Speaker break-in

SEH

F1nut wrote: »

Oh great, another one trying to tell us what is what. Here's something for you. If you can't trust your ears and have to rely on tests/specs for your conclusions, you're in the wrong hobby.

I trust my ears just fine. I trust measured test data too, especially when it comes to things I can't feasibly do (like take hundreds of speakers and break them in extensively just to see what really happens). I trust either more than I trust random claims from folks on the internet or manufacturer's marketing departments.

If I didn't, I might think (just for one example off the top of my head) that low end AVRs put out rated power. I suspect that they don't, even on AVRs I've never bothered to hear, because people around here post helpful links to tests proving they don't all the time. Or are those not real proof? Maybe those are the kind of tests I shouldn't be relying on? Or is it only certain tests that I need to disregard? Help me out here.

F1nut

This about sums it up.

"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not."--Nelson Pass

inspiredsports

That's a great quote by Pass, but as you study his site it's full of schematics, technical jargon and statistics.

IMHO, the formula for BUILDING great audio components is about 99.5% quantitative and .5% qualitative. BUT . . . . it's that .5% qualitative, the intuitive "good ear" if you will, that allows the technician to make his product better sounding than 99.5% of his competition.

SEH

F1nut wrote: »

This about sums it up.

It's a nice philosophy. The OP seemed to want a little more information than that though, so I posted some.

CinderLyon

So I got my new A9's in and wanted to know what I should do for a break in if anything and found this old thread. So i figured i might as well revive it and put my 2 cents in.

I noticed no one mentioned anything about material properties in almost all of these discussions. I am not going to try and do the whole thing here but it is a known fact that many materials harden in the presence of vibrations. It is used as an alternative even to harden stock metals in some applications versus methods involving heat. There are also crystal domains in metals that have a preferential directions preference to current and can be manipulated by currents (electromagnets). And many materials exhibit memory as well even under room temperature and pressure.

So it would not surprise me that the glue used on the boxes would hardening a bit more, the wood itself might change somehow, the cones, the wiring and other factors COULD come in to play. The joins could join better, the micro bonding between connections could involve more surface area, and the current could flow easier, MAYBE.

Is it perceptible? I have no idea. I am sure there is a bit of science out there these days and would love to see some urls pointing to thm.

I would also think that the human brain, and its ability to rewire might even be THE first order factor in perception of a break in. Some good solid science is the best way to know for sure.


I think now I will just kick back and have a grand old time and listening to some great music.

tonyb

Just listen at normal volumes and they will break in over time. Thing is it happens so slowly and your ears may never pick up on it. If you played a new set of speakers along side a broken in pair, it would be more apparent.

jeremymarcinko

I tend to believe our ears/brain adjusts to the sound. Much like our eyes adjust to light, our bodies adjust to heat/cold. Of course this is only to a degree bright is still bright dark is still dark. But just like jumping into a pool after being in the hot sun its awful at first then we quickly adapt to the change temp. Its amazing how I can turn off the audyssey eq during playback and think gosh thats sounds terrible, then 15 seconds later its not to bad. Likewise if I've been listening un-eq'd and turn on audyssey, I think wow this is terrible/lifeless and 15 seconds later it sounds good. As I said this adaptation is only to a degree but I believe our ears have the ability to auto eq somewhat.

Habanero Monk

I haven't seen an actual speaker designer (not the guy that build the box and put's speakers in it) but actual transducer designers ever come anywhere near saying the 80 hour or so mark.

I wonder what the Polk engineers do to a speaker before Klippel measurements? Do any of them participate in thread?

[Deleted User]

I can ask them.

[Deleted User]

Hello,
Here's the response from Polk's Scott Orth:



"The short answer is it depends a lot on what testing is to be done. For Klippel we may not break them in at all because we want to see how it changes over time. For reliability testing there is some break in done using either EIA426-B or tone bursts, depending on the application and testing. For small signal parameter testing, it depends on if we’re doing development work or production line testing. We break things in depending on whether the break in will affect the test or not.

80 hours is a long time for break in, though and we would probably only do such a long break in period for special occasions. Depending on the test, break-in usually lasts 1-8 hours. If we’re doing critical listening, then we might break them in longer."

Enjoy, Ken