AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - Loudspeaker break-in

(Robert C. Lang) wrote:
wrote in message ...
"Resources for researching speaker break-in, if they do exist, should
probably be redirected for more worth while pursuits."

This is reasonable, except we don't want such a laid back view to obscure
the use such claims are put to in marketing/publishing for commercial
intrest. The current benchmark is that breakin is at best a matter of a
very short time and of little consequence for most of the audio gear
purchased,ie. excludes wire, amps, signal sources, etc. as such. We don't
want this claim to be added to the stew of other unsupported claims so as
to suggest the whole should ever be a concern in making purchases and
enjoying the music. We want to demystify the whole scene that has grown
up to the detriment of audio. and to the support of paranormal belief
systems.

Would I like to know to an absolute certainty whether speaker break-in
is myth or truth or whether it applies to some speaker designs and not
others? Absolutely! I'm only saying that, for me personally, there are
higher audio priorities.

As I've said before I have personally investigated the phenomenon. "Break-in"
is an urban legend.

I'm also saying that I have not seen any
compelling arguments that there are a whole lot of victims due to
manufacturers, dealers, reviewers, and other consumers all saying that
some speakers need to be broken in. I have only seen vague
illustrations as to how consumers may be victimized about break in
claims.

I've described a system where the manufacturer in the owner's manual claims
that the speaker will become progressively better sounding over its first 150
hours of use. I've also asked a local retailer what the return-privileges might
be. The reply was 7-calendar days. This means that a customer would have to
"listen to" the speaker for 21 hours a day for the full 7-days to get the
full-sonic impact of the product.

IMO this just means that the 150-hour break-in period is simply a merchandising
tool to prevent buyer's remorse. Not that this would make any 'real'
difference; but the idea is just designed to make sure that the customer has a
chance to acclaimitize himself to the possibility that the speaker will not
sound exactly the same as it did in the showroom.

Besides, speaker break in may be a true phenomenon. A lot of
things that move or flex "break in". The key is whether or not it is
audible. And if it is audible can it be measured.

The effects of testing a "warm" speaker are quite measureable. The change in
sound quality have never been confirmed.

I have seen
seemingly credible, but inclusive (too me) presentations in this group
and elsewhere on both sides.

I've seen no credible evidence on the side of "break-in." What I have seen is
lots of talk but no experimental results.

Of course, it is highly unlikely that I
have seen even most of the presentations on this subject.

But more important than whether there is proof one way or the other, I
see this break in issue as built in protection for consumers who can
legitimately demand to hold off their final purchase decisions on
loudspeakers until they have an opportunity to try them out at home.

I've had a sales representative explain to me that his customers get to listen
to "broken-in" units in his listening room at the store. But even so, with a
150 hour break-in period, it's unlikely that anybody would be able avail
himself of the return priviledge unless he was smart enough to not buy the
break-in legend.

This is especially true since both manufacturers and dealers both
often subscribe to the need for break in. I would certainly never buy
a speaker (or a line stage) without a home trial.

I agree; but that is a different deal. The Break-In legend is purposefully
designed to "restrain" the probability of return. IF it were NOT than
responsible manufacturers would have already conducted the break-in experiments
and published the results in real peer-reviewed journals such as the JAES.

Most (all) dealers I
know completely understand that. The consumer may find that the
speakers do sound lousy at home, but may be due to room and associated
equipment issues or other issues even those related to break in. It
doesn't matter as long as we can take the opportunity to get a home
trial.

Home trials are a different issue from Break-in. Home trial is a policy.
Break-In is an engineering effect.

Besides, I don't see many (or any that I know, even Joe Six Pack)
consumers buying speakers that they are from the onset sonically
displeased with in the dealers show room.

Really. If that's so than why would a manufacturer specify a break-in period if
they haven't conducted relicable experiments to show they are needed?

The dealers' claim is
usually "if you think you like these speakers now just wait until you
break them in a little". I mean if a consumer buys a speaker that they
don't particularly like or just likes a little in the dealers show
room banking on that they will love the speaker after break in, can
you really protect that person with definitive data on break in
phenomena?

I agree that customers should have courted the literature before purchase. And
I fully understand that the sales staff certianly is unlikely to "know" the
truth. That doesn't make Break-In NOT an Urban Legend.

I say let's use the manufacturers and dealers claims that speakers
require break in to our advantage.

How can that happen when you disregard the facts of the matter? Return Policy
is a separate matter and Break-In legend simply confuses matters.