AVS Forum banner

Breaking in Speakers?

17K views 233 replies 50 participants last post by  Chu Gai 
#1 ·
Hi there, i'm almost set to complete my HT setup and put everything in place etc. but i've been reading in posts by other people regarding breaking in new speakers?


the speakers i have are these:

http://www.svsound.com/products-spks-scs01.cfm


and this sub:

http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=SD12LT350


So how do u go about warming them up/breaking them in?


do you mainly concern yourself with the loudspeakers or do both the loudspeakers and sub need to be broken in in unisen?


the very little i've found regarding this issue seems to be coming from people who already know what they are doing, while I am clueless lol


any info/referance would be amazing, thank you
 
See less See more
#178 ·
WHO CARES?????????????



Ya know... opinions are like arm-pits... everyone has a couple of them and they both usually stink!


Besides, arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics... even if you win you're still retarded!
 
#180 ·
Pierce has made note in the newsgroups of the difficulty that companies have when manufacturing takes place in other countries that don't have an understanding or a history in the field of speaker design. While all companies look to find ways to drive manufacturing costs down, be it through simplifying the manufacturing process or material substitution, those have to be done with an understanding of the ramifications. Pierce never mentioned the companies he was talking about and I get the impression that when he related some of the stories, he was talking about more than one company with the common thread being China. The type of parts substitution for crossovers that Mark mentioned are not unknown. To someone over there, a capacitor is just a capacitor, a resistor just a resistor, and as a result, final products differ signficantly from what was intended.


But it goes beyond capacitors, resistors, and inductors. In many cases, Pierce has designed the actual drivers. Among other things, it means specifying the shape, taper, the material that the cone is made from. Don't forget the parameters needed to characterize the cone. Or the dustcap. Or the type of wire, gauge, and length that makes up the magnet assembly. Don't forget the tolerances, the magnetic strength and everything else. Or the basket and what type of metal it's made from and the properties of that metal. He noted that he'd reject lots of drivers before they got it right. Now, where those lots wind up...well you can guess. Buy any drivers lately? Far more than T/S parameters hitting certain marks are needed to ensure that a design is not compromised. He's made mention of how supremely difficult it was to communicate that substitutions aren't an acceptable way of life. Not to Mark. Mark knew and knows. The suppliers though, well that's another matter. A little here. A little there. After a while, when you think things are rolling along just fine, little changes occur with cumulative effects. The speaker that was once so good, where everyone toed the line, is now different. But it can happen slowly. Maybe you can't tell the first lot of speakers from the 4th. Maybe the 4th from the 9th. But the first from the 9th? Well...suddenly something isn't quite right.


Why it's done? I don't think it's malicious. But it's sloppy and speaks to not having a good appreciation for quality control or having an understanding of how things interact. While this isn't limited to China, considering that much manufacturing and products originate from China, it's only proper to question the capabilities of products originating from China. Pet foods that containg melamine. Toys that have excessive lead levels (how friggin hard was it to get that right?!). Food products that contain glycols. Medicines and toothpaste too. What good are low labor and raw material costs when you've got to QC every damned thing and you can't trust your suppliers to do it right?


I appreciate the comments that Mark has made. The story he recounts is not only consistent with what Pierce has long stated, but it is consistent with things we've all read in the news. It's consistent with stories that people who work for the FDA doing inspections have told me. I ask you though Mark, do you now have a good handle on the parts that make up the crossovers? What efforts, besides rudimentary measurements of speaker parameters, are being taken to ensure that drivers are being made consistently and according to what should be mutually agreed upon materials and methods of construction? I believe this requires techniques outside the realm of many people. Lastly, is there a move towards ISO certification for suppliers and up the chain?
 
#182 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Richie /forum/post/12060038


The only thing anybody is pushing around here is an education, and obviously you'll be first in line.

In case you missed it in the above edit...



I wanted to add one other edit and that is a congratulations for your work on the Usher Tiny Dancer. The NRC measurements on the Soundstage review are some of the nicest I have seen posted and from all reports the speaker is a great sounding speaker.
 
#188 ·
#193 ·
One of those running threads that go nowhere, just fun to watch. (kind of like Nascar races at Bristal - around and around)



hyghwayman
 
#195 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Richie /forum/post/12060038


The only thing anybody is pushing around here is an education, and obviously you'll be first in line.

You didn't answer my question. What formal training do you have in the field of pyschoacoustics ? My guess is none and that you are simply a garage hack who just got lucky with Usher. Usher's not bad, they're just another Sonus rip off in my opinion.
 
#196 ·

Quote:
What formal training do you have in the field of pyschoacoustics ?

We are not talking about psycho acoustic effects. We are talking about easily measured and documented mechanical burn in effects on a driver and acoustical changes from it.

Quote:
My guess is none and that you are simply a garage hack who just got lucky with Usher.

Fellow, I have been doing this professionally for a while now. My design work has extended to many companies besides my own. My design work has been reviewed or featured in just about every major magazine in the industry and has received a ton of awards from Editors Choice awards, a Golden Ear award, several budget speaker of the year awards, one product of the year award, A best of 2007 award, Maximum Mojo awards, etc.


You can be disrespectful if you like, but I am no garage hack.

Quote:
Usher's not bad, they're just another Sonus rip off in my opinion.

That's your opinion and you are free to have it, but I totally disagree with that statement.
 
#197 ·
Let's look at the data and compare this to what Dick Pierce has stated in the two links that CharlesJ provided. Indeed, let us look at what's stated more carefully.


On GR Research's website, there is a technical section which can be found at, http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.shtm


1) Intially, DR states that he made 3 measurements for "consistency and accuracy", yet the public does not have the measurements obtained so that an assessment can be made for his quoted comments. Had he done so, then one could assign a +/- to the averages using appropriate statistical weighting for the small number of trials. The numbers given are devoid of an understanding of what the "consistency and accuracy" are. Further, to report data to the ten thousandth's decimal place implies an accuracy that is completely unsupportable. As an example, an NBS certified 25.0000 gram weight is not cheap and DR's reporting that he added such mass is a stretch.


2) DR performed measurements on a fresh woofer. Straight out of the box. Never been played. DR considers that a baseline from which meaningful comparisons can be made. Of course this ignores the fact that drivers can be stored in different positions resulting in differing extents of being out of center. It also ignores that the manufacturing process itself can result in differing amounts of stiffness due to the way the epoxy, varnish or whatever is used. So, what does Pierce say about this?

Quote:
First, as a driver comes off the line, it's actual performance if fairly far from it's intended performance target. Reasons for this include the fact that the centering spider, typically manufactured from a varnish- impregnated linen, is far stiffer than needed. Working the driver back and forth lossens the spider considerably.



Now, one might say: there's objective proof of the need to "break in" a loudspeaker! Not so fast. The break-in period for the spider is on the order of several seconds, and if it takes you several seconds or minutes or whatever once you get the speakers home to loosen the centering spdier, it's not proof of the need to break thme in, it's proof that the speaker you just bought HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED!

Some manufacturers run their drivers through a process that excercises the driver. Some don't.


3) The second measurements involve physically pushing the driver back and forth. No electricity was applied. Presumably this was done once in each direction by hand. IOW, it's just ONE CYCLE. It is entirely reasonable to assume that if this is the case, the changes in temperature were irrelevent. The measurements now show a change. As Pierce noted above, this is due to some initial cracking of the epoxy or varnish used. Not a lot of cracks, but enough to indicate that just one cycle causes an effect. The change in F(s) is approximately 2.7. Again, note that it is impossible to assign any standard deviations (66%, 95%, 99% confidence levels) to the numbers. We'll have to use them as are.


4) The third test ran the woofer "hard for 10 seconds". What hard is, is undefined. 50% full excursion? 75%? Something else? No idea. We could assume it meant very near full excursion but the assumption is unwarranted as it could also mean it was run slightly past full excursion in which case one may've damaged the woofer. By way of example, take a spring and let it oscillate with a light weight. Now use a heavy weight and watch the spring deform permanently.


In any event, the F(s) dropped 3.7 from the original, never used, never tested woofer. After a period of time which we don't know, temperatures cooled. From what value to what value we don't know. Nor do we know how the temperatures were measured. In any event, the F(s) is now 2.7 from the original value.


5) The next measurements occured with 20 hours!! of hard run in. Again note, that no one knows what hard is. Well maybe your spouse knows a Mr. Softie
F(s) has changed by 5.0 from the original measurement of the never used woofer returning to a net 3.7 change after things have cooled down. The same comments about the temperature apply.


Danny Richie states, "Now I wonder if the woofer burned in or if it was my test equipment?"


Well let's look at it shall we? In the AES paper I mentioned earlier, Clark found that it takes about a minute worth of work using a signal at the resonant frequency to effect break-in. Another manufacturer stated about 5 minutes. This 5 fold variation is still less than the time it takes to smoke a cigarette. As Danny Richie notes in his Technical section, there were no tests done at 1 or 5 or even 10 minutes. Instead, he took a T=0 seconds and T=10 seconds and then took a leap to 20 hours!!! Not even Marion Jones vitamin water can do that!


So, Danny presented data without...


a) The requisite number of data points at different times which could be curve fitted and equation developed. 10 seconds to 20 hours is just ridiculous.

b) No individual data points so that the averages reported could have appropriate error bars associated with them.

c) No specification for what driving hard means.

d) No temperature measurements.

e) No additional measurements after say 24 hours which would've been interesting as elastomeric creep takes more time than temperatures coming to some set value.


So, yes Danny Richie has presented data. What now follows is my personal opinion regarding this data. The data is incomplete and the experimental design is sloppy. Whatever statistics learned while pursuing a business program were not applied unless one considers adding three numbers and dividing by 3 to be statistics. Danny ignored or didn't think to investigate what happens to the T/S parameters after the driver has sat for a day which would have allowed him to investigate the elastomeric aspects in addition to temperature. He has not addressed the issue of driver to driver variablity within a lot of drivers and among different lots. Hence, he is unable to put into perspective for the reader the realities of manufacturing variabilities. Various unsupported claims were made elsewhere in the GR-Research link that appeal more to folk-lore rather than any verifiable scientific claims for audibility. In a very real sense, this is like the Nobel Laureate in Physics, Brian Josephson, attempting to use quantum mechanical explanations to justify things like mind reading and other paranormal events.


It is further my opinion that one benefits enormously by considering prior art and endeavoring to see what's been done in the field. Hence, that he does not have the AES paper nor apparently anything else pertaining to this field, has not boned up on matters of auditory science, is largely ignorant and dismissive of bias controls as it pertains to human psychology, other measurement techniques, etc. is indicative of why this paper and conclusions reached exist. Further work is obviously needed and since the ability to contact some of the people who don't see things quite the same way exists (Pierce, Clark, Nousaine), I might just start there.
 
#198 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Richie /forum/post/12069467


We are not talking about psycho acoustic effects. We are talking about easily measured and documented mechanical burn in effects on a driver and acoustical changes from it.

.

I am sorry you didn't like the opinions of an expert like Dick Pierce and his info since he measures drivers for a living, brand new, after use, and after resting.


What will you accept, which Journal?
 
#199 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai /forum/post/12071025


... In a very real sense, this is like the Nobel Laureate in Physics, Brian Josephson, attempting to use quantum mechanical explanations to justify things like mind reading and other paranormal events.


It is further my opinion that one benefits enormously by considering prior art and endeavoring to see what's been done in the field. Hence, that he does not have the AES paper nor apparently anything else pertaining to this field, has not boned up on matters of auditory science, is largely ignorant and dismissive of bias controls as it pertains to human psychology, other measurement techniques, etc. is indicative of why this paper and conclusions reached exist. Further work is obviously needed and since the ability to contact some of the people who don't see things quite the same way exists (Pierce, Clark, Nousaine), I might just start there.


This might also help with further testing and perhaps better data collection



http://www.audioholics.com/education...act-or-fiction


It also looks like DR tried his silliness over at AH as well some time back
 
#200 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai /forum/post/12071025


Let's look at the data and compare this to what Dick Pierce has stated in the two links that CharlesJ provided. Indeed, let us look at what's stated more carefully.


On GR Research's website, there is a technical section which can be found at, http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.shtm


1) Intially, DR states that he made 3 measurements for "consistency and accuracy", yet the public does not have the measurements obtained so that an assessment can be made for his quoted comments. Had he done so, then one could assign a +/- to the averages using appropriate statistical weighting for the small number of trials. The numbers given are devoid of an understanding of what the "consistency and accuracy" are. Further, to report data to the ten thousandth's decimal place implies an accuracy that is completely unsupportable. As an example, an NBS certified 25.0000 gram weight is not cheap and DR's reporting that he added such mass is a stretch.


2) DR performed measurements on a fresh woofer. Straight out of the box. Never been played. DR considers that a baseline from which meaningful comparisons can be made. Of course this ignores the fact that drivers can be stored in different positions resulting in differing extents of being out of center. It also ignores that the manufacturing process itself can result in differing amounts of stiffness due to the way the epoxy, varnish or whatever is used. So, what does Pierce say about this?




Some manufacturers run their drivers through a process that excercises the driver. Some don't.


3) The second measurements involve physically pushing the driver back and forth. No electricity was applied. Presumably this was done once in each direction by hand. IOW, it's just ONE CYCLE. It is entirely reasonable to assume that if this is the case, the changes in temperature were irrelevent. The measurements now show a change. As Pierce noted above, this is due to some initial cracking of the epoxy or varnish used. Not a lot of cracks, but enough to indicate that just one cycle causes an effect. The change in F(s) is approximately 2.7. Again, note that it is impossible to assign any standard deviations (66%, 95%, 99% confidence levels) to the numbers. We'll have to use them as are.


4) The third test ran the woofer "hard for 10 seconds". What hard is, is undefined. 50% full excursion? 75%? Something else? No idea. We could assume it meant very near full excursion but the assumption is unwarranted as it could also mean it was run slightly past full excursion in which case one may've damaged the woofer. By way of example, take a spring and let it oscillate with a light weight. Now use a heavy weight and watch the spring deform permanently.


In any event, the F(s) dropped 3.7 from the original, never used, never tested woofer. After a period of time which we don't know, temperatures cooled. From what value to what value we don't know. Nor do we know how the temperatures were measured. In any event, the F(s) is now 2.7 from the original value.


5) The next measurements occured with 20 hours!! of hard run in. Again note, that no one knows what hard is. Well maybe your spouse knows a Mr. Softie
F(s) has changed by 5.0 from the original measurement of the never used woofer returning to a net 3.7 change after things have cooled down. The same comments about the temperature apply.


Danny Richie states, "Now I wonder if the woofer burned in or if it was my test equipment?"


Well let's look at it shall we? In the AES paper I mentioned earlier, Clark found that it takes about a minute worth of work using a signal at the resonant frequency to effect break-in. Another manufacturer stated about 5 minutes. This 5 fold variation is still less than the time it takes to smoke a cigarette. As Danny Richie notes in his Technical section, there were no tests done at 1 or 5 or even 10 minutes. Instead, he took a T=0 seconds and T=10 seconds and then took a leap to 20 hours!!! Not even Marion Jones vitamin water can do that!


So, Danny presented data without...


a) The requisite number of data points at different times which could be curve fitted and equation developed. 10 seconds to 20 hours is just ridiculous.

b) No individual data points so that the averages reported could have appropriate error bars associated with them.

c) No specification for what driving hard means.

d) No temperature measurements.

e) No additional measurements after say 24 hours which would've been interesting as elastomeric creep takes more time than temperatures coming to some set value.


So, yes Danny Richie has presented data. What now follows is my personal opinion regarding this data. The data is incomplete and the experimental design is sloppy. Whatever statistics learned while pursuing a business program were not applied unless one considers adding three numbers and dividing by 3 to be statistics. Danny ignored or didn't think to investigate what happens to the T/S parameters after the driver has sat for a day which would have allowed him to investigate the elastomeric aspects in addition to temperature. He has not addressed the issue of driver to driver variablity within a lot of drivers and among different lots. Hence, he is unable to put into perspective for the reader the realities of manufacturing variabilities. Various unsupported claims were made elsewhere in the GR-Research link that appeal more to folk-lore rather than any verifiable scientific claims for audibility. In a very real sense, this is like the Nobel Laureate in Physics, Brian Josephson, attempting to use quantum mechanical explanations to justify things like mind reading and other paranormal events.


It is further my opinion that one benefits enormously by considering prior art and endeavoring to see what's been done in the field. Hence, that he does not have the AES paper nor apparently anything else pertaining to this field, has not boned up on matters of auditory science, is largely ignorant and dismissive of bias controls as it pertains to human psychology, other measurement techniques, etc. is indicative of why this paper and conclusions reached exist. Further work is obviously needed and since the ability to contact some of the people who don't see things quite the same way exists (Pierce, Clark, Nousaine), I might just start there.

The respected engineers in the audio field have already documented this so it's a waste of your time to debate Danny. He has a history of contradicting things that the true experts in the field have already proven with good science and controlled listening tests.


It would be better to discuss things that do make an audible difference such as dynamic behavior of the speaker in real-world use. A good example is the NRC tests used in the speaker reviews at SoundStage. One of the tests shows the non-linearity / compression of the frequency response when the input level is increased. There are a few designs that Danny was involved in that they did reviews for, the Usher Be-718 and the AV123 Mini-Strata. The Usher speaker did pretty good but the AV123 exhibited some problems that would be very audible. If I were Danny I would study this instead of wasting my time on something that really doesn't matter.
 
#201 ·
What's the matter Chewy? If you don't like the message try shooting the messenger? It's just as easy to shoot holes in your attempts to discredit my measured data. Let's see...

Quote:
Further, to report data to the ten thousandth's decimal place implies an accuracy that is completely unsupportable.

Regardless of how many decimal places over the Clio system will read to it really doesn't matter much when the magnitude of changes are such that they are to the left side of the decimal place. Who cares if it states a measured Fs four decimal places over when the total change from 40 hours of burn in is 6Hz.


Quote:
As an example, an NBS certified 25.0000 gram weight is not cheap and DR's reporting that he added such mass is a stretch.

Who cares what NBS charges for weight? My local pharmacy scales are pretty damn good. Use your head man. Fs figures are made without adding mass. Yet the burn in time clearly effected that measurement as it should.

Quote:
2) DR performed measurements on a fresh woofer. Straight out of the box. Never been played. DR considers that a baseline from which meaningful comparisons can be made. Of course this ignores the fact that drivers can be stored in different positions resulting in differing extents of being out of center. It also ignores that the manufacturing process itself can result in differing amounts of stiffness due to the way the epoxy, varnish or whatever is used.

It is stupid to suggest all of that. For one the woofer was not stored in some odd ball way as to effect the suspension. You are now grasping for straws.


And furthermore it doesn't matter if the T/S parameters are off from a manufacturers reference or not. The change from burn in time is the same. I can take a group of woofers all made from the same production run and might find a 1/2% variance some where or even a Fs that differs by 2Hz. It doesn't matter. The burn in effects are the same.

Quote:
3) The second measurements involve physically pushing the driver back and forth. and blah, blah, blah...

This was done because some say that it is all that is needed. The myth was that the driver is burned in the first time the suspension is fully stretched each way. Obviously there was no validity to that myth as the compliance continued to change with burn in.

Quote:
4) The third test ran the woofer "hard for 10 seconds". What hard is, is undefined. blah, blah, blah...

"Hard" is trying to teach something to YOU.


10 seconds was used because there is the myth that it only takes a few seconds. It doesn't make any difference just how hard, hard really is. Who cares? If the myths told here hold true then the driver will be fully burned in within just a few minutes and the parameters will return once allowed to settle.


Obviously this myth did not hold true according to the measurements.


And driven "hard" was pushing the woofer to about 75% of its X-max.

Quote:
5) The next measurements occured with 20 hours!!

And what difference does it make how long it is played? One of the myths was it only took a few seconds.


Besides there was still compliance changes taking place from 20 hours to 40 hours.


Plus the driver was measured right after running it hard (hot) and after letting it cool for about 2 hours. How long do you think it takes to cool down? Did you need for the exact temperature of the voice coil to be measured as well?


Furthermore my measured data was supported by other well known and accredited woofer designers. One has a motor structure design patent to his name and the other is a head engineer at well known, long standing, US driver manufacturer. In case you haven't noticed that is a pier review. Do I need to get more than two next time?

Quote:
I am sorry you didn't like the opinions of an expert like Dick Pierce and his info since he measures drivers for a living, brand new, after use, and after resting.


What will you accept, which Journal?

Opinions are opinions. Let's see some measured data.


I have a whole group of well known woofers coming. At what increments of burn in time would you like to see them measured?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top