In , on 10/21/05
at 05:10 PM, hoarse with no name said:

If speaker break-in is dumb, is amp burn-in dumber? Or is there a
sensible explanation involving capacitors and such? I won't name the
brand, but I was reading customer reviews of a certain well regarded
model and most of the owners said that it took 30 days for this amp to
finish burning in and then it sounded great after that point. 30 days
is usually how long you get to return an item. So, does amp burn-in
exist and is it more necessary on certain models?

Some amplifiers require time to stabilize as they warm up to operating
temperature, but this happens at each use. This shouldn't be more than
a few minutes. Tuners are much more temperature sensitive than
amplifiers and even the cheap, very poor units don't drift
significantly as they warm up.

30 days!! How does the design engineer get anything done? Must he wait
30 days after every improvement before he can evaluate it? How can they
test the units at the factory?

I'll give very old units some slack if they haven't been used in ages
and the capacitors need to be reformed, but one could argue that the
capacitors should be replaced, not reformed.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

In article ,
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote:

"Barry Mann" wrote in message
om...
In , on 10/21/05
at 05:10 PM, hoarse with no name said:

If speaker break-in is dumb, is amp burn-in dumber? Or is there a
sensible explanation involving capacitors and such? I won't name the
brand, but I was reading customer reviews of a certain well regarded
model and most of the owners said that it took 30 days for this amp to
finish burning in and then it sounded great after that point. 30 days
is usually how long you get to return an item. So, does amp burn-in
exist and is it more necessary on certain models?


Our ears (brains, actually) become more accustomed to the sound of any
component over the course of days, weeks, etc. I would say this is a much,
much larger factor than any supposed amplifier "burn-in".

Mark Z.



Acclimation of new audio components is rarely even considered. Most
won't admit when they themselves have been 'burned in'.

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

"Barry Mann" wrote in message
om...
In , on 10/21/05
at 05:10 PM, hoarse with no name said:

If speaker break-in is dumb, is amp burn-in dumber? Or is there a
sensible explanation involving capacitors and such? I won't name the
brand, but I was reading customer reviews of a certain well regarded
model and most of the owners said that it took 30 days for this amp to
finish burning in and then it sounded great after that point. 30 days
is usually how long you get to return an item. So, does amp burn-in
exist and is it more necessary on certain models?


Our ears (brains, actually) become more accustomed to the sound of any
component over the course of days, weeks, etc. I would say this is a much,
much larger factor than any supposed amplifier "burn-in".

Mark Z.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:44:42 -0400, (Barry Mann) wrote:


30 days!! How does the design engineer get anything done? Must he wait
30 days after every improvement before he can evaluate it? How can they
test the units at the factory?

LOL! That was a good one. I will remember that, next time this comes
up.

Per.

"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message
news:Tkp6f.3364
Our ears (brains, actually) become more accustomed to the sound of any
component over the course of days, weeks, etc. I would say this is a much,
much larger factor than any supposed amplifier "burn-in".

Moving your head more than a few inches will have far more effect than any
amount of amp 'burn-in'. Don't worry about it.

geoff

"Geoff@work" wrote in message
...


snip

Moving your head more than a few inches will have far more effect than any
amount of amp 'burn-in'.


This is also true.

mz

"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in
message t
"Geoff@work" wrote in
message ...


snip

Moving your head more than a few inches will have far
more effect than any
amount of amp 'burn-in'.


This is also true.

This is one of those things that raisses a lot of
uncomfortable questions. We've got all these *golden ears*
that claim they reliably *hear* differences between wire
with 99.99% pure copper and 99.99999% pure copper, and yet
none of them ever seem to report the far larger changes that
happen when you move your head a few inches.

Well one thing I will say about anything audio-electrical when you first
get it-purchase it.

Play the living **** out of it around the clock for 30 days, don't baby
it. If something is bound to go wrong, it usually will during this
period. Mark

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Moving your head more than a few inches will have far
more effect than any
amount of amp 'burn-in'.


This is also true.

This is one of those things that raisses a lot of
uncomfortable questions. We've got all these *golden ears*
that claim they reliably *hear* differences between wire
with 99.99% pure copper and 99.99999% pure copper, and yet
none of them ever seem to report the far larger changes that
happen when you move your head a few inches.

How do you know it is not the latter effect they are confusing for the
first? After all, when they claim to hear changes, maybe they do. Since they
can't prove why they hear the change, or consistently show which is which,
simply moving their head is probably a good explanation for their certainty
that they did indeed hear a change.

MrT.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Moving your head more than a few inches will have far
more effect than any
amount of amp 'burn-in'.


This is also true.

This is one of those things that raisses a lot of
uncomfortable questions. We've got all these *golden
ears* that claim they reliably *hear* differences
between wire with 99.99% pure copper and 99.99999% pure
copper, and yet none of them ever seem to report the far
larger changes that happen when you move your head a few
inches.

How do you know it is not the latter effect they are
confusing for the first?

I don't.

After all, when they claim to
hear changes, maybe they do.

You figured that out, too?

Same argument applies to their hatred for level matching and
time synching, not to mention their hatred for listening for
short periods of time and switching. They are all good ways
to make things actually sound different for reasons that are
irrelevant to inherent differences in equipment sound
quality.

Since they can't prove why
they hear the change, or consistently show which is
which, simply moving their head is probably a good
explanation for their certainty that they did indeed hear
a change.

Somehting like that! ;-)