Do you believe in break-in?

*Scotty* · « **Reply #40 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 09:50 pm »

Before I believe the assertion that the variations in temperature,humidity and barometric pressure found in the common home which is usually air conditioned are even partially responsible for changes in hearing acuity I will need some substantiating evidence. This starts to sound like the reports of breakin phenomena are being attributed to a bit of undigested beef eaten by the the observer. I don't see the need to dismiss empirical data concerning breakin on the basis of the aforementioned fallible senses argument.
Scotty

Wayner · « **Reply #41 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 10:30 pm »

So then you would rather believe in something that you can't explain at all? Where is the proof of break-in. There is no evidence at all. At least my explination has something other then mystic wishfull thinking. Show me one chart, one fact that will support the claim and I'll believe you. But I know you can't. You guys just "want to believe".

W

Pez · « **Reply #42 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 10:33 pm »

Quote

Show me one chart, one fact that will support the claim and I'll believe you.

that knife cuts both ways.

Show me one that supports your claim.

Is it always going to be audible? Probably not, but I'm not the one trying to make blanket statements here. All things being mechanical in any design there are bound to be changes, audible or not. You and Frank seem to contend that there will not be, which seems to defy entropy.

K Shep · « **Reply #43 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 10:42 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 9 Sep 2009, 10:30 pm

So then you would rather believe in something that you can't explain at all? Where is the proof of break-in. There is no evidence at all. At least my explination has something other then mystic wishfull thinking. Show me one chart, one fact that will support the claim and I'll believe you. But I know you can't. You guys just "want to believe".

W

You believe that what I heard when I first plugged in my Ayre DAC was perceived as unrecognizable? That my brain was processing the new audible signal from my ears and that process takes an undefined amount of time which I refer to as break-in?

JimJ · « **Reply #44 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 10:43 pm »

What's there to change in a cable, though?

Another hobby of mine is ham radio - there are some serious competition stations out there, racking up thousands of contacts for points during worldwide contests. I've never once heard of someone "breaking in" their coaxial cable feedline for better performance, although they're dealing with 200+ foot runs of it. If there were performance benefits to be gained, I'm sure someone would be the first to try it, lest their competitors do it instead.

Especially at RF, which I would think (?) is a lot more suseptible to dielectric changes than audio. I know I've had cables go bad on me simply because the inner conductor shifted in the dielectric, whereas the spacing wouldn't have mattered a bit for an audio cable.

Tyson · « **Reply #45 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 10:48 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 9 Sep 2009, 10:30 pm

So then you would rather believe in something that you can't explain at all? Where is the proof of break-in. There is no evidence at all. At least my explination has something other then mystic wishfull thinking. Show me one chart, one fact that will support the claim and I'll believe you. But I know you can't. You guys just "want to believe".

W

Well, there are also no DBT tests "Proving" that one amp sounds better than another amp. Yet, you seem to have spent quite a bit of $$ on a nice AVA amp. Why would you do that when all amps sound the same according to DBT test results? I think you just "want to believe" that your amp sounds better than a $400 Sony HT Receiver.

See what I did there? It's rather condescending and irritating, isn't it?

Wayner · « **Reply #46 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 10:55 pm »

Tyson, no it's not irritating. You can believe in what ever you want. This thread's subject is "do YOU believe in break-in". Not "if you don't believe in break-in, you better not come here and voice your opinion.

Now days it seems that anyone with anykind of opinion, based on science or fiction is right until proven wrong. However, they do not have to bring any proof to the picnic, just their opinion is good enough for any kind of statement.

Well, I think that some kind of beings live on Mars. You can't prove that they don't, so therefore, they do.

w

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #47 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 10:55 pm »

Quote from: avahifi on 9 Sep 2009, 09:38 pm

However I even more agree with Jim Winey's rule, "if you can't hear the difference in the first three notes it isn't there". Jim, the designer of the Magnepans, helped me a lot in learning how to listen in my younger and dumber years.

Regards,

Frank Van Alstine

Frank,

I learned this from neither you nor Jim Winey, but it's pretty much what I use, as well.

Either something sounds inherently right or doesn't...a few seconds or three notes (well, maybe 10 notes

) is about all I need, too.

I'm not adept enough to hear or perceive nuanced 'problems' in midrange or bass or treble...but, I either like it or not in a few notes

That said, I regularly hear new stuff break-in effect in three notes...suffer thru it for another 10 minutes to 400 hours (teflon) and have a different opinion of it in the end. Same gear/equipment, same dissatisfied consumer as it began...the difference is component break-in I am near certain.

John

Wayner · « **Reply #48 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 10:58 pm »

Death and taxes are for certain.

K Shep · « **Reply #49 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 10:58 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 9 Sep 2009, 10:30 pm

So then you would rather believe in something that you can't explain at all? Where is the proof of break-in. There is no evidence at all. At least my explination has something other then mystic wishfull thinking. Show me one chart, one fact that will support the claim and I'll believe you. But I know you can't. You guys just "want to believe".

W

You believe that what I heard when I first plugged in my Ayre DAC was perceived as unrecognizable? That my brain was processing the new audible signal from my ears and that process takes an undefined amount of time which I refer to as break-in?

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #50 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 11:12 pm »

Got some speakers I really like, so I bought a second pair. The new ones still have a ways to go before they catch up to the older pair. The difference is obvious.

The same thing holds true with electronics. To verify, just compare a brand new unit to one that has been around the block. Just like a car, except breaking in a car requires a lot more time. My father bought a Honda CRV in 1996; it took him 12 years to put 35,000 miles on it.

Tyson · « **Reply #51 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 11:12 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 9 Sep 2009, 10:55 pm

Tyson, no it's not irritating. You can believe in what ever you want. This thread's subject is "do YOU believe in break-in". Not "if you don't believe in break-in, you better not come here and voice your opinion.

Now days it seems that anyone with anykind of opinion, based on science or fiction is right until proven wrong. However, they do not have to bring any proof to the picnic, just their opinion is good enough for any kind of statement.

Well, I think that some kind of beings live on Mars. You can't prove that they don't, so therefore, they do.

w

I was simply asking for you to prove that your amp sounds better than a $400 Sony Receiver. I assume that you do think that it does, is that a correct assumption? If so, then how do you "know" that it does? Clearly, by your standards, simply saying "Because it sounds better to me" is not enough, rather there must be independent proof, preferably in the form of DBT studies.

I'm simply asking you to produce those independent, DBT based studies that you used when evaluating and purchasing your current amp.

Pez · « **Reply #52 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 11:49 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 9 Sep 2009, 10:55 pm

Now days it seems that anyone with anykind of opinion, based on science or fiction is right until proven wrong. However, they do not have to bring any proof to the picnic, just their opinion is good enough for any kind of statement.

You know Wayner, that is exactly the kind of thing said to derail a topic. I'm certainly not just "making stuff up" nor do I believe you are. We are debating about whether or not something can be heard to change characteristics sonically. This is by nature a subjective and objective topic that has more angles than, it would appear, you would like to acknowledge.

Let's take wine for instance. A Gas Chromatograph will tell you with a high degree of accuracy that a 12 year old $350 bottle of Shiraz is composed of the exact same chemical compounds as a 2 year old $30 bottle. Therefore, by your logic, there are two strikes against buying the more expensive wine. First they are chemically identical so my $30 bottle of wine will taste the same. Second strike the 10 years that the $350 bottle is all for not, because nothing is appreciably happening to do anything to it. Closed system, no mechanical wear right? Would you like to give that a DBT with some well known Connoisseurs?

dweekie · « **Reply #53 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 11:59 pm »

A simple question would be to ask how many people responding have actually done any sort of basic tests? I mean, actually having two identical parts or devices? I've done my share of swapping and have found differences. If you have done the same and didn't hear differences, that's fine too. If you are arguing with other people on this forum without having performed any tests with a control setup, then....

Pez · « **Reply #54 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 12:03 am »

A simple search would show that many of us indeed have. Whether or not the methods used fit everyones notion of a valid test is up to the individual.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #55 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 12:05 am »

Quote from: dweekie on 9 Sep 2009, 11:59 pm

A simple question would be to ask how many people responding have actually done any sort of basic tests? I mean, actually having two identical parts or devices? I've done my share of swapping and have found differences. If you have done the same and didn't hear differences, that's fine too. If you are arguing with other people on this forum without having performed any tests with a control setup, then....

As a dealer, I've had ample opportunities to do this...comparing my demo units with new units and hearing significant differences...

K Shep · « **Reply #56 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 12:13 am »

Read my post #24. I am not comparing a DAC with more hours to a DAC right out of the box. But I am going to continue to compare my existing CDP to the DAC using the same Diana Krall song. In an effort to determine if I can hear a difference. So I have created a benchmark, a very crude benchmark, but the best available option to me.

Kirk

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #57 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 12:35 am »

From first hand experience, most of us know that there is great merit to audio components breaking in. However, just as the sky is blue and the earth is round, there will always be those who will have to dispute the matter.

JerryM · « **Reply #58 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 01:03 am »

Quote from: Wayner on 9 Sep 2009, 09:26 pm

If components broke in to such extremes that we could hear changes, how would equipment designers ever know that they are done or that the Ohms law would have a break-in variable to it making the required resistor (or what ever) value have a skew to it depending on break in time. I = E/R sometimes.

Wayner

I think designers know when break in is done because they listen to their product as part of the design process. They know how long the break in process takes, because they have heard the differences many times.

Jim Salk has on his website "Finally, the speakers are broken in until they exhibit near-perfect musicality." Seems as if he knows when they are done.

John at KCI offers a burn in on his cables, or offers one the ability to "experience the unique break in process of these cables." Seems he knows, too.

I have two identical sets of interconnects from a popular AC regular who operates a cable company. He states the break in time is roughly 200 hours. One set is broken in. The other is not. If you cannot hear the difference between these cables, your hearing is very poor. As Frank alludes, you know in the first three notes. There is no difference whatsoever between these ICs other than the hours they have been used. It seems this manufacturer also knows his product, and of the required break in period. I'm guessing he listens with them to determine this time period.

Regardless of the manufacturers; yes, I believe in break in of components.

Have fun,
Jerry

Wayner · « **Reply #59 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 07:27 pm »

Excuse me, I'm back but am having serious computer problems as my hard disc drive is slowly crashing. Again, what man put together, nature takes apart.

Pez, the wine example is an interesting one. Tho I do question an aged bottle have the same chemical properties as a newly bottled wine. Like aging fine steaks after butchering, the decay process begins (like the wine) and if caught at the correct time, will have enhansed flavor. If we let the process continue, we will have spoiled meat and wine that has changed to vinegar. This is not a break-in process, but a break-down process.

Last year, we needed some new living room furniture. We bought some different colors/style and when we put it into our living room, we kind of looked at each other like it maybe was a mistake. 2 weeks later, as we are sitting there, we say, it matches perfectly. We (the human) adjusted to the surroundings, the surroundings did not adjust to us.

As far as Jim Salk's speakers, I can buy into the fact that surrounds and spiders (mechanical things) perhaps need a bit of work to "loosen" up. As far as elctrical components, I've yet to read a real explination of what actually happens or why.

Wayner