2. amps-preamps
  3. 1035814646

Equipment Break-in: Fact or Fiction

Is it just me, or does anyone else believe that all of the manufacturers' and users' claims of break-in times is just an excuse to buy time for a new users' ears to "adjust" to the sound of the new piece. Not the sound of the piece actually changing. These claims of 300+ hours of break-in for something like a CD player or cable seem outrageous.

This also leaves grey area when demo-ing a new piece as to what it will eventually sound like. By the time the break-in period is over, your stuck with it.

I could see allowing electronics to warm up a few minutes when they have been off but I find these seemingly longer and longer required break-in claims ridiculous.
bundy

Showing 3 responses by ake

ake
48 posts
 
Just out of the curiosity.. how would you apply the "Social psychological phenomenon called positive test bias" to explain the difference between hearing "no (or less) detail" before burning in and "much more detail" after burning in?

I bet that psychological phenomenon cannot make you hear more things unless you drink too much!!!

Just my 2 cents.

Ake
ake
48 posts
 
It should be failry easy to test this hypothesis. All we need is just a blind test of the same equiptments with diffrence burn-in time (may be 5 of them: brand new, 10, 50, 100 and 500 hours burn-in time?). Actually, I wonder why those audio magazines do not try this kind of test? If the majority of the well respected testers can't ID the equiptment correctly (or at least be able to group them), that should indicate something.

My 2 cents again.

PS I think we should call it truce. If you don't believe in burning in then don't do it and go enjoy the musics!!

Ake
ake
48 posts
 
Aball, the reason I suggested the blind test is that there are no bias during the test and the result should be nutral. Personally, I do not oppose burning in stuffs as I believe in it too. Just try to give some solutions that should be universally accepted.

Ake
More to discover