Speaker break-in??

[mtrycrafts]

I'm not familiar with GoodSound! or it's relationship to Harman's Dr. Floyd, but I do think there is some merit to speaker break in, as least with the bass drivers, when new. Many manufacturers of subwoofers state in their manuals that the driver requires some form of break in. Many of those manufacturers claim 20 hours is sufficient. I've said this before, and I'll say it again - if the manufacturer is recommending break in of their product, do you think it may have to do with performance or warranty issues?

Too many snippets

Here you go:

Specifically

"However. If I turn the stimulus off, within a few minutes most, if not
all, of the change has completely recovered, and we're back to go
again. "

From a speaker guru.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/7d26f5cc57ffd849?q=author:DPierce@world.std.com+and+speaker+break+in&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&rnum=1

so, while there may be a change during operation, just as heat may change resistance, the speaker changes but rturns to original condition afterwards..
So, it never breaks in as it changes back and forth with each use and non use.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I don't put any credibility in publications that center on the fidelity of car stereos. As far as how audible it is, there are too many parameters to make a blanket statement. TS parameters, box design and size, all play a major factor in the sound of a unit. I believe that it can be audible in certain circumstances. Someday when I have time, I will make some detailed measurements that will either prove or disprove this theory.

He happend to measure speaker drivers and published there.

What you need to do after measurements is a good DBT listening test as the JNDs in a listeing room is much higher than in a sound booth, headphones to establish threshold data:

"Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16khz", Florentine, Mary, et al, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.


"On the Relations of Intensity JND's to Loudness and Neural Noise", Zwislocki, J and Jordan H., Journal of Acoustics Society of America, 79(3), Mar 86, pg 772-780.

"Auditory Intensity Discrimination at High Frequencies in the Presence of Noise", Viemeister, Neal F., Science, vol 220, 16 Sep 83, pg 1206-1208.

"Speaker Cables, Measurements vs Psychoacoustic Data", Villchur, Edgar, Audio, Jul 94, pg 34-37.

 

[MacManNM]

I think a little reading about the human hearing capability is in order. No, I don't have a good reference but everything I read, it is not that stellar. after all, instruments are the tools measuring hearing responses and so far, they didn't run out of measuring room.
You just cannot hear well in a noisy environment as instruments can.

Discrimination is one of the strong points of the human audio system. That is why humans are used to listen in subs, and not computers.

You have difficulty hearing simultaneousl a lod signal with very soft ones. No such problem with instruments.

Absolutely wrong, neither will pick up the softer signal unless some sort of filtering is used.

 

[mtrycrafts]

You're pretty much dead on for the most part. Woofers do tend to loosen up a bit after a few hours of play but don't forget that anything that can "break in" must also "break out". So it is a bit of a misnomer. Tweeters do NOT break in despite what many audiophiles claim.
.

Yes, but...

this renowned speaker guy

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/7d26f5cc57ffd849?q=author:DPierce@world.std.com+and+speaker+break+in&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&rnum=1


has some databank for this part in it:

However. If I turn the stimulus off, within a few minutes most, if not
all, of the change has completely recovered, and we're back to go
again. The elstomer has recovered from it's stresses (this is
especially true of certain polybutadene-styrene surround
formulations).

It recovers and starts all over on the next powerup, and recovers. Transitory back and forth, so it cannot break in, just a temprary, transitory change

 

[mtrycrafts]

I do know that the ear and the human brain can be more sensitive than the best test equipment.

I must also disagree with this. What do you base your knowing this on? Not that sub example

 

[mtrycrafts]

Speaker break-in is largely a myth, probably rooted in the temperature differential I mentioned.

Yes, thanks.
But audiophiles don't establish audibility in that short time period of acclimation

 

[mtrycrafts]

Now that was the funniest post I've seen all day. Don't ask which part humors me the most.

You are killing me, stop that. Or, was that your intension

 

[brian32672]

You are killing me, stop that. Or, was that your intension

I believe I directed that towards Rob, but I guess it goes for all
People just ( )

 

[mtrycrafts]

Even on today’s most sophisticated submarines where the lowest noise digitizers and most sensitive equipment are in use, the human ear is still the most reliable tool in sonar. The human ear has approx 120db of dynamic range, which equates to 20 effective bits. Take into account that the equivalent sample rate (of a 20 bit digitizer) would be a 40KHz, that, is impressive. Not to mention the ability of the brain to process this information. Meeting these numbers in a complete data collection/analysis system would not be trivial, to say the least.

The human ear behind the sonar headset is for identification purposes, processing identifying due to past experiences, not to detect the signal from all that noise out in the sea. I am sure that signal is manipulated a lot before it gets to that sonar person making decisions. He is trained to listen for differences. Perhaps an algorithm can be created to do similar task if the reference data of sounds are equal to that sonar persons database of sounds through many years of training?


Oh, yes, the human ear has that dynamic range but is that range there simultaneoulsy? That is when a 120dB spl sound is present, can it detect that 10dB spl sound at the same time, or is it masked? Or, below 0dB at the same time? Hardly. It is masked.

 

[brian32672]

The human ear behind the sonal headset is for identification purposes, not to detect the signal from all that noise out in the sea. I am sure that signal is manipulated a lot before it gets to that sonar person making decisions. He is trained to listen for differences. Perhaps an algorithm can be created to do similar task if the reference data of sounds are equal to that sonar persons database of sounds through many years of training?

I think we've all been watching a little to much Down Periscope.
Are you guys going to start hailing whales as well.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I believe I directed that towards Rob, but I guess it goes for all
People just ( )

Yes, I know where the message was directed for but I read a lot, others mail, when it is public
I read the other one too that is why I thought yours so funny

 

[mtrycrafts]

Behave yourselves please, and try to state disagreements courteously. This especially apples to MacManNM, but others as well.

Back to the point: If I may use a lighthearted example, the elastic components of speaker drivers are like the elastic in your shorts: tight at first, followed after a brief (no pun intended) break-in (or stretch, for the shorts) by a long period of uniform performance within the tolerances for which they were designed, until at last a rapid deterioration takes place. Then your woofer stops woofing and your BVDs fall to your ankles. Hopefully the former occurs only once per several underwear life cycles!

Point being, the wear cycle of elastic materials does not follow a long, linear progression.

The need for prolonged speaker break-in (and for specific break-in practices like playing pink noise, etc.) is indeed a myth. A few hours of your favorite music at normal listening levels is more than sufficient, if needed at all.

(My apologies to any here who do not wear underwear and had difficulty relating to the example... )

I posted Richard Pierce's post on this subject a few places here but this is telling:

"However. If I turn the stimulus off, within a few minutes most, if not
all, of the change has completely recovered, and we're back to go
again. The elstomer has recovered from it's stresses (this is
especially true of certain polybutadene-styrene surround
formulations). "

 

[brian32672]

Yes, I know where the message was directed for but I read a lot, others mail, when it is public
I read the other one too that is why I thought yours so funny

Yeah you mean this one. I thought it was a joke.

Hmmm... so let me get this straight: You posted a question on a DIY forum about how to find a DIY forum so you could post your questions that we wouldn't answer because we're not into DIY? This is worse than an Abbott and Costello skit...

People start the darndest threads.......
But its nice to get a laugh in the middle of a thread every so often
Specially in a semi heated thread like this. When we are all after sound bliss.

 

[MacManNM]

Oh, yes, the human ear has that dynamic range but is that range there simultaneoulsy? That is when a 120dB spl sound is present, can it detect that 10dB spl sound at the same time, or is it masked? Or, below 0dB at the same time? Hardly. It is masked.

Yet you think a digitizer can? You obviously haven't worked with this type of equipment collecting any real world data. Any simultaneous signal, depending on the duration, freq content etc, the smaller one will be buried. Now if there is a slight delay between the two, depending on the dynamic range of the digitizer, the bit noise and the front end, one may be able to temporally resolve the signal, but at the same time this is not possible. It would be possible with 2 units, assuming the difference in frequency was enough that one may split the signal into two separate paths apply filtering, and proper scaling of the test equipment, whereas, that is not possible with the human ear.

 

[MacManNM]

He happend to measure speaker drivers and published there.

What you need to do after measurements is a good DBT listening test as the JNDs in a listeing room is much higher than in a sound booth, headphones to establish threshold data:

"Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16khz", Florentine, Mary, et al, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.


"On the Relations of Intensity JND's to Loudness and Neural Noise", Zwislocki, J and Jordan H., Journal of Acoustics Society of America, 79(3), Mar 86, pg 772-780.

"Auditory Intensity Discrimination at High Frequencies in the Presence of Noise", Viemeister, Neal F., Science, vol 220, 16 Sep 83, pg 1206-1208.

"Speaker Cables, Measurements vs Psychoacoustic Data", Villchur, Edgar, Audio, Jul 94, pg 34-37.

Do you have those results, can you post them, I'd be interested to see them.

 

[MacManNM]

I must also disagree with this. What do you base your knowing this on? Not that sub example

No, to this day I find that I need to use headphones and a receiver to find signals, then I can set up a data collection system to acquire the signals. I have tried running the same signal into very good digitizers and analyzing the data, but the ear is much more efficient at this. Algorithms work great when there is good signal to noise, but when there is a lot of spurious noise they don’t work nearly as well as the ear. I have an unlimited budget so If there is something better out there I would buy it and use it, I haven't found anything yet though.

 

[Guavamanh]

useless post... do not read!

wow, unlimited budget... gimmie some of that $_$

 

[jaxvon]

I don't think that's his own personal budget, but rather for work.

 

[pikers]

Thanks for that! Funniest thing I've read all day!

You think the human brain isn't more complex? Speak for yourself.

I smell an EE....

 

[pikers]

Yet you think a digitizer can? You obviously haven't worked with this type of equipment collecting any real world data. Any simultaneous signal, depending on the duration, freq content etc, the smaller one will be buried. Now if there is a slight delay between the two, depending on the dynamic range of the digitizer, the bit noise and the front end, one may be able to temporally resolve the signal, but at the same time this is not possible. It would be possible with 2 units, assuming the difference in frequency was enough that one may split the signal into two separate paths apply filtering, and proper scaling of the test equipment, whereas, that is not possible with the human ear.

We can hear sounds lower in amplitude when a louder one is present. That is why when we can hear the difference between SACD and CD. The harmonics return. That's why some speakers and electronics are better than others - They resolve the things that "we can't hear" more better as which.