[ritzry2]

There is a lot of talk throughout the Spatial Audio circle about speaker break-in. I have a pair of M4's on order and I am very excited to get them in, but I personally have never noticed a difference in sound with break-in on past speakers. I have noticed other factors, such as getting used to the way a speaker sounds or appreciating a sonic characteristic or style that I didn't before. This thread from AudioScienceReview (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-audio-speakers-break-in.11898/) indicates the FR of the tested speakers did not change with break-in. I was curious if anyone has tested Spatial speakers that show difference through measurements?

I am very excited for my M4's and for my sake I hope the sound great out of the box!

[loki7177]

There are people on both side of the camp on break-in.  ASR is on one side and Danny from GR is on the other.  He has a video on YT that shows the different measurements, if I remember correctly FR didn't change it was something else.  In my experience it depends on the speaker.  My guess is it has to do with how much the manufacturer runs it in in the factory and also the materials that are used in the drivers.  I have owned speakers that don't need much and I have owned some like the M3 Sapphires that needed about 200 hrs.  The first 50-80 made a huge difference.

[Cheytak.408]

ASR is a great place to go just when you think you have lost your mind.  You get there and realize you are quite sane by comparison. 

Anyone that does not believe in break-in has never measured drivers before and after for T/S parameters and/or frequency response.  That or they are terrible at the process or reading of results.

Face it.  Some people are close to deaf these days.

[Tyson]

Drivers break in and take 50 to 100 hours to burn in, IME.  High end caps also have a burn in time, usually around 150 hours.

[SET Man]

ASR is a great place to go just when you think you have lost your mind.  You get there and realize you are quite sane by comparison. 

Anyone that does not believe in break-in has never measured drivers before and after for T/S parameters and/or frequency response.  That or they are terrible at the process or reading of results.

Face it.  Some people are close to deaf these days.

Hey!

    Well put there!

      Welcome to the world of the internet and social medias where everyone and anyone can be an "expert" on every and any subjects in the universe!

     That ASR guy must have the best and most accurate sounding audio system in the world! I'm sure he turn it on, presses play then stare at the audio analyzer display.

Buddy

     

[geerock]

Ritzry2,
When it comes right down to it the only measuring devices that matter are the ones on either side of your head.  Some people hear a change from breaking.  Some don't.  The point is if you like them out of the box and still like them later then you've got a winner.  If you like them out of the box and they get better, you have a home run. I will say in my experience with my X5's I thought they were not good out of the box, but I've learned over my considerable amount of years that both speakers and capacitors sometimes take a long time to settle in.  I waited and just love my system now.  The only thing you need to have to worry about is if they sound bad to you out of the box and stay bad after break in.  Your two measuring devices will guide you.  But give them a chance.  Almost never does Clayton have to take a pair back.

[ritzry2]

I found the Danny Richie video mentioned above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIOjjle8Kxw

He indicates that frequency response should NOT be used to determine the impact of break-in, but rather you should measure spectral decay. He went through a number of tests, took measurements, and his results showed changes.

It would be interesting to hear a "before" and "after" break-in demonstration from someone who has appropriate recording equipment. I recall another video from Danny where he A-B a speaker that he performed a capacitor upgrade on and the changes were noticeable through YouTube.

Thanks everyone for your feedback!

[Cheytak.408]

I found the Danny Richie video mentioned above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIOjjle8Kxw

He indicates that frequency response should NOT be used to determine the impact of break-in, but rather you should measure spectral decay. He went through a number of tests, took measurements, and his results showed changes.

Thanks everyone for your feedback!

Danny and a lot of people smarter than me (though I do, too) know that energy storage is the bug that lives between the lines in frequency response.  It is a major source of distortion, smearing the frequency response in the time domain.  It is one of those things that makes a speaker sound "slow".

[doggie]

I am very excited for my M4's and for my sake I hope the sound great out of the box!

I am sure that you will love them. Depending on what you are coming from you may love them right away but trust me you will love them a lot more with 100 hours on them. Play dynamic music with prominent bass at good volume for a while.

Regarding ASR. I love the saying that often goes around on audiophile circles. I do not know who said it first but it goes something like this:

                   If it tests well but sounds bad it is bad. If it tests poor but sounds good, it is good.

No one who buys equipment based solely upon testing keeps it just because it tested good if they did not like the sound...

Let us know how it goes.

[Tangram]

Why would a manufacturer like Spatial state that a long break in period is required unless it was? After all, it isn’t a selling point. When the guy who designs and manufactures and listens (a lot) to his speakers says break in is required, I am going to heed his advice.

[Tyson]

I am sure that you will love them. Depending on what you are coming from you may love them right away but trust me you will love them a lot more with 100 hours on them. Play dynamic music with prominent bass at good volume for a while.

Regarding ASR. I love the saying that often goes around on audiophile circles. I do not know who said it first but it goes something like this:

                   If it tests well but sounds bad it is bad. If it tests poor but sounds good, it is good.

No one who buys equipment based solely upon testing keeps it just because it tested good if they did not like the sound...

Let us know how it goes.

Actually some people do keep gear that sounds meh, because it measures well.  That's the placebo effect in action.  They expect it to sound good based on the measurements, and therefore cannot 'hear' that it doesn't sound great.  Hey, I'm not above that phenomenon myself - I remember when digital amps first came out, they measured sooooo much better than and SS or tube amp, so they MUST sound better, right?  So I bought one and kept that piece of crap for a solid 6 months before I finally cried uncle, sold it and got back in to tubes. 

PS, my aversion to those amps were the early versions.  I've heard more recent digital amps that sound quite good.  Digital has come a long way, the past 2 years in particular I've noticed a big uptick in quality. 

I'll also point out this little bit of irony re: the measurement crowd.  Pretty much everyone agrees that the more recent digital amps sound a lot better than the original digital amps from 10 years ago.  But how is that possible?  I mean, they all still measure about the same as they did back in the day.  So how can a digital amp of today, which measures the same as a digital amp of 10 years ago, possibly sound better?  Hmmmm, maybe other things like circuit design and maybe even parts quality are important, too? 

[Spatial Audio]

Why would a manufacturer like Spatial state that a long break in period is required unless it was? After all, it isn’t a selling point. When the guy who designs and manufactures and listens (a lot) to his speakers says break in is required, I am going to heed his advice.

Guys,

There is, of course a reason or cause for every phenomenon, but in many cases we don't fully understand what that is. This is typically caused by not knowing how to measure the effects in question. Measurements are tools of investigation that evolve over time, so our understanding keeps improving. That's science. We know a lot more about sound and loudspeaker performance than we did 20 years ago, but certainly not everything, so it's best to not act like we know everything.

The human bias that creates this "us versus them", objectivism vs subjectivism tension in audio, as well as other fields, is a relevant topic of concern. Both camps have useful things to say, but the certitude with which the objectivists argue their case is problematic because of a lack of openness. So, the scenario goes: "break-in did not show up in the on-axis frequency response plot , so it can't be real". Discussion over. Here's a suggestion- call a speaker manufacturer and ask them.

As a manufacturer, we know all too well that break-in is a real thing. We understand some of the reasons why, but at the end of the day, its there whether we understand or not. Over 15 years of production and 1000s of pairs built, there is simply no question about it. I have to deal with it everyday. Hundreds of our customers expressed concern about the sound quality when they first installed their speakers and I would coach them to relax and wait a while. Let's just say they didn't return the speakers. The findings of Dr. Toole regarding the human ear/brain just adapting to the sound is not what we are talking about here. Any of our technicians can tell if a production speaker has gone through pre-conditioning burn-in or not. It's obvious enough on a repeatable basis to assume we have to take it seriously. As a manufacturer, I wish break-in was not a real thing. Beware of so-called experts saying burn-in is a myth - if they were paying attention, they would know better.

Clayton Shaw
Spatial Audio Lab

[Cheytak.408]

Guys,

There is, of course a reason or cause for every phenomenon, but in many cases we don't fully understand what that is. This is typically caused by not knowing how to measure the effects in question. Measurements are tools of investigation that evolve over time, so our understanding keeps improving. That's science. We know a lot more about sound and loudspeaker performance than we did 20 years ago, but certainly not everything, so it's best to not act like we know everything.

The human bias that creates this "us versus them", objectivism vs subjectivism tension in audio, as well as the fields, is a relevant topic of concern. Both camps have useful things to say, but the certitude with which the objectivists argue their case is problematic because of a lack of openness. So, the scenario goes: "break-in did not show up in the on-axis frequency response plot , so it can't be real". Discussion over. Here's a suggestion- call a speaker manufacturer and ask them.

As a manufacturer, we know all too well that break-in is a real thing. We understand some of the reasons why, but at the end of the day, its there whether we understand or not. Over 15 years of production and 1000s of pairs built, there is simply no question about it. I have to deal with it everyday. Hundreds of our customers expressed concern about the sound quality when they first installed their speakers and I would coach them to relax and wait a while. Let's just say they didn't return the speakers. The findings of Dr. Toole regarding the human ear/brain just adapting to the sound is not what we are talking about here. Any of our technicians can tell if a production speaker has gone through pre-conditioning burn-in or not. It's obvious enough on a repeatable basis to assume we have to take it seriously. As a manufacturer, I wish break-in was not a real thing. Beware of so-called experts saying burn-in is a myth - if they were paying attention, they would know better.

Clayton Shaw
Spatial Audio Lab

+1 with a bullet!

At the expense of sharing a person's experience from another source here it is:

"I was in the exact same boat as you just a few months ago. Every single review I read on the XXXXXXXXXX's simply talked about how amazing they were. A review here and there said they needed break-in, but nobody that I could find ever said they sounded bad before break-in. After building mine I felt that they sounded truly horrible. My only conclusions were that either I wired something wrong or that this was yet another audio company that had a bunch of "fluff" reviews. I've been in audio for decades, and I've never experienced the transformation that took place upon break-in. It is literally like listening to completely different speakers. I actually told the friend I built them for that if you had put me in a room blindfolded and I heard the speakers after 8 hours break-in, and then again at 50 hours break-in, I would say that it was impossible for them to be the same pair of speakers."

[Desertpilot]

Guys,

There is, of course a reason or cause for every phenomenon, but in many cases we don't fully understand what that is.

Clayton Shaw
Spatial Audio Lab

Ghosts in the machine.  Random segments of code ... (from iRobot).

Marcus

[dallaire1]

I can attest to the need for break-in. I own the M3 Sapphires and thought I made a wrong decision when I first powered them up ! let them run all day while at work. Been months now and they do not sound ANYTHING like the day I plugged them in. They were thin and edgy to my ears, now they sing loud with incredible clarity realism and presence. The bass will also smooth and lower a bit as time passes. I can assure you, it was NOT a matter of me getting used to the new out of the box sound ! I would have sent them back. An audiophile friend of mine who has all Linn gear listened to them and I think was blown away.

I get out of bed every morning like I played pro football for years with aches and pains, by mid morning I'm up and running with all systems on board with no pain...?? can't explain that either, had X-rays, nothing showed up huh ??

Sure you guys get my point   

keep us posted on break in.   

[ritzry2]

Has anyone recorded playing the same 3-4 songs, for example, at various intervals during the break-in period (e.g. every 50 hours)? If all variables are equal other than break-in time, you could then compare the first recording (no break-in) to subsequent recording (different levels of break-in) to hear differences. I can do this with my speakers when I get them. This type of objective feedback is more clear-cut and understood. Subjective feedback is, well, subjective and less controlled. As an example, when my wife first started playing podcasts at 1.25 or 1.50 speed, I found it to be quite annoying. Over time, however, with more listening, it sounded better and better. My mind acclimated to this speed and, in fact, I now prefer the faster playback speed and 1x speed sounds terrible -- way too slow. Go figure! My mental perspective completely flipped with more listening. There are many real-life examples like this.

Another interesting test would be take two pairs of the same speakers. Let one burn-in for 200 hours and don't touch the other one. Then do A/B tests between them.

I'll keep everyone posted with my experiences once I get my speakers! Looking forward to it.

[Tyson]

Has anyone recorded playing the same 3-4 songs, for example, at various intervals during the break-in period (e.g. every 50 hours)? If all variables are equal other than break-in time, you could then compare the first recording (no break-in) to subsequent recording (different levels of break-in) to hear differences.

That's an excellent idea.  I've done something similar to that many, many times.  My experience is that with a lot of high end gear, there's a 'grace period' of about 10 hours where things sound OK.  Then hours 10 through 100 are a roller coaster, and finally smoothing out between hours 100 and 200.

[doggie]

Has anyone recorded playing the same 3-4 songs, for example, at various intervals during the break-in period (e.g. every 50 hours)? If all variables are equal other than break-in time, you could then compare the first recording (no break-in) to subsequent recording (different levels of break-in) to hear differences. I can do this with my speakers when I get them.

Let us know how that goes. It will be interesting, although no one here who has purchased a factory fresh pair of Spatials will need proof of the break-in that these speakers require. It becomes immediately obvious and is dramatic. As others have pointed out no sane designer would tell buyers in their manual that "The speakers will sound relatively poor initially" if it were not true and did not resolve in time(break-in).

I am certain that if one did a frequency analysis with a microphone of the same piece of music over time, which had all frequency ranges well represented, it would start with bass being very under-represented(poorly reproduced) and treble being very peaky(edgy). After 100 hours it would look much better. After 200 hours it would look and sound like the original recording... and very, very good. Of course this would not show the remarkable improvements in perceived(subjective) clarity, soundstage, and placement of instruments. To me it would seem to me to be a better objective test.

Your test might show the same thing although you will still be listening for differences which seems to still fall into the category of subjective

[ritzry2]

Danny Richie's video indicates that frequency response is not the right measurement for break-in analysis, but rather spectral decay. I own REW so I could do some measurements, but I am leaning toward recording a few songs at these intervals: 0, 50, 100, and 150 hours. I will then post these recordings online and folks can take a listen. I could post them un-labeled and then have an option to see the recording labels later. The question will be, can you hear a difference between the recordings? The recordings are objective. It may be the case that people interpret the recordings differently.

If anyone has any suggestions on recording equipment, types of songs to play, what audio format to record to, etc., please let me know. I would appreciate any information that will support making this experiment as accurate and helpful as possible. I am not going to spend a ton of money on this, but I don't mind investing a reasonable amount to help get better quality results. And, I would like to be pre-emptive in removing possible issues that may negatively influence the experiment.

[Whitestix]

I have a pair of M4 Triode Masters, upgraded from the Turbo S, which was an excellent upgrade, which more potent LF response.  They sounded awfully congested for several dozen hours, but then they started to open up.  After a couple hundred hours, they really started to shine.  And now, 4 years later, I can say that they truly continue to sound better and better each day, an amazing phenomenon!  Sweet sublime expansive and detailed music comes out of them for hours and hours a day, now that I am retired.  I think the new offerings by Clayton exhibit a more revealing HF response compared to earlier speakers so as always, Clayton figures out new ways of expanding the performance of his speakers. 

I initially used a Dennis Had flea watt amp to drive the Spatials, but similar to my tepid impression of Clayton's speakers driven with the modestly-powered LTA 11wpc channel,  I moved on to more potent SS and tube amps and the SQ improved dramatically.  I have pair of Buchardt S400 speakers which do have a bit deeper LF response, but in comparison to the Spatials, the Buchardt's are nowhere nearly as musically engaging nor as "spacious" in their sonic presence in my room.

In summary, as Dannie Richey points out, drivers need time to break in and the Spatial are no exception.  A tincture of time resolves it all and the reward is tremendous.