Scientific Basis of Break In

AKA KURO · « **Reply #20 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 04:52 pm »

Of course the music sounds better after a few plays--your new equipment just needed some time to learn the tunes!

Ethan Winer · « **Reply #21 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 04:56 pm »

Quote from: PMAT on 1 Oct 2010, 04:37 am

Most of the "break in" is between your ears.

I'm sure this is the case. Same for "warming up" solid state gear. It's not the gear that changes over half an hour, but our hearing and perception.

--Ethan

MttBsh · « **Reply #22 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 05:02 pm »

"Other than that, there isn't any real evidence for "break-in" of electronic components. There are a lot of people who try to explain it one way or another, but there isn't a factual basis to any of it, and they can never show measurements that illustrate their claims"

I don't know why, but this brings to mind the tens of thousands of reports of people seeing UFOs - yet to date there's not one shred of scientific evidence to support their existence. Does that mean what they saw was only in their minds?

If you can clearly hear improvements as a component breaks in, or you really did see a UFO, does the lack of scientific validation negate your experience?

Terrible analology but this seems like a pretty freeform thread, so there it is.

Bear · « **Reply #23 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 05:03 pm »

Quote from: chadh on 1 Oct 2010, 12:41 pm

When I buy a pair of jeans, those jeans are certainly in the best condition they will ever be at the time of purchase. As I wear the jeans, the jeans start to deteriorate little by little, but they actually become more comfortable. The degradation allows them better to conform to my shape, and make allowances for the irregularities of my body.

I think it works this way with audio components. The more time they spend in close proximity to my ass, the better they sound.

Chad

This may be the funniest post I have ever read on this site

Thank You.

AKA KURO · « **Reply #24 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 05:21 pm »

Quote

there isn't any real evidence for "break-in" of electronic components

If there is no measurable evidence, there sure is a lot of empirical evidence, that is, not by prior knowledge, but by experience. There is so much experiential evidence cited by so many, you may just have to acquiese ever so slightly on that basis alone.

Just found this in my Richard Gray user's manual. "...it can take up to 24 hours or more for the devices' full effects to be realized, not unlike breaking in any new component. Why should this be so? RGPC Parallel Power devices actually enable your components' power supply capacitors to charge and discharge more quickly and completely, and it takes a bit of time for this 'capacitor retraining' process to be completed" (RGPC, 2007, p.6).

Richard Gray Power Company (2007). Product Manual.

*Scotty* · « **Reply #25 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 05:25 pm »

Ethan, you know very well, or you should,that a transistor based power amp will show a higher THD figure until the output devices reach their thermal equilibrium which is usually well above ambient room temperature. Tubes,being THERMIONIC devices also have a warm up period.
Scotty

saisunil · « **Reply #26 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 05:30 pm »

Quote from: TONEPUB on 1 Oct 2010, 06:57 am

It's really easy.

Get two of whatever you'd like to hear. Run one for about 500 hours and leave one in the box.
After 500 hours do an A/B and I think you'll hear the difference pretty easily.

Some components change more over shorter periods of time, but they do change. I always wondered if it was "getting used to it" instead of the sound changing, but I've done this a few times with different components and it's always the same thing.

Tonepub nailed it on the head ... try it and find out for yourself if you don't believe or can't or don't want to hear the difference that break-in has on sound produced by audio equipment ...

For me - the easiest has been the headphones - as they are so easy to swap - it only takes a few seconds - I have done my share of A/Bing the phones - I did that with two sets of AKG701headphones ...

Yes it is also true that break-in also happens in your head - if one has decided that break-in has no affect on sound then for that person it doesn't - who is to convince - besides it is a hobby ... a form of entertainment ...

Cheers

chlorofille · « **Reply #27 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 05:37 pm »

Quote from: chadh on 1 Oct 2010, 12:41 pm

I think it works this way with audio components. The more time they spend in close proximity to my ass, the better they sound.

Chad

Sometimes I enjoy sitting on my sub.

I strongly believe in break in for speakers. Fs has dropped by 5Hz after a period of 1 year.

Recently I purchased a pair of Nike shoes. While wearing them for the first time, I tried breaking them in by doing a 3 mile run. After the run, I had blisters on my feet. One week later, they healed and I thought maybe the shoes had broken in fully, but it was just my body bracing itself for more blisters, and had sped up growth of thicker skin to protect itself from abrasions.

Wayner · « **Reply #28 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 06:05 pm »

With my engineering background in mechanical and electrical, I can say that every material, every alloy assembled by man, nature immediately starts to dis-assemble. Look at all the products you have, even your home, car, the stereo and even our bodies, they all begin the deterioration process. Many sub-atomic bonds between atoms or molecules are in an unhappy relationship.

If we accept this statement, then clearly components within a preamp or power amp are also in the deteriorating process (tho it may be slow). The question that I have to ask, how does material breaking down know how to sound "good"? In otherwords, just because something is "breaking in" doesn't mean it should sound better, maybe it sounds even worse. But the break-in believers always claim that it sounds better. How do the atoms and molecules know that if they "break-in" a certain way, the human's ears will perceive that as pleasant?

I do agree that speaker surrounds and mechanical things may loosen up over time, but then did they loosen up too much and now the (example) speaker surround does a worse job controlling the driver's movement?

Wayner

srb · « **Reply #29 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 06:34 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 1 Oct 2010, 06:05 pm

How do the atoms and molecules know that if they "break-in" a certain way, the human's ears will perceive that as pleasant?

That is an excellent question and point.

Steve

sneezingdog · « **Reply #30 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 06:38 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 1 Oct 2010, 06:05 pm

...Look at all the products you have, even your home, car, the stereo and even our bodies, they all begin the deterioration process...

If we accept this statement, then clearly components within a preamp or power amp are also in the deteriorating process (tho it may be slow). The question that I have to ask, how does material breaking down know how to sound "good"? In otherwords, just because something is "breaking in" doesn't mean it should sound better, maybe it sounds even worse. But the break-in believers always claim that it sounds better. How do the atoms and molecules know that if they "break-in" a certain way, the human's ears will perceive that as pleasant?

The sounding better or not part is surely the human contribution to the phenomena. If everyone reporting a change in sound after use (deterioration) happens to agree that what they are hearing is better (they just like it more), well that's just accidental, but interesting for that fact alone.

*Scotty* · « **Reply #31 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 06:46 pm »

Wayner said,

Quote

I do agree that speaker surrounds and mechanical things may loosen up over time, but then did they loosen up too much and now the (example) speaker surround does a worse job controlling the driver's movement?

No,not if the engineer accounted for this in his original design. What has not been done is a measurement of a drivers THD and IM in an unbroken in condition and then a second measurement after 500 hours of heavy use. I have heard the break in phenomena with drivers and in this case there should be something to measure.

Quote

How do the atoms and molecules know that if they "break-in" a certain way, the human's ears will perceive that as pleasant?

Good point they don't. I have no explanation for why running an electrical signal through a conductor or a complete electronic device changes its sound for the better but to me it does. In the case of wires, RCA plugs and jacks however, a designs characteristic sound doesn't seem to change in a gross fashion even after break in. If I don't like it when I first hear it I usually don't like it after extended use.I wish I could tell by looking which design was going to sound poor in comparison to another but I can't. In many cases involving cables there are no images of the cables geometry,strand count or LCR measurements. That leaves listening to them to sort them out. If some people can't hear any repeatable differences between things that's okay.
I can and I act on the empirically obtained evidence accordingly.
Scotty

woodsyi · « **Reply #32 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 06:50 pm »

Just for the hell of it, I will be the D's Advocate since it's Friday afternoon and I am counting down to "Miller" time.

The energy from the power supply (AC/DC) is organizing the molecules and creating a temporary reduction of entropy. Thus the sea of (delocalized) electrons in the Cu/Ag/Pd/Au/Ni/Pt wires are more aligned and conducive to cleaner signal transfer.

How's that?

wushuliu · « **Reply #33 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 06:54 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 1 Oct 2010, 06:05 pm

With my engineering background in mechanical and electrical, I can say that every material, every alloy assembled by man, nature immediately starts to dis-assemble. Look at all the products you have, even your home, car, the stereo and even our bodies, they all begin the deterioration process. Many sub-atomic bonds between atoms or molecules are in an unhappy relationship.

If we accept this statement, then clearly components within a preamp or power amp are also in the deteriorating process (tho it may be slow). The question that I have to ask, how does material breaking down know how to sound "good"? In otherwords, just because something is "breaking in" doesn't mean it should sound better, maybe it sounds even worse. But the break-in believers always claim that it sounds better. How do the atoms and molecules know that if they "break-in" a certain way, the human's ears will perceive that as pleasant?

I do agree that speaker surrounds and mechanical things may loosen up over time, but then did they loosen up too much and now the (example) speaker surround does a worse job controlling the driver's movement?

Wayner

I don't know that break-in believers always believe the component sounds better. There are just as many comments made about components that sound great at first but after a time not so much. The positive comments are just more enthusiastic and more likely to be shared. I'm unsure about break-in myself but I do believe the human 'delusion' element is overstated when it comes to long-term listening. My ears are sensitive and there are just some sound qualities to which I cannot acclimate no matter how much I try -and I've tried. Especially once I became aware of how good audio reproduction could be. I mean sure I could go over to a friend's house and watch a movie with the sound coming from the TV speakers and become engrossed, pulled in and have me heart move with the dialogue and music cues and forget about the sound quality - but that doesn't mean my separates don't sound better.

Wayner · « **Reply #34 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 06:59 pm »

Scotty,

The good folks at Acoustic Research (inventors of the acoustic suspension) and their wonderful AR-3a had no idea that 30 years later, their woofer surrounds would crumble to dust. I'm not sayin' that engineers don't try to plan for "things loosening up" (as opposed to the break-in theory) and most is just hopefully good guess-timating. Does the identical speaker playing in Toronto sound or have the same measurements as one that plays in Denver or Phoenix?

Wayner

AKA KURO · « **Reply #35 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 06:59 pm »

Again, it isn't a matter of knowing why a phenomenon occurs--knowledge is also gained through experience, and this is what many of you "show me the facts" folks don't have--you lack experience. For eons, people experienced the Aurora Borealis. They had absolutely no way of explaining it, no knowledge whatsover of the ionosphere, but they did, and do, experience it. We still don't know everything about tornadoes, but they sure do happen. So, if you lack experience in equipment burn in, perhaps you should get some. Until you get some real-world experience, go back to those who tell you what to believe. If those who have told you what to believe have some scientific proof that equipment cannot possibly break in, then you would have cited those articles, but you cannot, can you? You cannot, because even those who require science have no basis by which to make their claims. On the other hand, I have personally experienced and attest to my new or modified equipment having sounded better over time. I cannot explain this, but there it is.

turkey · « **Reply #36 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 06:59 pm »

Quote from: AKA KURO on 1 Oct 2010, 05:21 pm

If there is no measurable evidence, there sure is a lot of empirical evidence, that is, not by prior knowledge, but by experience. There is so much experiential evidence cited by so many, you may just have to acquiese ever so slightly on that basis alone.

Prove you can hear it.

turkey · « **Reply #37 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:01 pm »

Quote from: saisunil on 1 Oct 2010, 05:30 pm

Yes it is also true that break-in also happens in your head - if one has decided that break-in has no affect on sound then for that person it doesn't - who is to convince - besides it is a hobby ... a form of entertainment ...

Yes, that's exactly it.

*Scotty* · « **Reply #38 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:02 pm »

woodsyi,I like it,but why is there no immediate return to the unorganized ground state when the electron flow is halted.
An answer to one question always seems to raise another question.
Scotty

wushuliu · « **Reply #39 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:04 pm »

Quote from: turkey on 1 Oct 2010, 07:01 pm

Yes, that's exactly it.

The it's in your head argument is pretty tough to swallow. That's a very slippery slope, and ultimately leads you can't trust anything you hear or you believe that certain people are more qualified than you to know what you should hear. I find skeptics tend to lean towards the latter.