break-in--bane or boon ??


as a reviewer , i often receive equipment which is new and has no playing time.

i have to decide whether to break in the component and if so, how many hours is necessary.

i have often asked manufacturers for guidance.

one cable manufacturer said the cables--digital, analog and power, required no break in. another said 24 hours.

when i reviewed a mcintosh tube preamp, i was told by a technician that no break in was necessary. all i needed to do was leave the preamp on for one hour in order that the tubes were "warmed up"

can someone provide an objective explanation as to the basis for break-in and how to determine how long to break in different components ?

for example, cables comprised of different metals, if they require break in, is there a difference in the requisite time for a given metal, e.g., gold, silver or copper ?

can someone provide an explanation as to what is happening during the break-in process ?

can one devise a mathematical equation to quantify break-in hours, as a function of the parts in a component ?
mrtennis
Ivan. What you said may be true in a highly resolving system but not in mine. What makes the difference in my system is speaker placement. Stands, mass loading etc. But to be fair this is what I wanted and is why I have what I have. I do agree with the silver/copper but have never noticed any break in. However I'm not really an aidiophile but more a practitioner of music.
Donjr, don't get me wrong, your comments are entirely welcome. My system (and I've not yet been in a position just yet to finally post it on Agon and let everybody know what I'm working from) is a somewhat minimal CD-only, ss rig that cost less than $5k, with a little over a grand of power conditioning thrown in (which does do a pretty good job of helping with the resolution, I must admit). But, honestly I would never expect a fellow Agoner to apologize for their rig, no matter how humble! That's one of two faux pas at this point in my hobby I try to avoid: 1) expecting someone else to apologize for what little they have and, on the flip side, 2) complaining that I don't have enough money to afford what I want ;) Either one of those thing is bad form to me. But, so many of us, including myself, have had very humble beginnings in this hobby and I see no reason to forget that. I also expect myself to extend that sense of courtesy to others who've had different experiences than my own - even if it is with the same gear as I use. If someone is talking about their direct experience then they're talking about their direct experience. That's all the authority anyone needs. What I was trying to do in my post above was talk about my own experience, in no way did I mean that to be taking pot shots at you, or your system, I apologize if I made it seem as though I were.
Roy, you've certainly been around a lot of components. What does your own experience suggest?
hi joe:

well there is the placebo affect.

what is so confusing is the difference of opinion among manufacturers.

i have found some cables do require break-in. i experienced this when i connected a pair of interconnects between a cd source and a receiver for 300 hours. then i reviewed the cable. i still had the cable in the system and three days later the stereo system sounded different. it could have been that the cable was not fully broken in.

there is only one way to be sure.

keep listening to the stereo system which has the componemt under consideration until the stereo system does not change its sound.

it's disconcerting when cable designers say that a cable doesn't break in but rather yours ears acclimate to the cable.

so the conclusion is that there is a variation in advice from manufacturers and there is no rule of thumb. i guess just wing it.

so i allow 300 hours, as a standard practice.
donjr is correct. YOU adjust to the sound of components over time; there are not radical changes to the sound of a system.

Read my "Audiophile Law #6: Thou Shalt Not Overemphasize Burn In" at Dagogo.com. I would post the link but it seems when I do it is quickly banished to some nether region. Do a search and you'll find it quickly.

The upshot of the testing was clear; components do not "burn in," no matter how much such a process is popularized. 300 hours for burn in is a complete waste of time. If the sound is not correct, change something. Active changes to the rig are FAR more productive than pining away for a change.

Ignore this advice and you will be wasting your time, pining for different sound which you could be actively pursuing but instead "waiting for it" to happen. Ridiculous! :(

I'm not interested in wasting weeks for a supposed change. I make the changes happen! I can take a new system and in one evening get it several steps closer to my ideal. I don't sit around and hope for it to change; that's absurd! It would be like hoping for a car to improve its handling.
The truth is that if you wait for a system to change you are effectively dumbing down your expectations, settling for less - the initially disappointing sound.

Wine improves with time, but not components. I can get more change in five minutes with a cable swap than the supposed 300 hour wait. I can tune a rig in 1.5 hours with a test of four sets of discrete opamps. So, why should I sit and be discontented for 300 hours? Ridiculous! :(

To date I have had no one, professional or amateur, contest my findings. I also have found no one who has replicated the test. I suggest those who doubt my little test, who ardently belive in Burn In, get double components and do the informal testing. I can tell you what will happen; you'll not be able to hear the difference. :)