OK I thought we should start a new thread to debate the "break in" phenomenon...
Break in claims
For decades, audiophiles, hi-fi retailers, and reviewers have commented that a lot of audio components seem to change over time in terms of sonic characteristics. The largest differences are reported with loudspeakers. Specifically, changes after break in are typically said to smooth out the treble and extend the bass response. The degree of change can obviously vary from speaker to speaker, as can the break in time period. After 30-50 hours, most would say that the break in period has ended, meaning that the performance characteristics have stabilized and will not change much in the future. Break in changes are virtually always noted as positive in every way.
Skepticism
From what I gather, skeptics believe that there may be a common perception of break in, but that there is never an actual significant change in the performance of speakers over time. This strikes me as a very bold statement, as they take a theoretical standpoint, and make a judgement on all the loudspeakers and listeners in the world. Surely skeptics can concede that in all the world, there's at least one pair of loudspeakers that sounds different after the first 100 hours of use. The skeptics' reasoning? Lack of scientific data proving the phenomenon.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but here is what I see as the skeptics' argument: "break in" is perceived because either
a)Brain break in: listeners first hear the differences compared to their previous speakers, and over time they lose sensitivity to these differences. Thus, after a lot of listening, the new speakers sound like the old speakers, and listeners attribute this to break in.
b)Power of suggestion: listeners have read about break in, and expect to hear it themselves. Though there's no audible change, they hear a change because they believe in it.
Skeptical inference
If a) is true, and listeners are reacting to the differences from their previous speakers, then a purchase of new "warmer" speakers (speakers with less treble) would lead them to perceive a growing brightness to their new speakers after break in. In other words, after acclimating to the new speaker warmth, their brain would compensate over time, until the new speakers sounded almost as bright as the originals.
The only problem is that almost all people claiming to hear break in claim that the treble smooths or mellows, if anything. No one says: "after break in, my speakers got really bright, and the bass disappeared." It's a one-directional change. Additionally, it is absolutely not true that after sensitization, one no longer hears the differences from the previous set of speakers. My Paradigm Mini Monitors always sounded a bit bright, and my M22s will undoubtedly always give me a magnificent midrange, even perceptually.
As for Alan Lofft's comments from the old discussion linked by chessaroo: he noted that listening tests did not substantially change over time with "anchor" speakers. I concur, as long is it's after break in, which typically lasts a modest 25-50 hours. If the first couple weeks of user tests were slightly different in treble balance and bass, who would notice?
Lack of evidence
It's true that you don't see a lot of scientific research being conducted on break in. The reason is that it doesn't matter, as the effect, perceived or real, only lasts for the first few weeks of listening. If you really want evidence, just goto an audio showroom and see if you can compare firsthand, like I did inadvertently. More often than not, it's quite obvious.
-Cooper
I just posted this in response to a question on another thread but thought it would be useful here to assemble links to
Axiom's position on break-in (they recommend two hours for the speakers). Here's
another post by Ian on break-in. And
one more by Alan Lofft.
FWIW, as part of my speaker auditions I "broke in" three sets of speakers over the last two months (Athena AS-F2, M22ti, and M60ti) because Athena recommended it in their owner's manual. (I ultimately kept the M60s). I did not notice any change in sound quality in any of the speakers following the break-in period. I wish I had because my wife and kids thought I had gone nuts.
cooper,
I'm out of town for the next 5 days so i cannot reply to all your comments.
Simply put, believe the science and trust the numbers in regards to this technical aspect of 'break in'.
Our ears are untrustworthy except when used in double blind tests in a CONTROLLED experiment.
UNCONTROLLED settings as you suggest are virtually useless in using your ears to discern the truth. The brain has a phenomenal way of creating bias whether you know it or not.\
Skeptics are not those who hold the science as fact. Skeptics are those who do not believe the facts and instead, follow the crowd to derive their own beliefs (the religion concept).
As i said previously, money, adverstising and tons of other reasons feed this myth. If they make money from it, they will keep selling the idea.
THAT is why these phenonmena are not more researched.
I would think it would be simple thing for a double blind test to occur with two sets of the same speaker....one that was broken in for x hours, months, or whatever breakin period is deemed acceptable, and one that hasn't been used. Listen to both and see if they are different or not. Just need someone that has the capabilites to easily setup a double blind test, which tends to be the hard part.
I have seen for the first time valid evidence of component change before/after break in. Mostly these seem to effect free air resonance {Fs} and Vas but show change nonetheless.
http://kaiaudio.com/diy2001/kaiopen.html
cblake,
You forgot one other problem "skeptics" have with the idea of break-in:
Speakers vibrate, tens of thousands of times a second, in the case of tweeters. They have only a couple of moving parts and they're made from materials with properties of deformation that are very well known. To that last point, do a bit of research into how much titanium, a common material in tweeters, has to be displaced before it assumes a new structural form. There isn't a speaker on the planet that distors the tweeter to that degree (I've posted it before on Axiom).
But more importantly, it is fallacy to believe something simply because people say so. Were I to base my world view on the same rationality common among audiophiles, I'd still be a religious man. You must provide me with evidence before I accept something to be true, especially something that is counter-intuitive.
Zarak,
Read the post linked above by Alan Lofft. The Canoodians did just that and found no such phenomenon.
That answers that then. I'm in the ear break in camp anyway, especially after all I've read on here in the past.
Cooper, I have little to add to my point(or those of Alan and Paul Barton) made in the earlier thread which chess linked(so of course, I'll add it). I don't know how this relatively recent "break-in" phenomenon got started. It's been said, perhaps not entirely tongue-in-cheek,that "Break-in was invented so that we couldn't return anything". As an illustration of the depths of absurdity to which this can descend note the "Magic CD" scam on this
site .
So up to this point, responses could be summed up as: "there's no proof." I respect that. However, everyone here has at least acknowledged that there is a common perception of break in.
I am a little surprised by Chess' words: "Our ears are untrustworthy except when used in double blind tests in a CONTROLLED experiment." I find this argument ironic, because the only reason we are on this discussion board is that we have subjectively identified many pleasing characteristics of Axiom speakers, many of which are not directly measurable. I've learned to trust my ears in the audio world, otherwise I'd be listening to an Aiwa mini system.
I will reiterate: if perceived break-in is because of sonic differences from previous speakers, then why don't people ever report their speakers getting brighter or losing bass over time?
-Cooper
Cooper and folks,
Here and
here are two of the better (more meaningful) AVSforum threads on the subject.
In reply to:
I will reiterate: if perceived break-in is because of sonic differences from previous speakers, then why don't people ever report their speakers getting brighter or losing bass over time?
Well, you don't have a proof that people have NOT reported such changes.
Seriously... People may well have actually perceived that direction of changes. However, because of the overwhelming degree of prevailing "conventional wisdom" on the speaker break-in, they may well simply dismiss their own perception and conclude that the given speaker is simply "mediocre," especially if the person feels that he is an "audiophile" with highly discerning ears. Or, some people may well have actually reported somewhere such changes, but wouldn't refer the change as a result of "speaker break-in" because of the same reason above. Or, even if somebody reported a case of a "degradative break-in," nobody might have paid a serious attention to such reports because of the prevailing view...
We might as well declare the issue of break-in as a matter of faith. And as with all matters of faith, it's pointless to say I am right and you are wrong. Until there is direct, repeatable, and irrefutable scientific evidence pointing one way or the other, I'm not going to form an opinion.
After all, whether it's your brain or the speaker breaking in, the end-result is the same: you perceive the speaker's sound as improving. And since everything you can possibly experience in the world is subject to perception, perception is all that matters.
Well I completely agree with pmbuko: it's a matter of faith. The reason is that there are a lot of things we don't know how to measure. Like soundstaging and resolution. Graphs of horizontal dispersion and noise floors do not prove anything, though they are useful.
The Axioms may well have a shorter or less substantial break-in period than other speakers, especially if they were designed that way. I would assume that the manufacturer would understand the characteristics of their drivers over time, especially if they manufacture the driver itself.
One reason I started this thread was not so much to convince everyone that they must believe in break-in, but rather to keep people open to the possibility; when I comment on the changes I have heard, I don't want them to be dismissed out of hand because people feel that break-in is logically impossible. I think it's important to never let your theories overrule your empirical or common sense. This leads to academic, synthetic answers which may or may not be accurate. Have you all seen Internet accounts claiming the moon landing was a hoax? Sure looks convincing when you read those pages!
M22 Break-in Observations
As I have rapidly approached 15 hours of solid use of my M22s, I will give my break-in impressions. One thing that surprised me was that after the first few CDs, the overall tonal balance seemed quite neutral. The unnatural high-end sizzle that I noted on my first CD, Wildflowers, was not very noticeable after the first 5 hours. Classical recordings sound completely neutral above the lower frequencies, as they don't seem to demand a huge amount of transient energy from the treble. Nonetheless, when I crank up the volume past "normal" levels, that sharp treble is apparent on loud cymbal clashes and the like. I believe the tweeters are broken in for lower volumes.
As for the bass, I finally turned off my subwoofer to get a better feeling for it. Definitely strong at some frequencies, but there are still some points where it seems to be missing some weight. Maybe even in the upper bass, above some room resonation frequency. So I feel that the bass may be less broken in than the treble.
Question for Axiom engineers
Regarding sound measurements: how do you measure for frequency response as it varies with dynamics? That is, I'm sure my M22s measure very flat at a fixed volume with warble tones; my Paradigm Mini Monitors sounded bright in comparison. But I strongly believe that a quick, loud, high-frequency transient would be disproportionately loud or harsh. Maybe there's a similar effect with the bass.
-Cooper
Well i had a quick couple of minutes to peruse this always hot topic while glossing over sushi's excellent links to the discussion over at AVS. I don't have very long on the dial in account so here goes.
Cooper:
In reply to:
Graphs of horizontal dispersion and noise floors do not prove anything, though they are useful.
EVERYTHING to measure is worth measuring.
From a scientist perspective, that is the ultimate truth.
In reply to:
One reason I started this thread was not so much to convince everyone that they must believe in break-in, but rather to keep people open to the possibility; when I comment on the changes I have heard, I don't want them to be dismissed out of hand because people feel that break-in is logically impossible.
No one has dismissed these ideas but the logic behind some of the ideas stumps the laws of physics (biwiring for example). From an analytical point of view, it just doesn't make sense.
In reply to:
I think it's important to never let your theories overrule your empirical or common sense. This leads to academic, synthetic answers which may or may not be accurate.
Of the empirical evidence mentioned by Alan based on the tests at the NRC (anechoic chamber) in controlled experiments using both electronic measuring equipment and human subjects, the speaker break-in idea was concluded as myth or in the least, inconsequential if you prefer. That is empirical proof based on the science, not conjecture. This answer is not synthetic nor derived from a random mind. It has been tested. It has been proved.
Whether people choose to believe it or not is ultimately still up to them.
To decide on auditory change aside from electronic measurements you can certainly use human subjects, but designing the experiment is hard to do. You absolutely must remove the individual bias before trying to do it. Home audio listening, audio shops, talking with others is loaded with aspects that will sway your perceptions no matter how hard you try or believe you will be objective. The experiment requires that a third party controls those elements so your brain is put into as neutral ground as possible and so far the only experiments i know of that have tried to do this were the NRC experiments that Alan had mentioned.
Never rule out the power of the mind. Bias is a powerful thing, more so since it is primarily an unconcious entity.
Sushi had the far most eloquent response i have seen yet to date on my equivalent opinion on the break-in issue (if he doesn't mind i'm going to repost this from the AVS forum):
I do not disagree with you at all that you definitely hear the differences. What I (we) are trying to discuss here is whether the perceived difference is due to a real physical change in the sound coming from the speaker, or it is due to a change in the psycho-auditory processing in your own brain, which can be evoked by your very thoughts and knowledge that you have presumably "improved" the equipment. I do not think anybody is lying, denying or rejecting anything. Just that some people here (including myself) want a more rigorous "proof" that an actual physical change, not merely a psycho-acoustic alteration, has occurred on the sound quality.
Just out of curiousity, what is your particular belief in regards to biwiring, expensive cables and biamping?
Any quick thoughts on those subjects?
I will try to keep reading this thread over the next couple of days but there are no guarantees i can reply.
If i don't, have a good weekend all!
In reply to:
The reason is that there are a lot of things we don't know how to measure. Like soundstaging and resolution. Graphs of horizontal dispersion and noise floors do not prove anything, though they are useful.
Specifically with regard to the speaker break-in, we should not diffuse out or mystify the role of physical measurements. There are only a very limited number of visco-elastic moving parts on the speaker drivers that
could exhibit the use-dependent physical changes, namely, the spiders, surrounds, and the cones/domes themselves. I cannot think of anything else that could possibly change permanently. In other words, these changes, if they are indeed physical, must manifest as obvious changes in the driver's T/S parameters that are readily measurable (i.e., resonance frequency, quality factors, equivalent air compliance, etc.). There is little room here for unmeasurable, mystic alterations.
I do agree that the currently available measurement techniques do not completely cover what we may perceive as a change the sound quality. But specifically in the case of speaker break-in, the actual change in sound quality must be the direct consequence of these
measurable physical changes in the driver parts.
In reply to chess:
--------
I do not disagree with you at all that you definitely hear the differences. What I (we) are trying to discuss here is whether the perceived difference is due to a real physical change in the sound coming from the speaker, or it is due to a change in the psycho-auditory processing in your own brain, which can be evoked by your very thoughts and knowledge that you have presumably "improved" the equipment. I do not think anybody is lying, denying or rejecting anything. Just that some people here (including myself) want a more rigorous "proof" that an actual physical change, not merely a psycho-acoustic alteration, has occurred on the sound quality.
-----------
I personally ally myself with the skeptics on this one... but at the end of the day - if it is in the brain, or in the "pudding" (as it were) - it is still "there." I personally don't give a rat's ass if the break-in period were in the speaker or in my ear, but I do know that it took my a bit of time to fully "understand" the sound of my new speakers.
I really can't understand this debate - it seems worse than the speaker wire one. Whereas I think that one is completely spurious and silly, this one documents a real effect, either real or imagined (I hesitate to use that word, but I'm sure you all understand my meaning). Most, if not all, have experienced this effect to one degree or another, despite our skepticism. It happens... and why? I am not personally kept awake at night due to such things. Perhaps we are more sensitive to nuance of things to a degree that may be almost statistically irrelevant. Perhaps the degree to which our brain adjusts and adapts itself to our senses is more pronounced than we would generally like to admit.
Either way - there it is. It breaks us in, or we break it. I personally think it's one of us humans' better traits -the whole damn inconsistancy thing. What else would keep us thinking?
Good post by nowave. There is absolutely a lot of perception of break-in, as admitted by Sushi. Hence my comment that almost everyone who hears break-in hears a similar set of effects: relaxing treble, maybe extended bass response. This is not a coincidence, nor would I chalk it ALL up to the power of suggestion, advertising, or exaggeration.
Chess, you said that Alan had controlled experiments which led to "empirical proof based on the science, not conjecture. It has been tested. It has been proved." First of all, Alan did not test for break-in, as I understand it. That was not his goal or design. Alan has compared many loudspeakers using controlled experiments, and he simply commented that his results did not indicate changing loudspeaker characteristics. As I said, these tests spanned hundreds of hours, which would mean that the vast majority of the tests were performed on broken-in speakers. Did he specifically examine the first few tests performed, and compare them to much later results? I don't know.
In any case, it's impossible to definitively prove that NO break-in ever occurs. It's infinitely easier to prove individual speakers DO exhibit break-in, at least subjectively, and maybe to a lesser degree, quantitatively. And while the Axiom crew has taken measurements to test for break-in, this does not magically overturn decades of empirical evidence for all other speakers and listeners. Not to mention the fact that some speaker companies probably explicitly engineer for it. So the true burden of proof is MUCH heavier on the skeptic's side, though I have no problem if you say "I never heard break-in on my speakers." Just allow me the contrary privilege.
Biwiring? Never heard it. I really have no idea, and in Stereophile I don't think they claim it's any silver bullet. Expensive cables? Better materials and construction often do sound better, but there are diminishing returns, as with anything in audio. I think you just have to keep your expenditures proportionate: cabling should be somewhere around 10% the system cost. Biamping is great, but expensive. Just as having extra power in your amp helps the dynamics, having a separate amp for tweeter, midrange, etc. will also make it easier to drive.
Sushi: how do you meausure the eneven performance of a tweeter when given a large burst of power, as opposed to a steady tone? The driver motion is so miniscule that I absolutely think there's room for things we don't yet know how to measure.
-Cooper
In reply to:
Sushi: how do you measure the eneven performance of a tweeter when given a large burst of power, as opposed to a steady tone? The driver motion is so miniscule that I absolutely think there's room for things we don't yet know how to measure.
A tweeter or woofer doesn't matter. The driver's swing, how small it may be, doesn't matter either -- it is easy to measure them mechanically, either indirectly or directly by today's techniques. If the use-dependent permanent change in the driver indeed exists, it should be measurable mechanically at the driver level -- again, these are simple things including the resonance frequencies, mechanical and electrical Q's, and the mechanical compliance. The difficulty arises when trying to "completely" measure all the potentially audible changes by ACOUSTIC measurements. But, as I said, in the particular context of speaker break-in, the permanent physical change, if it actually exists, should be detectable by MECHANICAL measurements of individual drivers.
Incidentally, I should also point out here that today's "routine" acoustic measurement techniques (such as MLSSA), do not even use steady-state test tones. The results are all time-resolved, and in many cases, spatially-resolved. In fact, my understanding is that today's bottleneck is the methods for
interpreting the wealth of time- and spatial-domain data to accurately correlate them with listening tests, rather than the availability of measurement data themselves. The good & ol' days of the steady-state frequency responses and distortion measurements were long gone. I still do not think they can measure and interpret EVERY audible differences. But let us not underestimate the power of today's acoustic measurement techniques.
nowave,
It's not as different from the wiring issue as you suggest. In the case of the wiring issue, those that claim better wiring result in better sound honestly believe they hear a difference, just as those that buy the break-in idea do. They are hearing a difference that isn't present. A lot of both situations probably results from the same thing: they expect a difference. When you actually remove any knowledge of whether or not speakers have been broken in, or what wires are used, in both cases under scientific scrutiny, no one can perceive a difference.
I really hate when people post a "great post!" comment when someone backs them up. You never see such people do the same for those that refute them. It's a bit self serving and ugly.
In reply to:
First of all, Alan did not test for break-in, as I understand it. That was not his goal or design. Alan has compared many loudspeakers using controlled experiments, and he simply commented that his results did not indicate changing loudspeaker characteristics.
That's not how I read Alan's comment at all.
In reply to:
And while the Axiom crew has taken measurements to test for break-in, this does not magically overturn decades of empirical evidence for all other speakers and listeners.
Where is this
empircal evidence? To date, I've only seen
anecdotal
Anecdote != data.
In reply to:
Expensive cables? Better materials and construction often do sound better, but there are diminishing returns, as with anything in audio. I think you just have to keep your expenditures proportionate: cabling should be somewhere around 10% the system cost.
Why? ALL double blind tests that I've ever seen indicate that no one has successfully identified more expensive cables as sounding any better to a degree beyond random guessing.
In reply to:
having a separate amp for tweeter, midrange, etc. will also make it easier to drive.
You aren't seperately amplifying the signal for the highs, the mids or the lows in bi-amping. If both amplifiers are connected to the same pre-amp output, then both amplifiers are getting the same signal. The same signal is being amplified and then applied to the internal filters in the speakers. The speakers' filters then eliminate the lows and mids in the case of the tweeters and apply the signal, just as they would have if one consistant signal were applied to to both terminals of the speaker.
In reply to:
Sushi: how do you meausure the eneven performance of a tweeter when given a large burst of power, as opposed to a steady tone? The driver motion is so miniscule that I absolutely think there's room for things we don't yet know how to measure.
We CAN measure the physical changes in the speaker. Measuring the output may be a bit more difficult, but measuring the structure of the "burned-in" components is well known. Whether or not it's been done, I've really no idea, though.
Regards,
Josh
In reply to:
There is absolutely a lot of perception of break-in, as admitted by Sushi. Hence my comment that almost everyone who hears break-in hears a similar set of effects: relaxing treble, maybe extended bass response.
I somehow overlooked this statement, but I just noticed a possible misunderstanding here...
I never said I myself have heard a difference due to speaker break-in (did I?). In fact, I have NEVER personally encountered with a convincing case of the effect of speaker break-in so far. NEVER. Of course, that does not prove or disprove anything.
Rather, my point is that the very observation that "almost everyone who hears break-in hears a similar set of effects" makes the whole argument for the existence of a physical change very dubious.
Obviously we have reached a philosophical impasse. I believe that direct observation trumps theory, and many of you believe the opposite.
In reply to:
Where is this empircal evidence? To date, I've only seen anecdotal
Anecdote != data.
A definition of "empirical" which fits my use of the word:
"Guided by practical experience and not theory"
In this case, I am referring to the countless observations of audiophile listeners, reviewers, and others over past decades. I believe them; many of you prefer theory. Fine.
Is there a thread of common ground remaining? I am only here because I love the experience of my M22s. Because of the emotional effect these speakers can help conjure out of music, and because I value that experience greatly. Remember, we should all be spending much more time enjoying music than arguing in a forum! I have to remind myself sometimes.
-Cooper
A good argument, but I've got one to counter it (just to add more fuel to the fire):
Break-in should always soften the harshness in a speaker. Think of the tweeter as being a new pair of shoes. Before they are worn, shoes can be stiff and uncomfortable. The leather or canvas softens only after extended use. So with a tweeter, wouldn't extended use also "loosen" the mechanical components that are designed to flex? If this is the case, then we have an explanation as to why we never hear of break-in making the treble harsher.
Keep in mind that I am a fence-sitter on this issue.
In reply to:
Obviously we have reached a philosophical impasse. I believe that direct observation trumps theory, and many of you believe the opposite.
I don't believe anyone has said that. Direct,
scientific observation is not the same thing as what you've described throughout this thread. I require both, and it would seem, so far, that the skeptics have both on their side.
In reply to:
In this case, I am referring to the countless observations of audiophile listeners, reviewers, and others over past decades.
Then you're misusing it elsewhere. You keep switching in and out of the scientific definition of 'empirical'. Anecdotes and scientific evidence, empirical data, are not the same thing.
In reply to:
I believe them; many of you prefer theory. Fine.
False. All the
scientific empirical data indicates you are wrong.
In reply to:
Is there a thread of common ground remaining? I am only here because I love the experience of my M22s. Because of the emotional effect these speakers can help conjure out of music, and because I value that experience greatly. Remember, we should all be spending much more time enjoying music than arguing in a forum! I have to remind myself sometimes.
I find room for both enjoying my music/movies AND arguing on internet fora.
pmbuko,
Analogies are good for explaining ideas, not making arguments. Just because leather and rubber loosen, doesn't mean metal, carbon fiber or whatever other materials you use in a speaker are going to change in a specific way to dull the amplitude of their high level notes.
A good example of why your argument isn't one would be to counter with the example of a car engine which supposedly gets TIGHTER and more aggressive with "break-in". But of course, using that would serve no purpose as neither are a speaker and neither employ the same physics.
I think the issue with your use of the word empirical is that people forget that it has two definitions:
1a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment
1b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
Sure.... pick apart the
logic of my arguments. Just how low will you stoop?
In reply to:
It's infinitely easier to prove individual speakers DO exhibit break-in, at least subjectively, and maybe to a lesser degree, quantitatively.
I agree that it is always MUCH easier to prove something DOES exist. So, have you actually proven that your speakers (or any other speakers) do exhibit a break-in change in ANY CONVINCING WAY? If so, please describe the proof, either your own or somebody else's. I fully accept "subjective" observations as proof, AS LONG AS it is well-controlled.
As I stated in the AVSforum thread linked above, I myself is open-minded about this subject, and awaiting for a convincing proof either way. So far, I have never seen one piece of convincing evidence. ZERO. So, I tend to doubt its existence in the meantime -- and I repeat, this last part is my own FAITH. I am fully prepared to change my view, AS SOON AS somebody provides a convincing evidence showing that speaker break-in is not merely a psycho-acoustic phenomemon within your brain.
btw, what a beautiful expression that kid shows in the photo!
I always feel just a little guilty laughing at that picture as much as I do every time I see it.
pmbuko,
I know, I can be a real bitch some times.