2. misc-audio
  3. 159406-139209

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 3 responses by amorsound

amorsound's avatar
amorsound OP
5 posts
 

Millercarbon - For giggles, I’m going to pretend your response isn’t a statement of condemnation, LIGHTLY shaded as a couple of questions. :)

 

I do believe what I’ve written about break-in. In addition, I’ve benefited by putting my beliefs into practice.

 

As for the infomercial question…

ANY manufacturer could CHOOSE to sell their product to clients at full performance out of the box. Or ANY manufacturer could CHOOSE to sell their product at a discount, knowing the client will need to “cook” the item to achieve full performance.

Example: Pizza – Papa Murphy’s allows clients to select an uncooked pizza at a relative discount to ready-to-eat pizzas of similar quality. As such, the customer receives this discount as an incentive toward accepting the burden of cooking @ 400 degrees for 40 minutes. :)

For some reason (???) many manufacturers of high end audio components CHOOSE to do neither (i.e. impaired performance without a discount). These manufacturers sell their products at luxury prices KNOWING the performance is 75%-80% out of the box, knowing the component requires 400 hours of burn-in, effectively passing off this performance risk to their clients.

 

So CH Acoustic CHOOSES to sell products at full operating performance. As this CHOICE is EASILY replicated by any manufacturer, I don't believe it is an “effective infomercial”. However, I do believe this represents a client friendly business CHOICE.


amorsound's avatar
amorsound OP
5 posts
 
Though some have chosen to malign my character and my intentions, following are two examples to forward a discussion of the subject.

A cable manufacturer (not CH Acoustic), utilizes cryo treatment to perfect the capability of their directional cables.  This manufacture recommends playing music with the cables in the client system.  This manufacturer believes use of aftermarket "break in" machinery and discs IRREPARABLY diminishes the capability of their cables.

A manufacturer of tube amplifiers believes their amps sweeten with time, while playing music (though no specific break-in period is recommended).  However, this manufacturer also believes the use of aftermarket "break in" machinery and discs IRREPARABLY diminishes the capability of their amps.

As referenced in my initial post..."I have not knowingly suffered this fate"...described by the examples above. However, I chose to include this in order to describe the potential severity of the related performance risk.
amorsound's avatar
amorsound OP
5 posts
 
For those truly interested in learning more, I offer the following.

The examples I listed yesterday are from PRIVATE conversations with company representatives.  Also, it is not my intent to malign another industry participant to prove a point.

However, I did check the related websites for PUBLIC information to further the discussion. I did not find anything specific enough to warrant sharing.

Finally, do you own research.  I've found the gross majority of industry participants VERY willing to discuss break-in (among other issues) that could affect the use of their equipment.
More to discover