Can you explain for a self described 'techno idiot' what 'Burning in' refers to?I have been researching reviews on new amps and CD players and have seen several references to the hours needed to 'Burn in' new amps, etc. This doen't make sense to me since these are, after all, just electronic components. Does it really make a difference? Is there agreement on how many hours are needed to fully mature the sound of a system. Is listening to a brand new system worthless until you have reached a minimum number of hours? Google searches go nowhere. Hi,I purchase all my cables and supports from Russ Andrews.

1. Dussun V8i

On their website you can download advice booklets. In 'The Music & The Maguc' Russ says this about burn-in:'When you plug a new piece of hardware or cable into your system, don't expect it to perform at its best immediately. Whilst you will hear many of the qualities and immediate improvements, new cables and components tend to sound bright and lacking in bass. They need time to settle down; we call this burn-in time. The burn-in process takes up to 500 hours!

That's a long time if you only switch your system on for a few hours each night. Burn-in is best achieved by leaving your system switched on 24 hours a day, then the new cable will be properly burned-in in about 3 weeks. Please note that speaker cables can only ‘burn-in’ whilst something is being played through the speakers. See also ‘Leaving your system on permanently'I leave my system on all the time, and when I have new equipment I leave a CD playing on repeat for about 3 weeks.Any further questions, please ask. Hi,I purchase all my cables and supports from Russ Andrews.

On their website you can download advice booklets. In 'The Music & The Maguc' Russ says this about burn-in:'When you plug a new piece of hardware or cable into your system, don't expect it to perform at its best immediately. Whilst you will hear many of the qualities and immediate improvements, new cables and components tend to sound bright and lacking in bass. They need time to settle down; we call this burn-in time.

The burn-in process takes up to 500 hours! That's a long time if you only switch your system on for a few hours each night. Burn-in is best achieved by leaving your system switched on 24 hours a day, then the new cable will be properly burned-in in about 3 weeks. Please note that speaker cables can only ‘burn-in’ whilst something is being played through the speakers. See also ‘Leaving your system on permanently'I leave my system on all the time, and when I have new equipment I leave a CD playing on repeat for about 3 weeks.Any further questions, please ask.

Hi,I purchase all my cables and supports from Russ Andrews. On their website you can download advice booklets. In 'The Music & The Maguc' Russ says this about burn-in:'When you plug a new piece of hardware or cable into your system, don't expect it to perform at its best immediately. Whilst you will hear many of the qualities and immediate improvements, new cables and components tend to sound bright and lacking in bass. They need time to settle down; we call this burn-in time.

Dussun V8i

The burn-in process takes up to 500 hours! That's a long time if you only switch your system on for a few hours each night. Burn-in is best achieved by leaving your system switched on 24 hours a day, then the new cable will be properly burned-in in about 3 weeks. Please note that speaker cables can only ‘burn-in’ whilst something is being played through the speakers. See also ‘Leaving your system on permanently'I leave my system on all the time, and when I have new equipment I leave a CD playing on repeat for about 3 weeks.Any further questions, please ask.

Just thought I'd add my bit.I recently purchased a very large and powerful class A amp (Dussun V8i). When I set the amp up at home it had a really full and bassy sound so I went out and purchased some 'bass light' speaker cable to compensate it. (nordost)After a week or two, this bass heavy sound had changed to a bassless sound.

It was all harsh highs and I ended up having to play mp3s from my pc through WMP with the EQ turned on and boosting everything under 200hz by 10db. I also went out and purchased another speaker cable to compensate for the lack of bass.

(big thick richer sounds stuff)After another 4 weeks of this and alot of head scratching I was about to get rid of the amp when I read reports online that the amp should be left on none-stop for the first 150-300 hours. I didnt really want to do this as it is class A and draws 1500 watts from the national grid while idle, but decided to anyway.3 days later (possibly about 180 hours total use) I noticed the sound was correctly balanced. Im now on the 5th day of the amp being left on and the treble has smoothed off, the bass needs a bit more weight to be perfect but I know that sooner or later it will get up to speed and I will be left with an amazing sounding bit of gear. Fingers crossed that it is sometime very soon. Just thought I'd add my bit.I recently purchased a very large and powerful class A amp (Dussun V8i). When I set the amp up at home it had a really full and bassy sound so I went out and purchased some 'bass light' speaker cable to compensate it. (nordost)After a week or two, this bass heavy sound had changed to a bassless sound.

It was all harsh highs and I ended up having to play mp3s from my pc through WMP with the EQ turned on and boosting everything under 200hz by 10db. I also went out and purchased another speaker cable to compensate for the lack of bass. (big thick richer sounds stuff)After another 4 weeks of this and alot of head scratching I was about to get rid of the amp when I read reports online that the amp should be left on none-stop for the first 150-300 hours. I didnt really want to do this as it is class A and draws 1500 watts from the national grid while idle, but decided to anyway.3 days later (possibly about 180 hours total use) I noticed the sound was correctly balanced.

Im now on the 5th day of the amp being left on and the treble has smoothed off, the bass needs a bit more weight to be perfect but I know that sooner or later it will get up to speed and I will be left with an amazing sounding bit of gear. Fingers crossed that it is sometime very soon.

Thanks for telling your story.WOW again! Does anyone know if this is true for ALL new stereo components AND Cables ( including jumpers, interconnects, etc.) Do any owners manuals from any component maker include this tidbit of information? Is there a good tech article anywhere that explains this phenomenon? Why don't manufacturers talk about this since their products would sound so terrible before 'burn in.'

I know I'd be freaked out if my brand new set up started out sounding like poop. From reading some of the comments on this thread, it doen't apparently happen to everyone. Whats the common thread here?Wickfut - would you share the address of those online reports you mention?

An interesting point which makes sense but doesn't go far in explaining why the 'tone' changes with burn in unless batteries' performance somehow relates to frequency?I am open to this burning in being an objective phenomena as I think I may have heard it. On the other hand I'm aware that we are brilliant at adjusting to our environment: drawing back the curtains in the morning the light can initially be blinding but eyes soon adjust.Does anyone understand what may be going on electochemically in those capacitors that will change with time and that will impact differently on different frequencies?Rob. An interesting point which makes sense but doesn't go far in explaining why the 'tone' changes with burn in unless batteries' performance somehow relates to frequency?I am open to this burning in being an objective phenomena as I think I may have heard it. On the other hand I'm aware that we are brilliant at adjusting to our environment: drawing back the curtains in the morning the light can initially be blinding but eyes soon adjust.Does anyone understand what may be going on electochemically in those capacitors that will change with time and that will impact differently on different frequencies?Rob. Thanks RobN for your comments. As you have seen here, I haven't a clue as to the 'Science' of 'burning in' equipment.

It doesn't seem to be a universal phenomenon as witness some of the comments below; I am afraid it is starting to look like witchcraft. A good point was made earlier that perhaps we adjust our subjective hearing to the quality of sound we're going to live with. Others claim a clear, definet improvement after a 'burning in' period.

A respected stereophile, Wes Phillips who writes for Soundstage magazine notes during a November 2004 review of some PSB T6 speakers:'And yes the T6es, like all speakers I have auditioned, did open up down below once I gave their three woofers a thorough workout (about 100 hours into the audition, I'd estimate).' I suppose the same kind of argument applies to amps/pre-amps/and cables. Having said that, I still wish I could find a reasonably scientific explanation for this phenonemon. Otherwise, it looks like the 'Emperor's new clothes.' Isn't it also odd that 'burning in' is always said to produce an improvement in sound quality?

You would think that, if 'burning in' magically altered the structure of the cables, circuitry or whatever, the resulting change in the nature of the sound would just as often be negative as positive, so people would just as often be disappointed by it as pleased. Instead, what you see is people spending very large sums on pieces of equipment, worrying that they may have made the wrong decision, then gradually arriving at the conclusion that in fact they've made a brilliant choice. Now, if you ask me what is more likely to have happened, a mysterious transformation in the nature of physical matter that's ALWAYS for the better or a change in the perceptions of the listener.

Well I know what I think.I hope this doesn't sound dismissive. I think it's an interesting debate and I'm just chucking in my 2 cents. Isn't it also odd that 'burning in' is always said to produce an improvement in sound quality?

You would think that, if 'burning in' magically altered the structure of the cables, circuitry or whatever, the resulting change in the nature of the sound would just as often be negative as positive, so people would just as often be disappointed by it as pleased. Instead, what you see is people spending very large sums on pieces of equipment, worrying that they may have made the wrong decision, then gradually arriving at the conclusion that in fact they've made a brilliant choice. Now, if you ask me what is more likely to have happened, a mysterious transformation in the nature of physical matter that's ALWAYS for the better or a change in the perceptions of the listener. Well I know what I think.I hope this doesn't sound dismissive. I think it's an interesting debate and I'm just chucking in my 2 cents. Thanks RWTomkins for your comments.As noted earlier, This has been a very interesting debate.

I will not claim to know enough either way to settle this discussion as there have been several comments in both directions. As you said earlier, perhaps our 'doors of perception' are being changed as we listen to our new setups. As I said earlier,my local dealer auditioned those PSB T45's I bought through a Cambridge Audio 540A V2 and CA 640C V2. I liked the sound enough to buy the speakersl. Looks like I will go the Cambridge Audio route. Will I leave it on 24/7 for 500 hours to 'burn it in?' No.Thanks to all for your comments.

Keep it coming if you like. Maybe an Audio engineer out there will chime in with their thoughts. I'd sure like to hear from you tech guys on this! Thanks again to everyone who posted their own thoughts/experiences/and knowledge about the issue of 'Burning in' equipment.I visited my own, very knowledgeable stereo dealer today to settle on a Cambridge Audio Azur 640A/ 640C system. ( No need to comment here-I have a separate thread in this same forum about the set up. You are welcome to add your comments there if you wish.

I only know I liked the sound of the set up.)My dealer has 30 years of experience in stereo. I believe he knows what he is talking about. He told me that the principle reason for 'burning in' equipment is to allow capacitors -wherever they are- to build up to full capacitance capability. The period seems to vary according to the particular type of capacitor used. As noted above, some capacitors ( -depending on their principle structure and make up-) do take longer than others to 'burn in,' or develope their full capacitance capability ( sorry, very redundant.)This is consistent with what Alexs2, and several others, commented on above and in previous postings.

Since capacitors exist in all audio equipment, they all require some time to burn in. He didn't comment on the formation of oxide within the particular capacitor's anode as Wickfut posted earlier. I will research this to fill my own information gap. My dealer did confirm, again, as noted by others here, that very high-end equipment tend to use sophisticated capacitors and that these, in turn, require longer 'burning in' periods. He also confirmed that new equipment needs to be 'driven,' not just left on-but receiving a constant signal. I haven't found information as yet that correlates the specific type of capacitor with a specific 'burning in' period. My dealer says I'll know when its right.

Any takers on this question? In any event, I learned something today and that is still a good thing in the end.Cheers all! At the risk of sounding cynical and sceptical I would suggest that your dealer is a salesman and not and Engineer.The whole idea of “burning in” electrical equipment (cables even more so) is a complete engineering Heresy.Yes electrolytic capacitors need to have a voltage applied to reform the electrolyte but we are talking about a process that takes a few seconds, not weeks. The change in component values due to thermal shift will have stabilised after about 20 – 30 minutes and the whole theory about formation of crystals or changes to impurities around grain boundaries is a very questionable and ill-founded argument and more likely to cause a degradation of sound rather than an improvement.I am also interested to know why “burning in” always produces a sound that is better. Statistical analysis of component variations would suggest that an equal number of samples should indeed become worse after a burning in period has passed.No; as proposed above, the “burning in” process takes place in the minds of the listener as he or she becomes accustomed to the sound of the equipment, nothing more. To suggest otherwise is purely bad engineering and paramount to meta-physics and psycho-babble.To be honest, I think the thing that needs more research is our perception of sound rather than the science of re-creating sound. Too often I see sales people using technological language completely out of context and making some very flawed statements without fully understanding what they are saying.

I feel the problem is that many of the current HiFi commentators are not engineers so they are unable to recognise any such misrepresentation of technical facts and most of the commentators that are qualified are left to do technical only reviews without being invited to add their subjective opinions as well.I love my music and I enjoy using well engineered Audio equipment what I don’t like is when bad science limits or impedes the proper development of technologies that do make a difference.LPSpinner. I am an engineer by trade, so the head agrees with you, “burning in” must be a fable. The heart (and the ears) says that “burning in” makes a difference.Are you suggesting that (in my particular case) the stereo imaging was always as wide but, because my ears weren’t accustomed to the sound, my perception was that it was narrower?Because current science can’t explain a particular phenomenon, doesn’t mean that that phenomenon doesn’t exist? Man (kind) had been transmitting RF (radio waves etc) for many years before science could explain it.

Bang goes the Enlightenment!If you believed that, we'd be back in the days of superstition, believing in fairies, witchcraft, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, miracles and psychic phenomena - all things that people are genuinely convinced they have experienced but that defy reason and scientific explanation.We all know that science can't prove a negative. But if it tests for something and fails to find a positive, we have to accept that our belief in that thing is without foundation unless and until science proves otherwise.With respect, I believe the case of RF is a false comparison because the existence of RF was not disputed - it was the explanation of how it worked that was missing.

In the case of burning in, we are debating whether such a thing even exists.A lot of testing does go on in the audio field and I think if evidence had been found to support the existence of the burning-in phenomenon, we would have heard about it by now. Just out of interest, here is an extract from Wikipedia's entry for Hi-Fi:Ascertaining high fidelity: double-blind testsDouble-blind testing has been required in the approval of new medicines since about 1960. Although single-blind testing of loudspeakers had been used for a number of years by Floyd E. Toole at the National Research Council of Canada, the double-blind audio listening test of amplifiers was first described in the United States by Daniel J. Shanefield in November of 1974 in the newsletter of the Boston Audio Society. This was later reported to the general public in High Fidelity magazine, March 1980.

The double-blind listening comparison is now a standard procedure with almost all audio professionals respected in their field. For marketing purposes, a few manufacturers of very expensive audio equipment dispute the need for this test. A commonly-used variant of this test is the ABX test. This involves comparing two known audio sources (A and B) with either one of these when it has been randomly selected (X). Bang goes the Enlightenment!If you believed that, we'd be back in the days of superstition, believing in fairies, witchcraft, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, miracles and psychic phenomena - all things that people are genuinely convinced they have experienced but that defy reason and scientific explanation.We all know that science can't prove a negative. But if it tests for something and fails to find a positive, we have to accept that our belief in that thing is without foundation unless and until science proves otherwise. The trouble is that the perception of sound, like the perception of taste and colour, is a very subjective thing.

Some people say that allowing a bottle of wine to “breath” improves its taste. It’s hard to define “better” or “improved” with such a subjective thing.Science cannot measure Stereo width/depth and instrument separation. If you go against current thinking you’ll probably be dismissed, as was the man that suggested that the world was round (ish), that the world spun (wobbled) on its axis and the world orbits around the Sun.Surely we shouldn’t be so closed minded as to dismiss anything that science can’t prove?