Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108684 08/25/05 08:05 PM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 552
thyname Offline OP
aficionado
OP Offline
aficionado
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 552
Very interesting recent (8/25) article on Audioholics HERE

Very technical for me though...


Axiom M60s, QS4s, VP100 Onkyo TX-SR804 Oppo 970HD Rotel RB-1080/RCD-1072 REL Q150E sub, PS 3
Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108685 08/25/05 08:40 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,343
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,343
I had to check to see if the date was April 1st.



getting to 2,000 posts; one year at a time vp160/qs8/qs4/ep350/m60/m2200s
Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108686 08/25/05 09:32 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,210
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,210
I read, er I mean scanned through that article this morning. I never did figure out their conclusion.


Rick
Our Room

smile
Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108687 08/25/05 10:22 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 67
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 67
Cool article. I’ve seen the flame arguments over driver break-in and have wondered what’s correct. I thought the surrounds and spiders would have some change in compliance, but I didn’t know if it was significant.

According to their measurements there is a change, but it’s very small and only takes a very short time to change. Furthermore, the air compliance inside the speaker box tends to dominate the speaker compliance characteristic more than the surrounds and spiders, and the electro/magnetic differences between identical drivers from a production line can cause a bigger difference than changes in the spider and surround compliance. End result; don’t expect to hear any difference after extended driver break-in.


Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108688 08/26/05 12:39 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,840
Likes: 13
shareholder in the making
Offline
shareholder in the making
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,840
Likes: 13
I agree, even Axiom's tests for 20+ years at NRC have concluded no evidence of breakin occuring. As Alan has mentioned time and time again, it is our brains adjusting.

Here we go again


M80s VP180 4xM22ow 4xM3ic EP600 2xEP350
AnthemAVM60 Outlaw7700 EmoA500 Epson5040UB FluanceRT85


Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108689 08/26/05 02:11 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 552
thyname Offline OP
aficionado
OP Offline
aficionado
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 552
I thought their conclusion in big a## words was that there is a break in at speakers' drivers happening only in the first few minutes after first play. Correct me if I am wrong. Other than that there is a lot of technical blah.. blah.. formulas... blah... blah.... Sorry, but not everybody is an engineer. I hope that somebody who is really technical in that regard here in this board can "translate" some staff from that article.


Axiom M60s, QS4s, VP100 Onkyo TX-SR804 Oppo 970HD Rotel RB-1080/RCD-1072 REL Q150E sub, PS 3
Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108690 08/26/05 02:33 AM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654
shareholder in the making
Offline
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654
Rick, the basic finding is that the amount of break-in which occurs takes place in a matter of 10s of seconds and is often accomplished when the manufacturer tests the speakers at the factory. No home break-in at all is relevant in that case. The small changes occurring after the brief(or long)break-in aren't audibly significant and sample-to-sample variations exceed them in magnitude.


-----------------------------------

Enjoy the music, not the equipment.


Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108691 08/26/05 10:43 AM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,034
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,034
When I added speakers of the same brand and model as I had been listening to for years, I believed I did hear a difference for the first very few moments. When I added a new pair of very close Family Resemblance mains, I believed I heard a similar variation in the sound; again, for a very short amount of time.

Was the main difference for simply tens of seconds? Yeah; could be but there was a percieved change of sound that lasted for a noticable, though short, ammount of time.

This report is a good thing in my estimation, as it allows me(and others)to sit firmly on the fence in this matter and offend no one and agree with everyone!

The only problem that I face is the data. The data says there is no significant change, but the data collecting device at my house says there is. The fact remains that the sensors and data collecting and analyzing equipment in my home cannot be scientifically verified at this point of time.

Last edited by F107plus5; 08/26/05 10:58 AM.
Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108692 08/26/05 12:14 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331
That's a wonderfully rational take on the whole issue. NOBODY can say you didn't perceive a difference. I am, in fact, certain you did. Unfortunately, it has been amply demonstrated that our peceptions can be influenced by a variety of psychological and environmental factors, and thus cannot be considered reliable in an accurate, scientific sense.

I'm a little confused by the phrase "trust your ears." If that means "when one hears something one likes, then that's the choice to make," I'm in COMPLETE agreement. If it means "one's psychoacoustical mechanism is incapable of being deceived," I must HEARTILY disagree.


Jack

"People generally quarrel because they cannot argue." - G. K. Chesterton
Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108693 08/26/05 01:00 PM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 552
thyname Offline OP
aficionado
OP Offline
aficionado
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 552
I also felt my M60s sounded better after some time since the purchase, and I am sure this happened for more than a few seconds. How long, I don't know...


Axiom M60s, QS4s, VP100 Onkyo TX-SR804 Oppo 970HD Rotel RB-1080/RCD-1072 REL Q150E sub, PS 3
Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108694 08/26/05 01:30 PM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,339
B
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
B
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,339
I just think mine sound better on than off.

When I first hooked them up I ran them on low power, barely audible, for a millisecond. That's all it took.



Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108695 08/26/05 02:50 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,034
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,034
Thinking about it for a moment or two: When I got my first set of M3s and fired them off initially, I don't recall them sounding any different than they always did. They may very well have changed a bit over time, but I can't say for sure if I noticed it. I didn't have any preconceived idea of what I thought they sould have sounded like.

With the second batch of M3(for center)I installed it in a "Main" position rather than in it's center slot and played a very familiar test(in stereo)CD and it did have a very subtle but noticable harshness for a few moments. Note that I was actually "listening" for a difference, as this topic of "Break-in" pops up fairly often in this forum. So I may well have "colored" the data internally without really knowing it. I don't "think" so though, as the Wife thought that to Her it didn't sound quite right either at first.

I can't repeat the test cuz the speakers sound fantastic every time I listen to them now

Fast foreward a couple years and new M50s are installed to replace the M3s as mains....

Fire 'em up with the same test CD(different track, though still familiar)and get the same wrinkled brow from the Wife and the same "not quite right" thought from my data aquisition system. A few moments later, all is right in the universe.

I can't repeat the test cuz the speakers sound fantastic every time I listen to them now

If the Wife(a very impartial observer cause She really didn't give a darn then)haden't volunteered her comments, I would have figured that it was all "Me"

When I visit my oldest Daughter, we often find their TV on with the bassy sounding internal speakers playing away. They always sound the same to me when I first walk in the door as they did the first time I heard them right after She got the set last year. My memory detects no difference.

My Sons' bass module with sats on his computer sounds no different in my memory than it did first time I heard it either.

Same with our bedroom TV and the Boys TV and the Girls' TV. We have a real population of speakers that sound the same each time I hear them, but only a couple of events where I detected a difference, and they were all with brand new speakers.

I have to assume though that I was indeed listening for variations, and that fact alone may have been what made me hear them. And, further, that my Wife, even subconsiously, may well have been "listening" more intently than usual right along with me.

So it's a hung jury, although there "are" a few more guilty votes in the tally





Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108696 08/27/05 02:01 AM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654
shareholder in the making
Offline
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654
Note again that the finding wasn't that there was an audible change just in the first minute or so, but that even the small changes that took place in that period(often when tested at the factory)weren't of audible significance. This topic hasn't been one very heavily discussed here in the past but possibly the most lengthy is here , where Alan and others participated. The bottom line on this audio mythology appears to be what Jack(Ajax)has pointed out in the past: "Break-in was invented so that we couldn't return anything."


-----------------------------------

Enjoy the music, not the equipment.


Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108697 08/27/05 03:49 AM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331
Well in fairness to the manufacturers, I would phrase it that one possibility "break in" is mentioned by manufacturers is so the consumer doesn't react precipitately to negative first impressions, but gives himself a chance to become accustomed to the speaker's unique sound, thus minimizing hasty returns.

I'm sure that there are those who, after a good number of hours of listening, still don't care for a given speaker and return it. But, let's face it. The longer one spends with a given speaker, the more likely one is to become acclimated to it, and keep it.


Jack

"People generally quarrel because they cannot argue." - G. K. Chesterton
Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108698 08/27/05 07:24 AM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 325
devotee
Offline
devotee
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 325
Excellent point Jack.

Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108699 08/27/05 11:40 AM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,034
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,034
I was going over the paramaters listed in the article and the plots presented, trying, unsuccessfully, to get an additive or subtractive variation greater than about 2db to show that there "Might" be a situation existing to explain why many of us "Hear" something for at least those first few tens of seconds.

What I heard was more of an unevenness in presentation, not a major objectionable output; a part of a db variation here and another part there. Perhaps like the entire speaker settling in: Screws, glues and all! The tweets weren't mentioned in the article, they might interract in some less than obvious way. There is "something there" that lots of people are hearing that's prompting them to go out on the line against a lot of powerfull folks and put themselves up for an embarrassing rebuttle.

I think it may be just as easy to talk yourself "out of" hearing something that may exist, when backed by the currently accepted data base, than it is to hear what "may exist" and admit it!

At our current level of data aquisition and human physiology, we may not yet be capable of presenting the entire story.





Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108700 08/27/05 01:17 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,034
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,034
Oops.....para 3 came out sounding a whole lot more argumentative than it was intended to be<that was supposed to be at the end of that statement

Sure didn't mean to suggest for a moment that any of us were deceiving ourselves!

The Grandkids were just getting out of bed and making lots of(ordinary)demands on Grandpa just when he was trying to formulate a thought! And it just came out Way Wrong Man

Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108701 08/27/05 01:54 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331
In reply to:

At our current level of data aquisition and human physiology, we may not yet be capable of presenting the entire story.


I'll accept that. Science, is hardly infallible. I'm 60 (in a few months), and I've seen too many instances of science saying one thing, and then, years later, pulling a 180 and saying "oops, we goofed."

However, fallibility aside, Scientific evaluation provides the best chance of getting it right, and odds are it will provide the correct answer considerably more often than anecdotal perception by the human senses.

If we're going to talk about fallibility, as many times as science has gotten it wrong, the odds are our senses, coupled with our brain, are going to get it wrong much more often than scientific method.

Motion-Bounce Illusion

If that's too subtle try....

Hering Illusion

And this one blew my mind..

“Lilac Chaser”

And yes, there are auditory illusions as well as optical illusions. According to Wikipedia --

"An auditory illusion is an illusion of hearing (sense), the sound equivalent of an optical illusion: the listener hears either sounds which are not present in the stimulus, or "impossible" sounds. In short, audio illusions highlight areas where the human ear and brain, as organic, makeshift tools, differ from perfect audio receptors (for better or for worse)."

(The red accent is mine for emphasis, and I'm interpreting "perfect audio receptors" as meaning some tool of scientific measurement.)

For those interested here are some Demonstrations of Auditory Illusions

None of the above accurately explains what some perceive as "speaker break-in," but they do demonstrate the fallibly of the senses combined with the human brain. What those on the "science" side of the argument have a difficult time understanding about those on the other side of the argument, is how they can put such faith is something as unreliable as the combination of brain and senses.

Edit: F107, I didn't interpret that paragraph as argumentative at all. And, I think your point is absolutely correct. We DO deceive ourselves, or rather are deceived by our own interpretations and biases. And, indeed, we are just as capable of deceiving ourselves that we DIDN'T hear something we did, as the opposite. However, that merely supports my premise that the human senses are much too fallible to relied upon when compared to a correctly structured scientific test.

Again, I wish to make it perfectly clear. When someone claims to have heard speaker break-in, NO ONE IS DENYING THAT THEY HEARD A CHANGE. I'M CERTAIN THEY DID. But the question remains, did the speaker change, or did the listener's PERCEPTION of the speaker's sound change? If it's the latter, that in no way implies that they were "fooled," are "foolish" or are considered "fools." Being deceived by one's senses is an all too human phenomenon.




Jack

"People generally quarrel because they cannot argue." - G. K. Chesterton
Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108702 08/27/05 02:38 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331
LOL! On another forum they are having a discussion over the efficacy of spending lots of money on aftermarket power cords. Here was a comment I though germaine to our discussion.

"Science allows us to get our astronauts home safely. Perception sometimes interferes with the process."



Jack

"People generally quarrel because they cannot argue." - G. K. Chesterton
Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108703 08/27/05 03:56 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,034
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,034
Couldn't agree more on the fallibility concept.One of the things I'm trying hardest to get out of the equations is precicely the human element. Every time we try to mix science and humanity together, invariably the data will be corrupted

Unfortunately.....we don't make speakers for machines,... but if we did, I'll bet THEY could give us the right answers, IF they were programmed correctly(that human element again)

I also heartily agree that my own reaction to new speakers may be adversely affected by preconceived notions, as can most everyone else. How to avoid it in every day situations is the tricky part.(A series of double-blind tests would help, but I can Almost afford one set of speakers at a time) The absolute bottom line, of course, is that in the overall scheme of things.....it really dosen't matter We listen to our speakers for ten minutes or so, and we may, or we may not, hear anything unusual, and at the end of that short period of time we all agree on the same absolute thing: We either like, or we don't like, our speakers!!

The Tempest in the Teapot dissipates a lot more rapidly than the discussion ever does, crazy; ain't it? But it is a fun topic.

Note: The discussion would be a whole lot more fun if I didn't have all these darn Grandkids(gotta love 'em)buggin' me all the time!

Guess I'll take the time to review all the good reads you've supplied; could be more than just a bit enlightning I'll bet, thanx. I'll have to read fast though; like yourself, time is sneaking up on me too! I'll be 61 in a couple weeks

Just spotted the Astronaut comment, funny it is!! Kinda like Newton telling us how to slingshot our space probes from around one planet to another, but we were too busy protecting ouselves from Indians to recognize the significance!

Power cords huh? I'm just trying to keep paying these new electricity bills!! Now That is crazy!!
Rich.

Last edited by F107plus5; 08/27/05 04:11 PM.
Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108704 08/27/05 04:31 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331
Ah, the joy of having someone who's older than I on the forum! I noticed, in the "Just How Old Are We" thread, that someone was over 70, so you aren't the eldest either.

Not much to "read" in the links I posted. The examples of optical illusions are kinda fun, and a bit startling. Don't waste your time with the audio illusions unless it's important to you.

To paraphrase the excellent point you are making, and with which I heartily concur, speaker break-in is pretty much irrelevant. We are all going to listen to our speakers for 10 hours, 100 hours, 200, hours, whatever. At the end of that time period, the speakers are going to sound like,..........well,............whatever they are going to sound like, and we're either going to like them or not. It doesn't really matter whether the speakers break-in, or we become acclimated to their sound, the end result is the same.

And, whichever phenomenon takes place, it is wise to ignore (as much as is humanly possible) first impressions, and reserve judgment until you've spent some time listening to the set of speakers in question.

I also agree that with the whole hearing/sound thing being as subjective as it is, we cannot, not should we want to, eliminate the human element. I like what I hear from my system. It pleases me. You could show me graphs and measurements that tell me I SHOULDN'T like them, that I should like something else, and I won't care. I know what I like, and pleases me. Case closed.

LOL! I empathize with your grandkids bugging you. I have a 93 year old with dementia, who asks me the same question every 30 seconds because she can't remember the answer I just gave her. What I want to know is, if they forget the answer, WHY DON'T THEY FORGET THE QUESTION? Sheesh! Our "golden years" weren't supposed to be like this, were they?

By the way, your taking on 4 grandkids at our age, is a noble and generous act, deserving of much praise. Bravo!


Jack

"People generally quarrel because they cannot argue." - G. K. Chesterton
Re: Audioholics' article on speaker break-in
#108705 08/27/05 06:04 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,034
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,034
Yup, it appears that we're still kids after all. Frank is the oldest(I see his first car was a 41 Ford convertable; nice ride!) Alan, I believe is in second place, and I think that yet another person chimed in in the sixties.

Went thru the optical illusions....With the Kids...they had a grand time; it was certainly worth the price of admission!

I'd seen most of them thru the years, but it's a valuable refresher and a real eye opener. Lots of fun

The audio section I had not heard before, but had fun with some of those as well, Thanx. I used the earphones instead of the computer speakers and didn't disturb the cartoons on the TV The no.2 kid heard the first tones thru the phones and convinced the others that cartoons were the most valuable past time at that point.

Right now three of the four are outside....hooray!!!

Which unfortunately isn't an easy option with a 93 year old. That can be very frustrating I'm sure, but also very appreciated at some less than obvious level.

And they say "Gold" isn't supposed to tarnish.

Well; one thing has absolutely been determined through this discussion on break-in, and that is that we both(old folks or not)still have the ability to enjoy the tunes just as much as the youngsters; whether it took an extra two or three mintes to arrive at that point is not all that important!

OK little one, you can watch cartoons in your room, Grandpa wants the sound system!!! Come on Grandma, let's boogie!!

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 

Link Copied to Clipboard

Need Help Graphic

Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics24,940
Posts442,457
Members15,616
Most Online2,082
Jan 22nd, 2020
Top Posters
Ken.C 18,044
pmbuko 16,441
SirQuack 13,840
CV 12,077
MarkSJohnson 11,458
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 145 guests, and 4 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newsletter Signup
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4