|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.224.74.254
In Reply to: RE: d. None of the above. posted by Duster on March 08, 2014 at 14:34:19
Duster: You are one of the few audiophiles who embrace long break-in hours and I fully support your methods. Many folks become upset if they have to do break-in for say 40 hours and blame it on the cable.
Follow Ups:
The Morrows do take ~400 hours. Others may not.
If one made choices only on non-broken in stuff, then their system is not likely to be too good.
On the other hand, as has been pointed out, if some equipment sounds bad initially, it is not likely to become good with burn in.
sbrians wrote:
"...if some equipment sounds bad initially, it is not likely to become good with burn in."
I think the topic indicates that some cables can nominally sound "bad" initially, then the sound improves, sometimes dramatically with ample burn-in time.
Depending on the dielectric material and other design factors, sometimes a new cable will at first sound poor, then good, then poor again during the early stages of burn-in.
If a listener isn't patient, they may become quite confused and even upset. I've learned to actually enjoy listening to a new cable while it's going through the burn-in process rather than panic ;-D
....is like a sine wave. It has its ups and downs, hills and valleys. Unfortunately, too many (impatient) listeners make an early judgement call when they hear something unpleasant. Very likely, the cable is in a "down" period, and needs more conditioning time.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: