break-in--bane or boon ??

I'm not a cable skeptic, but I trend, with Doug and Al, to being a break in skeptic (with the already noted exception of transducers).

The reason is that the experience of components improving with time is predicted by several well known psychological effects, which collectively suggest that much of the "break in effect" is mostly what people here have been calling "psychological accomodation."

1. The "mere exposure effect": people tend to prefer familiar stimuli. Thus, the more you hang around your component, the more you can, all else equal, be expected to like it.

2. The "mere ownership effect." People tend to prefer things that belong to them, even over *identical* items that do not belong to them. Thus, you can be expected to like what you own.

3. "Self-enhancement." People tend to find ways to view themselves in the most favorable light. You're not the kind of bozo who would drop a ton of coin on a marginal improvement (or step backward) for your system, are you?

4. Self interest. No fancy name needed here. Dealers and manufacturers have a strong interest in promoting the "break in effect"; it makes a good answer for the disappointed customer who might otherwise want a return, and buys time for the psychological processes noted in 1-3 to do their work. Try calling a dealer and saying the item you just bought underwhelms you, and then ask about break in. Do you think the dealer is likely to say "break in is a myth"?

This is not to say that break in is never a factor, and still less to say that people cannot properly appreciate big, and even small, differences in gear. (Bring those big Rockports or Wilsons over, and I'll likely prefer them to my more modest speakers, ownership be damned.)

It is to say that the psychological evidence suggests people would experience the "break in effect" *even if there were no objective improvements in gear over time*. So I would like to see very compelling evidence before attributing the experienced improvement to the gear rather than the listener. (Note that the experience itself cannot be such evidence; it's not the experience that is at issue, but its source.)

John

Trelja,
Nice post! I agree with your observatons/conclusions.I believe there is some level of psychological accomodation but if something sounds truly poor time won`t change that perception. Break in is real based on my experiences. Sound quality can and has evolved and changed over time towards improvement.There does seem to be a maturing/curing aspect to materials and various parts to reach an optimal performance level.
Regards,

i guess the proof would entail a simple experiment. the design would have to be rigorous.

here it is:

take two identical components. pass a signal or use a break-device, for a certain number of hours.

compare component a (unbroken-in) with component b (broken-in).

the problem is how to do it, to avoid the pitfalls of most blind tests ?=

My feeling is that there is a combination of equipment break-in, human factors and other things as well at play when changes are noticed over time.

Too complex and variable to determine anything for certain in lieu of a major research project.

My advice is to give any change some time to assess and avoid jumping to conclusions. Then things will work out over the long term regardless of what factors might be at play at any particular time.

Trelja, some interesting insights/arguments but I would not accept hand-wired/made units made over time with possible variances in wiring, solder, caps, tubes, etc. to be close to two mass-produced units. They may be made on the same template, but that hardly makes them identical. A variance in sound, nuanced but there, would be expected.

Perhaps a clarification is in order; I'm not saying that things such as wire, caps, etc. cannot change over time. I am saying that IF they change at all the human typically cannot hear it - it is beneath the human hearing threshold. IOW, it doesn't matter experientially if it is changing or not, to the ear it won't be detected. Hence, my casual comment that it is "not changing." A pair of jeans would obviously be above such a threshold.

I believe I made it clear in my article that transducers were excepted; when a physical motion of a driver is involved there obviously is a break in period.

Regarding coupling capacitors, I have not read the article/test you refer to. Are you saying, then, that the PC test of the changed cap was demonstrated to have made an audible change in the sound of a component. Or, is this an extension logically. IOW, I don't care if capactitor looks different electronically when used/broken in. I care about if the component will sound different.

In my instance of use of two different sets of cdp and integrated amp I had one set which was not burned in and one which was. I would assume the caps in the well used set would perhaps measure differently according to your illustration. However, there was no sonic change in hearing the two side by side. In the end I don't care if you show me a chart of ten things which supposedly measure differently when new vs. used; I care if the sound is changed over time/use. I have not found that to be the case.

I don't think you've made your case convincingly.

Don't lump me in with cable skeptics! I'll quote your last comment, "The subject of break in tracks much like cabling. Even today I meet so many audiophiles who maintain that "wire's just wire." I begrudge them not. Likewise, should you continue to go forth feeling that same way about break-in, I understand"

I would assert that the issue of Break In does not track much like cabling. Cabling is easily demonstrable in a good rig over a very short period of time, even a couple minutes. Break in is not. The one is a matter of swapping out parts, the other a perception based on purported changes over days/weeks/months to the same parts. That is a world of difference.

I do not see any absolute correlation between a person's acceptance/denial of cable efficacy and their perspective on Burn In. I would assume that there might be a mix of audiophiles, some who accept/reject both, and others who hold to one or the other only. In fact, the primary determinant of whether an audiophile accepts or rejects them both likely would be their hearing acuity! :)

Mrtennis, practical answers are usually straightforward. You don't need a complex test to ascertain whether you hear a difference. If the difference between used/new identical components is not discernible then you are wasting your time with Burn In. If the difference is so vanishingly small that you can't be certain it's in effect, then you are wasting your time with it.

Only if the difference would be "wow!" like a different component had been used would it be worth paying attention to. As it is, I get noticeable changes when I replace one or two power cords, or a single digital cable, or a set of ICs. When my friend and I heard the new/used comparison there was nothing different sonically. Ergo, waste of time fretting about Burn in.

The test is simple, and more people should simply do it if they are serious about getting down to the bottom of the issue. :)