[Dracule1]

Hi, I'm drying to break in my new DAC.  Does this require that I have it hooked up to my passive preamp?  Can I just leave my DAC on and feed it music files from my computer?  I guess the DAC needs to be connected to a preamp or some sort of load?  Thanks.

[sts9fan]

I find dacs break in best with rockabilly music.

[Steve]

Hi, I'm drying to break in my new DAC.  Does this require that I have it hooked up to my passive preamp?  Can I just leave my DAC on and feed it music files from my computer?  I guess the DAC needs to be connected to a preamp or some sort of load?  Thanks.

Yes, the output of the DAC should be connected to a load of some sort when playing discs to breakin. Passive works just fine.

Hope this helps. 

[JohnR]

I find dacs break in best with rockabilly music.

Any particular performer?

[jtwrace]

Hi, I'm drying to break in my new DAC.  Does this require that I have it hooked up to my passive preamp?  Can I just leave my DAC on and feed it music files from my computer?  I guess the DAC needs to be connected to a preamp or some sort of load?  Thanks.

Why not just listen to it and let it "break-In" while doing that?   

[scottnixon]

Any particular performer?

Hasil Adkins

Will break any dac

[Quiet Earth]

Hi, I'm drying to break in my new DAC.   Can I just leave my DAC on and feed it music files from my computer?

Yes, leave it plugged in and powered "on" for at least three weeks. Play music through it for as many of the three weeks of the "on time" as you can. After that, you can turn it on and off as you like. FWIW, I like to leave my DAC powered on all of the time, even when there is no music playing. Digital components always sound better to me when they are left on.

Does this require that I have it hooked up to my passive preamp?  I guess the DAC needs to be connected to a preamp or some sort of load?

I think when you are playing music through the DAC then you should have a load hooked up to it. If it is just sitting idle with the power on, then it doesn't matter. Many DACs (and line level components) have a 47K (or similar value) load resistor installed in parallel with the output rca jacks. That way there is always a load presented to the output devices. You could take the top off and take a peek . . . or ask the manufacturer. Or you could just hook up a load during the burn in.

This is just my two cents of what works well for burn in. Don't freak out over what music to play for the burn in. It will burn in given enough time.

[rofo]

Can I ask what you would be "breaking in"? there are no moving parts.

[HalSF]

How much of a difference does DAC break-in make to the overall system sound compared to audio file size, quality of analog cables, quality of digital cables, cable break-in, amplifier break-in, speaker break-in, power filtering, footers and other vibration treatments, room treatments, use of solid-state vs. tube amplification, amount of jitter, age of components, and other significant factors? Do different DAC models require difference degrees of break-in? Does DAC break-in always improve the sound? What kind of evidence is everybody using to support their assertions about DAC break-in?

I sincerely don't mean any of this sarcastically, and if the answer is: "The evidence my assertions are based on is years of experience and a well-trained ability to listen and identify which element in the system chain is making an audible difference at any given time," I'm willing to accept that up to a point, because I do accept that an enormous amount of experience matters in hi-fi. And I've read convincing technical explanations of why speaker break-in, for example, can make changes that you can clearly hear and enjoy. But these kinds of threads are puzzling to me because there is an implicit acceptance from the get-go that DAC break-in is necessary and efficacious, and various assertions about the amount of time and the kind of load required are offered with total confidence, but nobody's supporting these assertions, either with engineering-based evidence or claims of experience, and no one is venturing to quantify the difference DAC break-in is going to make. I know passionate engineers who believe that well-designed DACs do not produce results that sound different. Is it possible that an audible difference resulting from break-in will be non-existent? I know I'm outing myself as a skeptic — I am, particularly regarding digital audio components as well as the idea that every kind of hi-fi component needs breaking in — and I hope I'm not inadvertently playing the troll here, because I really do want to know.

[Steve]

How much of a difference does DAC break-in make to the overall system sound compared to audio file size, quality of analog cables, quality of digital cables, cable break-in, amplifier break-in, speaker break-in, power filtering, footers and other vibration treatments, room treatments, use of solid-state vs. tube amplification, amount of jitter, age of components, and other significant factors? Do different DAC models require difference degrees of break-in? Does DAC break-in always improve the sound? What kind of evidence is everybody using to support their assertions about DAC break-in?

I sincerely don't mean any of this sarcastically, and if the answer is:

No offense taken. However, there are analog stage(s) in a typical DAC, so if a preamplifier, amp etc breaks in, then the analog stage(s) in a DAC would also break in. How much depends upon the design etc.

Break in always improve the sound? Usually the manufacturer tests when the component is up to temperature.

Cheers.

[Dracule1]

Thanks everyone, except for the guy who recommended rockabilly music  .

[timind]

Why not just listen to it and let it "break-In" while doing that?   

My thoughts exactly. Otherwise, how would you know there was any difference caused by "break in?" If there's no difference, then you just wasted three weeks.

[Quiet Earth]

Can I ask what you would be "breaking in"? there are no moving parts.

Possibilities :

Electrolytic power supply caps
Mylar foil signal caps
Teflon film signal caps
Tubes
Other parts that some how sound different after extended run in that I dare not mention in the lab 

[Quiet Earth]

Do different DAC models require difference degrees of break-in?

I would think so, since different DACs are made up of entirely different parts.

Does DAC break-in always improve the sound?

I would think not, since many DACs don't sound very good in the first place, and many DACs don't have any parts that change/improve very much after extended burn in.

What kind of evidence is everybody using to support their assertions about DAC break-in?

"The evidence my assertions are based on is years of experience and a well-trained ability to listen and identify which element in the system chain is making an audible difference at any given time."     But seriously............ what sort of evidence do you require? Why not try it for yourself and see? Your own personal experience is worth way more than anything you can read here. No one ever doubts that you had a certain experience with something.

How much of a difference does DAC break-in make to the overall system sound compared to audio file size, quality of analog cables, quality of digital cables, cable break-in, amplifier break-in, speaker break-in, power filtering, footers and other vibration treatments, room treatments, use of solid-state vs. tube amplification, amount of jitter, age of components, and other significant factors?

I think you might be asking for too much here. There are way too many possible combinations of gear and variables to wrap your head around. And even if you did know the answer to all of this,,,,,, does it help you decide if you need to break in a new DAC? You're going to break it in anyway if you decide to use it. Some people just want to speed up the process. That's all that was intended (I think).

 

[HalSF]

Thanks everybody for not biting my head off! I definitely WAS asking too much, but given all of the factors that add up to 100% of the sound of a system, I'm very often taken aback by listeners who not only claim to hear categorical changes but have a breathtaking degree of confidence that they know what caused that change. Which leads to my theory that true audio fanaticism isn't about people who love beautiful musical reproduction or great systems, it's about people who love to revel in DIFFERENCES between components in the audio system chain. They're the people in headphone threads who blithely tell you they've owned or listened deeply to dozens and dozens of different cans and that's how they know what they know. I mean, who does that?

Kind of like people I know whose love lives are all about the new and the strange and the first blush of passion, always about the falling, not the being in love.