Equipment break-in, myth or fact?

PHC1

Addicted Member
I was just reading a topic on equipment break-in on one of the audio forums. It seems most audiophiles are convinced that equipment break-in is beneficial to sound and that new components will always sound better after 100 hours or so of use. Here is the problem I have with this:

1. One has to assume that the new equipment will undergo some kind of internal "change" in order for the sound to change. I guess that means that some of the components such as resistors/capacitors/inductors, etc.. will change their value slightly during this break-in period. Otherwise what else would cause this change in sound?

2. If there is a change, why is it always for the better? Is there a magic fairy conductor inside the equipment telling the resistors/caps in which direction their values are to be changed so as to make the sound better?

What do you guys think on this topic? Is there any rational scientific explanation for this at all?
 
"1. One has to assume that the new equipment will undergo some kind of internal "change" in order for the sound to change. I guess that means that some of the components such as resistors/capacitors/inductors, etc.. will change their value slightly during this break-in period"...

I've been told caps take only seconds to break in. I'll buy that. For other inner components, could it be the fact the gear is heating up, staying warm longer, and parts taking on some slight chemical change? Possibly. But I can't tell- I was unable to tell any break-in sound difference in most of my new gear (receivers) from new to 100 hours in, if I recall correctly. Speakers on the other hand may benefit from the membranes loosening or becoming less stiff. So far I have found my new Cambridge Soundworks model 6s benefitted from break in, while my Cambridge Soundworks model 17s might have, but if so, pretty minor, not dramatic like the 6s. i didn't see any difference at all in my new Polks from brand new to 100+ hours.

Most suprising to me was my vintage Design acoustics PS-10s. After I aquired them, they sounded like hell the first few hours (after being dormant for ages). I did not expect this! But after a few hours they sounded much much better. I'd have doubted this if I hadn't witnessed this myself. I can't explain why.

"2. If there is a change, why is it always for the better? Is there a magic fairy conductor inside the equipment telling the resistors/caps in which direction their values are to be changed so as to make the sound better?"

Like I said above, some little bird told me it only takes seconds for the caps to "break in" and I'll buy that. And you are right, the sound isn't always better- many claim a re-cap of gear 20+ years old will improve the sound. The vintage caps either are inferior, or have degraded with age.

Gray matter matters most, in most cases, I believe. But for now I'll stick by my guns in regards to my speaker experiences.
 
I have no idea what the physics might be behind this phenomenion. However, I do not beleive that it has anything to do with drifting component values. But many years of building, modifying equipment has confirmed that the the sound does change slighlty for after initial construction for a few days or so, before it finally stablelizes. Sometimes after break-in the sound can actually be worse that it was before break-in. So it does not always result in an improvement.
 
My experience has shown me improvements in sound after the break-in period in cartridges and speakers.
I can hardly tell any difference in electronics or cables.
So, I guess anything mechanical benefits from a break-in period, just like cars do.

Jorge
 
I personally dont buy it. I think its the listener that just gets his brain in line with what he expected out of the gear...When I swap gear, sometimes I am feeling a little let down at the change, but after a few hrs, my brain remembered how good this sound used to be to me, and its all OK in the world.

I am not going to say that break in is a myth or reality, but it seems that the people who support this give more creedence to an "iffy" phenomena than a well documented scientifically and anectodically, which is the brain getting accustomed to the new sound.
 
What do you think the break-in time for these might be?

Here's a prime example of the psychoacoustics effect. This morning, millions of Americans will dress uncomfortably and file into poorly designed auditoriums to hear (mostly) poorly trained amateurs sing selections from George Frederic Handel's oratorio "Messiah". Many of them will leave believing that they have just heard the performance of their lives.

Did they? Yes. The effect was real to them because their ears are ONLY ONE input to their brains, and their brains modify all available inputs (including memories of past performances and their deceased mother who sang in the choir) to create a desired result.

Some of us who survived the sixties can attest to the fact that the best addition to a stereo in 1968 cost about $1, but it only enhanced the sound for a few hours. But what an enhancement it was! A Magnavox portable was suddenly hi-fi!

At times, we hear what we want to hear; at other times, we hear what the brain will ALLOW us to hear; at other times, we hear what we USED to hear.

It's a remarkable and thoroughly enjoyable phenomenon.
 
Some of us who survived the sixties can attest to the fact that the best addition to a stereo in 1968 cost about $1, but it only enhanced the sound for a few hours. .

Wow....thats a bargain! :D
 
There are people who firmily believe in the break in concept, and those who don't. Like cable threads, these posts don't have much chance of changing anybody's mind. Forging foolishly ahead, I'll toss in my thoughts...

1. Why would any competent, ethical manufacturer sell equipment that doesn't work up to specs when you buy it? Would they never have heard of break in? If they knew about it, why wouldn't there be an explanation in the instruction manual telling you to wait XX hours before forming an opinion?

2. As was mentioned in a reply above, why does everyone who believes in break in always assume that it will get better? Isn't there a 50/50 chance the change in component values or parameters will result in a degradation of the sound? Of course, this goes right to the point of whether or not "different" and "better" and "new" and "getting used to it" are all describing the same thing.

3. Regarding speakers needing break in because the surrounds are mechanical devices and will change with use...tests have been done that show neglibible changes over the first weeks/months of regular use. And, in line with No. 1 above, I'm pretty sure every compentent speaker manufacturer on the planet has run their drivers for thousands of hours and then remeasured specs to see exactly what happens.

4. And, my personal opinion...break in was developed by retailers to get you to wait until the return period had expired, so you don't give in to buyer's remorse after you realize just how much money you just spent.
 
Considering that most component stereo systems were assembled from new components all purchased in more or less one outing, one item may have been the genesis for believing that the entire system was, indeed, "burning in". Not so many years ago, turntables spinning vinyl LPs were the MAJOR reason to go to the trouble of having a stereo system, rather than just turning on the radio. The new TT cartridges did have to acclimate themselves to the job at hand, and thus the entire system seemed to improve with a bit of play.

Impressionable minds from the '60s & '70s may have failed to note the real cause, and years later seemed to notice their CD and SACD players' performance improving, when it was actually just the ears tuning in to regularly sampled music.

Or not...
 
When I first purchased some Grado 325 headphones, I started listening to a song and when a sax started playing I thought I blew the headphones. I turned down the volume a little and I listened to it again with the same sound was still coming out, just terrible. After I let the headphones run for a while by themselves, I listened to that same song again, and now I could enjoy it without thinking the speaker was was going to blow up. It was unbelievable how bad that sax sounded, but after letting them break in, it sounded so much better.
 
If only my ears were good enough to pick up on such a subtle change in sound. I can't even hear the difference between cheap and expensive CDP's.

cubdog
 
For what it is worth, I do believe that new equipment, especially mechanical devices (speakers, TT carts, etc.) do need some break in. In speakers, it only makes sense.

I also think that drivers need a new break-in period after new surrounds have been installed, or after long periods (years, possibly decades) of inactivity.

As far as the electronics go, there is some credence to them needing a break-in period (as well as warm-up time). It is often said that, as far as electronics go, anything that will go bad under normal circumstances will go bad within the first few weeks of operation. Capacitors are charging and discharging, components are acclimating and settling to the thermal conditions, and so on. Elements such as transistors, resistors, diodes and so on may not change in value (though the 5-10% tolerance allowed in many modern designs is a pause for thought), but a break-in period will allow any defects or seriously out of spec components to make themselves known in a controlled way.

To that end, new amps and receivers I get (or perform significant refurbishment on), do get to play full bandwidth white-noise @ 2.8Vrms in to my Realistic Solo-103’s for 48-72 hours before they are really used.

As I mentioned, I am also a believer in warm-up time. I usually turn my system on when I wake up in the morning and leave it on till I go to sleep, regardless of if it is being used or not. It is wasteful, some would argue, but I would not. It was actually in the process of trying to disprove (to my satisfaction) that my equipment needed such a warm-up that I came to the conclusion that pre-heating gear, as it were, is a good thing™.
 
Paul C said:

excellent! :thmbsp: Thank you for this! :thmbsp: You're gonna make me reconsider my thoughts on speaker break-in experiences now... though M Jarve reflects my current feelings about it all. I'm not going to worry about it. For the sake of things, I'll continue to burn in any new gear even though I can't tell a difference, at least to see if the thing will work at room temperature, and for new speakers I'll let 'em run at least for the same reason- to troubleshoot any initial problems.

THEN, I'll only need to worry about what record I'm playing. :beerchug:
 
Last edited:
burn in and warm up

i found the sound of my headphones improved after letting them run non stop for a couple of days...

also a little 'warm up' routine trick i use when recording from vinyl...

i let the stylus run in the grooves of a well modulated track for about a minute to 'warm up' the stylus suspension ...then cue back to the beginning of the track or side quickly and begin recording...

i dunno why...but the sound of my amplifier does improve from a cold start after an hour or so...but it could be habituation.. :scratch2:
 
>At times, we hear what we want to hear; at other times, we hear what the brain will ALLOW us to hear; at other times, we hear what we USED to hear.

I agree.
I don't notice any burn in effect on other electronics such as the computer or TV. There is no burn in with other electro mechanical things like electric clock, drill, table saw, door bell; etc.

>i dunno why...but the sound of my amplifier does improve from a cold start after an hour or so...but it could be habituation

Warm up heats up the box. The temperature do affect the characteristics of electronic components. Transistors get different gain and leakage current. Don't know for sure, but some caps may be a bit different as a fuction of temperature. Resistors generally not affected.
 
Back
Top Bottom