Subwoofer break in - Page 2

True, but that has no bearing on the subject at hand. Where a driver spider is concerned a correct comparison would be with a new versus old pair of jeans or leather shoes. Unless you buy your jeans pre-washed, ie., already broken in.

I've never heard a difference in any speaker setup that I've owned from the first hour or the hundredth hour. I'm not saying that there isn't a difference, only that I don't see it as being important in the grand scheme of things. Especially since it's easy to hit the "break in" period with normal listening habits.

I lot of it is taught thinking, Like wine tasting. If you've not learned what to taste for, one bottle is as good as the next. The same goes for coffee, bourbon, whiskey, steak, perfume or what ever product you're a connoisseur or aficionado of. In the case of speakers, you're listening for subtle sounds such as the decay of a single string note or the sizzle of a snare but if you're listening to compressed music, the compressed or lossy CODEC is going kill the expansion of sound and you're not going hear the difference in the note or sound when played on a new emitter vs the sound reproduced by a "broken in" emitter or driver.

In the short, the reproduced sound loses depth and feels cut off and chopped in nature. All I can say is, the life of a connoisseur/aficionado can be both a pleasure and a pain, as one never knows what they're going experience.

"Oh my gosh, you call that a recording?"

In the end, overall, it's an industry designed to kill sound quality so you won't know what you're missing and then when you wake up, it's too late cause it's gone and now you have to spend boatloads of money to get it back.

"Buy my speakers."

Why? Because they're cheap and those buying them don't know they're in the process of having the quality of their reproduced sound, killed.

"Buy my transport."

Why? Because it has a cheap DAC design inside that kills sound quality and it's okay because the buyer is clueless.

"Buy my CD."

Why? Because it's a cheaply recorded, lossy compressed recording and will be played back and reproduced with cheap ear buds and pocket player; the buyer will never know the manufactured playback chain has killed the sound quality.

Now the consumer has a cheap, sound quality killing system chain and then enters a pair of new speakers. Hopefully my above helps paint a semi-complete picture when I say, the industry is about killing sound quality so you won't know what you're missing. But once you go looking for quality sound, your education begins and the pain of it all becomes nightmarish as nobody should have to listen to sound that has been killed and then brought back to life.

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 10/29/12 at 9:35am

Break in thoughts from a world class speaker designer Paul Barton of PSB Speakers.



Finally, and perhaps most controversially, Barton talks about the supposed break-in effect of components that has become so popular in audio today. Break-in refers to running components for a long time (sometimes hundreds of hours) to the point where their components "settle" into their proper operating mode. Barton doesn’t doubt that some components do change subtly, but he thinks that the major improvements people think they’re hearing aren’t in the components at all. Barton doesn’t doubt that people are hearing these changes, but thinks that what they’re hearing is actually brain break-in.

Barton has examined his own speakers to test this. He has taken a Stratus Gold loudspeaker, built and measured some ten years ago, and re-measured it today. The deviation is slight, perhaps 1/4dB at most. Although that deviation can possibly be heard, it is certainly not a huge difference that one may attest to hearing. Instead, Barton surmises that the difference in sound that people are hearing over time is conditioning of the brain. He cites experiments done with sight that indicate the brain can accommodate for enormous changes fairly quickly and certainly within the hundreds of hours that audiophiles claim changes occur in. Could this apply to hearing, too? Barton thinks that more often than not, what happens is that the changes in perceived sound that are attributed to component break-in are simply the brain becoming accustomed to the sound. He warns listeners not to fool themselves.

There's both, brain familiarity (a true phenomenon) and break-in, removing the stiffness of the driver, more responsive. The problem, the brain has serious trouble with remembering sonic qualities. The way I was "taught" was, listen and make notes on a familiar piece when the headphones are new. Then let white noise play through the headphones, turning the headphones on and off over the break-in time of a hundred hours, never putting them on during the break-in period. Doing it this way one is not affected by the brain familiarity phenomenon and second by referring back to the notes, one gets notes in which to compare the new listening experience to.

What I found was, new headphones and IEM had a harshness to the highs like nails on a chalkboard but after being broken in, the highs were expanded and mellower. Since the headphones were not worn or listen to during the break-in period, I was not subjected to the brain familiarity phenomenon. Yes, admittedly, this phenomenon was experienced with headphones and IEM and not speakers but the principal is the same.

Everything mechanical goes through a break-in period. Tain't no thang.

I'm a scientific skeptic, a firm believer in evidence-based thinking who strongly opposes much of the snake oil nonsense (i.e. power & speaker cables) in the A/V community. To pass the sniff test a claim must be plausible and measurable. In other words, not rely solely on subjective reporting and susceptible to blatant bias. That physical components of a speaker would change over time is a reasonable hypothesis. That these changes can be objectively observed and, more importantly, measured seems to put the concept to rest. However, I think some people may be confusing the break-in of the physical parts of a speaker with the more elusive electro-chemical burn-in phenomenon sometimes reported.

My anecdotal evidence in support of speaker break-in: My first subwoofer was the low-end Polk Audio 10" PSW110. I was sitting right in front of the thing when setting it up and witnessed the sub very clearly going from dead to full activity within about a minute.

Note: Some subwoofer manufacturers don't like you running sustained tones through their products for extended periods, so check your warranty before doing so.
Edited by repete66211 - 10/29/12 at 10:30am

Bill / Beeman... Chu Gai is thinking correctly in my opinion.

A bearing or other mechanical device can last forever if the mechanical forces do not exceed the design / material limits. For instance if a ball or roller bearing load is below a certain threshold, the bearing is properly lubricated, has no material defects large enough to cause a fatigue crack, and the load direction is within a certain envelope it can last forever.

For speakers it all depends on the forces placed on the mechanical speaker components and whether they will permanently deform based on the power put into the system.

I tend to think it has more to do with our brains starting to "like" or accept the new speakers sound but I am not a designer of speakers so I do not know the designed limits of the mechanical system and materials are.

If we are to accept that speakers take x amount of time to break in, then it certainly matters how much power is put into the system during the break in period.
It would take exponentially longer to break in speakers using 5 watts of power vs. 500 watts of power.[/I]

i can honestly say that break in has worked with every headphone i have ever used. i usually play heavy dubstep and this to loosen the drivers
http://www.jlabaudio.com/burn.php
not sure how the white noise works but they say it does. I play the dubstep to get the drivers to move as much as possible and loosen up whatever the driver surrounds materials are made out of.

One can think whatever they wish. My comments are based on the hundreds of measurements I've personally taken of both the T/S specs of drivers and response of speakers loaded with them going back 30 odd years. Read my first post again, though in fact one doesn't use high power to accelerate driver break in, one uses a combination of low power and a sine wave signal at a low enough frequency to realize excursion close to xmax at that power level.
Edited by Bill Fitzmaurice - 10/29/12 at 10:29am

I'm very sorry if i sound negative but, i have made a lot of assumptions on this website and made plenty of mistakes talking about things i can honestly say i probably shouldn't have bothered with till i found out more information. I can admit when i'm wrong. Headphones, to me, change A LOT when they are broken in. That is one thing i will stand up against no matter who says so. I have witnessed it soooo many times. Biggest changes were with my Denon AH-D2000's. I would go to church and swear to the good lord that i am not lying or imagining anything.

Having worked with bearings, due to load stresses to one side of the bearing (loads and stresses are not evenly distributed nor are they expected to be evenly distributed), bearings are tight in the beginning, do break in and will wear out, even if properly lubricated and used within stated tolerance, wear and replacement is expected.

What for? The good Lord already knows you're telling the truth.

Speaker break-in is not an unusual question to see on any audio forum. Generally someone's bought speakers and they're trying to figure out if those speakers are really for them. There's a lot of issues that come into play here: positioning, calibration, effects of the room. Often the person who posted the question is somewhat inexperienced and hasn't done the best job of placing the speakers. Or perhaps they've just bought the wrong speakers (but they sounded good in the store!) for the room that they're going in. The purpose of this post though, is not to deal with those issues, deserving as they may be of an in-depth discussion.

This is about the issue of speaker break-in. Scientifically, the topic of speaker break-in has been studied rather extensively using techniques such as laser interferometry, measurements of speaker parameters, and controlled listening tests.

David Clark, an AES Fellow presented "Precision Measurement of Loudspeaker Parameters", which was published in the March, 1997. Abstracting from that paper is the following quote:
Mr. Clark also indicated that drivers which had been stored face-up or face-down sometime need 1 minute of pink noise to restore the original center position. This could also be accomplished by a few strokes of the suspension which many manufacturers do routinely when the speaker is at the end of the assembly line. This suggests that most speakers, are in fact broken in when you get them.

Further work has been performed by Tom Nousaine who has measured speaker parameters pre and post break-in as well as having conducted controlled listening tests. He has found that the Fs of the speaker falls however that is offset by a rise in Vas. Both these parameters were related to the changes in compliance that occurred. During the playing or exercising if you will of the speaker both the spider and the surround become more compliant (they move easier if you will). Additional measurements on samples of identical drivers indicated that the changes that occurred pre and post breakin on a single driver were smaller than the variations within a particular lot of drivers. Since there are manufacturing tolerances for drivers this indicates that whatever changes are that occur are smaller than those of manufacturing tolerances. This further indicates that the net effect of speaker breakin is nada, nothing, zilch, forget about it, etc.

In one experiment, Nousaine used a driver that was said to need 48 hours of break-in. Placing the driver in a 1.5 cubic foot box, he found the system resonance to be 53 Hz before break in. After 48 hours the resonance was 49 Hz. After a few minutes rest, the resonance had gone back to 51 Hz. The following morning it was back to 53 Hz. This indicates that whatever small changes that occur in a driver's characteristics during playback comeback to their original state after rest.

These experiments have been performed with other drivers such as from Dynaudio with similar results. Overall this indicated that whatever changes do occur, they do not change the sound quality.

Moreover, Richard Pierce, a well known consultant and speaker designer who has examined the parameters and behavior of thousands, if not tens of thousands of drivers. His findings also concur with Clark's and Nousaine's with regards to how drivers behave in the real world.

Ten years ago, he wrote the following in Usenet.

So if the sound quality does not change in any significant way, what then does occur? Well listening adaptation would then have to be looked upon as a very strong reason for the perception of speaker break-in. Anyone who has spent time listening to audio systems or components knows their opinions with regards to the nature of the sound changes with time. In the case of speakers, when one buys them and brings them home, you become used to the sound of that particular speaker. That sound may grow upon you or you may find there's something that you don't like about it. Nonetheless, however they sound in your particular home, it'll be different from the way they sounded either in someone elses home or the stores where you heard them.

Now I've had a few emails that I've sent to various speaker manufacturers over the years and these are some of the replies on this subject of break-in.

Now if studies have indicated there is no significant change during pre and post breakin and that whatever changes in driver parameters that do occur, are restored to their original values over time, one must ask the question, if the speaker companies are aware of this, and larger companies, that have access to such data as I've presented here do, what is the purpose for specifying breakin that amounts to around 40 hours, give or take? To my mind, the reasons would have to do with ensuring that the customer keeps the speakers in their home for a couple of weeks to hopefully either get used to them or to convince themselves, rightly or wrongly, that they do like the speakers. During this process of listening, the customer, as can be seen on some of the posts on this forum, is actively seeking out other users opinion, corroborations, justifications, positive/negative opinions. So myself, I would recommend that anyone purchasing speakers listen to them in their homes and if during that time, which should be well before the RETURN PERIOD, they don't like them to take them back where they bought them and rethink the choice they made. Any salesman who says you need this CD or this procedure to break-in is doing so for either a couple of reasons...they're ignorant, or they're hoping you need a little more time for the speakers to grow on you so you don't return them and he/she doesn't blow the sale and commission.

As to why Thiel, and for that matter others like Anthony Gallo, subscribe to significant loudspeaker break-in, I don't know. Yet the late John Dunlavy thought it was much ado about nothing. Arnie Nudell didn't bother addressing it Neither did Kantor or Barton. I just don't know. Maybe it's a marketing position that they've taken. Maybe they say different things to different people. Maybe they're not aware of the research that's been done and that might not be so surprising considering that their focus is more pragmatic based. Other than resorting to the oft stated, "That's what I hear.", I don't think they've done any work in this area. At least none that's been shared in anything approaching a rigorous fashion. Nor do I don't think anyone's pinned them down after a couple of pitchers of beer and a few margaritas. That might be interesting.

As for my position, it seems that the work has been done to answer this question but it just hasn't been widely disseminated to the general public in a fashion that's easy to comprehend. Further, one should never break-in the speakers for so long that their ability to return them if unsatisfied is compromised.

I have experienced very noticeable break ins (ESPECIALLY the bass smoothness), I highly doubt it was my mind playing tricks on me. I have some creative t10's, which only play down to 80Hz, and at first the bass was unbearable. Its still pretty crappy, but at least I don't feel completely ripped off anymore. They sound like how much they cost, 40 bucks. At first they sounded like 5 bucks.

I wonder what $80 speakers sound like? Twice as good maybe? LOL

something like that

I've had and built well over 60 subs in the last 10 years. Subs do break in, somewhat. I've never gone so far as to hear a major difference in how it sounds though. I will generally not run tons or anything else through them. I crank them up and enjoy them. There is no major change. I find the same with headphones, my current Senn 700's sound great but it took my time to adjust to their sound. I actually like the sound of my Ultrasone Sig's better than the 700's. They sound the same to me as the first time I ever played anything through them.

If you use a speaker it would get broken in even if you did not consciously set out to do so. So if after playing the speaker for awhile results in "better" performance, great, if not and it still sounds the same, that's still a win.. End of story.. and End this thread.

You mean it's just beating a dead horse....tried the little image but maybe can't....
Edited by lovinthehd - 10/29/12 at 8:04pm

Sorry guys... waaay off topic but I have to address Beeman ...

Beeman: you are misguided regarding the bearings. A bearing that is not overloaded runs on a hydrodynamic wedge of lubrication and there is no actual contact between the rolling element and the raceway. A bearing under ideal conditions with ideal lubricant can run forever assuming proper alignment, minimal loads, load direction etc. A bearing can certainly wear and loosen up but it was due to either lack of lubrication film, load or misalignment to cause the wear....

I can see the point that a speaker may change it's sound over time due to enough movement t to physically change the speaker mechanical elements.

Just trying to clear the point on bearings so we can all keep each other honest around here... bearings what an enthralling topic...

You mean like sealed bearings that aren't?

With theads like these, with a lot of opinions and without a lot of data obtained through scientific method, one can really only read opinions from people who sound like they know what they're talking about, and then pick the answer that seems the most logical.

Here is a copy/paste from Bob Crites' website, which seems more or less similar to Bill Fitz's. Both of these guys know what they're talking about, and both give an answer that seems pretty logical:

Some food for thought downhere guys:

http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/speaker-break-in-fact-or-fiction