Why and how to break new speakers in?

[hearingimpaired]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.......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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.