|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.9.34.194
Is anyone aware of research/facts that would dispute either of the following two hypothesis regarding audible changes generally observed during the 'breaking in' process:1.) Listeners senses may adjust to 'new' sound over time. Typically we describe fresh components as sounding harsh and then smoothing out over 100hrs or so. Even though you may not listen for the whole 100 hrs of break-in, you will likely have taken several listens during that period, and each time your senses become more accepting of what you hear.
2.) Assuming that 'break-in' does occur due to stabilizing of electrical paths/fields(or other reasons), what about the component that was swapped out. For example you burn-in a new cable for 100hrs and this takes you two weeks, you then go and compare it to the old cable and the new one sounds better. Ignoring possibility of #1 above for the moment, couldn't this be due to the old cable's paths/fields unstabilizing during its unuse?
These, questions have been bothering me, so just thought I'd throw them out there...
Follow Ups:
Hello,I do not know about research facts. The No1 fact is that people, who put EFFORT into improving their hearing can detect such changes. With experience, it can be ascertained whether an effect is due to power fluctuation, unborken-in component, reversed phase, amplifier / speaker distortion...
My experience is that the ability to differentiate highly depends on what type of gear one uses. People who listen at high SPLs, and subs, generally have untrained ears, and natural sounding gear improves the perception of sonic qualities over time.
Every type of break in has their characteristic sonic quality. After listening to a number of these, you will be able to tell in your system what is going on.Practice, practice, practice. No free things in life; and money won't buy ears... only the personal endeavor and an open mind.
The unpracticed ear can be fooled by the things you mentioned, but in such a case the person should focus more on improving his hearing than on buying new gear.Good luck!
Janos
I had made a set of DIY cat5 cables that when 1st listened to, were initially harsh. Over many hours times weeks, the harsh sound was absent replaced with a liquid smoothness. I doubt that this can be imagined, because the reason I had initially entered the world of HiFi is due to my left ear's sensitivity. This sensitivity is actually quite annoying and leaves my left ear bothering me for many hours, which happened when the cables were new, but do not have this effect on my ear now. Using these cables with vinyl records, I can listen all day without left ear fatigue, but switch to CD and fatigue takes place after approx 4 or 5 CDs. When I used hi-mid equipment such as Denon or Yamaha and a CD player, fatigue took place on the 1st CD, but not related to burn-in because the systems caused fatigue until the day I sold them from the day I bought them.As well a friend listen to my current system when the DIY cables were new, and without me giving him any personal impression, he said they were grainy and sounded bright. About 4 months later he came by and remarked how smooth the system sounded. Would he not have remarked they were still bright if they had not changed?
Several years ago I bought a SLI80 amp with new Svetlana KT88’s (#1). It sounded very thin and lifeless until around 75 hours of play (it was actually rather sudden improvement!). I wasn’t sure if it was my imagination or if the tubes actually changed.So I went and bought 2 more new sets of the same tubes (#2 and #3). I blind A/B’d the new (#2) with the old (#1) and the difference was very clear and obvious. I also compared the two new sets (#2 and #3) to each other and couldn’t hear any difference whatsoever.
I listened to #2 set until I heard the improvement again. The final result? Now #1 and #2 now sounded identical and virgin #3 was easily discriminated from burnt-in #2.
nt
thanks Caymus - that qualifies as a controlled experiment IMO.AJ F
nt
MY question about break in of components is "Howcome people claim that components sound better after break-in - never worse. Would you or could you ask for your money back if the required break-in resulted in a less than satisfactory sound?
A surprising number of buyers audition equipment before purchasing, at least many experienced audiophiles seem to demand it. Still many who say things improve after break in still end up getting rid of the aforementioned products.
You can decant a bottle of wine and it improves but you still may not like it.
Audition a broken in piece before buying if you are really worried.
Break-in is an obvious possibiliy with physical transducers like speakers and phono cartridges.I've heard the following analogy before, so I'll admit to plaigerizing it: Take any object with a supsension, such as a driver surround or cartridge suspension, and stress and relax it for a certain number of cycles of use and the suspension will initially change relativley rapidly, then reach a period of much slower change, eventually leading to fatigue or decline.
Break-in of this sort is well described and utilized in other forms of manufacture, as well.
I'll leave the informed details pro/com regarding electronic break-in to those more expert than myself, but I am aware of some electronic examples that may be valid, but am open to opinion on:
Rechargeable batteries have an initial break-in period, anybody know why? If this is a capacitance thing, it may explain why an amp could break in.
Certain devices have an engineered working temperature that is where they perform best. Not sure why, there, either.
The number of times an electronic device is turned on and off seems to affect it over time. I figure if a device has a limited life span, maybe it could have a break-in period? Not a claim, just wondering why they are allowed to wear out but not break-in.
The case for speakers is obvious, and if you search in the appropriate forums you'll find details -- in some cases you can find measurable differences, though some folks argue that it should still take a fairly short time.For electronics, beats me, and for wire I've never heard an explanation for break-in that does not come out of woo-woo land. Still, as myths go it's relatively harmless.
1) For the naive listener, probably yes.2) Yes, to varying degrees, though two weeks may not be long enough. What's more puzzling, some broken-in components seem to "lose" their seasoning if they're shipped any distance, and require another break in to achieve their potential. Temperature? Atmospheric pressure? Geomagnetism? Who knows?
nt
*break in* is a fun thing for hobbyists to talk about. It's discussion spills over into marketing and reviews. It may make us feel better. We may enjoy our music more in its firm belief. But it comes with a wink and a nod.Consider, it is not measurable. It is not predicted by engineering nor physics models. It is not detectable in DBX tests.
Audio equipment sales is big money to some very bright people who feed their familes and fund their retirement. If playing a $10k piece of equipment for X number of hours would improve its sound out the door, rest assured the marketplace would see to it this is done.
My wife is double boarded and does some pretty cutting edge medical reseach. She holds her tongue when my hippy friends come by and the conversation turns to alternative medicine. For them, it is a hobby, and loads of fun to discuss homeopathy, for my wife, it is her profession shared with some very bright people. Discuss away, but it is done with a wink and a nod.
Break in is the alternative medicine of audio. Personal anecdotes abound as to its existence, but the tools we as a society have created to test whether we are fooling ourselves, as we are apt to do, say it does not exist. Sure there are people who believe in it. 60% of Americans believe in ghosts.
Magical thinking is nice. Again, it may make your listening experience more enjoyable. But, it is done with a wink and a nod.
Peace,
TommyK
...an electromechanical system that performs *exactly* the same at hour 1 as it does at hour 1,000 and hour 10,000. Not predicted by engineering models you say? Apparently you're not an engineer.I understand that loudspeaker designers often work with broken-in drivers when building or tweaking a new speaker. Why? Because they perform differently than brand-new drivers.
I agree that some people tend to exaggerate the magnitude of break-in with electronic components. If an amplifier, for example, literally sounds bad at hour 1, it's always going to sound bad. The sound DOES change, though.
When I replaced all the capacitors in my tube amp last year, the sound had an unmistakable "grain" for the first several hours but overall didn't sound bad. The grain has since disappeared, but my subjective impressions had nothing to do with it.
I don't consider break-in a "fun" thing to talk about, nor does it make me "feel better," but it is real.
Anthony,
Thanks for your response.The original post referred to burn in for cable, not as you counter with, "an electromechanical system". The original post said nothing about capacitors. Capacitors or speaker drivers are one thing, cable is another. These are apple and oranges. Arguing driver break in as a defense to cable break in is analogous to arguing lunar gravity to defend astrology.
My post was not in reference to speaker drivers, but rather referring to the original posts example of "speaker cable changing after being played for 100(s) [of] hours."
You also write: "If an amplifier, for example, literally sounds bad at hour 1, it's always going to sound bad. The sound DOES change, though." This is another subject, and I would agree with you to an extent.
Please, lets stick to the hypothesis of the original poster, I am interested in reading your defense of cable break in. I am no slouch on math, so don't be afraid to get technical. Though not an engineer by training, I am no stranger to engineering texts. I am willing to learn.
Peace,
TommyK
5 or six years ago, things like the Gryphon Exorcist, and such, they claimed to demagnetize the circuit. The Exorcist just emitted a 1kHZ toneburst with a 30 to 45 second decay. and they claimed this demagnetized the wire the signal was going through.
People like Purist market a disc with what they claim are 100+ programs to demagnetize the most commonly found items in your circuit path. There is a change with the use of such devices, but how does one measure and test their hypothesis?
I took a simple hand held degausser, a Geneva 2800 Gauss machine used for tape erasing and simply ran it down the length of my interconnects and speaker wire. The effect was identical to using such devices, except the effect did not last as long as the Purist Audio treatment (a 74 minute CD). I could hear the sound changing within a 5 minute span.
I am hypothesising here, but the current flow seems to be magnetizing the insulation and the boundary material next to the actual conductor, if not the conductor itself. What is surprising is that such small changes in the magnetic properties can be heard (at least by some).
One speaker designer I've spoken to thinks that part of driver break in is due to the annealing of the voice coils and the inductors, saying that that would explain why you have to push a driver in order to have it break in, meaning the wiring has to heat up some.
I'm not saying this is the cause, but it is food for thought.
The original poster used cable as an example. I didn't realize that's strictly what you were talking about, sorry... my bad.Whether break-in occurs in a conductor and its insulation is beyond my area of expertise, nor do I have the listening experience to make an informed judgment. When I made the switch to Goertz cable years ago, I was pleased enough with the results that I haven't worried about cables since. They sounded great from the start, so I didn't even consider listening for any "break in" effects either. It might be interesting to compare one of my old cables to a brand new one one of these days, but until that time... I dunno.
The only things I can go on are are the well informed opinions of certain people, many of whom say cable break-in is a real phenomenon. On the surface, yeah, it seems hard to believe... but
given the complex nature of current flow, signal propagation, electron movement, etcetera, I'd be foolish to deny the possibility. After all, I do know that very slight changes in a system can be audible.However, I do agree with you that the "break in" (acclimation) occurring between a listener's ears is of a much greater magnitude than anything that could happen with a cable. The most tweakable component in an audio system IS the listener!
This line of thinking gets us no where in the progession of mankind. We think we can prove at least a certain number of variables therefore it is true. Oh shit we have a new machine that tells us so much more, we had better come up with a new hypothesis to cover our asses.I could go on and on but the point is very simple. If you do not know all the variables, and or combinations of them, you do not know the complete answer. So I guess we can stop the progession of science and technology now, because we have all the answers, machines, and test procedures.
I do feel so sorry for the Eastern medicine people. They do not get the Cut and Burn technology of Western medicine. Did I forget the profit motive. There I go again not realizing a few years in college gives us a understanding of Infinity. But, it is done with a wink and a nod.
I think Alan Watts wrote " I do not know what I am more upset about Judgemetal people or my Judgement of Judgemetal people." Guess if I understood the quote I would have not written all this stuff.
Well it is time to break in my new DIY phono pre, with more tube rect power supplies than any one would need. Should of use transistors and diodes, they measure so much better.( With a wink and a nod.)
... the break-in of a pair of Gallo Reference 3 speakers. Or practically anything (e.g., the Ack dAck 2.0) with teflon capacitors. The analogy with alternative medicine is pretty hysterical, though.
take two identical componebts and break one in for a specified time . Then hook up the other one(non-broken in) and see if there is any noticeable difference in their sound. Might work?
I don't know if it is break in or something else but a tube preamp or amp will change over the first 15 minutes of play getting better as it goes. It will slightly improve further in the next hour or two and then level off. I call this warm up, not break in.I have had speakers improve over the first few months, sounding tipped up at first and getting fuller sounding as the surrounds loosen up.
Both of these are easy to hear and explain.
I have never heard cables improve over time, but I won't say that it doesn't happen. I just haven't heard it with the ones I have tried in my system.
I completely agree with the warm up thing (I have tubed pre, amp, and DAC) and I always play music for 1/2 hr before sitting down to listen.I'm really just trying to validate the concept that 'break in' does occur. The main reason I posed the q's is that from my experience my whole system seems to go 'dead' when I don't use regularly (which sadly happens esp. in non-winter months) - and from my own observations it can take several days of continuous play for things to really come back to life after said non-use. So I wonder..Is it really improving during those days or am I maybe just re-acquianting myself with sound and expectations? Maybe a combination of both? My 2nd question re. comparing cables was really prompted by some tube rolling :')
Once I brought home to audition two Kora Mono amps. One had been played for at least 20 hours(we were curious what it sounded like even though the other one was damaged in shipping and we couldn't listen to both) and the other had not been played. It was easy to hear the difference at first. After several days of both playing background music they both sounded better and they sounded the same to me.I expect this says that they both changed and that my hearing adjusted too. Now to point two, if my hearing adapts so easily why is it after years of going to hear musicals at the Fox in Atlanta it never quit sounding bright to me?
"Now to point two, if my hearing adapts so easily why is it after years of going to hear musicals at the Fox in Atlanta it never quit sounding bright to me?"Because you didn't stay there for the entire period but, instead, listened elsewhere in the interim. Adaptation works for all situations and their effects interact.
NT.
"though you may not listen for the whole 100 hrs of break-in, you will likely have taken several listens during that period, and each time your senses become more accepting of what you hear."Which would negate how often I have listen to something out of the box at a friends house and think it was awful, but come back in a week and find it better and then again in a week or two and find its sounding really quite good. By the way I can think of one speaker that was just the opposite.
It depends on the intervals and the attitude. By that I mean that the longer the intervals are between exposures, the less adaptation is retained and the more one is biased by the memory of the prior exposure. Also, the first perception that there is a change biases the succeeding exposures. Now, I am not saying that nothing changes and that adaptation is all but, rather, that without controlled experimentation, it is impossible to separate the two and we do know that adaptation mechanisms are real.
Kal,It is an honor to have you reply to my post - albeit in a very indirect way that wasn't at all in direct response to my original questions!!
I find it sad to think that the human mind is so feeble that it can not distinguish a change in sound quality over time.
8^)....
Your senses adjust to stimuli to keep them within an acceptable range for analysis. Your pupils dialate in bright light, after a while soft sounds seem louder and loud sounds seem softer. An unbearably hot spa becomes comfortable after a few minutes.Your senses were designed/adapted to help you find food and avoid danger, not to evaluate audio.
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
notice the smiley I have in the original post.
Second, are you then saying it doesn't matter what kind of equipment and sound we get from our systems, because eventually we will adapt to it? It would certainly would save a lot of money and resources.
Just wondering, because then we would not really need any professional musicians either. We could just adapt to the the amateur players (and there are some really good ones, but then that may be my imagination, too).
8^)....
> Second, are you then saying it doesn't matter what kind of equipment and sound we get from our systems, because eventually we will adapt to it? It would certainly would save a lot of money and resources.Yep, it sure would. IMHO your gear should sound good enough so when you first sit down to listen, it sounds OK. Anything more is gravy.
> Just wondering, because then we would not really need any professional musicians either.
Read my signature :)-|- <
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
Wow, never heard such a pathetic response! That humans can and do adapt is a great strength. To see this in terms of the "human mind being so feeble" is way out in left field.Let me guess, you give no credence to the fact that tests have shown that aural memory is very poor and that makes you a golden eared marvel because you do remember everything.
Stu
How many have it?
I live in a city of about 1 million. I certainly don't know everyone in it. Within my circle of acquaintances, I know of three people who have perfect pctch and several others who have near perfect pitch. That's enough to show me that auditory memory is not so transient as some wold like to believe.
It can be very difficult, and you can actually take classes in aural training at most music departments on the high school and collegiate level. You can train any sense.
One in 10,000 in the west and the incident in the Far East is estimated to be ten to a hundred times higher, at least by some studies. No one really knows, because there is not too much documentation in China. It is believed by some, (not by me) that the tonality of the Chinese language has something to do with the high incidence.
I have seen people using 30-year old systems, unaware that the surrounds on their speakers rotted away long ago, who have adapted to the "evolving" sound. Then, when you introduce speakers that are working correctly (in their room and their system), they instantly realize what has happened to them.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: