Burn in question and evaluation before burn in

For those of you wondering about the effects of both better caps AND burn-in, I propose a simple and low cost test:

1) Buy an inexpensive but decent quality tube amp in its stock configuration. My example will be the Almarro A205A. Low power but very nice sound, even stock.

2) Listen to your reference recordings and get the amps strengths and weaknesses firmly in your auditory mind, as best you can.

2) Change the cheap output caps for something nicer. I put in Sonicap Platinums; lots of people use V-Caps, sometimes Mundorf, pick your flavor. Make no other modifications to the amp. Doing this yourself is usually pretty easy and keeps the cost down.

3) Put the amp back in your system and fire it up, no prep, no burn-in.

4) Put your reference recordings back on and listen to them again, once again noting the strengths and weaknesses.

5) Listen to the reference recordings again at 50, 100, 200 and 400 hours. Feel free to accelerate the burn-in by leaving the equipment on 24/7 until it reaches the hour checkpoints.

I predict that during 4) you'll hear immediate and noticeable improvement in many areas. This often the case even with far more expensive amps, because so many use parts that aren't very good. This has little to with good design or bad design; it's mostly about hitting a price point. If that isn't convincing that better caps are generally an improvement, I'm not sure what else will.

I further predict that at the checkpoints in 5) you'll hear noticeable differences, some that will be improvements, some that won't be, but that at all the checkpoints the sound will be converging on what you hear at 400 hours. The total number of hours to "settle in" will, of course, vary with the equipment and the caps, but you get the picture.

At 400 (or whatever your "settled in" point is), I predict you'll think the sound is improved, possibly greatly improved, from what you heard immediately after the upgrade. If that isn't convincing that burn-in is real and generally an improvement, I'm not sure what else will.

If you only bought the amp for the experiment and not to keep, chances are good you'll be able to re-sell it for $50-100 more than you paid for it, because lots of people believe doing such upgrades makes a difference and are will to pay for a piece where they're already done and burnt-in. At worst, you'll sell it for what you paid for it and the only cost of the experiment will be the caps and maybe some shipping.

I was skeptical about both better caps and burn-in effects until I did the above experiment. I am no longer a skeptic.

David

Shadorne,

I'm glad we agree. :-)

I think the question then becomes, is it even possible to build an amp that is unaffected by component burn-in? My experience, and not just with the Almarro, leads me to believe that it's difficult, maybe impossible. Do you own such a piece, or have an example you know of? Do you think such pieces inherently sound better than ones that experience burn-in, or do they just drive you less crazy because they don't change?

David

Onhwy61,

That's a totally valid point, but it cuts both ways. If it's impossible for us burn-in believers to ascertain differences from 0 hours to 400, then it's also impossible for burn-in denyers (or those with a preference for equipment that doesn't burn-in, like Shadorne) to ascertain whether a piece sounds the same after 400 hours.

To do my above experiment really correctly, I guess you'd have to take two identical stock Almarros, modify one, let it burn in, and then compare it in an identical system and room to the stock one.

Of course, that would be the kind of scientific rigor that we audiophiles reject, because then we'd have nothing to argue about.

:-)

David

Shadorne,

I'm not an engineer, but your suggestions about burn-in resistant designs certainly sound plausible. Are your Anthem and Bryston designed around those principles? If not, are you searching for amplification that is? What have you found that meets your criteria?

Onhwy61,

Now you've opened another whole field of inquiry. I too believe mechanical components break in (not burn!) and that the effects are very audible. I own Zu Druids, and was discussing break in with Sean Casey, and he said the whole reason they started running in the big drivers at the factory was because they had too many returns; people would set them up and hate the sound of the new stiff drivers and want to send them back, not being patient enough to wait the 200-400 hours they need to loosen up.

I was thinking about your earlier post:

Are people seriously arguing that they can accurately compare the changes in the sound of high quality systems when separated by hundreds of hours of actual listening time? It can't be done. Memory is not that reliable. If a component takes 400 hours to fully settle in, that translates to 2 or 3 calendar months (assuming 3 or 4 hours/day of listening). There are too many variables involved for any reliable comparative conclusions to be drawn over such a time span.

If all that is true, how do we ever make judgments about whether one component is better than another? What time span is short enough to be able to accurate compare differences in what we hear? I use Albert's method of taking some notes, and I have my wife listen and give me her opinion - she hears completely different things than I do. I also use a few recordings I know VERY well as a reference.

If we truly have such lousy auditory memories, it certainly explains why we sometimes seem to be chasing our tails on the upgrade path.

David