Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Advice from Axiom Owners The science behind speaker break-in

Found this and thought it would be an interesting read, from the founder of PSB.

In reply to:

---

Finally, and perhaps most controversially, Barton talks about the supposed break-in effect of components that has become so popular in audio today. Break-in refers to running components for a long time (sometimes hundreds of hours) to the point where their components "settle" into their proper operating mode. Barton doesn’t doubt that some components do change subtly, but he thinks that the major improvements people think they’re hearing aren’t in the components at all. Barton doesn’t doubt that people are hearing these changes, but thinks that what they’re hearing is actually brain break-in.

Barton has examined his own speakers to test this. He has taken a Stratus Gold loudspeaker, built and measured some ten years ago, and re-measured it today. The deviation is slight, perhaps 1/4dB at most. Although that deviation can possibly be heard, it is certainly not a huge difference that one may attest to hearing. Instead, Barton surmises that the difference in sound that people are hearing over time is conditioning of the brain. He cites experiments done with sight that indicate the brain can accommodate for enormous changes fairly quickly and certainly within the hundreds of hours that audiophiles claim changes occur in. Could this apply to hearing, too? Barton thinks that more often than not, what happens is that the changes in perceived sound that are attributed to component break-in are simply the brain becoming accustomed to the sound. He warns listeners not to fool themselves.

---

TH, I cited Mr. Barton's observations here a couple of years ago and it's good to see them brought forward again. I suppose that it's also appropriate to again quote the observation(not entirely tongue-in-cheek)someone made to explain how this phenomenon which was previously unknown in audio developed: "Break-in was invented so that we couldn't return anything".

I think it was me who made that statement John, and it wasn't tongue in cheek at all. If you think about it, it's a good marketing tool. You're a manufacturer, and you are aware that human beings, when exposed to something for any length of time, have the ability to becomes accustomed to almost anything.

I have rheumatoid arthritis. I'm in some sort of pain almost all the time. I have become accustomed to it to the point that I often don't even notice it. Oh, if I "tune in" to it, it's there just as much as it was years ago when I was first diagnosed. But, mercifully, my brain has learned, for the most part, to just not pay attention to it. (no expressions of pity are necessary. I'm fine. I just thought it a good example of the ability of humans to adjust to almost anything). Shoot if I can be accustomed to being in the Military, I can become accustomed to ANYTHING. (No offense meant to any of you proudly serving at this moment. As a Viet Nam vet, I'm very grateful for your service.)

So you, the manufacturer, are aware of this ability. So you tell your customers "don't worry if it sounds a little strange at first, wait for it to "break in" and it will sound wonderful." Sure enough, the customer listens for a month, and son-of-a-gun, to him/her, it DOES sound better. No returns. Only it isn't the speaker that's breaking in, it's the customer becoming accustomed to it's sound.

Now the myth has been repeated and repeated to the point where it's taken seriously, largely because the general public cannot, or will not, accept that it's their brain changing it's perception, rather than the product changing. NEVER understimate the ability of one's senses to be fooled. A simple example would be any optical illusion.

Just my theory. If it doesn't match yours, be happy and save the flames for something important. Opposing theories, however, are welcomed. No offense meant to anyone.

I completely agree with you. If the opposite were in fact true (that speakers and other audio electronics change at an observable level due to break-in), then where is the proof? Where are the lab tests that prove beyond a doubt that break-in actually does exist? The simple answer is that there really isn't any, so the theory of electronic 'break-in' takes on the flavor of urban legend.

The case that the break-in myth is manufacturer supported is difficult to prove, although it is the most plausible source of this misinformation, unless you've already found it repeated in a manufacturer's literature or website. I think retailers are just as likely a source. In fact, the first time I heard about break-in was when I purchased a set of Boston Acoustics speakers from Tweeter. The sales guy assured me that they would sound better in about 2 months - enough time to get past their 30 day return policy!

What amazes me even more is when you read this legend being propagated by reviewers in magazines and on website sites...the same 'experts' many consumers are going to look to when trying to make an informed choice.

Having spent a few hours speaking with Paul Barton some years ago, it is nice to see a balanced response from one of the truly brilliant minds in audio.

You are incorrect (unless I misread your post) that it is difficult to find mfg'ers who will state break in is required. I have talked to numerous mfg'ers (Shanling, SIMaudio, Reference 3a, Equation, Linn, Totem ) who recommend a break in period.

My personal view? I spend a great deal of time auditioning pieces I am interested in. I am lucky enough to have a few close friends who are audio dealers. I can get pieces from them, and install them in my home systems to listen to. By the time I drop anchor, I already know how it will be in my home. I then simply listen at lower volumes for a while, and do so because I feel if the break in is not required, I really have lost nothing in the meantime. I realize that not everyone has the same luxury, and therefore the exchange period is a definite part of the equation. I also remember that when I bought my last few new cars, the dealers recommend short interval oil changes, and not being heavy handed (footed??) with the throttle until a certain milage has passed. Speakers, and to some extent electronics are motors/devices/machines, so based on my above purchasing pattern, I feel comfortable "sacrficing" a few hours of high volume listening.

Your mindset may differ, and I can accept that, if you can accept mine.

At the higher end of audio, exchanging products is less difficult than dealing with mass market equipment and big box stores. My 2 decades of experience is that most audio stores are more interested in a happy customer, and will work to that end. Big box and mass market is about VOLUME.....

...website sites??? ;-)

Glad you had the proof regarding manufacturer recommendations that I did not.

Regarding automobile break in vs. electronics break in, I think there would be some substantial differences between the two. Not being an engineer, I think (and could always be proven wrong) that the stresses of an internal combustion engine is going to affect the steel and aluminum parts that make up the engine in ways that may determine whether a failure will happen. I was always under the impression that the auto-break in has in fact more to do with not overstressing those parts vs. any perception of better performance. As far as electronics are concerned, I think the circuits of a receiver, for example, aren't likely to undergo stresses to the same degree that a car engine would...your mileage may vary!

As far as accepting other viewpoints is concerned, I never have a problem with that. I do feel that unless someone can prove under controlled testing that there really is something to break in then the audio press in particular should avoid propagating the break in theory. Individuals should do whatever gives them peace of mind.

'website sites' - Sorry for the mistake. I saw it right after I submitted my post. No matter how many times I proof my posts, I seem to let a spelling or grammatical mistake slip by.

"'website sites' - Sorry for the mistake. I saw it right after I submitted my post. No matter how many times I proof my posts, I seem to let a spelling or grammatical mistake slip by."

Well stop it then, dammit! You're dumbing down the forum. JK

Yes, I hear what you are saying about engines wear versus performance....and think that is an excellent way of phrasing it. I was not specifically speaking of amplifiers, but again, well stated.

Damn...you stole the "mileage" line I was going to use!!!! :-)

Just razzing you about the websites thing...if I did not spend a good deal of time proof reading my posts, I would also have mistakes!!!

PS - don't listen to that BigWill guy....and keep posting!!!! :-P

I hang my head in shame...

Oh well, glad that's over!

Some please explain to me why the rattle and mushy sound in my car's woofers went away after about six weeks of listening to music. I had complained to a friend that speakers sounded like they weren't working correctly and had him listen. He and I had gotten our cars the same day, same identical cars (VW Jettas) and he said that his sounded the same way, too. But if I gave it some time, it would go away and sound better. Sure enough, the bass was much tighter and no where near as poor sounding as it was the first month and a half of driving it. The rattle (sounded similar to someone flicking a wall mounted door stop) was no longer there.

I know I didn't dream this up, so I'm going to save some of you the time of having to write, "It was all in your head." I actually used some test CDs that I use for my home stereo and noticed a huge turn around after the first month and a half, as did my friend with the identical car and a few other people who I had pointed it out to previously.

I'm very interested to hear the explaination.

Thanks-
Kevin