Craigsub is my hero! The first actual test I have read about to check on speaker break in (aside from the PSB guy, possibly).

I tend not to believe in speaker break in. And "brain break in" makes a lot of sense to me. I added to the questioning of the "brain break in" theory just out of curiosity- to get more info like this.

Well this just keeps sinking lower and lower. I did try.

In reply to:

---

When did I use your name specifically?

---

No one said you used my name specifically. But, you see, I am one of "some people" to whom you referred. You make a statement that insults a number of people, including me, and when I take exception to that, you accuse me of personalizing it. OY!

In reply to:

---

I didn't even realize that you had posted anything here until you told me that I was insulting you. I had to go back to see that you were in this thread.

---

You mean you posted without reading the thread? You mean you made an generalized insult without seeing who you were insulting?

In reply to:

---

I apologize that you thought my statement was insulting or somehow directed towards (sic) you specifically.

---

Now that's condescending. YOU can't apologize that I THOUGHT it was insulting. It WAS insulting. You can only apologize for making an insulting comment (intended or not); something you apparently are unwilling to do. I cannot be held responsible if you didn't say what you meant. Again, I am "some people" so it WAS directed toward me.

In reply to:

---

I read that you heard a difference that supports the theory of break-in, precisely because you heard a difference, opposed to others who claim they've heard no difference over time.

---

Hearing a difference does NOT support the break-in theory. What you are alleging is that if I heard a difference, that means the difference MUST be in the speakers. It's my belief the difference is NOT in the speakers. I'm saying I PERCEIVED a change, NOT that a change took place. Can you understand the difference?

In reply to:

---

So the fact is that you heard a difference and you have no scientific proof as to why that is, nor do you believe in speaker break-in.

---

Well, you're getting close. I heard a difference. BECAUSE there is no scientific proof the speaker changed, and BECAUSE I'm fully aware ones senses/brain can be be fooled (become acclimated to a speakers sound), I, therefore, don't subscribe to the theory of speaker break-in. I'm open to any proof that it exists, and when confronted with that proof, will be more than willing to reassess my point of view.

In reply to:

---

I am confused by how I'm implying you've done something wrong. I don't see how I've done that here.

---

Well, I don't know about you, but I feel "jumping to conclusions" is wrong. I work very hard to avoid doing so, and I find it offensive when someone tells me I'm doing so. You've implied that I wrongly "thought" your comment to be insulting. You've implied that I "personalized this," when your insulting comment did that. Nothing insultingly personal about an individual, or about "some people," was said up to that point.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that being insulting was not your intent. What I cannot accept is that you seem to think anyone who could possibly find fault with that comment is the one who is wrong.

Hero? Well hell you should love this. This shows break-in but within the first 60 or so minutes only.

In reply to:

---

Data originally posted on hometheaterforum.com

In summary, some woofers will not produce a normal amount of bass for a few minutes when first used.
The drivers could easily be broken in during quality control testing at the speaker factory ... but if not,
they will break in quickly at home.

The driver tested below had a significant change in the first minute of use ... and almost all the changes were in the first 60 minutes of use. There is no indication that extended break-in (10's or 100's of hours) was needed.

This Seas driver was tested by a company named
VAF Research Pty Ltd. and the results were reported by Philip Vafiadis.

The driver had an xmax (linear stroke) of +/-6mm but the break in tone only required +/-2mm stroke = not much of a stroke and probably made break-in take longer than necessary.

Results:

Qts with no break-in = .49
Qts after one minute = .42 (change probably audible)
Qts after 120 minutes = .41 (change vs. .42 unlikely to be audible)

Fs with no break-in = 35.47Hz.
Fs after 60 minutes = 32.03Hz. (change may be audible)
Fs after 120 minutes = 31.62Hz. (change vs. 32.03Hz. unlikely to be audible)

---

Great info

So, maybe there is break in during the first 1 to 60 minutes but often that gets done somewhat in quality control checks?

Thanks for the info.

...........and now I just found out that HSU recommends not hammering on your new HSU sub for a few day's. No mention of the word break-in but why bring it up? Does anyone have an HSU manual kicking around? If so please take a peek at let me know if you see any mention of this.

I find no mention of this in my STF-2 manual.

Thanks for looking Jack. My SVS manual doesn't say anything about it either.

Nothing in the VTF-2 manual either.Theres also nothing in the manual for the Hsu Ventriloquist speaker system.

Please remind me not to accidentally insult you, Jack.

Hey Peter? Don't accidentally, or intentionally, pass out personal insults. Consider yourself reminded.