BEHRINGER Reference Amplifier A500

[mtrycrafts]

My charge to you mtrycrafts is not to tell others that they should scientifically prove to you that break-in exists, but for you to scientifically prove that it is impossible… using the knowledge and technology that will be available 100 years in the future. Because until then, when we'll know what it is we don't know today... there are no germs, man will never fly, and the world is flat.

That shows you the weakness in understanding how science works.
Someone makes a silly claim, and I need to disprove it? No. The claimant has the burden. It is not the issue that you have not experienced it yourself. You seem to accept that the claim by others, see your citations, is proof that it does, and that they, by their authority must be right, unquestioned. That is your business what you believe. Many will challenge such myth and bs.

As to explaining this myth, as that is all it is, it has not been shown that it exists like so many such claims. End of story.

As to that flat world, that is another urban legend. It was well known 1000s of years ago that it was not flat. I see much urban legend, quotes out of context still permeates everything, just like that post about the patent office that has been disproved not to be the case. I will look for it in my files.

 

[mtrycrafts]

The13thGryphon's post above about the fallibility of scientific forsight at times made me think of a quote I heard earlier today actually.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899
'

It would be great that urban legends would die a quick death when the facts are known. But, this is another example that once these are put to pen and paper, it has a life of its own.

This is totally bogus urban legend. Oh, that is what an urban legend is

Please, try to read the article on the research falsifying this urban legend:
Samuel SASS, "A Patently False Patent Myth- Still!" Skeptical Inquirer, May/Jun 2003, page 43

Maybe, just maybe, this myth will die one day.

 

[zildjian]

Please, try to read the article on the research falsifying this urban legend:
Samuel SASS, "A Patently False Patent Myth- Still!" Skeptical Inquirer, May/Jun 2003, page 43

Thanks for the article citation. Just read it. I'm passing it along to the friend who told me that quote yesterday!

 

[pearsall001]

Enough with the history lessons, interesting as they are. Let's get back on track & converse about the A500.

 

[Sarius]

Thanks for the article citation. Just read it. I'm passing it along to the friend who told me that quote yesterday!

What fun this turn in the discussion. But getting back to the Behringer and the power of false beliefs. I will remind you that my superstitious faith in the myth of break-in kept me from making an expensive mistake. When I first heard the A500, my heart sank as it sounded so awful. I mean, I felt that I'd just wasted my time and was ready to just pack the sucker up and ship it back. I then would have bought the $1,250 amp that Roksan makes to match the Kandy integrated specifically for bi-amping.

But, by donning my feather and beaded holy hat and playing the sacred music at high level for 20 hours while invoking the Gods of Capacitance, Resistance, and Inductance while chanting prayers to the Great Ohm, I did manage to convince myself that the amp has improved enough to keep thus saving me over a grand. Had I been a deluded unbeliever, no doubt the amp would have gone back immediately- so by giving myself time to deceive myself, I did save a substantial amount of money.

That said, I've set up the bi-amp and it sounds good! .....welll.... I've conned myself into liking the sound. I will mention that if one wishes to bi-amp with nonmatching amps, the second one has to have some way to adjust the gain. Initially, I fooled myself into thinking that the bass was too heavy and dialed it down on the Behringer which gave the illusion of improving the sound. Later today I'll be getting out my spl meter and 1/3 octave pink noise CD's and fine tuning the balance. The A500 seems to be an ideal amp for those who want to experiment with bi-amping without breaking the bank.

 

[skrivis]

What fun this turn in the discussion. But getting back to the Behringer and the power of false beliefs. I will remind you that my superstitious faith in the myth of break-in kept me from making an expensive mistake. When I first heard the A500, my heart sank as it sounded so awful. I mean, I felt that I'd

There is still a question about why you perceived the A500 to be so poor sounding upon first plugging it in.

Nevertheless, I'm glad it's working out for you, and that you saved a bunch of money.

 

[mike c]

sarius, now that you've tried the a500 ... no thoughts about buying a second one so you can monoblock both of them?

 

[Sarius]

There is still a question about why you perceived the A500 to be so poor sounding upon first plugging it in.

Nevertheless, I'm glad it's working out for you, and that you saved a bunch of money.

Yeah, no kidding. Now I can afford those activated crystals to put on the speakers, the tuned wood blocks, and the magical clock that makes everything sound ever so much better.

Now that I've been enlightened, I realize that the fact that one of the smoother and prettier female voices around sounded like Rosanne on a really bad day couldn't have actually been because it did, and the fact that after the Playing of the Sacred Music for 20 hours it was back to sounding smooth and mellow through the same equipment must have been a dream ( I was taking a shower when I realized this- too bad I don't live in Dallas).

So, I confess that I'm as puzzled as you, though perhaps I should spend some of the money I saved on amps to use for therapy to attempt to cure my obvious tendency to audio delusions

 

[Sarius]

sarius, now that you've tried the a500 ... no thoughts about buying a second one so you can monoblock both of them?

tempting, but with 120 watts driving the mid/tweeters and another 100+ on the woofers, I'm good. However, I do have a set of Theil CS 2.2's................. hmmmm.m.m.m.m

 

[WmAx]

What fun this turn in the discussion. But getting back to the Behringer and the power of false beliefs. I will remind you that my superstitious faith in the myth of break-in kept me from making an expensive mistake. When I first heard the A500, my heart sank as it sounded so awful. I mean, I felt that I'd just wasted my time and was ready to just pack the sucker up and ship it back. I then would have bought the $1,250 amp that Roksan makes to match the Kandy integrated specifically for bi-amping.

The power of the subconscious upon perception is amazing, and should never be underestimated. I have, at times, experienced similar perceptions as you [obvious annoying perception vs. something else], but when I put this under a controlled scenario[level matched within 0.1dB, and using randomized blind testing to identify the differences without having prior knowledge of which choice was which item], the differences disappeared, or were subtle[in the cases where rather substantial measurable differences were present between items].

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

My charge to you mtrycrafts is not to tell others that they should scientifically prove to you that break-in exists, but for you to scientifically prove that it is impossible… using the knowledge and technology that will be available 100 years in the future. Because until then, when we'll know what it is we don't know today... there are no germs, man will never fly, and the world is flat.

Science is a methodology for discovery of the physical universe, using control observation. The conclusions produced are always tenative, based on probabilites calculated with known data.

The Earth was known to be round, thousands of years ago, by the best objective observers. But even if what you state was true, this has nothing to do with science being flawed/error-ed. It would have to do with the available observations at the time. If you think science is not sufficient, please provide an example of another methodology that is superior, or even equal, in it's discovery efficiency.

One must also realize the different levels of probability based on the current state of knowledge in a particular subject. Audibility of amplifiers is not a mysterious/highly theoretical subject where unknown factors are regularly popping up. No one has shown, in recent times, under reliable conditions, that there is an unmeasurable parameter that leads to different sound. Given the high number of claimants/challengers, one would think it should be easy for them to produce an example that is repeatable, of amplifiers that sound different, but do not have substantial differences in measurements known to be relevant to audibility. Yet, no such positive differences have been discovered outside of poorly conducted experiments. This can only force a rational person to consider something as highly improbable.

-Chris

 

[mike c]

sarius, if we can be done with this break-in myth ... there is another myth you might be interested in that can be tested by monoblock a500's or for a little more, an EP2500

the myth that bigger wattage gives higher headrooom whether you need to play loud or not which results to "better" sound.

you don't want to test that? you still have some money headroom ... 1250 amp you were supposed to buy ... minus a 180 buck a500 ... hehe

 

[The13thGryphon]

The Earth was known to be round, thousands of years ago, by the best objective observers. But even if what you state was true, this has nothing to do with science being flawed/error-ed. It would have to do with the available observations at the time. If you think science is not sufficient, please provide an example of another methodology that is superior, or even equal, in it's discovery efficiency.

Belief in a flat Earth is found in humankind's oldest writings. Early Mesopotamian writings and drawings depict and describe the world as a flat disk floating in the ocean. These writings then formed the premise for early Greek maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus.

The Greeks were among those who speculated much about the shape of the Earth. As is well known, Thales claimed that the Earth was flat whereas Anaximander claimed it to be a column. The earliest claim for the round shape of the Earth known to me came from Pythagoras, who lived in approximately 560 BC to 475 BC. It was reported that Pythagoras reasoned from the perpetual round shape of lunar eclipses that the Earth could neither be flat nor cylindrical, but only spherical. Please refer to John Burnet's Greek Philosophy Part 1: Thales to Plato. (London: MacMillan, 1914), P.44. Similar views can be found in Aristotle's opus.

Certainly by the middle ages the general consensus was that of a spherical earth -- but that's not "thousands" of years ago. I guess you can quibble with my use of the term "a few hundred years ago" as well. It was indeed a little longer than that, but still a valid comparison in my mind as it was, at one time in history, the predominant belief.

All I am trying to point out is that there have been many times throughout history -- both long ago and quite recently -- when the commonly held, and scientifically supported or substantiated beliefs have later proven to be inaccurate.

I am not saying that science is "bunk", or that it should entirely be ignored. However, I am saying that it too should be carefully scrutinized, as scientific analysis and methodology are -- to this very day -- flawed mechanisms for drawing conclusions.

But, by donning my feather and beaded holy hat and playing the sacred music at high level for 20 hours while invoking the Gods of Capacitance, Resistance, and Inductance while chanting prayers to the Great Ohm, I did manage to convince myself that the amp has improved enough to keep thus saving me over a grand. Had I been a deluded unbeliever, no doubt the amp would have gone back immediately- so by giving myself time to deceive myself, I did save a substantial amount of money.

You're killin' me man... too funny. At least you've got a sense of humor about the whole thing. Congratulations, that seems to be a rare commodity around here. Enjoy your amp... no matter who tells you not to, or that you shouldn't be able to.

 

[WmAx]

The earliest claim for the round shape of the Earth known to me came from Pythagoras, who lived in approximately 560 BC to 475 BC. It was reported that Pythagoras reasoned from the perpetual round shape of lunar eclipses that the Earth could neither be flat nor cylindrical, but only spherical. Please refer to John Burnet's Greek Philosophy Part 1: Thales to Plato. (London: MacMillan, 1914), P.44. Similar views can be found in Aristotle's opus.

Pythagoras's observation is precisely what I referred to when I stated: "The Earth was known to be round, thousands of years ago, by the best objective observers."

500 B.C. was well over two-thousands years ago[which qualifies as "thousands of years"].

Note that I did not state popular opinion, but "by the best objective observers".

Certainly by the middle ages the general consensus was that of a spherical earth -- but that's not "thousands" of years ago. I guess you can quibble with my use of the term "a few hundred years ago" as well. It was indeed a little longer than that, but still a valid comparison in my mind as it was, at one time in history, the predominant belief.

Personally, I am not interested in general consensus, unless it was produced by carefully weighed/analyzed data. General consensus does not mean anything in itself.

All I am trying to point out is that there have been many times throughout history -- both long ago and quite recently -- when the commonly held, and scientifically supported or substantiated beliefs have later pr oven to be inaccurate.

Go back and read what I typed. Science is tentative, and it must be based on the available knowledge. Using science, one can not conclude something to be of high probability, if it has not been observed properly. Also, realize that some scientists are not good at their job, just as at any job you will find examples of people that have the position, but are rather poor at executing such.

I am not saying that science is "bunk", or that it should entirely be ignored. However, I am saying that it too should be carefully scrutinized, as scientific analysis and methodology are -- to this very day -- flawed mechanisms for drawing conclusions.

How flawed of a mechanism is science? In what specific ways?

Please respect my request made in the last post if you wish to continue down the current road. I will post it again, in case you missed it:

If you think science is not sufficient, please provide an example of another methodology that is superior, or even equal, in its discovery efficiency.

From what I gather of your posts to this point, you believe science to be flawed because it can not predict data that does not exist. Of course it can not do this, science is not fortune-telling. Or, do you call it flawed because some people practice bad science[which is not really science]? You mention careful scrutinizing and analysis. But anything that has not conformed to this, is not good science, by definition. Good science includes these very things, inherantly.

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

Thanks for the article citation. Just read it. I'm passing it along to the friend who told me that quote yesterday!

Great

And, if your friend tries to tell you that it was proven that a bumblebee cannot fly, well, look in that mag as well
It wasn't proven at all, just another urban legend

 

[mtrycrafts]

Enough with the history lessons, interesting as they are. Let's get back on track & converse about the A500.

Yes, we can, but cannot let myth/urban legend stand as a fact, can we?

 

[mtrycrafts]

I am not saying that science is "bunk", or that it should entirely be ignored. However, I am saying that it too should be carefully scrutinized, as scientific analysis and methodology are -- to this very day -- flawed mechanisms for drawing conclusions.
.

Yet, it would seem that you blindly accept the notion of 'break in.'
And, just based on some reviews? Or, am I mistaken here as there is no credible evidence for it what so ever.

 

[Sarius]

Break-In?

OK, I went looking and found this:
-------------
Break-In.
Myth Or Truth?

I can honestly say that no test ever conducted personally is as conclusive as this one. Allowing a component to settle in for a week or so will change your perception of it. After exhaustive trials on channels 1 and 2, I immediately connected up the previous unused channels 4 and 5. The result: The new channels sounded brassier, were not as solid in nature and lacked the timbre that channels 1 and 2 was giving.........

You can believe or disbelieve as you choose, though it does state clearly in the owner's manual that this was noticed by the manufacture as well. You can take that for what it is worth. I am a believer.
-----------------------
Here's the link to the whole article. The writer is a professional mixing engineer, so I'd tend to believe that he'd know what he'd been hearing.

'Brassier' is how I'd have described the A500 before it... did whatever it did.

I'm curious. Several of the posters have described experiments that could be done to test for break-in. Have these been done? Can someone post links to valid experiments that offer data that disconfirms break-in? This one seems to offer good confirming data from someone who seems qualified.

 

[MDS]

I've had my current receiver for a bit over two years now. When I moved to a new house, it suddenly sounded overly bright and shrill. I had to set the thermostat to a constant 75 degrees and play disco for 24 hours to let the receiver acclimate to its new surroundings. Now all is well and it sounds wonderful again.

Reality Check: I had to recalibrate the receiver to the new room acoustics and my ears 'broke-in' to the new sound in a few minutes.

 

[skrivis]

Yeah, no kidding. Now I can afford those activated crystals to put on the speakers, the tuned wood blocks, and the magical clock that makes everything sound ever so much better.

The idea that electronic equipment needs an extended "break-in" period is in the same class as these. None of them have any scientific basis.

Please note that I'm not saying that you didn't hear a difference. I'm just wondering _why_ you heard a difference.

It is extremely likely in this case that the difference you heard was between your ears. Don't take that as an insult - it happens to everybody and it's just the way we're built.