Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Advice from Axiom Owners Anybody in DC/Norther Virginia Area with M60s?

link for the lazy

now couldn't this be settled by getting freq response curves on brand-spankin' new speakers and ones that have been "broken in"? at least theoretically?

>>Some of you guys made me feel really stupid with the "break in", even though I was quite sure what I heard with my CD player when I first got it, and after a week of serious play

Keep posting what you heard and don't worry about it; just keep an open mind about what is CAUSING the effects you hear. Break-in is hotly debated even for mechanical things like speakers. Every so often we learn that things aren't as black and white (or as "1" and "0") as we thought.

Obviously we try to understand what could be causing a "break-in" effect... and in cases where nobody can come up with a rational explanation of what might actually be changing there tends to be more doubt that there is a real break-in happening. The mind does do a surprising amount of adapting to new situations so in this case it's most likely this was your brain adapting to the new sound but don't get bullied into reporting what you think you should be hearing

preach on brutha!

I've been mulling this whole "break-in" thing around in my head a lot lately. I haven't been thinking about "break-in" itself, as much as I've been thinking about the disagreement over it. What I've been pondering is why the debate over this can become so heated. I'd like to make a couple of points, and I hope it will be understood that I mean no offense to anyone who believes differently, and that I support your right to do just that.

I happen to be in the "break-in is primarily a psychological phenomenon" camp. One of the things I've noticed is that when our side says that break-in is all in your head, the other side reacts as though we're saying that you don't really hear a difference, and you are actually nuts, or crazy, or worse, stupid. I can't speak for everyone in my camp, but that is NOT what I mean. I firmly believe you hear a difference. I believe I noticed a difference in my M22s after a period of time. So we really don't differ on the question of a change in the way a speaker sounds after a period of time. Where we differ is where that change takes place. Break-in proponents believe it takes place in the speaker, while we believe the difference is caused by a change in one's perception of the speaker's sound.

Here are a couple of examples of the short term variety of this phenomenon. I'm watching TV using the TV speakers. A program comes on that I wish to enjoy through my system, so I make the switch. I ALWAYS am startled at how bad my system initially sounds. It's muddy, and unsatisfying. Within a relatively short period of time (I've never timed it), without changing volume or anything else, I find myself thinking "This sounds great! How could I have thought otherwise." It is my contention that I simply became acclimated to the difference between the TV speakers' sound, and my system's sound.

"AH!" You say. "But the system wasn't warmed up yet. The drivers were still cold and stiff, and they changed when warmed up." Well how about this, then.

When demoing my system for a visitor, the system having been up and running for a half hour or more, I have the volume at a satisfying listening level. We start to converse, but the system is a little to loud for easy conversation, so I turn it down. Immediately I find myself thinking " UGH, at this volume, the system doesn't sound very good, but we want to talk so I'll leave it there temporarily." Within a few minutes (again, I never timed it), and without changing the volume at all. I'm thinking "Son of a gun! Now the system sounds great."

These are two examples of a short term version of perception change. They don't exactly explain what we call "break-in," but they make the point that perception is a variable. It IS subject to change.

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a test, or demonstration that supported the concept of speaker break-in. In fact every test or demonstration, of which I am aware, has done exactly the opposite. Craigsub did a test where he broke in one of a pair of Onix Reference 2 speakers, and in a blind test could tell no difference between it, and it's out of the box twin.

My main point is the we essentially do not disagree over whether or not one can hear a change in speakers after a period of time. I believe you when you tell me you hear a difference. The question is, where does that change take place; in the speakers, or in ones perceptions of the speakers' sound?

Here is another URL from same site posted a while ago, very informative with links bringing to some manufacturers websites explaining "break in" in their own products:

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=9217

As for me, I cannot listen to my speakers properly today as my ears are a little deaf from a concert last night in Springfield, here in VA...

I like Jack's post. I don't care deeply about break-in one way or the other. We buy this stuff to enhance the joy in our daily lives; if somebody thinks their joy is increasing, God bless 'em.

One thing not noted (in this thread) are the motives of manufacturers on the break-in topic. My opinion is that manufacturers are wise to espouse the "break-in exists" theories. What they are really saying is, "if you don't like it right out of the box, give it a bit of time and you will like it more later. Don't base a decision on whether to return the product on first impressions." So, whether quantifiable, objective equipment break-in exists or not, they successfully hedge their bets by offering up the notion that your perception will change for the better. Genius, really.

I can't control enough of the variables and do not have good enough ears to have a valid personal opinion as to whether any changes that may exist are sufficiently significant to matter to me.

That's why it takes exactly 31 days to break in most speakers!

>>My main point is the we essentially do not disagree over whether or not one can hear a change in speakers after a period of time. I believe you when you tell me you hear a difference. The question is, where does that change take place; in the speakers, or in ones perceptions of the speakers' sound?

I agree with everything you said... the only sticking point for me is that based on a VERY small sample space I have noticed a couple of times where playing the speakers for a while resulted in smoother sound even when I was not there to listen to them.

It is possible that my brain is adapting to the sound "in the background" even if the sound is not playing but based on my admittedly limited knowledge of neurology and cognitive science things aren't wired up that way... for auditory inputs you need the actual stimulus present for the brain to "learn".

Good point, John. The only response I can come up with is that auditory memory is very short. So, when you return to the speakers that were playing in your absence, you are comparing what you are hearing to your IMPRESSION of what you heard earlier, rather than what you actually heard. That doesn't rule out the possibility that the speaker changed in your absence, but it doesn't confirm that it did, either.