To me , and this is simply an opinion , but anyone who does not believe that components need to break in either cant hear or have not heard a properly set up system , learned its sonics and tested a well designed component and observed its changes over time. Cases in point. I recently upgraded to the Conrad johnson Act 2 . It replaced a seasoned CJ LS 17 2. At first it was sonically inferior to the 17 . The company specifically issues instructions that at least 100 hours are needed for the teflon caps to sound acceptable and after 300, the unit is broken in . It was as accurate of a time frame as i could have imagined and i logged the real playing time as proof. I also purchased Pure Note paragon IC s. There is a 30 day return policy. The company told me that a minimum of 200 hours break in is needed before they open up. I started a thread on this issue 2 weeks ago. They have dramatically altered their sonic signature and improved in virtually every aspect of its performance. This but 2 examples . Dont get me staretd on the aerial 20 t break in period where i was committed to an insane asylum before they broke in and became magical.. Breakin is a myth ... spare me. But .... thats my opinion.
Burn-in time Vs. Getting used to a sound
I have had much in the way of high end audio over the years. ...and the idea of an electronic item needing several hundred hours of use before sounding their best..is an accepted idea now (for the most part). Recently I have heard a growing thought of this just being the user getting used to the sound of a product.. Truthfully in the early days of Large Advents, DQ-10 Dahlquists and other gear..there was never any talk of burn-in time... Any thoughts out there on this.... Truth or Hype?
- ...
- 56 posts total
- 56 posts total