Folks,
I have heard a variety of opinion about 'breaking' in a set of speakers. Some people say it takes anywhere from 20-100hrs to do it, others say its all hogwash. Just wondering what the folks and axiom and the users on this board think about the subject? I know lots of people originally think the axioms sound overly bright when they hear them, and I just wonder if they just get used to that sound when they say the speaker has 'broken in'?
Is this something that can me measured, has it been? If so, what is the recommened amount of time need to 'break' in an axiom speaker?
Thanks....Amer
I am of the opinion that it is you that is "breaking in" not the speakers.
In other words it takes you a few days to get used to the sound.
I'm with FordPerfect. I don't buy breakin, especially on speakers with metal tweeters. The metal can't be changing that much...
Anything mechanical needs time to work itself in with other pieces, especially moving parts, and a voice coil definitely qualifies. You do not put a engine together without first breaking it in. The cones on a speaker along with the surround is not metal, but definitely move also. If this procedure were not that important then I don't believe a company like
http://www.northcreekmusic.com wouldn't bother breaking speakers in and then testing them to within .5% frequency response to match them in their speakers. Now to test this I suppose you would need a response curve of a brand new speaker, vs one that has been run through for 100 hours and see the difference. To quote them "For perfect pair matching, tweeters are broken in with 24 hours of pink noise, while woofers receive this along with 24 hours of a 25 Hz 1/3 octave warble tone. Perfect pairs are matched to within ± 0.5dB and provided with anechoic 2pi frequency response and free air impedance curves. Woofers are also provided with T/S parameters." If this wasn't necessary I doubt they would take the time it requires to do it.
Amer, I'm definitely in the "hogwash" group. Speaker cones and domes cycle hundreds or thousands of times a second. One minute should be ample for any "break-in". Sometimes the ears take longer.
For a brief comment on this topic by Paul Barton of PSB Speakers, see my reference in the 7/6/02 Technical board thread on "burn-in".
DanTana,
How on earth would something that cycles at the frequency of a tweeter need 100 hours to settle?
One thing that is really beginning to unnerve me about this audiophile hobby I've emmersed myself in is all the lack of science. Maybe it's just my bias as an engineer with far too many science classes behind me, but I want experimentation that validates some of the things audiophiles cling to.
It's doesn't make sense and that doesn't seem to bother anyone. I want evidence.
Regards,
Semi
If something can 'break in', then it also follows that it will also, at some point, wear to the point that it is past it's optimum 'break in' stage. Engines wear out, they get broken in. Shoes wear out, they get broken in. Jeans do the same thing. Do the moving parts of speakers wear out, or does speaker failure have to do with damaging events (such as being shorted), rather than 'wear' over time?
I agree with Semi and once again reiterate, "show me the science".
From what i've read (actual peer reviewed journal articles reprinted and website published), there is very little change if any over time in the frequency response of a driver after hours of use.
Secondly, as mentioned so many times before, try to find the results from an honest and controlled blind test in which a person was sat down and allowed to hear a set of 'broken in' and brand new speakers.
My guess is that the results would be similar to the blind testing of different brands of cables...absolutely no significant difference from the expected results of 50:50 random selection.
So why do speaker companies break in their speakers?
Because the myth exists and rumour sells.
How else do you think that the Inquirer survives as a newspaper?
Wouldn't you break-in a new engine? They turn several 1000 rpm's, under your logic a engine would be broke in after a minute. I don't think Chrysler, Ford, GM is going by "hogwash" and I think anything that moves will definitely change after time. Unless the laws of physics cease to exist in your living room?
You're comparing a very complicated, heavy machine, exposed to all manner of vibration and abuse with hundreds to thousands of moving parts to a speaker with like three. There's not a whole lot to settle into place there.
I actually did an experiment with two pairs of speakers. One pair "broken in", and one pair brand new. And my wife said that she could hear the difference from the other room while she was vacuuming nails.
The voice coil in the speaker is not in contact with any part. The coil is suspended in a magnetic field, the only link between the frame and the coil is the 2 thin wires and if they could find away around that they would be gone as well, so what is there to break in? Surely not the magnetic field. I have heard this BS so many times that I generally refrain from making any comments about it. But really let’s not even get into the well you have to break in an engine so why not a speaker this is just getting silly..
Carol, our Axioms can give us pleasure for as long as we want. Although, unlike fine wine, they don't improve with age, neither will they wear out and fail, absent suffering some catastrophic damage.
The surrounds themselve to "move" and they do "wear" I don't care what you believe about it. Is it a known fact rubber surrounds last longer than foam ones. That is why so few good speakers are made with foam surrounds. Anything that flexes like that does change. Like crumbling a piece of paper, surely it wears as well and how many moving pieces does it possess? Why then do all the reviewers say speakers they test sound better after so many hours? I would think their ears are much more acute to differences in the tonal changes that occur, than you or me. They do listen to speakers for a living.
To quote John Potis who's review of the M22i is linked on this website: "Moving up through the midrange, things get just a little thin and a little hard before about 100 hours of break-in after which things were better fleshed out, considerably smoothed and quite musically resolving."
You know we could get into very long winded discussions on this topic. Not once in any case study that has been done has anyone been able to see any change in the speakers performance. Forget human listening tests, I believe that as in most things you become accustomed to the sound that after listening to the speaker for some hours you ear becomes tuned so to speak to the speakers sound and all of its nuances. Show me some lab test that has proven otherwise and then we can talk about it. From an engineering stand point there is no logic in the statement, and these same people when not told which speakers are which (new vs. “broken in”) have failed there own tests in blind testing by not being able to pick out the "broken in" speaker. Axiom them selves have posted may times the same response that in all lab test they have not seen any measurable difference to the speaker’s performance after a run in period.
Why dont you guys just ask Ian to do some tests on his extra time. get a old pair of m80's broken in and a pair right off the line. pull back the curtain and he can switch them around not knowing which is which and settle this once and for all.
They have already done it, the result? No difference.
I agree John H.
This topic has been beaten to death many times in many other forums as well.
People don't like to listen to the reasoning of science based on facts...at least not until the earth is crumbling and then we're given some consideration.
Why is that?
Many speaker companies use science to design their products and then turn to artistic marketing, political buzzwords, jargon and spin doctoring to fuel the sales.
[sigh]
The next time i come across some articles, that is to say true peer reviewed scientific articles, on these subjects, i will try to remember to scan them in and spread them far and wide across the net. Maybe Alan has some data/info kicking around, even some unpublished stuff that Axiom has done to throw up on their website.
Gee, they could become the scourge of the audiophile world.
Thanks for all the replys guys, very interesting and informed discussion. Looks like I inadvertanty touched upon a topic of much heated debate. Lets just file it along side the great 'bi-wiring' debate and agree to disagree. At least we all agree that our speakers sounds great.
Here is my theory on breaking in speakers.
If I am a manufacturer of mediocre speaker and the buyer tells me that my speakers do not sound as good as another, I can always tell them that the difference is breaking in. Hoping that in time their ears will be used to the sound.
> the buyer tells me that my speakers do not sound
> as good as another, I can always tell them that
> the difference is breaking in. Hoping that in
> time their ears will be used to the sound.
I'm not an audio expert, but what you say makes a lot of sense.
This implies that what is perceived as "speaker break in" is really a psychological phenomenon, and is really *you* breaking into the speakers.
This point was mentioned before, but taking it one step further: if we assume that the phenomenon of "break in" is real, in the sense that something is in fact is breaking in, most likely the listener's ears/brain, etc., then the question is:
Do speakers that reviewers claim require a long break in period truly sound very different from other speakers. In other words, can we look back on the many "professional reviews" that have been done, and gain some insight into how distinctive a sound different speakers may have by looking at how long the reviewer claimed they needed to be broken in?
You mean if I hear someone scratch a blackboard enough times I would get used to the sound or it would change because my perception of it would be different? I don't buy that one bit.
A voice coil may not ever actually touch metal due to the magnetic field. However, it does get hot, tweeters normally use fluid to keep them cool. With heat comes expansion/contraction. Usually the first few cycles are the most critical and have the most change until the molecules become settled.
That sounds like a hypothesis which leads directly to the PhD.
Take it and go. Original theory is rare these days.
Actually this one makes sense.
Right now i hate the sound of nails scraping on a blackboard. If i were to hear that sound enough times, i would become conditioned to it and my perception of how awful the sound really is...would change.
When i first got my Axiom speakers, i thought the bass was really really thin. But i was so used to hearing sound from my old Technics system which has bloated bass and midrange.
Once i got to compare my Axioms direclty to something like Kefs, i could hear differences between the two speakers but both of them compared to my Technics system were far more alike.
After having my Axioms now for 8 months, the bass really is quite nice and integrated, not heavy and far more real a reproduction than what my Technics system pumped out.
Now of course i'm just hooked on trying to audition every speaker i can get my hands on just for fun. The search for perfection has begun. I like the Axioms alot, great first buy for us. But are they perfect?
No i would say, at least not for me.
Will i ever sell them?
Probably not.
Will i ever buy components for a second 'dream' system?
Yup, and now i've got the Axiom system as a great reference point.
Chesseroo, have you had a chance to audition Ascend or Aperions? Both are mail order and both have 30-day money back guarantee's also. Just curious to know how they compare.
I used to live by an airport. I no longer even notice planes but the noise used to make guests jump...
As to the heating of the tweeter, I would point out that Axiom tweeters are metal. Metal does not expand much until it reaches VERY high temperatures. We're talking 3000 degrees (F, I'm American and that's the way me likes it) to melt titanium. We're talking 1500 degrees before it reaches a 1:1 bend to thickness and it has a springback angle of 15 to 25 degrees. In otherwords, you have to heat it up to temperatures that would burn the wood case around it and you'd have to bend it more than 25 degrees before it would stay deformed.
I'm not seeing the magnetic field in a speaker doing that...
Source:
http://www.timet.com/fab-p24.htm
It hardly takes the temperature to melt metal for molecules to expand. Ice melts at 33 degree's.
Dantana, i have not had the chance to hear either of these brands.
Send me some links and i'll take a look though.
I'm interested in trying to get ahold of a pair of newer Paradigms and well as some Monitor Audios to bring home. I think i'll head down to the audio shop tomorrow to see what they've got.
Ok, enough of the foreign imperial measurements here eh? No more chains, furlongs, gills, digits, pennyweights, scruples, pecks or drams.
Lets get modern and metric.
Or does no one recall the error made by Mars lander scientists using an outdated system, once based on regal body measurements, in an attempt to convert to a modern and more common metric one?
> You mean if I hear someone scratch a blackboard
> enough times I would get used to the sound or it
> would change because my perception of it would
> be different? I don't buy that one bit.
I'm not sure that something painful makes for a good analogy here. It's very difficult to ignore pain.
For those of you that wear glasses, perhaps you had an experience like I did: I hadn't been to the eye doctor in a while, and when I received a new set of glasses with a stronger perscription, I at first thought that they were "broken" or simply not the right ones for me. Because of the way the new perscription bends light, the world literally seemed to be warped. I told my eye doctor, and he assured me that the perscription was fine and I should give it a couple of days. Sure enough, after wearing the new glasses for a full day, the "world settled back to normal". Of course, my glasses didn't need to break in, it just took a while for my brain to adjust.
If speakers really do sound significantly different after breaking in, and companies claim that matching broken in speakers for superior sound is important, then it should be pretty easy to provide some empircal evidence, yes?
Until then, I think it's pretty reasonable to believe that this is a myth. In fact, I would suggest that it's our responsibility to believe that it is a myth until we see empirical evidence.
In a free market, customers get the products that they deserve. If we all allow ourselves to believe that sonic improvements can be found in interconnects made during a full moon, and lucky rabit feet volume control knobs, then we're going to get just that.
Water and titanium are very different materials, so I'm not sure this is a good analogy.
But in defense of DanTana, in general, metal does expand throughout a broad range of temperatures, not just suddenly at its melting point.
I've read rave reviews on Monitor Audio's, especially the Gold Reference Series. I would love some of them if I could afford them. I try to keep an eye on ebay for them when I can. The links for Ascend is
http://www.ascendacoustics.com and Aperion
http://www.aperionaudio.com I think one you pay 1/2 shipping and the other is free shipping to you, but you pay full shipping to return them if your not satisfied after 30 days. People on avsforum speak very highly of Ascend CBM-170's, and they are a 2002 Audio Review recommend product.
I know sometimes I used extreme examples, but only to get my point across. If ice melts at 33 degree's then at 100 metal molecules would most likely be expanding as well. I'm sure we've all heard our aluminum engines cooling and "crackling" while they contract. But the main point I'm really trying to get across, is that anything mechanical does change it's properties from a "new" state to a "used" or broken in state, and a speaker is definitely a mechanical device. Even electronic components are "broke" or "burned" in and I can't remember the last time I seen a capacitor move other than explode...lol.
I've heard that the Monitor Audio have a similar bass as the Axioms do, very tight and fast. I don't know about the rest but i plan on going tomorrow to do some looking around for fun.
I don't know what the Ascends sound like but several of the specs on the Ascend website look a little funky.
For example they state their frequency response is virtually flat yet their graph only shows the frequencies up to 10khz or so. Their impedance curve does the same, and some of the spikes are quite amazing.
Those speakers are listed as 4 ohms?
That's certainly untypical for such a small speaker.
Heck, no wonder they are cheap. They didn't even use 3/4" MDF or better for construction. I can't stand the thin or flaky box structure. Does something unnatural to the sound. Personally i think the old particle board is better than thinner MDF.
Seems to be alot of marketing statements on the website too, the kind of 'presentation' you see at Polk or Bose. Incidentally, the Audio Review award and website link they give for those CBM 170s is littered with ppl saying their similar used products were mostly Bose, M&K, Paradigm Atoms and Polk. Not surprising that most of them would like anything better than most of those speakers but i guess it happens to be that price range.
I don't think i would be leaning towards those Ascends as potential speakers for me, but again, one should still hear them before judging.
The Aperions are built alot more solid at least based on the materials used. I can't say much about the drivers but the frequency graph looks good, although a bit suspect (that little bookshelf seems to be holding a steady curve even at the 30hz range which for some reason makes me begin to doubt its accuracy). I like their return policy, very simliar to Axiom. I think i would give their speakers an audition for sure.
I do like the fact the Aperion has the 1" mdf board, reviewers say it has a solid feel, no doubt. I believe it uses soft dome tweeters like the Ascend. I like the fact both have built-in screw mounts too. Each Aperion comes packaged in a jewel like bag, which is a nice touch. The Aperion uses the DiAural crossover which I know little about other than what's on their website, I'd be curious to take one apart and see how it's made. Which ever one you do get, remember to break it in...lol. j/k
DanTana,
It's conceivable that perhaps the titanium could expand a tiny bit, but the point to remember is the flexing angle I mentioned. Titanium can be bent 25 degrees before the distortion is too much for it to spring back.
The part your missing in your comparison is that water and metal are molecularly very different. Water is bonded largely through very weak hydrogen bonds which is why it slips through your fingers when you try to pick it up at room. Metal is an entirely different can of worms...
In reply to:
Ok, enough of the foreign imperial measurements here eh? No more chains, furlongs, gills, digits, pennyweights, scruples, pecks or drams.
Lets get modern and metric.
Or does no one recall the error made by Mars lander scientists using an outdated system, once based on regal body measurements, in an attempt to convert to a modern and more common metric one?
My car gets 40 rods to the hogs head and that's the way I like it!
Most definitely speakers break in. The amount of time varies with the design of the speakers.
I've been in this business long enough and had enough exposure to 'fresh' and broken in speakers to come to that conclusion.
I'm really gonna get flamed too when I say electronics need to burn in too.
I'm not a scientist and not about speculate on the reasons. I am a keen listener though and will confirm these things are fact.
Your right you will get flamed, but you know what I'm not even going to go there! Lets just suffice it to say that being individuals with personal beliefs is what makes us and reading these posts all the more interesting. Have a great weekend to all.
Marc, although i'm not attempting to flame anyone, your statement as to what is 'fact' is still based on your subjective opinion which is biased by the knowledge of what you are listening to (e.g. Krell vs. Radio Shack Wonders), biased by the knowledge that you know its price ($10,000 vs. $100), and of course biased by the fact that you sell these materials. I respect the fact you have been in the business for a long time, and perhaps your hearing is acute to sonic differences, but unless you have been tested properly in a controlled environment, your conclusions are not entirely credible taken at face value. They are your beliefs, but that certainly does not make them fact.
Those conclusions would have to be second guessed, retested and reviewed from another controlled perspective before they can be labelled as 'fact'. This objective approach is how we conclude 'facts' through science.
I have seen and read statements of doubt about these principles like speaker break-in and they tend to come from people who are not resellers and have dug into the information about the technology and tried to assess it in a logical, educated manner.
The simple science behind determining whether there is a difference b/w broken in speakers, or breaking in electronics, etc. is very easy to do. Yet it is amazing how many businesses refuse to believe the studies that have already been done, with the information being put into the public even by very respected figures in the business such as Mr. Loftt or even after they have had the chance to be blind tested themselves. Of course you will also find the less scrupulous businesses attempting to market results from tests they did themselves in house which again...is biased and the data carries no confidence.
If a person buys a component and believes it makes their system sound better, then all the more power to them. But if a person had the chance to blind test a component before they bought to truly see if it made any difference, how many businesses would make alot less cash and sales because of this practice?
So again i reiterate, show me the science, lose the subjectivity of human emotion or psyche interference and then i will re-examine the 'facts' about such issues as speaker break-in or power conditioners. Until then, the laws of physics prevail and if there is some 'difference, then it will be measurable and it won't be unexplained.
Hi all,
A few comments: Dantana, one of the many virtues of titanium and aluminum-dome tweeters is that the metal dome itself serves as a heat sink to dissipate heat from the voice coil (along with the ferrofluid). Consequently, metal-dome tweeters are able to produce higher sound levels with much less distortion than silk or cloth or poly-dome designs.
Incidentally, during my many years on listening panels at the National Research Council, for my work reviewing speakers for the magzine I edited (Sound&Vision Canada), we kept various speakers, good and bad, as "anchors" for use during double-blind tests. These sonic anchor speakers were mixed with the actual models under test, partly to confirm our own listening consistency and to provide a range of rankings. (In some tests where there were several models that were "similarly good," we sometimes had to have a real clunker in there just to remind us of how bad some brands really are!). What is amazing is the consistency of the rankings of the same anchor speakers over many years by different listeners, even down to the tenths of a point. These were driven hundreds of hours, and the frequency response curves never changed a fraction of a dB, nor did the listening test rankings, so that relegated the notion of speaker break-in to the status of myth. If the loudspeaker's characteristics changed over time, these changes would show up in the measurements and also in the controlled listening tests.
A comment as well on heat dissipation: Years ago, Kef used a popular T27 tweeter with a phenolic dome (it was used on a pair of audiophile favorites, the BBC monitor (LS3-5A), built by Rogers, Kef and other Brits). Under high volume conditions, this speaker's frequency response curve changed quite dramatically. After experimentation, Dr. Floyd Toole discovered that the T27's dome tweeter began to melt from heat and actually changed shape at high volume, so its dispersion traits changed. When you lowered the volume, the dome resumed its original shape! That's the only instance I can recall of a speaker's response changing in measurable and audible fashion in almost two decades of listening tests.
Speaker break-in is another one of these faddish notions promulgated by high-end niche magazines, which at their core are fundamentally anti-science.
Speaker break-in is a psycho-acoustical phenomenon where your ears and brain adjust to a different set of speaker dispersion traits that energize reflections and room modes in different ways.
Regards,
Thanks Alan, I needed that.
CAV104
Yay for someone using data and the scientific method! Thanks very much, Alan.
Not to prolong this thread, but I thought I'd add to the whole perception thing. As humans we're seriously prone to suggestion, perception and conditioning. Just to show an example of this, here's a picutre that will demonstrate how easily we can be deceived visualy.
http://members.lycos.nl/amazingart/images/adelson_checkershadow.jpg
Note: belive it or not, squares A and B are exactly the same color.
Now all of us "see" those as different colors, just like someone may "hear" a change in a speaker after a period of time. But it can be scientifically proven that those squares are the same color as well as the fact that the sound doesn't change in a speaker.
In reply to:
Note: belive it or not, squares A and B are exactly the same color.
What?!?! Explain yourself, please.
Semi-On,
He's right. They are the same color. I checked it with an app that measures the RGB values of pixels on your screen. They are both the same even grey - R:107,G:107,B:107.
If you can find an app like that to test it - you'll see was well. I was very skeptical when I first saw it, but I believe measurements!
You don't need a special app to test it. Just save the file to your local workstation, and open it in any photo editor. Use the cut/copy tool, cut a square containing the "B" out of the middle, and drop it on the "A" square. Same background. Amazing.
For those without an editor, here's a pic that will show that they're the same color. I was holding out on this one so that people would actually be skeptical.
http://members.lycos.nl/amazingart/images/adelson_checkershadow_expl.jpg
What our brain preceives isn't always what's real. But then you have to ask yourself the question, does it really matter?
If we hear the speakers change after 20 hours, does that really matter? The fact of the matter is that for a lot of people, after listening to a pair of speakers for several hours they sound better.
The only fact that should really matter is that speakers tend to be more enjoyable after you've listened to them for a while.
No not really
The argument against your comment is that this excuse of breakin is BS. The excuse is being used to sell someone on speakers that they may not necessarily like the sound of. They take them home don’t like what they hear and go back to the person/store that they purchased them from maybe to return them, in most cases they would if given the opportunity take another model. In most cases a better/higher end model, but instead they are given some BS about the speakers breaking in or even better that the electronics have to breaking in, (in the case of your new receiver, Marc, remind me to never send some unsuspecting person to your store). The person goes home and get accustomed to the sound then suddenly they are OK and why? Well see because just like we told you they had to break in! Give me break!