Why and how to break new speakers in? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Why and how to break new speakers in?



TorontoFish
01-31-2004, 08:06 PM
Finally decided to get rid of my Kenwood HTiB front speakers, while reading the reviews, I find many reviewers mentioned you need to break new spearkers in, can anybody explain why and how you do it? Thank in advance.

mtrycraft
01-31-2004, 10:30 PM
Finally decided to get rid of my Kenwood HTiB front speakers, while reading the reviews, I find many reviewers mentioned you need to break new spearkers in, can anybody explain why and how you do it? Thank in advance.

Well, just as many people believe in psychics too.
All jokes aside, those reviewers are wrong and yes, that many can be wrong easily.

Just play your speakers and enjoy them from day one, minute one.

markw
02-01-2004, 05:31 AM
Just play your speakers and enjoy them from day one, minute one.

Yep! You'll get used to their sound in no time. Wether you like it or not is another story.

Willow
02-01-2004, 09:24 AM
Yep! You'll get used to their sound in no time. Wether you like it or not is another story.

I wonder if its breaking in the speaker or the speakers breaking in yours ears?? just go ahead and play your source dont over crank them but enjoy them. its like a car dont go hard on it right off the bat...but enjoy it !!!

bturk667
02-01-2004, 09:52 AM
Then place the speakers face to face and close together, about a foot apart. Then switch the wires on one of the speakers, black on red, red on black, thus reversing the phase. This is an effective way to break in speakers.

RGA
02-01-2004, 02:25 PM
The idea behind breaking in speakers is that the tweeter and woofers need to settle into their operating parameters. Many car makers say the same thing when you put new break pads on your car to go easy on them for the first 1000 miles.

The idea is the speaker drivers have been placed into the box and never been used and thus after they play for a while they will settle into their appropriate operating parameters. Theoretically, it has some merit and a recent test of a B&W CDM 1NT was taken right out of the box and then again with several thousand hours on them and they do MEASURE differently...very subtle but it is there in the audible band...whether you'd hear and notice it is another matter but then the subjective correlation matches the measurement.

I had a set of B&W DM 302s and for the first 3 hours or so the speaker made some looud audible POPPING sounds like popcorn in the microwave. Not as fast but clearly audible - thought it was an LP. :)

However, no such thing with my Audio Notes.

Quite simply speaker break in is a non issue because all you have to do to break a speaker in is to PLAY THE SPEAKERS. Since this is wht you do with speakers anyway don't worry. One big reason they advertise speaker break in is because people buy them get them home and if the sound is bad in the first 10 minutes people return them. They want you to listen to the speakers for a few weeks so you get used to them and ALSO so that by then you will probably play several cds and good ones will sound good and bad ones will sound bad.

After 10 hours and careful positioning in a reasonably acoustically room friendly room if the speaker sounds BAD things will not get better enough and I would return them. Most speaker manufacturers recommend 30 hours. I say if the return period allows for 30 hours of listening that you give the manufacturer that time - since it makes no difference anyway. And if it's your ears that begins to like them great if the speaker's subtle measurement difference is actually the reason that's great too...the point is moot if after 30 hours the sound is more enjoyable or totally sucks.

skeptic
02-01-2004, 05:10 PM
The notion of loudspeaker break-in is extremely troubling to me and flies in the face of everything we know about modern manufacturing. The analogy between loudspeakers breaking in and automobile engines breaking in is absurd. Automobile engines are not manufactured to the precision of loudspeakers. If they were, they wouldn't need breaking in either. Automobile engines and other auto parts have to endure temperatures and pressures far greater than anything any loudspeaker built will likely ever see. Loudspeakers routinely handle a few watts, a few dozen at most, and very rarely a couple of hundred for a brief time. Automobile engines handle dozens and even hundreds of horsepower and every horsepower is 746 watts. Brakes, transmissions, and other moving parts undergo similarly huge temperatures and pressures compared to audio equipment and loudspeakers.

The goal of modern manufacturing is predictable uniformity of product. That means that the finished product must match the characteristics of a prototype in all respects including performance. This is enshrined in the ISO 9000 principle adopted by many manufacturers. Those who don't adopt ISO 9000 often adopt comparable standards from other organizations. The manufacturer wants to exercise the utmost control over his product to be sure his customer will be satisfied by getting exactly what he expected from hearing a demo unit. It is only small garage operation which make a few units at a time as piecework that have neither the technical nor financial resources for such activity.

The problem with the "break in" is how does the manufacturer control or predict changes to his product after it leaves his factory? How does he know where the changes will stop. Will they take place? To what degree? Will the product perform so differently from the prototype within a short period that it is unacceptable? If a speaker needs a breakin, wouldn't it make more sense for the manufacturer to do it at the factory so that he could exercise total control over it and reject those units which exceed the performance specifications after break in?

All equipment ages. But I expect these gradual changes to elapse over decades, not hours, days or weeks. Personally, I'd avoid any loudspeaker or other equipment for which the manufacturer or salesman says a breakin is required.

mtrycraft
02-01-2004, 06:37 PM
its like a car dont go hard on it right off the bat...but enjoy it !!!


Yes, he needs to enjoy it, not worry about it. But, the speaker is not really like the car about break in.

RGA
02-01-2004, 06:37 PM
Skeptic.

If you avoid speaker manufacturers the recommend break-in you'll be avoiding all of them including AR.

Iso is propaganda garbage set out to be meaningful for Quality control and My old company was ISO 9000 approved to the highest level. We sold teeth on bull-dozer buckets and they were all over the map when it came to actually lasting the duration period.

Bryston amplifiers - professional amplifer maker for decades and hardly any slouches include a measurement graph of their amplifier so you the owner know exactly how your amp fares. Of course they all meet and better their speac sheet but they are never identical. Which is no big deal since the Bryston 3B ST is rated at 120Watts and you'll be sure to probably get 150Watts.

The B&W DM 302 I had was an extreme example but for 3 hours of rice crispies I had another 2 years flawless performance.

It seems to be intermittant and if engineers are so smart thye will know how their speaker will break in because they would have listened to their products. Granted some don't listen to their speakers when they make them and those are the ones best avoided.

I once bought a pair of shoes right before a 10k run...and that low technology practically killed me...the worst thing you can ever do. I learned first hand to ALWAYS wear a set of broken in shoes if you're going to do such a thing. Simple leather and rubber. A year later(the next Sun Run) those shoes gave no blisters no problems whatsoever.

Personally I feel the speaker break in is more about customers getting used to the sound of the speakers...since most people say have X model for a decade and the new speaker has a metal tweeter and is Brighter it takes a long time to get used to the pingy ringy dingy sound...after a few months you go back to the older speaker and it sounds lifeless and car bassy. Or then again the new speaker could just be like nails on a chalkboard...the manufacturer is gambling most people won't return the speakers given enough hours even if you're not wildly thrilled.

But I doubt you're going to find the same model form the same manufacturer sound Identical - or I should say MEASURE identically. How many reviews I have read where the reviewing company gets a malfunctioning unit no less.

Who's to say that companies don't send a top notch unit to reviewers and cheap out on the stuff they sell to the masses.

One reason the Canadian Car safety test organization actually goes out and BUYS a car at random from a lot and tests them...not having GM send them a car. This way you know there is not added protection for the test model to make them do better in the test. I wish I read that on my 94 Grand-Am the Death Trap that it is.

mtrycraft
02-01-2004, 07:00 PM
"Breaking Wind", Nousaine, Tom, Car Stereo Review, Jan/Feb 1997, pg 90-94. (Break in myth)

"Test Report: Dynaudio MW 190, 12" Subwoofer", Nousaine, Tom, Car Stereo Review, Oct 1997, pg 83-88. (More break in myth)

These show that while some measurement of speaker parameter goes up, others go down.
Under DBT listening, no differences can be detected.

TorontoFish
02-01-2004, 09:48 PM
Thank you all for the input! After reading all of them twice, it seems to me "break in" is just a strategy that speaker manufactures use to protest themselves from getting immediate product reture. It's like me, when I first bought the rear projection TV, I was doubting if I have made the right decision (I had Sears change the TV twice, peasonally I like the second one the best, but I can only keep the third one, they don't know where the second one is. If you can, avoid Panasonic for rear projection), now I am used to it, because I have spent probably thousands of hours in front of it.

skeptic
02-02-2004, 05:47 AM
KLH many years ago guaranteed that their speakers were within +/- 1db of the prototype at all frequencies. McIntosh guaranteed that their units would meet their published specifications for life and would be adjusted or repaired for free if they ever exceeded the published tolerances for those specifications. I have reported on another board that my father who was the quality control manager of a military electronics firm personally audited Acoustic Research's facility in Cambridge and was shown vast piles of deliberately destroyed drivers which failed performance specifications and would never see the light of day in any AR product even by accident. Bose culled their CTS drivers in their early days segregating them into at least three groups having different performance characteristics so that if you need a replacement driver, they would have to know the serial number to select the proper one for your unit. This is far beyond what many manufacturers, especially small outfits do because they have neither the test equipment nor the time and expertise to perform such tests. But more than that, the suggestion of break in requirement means that the product is inherently unstable. We know this is true for most automoble engines. We know that the first 10,000 to 20,000 miles results in the final machining of the inside of cylinder walls, valves, transmission parts. But far less so with precision robotic machining at the factory today than it was 30 or 40 years ago. If a loudspeaker is so unstable that its performance will change over a matter of hours, days, or weeks after it is put in service, IMO, the manufacturer has done a very poor job of selecting and assembling the components. If you buy one, basically you have no way to know what you are getting. There is good reason to believe that no two will sound exactly alike.

kexodusc
02-02-2004, 06:47 AM
Skeptic, I usually like your devil's advocate posts, but how did you start comparing car engines to loudspeakers? :) If speakers were built like car engines, we'd all be in trouble.

Still...there's no doubt in my mind that speakers will change subtley in sound over time. I recently sampled the new Paradigm Signature series...a floor demo model, and a new model, right out of the box. At the time the immediate difference in sound was quite noticeable, to the point that you would never believe it was the same speaker.
Lo, and behold, I've since found out those speakers were exchanged as it appears they were damaged in shipping. Not sure how they served as floor demos for a month, I'm starting to wonder about either the Signature series, or the integrity of my local dealer.

I'm starting to agree now that break-in time is really more for your ears to adjust to the sound, rather than the speakers to change a bit. However, I have read reviews before that did use a DBT to prove that there are some very small audible differences in speakers with varying degrees of playing time. I don't have the link but it doesn't matter the final point of the article was that these differences would almost be impossible for a person to say they made a significant and substantial difference. The article seem to find that very high hissing noises would disappear over time. This would be consistent with RGA's comments. I wonder if speakers are made in such a way so that they'll sound better once all the components have been used a bit. If so, why not put 30 hours on them at the factory?

And how did ISO 9000 get brought into this? I use to audit for ISO at car dealerships in my internship in my MBA program. As for ISO being garbage...Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, that company doesn't even follow it's own guidelines.

skeptic
02-02-2004, 07:33 AM
Is ISO 9000 garbage? At least the concept behind it isn't. For those who don't know what it is, it is the result of an International Standards Organization program for manufacturers. And yes they are in the Hague. In the US we have our own standards organizations such as ANSI, the American National Standards Institute. Many industries also have their own such as API (American Petroleum Institute), ASTM (American Society of Test Materials) NEMA (Nationa Electrical Manufacturer's Association.)

What are the purposes of these systems of standards and how does it relate to consumer electronics. The short answer was given by the administrator for ISO 9001 at a company I used to work for which was unnecessarily (IMO) audited by Lloyds of London for ISO compliance and certification. And that answer is; Do what you say, Say what you do, and have the records to prove it. What it means is that when you sell someone a product you manufacture, you have a trackable system in place to assure the customer that the unit delivered to him is as identical as possible to the sample he saw and made his decision to purchase it on. This doesn't imply, it insists that the process of testing all incoming components, closely monitoring all processes at every step, and testing the final product verifying that a rational process has been put in place and followed to assure the customer gets what he expects. That means cars, loudspeakers, nuclear weapons, anything. To suggest that changes will occur in the course of usage shortly after delivery means that the state of the art, or at least as it is practiced within reasonable economic restraints cannot avoid such changes. For example, a new Ford Taurus will probably need to be broken in. A Rolls Royce won't. Why? Because all of the final maching of the components has been done at the factory at great additional cost. What about a loudspeaker? Every component going into a speaker system should be tested and the final assembled product tested again to assure that it will conform to the performance of the prototype. This is the essence of quality control. If it need breaking in, it should be performed at the factory so that if it does not achieve acceptable performance after break in, it will be rejected and not shipped to the customer. If they can't do that, I for one don't want them. It might interest you to know that most manufactures cull a random sample of their products for destructive testing. That means pushing them in one way or another beyond all reasonable limits. Will a loudspeaker subjected to 1000 watts contiunously or plugged into a wall socket catch fire? Will a television picture tube hit with a hammer or impacted by a 38 caliber bullet explode showering all occupants of a room with flying glass? The manufacturer wants to know or at least he should. But if you are a small guy putting units together on order a few at a time in a garage, you can't do that either.

BTW, I do not play devil's advocate just to be perverse. I see the world a certain way based on my training and experience. I've been around the block technically speaking at least a few times myself and feel those who have should share some of it with those who haven't. Then they have the choice ot believe any, some or none of it.

Richard Greene
02-02-2004, 07:51 AM
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=199808161705.TAA17599@replay.com&output=gplain

kexodusc
02-02-2004, 08:13 AM
Is ISO 9000 garbage? At least the concept behind it isn't. For those who don't know what it is, it is the result of an International Standards Organization program for manufacturers.

This is the largest misconception of ISO's purposes. BY ISO's own figures manufacturers account for less than 25% of all business conducted in the world. And slightly less in North America. Truthfully, ISO was designed with service providers in mind, not tangible products and manufacturers. There were already various QSM programs in most developed countries which may or may not have adequately addressed "product and process quality management". What ISO did was apply a few of those concepts in within the framework of organizational goveranance and design to apply them to the service industries. It spread faster among manufacturers due to some bad marketing and poor education, but ISO turned it into positive and stole alot of business from QSM programs. In essence, ISO's philosophy is backwards from quality management. It does not examine the end product so much as each individual process along the way. ISO targets throughput, not output. By definition, if the throughput is perfect, the product should be as well. This does not always hold true.
You are correct in your "do what you say" bit though...that's the infamous slogan we preached to all the companies. The theoretical problem with ISO, which we are working on now is that there are positive and negative synergies. Organizational integration generally forces many compromises. To maximize each departments performance for example, often requires compromising anothers.
For some reason, car dealerships were the most prevalent businesses where this held true, and are the focus of many of our models.
Common sense says to do what makes the most money and keeps the most people happy. But it's hard to create a guideline or policy that people can apply. Too many business aren't thinking.
ISO's been rather successful at "forcing" companies with ISO certification to only outsource, or deal with other ISO certified companies...great business building for us.
Here's why ISO is garbage too...once we teach all these companies how to run themselves, they stop paying us and continue to use our practices and advice...we never saw that one coming. ;)
Actually, since I'm talking about my employer, ISO is great when used properly...just too often it causes people to stop thinking for themselves.
And it's funny that people still think of us as a "standards organization" or something idealistic and pure like the United Nations is suppose to be...we're a business for all intents and purposes.

newbsterv2
02-02-2004, 10:04 AM
Just like you'd break in a new pair of shoes. Wear them or.......use them!!




Finally decided to get rid of my Kenwood HTiB front speakers, while reading the reviews, I find many reviewers mentioned you need to break new spearkers in, can anybody explain why and how you do it? Thank in advance.

skeptic
02-02-2004, 12:13 PM
It is true that ISO focuses on the quality of the process and not the quality of the product. It is also true that you can have a high quality process and an awful product. Companies, whether manufacturers or service providers which are truely focused on producing a quality product may use ISO as a tool, or develop their own comparable tool. This would be one of many tools to assure a quality product. However, any organization which haphazardly manufactures its product one way today and another tomorrow without rhyme or reason except at the whim or quirk of the plant manager or some department manager has no chance at all of producing a consistant product. ISO is not a be all, end all. It is merely one group's systematized way of expressing one point of view of producing a salable item or product in a predictable, rational way. There are others and ISO in itself is not sufficient. But compared to what many manufacturers do, it would be a giant step in the right direction.

If I buy a new loudspeaker from say JBL today, I think my speaker will perform pretty much like the one I heard in the showroom, and whether I like it or not, or it is any good or not is another matter. On the other hand, if I buy one from xyz high end manufacturing corp which only makes 50 pairs of them a year, there is an excellent chance that not only will my pair not sound like the ones in the showroom, the left and right may not even sound like each other.

If you read the history of JBL on their website, you will see that one of their most ambitious and prestigious models of all time the Paragon which was the most expensive product of its type in its day was manufactured so haphazardly that it is likely that of the thousand or so that were ultimately made, no two were exactly alike. I'll bet that most manufacturers today operate the same way.

It is small wonder that only 25 percent of all maunufacturers in the world comply and are certified with ISO 9000. I'll bet there are millions of small to medium sized companies especially in the "developing world" which never heard of ISO. Do you think your $4 pocket radio made in some backwater town in China is made to ISO standards? It's a miracle it works at all. So if your speaker was made by a guy who orders a bunch of parts from suppliers, merely puts them in a box, and plays them for a few minutes to make sure they sound OK and that all of the parts work, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the moment I started using it, changes start happening. Round and round the wheel she goes, and where she stops, nobody knows.

hearingimpaired
02-02-2004, 05:44 PM
Get a group of approximately 8 to 10 people to encircle your speakers. Put in a nature CD with some ocean sounds, turn down the lights, turn on a strobe light, have everyone hold hands without any clothing to eliminate any chance of static buildup, and start chanting artifacts be gone over and over until the sound of the ocean waves feel like they are sweeping over your bare feet. Sometimes just calling the local witch-doctor to do his own dance seems to work as well.

Seriously, I have a CD by Sheffield Labs containing a break-in track that I put on repeat for a number of days. It supposedly speeds up the break-in process. Basically it plays either white or pink noise while simultaneously playing a repeating low to high frequency.

skeptic
02-02-2004, 06:20 PM
According to the article, a twenty to thirty second burst at resonance with a strong signal is required to "break in" the woofer suspension. This will result in a 5% drop in resonant frequency and a 0.2db reduction in efficiency. This is within what is reasonable and is inaudible as well. A 5% reduction in resonant frequncy would be 2 1/2 hz reduction at 50 hz. There is no mention of any changes at any other frequencies. BTW, pink noise, white noise and normal music are useless for breaking in the speakers according to the article so the way I read it, it is a minor laboratory curiousity but in practical terms, it just doesn't exist. (No mention of tweeters or midrange changes. BTW, insofar as the cost of the manufacturer breaking it in, I believe the origianal article's numbers are way off the mark. I don't think the cost would be significant. Especially with the expected service that goes along with the sale of very expensive high end speakers.

Woochifer
02-02-2004, 07:00 PM
Break in's a non-issue because it just happens with normal playing. The only time that you might be able to detect any kind of audible difference is when the speakers are brand new out of the box. I had a pair of dealer demos available when I bought my Studio 40s, and the first A/B comparison did yield some differences when comparing those demo units versus brand new units. And I did that A/B comparison only because when I plugged those new speakers in, they just didn't quite sound the way that I expected and I wanted to make sure that the units were not defective. (FYI, this was done using the A/B speaker switch on my receiver -- equal power, identical source, identical room, identical cabling, instantaneous switching) Afterwards, I simply put on a CD, and left it playing while I went out to dinner. When I got back the differences were nondetectable, so I concluded that my speakers were fine and sent the demo units back to my dealer.

It's only when people start preaching 100+ hour break-ins and specific procedures that I would become suspicious. You're probably right that the notion of extended break-in is more of a ruse to keep people from immediately returning something that they don't like, and there is some truth that the "break in" process has more to do with your ears getting used to a pair of speakers.

E-Stat
02-02-2004, 07:08 PM
"Breaking Wind", Nousaine, Tom, Car Stereo Review, Jan/Feb 1997, pg 90-94.
I have no doubt that Nousaine will hear no difference "breaking wind" with car stereo equipment. Does car stereo have anything at all to do with high resolution audio anyway? For those who manufacture speakers of a completely different caliber, however, the answer can be different. Ever hear a pair of Alon Grand Exoticas? I would guess the answer is no.

http://alonbyacarian.com/about_b.htm#breakin

rw

mtrycraft
02-02-2004, 09:28 PM
I have no doubt that Nousaine will hear no difference "breaking wind" with car stereo equipment. Does car stereo have anything at all to do with high resolution audio anyway? For those who manufacture speakers of a completely different caliber, however, the answer can be different. Ever hear a pair of Alon Grand Exoticas? I would guess the answer is no.

http://alonbyacarian.com/about_b.htm#breakin

rw


Amazing. You assume things not in evidence. How about if you get a hold of the paper and read it first so you don't look so foolish.

As to your second assertion about your bandied about speakers, please cite the evidence from DBT that anyone can hear audible differences between a brand new unit and one with many hours on it. Please don't speculate and assert nonsense, that is not evidence for audibility.

RGA
02-02-2004, 09:44 PM
The manufacturer wants to know or at least he should. But if you are a small guy putting units together on order a few at a time in a garage, you can't do that either.



This is interesting. Sugden tests everything that goes out their door. Every product is hand built and listened to and tested before it gets boxed up and Sugden is not necessarily small but they sure are not big. B&W is as big as it gets in the Audio Industry and yet my speakers were obviously not checked according to your rationale. Audio Note of course checks all their stuff since they measure each and every product that goes out the door. But then they're not small...supposedly the second largest Audio Maker out of Britain.

So where does that leave us...some large and some small do and or don't check their stuff some of or all of or not at all some of the time.

If you design your stuff right and you have the right people on the line you should not need to make 1000 units before you discover the fatal flaw - no doubt the American car making philosophy that oh well so what if the car explodes on rear impact it's too costly for us to have a recall and far cheaper to settle with the thousands of families. I rarely see that if ever from Toyota because they had a competant non cheap out design to start with so you don't have to have some entity to ensure QC...they had it for 20+ years without.

In theory it's fine.

RGA
02-02-2004, 09:47 PM
And it's funny that people still think of us as a "standards organization" or something idealistic and pure like the United Nations is suppose to be...we're a business for all intents and purposes.

Wow if ISO is like the United Nations then it's both corrupt and totally useless...D'ohh. :confused:

hearingimpaired
02-02-2004, 11:04 PM
I can't count the times that the so called experts are proven to be wrong. The unsinkable Titanic comes to mind. Sky-walk collapse leaves lead architect puzzled. Economists predict troubled times ahead. Economists predict strong growth for the year. I mean even rocket scientists don't get it right some of the time. I called the shuttle malfunction right before NASA when I found out that a large piece of foam broke away and struck the wing. But it took millions of dollars and an exhaustive investigation to determine the obvious.

When it comes to audio theories... well they are just that... somebody's theory. Otherwise every speaker would look and sound the same. Could it be that some speakers may need to be broken in and some may not depending on the type of materials used and their particular design. Could we not then assume that one break-in method may work for one and yet not for another.

I realize that sneakers are not speakers but some sneakers must be worn awhile to feel comfortable while others feel good right out of the box. They are both shoes but different design philosophies and materials definitely make for a totally different initial experience. But eventually they both may feel similar.

Conclusion: The only thing we no for sure is that no one really knows for sure. Your ears are as good as anyone else's theory.

E-Stat
02-03-2004, 04:52 AM
You assume things not in evidence.
You have it bass ackwards. You assume that what may be true for car stereo quality equipment must necessarily be the case for every other audio component on the planet. I assume nothing. Instead, I offer observations from direct experience. Ever hear a car stereo? Any you would classify as providing state-of-the-art sound? Right. Who cares about the sound of car audio anyway given the acoustic venue afforded? Are you for real that you require proof that they sound anything like the big Alons? My new TL came with a pretty decent 225 watt, 8-speaker 5.1 DVD-Audio based system. Somehow, however, I'm not going to confuse the sound of that system with my electrostat based one. :)

Since you did not answer my question concerning the Alons, I will assume that they are outside your experience.

Waaay outside.

rw

Woochifer
02-03-2004, 06:07 PM
If you design your stuff right and you have the right people on the line you should not need to make 1000 units before you discover the fatal flaw - no doubt the American car making philosophy that oh well so what if the car explodes on rear impact it's too costly for us to have a recall and far cheaper to settle with the thousands of families. I rarely see that if ever from Toyota because they had a competant non cheap out design to start with so you don't have to have some entity to ensure QC...they had it for 20+ years without.

Oh geez, not yet another car analogy!

I can only name ONE car that exploded on rear impact and that was the Ford Pinto back in the 1970s, but even there it took a fairly high speed collision to make it happen. So, for you to infer that it is "American car making philosophy" to purposely put out dangerous products, and just settle claims to save on recall costs is not only an false claim, but it's patently illogical as well given that class action lawsuits are potentially a lot more expensive than safety recalls. If you want to make an analogy, be truthful about it, rather than rely on inneuendo, exaggeration, and distortion to make your argument.

BTW, Toyota is hardly as infallible as you claim. The Camry that my parents drive has had two safety recalls. After driving that car, I remembered telling them that the brakes on that car didn't feel right, and when they brought it to the dealer's attention, they were told that it was nothing to be concerned about. Lo and behold, their model was indeed recalled a year later for a brake defect. And just so you know, ISO is not an outside QC oversight, it's nothing more than a set of process and feedback guidelines, but even so, Toyota's U.S. plants as far as I know are indeed ISO certified.

RGA
02-03-2004, 07:12 PM
Well yes Toyota won't be perfect now that most are made in the same plants as GM and make cars that both make. The new Matrix and Vibe are the same car different look one is Pontiac the other is Toyota.

Companies also buy "LIKE" products. There was a big recall a few years ago on seatbelts that many companies bought so you'd have the same re-call for all cars using the seatbelt...Toyota, Honda Nissan and Ford...not exact but there were several makes from Japan and and America...Now this is not necessarily the car makers fault because they may have been given the prototype agreed and then the seatbelt manufacturer sends out crap - by then it might be a while before everyone or anyone figures it out.

The Pinto is the ultimate because they KNEW that their gas protection plate was defective and they yes DELIBERATELY did NOTHING about it. GO read about it it is one of the worst examples of a company too cheap to put the extra $5.00 plate on all their Pinto's.

That is hardly the only car Ford has trouble with. Their 1960's Mustangs haveno protection either - different problem reported on those Dateline 60 minutes programs that in a collision the gas sprays into the interior of the car and in accidents would burn you alive. Nothing was ever done to remedy it and the Designers KNEW it but it would COST too much money and Ford is about making money.

You think they got better...look at the GIGANTIC claims Police depratments throughout the States are fighting about the Crown Victoria's they get that also burn occupants alive with a similar mantra. You may be right that they would lose more money on lawsuits so either they don't lose on lawsuits or they have morons running their company. But hey the President gets his corporate parachute and cannot be touched because it is a CORPORATION not an individual that can be blamed. We execute killers but not corporate offenders who often kill WAY more people but no they get a laughable fine. DO you think anyone at Enron is the slightest bit concerned - they have their 100 mill in a bank far far away and the few million if that they get fined and probation is oooh so scary.

GM's Fiero also had a nice habit of being in an accident and catching fire the doors would seize shut locking you into the deathtrap. GM probably was smart though because a burn victim can sue you - luckily a dead one can't.

Then there is the idiocy of the Ford Ranger or whatever SUV/Truck thingy with the tires blowing out. They each blame the other but it is the BUYER's responsibility to buy the right tire for the weight of the vehicle and that was not done...why? To cheap out have HUGE profit margins for four years, take the Parachute and let the next guy handle the lawsuits.

Ford and GM have done enough to get me not to buy their dreck...and since I have options why bother to give them a second chance? I'll go with a company that doesn't have a track record of incompetance, dangerous cars, and OR deliberate intent to bypass safety for profit. I think it's pretty naive to think no one out there cares more about money than the shlups of the world's safety. Well unless Safety can be marketed to make a profit...kept Volvo in the game for a long time.

None of this has to do with break in. Anything with any moving part will wear when used. Shoes, engines, breaks, needles on a vinyl, tape on a tapehead, and drivers in a box. The amount of movement can be accounted for by the manufacturer. I don't see why the concept is so hard to believe. Speakers have been measured the difference is clearly there with the ones tested. Audibility is another issue and one won't know that unless the specific unit is under test with the specific owner/buyer of specific speaker.

happy ears
02-03-2004, 08:59 PM
I do believe speakers break in, however the change in sound may be small or distinct in some speakers. Many or most people will not hear these subtle changes, no insult intended. (You would need two sets of speakers to test this) This has been measured and proven, as well as in a blind listening test. Nope cannot remember where and when I read it. Some people believe that speakers are constantly wearing out with use, but to my knowledge it has not been tested. Would or could we hear any differences in a new speaker, one with one hundred hours, another with 10,000 hours and lastly a speaker with 20 years of use on them. Of course all the speakers should be the same model and manufactory. Most things that I buy which have some type of movement in them tend to wear out, why would this be different for speakers.

Speaker manufactures also make and sell matched drivers, they are exactly the same as any production run but drivers are broken in, then measured and matched. They charge for this service, must be that issue of more work involved or maybe they are just looking for a fast buck. No the cheapest speakers will not be checked, what ever came from the manufacture will be installed as they arrive. Of course there are always companies that will go the extra mile

Now for break in I will recommend the slowest but cheapest method I can think of. Play music, no matter what type it is it will achieve the same goal. What difference does it make if it takes 1 hour or a hundred hours to break in, the same result will occur. Hopefully many great years listening to music.

Have A Great day

mtrycraft
02-03-2004, 09:54 PM
Instead, I offer observations from direct experience.
rw


Yes, flawed as it is. It is totally unreliable hence it has no meaning, really, regardless how much you claim it is direct. Worthless if it is not reliable and there is no if to it. You don't conduct bias controlled comparisons.

jamison
02-03-2004, 10:45 PM
yes some speakers need break in especially BOSE. my brotherinlaw wanted to know how to properly break in his new BOSE sound setup.
well I told him take a large hammer and smash them and call the insurance company. then go out and buy a better pair of speakers.

skeptic
02-04-2004, 07:21 AM
American cars were notiorious for poor quality and limited longevity. American car manufacturers liked them that way. For decades they were able to sell a customer a new car every two to four years because that's how long they lasted before repair costs were so great, that it was cheaper to junk them and buy new. While you owned them, you had to buy parts from them most of the time and often labor too. They probably made as much on parts as they made on the cars themselves. And if that didn't convince you, restyling every year and advertising bombardment would make you feel like your car was an antique. But European cars were no better. Not only were their models mostly trash, you couldn't even get parts within anything like a reasonable time. We got rid of a Pugeot 304 because after a minor front end collision, parts were not obtainable for months. The popular MG had a carburator that was described as a controlled drip. And Jaguars had to be retuned every time they went around the block. English automotive engineers had the reputation of being the world's worst. Lucky for them the Yugo came along. And that was a good car compared to the garbage that came from behind the Iron Curtain. But the French and Italians had some doozies too. Ever see a Deux Cheveaux? It's a Citroen that looks like a Volkswagon Beatle balloon that's been overinflated and rides down the road on bedsprings. It had a gearshift that looked like a crowbar sticking out of the dashboard. Speaking of Volkswagon Beatles, want to really risk your life? With its weight distrbution it was easy to flip over. In a crash, you have a good chance of dying. Similar was the Renault Dauphine with its electric clutch that broke down all the time. Simca often blew head gaskets. And FIAT meant Fix It Again Tony.

In the 1960s, the Japanese studied American advanced theories on quality control and adopted them for many of their best export products. Made in Japan which once meant junk became a badge of quality. Early Toyotas were not reliable. The 1972 Corona we had suffered every conceivable mechanical and electrical breakdown possible on a car. But later in the 70s, Americans started buying lots of simple, reliable, unchanging from year to year Japanese cars and began eating into the domestic American market. American car manufacturers learned that they would either improve their products and service or go out of business. It was a hard lesson and while American cars still don't equal the quality of the best Japanese cars in most instances (just look at Consumer Unions automobile repair records every year) they have improved greatly. And what is the bottom line? These guys are going broke. Cars last so long and are so reliable, and styling changes so little and is so unimportant that people can hold on to their cars for 100,000 to 200,000 miles routinely. I can't think of one major car manufacturer which is doing well financially. Ford and GM are hurting. Chrysler which was bought by Daimler is in turmoil. Nissan (used to be Datsun) is owned by Renault. Maybe Toyota and Honda are doing OK. The car industry is for all practical purposes barely surviving.

I have no idea what this has to do with audio equipment.

okiemax
02-04-2004, 09:22 AM
American cars were notiorious for poor quality and limited longevity. American car manufacturers liked them that way. For decades they were able to sell a customer a new car every two to four years because that's how long they lasted before repair costs were so great, that it was cheaper to junk them and buy new. While you owned them, you had to buy parts from them most of the time and often labor too. They probably made as much on parts as they made on the cars themselves. And if that didn't convince you, restyling every year and advertising bombardment would make you feel like your car was an antique. But European cars were no better. Not only were their models mostly trash, you couldn't even get parts within anything like a reasonable time. We got rid of a Pugeot 304 because after a minor front end collision, parts were not obtainable for months. The popular MG had a carburator that was described as a controlled drip. And Jaguars had to be retuned every time they went around the block. English automotive engineers had the reputation of being the world's worst. Lucky for them the Yugo came along. And that was a good car compared to the garbage that came from behind the Iron Curtain. But the French and Italians had some doozies too. Ever see a Deux Cheveaux? It's a Citroen that looks like a Volkswagon Beatle balloon that's been overinflated and rides down the road on bedsprings. It had a gearshift that looked like a crowbar sticking out of the dashboard. Speaking of Volkswagon Beatles, want to really risk your life? With its weight distrbution it was easy to flip over. In a crash, you have a good chance of dying. Similar was the Renault Dauphine with its electric clutch that broke down all the time. Simca often blew head gaskets. And FIAT meant Fix It Again Tony.

In the 1960s, the Japanese studied American advanced theories on quality control and adopted them for many of their best export products. Made in Japan which once meant junk became a badge of quality. Early Toyotas were not reliable. The 1972 Corona we had suffered every conceivable mechanical and electrical breakdown possible on a car. But later in the 70s, Americans started buying lots of simple, reliable, unchanging from year to year Japanese cars and began eating into the domestic American market. American car manufacturers learned that they would either improve their products and service or go out of business. It was a hard lesson and while American cars still don't equal the quality of the best Japanese cars in most instances (just look at Consumer Unions automobile repair records every year) they have improved greatly. And what is the bottom line? These guys are going broke. Cars last so long and are so reliable, and styling changes so little and is so unimportant that people can hold on to their cars for 100,000 to 200,000 miles routinely. I can't think of one major car manufacturer which is doing well financially. Ford and GM are hurting. Chrysler which was bought by Daimler is in turmoil. Nissan (used to be Datsun) is owned by Renault. Maybe Toyota and Honda are doing OK. The car industry is for all practical purposes barely surviving.

I have no idea what this has to do with audio equipment.


The English were good at designing cars, just not good at making them. Alec Issiganis' Mini, which he designed in the late 1950's, was the foundation of today's small and medium car design, it's influence evident in all fwd cars with transversely mounted engines. The neat thing about the design is space efficiency, about 80% of the car going to passenger space. The recent reincarnation of the original Mini by BMW is a tribute to Issiganis' work.

skeptic
02-04-2004, 11:04 AM
It's easy to feel nostalgia for old long forgotten things. When the new mini came out, there was a lot of talk about the old one. Plenty of laments too. At least the new one probably doesn't leak in the rain the way the old one was prone to do.

Woochifer
02-04-2004, 12:20 PM
Well yes Toyota won't be perfect now that most are made in the same plants as GM and make cars that both make. The new Matrix and Vibe are the same car different look one is Pontiac the other is Toyota.

Your obvious bias on this issue has gotten to the level of pure ignorance. The jointly operated GM-Toyota NUMMI plant in California where the Vibe is produced, also makes most of the Toyota Corolla and Tacoma models sold in N. America. It is the ONLY plant jointly operated by GM and Toyota, yet audits of the NUMMI plant rank that facility among the best operated in the world, and the quality of the cars coming out of that plant match or even exceed the level achieved by its Japanese counterparts. For you to say that because GM is a partner in the plant, Toyota will produce crappy cars as a result is a laughable bit of wishful thinking on your part, since NUMMI has been in operation since 1985 and it certainly hasn't hurt the reliability of the models produced there. BTW, that twice recalled Toyota that my parents own was built in Japan, so GM had nothing to do with those defects.


Companies also buy "LIKE" products. There was a big recall a few years ago on seatbelts that many companies bought so you'd have the same re-call for all cars using the seatbelt...Toyota, Honda Nissan and Ford...not exact but there were several makes from Japan and and America...Now this is not necessarily the car makers fault because they may have been given the prototype agreed and then the seatbelt manufacturer sends out crap - by then it might be a while before everyone or anyone figures it out.

Now you're talking out of both sides of your keyboard. When GM makes a car that's recalled, it's because they're a crappy car company, but if a Toyota is recalled, then it has to do with their suppliers who also supply to American car companies? And it's recalled only because that part is distributed to both American and Japanese makes. What kind of pretzel logic is that?


That is hardly the only car Ford has trouble with. Their 1960's Mustangs haveno protection either - different problem reported on those Dateline 60 minutes programs that in a collision the gas sprays into the interior of the car and in accidents would burn you alive. Nothing was ever done to remedy it and the Designers KNEW it but it would COST too much money and Ford is about making money.

Good gawd, now you're really creating your own conspiracy theories. That Mustang was built BEFORE most modern safety features were adopted -- before crumple zones were widely adopted, before safety cage designs, before independent suspensions, before seat belts, before unit body construction, before air bags, before anti lock brakes, before collapsible steering columns, before radial tires, etc. For you to bring that into an argument is ridiculous. Were there any other cars that the Mustang was compared to? Why not rail about the Model T and call that a death trap while you're at it?

I could make the exact same safety argument for the 70s and early-80s vintage Japanese cars, which routinely performed miserably in crash tests, especially compared to comparably sized American models. Simple things like adding collapsible steering columns that didn't protrude directly into the driver's head during frontal collisions, changing the fabric used in the seat belts, or redesigning the anchor points for the front seats, would have given passengers more of a fighting chance in low speed collisions. Those Japanese car companies sold hundreds of thousands of these dangerous vehicles, and even when they quietly made those changes later on, I don't ever remember them doing any retrofits on existing models. All car companies are out to make money, I don't see why you single out the Japanese companies for sainthood.


You think they got better...look at the GIGANTIC claims Police depratments throughout the States are fighting about the Crown Victoria's they get that also burn occupants alive with a similar mantra. You may be right that they would lose more money on lawsuits so either they don't lose on lawsuits or they have morons running their company. But hey the President gets his corporate parachute and cannot be touched because it is a CORPORATION not an individual that can be blamed. We execute killers but not corporate offenders who often kill WAY more people but no they get a laughable fine. DO you think anyone at Enron is the slightest bit concerned - they have their 100 mill in a bank far far away and the few million if that they get fined and probation is oooh so scary.

Yeah, and at what speeds do those collisions occur? I would guess that police cruisers get into higher speed collisions more often than most other cars will. Ford might also be getting sued because the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor is the ONLY standard police vehicle currently on the market. I mean, if Toyota made police vehicles, they might be getting sued too. At freeway speeds, ANY car, no matter how well designed the safety systems are, can and will explode if the impact occurs at full velocity. Every few years out in Central California, when you got severe ground fog conditions, you'll get a major multicar pileup with multiple fatalities. And when the fatalities occur, many of them involve cars crashing into one another at 60+ mph. There's no discriminating between the types of cars that explode and those that don't. If the impact has the right combination of location and velocity, occupants will not live -- on the grisly footage of those accidents I've seen minivans, SUVs, big rigs, compact cars, large cars, American, Japanese, and Euro cars all in the same burned out condition.


GM's Fiero also had a nice habit of being in an accident and catching fire the doors would seize shut locking you into the deathtrap. GM probably was smart though because a burn victim can sue you - luckily a dead one can't.

And the similar midengined Triumph TR7 had a far higher incidence of engine fires than the Fiero, so what's your point? And by habit doors seizing shut, doesn't that tend to happen in ANY kind of off-angle or side impact collision? For you to insinuate that GM intentionally made the Fiero so that it would kill its occupants in collisions to prevent lawsuits is just grasping at straws and trying to make an argument by making the most outrageous claims possible, just to hide the lack of truth behind the statement. BTW, a dead burn victim can't sue, but their family and their estate sure as hell can and will (I used to work for a personal injury attorney, so I know a little bit about this subject).


Then there is the idiocy of the Ford Ranger or whatever SUV/Truck thingy with the tires blowing out. They each blame the other but it is the BUYER's responsibility to buy the right tire for the weight of the vehicle and that was not done...why? To cheap out have HUGE profit margins for four years, take the Parachute and let the next guy handle the lawsuits.

Well, I think a lot of it IS the buyer's responsibility. They are the ones who choose to buy those high riding SUVs, knowing full well that their handling characteristics are inferior to typical passenger vehicles (yet all over the freeways, I still see them piloted like sports cars, so maybe they're in denial at the least). The problem is that the Explorer in question was built on a truck platform with a horse carriage era leaf spring suspension (which is great for hauling capacity, but terrible for performance) and fitted with tires designed for both on and off-road use. Any SUV built on a truck platform with that kind of suspension will have a higher risk of rollover when a tire blows out. It became a news story with the Explorer because at that time it just happened to outsell every other SUV model by at least a 2 to 1 margin.

Also, performance and mileage tires do not need to concern themselves with off-roading, so they can be designed with lower profiles and better heat dissipation. The SUV tires are higher profile and do not dissipate heat as efficiently, so they cannot handle lateral stresses as well and of course will fail more often. The manufacturers can easily fix this by fitting SUVs with lower profile performance tires, but then the SUV can no longer go offroad, and what buyer will want to buy an SUV that doesn't at least LOOK LIKE it can go off road? Market demand is driving the equation.

kexodusc
02-04-2004, 12:40 PM
Why are we talking cars? Japanese cars are ugly, small and relatively underpowered. My Accord's had more front end problems than my Dodge and GM put together, and for some reason people still think it's a quality vehicle.
Lucky for me, there's dozens of stupid people willing to pay me top dollar for it...
Anyway...the site is AUDIOREVIEW.com
Motortrend is somewhere else.

zapr
02-04-2004, 01:28 PM
.......I think anything with moving parts requires a break in period. More to do with woofers than tweeters. Anything new with moving parts will be stiff until they loosen up from just playing them........Zapr

thepogue
02-04-2004, 05:19 PM
or maybe we can talk about the Canadian auto makers fer awhile?...ahh...well...never mind...


BTW My 2 cents on speaker break in....my speakers sounded better after a few days playin them...but I'm thinkin' it was me ears...but who can really tell?...

CaymanCroc
02-09-2004, 10:41 AM
FYI since everyones talking bout cars....

FIAT cars in india r already "run-in" 7500 Kms

Anyone here have any views on why even expensive swiss watches lose time??? Those B@#$%&@!!!

hahahaha

cheers one n all!

Woochifer
02-09-2004, 12:45 PM
FYI since everyones talking bout cars....

FIAT cars in india r already "run-in" 7500 Kms

Anyone here have any views on why even expensive swiss watches lose time??? Those B@#$%&@!!!

hahahaha

cheers one n all!

Well, I can tell you that the way to spot a counterfeit Rolex is to find one that DOES keep time accurately (oh, and the quartz movement on the second hand's typically another dead giveaway). The whole point of those expensive Swiss watches is that you're buying a piece of jewelry. They keep time strictly through mechanical movement, which is less accurate, more time consuming to make, but infinitely more valuable to a collector precisely because it cannot be mass produced the way that a digital circuit can.

CaymanCroc
02-10-2004, 10:33 AM
Well, I can tell you that the way to spot a counterfeit Rolex is to find one that DOES keep time accurately (oh, and the quartz movement on the second hand's typically another dead giveaway). The whole point of those expensive Swiss watches is that you're buying a piece of jewelry. They keep time strictly through mechanical movement, which is less accurate, more time consuming to make, but infinitely more valuable to a collector precisely because it cannot be mass produced the way that a digital circuit can.
Yep, i agree with you on that.
But you'd be surprised how accurate even the older rolex watches can be... provided ofcourse one spends a small fortune to get them serviced every couple of years.... have one that belonged to my great grandfather, and man is it going strong!

BTW i was only horsing around with the take at watches.... ;)

scott1029
09-10-2013, 03:01 AM
Well, just as many people believe in psychics too.
All jokes aside, those reviewers are wrong and yes, that many can be wrong easily.

Just play your speakers and enjoy them from day one, minute one.


ok so yes its controversial as to whether speakers must be broken in, but to say its wrong is simply not true, its a matter of opinion.
i can say that as an audiophile i have the opnion that speakers must be broken in.

as a professional user of hi end PA their is no doubt about break in, you find out how true break in is the first time you try and play a new speaker at any sort of a volume an get the new coil smell and notice that no low end bass exists or spl. it can be very hard to tell what is going on with sensitive hifi because the difference is so subtle, but with pa you cant avoid it. if you dont break speakers in aside form music quality you could cause damage the first time you try and play them loud

Hyfi
09-10-2013, 04:40 AM
ok so yes its controversial as to whether speakers must be broken in, but to say its wrong is simply not true, its a matter of opinion.
i can say that as an audiophile i have the opnion that speakers must be broken in.

as a professional user of hi end PA their is no doubt about break in, you find out how true break in is the first time you try and play a new speaker at any sort of a volume an get the new coil smell and notice that no low end bass exists or spl. it can be very hard to tell what is going on with sensitive hifi because the difference is so subtle, but with pa you cant avoid it. if you dont break speakers in aside form music quality you could cause damage the first time you try and play them loud

Welcome Scott!

I cant believe the old thread you dug up and the person you quoted. Deja Vu

That guy also spends the better part of his life telling everyone that cables don't change sound and that unless something is proven true in his DBTs then it isn't real. He was thrown out of here many many years ago.

Anyway, I also agree that many higher end and some lower end speakers do change sound from OOB to a few hundred hours time. And yes, if you full out crank a brand new speaker you may damage it.

E-Stat
09-10-2013, 04:47 AM
ok so yes its controversial as to whether speakers must be broken in, but to say its wrong is simply not true, its a matter of opinion.
Sorry to disappoint, but our self proclaimed "Ditch Digger" was banned from here many years ago. He can now be reached over at Alcoholics where he is now an Overlord. :)

blackraven
09-10-2013, 07:26 AM
Ok, I will bite on this old old thread. Both pairs of my Magnepans clearly sounded better after about 50-75 hours of break in. Magnepan actually claims that they need about 50-75hrs of break in and they were clearly correct. Also, my Monitor Audio S1's were not very impressive for the first 50 hours. After that, the sound blossomed.