[Steidl Guitars]

Another scientist here (biologist).

Good sense and healthy skepticism are darned useful; deriding others, not so much. 

Provided there is a plausible mechanism for something being proposed, I consider it worth considering.  The guy on the video went from an observed pattern (hearing differences in blind tests) to a mechanistic explanation (microphonics within the component); nice work, I think, explaining the basis for the pattern others have observed for some time and could not previously explain.

So when someone is skeptical about the benefit of better cables or break-in, I appreciate their position; it really doesn't seem all that plausible.  And if they have a low-resolution rig, then any improvements might truly be trivial or even zero.  But as the quality of the gear increases, so does the ease with which we can detect these changes.

Personally, I have experienced sonic changes in components as they break-in that I am pretty darned sure are not artifacts of psychoacoustics.  In a recent case, it was a friend's gear, so I got to hear it at roughly 100 hour intervals (all else remained unchanged).  On the first visit, there was quite a bit of glare--I was worried about this new amp.  These days no more glare.  I have no mechanistic explanation, but I suspect there is one waiting to be unraveled.

[jon_010101]

In that video the guy says they found an effect they were sure was audible from blind tests, and then they correlated it with a measurement.  That's exactly the right way to go about it (although given that they're a manufacturer I'm skeptical about that particular effect).  Personally, until I see something like that for break-in (especially of solid-state electronics) I'm just not going to buy into it. 

TONEPUB's suggestion is perfect - try a proper blind test between two or three otherwise identical pieces of gear, and see what it turns up.

Personally, I can't see break-in happening for solid-state devices, cables, or resistors.  I can see it being possible for electrolytic capacitors, but less-likely for film.  It has been proven for tubes, due to changes in the cathode during the first hours of use.  And by Danny Richie for speaker drivers, as the suspension's mechanical properties change measurably.  

That said - I think blind tests are worthless unless they can be backed up with measurement.  I often see a bunch of objectivists getting together and dismissing differences as inconsequential without figuring out what is "better" via actual measurements.  Blind tests are also limited to the speakers (and rest of the system) being used, and I know that I have at least one pair of fairly-good speakers that sound basically the same regardless of what junk amplifier is feeding 'em.

[Bigfish]

Let's say you buy a brand new DAC and play it out of the box.
Opinions please:
1:  Will the DAC actually sound better after "break-in" time or is this simply an audio myth?
2:  Assuming that one believes in "break-in" being a true occurence, is there some science behind this belief?  What actually happens internally to improve the sound?

If you purchase the DAC and you install it in your system the only thing that matters is that you like the way your system sounds.  You will never convince some that you can actually hear differences as the DAC collects some running hours because you can't produce measurements.  True to most of these types of discussions no one really cares, it just generates food for argument.

Bigfish

[opaqueice]

Personally, I have experienced sonic changes in components as they break-in that I am pretty darned sure are not artifacts of psychoacoustics.  In a recent case, it was a friend's gear, so I got to hear it at roughly 100 hour intervals (all else remained unchanged).  On the first visit, there was quite a bit of glare--I was worried about this new amp.  These days no more glare.  I have no mechanistic explanation, but I suspect there is one waiting to be unraveled.

One possibility is changes in the listening room:  opening a window, drawing the curtains, hanging a painting or poster, moving or changing furniture, moving to a new listening position, and especially moving the speakers even as little as a few inches can have dramatic (and easily measurable) effects on the sound. 

Just as an example, I recently added a carpet to my listening room and the frequency response changed considerably.  I measured that as well as heard it (I use digital room correction, so I have to re-measure the room when I make changes).

That might or might not have to do with what you heard, but I think it's important to realize how many factors there are.

[mgalusha]

Earlier this year I modified a few Behringer DCX2496 crossovers and had the opportunity to compare a freshly modified unit to my personal unit which had been in use for several months. They were built the same and I replicated the crossover profile between units, in other words the only difference was the amount of run time.

I compared them at the same time with no changes in the room or listening environment, the units were next to each other and I just moved the cables between them, all levels matched. The one with many hours on it was easily discernible from the newly built unit. I measured them on the bench as well and they were as close to identical as my test gear could measure but they did not sound the same.

For a long time I could not buy into any type of break in but I've experienced it enough times now that I no longer worry about it's existence and just allow things to run in, most of the time on the bench so I don't have to listen to it. Just my $0.05.

[bpape]

Got to agree.  I've experienced it - especially with Teflon or OIMP caps.  While the don't measure much different, they certainly change in sound as the form.

Bryan

[PSP]

deleted...

Back to my music.  / P

[Tyson]

I imagine that it's real.

[satfrat]

I imagine that it's real.

That sounds like a scotch-induced statement.

[zane9]

I liked the part where he said "could hear quite clearly in BLIND tests..."

There is definitely a break in period for most gear and it depends on the
parts used.  If you ever have the luxury of getting two brand new components
of the same type, play one for 300 hours and leave one in the box.

After 300 hours compare A to B and I guarantee that they will sound different,
with the new component sounding a bit more harsh in the high end.

If you were in a situation where you did not know which one (A or B) received the 300 hours of play time, and then could identify which one benefited from the 300 hours with results better than chance, your position would be much stronger, IMO. Trouble is, your A vs. B comparision as you described it has a built-in testing flaw: you know which one is A and which one is B.

[mjosef]

I think I heard it...and so its 'real' to me...(not a scientist).
And it doesn't always 'break-in' for the better...twice I heard what I thought was a worsening of the sound...or so I thought.
I heard it said somewhere that the speed of thought was faster than the speed of light...
 

[zane9]

IAnd it doesn't always 'break-in' for the better...twice I heard what I thought was a worsening of the sound

Hope you didn't spend the moon on whatever new item sounded worse!

[Freo-1]

There is absolutely a break in period. Last year, I sent a Audio Research SP-12 to my tech for a total refurbishment. After I got it back, it took about a month until the new caps broke in completely. As the unit got more playing time, it stared to sound a lot better. Once the unit was fully broken it, I think it sounds "better than new", and definitely better than the stuff they make today (on the whole).

[zane9]

1:  Will the DAC actually sound better after "break-in" time or is this simply an audio myth?

Audio myth. But, one never knows. Electrons and music are strange partners.  Muse on this, from a post elsewhere:

"Think of electrons like the London Symphony Orchestra.  Now if you send the London Symphony to a show in a bunch of rented dump trucks, they will arrive dishelved and annoyed.  They will not perform their best.  They will be less "musical."

Electrons are just like that.  They are acutely aware of their environment.  If you send them through 1 cent resistors through zip cord, they will arrive dishelved.  They will be less musical.  Instead, allow them to travel through silver and gold wire.  Allow them to move about in a fancy milled aluminum box.  Send them to the speakers along the best cable you can afford.  This will make them happy.  So happy, the electrons will sing.  They will be more musical."

[TONEPUB]

I liked the part where he said "could hear quite clearly in BLIND tests..."

There is definitely a break in period for most gear and it depends on the
parts used.  If you ever have the luxury of getting two brand new components
of the same type, play one for 300 hours and leave one in the box.

After 300 hours compare A to B and I guarantee that they will sound different,
with the new component sounding a bit more harsh in the high end.

If you were in a situation where you did not know which one (A or B) received the 300 hours of play time, and then could identify which one benefited from the 300 hours with results better than chance, your position would be much stronger, IMO. Trouble is, your A vs. B comparision as you described it has a built-in testing flaw: you know which one is A and which one is B.

No it doesn't.  Everyone I played a and b for didn't know which one was which and the results
were the same.

If you don't want to believe it, don't.

Your analogy about the symphony is silly.

It's pretty obvious by the snarky comments that you don't have a lot of
experience.

[chadh]

And it doesn't always 'break-in' for the better...twice I heard what I thought was a worsening of the sound...or so I thought.

Actually, this is one of the things that has always made me suspect break-in is more imagined than real.  If we believe that these electrical components change over time, why would it be the case that those changes are always for the better?  I think more experiences of the kind where the sonic performance deteriorates during the first couple of hundred hours would make break-in a more credible phenomenon.

Personally, I fall into the camp that doesn't care at all whether break-in occurs.  I turn over gear very infrequently, so just about any conceivable break-in period should have passed by the time I start really considering whether I can afford to roll the dice again on another component.  But this break-in question probably becomes even less relevant for those who do change gear frequently.  If a component takes 500 hours to break in, that's liable to be the best part of a year's listening for many people.  For people who change their DACs almost as often as they change their underwear, that's an eternity.

Chad  

Chad

[zane9]

No it doesn't.  Everyone I played a and b for didn't know which one was which and the results
were the same.

If you don't want to believe it, don't.

Your analogy about the symphony is silly.

It's pretty obvious by the snarky comments that you don't have a lot of
experience.

I'd bet the cost of one of the advertisers' components in your mag that you knew which was A and B, when you played the identical gear for others.

Not my analogy...another's, who has a sense of humour.

Lack of experience? Ah, nothing like a good insult hurled, to belittle the opposing person (rather than his opinion).

[timind]

And it doesn't always 'break-in' for the better...twice I heard what I thought was a worsening of the sound...or so I thought.

Actually, this is one of the things that has always made me suspect break-in is more imagined than real.  If we believe that these electrical components change over time, why would it be the case that those changes are always for the better?  I think more experiences of the kind where the sonic performance deteriorates during the first couple of hundred hours would make break-in a more credible phenomenon.

Personally, I fall into the camp that doesn't care at all whether break-in occurs.  I turn over gear very infrequently, so just about any conceivable break-in period should have passed by the time I start really considering whether I can afford to roll the dice again on another component.  But this break-in question probably becomes even less relevant for those who do change gear frequently.  If a component takes 500 hours to break in, that's liable to be the best part of a year's listening for many people.  For people who change their DACs almost as often as they change their underwear, that's an eternity.

Chad  

Chad

Good point. I feel the same way about a lot of the tweaks people come up with. Why does the new power cable always sound better than the previous pc?  Hard to believe every change provides better sound.

[Zero]

I tell people I experience break-in because the girls find it hot.

[miklorsmith]

I've noticed break-in quite a few times.  Some of them I've thought "well, I could be imagining it".  A couple of examples I felt more strongly support break-in:

Low-excursion, wideband drivers are brutal on break-in.  Fostex drivers, Zu's Eminence, and Louis' hemps all morph considerably from new to mature.

A while back I bought a used preamplifier.  I was very excited as it had gotten universal praise for its musicality.  My initial thoughts were completely the opposite.  I struggled with it, trying everything I could think of to get it to sing.  Finally, remembering it had been re-capped a few months before I bought it I asked the seller how much it had been played since the operation.  He replied basically zero, it was in a closet prior to the sale.  I put it on 24/7 cook and a month later it was really outstanding and has been since.

My opinion on break-in is that it is real but every part in a system is different.  Some are quite susceptible to break-in, others considerably less.