buildafriend

Re: Audio Clocks and Aging
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2017, 09:05:20 AM »
It means to "program" the firmware, to put the 1s and 0s in permanent memory, much like programming (putting the code into non-volatile memory) a FLASH-memory-based microcontroller (they're all FLASH memory based now).

Not to be confused with "burning in" an audio cable.

I want to stick to the topic here so I'll be brief but there is no need to burn in an audio cable since it does not have any active components. A flex and continuity test is enough. You generally burn in active units such as the CPLD it's self overnight because there could be a faulty component surrounding it or a prolonged failure. There may be dualism to the the term "burn in." You may be referring to the compiler and the uploading of something like a .jed file to the CPLD. In my experience this has always been called "uploading the firmware."


abbey road d enfer

Re: Audio Clocks and Aging
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2017, 09:09:33 AM »
I would think that benb's reference to burning-in a cable was a joke.
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
"The important thing is not to convince, but to give pause for thought." (B. Werber)
Star ground is for electricians.

Andy Peters

Re: Audio Clocks and Aging
« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2017, 05:57:30 PM »
There may be dualism to the the term "burn in." You may be referring to the compiler and the uploading of something like a .jed file to the CPLD. In my experience this has always been called "uploading the firmware."

I've been doing this a long time, and going back to the days of one-time-programmable PROMs and PALs, through EPROMs and erasable PALs (UV-erasable with ceramic windows) through EEPROMs (electrically-erasable) and now flash cells in CPLDs and some FPGAs with same, "burning" has always meant "programming the thing."
"On the Internet, nobody can hear you mix a band"

Re: Audio Clocks and Aging
« Reply #23 on: November 13, 2017, 08:34:45 PM »
"burning" has always meant "programming the thing."
It comes from the early proms, where an array of "fuses" were selectively blown( burnt out) to store the data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmable_read-only_memory#History

Gene

abbey road d enfer

Re: Audio Clocks and Aging
« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2017, 02:51:04 AM »
Nevertheless, burning-in equipment before shipping it to the market is a more ancient procedure than the existence of ROM's.
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
"The important thing is not to convince, but to give pause for thought." (B. Werber)
Star ground is for electricians.

JohnRoberts

Re: Audio Clocks and Aging
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2017, 11:00:21 AM »
Nevertheless, burning-in equipment before shipping it to the market is a more ancient procedure than the existence of ROM's.
+1...   "Burning" (proms) is different than "burning in gear," which is different than burning in audio cables (that is total BS).  ::)

I suspect the original term may even come from a completely different industry. Since many electronic product failures are infant failures that occur early in the product's life, some manufacturers would burn in gear for hours (days?) to weed out these early infant failures.

Back in the 80s I would run rack gear overnight in a burn-in rack. A power timer would cycle these products on and off, putting them through multiple thermal cycles to help accelerate any marginal solder joints or flaky components.  Later at Peavey many power amp burn-in racks only took hours (or less) and included short circuit stress tests, but the same principle applies to weed out infant failures.

Later the audiophool community adopted burning in as some voodoo to overcome buyer remorse if some product did not immediately wow the customer... "it needs to burn in for several days"  (cough). I researched this for a reality check (back last century) and the closest mechanism I could find was "self-annealing".  Low noise semiconductor junctions can get noisy if allowed to reverse zener, which is why many low noise designs add clamp diodes in reverse across  low noise base-emitter junctions. Forced annealing to quiet down a noisy junction involves running elevated current forward through the junction. In theory self-annealing can occur at reduced current over longer time (I never confirmed this).

Caveat,, annealing refers to improving damaged junctions (and never completely fixes them), so burning in an undamaged junction should make no difference in that context.

JR
John Roberts
http://circularscience.com
Tune it, or don't play it...

Re: Audio Clocks and Aging New
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2017, 03:22:09 PM »
To me it's better, tighter stereo image , more precise high freq and reverb seems deeper. I don't know how to describe it very well but i can pick it 100% in blind test. I had people at my studio and they can hear it as well.

I had a similar situation regarding the clock on my Mytek DA, the superclock (internal clock of the Mytek) sounded better than the internal clock of the audio interface, several people noticed it too in blind tests, however the difference is really subtle and I would not spend a dime on a clock just to get a "better sound"
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 12:07:58 AM by Dualflip »