 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.158.0.179
In Reply to: Re: How do new players break in? What caues the sonic improvement? posted by GrandpaBobby on December 24, 2004 at 23:42:00:
... and humans generally have much better vision than hearing. Have you ever noticed an improvement in your TV's picture as it "broke in" over the course of several hundred hours"?Didn't think so.
Follow Ups:
ISF recommends at least 100 hours of usage prior to calibration to allow the display characteristics to settle.
I'll bet most CD players or amps could benefit from some adjustment or recalibrating after a few hundred hours too. That misses the point. What those who advocate "breaking in" electronics argue is that the performance improves over the break-in time, without any recalibration.I'll bet if you calibrate a TV new right out of the box so that it's "perfect" and come back after letting it "burn in" for 300 hours, that particular calibration will look worse, not better. And after calibrating again, the performance will be the same or worse than the first calibration - not better.
where did you get this fanciful notion of "rapidly stop degrading" from?it is not supported by empirical measurements. typical TVs are designed to last 10,000 hours (though 20-30,000 hours are not uncommon).
in the first few hundred hours, the set's performance in terms of linearity and predictability improve, not degrade.
I'll bet if you calibrate a TV new right out of the box so that it's "perfect" and come back after letting it "burn in" for 300 hours, that particular calibration will look worse, not better. And after calibrating again, the performance will be the same or worse than the first calibration - not better.All would agree to the first sentence. But the second sentence simply flies in the face of experience. Recalibration will produce a picture that is the same or better, and the resulting drift will be much, much less than in the first few hundred hours.
The fact that the calibrations will remain at the new settings for much longer than fresh out of the box gives us evidence that the balance within the circuitry has changed in some subtle ways.
Regards,
Geoff
I agree entirely with what you said. Of course the second calibration will hold longer - that's why I said "settle" = "stop rapidly degrading".My point was that the break-in period itself does NOT result in better performance. It's the recalibrating after the break-in period has degraded the performance that matters. And, I believe, the second calibration will result in no better picture than the first calibration. It will just hold longer, that's why it's recommended to wait the 100 hours.
No one here who advocates "breaking in" an SACD player as a means of improving its performance has ever suggested that it be recalibrated or adjusted in any way after the break in period. They simply suggest that the player will "magically" sound better all by itself. I don't buy this.
(BTW: I don't confuse "breaking in" with "warming up".)
Since you agree that the "second calibration will hold longer", you agree that changes have occurred in the circuit during the first couple of hundred hours. Some will not agree with that.Anyway, the same "breaking in" applies to amps, and they need no calibration. Read the current tendency of reviewers to run any piece of equipment for a few days to a week or so before listening. Why would they bother?
I've recalibrated my SACD player a few times.
Regards,
Geoff
I disagree that these changes, occurring over the course of hundreds of hours, are likely to be an improvement.Why do reviewers run a piece of electronic equipment for a few days to a week before reviewing it? I suspect many just say they do to humor the true believers. A proper warm-up of an hour or two should be all that's necessary.
BTW: Why have you recalibrated your SACD player? Was it beginning to sound too good?
The reason why many components sound better after break-in is because the sound the designer intended to get out of the component is the sound after break-in. If the designer was trying to optimize the sound out of the box, then break-in could make it sound worse. But it would take extra effort to optimize the out of the box sound because the designer would have to keep rebuilding his prototypes with new parts all the time.Nevertheless, some components do sound worse after break-in. I have an inexpensive Panasonic F87 DVD-A player that sounded best new.
Dave
Hey Dalton, try hanging out on some videophile forums for a few days. They make us audiophiles seem "normal".
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]