Breaking them in

[lsiberian]

I love this forum. On one hand people are trying to be scientific and objective on the the other hand certain things get disregarded. For example, latest review of TSC in wall speaker. Purely subjective in terms of sound and useless. None of the gurus here mind it. But then someone mentions break in, oh no, boo hoo, lets kick him in the n..ts. If you guys want to be objective, you need to do it everywhere and probably do you own measurements to back up the opinions, other wise, well it's just pulp.

Hey it's ok to be subjective. Life is a subject to be studied. TSCs are very cheap speakers so I don't think you can really complain about their sound.

I don't long for TSCs in my setup. They don't even have a metal grill(required!).

But I would trust the ears of someone on this forum. These guys listen to speakers all the time. This is their hobby.

 

[R-Carpenter]

Things like “burn in”, “which cable sound different” and such cause a great deal of sarcasm and perhaps for a good reason. Independent tests and statistic show very little to no evidence of any sorts to prove this mostly marketing abominations. Now this is objective.
Loudspeaker testing, no matter the price should also be objective. The most important characteristic of a loudspeaker is it's FR, On, Off A response and distortion parameters. But you guys know that already.
So, “we tested this car but not on the race track and it's damn fast (don't know exactly how fast) and it handles great ( no skid pad), the ac is ice cold all thou it's winter now. See my point?
This is why I like Peter Aczel. If you going to be objective, be objective everywhere!

Considering trusting somebody else's ears, I wouldn't. As much as I'd like to believe that my ears are better, it's just simply not true. People are sensitive to different types of distortions and frequency fluctuations in the response of the loudspeaker and there's no relationship between over all preferences and types of distortion. My latest speaker for example was called “dark sounding”, “too much sparkle”, “balanced and neutral” by 3 different people in 3 different rooms.

 

[Alex2507]

This is their hobby.

In this instance Tom Andry's subjective findings are being dragged through the mud. This is more than a hobby to him. It's a free ride ... I mean job.

 

[R-Carpenter]

Bingo, you just spotted it. “subjective findings”.
I am not the one who should have pointed it out. Alex, you post more then a 1100 times a year and you let it go and didn't say anything?
I don't know Tom, but from his review (actually with all in wall speakers), the first thing I'd mention is: if you are not a handy with circular or table saw, or don't know if there's a water main or a power line behind this wall, call a licensed contractor to install! Being a union drywaller, Alex, I am sure you can advise on the hourly price of the install.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I love this forum. On one hand people are trying to be scientific and objective on the the other hand certain things get disregarded. For example, latest review of TSC in wall speaker. Purely subjective in terms of sound and useless.

Well, such a review is subjective, very, even if he said it had certain sound characteristics. It may very well have that. Speakers are different from one another, unlike the other stuff

None of the gurus here mind it. But then someone mentions break in, oh no, boo hoo, lets kick him in the n..ts. If you guys want to be objective, you need to do it everywhere and probably do you own measurements to back up the opinions, other wise, well it's just pulp.

Some things have been pretty well established, so we can do that

 

[Alex2507]

Bingo, you just spotted it. “subjective findings”.
I am not the one who should have pointed it out. Alex, you post more then a 1100 times a year and you let it go and didn't say anything?
I don't know Tom, but from his review (actually with all in wall speakers), the first thing I'd mention is: if you are not a handy with circular or table saw, if don't know if there's a water main or a power line behind this wall, call a licensed contractor to install! Being a union drywaller, Alex, I am sure you can advise on the hourly price of the install.

What the hell is your damage? I'm not going into specifics about what's said where and by who. I like Tom Andry. I admire the fact that he makes a living working at AH. I really gotta wonder if you're in your right mind and don't worry about how much I post.

 

[Cruise Missile]

My apologies to the OP...

Let's try to stay on topic.

The OP had a legitimate question regarding speaker break-in.
Once a driver has traveled the full scope of its designed excursion the mechanical break-in is done. This may require a variety of material to be played, as not every piece of music has information present in all frequencies necessary.

That being said, If you can provide OBJECTIVE proof otherwise, post up and prove I'm wrong.

Pointing out a perceived flaw with something non-related does not help answer the OP. Tom's review was stated to be subjective. The link posted, yes I read through it, was mostly subjective dribble. A large pile of poo is still just poo.

I'm off to buy some cable elevators...

 

[Rickster71]

I really don't know what to say.
I suppose it all comes down to reading comprehension, or perhaps critical thinking skills.

IMO The main point of Tom's review was to give any of us, with aging parents, an inexpensive speaker solution, for people that are not particularly audiophiles.

Quote from article:
"The real test, however, was how my parents feel about them. Before we even had them all the way installed, my mother was enamored. She loved the clean look and the space-saving attributes of the in-walls. My father appreciated that he was getting much better sound than he had ever experienced before."





When Tom wrote the quote below; he said it wasn't his most objective review

"As reviews go, this isn't my most rigorous.
The fact is that once you leave your own room where you are familiar with the acoustics and limitations, you're really unsure of what is the speaker, and what is the room. Plus, I couldn't exactly measure them as I would with most speakers since I didn't have my heavily treated AV Rant podcast room to do it in."
How can anyone possibly maintain that Tom's review was not objective. When he stated it wasn't

 

[Cruise Missile]

Clarification Needed

I feel that I need to clear the air on something. My statement of "subjective dribble" was not referring to Tom's review. Instead, it was referring to the thread-link in post #12.

Furthermore, I have the utmost respect for the contributors of Audioholics. Primarily, this is based on the fact that they do value-based ratings on their reviews.

Sorry for the confusion. I was wearing rum goggles last night.

 

[Tom Andry]

Ohhh... that's why my ears were burning!

 

[fredk]

I was wearing rum goggles last night.

Now I have visions of a remake of Dr. Strange love with you riding a cruise missile, wearing goggles and shouting Yeeeeehaaaaww.

To be clear, my original post was not meant to be sarcastic or consiscending. It was merely a humorous way of saying breaking occures in the ear/mind of the listener. [well, I thougt it was funny anyway]

 

[lsiberian]

Loudspeaker testing, no matter the price should also be objective. The most important characteristic of a loudspeaker is it's FR, On, Off A response and distortion parameters. But you guys know that already.
So, “we tested this car but not on the race track and it's damn fast (don't know exactly how fast) and it handles great ( no skid pad), the ac is ice cold all thou it's winter now. See my point?

Not everything is measurable nor is measurement always required. Sound is ultimately perceptive. This is no more evident than in the great and awesome diversity of music around the world. Some people like Jazz. Others like Hard Rock. Others like bass. Some want treble. Some don't care.

The reality is that Break-In is a perceptive and psychological adjustment period not a mechanical one.

You could be brainwashing yourself into believing something about your speakers that isn't true. Measurements are good for dispelling these kinds of mistruths. However, if you repeat a lie enough you will start to believe it. At some point even in the face of evidence.

4 things contribute to truth: Experience, Logic, Tradition, Outside Sources.

 

[Pyrrho]

I love this forum. On one hand people are trying to be scientific and objective on the the other hand certain things get disregarded. For example, latest review of TSC in wall speaker. Purely subjective in terms of sound and useless. None of the gurus here mind it. But then someone mentions break in, oh no, boo hoo, lets kick him in the n..ts. If you guys want to be objective, you need to do it everywhere and probably do you own measurements to back up the opinions, other wise, well it's just pulp.

When judging two speakers, which very probably measure considerably differently, it is a matter of preference which one likes. But it is another thing to make some claim to objective fact about something that no one has ever demonstrated, such as the idea that breaking in speakers (beyond a few seconds) audibly affects the sound (or whatever other voodoo nonsense one wishes to entertain).

There are times when preferences are appropriate, and times when expressing a preference doesn't make sense (i.e., in cases where no audible difference occurs).

Someone may like the added distortion of analog, as this person does:

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2326606&postcount=9

It is fine that they prefer cassette copies of CDs over the CDs. But it would be wrong to say that that was more like the original, or that it was higher fidelity. The simple fact is, when one makes an analog copy of something, there will be added distortion of various types, and a degradation of the frequency response, corresponding to whatever imperfections there are in the recorder and the medium (i.e., "blank tape" or whatever it is recorded onto).

And, of course, it is well-established that a cassette copy of something will add wow & flutter, distortion, and frequency response deviations, often at a level that is easily audible.

To put this another way, some things are well-established as being audibly different, and some other things are such that no human being has ever been able to show that they have actually heard a difference. When we are dealing with things in which it is common for there to be audible differences (e.g., speakers), it is fine for someone to prefer one thing over the other, regardless of which one is more like a natural sound. In the cases of people claiming to hear things that no human being has ever demonstrated the ability to hear (e.g., speaker break-in beyond the first few seconds), reasonable people are naturally skeptical, just as they would be to someone claiming that they can leap over tall buildings in a single bound, or able to hear a gnat flapping its wings a mile away, without the aid of any devices.

 

[R-Carpenter]

OK, so let me get this straight. We are now evaluating speakers based on Experience, Logic, Tradition, Outside Sources ?

I am not debating the “brake in “ here and the reason I posted Parts Express link is because there's a stated response from someone at Scan-Speak, describing the “burn in”. Jees, I thought that was interesting.

Anyway, here's a question to the gurus. How much of an influence the room plays in the performance of the loudspeaker and how does one make sense from the subjective review and decides if this loudspeaker will perform well in his or her's room?

 

[jamie2112]

I think a speaker (breaks in ...Not) and when you need to stop and think about speaker "break" in you put on the "brake" and stop .....jeeze spelling just really makes me crazy I tell ya... But I thought a speaker builder like your self would know that already.......

 

[Cruise Missile]

Indeed the room is ultimately what affects the listeners experience. Things like speaker placement and location of the listener in the room will also play into this. The only way to know which speaker will perform well in your room is to audition them in your room. This ensures a level playing field for comparison.
We all get very familiar with the "sound" of our rooms, and while it's probably not ideal, it is at least a constant. As long as care is exercised in keeping the locations of the speaker and listener the same (creating another constant) the differences between speakers should become apparent. Then all that's left is to listen. After all, only your ears can tell what sounds good to you.

If the review is done with these things considered then it's a great place to start. The reviewers preferences for sound play a huge part in this so reading as much as you can of the reviewers work helps you get a feel for their tastes. But again, this should be a starting point and not a decision maker.

 

[markw]

Anyway, here's a question to the gurus. How much of an influence the room plays in the performance of the loudspeaker and how does one make sense from the subjective review and decides if this loudspeaker will perform well in his or her's room?

You really can't.

All you can detrermine from this is that a particular spealker got along well with the acoustics in the reviewers room and that it suited the reviewer's personal preferences.

Most of us here know that room interactions have a lot to do with how well a speaker performs in the real world. A speaker can measure well in an anechoic chamber but still sound, well, less than stellar in ones living room.

Now, if many peope come forth and offer glowing reviews of a particlar speaker in their homes, it can be surmised that the designers have achieved their goal of making a speaker that performs in a real world environment and simultaneously suits the tastes of a good many people.

 

[no. 5]

OK, so let me get this straight. We are now evaluating speakers based on Experience, Logic, Tradition, Outside Sources ?

"We"?

How much of an influence the room plays in the performance of the loudspeaker and how does one make sense from the subjective review and decides if this loudspeaker will perform well in his or her's room?

Below the transition region, the room controls everything you hear, above that region, the speaker has most of the control, therefore, any comments a reviewer makes regarding a speaker or subwoofer's low frequency performance really only apply to that reviewer's situation.

It is imposable to know from one review how a speaker will perform in your room (though it may be possible to make an educated assumption from carefully reading many reviews), furthermore, without a directly comparable reference point(s), it is very difficult for a reviewer to acceptably rate the overall subjective quality of a speaker.

If, however, you have a good set of acoustic measurements of a speaker, it can be possible to get quite a good idea of how a speaker will sound in your room.

 

[jostenmeat]

No disrespect to anyone who has chimed in, but this subject is the most irrelevant I find among the subject of speakers. This is the first time I even cared to read this thread, and only the last page at that. I mean, really, who cares? No one is going to buy a speaker that doesn't sound pleasing, only to hope it'll sound great later. If a certain manufacturer will design a speaker with future break-in in mind, that's fine and dandy, but only an idiot would purchase it based on some future possibility of performance, and not what it does OTB, in front of oneself. Right? Maybe I'm missing something here.

Then I think... with any musical instrument that I can think of made of wood, there is indeed break-in. In fact, an instrument will break-in according to the individual playing it, as everyone has their own tone, which of course is made up of all the harmonics influenced by the person's appendages or mouth. Some instruments take only a month, some take years, depending on the instrument and the actual wood.

Forgetting drivers and electronics, I'm led to a different question. Since most speakers (which are indeed made of wood) suffer from cabinet resonance, will these resonances in fact become worse; yet even more offensive as the wood might "break in" as it does in an instrument? Just curious. Maybe break-in is actually a bad thing here... ?

 

[fredk]

Below the transition region, the room controls everything you hear, above that region, the speaker has most of the control

What is the transition region? Thats a new term to me.

I would think that if a reviewer can evaluate a speakers performance relative to a neutral reference, if you understand the characteristics of your room, you might be able to deduce how the speaker might interact with your particular room.

Putting a speaker known for brightness in a bare reflective room will probably not be a good idea.

On the other hand, I have yet to hear of a room effect that adds detail to a speaker that delivers mushy, veiled sound. If a speaker dosn't deliver the level of detail you want in a reasonable room (which one assumes most reviewers would have), it certainly won't in your room.

In general, I would think that a speaker that is neutral in response with good clarity/detail is going to perform the best in the widest range of rooms.