how long is a typical "break-in period" for speakers?

Different people have different opinions.

 

I once asked one of the engineers at Klipsch when at their corporate open house.  His comment was (paraphrased) 'I take two drivers, hook them out of phase.  I run "X" volts through them (I forget the number) for about 20 minutes and consider them done"

 

Think about this...

 

Let's say a driver actually NEEDS 200 hours to break in.  Now, pretend you're the person who's designing the speaker and has to see if this driver will work for your application.

 

You get the driver....you can't install & test as you need to know how it will work when broken in. Now, you have to hook it up and wait 200 hours for it to be broken in.  Although that's more than 8 days, let's just call it a week.

 

So now, you have to breakin the driver for a week BEFORE you can test it to make sure it fits your needs.  If it does, you're done. If it doesn't, well...oops, you have to get another driver, test it for 200?? hours.... wait another week?

 

How efficient is this situation?

 

Some people say they believe the breakin period is more for the ears than the drivers.  Given some of the conversations I've had with people who design some of these things, that tends to make more sense to me however, I'm certainly no expert on the subject.

 

I've always had the feeling of plug them in, turn them up and enjoy them!

40 hours is plenty. Driver suspensions continue to soften throughout their lifetime, but after 40 hours they've reached about 98% of the break in that will occur over the next ten years.

I've always just put in a couple of bass heavy rap cds or something and let it play at a decent volume while i'm at work or out somewhere. The XBL2 woofers I have are very stiff woofers with long excursion and it seemed like they need someone to really get them moving to start sounding good.

I've always tested the speakers out first by listening to something i'm familar with and then take a few notes/mental of what it sounds like. I let them break in around 4-10hrs or so and come back and try out that exact song and the bass is especially improved.

Most what people call speaker break-in is actually listener break in.

Many of the changes that happen when speakers are first used happen in a few seconds, and don't change the sound of the speakers that much anyway.

Furthermore, if you let speakers rest for a few days, some the changes ascribed to break in back themselves out, and then go back in in a few minutes after you start using them again.

You probably have something far more important to worry about! ;-)

If you haven't noticed, car engine break in isn't the long drawn out nasty process it used to be. That's because car motors are made that much better to start with.

A measured 15-20% change in ts parameters isn't listener break in. A 15-25% change in Fs is going to be noticable. I'm going by Arx xbl2 woofers, I sure theres alot of other brands out there that see no improvement from the first few minutes to 40hrs later.

Actually with cars at least with Honda manufacterering where I work they cars are put through some fairly long drive times before they leave the plant. Dyno tests ect.... Engines are driven hard right after assembly for quite awhile. So the "break in" would already have occured at the plant not while driving home from the dealer. Car engines have drastically improved every few years and even the last 10yrs some have gone through some significant changes.

Speaker drivers are still pretty basic and most haven't changed much in the last few decades.

That's not the prevailing view of many industry professionals, such as these:
http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.htm
http://www.gr-research.com/myths.htm

My experience mirrors that of the GR guys.

I'll raise you two AES Fellows who have specialized in speakers for the past 30+ years being Earl Geddes and David L Clark.

I've never heard of your guy(s), ever but I don't know if you have heard of mine! ;-)

Being a full member of the AES myself I respect the views of my peers, but don't discount my own measured results that date back just as far.

I am no expert, but then again, I have asked a few designers, and there is no consensus. One well respected designer recommends 200 hours on his speakers, another guy said far less on his. I guess there is no real perfect answer. Probably, if it sounds like crap right away, break in isn't going to drastically change that. I was told that the Raal ribbon does change sound some after break in, but usually it seems to mostly apply to bass drivers.

I've always wondered, Bill, is the physics of it more of an exponential or order of magnitude thing? Seems like I believe I can hear the most break in after the first couple of hours with speakers, and then maybe again after 10 or 20.

Caveat: this is assuming it's not psychological. LOL

It's the same physics that explains why a pair of leather shoes get more comfortable with use: the suspension parts soften. Most of the softening takes place fairly soon, though the process never stops entirely. And just like a pair of shoes the driver suspensions stiffen back up a bit after a period of non-use, but after the initial break in period it only takes them a few seconds to loosen up again. That's pushing the envelope, especially with woofers. Woofer suspensions are the softest, so they break in sooner. Rubber surround woofers are softer than cloth surround, so they break in faster and with less effect. The stiffest suspensions are on tweeters, so they take the longest to break in, but it would take a very stiff suspension to take 200 hours use to loosen up. Also, tweeters tend to be crossed over well above the frequency where break in is most noticeable. With a tweeter crossed over quite close to its resonant frequency you might hear a difference after an extended period.

Thanks, Bill. That makes sense.

Does it include the cone materials as well? Given all the different types of material used in cones now, I had wondered whether or not it goes through any transformation through use.

To some extent, as pulp cones will absorb moisture, which changes the specs a bit. But that's something which can change from season to season, if not day to day, depending on the humidity, and isn't part of the break in process.

This is what Eric Alexander at Tekton Design has to say:
The full-range mystery: The break-in process (with all of its negative attributes) simply happens to be most intrinsically connected to, and is most audibly discerned through a full-range transducer. This is because a full range simply has the ability to augment the very subtle higher frequency centered distortions, squeaks, and squawks that a crisp new speaker is capable of producing. Once again, if it is a full-range speaker and if it sounds bad out of the box, don’t wait for a miracle to happen; send it straight back to whomever you got it from because the speaker has serious problems. If it sounds quite good but has a very subtle graininess, or a few mild distortions, or the sound is crisp but still pleasant, then you’ve got a keeper! Sit back and be patient, and you will be pleasantly rewarded within 15-20 hours of moderate playback levels – this amount of break-in time will get you to about 80%-complete break-in. Beyond that, a functionally full and nearly complete break-in period of 200+ hours is quite reasonable and is to be expected.

IMO there's a bit of bull mixed in with the truth there. Truth, speakers do break in. Truth, most of the break in is accomplished within the first 40 hours of use, if that. Truth, break in continues over the life of the speaker. But where break in is mainly heard is in the lows, because woofers break in a lot, while tweeters and midranges break in very little. Some amount of midrange and high frequency brittleness will subside, but not a huge amount. In short, break in does not accomplish miracles, and a speaker that's harsh after 40 hours will still be harsh after 400 or 4000 hours. But after 400 hours you just don't notice it as much.
There are those who deny that break in occurs at all, and say that any changes you hear are the consequence of you getting used to the speakers. That's not true, but neither is the other extreme.

I auditioned Revel Studio2s at home that were new out of the box. After about 4 hours of listening they began to get boomy and I had to adjust the boundary compensation. No doubt they were breaking in and not just listener breaking in. Now I can't say I noticed much change after that.

Yes, the measurements show small changes. However, shifting the Fs of a speaker driver a few Hz does not have that much of an audible effect.

Check these articles out, which shows the actual effect on the T/S parameter shifts on system performance:

http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/dynaudio.pdf

http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/The%20Art%20of%20Breakin.pdf

In both cases the actual total effects on system performance were essentially nil.

I'll never understand why people don't just hook their speakers up and enjoy. They'll break in with normal use. And they sound just fine without being broken in. It's not like after a few dozen hours of break-in the speaker, miraculously, sounds 1000 times better. I find it hilarious that some people would leave them playing all day long while they're gone.

People do install there speakers and just enjoy right away. Some companys claim that you need to "break" the woofers in for a certain amount of time. For some its a difference not huge but noticable, others not so much. I've tested it out and there is a difference in the bass especially. The Arx xbl2 woofers are installed "green" and they diffently sound very weak and lacking in the bass. Only when you give them a several hours does the bass improve.

If your one that hooks your speakers up right away and listen then you would become use to the sound. If you demo'd a pair of brand new speakers (never powered) for a few minutes long enough to listen to a favorite song and then let them play while your at work for example and then re listen you'll noticed a difference in sound. Is it 1000000 times better no but its noticable

Do this break in could be a manufacture strategy?

It can be a marketing strategy, especially when figures in excess of 100 hours get tossed around. As for manufacturing, IME all speakers should be broken in at the factory, not only to give the customer perfect performance right out of the box but also to weed out potential defects. But break in takes time, and time is money, so in most cases it doesn't happen.

I know some sub makers in the business and break in does occur, how much and how audible it will be, is left up to the marketing departments. I can say having built drivers, knowing people who design/build drivers, for the most part, big heavy sub surrounds will loosen up a bit and maybe change some T/S parameters but it's generally not audible enough to make it sound like a different sub. I can't speak for smaller drivers of all sorts of different materials but I'd bet it's the same as a sub.

What I always think is funny is that "break in" always seems to be positive.... You never hear of people buying speakers and taking tham back because they liked the sound at first but after they "broke in" they didn't like them anymore. I think that that fact alone is enough to call bunk to most claims of vast sonic differences.

I totally agree with you 40 hour is more than sufficient .

Unless all speaker based cone material is tested, there's no way to empirically respond to your above. The general consensus, knowing this is arguable, is fifty to a hundred hours. Currently, I'm breaking in a pair of subwoofer drivers. My goal before first REW measurement sweeps is fifty hours. After that, it's like a bottle of wine, how long do you wait to drink the stuff? I say, break them in over a week or so and then "fer-get-abt-it" as it's either all good or all bad with you being the final arbiter.

It's not efficient. But that's a lab/production based problem, not a consumer based problem.

Break-em-in, don't break-em-in but my opinion, one is not doing either the speakers or their ears justice if they don't take time to break them in "FIRST," before drawing their personal based conclusions.

The longer story, everybody knows they need to break in a new pair of shoes, a bottle of wine needs to age and an engine has a break-in period. Why? Because in the beginning, the material is stiff and unresponsive to movement. Some how, I guess doing so and believing speakers don't need to be broken-in, makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Folks want to believe that speaker based material is immune to this behavior. Why? I guess it's because they're afraid of the truth or it's because they want to believe they're sophisticated like the gurus and above this type of "MYTH." "Everything," from tires to leather is stiff when it's new but somehow, magically, speakers and headphones are not.

In the end, my recommendation, do one's speakers an injustice and don't take a week of break-in time to give them a chance to loosen up. How ridiculous to think one's speakers need to loosen up. After all, they're your speakers and you plan to have them what.......only til the wheels fall off.

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 1/20/13 at 2:45am

IME it may have started out as a dealer strategy called the "30 day in-home trial". After 30 days most people adapt to changes.

The thing that changes the most after you install new speakers is you. Of course people have no way to attach meters to their heads to register the changes, but books like "This Is Your Brain On Music" explain the nuts and bolts of how our brains are programmed and reprogrammed by themselves to perceive pleasure. A new object has no track record of providing pleasure, which is one of the requirements for perceiving pleasure. So, how does a device build up a track record of providing pleasure? For sure it has to stay in service for a number of days to obtain that characteristic as far as the listener goes.

You can figure it out by inference. If you look at the only two articles I can find about measured changes in overall speaker performance during break in, you quickly reach the conclusion that the speakers don't change that much.

If you look at the earnest opinions about how people's perceptions of their new speakers changed in the days following their installation, it is clear that something changed.

There are only four major components to the system - the recordings, the speakers, the room, and the listener. If you study what people actually write, one of the things that may change right after people get new speakers is the recordings they listen to. Or not.

Based on the actual measurements which will probably become more common since more people are doing their own acoustical measurements at home, the speakers change hardly at all.

The room doesn't change itself.

That leaves the listener who we already know to be a very fluid and adaptable creature called a human being.

Go figure!

Yep.

Wow; when I saw this topic posted, I thought...that's flame-bait, if ever I saw it, lol. But it seems to be pretty civil so far.

It's a tough subject for me; one I'm really on the fence about. I put it in the "it can't hurt" category; it can't hurt...just in case it allows the new speakers to sound their best...for me to run some music, 24/7 for a number of hours. But I agree; anyone who's listening during that time...has a far more likely chance, that their ears are changing than their speakers. I usually take a quick listen...as I'm human; then just run different program material...give it some decent volume when I can (to me, it's like stretching before a workout; you don't want to push too hard too fast...but you need to get the "muscles" moving), and let things run for a certain number of hours before I'll sit down to do any critical listening. To me...about a week, or 5-7 x ~20 hours a day, ought to be enough for just about any speaker.

Over the past 6 years, I've owned 4 pairs of Dynaudio monitors. Dyns are known to notoriously need a lot of break-in. I've heard some speakers...like the C1; might even pay dividends as things exceed 200 hours or so. I've even heard Dyn guys say...if you're listening during that time; you might even hear them open-up, then close-off...then open-up again, during that long break-in. IDK about all that. It's fine if that's someone's experience; and I will say that I think Dyn makes excellent drivers. I think Dyn's small, 6.5" drivers make pretty good bass for their size. If that means, they are built with very tight polymers...that are made to stretch, and really extend the excursion over time; I guess the whole break-in thing makes sense. As I said; I'm on the fence, but I don't really think it matters. There's no right or wrong here; no one ever got hurt by believing in break-in.

I find the psychology much more fascinating; and agree with the above assertion from Arny 100%. I'm an audiophile, that listens to many genres; much of it, very un-audiophile. Lo-fi, alt, noise-core (or whatever you'd label bands like Swans, GY!BE, Melvins, etc). But when I get new speakers...I tend to break out the good stuff, AQ-wise. You know: Alison Krauss, Diana Krall; all the audiophile darlings. Don't get me wrong; I'll listen to some other genres as well (like Lauryn Hill's The Miseducation Of...is a demo favorite). But, of course...I'm searching through my collection for the good-sounding stuff. Who wants to size their new speakers up, listening to lo-fi sh*t...even if it's what you might listen to otherwise. But...after the honeymoon, I need to force myself to break-out the day-in/day-out stuff. In addition to knowing what speakers sound like at their best...it's equally important, IMO, to know what they'll sound like at their worst.

In fact, it was this disparity...that lead to me dropping a very good speaker; in the Dynaudio Special 25. Fed the good stuff...the 25 can really shine. Really big bass, for its size (at least it sounded that way to me; let's not get into a measurements war here); good sizzle, when you wanted it. It was probably the best Rock "audiophile" speaker I've ever heard. You know...if you're the type of 'phile that needs to crank the Zep, Floyd, Heads, et al; when you're done with Alison and Diana. However...man was it revealing; read: sounded like sh*t, when fed the "bad" stuff. The 25 defenders say you have to really system match, which is cool; and then, really shape your room around it. While I'm fine with the idea that room treatment pays big dividends...I don't feel like a room should have to correct a speaker. Enhance, sure; but if you have to treat your room a lot, just to keep speakers from sounding like crap...that's the tail wagging the dog IMO.

Anyway, that's my 3-cents (and for the record...I'm certainly not bashing Special 25s. Great speakers; just not right for everyone, all systems, and all tastes. And again...all I'm saying is, they don't handle less than stellar audio as well as some. For many, that won't even be an issue; and for others...they want revealing. Warts and all). Good topic...and you guys are doing a good job keeping it on-track.