[Don_S]

Absolutely.  Always keep your cup half empty grasshopper.   

I find it helpful to poll those with more experience then me on the subject. If I rely solely on what I think may or not be happening, I may miss out on valuable insight, no?

[JohnR]

If I rely solely on what I think may or not be happening, I may miss out on valuable insight, no?

So don't rely on what you think. Read again: "The desire to correlate your perceptions with objective reality will serve you well."

[neekomax]

So don't rely on what you think.

Uh, right. My point, and the point of this thread, exactly.

[JohnR]

OK  (I'm lost)

[Wayner]

If we can't rely on what we think, should we rely on what someone else thinks?

If we are fairly knowledgeable in a particular field, should we not cling to the sciences that we know?

A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

Wayner

[nathanm]

I'm saying that is better to be skeptical and curious about what you hear and wondering what the real causes may be, rather than hearing something and assuming you know exactly what is going on.  If you're talking about emotional topics about how music sounds and makes you feel, then there's no accounting for that; anything goes.  But when you're talking about does changing X affect Y then you're in an area where there are scientific answers to be found.  Try not to confuse your feelings about music with the fidelity of how faithfully electrical signals are transduced.

As far as the concept of break-in goes, I think it's true that there may be objective, measurable properties that are indeed changing over time with a system, but in my opinion they are small and are most likely overshadowed by coarser factors.  Your perception of the sound may also just changing in your own mind, your ears and brain may get used to something in the same way that your eyes and brain compensate for different color balance on TV sets.

I think in Hi-Fi too often people will focus on tiny things while ignoring the larger things.  You're not going to have much luck splitting hairs over 'has speaker cone A broken-in more than speaker cone B' if you've got your system set up in a parking garage.  In my opinion controlling the acoustic environment has more of an effect on the sound than the equipment itself.  But since controlling equipment is much easier (and more fun!) people tend to gravitate to that.  But in my opinion you'll want a nice sounding room.  I hope that helps!

[dB Cooper]

Maybe we've both had a Vulcan Mind Probe  , but back to the break-in theory, my Martin Logans where great right out of the box. The Paradigms were good too, but they some how seemed to mellow out more. They sure can image.

I suppose one can hypothesize that the surrounds needed some time to loosen up (or in the case of the mid bass/woofers, the surrounds and spiders. Those are concepts I can warm up to.

Wayner

Wayner, gotta ask... Ever try the Ultravalve with the M-Ls? Or would a SS amp handle the electrostatic load better?

[Wayner]

I have put the Ultravalve on the MLs. It could drive the low impedance load amazingly well, but the near 1 ohm impedance is not a good match for any tube amp.

Frank's new 600R would be a perfect match for ML owners.

Back to the topic, I understand that we do not underdstand or know all that is going on in the world of electronics, but, there is also a huge knowledge base, that is used to design. If we are to believe that components break-in so drastically (that means, in my mind, change in value), how would computers ever work. Mine never seems to miss any zero's and one's.

Wayner 

[*Scotty*]

Here is something I have observed and do not understand. When dealing with computer playback of wave files the various media players sound different from one another. Some are obviously better sounding than others. Supposedly they are all feeding a bit perfect PCM data stream to the DAC but they sound different.
 The best sounding arrangement I have put together so far is eeeBuntu running Rythymbox fed from a flash drive. Go figure.
 I agree,according to what we"know" many things which can't matter and should not affect the sound of our electronics and systems still have an audible impact of what we hear.
The more competent audio designers still listen to what they have put together before it goes out the door.
Scotty

[jackman]

Speaker break-in is mostly your ears getting used to the sound of your new speakers. Oh, and it's a convenient excuse  manufacturers of crappy speakers use when someone criticizes their crappy sounding speakers.  How many tines have we heard, "that pair was new and not broken in"?

Come on, it's a speaker, not a baseball glove. I think large woofers and even some midrange drivers loosen up a bit after initial use, but I've never heard a bad sounding speaker sound great after a break-in period.  It's more likely people just get used to the sound of their speakers and break in their ears.

[jackman]

Some of this is not electrical engineering, more like voo-doo.

 

Agreed!  More voodoo than science in this hobby.  Lots of experts, but very few who actually know what they are doing. I don't doubt there are minor mechanical changes taking place in spiders and surrounds IOC brend new drivers but I think the "changes" in out perception are even more significant and powerful.

Neeko, stick around and you will learn lots of stuff about why things sound the way they do. Most of the stuff is complete crap, and the challenge is sifting through it to get to the accurate and useful info. Enjoy the journey.

J

[Jed]

Hey AC friends. I'm back with more pesky noobishness  .

So, I have theimpression that my speakers are sounding better as time goes on. They are about 6 weeks old now, and I've been listening a lot. Specifically, I feel like the low mids/ high bass are filling in better now. When I first got them, it sounded like there was a big null in the 100-200 Hz range (just a guess). The highs seem a bit more tamed as well, maybe partially as a result of more mids in the sound?

Am I just getting used to the sound, or is something happening with the speakers, as in 'break-in'. Is it a real phenomenon? What have been your experiences?

What about 'burn-in' with components? Is this real? How is it possible?

Burn-in, break-in, whatever you want to call is certainly real and measurable for some parts.  For example, as a woofer is played over time, its mechanical moving parts gradually change... lets call that break-in.  Just recently I measured a woofer straight out of the box and then after hours of playing loud and heavy bass music.  The box tuning lowered by 4hz as a result of a change in the driver's T/S parameters (no changes to the test box), as it "broke-in."  I was amazed how lifeless the bass was until the driver reached its optimum performance.  Some manufacturer's will put low frequency signals through their products before shipping them off, some do not.

As for why it seemed you had a hole in the 100-200hz range... it may have actually been lower than you first realized. 

Just my 2 cents...

Jed

[pansixt]

Jeez Neeko,
See what you started?

Just playing.

How about those answers?

Some amazing input there from some very knowledgeable folks.
Some serious food for thought.
Some way over my head. Voo-Doo or not.

When I get the new speakers from Dennis and Jim, then I may be able to give some personal input on this.
Until then, I am humbled.
But then I already mentioned what I probably don't know.

James

[*Scotty*]

    Neeko,you are off to a good start with the audio hobby. You did not have a knee jerk reaction and automatically deny the evidence provided by your senses. You did not swallow the "koolaid", status quo explanation that what you heard didn't actually happen.
 As important as asking why you hear what you hear is questioning why you don't hear something that others report hearing. Once again it is important to not blindly accept the  assertion that humans are incapable hearing these things,this is "koolaid" talking again.
  Decide for yourself what you can hear and what seems to matter within the context of your own system. Don't be afraid to try new pieces of gear that might sound different than what you are used to.
  Probably the most important thing to remember is that you can't have progress without change.
The better piece of gear will always sound different than what you are used to.
You can't go to far wrong if you apply empirical methodolgy to this hobby.
 pansixt you are in a unique position to verify that speaker break-in does occur. Listen to and break-in only one loudspeaker of the pair for several weeks and leave the other one unused. At the end of this break-in period compare the two loudspeakers and decide for yourself if they sound different from one another. You could also report the results of your experiment if you are so inclined.
Scotty

[neekomax]

Wow, so much to respond to here, I don't know where to start. 

I suspected this might be a touch controversial, but I figured it would be good to let the topic fly and see what shook out. I am by no means in any position to be arbiter of any kind of the various views presented here, but I was curious to see if there was any semblance of consensus at all.

There isn't. That's ok.

On one hand, I hear the 'break-in is bs' argument and I think, well yeah, seems like manufacturers would break in stuff themselves so that speakers and components sounded great out the box, as Wayner and Steve assert they do (when they're great). And I do think psychology is a huge factor in everything. For instance, if you play pink noise for a while, you literally don't hear it anymore after a short time. So our brains can and do 'fix' sound (and other things) for us, that's the good and bad news. Bad because then we need other measures to tell what's going on in the world. Perhaps the 'break-in/burn-in' theory gives us an out, and helps us feel less manipulated by our own brains.

On the other hand, how many reviews tell the story of something sounding 'horrible' or lacking this or too much of that, only to have the reviewer report that subsequently the offending item 'opened up', 'relaxed', or just plain got better, whether after a few minutes, hours, or days. Also, when it comes to speakers, people seem to be measuring response changes and physical break-in of drivers (see the GR research pages posted by Scotty). So ten thousand audiophiles can't all be trippin', can they?

And maybe it's a case of it being real, but perhaps not as consequential as some would claim, as Nathan postulates. Indeed, the changes in the measurements done by the GR guy of the woofers that showed physical break-in seemed on the order of less than 10% at their most extreme. So could that explain a perceptible change in SQ?

But maybe our ears discern more than we give them credit for.

What I can say is that I think that the 3.5" midrange drivers in my DefTech towers seem to be playing a little more low mid, better covering the frequencies close to the xo point with the active subs. Or maybe it's the subs playing a little higher. Sh*t, I dunno.
...

Now for some other thoughts:

If we can't rely on what we think, should we rely on what someone else thinks?

If we are fairly knowledgeable in a particular field, should we not cling to the sciences that we know?

A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

Wayner

As far as this goes, I stand for "I don't know much about anything". One day that might change, and then I hope to be helpful to someone else.

Here is something I have observed and do not understand. When dealing with computer playback of wave files the various media players sound different from one another. Some are obviously better sounding than others. Supposedly they are all feeding a bit perfect PCM data stream to the DAC but they sound different.
 The best sounding arrangement I have put together so far is eeeBuntu running Rythymbox fed from a flash drive. Go figure.
 I agree,according to what we"know" many things which can't matter and should not affect the sound of our electronics and systems still have an audible impact of what we hear.
The more competent audio designers still listen to what they have put together before it goes out the door.
Scotty

Now this is a topic that I definitely want to talk more about: Digital sound quality: how could the quality of digital information vary from one source/cable/whathaveyou to another before the DAC converts it into an electrical signal? Fascinating! But that'll be another thread.

When I get the new speakers from Dennis and Jim, then I may be able to give some personal input on this.
Until then, I am humbled.
But then I already mentioned what I probably don't know.

James

Just curious, who are Dennis and Jim, and what are these speakers you, um, speak of?

[*Scotty*]

Jim Salk and Dennis Murphy
See link:  http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?board=82.0
Scotty

[InfernoSTi]

Here are a couple of links to some useful information.
http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.htm
http://www.gr-research.com/myths.htm
Scotty

I have heard speakers "bloom" first at 50 hours and then at 100-150.  After 200 hours, I don't notice changes.  I have also heard "high end" capacitors "bloom" with similar time frames (Mundorf Silver in Oil) when I replaced my coupling caps and parafeed caps in my 2A3 amp. 

Scotty's post shows some pretty hard data on speaker burn in.  I have also read the physics of how capacitors work at the electron level physically shifting within the various layers in a push-pull manner (not dissimilar to sloshing water in a shallow pan with the "charge" being when the "wave" is higher on one side of the pan than the other and the "draw" of that charge when the water shifts back the other way...crude but similar). Additionally, there are interesting discussions on various capacitors needing to be used to be "fresh" (the simplest form being electrolytic capacitors loosing their oxide layer when in disuse and not being "at tolerance" until it is reformed...see p. 223 of M. Jones Valve Amplifiers to name but one source).

So it is clear to me that capacitors are "moving" parts (as are all electrical parts, but capacitors are somewhat unique in their movement pattern) and clearly subject to the laws of physics in ways that are much closer to large scale objects than we often assume.  It isn't unreasonable to me to believe it is possible they can have better tolerances after some use of their virgin component parts have been "used" for a little while, much like a spring will loosen up after a few uses but then hold it's tolerance for the "normal" life of the spring.

So if I can hear the changes for myself AND there are reasonable physical explanations that demonstrate empirically the changes, why is it that what is observed both subjectively and objectively is called "voodoo"?

And why is it that those who call it "voodoo" offer up no other proof than to say they never heard it themselves and they don't "believe" physical parts can change over time?  Somehow their subjective experiences and faith are more "empirical" than my subjective experience and data. 

The odd thing is you can find these same debates on the engine builder forums regarding performance changes of new engines (particularly with forced induction that needs the rings to seat before excessive boost is applied). The good news is folks trust dyno hp/tq numbers about as much as audio equipment reviews!

Physical objects change with use: springs loosen, guitars "loosen", engines "tighten" and then "loosen" unfortunately) and speakers/crossovers loosen with time.

Sorry about my rant, but I'm happy with my voodoo....it's based in experience and data.

[Steve]

Neek. You would be surprised how little testing the "skeptics"/"scientists" have performed yet claim to know science better than those who have done decades of research. It is interesting that many "scientists"/"skeptics" are experts in other fields such as digital, biology, no education at all etc, yet know more than decades of audio research.

To be fair to both sides, there are those who sell pet rocks, special chips etc, and there are those who use science as a cover to push product, or help their friends, employer etc. And a Federal investigator has been a direct witness in some cases. 

So it is clear to me that capacitors are "moving" parts (as are all electrical parts, but capacitors are somewhat unique in their movement pattern) and clearly subject to the laws of physics in ways that are much closer to large scale objects than we often assume.

Absolutely. Molecular structures change, and also change when voltages are applied. That is known physics for decades.
Same with a beam. Molecular structure changes when removing resonance(s).

Cheers.

[jackman]

I would love to see how some of the guys who claim to hear speakers or caps "blooming" after 200 hours would do in a blind scientific test. If you can detect slight differences "at 150hz" that are a result of your speakers breaking in after hubdreds of hours of break in, you are truly gifted...or Possibly delusional.

The Kool Aid drinkers aren't the ones who are suggesting this phenomenon could be psychosomatic, these are the realizes. The break-in/fancy caps croud seem to be the ones drinking the sweet colorful liquid. Check out 99% of the posts from guys who have replaced their caps with mega $$$ fancy caps. They almost always hear improvements including the "veil" bring lifted from their speakers, liquid kids, better bass, etc. The voodoo in audio-land is only eclipsed by the doodoo.

I don't know if he has changed his opinion, but I recall Dennis Murphy, a guy I respect and admire, not buying into the fancy cap BS. Also, I'd like to know Frank Van Alstine's opinion on break in of caps and much of the popular audio-land hocus pocus.  These guys design great sounding audio gear and I don't recall either of them drinking any of the audiofool voodoo Kool aid.

Neeko, if you are looking for bogus claims and snake oil, you don't have to look very far in audiofool land. Thankfully, there are still some people who don't subscribe to the BS.

Cheers
J

[Steve]

I would love to see how some of the guys who claim to hear speakers or caps "blooming" after 200 hours would do in a blind scientific test. If you can detect slight differences "at 150hz" that are a result of your speakers breaking in after hubdreds of hours of break in, you are truly gifted...or Possibly delusional. ...

 Check out 99% of the posts from guys who have replaced their caps with mega $$$ fancy caps. They almost always hear improvements including the "veil" bring lifted from their speakers, liquid kids, better bass, etc. The voodoo in audio-land is only eclipsed by the doodoo.

I don't know if he has changed his opinion, but I recall Dennis Murphy, a guy I respect and admire, not buying into the fancy cap BS. Also, I'd like to know Frank Van Alstine's opinion on break in of caps and much of the popular audio-land hocus pocus.  These guys design great sounding audio gear and I don't recall either of them drinking any of the audiofool voodoo Kool aid.

Neeko, if you are looking for bogus claims and snake oil, you don't have to look very far in audiofool land. Thankfully, there are still some people who don't subscribe to the BS.

Cheers
J

I thought we were suppose to rely on science, not opinion? So how are your opinions based more on science than the ones who have toiled for decades and performed the work?

And the typical "blind" test, if you are referring to DBT/ABX testing, is also fatally flawed. The medical community laughs at the procedures, or lack thereof. But it is good for marketing etc.

By the way, Jneutron has discussed the problems with DBT/ABX testing on AVS forum, and other forums, sometime ago. Quite enlightening.

Cheers.