Because a lot of stuff really does sound so good you notice immediately and right out of the box. Doesn't mean it doesn't continue to improve as it burns in.
Why no “Break in” period?
If people say there’s a break in period for everything from Amps to cartridges to cables to basically everything... why is it with new power conditioners that people say they immediately notice “the floor drop away” etc. Why no break in on that?
I’m not trying to be snarky - I’m genuinely asking.
I’m not trying to be snarky - I’m genuinely asking.
162 responses Add your response
If someone does have noisy power putting in the conditioner will have an immediate impact.The noise floor will drop but doesn't mean that their won't be some other changes in sound as the unit breaks in. As for expectation bias I suppose we all have it,but what do you call it when you get a new 'thing' and it's disappointing and doesn't meet expectations?I'm not able to deny to myself that the 'thing' I was so excited about acquiring sounds like shite. |
Paul McGowan- president of PS Audio states that break in is real and varies widely in the amount of time it takes for audio equipment to reach maximum performance. His company makes both stereo components and power conditioners. He has an extensive series of You Tube videos on audio subjects. Each is short in duration and addresses one topic. Very helpful. David Pritchard |
That's OK Doug. You hang back and I'll light the fire. Certain mechanical devices like cartridges and speakers do indeed have break in periods. All of our central nervous systems exhibit a characteristic called accommodation. All of you have done it numerous times under a plethora of circumstances. Your ears accommodate to loud volumes. Your sense of smell accommodates to noxious odors. Your vision accommodates to lighting. You even accommodate emotionally. Time heals all wounds. Electronics do not have a break in period. You are only accommodating to the sound of your system. Your first impression is the right one. As for Paul McGowen, he will tell you what ever it takes to sell his equipment. He is not Ralph Karsten, Nelson Pass or John Curl. You have to take whatever he says with a grain of salt. As for PS audio, their designs have gotten better over the years and you can not argue with the business model. |
Electronics do not have a break in period. You are only accommodating to the sound of your system. Your first impression is the right one.Nelson Pass, John Curl, and Ralph Karsten all believe in equipment break-in, burn-in, or what ever you want to call it. The late Charles Hansen did as well. |
Nelson Pass, John Curl, and Ralph Karsten all believe in equipment break-in, burn-in, or what ever you want to call it. The late Charles Hansen did as well. The point wouldn't be that some electronics designers think AUDIBLE break in occurs (note the capitalized word), but what evidence they have for the claim. Do they have objective measurements showing the change and Do they have tests correlating the objective changes with their audible consequences, that control for well known listener biases? If not, it's just more of the same audiophile anecdotes, unfortunately. |
jea don't kid yourself. The manufacturers have to remain politically correct or people won't by their equipment. You have to be a personal friend to know what they really think. Noromance, I did not make up that expression but in most relatively minor cases it is quite true. Obviously not if your child gets killed in a car wreck. Accommodation is used as a medical term and you are right. Everyone is accommodating all the time to numerous stimuli. All those guys "burn in" their equipment primarily to make sure they are working up to snuff and nothing is going to blow on the customer. Having said all that, just think about it from a manufacturer's standpoint. The customer calls because things don't sound just right. The easiest come back is, "well you have to break it in." Withing a few days or weeks the customer gets use to the sound and things are peachy keen. He thinks the unit broke in when in reality it is he that broke in. The human brain is way more flexible (and unpredictable) than an amplifier. Many companies now put something in their manuals like, "don't worry if it sound like crap. It takes three months for it to break in." When people don't know why they make stuff up. The Greeks made up Zeus. A very creative explanation for lightening. Anyone care to give us just one proven reason why a purely electronic unit's sound should improve after manufacturer's burn in? My ESLs break in because the diaphragms are initially over tensioned by a heat gun at the factory and it takes about 100 hours of play time for them to loosen up to the proper tension. The factory does not do it for obvious reasons. |
Actually it’s very difficult, for speakers, to separate out the effects of diaphragm break-in and the effects of break-in of internal wire, speaker cable, internal crossover parts like inductors and capacitors. You know what they say when you ASSUME something. It makes a fool out of me and Uma Thurman. |
"expectation bias"? This is practically a standard of movie reviews. How many times have we read about the reviewer coming into the movie not knowing anything about it? Or how the movie was nothing like the trailers? Or everyone said wow best movie ever, changed my life, another Marvel, the first two Guardians were great, this Star Wars was "supposed" to be, and so on. Its a standard thing, right? Everyone knows what I'm talking about, right? Which means you also know the very next thing to follow the expectation is the BUT and the HOWEVER or every once in a while the AND IT WAS. Right? This is something every single person on the whole freaking planet understands. We all know this, right? Further beating a dead horse, driving the point home, like a stake into the vampires heart, we all know that the reviewer is perfectly capable of then writing about his actual experience of the movie IN SPITE OF EXPECTATIONS! Sorry about the all caps but when you have someone so unbelievably dense they can't understand what everyone else on the planet just automatically gets its like all sense bounces off the skull until you're shouting in vain to get through. Probably other side of the impenetrable skull is vacuum. Let's see if it can learn. Don't hold your breath. |
"Bias" is bias, regardless of the viewpoint or subject. ie: Those that are so adamant, regarding their beloved theories/opinions/biases(regardless of the source), while refusing to acknowledge that ONLY experimentation(the heart of the Scientific Method), provides PROOF, regarding anything discussed. Most of those are proffering their opinions, without ever having tried what’s being discussed. What you hold true, in your listening room, is all that matters. Experiment and trust your ears. Anyone that discredits another’s abilities to hear improvements, in their own systems, in their own listening environments, with their own ears, should be considered condescending, insulting and/or(probably), simply projecting their own ineptitude. Perhaps, to be pitied. |
I have no idea. I can say with personal experience I've run into and not run into break in periods with different components. Here are components I've heard break-in or extended warm up time:
Here's one I haven't: Luxman integrated. The interesting thing is that a number of independent audiophiles have confirmed to also have the weird, very long Class D warm up times. Why the Luxman does not.... I have no idea. Perhaps the high current at idle leads to faster stability of the active devices? Best, E |
| Post removed |
Audioquest believes there is a break-in period that applies to the AQ Niagara 1200. From their owner's manual: Though every attempt has been made to reduce the necessity of so-called “break-in,” “burn-in,” or “run-in” time—including high-power run-in of every critical capacitor in the Linear Noise-Dissipation Circuits—the Niagara 1200 will benefit from continuous use, just like any other audio/video component. This is not to say that you will be made to “suffer” through weeks or months of intolerable performance until that “magic day” when the parts are fully formed and ready. On the contrary, the Niagara 1200 will perform very well from the first moment you use it. It will improve gradually, in small increments, over a period of approximately two weeks. While leaving the Niagara 1200 turned on during this period will aid the process, it is also perfectly acceptable to turn the unit off; doing so will simply increase the time it takes to reach final “break-in.” |
For many years my "expectation bias" was rock solid: wire is wire. Digital is perfect. There’s NO difference between CD players, DACs, wire, and most definitely the last thing that would ever make any difference is something as stupid and senseless as putting a cone under it or a weight on top or anything like that. Sheer, utter nonense. Until I took the time to actually listen and compare. So yeah people are biased. Duh. But there is expectation, what we imagine we might experience, and then there is the actual experience itself. To put one above the other is to be confused almost beyond belief. Its like saying you’re some kind of robot: mindless, programmed, unable to adapt or change. Which, come to think of it, all things considered, could well be you are. If that is what you think, and think it long enough, after a while that is what you are. Now as for how long this takes, well there are things like tone and volume I just seemed to always have been able to hear. If a speaker cab is woody, or the bass is bloated, or the top end tipped up, pretty much everybody is able to notice this right off the bat. The differences between CD players, cones, amps, things like that, the differences are there, only they tend to be of a different character and usually much more subtle. I’m writing for the guys who want to learn this stuff. Because listening is a skill. Like all skills it can be learned. This is not easy. Does not come naturally. It takes work. So 6 to 12 months? Yeah. About how long it took me. During that year or so, often times took my wife around to shops and it usually went something like this: Yeah that one WAS better! How? Don’t know. It just sounded richer, more expensive. Which is funny. Wife says it "sounded" more "expensive". (Her words.) Only much later on was I able to break it down into darker backgrounds, more palpably solid presence, micro-dynamic shadings, sharp but not hard transients, beautiful trailing decay and ambience, depth and layering, air and space, etc. Now having developed those skills, it don’t take no 6 to 12 months. Six to twelve seconds, maybe. This past year I’ve been on a tear, adding Herron, Koetsu, CTS, Euphoria, and more. Every single one of those gave immense listening pleasure as they sounded great right out of the box and then proceeded to open up and improve minute by minute, then hour by hour, day by day, until finally stabilizing some weeks later. Well after all every single night I have to endure listening to the first side, as no matter how well everything else is warmed up the cartridge and phono stage still improve massively the first few minutes. The second track is a lot better than the first, the second side better than the first, and then it slows down a lot but still always continues to improve well into the night. You go to sleep with that wonderful late night sound in there and oh how I wish the "you can’t remember" crowd were right because then I wouldn’t have to endure the first side thing all over again, night after night. Anyone thinks this is nuts, based on their own inability to hear these things, all I can say is keep at it. You can get there. |
Everything is made of the same stuffs - electrons, neutrons, protons ... and so on. Car engines are made out of the same stuffs, just like cables, capacitors, inductors ... and so on. Most people are comfortable with engines breaking-in, but finding the concept of breaking-in somewhat "mysterious" in electronics stuffs. Of course just like human finding "rain, fire, wind" were "mysterious" thousands of years ago before real science. At least I should be thankful that they don't attribute "breaking-in" as an act of God lols. |
Many companies now put something in their manuals like, "don't worry if it sound like crap. It takes three months for it to break in." When people don't know why they make stuff up. The Greeks made up Zeus.Actually it should read like: Many companies now put something in their manuals like, "don't worry if it sound like crap. It takes months to break in and you know when, when you realize it no longer sounding like crap." |
Yes, what a lovely phrase! It carries the same force as the phrase, "skepticism bias". :)Well said, like others here, on the truth of break in. There's lots of projection going on here that points to "skepticism bias". It's become a well practiced art form and all the usual critters chime in with the same, bland accusations. Once you've got it down to a few talking points, it doesn't matter what or how you say it, and the ditto heads will nod along in approval. Anything can be made up or added into the mix and it simply strengthens the belief. That, and the tendency to dog pile. It's actually predictable. The only downside is that this "skepticism bias" has taken on a life of its own and pollutes many a discussion for no real reason other than to be seen as a normal form of communication, which is truly sad. One of the valid forms of accommodation, in psychology, is a neurotic condition and can apply to certain aspects of authoritarianism. The ditto heads simply follow the strong ones even though they contradict their values, beliefs, mores and folkways. Civility and ethics can go right out the window as long as they win, as a group. Gone, is the open mind. New info need not apply. Closed for business. That's why Doug is onto to something that I'm gonna try to practice more this year as my one and only resolution: to stop wasting so much time in these silly arguments, and stick to the stuff that matters. All the best, Nonoise |
And what matters is the sound? That's what I thought. But if that's the case, and there's people saying there's things can't make any difference when we know they can in fact make things sound better, well then its not silly at all. At least, and I hate having to say this, but not the way I've done. Read my posts above. Everything is focused on listening- what things matter, what to listen for, how hard it is, that listening is a skill, that it can be learned, that you can learn and get better at it. Not to say there aren't a lot of people making silly arguments. Actually they are more lame attempts at wit than arguments. But whatever. You get the point. If you have something to contribute and keep it to yourself because the loons might squawk, well all that does is cede the ground to the know-nothings, nut jobs and wannabee losers. If you have nothing to contribute then fine, don't. Wish the know-nothing nut job wannabee losers would do this. But they won't. 18,000 posts and counting, no sign of letup any time soon. With new ones coming on board all the time. If they enjoy banding together bantering brainlessly back and forth and you can see the folly in it, point it out. Skewer them. As best you can. Defeat their arguments wherever and whenever you can. Refute, poke holes, chide, deride. Not all the time. But when and as you're able. Otherwise, if the place goes down the sewer and you didn't even try and do anything about it, well at least don't go acting all high and mighty and above it all. Not when you cowered when you could have at least tried to conquer. |
millercarbon, Further beating a dead horse, driving the point home, like a stake into the vampires heart, we all know that the reviewer is perfectly capable of then writing about his actual experience of the movie IN SPITE OF EXPECTATIONS! That's essentially a re-statement of the old "I wasn't expecting to hear X, therefore X is real and not due to expectation bias." As has been pointed out countless times now, that's a naive understanding of how our biases work. There are many forms of bias Here's one list of cognitive biases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases Simply listening FOR differences can lead you to think you hear a difference even if you don't expect to. It's just how our brains work.Or, you may not even be listening for a difference, but at some point perceive that "something sounds different in that track from last time" and then presuming there is some objective reason, the audiophile thinks "Ok, what have I switched between, or introduced in to my system lately? Oh...that power conditioner, THAT must be causing what I think I hear. Or "oh, I'm sure the sound is different, so it must be BURN IN." There are so many ways to misapprehend what is actually going on by ascribing a change in subjectivity to some objective change. This is why when doing, say, medical tests, scientists don't say "Ok, let's round up a bunch of skeptics about this new drug. If they take it and report subjective changes, then it MUST be due to a property of the drug!" Scientists don't do that because they know that's a totally ignorant account of how biases can work. That's why they use control groups, blind and double-blind testing. rodman99999 Anyone that discredits another’s abilities to hear improvements, in their own systems, in their own listening environments, with their own ears, should be considered condescending, insulting and/or(probably), simply projecting their own ineptitude. Please see above, rodman. If you were to be involved in a medical study for a new treatment and they told you they'd be using double-blind protocol so that neither your nor the doctor's biases could confound the results, would you say "No, because the fact that, if I know I'm on the active treatment you won't simply trust my reports as TRUE, means you are being condescending, insulting and projecting your own ineptitude!" Would you think that's an appropriate response to the idea of controlling for the variable of human bias? I's simply a falsehood to say "if you didn't experience it, you have no grounds on which to doubt a claim." Particularly if the claim is in the form of anecdotal evidence, unsupported by objective evidence, careful testing. If you tell me you bought a perpetual motion machine, it won't matter how much you say "You haven't even tried it, so you don't have any reason to cast doubt on my claim!" The odds are you are simply mistaken, and you'd need to produce far stronger evidence than "I'm really sure this is happening, and that's good enough!" |
millercarbon
Have you ever gone a step further, and "actually listened and compared" without peeking? I have. So have many others. It can be very educational, if you are open minded enough to learn that way. We certainly can hear many things that "really sound different" (due to objective changes in the audible range). But we can also "hear things" that aren’t objectively there. So, how do we deal with possible confounding factors? Blind testing is one way to do it. Back in the late 90’s I had a couple CD players and a DAC and I was SURE they sounded different. It seemed so obvious! Yet some "objectivists" online said it was unlikely, that a properly constructed DAC should sound the same. (Though, with caveats). Here’s the thing though: I was willing to accept that I may have been mistaken. I admitted that I’m human, subject to the normal human biases, which could be influencing what I "think" I heard. So I was willing to TEST MY OWN PRESUMPTIONS, and try to distinguish the units without peeking. I did a number of blind-test shoot outs (matching volume output at the speaker terminals). Guess what? Positive results! I could EASILY tell the units apart, because they (apparently) REALLY DID have the different characteristics I thought I"d heard. That was really cool. (Strictly speaking, this doesn’t entail that the objectivists claim was wrong; they left open that DACs/CDPs could be designed to sound different. Rather, they were pointing out that a well constructed, accurate DAC/CDP should be indistinguishable from another all other things being equal. So it’s not like I "disproved" that particular claim. Rather, I simply found support fro my own impressions that the ones I owned had different sonic characteristics) BUT.... There have been other results in blind tests I’ve done that indicate that what I thought I was hearing was in error. Once I couldn’t peek at which device was playing in blind testing, the sonic signatures I thought were distinct just weren’t there to distinguish A and B. Again, this comes from being open-minded enough to simply admit "I’m human, I could be wrong in how I’ve interpreted from my subjective impression to what is really going on." It’s nothing to be afraid of. Really. It just takes opening your mind, a bit more bravery to truly put your "golden ear" to the test without peeking. |
| Post removed |
the ironically named prof (who hasn't read enough of my posts, apparently) writes: Have you ever gone a step further, and "actually listened and compared" without peeking? Yes. Matter of fact, I have. Several times. Beyond your silly double-blind too. One time a friend came over, and with the same mulish know it all stubborn resistance to learning something new thought he would play a little trick on me. So he did a little something. While I was out of the room. Well this was a party, another friend had a request, and wanting to do a quick level check sat down just to check the volume. Immediately, and I mean immediately, it was apparent something was wrong. Within about ten seconds, and just by listening, I figured out what it was, fixed it, and well under a minute had everything back to right. Only then did I notice my friend with this stunned stupid wtf look on his face, probably just the way prof would look if he had any self-awareness. Or awareness, period. Earlier this year when trying my first Blue Quantum Fuse it took about a minute to be sure it was in there the wrong way. Not making this up, you can go back read my post. Here's one prof: read em all. Learn something! The Blue sounded better right away, but not right. I knew it couldn't be right. First time ever hearing one. Flipped it around, sure enough. Like I said many times, wasn't always so good a listener. Its a skill. That's the good news prof, you can learn. If you want. Takes practice. Get on it. Anyway, time was thought the idea of warm-up was bunk. But, don't cost nuthin. So left everything on all the time. This went on for months. Never did notice any difference. See? Stupid idea. Oh well. This was a really old Kenwood, so old the power switch had died years ago, kept it on with a little wood peg shimmed to fit just right. Easier just to leave it on. One day something moves, thing goes off. Since I long ago forgot and decided it was BS went ahead and left it off. Next day turned it on to listen. WTF??!?!? Thought at first the old Kenwood was finally ready to bite the dust. Damn. Well it was a good 20 years. Wait. What? I thought it sounded bad. Now.... eventually it dawns on me I had gotten used to the warmed-up sound. Lotta stories like this. Friend does something behind your back. Something gets hooked up wrong, looks right, only sounds wrong. Happened over and over again. Its easy to understand why some people are not good listeners, why they cannot hear these things. What seems trivially easy for me now was impossible 40 years ago. Also easy to understand why some guy at work would think its nuts. Not really his thing. What I can't understand is why anyone would hang around on a site dedicated to the proposition that there's things that sound better, and that these things are worth big money because of the way they sound, and then instead of doing that all they do is attack the very idea of being able to hear in the first place! That. Is. Nuts! |
millercarbon, Those anecdotes are hardly accounts of a controlled tests. And of course you include the usual disparagement of the other side having cloth ears, the old "you can’t hear differences because you don’t have finely tuned golden ears like me" trope. (This is always hilarious to me - I spend all day attending to incredibly fine audio differences, often tuning the recorded "sound of the air in a room" to within 1 db or less to tonally match other airs or tracks. Literally all day balancing the sonic and tonal characteristics of sometimes up to 50 tracks at once. Not to mention I've been obsessed with live vs recorded sound for 40 years and an audiophile for almost as long. But, I'm sure you are in a position to diagnose-over-the-internet my perceptual abilities just to try to stick the knife in because...well...it makes you feel better. Just beautiful). Whereas I am not saying you are wrong in your claims. I’m actually open to the possibility of fuses sounding different, burn-in etc. I just happen to be aware of the pitfalls of purely subjective inferences particularly when it comes to controversial technical/audio claims. And I see for the most part anecdote in support of the claims, vs hard evidence. So, have not come to a conclusion at the moment. (Though I think there is good reason to infer that many audiophile claims are poorly supported and likely due to subjective errors). It’s too bad you come to audio discussions with others who don’t believe just as you do with such a strong desire to insult, millercarbon. If you could just dial down the naked hostility there could be actual conversation. (Hope that was short enough, Andy ;-)) |
..and 'time heals all wounds', just in time to get or give new ones...:( ..and if Ms. Thurman had any knowledge of the original reference she'd been used in....HO, it'd be "Kill Bill" time...perhaps with a new target.... ...and, as for 'accommodation'...I think it's gotten 'broken in' to the level of 'broken' around here.... ...and here's your 'troll', to 'accommodate' that... Carry on... |
I don't know about line conditioners. I have A PS Audio power regenerator. I do not think it needs to be "broken in" (whatever that actually means with parts that dont move) because it takes ac power from the wall, converts it to DC, then regenerates a new unclipped sine wave. I think of it as an on/off switch you either have clean new power or you dont. I dont see how a reconstructed sine wave can get broken in. I am a degreed mechanical engineer and I have taken classes in heat, sound, and light. I am very skeptical of things that cannot be measured such as break in. I buy in on the idea of say an engine in a car because it has moving parts that have intimate contact at very high forces. I think it would be foolish to believe nothing would change with time under those circumstances. I noticed a huge difference after installing the power regenerator, but I had huge line noise prior. The noise I had was like a drum stick hitting a rotating fan blade. You did not need to be an audiophile to hear it, for a while I thought I blew a speaker. The regenerator completely fixed the problem. |
| Post removed |
