Topic: Do mics need burn in?

[boojum]

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. 

I will agree with this because solid state (transistor) equipment will fail in the first thirty days or so if it is going to fail before its normal useful life.  Once you are out of the new window where the flaky parts will have failed and you are good to go.  This is different from the "burning-in" story where the time is required for the equipment to achieve its peak.  I have been screwing around with audio for 50 years and have heard all these stories.  They get sillier as the price of the component increases.  And yes, I do have a pretty good setup: all hafler elctronics, ReVox CD player, SoundLab Pristines for speakers as well as KEF 104/2's.     

[JD]

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. 

I have a friend that worked in consumer electronics, mostly warranty work. I recall him once telling me that he was instructed to give the customers a similar line, in order to move the refurbed units out of the shop.

[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. 

I have a friend that worked in consumer electronics, mostly warranty work. I recall him once telling me that he was instructed to give the customers a similar line, in order to move the refurbed units out of the shop.

That might be so, but this guy that came to our house did strictly contract work for many different electronics repair services, not just the TV company, so he had no affiliation.  This was purely his professional recommendation and he backed that up by saying that he never buys new electronics because he knows where he can go to get slightly used stuff, which saves him both on money and failure rates due to the new stuff crapping out phenomenon.

[ghellquist]

There is really one way to know. Do some careful scientific testing. The kind where there are four possible outcomes: yes, no, yes but we get no, no but we get yes. And then by statistical methods show that we are right. In general, not knowing the underlying statistics, you should then test at least 7 microphones.

Barring this test we can only go on hearsay. I tend to rate hearsay after how much I believe the person trading it. I do rate the manufacturers of top-class microphones very high. None of them says that burn-in of mics is even a phenomenom that occurs, much less that it makes any noticeable difference.

At the end of the day, in my honest opinion: if any significant burn-in occurs, the effect will be too small for me to make any difference.

Gunnar

[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

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

As a group, hi-fi enthusiasts are far more likely to judge with their ears.  Folks in this industry take pride in their critical listening skills.  I do understand that visual evidence of changes is expected in pro audio conversations, but I don't think its ever come up in conversations with our customers.   I've heard enough new gear out of the box go through notable changes in the first 50 hours to be convinced about the benefits of burn-in.  This is free advice that's free to implement from someone who has listened to a lot of various new gear in the last three years...though none were new microphones.  If it were me, I would put the mics through a burn-in period as a matter of precaution, even though I've never tested a microphone for post burn-in performance improvements.  With all that said, a significant difference to me might be totally insignificant to someone else.

Chris

[boojum]

Chris -  With all due respect I disagree.  Audiophiles think they hear things better and will tell you so.  I have never known one that got his hearing tested though.  Some guys older than I  have claimed hearing skills that would challenge a teenager who never listened to rock.  So I wonder what you base your claims on.  But I understand that it is your opinion and you are as entitled to yours as I to mine.  I will believe your opinion more when you can submit proof of these legendary hearing skills that audiophiles have.   

Cheers     

[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

As a group, hi-fi enthusiasts are far more likely to judge with their ears.  Folks in this industry take pride in their critical listening skills.  I do understand that visual evidence of changes is expected in pro audio conversations, but I don't think its ever come up in conversations with our customers.   I've heard enough new gear out of the box go through notable changes in the first 50 hours to be convinced about the benefits of burn-in.  This is free advice that's free to implement from someone who has listened to a lot of various new gear in the last three years...though none were new microphones.  If it were me, I would put the mics through a burn-in period as a matter of precaution, even though I've never tested a microphone for post burn-in performance improvements.  With all that said, a significant difference to me might be totally insignificant to someone else.

Chris

I am a professional audio engineer that gets paid to listen to things... I have never heard the difference between a mic cable with "burn in" and one with out.. The audiophile group is not the only ones with special listening skills, I believe I also qualify. But to each there own. If it makes you happy to burn your cables in by all means do so. But it would be nice to have something more solid then just your say so. Maybe some actually electronic analysis of your cable burn in would be nice.

Chris