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, nice post on a useful subject. People may often fail to consider how the most important component of all, themselves, works when assessing cause and effect of things.

The snake oil industry understands this well. Knowing one's self first is paramount to most everything.
John, we were listening to a stereo attentively, not getting chased by a Rhino. I think you are more than a bit off with your analysis. :(

The systems I build are capable of revealing instantly changes such as one digital cable being replaced, or one pair of interconnects, or a set of Opamps being rotated in or out of the DAC. Proponents of Burn In suggest it is a huge, profound, etc. difference. Perhaps equatable to a cable change? Hmmm? Or far more, according to them.

So, exactly where did that supposedly huge change go? Was my heart palpitating, my blood pressure sky high such that my senses failed me? How ridiculous! IF there was a difference it would have been easily heard. The fact that it wasn't means one thing obviously - playing gear hour after hour in the hopes of improvement does nothing special to advance a system.
Mapman - Is it just me or did you just completely misconstrue Ivan's
comments to fit your "placebo effect explains it all away"
agenda. :-)

"Because it's what I choose to believe." - Dr. Elizabeth Shaw in
the movie, Prometheus
When I've heard a change due to break in, not swapping, it wasn't subtle and it wasn't huge. This was not black and white, big or small, dramatic or ordinary.

My system can easily discern a cable change, a CD mat insertion, a change of footers, IC or SP or PC swap, a tube swap (when I used tubes). Some of those changes were big, some small, but they all had one thing in common. One area in particular stood out at first, only to reveal more once the initial impact wore off.

It took different manner of music to bring out the more subtle improvements as one type of music, let alone one song, or one part played over and over, can, in no way, help to ascertain the benefits. Obviously, one song or a part of it, can not convey the magnitude of improvement since that particular piece only covers a mere, few facets of the overall performance that can manifest itself on ones system. It will hit big time at first, then slowly reveal more of itself over time and with different music.

The changes I've heard during break in usually take me by surprise. I'm not expecting it, it just happens. My brain is in its usual auto mode when I hear the difference. It's when I'm listening for listenings sake. Nothing scientific here. This is with recordings I'm very familiar with. It's like I'm being tapped on the shoulder (ear). Subtle, yes, but noticeable.

That's when I focus my attention. That's when I break out other familiar recordings to see what else parallels what I'm hearing, or compliments with other areas of improvement. This is usually followed by one or two more levels of improvement, over time, and then no more.

It's something I've come to expect but not anticipate. One allows the natural event, the other forces an outcome that can delude. I think that is why double blind tests aren't valid due to the very nature of their being: they force anticipation, instead of allowing something natural, which can seriously skewer a test subjects ability to judge. With their sanity, prestige, and reputation on line, all manner of perception can be tainted.

The same can be said for the well intentioned performing their own DB tests. Being of same mind, or at the very least, friendly and of a peer, they can negatively affect the results due to the very nature of their clique.

All the best,
Nonoise
"Mapman - Is it just me or did you just completely misconstrue Ivan's
comments to fit your "placebo effect explains it all away"
agenda. :-)"

Read what I said. I did not say any single thing explains anything away. I said that there can be many factors including an individuals variable perceptions, which is one often overlooked.

Geof, I am not a vendor. You are. I have no vested interest in influencing people one way or another. Most vendors do and I would not exclude you.