Speaker Breakin Article

[Dan Banquer]

If it measures better it has to sound better right? You must be measuring the wrong thing.

My speakers measure great. Does that mean they sound great? It's a good indication that there are not any problems but it won't tell you how they sound. Sometimes they measure great and don't sound all that great and I go back to the drawing board.

I have three different caps here. They all measure the same if I measure them for capacitance. Does that mean they sound the same?

They don't sound the same at all.



You haven't debunked anything just because you and your pals can't hear the difference on entry level gear.

You have only measured one parameter of the capacitors in question.
What you should be measuring are ESR, equivalent series resistance for a given frequency, and if possible break this down to capacitive reactance, series inductance, and parallel resistance (leakage current). DF, also known as dissipation factor,and voltage breakdown, surge and constant.
If you do those measurements I think you will find a difference in those capacitors.
The above measurements that I have mentioned above are not new by any means, they almost as old as I am, and those measuremets are what I go by when looking through data sheets for caps, and tell me the differences in caps for the application I am looking to use them in. You will also find that once you perform the measurements I have listed above you will also find the measuered differences as well as the audible ones in many cases.

d.b.

 

[Audioholics]

Yeah, this stuff riles us up - we shouldn't let it get to us. The "young man" comments are particularly condescending, but we should have thicker skin.

 

[corysmith01]

i am pretty sure he does not sell tube amps but good try.

Yeah, I looked and didn't see any either.

This thread has degraded once again into willy-waving, just exactly like the original thread. It's getting boring guys, and turns off those of us trying to learn. Please, discuss the issues or else we're gonna have to send the Mother Superior and her 'stick' after you. The proof comes from the debate and the data (or lack thereof), not the name-calling.

I agree RJ. I too am reading this thread with the goal of learning, not to see who gets the best lick in. I understand being passionate and believing in your position, but sheesh...I thought I was done with seeing this sort of thing when I left the school playground and the college bar scene. I always wonder why it devolves into this chest-beating dance, instead of just providing the facts/positions concisely, and politely, and then moving on.

 

[RMK!]

There is no winning these types of arguments/discussions. It would be nice if all the participants could carry on a discourse without resorting to name calling. Passion is fine but when it degrades into what this thread has become no one comes off looking good let alone right. Frankly, I am embarrassed for all of you.

 

[Danny Richie]

Yea nice try Gene, but I don't make or sell any tube amps.

My job does dictate that I have the best sounding system possible to make subjective assessments. Sorry, but your Denon receiver won't cut the mustard.

Dan, Thanks for helping to illustrate my point that there is more to it than just a measurement of the basics, and that one single measurement doesn't tell the whole story.

Clint, You're younger than I am so you are a young man to me. Nothing more by that was intended.

Its tough to learn when the mods have decided to rmove the link that started the thread. They take that out to PREVENT you from seeing both sides.

Yea that is pretty bad. You can see the info from a link on the front page of my web site.

 

[Dan Banquer]

"Dan, Thanks for helping to illustrate my point that there is more to it than just a measurement of the basics, and that one single measurement doesn't tell the whole story. "

That appears not to be your original intent from the post of yours that I quoted. However I generally do agree with the comment above.
d.b.

 

[krabapple]

Not Tom, Mark Sanfilipo and its still on his plate though not a priority right now.

We have another guy working on articles about driver mechanics/materials that should prove interesting as well. Stay tuned...

Thanks. In the meantime, I brought up the article over on rec.audio.tech -- here was one of the more interesting replies --

Old Fangled
> http://www.affordableaudio.org/aa2006-12.pdf
>
> scroll down to page 11.
>
>
> hmmm......

That's a good phrase. Not very good testing methdology. Where's the
variance numbers for multiple tests? Where is the statistical analysis
of those variances? Where are the ambient temperature, pressure and
humidity readings? His blithe statement that "the measurements were very
consistent" means nothing.

> can one expect these data to reflect real-world audibility?

With that data, who knows? The article references another such test
(http://www.vikash.info/audio/audax/break-in.asp) that gives slightly
better data. Notice that the before and after numbers aren't much higher
than the inter-test variance, and in some cases lower. The author of
that paper makes the error of believing that an average will somehow
eliminate testing variances. He needs to learn a bit more about
statistical analysis.

The entire conversation about burn-in seems so ridiculous to me. If
burn-in makes an audible difference, what happens if the burn-in period
makes the driver a poorer match to its enclosure? If the manufacturer
altered the enclosure to match a "burnt-in" driver, what happens if that
driver doesn't change enough? Yet, somehow, they all assert that burn-in
will always improve the sound. Sounds like some serious fakery (or
idiocy) to me.

 

[krabapple]

You are correct. The information that I posted contains real measured data that is consistent with the measurements made by every other driver designer or manufacturer.

Really? *EVERY* other driver designer and manufacturer. Do they all believe in audible break in too?

 

[krabapple]

I have heard differences in wire from speaker cables to interconnects, burned in and not burned in even cryo treating. It does make a difference and if you had the privilege of my experiences you'd think too.

I can't scientifically explain everything that is going on there and barely have a grasp on some of the fundamentals that take place regarding wire burn in.

There is no sense in arguing that stuff. So you might as well drop it. Until you hear it for yourself you won't believe. If you ever plan a trip out this way (Texas) I'll be glad to enlighten you (any of you).

Don't dare talk about science and then turn around and offer this sort of testimony as 'evidence' or 'enlightenment'. You haven't even ruled out the elementary possibility of *mistake* on your part.

For some people is will not be audible, but for a whole lot of people it is. If you ever come visit with me I'll put something together to show just how audible it really is. That's the part not worth arguing over.

How about *you* subject yourself to ABX listening tests of cables and 'broken in' speakers, instead? (There's an outside chance I could even persuade Tom Nousaine to help.)

Yes, but you stated that it takes place in just tens of seconds and that's it. Just a few seconds later and it's all burned in huh? That is just false and misleading. That is the part that you need to address. How long does it really take?

You measured at ten seconds...and then at 20 hours. And then at later intervals, where the measured difference seemed negligable compared to 20. So, doesn't that raise a rather compelling question (aside for the *audibiliyt* question, which is the elephant in the room) of what might have happened at, say, ten *minutes* of your sort of 'burn in'?

Yes we can take it into account but the change in optimal box volume and tuning is pretty small. I can change the box tuning more by adding or taking away damping material. You see as one set of variables go one way (making the optimal box size larger) the other parameters go the other way (making optimal box size smaller).

Given the variation in measured parameters from driver to driver displayed in the vikash page (not yours, you show data from just one driver), if these changes really make an audible difference, and thus really require adjustement of enclosures, how could you *possibly* predict them well enough for all drivers to adjust all enclosures correctly? That would literally involve testing every driver first.

 

[krabapple]

Here we go again. Audio is a GREAT mystery. We CANNOT quantify what we hear so we simply design on blind faith and hope we reach audio nirvana by tweaking caps and circuits NOT thru empirical analysis but through subjective listening tests only. Then if consumers don't like the end results, the manufacturer blames their other system equipment, synergy, gravitational pull of the moon, etc. I smell an audio elitist and it stinks rather awful.

It's not just audio elitism -- it's audio *mysticism*.

 

[gene]

Krabapple;

Great posts and all logical to everyone but the Black Knights

Not to add another topic into this thread, but I often love the irony of some claiming our equipment isn't good enough to discern audible differences, yet they never mention room acoustics, proper speaker placement, setup and calibration all of which play a SIGNIFICANTLY more audible roles than subtleties of electronics differences (especially if competenly designed) and certainly cables and speaker break in

 

[Sheep]

I agree. Krabapples posts are hilarious, AND informative!

SheepStar

 

[Danny Richie]

Really? *EVERY* other driver designer and manufacturer. Do they all believe in audible break in too?

Okay, how about everyone that I have ever dealt with (quite a few).

Don't dare talk about science and then turn around and offer this sort of testimony as 'evidence' or 'enlightenment'. You haven't even ruled out the elementary possibility of *mistake* on your part.

Hey there is the science of taking data, but interpreting that data is subjective. Just because I design with measuring tools doesn't mean I don't listen. Are you suggesting that I make mistakes in listening?

How about *you* subject yourself to ABX listening tests of cables and 'broken in' speakers, instead? (There's an outside chance I could even persuade Tom Nousaine to help.)

Let me tell you about ABX testing. You can get any answer out of it that you want depending on how its conducted. I have done it a bunch and can tell you some interesting stories about that if you like.

Sometimes it becomes so obvious that no one wants to play anymore too. I have set up a couple of double blind listening comparisons that turned out to be way too easy. Capacitors was one of them and RCA cables was the other.

Speakers are pretty easy too. I build speakers, and often have had two or three identical pairs to compare with. That freshly built pair never does sound like the others.

You measured at ten seconds...and then at 20 hours. And then at later intervals, where the measured difference seemed negligable compared to 20.

Yes, there is less of a difference as you approach a settled in range. Typically that range is around the 40 hour mark on the M-130. After that any difference is pretty small.

If you believe the claims here on this web site though there are no more changes beyond those first few seconds. As you can see though there was a fairly significant change from ten seconds to 20 hours.

what might have happened at, say, ten *minutes* of your sort of 'burn in'?

Not much more than the ten seconds and not near as much as 20 hours.

Would you like to pick a new woofer and do it again?

Let's all do it together. Let's pick three or four well known woofers and check the T/S parameters right out of the box, then after seconds of burn in (whatever) then at 10 minutes, 20 hours, 40 hours... or whatever we decide on. Then we compare our findings.

Given the variation in measured parameters from driver to driver displayed in the vikash page (not yours, you show data from just one driver), if these changes really make an audible difference, and thus really require adjustement of enclosures, how could you *possibly* predict them well enough for all drivers to adjust all enclosures correctly? That would literally involve testing every driver first.

It requires very little change in the enclosure design. Adding or taking away a handful of damping material can easily compensate for it.

 

[Danny Richie]

yet they never mention room acoustics, proper speaker placement, setup and calibration all of which play a SIGNIFICANTLY more audible roles than subtleties of electronics differences (especially if competenly designed) and certainly cables and speaker break in

If it makes you feel better I'll agree with you on that one. Room acoustics, speaker placement and set-up are as big of a factor as anything else in the system.

 

[Dan Banquer]

"Let me tell you about ABX testing. You can get any answer out of it that you want depending on how its conducted. I have done it a bunch and can tell you some interesting stories about that if you like."

These kinds of things happen when people do not follow protocols laid down by Jim Johnston, also known as retired old JJ. The lack of using these protocols has plagued consumer audio for years, which is one of the reasons why practically no one belives them. Note: this is not an endorsement of the Audio Critic, or Tom Nousaine. The protocols are very demanding and few take the time and effort to do these correctly.
Then again I am of the mind that even if they were done correctly, consumers would simply not care.

 

[krabapple]

Okay, how about everyone that I have ever dealt with (quite a few).

Every one of them believes in audible break-in? That's odd because even some loudspeaker manufacturers believe it's bunk. Perhaps you should talk to them.

Hey there is the science of taking data, but interpreting that data is subjective. Just because I design with measuring tools doesn't mean I don't listen. Are you suggesting that I make mistakes in listening?

Are you suggesting you *couldn't possibly* make mistakes in listening?

Let me tell you about ABX testing. You can get any answer out of it that you want depending on how its conducted. I have done it a bunch and can tell you some interesting stories about that if you like.

You're just full of stories, aren't you!

Frankly, given this claim, I wouldn't take any ABX tests *you* conducted, at face value. Because anyone who can get two separate ABX tests *of the same A and B* to give different results with the same subject (unless there's been discrimination training in the interim), is incompetent at ABX testing. Now, get some independent proctor who's competent at ABX test setup, and have them test you, and we can talk.. maybe Audioholics would like to do it?

Sometimes it becomes so obvious that no one wants to play anymore too. I have set up a couple of double blind listening comparisons that turned out to be way too easy. Capacitors was one of them and RCA cables was the other.

Yeah, I bet they *were* too easy. That can happen in a badly-done ABX. Or maybe you were comparing a broken cable to a good one?

Speakers are pretty easy too. I build speakers, and often have had two or three identical pairs to compare with. That freshly built pair never does sound like the others.

Different loudspeakers *should* be relatively easy to ABX. The same speaker burned in for 20 hrs versus 10 minutes? Doubt it.

Yes, there is less of a difference as you approach a settled in range. Typically that range is around the 40 hour mark on the M-130. After that any difference is pretty small.

The measured difference was already pretty small from 20 to 40, by your data.

If you believe the claims here on this web site though there are no more changes beyond those first few seconds. As you can see though there was a fairly significant change from ten seconds to 20 hours.

Not much more than the ten seconds and not near as much as 20 hours.

So, the main beef (leaving aside the audibility issue, which is the brontosaurus in the parlour) seems to be that Audioholics says the bulk of changes takes place during the initial 'burn in', which only takes a few seconds, while you say it occurs in 'not much more than ten seconds'?

Would you like to pick a new woofer and do it again?

Let's all do it together. Let's pick three or four well known woofers and check the T/S parameters right out of the box, then after seconds of burn in (whatever) then at 10 minutes, 20 hours, 40 hours... or whatever we decide on. Then we compare our findings.

For starters just confine yourself to the 10 sec -- 20 Hr interval. And to account for unit-to-unit variation, test a couple of *dozen* of the same driver. Don't bother manually stretching the speakers.

Btw, I've never owned a loudspeakers whose mfr suggested I 'break them in'.
What sort of methods are usually suggested to the consumer by the mfr?
Is it anything like your test method? What sorts of break-in times are predicted?

It requires very little change in the enclosure design. Adding or taking away a handful of damping material can easily compensate for it.

For every single loudspeaker? Damn. So let me get this straight, you're saying you break in every driver, then measure its T/S parameters then adjust the damping material in each individual enclosure to compensate? Or do you just assume every driver reaches the same 'break in' value [ +/- some slop that isn't audibly significant]?

(How small does an enclosure have to be for a 'handful of damping material' to make an audible diff anyway?)

And btw, just so you don't feel too picked on, I've torn Audioholics a new one now and then for publishing 'subjective' claims about gear sound without measurement/listening test backup. I'm pretty annoying that way.

 

[Tomorrow]

And btw, just so you don't feel too picked on, I've torn Audioholics a new one now and then for publishing 'subjective' claims about gear sound without measurement/listening test backup. I'm pretty annoying that way.

Yes, we are quite blessed to be served by such ascerbic wit and self-stated boundless objective wisdom.

 

[emorphien]

Yes, we are quite blessed to be served by such ascerbic wit and self-stated boundless objective wisdom.

I don't happen to like how he said it, but I think I agree with him

 

[audiofox]

If it measures better it has to sound better right? You must be measuring the wrong thing.

My speakers measure great. Does that mean they sound great? It's a good indication that there are not any problems but it won't tell you how they sound. Sometimes they measure great and don't sound all that great and I go back to the drawing board.

I have three different caps here. They all measure the same if I measure them for capacitance. Does that mean they sound the same?

They don't sound the same at all.



You haven't debunked anything just because you and your pals can't hear the difference on entry level gear.

It should be obvious to anyone that views this photo that there will be differences in the size of the soundstage and the blackness of the noise floor depending on the size of the capacitor that you use-the data is clear.

 

[Audioholics]

OK, everything's alright - nothin to see here. Move along, move along.