Do you believe in break-in?

Wayner · « **Reply #80 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 08:52 pm »

Pez, we are very much in agreement on many issues here. I also think that the human ear is very wonderful device. I do have a problem with memory (at least mine, ha, ha).

Wayner

Pez · « **Reply #81 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 08:56 pm »

Tyson · « **Reply #82 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 09:11 pm »

Quote from: Pez on 11 Sep 2009, 08:56 pm

Hey, I have some of that stuff. But I keep forgetting to take it.

rockadanny · « **Reply #83 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 09:13 pm »

Not sure where this discussion is going now, but for me, while my amps/tubes were breaking in, I could recall on a Tuesday, that I had flabby bass on Monday and could recognize that I still had flabby bass on Tuesday. And later (approx. 25 hrs.), when the bass was no longer flabby, I was able to recognize that. That was not because I got used to flabby bass by then. It was because, in my case, the amps/tubes had broken in to a point where they no longer produced flabby bass. This was a while ago yet as I type this I can still recall what the flabby bass sounded like. And to this day I can distinguish flabby bass from taught bass - I have not lost this ability through auditory repetition causing my ears/brain to have broken in. (Bet you're sick of seeing the word "flabby" by now, eh?)

I experienced this same phenomena earlier when I swapped factory tubes in my AVA Fet Valve Ultra 550 with a NOS pair of Mullards, though to a lesser degree.

rockadanny · « **Reply #84 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 09:15 pm »

... And this occurred without touching any other part of my system and the flabby bass has yet to return, regardless of climate.

Pez · « **Reply #85 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 09:23 pm »

You didn't hear flabby bass, you enjoy the tight bass your system has.

Browntrout · « **Reply #86 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 10:28 pm »

I have an idea!
Look at circuits that are designed for accurate measurement and see if they are designed to take into consideration 'drift' in the values of the components that make up the circuit?
Things like oscilloscopes, why do they need callibrating every year, answer that and you answer the question of does break in exist.

Wayner · « **Reply #87 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 11:03 pm »

They need calibration because they are a test instrument!

Wayner

Browntrout · « **Reply #88 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 11:22 pm »

So what happens between calibrations?

alan m. kafton · « **Reply #89 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 11:46 pm »

Browntrout, I like your style.

Pez · « **Reply #90 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 11:50 pm »

I bet you say that to all the fish.

Tone Depth · « **Reply #91 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 11:55 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 10 Sep 2009, 10:56 pm

Where do you make the recording from? The output of the preamp or the speakers?
W

Record the signal anywhere convenient downstream in the signal path from the component being tested for break-in. Just need to do the same thing once you feel break-in is complete, to have before and after signals to compare.

I imagine that there is a possiblity that the before and after signals will be indistinguishable, even if there are audible differences.

rockadanny · « **Reply #92 on:** 12 Sep 2009, 12:12 am »

And is this because there would be no break in or because we would not be measuring the proper variables?

alan m. kafton · « **Reply #93 on:** 12 Sep 2009, 12:31 am »

I bet you say that to all the fish.

timind · « **Reply #94 on:** 12 Sep 2009, 02:02 am »

Quote from: Browntrout on 11 Sep 2009, 11:22 pm

So what happens between calibrations?

Well this seems to suggest that the amp I bought new may be out of tolerance after a few years. It no longer meets manufacturer specs and should be replaced? No, it's now broken in and sounds better!
So much for design and quality control.

alan m. kafton · « **Reply #95 on:** 12 Sep 2009, 02:09 am »

No, Tim....all electronic parts have tolerances, be it .5%, 1%, 5%, or 10%....these are the most common. They are taken into account when the math is done in designing a circuit. The parts will experience a "drift" over time, but if they are made of good quality, they should remain with that spec for the duration of their work cycle. How this drift affects sonic quality is anyone's guess, but I don't think it relates, at all, to the "conditioning" of these parts (with signal, over time). Two different issues.

In my view, if your amp drifts that much and no longer meets the manufacturer's specs, then your manufacturer cheaped out with the parts in the first place. Which *is* a QC issue.

Kevin Haskins · « **Reply #96 on:** 12 Sep 2009, 02:25 am »

Component variation, drift over lifetime and environmental conditions are all part of engineering. It wouldn't account for "break-in" because the values, and how they change, are all over a statistical map. They also change in predictable and describable ways that can be measured.

Break-in, as audiophiles explain it is not easily tied to a measurement. Sure.. you can measure the changes in crystalline structure, look at a scanning micrograph and see changes at the atomic level but none of those things necessarily relate to audibility. They are all in the grass. Most of them so far in the grass you would need a shovel to find them. They don't explain an audible difference as understood by people who do research on audibility of such things. When you design a transducer and a loudspeaker, there is natural variation in the process. There is MUCH more variation unit-unit in the transducer, than you will ever measure from one of these "in the grass" type of physical measurements. When you put that loudspeaker in a room, there are yet more variations, some of the order of 15-20dB which are certainly audible. At the same time, for perspective I've seen people sit and listen to speakers for hours without noticing the tweeter was hooked up out of phase and there is a 20-25dB hole in the midrange. I've done it myself although I'll typically notice something is askew fairly quick.

Scales, microphones, and pretty much any type of measurement device has to be calibrated against a standard. Why? Because their entire value is in accuracy. There are any number of environmental or accidental things that can happen to a mic, scale or other measurement device and that destroys its primary function. That is why they are calibrated, not because there is some unexplainable break-in occurring.

timind · « **Reply #97 on:** 12 Sep 2009, 02:32 am »

I really need to learn how to make a sarcastic point more obvious.
Maybe I should use these

.

Kevin Haskins · « **Reply #98 on:** 12 Sep 2009, 02:50 am »

Quote from: Danny on 10 Sep 2009, 10:53 pm

Come on people, the Earth is round already. It's round damn it!

Actually, it is slightly egg-shaped. That isn't right either.... it has a slight bulge in the middle. I think it is a couple miles larger in diameter about the equatorial bulge due to the centrifugal force of the rotating mass. But it is much rounder than it is flat.

macrojack · « **Reply #99 on:** 12 Sep 2009, 05:30 am »

Kevin says the problem is in the grass. Perhaps grass might also provide the solution. Used properly, it could solve any break-in issue by simply removing your concern for such things. Historically it remains the single most effective tweak you can apply to any system or no system at all. Don't worry - be happy. Break yourself in.