Topic: Do mics need burn in?

[corsair]

I know audiophiles make it a point to burn in their amps, and especially their headphones for a minimum period of 100 hours.

Does this apply to mics as well? Be it lavalier and etc?
Would a burn in dramatically improve its performance?

[cshepherd]

Yes.  All electronics and wire need burn in time.  Bare minimum 50 hours, preferably 100 hours...200 hours if you want to be sure...except for AC power cords, which can take 500 hours to reach their potential.  If you dont burn audio gear in, frequency response and dynamics will suffer.  Somewhere around Spring, 2009 your tapes will start to sound better.

Chris

[Shawn]

just to balance out chirs's statements... absolutley not.  burn in is not required.

[boojum]

I am with Shawn.  Until I can be shown test data type evidence we are talking snake oil.  Were this true, your computer would not work well for 100's of hours.  It only makes sense.  Gotta break in those transistors, yup.   

[bluevolvo]

what did one electron say to the other?

this wire is tight! it needa be broke in

[BobW]

Do mics need burn in?

No
They will change very slightly in sonic characteristics over time, however.
Sometimes for good, sometimes not so good

If you buy new mics and within the first 100 to 200 hours of use they sound dramatically different, contact your vendor!
Component failure is more likely and noticeable than "burn-in"

[DSatz]

Corsair, I don't want to start a "flame war," but someone should point out that many audiophile habits are based on sheer speculation. The notion that solid-state equipment (or speaker cables, or ...) will benefit sonically from a "break-in" period is pretty much in that category.

One exception would be that if microphones have been exposed to such extreme humidity that condensation occurs within the capsule head, or if they're brought in from the cold, you should bring them into in a warm, reasonably dry environment maybe an hour before you need to use them, and open up the cases to let all the moisture evaporate. The microphones don't really need to be powered on during that interval, since solid-state microphones don't run warm anyway; what matters is the ambient temperature and humidity, and the access to room air.

--best regards

[Church-Audio]

Corsair, I don't want to start a "flame war," but someone should point out that many audiophile habits are based on sheer speculation. The notion that solid-state equipment (or speaker cables, or ...) will benefit sonically from a "break-in" period is pretty much in that category.

One exception would be that if microphones have been exposed to such extreme humidity that condensation occurs within the capsule head, or if they're brought in from the cold, you should bring them into in a warm, reasonably dry environment maybe an hour before you need to use them, and open up the cases to let all the moisture evaporate. The microphones don't really need to be powered on during that interval, since solid-state microphones don't run warm anyway; what matters is the ambient temperature and humidity, and the access to room air.

--best regards

I believe in a break in period for speakers, because over time the spider of the speaker and in some cases the surround loosens up. I also believe that dynamic mics benefit from some exposure to loud sounds to losen up the diaphragm. Just my two cents.. I dont see any advantage to breaking in cables. I think with electronics like a preamp or power amp there might be an advantage to leaving them on for extended times to stabilize the internal temperature to give a more consistent performance but. I am not 100% sure this is something that can be measured, or heard.

Chris

[DSatz]

> I am not 100% sure this is something that can be measured, or heard.

Chris, you make it clear that you're stating an opinion. That's exactly what's missing in most audiophile journalism--or audiophile marketing, which is embarrassingly close to being the same thing. Honesty and humility are essential to progress in any field. Know that something remains to be proven or disproven is a very valuable piece of information in itself.

I'm middle-aged now, and have had a number of situations in which things I'd believed firmly for years (and argued with people about at great length) turned out simply not to be true. I've also seen smart, good people make basic mistakes, not realize it, and not admit it when shown evidence. This has made me realize that undoubtedly, some of what I believe "for sure" even today is probably mistaken--I just haven't found out what yet.

I have a hunch that people who are far more sure of their opinions than I am, and who express themselves boldly, are probably in the wrong about as often as I am. And one of the things we could both be wrong about is: "How often am I wrong?" Some people go to great lengths to avoid seeing or acknowledging their mistakes. And people who have a great deal of self-confidence (or who can act convincingly as if they did have such self-confidence) often make better salespeople, politicians, storytellers, etc.--but that may have little or nothing to do with whether they know what they're talking about or not.

That's a sad lesson which many people don't seem to want to learn: The person with the most convincing story is not always the one who's telling the truth. Some people truly don't care when they're stretching the truth as long as it gets them what they want; those people can tell whoppers without giving off any sign of lying, in part because they've taught themselves not to feel it as wrong within themselves.

Oh, I guess that's off-topic, isn't it? Gosh, I didn't realize it (he says, with fingers crossed behind his back ...). Sorry.

--best regards

[boojum]

> I am not 100% sure this is something that can be measured, or heard.
That's a sad lesson which many people don't seem to want to learn: The person with the most convincing story is not always the one who's telling the truth. Some people truly don't care when they're stretching the truth as long as it gets them what they want; those people can tell whoppers without giving off any sign of lying, in part because they've taught themselves not to feel it as wrong within themselves.

How true.     

[cshepherd]

Every piece of new audio gear we've brought in has required a burn-in period.  Speakers, amps, cables, televisions, phono stages, cartridges, turntables...all of it.  New audio gear has never lived up to its potential out of the box.  The 50/100/200 hour mark are time frame estimates, but not all gear burns in the same.  Some manufacturers will put hours on gear before it ships.  Based on this experience with new audio gear, I have no reason to believe that new microphones don't require a burn-in period as well.   I've never tested a new microphone to know exactly how long it takes, but I would feel confident with 200 hours.  If sound is being judged on computer speakers or a Circuit City type stereo, this process might not be very noticeable.  It takes a bit of fidelity in the playback system to notice new gear gradually changing over time.  It's also necessary to be familiar with the playback system and what it's normally capable of.  Burning in new gear takes only an investment in time.  It doesn't cost a penny. 

Chris

[stevetoney]

So many of these discussions, and in many cases they turn into out-and-out arguments, go back to the same base issue.  If you have top-of-the-line equipment, the concensus opinion may not the same as the concensus of people that use lower grade equipment.

So, the realities of those two populations may be different and in many cases ('burn in' may be one of them) you're applying apples to oranges if you make blanket statements that tries to apply to both.

What's true for audiophile grade equipment may not meet the threshold of significance for non-audiophile listening experiences. 

So my comment is that people might want to disclose which camp they're in and acknowledge the differences.  That might help us all to get a better overall concensus on these types of issues, although it's clear that some people will argue for the sake of having an argument.

[Church-Audio]

Every piece of new audio gear we've brought in has required a burn-in period.  Speakers, amps, cables, televisions, phono stages, cartridges, turntables...all of it.  New audio gear has never lived up to its potential out of the box.  The 50/100/200 hour mark are time frame estimates, but not all gear burns in the same.  Some manufacturers will put hours on gear before it ships.  Based on this experience with new audio gear, I have no reason to believe that new microphones don't require a burn-in period as well.   I've never tested a new microphone to know exactly how long it takes, but I would feel confident with 200 hours.  If sound is being judged on computer speakers or a Circuit City type stereo, this process might not be very noticeable.  It takes a bit of fidelity in the playback system to notice new gear gradually changing over time.  It's also necessary to be familiar with the playback system and what it's normally capable of.  Burning in new gear takes only an investment in time.  It doesn't cost a penny. 

Chris

Chris with all due respect.. How are you quantifying these differences? By what method are you measuring the differences, I am not talking electrical measurements here although it would be nice to be able to show the burn in advantage thru precision measurement. I just think if you can make a statement about cable needing a burn in or TV,S needing a burn in you have a method for comparison between the burned in and none burned in audio gear.

I personally dont see the TV thing as a mater of fact I would say that a new TV is better then one with 100 hours on it simply because of the back light growing dim as the TV gets used..

Chris

[stevetoney]

I personally dont see the TV thing as a mater of fact I would say that a new TV is better then one with 100 hours on it simply because of the back light growing dim as the TV gets used..

FWIW, I recently had a pretty experienced High Def TV tech (retired submarine Navy electronics and computer jock) come into my house to do some warranty work on our TV.  Turned out he couldn't fix it and he told us the company doesn't send him out a second time because it's more productive at that point for them to just take the TV back and give us a 'new' one.  He HIGHLY recommended that we ask for one that had already been warranty repaired and he specifically cited burn-in as his reason.  Now, he also went on to point out that electonics components have a higher tendency to fail in the first XX months of service, so he may have broadened his definition of burn-in to just include breaking in the parts, but thought it was an interesting recommendation and possibly pertinent to this thread. 

[gratefulphish]

I have a hunch that people who are far more sure of their opinions than I am, and who express themselves boldly, are probably in the wrong about as often as I am. And people who have a great deal of self-confidence (or who can act convincingly as if they did have such self-confidence) often make better salespeople, politicians, storytellers, etc.--but that may have little or nothing to do with whether they know what they're talking about or not.

I've never tested a new microphone to know exactly how long it takes, but I would feel confident with 200 hours. 
Chris

Nuff said.