burn in period of new hifi equipment

[arashid]

I'd like to ask all about the burn in period of new hi fi equipment.

What is the sound of non-burn in equipment, and how does it improve? is this a myth or a reality?

regards

Ali

 

[The_Lhc]

That's such a broad question it's almost impossible to answer, different pieces of kit will sound differently before and after they're run/burned in.

 

[chebby]

The sort of question that starts wars. Some people have almost religious style 'faith' concerning this matter.

I think that once the equipment is up to room temperature and has been powered on and playing for 30 minutes - 1 hour at reasonable volume, then that is as 'warmed-up'/burnt-in/conditioned as it gets.

I think the rest is all down to the listener getting used to the sound of new items in a familiar environment.

I have seen accounts of speakers that supposedly take up to 400 playing hours to burn in. That would make me angry as a consumer, if I only had an hour or two a day to play my system!

I would be asking the manufacturer to 'burn' the things in in their time (and on their money) not mine!

Some people own equipment for less time than the suggested burn-in would take (400 playing hours could be a year or two for some folk) so it is either ridiculous - or just a bit immoral even - to punt out expensive goods and then tell people that they may not give their best performance for a year-or-two if the customer has a busy life.

As for cable 'burn-in'; the discussion used to make me laugh but now I think the subject is just an embarassment for the industry that might just actually prevent quite a few cable sales.

 

[plastic penguin]

chebby:

The sort of question that starts wars. Some people have almost religious style 'faith' concerning this matter.

I think that once the equipment is up to room temperature and has been powered on and playing for 30 minutes - 1 hour at reasonable volume, then that is as 'warmed-up'/burnt-in/conditioned as it gets.

I think the rest is all down to the listener getting used to the sound of new items in a familiar environment.

I have seen accounts of speakers that supposedly take up to 400 playing hours to burn in. That would make me angry as a consumer, if I only had an hour or two a day to play my system!

I would be asking the manufacturer to 'burn' the things in in their time (and on their money) not mine!

Some people own equipment for less time than the suggested burn-in would take (400 playing hours could be a year or two for some folk) so it is either ridiculous - or just a bit immoral even - to punt out expensive goods and then tell people that they may not give their best performance for a year-or-two if the customer has a busy life.

As for cable 'burn-in'; the discussion used to make me laugh but now I think the subject is just an embarassment for the industry that might just actually prevent quite a few cable sales.

 

[The_Lhc]

I would like to point out at this point that there's a BIG difference between running-in something like speakers, that actually have moving parts and the putative "burn-in" apparently required by some electronic equipment.

It shouldn't take too much imagination to realise that the movement of a speaker will, at the very least, cause the cone material to change stiffness with use, which will almost certainly affect the sound (whether that's noticable to the user probably depends on the speaker in question and the user).

It is also a fact that electronic components, especially ones that get hot in use experience a change in electrical characteristics with age (and in some cases with temperature, which is why some components will sound different when first switched on), so it's perhaps not unreasonable to expect something like the sound of an amplifier to change as it ages.

Then of course you've got something like a plasma TV whereby the phosphors on the screen need time to settle down to prevent screen burn, which is something that is clearly a real enough phenomenon, given that the manufacturers will advise the user to use a lower contrast/brightness for the first X hours.

The question as to whether manufacturers should run/burn in their products prior to release for sale is an interesting one though, I've got a vague recollection that some do this already or offer the option to do it, at the consumer's cost.

 

[Anonymous]

plastic penguin:

 

[The_Lhc]

Brian123:plastic penguin:

And Nan?

 

[Anonymous]

the_lhc:Brian123:plastic penguin:

And Nan?

Keema please! Although I'm quite partial to a Peshwari as well.

 

[Anonymous]

When it comes to improving sound quality, I think booze beats coffee any time.

PS:

You might need a burn-in period of, say, half an hour before it really kicks.

 

[The_Lhc]

Brian123:the_lhc:Brian123:plastic penguin:

And Nan?

Keema please! Although I'm quite partial to a Peshwari as well.

No, Nan, not Naan. Yer grandma, what does she want?

I'm with you on the Keema Naan though. Bread, with built-in meat, it doesn't get any better!

 

[jaxwired]

arashid:I'd like to ask all about the burn in period of new hi fi equipment.

What is the sound of non-burn in equipment, and how does it improve? is this a myth or a reality?

Here's my take. Speakers do change because they have moving parts. The burn in period is short. Less than 100 hours. Probably less than 50 hours.

Electronics, I'm less inclinded to believe in a burn in process. Possibly there is something going on during the very first use. Maybe the first hour of use. Dozens of hours or even hundreds of hours to burn in electronics? That's not been my experience and I'm not on board with that.

The most suspicious thing about burn in to me (and I've never had a good answer to this), is that it always improves the sound. I've read hundreds of amplifier reviews. I don't remember a single instance where the reviewer liked the fresh from box sound and liked the burned in sound less. If burn in is real for electronics, then the sound would be changing. Logic would dictate that it could change for the better or worse. It's always reported as better. That's not logical.

With all that said, I've no problem admitting that I could be wrong.

 

[JoelSim]

Fahnsen:

When it comes to improving sound quality, I think booze beats coffee any time.

PS:

You might need a burn-in period of, say, half an hour before it really kicks.

Every time I read a post of yours I disagree.

 

[jaxwired]

JoelSim:Fahnsen: When it comes to improving sound quality, I think booze beats coffee any time.

PS: You might need a burn-in period of, say, half an hour before it really kicks.

Every time I read a post of yours I disagree.

You have to take him for what he is, a science and facts guy. It's not an unreasonable position. I just happen to think that the science is incomplete. I don't dismiss it at all, I just think it doesn't have the whole story.

And of course you represent the polar opposite of Fahnsen...you've got one and only one source for your opinion, your ears.

 

[staggerlee]

Personal experince is that speakers certainly need a burn in period and you can hear the difference. I have had about 3 sets of speakers and had to put in 50-100 hours for them to settle. Even now my speakers need a good 30 minutes to actually start sounding good. But for any other equipment , CD player, amp etc normally a 30 minute period is needed if they have been off.

Cable burn in less convincved off.

 

[The_Lhc]

staggerlee:Personal experince is that speakers certainly need a burn in period and you can hear the difference. I have had about 3 sets of speakers and had to put in 50-100 hours for them to settle. Even now my speakers need a good 30 minutes to actually start sounding good. But for any other equipment , CD player, amp etc normally a 30 minute period is needed if they have been off.

Err, how do you know if it's the speakers that need 30 minutes to "sound good" or the electronics?

 

[scene]

staggerlee:
Personal experince is that speakers certainly need a burn in period and you can hear the difference. I have had about 3 sets of speakers and had to put in 50-100 hours for them to settle. Even now my speakers need a good 30 minutes to actually start sounding good. But for any other equipment , CD player, amp etc normally a 30 minute period is needed if they have been off.

Cable burn in less convincved off.

I'm with the_lhc on this, the 30 minute period is just warm-up time for the electronics and is more of a constant, it's the time it takes for the circuitry to settle down.

Cable burn in is a real phenomenon for analogue signals. There is scientific fact behind it as it has to do with electron migration, di-electrics, etc. Cables tend to open up over time, with more effect on higher frequency sounds than low frequency ones.

And speakers most definitely need running in. A lot of speaker manufacturers recommend placing speakers close together (a few cm) facing each other, wiring them up so one is out of phase with the other (reverse one set of speaker cables) and playing them continuously at a reasonable (not overly loud) volume for a few days. Monitor Audio even provide a specific speaker running in CD for the purpose.

 

[Anonymous]

scene:Cable burn in is a real phenomenon for analogue signals. There is scientific fact behind it

No, it isn't. Ask a scientist instead of trusting cable factory marketing agents...

As for speakers, that's a completely different thing. It's a matter of mechanical softening of materials.

 

[JoelSim]

Fahnsen:

scene:Cable burn in is a real phenomenon for analogue signals. There is scientific fact behind it

No, it isn't. Ask a scientist instead of trusting cable factory marketing agents...

As for speakers, that's a completely different thing. It's a matter of mechanical softening of materials.

Are you suggesting that cable manufacturers don't employ scientists and other experts in this field? That it is all marketing guff? If you are then I know why you have the opinions you do.

 

[Drummerdave]

JoelSim:Fahnsen:

scene:Cable burn in is a real phenomenon for analogue signals. There is scientific fact behind it

No, it isn't. Ask a scientist instead of trusting cable factory marketing agents...

As for speakers, that's a completely different thing. It's a matter of mechanical softening of materials.

Are you suggesting that cable manufacturers don't employ scientists and other experts in this field? That it is all marketing guff? If you are then I know why you have the opinions you do.

Here we go.....

 

[chebby]

JoelSim:Are you suggesting that cable manufacturers don't employ scientists and other experts in this field? That it is all marketing guff? If you are then I know why you have the opinions you do.

I tend to have the same or similar opinions regarding cables.

Why do I have the opinions that I do?

Why do prestigious manufacturers like Harbeth and ATC recommend basic 79 strand?

Why does Alan Shaw have the opinions (on cable) that he has?

 

[Anonymous]

jaxwired:You have to take him for what he is, a science and facts guy. It's not an unreasonable position. I just happen to think that the science is incomplete. I don't dismiss it at all, I just think it doesn't have the whole story.

Actually, I'm very far from being 'a science and facts guy'. My trade is literature and culture, and human perception of cultural phenomena. Thus I know a lot about what's facts and science, and what's ********.

Science clearly has it's limitations -- but it doesn't meet any of them in the rather simple field of sound engineering. Audiophiles tend to be unaware of every known issue in the field of human perception though, and hi-fi marketing use this for what it's worth.

 

[jaxwired]

Fahnsen:

jaxwired:You have to take him for what he is, a science and facts guy. It's not an unreasonable position. I just happen to think that the science is incomplete. I don't dismiss it at all, I just think it doesn't have the whole story.

Actually, I'm very far from being 'a science and facts guy'. My trade is literature and culture, and human perception of cultural phenomena. Thus I know a lot about what's facts and science, and what's ********.

Science clearly has it's limitations -- but it doesn't meet any of them in the rather simple field of sound engineering. Audiophiles tend to be unaware of every known issue in the field of human perception though, and hi-fi marketing use this for what it's worth.

Such a large population of audio enthusiasts are cable believers. Are there other products with similar high percentages of dilusional buyers? Where else in the retail market are people being duped in large numbers due to human perception and marketing?

 

[idc]

Headphones tend to have a running in period and I have found the physically bigger the headphone, the longer the run in is. I have found particularly with the AGK K702 and Goldring NS1000 the sound stage widens with time. But that is about it.

My hybrid amp changes as it warms up and goes slightly softer in tone once warm. I prefer the cold sound, hence its own shelf to help keep it as cool as possible. But overtime, I am not sure if it has run in.

I have moved house a few times and have found each time I take everything apart and then set it back up again it takes a few weeks for the sound to settle down.

All of the above can, I suppose pass for the legendary burn in.

 

[chebby]

jaxwired:Are there other products with similar high percentages of dilusional buyers? Where else in the retail market are people being duped in large numbers due to human perception and marketing?

Cosmetics, skin creams, and hair shampoo where almost every month some manufacturer makes outrageous claims for yet another 'invented' pseudo scientific sounding ingredient that will make you younger, fresher, give hair more 'life' (hair is dead cells), more volume etc etc.

 

[jaxwired]

Cosmetics I can agree with. Shampoo, I don't agree with because I don't think the buyers actually do believe the claims.