Strangely enough, a lot of people claim that 'brand new' audio hardware (cables, amps, cd players etc etc) sound different (worse) than the same hardware, 200 playing hours later. Presumably due to some slow effects that have been taken into account while designing and testing the devices.

Can anyone shed some light on IF, and WHY this is? Or is it just wishful thinking, psychology effects etc etc? Im having a real problem understanding how an audio cable can be affected by transporting electricity for 200 hours (assuming of course you're not pushing it to literally near-melting point)

I've called the maker of my amplifier, and strangely the techie over there actually confirmed the break-in story, basically equating the whole process to a river that affects and shapes the riverbed just a bit, but Im having trouble transporting this simile to the world of electronics.

insights welcome!

While it's unlikely that electronics will change from having heat dispersed through it (which is basically all that happens with its use), mechanical stereo equipment (meaning with moving parts) is likely to follow a change in reactivity. Just compare the state of a twenty dollar bill when it's brand new to one that's been in circulation for 2 years : it'll be softer, more flexible; the same applies to mylar membranes in speakers, according to Paradigm (speaker manufacturer) : they suggest 48 hours of operation before listening critically, as the speakers are specc'ed "burnt in"

The analogy of the bill is mine.

For one view, read the below article, The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio, from The Audio Critic, and see number 6, the burn-in lie.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/ar...ic%20burn-in%22

It does say that loudspeakers, unlike cables or electronics, may require a few hours, or maybe even a day or two, to reach optimum performance.

Yeah, I've always thought that this was another way for a speaker maker to say, in effect, "you probably won't like these right away, but listen for a while and you'll get used to them, or at least you'll feel more guilty about bringing them back!". Speaker models do sound different from one another, and it's probably a good idea to not judge the sound too quickly.

But if it were true that speakers sounded significantly better after some burn-in, wouldn't it be in the manufacturer's interest to do this process in the plant where it could be controlled? How much could that cost compared to all the "bad" speakers getting returned by unhappy buyers claiming they don't sound like they did in the store?

As for components besides speakers, it's just nonsense, IMHO.

We had this exact discussion very recently. I came into that discussion believing that for certain electromagnetic components (notably speakers), the effects of break-in are both quantifiable and audible, but after fully looking at the literature, I'm very unsure if it's audible, even if it is quantifiable.

As I mentioned in that thread, cartridge suspensions can "break in", in some sense, in the first few hours of use. Nobody's found any evidence of an audible change though. There is some sort of breakin effect that occurs immediately after speaker manufacture, but it's supposed to last a few seconds.

Transistors, tubes and capacitors degrade over very long periods of time (years to decades). They do not burn in, they go bad. Cables similarly develop defects (rust, develop cracks in conduction paths, insulators wear out..) over several years.

If you followed a marketing class, you'd know that the biggest cost in a product is its storage. That, plus the fact that 48 hours of burn-in requires a sound-proof room, electricity, and large amounts of storage.

And labour, which is probably the 2nd biggest cost.

Triza

In addition to the possible settling of the suspension (which I'm a little skeptical about), I'd always been under the impression that the major aspect of cartridge break-in is that the act of playing some records "completes" the polishing of the stylus.

As for "break-in" of other components: my money is on the listener becoming accustomed to its characteristic sound. The human brain is exceptionally good at learning to ignore unchanging non-linearities (eg. frequency response anomalies)

very good point, in my parent's home I simply do not hear the 'tick-tock' of the clock, while it bothers all visitors



Good article, highly reccommended. I do have to admit I did 'fall' for the cable stuff if you will, and Ive bought cables that are essentially about $10/foot. My reasoning was simple: $0.60/ft lamp wire just skews the price balance of my set a bit. It would be similar to a deaf person owning a rolls royce and building in a $5 radio. Sure, he wont hear the difference (duh) but it would kinda LOOK stupid.

Plus on the off chance that the cables actually do matter Ive just taken a pretty cheap 'better than lamp wire' option Id say.

Still, as I mentioned, a technician at my amplifier manufacturer says he notices the break in effect. And he has obviously seen (heard) many of their amps from the start till 'later'. I dont think the psychological effect of starting to learn to ignore certain audio sounds applies to his situation. (unless he intentionally lied to me to 'sell' his amps, but in fact I made it clear to him I was buying a 2nd hand out-of-production model so he had nothing to gain by the lie either way)

Once you think you hear some effect, you may hear it again and again and again... at least, that's how my brain works

Yeah but presumably this guy would have a brand new and a 'broken in' amplifier together, and compare their sound.

Variation between examples might well explain a difference. Tolerance on components is far higher than most people realise.

One thing that always intrigues me about "burn-in"...why is there invariably a claimed improvement, never a degradation? Nearly everything we encounter in life degrades with age, yet cables etc are always claimed to improve? That alone makes me highly skeptical!

Well, I can shed a little light on that, which is that (assuming of course that break-in is a real phenomenon and not some mental psychological thing) a 'skilled designer' would know which way break-in would go, and compensate for that effect in the design of the device. A specific example is that when buying shoes you should always buy slightly 'tight' shoes, cause they will start to form to your foot and also expand by usage. (and thereby, in effect, fit better)

Somehow I guessed something along those lines might be forthcoming.

Shoes might be regarded as a mechanical phenomenon, which I can readily accept. Purely electronic components (i.e. excluding speakers, microphones etc) invariably degrade with time AFAIK. I'd also have to disagree with the "skilled designer" idea - a designer so skilled would simply make a decent circuit in the first place, where component values drifting would have no audible effect. Indeed, any competently designed circuit will have these characteristics to minimise the effect of supplied component tolerance. This also leaves items such as cables unexplained, since non-overloaded cables have no physical change over the "burn-in" period.

If cables (for instance) really did benefit, why does the cable industry not simply do some creditable ABX tests and prove the worth of burn-in? It's not as though it would be difficult or expensive to do, and the myth would have to be accepted as true.

Just an anecdote:

Finally managed to make an audiophile cry

He has been boasting his $1000 amp for some time. I asked, "So, it's been broken in, eh?" He confirms. Then I asked, "Mind comparing with mine?"

Cut a story short... he managed to praise his amp... and also severely slams it, in his own home, on the next subsequent test. When I uncovered the amps' connection... I never actually changed the connection.

Gee... it's very satisfying to watch a grown-up man cry

Well, Im not familiar enough with the pecularities of high end amplifier design, but to stick to the mechanical 'shoes' example, why would people not design formula 1 racing car tires that would achieve perfect grip while not wearing out really quickly. Reason is simple: you can't have it both ways, grip (soft rubber, large surfaces) is simply mutually exclusive with longetivity.

Bottomline: While I agree with your sentiments, sometimes compensating for 'wear and tear' will result in unacceptable losses in 'peak quality'. A valid choice either way, perhaps?


True with most marketing. Comparing 'Kelloggs' to 'B-brand cornflakes' is not in kellogg's best interest since the price difference is probably not worth the taste difference, when put in hard numbers.

Um, no. That's not the way electronic components age. Electronic components always degrade, never becoming better in time. Their performance (i.e. tolerance) will slowly go off-kilter.

Actually the difference with pricier amps and cheaper amps may well indeed be the quality/longevity of the components. By quality, I mean the tolerance. By longevity, the age.

Like electrolyte condensers. Over time, the electrolyte content will dry up or undergo a chemical reaction to become hard deposits. This reduces capacitance. Coils do not experience the same. Resistors will slowly leak, and cables/connectors/pins/thingies will corrode, unless they are covered (to some thickness) with gold.

But the price of the components does not justify the 1000+% price difference, and properly tuned devices will produce exactly the same waveform colorization.

Differences in cables also should not affect waveform. Differences including shielding, wiregauge, isolator thickness, anti-corrosion plating on both ends. But there's no such thing as a one-directional cable. And silver cables and copper cables, as long as they have the same RLC measurement, will transfer a waveform exactly.

True enough but would it not make sense (for example) to build in circuits to compensate for such component drift? And if it would make sense, one could conceivably argue that a system designed WITHOUT such added components would initially sound better, just age worse.

Anyhow your arguments do add credibility to the idea that the concept of 'break-in' is probably silly.

For the time being, ABX tests managed to show audible differences between 7W tube amps and 100 W transistor amps, or between a standard amp and a wrecked one.
No one ever managed to distinguish between a state of the art audiophile amp and a standard supermarket amp in a blind test based on sound quality (maximum power and background noise are different matters... the capacity to drive extremely low impedance speakers may also play some role).

Distinguishing between two examples of the same amplifier should therefore be completely out of reach.

Accepted. The point I was making though is that the "burnt-in" amplifier versus unused one isn't a valid comparison since other factors are inevitably mixed up in this.

The only advantage of burn-in that I can see is that it takes new equipment beyond the "infant mortality" portion of the reliability curve whislt it's still under warranty...

> No one ever managed to distinguish between a state of the art audiophile amp and a standard supermarket amp in a blind test based on sound quality

Has it even been tried seriously? I am surprised, if you can provide us a link I would appreciate.

Concerning aging of components. It seems to me plausible that a component changes slightly at the beginning when used in a device that heats up like an amplifier. The heat may slightly change its shape. This would be especially significant at the beginning like when one uses a shoe too narrow that "quickly" (compared to its lifetime...) adapts to the feet (here the heat would induce a dilatation of the dielectric material of, say, a capacitance).

I don't know how significant this can be, but it is difficult to rule it out with certainty.

Then the change will affect the circuit after some hours of continuous operation. Let the amp cool awhile, and the change will be nullified. No burn-in effect.

Anyways, within operating limits, there may be very slight difference in actual values... that's why all electronic components have tolerance limits.

But do some analog electronic maths... and the end result is a difference of barely 10 part per million, definitely not significant enough.

A shoe is a malleable physical thing being forced by another physical thing.

As an EE, this subject always makes me smile

High end gear and cables suffer from a peculiar conundrum: whatever superior qualities they may or may not have, they are BY DEFINITION not measureable when compared to standard quality versions of the same. If they were measureable, we might see the old "spec wars" of the 1960s reappear, but we don't.

OK, so they cannot be measured. That doesn't mean that the super-fabulous Amplifier/Cable in question isn't better, does it? No, it does not. But that would indicate that we are measuring the wrong things, or have insufficient resolution to "see" the differences.

However, in engineering you really can't design something to do what you cannot prove or measure. You may claim that you are, but it is really shooting in the dark at best. You might stumble into something, but that is all.

So when I hear claims about fabulous interconnects at many $/ft, I laugh. These items are NOT engineered, they are marketed to people who need to feel that they are hearing a difference. Sorry, but over a 12 foot run there is no speaker cable on Earth with any plausible advantage over 14 or 16 gauge lampcord driving 8 ohms - it is right there in the very same math one uses to design the amplifiers. The same is even more true for low-current cables such as line-level interconnects or headphone cables. There is nothing, nada, zip to that voodoo, but you can sure convince yourself otherwise by using more emotion than reason.

So as to break-in: I will grant something (but not much) to the idea of breaking in a mechanical component such as a speaker or headphone. As to solid state electronics, no. Previous posters put it right - over a long time components will degrade, but 2 weeks of running a brand new amp will create no real differences, only imaginary ones.

Next question: do you suppose my favorite MP3 tracks will become "worn out" by playing them so much? They don't sound as bright to me as they used to. Must be some of the bits being rubbed off by the hard drive head, and it somehow makes sense that these would be the bits that represent high frequencies...

Nicely put, Brad! As an EE, too, specializing in Telecommunications Engineering, I can vouch for that, having studied electromagnetics & transmission lines for 4 semesters (6 if you count re-taking the failed courses but I digress ).

<sarcasm>Hey, same here! Gee, the Vorbis -q 2 files I've been playing must be degrading into -q 1... I'm starting to lose some 'warmth' and 'liveliness' there...</sarcasm>


Edit: Corrected the English name of that damn course I took.

Hey, I know how you can remedy it. Get some warm tubes and good interconnects. Voila! -q 1 to -q 2

audiomars

Well put. However, some of the midrange products are well designed - they are designed for robustness, long life, contact quality and good looks - this makes them worth more than a low end product with identical signal qualities.


Aluminium electrolytic capacitors do change in specs fairly drastically early in their life. Their capacitance generally gets closer to spec, leakage current goes down and ESR reduces (slightly). For low value caps (less than 100uF) this happens very quickly indeed, for higher values (like 10mF power supply caps) it might take a few hours.

Decent quality amps shouldn't really have electrolytics in their signal path - they have wide tolerances, they drift with temperature, they have high leakage current and many other good engineering reasons. Cheaper amps do use these caps, but normally as output or input caps where these poor specs don't matter as much, so there is unlikely to be an audible difference. As for all other components - they might change behaviour slightly as they warm up (transistor beta changes, for example) but not significantly over a few hours of breakin. As people have already said - they probably get worse.

Hard drives can't store high frequencies because they are magnetic and therefore have inductance. Use non magnetic media like DVD-RAM disks instead. no, i'm not really serious

Agreed, but likely not an issue (as you state later in your post) because the electrolytics are virtually certain to be only in the power supply where such tolerances have a minimal effect. The net result might be that a new amp with "unformed" electrolytics might have 0.1% more AC ripple on the rails - again, hardly worth mentioning.

In well designed, regulated supplies and circuits with built-in supply noise rejection, this number is essentially zero. And yes, you can design that.