Equipment Break-in: Fact or Fiction

If we could measure the "break-in" factor by some electronic means, then everyone would believe it, right? The main argument here, that I see, is that if there is no measured quantification of this phonomenon, then it is some sort of "psychological effect", or "self delusion". Isn't that what it is really coming down to? Some people only believe in measurements, and some people believe their ears. Same old story, using a differently phrased question. The same thing could be said for any piece of audio gear. Why buy a $50k audio system when a shelf unit has better specs and plays the same music? Any improvement in sound over the $129 shelf system must simply be "psychological". We are simply convincing ourselves that our high$$ systems sound better. There is no break-in, cables don't sound different, power conditioners can't make a difference in sound, tubes are "euphonically distorted", blind testing is the only true way, etc, etc, etc.

I agree with Seandtaylor's statement above. Let's agree to disagree. This is an argument that has its basis far from audio. It is in the individual's belief system. Some prefer to trust the limited measurement capacity of others, more than they would trust their own ears. Fine. Other people would rather trust their ears, than the limited measurement capacity of others. Fine too. The decisions made will directly affect the sound quality of each person's system. They will have to live with their philosophy/choices. My choices only affect what the results of my system will be, and nobody else's. The same is true with Seandtaylor's system. We promote what we feel is correct, and others can make their own decisions as well. Both of our viewpoints, actually, are made from a desire to communicate what each of us feels is a valid viewpoint, in a desire to help others with their decision making. Neither Seandtaylor or myself, would make these statements, if we didn't care about helping other people enjoy their systems, and possibly save money. We just have different ideas about how it should be done. That's all. Everyone can make up their own minds about what way they want to go.

Seandtaylor, I would respond to your question in this manner. Since I have no solid engineering proof of this phenomenon, I can't answer in terms of data. But I can point to the several posts on this thread where listeners who did not believe in break-in, were converted when they actually heard the phenomenon, even if they couldn't explain it. So, even though these particular individuals would have been psychologically pre-disposed to not hear the differences, they still heard them.

Regarding why nobody seems to hear "reverse break-in" where things start sounding worse with break-in time, it does happen, but then often goes back into the good sound again, as break-in time progresses. I have heard this happen and have heard others report the same thing. My gut feeling is that there is something happening to the equipment that is changed as electricity flows through it. Exactly what it is, I don't know, but I do hear it, and feel sure that it exists as a physical manifestation, and not a psychological one.

The reason I feel sure about this, is that I have, on many occasions, auditioned new items which I had no knowledge of. I had no way of knowing whether they would be good or bad or indifferent. I could tell the difference, good or bad, in these items. In some cases, even though I wanted to like an item, I disliked the sound of it. So I think that the psychological implications are really not valid.

About break in, now that I have concluded that I can hear differences in equipment, and am not self-deluding, then I can feel sure about my observations in the break-in arena. And I do hear changes taking place with time. I cannot fully explain every phenomenon that I observe, but that does not mean it isn't happening.

Ben, I'm sorry, but I just don't know the answer to that question. I'm sure there is some reason, but I don't know it. If I were to venture some kind of unfounded theory, I might say that there is some kind of "memory" in the structure of a wire, or part, that retains certain characteristics for a time. And maybe, it takes a little while to get this "memory" to settle in. And maybe once it is settled in, it takes a while for it to go away, which would explain why break-in needs re-doing after a long dormant period. And maybe once the wire or part is broken-in, it retains the "memory" of what it is like in its "warmed-up" state. Who knows? It is not impossible for a device to have a "memory", because as we know, a NiCd battery is well known to have a "memory" for charge and discharge levels. Plastics and rubber have "memories" for shape. Who's to say that a wire or part may not have a "memory" for something like this? When you first get the piece, maybe it has the "memory" of being manufactured, and no "memory" of conducting electrons. Maybe it takes a while for the electron conducting "memory" to build up. Once it does, maybe it stays in that good conducting state for a certain period of time. Maybe it affects the condition of the bonds on the valency electron shell, which allows better "jump" during flow, and the partially energized state may exist for a period of time. Maybe maybe maybe. Just thoughts.