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

Larsman, I have indicated several times what is happening in all instances of break in. What do you think I would say about your headphone occurrence? You, as well as everyone else, it seems, have never done direct comparison of two identical products, one broken in and the other new. If anyone has, please correct me, because I do not wish to paint the group with a broad brush - unless it applies! 

Thus, the answer according to everything I have said is clear, that if you had two pair of the same headphones, broke in one pair and then compared it to the new one, you would hear no change. I wish to stress that I have no intent to call people liars; perception is perception. I believe that your electronics are more consistent than your hearing. As regards that conclusion, I seem to be the only one here who can say that, based on actual comparison of multiple products all broken in used in a system compared to the identical system of new products. 

As I said before, any account of, "I heard it change over time,' is fundamentally weak evidence. It pales in comparison to having two systems of multiple components, one treated and the other new, directly compared. If anyone wants to hold a contrary opinion, you do so against the weight of the stronger evidence. 

samureyex, you are correct when you said, "If it sounds slightly bright, or dark, or sassy, insert any of ht words It will forever have that problem." Yes, because break in does not audibly change the sound of a product. In my testing, break in did not change the sound at all, which a logical person would accept as a possibility. It is irrational to preclude the possibility that the listener's perception could not be the cause of thinking the equipment is changing. 

melodic, your comment, "l think if people want to hear a difference, they may well listen in more detail and think they are hearing things they never noticed before. Our Hi-Fi systems are invariably courtesans, which hoodwink us into believing, what we want to believe," is well said. Habituation is a key part of the belief that the equipment is changing. As more is heard, more mental data points are made, we fool ourselves into thinking that the sound is changing.  

i also tested tubes and warm up. No difference when comparing broken in and warmed up gear versus identical product new and cold start. 

This is no minor issue; the entire industry is predicated upon a misnomer that the equipment undergoes audible changes over time. That's a problem that needs to be addressed because it negatively influences how people build their audio system. 

There are many things in this hobby that are commonly done that do not pass the Law of Efficacy and are not worth believing or doing. In contrast, there are things not commonly done that would greatly enhance system building. Anyone who has experienced frustration getting the system to sound as they wish should read my book. 

 

i also tested tubes and warm up. No difference when comparing broken in and warmed up gear versus identical product new and cold start. 

This is the problem right here. You are unable to hear differences. To be more specific, you are unable to hear certain aspect of sound changes. This is not an attack at you or anyone else here. It’s quite common. 

I respect you, you seem like a very nice person. I like that. Please keep this in mind moving forward. In regards to amplifier warm-up time, there’s a huge difference between a cold product vs a 2-hour warmed product. #1 being tube amplifiers, #2 being class A. It is such a solid change in sound, there really is no debate around this. 

It only makes sense that if you are able to detect changes regarding warm up time, then you wouldn’t be able to detect changes in regards to burn-in. 

Transparency, smoothness, and the lack of a hazy sound are 3 things that improve a lot from minute 0 to minute 120.

+1. @mylogic 

 

  This discussion is about dogma.  On one side are those that believe the break in phenomena is a brain adaptation over time, and on the other are those that believe the components themselves are undergoing some physical changes.  And some might think it’s a little of both.  As with all questions of dogma the believers will in the main adhere to their positions as infinitum.

  From a practical perspective I would play a component for some length of time but  have it be audible to the listener.  Then you are covering all bases 

@mahler123 Ref. Dogma

l am totally in agreement. 
 

The old saying, “l can’t believe my eyes” is similar to views on this discussion, with a slight adaptation. More apt is the, “l can’t believe (for sure) my ears”

Over time l have often changed my mind after hearing improvements only to find at a later date l don’t perceive the same gains, and wonder what all the fuss was about. Was it due to mains quality? warm up time? or just plain things like, how strong was the coffee, or my temperance of mind that effected my first judgement.

This “dogma” as you say will prove to be everlasting as we can not swap ears between ourselves, or evaluate what other listeners perceive.

 

Listen to Rick Wakeman, “Temperance of Mind” on Strawbs, “Just a Collection of Antiques and Curios” (not the 40th Anniversary version) for a rollercoaster of musical variations. A convolution of many musical styles…. A jumble of human emotions….. Just like all the conflicting views in this whole discussion.

@douglas_schroeder Thus, the answer according to everything I have said is clear, that if you had two pair of the same headphones, broke in one pair and then compared it to the new one, you would hear no change.

You sure seem to know a lot about what I have heard, but unless you've been to my house and listened and compared, you're talking out the top of your head with zero evidence and zero data. And you're calling that 'science'? laugh

What you say is just not true, and you are denying my experience. Is your book a work of fiction, too? Have a nice life.