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

When people talk about speaker break-in, they're referring to the actual speaker drivers physically changing over a period of time. I completely believe you when you say what you heard was NOT in your head. After all, you don't get used to rattling in the sense that you just can't hear it after a while.

However, this does not necessarily mean that the drivers physically changed, as the phenomenon of break-in requires. What probably happened is that over the course of six weeks, the net effect of vibration from the road and from using the speakers resulted in them being better coupled to the car. I have a feeling if you manually tightened the speakers in their mounts on day one you might have had better sound right away.

This is just my own theory, but since I reject the notion of speaker break-in, there must be a more logical (and provable) cause to the change you experienced.

agreed.. get you a phillips head and tighten the screws on the grills, and in the trunk on the speaker.. it will probably take care of the rattle you are hearing.

peter- i have been watching your child getting drunk now for a week.. where are the pics of him hitting on the ugly girls, and throwing up??

bigjohn

LOL. It'll be a few years yet. Right now, he's just busy working on his charm.

i have always thought that the first person to invent a nipple to fit on the end of a beer bottle would be a very rich man!!



bigjohn

If the reason is really about the screws not tightened enough, I don't think it will be fixed automatically after 6 weeks of driving. Vibration from the road will only make it worse by further loosen the screws.

I do not disagree to the brain "breaking-in" thoery and that makes perfect sense. However, that does not mean that audio equipments do not break in.

I did a several break-in test before. After I did an initial listening, I let the equipment run for a long time (more than 100 hours) without listening at all. Some components like preamp, power amp, and speakers do have a more significant break-in effect. Others like cables and interconnect are less significant, if any.

And I just tested a McIntosh MC252 poweramp last week. After the amplifier was first taken out of the box, bass was very weak and sometimes not noticeable. After powering up for 1 full week (sourcing from CD, and I was away from that house =), the bass came back.

Ok let's talk about science now. It is very obvious that mechanical parts require break-in (e.g. automobile). Most speakers produce sound by moving physical objects like cones. Characteristic of the substance will change after a long period of moving, and exposure to different environment. On the other hand, electical components like transistors and capacitors also take time to reach their optimal operational form.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Again, I'd like to know why these changes that you describe stop after it reaches what one might describe as the ideal point. Why do the cones not continue to become looser, providing a less satisfying experience, why don't the transistors and capacitors start degrading immediately to the point where you would hear the difference? Why don't computers (lots of transistors/capacitors) need/experience break in?

{tone of voice is inquisitive, not challenging or sarcastic}

Let me preface this by saying that I don't personally believe in break in.

However, speaker break in I could be led to believe in, if I were shown conclusive evidence. I think it's at least plausible that the drivers and driver mounts experience some structural alteration from prolonged movement. If you take a piece of printer paper, crinkle it into a tight ball and then carefully flatten it, the fibers are loosened. If you do this 20 times or more, you can end up with a sheet of paper that feels a lot more like a tissue than printer paper. Also, the degree to which the paper softens lessens with each succesive crumpling and flattening. So it's plausible that the physical degradation of a component follows some curve and results at a "steady state" of sorts beyond which that component will not degrade measurably.

On the side of purely electrical component break-in (amps, etc...) I don't think break in makes any sense what-so-ever. It is certainly true that the underlying molecular structure of metal is afected by heating and cooling cycles, as well as maintaining prolonged states at certain temperatures. But all of the temperatures at which such changes occur are well above the operating temperature of any standard household electronic device. Any audible change in an amplifier could only result from some significant inherent property change in one of its components.

The car analogy doesn't work because the physics involved in cars and speakers are fundamentally different. The parts of a car that break in mechanically do so primarily because of friction -- they physically rub against each other. A speaker driver does not experience that kind of friction. The driver cone flexes, sure, but it's not rubbing against anything.

In fact I did not say the changes will stop after any point. A friend of mine and myself can hear that the sound from our systems keeps changing over time.

At the end all components will get old and will definitely provide "a less satisfying experience". Old speakers need to be re-coned as rubber gets old and fragile. The attributes of resistors and capacitors will also change over a long time.

It's interesting to see how many people are actually against the break in theory. I think the most scientific way is to verify it yourself.


BTW, I bought my first computer more than 10 years ago. At that time the computer technician did help me breaking it in by powering it on for 2 days straight. =) I couldn't tell the difference by then anyway.

Oh, certainly surrounds rot, etc, but I think that's a biological or chemical process as opposed to a physical one.

I think the most scientific way is to have it tested independantly by separate laboratories.

I don't believe in either, speaker break-in or component burn-in.If a product does not sound good right out of the box I return it period.Its all just some kind of audio voodoo.

Kicker (car stereo subwoofers) claims that their woofers go though a "break in" period.
http://www.kicker.com/images/manuals/02TechTips.pdf See page 2

So do many other companies. Many companies also claim that they have the ultimate sound.

I understand totally. I'm not on the "break in" bandwagon either. I just had to throw out what some of the big dogs are claiming. If I can see scientific evidence that the “break in” actually occurs and changes the sound then I might be willing to buy in to the “break in” theory.

Just because I cannot help myself... I will chime in. Last spring, I took a brand new pair of $2500 Onix Ref 2's ... and ran a 102 dB at 2 meter pinknoise sweep for 100 hours into one (that is SERIOUS breakin) ... and did blind A/B tests...

I could not hear a difference.

I also don't understand why the "no breakin exists" crowd is so MEAN about those who DO think it exists... Smile... it is speakers ! ...

But to verify the break-in theory properly you would need to apply the scientific method...not simply listen over a period of time and come to the conclusion that 'it sounds different to me, therefore break-in must have occured'. The phenomenon must be measurable, and the cause isolated through testing of the components.

My biggest issue with the whole break-in thing is that so many people take it for granted without any measurable proof. In the meantime, lots of consumers buy the story, retailers and manufacturers avoid returns, the story gets propogated amongst the consumers, and around we go again. Without any scientific proof.

And no, computers do not break in. But they do break.

Possibly.

A simple test is to measure frequency response over a long period of time. A very slight change can cast a totally different image or tonal balance on our ears.

When listening to music, I bet most people care about the quality, not the frequency or harmonic distortion, right? Unfortunately, our science is not advanced enough to quantitize quality of sound...

Perhaps what you might prefer would be an analysis of a certain piece of music compared digitally to the master version of the same piece of music. Of course, you end up with the question of how good the mic is...

If "break in" occurs then does the actual mic have to go through "break in" ?

Sorry I couldn't resist .

Yeah.. and doesn't my room have to break in to having soundwaves bounce off of them? I've created a device that shortens this room break-in to 10 hours from 10 years by eminating extremely low bass frequencies and ultrasonic high frequencies at extremely high volumes, and distributes these soundwaves evenly across the room - PM me for details, it retails for the low low price of $5000.

What exactly do you mean "master version"? If you're talking about live performance, how would you compare it to reproduced sound? Do you think digital signal can capture all information such comparison may demand?

I just think science (at least the stage we are in) may not be able to answer everything. I prefer to believe in my own ears instead of some figures on paper when I'm talking about sound. =)

Congratulations.

If your business succeeds, that means those who believes in the break-in thoery (your customers) are deaf. You can probably use that as a counter example proving break-in is only a human perception... =)

It can be easily proven that the brain/ear setup (or the brain /eye setup) can be fooled. Like I said, sonic memory is not great. I was talking about a recorded performace, preferably to the master tapes. If a digital signal can't capture all the information required, then the speakers can't reproduce it anyway, can they?

Waves is waves. Science has an excellent understanding of those. Unless you can hear quantum fluctuations, I think we're in pretty good shape.

Some professional reviewers claimed in their reviews that the M22s get less harsh after about 50 hours of playing them.

Me - I have no opinion. I am not sure I could tell with my ears and brain, and if I felt there was a difference it would most likely be because I set up my system wrong to begin with.

I think my speakers sound best up near the ceiling!! I have never heard this recommended.

Though I don't really agree with a break-in theory on SS equipment (tube equipment undoubtedly changes w/time as the tubes degrade), I know for a fact that my speakers, tweeters specifically, have become less-harsh over time.

My M60's were demos and had some use on them by the time I hooked them up to my system. They sounded incredible from the get go. But when the tweeters blew due to an electrical issue I had to purchase a new set from Axiom. I got them in and put on one of my test CDs that I usually listen to and immediately I had to turn the volume down to almost nothing because it was so harsh sounding that it felt like my ears were going to start bleeding. Like I had read about, I had left the stereo running when I was out at work for the next few days. I also ordered the resistors from Axiom and installed them. But even without the resistors on, the tweeters lost their harshness over time. I didn't dream this up and I surely didn't "get my brain used to the new sound" because I was already used to the sound previously from my speakers.

As it goes, I finaly found replacement tweeters for my rear Advent speakers and installed them last week. Same issue. Very harsh from the get go. Much more mellow after a few days of running time. I'm sure that I'm not the only one seeing a pattern here.

The way I feel about break-in on speakers can be equated to the break-in on a new baseball glove (minus the oil, of course). You've got to massage them in for a while before they perform at their optimum level.

And with that said, I really feel this topic's been beaten to death on the boards. It's quite apparent that it's just a black and white issue now. It seemes to me that you either believe in break-in or you don't.

My two cents based on my experience, so please take it with a grain of salt.

-Kevin

Compare the master tape to what? Are you going to record the sound coming from the speakers again?

This may be a good experiment set up...
1. Put a good quality mic in front of a pair of brand new speakers (in sweet spot)
2. Record the sound and compute the deviation to the original master digital signal.
3. Run the speakers for more than 100 hours.
4. Repeat 1 and 2.
5. Obtain the difference between two deviations.


And yes, wave is wave. We can measure frequency easily. Can you please inspire me how our science can measure other qualities like smoothness and sweetness of a piece of music?

Hard to argue with that one; I don't think the sweet-o-graph or smooth-o-graph have been invented yet.

Your proposal sounds good, although I would prefer to do it with a single speaker to minimize cancellation/diffusion effects. Smoothness and sweetness are properties of the waves. I'm sorry, this is not mystical. Since I do not have a degree in physics or music reproduction, I can't answer the "how", but it's just waves moving in a medium of air.

In reply to:

---

My M60's were demos and had some use on them by the time I hooked them up to my system.

---

They sure did....there were cranked up more than a couple of times.