Break In Question?

I own Harley's book and think it is an excellent primer. He avoids most controversial topics and concentrates on some basic facts. This is the way to write an audio book. If I decided to write a book that would sell, if selling copies were the main goal, I would find some almost universally accepted audio beliefs and attack them. Even better if I can convince my readers that some sort of industry conspiracy is involved. 

So, my new streamer/dac has just passed the 200 hour of break in time, and I must say the sound difference from the beginning to now is remarkable. 

I guess I should be glad my brain has adjusted. Just kidding...

ozzy

@ozzy I wish I remember where my I bought my usb cable. It was only $40 and had a very noticeable 18-24 hrs bright phase. 

@douglas_schroeder Thank you for your introduction and background. 

You say you have the blessing of many gear coming your way. This is actually a bad thing in regards to burn-in. To understand or notice burn-in, you need 2 attributes:

1) Be very familiar with the sound of a system, so when a new component is switched in, you understand the change and the change over time. In order to notice change, you must first know what is changing.

2) Burn-in time varies greatly. Anywhere from X up to 300 hours, some high quality gear even require 500 hours. If you listen to music 3 hours a day, it can take up to 100 days to complete a 300-hr burn-in. A challenge for someone with access to a lot of gear.

3) This is a bonus. The best way to identify burn-in is not by listening for change. Listening for change is very difficult. What you should do is to listen for what is bad with the sound. If you cannot identify what sounds bad, you are not ready for burn-in evaluation. Once you have identified the bads, you start listening for when the bad traits diminish. That’s how it’s done.

If you want burn-in evaluation the easiest way, have 2 identical products but one with many hours on it, the other brand new.

Another note, keep in mind what makes up good audio sound also involves roughly 30%-50% of things we don’t hear and don’t want to hear. When you know, you know.

samureyex, thank you for your thoughtful comments! 

Perhaps more background will help you to understand my position on break in. I have had the privilege of handling a great deal of components, cable sets, and speakers. This is over a 40 year period, 20 years of it as a reviewer. During most of that time I assiduously practiced the received wisdom of the industry and community in "breaking in" products. So, the changes were not so quick as to be unfamiliar with the system. 

I did the same thing as many here, put on music and waited for the product to be broken in over days, 200 hours, 300 hours, etc. I think most here would agree that it is hard to hear a change if constantly subjected to the sound as the said product is purportedly breaking in, though some claim to hear the change in progress. 

As regards your recommended process of break in, I believe that I followed what you and others suggest. Though now I pay no attention to the phenomenon which is called break in, it was not always that way. I understand the mindset and behaviors behind the impetus to break in a product. 

Now, as to your second point, listening for issues/problems. I have deep familiarity with every aspect of my system's sound. I use over 1,000 vocal tracks and over 600 instrumental tracks which I can use diagnostically to know the performance of any system I set up. I spent one decade as a budget audiophile attempting to flip budget gear, letting it break in, etc. in order to achieve close to SOTA sound. I failed, as will anyone who thinks they can get close to SOTA sound on a low budget. I was forced to accept that I had failed when I became a reviewer and had the ability to build higher end systems. It became immediately apparent that break in didn't do squat to supposedly transform a lower end rig into a higher end rig. I have much more I could say about that, but it's sufficent for now. 

As you close your comments, you sate: If you want burn-in evaluation the easiest way, have 2 identical products but one with many hours on it, the other brand new.

That is precisely what I have done! I discuss this thoroughly, including descriptions of the systems, the methodology, and in one case, the audiophile who sat in with me on the testing, in my book. Apart from attempting to tease out whether there would be audible changes indicated by measurements, the ONLY way to verify whether break in has occurred is to compare actual products, as I did. 

I have another method, which I discuss in the book, and it is suitable to assess whether tweaks are audible, whether they are doing anything to advance the system. 

The results of direct comparison of broken in vs. new, never used, not even warmed up, components, cables sets, and speakers did not support the belief that the equipment changes sound over time. There is only one conclusion to be drawn, that the audiophile's perception is subject to gross inaccuracy over time. Ergo, the timeframe for comparisons between components, cables, and speakers must be shortened dramatically if there is to be meaningful progress made in advancing an audio system. 

There are a number of consequences associated, and I developed the Law of Efficacy to ensure that the audiophile is making advances when conducting those comparisons.