Equipment Break-in: Fact or Fiction


Is it just me, or does anyone else believe that all of the manufacturers' and users' claims of break-in times is just an excuse to buy time for a new users' ears to "adjust" to the sound of the new piece. Not the sound of the piece actually changing. These claims of 300+ hours of break-in for something like a CD player or cable seem outrageous.

This also leaves grey area when demo-ing a new piece as to what it will eventually sound like. By the time the break-in period is over, your stuck with it.

I could see allowing electronics to warm up a few minutes when they have been off but I find these seemingly longer and longer required break-in claims ridiculous.
bundy
I will try and answer it Ben - not because I know the answer, but because my experience of break in and different people's opinions on it seem to converge on a particular conclusion, in my mind.

First, I believe that both component and psychological break-in occur. But I cannot prove either.

I have experienced the phenomena of a CD sounding odd on first listen and then sounding more 'right' after a few more listens. I believe that this is not due to anything else changing than my brain getting accustomed to decoding the particular distortions on that CD. I believe that this is essentially what the brain does when it processes sound information it receives from the ear. It tries to correlate it with sounds it is more familiar with and then decides to 'hear' the sound in a way that the brain has determined is the sound of the true event.

This is a little like the way when you record music you have to keep the sound of the recording acoustic low in the mix. I believe the brain finds it easy to keep the sound of reflections out of the way of the sound of the source of that sound when it is in the same acoustic environment, but when listening in one environment, to an event recorded in another, the reflections in the recorded acoustic are difficult to put aside at the same time as putting aside the acoustics in the current environment. This is why you hear lots of sound reflection when you listen to a simple recording of your voice.

So when I hear a new CD - I am not saying the issue is reflections, that was just an analogy - my brain takes a while to get used to hearing past the distortions that are unique to that particular disc.

I have no doubt that this happens when we hear a new stereo system or just a component change to a new stereo system.

But I do not accept that this phenomena explains the changes I hear while a component breaks in. The following observations are what I base this on.

- I don't hear CDs change their sound from thin brittle and bassless, then thick and murky, then hard and edgy, suddenly soft and mushy and then finally sharpen up to sound about right, in the way that some new components do. The alternative explanation is that the distortions of a component are manifold and my brain learns to decode them one at a time and so the sound moves around each time it deals to a particular type of distortion. Maybe.
- I take much less time to decode the sound of a friend's system than I do to decode the sound of a new system I put together. The alternative explanation is that I am either less critical of my friend's system than when my money and future musical enjoyment is at stake, or I am just atrocious at putting systems together such that my brain needs way longer to deal with it. Hmm, unlikly Ben, and fairly conclusive evidence for component break in - in my mind.
- Whereas when taking a CD out of the system for a month or two my brain has no trouble finding it to sound like the last time I heard it, taking a cable out of the system and curling it up in the cupboard for a month results in me hearing a break-in occurring for anything between two days and two weeks. The alternative explanation is that the distortions of a cable are more complex for my brain to decode than the distortions of a CD. The measurement freaks will have trouble with that one.
- I also respect the validity of other peoples' conclusions from their experiences, not just my own. I observe that many who claim that there is no component break in also state they hear little or no change during break in, and that many who claim that component break in exists, also state that they hear significant differences during break in. This is explained if you accept some people are more irritated by the distortions that go away as a component breaks in. The alternative explanation is that some people have brains that immediately decode the distortions in a new system and others are handicapped in this ability and take 300 hours. Being biased I don't like the thought of being handicapped in the brain department, so you can guess which one I prefer.
- The 300 hours burn in is the most persuasive point for me. How come the burn in appears to occur whether we listen to it while it is burning in or not. The alternative explanation is... we are deluded by our prevailing belief in burn in, or I guess we are just lying to prove our point. I can imagine how you could make that assumption. But you can imagine why I don't.

The interesting thing is there seems to be a correlation between those that deny burn in and those that believe the component that makes the most difference in a stereo system is the speakers. In fact I find this very interesting. I suspect we listen for different things, have different musical values or simply are irritated by different distortions. You see I find most speakers that survive commercially today in the high end are capable of sounding musical. Whereas I cannot say that of amplifiers - the very opposite of what the measurements would lead you to believe. Therefore I strongly suspect that there are distortions that irritate me, and many like me, that do not pop up as significant in conventional measurement (which pro-rates distortion issues rather liberally), are endemic in electronics and less measurable than speaker mechanical distortions, and that reduce dramatically during burn in.

Finally, I have experienced components sounding more pleasing in tonal characteristics during burn in than after burn in - but there is nevertheless something else wrong during burn in. Perhaps it is a form of phase distortion that upsets my brain (and others like me).
Redkiwi,

First of all I dont appreciate your words directed
at me. I was simply describing MY experience which
YOU had nothing to do with. So you wouldent really
have ANY IDEA about it would you? You can guess all
you want... you will be running in circles the rest
of your life... It sounds like youve been at it awhile.

I was trying to throw some REAL possiblilities out there
that can be MEASURED. That is why we have devices to
measure so we dont have to rely on Kiwifruits's brilliant
mind distorting deductions.

I didnt come to this forum to have my integrity and
thoughts questioned by someone who doesnt know me or
my equipment so i would APPRECIATE you not doing that.
I really dont think anyone here would appreciate that.

Oh and by the way even measurement devices drift and have
to be re-calibrated.

One interconnect cable pair that I tried actually got worse with usage if that makes you naysayers feel any better? Or do you not believe that either since I didn't have my trusty distortion analyzer telling me what I'm hearing? Jeez Louise - we play music to LISTEN to it, not to MEASURE it with instrumentation for cryin' out loud.
Spl's insulting demeanor contributes nothing useful here & only serves to negate any possible credibility that may have been initially perceived.
Measure THIS! ;-)
When somebody calls me a liar i take it seriously.
Wouldent you Bob? Did you read what he wrote? It
was totally uncalled for.

Is that a new one? Never heard that before.
Spluta, you clearly take yourself very seriously - you mistake me for someone that was responding to your post - I was not.

I am at a loss to know which of my words were directed at you, because I cannot remember reading your post(s). Nothing you wrote in any of your posts was in my head when I wrote my post.

Frankly you flatter yourself when you say I called you a liar. I can assure you I called you nothing and did not give the idea a second's thought. All I can assume is that you found my post contradicted yours and then for some reason believed I meant to make a personal attack on you. What I did was try to describe my beliefs and why I believe them. Is that OK with you? If your reading of my post drew you to the conclusion I was belittling your opinion then I apologise for my clumsiness, but there was no intent.

Without going back and reading your earlier posts I expect it was my term 'measurement freaks' that did it? If it was not that then I am at a loss to understand what has offended you and you will have to explain. Perhaps I should go and read your posts and see if I can work it out. If it was the 'f' word, then I have to admit the word 'freak' is insulting so withdraw it. How about 'measurement zealot'? Perhaps still too negative. 'Measurement guys' just lacks a certain ring to it, if you know what I mean.

On the subject of measurements, as Bob says, the intention of most of us in this hobby is to enjoy listening with our ears. If measurement helps identify which equipment will be better or worse for that purpose, then it has value. I think that shelf life past several years ago, except to assist equipment designers. So far I am unconvinced of the connection between audible abberations and measurements, with most modern gear having a level of competence that goes well beyond the distinctions that measurement appears able to identify.

What I find annoying is the fact that 'measurement guys' repeatedly insist on spoiling the party here by interrupting the sharing of experiences and opinions, by entering with a "I'm an electrical engineer (pause for oohs and aahs), and my text books don't tell me about what you just said so it must be wrong." And no, Spluta, relax - this is not directed at you. I have no idea whether you ever said anything of the kind. It is directed generally at the several who take that position.