I guess this would be a why?,Question: Burn in

jcandy

newrival wrote: »

respectfully, i dont see the difference. they believe what they believe and you believe as you do. If theres no way to prove one over the other why cant it just be discussed civilly. I can understand people's frustration but seriously, the other side of the argument believes the same as the opposition: that the other side is pushing their "agenda." I believe in many of the theories like synergy, etc. but i realize there are others that arent going to believe that, but neither of us is going to convince the other, and we certainly aret going to prove our points by name calling.

You say we're in the know, but they believe they are. can you prove either is correct or incorrect? I say let's just keep discussions open-minded, much as is demanded in the forum by many in this discussion.

Hopefully some people find the technical/objective perspective refreshing and perhaps intriguing. The juvenile critics don't bother me in the least -- this is an internet forum, after all. Keyboard warriors and all that.

F1nut

newrival wrote: »

respectfully, i dont see the difference. they believe what they believe and you believe as you do. If theres no way to prove one over the other why cant it just be discussed civilly. I can understand people's frustration but seriously, the other side of the argument believes the same as the opposition: that the other side is pushing their "agenda." I believe in many of the theories like synergy, etc. but i realize there are others that arent going to believe that, but neither of us is going to convince the other, and we certainly aret going to prove our points by name calling.

You say we're in the know, but they believe they are. can you prove either is correct or incorrect? I say let's just keep discussions open-minded, much as is demanded in the forum by many in this discussion. it needs to work both ways

Ok, here's the difference. Let's say someone posts up about their personal expereince with a cable making a marked improvement in the sound. Maybe a few folks comment about it saying they have had a similar experience with said cable or mearly thank him for posting his personal experience. Maybe someone posts that the said cable didn't work out well for them, that they prefer a different cable. Ok, no harm, no foul. However, it almost never fails that some naysayer will come along and say aftermarket cables are snake oil and to back up their comment they start posting links to anything that supports their claim. That is, anything but their own personal experience with said cable because they have no experience with said cable. That is not an opinion and that is the difference.

newrival

@jcandy
i find every perspective interesting. Ultimately, i let my ears be the judge, but I still like to hear theories I can experiment with, and keep in mind. I find that very seldom does the truth lie with the ones shouting the loudest, but somewhere in between. For what it's worth I appreciate yur opinion on the subject, even i i dont share it 100%

FTGV

I understand that the T/S parameter changes essentially cancel each other out and the f3 does'nt decrease markedly.However the fact that mechanical changes are occuring IMO opens up the possibility that in certain instances audible changes can occur.
Yes I'm familiar with Dickason's LDC having several editions in my library,also Mr Floyd Toole can be included in the non breakin believing crowd.


btw.I guess I missed it but exactly what is jcandy's agenda anyway?

FTGV

newrival wrote: »

i find every perspective interesting. Ultimately, i let my ears be the judge, but I still like to hear theories I can experiment with, and keep in mind. I find that very seldom does the truth lie with the ones shouting the loudest, but somewhere in between. For what it's worth I appreciate yur opinion on the subject, even i i dont share it 100%

Well said sir.

newrival

F1nut wrote: »

Ok, here's the difference. Let's say someone posts up about their personal expereince with a cable making a marked improvement in the sound. Maybe a few folks comment about it saying they have had a similar experience with said cable or mearly thank him for posting his personal experience. Maybe someone posts that the said cable didn't work out well for them, that they prefer a different cable. Ok, no harm, no foul. However, it almost never fails that some naysayer will come along and say aftermarket cables are snake oil and to back up their comment they start posting links to anything that supports their claim. That is, anything but their own personal experience with said cable because they have no experience with said cable. That is not an opinion and that is the difference.

I'm sorry, but that goes on every day here and in both directions. Just because the majority of posters in thread believe one way and a couple post an opinion, like your example of cables being snake oil (and that still is an opinion), does that mean the minorities opinion is any less valid? Especially if there is a valid argument.

Someone can argue theres no empirical evidence of cables burning in, or different cables sounding differently. But to me and other that doesnt matter, because the question, "does it sound good?" is not an empirical one and therefore cannot be answered empirically but subjectively by nature. But that's my opinion and a debate I'm willing to have. It just seems people here are too quick to shun others, and I don't get it. Maybe it's the big fish small pond thing. But with such a small community it'd be nice to keep things thoughtful a little more regularly.

FTGV

nooshinjohn wrote: »

There is a big difference between thinking and knowing.

were you peeking again?

PolkClyde

But if I'm paying you $300 for six feet of cable and burn-in is real, then for chrissakes burn the @#!@# thing in at the factory![/QUOTE]

newrival

fishbones wrote: »

I'd love to run an experiment with a non-believer sometime...

Catch him at the right moment when he's going to buy a new set of awesome speakers he's researched and picked out. He'll get 'em, bring 'em home, hook 'em up and turn 'em on for a couple minutes to make sure they sound equal...then I will make him unplug one of the speakers. He will then allow the 1 hooked-up speaker to run continuously for 100 hours (the other speaker left unhooked). After the 100 hours, I would come back to his house, he would fire them both back up to see how they compare...and I would watch him stutter his way through trying to explain how and why they sound sooo different. I would walk out smiling (without saying a word) and he would spend the entire sleepless night playing with his system to try and figure out what happened and how it cannot be. :biggrin:

i like this experiment...

Have you tried this? I think I may pick up a pair of something thats getting phased out for cheap and see what happens. I like it. Maybe even 4 speakers. 1 control and the other 3 brought in at 50 hour staggered intervals.

megasat16

FTGV wrote: »

I understand that the T/S parameter changes essentially cancel each other out and the f3 does'nt decrease markedly.However the fact that mechanical changes are occuring IMO opens up the possibility that in certain instances audible changes can occur.
Yes I'm familiar with Dickason's LDC having several editions in my library,also Mr Floyd Toole can be included in the non breakin believing crowd.


btw.I guess I missed it but exactly what is jcandy's agenda anyway?

The article at GR Research is a great read. I think there has a point too. If you run the speakers at a high power long enough, a permanent mechanical changes occurs.

I think speakers require breakin or not may also depends on the construction technique and the quality control. Most manufacturers don't even match drivers and while some do, there is usually no T/S parameters for the specific drivers.

But if you are manufacturer and drivers are made to order and tested it beforehand, I think they might have already been broken in so no need to break in after it's fitted in the cabinets.

Anyway, I am a break in believer and I believe break in can occurs at tweeters too.

But it apparently is Jcandy argument here that the woofer may require breakin but the tweeter is not.

That's why I am curious what kind of tweeter he is referring to.

PolkClyde

Well,I think I re-started this mess,not started,but re-started.to be honest,The MIT Cables sounded good right out of the box,before the burn in.but the tweeters did sound better to me after the burn in,or was it the cables that made the twitters sing so well,I don't know,you tell me.one member said,it(MIT Cables) would sound bad before the burn in.that wasn't my experience.

megasat16

FTGV wrote: »

were you peeking again?

Why is he peeking at you, Fred? :biggrin:

megasat16

PolkClyde wrote: »

Well,I think I re-started this mess,not started,but re-started.to be honest,The MIT Cables sounded good right out of the box,before the burn in.but the tweeters did sound better to me after the burn in,or was it the cables that made the twitters sing so well,I don't know,you tell me.one member said,it(MIT Cables) would sound bad before the burn in.that wasn't my experience.

This is highly....highly debated article here at CP! Can a wire need to burn in or not? But apparently, some folks think you do. It doesn't cost anyone's a cent to burn in cable since cable burn in occurs during the time you use it.

But to me, I bought used wires so I don't know they need to be burned in or not but they sounds good to me out of the box (used).

megasat16

silvertuner wrote: »

very well explained, thank you, that was what i was looking for! still doesnt describe the 2 min listening vs 400 hour listening difference, but that could be "psychological" until DarqueKnight desides to study that one too lol :biggrin:

You are welcome and it's all I can explain. For the better understanding of the difference between listening to 2 min or after 400 hours...well, I'll have to rely on DK do the explanation for you.

To me, electronic burn in happens the first minute you plug it in till the last second it gives out. All electronics component ages with use and it's literally burning it up. Most are based on Physics, thermal dynamics and nuclear physics...J/K.

jcandy

FTGV wrote: »

However the fact that mechanical changes are occuring IMO opens up the possibility that in certain instances audible changes can occur.

I think the general idea is to separate what is a miniscule effect from what is a major effect. The largest mechanical change we have identified so far is the shift in Fs at constant Fs/Qts, and even this is at the limit of perception. In the case of a tweeter there is no indication, theoretical or from experience, that something is changing. Obviously, baffle shape, port flares (I spent ages working on port flaring to reduce turbulence in my 2nd-last build), enclosure stuffing, enclosure resonance, rooms, carpet, sidewalls, in addition to the obvious crossover design and the drivers themselves, are the major effects.

I also share Shaw's opinion that, over time, I like a speaker less, not more :mad:

megasat16

@Jcandy,

Once again, I want to ask you what kind of tweeter you are saying it does not require break in. IMO, a speaker driver requires break in has nothing to do with baffle shape or cabinet or ports.

I wonder why has the baffle shape, size, thickness, cabinet design, port length, flares has anything to do with the actual driver break in.

Please share your experience.

BlueFox

PolkClyde wrote: »

Well,I think I re-started this mess,not started,but re-started.to be honest,The MIT Cables sounded good right out of the box,before the burn in.but the tweeters did sound better to me after the burn in,or was it the cables that made the twitters sing so well,I don't know,you tell me.one member said,it(MIT Cables) would sound bad before the burn in.that wasn't my experience.

I installed balanced MIT Shotgun S1.3 interconnects between all my gear, and it sounded fine right from the start. However, and I will never forget this, a few hours later I am listening to the music, and the soundstage literally expanded right in front of me. It was so obvious I broke out laughing. Since it was so blatant I have no problem repeating it. However, I cannot say that they sounded better after 100 hours, or some other number. The differences are to subtle for me to comment.

Also, after I installed my speakers they to sounded fine at the beginning. However, about a week later all of a sudden I realized these speakers really sound good. Better than when I first got them. After that the only audio changes I can swear to are from changing cables, upgrading gear, or installing vibration isolation brass footers. Each change made a postive audible improvement right at the start.

jcandy

megasat16 wrote: »

Once again, I want to ask you what kind of tweeter you are saying it does not require break in.

I am saying that tweeters in general (soft dome, hard dome, bullet, horn, piezo, ribbon, etc) do not require break-in.

megasat16 wrote: »

IMO, a speaker driver requires break in has nothing to do with baffle shape or cabinet or ports.

I agree. I believe the point I was trying to make is that there are variables in the system that do affect the sound significantly, in contrast to break-in.

F1nut

newrival wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that goes on every day here and in both directions. Just because the majority of posters in thread believe one way and a couple post an opinion, like your example of cables being snake oil (and that still is an opinion), does that mean the minorities opinion is any less valid? Especially if there is a valid argument.

How can it be a valid argument or even considered an opinion when said naysayer has had zero experience with the product he is calling snake oil? It can't.

On3s&Z3r0s

How high does my post count have to get before I have the burning desire to defend Club Polk from the infidels?

Also, what do the video geeks argue about?

inspiredsports

jcandy wrote: »

There is no need for tweeter burn-in. A tweeter's electrical or mechanical parameters do not change in some permanent way over time. On the other hand, a tweeters electromechanical parameters are temperature-dependent, so driving it hard will change the sound as the voice-coil temperature increases. What might be changing over time is your brain's processing of the loudspeakers.

The only break-in effect is related to the woofer's suspension. If you measure Fs for a woofer "cold", and then after driving 10min at Xmax with a 40Hz test-tone, the value will be seen to decrease slightly. This is a largely negligible thermal effect which is typically at the limit of perception.

Hmm . . . Do you have a device that can measure what I'm thinking right now?



If you said, "Hey, we should start a new thread titled 'Favorite Troll Quotes', you'd be right."

FTGV

megasat16 wrote: »

Why is he peeking at you, Fred? :biggrin:

I'm supposed to be on his beloved bozo /ignore list.

heiney9

FTGV wrote: »

btw.I guess I missed it but exactly what is jcandy's agenda anyway?

As far as I can tell he is an Audio Messiah trying to save us from our silly selves because all our experiences are fantasy because the links he posts from other people say so.

H9

heiney9

newrival wrote: »

@jcandy For what it's worth I appreciate yur opinion on the subject, even i i dont share it 100%

He doesn't seem to have an opinion, he just posts what others say to counter what the rest of us experience. I have never had any issue with a person old or new that expresses their opinion based on their own experience's. I may not agree 100%, but atleast it's their experience and they tried something.

H9

heiney9

newrival wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that goes on every day here and in both directions. Just because the majority of posters in thread believe one way and a couple post an opinion, like your example of cables being snake oil (and that still is an opinion), does that mean the minorities opinion is any less valid? Especially if there is a valid argument.

Someone can argue theres no empirical evidence of cables burning in, or different cables sounding differently. But to me and other that doesnt matter, because the question, "does it sound good?" is not an empirical one and therefore cannot be answered empirically but subjectively by nature. But that's my opinion and a debate I'm willing to have. It just seems people here are too quick to shun others, and I don't get it. Maybe it's the big fish small pond thing. But with such a small community it'd be nice to keep things thoughtful a little more regularly.

Yes, but sometimes it's the veracity of the argument, especially if one has never experimented and is constantly quoting other sources. It also smells when the only posts said individual's make are in those types of threads expressing the same mantra.

It's fine not to believe because no empirical evidence exists, but to just obsess over that point in every thread and nothing else, SMELLS big time. If you can't see that then you are a little naive.

H9

tonyb

So whats the key here ? Whats missing ? As in most cases of these B.S. arguements, experience.
Quoteing some owner of a speaker company means nothing,as you can find another owner of another speaker company that will spout the total opposite. This article said this,that article said that...always conflicting, always confusing to the average consumer. What sets this all apart is real world experience with a variety of gear over a period of time. Maybe we all won't come to the same conclusions, and so what. Nothing in this hobby is written in stone...well, maybe a few things. Is burn in real ? Do cables matter ? Same story, same arguements, same answers....

megasat16

jcandy wrote: »

I am saying that tweeters in general (soft dome, hard dome, bullet, horn, piezo, ribbon, etc) do not require break-in.

I think it's a little stretched theory that all tweeter does not require break in.

The ribbon line source definitely need mechanical break in.

Mechanical break in applies to almost anything newly made even if it makes no difference in how it sounds a human ear can perceive.

But since tweeters have very small diaphragm with very small surround around the diaphragm to move very fast, the tweeter will be mechanically broken in fairly quickly.

newrival

F1nut wrote: »

How can it be a valid argument or even considered an opinion when said naysayer has had zero experience with the product he is calling snake oil? It can't.

I know I wasn't clear enough on that point. The valid argument is by bringing up measurable difference (or the lack there of). If they are known to exist or not exist, this is a valid argument. Not necesarily proof of point, but it does make for a valid argument.

jcandy

megasat16 wrote: »

I think it's a little stretched theory that all tweeter does not require break in.

The ribbon line source definitely need mechanical break in.

Evidence?

megasat16 wrote: »

Mechanical break in applies to almost anything newly made even if it makes no difference in how it sounds a human ear can perceive.

How about a camera or computer? Does a computer run faster, or does a camera take better pictures, after break-in? The point is that in general, electronic components are remarkably stable, and that there is no audible break-in effect for typical loudspeakers, especially over a timescale of, say, 100 hours. On those timescales, its *your* perception that is doing the shifting, not the electronic components.

megasat16 wrote: »

But since tweeters have very small diaphragm with very small surround around the diaphragm to move very fast, the tweeter will be mechanically broken in fairly quickly.

How quickly, exactly? What is the change in the electromechanical parameters before and after break-in?

The consensus is that of all the breaking-in that is happening, by far the most significant is related to the woofer surround. This break-in occurs over a period of about 5-10 hours, and has an amazingly small effect on the in-box response (much smaller than the shift in free-air Fs). Its so small that speakers designers largely neglect it in the design process.

jcandy

tonyb wrote: »

Quoteing some owner of a speaker company means nothing,as you can find another owner of another speaker company that will spout the total opposite.

Could you please find someone of Alan Shaw's status who believes that there is such a break-in effect (beyond the Fs shift in woofers)? On the contrary, every speaker guru I am aware of is more-or-less in agreement on this issue.

There is a simple reason for this. To design a speaker, you need to take boatloads of measurements. When you take measurements, you greatly reduce your perception as a source of bias.