I don't know, Myles. I have known a few to do just that. "Most" may be an overstatement though. I believe that the price point of a particular piece of gear has a bit to do with that though.
Tom
Tom
Ahh Haa, now to prove it ...
I don't know, Myles. I have known a few to do just that. "Most" may be an overstatement though. I believe that the price point of a particular piece of gear has a bit to do with that though.
Tom
*sigh*
No second guessing, Myles. Just stating my own personal observations. I just so happen to agree with both parties but I do think that a price point has much to do with it....based upon my own experience. With me not wanting to go head to head with anybody on this forum, I'll just say that I have stated this as an opinion and observation only. Nothing more, nothing less. YMMV, FWIW, IMO, IME and all that jazz.
I think I'll slide out now...
Tom
Whart not all reviewers get new samples. I have seen many items for sale after completing the review circuit. GPs Air Force One is probably not new/
How does one confirm or deny if a product was burnt in before shipping , if memory serves me right it was not uncommon in the speaker industry to burn speakers in for at least 14 hrs , frequency swept and then nulled tested before shipping ....
I'm not sure why ARC would require 500 hrs , sounds ridiculous to me , considering tube life and all, How long is the warranty ....
Don't most manufacturers disclose their quality control procedures either by describing them or at least providing the information if asked? Because I would assume that the kind of burn-in you are describing Wayne is more of that nature- rather than a long term 'running in' period of the type that ARC recommends (e.g. 500 hours).
A. Wayne: I'm responding to the point you added, about why manufacturers would not pre-burn in a product. I'm guessing here, but as I said a little earlier in this thread, I suspect they wouldn't want to be accused of giving the reviewer anything different than what the average Joe gets if he buys the unit. That doesn't account for review samples that get passed around among various reviewers, come from shows, etc. which was why I mentioned the 'press cars' that get the **** beat out of them. I assume a certain amount of good faith in the business, perhaps I'm naive. I remember complaints about running changes in some reviews- where the reviewer criticized something, and lo and behold, the manufacturer claimed that was a bad sample or that they had already addressed that problem in a newer iteration, but at best, those are anecodotal recollections on my part. I also know that there is an art to repacking a piece of equipment (I sold this stuff as a kid back in the early 70's), but you can pretty much tell when a unit is factory fresh, can't you? If the manufacturer doesn't claim that they did some sort of long term 'running in' or preconditioning of their product, something that could be established pretty quickly by a phone call or email, I think it is safe to assume, all other things mentioned being taken into account, that the product is a fresh example that requires burn-in. Again, I may be naive here. But Myles experience as a reviewer is instructive. And if there are manufacturers who could weigh in, that could be instructive too. I suspect that just having the equipment sitting for a week or whatever being run in adds to their overhead and reduces their ability to deliver product and get paid for it.I'm not sure why ARC would require 500 hrs Whart, sounds ridiculous to me , considering tube life and all, How long is the warranty ....
If sending out to a reviewer I'm sure most are preconditioning , in a sense why not, why would i send Myles a unit for review and not pre burn in , how would Myles know if it was or not , it's not like there's an Odometer ....