| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Chelvam wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Chelvam" wrote: snip...snip Btw, you missed my earlier question. Do crossover need break-in? cheers Not as far as I can tell. There are no moving parts. What's to break-in? No moving parts, but they use capacitors, right? A contraversial topic but surely everything needs litle bit of warming up (breaking in). Warming up is very different than breaking in. Warmimg up simply means operating at a higher temperature. Breaking in means a shift in characteristics. Capacitors do not need break-in, and neither do resistors and inductors. These are the components in a cross-over network. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 30 Sep 2004 00:19:53 GMT, "Mike Gilmour"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 28 Sep 2004 00:46:02 GMT, B&D wrote: I find the speaker "break in" vaguely reminiscent of the old wear-out "bathtub" curves - where there is a period of early failure, followed by a period of constant failure rate (hopefully low) and then an accelerating failure rate as the components themselves wear out. Except that this isn't what actually happens, except perhaps for foam surrounds, and that's just chemical degradation, not actual wear. All the available evidence suggests that driver 'break-in' occurs in the first few seconds, if at all. DO tubes "break in" - I kinow they need to warm up some to perform to their peak - but is there a period of breakin? Actually no, tubes begin to wear out from the first time they're switched on. The only question is - how much do you allow them to degrade before changing them? Doesn't seem like a great recipe for top-class sound to me.................. That's a bit like saying your car begins to wear out driving it away from the showroom, which of course it does. Actually no, as cars *do* 'run in' over the first few thousand miles, especially the transmissions, and then settle into a long (typically 80k-150k miles nowadays) period in which the performance is pretty much peaked. may take a couple of hours for Ia to settle down thereafter it stays generally okay till the end of its life when emission starts to fade away... that happens to us all eventually ;- Yup, but it only takes a couple of thousand hours for an output valve to 'fade away' completely, whereas a SS output device will likely be performing exactly the same in twenty years as it does today. I'd say if you are having the readjust standing bias frequently then the valve most likely dying..so just change the valve (matched pair then both) and rebias..only takes a couple of minutes. No running costs or hassle at all with SS, plus an initial cost of about 30% or less of an equivalent valve amp - no contest for any sensible audiophile! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 30 Sep 2004 00:21:04 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Chelvam" wrote: snip...snip Btw, you missed my earlier question. Do crossover need break-in? cheers Not as far as I can tell. There are no moving parts. What's to break-in? No moving parts, but they use capacitors, right? A contraversial topic but surely everything needs litle bit of warming up (breaking in). No, not controversial at all. Capacitors (like every other audio component) do *not* need 'break-in', although certain types of electrolytic may need an initial forming, which is simply part of their chemistry. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 30 Sep 2004 00:20:46 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message ... snip.................. But how can I complete the 150 hours of burn-in playback during the 7 day return period to assure that I haven't unfairly disadvantaged the speaker with this procedure? Business minded ones invented some sort of burn in CDs to shorten the time. Ah, but were they approved by the speaker manufacturer? :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote in message ...
If your dealer has a generous trade in policy and an extended money-back period, you are in good shape - take the speakers home and see if they sound good in your room - and see if you like them for the long haul. If not, send 'em back. What's the problem, really? The problem is logic. It seems that almost always the break-in period is longer than the money-back period. Let's assume that manufacturer knows this and that he is certain that break-in will significantly improve sound. Now, why would any sensible manufacturer risk a deal by not breaking in the elements already in the factory? If I were manufacturing a $10k loudspeaker, I would definitely break in elements already in the factory (and I would still have an incentive to claim that break-in improves sound, see my earlier post). So, by logic alone: 1. There is always incentive to _claim_ that break-in improves sound 2. If break-in causes audible improvements, why doesn't manufacturer or dealer do this himself? The 2. point is usually countered with either cost factors or with the claim that equipment needs break-in after storing or moving anyway. The cost factor cannot be significant in more expensive speakers and those people who have moved a lot or been away from home for long periods could possibly tell if there has been any changes in their systems sound, meaning bigger changes than expected psychological ones like listening in the evening vs. listening in the morning. Lasse Ukkonen |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"If your dealer has a generous trade in policy and an extended money-back
period, you are in good shape - take the speakers home and see if they sound good in your room - and see if you like them for the long haul. If not, send 'em back. What's the problem, really?" Nothing, but we want to subtract, not add to, the myths of audio; including "breaking in" as realities that will not change either in the store or at home. To put the sales pitch in perspective the "take them home and break them in" should then be followed by generous laughter, and a good time was had by all as one heads to home depot and rs to get new wire. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chelvam wrote:
"Dersu" wrote in message snip....snip.. Now you have got me worried! Should I have broken in my new cables? They are a kind of copper wire and they are a bit longer than the old ones, can anyone tell me if I'm missing out on that final ounce of performance? Oh yes, you need to break in the cable. If I am not mistaken Sheffield Lab got Burn in Cd for cable, speakers and probably others. That's the view of many. But having said that, I have not heard any significant difference because it is my habit to let things run for about 50 hours or so before listening. Do you think that CD's would benefit from that much burn in? (What about LP's?) And if so does that mean that the burn in CD for cable should be burned in before using it to burn in the cables? In fact should all test discs be burned in before using them to set up a system? Good grief think how many sound systems have been improperly set up because the test disc was used while still 'green'. Oh, the humanity. George Deliz The only thing which i noticed of break in was after changing some caps i.e black gates, hovland which I think it probably improved the sound after about 100 hours. Others I am not so sure. And, I do not want to debate on this. |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Robert C. Lang) wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message ... (Robert C. Lang) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ... My only concern is - how will I know when they have stopped breaking in, and started wearing out? You can't reasonably have one without the other..................... Does it necessarily follow that a period of "break-in" leads directly into an immediate period of decline? Can it be that the break-in period is followed by a lengthy "plateau" period in which performance stays within minimum specification or peak efficiency before noticeably or measurably beginning to wear out? Why would that be implied? Do drag racers get faster with use? Do race cars have to be broken-in? I don't know about drag racers and racecars but I assume the principal would be the same as with high revving motorcycles and automobiles. The manufacturers strongly recommend that you keep the engine revolutions down during the "break in" period, and that you change your oil more frequently during the brake in period. Do these machines perform better (faster) after they have been driven for a while? All the car magazines say yes and have published times to support this (not to prove anything). AFAIK they have not. Most magazine coverage includes driving the hell out of a car as soon as they get it. The closest thing I can recall to later testing is that one of the mags may have confirmed that a vehicle(s) included in their long term tests did not suffer performance after several months. Perhaps you have references of which I am unaware? But of course they are not about to race a car right off the assembly line. That could cause severe damage or shorten the life of the engine. As far as I can tell magazines just light 'em up as soon as they get the car. Given the magazine 'dead-line' lifestyle they don't have time to carefully break-in the vehicles used for evaluation. So may be the car is as fast right off the assembly line as it is after the break in period. But we will never know because no one is about to risk damage to his or her expensive machinery to prove a point. On the contrary a magazine evaluation doesn't want to have a car break during testing BUT they do conduct performance testing without a careful break-in as far as I can tell. On the other hand, I would expect that performance testing (0-60, top speed, skidpad) probably comes after the driving. I know that my power testing of loudspeakers is the last thing I do during evaluation. This has nothing to do with break-in; it's just more effficient to have a product break when more of the evaluation work has been completed. I'm not talking about just speakers, but any product that has moving parts (but also electronics as well). If speaker materials do change their behavior maybe it's like breaking in a pair of shoes; the first minutes, or maybe even the first hours (hopefully not) the shoe will quickly feel better as it "loosens up" and conforms to your feet(hopefully not the other way around, but maybe your feet do a little conforming also.) After the "break in" process the shoe has a "constant" feel about it for months or years until they begin to noticeably wear and start to feel uncomfortable again. Sure; but that example has 'touching' moving parts. Your feet and body fluids are in direct contact plus there is plenty of direct pressure from external forces. Isn't there a lot of direct pressure and environmental forces brought to bear on speaker drivers, especially woofers? The radiation resistance of the radiating surface and the air is the primary pressure source. Does your voice get stronger after you've yelled for a while? It IS true that if you go into training (yell for a long time in a controlled manner) that you may get into better shape but speakers aren't organic in the sense that they "can condition themselves." The major environmental forces on speakers other than atmospheric pressure are temperature change, humidity, dust and exposure to ultraviolet light. And remember the "moving" parts of a moving coil loudspeaker have NO direct contact with each other. The places that touch are glued or screwed together. I currently own 2 pair of Penny Loafers that are now 20 years old. Both have had several set of soles/heels over the years. However I seldom wear them these days and they both feel now feel "strange" when I do even though each pair was well-broken-in and fully comfortable when rotated out of service. Sitting in my closet didn't cause the shoes to change .... my feel and my feet are the only change agents. Not exactly. Shoes sitting in the closet for extended periods, such as 20 years, *do* change. Everything on the planet, unless they are hermetically sealed begins to change/wear from the time it is produced. So you are saying that things get "de-broken-in" when they are not used? Why won't your speakers just break-themselves-in on the shelf in inventory then? How about the parts before assembly? Are they always changing even when idle? Then how can anyone attribute ANY change in performance to break-in? The environment, even on shoes sitting in the closet, can cause not so subtle change and deterioration. Nevertheless, your point is well made because you would more likely changed far more than the shoes. Baseball gloves are clearly that way. They can take a season to loosen up, and then they stay seemingly constant for years. This is pure conjecture. My glove never took a season to "loosen up" it began loosening from the first day and never stopped. Just because I only played baseball/softball in the summer months it may have psychological "seemed like there was a lengthy full performance period." Of course, your glove began to loosen up from the first day and never stopped, which is why I used the word "seemingly" stayed constant. So the "perception" of stability may be more important than the actual amount of change then? That's actually my basic point about loudspeaker "break-in"; I've conducted and published experiments that show there IS no performance variation with woofers that have been broken in for the manufacturers recommended 24,48 and 150 hour break-in. It is true that some parameters (Fs, Vas and system resonance) will 'measure; differently immediately following the break-in process but if they are allowed to sit for several hours they will return to the "fresh" values and more importantly the SOUND does not change under either condition. The point is when first purchased the glove is not ready for a player under game conditions until it's "broken in" as determined by the ball player. The glove is just used in practice situations with the previous glove still used for the game. You must be one of the rich guys. When I played baseball/softball I used a given glove for as long as it held together and I didn't acquire a new one until the old one was just plain busted. And even when the new glove is first used in "game" situations it still may not be completely broken in. But let's not forget that baseball gloves (what ever happened to the term mitts?) have 1) a high interaction with user preference and skill 2) have physical contact with the player and the game object 3) are subject to being 'flung' after and error or into the dugout after an inning 4) are generally made of animal skin which has a much higher organic content than steel, ceramic magnets, rubber, paper or plastics. Then, perhaps over the next 2-3 years are so, as you correctly point out, the glove will continue to "loosen", "wear", "deteriorate", whatever term you feel is most appropriate, but all the while meeting minimum specifications, as determined by the player, for good performance. Then at some point it becomes too loose, too broken in and it becomes time to break in a new glove. So where does the break-in stop and the wear-out begin? How do you know? Here's the counter example. How many times have you been ready to resume play in the spring only to discover that your trusty glove became 'worn-out' over the winter. Here's another good example; who has NOT found his old glove from a past glorious period of baseball greatness and found it has has "worn-out" sitting the closet? Never really had those experiences or I have forgotten about them. Perhaps I'm just older than you. I once found my special (I think it was a Rawlings "Bob Lemon" fielders mitt) glove from my high school days that my Mom had stored for many years and I was astounded at how beaten-to-hell that glove was. Sure it had stiffened from not being oiled for years BUT it was a tattered mess and not the pride and joy I once used. Perhaps because living in California, we literally coach and play organized ball (in leagues) 10-12 months out of the year. We go right from fall ball to winter ball. Of course, a glove sitting in the closet for a long period of time, such as what you described, *will* continue to deteriorate, like everything else on the planet, unless its hermetically sealed. A closet will offer only partial protection and may actually be harmful to leather because it's not maintained. But, nevertheless, I see your point. Clearly, there are non-physical, psychological factors at play here as well. But one does not mutually exclude the other. And if speaker break in does exist it would involve both, as all the other examples we have bee talking about. Actually my experience shows that speakers may 'warm-up' but they do NOT break-in. The user-interface is where the breaking-in happens. If this were NOT true than why does EVERY break-in account report success? Isn't it true that any 'change' process has a bell-shaped distribution? Why are the ONLY people who have reported actual experimental data are ignored but ALL the other anecdotal reports and impassioned arguments are equally important? Let's assume for a moment that break-in is important; wouldn't there be a distribution of break-in results? Wouldn't there be a few reports that performance deteriorated? And more importantly why would a reputable high-end manufacturer who had actually confirmed break-in as a real effect EVER let an un-broken-in product leave the factory? Isn't that why we buy expensive loudspeakers.... to get that something "extra"? Or the time when we had some doors hung. They did not swing right, they were a little stiff, even though they were hung properly. A drop of oil and/or a sag of the hinges is a pretty good cure. But that's not 'breakin-in" If they were stiff when hung they weren't "properly" hung. The craftsman assured us that in a few days, after breaking in (use) they would feel fine. He was right; after a little use the doors began to open and close (swing) as expected and have done so for years. OK I'll buy that, but exactly 'what' was the break-in mechanism? Did you mean that the actual contact patches on the hinges weren't initially smooth? Or did the fasteners need sometime to work themselves out? Or what? If its friction related than you certainly don't have a good analogy with loudspeaker break-in. If we have moving parts which aren't permanently attached that 'touch' then we have a broken speaker. I'm not sure who was hanging your doors but if they were 'stiff' in the beginning they should have been made right. There is nothing to suggest that the doors were not hung properly to begin with. Maybe the hinges, as stated by the craftsman, needed to break-in for a day or two. In any event, it has been 20 years and the doors work great. No oil was applied. They were not rehung. Improperly hung doors cannot self correct. There are other examples such as my motorcycle. The clutch/transmission system was stiff when first purchased. Shifting had to be done very deliberately and was audibly clunky. But in a few days or weeks, as cautioned by experienced riders, shifting reached an optimum tension level, became smoother, more quite and stayed that way for many years before finally beginning to wear out (became loose and unreliable). Many veteran BMW riders (not me) don't consider their engines (not transmissions) fully broken in until after 40,000 miles. First of all I think that 'getting used' to the action may apply to much of this. Of course, getting use to it plays a part, but that does not explain the transmission smoothing out and becoming audibly quieter in a few days. Again, there are physical and non-physical factors at play here. One does not mutually exclude the other. You really don't believe that the interaction, friction, or whatever of moving parts can cause this kind of change? It is true that elastic parts (spider, surround) may change with wear but simple experiments have shown that this type of "wear" doesn't occur with short periods of use. That's all I'm talking about. Now whether these changes are audible is an entirely different question, which for me is not a burning question. If there's no audible effect who the heck cares? As you've explained shoes and speakers will "change" sitting in a closet. The real question is .... does break-in positively influence the sound of the loudspeaker? If the answer is NO.....who cares? I have never formed an opinion on speaker break in because whether it exists or not, the listener, it would appear, by taking the time to listen over a few days or weeks, can make a more accurate, sensible decision with respect to their tastes. Now you are talking about "listener" acclaimitization or perhaps training but NOT speaker break-in. Of course, I'm talking about (including)listener acclimatization, room interaction, changes in the speaker and anything else that might contribute to reaching a sensible decision for the buyer on whether he or she will like the speakers for the long haul. Resources for researching speaker break-in, if they do exist, should probably be redirected for more worth while pursuits. Robert C. Lang This effect has been investigated. It's an urban legend. Urban legend? I really don't believe the term was even in my active vocabulary until I joined this group that will sometimes immortalize certain subjects, such as speaker break-in. For me, personally, speaker break-in has never been a factor in me buying or rejecting a speaker. I really believe that the whole thing is overblown, in this group, not by those who subscribe to the belief, such as Mr. Williams, but more so by those who lambaste or ridicule those who do believe that audible changes can occur in the first few hours or days with a new speaker. Oh please. I've never ridiculed anybody about this issue. I simply have conducted experiments and found break-in unsupportable from an engineering standpoint but does appear to have a strong economic and merchandising element. The "urban legend", is being fostered and fueled, given added airtime, by those that claim to want to squelch it. I believe Mr. Williams was sincere with his request "that those who disagree allow those of us they believe to be mistaken to continue in the error of our ways without comment." Well, at least he gave it a shot. So it's important to you that "belief" is paramount and evidence to the contrary is not useful. That's OK by me. But I thinkthat there may be other interested parties who would like to see the entire horizon. I find speaker break in, true or false, not worthy of all the ire that it draws. What ire? Loudspeaker break-in is an Urban Legend and it seems to be strongly correlated with return policy. What's wrong with examining the issue at a base level? The phenomenon is finite, lasting only a few hours or days. I have yet to personally know a victim; that is, anyone who has lost money or were stuck with speakers they did not like because they were misled into believeing they would love them after the return policy had expired but before the break-in was complete. OK; so you report that nobody has complained to you. So? I can't recall anybody I know who has complained about a Bose product. I've heard no complaints about XM radio. No complaints from ordinary citizens about MP3. No complaints about Dolby Digital. No complaints about HTIB systems. On the contrary I and audiophiles that I know ensure that the return policy provides ample time for a home trial to undo a mistake. It's not that difficult! You are suggesting this is even so when the return policy period makes it practically impossible to fully break-in a speaker within the specified break-in period. What this means to me is that "break-in" simply isn't an issue or an effect that has a material impact on sound quality. On the other hand, speaker cables and interconnects have a much more profound effect on the consumers pocketbook. I personally know many audiophiles that have spent untold hundreds and thousands of dollars on these accessories. Do high priced speaker cables and interconnects make a difference? That is a far more burning issue for me because if they don't make a difference thousands of audiophiles may have been victimized. Robert C. Lang P.S. May be we could conduct a poll, unscientific though it may be, on who (and *how*)in this group has been victimized because of speaker break in beliefs. I really would like to know. I'd agree with you sentiments on cabling. There are far more 'victims' in the sense that cables and other acessories were specifically intended to grab dollars out of the pockets of guys who want to hang out at stereo stores when they weren't in the market for a new amplifier. They are also designed to put some margin back into a sale where there may be intensive price competition on the basic components. Of course, cabling has no real impact on sound quality; but I stand in awe of someone who puts loudspeaker break-in on a higher plane of urban legend :-) |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Robert C. Lang) wrote:
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. (Nousaine) wrote in message As I've said before I have personally investigated the phenomenon. "Break-in" is an urban legend. Have you or anyone produced a research paper that argues to prove or disprove speaker break-in that has been accepted by The Journal of the Audio Engineering Society? If so, please direct me to it. I realize that such a paper would not be deemed as proof, but that would give it credibility. 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. Well, I have personal experience where the manufacturer said that the speaker break in would take only a "few hours" and that I had 30 days to make a decision. He did not put any special emphasis on "break in" he was more concerned about room interaction. True, my experience may not be the norm, but I have not found that your illustration represents the norm either. 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. 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. I simply don't treat it that way; nor do other audiophiles I know. It's (home trial and break-in) sort of all bundled together. Keep in mind I have not found that there is even an uninamity on what constitutes "break in". I view it as a combination of several things that include primarily acclimatization and experimentation, possibly physical changes that may occur with the speaker, how it fits/looks (phyically), etc., etc. But it doesn't matter how its broken out because it's a synergy thing. If the product doesn't sound good in my system in my room it goes back; for whatever reasons. Again, if a consumer buys a speaker that they don't particularly like in the dealers show room banking on that they will love the speaker after break in, they are beyond reach no matter how much you proslytize against speaker break in beliefs. 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? I don't see the realtionship to my statement and your response, but that could be because I don't have an inside perspective or understanding on how the speaker industry works. Question: Are specifications about break in formal? I rarely see it written. It's usually something that is casually spoken about by the dealer. (In many car and motorcycle manuals the break in procedure is spelled out in bold print) 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. And threads like this gives the "Urban Legend" a measure of free publicity, which in this case, Mr. Williams, who started the thread, clearly sought to avoid. This thread has 40+ responses. If the non-believers in break in had respected his simple request not to comment (of course, it is understood that any post is fair game for response) this thread would have 4 or 5 posts at best. 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. May be I'm missing something, but I honestly and truly don't see what the big deal is. On a scale of 1 to 10 of importance in audio consumer protection cables/interconnects 10+, speaker break in 1. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
We gotta watch out that this generalization comparability logic
doesn't get out of hand. Loudspeaker tranducers are just that; cars are cars and baseball gloves are destinct from both. The concept behind mechanical break-in is legitimate and explanable from basic physics behind it. But everything has it's own set of rules. Drivers used to commonly have break-in in old days, lots of it I believe but not so today for the average modern driver that you see in let's say 95% of the speakers on the market. (I'm making a very generalized assumption that "unusual" drivers are in +/-5% of the products out there but I think it's less) But if you get down to basic materials: Metals and natural fibers tend to exhibit some mechanical changes when first subject to stress forces until they reach an equilibrium and then usually remain stable for a long time if the forces are such that the structural integrity is not compromised, ie not too much stress. Polymers, from what I hear (not my first hand knowledge) have the tendancy to be "what you see is what you get" right out of the mold. This is one reason why (besides price) loudspeaker manufacturers use them extensively, consistancy is gold! If unit to unit consistancy is a mandate, then initial mechanical consistancy comes along for the ride. You really can't have one without the other because it reduces one more factor that can vary. If a loudspeaker driver would have a lot of break-in, then this break in factor would be just one more process that could vary from unit to unit. So it's inheirantly avoided, and not by accident. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George Deliz" wrote in message
... .............................. .............. Do you think that CD's would benefit from that much burn in? (What about LP's?) And if so does that mean that the burn in CD for cable should be burned in before using it to burn in the cables? -------------- No..No...they apply the oppiste treatment for CDs. Instead of burn-in try "cool-in". Something like freezing the CDs, i think that's quite a popular tweaks that you will find plenty of information googling. |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... ....... Business minded ones invented some sort of burn in CDs to shorten the time. Ah, but were they approved by the speaker manufacturer? :-) Smart businessman will only approach esteemed magz like TAS, Stereophile. BTW, I believe I have read one speaker manufacturer did suggest burn in CD to shorten the initial break in time. Let's see if I can find the speaker. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 30 Sep 2004 00:19:53 GMT, "Mike Gilmour" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 28 Sep 2004 00:46:02 GMT, B&D wrote: I find the speaker "break in" vaguely reminiscent of the old wear-out "bathtub" curves - where there is a period of early failure, followed by a period of constant failure rate (hopefully low) and then an accelerating failure rate as the components themselves wear out. Except that this isn't what actually happens, except perhaps for foam surrounds, and that's just chemical degradation, not actual wear. All the available evidence suggests that driver 'break-in' occurs in the first few seconds, if at all. DO tubes "break in" - I kinow they need to warm up some to perform to their peak - but is there a period of breakin? Actually no, tubes begin to wear out from the first time they're switched on. The only question is - how much do you allow them to degrade before changing them? Doesn't seem like a great recipe for top-class sound to me.................. That's a bit like saying your car begins to wear out driving it away from the showroom, which of course it does. Actually no, as cars *do* 'run in' over the first few thousand miles, especially the transmissions, and then settle into a long (typically 80k-150k miles nowadays) period in which the performance is pretty much peaked. A mute point considering modern manufacturing tolerances, advances in lubrication and cleaner build environments....hardly the run-in palaver of yesteryear. Now it's common sense for a while... though the tyres benefit from an easy childhood. may take a couple of hours for Ia to settle down thereafter it stays generally okay till the end of its life when emission starts to fade away... that happens to us all eventually ;- Yup, but it only takes a couple of thousand hours for an output valve to 'fade away' completely, whereas a SS output device will likely be performing exactly the same in twenty years as it does today. Agreed, though for me I accept that because I enjoy music amplified by certain valve equipment. Over the years I tried SS pre & power amplifiers from many of the major manufacturers & liked just a few... Nagra and FM Acoustics come to mind.. but until IMO that level of audio performance is a bit more affordable I'll stay with valves. I'd say if you are having the readjust standing bias frequently then the valve most likely dying..so just change the valve (matched pair then both) and rebias..only takes a couple of minutes. No running costs or hassle at all with SS, plus an initial cost of about 30% or less of an equivalent valve amp - no contest for any sensible audiophile! My listening enjoyment comes first.... so without a reasonably affordable alternative I accept the valve replacement costs. Mike -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 1 Oct 2004 22:59:29 GMT, (Robert C. Lang)
wrote: (Robert C. Lang) wrote: 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. (Nousaine) wrote in message As I've said before I have personally investigated the phenomenon. "Break-in" is an urban legend. Have you or anyone produced a research paper that argues to prove or disprove speaker break-in that has been accepted by The Journal of the Audio Engineering Society? If so, please direct me to it. I realize that such a paper would not be deemed as proof, but that would give it credibility. As has been pointed out many times, proper peer-reviewed scientific journals (of which the JAES is one) do not waste time in publishing articles referring to the bleedin' obvious. In the loudspeaker industry itself, there is *no* suggestion that a 'break-in' mechanism actually exists. BTW, that's also the reason why you won't find any comparative tests of 'cables sound' in the JAES. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 1 Oct 2004 23:02:08 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... ...... Business minded ones invented some sort of burn in CDs to shorten the time. Ah, but were they approved by the speaker manufacturer? :-) Smart businessman will only approach esteemed magz like TAS, Stereophile. BTW, I believe I have read one speaker manufacturer did suggest burn in CD to shorten the initial break in time. Let's see if I can find the speaker. Please don't bother, that was supposed to be a *joke*. Break-in simply does not exist. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
(Robert C. Lang) wrote: OK. I'm throwing in the towel on all those issues about baseball gloves, doors, cars, etc. in part because you were scoring points faster than I could fend them off and because it was never my intent to make a direct tie in to speaker break in. This effect has been investigated. It's an urban legend. Urban legend? I really don't believe the term was even in my active vocabulary until I joined this group that will sometimes immortalize certain subjects, such as speaker break-in. For me, personally, speaker break-in has never been a factor in me buying or rejecting a speaker. I really believe that the whole thing is overblown, in this group, not by those who subscribe to the belief, such as Mr. Williams, but more so by those who lambaste or ridicule those who do believe that audible changes can occur in the first few hours or days with a new speaker. Oh please. I've never ridiculed anybody about this issue. I simply have conducted experiments and found break-in unsupportable from an engineering standpoint but does appear to have a strong economic and merchandising element. I want to make it clear that I was not referring to you personally. The "urban legend", is being fostered and fueled, given added airtime, by those that claim to want to squelch it. I believe Mr. Williams was sincere with his request "that those who disagree allow those of us they believe to be mistaken to continue in the error of our ways without comment." Well, at least he gave it a shot. So it's important to you that "belief" is paramount and evidence to the contrary is not useful. That's OK by me. But I thinkthat there may be other interested parties who would like to see the entire horizon. Actually, evidence is important which is why I specifically asked in another post about research results that may have been accepted by the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. But of course you may have picked up that I have not been arguing any belief, one way or the other, about speaker break in. I have been arguing whether or not the harm to consumers is as pervasive as you suggest. I would be very much interested in that evidence. Because as it stands now the belief or perception that speaker break in is causing significant injury to consumers is what I consider to be the *real* Urban Legend in all this. This is why I am particularly interested in the evidence that you have to support the "strong economic and merchandising element" connection that you have made with speaker break in beliefs. Is it really widespread that manufacturers have *successfully* induced consumers to buy speakers that they don't otherwise like because they believe that speaker will become palatable after break in? How much does the belief in speaker break in factor in the purchase decision? Have there been any consumer surveys done that support your contentions that consumers are being injured in any meaningful way? These are not rhetorical questions. The phenomenon is finite, lasting only a few hours or days. I have yet to personally know a victim; that is, anyone who has lost money or were stuck with speakers they did not like because they were misled into believeing they would love them after the return policy had expired but before the break-in was complete. OK; so you report that nobody has complained to you. So? I can't recall anybody I know who has complained about a Bose product. I've heard no complaints about XM radio. No complaints from ordinary citizens about MP3. No complaints about Dolby Digital. No complaints about HTIB systems. No across the board. But I don't understand what you are asking here. Are consumers being induced to purchase these products under false pretenses such as you are contending that speaker manufacturers do their customers under the auspices of speaker break in? On the contrary I and audiophiles that I know ensure that the return policy provides ample time for a home trial to undo a mistake. It's not that difficult! You are suggesting this is even so when the return policy period makes it practically impossible to fully break-in a speaker within the specified break-in period. I'm questioning whether or not speaker break in propaganda has the prevailing influence on speaker purchase decisions as you contend. I believe that "Truth in Advertising" regulations are a good thing. But if there was some rule prohibiting any reference to speaker break in (assuming, of course that it was proven to be a fallacy) what effect would it have? I can't see how it would have any effect on me, anyone that I know directly or indirectly, or certainly on very few that recall have written about speaker break in the various audio forums, mags, etc. People tend to buy speakers that they like and speaker breakin, if they factor that in, is simply icing on the cake. True, many people do end up being dissatisfied with their speaker purchases (like many other purchases in life) and they offer many reasons why. But I just don't recall people saying they didn't ultimately like a speaker because "break in" fell short of expectations or that they were misled by the dealer about speaker breakin. On the other hand, speaker cables and interconnects have a much more profound effect on the consumers pocketbook. I personally know many audiophiles that have spent untold hundreds and thousands of dollars on these accessories. Do high priced speaker cables and interconnects make a difference? That is a far more burning issue for me because if they don't make a difference thousands of audiophiles may have been victimized. Robert C. Lang P.S. May be we could conduct a poll, unscientific though it may be, on who (and *how*)in this group has been victimized because of speaker break in beliefs. I really would like to know. I'd agree with you sentiments on cabling. There are far more 'victims' in the sense that cables and other acessories were specifically intended to grab dollars out of the pockets of guys who want to hang out at stereo stores when they weren't in the market for a new amplifier. Y2K predictions of worldwide computer failures and speaker breakin; two non- issues of the millennium. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...
On 1 Oct 2004 22:59:29 GMT, (Robert C. Lang) wrote: (Robert C. Lang) wrote: 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. (Nousaine) wrote in message As I've said before I have personally investigated the phenomenon. "Break-in" is an urban legend. Have you or anyone produced a research paper that argues to prove or disprove speaker break-in that has been accepted by The Journal of the Audio Engineering Society? If so, please direct me to it. I realize that such a paper would not be deemed as proof, but that would give it credibility. As has been pointed out many times, proper peer-reviewed scientific journals (of which the JAES is one) do not waste time in publishing articles referring to the bleedin' obvious. In the loudspeaker industry itself, there is *no* suggestion that a 'break-in' mechanism actually exists. BTW, that's also the reason why you won't find any comparative tests of 'cables sound' in the JAES. Fair enough and *very* understandable. I would also add another reason (actually sub reason) that would seem to be in line with the criteria as established by the JAES for topics it publishes research. That is, "loudspeaker break in" is a big do all about nothing. It's a debate that may have ancillary issues that are good to know about but "speaker break in" per say, whether it exists are not, has little intrinsic value or impact to anyone. No body really benefits or is really injured from the phenomena. It's innocuous. But I don't know the criteria that the JAES establishes for topics that it willing to publish. (I have seen some seemingly low value almost comical articles published in other scientific journals) Perhaps consumer interest or protection is not a criteria because the issue of cables does have a direct and very real impact on audio consumers. And if *quality* scientific research has been done and if that research points to differences (or no differences)in "cable sound" as being bogus then perhaps the JAES support would be valuable. But I do not know the boundaries of the "mission" of the JAES. It is completely understandable if consumer advocacy or protection is not within its mission. Mind you the reason I asked if research relative to "speaker breakin" had been accepted by the JAES for publication was because someone in this thread had invoked its name. (Looking back it was Nousaine who had mentioned JAES in this thread). Also, Nousaine, has said that he has done experiments and research in the area of speaker break in. (Frankly, I was surprised at this because I think its a non issue). So, I was wondering if the results of his research or the research of others had been published by JAES. Robert C. Lang |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wessel Dirksen wrote:
I'll leave break in of crossover components to those who know better but that idea intuitively seems quite rediculous to me. As far as break in program material goes, I'm with Dersu on this one, listen and enjoy. Music in the emotional lines of celebration would probably work best. If your new loudspeakers should require break-in, who cares, they'll do it all by themselves so let them perform for you while doing so. If you should want to break an individual driver's cherry prior to the design process to be sure, high pass filtered pink noise for tweeters and for woofers / cone drivers +/- 1.5x Fs sinewave rumbling at 2/3 Xmax work well. I did use very low frequency(10Hz) sine waves at almost max. excursion of the woofer to test if my cabinets are really airtight. The reason for the low frequency is that the excursion is really strong without pumping too much power into the driver. Any faults, like a scratching voicecoil, a weak surround that flips over inside or debris in the airgap can be spotted immediately, so this test is really useful. I do not call this burn-in. The whole term is misleading, as it comes from semiconductor testing for space/aviation applications. Those parts are stressed at max. temperature/power ratings to insure the functionality and detect early failures. Certain kind of failures appear in the first hours of use and you really do not want them to show up after the mission has just started, so JANTX-specs have procedures to detect these and every single part has to undergo this burn-in. This wouldn't apply to loudspeakers at all, since we are not on a critical mission. Usually it is also not of disadvantage to do this, unless you damage the speaker, either by exceeding the max. excursion or power, which is likely to occurr if you are not absolutely sure about what you are doing. So my advise would be: forget about this, if you already have to ask. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Robert C. Lang) wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ... On 1 Oct 2004 22:59:29 GMT, (Robert C. Lang) wrote: (Robert C. Lang) wrote: 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. (Nousaine) wrote in message As I've said before I have personally investigated the phenomenon. "Break-in" is an urban legend. Have you or anyone produced a research paper that argues to prove or disprove speaker break-in that has been accepted by The Journal of the Audio Engineering Society? If so, please direct me to it. I realize that such a paper would not be deemed as proof, but that would give it credibility. As has been pointed out many times, proper peer-reviewed scientific journals (of which the JAES is one) do not waste time in publishing articles referring to the bleedin' obvious. In the loudspeaker industry itself, there is *no* suggestion that a 'break-in' mechanism actually exists. BTW, that's also the reason why you won't find any comparative tests of 'cables sound' in the JAES. Fair enough and *very* understandable. I would also add another reason (actually sub reason) that would seem to be in line with the criteria as established by the JAES for topics it publishes research. That is, "loudspeaker break in" is a big do all about nothing. It's a debate that may have ancillary issues that are good to know about but "speaker break in" per say, whether it exists are not, has little intrinsic value or impact to anyone. No body really benefits or is really injured from the phenomena. It's innocuous. But I don't know the criteria that the JAES establishes for topics that it willing to publish. (I have seen some seemingly low value almost comical articles published in other scientific journals) Perhaps consumer interest or protection is not a criteria because the issue of cables does have a direct and very real impact on audio consumers. And if *quality* scientific research has been done and if that research points to differences (or no differences)in "cable sound" as being bogus then perhaps the JAES support would be valuable. But I do not know the boundaries of the "mission" of the JAES. It is completely understandable if consumer advocacy or protection is not within its mission. Mind you the reason I asked if research relative to "speaker breakin" had been accepted by the JAES for publication was because someone in this thread had invoked its name. (Looking back it was Nousaine who had mentioned JAES in this thread). Also, Nousaine, has said that he has done experiments and research in the area of speaker break in. (Frankly, I was surprised at this because I think its a non issue). So, I was wondering if the results of his research or the research of others had been published by JAES. Robert C. Lang No, of course not. As Stewart points out there is no reason to submit a paper on a subject that has no engineering meaning. I tested break-in because I was personally interested in the phenomenon from my perspective as an amateur speaker builder and in my capacity as an evaluator of loudspeaker products for consumer magazines. In specific I undertook experiments of aftermarket autosound speakers where the manufacturer specifically required that I break-in their products for extended periods before performing an evaluation. (24,48 and 150 hours) It was only natural to acquire multiple samples so I could break-in some of them while retaining 'fresh' samples for comparison. The results of these experiments have been published in Car Stereo Review. Then a year ago I was asked to evaluate a product for The Audio Critic where the manufacturer said specifically that the product improve its sound over a time period where it was a practical impossibility to complete break-in in the normal return period for a dealer. I used this product for several weeks and its sound changed not one bit. Do I have proof that customers have been harmed by recommendations of extensive and unnecessary break-in periods? Of course not. But is it 'wrong' to provide replicable facts about this topic? Would you prefer that it not be described as an Urban Legend because that would make believers feel better? What is truly "missing" from the literature is a paper that describes the break-in mechanisms of loudspeakers and provides replicable experimental results documenting the same. As with many myths believers will ask for 'proof' that the myth is wrong but they never seem to provide replicable evidence that shows it's, in fact, true. In any event I'm guessing that everybody, including me, is tired of discussing this topic. |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
I really appreciate and applaud you for taking the time to respond to
*entire* posts and not doing what so many do which is to cherry pick and take comments out of context. You shoot straight and I have found your comments to be insightful and informative. Thank you. Robert C. Lang (Nousaine) wrote in message ... (Robert C. Lang) wrote: (Nousaine) wrote in message ...snip.... Actually, evidence is important which is why I specifically asked in another post about research results that may have been accepted by the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. But of course you may have picked up that I have not been arguing any belief, one way or the other, about speaker break in. I have been arguing whether or not the harm to consumers is as pervasive as you suggest. I would be very much interested in that evidence. Because as it stands now the belief or perception that speaker break in is causing significant injury to consumers is what I consider to be the *real* Urban Legend in all this. This is why I am particularly interested in the evidence that you have to support the "strong economic and merchandising element" connection that you have made with speaker break in beliefs. I've made no comment regarding whether any individual has ever been compromised by break-in recommendations. I've only pointed out that speaker break-in is a non-extant phenomenon and that the break-in periods recommended by some manufacturers seem unduly lengthy, are not based on any known evidence and appear to be more devised to discourage returns than anything else. Is it really widespread that manufacturers have *successfully* induced consumers to buy speakers that they don't otherwise like because they believe that speaker will become palatable after break in? How much does the belief in speaker break in factor in the purchase decision? Have there been any consumer surveys done that support your contentions that consumers are being injured in any meaningful way? I've never said that anybody has been specifically injured but only that the break-in phenomenon is not tied to any known evidence and thus appears to have a bigger impact on merchandising than anything else. I'm also suggestign that the notion of speaker break-in seems to have a fairly significant popularity among enthusiasts. Instead off worrying about whether this is a problem for customers I'm just suggestng that its a good idea to poitn out that, like cable sound, break-in is a myth and not based on any known evidence. These are not rhetorical questions. The phenomenon is finite, lasting only a few hours or days. And you base this on exactly what evidence other than the idea that some people think its true? I have yet to personally know a victim; that is, anyone who has lost money or were stuck with speakers they did not like because they were misled into believeing they would love them after the return policy had expired but before the break-in was complete. Sure; I'd agree that such policies are a good weapon against buyer's remorse. OK; so you report that nobody has complained to you. So? I can't recall anybody I know who has complained about a Bose product. I've heard no complaints about XM radio. No complaints from ordinary citizens about MP3. No complaints about Dolby Digital. No complaints about HTIB systems. No across the board. But I don't understand what you are asking here. Are consumers being induced to purchase these products under false pretenses such as you are contending that speaker manufacturers do their customers under the auspices of speaker break in? I've never said that break-in was a purchase inducment; it's just insurance against returns. On the contrary I and audiophiles that I know ensure that the return policy provides ample time for a home trial to undo a mistake. It's not that difficult! You are suggesting this is even so when the return policy period makes it practically impossible to fully break-in a speaker within the specified break-in period. I'm questioning whether or not speaker break in propaganda has the prevailing influence on speaker purchase decisions as you contend. I believe that "Truth in Advertising" regulations are a good thing. But if there was some rule prohibiting any reference to speaker break in (assuming, of course that it was proven to be a fallacy) what effect would it have? I can't see how it would have any effect on me, anyone that I know directly or indirectly, or certainly on very few that recall have written about speaker break in the various audio forums, mags, etc. People tend to buy speakers that they like and speaker breakin, if they factor that in, is simply icing on the cake. True, many people do end up being dissatisfied with their speaker purchases (like many other purchases in life) and they offer many reasons why. But I just don't recall people saying they didn't ultimately like a speaker because "break in" fell short of expectations or that they were misled by the dealer about speaker breakin. Sigh. I've never claimed that the break-in myth was anything that enthusiasts should be aware of. It's not a federal case; its like cable-sound people should be aware of the cicumstance. On the other hand, speaker cables and interconnects have a much more profound effect on the consumers pocketbook. I personally know many audiophiles that have spent untold hundreds and thousands of dollars on these accessories. Do high priced speaker cables and interconnects make a difference? That is a far more burning issue for me because if they don't make a difference thousands of audiophiles may have been victimized. Robert C. Lang P.S. May be we could conduct a poll, unscientific though it may be, on who (and *how*)in this group has been victimized because of speaker break in beliefs. I really would like to know. How about a more interesting one. How many people believe that speakers 'break-in' and how long does it take? I'd agree with you sentiments on cabling. There are far more 'victims' in the sense that cables and other acessories were specifically intended to grab dollars out of the pockets of guys who want to hang out at stereo stores when they weren't in the market for a new amplifier. Y2K predictions of worldwide computer failures and speaker breakin; two non- issues of the millennium. We have evidence that both of these phenomena are Myths. |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
I know that many audiophiles believe that speakers need a period of
break- in to sound their best, while others disagree. This post is a request for those who believe in speaker break-in to provide advice, and it is also request that those who disagree allow those of us they believe to be mistaken to continue in the error of our ways without comment. Dear Wylie, I have worked at 3 loudspeaker companies and/or divisions and been one of the loudspeaker system development engineers for WED Enterprises for EPCOT, Tokyo Disneyland and Euro Disneyland. In many cases loudspeaker break-in is useful. In a few cases loudspeaker performance is all downhill from the first moment it is used. Some of the more esoteric designs like electrostatic, thin-film, Heil AMT loudspeakers or metal diaphragm tweeters or compression drivers, benefit only marginally from a very moderate break-in period and then it's into equilibrium and finally downhill performance for them. While the surround on a loudspeaker can benefit from a break-in period if it is cloth or paper coated with aeroflex, rubber surrounds, polypropelene and foam surrounds don't change much so a very short break-in is all that is needed. But the fabric spiders on most loudspeakers definitely benefit from a longer break-in period. Phenolic resin cone/surround/spider systems also benefit from a substantial break-in period. Bextrene cones can also benefit from a short break-in period. What most designers I know define as "benefit" equates to the loudspeaker having a certain characteristic performance that is then repeatable for a long period of time (usually measured in years). That's why most designers I know don't want to show-off their latest designs until they have beaten on that design for quite a while and they are sure it will sound "the same" for a long period of time so others can audition it. Untreated paper cones and cloth or fiber spiders are the two most variable parts of a loudspeaker design. Those two parts can change quite dramatically over a period of 3 days to about 1 month with heavy use. Most speaker designers I know also like a speaker to be "broken-in" with the kind of program material that will most likely be played through it. But short of a narrow niche market product, most prefer pink noise or swept sine waves or mixed random clock frequencies (best case) as the program material to be used for the break-in. While some loudspeaker designers suggest loud volume break-ins, so they can avoid worst case scenarios most designers think medium levels (90-94 db @1m) do the best job of breaking in loudspeaker spiders and untreated paper cones. Too much "break-in" using very loud levels can put a loudspeaker on the road to extinction pretty quickly. Moderate levels are less likely to ever do that. But it is the lowest frequencies that a driver will produce that break it in the fastest. All the test signal sources I mentioned about cover those ranges very well. Using musical program for break-in can take a period in excess of a month if the program is not wideband or loud enough. On the Cerwin Vega assembly line woofers were routinely run for 20 minutes at 20 hertz with 20 watts of continuous energy in order to "help" them reach equilibrium. At ESS and Marantz there was no break in done at the factory. At Desktop and Disney systems were often run after complete assembly with 20 watts of pink noise for 20 minutes before the public ever heard them because they set-up protocols dictated that. So this means that sometimes people who make decisions about a new speaker may not have heard that item at its best yet. Sometimes it's better to audition a 2 year old pair of somethings from the dealers' showroom rather than a new pair of somethings out of the box when doing an in-home test. Do-it-yourselfers should always precondition component speakers before trying to build a system of their own. And that's also why some of the results from the "ESS Wins on Campus" tests varied slightly as the speakers became more broken-in and consistent in their performance at each new college. And finally, when a speaker is repaired under warranty by the replacement of one single speaker component (out of perhaps 6 or 8), the "new" speaker may sound very strange indeed until it too has been able to break-in. A few speaker companies may "burn-in" their finished speaker systems the way amplifier companies routinely do, but not too many just due to the space constraints. Cerwin Vega and Disney had airplane hangar sized facilities to use and so a little burn-in space could always be found. Desktop had a tiny speaker and so a burn-in room didn't take much space, but companies like B&W or JBL would need a very significant amount of space to use for just burning in speakers if they chose to do that. It might be a good idea because when a dealer takes a new speaker out of the box to demo to a customer, they may or may not make a sale based on sound that might change in the next month. Broken-in speakers would be better to sell assuming they sounded good. Failures in the field would go down too because early speaker failures would be caught during break-in. But it would make broken-in speakers much more expensive and that might reduce their competitiveness so it's a trade off. UNLESS, all buyers have long auditions periods they use to determine which speaker to buy, and then all speaker buyers are willing to break a speaker system "in" for the required time. Life's a series of trade-offs and this is just an good example of how it works. TTG we don't get enough sand in our glass |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... (UnionPac2004) wrote: (Nousaine) wrote: snip (what ever happened to the term mitts?) I don't think anything happened to the term "mitts". There are still baseball gloves, and baseball mitts, and they are still 2 different animals... Jeff Whatever the "popular" usuage, technically the catcher's mitt and first basement's mitt are "mitts" because they do not have separate fingers, but rather a "mitt" and a thumb, laced together. Others are "gloves" because the sport four separate fingers and a thumb. While I've never heard of a catcher's or 1st baseman's "glove" the term mitt seemed to be used universally applied to any form of ball glove as in 'grab your mitt we're going to play' even when nobody owned a catcher's or 1st baseman's mitt. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote
"Nousaine" wrote in message ... (UnionPac2004) wrote: (Nousaine) wrote: snip (what ever happened to the term mitts?) I don't think anything happened to the term "mitts". There are still baseball gloves, and baseball mitts, and they are still 2 different animals... Jeff Whatever the "popular" usuage, technically the catcher's mitt and first basement's mitt are "mitts" because they do not have separate fingers, but rather a "mitt" and a thumb, laced together. Others are "gloves" because the sport four separate fingers and a thumb. Thanks. I'll buy that explanation. While I've never heard of a catcher's or 1st baseman's "glove" the term mitt seemed to be used universally applied to any form of ball glove as in 'grab your mitt we're going to play' even when nobody owned a catcher's or 1st baseman's mitt. No last comments :-) |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message ... (UnionPac2004) wrote: (Nousaine) wrote: snip (what ever happened to the term mitts?) I don't think anything happened to the term "mitts". There are still baseball gloves, and baseball mitts, and they are still 2 different animals... Jeff Whatever the "popular" usuage, technically the catcher's mitt and first basement's mitt are "mitts" because they do not have separate fingers, but rather a "mitt" and a thumb, laced together. Others are "gloves" because the sport four separate fingers and a thumb. Thanks Harry! Exactly the point of my reply to Tom, only you included the definitions. Maybe I took the meaning of Tom's post wrong. I too recall all gloves and mitts being referred to as "mitts" in a generic sense. While I've never heard of a catcher's or 1st baseman's "glove" the term mitt seemed to be used universally applied to any form of ball glove as in 'grab your mitt we're going to play' even when nobody owned a catcher's or 1st baseman's mitt. Now I understand what you meant, Tom. Sorry for my confusion... : ) Jeff |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wylie Williams wrote:
I know that many audiophiles believe that speakers need a period of break-in to sound their best, while others disagree. This post is a request for those who believe in speaker break-in to provide advice, and it is also request that those who disagree allow those of us they believe to be mistaken to continue in the error of our ways without comment. Many pro-audio loudspeaker maufacturers *state* that the Thiele Small parameters they quote are measured after a pre-conditioning period. E.g. http://www.precisiondevices.co.uk/as...s/super/10.pdf read note 3 at the bottom of the data sheet. Graham |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
"watch king" wrote in message ...
Dear Wylie, I have worked at 3 loudspeaker companies and/or divisions and been one of the loudspeaker system development engineers for WED Enterprises for EPCOT, Tokyo Disneyland and Euro Disneyland. In many cases loudspeaker break-in is useful. In a few cases loudspeaker performance is all downhill from the first moment it is used. Some of the more esoteric designs like electrostatic, thin-film, Heil AMT loudspeakers or metal diaphragm tweeters or compression drivers, benefit only marginally from a very moderate break-in period and then it's into equilibrium and finally downhill performance for them. While the surround on a loudspeaker can benefit from a break-in period if it is cloth or paper coated with aeroflex, rubber surrounds, polypropelene and foam surrounds don't change much so a very short break-in is all that is needed. But the fabric spiders on most loudspeakers definitely benefit from a longer break-in period. Phenolic resin cone/surround/spider systems also benefit from a substantial break-in period. Bextrene cones can also benefit from a short break-in period. What most designers I know define as "benefit" equates to the loudspeaker having a certain characteristic performance that is then repeatable for a long period of time (usually measured in years). That's why most designers I know don't want to show-off their latest designs until they have beaten on that design for quite a while and they are sure it will sound "the same" for a long period of time so others can audition it. Untreated paper cones and cloth or fiber spiders are the two most variable parts of a loudspeaker design. Those two parts can change quite dramatically over a period of 3 days to about 1 month with heavy use. I presume you're making assertions about changes in measured characteristics of speakers over time. What measurements do change during break-in, and how much? Most speaker designers I know also like a speaker to be "broken-in" with the kind of program material that will most likely be played through it. But short of a narrow niche market product, most prefer pink noise or swept sine waves or mixed random clock frequencies (best case) as the program material to be used for the break-in. While some loudspeaker designers suggest loud volume break-ins, so they can avoid worst case scenarios most designers think medium levels (90-94 db @1m) do the best job of breaking in loudspeaker spiders and untreated paper cones. Too much "break-in" using very loud levels can put a loudspeaker on the road to extinction pretty quickly. Moderate levels are less likely to ever do that. But it is the lowest frequencies that a driver will produce that break it in the fastest. All the test signal sources I mentioned about cover those ranges very well. Are there really clear differences in measurements of speakers, depending on the signal played through them during their initial use? Using musical program for break-in can take a period in excess of a month if the program is not wideband or loud enough. On the Cerwin Vega assembly line woofers were routinely run for 20 minutes at 20 hertz with 20 watts of continuous energy in order to "help" them reach equilibrium. At ESS and Marantz there was no break in done at the factory. At Desktop and Disney systems were often run after complete assembly with 20 watts of pink noise for 20 minutes before the public ever heard them because they set-up protocols dictated that. So this means that sometimes people who make decisions about a new speaker may not have heard that item at its best yet. Sometimes it's better to audition a 2 year old pair of somethings from the dealers' showroom rather than a new pair of somethings out of the box when doing an in-home test. Do-it-yourselfers should always precondition component speakers before trying to build a system of their own. And that's also why some of the results from the "ESS Wins on Campus" tests varied slightly as the speakers became more broken-in and consistent in their performance at each new college. And finally, when a speaker is repaired under warranty by the replacement of one single speaker component (out of perhaps 6 or 8), the "new" speaker may sound very strange indeed until it too has been able to break-in. A few speaker companies may "burn-in" their finished speaker systems the way amplifier companies routinely do, They do? Then why do they tell consumers that we have to burn in their products? but not too many just due to the space constraints. Cerwin Vega and Disney had airplane hangar sized facilities to use and so a little burn-in space could always be found. Desktop had a tiny speaker and so a burn-in room didn't take much space, but companies like B&W or JBL would need a very significant amount of space to use for just burning in speakers if they chose to do that. It might be a good idea because when a dealer takes a new speaker out of the box to demo to a customer, they may or may not make a sale based on sound that might change in the next month. Broken-in speakers would be better to sell assuming they sounded good. Failures in the field would go down too because early speaker failures would be caught during break-in. But it would make broken-in speakers much more expensive and that might reduce their competitiveness so it's a trade off. UNLESS, all buyers have long auditions periods they use to determine which speaker to buy, and then all speaker buyers are willing to break a speaker system "in" for the required time. Life's a series of trade-offs and this is just an good example of how it works. TTG Speakers are mechanical, so break-in is at least plausible. But I've yet to see any real evidence that any physical changes that occur with initial use (as opposed to long-term decay) are sufficient to cause audible differences. Given your assertions above, I'd expect you to have such evidence. Do you? bob |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
"UnionPac2004" wrote in message
... (Nousaine) wrote: While I've never heard of a catcher's or 1st baseman's "glove" the term mitt seemed to be used universally applied to any form of ball glove as in 'grab your mitt we're going to play' even when nobody owned a catcher's or 1st baseman's mitt. When I was a kid, I was the only one to have a catcher's mitt in my neighborhood (Rawlings Johnny Bench). We had no protective gear (mask, pads) and I was the only one nuts enough to play catcher when we played hardball (softball was for sissies). Obviously not the brightest crayon in the box... : ) So you can answer a question that has burning in me for years....does losing all your teeth hurt your high-end hearing?? :-) |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
"UnionPac2004" wrote in message ... (Nousaine) wrote: While I've never heard of a catcher's or 1st baseman's "glove" the term mitt seemed to be used universally applied to any form of ball glove as in 'grab your mitt we're going to play' even when nobody owned a catcher's or 1st baseman's mitt. When I was a kid, I was the only one to have a catcher's mitt in my neighborhood (Rawlings Johnny Bench). We had no protective gear (mask, pads) and I was the only one nuts enough to play catcher when we played hardball (softball was for sissies). Obviously not the brightest crayon in the box... : ) So you can answer a question that has burning in me for years....does losing all your teeth hurt your high-end hearing?? :-) My high-end hearing seems to be unaffected. On the other hand, I do have a tendency to vacantly stare off into space. I also seem prone to drooling more than most other folks... ; ) |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Do speakers "break in" ? | Car Audio | |||
| cheap refoam loudspeaker kit? | Tech | |||
| Stereoplie Recommended Components help | High End Audio | |||
| Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
| Bush threatens to break his father's record | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
