[Goosepond]

Here is what I find puzzling. In the case of electronic gear, how do you suppose the designers account for the fact that initially their amp, etc. might sound like crap. But if the owner just endures that period, they will be rewarded with musical nirvana.

How do they design their components such that they know what they are hearing presently is not indicative of what's to come. Something to think about, maybe. 

Gene

[Freo-1]

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.

Good post. I think this captures the issue nicely.

For those of us who  play with thermionic amplifiers,  this is not even debatable.  Many of us who started out with Dyna PS3 and ST 70 /MK3s know how the gear was transformed with a refurbishment of the caps and resistors.

Speakers also have a break in period.  I owned Acoustat Spectra 33's for many years, and they took a LONG time before they opened up.

[Tyson]

Electronics are no different than the new boy on the cell block.  You gotta break them in.  It's all struggle and rough times at first, but it smooths out eventually.

[Niteshade]

When I purchase components, I look for ones that should not change for a long, long time. Capacitors don't last as long as resistors, but still have a long lifespan measured in years and not hours. It's important to purchase high quality parts regularly used within industrial/commercial applications and made by reputable companies that TEST their parts for stability in a wide range of scenarios. I don't expect the resistors and capacitors I use to go out of tolerance for at least five years, if not 10 or more. Tubes will drift out of tolerance gradually over time. That's the nature of the beast. Keeping them cool and properly biased will greatly extend their life.

A manufacturer will want the owner to spend time with their new equipment to get accustomed to it. Humans do __not__ like change as a rule. Even positive changes are frowned upon at times because they still require time to get used to. I suppose this topic goes into phychoacoustics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics 

To directly answer your question- I don't believe something should change dramatically from 1 to 100 hours or whatever unless there is something wrong with it. A change in sonic quality means a change in something within the amplifier or preamp that has to be, without a doubt, measurable. Let's face it- change is a measure of the difference in between two values. If the values remain the same, then there is no change.

Testing: I have worked extensively with the best test equipment available in well equipped labs at RIT as well as GnNettest. My colleagues and I built many RC/RLC circuits and wrote down in great detail what the circuits were doing at specific frequency injections. We were even able to witness capacitance between the windings of chokes! Suffice it to say there were no voodoo traces or artifacts to record that were unexplainable. The parts we used were a mixture of new and rigorously used components. My experiences at GnNettest reflected exactly that of RIT's. The equipment we made was extremely stable, EVEN after a good long night in the cooker meant to stress the equipment to detect flaws.

Something nobody touched on: Electronics that generate heat or that work best at room temperatures will work differently after they have risen to their operating temperature range. A state of equilibrium has to be reached. After that, the device will work within specifications. Even solid state amps work differently after a warm-up period. Semiconductors will conduct differently at different temps as do tubes. If someone says something sounds better after a few hours of operation, it could be the device has warmed to operating temperature. The cycle will start over again every time the unit is turned on.

I am staying away from subjective thought and just relaying what I have witnessed and learned. The observations of others on this thread are very important to me. Observations have to be recorded and reviewed to find quantifiable reasons behind them if they exist.

Here is what I find puzzling. In the case of electronic gear, how do you suppose the designers account for the fact that initially their amp, etc. might sound like crap. But if the owner just endures that period, they will be rewarded with musical nirvana.

How do they design their components such that they know what they are hearing presently is not indicative of what's to come. Something to think about, maybe. 

Gene

[Larkston Zinaspic]

I can't really explain the reason, but I think my best example for component "break-in" would be my Promitheus Dual-Box-Mono TVC. It was transparent from the start, but I could swear it took at least six months before this unit began to 'allow' more bass energy to come through and fill out a bit, although I have no idea what could have changed internally. It is indeed a 'neutral' preamp now IMO, not just sounding sterile or anemic as I thought before.

Unfortunately, there's so much BS in audio that I don't really have the patience to wait anymore. If it sounds great straight out of the box and I can possibly expect a subtle improvement, then that's fine. But if I have to wait for a miracle to happen then let someone else deal with it.

[opaqueice]

Unfortunately, there's so much BS in audio that I don't really have the patience to wait anymore. If it sounds great straight out of the box and I can possibly expect a subtle improvement, then that's fine. But if I have to wait for a miracle to happen then let someone else deal with it.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is the "buyer's remorse" factor.  If you buy some expensive piece of audio equipment and are initially disappointed by the sound, it's very convenient to believe it's going to improve later due to break-in.  That way you can wait for your brain to adjust, and then feel relieved that your purchase was worthwhile after all.  (It's worth remembering that any change in sound - even those that nearly everyone would agree are improvements, like lower noise or less distortion - sometimes sound bad to people at first, until they adjust to it.)

This could address the question mjosef asked earlier - why is it that anecdotal reports of break-in always seem to be that it was an improvement?  That seems very strange if there's a physical effect there, particularly since designers would have no way of knowing what these mysterious break-in effects are!

[dyohn]

Just like any other subjective area, if the subject believes there is a difference then, for them, there is.  But from an engineering or scientific perspective, there is no such thing as "break-in" for solid state electronics or for conductors.  The properties of tubes and loudspeakers can change with time, which might lead to differences in the output sound quality.  Whether that change makes the output "better" or "worse" gets us back into the area of subjectivity.

[face]

A few months back, I purchased a set of used MIT interconnects.  Another month or so later, I picked up a new pair.  The new pair had more highs and less bass.  But after a few weeks of use, the bass increased and the highs mellowed out, and both cables sounded identical.  Granted, MIT's cables aren't just cables due to their network box, but it showed me that some electronics can change after time. 

I've also upgraded capacitors in dozen loudspeakers and a few amps and there were some noticeable changes in the first 10 hours or so, and some subtle changes in the first hundred house.  For those who don't believe, this test is easy enough for most to perform.

[Dan_ed]

IMO and IME, the answer to why breakin occurs lies with the video posted by Double Ugly. As the guy in the video stated, the tests done convinced them that people do hear differences in capacitors. But, as we all know (I've been saying this to all of my non-audiophile EE colleagues for years), the mathematical models and electrical parameters that we engineers use to design circuits DO NOT indicate why people prefer the sound of one cap over another. And then these guys in the video discovered that there was a measurable parameter that did correlate to the sound people preferred. Mechanical vibrations inside the capacitors. Apparently, again from the video, there is one big manufacturer of caps that has suspected this for quite some time but had no idea how to go about measuring what was going on. Makes a lot of sense to me. We have all heard the effects of vibration on components and how much better things sound when the vibration is dealt with. One thing that would make me totally convinced would be if these guys measured the internal vibration of a brand new cap and then measured again after some time. Either after 200 hours or so, or when a group of listeners decided they all heard the relaxing of the sound.

So how about SS devices? If we consider that all chips are made of thousands of tiny capacitors (how else can they hold a charge to change from a 1 to a 0?) then it makes sense to me that there could be some of this mechanical vibration happening in each of these tiny caps. Add the vibrations up, the effects are probably commulative, and we have a pretty good explanation of what breakin really means. This mechanical vibration explanation can easily be applied to cables and any other component that has capacitance. I suspect that we have not heard the last of scientists getting around to figuring out what else is going on.

Just my .02.

[thunderbrick]

Briefly, years ago I borrowed a used, but highly regarded Bedini amp.  Hooked it up and was horribly disappointed.  Days later, when I had to return it (it had been powered up all this time), I gave it one more listen and my jaw dropped.  Strings on Reiner/Scheherazade were silky smooth instead of harsh.  It was instantly recognizable when I had in fact no expectations.  Simply couldn't afford it at the time or I might still have it.
Breaking in or just warming up, I don't know, but it WAS there.

[Niteshade]

A possible answer to the capacitor questions. Please look at the PDF file.

www.polkaudio.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32504&d=1207187391

[mjosef]

But from an engineering or scientific perspective, there is no such thing as "break-in" for solid state electronics or for conductors.

Some would dispute that statement...I mean IF I was a "scientist" I would think an open mind would lend itself more to "discoveries"...but since I am just an ordinary "dreamer", I can just let my imagination roam.
Besides there are lots of phenomena we just don't know HOW to measure, and in many cases lark the instruments to do so even if we sorta kinda have an idea of the units of measurements.

By the way one of times when I heard a component "break-in" for the worse was with a preamp...sounded very nice the first few months...then the sound became very ordinary, loss of detail/sparkle etc...funny thing is later on (years)I picked up another one used and this one sounded very superior to the first new one I bought. I still got them both(dating from the late 80's).

[TONEPUB]

And let's talk about what the guy is using to evaluate things.  The whole setup is worth fifty bucks?

I'm so tired of these discussions.  The guys who always seem to dimiss the sound of good components
built with premium parts are always listening to very average equipment at best.

I've seen this line of logic on every forum I've ever spent time on.  The have not's always want to
whine that the good stuff isn't that good and they have all kinds of measurements that prove otherwise.

It's the same with the car guys.  The guys that own Subaru WRX's all think they have a Porsche or
Ferarri killer because it has a similar 0-60 time.  There is so much more to it than that.

The big problem with all of these arguments is that there is not a measurment for tonality.
After spending most of my life listening to gear at all price levels, there are definitely some
things that offer up more sound (or more lifelike sound) at certain price points than others,
but there still isn't a substitute for the best gear being made.  I'd love to think that there
was, but I certainly haven't heard it yet.

It's taken science and measurements until just recently to start to figure out why
the Stradivarius violins sound so good.  Every great audio designer I've ever talked
to still feels that the measurements can only take them so far.  They are still important
and useful, but never the last word.

I really fail to understand why this argument/discussion continues.  It never progresses
any further than this.

[Gordy]

I like the Nelson Pass wine analogy...

[opaqueice]

I'm so tired of these discussions.  The guys who always seem to dimiss the sound of good components
built with premium parts are always listening to very average equipment at best.

Part of the reason these discussions get tiring is the intolerance of each side to the other's point of view.  Statements like that are a big part of the problem.

Take Siegfried Linkwitz, for example.  This is the guy that designed the Linkwitz-Riley crossover that's used in the probably the majority of all speaker crossovers in the world, worked at Audio Artistry as their speaker designer making extremely high-end and well-regarded speakers, and has now designed what are arguably the best open-baffle speakers in the world.  Hardly someone used to listening to "average" equipment, and it's going to be tough to find anyone in the world with better credentials.  And guess what he recommends, component-wise?  Ratshack cables, for one thing - you can take a look at his website and see what else he has to say (and I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe in break-in, although I can't quote him on it).  Notice that he doesn't stand to gain or lose anything financially or otherwise by that.

Now, I'm not saying he's right about everything - but I do think dismissing him and people like him out of hand isn't very reasonable.

I really fail to understand why this argument/discussion continues.  It never progresses
any further than this.

And why do you think that might be? 

Let's suppose that break-in for SS electronics is real.  Fine:  so there's a real effect out there, but we know very little about it - we know something changes with time, but we don't know what, or how.  So what's an audio engineer to do?  She needs to design an amp, say, but she doesn't know how the parts are going to change, or which will change, or how, or when.  So the first thing to do is nail down what precisely is changing, why, and what for - then she can take it into account and make better design decisions.  But to nail it down she's going to have to take some measurements, or at least perform some controlled listening tests to figure out what the deal is. 

It's really just common sense.  But somehow a lot of folks get all up in arms whenever anyone suggests that, or points out that psychoacoustics play a really big role in what we perceive (even though it's very well known and established).  That's the part I really don't get - what is there to be afraid of?  Let's just settle down and get to the bottom of it.  There's a lot of progress to be made improving sound, and getting distracted by irrelevancies isn't going to help.

[satfrat]

Part of the reason these discussions get tiring is the intolerance of each side to the other's point of view.  Statements like that are a big part of the problem.

Hmm.  To me, that's not a very useful way to think about things.  I mean, lots of people report all kinds of stuff anecdotally, from UFOs to ghosts to alien probes.

You are as much of the problem here as anyone else pal less you forgot your prior jabs.

Cheers,
Robin

[opaqueice]

You are as much of the problem here as anyone else pal less you forgot your prior jabs.

Really? 

See, I'm not sure I get that.  I said "To me, that's not a very useful way to think about things"; my personal opinion in response to a very specific statement.  I gave an example that shows that just because lots of people believe something it's not necessarily true (although it could be), and I later apologized in case I had offended anyone.

He said "The guys who always seem to dimiss the sound of good components built with premium parts are always listening to very average equipment at best", which is a blanket statement that tries to disparage and dismiss everyone that disagrees with him (her?).  It's also manifestly false.

My position is that burn-in could well be a real physical effect... but it could also be psychological.  If it's real, I'd like it to be understood and quantified so we can have better quality audio gear.  If not, I'd like to see that proven, so we can stop obsessing over it.  To me, that's reasonable.

I've rarely seen someone on your side of this divide admit that anything they hear could be psychological, or agree that any of the methods scientists use to test these things are even useful, let alone that the results of their research are valid.  To me, that's unreasonable. 

Do you agree?

[BobM]

Please don't degenerate this thread right into the wastebin. Keep on topic.

Not only have I experienced break-in many times, but I also hear my components improving after they are initially turned on. About 1/2 hour later they sound much better. And I can't be 100% positive, but I do believe that there is added magic coming out after 2-3 hours turned on.

Now I think most manufacturers will tell you that the component will sound different (better) after it is warmed up, so why is it so hard to imagine that it will also sound different (better) after it is burned in?

Enjoy,
Bob

[*Scotty*]

opaqueice,a designer I know of deals with break in while prototyping circuits in a very clever way. He has established to his satisfaction that much of the changes he hears when break in occurs are due to the power supply capacitors forming up. He therefore uses a fully broken in power supply when listening to prototype circuits. He also has enough experience to have a good idea of what a circuit may sound like after the parts break in. It is entirely unnecessary to fully understand the physical basis for the break in phenomenon in order to design excellent sounding equipment.  What is required is the ability to deal empirically with the effects you observe during the course of designing equipment and effectively compensate for them when necessary. Most of the signs of obsession I have observed regarding this subject have revolved around the denial of a body evidence partially based in many cases on sound observations of the phenomena. Scientific inquiry starts with an open mind and observing the world around you in an organized manor and not denying the existence of something when it occurs regardless of how irreconcilable it may be with ones current world view. It may not be particularly comforting to realize that we don't know everything about the world we live in and that there is a great deal ambiguity surrounding many aspects of our hobby but that's the way it is.
Scotty

[TONEPUB]

You are as much of the problem here as anyone else pal less you forgot your prior jabs.

Really? 

See, I'm not sure I get that.  I said "To me, that's not a very useful way to think about things"; my personal opinion in response to a very specific statement.  I gave an example that shows that just because lots of people believe something it's not necessarily true (although it could be), and I later apologized in case I had offended anyone.

He said "The guys who always seem to dimiss the sound of good components built with premium parts are always listening to very average equipment at best", which is a blanket statement that tries to disparage and dismiss everyone that disagrees with him (her?).  It's also manifestly false.

My position is that burn-in could well be a real physical effect... but it could also be psychological.  If it's real, I'd like it to be understood and quantified so we can have better quality audio gear.  If not, I'd like to see that proven, so we can stop obsessing over it.  To me, that's reasonable.

I've rarely seen someone on your side of this divide admit that anything they hear could be psychological, or agree that any of the methods scientists use to test these things are even useful, let alone that the results of their research are valid.  To me, that's unreasonable. 

Do you agree?

If what I said is "Manifestly False", then please find me one room at CES this year that is using Radio Shack cables.

Don't you think that if all of this was in our heads, one of the guys making the best gear the world has to offer
would have the nerve and/or brains to stand up and use their stuff with el cheapo cables, etc?  They all seem to
take great pains to set their gear up and they all seem to have an opinion on which cables to use or not use (along
with a bunch of other stuff), but none of them seem to ignore this altogether.

And if you pop the lid on the world's finest audio equipment, none of it has cheap parts or wire inside.

Are they all just making this up?

That's why this discussion is so uninteresting.

If you don't believe it or can't hear it, don't buy it and don't obsess about it.  It's that easy.