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

Agreed. I'm not even claiming that I'm sure speaker breakin exists, just felt that we were dismissing the possibility too soon without valid testing (nobody had any valid tests at the time ) and without a good explanation...

"but don't get bullied into reporting what you think you should be hearing"
BRAVO!!!

The last couple of posts by Jack and John were some of the best posts I have read in a while.
Thank you both.

I am going to add to the discussion for a couple of reasons.

1; I think that those who think that break in does occur get shouted down just a bit too enthusiasticly by those who do not believe in it. I certainly do not have enough facts, or knowledge of the physics of loudspeaker design and building or psychoacoustic (sp?) principals to side with either camp based on anything more than my own personal experience.

2; I am positive that I noticed a distinct difference in how my M60s sounded from the moment that I plugged them in to 20 minutes later. And I noticed even more of a difference 4 hours later. What that was caused by, well.. I think some of you may be better at explaining than me, but I am a very critical listener, and I am firmly in the camp that it was the speaker changing, and not my ears.

3; Lastly, I propose this as a question, because I have never seen it figured into this discussion or argument in anyting that I have read.
And please take this question from the point of view that I am not a scientist or have anything close to as much technical knowledge that I have come to enjoy from so many of you on this site;

Many people over time have had to replace the rubber surrounds around the driver. Correct?
When a speaker is working to produce sound, the only part of that speaker that is actually moving (well, I know that the cone is vibrating, right?) is that rubber surround that is holding the cone in it's frame. Correct?
So, that rubber surround is being stressed and pushed and pulled many, many times over the course of time. Correct?
Besides the fact that rubber dries out over time, and light, among many other things also acts as a factor in degrading rubber, neccesitating it's replacement, would not this constant movement also be a contributing factor in it degrading/changing over time?
And, if that movement is contributing to it's eventual breakdown, then that breakdown/change has to be occuring from the moment that the speaker is turned on, does it not?

Many of us have unfortunately known the sickening sound when a rubber surround on a cherished old speaker finally gives way. One moment wonderful sound, the next moment that horrible blatting dying fart.

In my mind, to know that this instantaneous change can, and does occur, and then to be unwilling to admit that the same process has been occuring from the first moment that the speakers were turned on -albeit at a much slower and less dramatic pace- just seems silly.
Sort of like the guys to whom a loss in the first week of the season merits a shrug, yet that last loss that keeps their team out of the playoffs is the end of the world.
They were both the same, yet one was barely noticable, and the other was the end of the line. But they were both the same.

To sum up;
A speaker is (just like almost everything else) constantly changing/degrading/ageing. It (or parts of it anyway) will eventually wear out. No?
I do not understand why it is not considered plausible, in some circles, for the beginning of this process to be apparent, even if it is in small degrees, just as the end of this process is apparent.

I will now put the helmet on and wait for the science guys to show me why I am wrong.
AND! Like the rest of the time I spend on this forum, I'll probably learn a Helluva lot about something!

(remember! this was all posed as a question and my opinion! I was not stating anything that I can back up as facts!)

In reply to:

---

I do not understand why it is not considered plausible, in some circles, for the beginning of this process to be apparent, even if it is in small degrees, just as the end of this process is apparent.

---

But what about the part that comes between the first change and the last change, that part that basically equates to the lifetime of the speaker? If break-in (or slow break-down), really does occur, then you should be able to notice it constantly throughout the life span of the speaker.

How does a speaker know to stop breaking in after the first 48 (or so) hours, and then wait 10-15 years before wearing out altogether?

And the thing with rubber surrounds is that they either do the job or they don't. If anything, they should affect the sound negatively (by resisting movement) as they age and dry out. If anything, speakers should sound best straight out of the box if it's the driver surrounds that are changing. Do you see where I'm coming from?

I need to respond to two of your statements:

"I am firmly in the camp that it was the speaker changing, and not my ears."

In my post I made the point that I believe you when you say you heard a change. I also went to great lengths to make it clear that I believe that what changes is your perception of the speaker's sound. Nowhere in my post did I take the stance that your "ears" change.

Then you said:

"In my mind, to know that this instantaneous change can, and does occur, and then to be unwilling to admit that the same process has been occurring from the first moment that the speakers were turned on -albeit at a much slower and less dramatic pace- just seems silly."

It seems to me that your saying anyone who doesn't agree with this theory is "silly." I do hope that was not your intent.

All that aside, if I understand your theory, you're contending that this process begins precipitously in the early part of a speaker's life, resulting in a noticeable change in the speaker's sound. But, though the process is ongoing, it slows to the the degree that no change in sound is noticeable. If this process indeed affects the sound of the speaker, no matter how slow the process, there should be additional change in the speakers sound whether it takes 1 year or two years, or twenty years. Either this process affects the sound of the speaker or it doesn't. It can't affect the sound at first, and then continue but NOT affect the sound of the speaker.

I had my AR5s 30 years. While I cannot say for certain that they sounded exactly as they did when I bought them, if they were different, the amount of change was so small as to be insignificant right up to the point when one of the woofers failed. If your theory is correct, after 30 years, surely they would have sounded significantly different as time went by, even sounding terrible as they neared the point of failure, no matter how slowly the process progresses.


More importantly, your theory is based on the premise that the "rubber surround, ...being stressed and pushed and pulled many, many times over the course of time" actually has an affect upon the way the speaker sounds. Do we know this for a fact, or is it only an assumption?

In any event, though I support you right to believe this theory, absent proof, I would hope that you make it clear to all that it is just that; a theory, and I would respectfully request you don't imply that anyone who doesn't see it your way is "silly."

To return to your point about how believers are treated, I think that can be explained by the frustration at seeing an unproven theory presented as fact (I'm NOT referring to your post), particularly when whatever evidence, or proof, is available supports the conclusion that speaker break-in doesn't occur.

In reply to:

---

I think that those who think that break in does occur get shouted down just a bit too enthusiasticly by those who do not believe in it.

---

Because we're constantly bombarded by the other side from salesmen and aUd1oPh1l3z... even respectable speaker companies have had to insert break-in notices in their slip sheets just to appease those people. One of those "if you don't believe - you'll ignore it... if you do believe, you'll want to see it, or at least pester us on the phone with questions on how long it takes" things.

Bren R.

"It seems to me that your saying anyone who doesn't agree with this theory is "silly." I do hope that was not your intent."

No!
Absolutely not!
I have WAY too much respect for the members of this forum, and their amazing knowledge of this, and so many other subjects, to ever call anyone here silly. Seriously.

And, I tried my best to make sure that everyone knew that what I was doing was simply throwing out a particular concept regarding this argument that I had been wondering about for a while, in an effort to better understand the whole thing.
It always seemed to me that the arguments against speaker break in relied on "It dosen't happen because so-and-so says it does not happen" or something close.
It had just occurred to me that there MIGHT be a plausible reason why it MIGHT happen, and I wanted to see what others thought of that reasoning.
I am sorry if I did not make that clear enough,
And, as always, I am more than happy to be convinced otherwise by those who know much more about the subject.
That is how I learn!

Now back to read the rest of your post, but I wanted to respond to the "silly" thing as soon as I saw it.

(and I'm betting I will need a bigger helmet! :0 )

"Do you see where I'm coming from?"

Absolutely.

There you go. It only took one post by Peter to blow a hole right through my theory.
And I still haven't gotten to Jack's whole post.

As to;
Do we know this for a fact, or is it only an assumption?

Again, I tied my best to make sure that what I was posting was merely an idea that I had been pondering, and certainly nothing even coming close to fact!
That is why I added this;
"(remember! this was all posed as a question and my opinion! I was not stating anything that I can back up as facts!)"

In reply to:

---

Because we're constantly bombarded by the other side from salesmen and aUd1oPh1l3z...

---

I see that Bren has the same lack of respect for the term "audiophile" that I do.

(Having mentioned this in a recent post, I DO apologize for the redundancy.) Actually, It's a lovely word, that, according to Merriam-Webster Online has a simple, straightforward meaning, to whit: "a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction." Now that's nice. And, by that definition, I AM, indeed, and audiophile. But, unfortunately, the word has been hijacked, and has come to mean someone who is an expert on high-high fidelity sound. Regrettably, the word is all to often applied, usually by the miscreant himself, to someone who is anything but an expert.

I would NEVER classify myself as an audio expert (did I just hear a number of people say "DAT'S DA FACT, JACK!" ). So, I'm forced to eschew any claim to a very nice term which, by definition, actually does apply.

"Because we're constantly bombarded by the other side from salesmen and aUd1oPh1l3z... "

Heh, heh, heh...
Well, this is an interesting side-bar.
I had COMPLETLY lost sight of the fact that there are apparently MORE people out there who believe speakers break in (or at least have a vested interest in trying to make sure that others believe it)than not.
This comes from using these forums to satiate my A/V reading jones, rather than the mainstream press and sites.

And to be sure, I have certainly learned a helluva lot more here in 4 or 5 months than I did from years of reading the mainstream stuff.
It is what keeps me coming back.