BEHRINGER Reference Amplifier A500

[Taifun]

Can we agree that a form of break in occurs... either in the device or in our head? It takes me time to get used to a different sounding/looking piece of equipment. When you get in a strange car it takes time to get used to it so that you feel confident right? So the question of whether or not you grow accustomed to the seat or it conforms to you over time...

For those with the A500: Does it have a 12v trigger? Can't find one in any of the specs online.

As a side note: Eratosthenes 276 B.C ~ 194 B.C. - Calculated the circumference of the earth with astonishing accuracy. He also calculated the tilt of the earth as well as distances from the moon and sun (with mixed results depending on sources.)

Just thought the last part was interesting. Got to love Carl Sagan for writing all those books, otherwise I would not have remembered it

 

[skrivis]

OK, I went looking and found this:
-------------
Break-In.
Myth Or Truth?

I can honestly say that no test ever conducted personally is as conclusive as this one. Allowing a component to settle in for a week or so will change your perception of it. After exhaustive trials on channels 1 and 2, I immediately connected up the previous unused channels 4 and 5. The result: The new channels sounded brassier, were not as solid in nature and lacked the timbre that channels 1 and 2 was giving.........

You can believe or disbelieve as you choose, though it does state clearly in the owner's manual that this was noticed by the manufacture as well. You can take that for what it is worth. I am a believer.
-----------------------
Here's the link to the whole article. The writer is a professional mixing engineer, so I'd tend to believe that he'd know what he'd been hearing.

'Brassier' is how I'd have described the A500 before it... did whatever it did.

I'm curious. Several of the posters have described experiments that could be done to test for break-in. Have these been done? Can someone post links to valid experiments that offer data that disconfirms break-in? This one seems to offer good confirming data from someone who seems qualified.

The guy in the article doesn't do any testing of note. He just tells you what his perception of the amp was. There is no "good confirming data" here.

Also, why is he qualified? Because he twiddles knobs in a recording studio? I did that, and I twiddled knobs for live performances too. I saw people whose judgement I would respect, and others that I wouldn't let mix salad dressing. Furthermore, experience in the recording studio may or may not transfer to judging equipment used in the home listening room.

As for published experiments, I don't know that anyone is interested in disproving "break-in." It's up to the people who make the claim to prove that it exists. I have seen nothing at all that proves that it exists.

I'll repeat: It's up to the people who make the claim to prove it.

 

[tomd51]

I saw people whose judgement I would respect, and others that I wouldn't let mix salad dressing.

Now that's friggin' funny... -TD

 

[mike c]

For those with the A500: Does it have a 12v trigger? Can't find one in any of the specs online.

no 12v trigger

you either turn on and off everytime (front panel button)

or

leave it on all the time (dont know risks about this one)

 

[Dan Banquer]

Break In

As a former manufacturer I have observed that there is some break in for new equipment. The issue here is the eletrolytic capacitors in the unit typically need about a day or two to fully form. I have observed added noise during this period and in some cases the ESR (equivalent series resistance) has not been as good as expected. However; this all pretty much dissappears after a day or two at idle. All of the preceding should be done in manufacturing before it gets to you. Note that I say it should be done. After this period they pretty much stay where they are. I have also observed that many units need some amount of time (at room temperature) to warm up to the operating point it was designed for. This can typically take from 5 minutes to 15 minutes for most reasonably designed equipment.
As far as equipment needing weeks to break in: I have no comment.
d.b.

 

[The13thGryphon]

Please respect my request made in the last post if you wish to continue down the current road. I will post it again, in case you missed it:

If you think science is not sufficient, please provide an example of another methodology that is superior, or even equal, in its discovery efficiency.

Please respect my request? Why? Because you said so? I don't recall my pappy taking a great interest in the Internet... so I don't guess I shall. In fact, I feel no obligation to respect your request whatsoever.

From what I gather of your posts to this point, you believe science to be flawed because it can not predict data that does not exist. Of course it can not do this, science is not fortune-telling. Or, do you call it flawed because some people practice bad science[which is not really science]? You mention careful scrutinizing and analysis. But anything that has not conformed to this, is not good science, by definition. Good science includes these very things, inherently.

No, I believe science is flawed because it is a human endeavor, and humans are flawed. We are emotional and erratic creatures, and our emotions, experiences, and egos often bias our actions and the outcomes of our endeavors’.

Yet, it would seem that you blindly accept the notion of 'break in.'
And, just based on some reviews? Or, am I mistaken here as there is no credible evidence for it what so ever.

For at least the forth time, I am not convinced that break-in is a real phenomenon. I have simply stated a belief that there is some potential for such a phenomenon... and I have simply stated that one needs to understand that scientific is not an absolute. Science evolves as new information and understanding becomes available. The best science known today my not hold up under future scrutiny... as has been the case in many instances over history. That is my only point. That what we believe to be factual and true today may not hold up over time. So one should be careful of stating absolutes. "Never say never" comes to mind.

As for published experiments, I don't know that anyone is interested in disproving "break-in." It's up to the people who make the claim to prove that it exists. I have seen nothing at all that proves that it exists.

Maybe no one is interested? You seem to be interested... WmAx seems to be interested... mtrycrafts seems to be interested... so prove it. Set up a scientific methodology, post it here for our review and comment, select a panel of believers, non-believers, and don't knows... and see what happens.

As for the whole "it's up to the people who make the claim to prove it" thing; they're making a claim, sure... but so are you! They claim to hear it... you claim it can't happen. You're both making claims. So prove your claim.

The issue here is the electrolytic capacitors in the unit typically need about a day or two to fully form. I have observed added noise during this period and in some cases the ESR (equivalent series resistance) has not been as good as expected.

Sounds reasonable to me. Why not? Many people strongly believe that their audio equipment sounds better after it has been on for 30 minutes or more, so that it has warmed up to "normal" operating temperature. Why can't the first few hours of operation of a new piece of equipment "burn-in" the electronic components to their "normal" operation parameters... thus changing the sound? Is that really so hard to fathom?

Again, I've never heard this phenomenon personally, so it is all just conjecture on my part. I'm solely interested in the dialogue and debate.

 

[WmAx]

For at least the forth time, I am not convinced that break-in is a real phenomenon. I have simply stated a belief that there is some potential for such a phenomenon... and I have simply stated that one needs to understand that scientific is not an absolute. Science evolves as new information and understanding becomes available. The best science known today my not hold up under future scrutiny... as has been the case in many instances over history. That is my only point. That what we believe to be factual and true today may not hold up over time. So one should be careful of stating absolutes. "Never say never" comes to mind.

It would appear that you have not paid any real attention to my posts, because you are redundantly saying what I already have.

As for the whole "it's up to the people who make the claim to prove it" thing; they're making a claim, sure... but so are you! They claim to hear it... you claim it can't happen. You're both making claims. So prove your claim.

The claimant has the responsibility/burden. I[or mtrycrafts, etc.] only remind people that this is the case. It can not be assumed a positive claim is true, without substantial data to back that claim.

-Chris

 

[skrivis]

No, I'm not claiming it can't happen. I'm saying that I have seen no evidence to show that it does happen.

Yes, it can take some time for caps to form completely (hours, not days or weeks though), and it takes some time (5-30 minutes in most cases) for thermal stabilization to occur. But, as Dan points out, forming the caps will happen when the maker tests the unit and switching on your system 5 minutes before you use it will take care of the rest. I wouldn't even include the 5 minute warmup period in the concept of "break-in."

I'm also not saying that Sarius didn't hear a difference. I'm just questioning the cause of the difference that was heard.

And finally, Sarius found an amp that he likes for a very low price. That's a good thing! Don't lose sight of that.



There's a very basic, rock bottom idea here. It's all about things sounding different (or not) and how that relates to how they're designed and made.

Ok, so you hear a difference. Is it repeatable? Can other people hear it too? Can other people hear it without you suggesting it to them first? Does it hold up under blind testing? Can we then relate what you heard to science or engineering so we can show why you heard it?

There have been a number of cases where people hear differences even though no changes were made. Just the suggestion that there was a change was enough to affect their perception. I also read about an audio show where Enid Lumley was claiming that the little plastic tripods that come in pizza boxes improved the sound of components when placed on top of them or something. People heard a difference. (Enid is evidently rather persuasive in person, although she comes across as a crackpot in print.) So I think we can say that just hearing something may not be enough...

Ok, so we finally wind up with some valid info after testing. Now, how can you or others use this info to guide your purchasing decisions? That's kind of the bottom line. How do we get the best return for our expenditure of resources?

 

[mtrycrafts]

I wouldn't even include the 5 minute warmup period in the concept of "break-in."

Good thing, otherwise the component would never break in
It warms up each and every time it is turned on.

I'm also not saying that Sarius didn't hear a difference. I'm just questioning the cause of the difference that was heard.

What he had was a perception only. Different from hearing it as he didn't demonstrate that he did, only that he perceived something, real or imaginary.

Does it hold up under blind testing? Can we then relate what you heard to science or engineering so we can show why you heard it?

Just a small detail few want to bother with

There have been a number of cases where people hear differences even though no changes were made.

You mean their perception was unreliable


Just the suggestion that there was a change was enough to affect their perception.

Just a suggestion was enough to jump off the deep end into an empty pool

 

[mtrycrafts]

We are emotional and erratic creatures, and our emotions, experiences, and egos often bias our actions and the outcomes of our endeavors’.

Oh, you know about this flaw. I bet you will remember it and ask the appropriate questions when silly claims, or any claims, at least in audio, is made, no?

For at least the forth time,

Good for you, keeping count.

I am not convinced that break-in is a real phenomenon. I have simply stated a belief that there is some potential for such a phenomenon.

Based in what? Anything of value, or just faith based?


.. and I have simply stated that one needs to understand that scientific is not an absolute.

I didn't know you were after absolutes, in anything. Are you?


Science evolves as new information and understanding becomes available.

Yes, of course. So what.

The best science known today my not hold up under future scrutiny..


Or, it may. Yet, it is interesting that so many things that don't hold up to scrutiny today are held in high regards. Why is that?

So one should be careful of stating absolutes.

I must have missed that statement.

Maybe no one is interested? You seem to be interested... WmAx seems to be interested... mtrycrafts seems to be interested... so prove it.

I don't need convincing, do you??? I doubt he needs convincing and pretty sure wmax isn't either. Are you interested???

Set up a scientific methodology, post it here for our review and comment, select a panel of believers, non-believers, and don't knows... and see what happens.

Why should he? Maybe he is not able? Are you??? Go for it then.

you claim it can't happen. You're both making claims. So prove your claim.

Is that what that is, a claim? Is that what was claimed, really???
I have a short memory. You seem to keep track, please post such claims.



Many people strongly believe that their audio equipment sounds better after it has been on for 30 minutes or more, [/b]


Ah, another belief system by many.

Is that really so hard to fathom?

Then, it can be also measured and that measurement must exceed the known thresholds of detection, right? Is there such evidence??? Sure it is plausible, just haven't seen any yet. Maybe tomorrow.

I'm solely interested in the dialogue and debate.

Exhilarating, indeed.

 

[The13thGryphon]

Is that what that is, a claim? Is that what was claimed, really??? I have a short memory. You seem to keep track, please post such claims.

At 10:59 p.m., on April 17th, in this very thread, you yourself wrote “As to explaining this myth [responding to whether break-in exists], as that is all it is, it has not been shown that it exists like so many such claims. End of story.”

In my opinion, that appears to be a claim. A claim that break-in does not exist, and that it is a myth. Seems a pretty "absolute" declaration as well. Your assertion may well be true... or possibly not. As presented, it is simply your opinion, as you offer no more concrete analysis or scientific documentation of your statement than do those who uphold their personal belief in the reality of audio equipment break-in.

(Edited for grammar)

 

[mtrycrafts]

At 10:59 p.m., on April 17th, in this very thread, you yourself wrote “As to explaining this myth [responding to whether break-in exists], as that is all it is, it has not been shown that it exists like so many such claims. End of story.”

In my opinion, that apprears to be a claim. A claim that break-in does not exist, and that it is a myth. Seems a pretty "absolute" declaration as well. Your assertion may well be true... or possibly not. As presented, it is simply your opinion, as you offer no more concrete analysis or scientific documentation of your statement than do those who uphold their personal belief in the reality of audio equipment break-in.

it has not been shown that it exists like so many such claims.

Actually, it is not a claim and especially an absolute one. Some would like to read it as such, in between the lines, of course. Yet another indication of opinions of different merit.

 

[The13thGryphon]

it has not been shown that it exists...

Is that, or is that not, a claim? Where is your evidence? You state that those making the claim for the existence of break-in must prove their claim. Why? They hear it... they experience it... it is real to them, and therefore exists in their reality. If you don't like it, ignore it... or provide some proof that it does not exist. Otherwise, whatever you say is simply a counter-claim, and no more or less valid than the opposite position.

Anyway, this will be my final post on the subject in this thread. Undoubtedly this too will be responded to... but I am through with this particular "tennis match", and will not reply further. We'll just have to disagree on the potential for this phenomenon.

Peace

 

[WmAx]

Originally Posted by mtrycrafts:
it has not been shown that it exists...

Is that, or is that not, a claim? Where is your evidence? You state that those making the claim for the existence of break-in must prove their claim. Why?

It's thinking like this, that leads to ghost hunters, psychics and other things of highly dubious value. With such mentality, one can not determine real information from the imaginary. It is extremely inefficient and actually blocks real progress from occurring. To you, all opinions are equal, at least that is how you are coming off, from my perspective. That is an erroneous concept.

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

Is that, or is that not, a claim?

I guess such simple statements are difficult to understand?

You state that those making the claim for the existence of break-in must prove their claim. Why?

That is the way of science. Claimants have the burden of proof. I thought you knew that simple fact.

They hear it...

NO. They claim to with no evidence that they in fact did hear it instead of just perceiving something, who knows what.

they experience it... it is real to them,

Yes, that they did experience something.

and therefore exists in their reality.

Ah, a singular reality useless to others. Meaningless.

If you don't like it, ignore it..

Why should I do that??? Then this singular reality is perpetuated beyond what it is, meaningless to others.



. or provide some proof that it does not exist.

Actually, they have the burden as you do when you claim to hear differences. At least when someone, like me challenges such claims. If you don't like that, stop claiming unsupported claims. Rather simple to me.

 

[beppe61]

tempting, but with 120 watts driving the mid/tweeters and another 100+ on the woofers, I'm good.
However, I do have a set of Theil CS 2.2's................. hmmmm.m.m.m.m

Dear Sir,

could you tell me something more about the bass response of your Thiels with the Behringer, maybe in comparison with the Roksan?
I mean is it deep, powerful and controlled?
Are the 2.2 demanding as a load (i.e. low impedance) ?
I have a pair of Dynaudios that need a so called "high current" amp.
I wonder if the Behringer A500 has "enough" juice or it would be better go for the more powerful EP1500.
Please keep going on with your extremely kind and interesting listening notes.
And by the way, I believe in break-in.

Thank you very much indeed.
Kind regards,

beppe
italy

P.S. Congratulations for your nice Thiel 2.2. I like their styling very much indeed.

 

[Soundbroker]

Dear Sir,

could you tell me something more about the bass response of your Thiels with the Behringer, maybe in comparison with the Roksan?
I mean is it deep, powerful and controlled?
Are the 2.2 demanding as a load (i.e. low impedance) ?
I have a pair of Dynaudios that need a so called "high current" amp.
I wonder if the Behringer A500 has "enough" juice or it would be better go for the more powerful EP1500.
Please keep going on with your extremely kind and interesting listening notes.
And by the way, I believe in break-in.

Thank you very much indeed.
Kind regards,

beppe
italy

P.S. Congratulations for your nice Thiel 2.2. I like their styling very much indeed.

Since this thread has gotten SO far away from the subject at hand (the Behringer A-500), I figured I'd respond. To answer your question, I'd go with an EP-1500 with your Dynaudios. The A-500 is best with speakers that are reasonably easy loads. The magic on that amp is as a super cheap monoblock...but for use with a reasonably easy load (Thiels and Dynaudios don't qualify in my book). The power supply is pretty decent (astonishing considering the cost), but the EP series amps are a lot beefier and will drive a more difficult load. The EP-2500 is a good (and cheaper) alternative to twin A-500's as it is stable to 2 ohms and definitely has more wallop on the bass since the damping factor is higher (a lot of guys on the DIY subwoofer section of the AVS forum are using EP-2500's to drive their subs). Dollar per dollar and pound for pound, the EP-2500 with a quiet fan mod is still the amp to beat. And yes, I have all three on hand since I sell them, so I have personal experience.

 

[WmAx]

The A-500 is best with speakers that are reasonably easy loads. The magic on that amp is as a super cheap monoblock...but for use with a reasonably easy load (Thiels and Dynaudios don't qualify in my book).

What do you define as 'easy' load?

The A500 has been shown in 3rd party testing to perform outstandingly into 4 ohms, with +/- 60 degrees phase lead/lag difference between voltage and current. This is NOT an easy load by any means. This amplifier is specifically suited to very difficult loads.

-Chris

 

[SHomrighausen]

A500 'problem'

It's possible that users that have experienced a 'break-in' on their amp have the same problem that I've found the root cause. Listening to Dire Straits - Telegraph Road (on 'Love Over Gold' CD)... I noticed something that could easily be described as 'harsh' - there are some pure high(ish) tones at the beginning of the song. I think they sound amazing with the right set of speakers. With the new A500 hooked up, the level controls around half - VERY HARSH. Hooked up another source for the song (CD instead of MP3), still harsh. Hooked up a different preamp with the CD player - still harsh. Hooked up a different set of speakers (easier load) - still harsh. Hooked up the old amp - sounded great.

Could it be that my new 'toy' was indeed a POS? I continued to think about what could be causing the harshness (repeatable and real). After much thought and frustration (didn't want to have to send the amp back) - I turned the level controls all the way up (effectively removing them from the equation). BINGO, WE HAVE A WINNER... The pots used for the level controls were causing the harshness. Is it possible that some people that have complained about how bad this amp sounds were missing potential greatness by USING the level controls? Is it possible that people that have heard their amps 'break-in' have increased the level controls?

For me this isn't a large limitation - turned up the level controls and it's a great amp. Just wondering if others have seen or heard this limitation. If you have access to the song that I used, it will be easily apparent if you hear the same harshness.

 

[majorloser]

It's possible that users that have experienced a 'break-in' on their amp have the same problem that I've found the root cause. Listening to Dire Straits - Telegraph Road (on 'Love Over Gold' CD)... I noticed something that could easily be described as 'harsh' - there are some pure high(ish) tones at the beginning of the song. I think they sound amazing with the right set of speakers. With the new A500 hooked up, the level controls around half - VERY HARSH. Hooked up another source for the song (CD instead of MP3), still harsh. Hooked up a different preamp with the CD player - still harsh. Hooked up a different set of speakers (easier load) - still harsh. Hooked up the old amp - sounded great.

Could it be that my new 'toy' was indeed a POS? I continued to think about what could be causing the harshness (repeatable and real). After much thought and frustration (didn't want to have to send the amp back) - I turned the level controls all the way up (effectively removing them from the equation). BINGO, WE HAVE A WINNER... The pots used for the level controls were causing the harshness. Is it possible that some people that have complained about how bad this amp sounds were missing potential greatness by USING the level controls? Is it possible that people that have heard their amps 'break-in' have increased the level controls?

For me this isn't a large limitation - turned up the level controls and it's a great amp. Just wondering if others have seen or heard this limitation. If you have access to the song that I used, it will be easily apparent if you hear the same harshness.

Yeah, it's possible.
But just run them bridged, turn the gain control all the way up and enjoy the power.