How long do speakers have to be broken in?

[Buzz Roll]

I also went to that same store and although I didn't listen to the Triangles, I was also very unimpressed with the Totems (both the Arros and the Hawks). That's also where I heard the Reference 3a's and really liked them. Unfortunately, good as they are, Triangle is just like so many other large speaker companies when it comes to marketing. Like I've said before, with my Ohms I like owning a speaker that has a history behind it and a lifetime of upgrade-ability (Even if they discontinued the Microwalsh, I could still bring the speaker back for upgrades).

[Peter Duminy]

The length of time for burn-in depends on the properties of the drivers used. This can depend on the supensions used for the cones, as well as their material. One can use music with good deep bass tracks at moderatle levels for 15-20 hours for most woofers and midranges, although Kevlar can take 100+ hours. The changes from breaking-in tend to be more subtle in sound than some have said over the years. Also, no amount of breaking-in can make a poorly designed speaker sound good.

Here are some interesting results using Audax Drivers after 70 hours of break-in:



For more detailed information here:

http://www.vikash.info/audio/audax/break-in.asp

I hope this helps.

[Richard Greene]

You are using brand new drivers which may have never been used before ... and applying the test results to new speakers which usually have been used during quality control testing at the factory.

Your "0" hours measurement seems to be a measurement of a cold voice coil.

You failed to measure results after an hour or two -- 30 hours is much too long of a gap.

You have not specified the methodology you used to account for the fact that voice coil warm-up changes driver parameters every day a driver is used -- these changes are NOT break-in changes. How have you prevented voice coil warm-up effects from affecting your break-in measurements?

In my experience building and buying speakers since 1966, break-in effects are rarely audible, but when they are audible (weak bass), the audible effects last for only five or ten minutes if the driver is pushed to near its XMAX limits.

I have read about measurements by Paul Barton of his PSB Gold speakers and measurements of subwoofer drivers by Tom Nousaine. They heard no audible effects from break-in and their measurements showed only small parameter changes. The parameter changes (permanent changes after voice coil cool down) were said to be smaller than manufacturing sample-to-sample variations among the drivers.

A test of Seas Excel bass drivers by an Australian lab I read online showed significant driver parameter changes after a few minutes of use that could be audible, but only tiny parameter changes after two hours of use that were very unlikely to be audible. The lab stroked the Seas drivers only 1/3 of XMAX and allowed plenty of time for voice coil cool BEFORE making measurements.

[Peter Duminy]

I posted the information more as an FYI, and I am NOT the Engineer who performed these tests. I wish to add that I have no doubt to his credibility in his findings either. We found at B&W when I was working there, that the overall sound did change slightly during the burn-in period of time, and then stabilized, and in some ways rather similar to the results posted. If you choose not to believe our findings, that is entirely your prerogative.

This is the Quote from the B&W R&D Dept released by us on this matter:

Burn-in period

"The performance of a speaker will change subtly during the initial listening period. If the speaker has been stored in a cold environment, the damping compounds and suspension materials of the drive units will take some time to recover their correct mechanical properties. The drive unit suspensions will also loosen up during the first hours of use. But probably the Kevlar cones that feature in most of our products take the longest time to settle in.

The time taken for the speaker to achieve its intended performance will vary depending on the type of drive units employed, previous storage conditions and how it is used. As a guide, allow up to a week for the temperature effects to stabilize and 15 hours of average use for the mechanical parts of non-Kevlar drivers to attain their intended design characteristics. For systems having Kevlar drivers, be prepared for changes to continue for around one month of steady use".

[LVMF]

I'm 100 hours into a suggested break-in period of 200 hours for the Reference 3A MM de Capo i, and they definitely have a 'fuller' sound now than a week ago...but I have to agree with an earlier poster, if you don't like them to begin with, you're probably not going to like them a month later.

[46minaudio]

I'm 100 hours into a suggested break-in period of 200 hours for the Reference 3A MM de Capo i, and they definitely have a 'fuller' sound now than a week ago...but I have to agree with an earlier poster, if you don't like them to begin with, you're probably not going to like them a month later.

The only problem with this is audiable memory is very short..A fellow that goes by Craigsub on AVS tested a pair of well known speakers noted for needing time for breakin.He played one for 100hrs.After the 100hrs he found no difference in the two.This was done using DBT...

[RGA]

Hmmm so if you last heard Rod Stewart in 2001 and then heard him on the radio today --- because our audio memory is so short you would not recognize Rod Stewart?

No that argument is tired as is most of the DBT arguments often used -- they will now come back and use a quantifier to protect this view with an adendum of "subtle differences" blah blah blah.

I never really understand why people get so excited about break-in --- you play the speakers whether break-in is meritous or not is completely irrelevant since you have to play the speakers whether or not you believe in break-in. One of the Brit Mags ameasured the CDM 1NT out of the box and with a 100+ hours and there WAS a measurable difference -- therefor with that speaker there IS a difference --- whether you hear the difference or not of course you're correct maybe maybe not -- DBT;s don;t aid in determining that however --- A DBT cannot prove that A is equal to B or that A sounds the same as B or that there is no difference between A and B.

I'm not arguing for break in either --- just that I don't get why anyone cares. Just play them.

[kexodusc]

Hmmm so if you last heard Rod Stewart in 2001 and then heard him on the radio today --- because our audio memory is so short you would not recognize Rod Stewart?

No that argument is tired as is most of the DBT arguments often used -- they will now come back and use a quantifier to protect this view with an adendum of "subtle differences" blah blah blah.

.

I like the rest of your post but this is just wrong, and you know it.
I know it's Rod Stewart when it's emitted by my am/fm clock radio...I know it's Rod Stewart when it's emitted by the AN E's. Once sounds decidedly better.
But would I be able to recall, 4 years later, and accurately identify what Rod Stewart sounded like played through AN E's in an MDF cabinet with Silver wiring or an AN E with a birch ply cabinet and standard wiring?

No, I'm afraid acoustic memory arguments are very valid, particularly since the level of "musical satisfaction" can also be influenced by external forces (environment, mood, etc...).

[RGA]

Kex

That's not really the same thing either because you can play the E variations back to back with the clock radio --- and wait 2 hours --- and you will still get the subtle difference --- if you can;t buy the AM/FM radio. A subtle difference is called subtle for a reason --- it;s subtle. But will you remember 4 years later how much better the AN E any version made Forever Young sound versus the way you heard the song from an AM Radio.

I can remember the way Phil Collins sounded through Aerius I's in 1996 versus the way it sounds through my system today...not exactly -- but is that necessary.

The external factors I have no problems with -- a DBT is an external factor --- objective it is not...but it certainly appears to be.

[kexodusc]

RGA:

Huh? Try again...I don't think you're reading me right here...subtle differences? Ns....acoustic memory comes into play big time. In a comparison, I can remember which I liked better, and maybe why (relative to one speaker). But to extrapolate to a new speaker across town in a different room 1 year later that sounds different, but possibly almost as good or better...well, I'll have to go back and refresh...you're memory just ain't gonna cut it.
The studies on acoustic memory are well documented among the most knowledgable people on this subject...musicians themselves. Hence the need to write everything down...

[RGA]

Ahh sorry Kex now I get what you're saying...you too 46min audio.

Obviously we cant remember what the speaker out of box sounded like 6 months ago and what it is doing today IF the differences are very small. With my 302 which had audible popcorn popping noises during the first 2 hours and a year later is something else.

Of course what we remember and what is or was the case is irrelevant. The speaker may very well be fuller today than it was 200 hours ago --- OR our "perception" of the sound seems fuller because we have gotten used to the speaker.

The B&W CDM 1NT measured differently under test...there is no way to know whether a person would sense a difference except that people do indeed claim that sound changes after a number of hours --- so some people say they have heard differences with some speakers and some speakers measure differently after periods of time. This wuld suggest that at least in some cases Break-in is a meritous notion.

It is not at all unreasonable to suggest that they are hearing what has been measured. And when we're dealing with memory --- well there is a whole can of worms that I hope is not being scrutinized over by engineers (I wish engineers who are not even close to being real scientists) would stay the hell in their own field because it's highly irritating to see people posing conclusive results over memory and or acoustic memory (Even some work in my own Psych textbook make leaps there they should not be making) ...it is based off of duration testing in DBT's then it has issues

Again I go back to the pragmatist perspective --- who cares? The maker says it will sound better after 30 hours(Typical number) so get the thing home and play it for 30 hours (without listening) then go in and listen --- if it sounds good keep em if not take em back. I don't get what the big deal is all about other than to argue a totally semantic irrelevant point which makes zero difference to anything.

Sure if the maker says 500 hours and it goes beyond the return period NOW there is something pragmatically to worry about. Audio Note recommends up to 500 hours before the speaker perfrms their best -- but that does not mean really anything because if they sound bad after 2 hours I'd be returning them.

I think what I missed perhaps along the way is that if a speaker sounds really fatiguing after say 5-10 hours and the dealer or maker is saying 100s of hours are required and to pressure people to keep them beyond the return period THEN I would ERR on the side that break-in is a hoax because the measured differences are subtle(but subtle does not mean less important since the measurements on audio are woefully lacking).

My speakers sounded great after a couple of hours --- it would be nice if AN is correct and my amp will sound far better after 200 hours --- I'm skeptical nor will my direct memory in a test environment prove it but if subjectively this is the case and my enjoyment increases --- then I can't lose.

Interestingly one would assume the speaker's material would have much to do with this...some could have way more change than others. I have heard some shifts with speakers and others-- none. Drawing a conclusion wouldbe tough because the 302 was so obvious I mean loud POPPING at not loud levels as the drivers were obviously not used to moving. That went away and it was all good...but that certainly counts as a break-in!!!!

[kexodusc]

I've seen a ton of engineer/scientist work suggesting break-in is valid, and a ton saying it isn't. Most agree it's minimal.
If I buy a speaker, I buy it only if I like the way it sounds presumably at it's worst. If it opens up and sounds better, fine.

I measured some different results on a woofer I bought when I installed it cold out of the box. It was sitting in my basement at about 10 degrees Celsius. It did exhibit some change later when it warmed up. This isn't really break-in, but it leads me to believe that break-in isn't all hogwash...I just don't think anyone should by a speaker on the bubble hoping break-in will put it over the top.

[markw]

I've seen a ton of engineer/scientist work suggesting break-in is valid, and a ton saying it isn't. Most agree it's minimal.
...I just don't think anyone should by a speaker on the bubble hoping break-in will put it over the top.

If you don't like the overall sound out of the box, break in won't improve it that much. You may become accustomed to it's sound over a period of time but that's not the speaker breaking in. That's you adjusting tio a new sound.

[piece-it pete]

In my experience building and buying speakers since 1966, break-in effects are rarely audible, but when they are audible (weak bass), the audible effects last for only five or ten minutes if the driver is pushed to near its XMAX limits.

Richard, this matches my experience as well. I would add the word "muddy" as well.

Interestingly imo, running a 10hz sine wave is not as effective as playing music. Pure speculation on my part: the short "slam" of a drum hit is better at break-in then a "rolling" sine wave. Though I agree that if you just play them they'll break in anyway.

As far as controlling test parameters go, perhaps one could externally warm up the motor assembly before running tests?

Pete

[Toga]

Take a 12" woofer, say from Eminence. Using LMS, run an impedance sweep. Note the resonance frequency and impedance peak at resonance. Run it over the weekend at near Xmax feeding it pink noise, free air. Monday, let the driver cool down for a few hours. Run the LMS sweep again. YOU WILL ABSOLUTELY SEE A DIFFERENCE IN THE IMPEDANCE CURVE. But the resonance shifts rarely more than 5% or so lower in frequency. Why does it change at all? On virtually all dynamic woofers, there is this thing euphemistically called a spider. In the same way that running shoes, jeans, or underwear "break-in" and become more "comfortable" with wear and washing, the spider is made of fabric that is impregnated to various levels of stiffness. This is to affect the Vas and Qms portions of T/S parameters, as well as make some changes in Re. As it has been stated in other posts, the differences are real, measurable, subtle but not completely irrelevant. Interestingly, the reverse can occur when a speaker has not been played for years.

That is not the same thing as bringing a speaker in from the cold garage. Far larger than temporary stiffening of the speakers' mechanical components, are changes in the magnetic field strength with temperature. Permanent magnets become weak when cold. Its funny how people only associate hard starting of a car in cold weather with battery problems. There are permanent magnets in your starter too! The field strength of a permanent magnet also decreases with time, although not at a very fast rate.

Someone mentioned break-in lasting a few seconds or minutes. This is actually called “thermal compression�, and is related to the thermal coefficient of conductivity in the voice coil wire, more than the mechanical portions of a speaker getting warm. A hot voice coil climbs in impedance, often well in excess of double the nominal ratings. Can you imagine what that does to the crossover frequency? In my opinion, its one of the better arguments for biamping and active crossovers.

The term "flex modulus" refers to the tendency of various chemical bonds to allow displacement for a given amount of mechanical energy. It is this modulus value that changes with "abuse" of a material. Many structures are permanently changed once they are repeatedly distorted, and suspension parts are intended to perform the function, so the piston portion can distort less.

On to skinny baffles! Hey, we don't sit on the ceiling like bats! So we don't need the sound going there. This is why modern speakers orient drivers vertically. Engineers recognize that early reflections from the floor or ceiling don't do us any good, so they don't work hard to maximize vertical dispersion, unlike retaining wide horizontal dispersion. But wait! Cabinet baffle diffraction effects fall in frequency with a longer driver center to baffle edge dimension, so the SMALLER the baffle is, the higher up we can push the wavelengths affected. Then, a smaller RADIUS at the edge of the baffle can be used to reduce diffraction. So speakers are all tall and skinny now, for the most part, not for esthetic reasons, but for acoustical design criteria that most people simply ignored in the 60's and 70's. The reason such narrow column speakers can sound thin, is called acoustical impedance mismatching. Ironically, "fat" speaker baffles provide additional simulation of a half space to a lower cutoff frequency. Skinny baffles create what is known as a "baffle step" in the response, a -6dB "shelf" of reduced response below the reinforcement effect of the baffle. Look up some articles on "baffle step correction EQ" for design suggestions to calculate, measure, and correct for this reduction in lower midrange and midbass output, either in the crossover or signal chain. Another way to make skinny speakers sound fuller, is push them up against the back wall…

[RGA]

I've seen a ton of engineer/scientist work suggesting break-in is valid, and a ton saying it isn't. Most agree it's minimal.
If I buy a speaker, I buy it only if I like the way it sounds presumably at it's worst. If it opens up and sounds better, fine.

I measured some different results on a woofer I bought when I installed it cold out of the box. It was sitting in my basement at about 10 degrees Celsius. It did exhibit some change later when it warmed up. This isn't really break-in, but it leads me to believe that break-in isn't all hogwash...I just don't think anyone should by a speaker on the bubble hoping break-in will put it over the top.

Yes I agree 100%...If a speaker transforms THAT much then that scares me. How many reviews have I read where the guy claims the speaker is unlistenable until 100hours and then magically goes from Spears to Mozart...no it should sound good out of the box (well give it 2 hours for rice crispy 302s...If you have 20 hours on them and they sound really bad --- I'm taking them back and like you say if it sounds good at its worst and it gets better then that's an added bonus.

There is also the revers to this -- the speaker that sounds great in 15 minutes on the showroom floor and the first while a person owns them --- but become boring after a while or fatiguing -- the immediate gratification of pyrotechnics can in the long run become tiring.

[RGA]

On to skinny baffles! Hey, we don't sit on the ceiling like bats! So we don't need the sound going there. This is why modern speakers orient drivers vertically. Engineers recognize that early reflections from the floor or ceiling don't do us any good, so they don't work hard to maximize vertical dispersion, unlike retaining wide horizontal dispersion. But wait! Cabinet baffle diffraction effects fall in frequency with a longer driver center to baffle edge dimension, so the SMALLER the baffle is, the higher up we can push the wavelengths affected. Then, a smaller RADIUS at the edge of the baffle can be used to reduce diffraction. So speakers are all tall and skinny now, for the most part, not for esthetic reasons, but for acoustical design criteria that most people simply ignored in the 60's and 70's. The reason such narrow column speakers can sound thin, is called acoustical impedance mismatching. Ironically, "fat" speaker baffles provide additional simulation of a half space to a lower cutoff frequency. Skinny baffles create what is known as a "baffle step" in the response, a -6dB "shelf" of reduced response below the reinforcement effect of the baffle. Look up some articles on "baffle step correction EQ" for design suggestions to calculate, measure, and correct for this reduction in lower midrange and midbass output, either in the crossover or signal chain. Another way to make skinny speakers sound fuller, is push them up against the back wall…

This is the kind of stuff I've read for years --- and the industry has gone this way largely and IMO the industry is mostly wrong. Most of these speakers can;t be positioned near wall and while their bass or fullness increases the sound is smudged...they invariably have a nasality in the vocal band and some very notble speakers (B&W etc) have a step where you can hear the woofer "hand-off" information to the tweeter creating a kind of suckout as if thedrivers were acting independantly --- which is probably why people complain such speakers are bright...I don't find the tweeter bright just that they call attention to the fact that it's indeed a tweeter.

Of course I have opted for a speaker with a different approach so it goes without saying that I'll believe the guy who me the best sound in a real listening room. Of course I also notice that the New approach is far cheaper for the manufacturers --- they advertise superiority and use cheap parts --- the accounting/marketing department leads the science I suspect.

[Buzz Roll]

Right on, RGA. I think that's really what it's about. Most speakers out there will not hold the listener's attention for a long period of time. When I heard the latest version of the Paradigm Studio 60, I just felt like I could not hang with a pair of those overly bright speakers for any length of time. Yes, in the showroom they sounded like they were digging up all kinds of info, but it was not music (nothing to do with break-in). And RGA, although (we agree on many things) I know you don't put as much emphasis on the time coherence thing as I, but I still feel that's the factor for being able to live with a speaker for a long time. Ohm has it, AN has it...

[Geoffcin]

I just bought a pair of Monitor Audio S6. The manual says to give them 60 hours before they are broken in. Will it hurt the drivers to play loud music through them while still not being broken in?

60 hrs is not an unusually long period of time for break in. Speakers like Magnepans have much longer break in times. Depending on how loud you play them break in can last from 100, to 400 hrs or more. My Gallos were even more unusual. Right out of the box they sounded great, after about 2 hrs a veil over the high frequancies appeared. After about another 40hrs or so of break in the high frequancy responce returned to normal, actually even BETTER than right out of the box. It all has to do with the unusual properties of the damping material used in the tweeter assembly. Only once the material has stabilized you can get the true sound of these speakers. If I didn't know about the unusual breakin of these speakers I might have returned them.

[RGA]

Right on, RGA. I think that's really what it's about. Most speakers out there will not hold the listener's attention for a long period of time. When I heard the latest version of the Paradigm Studio 60, I just felt like I could not hang with a pair of those overly bright speakers for any length of time. Yes, in the showroom they sounded like they were digging up all kinds of info, but it was not music (nothing to do with break-in). And RGA, although (we agree on many things) I know you don't put as much emphasis on the time coherence thing as I, but I still feel that's the factor for being able to live with a speaker for a long time. Ohm has it, AN has it...

I agree --- there is at least far more to it than Frequency response, off axis response and dispersion.

A speaker that simply presents the sound in a believable way is what matters--- if I'm continually being reminded over the soundstage or the way it images or the treble grain or whatever is more for people interested in the gear...I'm more interested in listening for 8 hours at most any level without fatigue or boredom - I owned speakers and systems that after 40 minutes had me more interested in other things and off the system went.

Ohm looks quite interesting LOL there seems to be n inverse relationship between good sound and uglyappearance --- Ohm MUST sound terrific

[evil__betty]

there is definatly a break-in period for the speakers. I sell many different kinds of speakers and when we bring a brand new pair onto the floor and compare them to an identical pair that have had about 100+ hours of music played on them - there is a huge difference. Most of it is on the bass and mid range as the drivers and other materials change due to movement and become "broken-in".

Generally when people start saying you need to use a more powerful amp - that ois cloaked for your spekaer sucks. 50 Quality watts should drive 99% of speakers to deafening levels with aplomb.

Yes, you can make 99% of speakers go to deafening levels with not a whole lot of power - but more than likely a pair of $4000 speakers being driven by only 50W of power (no matter how quality it is) will sound horrible when compared to the same speakers being run on high quality components producing large numbers of power. If you want loud with crappy sound quality, feel free to stick with a $800 reciever. But if you have good speakers that crave huge power, it just won't cut it. The speakers will only sound as good as the power going into them. No power, no sound. Crappy power, crappy sound. Even if you dropped huge coin them. - but you're right, it will be loud.

[RGA]

I'd agree except most of the best sounding amplifiers I've heard are under 50 Watts and almost no amp over that I would want to own.

An easy to drive speaker such as mine requires far few watts to get the same volume level than most speakers out there. My amp sounds better on my speakers than Bryston Separate monoblocks at 100s of watts does. Granted on a tough to drive speaker I would rather have the Brystons --- but then I don't care for tough to drive speakers for the most part since they offer no advantages.

[Buzz Roll]

Yes, RGA, Ohm's design is clearly form follows function. I have the Micro Talls, which (almost) look stylish - of course they'll never compete in the looks dept. with something like a pair Totems (and their website isn't as hip).

[Mash]

I remember listening to an audio store salesman comparing the "breaking in" of a new loudspeaker to the "breaking in" of a pair of new shoes. But how long does a pair of shoes, worn every day, last? A year or maybe two, and then they are shot?

Items that must be "broken-in" or "worn-in" also means those items, like shoes, will wear out! When has ANYONE here had a speaker wear out?
Blown out by overload or abuse? Maybe.
Damaged by being punctured or dropped? Maybe.
Rotting out from age or exposure to dampness? Maybe.
But when has ANYONE here EVER had a speaker simply WEAR out? Never, I would bet.

One Hertz (Hz) is defined as one cycle per second, so 1000 Hz is 1000 cycles per second.

Rember that if a speaker plays a 1000 Hz tone for 3 hours a day for 5 years, that is 1971 x 10^10 cycles. That should wear out anything that is subject to wearing out! In long form, this is
19,710,000,000,000 cycles.

One cycle for a shoe is one step or one footfall. Imagine putting 1971 x 10^10 steps on your shoes, at say 24 inches/step. Anyone care for a walk to the moon and back?

[LVMF]

Before my current speakers it had been so long since I bought new one's I hadn't really given it any thought. The de Capo's soundstage has opened up, or appeared now after almost 200 hours...but I LIKED the speakers out of the box, no, I LOVED them...so with that in mind did my ears really need to become accustomed to them? To some degree, probably.

I think it's really the reviewers who say they need to be broken in, that way they can keep speakers they enjoy listening to for a longer period of time!!