Breaking in new effects &/or capacitors - real or mojo vapor?

[Uma Floresta]

So, in another forum, Dave Barber of Barber pedals claimed that his new pedals need to be "broken in" for several hours before they sound best. Others in the thread posted links where various individuals claimed that capacitors need breaking in before they sound their "smoovest."

Is there any truth to this, or is it more mojo vapor?

[petemoore]

  Definitely notice that with amps.
  I don't recall getting that impression much with effects.
  Capacitors that sit on a shelf may exhibit an improved performance after again seeing some voltage cycling.

[ayayay!]

Dave Barber of Barber pedals claimed that his new pedals need to be "broken in" for several hours before they sound best

Wow, now I'm REALLY starting to doubt Barber's pedals. 

[Mark Hammer]

There ARE some sorts of things that might show a surplus effect from use.  For instance, some years back, RG noted that the ferrite core of some inductors used in wahs could show certain saturation characteristics resulting from an accumulation of "magnetizing" effects due to use.  One might expect that a wah using such an inductor might show benefit from being "broken in", in comparison to one simply plucked from a parts bin and installed.  When it comes to other sorts of components, though, like standard resistor/capacitor/pot/diode components, I am unaware of any parameters that might change from the sort of limited "breaking in" period you allude to.  Could something happen to an electrolytic cap after years of use?  Sure...and that's why we replace them.  Pete notes that caps in amps can show some changes with use or nonuse, but then those are caps dealing with much higher voltages.  Is operating a 35v-rated cap at 9v for a couple of hours or even days likely to change it forever?  I'm a little dubious, myself.  I mean, how could component manufacturers assure specs if a couple of days of use changed them?  Dave Barber is a decent guy and all, who makes a good product at a fair price and is generous with his knowledge, but there seems to be some information missing here.

[ezanker]

Maybe this is the vendor's way of letting their clients' ears break in.  You might not like something when you first turn it on, but after some use and letting yourself get used to it...  This just validates and encourages new buyers to play with the pedal a little longer before saying they don't like it.

[Uma Floresta]

Dave Barber of Barber pedals claimed that his new pedals need to be "broken in" for several hours before they sound best

Wow, now I'm REALLY starting to doubt Barber's pedals. 

Well, I don't think Barber is trying to pull a fast one here He seems like a good guy. My feeling is that it's our ears that get broken in, not pedals.

[mnordbye]

There's something fishy about, unless i'm wrong. I believe that the components inside an effect pedal (or a guitar amp) doesn't change very much by just sitting there. Some high-voltage bumps might freak things out, but other than that, i can't come up with any logical explanations for ageing in pedals.

When it comes to guitar amps though, they can have an "ageing" effect sort of, but not because of the amp directly i think. The speaker element actually sounds better(or worse) after some hours of playing. Read that at the Celestion site btw..

I agree that he might be breaking in our ears and not the pedal itself.

Magnus Nordbye

[Uma Floresta]

There ARE some sorts of things that might show a surplus effect from use.  For instance, some years back, RG noted that the ferrite core of some inductors used in wahs could show certain saturation characteristics resulting from an accumulation of "magnetizing" effects due to use.  One might expect that a wah using such an inductor might show benefit from being "broken in", in comparison to one simply plucked from a parts bin and installed.  When it comes to other sorts of components, though, like standard resistor/capacitor/pot/diode components, I am unaware of any parameters that might change from the sort of limited "breaking in" period you allude to.  Could something happen to an electrolytic cap after years of use?  Sure...and that's why we replace them.  Pete notes that caps in amps can show some changes with use or nonuse, but then those are caps dealing with much higher voltages.  Is operating a 35v-rated cap at 9v for a couple of hours or even days likely to change it forever?  I'm a little dubious, myself.  I mean, how could component manufacturers assure specs if a couple of days of use changed them?  Dave Barber is a decent guy and all, who makes a good product at a fair price and is generous with his knowledge, but there seems to be some information missing here.

Thanks for the insight, Mark.

[Rodgre]

There is a mention of "burning in" new high-end op-amps in the instructions of a DIY mic preamp mod that I got from Black Lion Audio. I'm not sure whether this is something the lay-person's ear would hear or not, but I didn't question it at the time.

Not the same thing, exactly, but I like to leave any new piece of audio gear, like mic preamps, compressors, guitar amps (besides the obvious tube/speaker break-in) etc, just to make sure there's no crazy thermal failure after being on for a couple of hours.

Roger

[analogmike]

We use some high end caps in some of our mods. The MANUFACTURER states that they change, and perform better after being used for some time.  The spec sheets for the power caps we use state that the characteristics are stabilized after 100 hours of running. Can you hear it? Maybe, maybe not. Is it mojo? no.

[ayayay!]

Maybe this is the vendor's way of letting their clients' ears break in.  You might not like something when you first turn it on, but after some use and letting yourself get used to it...  This just validates and encourages new buyers to play with the pedal a little longer before saying they don't like it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.   As far as that doubt comment I mentioned above, it's unrelated to this and isn't in writing so I was stupid to mention it.  It's not fair of me to knock him like that. 

[Uma Floresta]

We use some high end caps in some of our mods. The MANUFACTURER states that they change, and perform better after being used for some time.  The spec sheets for the power caps we use state that the characteristics are stabilized after 100 hours of running. Can you hear it? Maybe, maybe not. Is it mojo? no.

What brand is that, Mike?

[ayayay!]

I don't know, I think even suggesting it in the first place is all rather moot.  I mean, we all know the chance is there that the drift of the combined components over 1, 5, 10 or 20 years will make that pedal sound differently.   So why worry about those first couple of days? 

But really, if I don't like the way the pedal sounds when I first try it (assuming it's brand new. ...Or not) I won't buy it. 

I mean, what's next?  Should we all start load testing our pedals by pumping an MP3 player through them for 24 hours solid so static components can break in?  I just don't buy into this. 

[pjwhite]

There is a reason manufacturers "burn in" new equipment, but it has nothing to do with mojo or making capacitors sound better.  It's to weed out parts that fail due to "infant mortality".  Statistically, you have a relatively high percentage of part failures during the first few minutes and hours of life, a long span of very low failures, and a gradually rising rate of failure near the end of a components life.
When I worked for Oberheim Electronics long ago, new synths would be given a quick functional test right off the assembly line and then set on a shelf and plugged in to burn in for a day or two.  After the burn-in period, the synth would be given a thorough final test.
The final test is the most important one, as that's where the failed parts show up. 

[analogmike]

The caps we use in some pedals are made by Sanyo, not some kooky new age pro-audio company. They are about $2 each and I don't know why they would lie and say that they stabilize after a specific period of time if they did not.

[ayayay!]

There is a reason manufacturers "burn in" new equipment, but it has nothing to do with mojo or making capacitors sound better.  It's to weed out parts that fail due to "infant mortality".  Statistically, you have a relatively high percentage of part failures during the first few minutes and hours of life, a long span of very low failures, and a gradually rising rate of failure near the end of a components life.
When I worked for Oberheim Electronics long ago, new synths would be given a quick functional test right off the assembly line and then set on a shelf and plugged in to burn in for a day or two.  After the burn-in period, the synth would be given a thorough final test.
The final test is the most important one, as that's where the failed parts show up. 

Well I think we may be talking about different things here, yet we're probably all in agreement.  We're mingling quality control, load testing and burn in time all in one swoop.  My take is that if *insert pedal manufacturer here* really is that concerned and states *product x here* needs to have a few hours to optimize, it would be wisest to do it themselves before putting it to market, would it not?  I certainly know some tube amp manufacturers do this.  Conversely, I suppose *insert pedal manufacturer here* may say their buyer wants to have zero miles on the odometer when the pedal rolls out so now we're back to the "is it mojo vapor?" question again.  So, how much time is enough now? 8 hours?  2 weeks?  2 months?  It's all too subjective. 

The caps we use in some pedals are made by Sanyo, not some kooky new age pro-audio company. They are about $2 each and I don't know why they would lie and say that they stabilize after a specific period of time if they did not.

That's true, they're not lying.  Yet while there certainly is vailidity in the "hardening" of the components values, it can be extremely difficult to measure, if at all, especially to our ears.  And who's to say that "hardening" will always 100% everytime make it sound "better?"  That's what throws me off!  I mean come on.  We've all heard tube amps that sound ten times better after warming up 30 minutes, and breaking the tubes in for 2 weeks, right?  But I've also heard them sound worse (to me) after being on for 30 minutes.  So I find a blanket statement of breaking them in so they "sound best" is toying with someones mind, especially the uninformed. 

[Mark Hammer]

There seem to be two things going on here.  Mike notes that their supplier recommends factoring in a certain period for the caps to essentially achieve their spec.  Given that they are made of plastic, and plastic is not always "instantly cured", that makes sense to me.  If there are time-dependent processes involving the materials themselves, so be it.  Of course, that time could be spent on a shelf in a great many places, depending on how the end-user obtains them.  If they have spent months in a parts bin at a local or other small-volume retailer, then the chances are pretty good that whatever time was required for the process to take place has already passed.  If the end-user gets them "fresh from the factory", then it is quite possible that the requisite time has not yet passed.

What is at issue, I think, is the distinction between what might need to be done to bring specific components up to spec under certain circumstances, and some epiphenomenon of running a specific circuit.  Anyone who has played a vintage acoustic instrument may have experienced the difference between an instrument that was well broken-in by a good musician, and one that simply sat there either ignored or abused for a similar length of time.  That is NOT what we are talking about here.  This is really more on the order of making an instrument out of wood that was properly dried or was NOT properly kiln-dried.  It is the readiness of the raw materials as opposed so some symbiotic emergent relationship between the components.

Caps that are too fresh to be "ready", or whose chemical properties can change with heat, makes perfect sense to me.  A distortion pedal that must be played for a certain period of time to attain its character does not.  Ultimately, one is looking for an effect or change that is replicable and predictable.  One also needs to distinguish between incomplete or mistaken interpretations of a real phenomenon that might inadvertently suggest mojo, and mojo explanations of a non-real but perceived phenomenon.

[frank_p]

There seem to be two things going on here.  Mike notes that their supplier recommends factoring in a certain period for the caps to essentially achieve their spec.  Given that they are made of plastic, and plastic is not always "instantly cured", that makes sense to me.  If there are time-dependent processes involving the materials themselves, so be it.  Of course, that time could be spent on a shelf in a great many places, depending on how the end-user obtains them.  If they have spent months in a parts bin at a local or other small-volume retailer, then the chances are pretty good that whatever time was required for the process to take place has already passed.  If the end-user gets them "fresh from the factory", then it is quite possible that the requisite time has not yet passed.

"Curing" of plastics issues depend on the type of plastic used.  Do you know what polymer is used in those caps?

Could it be that the capacitor will be "formed" with utilisation?  Could it be the changes in the outsides of the layers of metal?

What is at issue, I think, is the distinction between what might need to be done to bring specific components up to spec under certain circumstances, and some epiphenomenon of running a specific circuit.  Anyone who has played a vintage acoustic instrument may have experienced the difference between an instrument that was well broken-in by a good musician, and one that simply sat there either ignored or abused for a similar length of time.  That is NOT what we are talking about here.  This is really more on the order of making an instrument out of wood that was properly dried or was NOT properly kiln-dried.  It is the readiness of the raw materials as opposed so some symbiotic emergent relationship between the components.

All that can be true but, guitar "work" with time because the deferents parts don't deform in the same "way/geometry"  even when the wood is correctly cured (we should say aged sometimes).  Machining the wood put stress on the wood that is relieved after.  And then there is temperature/humidity changes.  Basically, wood will work depending on a multifactorial basis and all of their lifetime, but will be more stable with time.

[earthtonesaudio]

Something I learned about salvaging very old/vintage electrolytic capacitors:

If you take an electrolytic out of a piece of equipment that's been sitting on a shelf for 20 years, and feed it the max voltage rating, it may blow up.

However, if you take the same cap and slowly increase the voltage, it can eventually return to full functionality.  It has something to do with the electrolyte being re-polarized.  If you try to do it too fast, bad things can happen.


...But I don't think anyone could run a successful business if they relied upon consumers to follow instructions that closely.  Not for guitarists anyway.  Synth players might read the instructions more carefully, who knows.   

[Mark Hammer]

After the most recent discussion, the bottom line here, however, seems to be:  There are things about new electrolytic capacitors that can and do change with time/use.

Is that the take-home message?  And if so, is there anything systematic that one can do about it, or any rule of thumb that can be applied to distinguish circumstances where it matters and circumstances where it doesn't matter?