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

megasat16

jcandy wrote: »

Evidence?

Have you ever heard a ribbon line source when new and when broken in after a few hours?

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.

Why are you mixing up the speaker driver mechanical break in with the electronics burn in? Yes, in essence, electronics such as computers or anything that has a number of components with PCB requires burned in. Coz every component is prone to failure out of the box after coming out of assembly line. The burn in is to ensure the electronics component works after a specific amount of time so they will not be DOA at the retail store or at the consumer house. They are usually burned in at the factory before you get it. Even then, have you ever had a failure within a few weeks or months after you bought something?

Very simple example is that if you buy a cheap heard drive today, you'll likely get 1 out 10 bad within a few hours to a few weeks. Why? Coz they are not burned in properly.

You are skewed with your theory.

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

How good a high speed video camera with good zoom can you find? Let's find out.

Let's take a new tweeter out of the box from the shelf, apply 2.83V AC sine wave at about 4KHz and let's take a video for about an hour and compare frame by frame of the movement of the tweeter at the very first moment to the last. I like to experiment instead of arguing.

Ok, let's make it 3D infrared camera so we can study the thermal effects of tweeter VC at the same time.

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.

I see. Which Speakers brand says that their speaker are not broken in and does not require break in? Just want to know.

Speakers designer know about break in. Break in is what makes a speaker driver works in the intended specification without the designer requiring to measure every single one.

jcandy

megasat16 wrote: »

Have you ever heard a ribbon line source when new and when broken in after a few hours?

I think you'll have to do better than to assert your conclusion. If your assertion is that there is life on mars, or that elves live in your attic, then the burden of proof is in your court. If your assertion is that something about the tweeter changes after 10 or 100 hours, you'll have to support that assertion. My experience with respect to elves is that there are none, and my experience with respect to tweeters is that there is no significant break-in period.

With regard to a woofer, the break-in assertion can be supported and quantified. The shift in a woofers Fs is -10% or less, such that the in-box response changes, somewhat remarkably, at the 1% level within a time period of less than 10 hours.

So, with respect to a tweeter, what part of the tweeter is breaking in, and how much does it break in? Is there a change at the

(1) 100% level
(2) 10% level
(3) 1% level
(4) < 1% level

megasat16

Jcandy,

Let me ask you this. Why are you thinking that the breakin should alters the electrical parameters and frequency characteristics of a speaker driver considerably?

Have you thought about sensitivity of speaker driver? Is the sensitivity of a speaker driver achieved out of the box or it's achieved after a few minutes or a few hour since it's put together?

Is sensitivity relates to the amount of acoustic power one can hear? Would the newly made surround, spider, diaphragm, and materials achieve 100% sensitivity out of the box?

Is the woofer the only thing that counts? How about a midrange or a tweeter? Do they have voice coil, surround and spider that restricts the movement of a cone?

Physical / Mechanical break-in frees the restriction of movement when electrical force is applied to newly made stiff materials.

AFAIK, all speakers driver measurements are made after a few hours run from the prototype models to make sure there is no mechanical restriction and it's free of defects. But it doesn't mean that the sensitivity of a newly made driver is the same as well the prototype that is well broken in. Isn't where the term Break in comes into play?

Why should the T/S parameter and FR of a speaker varies greatly after breakin? Why should force of motor or length of wire in VC or the weight of materials varies with break in? How and what does break in physically change in a driver?

If a speaker driver T/S parameters and FR greatly varies with break in, you have some serious issue to start designing a speaker. Speaking of T/S parameters, do you know where it's based from?

tonyb

jcandy wrote: »

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.

Everything in audio is not measureable. Obviously,you think it is. Since perception plays a big part in our choices, eliminateing it seems somewhat useless. Everyone has a bias, including the manufacturers. When trying to inject pure measurements into a subjective hobby, something won't mesh. Not that I don't get what your trying to explain, but it's meaningless. What instrument do you use to measure soundstage, how high it is,wide ? Forward me the info on the tool used to measure imageing. Is there a catalog for all these special tools ? Most speaker makers don't even attempt to try and measure burn-in, would it sway your decision to buy that speaker anyway ? Probably not, so why bother? Would it be a plus or a minus if a speaker had stated burn in specs ? Would it tell you a speaker had better or worse quality ? Again, useless info. A subjective arguement has no right or wrong answer. If you haven't figured that out yet, audio may not be the hobby for you.

jcandy

tonyb wrote: »

A subjective arguement has no right or wrong answer. If you haven't figured that out yet, audio may not be the hobby for you.

That's just a massive cop-out. This isn't a subjective issue. Whether you "like" tweeter A more than tweeter "B" is a subjective issue. A tweeter is a physical object, not a unicorn or a gnome. Either it requires break-in or it doesn't. Either something about it changes with time or not. An individual may have his own subjective impressions of the change-in-time of a tweeter, and this may or may not coincide with actual changes in the tweeter. The problem with subjective perceptions is that they tend to color what is really there objectively.

The irony is that some people here downplay measurements when in fact a good measurement is far more revealing and accurate in terms of slight changes than listening. With measurement, I can tell you exactly what happens when you put on a speaker grill; I can tell you if the response on the measurement axis is up 1db or down 0.5db at 2kHz. You can't do anything like that by ear. I can also tell you if something about the tweeter changed by 0.5dB. Saying that this or that "can't be measured" is at best an unsupported assertion, and more typically, just a lie.

inspiredsports

jcandy wrote: »

That's just a massive cop-out. This isn't a subjective issue. Whether you "like" tweeter A more than tweeter "B" is a subjective issue.

A tweeter is a physical object, not a unicorn or a gnome.

Agreed . . . common ground.

Either it requires break-in or it doesn't.

Agreed . . . common ground.

Either something about it changes with time or not.

Agreed. . . common ground.

Now, please share the equipment you are using to measure ANY POSSIBLE CHANGES OVER TIME.

An individual may have his own subjective impressions of the change-in-time of a tweeter, and this may or may not coincide with actual changes in the tweeter.

. . . that your incredibly inadequate measuring tools are able/unable to measure.

The problem with subjective perceptions is that they tend to color what is really there objectively.

The problem with current tools is that they can't measure something as simple as, for instance, "depth of soundstage", (and there are perhaps a dozen more characteristics involved).

The irony is that some people here downplay measurements when in fact a good measurement is far more revealing and accurate in terms of slight changes than listening.

I am all for specifications and measurements. I wish they weren't so limited in their abilities.

With measurement, I can tell you exactly what happens when you put on a speaker grill; I can tell you if the response on the measurement axis is up 1db or down 0.5db at 2kHz.[/QUOTE} So which one does your measurement tool tell you sounds "better"?

You can't do anything like that by ear.

?????????????

I can also tell you if something about the tweeter changed by 0.5dB. Saying that this or that "can't be measured" is at best an unsupported assertion, and more typically, just a lie.

So how did that .5db affect sound quality?

################################################

Few, if any of us are hear to see better measurements.
We want to experience better sound quality. - - - measurements help.

2011 technology probably gets you close to half the way there.

Just for kicks, when could we first measure angstroms? Quarks?

megasat16

jcandy wrote: »

I think you'll have to do better than to assert your conclusion. If your assertion is that there is life on mars, or that elves live in your attic, then the burden of proof is in your court. If your assertion is that something about the tweeter changes after 10 or 100 hours, you'll have to support that assertion. My experience with respect to elves is that there are none, and my experience with respect to tweeters is that there is no significant break-in period.

With regard to a woofer, the break-in assertion can be supported and quantified. The shift in a woofers Fs is -10% or less, such that the in-box response changes, somewhat remarkably, at the 1% level within a time period of less than 10 hours.

So, with respect to a tweeter, what part of the tweeter is breaking in, and how much does it break in? Is there a change at the

(1) 100% level
(2) 10% level
(3) 1% level
(4) < 1% level

Read my post above! Can you hear a difference in SPL? If you can, I suppose there is a difference in sound before broken in or something new that's not even plugged in.

Why is the concept of break in drastically dreadful? Have you asked speaker manufacturer's that they believe the quoted sensitivity is always the same regardless of whether it's just coming straight out of assembly line or after brake in?

jcandy

megasat16 wrote: »

Read my post above! Can you hear a difference in SPL? If you can, I suppose there is a difference in sound before broken in or something new that's not even plugged in.

Why is the concept of break in drastically dreadful? Have you asked speaker manufacturer's that they believe the quoted sensitivity is always the same regardless of whether it's just coming straight out of assembly line or after brake in?

We're going in circles. My experience is that tweeters do not change over time, but I am open to the idea that component break-in is a possibility. I have no idea if the effect you are talking about is a 100% or a 1% or a 0.001% effect. You are claiming there is a break-in effect. Please tell me know big it is and what's breaking in.

jcandy

inspiredsports wrote: »

. . . that your incredibly inadequate measuring tools are able/unable to measure.

That's wishful thinking on your part. In my opinion, its your ears that are inadequate and demonstrably inferior to a good calibrated microphone and measurement equipment. We know that people are not reliable when it come to precise measurement.

inspiredsports wrote: »

The problem with current tools is that they can't measure something as simple as, for instance, "depth of soundstage", (and there are perhaps a dozen more characteristics involved).

Why would anyone want to measure "depth of soundstage"? Its a subjective concept that means different things to different people; its not a real property. Its like asking for a device that measures yumminess of ice cream. But we're not talking about yumminess, we're talking about some actual property of ice cream like sugar or fat content. When you talk about break-in, you're not talking about your own personal experience of break-in, you're making the claim that the tweeter, not you, is changing. To claim that the tweeter is changing AND that you know a priori its not a measurable change is so suspicious that its laughable.

inspiredsports

jcandy wrote: »

We're going in circles. My experience is that tweeters do not change over time, but I am open to the idea that component break-in is a possibility. I have no idea if the effect you are talking about is a 100% or a 1% or a 0.001% effect. You are claiming there is a break-in effect. Please tell me know big it is and what's breaking in.

We are.

In my SDA-2B's, I burned in a single dealer replaced SL-2000 (in the right channel only) in 1989, and then 2 RDO-198's when TL'd in 2008.

I also burned in 4 RDO-194's when I updated my SDA SRS II's in 2008, and then 4 RDO-198's later that year when I TL'd the II's.

In every case the sound quality improved noticably between 100 an 200 hours of use. In the case of the single SL-2000 and 4 RDO-198's in the SDA SRS II's, the caps were already seasoned when the tweeters were replaced. The 2B upgrade was harder to discern as both caps and tweeters were replaced simultaneously, but I did test a new 198 in the left channel after the caps were 300+ hours old and the 100+ hour timeframe again yielded sound quality improvements.

You can spin around like a dog chasing its tail, and that won't change a thing, or you can upgrade some Polk speakers and experience it yourself.

You are the one with the magic measuring tool theory, you tell me.

I do trust in the future we will discover a method to measure it, in the same way we learned to measure the angstom about a hundred years ago, but could not do it before then.


AGAIN, what equipment did you say you are currently using to DISPROVE these changes over time ????

inspiredsports

jcandy wrote: »

That's wishful thinking on your part. In my opinion, its your ears that are inadequate and demonstrably inferior to a good calibrated microphone and measurement equipment. We know that people are not reliable when it come to precise measurement.


Why would anyone want to measure "depth of soundstage"? Its a subjective concept that means different things to different people; its not a real property. Its like asking for a device that measures yumminess of ice cream. But we're not talking about yumminess, we're talking about some actual property of ice cream like sugar or fat content. When you talk about break-in, you're not talking about your own personal experience of break-in, you're making the claim that the tweeter, not you, is changing. To claim that the tweeter is changing AND that you know a priori its not a measurable change is so suspicious that its laughable.

Depth of soundstage is subjective?

So when I listen to The Song Remains the Same, Plant, Page, Bonham and Jones were cardboard flats standing in the same plane ?????

The New York Philharmonic on a stage 1 angstrom deep?

Come on . . . yumminess my a$$

AND AGAIN, what equipment is it that you are currently using to DISPROVE burn in changes over time ????

On3s&amp;Z3r0s

inspiredsports wrote: »

We are.

In my SDA-2B's, I burned in a single dealer replaced SL-2000 (in the right channel only) in 1989, and then 2 RDO-198's when TL'd in 2008.

I also burned in 4 RDO-194's when I updated my SDA SRS II's in 2008, and then 4 RDO-198's later that year when I TL'd the II's.

In every case the sound quality improved noticably between 100 an 200 hours of use.

I have to say, as much as I can grant that there could be some effect due to burn in, this kind of anecdotal account seems really suspicious to me. These are exactly the same kind of claims that get made about Sennheiser headphones a lot, and I've owned those and didn't notice that they changed significantly after I had listened to them for 100 hours. I didn't burn them in straight through, so it actually took me 100 hours of listening. I didn't notice any change.

My question when I read anecdotes like this is basically, how are you "measuring"? Is it like you have a single reference piece of music that you listen to when the tweeters go into the speaker and then at hour 10, 20, 30, etc? Or is it just a more general sense of improvement in the soundstage, resolution, etc. over whatever you happen to be listening to as the burn-in progresses?

I've seen people say 100 hours to sound good, and then they just keep getting better and better, and I have to admit, in the back of my head I think, "Yeah, like that trout my dad caught five years ago just keeps getting bigger and bigger."

I'm seriously considering an experiment now that this has turned into such a huge debate. I have a pair of new-from-Polk-CS RD0194's and a pair of Monitor 5 Jr+. Maybe it would be interesting to replace 1 tweeter and see how it sounds, in stereo with the SL2000, run it in for 100 hours, listening to a couple of reference pieces of music at certain intervals, and then finally swap out the remaining SL2000. At that point, the two tweeters should sound dramatically different, right? From what I've read, those tweeters sound bad out of the box so there should be a huge difference. Then I could see how they come along listening at the same intervals as the second tweeter is burned in.

Of course I get that this too would be totally subjective, but it has to be easier to hear a substantial difference by doing this than by losing your ability to do any kind of A/B comparison and relying solely on your memory of what your speaker sounded like 100 hours ago. Anyone have any ideas on how to do it differently or better?

jcandy

inspiredsports wrote: »

AND AGAIN, what equipment is it that you are currently using to DISPROVE burn in changes over time ????

- M-Audio 2496 soundcard
- variety of amplifiers (NAD c340 for example)
- Behringer EMC 8000 mic (calibrated, although it needn't be for this application)
- Behringer Xenyx 802 mixer
- Jig of my own construction
- all sorts of assorted odds and ends

But why does it matter? You are making the positive claim, so it seems as though the burden of proof rests on your shoulders. From Wikipedia:

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

On3s&amp;Z3r0s

inspiredsports wrote: »

Depth of soundstage is subjective?

Actually, I have a very vivid memory after I graduated college a friend of mine bought an awesome system with this pair of KEF's that cost more than my car at the time. He was showing it off to me and another friend of mine and had us sit in the sweet spot and kept going on about the depth of the soundstage saying he could hear how far back or forward some of the instruments were in the studio space. When we left, me and the other guy both agreed it wasn't what he thought it was. I think it depends a lot on what else you've heard and what you can compare it to... not saying we were right and he was wrong. He just thought there was a depth there that we didn't hear. So, yeah, it has to be subjective.

fishbones

jcandy wrote: »

- M-Audio 2496 soundcard
- variety of amplifiers (NAD c340 for example)
- Behringer EMC 8000 mic (calibrated, although it needn't be for this application)
- Behringer Xenyx 802 mixer
- Jig of my own construction
- all sorts of assorted odds and ends

But why does it matter?

Thank you jcandy, you have proven my point as to why you don't hear any difference in anything.

F1nut

fishbones wrote: »

Thank you jcandy, you have proven my point as to why you don't hear any difference in anything.

That's going to leave a mark! :biggrin:

heiney9

On3s&Z3r0s wrote: »

this kind of anecdotal account seems really suspicious to me.

Simple, try it for yourself instead of criticizing something you've never tried.

That's about as simple as it gets. If you aren't willing to do that then what's the point of arguing about something you have absolutely ZERO perspective on. You can be suspect all you want................one way to find out for yourself.

H9

heiney9

fishbones wrote: »

Thank you jcandy, you have proven my point as to why you don't hear any difference in anything.

Yep, I concur.

jcandy

fishbones wrote: »

Thank you jcandy, you have proven my point as to why you don't hear any difference in anything.

Did I now? I think the paucity of your response indicates quite the opposite. It looks to me like you're confused and just gave up.

jcandy

heiney9 wrote: »

Yep, I concur.

Instead of patting each other on the back in mutual admiration of the inability to produce even a whit of evidence, how about some actual facts?

Your approach to this issue looks like the following: you assert that ghosts are real. You are asked for evidence, and reply by saying "if you look hard enough you'll see one". That's not evidence, that's baloney.

nooshinjohn

jcandy wrote: »

- M-Audio 2496 soundcard
- variety of amplifiers (NAD c340 for example)
- Behringer EMC 8000 mic (calibrated, although it needn't be for this application)
- Behringer Xenyx 802 mixer
- Jig of my own construction
- all sorts of assorted odds and ends

But why does it matter?

I have a vintage Hitachi boom-box that you can have. That should start you out at a better place than you are at now, and it is upgradeable with an RCA input if you get tired of listening to cassettes.:rolleyes:

ben62670

Yippi we have a new village idiot

heiney9

jcandy wrote: »

Instead of patting each other on the back in mutual admiration of the inability to produce even a whit of evidence, how about some actual facts?

Why does it matter to you that I prove to you what I hear? What impact does that have on you that's worth you getting all twisted around the axle?

I don't care what you think about my listening experience's.

H9

On3s&amp;Z3r0s

heiney9 wrote: »

Simple, try it for yourself instead of criticizing something you've never tried.

That's about as simple as it gets. If you aren't willing to do that then what's the point of arguing about something you have absolutely ZERO perspective on. You can be suspect all you want................one way to find out for yourself.

H9

I take a lot of the stuff you have to say pretty seriously, but the crankiness when you're questioned is unnecessary. Not to mention, you're great at focusing on what you want to argue about and missing the larger point entirely, like you did here.

I'd like to know how much of a burn-in effect there is, and I'm going to replace some tweeters. The 194's I got for the 2B's are going in the 5Jr's and I'm gonna TL the 2B's... I'm already sold. But I don't trust my own perceptions any more than I trust yours or anyone elses. I believe that after some initial and hopefully very brief (less than 100 hours) burn-in period where the product settles down mechanically, it should remain very stable for a long period afterwards, and if I hear a difference, I could be imagining things.

Half an hour ago I was curious enough to try to think of a way to make the burn-in more obvious and quantifiable in terms of observing how long it really takes, but screw it, it's not worth it. This thread has convinced me it's a waste of time thinking about it one way or the other.

The guy who spent time and energy in setting up a home test lab wants to think his lab is right, and the guys who invested time and energy tweaking their speakers want to think what they did just makes them keep getting better. No one's remotely impartial, everyone wants to bully the other guy into just going away cause they know what they know. Waste of time, sorry I posted to this thread. I really don't get why everyone is so quick to take offense and why it's so important to them that the other guy recants and sees the light. Ahh, the douchebaggery of the interwebs.

inspiredsports

mdaudioguy wrote: »

I don't think that Mr. Shaw's comments on this are anything more than his particular marketing schtick. "Their" speakers are flawed, mine aren't, so buy mine...

Anyhow, burn-in is probably easier to detect with a rebuild, rather than with a new speaker, because with a new speaker, you also have to contend with changes attributable to the break-in of moving parts.

He actually seems to indicate his designs get worse over time.

jcandy

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I have a vintage Hitachi boom-box that you can have. That should start you out at a better place than you are at now, and it is upgradeable with an RCA input if you get tired of listening to cassettes.:rolleyes:

Does the soundstage thrown by your boom-box open up considerably after 100 hours of burn-in? Perhaps if we let it play nonstop for a decade it'll gradually morph into a 5.1 system with Blu-ray player.

Oh, I take that back. That would be measurable, which is not allowed.

inspiredsports

On3s&Z3r0s wrote: »

I take a lot of the stuff you have to say pretty seriously, but the crankiness when you're questioned is unnecessary. Not to mention, you're great at focusing on what you want to argue about and missing the larger point entirely, like you did here.

I'd like to know how much of a burn-in effect there is, and I'm going to replace some tweeters. The 194's I got for the 2B's are going in the 5Jr's and I'm gonna TL the 2B's... I'm already sold. But I don't trust my own perceptions any more than I trust yours or anyone elses. I believe that after some initial and hopefully very brief (less than 100 hours) burn-in period where the product settles down mechanically, it should remain very stable for a long period afterwards, and if I hear a difference, I could be imagining things.

Half an hour ago I was curious enough to try to think of a way to make the burn-in more obvious and quantifiable in terms of observing how long it really takes, but screw it, it's not worth it. This thread has convinced me it's a waste of time thinking about it one way or the other.

The guy who spent time and energy in setting up a home test lab wants to think his lab is right, and the guys who invested time and energy tweaking their speakers want to think what they did just makes them keep getting better. No one's remotely impartial, everyone wants to bully the other guy into just going away cause they know what they know. Waste of time, sorry I posted to this thread. I really don't get why everyone is so quick to take offense and why it's so important to them that the other guy recants and sees the light. Ahh, the douchebaggery of the interwebs.

I think you were on the right track a half-hour ago. Try it and disprove it (or not) and you will be happy in that you've learned a bit about improving your system, or gained the credibility to tell someone who believes that components burn in that they are full of it.

On3s&amp;Z3r0s

jcandy wrote: »

Does the soundstage thrown by your boom-box open up considerably after 100 hours of burn-in? Perhaps if we let it play nonstop for a decade it'll gradually morph into a 5.1 system with Blu-ray player.

C'mon... troll or no troll, this was freakin funny!

inspiredsports wrote: »

I think you were on the right track a half-hour ago. Try it and disprove it (or not) and you will be happy in that you've learned a bit about improving your system, or gained the credibility to tell someone who believes that components burn in that they are full of it.

No, that was a dumb idea and a waste of time. I am going to replace both the tweeters soon. (I'd do it tonight but I'm trying to sell an amp and they're my demo speakers... if this is really gonna cornhole the sound temporarily, I'll wait.) Seriously, this has just gotten goofy at this point.

jcandy

heiney9 wrote: »

Why does it matter to you that I prove to you what I hear? What impact does that have on you that's worth you getting all twisted around the axle?

I don't care what you think about my listening experience's.

H9

I'm not irritated in the least -- just killing time while some simulations are running. And I don't need proof of anything from you, just a tiny bit of evidence would be nice. But it looks like we've once again arrived at the name-calling stage (it doesn't take much on this forum) so I'm not holding my breath. If you do, by some holiest of miracles, stumble upon some sort of evidence for the reality of tweeter burn-in, please let me know.

ben62670

So you can measure what food tastes best?