Do Audio Speakers Break-in?

[Frgirard]

You mean there are people listening without having the cables kleptogenically, sorry, cryogenically, treated first? How appalling, doesn't it make their ears bleed? One of the sillier misapplications of theory - yes, freezing a cable to very low temperatures will change it's crystalline structure and conductivity, but as soon as it warms up it will change back. And moving it in any way will also affect it - anyone here ever broken a solid core cable by bending it once to often? I have, more than once, that is why I hate working with solid core cables.

The audiophile's humour need a long burn in.

 

[beagleman]

no, it was years ago and I didn't do any before measurements because i was waiting for my complete set ...but it will be great if you can do that with your next paper cone speaker to test this hypothesis. I highly doubt it was my hearing or psychological perception. They really sounded awful out of the box and blended in much better a day later without me listening in between. On hindsight it does make sense to me because paper is not metal, paper softens up with use.... it will be great if you can test this out.

Not wanting to doubt your personal observations, but changes of that magnitude, would tend to normally indicate some type of defect. I can surely see or understand very small audible changes perhaps, but for it to sound "Awful" one day and then change drastically over a few hours to much better.......

 

[NiagaraPete]

If I could add something that I have found to be true. Making sure your drivers and attached bases are tight can help.

 

[Night&Day]

I wonder how many decades ago the burn-in theory originated... and why there is still no solid evidence measured.

One thing that does change during the break-in period is the neurons in the listeners brain. Maybe some form of auto-suggestion or priming explains the devout adherence to "I swear it sounds different". They truly perceive it as different, even though there remains no scientific objective measurement data whatsoever in 50 years, of any difference.

Aren't paper speakers becoming less common? Yet people still report break-in.

Scientific objective measurement supplied by Klippel: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...o-speakers-break-in.11898/page-30#post-798117

 

[klatwork]

LMAO, what is even the debate here. Sounds like ppl debating about whether the earth is flat / round all over again because theory says or because my past experience told me...etc.. That's why the forum owners are taking time to test them, your opinion or your theory need not apply.

Different drivers made out of different materials, different sound production mechanism, some bigger name manufacturers might be using high quality material, already ran hours of stress test, some cheap or indie speakers might be shipped directly from some chinese factory and immediately turned over to the customer. I just checked my speakers again...it's some dull plastic like material ..not even sure if there's any wood/paper fiber on it.
I had speakers that didn't require break-in and 10 secs , 50 hours..no difference detected..
and had a set with explicit instructions to break in and it did make a difference..

IMO, If the manufacturer says it requires 10 hours of break in, then give it 10 hours of break in. take the 1st measurement before and the 2nd set after and see if it there are any real differences. If the manufacturer said nothing, then don't. Eventually, we'll see if break in does apply to certain speakers or whether it applies to none at all. If ppl have been arguing about this for 50 years and there is no general consensus, then obviously the evidence from both sides are weak as F...time to put it to the test

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

LMAO, what is even the debate here. Sounds like ppl debating about whether the earth is flat / round all over again because theory says or because my past experience told me...etc.. That's why the forum owners are taking time to test them, your opinion or your theory need not apply.

Different drivers made out of different materials, different sound production mechanism, some bigger name manufacturers might be using high quality material, already ran hours of stress test, some cheap or indie speakers might be shipped directly from some chinese factory and immediately turned over to the customer. I just checked my speakers again...it's some dull plastic like material ..not even sure if there's any wood/paper fiber on it.
I had speakers that didn't require break-in and 10 secs , 50 hours..no difference detected..
and had a set with explicit instructions to break in and it did make a difference..

IMO, If the manufacturer says it requires 10 hours of break in, then give it 10 hours of break in. take the 1st measurement before and the 2nd set after and see if it there are any real differences. If the manufacturer said nothing, then don't. Eventually, we'll see if break in does apply to certain speakers or whether it applies to none at all. If ppl have been arguing about this for 50 years and there is no general consensus, then obviously the evidence from both sides are weak as F...time to put it to the test

Na you need to think by yourself too, there is manufacturers saying their equipment requires 500 hours, in others words after the return policy xD

 

[klatwork]

Na you need to think by yourself too, there is manufacturers saying their equipment requires 500 hours, in others words after the return policy xD

well, i have ears...I know what i was hearing. If I don't hear a major difference, then I know it's BS....
if you trust your brain after you listened to some cool conspiracy theory on forums and pretend you haven the insight of a speaker engineer, then why not just look at the drivers specs and tell yourself what to THINK . You don't need to review the measurement data here...LMAO. Mine might be a defect or an outlier or it might be the case with the speaker design. All I'm saying is break them in before/after testing if the manufacturer says so..that will prove them right/wrong.
Why is this concept so scary to some people? Their whole belief system will fall apart or what?

 

[SIY]

Scary? Really?

 

[krabapple]

no, it was years ago and I didn't do any before measurements because i was waiting for my complete set ...but it will be great if you can do that with your next paper cone speaker to test this hypothesis. I highly doubt it was my hearing or psychological perception.

I don't.

One perennial among audio hobbyists is their lack of respect for the power of perceptual/cognitive bias.

Gets them every time.

Plenty of rueful anecdotes out there from audio professionals -- like, recording engineers -- who thought they flipped a switch and heard a huge difference...when they actually hadn't flipped a switch. They were listening to the exact same thing...twice.

But you're different?

 

[amirm]

no, it was years ago and I didn't do any before measurements because i was waiting for my complete set ...but it will be great if you can do that with your next paper cone speaker to test this hypothesis. I highly doubt it was my hearing or psychological perception. They really sounded awful out of the box and blended in much better a day later without me listening in between. On hindsight it does make sense to me because paper is not metal, paper softens up with use.... it will be great if you can test this out.

If someone builds one in a box I can test it. I will pay $100 toward the cost.

 

[klatwork]

I don't.

One perennial among audio hobbyists is their lack of respect for the power of perceptual/cognitive bias.

Gets them every time.

Plenty of rueful anecdotes out there from audio professionals -- like, recording engineers -- who thought they flipped a switch and heard a huge difference...when they actually hadn't flipped a switch. They were listening to the exact same thing...twice.

But you're different?

Exactly, there are plenty of anecdotal evidence out there, proof them wrong with actual measurements of speakers that claims to require break-in.
You can't just claim they are all cognitive biases just because your gut feeling tells you it's some conspiracy theory and your experience told you it's a lie...which are also subjected to cognitive biased. There is no conclusive evidence to prove this either ways....and not even enough before and after test measurements to disprove the break-in effect. It's kind of strange that this has become some religion where you need to pick a side to believe and nobody here even seems to want to see more tests to prove/disprove this and rather argue that they are more right than the other side.

 

[klatwork]

If someone builds one in a box I can test it. I will pay $100 toward the cost.

no idea how to do this..but
on future speakers you review, if the manufacturer says it requires x hours of break in....pls take before and after measurements to see if this is a real effect.
If it doesn't make a difference every time then it means it's bogus....if even one improves significantly with break in , that means it might apply to some speaker designs...this will end 50 yrs of endless inconclusive bickering...thanks. and I do appreciate the work you do.

 

[DonH56]

There are lots of measurements out there showing the effect of speaker break-in. Manufacturers have been doing it for ages. I have zero interest in looking for it (again) and have no reason to look again. It is far more than "anecdotal". I made measurements back in the early 1980's to satisfy myself (and boss, and customers) but that data (taken by hand on engineering pads) is long gone. Do a search, or ping one of the speaker designers on ASR, and ask them about it instead of just calling us all liars.

Short version: Speaker break-in is real, there are well-known mechanical reasons, TS parameters do shift, but the effect is essentially inaudible after a few seconds or minutes if not before.

 

[amirm]

no idea how to do this..but

Build a simple box and put a woofer in it. That's all.

 

[LTig]

There are lots of measurements out there showing the effect of speaker break-in. Manufacturers have been doing it for ages. I have zero interest in looking for it (again) and have no reason to look again. It is far more than "anecdotal". I made measurements back in the early 1980's to satisfy myself (and boss, and customers) but that data (taken by hand on engineering pads) is long gone. Do a search, or ping one of the speaker designers on ASR, and ask them about it instead of just calling us all liars.

Short version: Speaker break-in is real, there are well-known mechanical reasons, TS parameters do shift, but the effect is essentially inaudible after a few seconds or minutes if not before.

Yep, as I wrote earlier where I cited a telephone conversation with @Markus @ Neumann Wolff from 2004 (bold marking by me).

 

[krabapple]

Exactly, there are plenty of anecdotal evidence out there, proof them wrong with actual measurements of speakers that claims to require break-in.
You can't just claim they are all cognitive biases just because your gut feeling tells you it's some conspiracy theory and your experience told you it's a lie...which are also subjected to cognitive biased. There is no conclusive evidence to prove this either ways....and not even enough before and after test measurements to disprove the break-in effect. It's kind of strange that this has become some religion where you need to pick a side to believe and nobody here even seems to want to see more tests to prove/disprove this and rather argue that they are more right than the other side.

Wow, you managed to get this completely wrong.

What we have are compelling facts about human psychology gleaned from research. We have plentiful extreme 'real world' examples of it too -- where audio-savvy people who thought they heard a big diff , *were indisputably wrong*, because nothing had, in fact, changed. As in, the case when you thought you threw a switch...but didn't.

There have been many before and after measurements of drivers. Effects are inaudible and/or within the per-sample variance for the product in the 'before' state. This is an old, old claim. But please, feel free to set Amir up with yet another thing to test.

 

[Mojo Warrior]

If speaker "break-in" is real it would take only minutes or seconds to remedy. Speakers do "break in" after 40, 50 or 60 years and need to be refurbished or repaired.

I have owned a number of speakers over the past 53 years. If I brought home a good speaker it always sounded good, right out of the box.

In college I worked in a hi fi shop. We sold thousands of speakers mainly Original Large Advents, ESS and EPI. We never told customers about the myth of "break-in" and I cannot recall any customer returning a speaker unless it was a rare factory defect.

I suspect, that the myth was propagated by publications such as The Absolute Sound and Stereophile. Probably to justify giving over priced, offensive speakers and cables a good review and to satisfy their advertisers. I do not recall this myth being propagated by Sensible Sound, Stereo Review, Audio or High Fidelity, etc. Probably has something to do with journalistic integrity.

It seems that amirm has called your bluff.

 

[klatwork]

Wow, you managed to get this completely wrong.

What we have are compelling facts about human psychology gleaned from research. We have plentiful extreme 'real world' examples of it too -- where audio-savvy people who thought they heard a big diff , *were indisputably wrong*, because nothing had, in fact, changed. As in, the case when you thought you threw a switch...but didn't.

There have been many before and after measurements of drivers. Effects are inaudible and/or within the per-sample variance for the product in the 'before' state. This is an old, old claim. But please, feel free to set Amir up with yet another thing to test.

that's false equivalence. It's iike saying ppl are prone to cognitive bias, so everything that doesn't align with your belief must be cognitive bias. If i say water in wet, it must be cognitive bias because ppl are prone to bias. That doesn't seem like logic to me.

All I'm suggesting is that if a speaker manufacturer claims their speaker requires break-in, test them according to the manufacturer's instructions, give that a test before / after break in and see if their claims are bogus. It's no different from a manufacturer claiming the freq response goes below 30hz, you test against manufacturer claims....or when you're testing an oven, the manufacturer tells you pre-heat for 2 min, you do ur pre-heat for 2 min to test it. It's a great way to prove that these claims are fake. Not sure why there is all this push back as if ppl are afraid the truth will rip apart the narrative they've been pushing for years... or maybe because their expensive brandname speakers go through all the stress test and are all broken in, so they want them to keep this advantage..or maybe break-in is a lie and we want manufacturers to keep getting away with lies?

If ppl don't want to test according to manufacturer's specifications, that's fine. All I can say is, then believers of break-in should take the results with a grain of salt because tests aren't done according to manufacturer recommendations.

 

[Bear123]

that's false equivalence. It's iike saying ppl are prone to cognitive bias, so everything that doesn't align with your belief must be cognitive bias. If i say water in wet, it must be cognitive bias because ppl are prone to bias. That doesn't seem like logic to me.

All I'm suggesting is that if a speaker manufacturer claims their speaker requires break-in, test them according to the manufacturer's instructions, give that a test before / after break in and see if their claims are bogus. It's no different from a manufacturer claiming the freq response goes below 30hz, you test against manufacturer claims....or when you're testing an oven, the manufacturer tells you pre-heat for 2 min, you do ur pre-heat for 2 min to test it. It's a great way to prove that these claims are fake. Not sure why there is all this push back as if ppl are afraid the truth will rip apart the narrative they've been pushing for years... or maybe because their expensive brandname speakers go through all the stress test and are all broken in, so they want them to keep this advantage..or maybe break-in is a lie and we want manufacturers to keep getting away with lies?

If ppl don't want to test according to manufacturer's specifications, that's fine. All I can say is, then believers of break-in should take the results with a grain of salt because tests aren't done according to manufacturer recommendations.

If break in were a significantly audible phenomenen as you are describing, why isn't there some solid, objective proof of it after 30 years of claiming this nonsense? Evidence other than, "nuh-uh, a few years ago, I swear I heard a difference"? The ears are easily fooled. You even said "I know what I heard". The fact is, we often don't. If you claim some unrealistic magical thinking, the burden is on the ridiculous claim of providing proof. You can't say "the earth is flat, it's on you to prove its not". Doesn't work that way.

 

[Doodski]

that's false equivalence. It's iike saying ppl are prone to cognitive bias, so everything that doesn't align with your belief must be cognitive bias. If i say water in wet, it must be cognitive bias because ppl are prone to bias. That doesn't seem like logic to me.

All I'm suggesting is that if a speaker manufacturer claims their speaker requires break-in, test them according to the manufacturer's instructions, give that a test before / after break in and see if their claims are bogus. It's no different from a manufacturer claiming the freq response goes below 30hz, you test against manufacturer claims....or when you're testing an oven, the manufacturer tells you pre-heat for 2 min, you do ur pre-heat for 2 min to test it. It's a great way to prove that these claims are fake. Not sure why there is all this push back as if ppl are afraid the truth will rip apart the narrative they've been pushing for years... or maybe because their expensive brandname speakers go through all the stress test and are all broken in, so they want them to keep this advantage..or maybe break-in is a lie and we want manufacturers to keep getting away with lies?

If ppl don't want to test according to manufacturer's specifications, that's fine. All I can say is, then believers of break-in should take the results with a grain of salt because tests aren't done according to manufacturer recommendations.

Break in implies that the designers have included in their calculations the modulus of elasticity of the materials and the changes that occur when the speaker has been used for some time. I highly doubt that is occurring.