Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions Audioholics' article on speaker break-in

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.

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

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."

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.

Excellent point Jack.

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.

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

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.

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."

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.