Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Speaker break in, real or all in our minds

As for the speaker break in thing, I'm not sure if it's all in a persons mind or if it's for real. I just wanted share my experience with you guys.

I recently picked up some MA s10 speakers. My dealer recommended 100 hrs break in before my new s10 would sound good, so I did a test, but didn't write about it until now because of the war this seems to sart (so lets stay civil everyone). I didn't want to get used to their sound because, that's what some people say is really happening so here's what I did. I had my old speakers since 2000 and if you really just get used to the sound then something is wrong with me, because I always felt they weren't detailed enough and to me they sound the same as the day I brought them home and the same as the first time I played them.

I A/B the MA with my old speakers the first day and even my brother said they didn't sound much different. I only used the MA about 30 mins the first day, so i didn't get used to their sound with him that day so we didn't get used to them. Then I let them play in the basement for a little over 24hrs(maybe 30). I never went down there, because I was experimenting with whether or not they really do change. I couldn't even hear them from the main level, because there's a door on the theater and a door at the top of the stairs. That's why I can crank my movies and not really bother my wife (ok the bass still travels). Heck, my wife never even knew they were on or she would have said I'm waisting electricity and the bill is high enough already without me goofing around.

So the next night around 11:00pm I went down after my wife and kids were asleep and sat down for a listen. I used the same music I had used the previous day with my brother and was surprised, because to me they had originally sounded boxy and muffled like my old speakers, but now the bass was real punchy, tight and didn't sound boxy at all. I remember my brother and I both saying that the highs didn't really float in the air or anything, but now all of a sudden it seemed like even the surrounds were on, but they weren't so the soundstage seemed to improve.

As a test I hooked up my old speakers again and did an A/B again. This time the old speakers made me say "wow that sounds bad", but before my brother and I just felt both speakers sounded pretty much the same. This time there was a real difference between the two. This time hooking up the old speakers made me say "that sucks" and hooking up the MA put a smile on my face.

The next day I had my brother come back over(he knows nothing about break in or speakers because he's not sick like us audio guys). I had my old and new speaker right next to each other just like I did the first day he came over. Just like the first day I would switch the wires and he couldn't tell which speaker I was switching them to, because they were right next to each other. I played the same music again, first with the MA. His reaction was "that's retty nice" then I pretended to swicth the wires and he said "that's pretty nice too" they sound the same". Then I really switched the wires to my old speakers and he said "OK that sucks". The first day he and I both felt the two speakers sounded the same, but now he and I could clearly tell the difference.

I'm not sure where I stand in the whole speaker break in thing, but it does seem that the MA speakers did change in the 24-30 hrs I played them, but didn't listen to them.

I'm still on the fence with speaker break in, but I may be leaning.

What do you guys think?

First the disclaimer. I have no desire to denigrate anyone's beliefs, and I heartily support one's right to believe whatever one wants to believe.

I don't pretend to have an explanation for what you experienced Legairre, but I would like to make two points.

1. Auditory memory is very short; a matter of seconds, I believe. After that, you are remembering your IMPRESSION of what the speaker sounded like, and the longer the interval, the greater the potential that that impression will be less accurate. So , though your scenario may, or may not, allow for the "getting used to the sound" of the speaker argument, when you listened the next day, could it be possible you were remembering your impressions of how the two speakers compared the day before, as to opposed to how they actually did?

2. Expectations (biases) can play a huge part in our perceptions. Biases can be either on the conscious level or the unconscious level. In other words, it's entirely possible to be biased and not be aware of it. NO ONE can say if biases played a part in your 2nd day listening experience or not. BUT, can you rule out the possibility that they did?

I am in no way saying that the above IS what happened. I am merely raising the possibility that these factors could have played a part in your perceptions.

A couple of questions for all, if I may. By definition, the break in theory includes the fact that there is a change in the sound of the speaker. Correct? If I like the speakers enough to buy them on first listening, how do I know I'm gonna like them when they change? And according to the theory, they WILL change. Also, how come the change is always for the better? Wouldn't it be logical to have, at least, a few people say they didn't like the sound of the speakers AFTER they broke in? Yet EVERYBODY likes them better after break in. Hmmm?

One final point. With the exception of one aspect, the arguing over break in is really pretty silly. All of us, sooner or later, are going to put 20, or 50, or 100, or 200 hours on our speakers, no matter what. After that period of time all speakers are gonna sound like.......well.......what they sound like, whether they break in or not. It is my sincere hope that, after that period of time, everybody likes what they are hearing from their speakers.

Oh yes, the "one aspect" referred to above. I don't pretend to speak for all in the "speaker break in is a psycho-acoustic phenomenon" camp, but the one thing that bothers me about the " break in" camp, is when they present the theory as fact. The new, and inexperienced, believe it, and then spread it, and it gains unwarranted credibility as fact, just like an internet hoax. I have no quarrel with those who present it as a theory in which they firmly believe, and mention that many don't.

And, I promise that when there is conclusive scientific evidence that break in DOES occur, I will happily change my tune.

Peace to all, and no offense meant to anyone.

What do we think? Hummmm....

Speaking just for me, and my wife: When I unplugged the M3s and replaced them with new M50s, the first response upon firing them up, was furrowed brows and "uck" comments. Next to their younger brother M3s, the M50s sounded somewhat harsh and had less bass than the M3s had had! Within less than half an hour, all was cool.

A couple weeks later-just before putting the M3s in back as surrounds-I did about the same test, this time was different; the M3s lost some of their accuracy in comparison,(But, was that reaction due to the fact that I had compared the plots for both the M3 and the M50 and just "knew" that the M50s had a better mid-presentation?)But listening, the M50s were now the "better" speaker. Neither was harsh however. The M3s though, had lost some of "Their" bass(OK, That's hearing memory for sure!!)

So the question I have: Could what seemed to be a "Harsh" sound actually be better midrange accuracy? I wouldn't think so, but, what the heck.

Anyway, not actual testing, just intentional observations.
Rich.

My thinking is that if something requires "break in", then there must also be "wear down". I've never worn out a speaker. (Keep in mind that "my thinking" isn't always considered "normal" )

Legairre: I swore I would not post anymore on this issue at this board, but I could not resist the temptation as your experience is quit similar to mine with M60s. They sounded better in two days and much better now after two weeks. I am not gonna argue if it is them "breaking in" or my ears getting used to, I can only tell they sound much better!!!

Alan just posted this over on the Stereo board.



Hi Beethoven Rocks,

I'm delighted with the results of your experiment. It backs up what I've stated at various times on these boards--that "break-in" is a psycho-acoustical phenomenon wherein your ears and brain adjust to the sound of new reproducers interacting with the acoustics of your particular room.

Hey, these are reciprocating electrical motors--air pumps--that are amazingly adept at simulating the sound of real musical instruments, so it takes awhile for us to adjust to the new illusion.

If break-in truly occured, the years of National Research Council data measuring various speakers' frequency responses run from new condition to operation years later would indicate that. But the curves don't change. Nor do the ratings in our blind listening tests of both superior and inferior speakers. If the tonal balance of speakers changed after hours or years of operation, then the subjective comments would reflect that, and so would the rankings of the speakers, as would the frequency plots. Sadly, bad speakers continue to sound lousy years later. Really good speakers sound great out of the box, and continue to do so for years.

Regards,


Alan Lofft
Axiom Resident Expert

I knew it!!! Sirquack would jump in!!!