B&W 802d

[jinjuku]

Were the 803's Broken in? I was always a non believer in the Break-in thing but my 803's changed dramatically over the 1st 300 hours. Was a totally different Speaker.

I A/B with my Studio 100's when new and was extremely disapointed with the 803's. Another A/B session a couple months later and I was floored.
I also Bought a used HTM2 at the same time as the new 803's and thought it sounded way better/different than my 803's and wondered how this was possible since it has the exact same drivers as my 803's. Well 300 hrs later all 3 speakers sounds the same now.

Hey Accudef.....were your 802's like this as well?

They were floor models.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Were the 803's Broken in? I was always a non believer in the Break-in thing but my 803's changed dramatically over the 1st 300 hours. Was a totally different Speaker.

I A/B with my Studio 100's when new and was extremely disapointed with the 803's. Another A/B session a couple months later and I was floored.
I also Bought a used HTM2 at the same time as the new 803's and thought it sounded way better/different than my 803's and wondered how this was possible since it has the exact same drivers as my 803's. Well 300 hrs later all 3 speakers sounds the same now.

Hey Accudef.....were your 802's like this as well?

I don't know if they sounded better after a certain period.

I thought they sounded great from day 1.

They did sound better when I turned on Dynamic EQ w/ all my subs.

 

[PENG]

I don't know if they sounded better after a certain period.

I thought they sounded great from day 1.

They did sound better when I turned on Dynamic EQ w/ all my subs.

I think it is like what people say about night and day difference between seemingly well designed amps. When people use terms like "dramatic" there has to be something else at play. Regarding this broken in thing, I think we should ask Dennis Murphy how speaker designers factor in such effects, or they simply design their speakers to produce the best result from day one and they will magically and automatically improve over time,? Or they could also get worse over time of use? And of course what are the reasons in either case? Simply say: things loosen up over use, is not reasonable because such thing is a big variable thing hence not predictable in terms of whether and how they would sound better over use. Do speaker designers use a science based model to predict the changes over use and somehow manage to compensate for that base on X hours of use. Of coure, in that case, how do they compensate the "use" that is also a variable?

I can believe some difference will take place when being used, but it is the how much, and the audibility (sorry if no such word), predictability as well how the designer/manufacturer allow for such effects that puzzle me and force me to be an unbeliever (sort of..).

Almost forgot to ask, has anyone seen "before and after" say 100 hours of use (again not sure how to define use but..) measurements/performance graphs for the B&W speakers? One would think that should at least provide some indications as to whether and/or how much audible difference could be anticipated.

 

[Swerd]

… Regarding this (speaker) broken in thing, I think we should ask Dennis Murphy how speaker designers factor in such effects, or they simply design their speakers to produce the best result from day one and they will magically and automatically improve over time,?

I'm not Dennis, but I do know what his answer is. He's been asked this more than once.

He designs speakers to produce the best result from day one without any break-in. He does not run speakers for dozens or hundreds of hours before crossover design or critical listening. In his extensive experience, speaker break-in is not at all important.

Now that Dennis sells speakers, he does run into customers who believe all kinds of things about speakers. Usually he sidesteps a debate by claiming he's agnostic on the subject.

Jim Salk also takes the same approach.

There probably are other speaker designers who claim different experience, but I doubt if there is any scientifically valid experiment that settles this question once and for all. I also doubt whether a scientifically valid experiment could convince all the devout believers that their fondly held audio beliefs are not true.

I do think all speaker designers, including Dennis, will say there are other factors in making good sounding speakers that are far more important than break-in.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I'm not Dennis, but I do know what his answer is. He's been asked this more than once.

He designs speakers to produce the best result from day one without any break-in. He does not run speakers for dozens or hundreds of hours before crossover design or critical listening. In his extensive experience, speaker break-in is not at all important.

Now that Dennis sells speakers, he does run into customers who believe all kinds of things about speakers. Usually he sidesteps a debate by claiming he's agnostic on the subject.

Jim Salk also takes the same approach.

There probably are other speaker designers who claim different experience, but I doubt if there is any scientifically valid experiment that settles this question once and for all. I also doubt whether a scientifically valid experiment could convince all the devout believers that their fondly held audio beliefs are not true.

I do think all speaker designers, including Dennis, will say there are other factors in making good sounding speakers that are far more important than break-in.

Ironically, I'm caught up in a debate on this subject at this very moment on a Cambridge Audio thread on AVS. Someone quoted me a review in the Perfect Vision where the reviewer claimed suck dramatic changes in sound with extended use that he urged owners to recalibrate their HT settings after 50 hours or so. Obviously, that meant the frequency response had changed. Strangely, there were no before or after measurements in the review. Go figure. Peng makes a very good point--why do people always think that speakers imrove with use. Why would frequency response, harmonic distortion, etc always get better with flexing? My Jetta certainly didn't get better with use. The more obvious explanation is that people get used to the sound of their speakers and prior experiences with other speakers fade in memory. As for whether I break in drivers before I design a crossover--I do flex woofers with test tones for a few minutes. Fresh out of the box, Fs will almost always be higher than spec, and I want to get as accurate as possible a read on bass response before I set the level of baffle step compensation. Mids and tweets? Not so much. The good ones measure great out of the box, and the measurements don't change over time. The bad ones don't get better.

 

[Irvrobinson]

My Jetta certainly didn't get better with use.

While I definitely agree with your sentiments about speaker break-in, Dennis, cars actually do often get better with use, where better is measured by faster acceleration. Internal combustion engines, transmissions, and differentials, do break-in because they are mechanical devices. The proof is the numerous long-term tests by Car&Driver magazine, which publishes performance tests of their long-term test cars when new and after 40,000 miles of use. Many vehicles, I would guess the majority, are quicker at 40,000 miles than they were when new. That's not to say everything about a car improves with age, but the drivetrain does, which is analogous to the speaker discussion. Mechanical break-in is also why it is a very good idea to change all drivetrain fluids at about 1200-2000 miles, if you plan to keep the vehicle long-term, especially for assemblies which do not have filtering media, like transaxles, manual transmissions, differentials, and transfer cases. When you drain the fluid of a transaxle after 2000 miles and run a neodymium magnet through it for twenty seconds or so you might be surprised at how much grit it picks up (and that's just the ferrous stuff, obviously).

 

[Dennis Murphy]

While I definitely agree with your sentiments about speaker break-in, Dennis, cars actually do often get better with use, where better is measured by faster acceleration. Internal combustion engines, transmissions, and differentials, do break-in because they are mechanical devices. The proof is the numerous long-term tests by Car&Driver magazine, which publishes performance tests of their long-term test cars when new and after 40,000 miles of use. Many vehicles, I would guess the majority, are quicker at 40,000 miles than they were when new. That's not to say everything about a car improves with age, but the drivetrain does, which is analogous to the speaker discussion. Mechanical break-in is also why it is a very good idea to change all drivetrain fluids at about 1200-2000 miles, if you plan to keep the vehicle long-term, especially for assemblies which do not have filtering media, like transaxles, manual transmissions, differentials, and transfer cases. When you drain the fluid of a transaxle after 2000 miles and run a neodymium magnet through it for twenty seconds or so you might be surprised at how much grit it picks up (and that's just the ferrous stuff, obviously).

Fair enough. Although most of the C&D long-term tests I've seen have shown slower acceleration times at 40,00 miles. (OK--I would have to check.) My Jetta was certainly much slower--hard to get up much speed on a service bay. But speakers are obviously simpler machines. I think we're basically talking about surrounds and maybe some change in the tension of fibers in cone material. If the latter is a factor, the direction of effect positive or negative is hard to predict.

 

[jinjuku]

Cars are ultimately headed to the scrap yard the day you start driving them.

 

[Irvrobinson]

But speakers are obviously simpler machines. I think we're basically talking about surrounds and maybe some change in the tension of fibers in cone material. If the latter is a factor, the direction of effect positive or negative is hard to predict.

I completely agree. Even for woofers, I would guess that after an hour of use environmental and human condition factors overwhelm whatever changes might occur in drivers from break-in. My system sounds a bit different on different days, even different times, and I know the system isn't really changing, it's things like ambient noise levels and the frequency distribution of that noise, relative humidity, sensitivity of my ears, sinus congestion, my mood, whatever. I suspect that any audible break-in is much less of a change than moving the speakers around a couple of inches or so in the room. (At least that's true for my room.)

 

[Irvrobinson]

Cars are ultimately headed to the scrap yard the day you start driving them.

Cars do require more maintenance than speakers, even if you have Carver Amazings or drivers with foam surrounds, but with aggressive maintenance, and assuming it doesn't get in a damaging accident, I generally get tired of speakers and trade them on a similar schedule to cars that I enjoy owning. I'm just glad that none of my audio equipment requires a nine-quart synthetic oil change once a year.

 

[Swerd]

Ironically, I'm caught up in a debate on this subject at this very moment on a Cambridge Audio thread on AVS. Someone quoted me a review in the Perfect Vision where the reviewer claimed suck dramatic changes in sound with extended use that he urged owners to recalibrate their HT settings after 50 hours or so. Obviously, that meant the frequency response had changed. Strangely, there were no before or after measurements in the review. Go figure.

I just read that thread about the BMR driver (it seems like its used as a tweeter in the Cambridge speaker.) I looked over the pdf file that describes the BMR "wave bending" technology, but learned little from it. It looks like it has a magnet and voice coil, and instead of cone, it has a flat driver surface. Is it intended for use above the frequencies at which it moves pistonically, avoiding break up noise? What am I missing?

If anything, those who argue that BMR drivers need break-in may be due to the fact that they are not like standard cone drivers. Does that imply that standard cone drivers do not require break-in? I don't believe any of that, I'm only looking to poke holes in their logic.

Peng makes a very good point--why do people always think that speakers imrove with use. Why would frequency response, harmonic distortion, etc always get better with flexing? My Jetta certainly didn't get better with use. The more obvious explanation is that people get used to the sound of their speakers and prior experiences with other speakers fade in memory.

I think it comes from the inherent need among audiophiles to show others just who is more clever. If you know an after market tweak that makes your speakers sound even more amazing, you must be a superior audiophile. I know that works for me .

As for whether I break in drivers before I design a crossover--I do flex woofers with test tones for a few minutes. Fresh out of the box, Fs will almost always be higher than spec, and I want to get as accurate as possible a read on bass response before I set the level of baffle step compensation. Mids and tweets? Not so much. The good ones measure great out of the box, and the measurements don't change over time. The bad ones don't get better.

Thanks.

 

[Swerd]

… I generally get tired of speakers and trade them on a similar schedule to cars that I enjoy owning. I'm just glad that none of my audio equipment requires a nine-quart synthetic oil change once a year.

You're not ? It makes for a day & night difference. Maybe that's why you feel the need to trade in your old speakers.

Seriously, anyone who owns Revels and doesn't change the oil at least once a year (three times yearly is considered minimum, and always use oxygen-free synthetic oil) should turn in his audiophile card and have his speakers confiscated.

 

[Irvrobinson]

You're not ? It makes for a day & night difference. Maybe that's why you feel the need to trade in your old speakers.

Seriously, anyone who owns Revels and doesn't change the oil at least once a year (three times yearly is considered minimum, and always use oxygen-free synthetic oil) should turn in his audiophile card and have his speakers confiscated.

You know, I thought you were serious, and I was considering which brand of oil to use, but then I saw that oxygen-free comment, and I knew you were only kidding. Oil is a hydrocarbon, so by definition it can't be oxygen-free. But you almost had me fooled.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Well, I arranged to get a buyer to partially subsidize my testing of the Cambridge speaker. I'll leave one speaker virgin, and play the other for 50 hours. I''ll take measurements of both beforehand. Then I'll try and talk Swerd and other locals into coming over to blind compare the virgin and the broken-in unit. And, of course, I'll measure the latter again. The issue won't be whether the Cambridge is a good or bad speaker before or after. It will just be a question of whether anyone can hear a difference after one gets played 50 hours. ( I'm sure Swerd can think of a better way of doing this--he does experimental design for a living. )

 

[Swerd]

Well, I arranged to get a buyer to partially subsidize my testing of the Cambridge speaker. I'll leave one speaker virgin, and play the other for 50 hours. I''ll take measurements of both beforehand. Then I'll try and talk Swerd and other locals into coming over to blind compare the virgin and the broken-in unit. And, of course, I'll measure the latter again. The issue won't be whether the Cambridge is a good or bad speaker before or after. It will just be a question of whether anyone can hear a difference after one gets played 50 hours. ( I'm sure Swerd can think of a better way of doing this--he does experimental design for a living. )

The virgin speaker must remain in a factory-sealed carton, and the broken-in unit must be broken-in under the observation of a qualified audiophile referee, all certified by Price Waterhouse accountants. The accountants will also perform a Quality Assurance audit of the Cambridge factory to determine how much play time, if any, these speakers received prior to shipping.

Is there any data about how long to break-in the speakers? Is 50 hours long enough?

All your other audio gear must be certified as state-of-the-art or better.

Your test rig microphone must have recent documentation certifying it was calibrated using a NIST-traceable source.

Perform blinded listening comparisons of virgin vs. virgin (A-A), and broken-in vs. broken-in (B-B), as well as virgin vs. broken-in (A-B, the experimental question). The number of false positive answers provided by the test population will be the percent of listeners who report hearing differences between A-A or B-B. Don't expect that to be 0%.

The number of false negative answers can be estimated by determining how many listeners can and cannot hear a difference between speakers that do and do not have the tweeter wired out of phase with the woofer. How well they do with that known difference will be directly compared to how well they do in the virgin vs. broken-in comparison.

Test enough listeners, at least 100 (300 is better) to provide results with unequivocal statistical significance. N=6 ain't gonna cut it. Editors of the The Journal of Golden Ear Trivia will insist on statistical analysis with at least a 95% confidence level.

To avoid unnecessary effort, you can adopt an early stopping rule for futility. After the first 24 listeners, if fewer than 51% can identify an audible difference between the virgin and broken-in speakers, the test may be stopped early.

Is that enough? I could go on .

 

[flyboylr45]

All I wanted to know was what a good price for the 802 Diamonds was.

Just kidding, interested to hear the results….

 

[Swerd]

Is there any data about how long to break-in the speakers? Is 50 hours long enough?

Originally it was thought that 50 hours would be sufficient break-in time, but expert consultants have chimed in on this question. They now recommend 86 hours of various test tones played at 75 dB, or 50 hours of endless repetitions of The Greatest Hits of Barry Manilow. However, Cambridge Audio noted that even 3 hours of Barry Manilow will void their warranty.

All I wanted to know was what a good price for the 802 Diamonds was.

Just kidding, interested to hear the results….

Seriously, which do you think is more important?

Whether you get a good or bad price on your 802 Diamonds, makes little impact compared to settling the Great Audio Debate over speaker break-in once and for all. Get your priorities straight .

On the other hand, we could move this subject to a new thread, but that would make your 802D thread forgotten to history.

 

[Irvrobinson]

All I wanted to know was what a good price for the 802 Diamonds was.

Just kidding, interested to hear the results….

You've been here awhile? What did you think was going to happen? If you're a pilot you must be reasonably intelligent...

 

[Dennis Murphy]

All I wanted to know was what a good price for the 802 Diamonds was.

I don't have a clue.

 

[flyboylr45]

If you're a pilot you must be reasonably intelligent...

If I was intelligent, I would have been a doctor and been able to be home every day with my family and my 802D.

You never know what to expect here. Let's also talk about my cable lifters and their break in time.