Why is long term listening better for evaluating components?

[esldude]

Why is long term listening considered the most discriminating way to evaluate audio components?

 

I think it comes down to how people feel about something after using it for some time.

 

So I am going to think about this in a logically dangerous way. That being to reason by analogy.

 

People speak of music as art and emotion. Not a test signal. But suppose we were talking paintings. A painting needs a setting and lighting. Brighter light is like turning up the volume. The color spectrum is like frequency response. The shape and color of the background is like a noise floor. Some paintings should be brilliantly lit, and some shouldn’t. Some might have one character with a neutral color spectrum or might be a bit more alluring with some cast toward the blue or the yellow. The angle of lighting might be like soundstaging in recordings. Some of this might be from when and where it was painted. An artist doing Impressionist work out in a park based his decisions on outdoor sunlight. One working in the Sistene chapel did not have more than candlelight to work with.

 

Now long term viewing, at different times in different moods would allow you to decide which you prefer through how it affected you. Whether the painter’s intentions glowed forth better with this light or that. Truly that isn’t something you could decide by rapidly flicking between different temperature, brightness and angle of lighting except to coarsely get in the ballpark. Experienced viewers in art could probably do it more quickly, but anyone likely would figure it out better over long term viewing. The difference in how it affects you emotionally is something learned better over time. Or put another way, the presentation that lets the emotion of the painting show forth most strongly is something done better over time.

 

On the other hand, you wouldn’t make the finest perceptual discrimination between different lighting with long term viewing. If one light were 2% more toward yellow, you would detect this most easily by switching between this lighting rapidly. Not looking at it for ten days and then saying with precision which is the slightly more yellow lighting spectrum. Ditto for brightness of lighting. Until the true limits of human visual acuity are exceeded you best figure this out rapidly switching the light levels.

 

Now lets just say (as I don’t know the real answer) that lighting of 5% more yellow is barely, but consistently detectable in rapid switching. Would it or would it not be enough to effect a difference in emotional affect of a painting? I also don’t know the answer to that. But since the level of yellow is discernible it would at least be possible. On the other hand, if 1% change in color spectrum is not detectable, would it make a difference over long term viewing in the emotional impact of a painting? I would doubt it. I would guess however, if you prepped people with the idea it would, they too would report differences when actually they are just getting differences from other sources having nothing to do with the light being 1% more yellow. If however it were true that light has effects more finely discerned long term than short term how would you determine that?

 

I don’t think this is too different than audio. We have some components that when compared in rapid switching are the same. I don’t think they will affect the listener differently in terms of the art of music over time if they are the same. Yet people want to attribute emotional or felt long term reactions to the components. Is it real or not?

 

I think what happens is the same as with a painting. It will affect you different ways at different times for reasons not related to the painting and its presentation. The difference is you, your physical condition, emotional condition, what events are happening in the rest of your life. Somehow people with paintings fail to attribute that to having Japanese made Toshiba bulbs instead of those NOS USA made GE or Sylvania bulbs that truly let the painting be presented with genuine emotion.

 

Now in audio, one can go for a pleasingly colored presentation. But we appear to have the ability in at least some of the chain to have brightness in the painting sense anywhere from blinding to subdued. The color cast also might be very neutral with the ability to alter it to suit.

 

Now if we have a non-neutral component it should be discernible. The best way to compare two such things would appear to be side by side rapid switching. If you get two components so close you tell no difference in rapid switching then they are effectively so close, you wouldn’t expect it to matter how you view(listen to) the art over several days time. But if you think it can, have been prepped that it can, then you might well experience that somehow it does. That one component over another simply leaves you feeling better about it. In time, that idea gets a positive association with those good feelings. So when you see XYZ component over there you have a tendency, a belief that it will be better because you didn’t like ABC component you had there before. But we have to remember, if the components really were different, you also would get the same kind of positive mental association with the components of one vs the other. In other words, whether they mattered or not, the way the mind works you would experience the same emotional reaction either way. I think this is why long term listening feels like it is more definitive while it probably is not.

 

Would like to read other people’s ideas on this. Maybe some good explanations for why long term listening is better or more discriminating.

 

And yes, I know the description of the painting in place of music leaves much to be desired. Don’t take it too literally, but hopefully it can shed some light (pun somewhat intended) on thinking about this.

 

And PLEASE keep the discussion civil and about the ideas. Not about the people who present the idea.

[sandyk]

We have some components that when compared in rapid switching are the same. I don’t think they will affect the listener differently in terms of the art of music over time if they are the same. Yet people want to attribute emotional or felt long term reactions to the components. Is it real or not? !

Hi Dennis

Of course it's real. Even when you play complete tracks that sound virtually identical, it is quite possible for one to get your toes tapping, yet the other doesn't cause this reaction.It's when you consistently get the same reaction with this track, not knowing which track is being played at the time, that you then try far more analytical listening to try and find out why.

The same should also apply to equipment , that initially may sound almost identical.It just normally takes much longer with amplifiers etc. although at some of our listening sessions with far better than average gear and source material, these differences can be quite obvious to all present.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

[realhifi]

Why is long term listening considered the most discriminating way to evaluate audio components?

But we have to remember, if the components really were different, you also would get the same kind of positive mental association with the components of one vs the other. In other words, whether they mattered or not, the way the mind works you would experience the same emotional reaction either way. I think this is why long term listening feels like it is more definitive while it probably is not.

 

Would like to read other people’s ideas on this. Maybe some good explanations for why long term listening is better or more discriminating.

 

And yes, I know the description of the painting in place of music leaves much to be desired. Don’t take it too literally, but hopefully it can shed some light (pun somewhat intended) on thinking about this.

 

And PLEASE keep the discussion civil and about the ideas. Not about the people who present the idea.

 

For ME it is quite simply the best way for me to evaluate whatever component I am listening to. Now granted my methods or aural acuity may not put me in the scientific instrument category but I know what makes ME connect to the music and I know it when I hear it every single time blindfolded or not. I can see where some would take the A to B switching to be a better method for hearing which of the TWO is a closer proximity of what they perceive as "accurate".

 

I think that when you are evaluating over a longer term you are not "comparing" but simply listening and the impressions that form are of a much deeper nature than a quick A to B because you are comparing to literally everything that you have heard and catalogued in your own perceptions and are doing as much in the subconscious as the conscious (A to B) method.

[bhobba]

Why is long term listening considered the most discriminating way to evaluate audio components?

 

You must know different guys than me. The consensus amongst them (and my view as well) is its really a combination of initial reactions and long term listening.

 

Long term listening is good for determining things that at first can sound good but over time may grate. For example my first serious speakers were Gale 402's which was a sealed design. When I decided to move them on my new speakers were a ported design that initially sounded fuller and richer in the bass. But long term listening showed it was false - the sealed speakers were more accurate in the bass. So in forming a view its really a combination of initial reaction (the bass is fuller and richer) but over time you understand whats really going on.

 

Thanks

Bill

[bluesman]

Long term listening is good for determining things that at first can sound good but over time may grate.

 

And it's equally good at letting you come to appreciate qualities you may not have liked so much on first listen. Subtle characteristics can grow on you over time and/or please you more with additional sources or source content. Our auditory memories also accede to our wishes and help us justify purchases we might not have made if given the chance to A/B them at home against the piece(s) being replaced.

 

I've occasionally been amazed at how good a piece sounds that I'd removed from my system years before in favor of the plat du jour. Some of our judgments and decisions may be less than completely objective....

[mav52]

I guess the question is, how long is long enough. Taking into consideration new equipment during a demo, how long and at what cost is one going to put forth the time an effort before the equipment has to be returned or purchased. And after a "time" would not the mind start to trick the senses into thinking the equipment ( music) is sounding good / bad.. And then what do you benchmark these test off of and did you give that test enough time.... interesting

[Jud]

Why is long term listening considered the most discriminating way to evaluate audio components?

 

 

I'd like to look at a situation here that I think you may not have covered in your excellent original post. What happens when you hear and like two components or players that sound different to you? (I mention players because I actually did experience this situation when I first compared XXHighEnd and Audirvana on my MacBook. My active component testing days are mostly far enough behind me that I don't recall exactly which component comparisons may have given me similar experiences.) Which of two very enjoyable candidates would be best for you to purchase?

 

That's where I think long term evaluation is useful in a couple of ways.

 

First, as you mention, "the presentation that lets the emotion of the [music] show forth most strongly is something done better over time." So you may be able, in a relaxed atmosphere (something that a lack of time pressure helps), to simply let yourself enjoy the emotion of the music, and over a period of time evaluate whether one component or player does this more consistently than the other, or even whether a presentation that was enjoyable over a day becomes irritating over longer periods. Some of us may have experienced this with televisions, especially pre-videophile days, where vibrant colors that stood out on the floor of a department store under bright fluorescent lights became garish and tiresome in a dimly lit living room at night.

 

The other area where I think long term listening can help distinguish between two different but enjoyable presentations is to see which of the two makes different recordings sound *more* different from each other. Over some period of time and many different recordings, does a component/player give everything a certain sameness, a certain sound? Then for me, two things will be true: (1) You'll grow ever more tired of the sameness as time goes on, so best not keep that component/player; and (2) the component/player with the least "sound" of its own, that lets different recordings sound more different from each other, is doing the best job of faithfully and accurately reproducing the music.

[esldude]

to Jud,

 

Well, if in side by side comparisons you find two players different, then sure you might not determine until later which you like better. Or you might find you like one better at times and another at other times. Or it will take time to see which makes you most satisfied more of the time than the other. That is a good point.

 

One of the things I like about the Tact Room Correction is you store multiple response correction curves. Some are better for some of my recordings and other recordings benefit from a different curve. I also have a couple curves that are suited for quieter barely above background listening, and one for louder than usual listening.

 

Another interesting thing about those curves is how to choose them. While the Tact allows objective measures in detail of what is going on in room and the curves can be anything you choose, it is only through long term subjective listening that I can become satisfied with any of them. Grosser decisions about the curve are possible in a few minutes, but smaller tweaks to them take longer.

 

One can wonder if some of the smaller tweaks to the curve are even audible. I have made examples for the experience of making three nearly identical curves. Alter some part of the reference upward, and some part downward. One can get it so that compared side by side you cannot tell any difference for either vs. the reference curve. But compare the two altered curves and they are different enough to perceive. Which isn't a surprise, but it is an interesting subjective experience.

[audiozorro]

I guess I do not agree with the premise that long term listening is better for evaluating components. However, I will agree that long term listening is considered the most discriminating way to evaluate audio components.

 

The OP says he uses an analogy to think about the question in a logically dangerous way. Personally I don’t think using an analogy is dangerous but I do think that his choice of using paintings for an analogy for music is somewhat flawed.

 

Since music is a pleasure a better analogy would be food or sex. Perhaps with long term listening, eating or sexual activities you may become used to and more accepting of what you are being fed as it grows on you. But for most people it doesn’t take very long to discern something that sounds like crap, tastes like crap or feels like crap. You spit it out, move on or try to improve it or your enjoyment of it.

 

So at the basic and most fundamental levels, long term listening, eating or mucking is not necessary or better. However to discern why, or discriminate why, you love or hate something, especially if subtle differences are involved, then long term engagement is necessary unless you have extensive experience and depth. We expect reputable food critics to evaluate food in short time and I would venture to say the same is true for reputable audio or sex critics that are not financially supported by the industry that they are critiquing.

 

I believe few people have come to love something in time that they hated at first. I feel the majority of folks that love something at first come to love it less or dislike it as time goes by. Of course the lucky few are those who love something at first and are still in love with it years later.

[Julf]

I believe few people have come to love something in time that they hated at first.

 

Stockholm syndrome again...

[One and a half]

I re-read this text from What's Best Forum and it can settle a few points raised in these pages now and again.

 

"It’s All a Preference

We like to talk about neutrality vice preferences like there is really a black and white choice to be made. Although we can say with a high degree of certainty that there are measurable differences between electronics and speakers of any type with some measuring *better* in ways that have been deemed to be better, in reality, none of them are neutral. And I mean neutral in the fact that no electronics sound exactly like live music and the circuit has zero colorations. We just aren’t there yet people.

 

You like SS? That’s a preference. You like tubes? That’s a preference. You prefer single-ended amps over push-pull amps? That’s a preference. You think electrostats sound better than box speakers? That’s a preference. You like digital and not analog? That’s a preference. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. All of our systems are built upon our preferences.

 

So, given that no electronics or speakers are perfect, the sound and the gear we all buy are based on our preferences whether we care to admit it or not. While absolute fidelity may be our goal, we have no absolute fidelity at this point in time. I for one think there is much more work to be done in all links of the recording and playback chain before we can declare victory and say we have arrived and crossed the threshold of absolute fidelity."

 

It’s All a Preference

[Julf]

I re-read this text from What's Best Forum and it can settle a few points raised in these pages now and again.

 

Not sure 70 pages of discussion can settle much...

 

I think it can be summarized as "yes, that is one point of view".

[souptin]

Firstly, congratulations on a thoughtful and thought provoking opening post. Normally I find the comparisons between vision and hearing rather unhelpful, but not so much in this case.

 

I don't wish to spoil a civilised discussion by introducing controversy but (sorry):

 

If you're evaluating something via long term listening, how easy is it to rule out the possibility of equipment burn-in / break-in over the same period? It does seem to me that some of the subtle qualities that people have described as being revealed by long term listening are very similar to those attributed to burn-in. In theory you could have a second identical dac / amp / speaker which you keep switched off during your long term test, and then swap around... but I haven't seen any accounts of this.

[sandyk]

In theory you could have a second identical dac / amp / speaker which you keep switched off during your long term test, and then swap around... but I haven't seen any accounts of this.

 

Ideally, the second identical DAC or Amp should also be new, as some makes of large value Audio grade electrolytic capacitors are reported to take quite a few hours before fully stabilising.Some of the big Elna electrolytics are reported to do this. The Wyred4 Sound DAC has quite a lot of PSU electrolytics, and there are numerous reports about how long it takes to reach it's full potential. Many reporting how disappointing it can sound initially. No, it's not because the owner's brain adapts either, like some hard line objectivists and Hydrogen Audio types/refugees will undoubtedly claim !!

[Julf]

No, it's not because the owner's brain adapts either, like some hard line objectivists and Hydrogen Audio types/refugees will undoubtedly claim !!

 

What makes you so sure? This whole thread is about how the brain adapts...

[sandyk]

What makes you so sure? This whole thread is about how the brain adapts...

Julf

The title of this thread is "Why is long term listening better for evaluating components?"

Although Dennis may be attempting to steer the thread in that general direction as he is utterly convinced, just like you appear to be, that most C.A. members that report hearing things that can't be presently explained by what you were taught when you still had a full head of hair,or read in your oft quoted Wiki articles are delusional. (stuck out tongue, grin)

Regards

Alex

[Julf]

Although Dennis may be attempting to steer the thread in that general direction as he is utterly convinced, just like you appear to be, that most C.A. members that report hearing things that can't be presently explained by what you were taught when you still had a full head of hair,or read in your oft quoted Wiki articles are delusional. (stuck out tongue, grin)

 

Alex,

 

As I recently wrote in another thread: It would be better if people would stick to debating issues rather than personalities. I know presenting facts is much harder than snide remarks about the personal hygiene of the other participants, but factual arguments might just help keep the debate productive and civil...

 

[sandyk]

Julf

IF you hadn't tried to make the title of the thread into something it wasn't,or appear to ridicule the explanation I gave about the forming of electrolytic capacitors, I wouldn't feel the need to poke a bit of fun at you.

Unfortunately, the inmates from Hydrogen Audio appear to be on some kind of a roster system to convert the heathens in other forums to their regimented way of thinking, where actually LISTENING plays no part.

I am about to shut down the PC for the night so feel free to continue on your anti subjectivity crusade.

Alex

[Julf]

IF you hadn't tried to make the title of the thread into something it wasn't,or appear to ridicule the explanation I gave about the forming of electrolytic capacitors, I wouldn't feel the need to poke a bit of fun at you.

 

I am sorry to hear that you perceive asking for what makes you so sure about your opinion as ridicule.

 

Unfortunately, the inmates from Hydrogen Audio appear to be on some kind of a roster system to convert the heathens in other forums to their regimented way of thinking, where actually LISTENING plays no part.

 

I have no idea of what the "Inmates from Hydrogen Audio" are doing or not. You made a claim, I asked for your reasons to believe the things you stated.

 

I am about to shut down the PC for the night so feel free to continue on your anti subjectivity crusade.

 

I guess asking for facts does indeed technically qualify as an "anti subjectivity crusade".

[Paul R]

Alex,

 

As I recently wrote in another thread: It would be better if people would stick to debating issues rather than personalities. I know presenting facts is much harder than snide remarks about the personal hygiene of the other participants, but factual arguments might just help keep the debate productive and civil...

 

 

Please refrain from acting like the police. Last I looked, nobody had appointed you the arbitrar of correct behavior, or the judge of what is and is not factual. You are quite welcome to present your own Interesting orbamusing opinions and "facts" but have no call to be acting like you have a right to tell other people what to think or believe, or even how to behave.

 

By the way, it was my understanding you are, or were, quite active on Hydrogen Audio. Indeed, I had heard but never personally verified, you were in the middle of several of the more acrimonious debates over there. Hearsay of course, and merely heard in passing during a recent conference about non-audio subjects. Is that understanding in error?

[Julf]

Paul,

 

please refrain from acting like the police. Last I looked, nobody had appointed you the arbitrar of correct behavior, or the judge of what is and is not factual. You are quite welcome to present your own Interesting orbamusing opinions and "facts" but have no call to be acting like you have a right to tell other people what to think or believe, or even how to behave.

 

By the way, it was my understanding you are, or were, quite active on Hydrogen Audio. Indeed, I had heard but never personally verified, you were in the middle of several of the more acrimonious debates over there. Hearsay of course, and merely heard in passing during a recent conference about non-audio subjects. Is that understanding in error?

 

Indeed in error. I don't think it is a good idea to spread erroneous hearsay, but that is of course my personal opinion. Who am I to tell you how to behave?

[Paul R]

Paul,

 

please refrain from acting like the police. Last I looked, nobody had appointed you the arbitrar of correct behavior, or the judge of what is and is not factual. You are quite welcome to present your own Interesting orbamusing opinions and "facts" but have no call to be acting like you have a right to tell other people what to think or believe, or even how to behave.

 

 

 

Indeed in error. I don't think it is a good idea to spread erroneous hearsay, but that is of course my personal opinion. Who am I to tell you how to behave?

 

 

Most excellent. I am pleased to hear that, though I admit, I had given that particular "fact" very little probability of being true.

 

It is indeed then, always good, to verify supposed facts at the source. How often "facts" that everone "knows" turn out to be erroneous! Especially "facts" etablished from third party sources and not from personal research or experience.

 

In this case, since you are the source, it is perfectly appropriate for you to tell me the facts, or verify or diasabuse me of the facts. It would be inappropriate of me to question you on the veracity of your facts. Impolite even. Doesn't matter what someone else thinks about whether your facts are true or not. Don't even need a blind test to accept them now, do we? No matter if some jumped up gasbag authority disputes them either, no?

 

Amazing how that works, isn't it? Especially in a civilized environment like CA.

 

Paul

[Julf]

Most excellent. I am pleased to hear that, though I admit, I had given that particular "fact" very little probability of being true.

 

I am assuming that by "fact", you are here referring to the claim that I somehow was "in the middle of several of the more acrimonious debates over [at Hydrogen Audio]". I am glad to hear that you didn't give that claim much credibility. On the other hand, you did state "it was my understanding you are, or were, quite active on Hydrogen Audio", an equally false statement, unless you consider 30 messages in total, ever, to be "quite active".

 

It is indeed then, always good, to verify supposed facts at the source.

 

Agree. And in the case of my activity on HA, it is something anyone can verify in about 5 seconds.

 

In this case, since you are the source, it is perfectly appropriate for you to tell me the facts, or verify or diasabuse me of the facts. It would be inappropriate of me to question you on the veracity of your facts. Impolite even. Doesn't matter what someone else thinks about whether your facts are true or not.

 

I am not quite sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that a) it is inappropriate to question any claims, and b) that it doesn't matter if something is true or not?

 

I guess part of my confusion hinges on the word "fact". When Alex stated that the audible effects of burn in is not because the owner's brain adapts, I would define that a claim. A fact, on the other hand, is according to one widely accepted definition, "something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience via proof. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments, mathematical facts by logical proofs.". So for a claim to become a fact, proof is needed, and I would view it as perfectly acceptable to ask if any proof exists.

 

This should not be confused with an opinion - "in general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. [...] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."

 

If opinions are presented as such, as in "I think vinyl sounds better than CDs", I agree it would be inappropriate to question that. We all have the right to believe and feel whatever we want, as long as it is understood that that is our own, subjective view.

[souptin]

Ideally, the second identical DAC or Amp should also be new

 

Yes, agreed. I was thinking that the biggest difficulty in organising such an experiment would be persuading the manufacturer to loan you two units instead of one, which might explain why I couldn't find any accounts of such a test. Maybe I just don't know where to look or didn't look hard enough, of course. It would be interesting, and I think relevant to this topic, to hear from CA members who have been able to compare new vs burn-in, even if not under strict test conditions. First hand accounts may be anecdotal, but they cannae be any worse than pure theory or a reference to someone else's report, can they? I eagerly anticipate enlightenment (please to read with irony, I just like the 'enlighten me' joke).

 

 

Some more thoughts on the op:

 

Why is long term listening considered the most discriminating way to evaluate audio components?

...

Would like to read other people’s ideas on this. Maybe some good explanations for why long term listening is better or more discriminating.

 

Personally it's because that's the only way I can come to an understanding about what it is I like about a component. So, usually it comes down to the type of music I start reaching for, and what that tells me about the sound qualities of the electronics. No doubt other factors come into play over the long term, things like ergonomics & compatibility with the existing kit... I don't see much of a down-side to that though.

 

Whether or not long term listening allows you to accurately identify differences that cannot be heard in quick comparisons... I'm going to have to pass on that one. It seems logical that once identified, you should thereafter be able spot such differences very quickly, the audio equivalent of a 'tell', if you like. But I've never formally put this to a test.

 

It's all very interesting and challenging to debate and test the limits of audibility... For personal choices I'd argue that it's more a case of which set of qualities you would rather live with, in which case longer term listening can only be helpful. Also worth thinking of your existing, bought and paid for, gear as well, in the sense of what it can tell you about what you really like, as opposed to what you think you should like. Think, for example, about a highly detailed professional studio monitor versus a euphonic consumer speaker.

[Jud]

Firstly, congratulations on a thoughtful and thought provoking opening post. Normally I find the comparisons between vision and hearing rather unhelpful, but not so much in this case.

 

I don't wish to spoil a civilised discussion by introducing controversy but (sorry):

 

If you're evaluating something via long term listening, how easy is it to rule out the possibility of equipment burn-in / break-in over the same period? It does seem to me that some of the subtle qualities that people have described as being revealed by long term listening are very similar to those attributed to burn-in. In theory you could have a second identical dac / amp / speaker which you keep switched off during your long term test, and then swap around... but I haven't seen any accounts of this.

 

First, apologies for moving the thread back on-topic. ;-)

 

souptin, good question. Of course we can't be entirely certain, no matter what the cause(s) of "burn-in" (whether it's us becoming accustomed to the sound of a component, or the component's sound changing, or both), how large a role that may play in our evaluation of the sound of a component, or of two components we're comparing. I'll bring up two items for discussion in this regard.

 

- First, something general: There's a psychological doctrine known as "precedence," which can be boiled down to something as trite as "First impressions are lasting ones." People tend to form a framework for thinking about something very quickly, then fit additional facts into that framework. It's why, contrary to all the movies you've seen, law students are taught that it's the *opening* statement in a trial rather than the *closing* statement that is most important. To the extent this doctrine is valid, it would tend to raise in importance initial comparisons between the sounds of two components. That would tend to minimize the importance of *both* burn-in and long term listening *if* you initially prefer one component to another. As I said in my initial comment in this thread, I think long term listening is mainly useful to compare components if you like both initially.

 

- Second, something specific to my experience (though others may share it): When I burn in a component at home, I usually have the component playing with the volume turned down. The exceptions are at initial hook-up; at about 50 hours; and finally at about 100 hours. So I hear the component at three different points, but don't have the chance to listen and become accustomed to it between those points. Most recently I've done this with a DAC and cables. With the DAC to a very large extent, and with the cables to a lesser extent, my subjective impression was that the sound changed between those three points. When I have compared components at a dealer, they have already been burned in. So both the initial and long term impressions were after burn-in.