I could be crazy but part of it is our ears getting used to what we are listening to. All the stuff I bought was broken in before I played it It is best to work out the woofer a bit to loosen it up. It's all about the bass, that bass.
Break in time that extends to months or maybe even years!!
On another thread, we have a well known and well respected piece of gear ( and great sounding too, IME) that according to the member who is reviewing it, needs in excess of 1000 hours to fully break in!!
While we have all heard of gear that needs immense amounts of 'break in' time to sound its best, usually gear that involves teflon caps, I question whether this very long break in time is the job for the consumer? Is it reasonable for a manufacturer of audio gear to expect the consumer to receive sub-par performance from his purchase for potentially several months ( years?) before the true sound of the gear in question can be enjoyed? Or, is it ( or should it be) perhaps the job of the manufacturer of this gear ( usually not low priced) to actually accomplish the 'break in' before releasing it from the factory? Thoughts...
While we have all heard of gear that needs immense amounts of 'break in' time to sound its best, usually gear that involves teflon caps, I question whether this very long break in time is the job for the consumer? Is it reasonable for a manufacturer of audio gear to expect the consumer to receive sub-par performance from his purchase for potentially several months ( years?) before the true sound of the gear in question can be enjoyed? Or, is it ( or should it be) perhaps the job of the manufacturer of this gear ( usually not low priced) to actually accomplish the 'break in' before releasing it from the factory? Thoughts...
114 responses Add your response
Hello @DaveyF, I confess that I have not always purchased a component based on personal experience...
In the late 1970s, I purchased a Sony "high-end" cassette player solely based on looks, pedigreed reviews, specs, and frequency response graphs without ever hearing it... Do not remember the model (maybe TC-755?), but it belonged to the first series featuring solenoid-activated controls... It turned out to be a totally doggie-breath device, musically and mechanically, regardless of break-in.
ARC LS-2B linestage was recommended by my dealer... Never heard it until it was delivered. Was initially dry, visually underwhelming, but became musically wonderful after break-in.
Rowland M725 was a "closed-ears" purchasing decision that I reached after my previous experience with M7, M312, and M625.
Rowland M925 purchased was also close-box... Was based on all my previous experience with Rowland amps, from M7 onwards, as well as after discussions with the manufacturer. So were Rowland Aeris and Criterion.
Rowland M7 was purchased after a quest of several years auditioning in Toronto, Vancouver, and NYC. So were EAD T1000 transport and D7000 DAC, Aragon 4004, MG 3A speakers, ARC REF3, and Esoteric X-01.
Rowland M312 and M625 I fell in love with at RMAF. Vienna Mahler and Die Muzik were also acquisitions resulted from steamy RMAF love-affairs.
Except for Rowland M7, already 10 years old at purchase and for which I was its third daddy, all devices benefited significantly from break-in... Perceived stabilization ranged from 600 hrs (ARC Ref3) to about 2200 (Aeris).
Worth pointing out that some of the above sounded unpleasant out of the box, other ones merely juvenile and incomplete. The old Sony cassette player was the only one that never graduated to being a fine music maker... ARC Ref3 was the only device that I retired out of audiophrenic desperation... the 6550 tube in its power supply seemed to require upwards of 500 hours to come up to full bloom, and started to sonically sag some 400 to 600 hours after that.
G. |
G. You bring up a good point. I do wonder how many times consumers in this hobby do what you do...versus buy something without A) ever listening to it, B) buy it based on price...and usually the higher the better, C) buy it based on a reviewer’s opinion D) buy it based on the recommendation from their dealer or E) buy it based on measurements alone.. |
Hello @limomangus, nothing has changed since the old golden days... If you are nirvanized by factory-fresh equipment, or after a couple of hours of burn in, or 50, 100, 250, or whatever hours of break-in, continue to be happy about your audiophilic ways. As for me, I am not even faintly concerned about new times, old times, what manufacturers say, dealers say, measurements say, reviewers say in print or on-line, audiophilic lore, urban legends, punditic profferings, conspiracy theories, or plain old-fashioned "what the neighbors say"... I just enjoy myself and trust my ears. Thus continue to cheerily break-in new equipment until I am satisfied that its performance has stabilized, and has presumably plateaud, regardless of what this might take, and whatever my "neighbors" say. G.
|
We have Chain Pickerel in Mass, similar to Pike and Musky. I'm not familiar with Walleye but they very much resemble the salt water Striped Bass but are not closely related. I can't tell you in if a cable has 200 hundred or 800 hours on it but I've been enjoying my system while eating brown trout lately. |
I forget to say that this first citation is effectively not from Einstein... It seems trite or a banality... Yes... Not meaningful ? no...And like my "translation" or reformulated statement made it clear, there is a link between the citation falsely attributed to Einstein, and the real citation of Einstein.... the 2 citations are well related to this break-in problem, which is also, in some aspect, an optimization problem.... My" translation" of the trite citation in a new statement of it, refer to what in mathematics, computer science and economics, is call an optimization problem , the problem of finding the best solution from all feasible solutions. is it not clear? With this short post about this "trite" citation, falsely attributed to Einstein, I was willing to only makes my point in few clear words... But you push me to be more clear, and clarify something that is apparently trite but meaningful tough.... my best.... |
Nope, sorry. Einstein would never say something so trite. It doesn’t mean anything.You are right :) but I love this " trite" citation.... Sometimes banality reflect the situation itself....This was my point.... It is for the last decades in all audio thread this break-in "problem" that is not one simple problem but reflective of a complex situation, a trite problematic, implicating an experiencing subjectivity and a complex audio system ..... I dont think blind test, or comparison will settle that, except for those who call the improvement in some break-in process an illusion because it is mostly only subjectively experienced ( not necessarily an illusion or a placebo tough) and not measurable the way they will like it... Like say Einstein in a non trite citation: "“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.” And this apply also to the break- in problem …. But you said that this citation is not meaningful.... I dont think so... This is my translation: “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” All parameters linked to a problem cannot always be takes into account by the problem's statement And more than that some parameters of the problem are sometimes secondary for the solution... |
I’m from Michigan so what do I know - I’ll bring some Bell’s BTW, https://northernwilds.com/pickerel-vs-walleye-setting-the-record-straight/ |
| Post removed |
fundsgon Geoffkait, true enuf. He did however, predict orbital precession. His calculations perfectly predicted mercury’s orbit, which is subject to a higher degree of precession than the outer planets. Orbital dynamics using classical physics are not able to accurately predict the orbit of Mercury, Einstein’s Gravitational physics is needed for that. recently, a star orbiting the milky ways central black hole was shown to be behaving as Einstein’s calculation predict. Astounding. Anyone know what music Herr Einstein listened to? Okay, now we’re light years off topic. My fault. >>>>You’re getting warm. It was Einstein’s theory of General Relativity that explained Mercury’s orbit. Ironically perhaps it’s inaccurate to use the term gravitational physics as that’s a classical physics term. That was the whole point of the Mercury orbit anomaly, that it couldn’t be entirely explained by gravitational physics. |
Geoffkait, true enuf. He did however, predict orbital precession. His calculations perfectly predicted mercury’s orbit, which is subject to a higher degree of precession than the outer planets. Orbital dynamics using classical physics are not able to accurately predict the orbit of Mercury, Einstein’s Gravitational physics is needed for that. recently, a star orbiting the milky ways central black hole was shown to be behaving as Einstein’s calculation predict. Astounding. Anyone know what music Herr Einstein listened to? Okay, now we’re light years off topic. My fault. |
mahgister Albert Einstein once wrote on a blackboard: “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” >>>>>Nope, sorry. Einstein would never say something so trite. It doesn’t mean anything. |
fundsgon Albert Einstein could predict the orbital precession of a star around a black hole, but not even he could predict the break-in period of a pair of bookshelf speakers. >>>>His prediction was all the more remarkable as Einstein didn’t believe in black holes until his death. He became a strong believer of black holes after his death. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Albert Einstein could predict the orbital precession of a star around a black hole, but not even he could predict the break-in period of a pair of bookshelf speakers. But seriously, I recently purchased a pair of speakers. I demoed them at the dealer with my amp and CD player. The dealer would not sell me the demo pair because, according to him, they took forever to break in. The new speakers sound fabulous right out of the box, but aren’t quite as dynamic as the demo pair. We shall see if they become so, but for now the music brings tears to my significant other. Well, maybe me too, on occasion, after a few drinks. |
@ebm I agree. McCormack dna-750s’ pair have been upgraded to Teflon caps. Probably,not broken in yet. They do have a much different sound from turn on- and the first hour, to leaving powered up for 24+ hours. I’m sure my last post delved into this, it is true, there’s a colder sound, and the mids and bass just don’t sound right. After 24+ hours of just being in the “on” position, with the preamp, and CD player. The first couple hours are colder, less goosebumps for sure. Turned on Friday evening after work about 5-6 pm, left on til Saturday evening, the sound is so much different, it is a night and day difference. I’m a huge believer, and it is true, when. The components are warmed up, they are relaxed and just have a nice tone to them. especially when I play the CDs of the LP’s I recorded to them, they do have a nice warm sound,no fatigue at all. The few pops and ticks are very welcome, as I love the album sound. Even the Yamaha receiver and SL-1200mkII I use to play into my computer to record the LP’ I LEAVE. ON FOR at least an hour to warm up. I do notice a difference. As far as a year,. Mine are never left on continuously, off for storms, vacation, and when not listening. Good reading in here. |
heaudio123 stepping in it big time: Does anyone have the current price per acre on swamp land in Florida in this current pandemic? Why? Are you a real estate agent? Because you sure don’t seem to be an audiophile. CES stands for Consumer Electronics Show. Stan Ricker is an audiophile legend. The place was packed. With industry insiders. The guy I roomed with, he had more parts and equipment than you could stuff in a large fishing tackle box. That’s just one guy. One random guy. This was an audience full of just that same sort of "random guy". Hell yes they had the part, and the solder, and replaced it. Chris Brady was there, standing right next to me. https://teresaudio.com You can apologize any time now. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
heaudio123 I believe that is the suppliers making the 1000 hour break-in claims ...That's an interesting belief. Is that like a faith-based belief, or do you have something that actually leads you to that belief? |
These are the kinds of things people think up when they have yet to develop any real listening skills. Its like in the beginning its real common to use one special recording and play it over and over again. To sit in the same spot, obsess over matched volume levels, on and on piling one ritual on another, one check and balance and qualification (reliably? double-blind? are you sure? really really sure? really really REALLY sure???) on top of another, with no end in sight. This is all goes away once you learn what’s what. Then all of a sudden it hits you how mind-numbingly soul sappingly boring it is to play the same little bit over and over again. Or even the same track. Or even to pause the track. All these crazy ideas of having to do it fast and everything be just a certain way it all goes POOF! When you learn to listen. Best example I know, one time at CES they had this crap PA system and it had some problem and it was outdoors and packed and from where I was way in the back it sounded like just your typical crap PA system. But to the guys up closer and towards the middle, they were complaining. And so people are running around back and forth trying to figure out what it is. And then someone in the middle yells out check the something or other. I couldn’t hear. Like I said, way in the back. But even from way back there it was clear something happened. Now instead of running around one guy is looking at one specific thing and then a few minutes later its fixed and the show goes on. Word travels fast. Within minutes the word reaches even to me way in the back. The guy was Stan Ricker. He said there’s a bad resistor in the crossover. Or cap. Something like that. Been a long time. Anyway, point is, this guy listening for the first time to an absolute piece of crap system, outdoors, and with mega-distractions, was able to diagnose an electrical fault right down to the discrete part involved BY EAR! And he didn’t need no double-blind A/B or any of that. Listening skills. Get some. |
| Post removed |
fundsgon Start the a/b test with a component for which it should be easy to discern the difference between new out of the box and then after 1000 hours of normal playing. A pair of full range speakers should do the trick, handily. Well, actually two pair would be needed, one new the other run in for thousands of hours. That would be a really fun test to take part in. I’ll supply the post test beer, win and snacky things. >>>>>Sounds good to me. See ya in about a year, then? 🤗 |
Start the a/b test with a component for which it should be easy to discern the difference between new out of the box and then after 1000 hours of normal playing. A pair of full range speakers should do the trick, handily. Well, actually two pair would be needed, one new the other run in for thousands of hours. That would be a really fun test to take part in. I’ll supply the post test beer, win and snacky things. |
| Post removed |
heaudio123 Ultimately the only thing that matters is is the effect audible. Would be a relatively easy test, a new unit(s) and burned in unit(s) and do A/B/X analysis. Unfortunately that is anathema to many audiophiles. >>>>It almost sounds like you’re volunteering to do the required A/B/X analysis. I look forward to your analysis. That is unless it’s anathema to you. The confirmation of the audible effect of break-in is a sticky wicket, I’m afraid, if one attempts to compare the sound of a component before break-in to the sound after break-in. What prevents the earnest audiophile from trying to get to the bottom of break-in is not only the 🔜 uneven audible effects of break in 🔚 with but also the difficulty in making comparisons of the sound over long periods of time, e.g., two weeks. If one wishes to compare the sound of his system two weeks apart not only is his memory of the sound in the first case crucial to the test but also, perhaps more importantly, how can he attribute any differences in sound to only break-in since a slew of external and internal variables probably changed. Rarely does the intrepid audiophile sit still for 2 weeks. Surely he would make some changes to his system in that time, no? And shouldn’t time of day, day of week, the weather be considered in comparisons of sound? Nothing is easy, if it was easy everyone could do it. It is virtually impossible to control all the variables in tests like this, a test which on the surface seems like a slam dunk. |
| Post removed |
Yep. Break in of an audio component such as a capacitor or speaker surround, or more importantly an audio system, such as a preamp or speaker, could easily form the basis of a masters thesis or PhD dissertation. This would not begin to cover the multitude of material combinations that can be applied to any one loudspeaker or preamp system, so we’re left with debating assertions, which is entertaining and educational. |
| Post removed |
Thanks, my only point being that break-in is a real thing, but I certainly don’t know how long it takes. Speakers, amps, caps will likely take different lengths of time. Now, can I interest anyone in a newly designed amp using superconducting magnets? Break in will be 20 to 30 years at the specified power output. |
