Next Speaker Break-In article?

[Jack Hammer]

I wasn't asking for another 'endless debate' ; I was asking the editors when the next *Audioholics article on speaker break-in* was going to appear.

And I'm not sure what thread from a 'few days ago' is being referred to; the last thread explicitly about speaker break-in appears to have been closed in July.

It is not 'fanatical' to request good data....or to rely on it. "Personal experience' with 'what you heard' is not considered very good data, all by itself. You, or anyone *can* be wrong about what you heard. That's just a fact of life, due to humans not being perfect.

krabapple, perhaps you misunderstood my post. I was complimenting Haoleb for not getting all pissy about the "jerking" comment and acting like an adult about the remark.

Nor was I attacking or implying anything about you or your post. I was simply commenting on a reoccuring trend in some areas where after people make valid points and serve their opinions on a topic they begin to argue endlessly about the topic, restating the same info several different ways over and over and back and forth with the appearance of taking their beliefs to an almost fanatical level. Again there was no reference or implication to you or your question.

That being said, I read the original article and am also interested in finding out if their will be any follow up.

Jack

 

[Haoleb]

And I'm not sure what thread from a 'few days ago' is being referred to; the last thread explicitly about speaker break-in appears to have been closed in July.

It is not 'fanatical' to request good data....or to rely on it. "Personal experience' with 'what you heard' is not considered very good data, all by itself. You, or anyone *can* be wrong about what you heard. That's just a fact of life, due to humans not being perfect.

First off there are a ton of threads that might start out nice enough, Only to have one comment made which turns it into exactly what kind of topics are being discussed in the last few posts in this thread.

And second, I would rather hear comments from someone who has actually had experience with listening for break-in, cables, different amps, cdp, speakers etc. Than someone who just reads about them on the internet. The fact is that i doubt many of the people who knock expensive cables (yes some didnt do jack) knock break-in of any component etc havent actually tried it themselves. And I also dont use my experiences as "data" all by itself but it certainly has an influence.

Come to think about it, Speaker Break- in is about the stupidest thing to debate about. For one, it doesnt cost you any money, All you have to do is hook the things up and play them who cares if someone hears a difference or not with time. Its not like saying break-in can make a difference is sending someone to the guillotine. Its pretty obvious that either side isint going to just one day wake up and go HOLY WHACK BATMAN!! I was wrong! If you get a speaker on loan for 14 days and the dealer tells you it takes 14 days to break-in so take your time.. Dont expect any miracles if it sounds like a price of crap right out of the box, It probbably is!

All the discussion of using all these DBT and things just take the fun out of discussing a hobby with other enthusiasts.

 

[highfihoney]

And second, I would rather hear comments from someone who has actually had experience with listening for break-in, cables, different amps, cdp, speakers etc. Than someone who just reads about them on the internet. The fact is that i doubt many of the people who knock expensive cables (yes some didnt do jack) knock break-in of any component etc havent actually tried it themselves.

All the discussion of using all these DBT and things just take the fun out of discussing a hobby with other enthusiasts.

Dear lord what a refreshing statement! The whole google thing is a mess & is of no value to me personally,some will say that we are all just blinded or that we just dont want to hear the truth.................nonsense.

There is not nor will there ever be a worthy substitute for personal experience,reading & quoting google links is all fine & dandy but most of whats read by these google cowboys is used to fuel their own personal beliefs & not what things really sound like & the information is easily misinterpreted by many.

If i live to be 100 years old i'll never forget one of the google link kings arguing with me & posting link after link telling me that a klipsch corner horn does not have a 15# paper cone woofer,even though i own khorns i couldnt convince him that a horn loaded woofer was a regular paper cone driver because the specs from klipsch advertise the khorn as having a 15# fully horn loaded woofer.

I also agree about your dbt statement,dbt's are rigged right from the start & are not the all telling science that many worship as a way of life,any gear can be MADE to sound the same under the right circumstances.

 

[rmongiovi]

Come to think about it, Speaker Break- in is about the stupidest thing to debate about.

Hmmm... I thought the point was that vendors have disclaimers that their equipment will sound better after you run it for a particular period of time. The engineers in the world measure that equipment with meters and report that there is no scientific basis for a break in period and they can't measure any.

My point was that there are two endpoints being broken in, the sound producer and the sound receiver. The manufacturer's claims that their equipment will improve in sound could be 100% accurate even without any measurable change in the output being produced if that improvement is being caused by changes in my ear's ability to recognize the sounds being produced.

Speaking simply for myself, I just wanted to ask the question: are the engineers in our midst defining "speaker break in" in too narrow a fashion, and ought it not include all changes to perception.

I also suggest that the holy grail of the double blind test may not be able to do justice to that concept, especially in the audio realm where the short duration of audio memory is considered a huge problem to such a test. I don't believe that proving two speakers indistinguishable under a DBT implies that my ability to appreciate either one of those speakers will not improve with experience. We're testing apples and oranges....

 

[captain_tinker]

If I may add my two cents worth...

Folks,
I am no expert by any means in this category, however I can tell you what I heard. I have owned my Paradigm Titans for about 6 months now I believe, and I use them every day at moderate listening levels. I don't blast them often, and I typically listen to good classical or classic rock, or easy listening or new age etc. No rap or gangsta stuff with heavy bass etc. In any case, I was very impressed with them out of the box, and I don't believe I have really heard any change in how they sound over these last 6 months. So just from that I am not sure if I really believe in break-in.

Now from just looking at the idea, I think I can understand it and maybe even accept it from the point of view that maybe as the cone moves more, the materials may become a bit more supple or may be able to move easier, kind of like a pair of shoes gets a bit softer and isn't quite as stiff once you wear them a bit. Martin Logan sure believes in it, I looked at the pdf manual that goes with their Dynamo subwoofer, and on page 12 it says:

Our custom made woofers require approximately 50 hours
of break-in at moderate listening levels before their optimal
performance occurs. This will factor in on any critical listening
and judgment.

So I am not sure who to believe. I don't own the Dynamo yet, but in a few months I will purchasing it I hope, so I will let you know if I hear any difference after 50 hours of listening to it once I get it. But if the sound of my Titans hasn't changed, then maybe the whole idea of speaker break in may just be bunk after all?

-capT

 

[Haoleb]

I also agree about your dbt statement,dbt's are rigged right from the start & are not the all telling science that many worship as a way of life,any gear can be MADE to sound the same under the right circumstances.

Im not saying DBT are rigged or anything of that sort. They have their place. But when DBT is necessary to rule out hearing any difference with anything its just like.... give it a break! I listen to my stereo. And i really enjoy it! I dont analyze everything to infinity and worry that my mind is just playing tricks on me.

 

[Tom Andry]

You know, I'm starting to see this issue in a new light. Science? Bah! It is all a bunch of egg-heads trying to sound smart. DBT's? Ridiculous! All those people are unethical bastards that are just on the take to the big companies that want you to believe that all their expensive gear sounds like all that cheap gear out there. They just fix those tests to confuse the thinkers among us. Broad-brushing people is so FUN!

Yep, I think we should definitely leave science out of all this talk of our hobby. Cause it is ruining it. I'd much rather have endless pointless debates about what I heard vs. what you heard that can never truly be resolved. I'd rather deal with people that claim that CDs sound better in the southern hemisphere because the Coriolis force affects the movement of the CD and doesn't slow it down like it does in the northern hemisphere. And I won't be able to argue with them because I live in the north. It doesn't matter that there is ample physical evidence (measurement and other such poppycock) that shows no difference between the speeds the CDs turn. Doesn't matter at all. Because if I haven't moved to the southern hemisphere and listened to it myself, I can't know.

You are absolutely right, that sounds way more fun to me.

Plus, we all know that are subjective experiences are the only real evidence we have of anything. I don’t really know that New York exists until I’ve been there. Since I haven’t, it is still up in the air to me. Sure, I’ve met people from there. I’ve seen pictures. My wife has been there. But until I’ve actually stepped foot in the city, it could all be some elaborate hoax.

I, for one, can say in all seriousness that my personal observations are always right. Always. In my 35 years of life, I’ve never made a mistake. Not a one. When I eyeball a stick and say, “That’s about a meter,” I’m always right on. To the centimeter. When I get a new product in for review, my first impressions are always right. Always. Heck, I don’t even use my SPL meter to calibrate my system anymore; I just do it by ear. I’m positive that if I checked my calibration (I won’t, but if I did) it would be dead on.

So, that sounds like a plan. A world free of science and measurement would definitely open the floodgates to a whole world of discussion possibilities. We could discuss with the pediatrician how much my son weighs and whether he’s gained weight since our last visit (since we won’t use scales). I can discuss with my doctor about whether I had bad heartburn or a heart attack. How would he know? He didn’t feel it. Has he had a heart attack? Has he had bad heart burn that felt like a heart attack? No? Then how can he claim to know anything about them?

Discussing is so much fun I want to spend every moment of every day doing it. Especially when there is no way to be right.

 

[Haoleb]

Discussing is so much fun I want to spend every moment of every day doing it. Especially when there is no way to be right.

Well at least we can all agree on one thing.

 

[googdot]

Well at least we can all agree on one thing.

yup - agreed!

 

[rmongiovi]

You know, I'm starting to see this issue in a new light. Science? Bah! It is all a bunch of egg-heads trying to sound smart. DBT's? Ridiculous! All those people are unethical bastards that are just on the take to the big companies that want you to believe that all their expensive gear sounds like all that cheap gear out there. They just fix those tests to confuse the thinkers among us. Broad-brushing people is so FUN!
.
.
.
Discussing is so much fun I want to spend every moment of every day doing it. Especially when there is no way to be right.

For not liking discussing, you're sure good at it. I guess that's why you're here.

As far as your first point, who's denigrating science? All I said is that the perception of music is more than the mechanical measurement of SPL coming from the speaker. If you want to attack it from a scientific standpoint, you have to take the observer into account. You can't just draw a line in the sand and say "no measurable change in the device, no possibility of change in the subjective experience." I've offered several theories for psychological and physiological changes that might be the basis for the so-called break in period. That's just as much science as the physics of driver mechanics. Rather than debating that effect, you choose a diatribe against science haters. Why don't you just call me a poopy head and we can move on?

I put a photometer on the output from my computer display, and it shows no change over time. Yet when I put my glasses on, I can read the screen and when I take them off I can't. But science shows that the screen didn't change, so I must be wrong. Not only that, but a DBT shows no alteration of those results when I swap out monitors. Apparently, my glasses are all in my head. How silly of me...

 

[krabapple]

Plus, we all know that are subjective experiences are the only real evidence we have of anything. I don’t really know that New York exists until I’ve been there.

I find the city unbelievable sometimes.... and I live here.

Thanks for the post. The know-nothingism displayed by audio hobbyists is as irritating as it is common. And it's fostered at 'the top' by manufacturers (some of whom, in private, will admit that they advocate speaker break-in simply because it's expected of them by their target market) and most of all by the ridiculous 'high end ' magazines.

THAT'S why I'm eager to read articles like Mr. Sanfilipo's.

 

[Tom Andry]

I put a photometer on the output from my computer display, and it shows no change over time. Yet when I put my glasses on, I can read the screen and when I take them off I can't. But science shows that the screen didn't change, so I must be wrong. Not only that, but a DBT shows no alteration of those results when I swap out monitors. Apparently, my glasses are all in my head. How silly of me...

That's a fantastic example of bias. Thank you, I'll be using that in future "discussions".

 

[krabapple]

Hmmm... I thought the point was that vendors have disclaimers that their equipment will sound better after you run it for a particular period of time. The engineers in the world measure that equipment with meters and report that there is no scientific basis for a break in period and they can't measure any.

My point was that there are two endpoints being broken in, the sound producer and the sound receiver. The manufacturer's claims that their equipment will improve in sound could be 100% accurate even without any measurable change in the output being produced if that improvement is being caused by changes in my ear's ability to recognize the sounds being produced.

Well, no, logically speaking, if the 'improvement' is being CAUSED BY changes in the listener, then it is quite misleading to write of *speaker* break-in -- or to make such silly suggestions as 'play loud music or pink noise over them continuously for 100 hours to break them in'.

Find me one speaker manufacturer who writes something like 'we suggest you listen to our speaker for X hours before judging them, because it may take that long for YOU to acclimate to their sound'.

Speaking simply for myself, I just wanted to ask the question: are the engineers in our midst defining "speaker break in" in too narrow a fashion, and ought it not include all changes to perception.

What makes you think no one has ever proposed the idea that 'speaker' break-in is really 'listener' break in? That's all you're saying. It's certainly been offered as an explanation on threads here on Audioholics already.

I also suggest that the holy grail of the double blind test may not be able to do justice to that concept, especially in the audio realm where the short duration of audio memory is considered a huge problem to such a test. I don't believe that proving two speakers indistinguishable under a DBT implies that my ability to appreciate either one of those speakers will not improve with experience. We're testing apples and oranges....

And again: short duration of audio memory doesn't necessarily mean that listening time must be limited. It means that the *switching interval* should be. This is to make it *easier* detect real differences, not harder. And anyone designing a good DBT is going to want to make sure the listener really believes they hear a difference, before testing that belief. If that means the listener has to 'audition' the speaker for weeks or months until they think it's been 'broken in' , fine. At THAT point, you do a DBT, comparing the 'broken in' speakers to a new set. Surely the difference won't suddenly go away, if it's real?

But no one even *makes* you use short switching intervals -- or short listening times (which do also have a benefit) -- in a DBT. Those are recommendations for making them *more sensitive* to difference. In other words, they're suggested to *improve* your odds of hearing a real difference. If you want to do a DBT another way, fine -- the *fundamental* requirement (not negotiable) is that it be blind. What you hear must be the *only* means you have of identifying whether the speaker is 'broken in' or not.

It does your argument no credit when you seem not to be familiar with what a double blind test must and must not entail...nor with the usual arguments pro and con speaker break-in.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Reality is stranger than fiction

Science? Bah! It is all a bunch of egg-heads trying to sound smart...Plus, we all know that are subjective experiences are the only real evidence we have of anything. I don’t really know that New York exists until I’ve been there...

Actually, according to science, until you are there, New York really doesn't exist! (...and it does)

 

[krabapple]

I put a photometer on the output from my computer display, and it shows no change over time. Yet when I put my glasses on, I can read the screen and when I take them off I can't. But science shows that the screen didn't change, so I must be wrong.

Logic shows that that's terrible reasoning on your part.

Not only that, but a DBT shows no alteration of those results when I swap out monitors. Apparently, my glasses are all in my head. How silly of me...

Extremely silly...*IF* you were to claim that the monitor actually changed.

 

[Tom Andry]

Actually, according to science, until you are there, New York really doesn't exist! (...and it does)

And according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, I can either know where New York is or in what direction it is heading so finding New York may be a problem. Of course, the theory of Observer Effects states that just by seeing New York I change it so is it really New York after I see it? Or is it some place else? Like Des Moines? Perhaps.... Manteca?

 

[Buckle-meister]

And according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, I can either know where New York is or in what direction it is heading so finding New York may be a problem...

Only if you have an interest in going there in the first place.

 

[Jack Hammer]

Wow, almost started to get ugly in here. Oh, and my google search says New York is real, so it's all good.

 

[mtrycrafts]

All I said is that the perception of music is more than the mechanical measurement of SPL coming from the speaker.

Maybe. But, when one is comparing two or more components and wants to have a meaningful outcome, those mechanical measurements are very important. Or, your comparison has no meaning at all to arrive at a valid conclusion.



If you want to attack it from a scientific standpoint, you have to take the observer into account.

Actually, the observer IS considered, hence the need for a reliable tool to compare so a reliable outcome is derived. Otherwise, why even bother to compare?


You can't just draw a line in the sand and say "no measurable change in the device, no possibility of change in the subjective experience."

You are totally mischaracterizing the issue here. No one is stating this or claiming this. Actually, a change of 1ft in speaker cables, or less, can be measured and will affect the signal so ever slightly. Are we then concluding it must be audible different since we can measure that difference?

I've offered several theories for psychological and physiological changes that might be the basis for the so-called break in period.

And, that is what the change is, in the mind only but not real.

I put a photometer on the output from my computer display, and it shows no change over time. Yet when I put my glasses on, I can read the screen and when I take them off I can't. But science shows that the screen didn't change, so I must be wrong.

That is not a credible parallel at all.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Except, Danny Richie claims his measurements show it *does* occur. Clint DeBoer implied that Mr. Sanfilipo's next installment would have something to say about that.

It may in fact all come down to whether the measured differences have any audible correlate. And that will require good listening tests to determine.

That is precisely what it is all about, between any components.
After all, one can measure differences between the same component line but different serial number. Doesn't mean it is audibly different.