Running in????

[BenLaw]

Use logic not heresay.

That's funny on many different levels...

Burn him!

>)

 

[BenLaw]

Paul, I am not saying there is nothing happenign with materials (in the first hunderd or whatever hours of use). What I am saying is that nobody could describe in specific terms or demonstrate otherwise that these changes affect sound to any material degree.

Can you explain how you know this? Please show your workings...

Wrong way round.

 

[BenLaw]

http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/speaker-break-in-fact-or-fiction

 

[The_Lhc]

Paul, I am not saying there is nothing happenign with materials (in the first hunderd or whatever hours of use). What I am saying is that nobody could describe in specific terms or demonstrate otherwise that these changes affect sound to any material degree.

Can you explain how you know this? Please show your workings...

Wrong way round.

So only one side of an argument has to provide any evidence? Interesting...

 

[BenLaw]

Paul, I am not saying there is nothing happenign with materials (in the first hunderd or whatever hours of use). What I am saying is that nobody could describe in specific terms or demonstrate otherwise that these changes affect sound to any material degree.

Can you explain how you know this? Please show your workings...

Wrong way round.

So only one side of an argument has to provide any evidence? Interesting...

Not what I said.

 

[The_Lhc]

http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/speaker-break-in-fact-or-fiction

So, I ask someone for proof that speaker burn-in isn't necessary, you tell me I'm wrong to do so and then provide exactly the evidence I was asking for? That's slightly odd...

 

[The_Lhc]

Paul, I am not saying there is nothing happenign with materials (in the first hunderd or whatever hours of use). What I am saying is that nobody could describe in specific terms or demonstrate otherwise that these changes affect sound to any material degree.

Can you explain how you know this? Please show your workings...

Wrong way round.

So only one side of an argument has to provide any evidence? Interesting...

Not what I said.

You need to be clearer then as your comment seems to suggest that only the "believers" need to provide evidence.

 

[Craig M.]

only once have i thought i heard the sound of a speaker change, i would say it took less than the time needed for the first song to finish playing, with no subsequent change after that. there was a post i read once where various speaker manufacturers were asked whether break in existed, cue a load of different answers. :?

found it.

 

[BenLaw]

Paul, I am not saying there is nothing happenign with materials (in the first hunderd or whatever hours of use). What I am saying is that nobody could describe in specific terms or demonstrate otherwise that these changes affect sound to any material degree.

Can you explain how you know this? Please show your workings...

Wrong way round.

So only one side of an argument has to provide any evidence? Interesting...

Not what I said.

You need to be clearer then as your comment seems to suggest that only the "believers" need to provide evidence.

I didn't think a man of your intelligence would be confused by the concept of the burden of proof, but so be it.

In answer to your previous post, it's not odd to do both. Eg, a defendant is not required to prove his innocence, but he's perfectly entitled to provide evidence that does tend towards that. They're not mutually inconsistent.

 

[Paul.]

only once have i thought i heard the sound of a speaker change, i would say it took less than the time needed for the first song to finish playing, with no subsequent change after that. there was a post i read once where various speaker manufacturers were asked whether break in existed, cue a load of different answers. :?

found it.

Interesting article, the writer obviously has a strong pre determined belief. I found this chap quite reasonable... This aligns with my (limited) understandings of materials at least

“A simple question with a complex answer.

The reason that a burn in period is needed is that the speaker construction materials change over time.
Playing music causes the materials to flex,
Different frequencies and loudness cause different parts of the cone to flex when natural resonances are excited.
As the materials flex they become softer and less resonate.
They also develop preferred “flex lines” like wrinkles on your skin, so that when they do flex, less distortion is produced.
This reduces the height of resonant peaks in the frequency response.
Thus a “smoother” sound as they break in.

Different materials take different amounts of time to fully relax.
The speaker is made from several different materials so different parts take different amounts of time.
Soft materials like non-pressed paper cones need only a few minutes, a hard treated paper or plastic cone takes about 1 week, a soft dome tweeter takes about 2 weeks for the rubber to stabilize, hard things like metal dome tweeters or metal cones take several weeks or months, real ribbon tweeters need just a few minutes while plastic planar tweeters need about 1 week.
The treated cloth spider on a woofer needs about 5 minutes at suspension maximum travel or about 1 month playing music at low volume.

Burning in at the factory is not an industry standard.
There are a few audiophile speaker brands that claim to do that.
Most home speakers receive about a 5 second quality control check at about 1 watt power.
Professional sound speakers usually get a 10 second test at maximum rated power to check for rub and buzz.

Old speakers that sound “dull” can usually be brought back to life by installing new polypropylene capacitors in the crossover.
Electrolytic capacitors can change their value 50 percent across 5 years – rate of change depends on how hot they operate.
Inductors and resistors are very stable across 10 years.

Part of the break period in is you brain getting used to the frequency response errors and distortion characteristics of the “new improved” speaker.

When I am designing a new speaker I first run pink noise through the speakers before making frequency response tests.
1 minute at 1 watt, then 1 minute at maximum rated AES power.
Please note that AES power is different than marketing literature power handling claims!
I guess this covers about 90 percent of any break in performance changes”

 

[AEJim]

At the LHC's request I'll give my opinion as a manufacturer -

Running in does happen to a degree (at least in speakers) but it's pretty quick. You have mechanical components that will "loosen up" as they're used - rubber surrounds etc. But our Chief Engineer says this is pretty much done over 10 hours or so (bear in mind he has a Master's Degree in Engineering and came from suspension engineering originally so this kind of thing is his field). From my point of view you cannot measure any noticeable difference in sound after that period on our measurement equipment with our speakers - perhaps others have different experiences I cannot vouch for.

What IS likely is that your brain will adjust to any anomolies in sound over a period of time, like with most things the brain learns and accomodates quite well to things that are new and adjusts accordingly. Psychoacoustics is a very real phenomenon.

The revised AE1mkII from the mid 90's is still my reference point for small speaker sound - oddly it has some pretty large dips in its output but I don't notice them when listening. If, however, a speaker has spikes in it's output I notice them immediately and can't help but focus on them - over time you adjust to these spikes and they become less of a problem. I only ever get involved in listening tests for a couple of hours at a time because of this - I don't want to adjust to any imbalances only to go back fresh a few days later and wonder what I was thinking! It's something as part of a design team you have to be very aware of.

While demoing product years ago I'd hear all sorts of comments from dealers with regard to running in that varied from it not being necessary to hundreds of hours being required - since Hi-Fi is such a subjective thing I'd generally agree with whatever they were suggesting as it's their opinion and was valid to them. Personally in all the testing and listening to speakers I do I still leave new product to run in for a bit but am yet to hear any real difference after a couple of hours. I still run product in where possible for review "just in-case".

 

[david230]

I would have thought there is only really one part of a driver that would need any level of break-in. That part being the damper. I personally think more bass comes through after some running time.

Engines only really have two main parts that break-in. Cams and piston rings.. That's why break in of cams requires a certain technique and piston rings have high spots that flatten during break in to form a perfect seal in the bore. Bearings run within a tolerance from the off and stay that way for many thousands of miles.

 

[BenLaw]

only once have i thought i heard the sound of a speaker change, i would say it took less than the time needed for the first song to finish playing, with no subsequent change after that. there was a post i read once where various speaker manufacturers were asked whether break in existed, cue a load of different answers. :?

found it.

Typically robust stuff from ATC!

 

[AEJim]

I would have thought there is only really one part of a driver that would need any level of break-in. That part being the damper. I personally think more bass comes through after some running time.

Engines only really have two main parts that break-in. Cams and piston rings.. That's why break in of cams requires a certain technique and piston rings have high spots that flatten during break in to form a perfect seal in the bore. Bearings run within a tolerance from the off and stay that way for many thousands of miles.

I've heard two Schools of thought on engine break in - the old-fashioned "take it easy for the first couple of thousand miles" and the more recent "let a new engine warm up then rant it up and down its rev range within the first 20 miles" - this is very specifically required in those first 20 miles or so, without looking it up I can't remember the exact reasons but they made some sense.

The second method is supposed to give noticeable improvements on power and fuel consumption over and engine's life. A little off topic maybe but I'd be interested to know if anyone tries the second method on anything but a company car and sees the benefits!

 

[Craig M.]

only once have i thought i heard the sound of a speaker change, i would say it took less than the time needed for the first song to finish playing, with no subsequent change after that. there was a post i read once where various speaker manufacturers were asked whether break in existed, cue a load of different answers. :?

found it.

Typically robust stuff from ATC!

yes, i really love their attitude!

 

[The_Lhc]

Paul, I am not saying there is nothing happenign with materials (in the first hunderd or whatever hours of use). What I am saying is that nobody could describe in specific terms or demonstrate otherwise that these changes affect sound to any material degree.

Can you explain how you know this? Please show your workings...

Wrong way round.

So only one side of an argument has to provide any evidence? Interesting...

Not what I said.

You need to be clearer then as your comment seems to suggest that only the "believers" need to provide evidence.

I didn't think a man of your intelligence would be confused by the concept of the burden of proof, but so be it.

I'm not confused by it, I just prefer it when people provide some foundation for what they're saying when they make a blanket statement of the sort that whatshisface did, exactly the sort of thing that you then provided (thank you for that btw, very interesting), so it doesn't seem like I was asking for much.

In answer to your previous post, it's not odd to do both. Eg, a defendant is not required to prove his innocence, but he's perfectly entitled to provide evidence that does tend towards that. They're not mutually inconsistent.

Well I didn't say it was odd to do both (quite the opposite, I was intending to suggest that it's desirable for both sides to provide evidence for their beliefs) but you do realise we're not actually in a court of law here, there is no defendant and prosecution, there is no innocent and guilty. But perhaps that's where we differ in our outlook, you think of evidence from a legal standpoint, I think of it in the scientific sense, which is a subtly different point of view.

 

[Sizzers]

I've always liked to refer to Roth Audio's page on there site here, particularly the last two sentences beginning with "One can imagine....".

Just my tuppenny worth....

 

[AlmaataKZ]

http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/speaker-break-in-fact-or-fiction

Thank you, Ben. If somebody can detect a 0.09 dB difference in sound level, I will eat my own words. And a hat of their choice.

 

[BenLaw]

Paul, I am not saying there is nothing happenign with materials (in the first hunderd or whatever hours of use). What I am saying is that nobody could describe in specific terms or demonstrate otherwise that these changes affect sound to any material degree.

Can you explain how you know this? Please show your workings...

Wrong way round.

So only one side of an argument has to provide any evidence? Interesting...

Not what I said.

You need to be clearer then as your comment seems to suggest that only the "believers" need to provide evidence.

I didn't think a man of your intelligence would be confused by the concept of the burden of proof, but so be it.

I'm not confused by it, I just prefer it when people provide some foundation for what they're saying when they make a blanket statement of the sort that whatshisface did, exactly the sort of thing that you then provided (thank you for that btw, very interesting), so it doesn't seem like I was asking for much.

In answer to your previous post, it's not odd to do both. Eg, a defendant is not required to prove his innocence, but he's perfectly entitled to provide evidence that does tend towards that. They're not mutually inconsistent.

Well I didn't say it was odd to do both (quite the opposite, I was intending to suggest that it's desirable for both sides to provide evidence for their beliefs) but you do realise we're not actually in a court of law here, there is no defendant and prosecution, there is no innocent and guilty. But perhaps that's where we differ in our outlook, you think of evidence from a legal standpoint, I think of it in the scientific sense, which is a subtly different point of view.

Merely giving an everyday example that can easily be understood. It is scientific to say 'I hypothesise that x is the case' and then carry out tests / research in order to show that that is (or is not) the case. Here, the hypothesis is 'the sound signature of speakers changes with break in', or something similar. You requested someone prove the negative, which is not the hypothesis.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

At the LHC's request I'll give my opinion as a manufacturer -

Running in does happen to a degree (at least in speakers) but it's pretty quick. You have mechanical components that will "loosen up" as they're used - rubber surrounds etc. But our Chief Engineer says this is pretty much done over 10 hours or so (bear in mind he has a Master's Degree in Engineering and came from suspension engineering originally so this kind of thing is his field). From my point of view you cannot measure any noticeable difference in sound after that period on our measurement equipment with our speakers - perhaps others have different experiences I cannot vouch for.

What IS likely is that your brain will adjust to any anomolies in sound over a period of time, like with most things the brain learns and accomodates quite well to things that are new and adjusts accordingly. Psychoacoustics is a very real phenomenon.

The revised AE1mkII from the mid 90's is still my reference point for small speaker sound - oddly it has some pretty large dips in its output but I don't notice them when listening. If, however, a speaker has spikes in it's output I notice them immediately and can't help but focus on them - over time you adjust to these spikes and they become less of a problem. I only ever get involved in listening tests for a couple of hours at a time because of this - I don't want to adjust to any imbalances only to go back fresh a few days later and wonder what I was thinking! It's something as part of a design team you have to be very aware of.

While demoing product years ago I'd hear all sorts of comments from dealers with regard to running in that varied from it not being necessary to hundreds of hours being required - since Hi-Fi is such a subjective thing I'd generally agree with whatever they were suggesting as it's their opinion and was valid to them. Personally in all the testing and listening to speakers I do I still leave new product to run in for a bit but am yet to hear any real difference after a couple of hours. I still run product in where possible for review "just in-case".

Thank you, Jim. Usually useful to have manufacturer's input.

 

[The_Lhc]

You requested someone prove the negative, which is not the hypothesis.

You're nit-picking, it was AlmaataKZ's hypothesis. The person he replied to stated that they believed they heard a difference, there's no real evidence they can provide to support that, it's their experience (right or wrong). AlmaataKZ stated categorically that they were hearing no such thing as it simply wasn't possible, that's a very different sort of statement and one that does require backing up with evidence, which you then provided, proving his point, so I don't know why you're arguing about it?

 

[BenLaw]

You requested someone prove the negative, which is not the hypothesis.

You're nit-picking, it was AlmaataKZ's hypothesis. The person he replied to stated that they believed they heard a difference, there's no real evidence they can provide to support that, it's their experience (right or wrong). AlmaataKZ stated categorically that they were hearing no such thing as it simply wasn't possible, that's a very different sort of statement and one that does require backing up with evidence, which you then provided, proving his point, so I don't know why you're arguing about it?

Takes two to have an argument Fair enough, no more, my fingers are getting tired anyway.

 

[power]

When I bought my B&W CM8 they mentioned running speakers in but they went on to mention that running in is more about your ears getting used to the new sound that may be different from your old speakers. After a few days to weeks of use your speakers will sound better than they did new which is a matter of ear adjustment::bounce:

 

[The_Lhc]

Fair enough, no more, my fingers are getting tired anyway.

Good, the snooker's just started.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

I often resist and/or regret posting on things like cables, run in etc because while simple objective approach and a bit of high-school level science easily explains how things are yet it is met with fierce subjective arguments, for whatever reason.

If you add open-mindness, readyness to challenge yourself and be challenged as well as being honest with yourslef in terms of what you hear vs what you think you hear, it is quite easy to tell right from wrong. it is just a forum so nobody *has* to prove anything here. only if they want.

But when I plan to spend my money though I want to understand what I am buying. And run in, fancy digital cables, cryo cables, isolation platforms etc etc so far fail to explain themselves.