Originally Posted by jima4a
Originally Posted by DS-21
Your ears might adjust to the speakers, but the speakers themselves won't change materially.
Break-in is among the dumber and less logical of the audiophool myths.
I must respectfully disagree on speakers. I auditioned Studio2s ***
Given that you're talking about Harman speakers, some words from their former research head, Dr. Floyd Toole, are warranted. (Emph. added)
Originally Posted by Dr. Floyd Toole
In parts of the audio industry, there is a belief that *** loudspeakers need to “break in.” Out of the box, it is assumed that they will not be performing at their best. Proponents vehemently deny that this process has anything to do with adaptation, writing extensively about changes in performance that they claim are easily audible in several aspects of device performance. Yet, the author is not aware of any controlled test in which any consequential audible differences were found, even in loudspeakers, where there would seem to be some oppor- tunities for material changes. A few years ago, to satisfy a determined marketing person, the research group per- formed a test using samples of a loudspeaker that was claimed to benefit from “breaking in.” Measurements before and after the recommended break-in showed no differences in frequency response, except a very tiny change around 30–40 Hz in the one area where break-in effects could be expected: woofer compliance. Careful lis- tening tests revealed no audible differences. None of this was surprising to the engineering staff. It is not clear whether the marketing person was satisfied by the finding. To all of us [engineering staff], this has to be very reassuring because it means that the performance of loudspeakers is stable, except for the known small change in woofer compliance caused by exercising the suspension and the deterioration—breaking down—of foam surrounds and some diaphragm materials with time, moisture, and atmospheric pollutants. It is fascinating to note that “breaking-in” seems always to result in an improvement in performance. Why? Do all mechanical and electrical devices and materials acquire a musical aptitude that is missing in their virgin state? Why is it never reversed, getting worse with use? The reality is that engineers seek out materials, components, and construction methods that do not change with time. Suppose that the sound did improve over time as something broke in. What then? Would it eventually decline, just as wine goes “over the hill”? One can imagine an advertisement for a vintage loudspeaker: “An audiophile dream. Model XX, manufactured 2004, broken in with Mozart, Schubert, and acoustic jazz. Has never played anything more aggressive than the Beatles. Originally $1700/pair. Now at their performance peak—a steal at $3200!”
-Toole, Sound Reproduction
(Focal Press 2009), at 353.
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx
***FWIW with my Q100's - after breaking in the three LCR I compared the extra, unbroken-in Q100 to one of the broken-in Q100's to see if it was my ears that broke in or the speaker. The difference between the two speakers was obvious. So for KEF speakers at least I'm a believer in speaker break in. Of course this doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy them right away - but I would re-run your room correction software again after 20 or 30 hours.
Hmm. I used three KEF Q100s for LCR for over a year, which means I have three that have been played quite a bit and a spare that has literally never seen power. Maybe I should take a listening-position measurement of the a "broken in" and "new" one back-to-back so we can put this "break-in" idiocy to bed.