Equipment Break-in: Fact or Fiction


Is it just me, or does anyone else believe that all of the manufacturers' and users' claims of break-in times is just an excuse to buy time for a new users' ears to "adjust" to the sound of the new piece. Not the sound of the piece actually changing. These claims of 300+ hours of break-in for something like a CD player or cable seem outrageous.

This also leaves grey area when demo-ing a new piece as to what it will eventually sound like. By the time the break-in period is over, your stuck with it.

I could see allowing electronics to warm up a few minutes when they have been off but I find these seemingly longer and longer required break-in claims ridiculous.
bundy
Gents and Ladies,
This is the most interesting post here IMO ever that occured for the whole Audiogon existance and I do appreciate these controversal thoughts that came up here.

Man of science tend to deny or assume but the final result should be the number and/or equation.
Electronics do involve influence of chemistry and thermo-dynamics and even maybe in our discussed burn-in proccess in audio freequencies.

I however still hold my position towards believing that burn-in is more of a marketing and psychological issue rather than physical process, but there could be different long-term factors that I have no knowlege how to define or calculate them; therefore I only assume that influence of thermal adoptation along with other values of a chemical and physical proccesses can be neglected compared to the electrical.

Nowdays, as I believe I described my understadning of burn-in proccess as function depending on time by simple 7th grade physics formula by simply dividing the signal path over the speed of light for the peak of the equipment performance.

Also I greatly appreciate everyone along with author for bringing up different thoughts. Let them ALL be honored and not to be attacked whether it's from scientists or ordinary people.
The reason why I leap into these discussions about burn in is that I believe that failing to allow for burn in is the cause of so many bad mistakes by audiophiles. The problem is if we cannot even agree that burn in exists then we will not agree that even burnt in components take a while to settle after shipping, and then it becomes pretty difficult to warn newer audiophiles about the perils of hasty auditioning.

I have no doubt that fears, Marakanetz, that marketers and salespeople exploit the burn in story to pull the wool over peoples' eyes, have some foundation in fact. What I am more concerned about is that without an appreciation that burn in is a factor, then many will come to quite erroneous conclusions about components and cables that they try.

Take for example, the comment I have heard that the Plinius SA102 lacks PRAT. One that has been used for less tha around four months sounds exactly so - soft and sluggish. The fact that it sounds so is utterly obvious in any competent system. But equally, a burned in SA102 has PRAT in spades, and that is again quite obvious.

So if you suspend your disbelief for a moment, you may understand why I believe that nay-saying on burn in will cause newbies to be quite confused and waste a lot of time if they rely on an overnight trial of equipment before buying.
I agree with Redkiwi 100%. I too am a staunch believer of burn in for all components. I have heard it with my own ears and I feel I have very good hearing. The human ear is far more accurate than any and all electronic devices designed to hear distortions,etc.Some people hear things differently and that is normal.That is why we are all unique.But any true-blooded audiophile, with a trained ear should be able to hear the break in of a new power cord,speaker cable or interconnect.