrument has all of a sudden popped out of the system. They are 100% fake and your brain knows it.
What I have done has... A) never been done before and B) has no competition. Is that a profound statement to claim?
OK - I got your attention.
If you wire one speaker out of phase, what do you get? Most people react as saying wow this is like surround sound but the vocals are not centered and seem to be coming from everywhere in the room. A portion of that effect can be designed into an electronic device by simply keeping the speaker phase correct and taking a small portion of the signal and flipping the phase over and applying it to the opposite channel. Don't take my word for it - they blatantly describe the technique in there own patent(s).
Do you realize how long it has been since there was a true breakthrough in audio? Decades.
When the real thing comes along how do expect people to react? Well if they have not actually heard it then you get the knee jerk reaction.. "yes of course it is the ultimate..bla bla bla..." but they don't believe it for a second.
The experience cannot be described in words. So let me simply say the in the coming months you will see one audio magazine after another validating what I have done as the biggest breakthrough in sound reproduction. Period.
I know there are plenty of readers that are gasping right now - thinking how arrogant, how "Trump" like. I am humbled by the events that have placed my work in a category by itself. I have been blessed. I do not claim to be a know-it-all (like some others appear to be). I did my time in the lab to figure out exactly why systems don't just project 3-D naturally. The answer is because the job of amplifying was never taken to the final stages. Once it hits the "low" distortion measurements that are assumed to be good enough - that's it there are no tools to help them go any further.
The problem is that something was still fundamentally wrong because real "live" sound has not been attained thus far. Every thread has audiophiles talking about how to get "the sound you are looking for". Some like the sonic signature of a good triode or some like the slam of SS so they drive their woofers with SS and a nice lush tube top end, etc.
When amplification does not have a sonic signature - how can you tell if it is tubes or transistors? The answer is you can't. That only happens when there is NO distortion. Forget about odd or even harmonics - try none.
Yes there is distortion that cannot be measured and has been the most destructive obstacle in the way of reproducing actual live sound. If you can present sound that appears to be coming through the medium of air - it is easily recognized by the brain as authentic. Nothing about the amplifier is used to generate or simulate the effect of air - it simply passes the true velocity which was in the air at the time of recording.
That's why it is referred to as the "Holy Grail" of audio.
If you plan on going to the Newport Beach show in June you can witness a piece of audio history.
swampwalker, agreed, not saying things are bad here (yet) but, even a really bad day on an audio thread (and while listening to the Hi-fi), is still better than a good day in front of the boob-tube IMHO. [|;^)>
I've quite honestly been away a good while, mostly traveling and happily listening to all things audio and otherwise. Thank you Zen master Hakuin for the koan, "what is the sound of one hand" (clapping).
I can clearly see by your high sample rate that you have been busy entertaining and entertained. I'll have to do some back reading to get caught up in the current state of affairs so that any ridiculousness was not wasted. I'm not a buzz kill, really! I do understand the desperate need to break the monotony and the down right lack of fundamental understanding present in some of these threads...geez. And I do say that with all due respect of knowing I too am but a student, and have much to learn. But my, how things have changed here since the market crash. So much of the deep, deep knowledge and momentum seems to have moved (hopefully not passed) on. This is my initial perception, I would love to be proven dead wrong. I'll keep reading and writing and we'll see what happens.
Perhaps unmeasurable, but never the less, still perceptible.
r_f_…The simple answer is no, my background means nothing really, and if you've been here 2 decades it's surprising you've been unaware of how ridiculous my posts have consistently been. That is actually sobering. Has all of my ridiculousness been wasted? *sniff*…in keeping with this this philosophy, I do feel that helping those without sophistication gained from experience with this hobby can often lead them to further study arcane aspects of sound reproduction, and lead to posts filled with useless nonsense. Like this one. Note that the distortion in my post is below the noise floor, but clearly still there….thankfully unmeasurable.
I hope to aid in the understanding of break-in and what it does.
During my research into distortion, I was
forced to include the break-in phenomenon.
Mostly because the tiny distortion I was going
after was very similar to the size of the distortion reduced or removed by allowing
sufficient “break-in” time. This component behavior is something I am very familiar
with. There is no mystery as to how break-in affects sound reproduction. To understand
how the sound changes, you need to know exactly what happens during that time.
There are those that have sought guidance from
A-B tests done on capacitors from various manufacturers. An attempt is made to
ensure that it is a “fair” test. Capacitors are swapped out under the same
physical conditions (leads are held by screw terminal type connections). While
it seems fair on the surface – it is not the way to determine which capacitors
are better than others.
If you want it to be fair – you take the ten
samples and build them into ten copies of the same circuit.
Then after listening tests that include early (fresh)
and late (3 weeks) comparisons you will have your answer. Two capacitors from
the same manufacturer can sound different depending on where it is used in the
circuit. You have to know some history of the component even though it may be
new stock. Depending on how it is tested before shipping will affect the length
of time forming process will take.
In a nutshell: The capacitor will initially behave
as having non-symmetrical impedance. It is not exactly the same as having a
non-linear component. Current drawn by the charging cycle will not match the
current given up by the discharge cycle. This is due to the instantaneous state
of the dielectric. Therefore the impedance will be slightly higher in one
direction and lower in the other direction (until it is formed). We are not
talking about a big difference – in fact it is not measurable.
How then would I know that this is true? I
have worked with distortion products that are at or below the noise floor. Once
you reduce distortion down to extremely low levels (to where they don’t show up
on test gear) it then relies purely on theoretical analysis to go any further.
Since I was already down there – the break-in phenomenon
was right in my wheelhouse.
The mismatch in charge/discharge current causes the timing of the positive and negative wave-fronts to be askew. This detracts from the feeling of "live" that we naturally get when listening through air.
In fact if you want to see the difference just
the break-in can make, I received 2 reviews for the same gear by the same
person whose comments in the second (follow-up review) describe how the
equipment has morphed into a different experience. When the circuitry has very
low or no distortion, the break-in changes are much more noticeable because
their distortion product is larger in size than the circuit’s own distortion. Once
the forming is complete, a now clear path is recognized through the entire product.
You begin to hear the true purity of just the circuit.
In order to fully appreciate the significance of break-in for wires and cables it helps to have installed the wire or cables in the correct, I.e., best sounding direction, just like fuses. If they are installed in the wrong direction they will sound lame both before and after break in.
pbn - None of the articles seem to examine small changes over time nor do they remotely hint anything related to resonances. And who's talking about electrolytics, specifically? Definitely NOTHING related to actually hearing differences.
Sometimes hard to separate those being intentionally ridiculous, from those who just are...
It's great to have both the musical background and audio experience you speak of. I don't know you, so I would not make too rash a judgement to whether that means anything or not. Hopefully, it has more to offer here than sheer levity. While old and young "gasbags" as you call them, create intolerable levels of THD throughout these discussions, there are those who actually don't understand and deeply want to. Ironically, I believe you and I ultimately want the same outcome here.
And thank you for welcoming me to an audio website that I've been on now for nearly two decades.
r_f…I do welcome the humorless as, after all, they are people too. I am astonished when an obviously ridiculous comment meant to break up the tedium around here results in officious "suggestions." My experience as an audio geek goes back to the 60s, I've been a successful musician for 5 decades or so, and mix live jazz concerts (and other stuff) regularly. Even based on what I've posted here you're response makes even less sense than my posts which often purposely contain nonesense designed to poke at the tedious gasbags who populate this place…welcome!
wolf_garcia, are you merely fooling around and adding distortions to the soundtrack or are you searching to understand? I'd suggest, let your ears and your experience be the true test of whether something exists in the audio hobby/world. Trading ideas and experience can be helpful yet, to rely (or worse, depend) on measurements or someone else's convincing tale, is to miss the entire point.
The flagship Duelund capacitors that everyone is raving about are notorious for long break-in times, as much as 500 or 600 hours, so they say. Of course it’s always possible that some sort of group hypnosis is going on. ;-)
One High Fidelity Cables reviewer noted that the CT-1 ICs were 90% broken in after 10 hours. Well, I happen to be rather disenchanted with the whole idea of 90% of anything so it begs the question is break-in like recharging a cell phone for which the last 5% of charging takes the longest time? Aren’t we just trying to get the last 5% to get to the Promised Land?
OK…what about "burn out" time? and "burn up" time…Berne Switzerland?…I need more of the tightly wrapped to comment on these things…come on now…I know you got somethin'…
Yes, components take time to break in. Capacitors and their various resonances are a good example. Different capacitors take differing times to form. Different TYPES of capacitors take different amounts of time to form. And most other components take time to form their various capacitances even if it is a simple resistor mounted to a circuit board (the board itself can act as a capacitor). And as those capacitors form, it changes their resonances. Resonances contribute HEAVILY to the sound of a component.
As a product accumulates burn-in time the distortion is reduced. If your system begins to sound worse - Don't blame the new product, blame a component ahead if it that may have sounded harsh but was tamed down by the "fresh" amp that could not yet pass fine detail. When that amp finally achieves zen it simply exposes the quality of whatever is driving it.
To clarify for the over-thinkers, things often sound better after a while, as well they should…but well made audio gear should work pretty great right off the proverbial bat or I’m not interested. On the other hand, I think we need an "un burn-in" device to restore items that sound worse after burn-in in case the fresh component sounded better when brand new. Ridiculous, but I think this concept will seem like a better idea if you let it burn-in…re-visit this post after at least 150 hours...
Yes I think there is a break in time for most equipment, IC and powercords. It varies however, I think on average around 50 hrs is sufficient enough but some IC and PCs can be more. Is it HUGE usually not but noticeable in my opinion to trained ears. For example one night I was listening for a couple of hours and all of the sudden my system sounded smoother and more open. It was weird but it was like "poof" the sound was much better. I don't think it was the bourbon lol. I don't remember what it was off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure it was a IC.
Wolf brings up a very good point. Turn it on and let it play. Try not to judge too harshly at 1st because of the break in time but in my opinion the overall flavor or tone of the new component is immediately noticeable. Yes you can let it break in longer but the overall characteristics won't change that much. Just my 2 cents :)
Geoffkait, I could not agree with you more. One would think they would hear it, understand it, and for nothing more than pure money making desire, wish to have the gear sounding its best, but they don’t, go figure...
That makes me question their very abilities as a dealer.
Been there done that. One of the biggest reasons manufacturers have such difficulty getting their systems to sound even reasonably good at audio shows like CES is that they insist on showing brand new systems - new components, new speakers and new cables. Because the system has not been broken in properly it will by and large sound thin, bass shy, two dimensional, harsh, beamy, irritating and generic. Sometimes the systems will open up and start sounding a little listenable on day three, the day it’s time to pack up and leave!
If you haven’t heard it for yourself... you are yet to be educated. Your ears will thank you eternally.
Hagerman Technologies offers a iRIAA2 (inverse riaa card) that works with a line output signal from say a CD player. You fire it up and forget about it for any number of hours and with no pain, you conquer the burn-in monotony in the shortest time possible. Here is Mr Hagerman’s explanation of the products function; The iRIAA Filter is a two-channel passive inverse RIAA response filter for use in testing phono preamplifiers. Unlike traditional networks, the iRIAA Filter includes a correctly placed upper 3.18us (50kHz) corner in its transfer function. Output level is switchable between -40dB and -60dB. Frequency response is accurate to within +/-0.5dB from 10Hz to 100kHz.
Agree with break-in period on electronics, however its quite short IMO. I find that length of period on, i.e. the circuit is fully thermally stabilized have a much greater effect on sound quality than any "break-in" have.
Speakers have a much more prolonged breaking process as there literally are moving parts in a speaker that needs to loosen up so to speak.
Wires and Cables - as close to ZERO as one can get in "break-in" time
With in regards to break-in my overall impression on this that it is something that the actual end user of the product is "doing" so that him/her has an actual part is the process, i.e. "if I had not broken it in properly it would not sound this good"
My two cents, I'm sure a lot of people have widely different opinions :-)
Break-in time unfortunately is a necessary evil. A freshly built amplifier will sound quite differently say.. 3 or 4 weeks later. It is centered around chemical changes that happen when power is applied to a given circuit or system to include interconnects, speaker wire etc.
Generally speaking audiophiles that recognize and hear the "break-in" effect are not imagining it - it really does happen. This is why manufacturers may have a break-in shelf for components or sub-assemblies or whole finished products that just have time put on them to try to shorten the break-in time experienced by the customer when he or she receives it in their home.
If you cannot hear the effects of break-in, it usually means that some component in your system is masking the improvement in purity.
The sonic explanation of break-in is the slow but sure improvement in apparent detail and focus of the projected sound stage due to the reduction in timing errors.
150 to 250 hours for break-in is patently ridiculous…turn it on and let it warm up for a few minutes and just enjoy the thing without worrying about it…if it seems to get a little better sounding over time it could simply be due to your getting used to it, or a gift from the mysterious electron gods...but the mythology of unquantifiable extreme break in time (on for 24 hours a day 7 days straight? man….) for components is a silly concept promoted by those who are wound a little too tight. Components sound a little different from day to day anyway…earwax buildup, humidity, local electric grid fluctuations…mood swings...
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
