Burning in new audio gear...?

I would agree with you if designers were to present the findings of controlled studies at their shops where (say) new amps were consistently identified as inferior when compared to identical amps that had been "burned in."

Designers can be fooled (or fool others) just like the rest of us.

 

"Burn-in" has never been of any concern to me.

Jeff

 

Ask any radio air guy who's gone through numerous studio modifications, listening to the air signal (as well as program signal directly out of the board) six hours a day, six days a week. The only thing we can't spare the time for comparing, is what percentage is psychoacoustic, and how much is the hardware.

 

I once asked a speaker maker how long it would take to break in a pair of speakers. The speaker engineer said that it was not something the consumer really needed to even think about as their speakers went through rigorous testing before it left the factory which was more than enough time to initially break in any moving parts of the speaker after the final assembly. I guess YMMV depending on the brand of speakers is my take on it. For other stuff I've never cared at all so I don't know.

 

Do you really think companies are going to spend the time and money doing controlled studies whenever they design a new product, and then publish the results for the benefit of those who would be predisposed to finding a reason why the studies were flawed? Or would you not just design your product factoring in burn in, whether it matters or not, because that's how people will hear the component for 99.5% of it's life?

I'm not really arguing for or against burn-in. Like I said, it's a moot point for me. I just burn everything in because it's very simple to do. And because it's so simple and cheap, why not eliminate that variable (as unlikely as it may be)? Only a very impatient person would struggle with that.

I've heard burn in with certain speakers and certain amps. Is it possible I was fooled? With some the change is drastic enough that I don't believe I was. But maybe. Either way, I'm not going to organize a controlled study. I'll simply burn things in before I listen critically. It's only logical to do that and costs me nothing but a little time and a few pennies. And if someone is a pro reviewer, it's pretty much something they should be doing 100% of the time.

 

Russ Andrew give a 60 day return policy, I bought their X Block and the leaflet included say a 30 days for burn in.

So as you say I left if plugged in feeding my hub and after the 30 days decided if I wanted to keep it, you've got nothing to lose by as you still have a 30 day period left.

 

I wonder how much regular radio maintenance today is a hangover from the days of tubes and turntable needles, when maintenance schedules were rigorous and done often?

 

Nowadays with studios having "hot buttons" and delayed air signals (7 seconds in my last station), accidentally leaving it in Program after just checking our own board-out can prove to be a disaster. Just another way they "engineered" the enjoyment out of our jobs.

 

Some stuff yes, others not so much.

People sure do spend a lot of time talking about it. It becomes a moot point in rather quick order, but it can be helpful to others if people share experiences they encountered.

 

Yes, and this topic also hits various nostalgia buttons, if only because it evokes a pre-solid-state era when things needed to "warm up" (tubes, radios, TVs, cars....) — which seems like a kissing cousin to "burn in."

 

Good thinking.

It would take more than that to convince me.
Just because they sound different to you doesn't mean they do.
It is just confirmation bias.
If you could pick them out on a blind test many times over, I might be inclined to believe it.

 

I wonder if any other electrical equipment works better after a " burn in " period?
TV's, kettles, toasters, vacuum cleaners?
Worth investigating .

 

I would think a company truly dedicated to excellence in audio would follow the science both in circuit design, woofer materials, etc., and in psycho-acoustics, confirmation bias, placebo effect, etc. and publish any and all findings as transparently as possible, and eager for peer review.

 

I understand your position, it's mine too.
But I do not have to go blind to tell there's or there isn't an obvious difference between Céline Dion and Billie Holiday, it was that kind of obvious. But I share your views.
Don't trust no one ;-)

 

I definitely know that my vacuum cleaner really sucks after 15 years of use.

 

My vacuum cleaner really sucks every time I change the bag.

 

They certainly work worse after a burned out period.

 

And how many companies today are doing all of that?

I've no doubt that many companies are dedicated to excellence in audio and do follow science. But as far as that goes for break-in, I just don't see the point. It's not like customers can choose broken in vs. not broken in, like they can with a speaker cabinet finish. The break-in goes away in short order once the component is hooked up and used. Thus, there is little point devoting precious resources to confirm the effects of break-in, when you can simply design around it. Save some money and design around something that is inevitable anyways after a short amount of use. That's certainly how I'd run my business, unless I was a large corporation that had the resources, and even then it's a very questionable way to spend money.

Might be something that an audio mag could test though. That might be an interesting article and would be more useful than a lot of the content they produce. I don't remember if this is the case or not, but I think GR Research took some measurements and shared that on their You Tube channel regarding break in. I seem to recall them doing that but I might be remembering wrong.

Well, those items work well out of the box. As do audio systems, by the way. But could there be some sort of performance improvement? It's possible. Hard to get a kettle to really improve if it gets water to boiling though on its first use. It's not like with burn in there will be extra boiling achieved. An audio system is creating an intricate and detailed illusion. We all agree I'm sure, that if you move your speakers a small amount it can have a large impact. If you move the kettle a tiny bit the water still boils. So the comparison is apples to oranges. The products and what they need to achieve are about as far apart as one can get.

 

yes i believe burn in exists. i heard it with cables and of course cartridges.

1.From what i personally hear. when you first get the product it sounds very profound like really good but a bit cold not very comforting to listen in long period.

2.then comes the middle period. this is when it becomes comfortable to listen for hours but you still retain that new profound sound. This is the place i wish all things stayed but unfortunately....

3.final stage is where the sound loses that new feeling and becomes like a comfortable old shoe. still sounds great of course but doesnt have quite the middle period new type sound. I think this is why many audiophiles get the upgrade bug. because their equipement turns into old hat.

 

I've never had a pair of speakers that went from harsh/shrill etc etc to pleasant because of hours of use. Its usually a design, driver or room problem. I also don't think any seasoned so called audiophile needs much time to know the speakers are not for them for one reason or another. I've rolled thru a crap ton of them & it is crazy to me when dealers, manufactures emphatically say I am not giving there speakers proper beak in time. 200 + hours sometimes.
I guess if they would just say there a bright & tipped up speaker to begin with I could handle truth. Ill always believe they include break in in there manuals & such in hope you get used to it, adjust & not return it. I used to change compete wiring to even pre WWII metals for insane reasons, run ever cap known to man, no caps, crazy handwound iron on IT coupled builds etc, & was as so far down a rabbit hole of exotic parts making the system instead of brilliant circuits by brilliant engineers. Ever notice a day when your system sounds insanely good & one day it is just good on same source ? Ive had it happen many times & have no answer to why that is. I just deal with it sanely nowadays I think...maybe..lol

 

He was referring to the 705 S2, and yes, the tweeter does relax a good bit after a few weeks. Someone hearing it fresh and judging it on that would undoubtedly be making a hasty decision. Great speaker that isn't bright, but hey...

 

Well, Mr. Robinson has an obligation to do whatever he can to make a pair of speakers sound great before he slams them. I'm a little cynical with his review - it's easy to slam a company like B&W because they are so large they probably don't care, and he knows it. He may have done the review to up people's perception of his credibility or something (or to get clicks). I don't know, it's just a possibility that crossed my mind. But my point is, if you are a reviewer you need to go the extra mile before you slam a product and possibly contribute to a company losing money.

I personally don't think anyone should decide they like or dislike a speaker after only a few hours. That's too quick. You'll want to figure out for instance if you get fatigue over the long run, or if some other issue pops up. So you may as well listen for a while.

Or like you say, maybe you'll simply get used to the sound. But to me that's another reason to keep playing the speaker. If you get used to the sound and like it then maybe it's a keeper. I really don't think you'd ever have a situation where someone hated the sound and it never changed, but somehow they got used to it and then decided to keep the speaker for that reason. That doesn't really make sense, IMO.

I think a listener needs to determine if they like or dislike the sound over extended listening and then, before the return period passes, make a call whether to keep the speaker or return it. Deciding after listening for an hour or two seems too hurried to me. I suppose if a speaker is utterly terrible right out of the box then maybe - I'd still run it in though because there is nothing to lose. And you don't even have to risk getting used to the sound, since you can burn it in when you aren't around and only start listening to it after 200 hours say. If you play it for 16 hours a day it only takes 12 days to hit 200 hours.

But I think if a speaker gives you fatigue, if that is the issue, there is no chance that you will ever get used to it unless it actually mellows out. Harsh/shrill, causing fatigue; these are not things that one is likely to get used to and accept over a few weeks, if ever. For other qualities though there might be an adjustment period, and a listener may come to appreciate those qualities over time when initially they thought they wouldn't. Such as a leaner sounding speaker, which might sound too lean at first but over time may give you the impression of a quick/snappy sound that you come to appreciate, and then you might later find a way to fatten up the bottom end a bit with the right amp or speaker placement or a sub.

 

Oh I agree on giving them a shot for more then a couple hours, but most all of us have our test media & if it fails that chances get slim fast they will be keepers.
I most always gave 72hr or so & definitely new if the gear was staying or not. I believe Mr.Andrews is like a lot of us as he's has a lot of gear over the years & knows within a relm of his likes & dislikes. My distain for Focal is another humans dream speaker .. we are both right as I hear different & have preferred taste & so would they. I think of most us 50+ year old audiophiles have been on a long great journey & can make decisions on what we can accept quicker. I left building gear years ago as it drove me bat **** crazy ,was listening to only the gear & not music anymore. Went active & all that went away.

 

Like all things audio, this is a complex topic with many variables. I was semi skeptical during my first few years in this hobby. My opinion has changed over time as my gear, hearing acuity and experience has changed. My current thinking is break in is a combination of factors. I think some gear does change sound over time and I also think your ears/brain need "break in time" too to adjust for new sound. I always believed in the possibility of break in time for transducers: speakers, headphones, microphones, cartridges etc. I was very skeptical about break in time for solid state gear. I am less so today.

I have two examples where I definitely heard repeatable differences that I could attribute to break in time for the actual equipment. I had a single pair of Larger Advent speakers for about 2 years before I added a second pair. I could clearly hear a difference in the sound between the old and the new pair, mostly in the upper mids and highs. Initially the new speakers seemed to be a little less smooth. I would not say they were harsh, just less smooth. My Advents were stacked vertically with the upper stacked pair being installed inverted so the tweeter was on the bottom and the woofer was at the top. I had the speakers on a 12" high stand. This put the tweeters of both pair closer to ear height when seated. I initially simply stacked the new pair on top of the older pair. When playing the speaker pairs individual I heard a difference. I went so far as to swap the speakers positions and I could still hear the new speakers were sounding different on the bottom of the stack. I used the same speaker wire but I did switch the cables and also the A and B channels on the receiver and the difference remained Over time the new pair and old pair came to sound indistinguishable from each other, at least to my ears any way. Even if the differences had remained, it wouldn't have been an issue for me. I bought the second pair to listen to double Advents which had the effect of the total being greater than the sum of the parts. The only time I listened to a single pair was to demonstrate this effect, by playing 1 pair and then both pairs.

The second concrete example was a similar case where I had two of the same product purchased over a year apart. I bought AQ Nighthawk Carbon headphones which claimed to require a 150 hour break in time. I broke them in by actually listening to them over time. There was no way I could get the 150 hours in before my 30 day return period was up. I didn't sweat it because I loved the way these headphones sounded at my dealer. I auditioned them for an hour over two sessions. I was able to hear them using my actual integrated amp and my personal iPhone X. When I got my new pair home I liked the sound out of the box, so I wasn't as worried abut any potential break in time. I thought that after about 100 hours the headphones sounded smoother than they did initially, but I didn't know if I broke in or the headphones did. I figured maybe a bit of both. Two years later when AQ got out of the headphone business and slashed the price of the Nighthawk Carbons, I scooped up a second pair. To my surprise I could hear a definite difference in sound between the old and the new phones, just like the Advents. Also just like the Advents the differences diminished over time so I now can't tell them apart. To my mind this eliminates the human factor.

I always break in equipment by just listening to it normally in actual use. I never considered playing test tones and using some of the usable life of the cartridge for break in. I have had cartridges that I thought improved a little over time. I never disliked the sound to begin with, and I am fully willing to admit that it may have been me getting used to a new cartridge. But the bottom line as far as the question of: Is break in real? It is if you hear it. Real or imagined. If something sounds better or worse to you for whatever reason then for you it is real, period. It doesn't matter what other people tell you you should hear. The same goes for your not hearing it If you don't hear it, then it is not real for you. Peoples systems, listening rooms, electrical power, age, hearing and listening acuity all vary and all contribute to this. The most we can really do is say: I can or can't hear it on this gear. We can't tell someone else what they hear.