Hi guys, I am currently tossing up between the B&W 684s and the B&W 683s. Anyhow, my question is - they say that new speakers need to time to break in. I was always curious how long that period is?
How long does it take to run-in a new speaker?
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
I think it differs between manufacturers - I was advised to run my EPOS for between 80-100 hours. I just took my time.
plastic penguin
Well-known member
Difficult one this. Similar discussions have taken place on the forum before - and I don't think there's a definitive answer. There are various factors involved i.e. make, how loud? and one or two members even suggest it might be a case of just adapting to the sound? I don't know, but I heard a distinct difference with mine after about 2 weeks.
We've measured loudspeakers to see if they change over time and found that, to all intents and purposes, they don't. The resonance may drop very slightly, but not enough to be significant. Therefore the conclusion is that they don't change but the owner does; he gets used to the vagaries of his speakers and this experiment done at Cambridge University shows how.
I recommend that you try it several times until you understand how year ears to adapt to correct shortcomings in the source.
http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/sine-wave-speech/
I believe this accounts for the strength of arguments about "musical emotion" versus measurement etc. Most of us believe that years of careful auditioning has produced a superb system when it may not be at all, because we haven't understood what our ear/brain combination has done to correct it. Measurement people knows theirs is best because they can prove it and the "musically involved" brigade know theirs is best because they can hear it.
This is why we argue so strongly for measurement and that distortion is the enemy. The more there is, the harder we have to work to remove it, so if our system really has much lower distortion (and more is closely replaying what was recorded) we'll enjoy listening to it more and for longer.
Ash
I recommend that you try it several times until you understand how year ears to adapt to correct shortcomings in the source.
http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/sine-wave-speech/
I believe this accounts for the strength of arguments about "musical emotion" versus measurement etc. Most of us believe that years of careful auditioning has produced a superb system when it may not be at all, because we haven't understood what our ear/brain combination has done to correct it. Measurement people knows theirs is best because they can prove it and the "musically involved" brigade know theirs is best because they can hear it.
This is why we argue so strongly for measurement and that distortion is the enemy. The more there is, the harder we have to work to remove it, so if our system really has much lower distortion (and more is closely replaying what was recorded) we'll enjoy listening to it more and for longer.
Ash
professorhat
Well-known member
Ashley James:Most of us believe that years of careful auditioning has produced a superb system when it may not be at all, because we haven't understood what our ear/brain combination has done to correct it.
So when we like something we hear, actually we don't, it's just our brain telling us we like it...
There is no spoon.
So when we like something we hear, actually we don't, it's just our brain telling us we like it...
There is no spoon.
John Duncan
Well-known member
Actually, what Ashley says makes quite a bit of sense to me - there are aural illusions (stereo is one for starters) as well as optical ones.
Some people actually like the effect that 'distortion' has on the sound. This surely would explain the existence of very high end valve amplification, with very low power output.
plastic penguin
Well-known member
I can sort of understand the priciple of sonic and visual illusion. I spent 15 years working in the Lithographic print industry. . . but how do you equate and rationalize the philosophy when it comes to the manufacturers themselves. Does that mean that AVI isn't really that good, it's just Ashley's brain telling him its good. If so, what, in that case, makes a good system? Or is it all figment of our imagination?
Sorry, but I'm really struggling with the concept.
Sorry, but I'm really struggling with the concept.
I realise that this is an area where people rise rather too easily but I'll give an analogy. If you're talking to someone in a noisy pub, you have to concentrate hard to ignore the background noise to pick out his voice. It's the same with hi fi only not so bad and you don't realise you're doing it.
Please repeat the Cambridge experiment and think about what I've said, because it's fact and proved. It's also wrong IMO to assume you enjoy distortion, because in the long term you don't.
By the time the average male is 35 years old his hearing sensitivity at 3kHz has dropped by a factor of ten, he's going deaf slowly, it goes on getting worse and at the same time he loses the ability to withstand high SPLs. As your ears deteriorate so the brain has to work harder to process the information it receives. Therefore the older or deafer you are the more obvious it becomes that there is tremendous advantage in having very accurate and neutral hi fi. Younger people have better hearing so can tolerate horrid portable TVs etc, when it's causing DAD and MUM pain!
You may think you enjoy distortion, but presented with a worthwhile improvement in sound quality and given time to adjust, you'll find you much prefer it. It's hard to imagine but it's true and that's the reason the term High Fidelity was coined, it means a greater faithfullness to the original recording/performance. And that's the rub, for far too long no one appears to either have described the goal or how to achieve it, instead misleading terms like musicality etc have been used as a way of avoiding the issue. We, as more and more people do, think it should stop and that a return to basics is needed. It's happening in the USA already and it's beginning to happen in the UK.
Ash
Please repeat the Cambridge experiment and think about what I've said, because it's fact and proved. It's also wrong IMO to assume you enjoy distortion, because in the long term you don't.
By the time the average male is 35 years old his hearing sensitivity at 3kHz has dropped by a factor of ten, he's going deaf slowly, it goes on getting worse and at the same time he loses the ability to withstand high SPLs. As your ears deteriorate so the brain has to work harder to process the information it receives. Therefore the older or deafer you are the more obvious it becomes that there is tremendous advantage in having very accurate and neutral hi fi. Younger people have better hearing so can tolerate horrid portable TVs etc, when it's causing DAD and MUM pain!
You may think you enjoy distortion, but presented with a worthwhile improvement in sound quality and given time to adjust, you'll find you much prefer it. It's hard to imagine but it's true and that's the reason the term High Fidelity was coined, it means a greater faithfullness to the original recording/performance. And that's the rub, for far too long no one appears to either have described the goal or how to achieve it, instead misleading terms like musicality etc have been used as a way of avoiding the issue. We, as more and more people do, think it should stop and that a return to basics is needed. It's happening in the USA already and it's beginning to happen in the UK.
Ash
Any object that has to perform movement as a part of its performance HAS to be run-in. Think about it, the bass driver on the speaker (and to a smaller extent the tweeter) has to essentially loosen up...
And I have scientific proof for it too:
http://www.vikash.info/audio/audax
And I have scientific proof for it too:
http://www.vikash.info/audio/audax
Nice little line from the matrix there Prof, don't think I wouldn't spot it, hehe.
I have heard that if you listen to a particular type of sound for so long that your brain adjusts to make it more audible to your ears. So basically if your system is pants to start with then your hearing is buggered for knowing the differences between good and bad? hmmmm scary
I have heard that if you listen to a particular type of sound for so long that your brain adjusts to make it more audible to your ears. So basically if your system is pants to start with then your hearing is buggered for knowing the differences between good and bad? hmmmm scary
professorhat
Well-known member
I guess where I'm coming from is, if I think my system sounds great, does it matter if someone else disagrees with me? Not in my mind, hence why I, and most people on the site tell people to audition something for themselves before buying.
Now of course I can improve on my system, I have absolutely no doubt about that and that is why we upgrade our kit. But I don't really see how knowing that my brain may be tricking me helps when auditioning? Are you telling me instead of going to my local hi-fi shop and listening, I should be taking it to a lab, plugging it into equipment and reading a load of measurements and graphs before I decide? If so, thanks but no thanks, I'm quite happy to go on being deceived by my brain and only thinking that I'm listening to a good sound.
Honestly, load of rubbish if you ask me! Maybe I'm missing the point or just getting old...
Now of course I can improve on my system, I have absolutely no doubt about that and that is why we upgrade our kit. But I don't really see how knowing that my brain may be tricking me helps when auditioning? Are you telling me instead of going to my local hi-fi shop and listening, I should be taking it to a lab, plugging it into equipment and reading a load of measurements and graphs before I decide? If so, thanks but no thanks, I'm quite happy to go on being deceived by my brain and only thinking that I'm listening to a good sound.
Honestly, load of rubbish if you ask me! Maybe I'm missing the point or just getting old...
Taksinridgeback:
Hmm - "any object that has to perform movement .... has to be run in?" I think not!
To a certain extent - name me an example of something which doesn't! CD player? Car components? A washing machine? Even doors on houses have to be moved a few times to get the movement smooth - rubbing items cause friction which can heat and object and cause it to change shape...a book's spine? A turntable cartridge? A guitar? A printer? You name it, it has to run-in to perform at its best!
Hmm - "any object that has to perform movement .... has to be run in?" I think not!
To a certain extent - name me an example of something which doesn't! CD player? Car components? A washing machine? Even doors on houses have to be moved a few times to get the movement smooth - rubbing items cause friction which can heat and object and cause it to change shape...a book's spine? A turntable cartridge? A guitar? A printer? You name it, it has to run-in to perform at its best!
not sure what to make of Ashleys post. demoing some new speakers at the moment and yesterday the treble was bright and edgy, after being told they hadn't been run in i left them playing on repeat while i was at work and guess what? the treble has calmed down noticeably. i don't see how it could be me getting used to the sound and my brain correcting it as i've been out all day. it isn't a case of them sounding better because i expect them to sound better as i thought they would still sound bad for another couple of days.
also, if my brain is tricking me into thinking that my stereo is better then it is, good on it!
also, if my brain is tricking me into thinking that my stereo is better then it is, good on it!
plastic penguin
Well-known member
Craig M.:not sure what to make of Ashleys post. demoing some new speakers at the moment and yesterday the treble was bright and edgy, after being told they hadn't been run in i left them playing on repeat while i was at work and guess what? the treble has calmed down noticeably. i don't see how it could be me getting used to the sound and my brain correcting it as i've been out all day. it isn't a case of them sounding better because i expect them to sound better as i thought they would still sound bad for another couple of days.
I agree. Logic tells you that any part that moves needs to bed in. If a sound is there, it's. . . .there imho.
I agree. Logic tells you that any part that moves needs to bed in. If a sound is there, it's. . . .there imho.
Taksinridgeback:A football?
Ha! Here's a fact! In the World Cup, the footballs are warmed before use to make sure the leather is supple, or they are rotated in a machine which causes the leather to loosen slightly.
Ha! Here's a fact! In the World Cup, the footballs are warmed before use to make sure the leather is supple, or they are rotated in a machine which causes the leather to loosen slightly.
Well, in the last game I saw, the football was performing plenty of movement, it was the German defence that did not move!
I was just being pedantic and commenting on a sweeping generalisation, that was all. I agree about speakers needing a bit of time to break-in, but am unconvinced about other components. And I think that for cables and interconnects, there is a strong case that says it's the brain tricking the ears.
I was just being pedantic and commenting on a sweeping generalisation, that was all. I agree about speakers needing a bit of time to break-in, but am unconvinced about other components. And I think that for cables and interconnects, there is a strong case that says it's the brain tricking the ears.
That's interesting - why do they do that?
In cricket, the reverse is true, because you want a hard ball for the bounce. As it wears, you change type of bowler - a bit like swapping hifi components, I suppose.
In cricket, the reverse is true, because you want a hard ball for the bounce. As it wears, you change type of bowler - a bit like swapping hifi components, I suppose.
Taksinridgeback:And I think that for cables and interconnects, there is a strong case that says it's the brain tricking the ears.
Ah, now I DO NOT believe that cables need running in - they don't perform a physical movement - electrons just travel down them. After a few microseconds, I'm sure the friction is just the same as it will ever be!
Ah, now I DO NOT believe that cables need running in - they don't perform a physical movement - electrons just travel down them. After a few microseconds, I'm sure the friction is just the same as it will ever be!
Taksinridgeback:.....I agree about speakers needing a bit of time to break-in, but am unconvinced about other components. And I think that for cables and interconnects, there is a strong case that says it's the brain tricking the ears.
Definitely.
On a related issue, I once read an interesting observation by the late Peter Walker (Quad), who said that an often overlooked loudspeaker parameter is the effect of short term heating on the voice coil resistance. He measured changes of up to 40% after the speaker had been run for a few hours (with music). Such a big change will have a very significant effect on the speaker's frequency response (from the electrical -> acoustic equivalent circuit).
So although the long term effect is minimal, the short term effect of normal use can be very noticeable. This factor also renders A/B testing a complete minefield, as you change a 'component', hear a difference, and attribute the effect completely erroneously !
Definitely.
On a related issue, I once read an interesting observation by the late Peter Walker (Quad), who said that an often overlooked loudspeaker parameter is the effect of short term heating on the voice coil resistance. He measured changes of up to 40% after the speaker had been run for a few hours (with music). Such a big change will have a very significant effect on the speaker's frequency response (from the electrical -> acoustic equivalent circuit).
So although the long term effect is minimal, the short term effect of normal use can be very noticeable. This factor also renders A/B testing a complete minefield, as you change a 'component', hear a difference, and attribute the effect completely erroneously !
Speakers have their own distortion, break-up of cones at certain frequencies (I believe this has actually more to do with the termination or interface of the cone and surround but I may be wrong there). A good design should move these outside the audible range both at woofer-midrange/tweeter xover points and tweeter break up at high frequencies. I can hear that with my (cheap) in car speakers. On certain material there's a 'shouting', out of character with the material played.
When I listened to AVI's ADM9.1's I've commented on the crystalline extended treble and the cleanliness of it even at high volumes. This has probably a lot to do with low distortion amplification and my ears just happen to be very sensitive to treble distortion. Further down the detail may well be a result of a very low noise floor, courtesy of a good regulated power supply/pre-amp section. Anyway, its hard to argue about the perceived realism of the things when listening to something decent and it does make a lot of hifi sound bloated and muddled but then I've never liked that sort of sound.
When I listened to AVI's ADM9.1's I've commented on the crystalline extended treble and the cleanliness of it even at high volumes. This has probably a lot to do with low distortion amplification and my ears just happen to be very sensitive to treble distortion. Further down the detail may well be a result of a very low noise floor, courtesy of a good regulated power supply/pre-amp section. Anyway, its hard to argue about the perceived realism of the things when listening to something decent and it does make a lot of hifi sound bloated and muddled but then I've never liked that sort of sound.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram