Do Audio Speakers Break-in?

[Objectivist01]

I do not.

Reviewers are as varied as are all audiophiles and there are no codified standards for being a professional reviewer than just being one.

One can make that argument but perhaps it is a conservative approach to do so if the individual even allows for the possibility that break-in is real. It does no harm and it allays the concerns of readers who do believe it exists.

People have different hearing and rooms, and they are thinking they are hearing all the same sound!

 

[daftcombo]

People have different hearing and rooms, and they are thinking they are hearing all the same sound!

Ok for rooms, but for hearing you can't prove it. See Wittgenstein.

 

[Objectivist01]

Ok for rooms, but for hearing you can't prove it. See Wittgenstein.

Can you provide a link?

 

[edechamps]

One can make that argument but perhaps it is a conservative approach to do so if the individual even allows for the possibility that break-in is real. It does no harm and it allays the concerns of readers who do believe it exists.

I wouldn't say promoting misinformation and pseudo-science "does no harm".

A more honest argument would be "it's a cheap way to pander to the (presumed) majority of 'believers' to comfort them in their uninformed opinions, make them feel good about themselves and thus keep their readership".

When I see an audio review that mentions "break-in", it severely impairs the credibility of said review to my eyes, because it creates doubt as to the competence of the reviewer (if they believe in break-in, then what else did they get wrong?). Witnessing the propagation of misinformation does not "allay my concerns", quite the opposite. I'm not the typical target reader of audio magazines though, I presume.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I wouldn't say promoting misinformation and pseudo-science "does no harm".

I agree that promoting it is not without harm. OTOH, pushing the truth into the faces of the many who will never accept it will distract their attention from whatever you else you have to say. You will never get their confidence. I prefer to simply not mention it except, occasionally, in a snide reference.

I'm not the typical target reader of audio magazines though, I presume.

Probably.

 

[snurf]

A more honest argument would be "it's a cheap way to pander to the (presumed) majority of 'believers' to comfort them in their uninformed opinions, make them feel good about themselves and thus keep their readership".

Comforting them with facts beats opinions, no matter how informed, any day of the week though.
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.”

 

[Objectivist01]

Imo, the manufacturers description about burn in themselves is only for one reason: letting the listener adjust to the sound of their product in case if they do not like it in the beginning

 

[GelbeMusik]

'The dynamic measurement technique is also
convenient for the investigation of the break in and
other ageing effects of the suspension. '

But, as I've stated before, it's a non issue since it's self resolving.
... A-B listening test ...
Edit 2: Music is ...

Despite being technically fully understood, as a non issue, audio folks still longs for listening tests. Because there might be something. A B blind double panel decision test on a maybe there, because I've heard ( about ) it.

Again, green the sahara, and I do everything for You. But in the meanwhile, if You are after something, why not DIY the science--see my post #295?! Don't ask it from others. All this audio stuff is so irrelevant to real science, You wouldn't believe. Maybe engineering if it could be manufactured and sold.

 

[snurf]

Despite being technically fully understood, as a non issue, audio folks still longs for listening tests. Because there might be something. A B blind double panel decision test on a maybe there, because I've heard ( about ) it.

Again, green the sahara, and I do everything for You. But in the meanwhile, if You are after something, why not DIY the science--see my post #295?! Don't ask it from others. All this audio stuff is so irrelevant to real science, You wouldn't believe. Maybe engineering if it could be manufactured and sold.

Opinions are not facts. Claiming a widely held opinion to be a fact is not being scientific. “The majority have no other reason for their opinions other than that they are in fashion.”

Research is an attempt to find facts. Drawing far fetched conclusions from a single piece of evidence is a common problem, perhaps the most common. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.".

I like to play the devil's advocate when people state opinions as facts. Here's a screenshot from https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../do-audio-speakers-break-in.11898/post-381753 that differs quite a bit from your simulation: Before/after

 

[snurf]

So from looking at the graph above, it may be reasonable to think that in a vented box, the hypothetical 'break-in' may be more pronounced.

 

[Lsc]

It’s NOT a statement of fact. It’s my observation where I thought the sound “opened” up. It’s something that I’m not even 100% certain happened but my buddy who also bought the same speaker thought he observed something similar.
We don’t know know if there is such a thing as speaker break-in. What we both agreed on was how good our F208 sounded in 2013 (opinions by 2 people) when we first got them and a couple weeks later they sounded even better. Either way it’s all conjecture on our part.

But what’s odd is that there are reviews where speakers or amps or whatever are left to “break-in” for a period of time. As a reviewer for what 30+ years of your life (just a guess), why do you or your fellow reviewers do this? I’d like to know how all professional reviewers cannot agree on the myth of the speaker break-in. If it’s that black or white, then all reviewers should be either breaking in the speaker they are reviewing (assuming they got a brand new pair) or all reviewers should not.

I would think “professional” reviewers would know this answer one way or another. To be clear, if there is no such thing as speaker break-in, any reviewer who spends hours and hours letting a speaker break-in, it can be argued doesn’t know what he is doing. And the opposite case also holds true. I’ll pause here.

This is your perception changing, not the equipment. All you have to do is pay attention to what you are hearing and you will hear more detail, more air, etc. Your brain normally throws out these things but when you decide to care, it renders it for you. It happens all the time for all of us.

So when I bought my F208, I did some extensive research and listened to a wide range of speakers that were available at my 2 local dealers including B&W, Paradigm, Golden Ear Technology and Revel.
Deciding the Revel F208/C208 after my final non-double blind a/b with the Studio2 and F206 was a sensible choice for me. Therefore, I took delivery of the speakers that I chose sounded the best for the money. I was very familiar with the sound of these speakers at purchase time as I had spent 5-6 hours total listening to them prior my purchase.
So the question is, why in the world do my ears need to adjust to speakers that I absolutely fell in love with during my audition process? If I didn’t like these I wouldn’t have bought them? It just doesn’t make any sense.
Also, the dealer who had to go thru extensive training by Revel including going out to California, told me on my first visit, “they have only been playing for about 30 hours or so, they have not been fully broken in yet.”
I didn’t ask him if the speakers were broken in, he offered that info to me. And when I was comparing them to the studio2 he reminded me that the F208 was not broken in yet.
My ears adjusting to the sound of my new speakers doesn’t make sense. What adjustment is needed? I already heard them for several hours prior to purchase. Something is WAY off.

 

[Inner Space]

... I did some extensive research and listened to a wide range of speakers that were available at my 2 local dealers ...

You listened in a store, then brought them home to your room, thereby introducing a huge, massive variable. Why ignore the Mount-Everest-size variable and focus instead on a theoretical grain-of-sand-size variable? If (if, if, if) there was a tiny disparity between the demo units and the box-fresh units, wouldn't that be buried by the huge disparity between room acoustics? I think any "break in" enhancement would be done and dusted during the first track you played, and your gradual appreciation of the new speakers over a period of time was due to the super-powerful psychoacoustic processor between your ears recalibrating and sorting out the complex new profile it was presented with.

 

[Objectivist01]

nge

So when I bought my F208, I did some extensive research and listened to a wide range of speakers that were available at my 2 local dealers including B&W, Paradigm, Golden Ear Technology and Revel.
Deciding the Revel F208/C208 after my final non-double blind a/b with the Studio2 and F206 was a sensible choice for me. Therefore, I took delivery of the speakers that I chose sounded the best for the money. I was very familiar with the sound of these speakers at purchase time as I had spent 5-6 hours total listening to them prior my purchase.
So the question is, why in the world do my ears need to adjust to speakers that I absolutely fell in love with during my audition process? If I didn’t like these I wouldn’t have bought them? It just doesn’t make any sense.
Also, the dealer who had to go thru extensive training by Revel including going out to California, told me on my first visit, “they have only been playing for about 30 hours or so, they have not been fully broken in yet.”
I didn’t ask him if the speakers were broken in, he offered that info to me. And when I was comparing them to the studio2 he reminded me that the F208 was not broken in yet.
My ears adjusting to the sound of my new speakers doesn’t make sense. What adjustment is needed? I already heard them for several hours prior to purchase. Something is WAY off.

No adjustment will have to happen if you are already used to it’s sound before the purchase. If you instantly liked too, then no adjustment have to happen for your brain to understand and accept this profile.

But if you never had listened to the revel before and you were quite used with another speakers sound profile for long period,there is a chance that you may find something off with the new speakers as your brain is quite used to something else.

the store guy either knows him or he is supposed to say this to you as instructed by his boss or revel as an insurance just in case if you don’t like it in the beginning.

 

[GelbeMusik]

I like to play the devil's advocate when ... https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../do-audio-speakers-break-in.11898/post-381753 that differs quite a bit from your simulation: ...

Why again do You quote somebody else? You claim some vague interest in this topic, but expect others to serve You with the "details". Science should help You out, and shall it be the real big science. Again, do it yourself. Since real science is not the least interested in "breaking in" subwoofers. The engineers might be, if it was marketable.

(1) Do Your own science. The how to of science is open to the public since ages. And with this topic I hardly expect anything beyond college.

(2) You don't seem to read Your own quotes. The deviance before/after as stated in the video is actually found to be about 1.5 dB maximum--maximum in the subbass. Which for the order of magnitude complies with my simulation; I wrote about barely 1dB.

(3) The guy doesn't simulate before/after in the very same volume. He states that explicitly. Different volumes! Big fat fallacy that is, when it comes to the effect of "break in" of the very identical ready made product.

I'm not here to convince You of anything. You don' value the input. If You present a well thought out experiment, we may come back to it.

So from looking at the graph above, it may be reasonable to think that in a vented box, the hypothetical 'break-in' may be more pronounced.

No, not the least. The video only proves, that there is money (read clicks) in perpetuating the misunderstanding of audio folks. May be in this case it was all with good intentions. Nevertheless it is misinformation, see (3). He should have asked somebody else how to do a bass alignment.

 

[amirm]

So the question is, why in the world do my ears need to adjust to speakers that I absolutely fell in love with during my audition process?

I didn't say anything about adjustment. I explained that your hearing sensitivity changes all the time depending on your frame mind. So you can't go by an instance where you heard something better than before. You need to have controls that eliminate that possibility.

 

[Lsc]

nge


No adjustment will have to happen if you are already used to it’s sound before the purchase. If you instantly liked too, then no adjustment have to happen for your brain to understand and accept this profile.

But if you never had listened to the revel before and you were quite used with another speakers sound profile for long period,there is a chance that you may find something off with the new speakers as your brain is quite used to something else.

the store guy either knows him or he is supposed to say this to you as instructed by his boss or revel as an insurance just in case if you don’t like it in the beginning.

I think the issue with the speaker break-in myth is that at one time the generally accepted standard was that new speakers required break-in. This is probably why when I bought my first pair of speakers in 1995, I was told to give my new speakers about 50-100 hours (don’t remember exactly) to break-in. Since then the need break-in a speaker turned out to be a myth as it was proven false by well respected engineers.
Now the folks who heard the new facts appear to be acting like they knew this all along while information travels at different rates.
Seems like the latest and greatest info is that there is no such thing as speaker break-in.
Sounds good. My F228Be that I got a few weeks ago sounds exactly the same as the day I got them....or does the bass sound fuller? Lol

 

[snurf]

You claim some vague interest in this topic, but expect others to serve You with the "details".

(1) Do Your own science. The how to of science is open to the public since ages. And with this topic I hardly expect anything beyond college.

(2) You don't seem to read Your own quotes. The deviance before/after as stated in the video is actually found to be about 1.5 dB maximum--maximum in the subbass. Which for the order of magnitude complies with my simulation; I wrote about barely 1dB.

(3) The guy doesn't simulate before/after in the very same volume. He states that explicitly. Different volumes! Big fat fallacy that is, when it comes to the effect of "break in" of the very identical ready made product.

No, not the least. The video only proves, that there is money (read clicks) in perpetuating the misunderstanding of audio folks. May be in this case it was all with good intentions. Nevertheless it is misinformation, see (3). He should have asked somebody else how to do a bass alignment.

No, I'm criticizing your conclusion that it is proven that 'break-in' doesn't exist and is an established fact.

(1) No. I'm broke.
(2) The measured -3dB before/after differs almost 10Hz compared to your simulation:

(3) I watched the video again and can't find where he talks about different volumes? Anyways, the video is short in details and can't stand up to scrutiny. But then again, the claim that 'break-in' is proven to be only a brain plasticity and not a driver plasticity issue seems to fall short, even in the scientific community, e.g Klippel, who provides tools to investigate the effect.

Bias and giving an unreasonable amount of importance to a single piece of evidence is not 'real big science.'.

 

[GelbeMusik]

So from looking at the graph ...
can't stand up to scrutiny. But then again, ... is not 'real big science.'.

Over and over again, in case You're interested do the investigation. Nobody hinders You. Only to quote second hand "information" which by Your own comment doesn't stand, makes things messy. ( One couldn't even read the markings on the graphs ... )

Sure, to go through these things is not actually what I would understand as "big science". It is some playing around with college grade knowledge. And still the audio niche doesn't come up with conclusive results. In contrast to others I don't see the psychological problem in the imaginative perception of differences.

The psychological problem lies in the overemphasized importance some folks lay into audio in the first place. And second to ultimately focus on their own individual perception. Because, third the thinking goes, the product shall generate a perfect replica of a "signal" as to please the idealistic "critical listener". And all this is expected to be accomplished by some engineering / scientific personnel, fourth. Driven by magazines and advertising in perfect harmony.

Of course You don't reside in this niche. But the discussion feels since some posts pretty close.

Last time, if You are able to discuss things, You should be able to generate some interesting stuff on Your own. Investigate first hand, present, and then we may discuss.

 

[snurf]

When walking in to a room you never been in before, it takes some time to adjust to the 'character' of the room. Same thing with a new speaker. I have two pair of speakers, both of which I never noticed any 'break-in', takes some time to get adjusted to when switching between them after a full day of listening.

My gripe about 'break-in' is an observation I made. I bought a subwoofer. My perception was that it changed 'character' over two weeks time. Now, let's call that bullshit. But, then I bought another unit. To my ears it sounded like two units with different characters playing. It took about two weeks to blend in.

Then I bought another two units. Again, they took about two weeks to blend in. To me, this observation makes me question the nonexistence of 'break-in'. To everyone else it's just an anecdote. All of my subwoofers have been placed in front of me between the speakers, one centimeter apart.

The opinion that 'break-in' always is a matter of getting used to the sound may not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Until it's proven it's just a matter of opinions, well informed or not. And no, I'm not going to finance a study.

I'm also wondering if it's perfectly fine to max the volume for a few minutes when the speakers are new to give them a 'break-in' in the rare case they might need it? Opinions and anecdotes from former employees in the speaker driver industry would of course be ideal. Comments from those guys would shed much needed light on this topic. I'm a bit surprised not hearing any comments from one.

 

[LTig]

[..] Opinions and anecdotes from former employees in the speaker driver industry would of course be ideal. Comments from those guys would shed much needed light on this topic. I'm a bit surprised not hearing any comments from one.

In 2004 I had a phone call with Markus Wolff, back then chief developer of Klein&Hummel (and of Neumann speakers nowadays). He told me that their speakers don't need break in. The woofer will change a little bit which leads to a very minor change in the LF extension. That's all.

Therefore I think that almost all reports of the changes reported after break in are just adaption to the speaker in this room. No way a better soundstage, less harsh treble and all those night-and-day differences one reads in those reports could be caused by a minor change of LF extension.