Break In Question?

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.

My experiences over the years with poly capacitors in speaker crossovers, then later on in phono stages, preamps, and amps has been that they do indeed go through a significant change from the moment they’re installed to having several hours of playing time on them.   It seems logical to me that any new electronics that contain capacitors have a very good chance of going through similar burn in period.  

Ugh, here I am spending inordinate time on a thread... At some point I will tear myself away from it and get to other writing. I am working on a review of a speaker at AXPONA that was quite popular. It is an interesting exploration of the speaker. 

Knotscott, thank you for the cogent reply. Yes, I think anyone who has been in the hobby or industry for a while knows about the measurable changes to capacitors. The pertinent question; is the change to capacitors audible? 

There is only one problem with the capacitor argument, when you take two identical components containing capacitors, run one in for x hours to "break in" the component, and compare it as close to real time as possible, as I did, they sound identical. 

In other words, in my testing, using a capacitor in a component for a period of time does nothing to change its performance in a component. The capacitor burn in argument is one of the most common and most used explanations for why people believe they hear a component break in. There is only one problem, and that is when two identical products are placed side by side and compared, the broken in one sounds precisely the same as the new one. 

If people were logical about this, they would admit that their perceptions could be wrong. People are not logical, but self-confident, thinking their ears are more stable, more reliable than a piece of electronics. I used to think so, too. But it dawned on me that it would be pretty bad if a piece of kit could change its sound that much, why trust it at all? And is it likely that my perceptions over the longer term are more precise than a piece of electronics? Not likely! So, I tested it. 

Then, just to be sure, to prove that it wasn't a fluke and that I am not bound by preconceptions, I want back and reran the testing, this time with 8 stacked variables. Same result. So now I absolutely pay no attention to the phenomenon of break in. I still have the experience, but I know better than to think the gear is changing. I do not use break in at all in advancing systems, because it actually hinders the process. 

knotscott, yo0u are welcome to do the same. You can take two components, break in one and not the other. Then compare. I suspect you will be surprised to find they sound identical. Ergo, even though measurable, capacitors with use do not change audibly. 

Now, if someone wants to rail against that discussion by stating, "I know break in is real because I had x product and I could hear it change over x period of time," sorry, I'm not impressed! You're fooling yourself!  :)

Anyone who is willing to admit they could be wrong is on the right path to making their system, and their listening experiences, much better.