• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Do Audio Speakers Break-in?

Lsc

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
406
Likes
383
That would be me...
All mechanical devises are designed & manufactured within the boundaries of their pre-determined specifications. Those specifications are either achieved at the time of manufacture, or after a breakin period. Years ago, for a combustion engine to be at spec, it required a breakin period, but nowadays engines are manufactured at spec on the production line, so they no longer require breaking-in.
A speaker is no different. Depending on what materials were used & whether it was manufactured at spec or not, determines whether a speaker needs to be broken in or not. Also, like all other mechanical devises, a speaker will slowly wear out & lose spec over time which can obviously be measured. Also, a speaker cone made of paper is going to be in & out of spec at completely different times & for different lengths of time to a speaker cone made of aluminum.

So what does this all mean? In the pro-audio world, everything "mechanical" is broken in because it just makes sense to do so, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everything mechanical needs to be broken in or that it can be measured or heard (when new), but because there is no blanket answer that covers all possibilities, breaking in has just become the logical thing to do. At the other end of the scale, all speakers will eventually wear out, lose spec & sound completely different which can also be measured...
Thank you! I like this answer. My new F228Be have about 50 hours on them and whether they required break in or not (doesn’t seem like it) they sounds great.
Btw, did you see that the new Corvette C8 limits revs until the engine is broken in?
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
I read later it was called the Phantom centre channel effect.

definitely sound improved after a few months . They were brand spanking new.
maybe it was placebo , I don’t know , but in those days I never new about phantom centre channel effect.
If this is “breaking in” I don’t know.someone later used the term to me

Phantom center imaging has zero to do with 'break in' . It is a function of positioning, speaker phase, and the amount of program content that is common to L and R channels.

If you only heard a phantom center image from those expensive beasts after a few *months* of listening.....something was/is definitely wrong.
In fact you should have heard a phantom center in every loudspeaker setup you've ever had...if you do stereo 'right'.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
And since nothing has changed in several pages, might as well say again...if you can't show that your pre- and post- 'break in' difference exceeds the pre-'break in' unit-to-unit variance in the same production run, then you haven't demonstrated anything.
 

Maxicut

Active Member
Joined
May 9, 2020
Messages
154
Likes
102
And since nothing has changed in several pages, might as well say again...if you can't show that your pre- and post- 'break in' difference exceeds the pre-'break in' unit-to-unit variance in the same production run, then you haven't demonstrated anything.
What I said is the way it is. You don't want to accept that which is fine, so you can keep looking for the answers that you want to hear.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lsc

Lsc

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
406
Likes
383
i knew read it somewhere...here is a sentence from the Revel F208’s review from Stereophile.

“The F208s eventually took about 500 hours of play before achieving their ultimate sound.”

I’m surprised Dr Toole or Mark Glazer or Kevin Voeks didn’t call up the reviewer to say - hey there is no such thing as speaker break-in. Ummm did the editor read this?

500 hours? It seems like the reviewer look took his time listening.

Here we go..”The F208s eventually took about ZERO hours of play before achieving their ultimate sound.” ...: edited .
Bam! Mic drop...I’m out!
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
What I said is the way it is. You don't want to accept that which is fine, so you can keep looking for the answers that you want to hear.

No doubt it's pretty to think so. But it fails to address the elementary proposition: 'break-in' change should exceed the magnitude of normal new unit-to-new unit difference in the same parameters.
 

TomB19

Active Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Messages
137
Likes
102
I don't listen to any audiophile rubbish. Out of the hundreds of speakers & headphones I've dealt with over the years, I've only had maybe two sets of monitors that livened-up a bit with a breakin & one set of headphones that dramatically changed with a breakin & that's it. The problem is, that you just don't know when someting needs a breakin, so a blanket breakin is the only logical way to go.

No question. Break-in is real, measurable, and it makes a difference.

I recently pulled a brand new subwoofer out of the box and measured it with my DATS 2 at Qts of .72. At first, I thought something was wrong because it was way out of spec. I tested it a dozen times, re-weighed my offset mass, and had a look at the DATS module. After a couple of weeks in a test box, it's now at 0.53. Now it's reasonably close to spec. Yeah, Qms changed a bit and it is easily measurable in a theater environment or on the bench. lol!

Of course, that big Qts change won't affect an infinite baffle situation as much as a second order box but it would be easily measurable in either case.

Obviously, the effect isn't going to be as pronounced with a butyl surround, mid driver but they break in a wee bit also, as do tweeters.

Take a woofer out of the box and compare it to a woofer that has been in use for a long time. Push in the cone and feel the resistance. They will be nowhere near the same. Do you suppose they sound identical, when one takes jway more force to move the cone? My gawd.

This site has become one of the least objective audio sites on the internet.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,409
Location
Seattle Area, USA
No question. Break-in is real, measurable, and it makes a difference.

I recently pulled a brand new subwoofer out of the box and measured it with my DATS 2 at Qts of .72. At first, I thought something was wrong because it was way out of spec. I tested it a dozen times, re-weighed my offset mass, and had a look at the DATS module. After a couple of weeks in a test box, it's now at 0.53. Now it's reasonably close to spec. Yeah, Qms changed a bit and it is easily measurable in a theater environment or on the bench. lol!

Of course, that big Qts change won't affect an infinite baffle situation as much as a second order box but it would be easily measurable in either case.

Obviously, the effect isn't going to be as pronounced with a butyl surround, mid driver but they break in a wee bit also, as do tweeters.

Take a woofer out of the box and compare it to a woofer that has been in use for a long time. Push in the cone and feel the resistance. They will be nowhere near the same. Do you suppose they sound identical, when one takes jway more force to move the cone? My gawd.

This site has become one of the least objective audio sites on the internet.

How many hours did it spend in the test box?

Weeks could have been 2 hours of use or 200 hours.
 

TabCam

Active Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2020
Messages
192
Likes
162
Maybe the biggest difference is that those who do not experience break in play or test at louder levels? If one plays at moderate level, it could take a lot longer to get at a stable Thiele-Small parameters state.

Testing would be also different as one needs multiple units, play at moderate levels for different time intervals (e.g. 1-8 week) and then test the unit as testing will probably change the parameters as well.
 

wwenze

Major Contributor
Joined
May 22, 2018
Messages
1,284
Likes
1,827
Anybody who dares to ask the question "do xxxxxx break in", must be prepared to answer the question of "do xxxxxx break out" when they are trying to justify paying $$$$ for 20-year-old equipment
 

Bruce Morgen

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
866
Likes
1,241
When it comes to "20-year-old equipment ," I'm less concerned with "break in" or even "break out" than with how likely it is to break. :cool:
 

boswell

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2019
Messages
76
Likes
76
Breaking In/Running In
Using the motor car engine as an analogy is interesting. In car engines, mass produced components are made to a specification but are never exactly the same size . Components that measure within a range of extremes (a tolerance) are accepted and those that don't are rejected (except in the production of lemons). In the case of engines the sum of the components and the degree to which they differed from the exact specification (acceptable because it was within tolerances) gave identical engines that were noticeably different in performance. After assembly the engines were run on test beds and there were observable differences in their performance. Some jumped around and were noisy, others "purred" with hardly any vibration. This was clearly an indication of the effect of the random grouping of parts; not exactly the same but within tolerances. One of the reasons for this testing was to choose a number of engines to be put in the cars to be used in production racing (the engines had to be production line and not modified). These were the ones that purred and ran smoothly; the lumpier ones were for public consumption. These raced production engines were never "run in" as the maximum compression ratio was desirable and it just got less as the engine was used.
Also the engines that had an unlucky combination of components never actually got any better with running in and then running on and on except as they wore through their lifespan the mismatch was reduced as wear increased the tolerance and so they became smoother(and weaker). Modern manufacturing practices have tolerances reduced by factors of ten, even hundreds so there is much less difference between assembled engines and no running in.
The "breaking in" was implemented for a number of reasons. Who knows how valid they were? One was that if there was a mechanical failure due to any reason the damage would be less if the engine revolutions were less. Another reason was that the "swarf" (filings and stuff left inside the motor) would cause less wear. The pistons and othe moving parts were giving themselves a final polish and the frictioned surfaces were becoming smoother. The lubricating oil was "seasoned" on the load bearing surfaces forming a more resistant layer reducing wear.
Essentially the running in period was followed by an oil change and the oil was always dirty. The production race engines changed the oil every 10 - 50 miles or even less until it was clean.

All car engines don't perform well cold. They run best at a certain operating temperature and until this temperature is reached they are not at their optimum. Perhaps speakers behave in a similar manner. How long do they take to warm up?

Do speaker components and their assembled sum have analogous issues to car engines.
Moving parts? Surely a manufacturer would want any thing that moved to perform in exactly the same manner for the warranted life of the product at least (and then wear out). What type of motion? Do the moving parts involved need to be moving for a while before they warm up and are moving best. And...
Friction from electrical resistance doesn't require much oil to reduce.
Audio energy converted to heat energy may need cooling system. (opportunity here for entrepreneur??).

"Breaking in" I believe came from the pacification of wild or unruly horses and no doubt can be applied to other animals, camels for instance. I have heard of it being applied to human beings(not going there...). I guess toilet training is an instance of it.
I can also imagine it works both ways, in that where something new must register as very different and then as one gets used to it, it is no longer as different as it was at the start.
Perhaps its the ear that gets broken in not the equipment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trl

Bruce Morgen

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
866
Likes
1,241
There are many types of break:
  • In
  • Out
  • Down
  • Up
  • Through
  • Even
  • Free
  • Dance
I bet your speakers can't do that last one.

You'd win that bet -- but you omitted another break my speakers can't do:
  • The Bank
 

beefkabob

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
1,636
Likes
2,074
Come on, guys. We all know that speakers break the sound barrier.
 

beefkabob

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
1,636
Likes
2,074
No question. Break-in is real, measurable, and it makes a difference.

I recently pulled a brand new subwoofer out of the box and measured it with my DATS 2 at Qts of .72. At first, I thought something was wrong because it was way out of spec. I tested it a dozen times, re-weighed my offset mass, and had a look at the DATS module. After a couple of weeks in a test box, it's now at 0.53. Now it's reasonably close to spec. Yeah, Qms changed a bit and it is easily measurable in a theater environment or on the bench. lol!

Of course, that big Qts change won't affect an infinite baffle situation as much as a second order box but it would be easily measurable in either case.

Obviously, the effect isn't going to be as pronounced with a butyl surround, mid driver but they break in a wee bit also, as do tweeters.

Take a woofer out of the box and compare it to a woofer that has been in use for a long time. Push in the cone and feel the resistance. They will be nowhere near the same. Do you suppose they sound identical, when one takes jway more force to move the cone? My gawd.

This site has become one of the least objective audio sites on the internet.
Please provide the sub model and number of hours of use and what that use was before the change. Couple of weeks in a test box means what exactly? Was it tested after a couple of hours too?
 

DualTriode

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
893
Likes
593
No question. Break-in is real, measurable, and it makes a difference.

I recently pulled a brand new subwoofer out of the box and measured it with my DATS 2 at Qts of .72. At first, I thought something was wrong because it was way out of spec. I tested it a dozen times, re-weighed my offset mass, and had a look at the DATS module. After a couple of weeks in a test box, it's now at 0.53. Now it's reasonably close to spec. Yeah, Qms changed a bit and it is easily measurable in a theater environment or on the bench. lol!

Of course, that big Qts change won't affect an infinite baffle situation as much as a second order box but it would be easily measurable in either case.

Obviously, the effect isn't going to be as pronounced with a butyl surround, mid driver but they break in a wee bit also, as do tweeters.

Take a woofer out of the box and compare it to a woofer that has been in use for a long time. Push in the cone and feel the resistance. They will be nowhere near the same. Do you suppose they sound identical, when one takes jway more force to move the cone? My gawd.

This site has become one of the least objective audio sites on the internet.

That is not how you do TS/P testing, "out of the box"

Read what the manufactures do. Hook up the driver in the test rig and warm up for hours at 60% plus power then run the test.

That is real world testing.
 

TomB19

Active Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Messages
137
Likes
102
That is not how you do TS/P testing, "out of the box"

Read what the manufactures do. Hook up the driver in the test rig and warm up for hours at 60% plus power then run the test.

That is real world testing.

No, it's not. That's real world break-in.

BTW, it still isn't in spec but it's reasonably close. I've never had a sub that met the specs exactly and usually, when you use two, they are measurably different.

I'm not arguing that small and measurable differences are noticeable to the ear. I'm just saying I can easily tell the difference between a broken in sub and a non broken in sub, particularly in a second order enclosure.
 

TomB19

Active Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Messages
137
Likes
102
How many hours did it spend in the test box?

Weeks could have been 2 hours of use or 200 hours.

It wasn't running 24/7 but it had quite a few hours. I would guess something around 100 but the amplitude was low for most of those hours out of respect for the neighbors. It wasn't pounding the whole time.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom