Is Break-In essential and potentially dangerous for the Audiophile?


Recently, I started a blog on my website (amorsound.com).  Following is the first blog post...made a couple of month ago....

Let's begin with a basic definition. Break-In is the manufacturer's suggested (or required) usage time for the component to achieve FULL performance. I've seen a few recommended break-in periods as high as 400hrs. Ugh! Also, some manufacturers suggest (or require) a specific METHOD of usage to achieve full performance.

Break-In is often necessary, but also a potentially dangerous part of the Audiophile journey. Why? Three reasons...

Delayed gratification: We want our sound, and we want it now. ☺ Waiting up to 400hrs of PLAYTIME (i.e., almost 17 days) to hear your purchase is beyond unwelcome…., it's painful. We're audiophiles because we LOVE the sound. As modern consumers, we're not accustomed to (nor do we appreciate) delayed gratification.

Impaired selection: Audiophiles are EXTREMELY interested in achieving maximum performance of our systems and ANY components we select for audition or inclusion. We spend significant time and energy selecting SUSPECTS, then PROSPECTS and finally consummating PURCHASES of components to audition. After expending this effort, we shouldn't want to make selection mistakes. The following are a few common selection mistakes.

  • False-positive #1 (can't wait): Audition the component at the BEGINNING of the Break-In period, love it, and keep it. Later, as component elements complete break-in, the performance devolves so significantly that it's NO LONGER a good selection. Stuck!
  • False-positive #2 (self-fulfilling prophecy): Dedicate significant resources (i.e., time, energy, money, etc.) toward selecting a component. Once selected...
    • You want this component to deliver the anticipated joy and sound.
    • You want to hear improvement during the break-in period.
    • You want to believe this component is a winner.

During break-in, you become ACCUSTOMED to this component in your system (warts and all)…so you keep it. Once the new component EXCITEMENT wears off, you realize you made a selection mistake. Stuck!

  • False-negative (can't wait): This is the exact opposite of False-positive #1. Listen at the beginning of the break-in period, hate it, and move on. You're blessed in this case because "you don't know what you don't know." Admittedly, I've been the lucky benefactor of SEVERAL components that weren't fully broken in, did the required break-in, and found "manna from heaven." Good for me, but bad for the original owner.

Diminished performance: With some components, the break-in method isn't just crucial to achieving the full performance of the component…it's required. If a proper method of break-in isn't utilized, some components can be IRREPARABLY damaged…that is, they'll NEVER achieve full performance. I've not knowingly suffered this fate, but I'd be PISSED if I did. ☹

Since Break-In can ONLY introduce delayed gratification, impaired selection decisions, and/or poor performance, Audiophiles should try to avoid it. (Some of you masochists may actually love the break-in process. Not me.)

By design, ALL CH Acoustic products deliver 100% of their designed performance at first use. There's no delayed gratification, no impairment of your selection decision, and no performance risk from Break-In. You connect the CH Acoustic cables and cords, press play, and listen.

  • Your smile should show up in the first ten (10) seconds.
  • Your audiophile enjoyment will last LONG past the first 400hrs of playtime.
  • You can spend your time and energy ridding yourself (and your system) of the former cable loom, maybe even putting some money back in your pocket. ☺

128x128amorsound

Showing 5 responses by douglas_schroeder

audition_audio, did you bother to read the article? I believe I explain that the phenomenon is perceptual over time as one acclimates to the system. 

Look at engine/automotive/mechanical definitions and the phrase "break in" or "run in" is used of the initial use. 

For the audiophile in the home this is a distinction without meaning. The problem is not terminology, it is the expectation of significant change related to usage.
Once again, for the community’s benefit:
"Audiophile Law: Thou Shalt Not Overemphasize Burn In" at Dagogo.com

The hubris, and time wasting of audiophiles never ends, including threads such as this.

CH Precision has precisely zero advantage over any other gear, even OPPO, in this regard. Far too much nonsense around here. :(

BTW, one of the conclusions of the OP is correct; "Burn in" is a disadvantage to the audiophile. It prevents advancement while waiting for magical things, purportedly "scientific" things, to happen. It stonewalls decision making and increases the odds that a mediocre piece will end up being kept. However, the OP reaches those decisions through incorrect assumption, it seems, rather than through actual comparison, which is why he fumbles when it comes to thinking it's due to the CH Precision gear. So, a half-correct assessment. That's closer to reality than most here. 

There are other problems with burn in, but I'm not going to take the time to elucidate them here. 
I am not saying that "differences" are not happening.  I am saying they are subjective,  not actual,  as demonstrated by my testing. It takes an overconfident person to not accept that possibility. I was such an overconfident person on this and other topics in audiophilia many years ago, but humbled myself to do informal testing,  which changed my opinions. 

I encourage those who think they are absolutely sure of this to check their pride by doing as I did in the article.  It will be a wake up call. 

BTW, I plan on revisiting such testing in the future with different gear, which if the results are similar,  would reinforce my conclusions. 
It will be observed that those are typically tubed components, and I am not saying that tubed electronics cannot change sound in warm up. However, it would be interesting to do my testing with more tube gear. If I recall correctly, one of the components in my comparison was the Peachtree Nova, which has tube, and there was no difference.

BTW, the only thing being challenged by me is the pride of audiophiles thinking their ears/perception is more stable than electronics.