Question RE: Preamp Break-in
Joe
a remote and a headphone jack sounded like a nice feature. I read
the favorable reviews and since my previous purchase of a 4BST had
been such a success I figured I couldn't loose.
My first impression was that I had lost the "magic" I had had with
the Forte. Whatever it was that had drawn me in was gone. The few
negative comments I had seen about "forward upper mids" and "lack of
transparency" (whatever that means) seemed true.
But I had also heard that the amp requires a three week break-in
period to achieve its ultimate tonal characteristics.
So here's the question. What affect does a break-in period have on a
transistor amp? I can see where aging tubes would mellow as the air
leaks out of them but what happens to transistor circuitry that would
improve the sound.
Or is it truly only the listener who gets used to the new sounding
preamp? Is it possible that the Bryston is just more accurate and I
need to get used to not hearing whatever distortion I've become fond
of in the Forte?
Relate gear:
Dunlavy SM-1
Bryston 4BST
Musical Design CD-1
Richard D Pierce
>But I had also heard that the amp requires a three week break-in
>period to achieve its ultimate tonal characteristics.
>
>So here's the question. What affect does a break-in period have on a
>transistor amp? I can see where aging tubes would mellow as the air
>leaks out of them but what happens to transistor circuitry that would
>improve the sound.
EXCUSE ME? I hope this is said tongue in cheek.
Wherever did you hear that "air leaks out of the tubes?" This is
an entirely new one, and, if so, violates any one of a number of
extremely well understood physical prionciples, and could even
throw out thermodynamics and the conservation of energy.
No, the air DOES NOT "leak out of the tubes." No way.
>Or is it truly only the listener who gets used to the new sounding
>preamp? Is it possible that the Bryston is just more accurate and I
>need to get used to not hearing whatever distortion I've become fond
>of in the Forte?
Sure, why couldn't that be possible. Just lok at your first
point: what assurances do you have that you're hearing and
perception remainded ABSOLUTELY constant during that time?
So let's say someone buys you a recording of music you never
heard before. AT first, you really don;t like it, but after a
while, you begin to get into it, and, before long, you like it
as much or better than something you've liked for years.
Does that prove that the music changed over a couple of weeks,
that the music somehow "burned in?" Kind of an absurd assertion,
no?
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
Joe
> >I can see where aging tubes would mellow as the air
> >leaks out of them but what happens to transistor circuitry that would
> >improve the sound.
>
> EXCUSE ME? I hope this is said tongue in cheek.
No, it's not. I want to know what changes in a transistor amp during
break-in.
>
> Wherever did you hear that "air leaks out of the tubes?" This is
> an entirely new one, and, if so, violates any one of a number of
> extremely well understood physical prionciples, and could even
> throw out thermodynamics and the conservation of energy.
>
> No, the air DOES NOT "leak out of the tubes." No way.
You're right. I should have said leaks *into* them.
> >Or is it truly only the listener who gets used to the new sounding
> >preamp?
> Sure, why couldn't that be possible. Just lok at your first
> point: what assurances do you have that you're hearing and
> perception remainded ABSOLUTELY constant during that time?
>
> So let's say someone buys you a recording of music you never
> heard before. AT first, you really don;t like it, but after a
> while, you begin to get into it, and, before long, you like it
> as much or better than something you've liked for years.
So you agree that what changes over the break-in period is the listeners
perception?
Richard D Pierce
>Richard D Pierce wrote:
>
>> >I can see where aging tubes would mellow as the air
>> >leaks out of them but what happens to transistor circuitry that would
>> >improve the sound.
>>
>> EXCUSE ME? I hope this is said tongue in cheek.
>
>No, it's not. I want to know what changes in a transistor amp during
>break-in.
>
>>
>> Wherever did you hear that "air leaks out of the tubes?" This is
>> an entirely new one, and, if so, violates any one of a number of
>> extremely well understood physical prionciples, and could even
>> throw out thermodynamics and the conservation of energy.
>>
>> No, the air DOES NOT "leak out of the tubes." No way.
>
>You're right. I should have said leaks *into* them.
No, it doesn't. If it does, it's all over for the tubes. There
may be contamination due to outgassing and such, but if you look
at tube, you'll see a small silver spot on the inside of the
glass. That's a "getter," a deposit of something like barium or
other metal whose job it is to grab and tenaciously hold on to
any stray gas molecules. that may be the result of outgassing.
Air or any other gas in a tube is deadly. Tubes work because
electrons can travel in stright lines from cathodes through
grids to anodes without colliding wth any gas molecules. The
vacuums pulled in tubes are pretty good, on the order of
1/10,000,000 atmospheric pressure, and often significantly
better than that.
Tubes don't "leak air" (unless they are broken or defective),
certainly not over the first couple of weeks of their lifetime..
They do where out because of eventual deterioration of the
filament and such.
>> >Or is it truly only the listener who gets used to the new sounding
>> >preamp?
>
>> Sure, why couldn't that be possible. Just lok at your first
>> point: what assurances do you have that you're hearing and
>> perception remainded ABSOLUTELY constant during that time?
>>
>> So let's say someone buys you a recording of music you never
>> heard before. AT first, you really don;t like it, but after a
>> while, you begin to get into it, and, before long, you like it
>> as much or better than something you've liked for years.
>
>So you agree that what changes over the break-in period is the listeners
>perception?
I would agree on several points:
1. No one has shown hard evidence, where the experiment was
reduced to the minimal number of free variables, that the
audible breakin phenomenon as claimed is a factor based in
actual physics. This is not to say that changes do not
occur, rather, no one has demonstrated in any reliable
fashion that there are no other plausible explanations
for the informal observations.
2. An enormous body of research OUTSIDE the high-end industry
has demonstrated great variability and unreliability in
human hearing. The paltry, almost non-existant "research"
in the high-end business has not produced any credible
evidence to refute it.
3. An enormous body of research outside the high-end industry
has demonstrated that humans have poor auditory fine-detail
memory, in other words, past a very short period of time,
we cannot retain the fine auditory details we detect.
The consequence of this is that without that fine detail
memory, the differences that require detecting are
not retained.
(And there will be those that counter that this assertion is
wrong, because we can easily detect who is talking on the
telephone, even if we haven't heard the voice in ages. Well,
such recognition does not, in the slightest, depend on ANY
auditory fine feature memory: the difference in voices are
GROSS auditory differences. Even the differences in the same
kind of instrument played by different musicians is quite
gross by comparison).
3. The kinds of "experiments" suggested by those in the high
end industry are notoriously unreliable because of dreadfully
poor control of variables, only one of which is the listener.
There is no control over inevitable chanegs in other
components in the system, no control over mismatch in volume,
and on and on.
So, rather than agreeing that what changes over the break-in
period is the listeners perception, I would counter by saying
that whatever data that might support people's claims that it is
NOT changes in the listener's position s not backed up by ANY
dependable data.
Todd Spangler
is a real phenomenon, but it is difficult to prove
and prone to skepticism, of course. I've read
that the capacitor dielectrics take some time to
reach their final state, among other things.
I auditioned one of those Forte preamps years
ago in my system and felt it was better than the
preamp stage in my Onkyo 909 receiver but not
enough to justify buying it. I had actually been
thinking about getting one of the Bryston
preamps lately, as the remote control module
in my Audio Research LS-3 has gone on the
fritz again, but reading between the lines in the
reviews, it seems clear that the Bryston
preamps are not as well regarded as their
amplifiers. I have no doubt that they are still
good products, though. I'd leave it on for a few
weeks and see if the sound quality doesn't
improve.
Todd
Richard D Pierce
Todd Spangler <asi...@webtv.net> wrote:
>I believe that the break in/ burn in of audio gear
>is a real phenomenon, but it is difficult to prove
>and prone to skepticism, of course. I've read
>that the capacitor dielectrics take some time to
>reach their final state, among other things.
This was true of older style (like 30-40 years ago) where
electrolytics that were left idle for come time required
"forming" of the electrolytic dielectric to reach their design
capacity. However, in this case, the phenomenon was TRIVIALLY
measurable as a dramatic decrease in capacity and often an
increase in leakage. Forming took minutes, and is no longer an
issue in modern components.
>amplifiers. I have no doubt that they are still
>good products, though. I'd leave it on for a few
>weeks and see if the sound quality doesn't
>improve.
And how would you go about demonstrating, in such a case, that
any perceived chages WERE definitely due to changes in the
equipment? This is precisely the problem with these
claims: there are NO controls over ALL the other variables that
could just as easily lead to a perceptual difference.
Howard Ferstler
>
> I believe that the break in/ burn in of audio gear
> is a real phenomenon, but it is difficult to prove
> and prone to skepticism, of course.
Then why do you believe it makes a difference? If it is
difficult to prove, what have you done to prove it to
yourself? You must have some pretty refined technique to
overcome that difficulty.
> I auditioned one of those Forte preamps years
> ago in my system and felt it was better than the
> preamp stage in my Onkyo 909 receiver but not
> enough to justify buying it. I had actually been
> thinking about getting one of the Bryston
> preamps lately, as the remote control module
> in my Audio Research LS-3 has gone on the
> fritz again, but reading between the lines in the
> reviews, it seems clear that the Bryston
> preamps are not as well regarded as their
> amplifiers. I have no doubt that they are still
> good products, though.
If they are not well regarded, how do you know they are good
products?
> I'd leave it on for a few
> weeks and see if the sound quality doesn't
> improve.
How would you know it improved, since you would no longer
have the unit in its new state to compare it to?
Howard Ferstler
GRL
resent that.
- GRL
"Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9a5t4g$us8$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Dale W Smith
I believe the answer here has nothing to do with break in. Dunlavy
loudspeakers are very revealing ( the less expensive ones with limited
bass response will seem slightly bright on most program material) and
so the excellent Bryston is simply more accurate than your previous
preamp.
Dale W. Smith
Joe
>
> Joe wrote:
<snip>
> > So here's the question. What affect does a break-in period have on a
> > transistor amp? I can see where aging tubes would mellow as the air
> > leaks out of them but what happens to transistor circuitry that would
> > improve the sound.
> >
> > Or is it truly only the listener who gets used to the new sounding
> > preamp? Is it possible that the Bryston is just more accurate and I
> > need to get used to not hearing whatever distortion I've become fond
> > of in the Forte?
> >
> > Relate gear:
> > Dunlavy SM-1
> > Bryston 4BST
> > Musical Design CD-1
>
> I believe the answer here has nothing to do with break in. Dunlavy
> loudspeakers are very revealing ( the less expensive ones with limited
> bass response will seem slightly bright on most program material) and
> so the excellent Bryston is simply more accurate than your previous
> preamp.
>
> Dale W. Smith
There's no shortage of low bass (I forgot to list the REL Stadium II)
but the upper mids are less forgiving. I think you're right about
the accuracy of the system. I've been striving to put together an
accurate system on a budget. With the current setup the quality of
the CD recording production has a lot more affect on the sound.
I'm going to hold onto the BP25 for a while and give it a chance. Or
not :-) I wouldn't mind trying a Rogue 66 and seeing if maybe a
little tube coloration would add some character to my system.
--
o Joe Monenschein "Tell me what I say",
-_/L> Denver, Colorado Ray Charles
()7=() mailto:mo...@idcomm.com
Mark Williams
has
warmed up. Other than that, neither tube nor transistor amps have break-in
periods.
In particular, I can't imagine where the myth that transistor amps need a
break-in
comes from, but it has no basis in fact.
Modern electronic devices are not intended to "age" much in their design
life.
If they change much in value permanently, it is damage, not "break-in".
(An arguable exception would be electrolytic capacitors, which lose their
dielectric structure over time, but again this occurs beyond the design life
of the product,
which is typically 2-5 years for consumer electronics).
The notion that amps need break-in is silly nonsense. It just does not
apply to this technology. Fine wine benefits from aging, and new auto
engines need gentle break-ins per the owner's manual. Perhaps that is where
the myth comes from. I suggest instead instead of worrying about breaking
in your preamp, you should break in some fine wine as you listen; this can
definitely improve your listening experience.
"Joe" <mo...@idcomm.com> wrote in message
news:9a2tqu$237$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Webmarketing
leaked, air would leak in, not out and the tube would be rendered useless,
not mellow. "Mellow" tube amps are mellow because they roll off the high
frequencies. Not all tube amps do this and not all tube amps are "mellow."
I realize this response is off topic but I thought I should clear up this
one misconception anyway. Good listening.
Fred
AudioNow!
http://www.audionow.com
------------
Wayne Van Kirk
>
> So here's the question. What affect does a break-in period have on a
> transistor amp? I can see where aging tubes would mellow as the air
> leaks out
Aren't those tubes also called "vacuum tubes"? If there was any leaking,
wouldn't it be in?
WVK
Joe
Yes, I corrected myself on the list a couple weeks ago.