Amp burn in time..just being on or music played?

Okay I checked the archives first before asking....nada from what I can find. So, is it the time the amp is actually on or is the time that music is being played through the amp to determine burn in time ???
You accelerate the benefit by playing music, even at a very low level. My Rowland integrated amp stays on 24/7 at Rowland's recommendation, but I played music through it constantly for the first 150 hours or so.

Most amps get up to a pretty nice preformance level in just 150 and improve very slowly from there; however, so cool running Class D amps like more like several hundred to 1000 hours.

You ask a perfectly logical question, but actually burn in time is not a function of either variable.

No, the correct burn in time is the minimum amount of time it takes to exceed your ability to return a component to the dealer if you decide you don't like the way it sounds.
How long is that time it measured in minutes or hours, days or years in your experience ????
Buy the demo model. The work's already done.
Audiogon forums are filled with good testimony on the break in process for wire, capacitors and resistors.

Why would it be any different for a new amp with thousands of fresh parts to require some burn in time? Break in does vary a lot, depending on design and parts, but all amps get at least a little better and some A LOT better with time.

Actually Goliverjr may have thought his comment funny, but I my first pair of VTL 750 took a good while to settle and my second pair (very used) was up to 100% after a couple of days.
No, the correct burn in time is the minimum amount of time it takes to exceed your ability to return a component to the dealer if you decide you don't like the way it sounds.
Cwlondon (System | Threads | Answers)
Ha! There is a great deal of truth in this.

I can't tell you how many responses I've read from small wire and component manufacturers (or their fan boy customers) who have told disgruntled customers that their gear required many more hours of burn in time beyond what the 30 day (or 14 day, or...) return period would allow.

If only they had put more hours on the component (thereby negating terms of the return period)...only then would they have realized how truly jaw dropping was the gear!

How about the designers of parts and equipment that agree with those of us that experience break in?

Aside from those of us that listen, do you distrust the designer of Cardas caps, Aria Caps, V Cap, Infini Cap and Dynamicaps as well as Steve McCormack, Mike Elliott, Richard Vandersteen, Paul Weitzel, Ralph Karsten, Andy Payor and countless others?

Or, perhaps ALL OF THEM are in a great conspiracy to fool you poor audiophiles and these experts have no real knowledge? Just a bitter scam to get your money before the trial period expires.

That is perhaps the most ridiculous conspiracy theory I've read at Audiogon.
Albert, I believe in break in. I've heard it many times, and most definitely with certain capacitors.

I have also read manufacturer's comments that I referenced above.

Look, I'm not saying trial periods are a scam. What I'm suggesting is if according to the manufacturer/fabricator their component requires more hours than is possible to accumulate during their trial period, then they need to expand their trial period to make it meaningful. Otherwise, the trial period is a useless marketing tool that benefits neither the customer nor the manufacturer.
OK, I'll go along with that. Sorry if I mistook your intentions.

I get defensive about high end designers and manufacturers as I get almost all my information from them, as opposed to reviews and popular trends.

I would never say that break in is a big issue on ALL components on ALL systems. Some equipment changes big time and some only a little. Add in the variations in quality of set up and system and you have a lot of doubt and confusion on the issue.

In my own system, it's always a big deal, unless it's something I've acquired used, in which case I get reasonably close to instant gratification.
With most amps merely having them on will exercise the bias circuits and open the path through the amp's channel. But there is very little signal (just noise) passing through so all of the components in the signal path aren't being worked, especially the passive components. Even the power supply is just idling. I have always felt the best way to break in any component with capacitors is to put a cd on repeat, turn the volume down, and let it play continuously for several days. My system is in a basement listening room so I can do this without angering she who should not be angered. This is fun to do. Going down for a listen each evening reveals how the sound begins to relax and become effortless as caps begin to come in. IME, the caps are always the long pole in the break in process. Usually between 150 and 200 hours.

I think Purist and Ayre have "burn in" discs that accelarate or, reduce the time needed to bring a component to its full maturity. If one believes that to be true then, in theory, playing music should be faster than just being turned on.
While we're on the subject, I, too, firmly believe in burn in (I had an issue with my esoteric which was discussed here on A'gon-took me over 1,000 hours!). My break in issue prompted me to send Robert Harley an email where I stated that if his reviewers advised how long they burned in their review samples, it would be a big help to us. He had advised that usually, his reviewers don't get to hold on to a review piece that long. His response puzzled me. I know 1,000 hours is out of the norm, but there must be other components which do take that long. Are reviewers reviewing their sample gear in the best possible scenario? I'd hate to discard a piece of gear because the reviewer didn't (or should I say, couldn't) let it burn in/break in long enough for the component to operate at its optimum.
Cerrot, for reviewers as important as Robert Harley it's not uncommon for manufacturers to "pre burn" components. I know this for a fact.

It's unfortunate that all components are not run in to perfection but everyone is already suffering from sticker shock on high end pieces and this would add to the cost.

As for your Esoteric, I have no experience with that piece but would not doubt for as minute your experience.

My new custom tube crossover changed drastically at several places LATE in the burn cycle compared to nearly identical previous design. Substantial changes (approximately) 50 hours, 435 hours, 941 hours and 1260 hours. The reason for such a difference between this and previous? All hand made Teflon film and foil caps in the new one.

At all these various break in periods, there was a room full of people making comments about the changes and it was the same as I was hearing.

Fortunately, after break in there is a nice long level path of dependable performance, marred only by maintenance (in my case) due to all the tubes which eventually needs replacement.

Several guys in my group have experienced long break in on speakers too, my Dali's were very long in coming around, as were Dynaudio Temptations, Kharma Exquisite 1De and Wilson Alexandria.
Some of the longest break-in periods I've encountered are with tone-arm wires where 200 hours annoyed the hell out of me.
But c'mon Albert.........941 hours!!!????
The 1 hour made a difference??!
But c'mon Albert.........941 hours!!!????
The 1 hour made a difference??!

Notice my text read (approximate), numbers are taken at the end of the session and written on a pad to keep track of burn in time. Most of this was accumulated with the system silent, driving the crossover directly with my CD player.

There were lots of sessions where changes were apparent, the reason for calling out the ones I did was because those were substantial improvements.

No, the one hour did not make a difference, that was just the number that came up at the end of that session when everything was totaled.