Break In Question?


I have been under the assumption that in order for a component to break in there must be a signal pass through from one piece of equipment to another. That is, running a Dac/Preamp into an amp, the amp must be turned on for the Dac/Preamp to break in.

But is this really true? Does the amp really need to be turned on?

ozzy

ozzy

@samureyex  That's the point! Most people are absolutley certain they can hear two different words being said. When blind tested they can no longer tell the difference. The human brain is so easily tricked.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XFtWOak4ZKI

It is amazing the polarization that this break in question poses.

It seems that those who have the most comments on this subject, are relatively new members, or have limited systems (they don’t list their systems) view break-in as a myth. And a couple of the posters are just... well you know.

I remember way back when, when I also had the same opinion. But with system upgrades and smart choices through the years, to me, Component break-in is a no brainer. Its real, can be expected and heard/felt.

Heck most mechanical system break-in, just look at your car manual, so why not electronics?

ozzy

 

I agree with Jason - "Only mechanical things need some run-in to reach optimal performance. Electronics - no."  It's not engineering, it's marketing.  Yeah, if you don't like it, you need to break it in longer (past the return policy date, LOL)  You really think anyone can remember and compare sound 200+ hours apart?  If it was so important and noticeable, the manufactures would just do it in house before shipping.  Enjoy your equipment - keep it - return it - whatever - but believing you heard a sonic difference days or weeks later is mental.  If it sounded better at 200 hours, imagine what it will sound like at 500 hours!! wait, by then it will be time to upgrade again!  LOL - Just sharing my opinion.  Happy listening!!!

Audition_audio, I have no problem with you challenging my discussion of break in. However, I ask that you not presume to sit in judgment on my motivation, i.e., why I wrote the book. Thank you. 

If it helps for you to understand me, I don't need the money. I will make so little per book that it is negligible to me. It would likely take ten years to make back the time cost value of spending three years writing the book then one year editing it. So what? I have written other theological books that I donate all the proceeds to missions. Why? I don't need the money. Then, in a fiscally counterproductive fashion, I keep giving way the books. I reimburse the church for the cost of the books, so I am losing money as an author! Do I care? No, because I don't need the money. I budget, invest, give sacrificially. The money associated with books is negligible. 

Perhaps you can see better that my motivation to share what I consider truth is far stronger than making five bucks on a book. 

After 20 years of growing as an audiophile, then another 20 years  becoming an insider as a reviewer, I consider the issues, problems, missteps in the audiophile industry and community regarding all sorts of misnomers and received wisdom to be so counterproductive, so at odds with what I have experienced through hundreds of systems, that I am wiling to be the prophet of audio doom, to call out the problems and explain the right principles. 

I fully expect to be mocked, ridiculed, etc. for my book. But I will tell you one thing; none of the three editors who know their stuff laughed at it. None of them thought it was stupid, and they said it was unique and needed. Paul McGowan of PS Audio provided equipment that I featured in the book. At first he was confused at my request, but I applaud him because even though he didn't seem to see the value in what I was doing, he provided the equipment because it was exploration, experimentation on a system level. He opined that much of that exploratory mindset had dissipated. 

As far as the Agon rules, I don't believe I have done anything wrong. I just took a look at the Terms of Use and I don't see anything prohibiting mentioning a book that I have written. Years ago, I thought I could attach links to my reviews, but I was contacted by Audiogon and told it was a violation. If they would tell me what Im doing is wrong, I would comply. There are dealers here who talk about their business, so why can't I talk about a book? I don't get the supercilious attitude about it. 

That leaves the objection that I wrote it to make money. I hope that I have addressed that clearly enough. 

In the end, audition_audio, we may forever talk past each other. I hope not, but I'm not going to indefinitely debate over my motives and why I present Audiophile Laws so definitively. 

BTW, all you guys who rant against my position on break in by saying, "... I hear it," are supporting one of my theses in the book beautifully! 

Clarification: Paul McGowan was not an editor, but I communicated with him and he graciously consented to my unusual review equipment request. The unusual system configuration appears in the book.