[dB Cooper]

LET"S GET READY TO RUMMMMMMMMMMMMBLE!!!!!

[DMurphy]

I can't believe this is still being discussed......

Even the wire goes through a noticeable burn in period that changes the sound.

I certainly agree with the first statement, though obviously for different reasons. As for the second, and your comments about capacitors, I would have to have some scientific basis for expecting such changes before I took a personal opinion seriously.  I have no stake in this.  I have nothing to gain by advocating one position or the other.   All I will say is that I have enough faith in the basic design of my speakers to say that if you don't like them out of the box, you won't like them in a month unless you just need time to adjust to a sound that differs from what you were used to.  Very small proportional changes in Fs aren't going to make a fan or enemy out of you. 

[Art_Chicago]

I can't believe this is still being discussed.

Break in effects are well documented.

 

Danny,
With all respect, I also would be very interested to see these documents.  What is "stored energy"?   

[Saturn94]

............  Nothing but shrill screeching treble.  No audible mids.  And an annoying  port chuffing noise that was supposed to be bass, I guess.............

Really? No audible mids?

This type of all too common exaggeration makes reports like this lose all credibility with me. 

At least Danny has provided some measurements to back his claims, although I've not read any double blind tests that confirm the audibility of such changes.  If anyone has links to such tests, I would like to read them.

In my own personal experience I've not noticed any audible changes in speakers I've owned after "breaking in".

[Chuck_M]

Really.  I could not hear anything beyond the screeching and the chuffing.  Not until they had many hours on them.

Just a subjective experience I had.  I don't have any math to prove the weirdness I experienced with these particular speakers.

But I wasn't really trying to prove anything.  I was just relating a personal experience I had.

[Nuance]

The new pair, right out of the box, was unlistenable.  Nothing but shrill screeching treble.  No audible mids.  And an annoying  port chuffing noise that was supposed to be bass, I guess.

I'm sorry but this sounds highly suspect to me.  It's just pretty much unbelievable, no offense.  No mids?  Give me a break.   Port chuffing?  How is driver break in going to fix port chuffing?  If my speakers had no mids I'd immediately send them back, or at minimum consult the manufacturer.  A speaker than "needs" 100's of hours of break before the mids are audible in is a speaker not worth owning.

[Paul K.]

I don't have your hearing so I can't say for certain what you hear (or what you think you hear) but your statements and your tabulated data are contradictory.  There was very little, almost insignificant changes in most cases between 1 hour and 80 hours in the three parameters you chose to monitor.  I also found it interesting that the drivers which experienced the most change were your custom drivers as compared to the established brands.  Further, to even suggest that a poly cap needs 100 hours of burn-in is all but ridiculous; at least drivers are electromechanical devices with moving parts. 
Paul

I can't believe this is still being discussed.

Break in effects are well documented.

And the first 5 minutes of play won't even get you close. Most woofers need a good 80 to 100 hours or so to reach a near settled range. The links posted above clearly show this.

I have also looked at the measured responses and spectral decays over a long burn in period and noted that the spectral decay becomes much cleaner as the woofer loosens up. It's easy to see on the graphs. So basically you have less stored energy and a much cleaner sound.

And the effects are very audible.

There is also an electrical burn in effect to the woofers as well. It is harder to document though.

Capacitors take just as long to settle as well. Most poly caps will take a good 100 hours or so and any Teflon based caps can take a good 500 hours or more to settle in. Sometimes the change during that time can be quite surprising.

I have also built identical sets of speakers that measured the same and sounded the same. But after playing one pair for a couple of weeks it no longer sounded like the other pair in a side by side comparison. The burned in pair had a much more relaxed and coherent sound. Bass response was smoother and deeper without question. The mid-range was more fluid as well. Highs were cleaner too. There was really no comparison. The fresh pair sounded strained and even a little harsh by comparison. Then after a few weeks of burning in the other pair, they sounded exactly the same again.

Even the wire goes through a noticeable burn in period that changes the sound.

[clipped]

I have a pair of Salks being crafted in Jim's caring and creative hands.

I am curious what your experiences have been with break in time on speakers

I am currently breaking in some amps and the variation and convergence in sound is not subtle

Having heard a pair of Soundscapes at RMAF, I was astounded with how phenomenal they sounded with little break in time.

Since everyone seems overwhelmed right out of the box
Perhaps there is minimal breakin needed

Curious to hear your comments and break in methods

I own a pair of Ht3's and Songtowers. When I asked Jim about this, he replied "It is sort of like a religious belief, if you believe you believe, the reality is, there is no such thing with speakers"

[S Clark]

I am positive that this topic is doomed to go bad. Can we simply say that there ARE measurable T/S changes that occur, and there is a difference of opinion as to whether these changes are audible and to what degree? 

 

[Big Red Machine]

There have been very few threads in the Salk circle that need closing, but this may be one of them.  I know Tom did not intend for this type of dicussion to develop.

[audiotom]

Thanks S Clark and Pete

My original intent was to see if there was any minor break in experience
I mentioned the RMAF soundscapes which sounded phenominal right out of the box

my intent wasn't in any way to downplay a fantastic speaker line and it's designers Jim and Dennis

the lack of comments from owners on break in is testimony enough

I'm sorry to have suggested  break in  -  perceived or real

can this thread please be closed

thank you

[intamin22]

Really.  I could not hear anything beyond the screeching and the chuffing.  Not until they had many hours on them.

Just a subjective experience I had.  I don't have any math to prove the weirdness I experienced with these particular speakers.

But I wasn't really trying to prove anything.  I was just relating a personal experience I had.

Why on earth would anyone buy a speaker described as have a screeching and chuffing sound right off the bat? This has to be exaggeration at its finest. If you truly heard screeching, wouldn't you shut off the speaker right away, as screeching describes a sound that's unlistenable? I just don't understand statements like these, or the adjectives people use to describe sounds.

I could understand the mechanical reasons for a speaker having break in, and some manufacturers claim they have extremely stiff drivers when first installed, but I don't know if any of it would be audible.

[grantc79]

Really.  I could not hear anything beyond the screeching and the chuffing.  Not until they had many hours on them.

Just a subjective experience I had.  I don't have any math to prove the weirdness I experienced with these particular speakers.

But I wasn't really trying to prove anything.  I was just relating a personal experience I had.

If it truly was as horrible as you describe I think it is more likely that the speaker was broken and opened itself up and repaired itself rather than simply got "broken in" from being complete noise to all the sudden a good sounding speaker.

[Danny Richie]

There have been very few threads in the Salk circle that need closing, but this may be one of them.  I know Tom did not intend for this type of dicussion to develop.

Why close a thread just because people bring real world experiences into the discussion. So what if they differ from your preconceived beliefs. Anyone posting their own personal experiences should be welcome.

Unlike some of these discussions everyone has been very civil, there has been no name calling, and no one suggested that anyone couldn't hear or anything.

You even got to hear some experiences and hard measured data on the subject from an industry professional.     What more could you ask for?

[Danny Richie]

Danny,
With all respect, I also would be very interested to see these documents.  What is "stored energy"?   

I have taking before and after burn in spectral decays several times. They clearly change after the burn in process. Basically once the suspension softens up the woofer will return to rest more quickly verses continuing to move for a longer time period after the signal has stopped. And oddly enough the decay rates show the most change in the mid-range areas and below. These changes in the spectral decay are not hard to hear at all. Imagine a signal hitting a woofer and it taking 10ms of time to return to rest verse 5 or 6ms of time to return to rest. One sounds a little more ringy and the other sounds a little clearer. The measured frequency response however will look almost identical.

I once took some measurements on and tried to document some changes that were reported to be occurring from an EnABL'd treatment. My measured data, explanations, and listening impressions were reported and documented here:  http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=59575.0 Even in those measurements there is some noted changes below 1kHz as a result of the burn in process.

[Danny Richie]

I don't have your hearing so I can't say for certain what you hear (or what you think you hear) but your statements and your tabulated data are contradictory.

Nope. The data and subjective observations are in harmony with one another.

There was very little, almost insignificant changes in most cases between 1 hour and 80 hours in the three parameters you chose to monitor.

No, those are fairly notable changes. The changes are also very consistent.

I also found it interesting that the drivers which experienced the most change were your custom drivers as compared to the established brands.

I have found that their compliance change verses other woofers are about the same.

Further, to even suggest that a poly cap needs 100 hours of burn-in is all but ridiculous; at least drivers are electromechanical devices with moving parts.

This is very common, and commonly known. Even the cap manufacturers will tell you this. Some caps take even longer. 500 hours or more are recommended for any Teflon based caps.

[Æ]

This is very common, and commonly known. Even the cap manufacturers will tell you this. Some caps take even longer. 500 hours or more are recommended for any Teflon based caps.

Which cap manufacturers? I'd like to ask them myself.
And please, don't tell me Jeff Glowacki is a manufacturer.

[Wayner]

Very interesting thread. I just finished building a pair of speakers from scratch, a project that went way too long, but there are some conclusions here that require some considerations.

Since cross-over networks theoretically should be based on the driver's measured resistance at the desired frequency (woofer measures 12.6 ohms at 3000 hz) for example, and after a period of time, "the woofer breaks in", and the spider and surrounds really soften up, shouldn't our measured resistance at 3000 hz change? The spider became more compliant, the surround became more compliant, resulting in the measured resistance of the woofer at 3000Hz to now be <12.6 ohms. Which then means, that the cross-over point is now screwed up, because the resistance value at the desired cross-over point has changed.

To further this scenario, would not the tuned frequency of the cabinet and port have changed as well, since resonance frequency is directly related to the woofer's compliance?

Then the conclusion could only be that every speaker ever made, by break-in time, is so far off the mark, in terms of cross-over frequency, as well as it's cabinet size and F3, that they should all sound like complete crap.

I can only draw one conclusion. That if there is any form of "breaking in", its marginal at best and must fall within natural tolerances of the drivers, cross-over components and enclosure size and porting.

My 2 cents worth.

Wayner 

[Danny Richie]

Which cap manufacturers? I'd like to ask them myself.
And please, don't tell me Jeff Glowacki is a manufacturer.

Go ahead and call any of them that you like.

Very interesting thread. I just finished building a pair of speakers from scratch, a project that went way too long, but there are some conclusions here that require some considerations.

Since cross-over networks theoretically should be based on the driver's measured resistance at the desired frequency (woofer measures 12.6 ohms at 3000 hz) for example, and after a period of time, "the woofer breaks in", and the spider and surrounds really soften up, shouldn't our measured resistance at 3000 hz change? The spider became more compliant, the surround became more compliant, resulting in the measured resistance of the woofer at 3000Hz to now be <12.6 ohms. Which then means, that the cross-over point is now screwed up, because the resistance value at the desired cross-over point has changed.

To further this scenario, would not the tuned frequency of the cabinet and port have changed as well, since resonance frequency is directly related to the woofer's compliance?

Then the conclusion could only be that every speaker ever made, by break-in time, is so far off the mark, in terms of cross-over frequency, as well as it's cabinet size and F3, that they should all sound like complete crap.

I can only draw one conclusion. That if there is any form of "breaking in", its marginal at best and must fall within natural tolerances of the drivers, cross-over components and enclosure size and porting.

My 2 cents worth.

Wayner 

Wayner,

I don't think you understand exactly what is going on as a driver burns in.

For one, resistance changes from burn in are very fractional and typically two to three decimal places over. They change more than that just from the heat you put in them as soon as you start playing them. So there really are no resistance differences that have any effect on the response or crossover point.

Secondly, cabinet tuning does not change. Box size and port length are fixed. Changing the woofer does not change that. Now, does the optimal box volume or port tuning change as the driver burns in? Not really. Sure the Fs drops but look at the parameters that really determine box volume and tuning. Vas numbers go up after burn in meaning the box volume would need to get bigger. However, Qts figures drop meaning the box volume needs to be smaller. It is pretty much a wash for the most part. You change tuning more by adding another hand full of stuffing than by trying to re-adjust the box volume or tuning to optimize for a very small variation in driver parameters.

And the audible differences are not because of variations on the compliance numbers. In other words the differences in sound do not parallel tolerance differences of the drivers. Differences within driver tolerances that are within a normal range are nearly impossible to hear while differences before and after burn in are often very easy to hear.

[Nuance]

Then the conclusion could only be that every speaker ever made, by break-in time, is so far off the mark, in terms of cross-over frequency, as well as it's cabinet size and F3, that they should all sound like complete crap.

But in every subjective listening test the speakers sound better after break in (), which right there is a big 'ol red flag.

This thread has remained very civil, so I don't think it needs to be closed on account of behavior.  However, nothing will change.  Danny will always state drivers do break in and the difference is audible, and the rest of us will believe that the any measured change is below the audible threshold.  No one's opinion will change, and nothing will get accomplished.  In short, this will be a complete waste of time, and that in itself is why closing the thread isn't such a bad idea.