@heaudio123 Couple of questions for you...
What is your definition of a ’burned in’ unit?
When do you consider an effect 'audible'?
What is your definition of a ’burned in’ unit?
When do you consider an effect 'audible'?
Break in time that extends to months or maybe even years!!
On another thread, we have a well known and well respected piece of gear ( and great sounding too, IME) that according to the member who is reviewing it, needs in excess of 1000 hours to fully break in!!
While we have all heard of gear that needs immense amounts of 'break in' time to sound its best, usually gear that involves teflon caps, I question whether this very long break in time is the job for the consumer? Is it reasonable for a manufacturer of audio gear to expect the consumer to receive sub-par performance from his purchase for potentially several months ( years?) before the true sound of the gear in question can be enjoyed? Or, is it ( or should it be) perhaps the job of the manufacturer of this gear ( usually not low priced) to actually accomplish the 'break in' before releasing it from the factory? Thoughts...
While we have all heard of gear that needs immense amounts of 'break in' time to sound its best, usually gear that involves teflon caps, I question whether this very long break in time is the job for the consumer? Is it reasonable for a manufacturer of audio gear to expect the consumer to receive sub-par performance from his purchase for potentially several months ( years?) before the true sound of the gear in question can be enjoyed? Or, is it ( or should it be) perhaps the job of the manufacturer of this gear ( usually not low priced) to actually accomplish the 'break in' before releasing it from the factory? Thoughts...
- ...
- 114 posts total
| Post removed |
heaudio123 Ultimately the only thing that matters is is the effect audible. Would be a relatively easy test, a new unit(s) and burned in unit(s) and do A/B/X analysis. Unfortunately that is anathema to many audiophiles. >>>>It almost sounds like you’re volunteering to do the required A/B/X analysis. I look forward to your analysis. That is unless it’s anathema to you. The confirmation of the audible effect of break-in is a sticky wicket, I’m afraid, if one attempts to compare the sound of a component before break-in to the sound after break-in. What prevents the earnest audiophile from trying to get to the bottom of break-in is not only the 🔜 uneven audible effects of break in 🔚 with but also the difficulty in making comparisons of the sound over long periods of time, e.g., two weeks. If one wishes to compare the sound of his system two weeks apart not only is his memory of the sound in the first case crucial to the test but also, perhaps more importantly, how can he attribute any differences in sound to only break-in since a slew of external and internal variables probably changed. Rarely does the intrepid audiophile sit still for 2 weeks. Surely he would make some changes to his system in that time, no? And shouldn’t time of day, day of week, the weather be considered in comparisons of sound? Nothing is easy, if it was easy everyone could do it. It is virtually impossible to control all the variables in tests like this, a test which on the surface seems like a slam dunk. |
| Post removed |
Start the a/b test with a component for which it should be easy to discern the difference between new out of the box and then after 1000 hours of normal playing. A pair of full range speakers should do the trick, handily. Well, actually two pair would be needed, one new the other run in for thousands of hours. That would be a really fun test to take part in. I’ll supply the post test beer, win and snacky things. |
- 114 posts total