Break In Question?

@douglas_schroeder What exactly is your position in terms of publishing your book? Someone as a scientist or someone with an opinion? How long have you been in this hobby?

There are many great speaker manufacturers that recommend burn-in on their speakers. Arendal for one used to recommend 60hrs or something. What exactly do you have to offer over an established company with a ton of experience and R&D?

"Break-in" is the age-old answer for getting home after spending $20,000 for new equipment and it doesn't sound any better than the old setup.  Answer:  You need to let it break in.

You spent $5000 on new cables, hook them up, but they don't sound any different - answer: you need to let them break in.

After 100 hours of "break in" you forget how the old system sounds, you have a cocktail or two, and all of a sudden your new system sounds great!

I love this hobby.

Paul McGowan, of PS Audio fame, probably knows as much as just about anyone alive about high quality audio electronics, says break in of amps, pre amps, dacs, cd transports etc is most definitely real & necessary. Of course, breaking of loudspeakers is a given. I had a pair of Dynaudio Contours that took about 200 hours before they settled down & didn’t sound a bit hard on the upper midrange, lower treble. 

samureyex, I saw your question as I added my last post, so I will answer it. 

I discuss my background and the consequent weakness and strengths of my experience in the book. I am a pastor (conservative Christian), not a manufacturer or dealer. I am at a disadvantage when it comes to discussing theory. I was in an hour long conversation wth Galen Gareis of Iconoclast Cables yesterday. He was enthusing about electrical parameters that I can barely understand. I try to hang with intellectuals like him. I have conducted a lot of interviews related to my reviews to learn and speak knowledgeably about products. 

Consequently, those who based decisions upon the basis of authority will likely oppose and diminish my findings. However, I suggest that the bulk of the industry has not bothered to conduct experiments like I have. Because they "hear" the changes, they conclude those changes are happening. Why bother testing what seems obvious? But isn't that more scientific? Yes, it is. In that respect, I have gained more authority through testing than anyone who simply says, "it's obvious that the equipment is changing." I explain my particular authority in this matter in the book. 

I am not trained in electrical theory or design, and that is my weakness. However, I have an extraordinary amount of experience with assembling and evaluating systems of a wide variety. Reviewing has allowed me to handle nearly all genres of components, cables, and speakers. Over the years I have owned most of the genres of speakers and many hybrids. 

The impetus for the book is not to assault the beliefs of members of the community. However, as I have built hundreds of systems, commonalities appeared that were too important to ignore. As I catalogued them, I realized the community could benefit from a work discussing them. It has become obvious to me through system building that the industry and community are using insipid methods of advancing systems. 

You ask whether I am "someone as a scientist or someone with an opinion." I suggest that I am somewhere in between, as I offer not only an option, but have taken the steps to conduct informal testing to inform that opinion. I have a thoroughly informed opinion based on real world system building, not simply one point of reference of hearing something seem to change sound characteristics. I, too, have that experience often, but I have gone far beyond to establish what is really happening. 

As an example, I have stated here and elsewhere that I also have the experience of thinking the system (component, cables, speakers) undergo change. In the book I discuss that I own several genres of speakers, and every time I change to a different speaker I undergo  a period where the sound seems to change. These are all speakers used past the typical break in suggested time, yet they seem to change every time I swap them into the system. It's pretty obvious that I am the one changing, not the speakers. I am habituating to the different set of characteristics. That is perfectly in accord with my findings in comparing purportedly broken in gear with brand new gear. 

It seems that most of the industry, including manufacturers, dealers, reviewers, etc., and the community have simply trusted what they hear, assuming the gear is changing. But it is not, and I have demonstrated it. 

I listed above the time and effort I have put into the project, and that is waived away by people who say, "I heard x change over x period of time!" As if I'm supposed to be impressed by that? Not at all. I've had the experience and continue to have the experience repeatedly, as it is a seemingly universal phenomenon. So, you can trust your one-dimensional experience, or you can trust someone who through building many systems and through various checks is telling you that your perception is fooling you. 

BTW, my methods are all open for anyone to do. What I have done, you can do, too, if you want to prove it to yourself. I suggest that those who are full of pride and certainty about break in prepare for the possibility of great disappointment! 

Therein lies one of the biggest differences between myself and the bulk of those who disagree with me. I was wiling to say that I might be wrong. Seemingly, they  are too proud to say they might be wrong. I don't think there has been a single person who has argued with me about the book and my testing has said, "I could be wrong." That is their greatest weakness as audiophiles, more so than being constrained by budget. 

Ergo, 

The greatest impediment to advancing an audio system is the audiophile.