| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
speaker cable burn in.
Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start.
Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your experiences? Bare OFC 5N + PVC +48hrs Bare OFC 4N + PE about 1 hour ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st) |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
"chris" wrote in message
... Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start. Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your experiences? Bare OFC 5N + PVC +48hrs Bare OFC 4N + PE about 1 hour ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st) I have heard half convincing arguments for speaker burn in, i.e. the suspension becomes more flexible with use I reply how does the manufacturer guarantee the final result. But I can see now way that the performance of any form of wire will change with normal use. John D |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
"chris" wrote in message
... /cut/ ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st) Silver + Teflon shielding (FPE, or better) with some internal mylar shielding of different silver gauges and air as dialectric may take up to 400+ hrs, from my experience. The sound goes thru obvious changes, and after I've already begun thinking the burn-in period was over, there still were some change: not in sound character, but in more subtle way. Silver of some complicated weave geometry takes about the 600+ hrs, but all the measured time is not the 'burn-in only' period measured: so don't take it for granted. Of course, these are my own findings, in my system and may not prove as 'standard': so take it only for what it's worth. Respekt, J. -- The difference between Theory and Practice is much greater in Practice than it is in Theory. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
"Henrik" wrote in message
... "John Deans" wrote in message ... "chris" wrote in message ... Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start. Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your experiences? Bare OFC 5N + PVC +48hrs Bare OFC 4N + PE about 1 hour ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st) I have heard half convincing arguments for speaker burn in, i.e. the suspension becomes more flexible with use I reply how does the manufacturer guarantee the final result. But I can see now way that the performance of any form of wire will change with normal use. John D I do not see it. I´m certain that these experiences are not in any kind related to the cable. Instead, it's the speaker that changes its resonance frequency, "Fs", to the specified (lower) value. Just as you first said, John. Quite audiable on a new speaker setup. The difference is first noticed in the bass. After measurements a friend of mine did a couple of years ago, on a common 12" driver, there was a change from Fs=33 Hz (brand new) to Fs=26Hz (as specified in datasheet), after a night's playing. Henrik OK, but my main cause for concern is that can a manufacturer guarantee the final parameters of a driver after this burn in was the post burn in parameter measured immediately after the burn in period when the driver may still have been warm or had the driver been left fore several hours to cool down. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
They do just that, they operate them. The best makers extensively test
their designs and do excelerated aging tests to produce drivers that both meet their specs when in real use and stand the test of time. There is no other way to do it as they or any other system just doesn't work on the first go as designed from paper initially. All designs are tested and revised accordingly to meet their design goals more closely. As makers get more experience, they gather more evidence and can refer to that rather than start from scratch at each attempt as a novice, hobbyist or upstart might. They don't share their hard earned secrets either so those that can't duplicate their efforts simply dispute them. Try making your own simple pair of two way speakers from a textbook example and you will see the light, not hear it... - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "John Deans" wrote in message ... "chris" wrote in message ... Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start. Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your experiences? Bare OFC 5N + PVC +48hrs Bare OFC 4N + PE about 1 hour ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st) I have heard half convincing arguments for speaker burn in, i.e. the suspension becomes more flexible with use I reply how does the manufacturer guarantee the final result. But I can see now way that the performance of any form of wire will change with normal use. John D |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
John Deans wrote:
"chris" wrote in message ... Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start. Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your experiences? How long does it take to break in your TV antenna? What about your electric shaver? What about your lightbulbs? Burn-in doesn't exist. Any problems you have are either in your mind or are your ears adjusting to the sound. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Colin wrote: (Nousaine) wrote in message ... "chris" wrote: Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start. Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your experiences? Bare OFC 5N + PVC +48hrs Bare OFC 4N + PE about 1 hour ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st) My experience is that speakers do not burn-in and wires do not burn-in. Unless they're driven so hard they become fuses. The only case of serious burn-in I've encountered was a melted cone and seriously rubbing voice coil of a 6.5-inch woofer under EIA 426-B conditions. That ain't breaking -in it's breaking !!! Couldn't this "break in" just be our own ears and brain getting use too a new characteristic of the speakers or wires. I've heard that speakers do break in though, the rubber and other material the makes up the cone and connects the cone to the frame of the driver may loosen up abit. Right. For sepakers, though, it is maybe a day at most. More likely an hour from new. Once the surrounds are softened up and it's working properly, anything you still hear is defects. Surrounds do not soften up. It is true that common spiders de-stiffen when first used but that happens the first time the speaker is excercised, usually at QC on the assembly line. It is true that raw drivers when stored on their backs may need to recenter (gravity effect) but this takes a few seconds at most; and how many people store their towers on their backs  But your mind will filter out all but the grossest inaccuracies given a week or two of adjustment time. Agreed. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
news:CYWOa.18944$ye4.16410@sccrnsc01... John Deans wrote: "chris" wrote in message ... Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start. Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your experiences? How long does it take to break in your TV antenna? What about your electric shaver? What about your lightbulbs? Burn-in doesn't exist. Any problems you have are either in your mind or are your ears adjusting to the sound. I agree. I ran a group-theoretic metaheauristic to measure sound dispersion after a considerable break-in period of a couple of integrated amps and found the measurements inconclusive. Logically, the only component that might actually need break-in are the speakers - since the cones need some loosening up. Extending Oberlander's argument - what about cellphones, alarm clocks and cameras? I have a background in electrical engineering and the idea of a cable break-in just doesn't seem to make any sense. A cable's conductive properties depend on its composition. A cable might sound different after several hundred hours of 'break-in' if it undergoes a change in its chemical composition. And I don't think you'll find that passing a current through a copper cable will significantly change its composition in a few (hundred) hours. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
After being an audiophile for 25 years I worked in my audio store for 22
years and I have some experience with break-in of speakers. I found that some speakers sounded disappointingly harsh and thin when new, so in my store we started breaking them in so we could make them sound their best. Depending on the models they sounded deeper, warmer ,and smoother with continued play until a certain point was reached, depending on the speaker. And, no, it was not getting that we were getting accustomed to the sound because we did not listen to the speakers while they were being broken in. We di it three ways: we played them loud overnight on FM while the store was closed, or we used CDs (including some "break-in" and CDs with bass test frequencies), or we ran the speakers off the lower voltage taps of a transformer. For this we set up the speakers in a receiving shed, put them face to face, connected them out of phase and let them rip for a week or so. We proved to ourselves time after time that break in is a reality for speakers, some more so than others, and more important usually on the better speakers, especially the ones with butyl surrounds. As for wire break in, that too is real, though not always dramatic. My most dramatic personal experience was when using 25 foot silver coated speaker wire in my home. The first listen was dreadful. Extremely and unlistenably harsh. At that time I was already a believer in cable break in and I had a device called a cable enhancer that used a proprietary test tone to break in cables and interconnects. After 10 days of break in I found the cables to be vastly inproved. My wife, an impartial observer, had hated the cables first time. When I played them after break in she said she liked the sound and asked what I had changed. She was amazed that the cables that had been so dreadful were now an improvement over my previous speaker wire. I'm not selling anything. Having insufficient technical background I don't know why cable and speaker break in work beneficially. But break in is real for everything in audio as far as I can tell, although it's not always easy to tell. The situation in a store let us listen and compare the same music on the same sets of speakers so often that we could easily tell changes. Wylie "chris" wrote in message ... Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start. Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your experiences? Bare OFC 5N + PVC +48hrs Bare OFC 4N + PE about 1 hour ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st) |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
Wylie Williams wrote:
After being an audiophile for 25 years I worked in my audio store for 22 years and I have some experience with break-in of speakers. I found that some speakers sounded disappointingly harsh and thin when new, so in my store we started breaking them in so we could make them sound their best. Depending on the models they sounded deeper, warmer ,and smoother with continued play until a certain point was reached, depending on the speaker. And, no, it was not getting that we were getting accustomed to the sound because we did not listen to the speakers while they were being broken in. You're expecting them to sound ''bad' at first and 'better' when you're done. Amazingly enough, they do. But the question remains, was the change in the speakers or in your 'attitude'? We di it three ways: we played them loud overnight on FM while the store was closed, or we used CDs (including some "break-in" and CDs with bass test frequencies), or we ran the speakers off the lower voltage taps of a transformer. For this we set up the speakers in a receiving shed, put them face to face, connected them out of phase and let them rip for a week or so. We proved to ourselves time after time that break in is a reality for speakers, some more so than others, and more important usually on the better speakers, especially the ones with butyl surrounds. Your standards of proof appear to be somewhat less than rigorous. As for wire break in, that too is real, though not always dramatic. My most dramatic personal experience was when using 25 foot silver coated speaker wire in my home. The first listen was dreadful. Extremely and unlistenably harsh. At that time I was already a believer in cable break in and I had a device called a cable enhancer that used a proprietary test tone to break in cables and interconnects. After 10 days of break in I found the cables to be vastly inproved. My wife, an impartial observer, had hated the cables first time. When I played them after break in she said she liked the sound and asked what I had changed. She was amazed that the cables that had been so dreadful were now an improvement over my previous speaker wire. Classic. I'm not selling anything. Having insufficient technical background I don't know why cable and speaker break in work beneficially. You worked in audio for 22 years and you never bothered to investigate *why* this extraordinary phenomenon might be occurring? But break in is real for everything in audio as far as I can tell, although it's not always easy to tell. The situation in a store let us listen and compare the same music on the same sets of speakers so often that we could easily tell changes. Did you ever, even once, do the comparisons in a controlled fashion, in all that time? |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Wylie Williams wrote: snip You worked in audio for 22 years and you never bothered to investigate *why* this extraordinary phenomenon might be occurring? But break in is real for everything in audio as far as I can tell, although it's not always easy to tell. The situation in a store let us listen and compare the same music on the same sets of speakers so often that we could easily tell changes. Did you ever, even once, do the comparisons in a controlled fashion, in all that time? I am a wire break-in skeptic myself. In fact, I might extend that skepticism to all solid state electronics. My local Radio Shack doesn't tell me to break in my cellphone or TV remote control before using it. I have two degrees in electrical engineering and I've never heard of break-in periods for electronic devices (microprocessors, computers, multimeters or microwave ovens). Yes, you do have break-in periods for mechanical devices, but then a piece of wire has no moving parts (disregarding those pesky electrons). Until the contacts or the wire itself undergo some change in chemical composition that would distill the sound in a different manner, the cable should be broken in in about 0.0000000101010101010 seconds for a 10-ft pair. And no amplifier current is going to change the chemistry of the wire in a few hours. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
snip
You're expecting them to sound ''bad' at first and 'better' when you're done. Amazingly enough, they do. But the question remains, was the change in the speakers or in your 'attitude'? I don't know that expectation bias plays *that* significant a role in the "notion" of speaker break-in. From my own experience, I've found that several pairs of *used* (one pair with hundreds of hours playing time on them) and/or *floor demo* speakers exhibited the same break-in phenomenon when I got them home. For my experiences, clearly the "break-in" required was a function of *my* adaptation to the differing sound of the new speakers, and *not* a function of physical changes in the speakers' performance. Certainly, not having done any associated measurements, I make no claims about the possible mechanical changes that *may* occur in use, but given the magnitude of the adaptation requirements I've found, for me personally, I doubt any such mechanical changes that may exist are of relative significance. Keith Hughes |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
Steve,
Actually I didn't use the words "bad" or "better" so quotes are not inappropriate. I said that "I found that some speakers sounded disappointingly harsh and thin when new". Nowhere did I say that that I expected them to sound that way. I found that out by listening. Did the speakers change, or was it just my attitude? I always thought it was the speakers that changed, but then nobody knows the depths of their own mind. I may mention that many of my independent minded argumentative young salesmen who loved to have a contrary opinion heard the same thing. Or maybe their attitude changed. My "standards of proof appear to be somewhat less than rigorous". I admit that am not a scientist doing rigorous testing. I'm just a person telling what I have found to be so for the general information of the group. No, I never "investigated". Nor performed controlled tests. I listened a lot to alot of various stuff.. I thought about it and formed some conclusions, but my conclusions are the sort of personal unproved speculation that I would not pass to the group. Similarly I have a computer that works. I don't know how or why, and I will never investigate why; I'm just convinced that it does and am willing to say so without further investigation. Wylie Williams "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Wylie Williams wrote: After being an audiophile for 25 years I worked in my audio store for 22 years and I have some experience with break-in of speakers. I found that some speakers sounded disappointingly harsh and thin when new, so in my store we started breaking them in so we could make them sound their best. Depending on the models they sounded deeper, warmer ,and smoother with continued play until a certain point was reached, depending on the speaker. And, no, it was not getting that we were getting accustomed to the sound because we did not listen to the speakers while they were being broken in. You're expecting them to sound ''bad' at first and 'better' when you're done. Amazingly enough, they do. But the question remains, was the change in the speakers or in your 'attitude'? We di it three ways: we played them loud overnight on FM while the store was closed, or we used CDs (including some "break-in" and CDs with bass test frequencies), or we ran the speakers off the lower voltage taps of a transformer. For this we set up the speakers in a receiving shed, put them face to face, connected them out of phase and let them rip for a week or so. We proved to ourselves time after time that break in is a reality for speakers, some more so than others, and more important usually on the better speakers, especially the ones with butyl surrounds. Your standards of proof appear to be somewhat less than rigorous. As for wire break in, that too is real, though not always dramatic. My most dramatic personal experience was when using 25 foot silver coated speaker wire in my home. The first listen was dreadful. Extremely and unlistenably harsh. At that time I was already a believer in cable break in and I had a device called a cable enhancer that used a proprietary test tone to break in cables and interconnects. After 10 days of break in I found the cables to be vastly inproved. My wife, an impartial observer, had hated the cables first time. When I played them after break in she said she liked the sound and asked what I had changed. She was amazed that the cables that had been so dreadful were now an improvement over my previous speaker wire. Classic. I'm not selling anything. Having insufficient technical background I don't know why cable and speaker break in work beneficially. You worked in audio for 22 years and you never bothered to investigate *why* this extraordinary phenomenon might be occurring? But break in is real for everything in audio as far as I can tell, although it's not always easy to tell. The situation in a store let us listen and compare the same music on the same sets of speakers so often that we could easily tell changes. Did you ever, even once, do the comparisons in a controlled fashion, in all that time? |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
Wylie Williams wrote:
Steve, Actually I didn't use the words "bad" or "better" so quotes are not inappropriate. I said that "I found that some speakers sounded disappointingly harsh and thin when new". Nowhere did I say that that I expected them to sound that way. I found that out by listening. Did the speakers change, or was it just my attitude? I always thought it was the speakers that changed, but then nobody knows the depths of their own mind. I may mention that many of my independent minded argumentative young salesmen who loved to have a contrary opinion heard the same thing. Or maybe their attitude changed. I think it's safe to say that you thought they sounded bad at first, then they sounded better after break in, yes? I wasn't there at these trials, and you're recounting them considerably afte rthe fact. Once you've decided that speakers *can* sound bad out of the box but better after break in (and where did you get this idea in the first place?) then there's expectation involved. And when comparisons aren't done independently, then there's always the chance for influence ("'Now, doesn't this speaker sound so much better after break-in', said one salesman to another"). My "standards of proof appear to be somewhat less than rigorous". I admit that am not a scientist doing rigorous testing. I'm just a person telling what I have found to be so for the general information of the group. And I'm just a person reading and responding to your post. No, I never "investigated". Nor performed controlled tests. I listened a lot to alot of various stuff.. I thought about it and formed some conclusions, but my conclusions are the sort of personal unproved speculation that I would not pass to the group. I think you already passed on some conclusions, or maybe they're assumptions...those are what I was responding to. Similarly I have a computer that works. I don't know how or why, and I will never investigate why; I'm just convinced that it does and am willing to say so without further investigation. But if you were to investigate, you'd find that there's sound engineering and scientific reasons why a computer does what it does. No one seems to be able come up with such reasons why or how cables or speakers would need to 'break in'. (Or why computers *don't* need to break in , if so.) |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
Keith A. Hughes wrote:
snip You're expecting them to sound ''bad' at first and 'better' when you're done. Amazingly enough, they do. But the question remains, was the change in the speakers or in your 'attitude'? I don't know that expectation bias plays *that* significant a role in the "notion" of speaker break-in. From my own experience, I've found that several pairs of *used* (one pair with hundreds of hours playing time on them) and/or *floor demo* speakers exhibited the same break-in phenomenon when I got them home. For my experiences, clearly the "break-in" required was a function of *my* adaptation to the differing sound of the new speakers, and *not* a function of physical changes in the speakers' performance. But AIUI in the case reported, there was one listening session prior to an extended break-in period (where noise was used to do the breaking-in), followed by the second listening session. DUring the first hearing the speakers were pronounced bad and on second hearing they were pronounced 'broken in'. Since AIUI no listening took place during the actual break-in regime, expectation, rather than adaptation, would seem to be acting. Of course, when 'break-in' involves an extended period of listening to music, then adapatation is what's taking place. -- -S. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
My observation is that much of the high end advancement seems to have been
made by making changes that the best educated people say are not appreciable improvements.Who can you trust to know what is better? Listeners or engineer/scientists? Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other. I remember several McIntosh tube owners I knew who switched to the new improved transistors. All the EEs said transistors were an advancement. Now there are a few contrary opinions in that regard. . As for the cable enhancer it isn't fair to judge a product because the salesman failed to make his point. Even the best products are sold by incompetents or con men at times, but the pitch doesn't affect the product, just your attitude. In an almost related context I recall reading that in the early days electricity was thought to be a vapor in the air called effluvium. Somehow they figured out how to store it in a "condenser". Now the effluvium theory is discredited . However condensers (now called capacitiors) work just the same as before, only with a new theory. The words did not affect reality at all. I just wish to share my experience; feel free to prefer your own opinion. Wylie Williams "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Wylie Williams" wrote: .....large snips..... As for wire break in, that too is real, though not always dramatic. My most dramatic personal experience was when using 25 foot silver coated speaker wire in my home. The first listen was dreadful. Extremely and unlistenably harsh. At that time I was already a believer in cable break in and I had a device called a cable enhancer that used a proprietary test tone to break in cables and interconnects. After 10 days of break in I found the cables to be vastly inproved. My wife, an impartial observer, had hated the cables first time. Ah the Cable Enhancer. This product brings back an anecdote that some might find interesting about misinterpretation of data and how bias and hidden assumptions are introduced in listening sessions. At a CES a few years ago I walked into a display where the Cable Ehancer was being exhibited. I spent a moment and decided to leave, but the exhibitor snagged me by the collar and said that I just "had" to listen to wires 'enhanced' by this device. Sensing an odor of bovine feces I said OK but asked that he start with the best possible material so the 'differences' would be most dramatic right from the start. In the meantime a writer for another magazine had appeared in the exhibit. So the demonstration began with me, him and a 3rd party whom I didn't know as listeners. The Exhibitor held up two sets interconnects one which was said the be new and other had been broken-in overnight with the Enhancer. One set was hooked up to this cd player and we listened for 2-3 minutes. Then the other set was installed and we repeated the test for roughly the same duration. (Recall this was with, what was agreed to be the most dramatic programming.) The Exhibitor then asked expectantly "what did you think?" One of the other listeners thought the 1st one sounded 'better' while the other said that the 2nd sounded better. I said they sounded the same to me, which they did. The Exhibitor then said "Let's try again with BETTER program material" and he repeated the test. This time the other two had reversed opinions about which sounded 'better' and they still sounded the same to me. So....we did it one more time and both the other listeners agreed that the 2nd alternative sounded 'better.' My answer was the same as before. Because this time the enhanced cable was said to sound 'better' the demo was finished and the others began chatting animatedly about cable-enhancement and I sneaked out. Well we've all been in simialr situations before but I was surprised to read in the other guy's column a few months later that he had been 'amazed' that this demo had shown the Cable Enhancer was able to 'change' the sound quality of wire. But there was no evidence of that from the event. Of course, there were no bias controls employed. We had not been officially informed of which cable was enhanced and which was not, but it wasn't too hard tofigure that out....the demo ended when the 'right' answers were given. But, even so, the differences were not such that the 1st run with the already agreed upon 'best' program had inconclusive results. The Exhibitor agreed to use his best stuff first. When that didn't get the right response then he resorted to "better" programs. Furthermore the test only ran long enough to get the 'right' answer. Once that was garnered no more data was gathered and all that went before was ignored. Let's dredge the data. We had no statistical evidence that a real difference was heard; opposing responses on the first 2 trials and 'no difference' on 3 trials. The chances of getting 2/3 to give the same response when 2 identical sound presentations are given is practically assured. So wrong answers were ignored. No difference, the most radically wrong response, answers were ignored. Only the proper responses are accepted. I see the same kind of thing happen when people will try to negotiate differences in demonstrations. "We'll maybe you didn't hear the suave midrange but surely the lack of hoodedness in the lower treble was clearly audible" is the kind of thing I see all the time in group demonstrations or sales presentations. But my point here is that wires don't break-in, speakers don't break-in and nothing in audio breaks-in except lps and they ain't breakin'-in they're wearing out. But, it's easy to convince yourself otherwise. But even if there were a break-in process components would naturally break-in anyway. If break-in makes you feel better go ahead but observe caution with speakers. The speaker break-in procedure of feeding a pair of speaker placed face-to-face and wired in reverse polarity with noise is potentially dangerous. It's not that hard to drive them hard enough and long enough to cause the voice coil glue to heat up and bubble in the gap. Be careful. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
Wylie Williams wrote:
Steve, Actually I didn't use the words "bad" or "better" so quotes are not inappropriate. I said that "I found that some speakers sounded disappointingly harsh and thin when new". Nowhere did I say that that I expected them to sound that way. I found that out by listening. Did the speakers change, or was it just my attitude? I always thought it was the speakers that changed, but then nobody knows the depths of their own mind. I may mention that many of my independent minded argumentative young salesmen who loved to have a contrary opinion heard the same thing. Or maybe their attitude changed. It is a known fact that the human mind will work like an equalizer on sound input and listen a bit harder for certain areas and detune for others once we get enough exposure to the sound. Case in point - people who have a grandfather clock. I had one growing up and to this day still walk all around my parents house and cannot hear the thing chiming - I have permanently tuned it out. People also tune out airplanes and freeway noise. They also tune in specifics like their kids crying and TV programs in a noisy environment. Break-in is very real. The source of it is your mind and not the hardware. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote: Wylie Williams wrote: I'm not selling anything. Having insufficient technical background I don't know why cable and speaker break in work beneficially. You worked in audio for 22 years and you never bothered to investigate *why* this extraordinary phenomenon might be occurring? More importantly, why has the phenomenon of wire break-in NEVER been observed in ANY field otherv than by a few casual observer under completely uncontrolled condition in an "industry" that is the backwater of backwaters. WHy has this phenomenon NEVER been observed, much less quantified, in areas that deal with signals FAR more fragile than audio signals? -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
chris wrote:
I agree the actual loudspeaker is a highly complex piece of flexible engineering (theirs science in the olde wind waggling motors :=AC) and = the different parts of its construction will work harden or soften over a p= eriod of usage. This takes years and is a sign of shoddy design and quality of materials. The surrounds if foam will degrade half a dozen times before the drivers wear out, in any case. Barring abuse. Thrashing your coils and bottoming them out even once can horribly mangle the speaker's sound. Some speakers survive it and some do not. Does an aluminium cone harden with the work of moving the air about?=20 No, actually, Aluminum MAY be an exception to the rule as it is known to take flexing until a specific point where it suffers sudden failure. This is a well known effect on racing bikes - lightweight, but it fails over time. Paper softens.=20 Properly treated and stored/cared for paper is good. The cones are 99% of the time made from acid-free paper and coated for durability. I've seen 1000+ year old treated parchment that is almost as good as new. In a person's 20-30 year typical listening/ownership period, the cabinet and crossover and surrounds will fall apart faster. I've seen some old tannoy (guess cira 1960's) ali coned speakers fetch very high $'s on ebay, so they must still be good. Properly made - just fine. Needs some updating of crossover parts and new surrounds - easy to do. Another thing people don't think about: - Over-stressed and over-heated components will sound differently. - Over-stressed capacitors WILL affect the sound as they start to fail. This means if you pummel your speakers, expect the crossovers to die quickly. Not to mention outright crud capacitors. There is a firm in Taiwan that made a batch that got into thousands of components and motherboards - and they have a 80% leaking ratio. Lastly - I think most of the "break-in" myth was started by people in the 70's and 80's listening to Alcino magnet speakers. They do moniceably change their sound and suffer greatly over time AND if driven too hard - even for a few hours. Widely known. I can imagine people really hearing their speakers suffering and thinking it was "breaking in" - when it was really just getting less precise and a bit fuzzier and muted. Take a computer monitor. Display TV signals on it. It looks grainy and bad due to the image being too precise. Now, turn to contrast and focus down a bit and presto - it blurs just enough to look good. Of course, modern speakers don't generally use Alcino magnets, so break-in is a myth. That's one thing new technology has done for us in audio - gotten rid of crud like that. I've also seen some complex laser stress patterns in the actual cones j= ust reproducing sine/square/triangular waves, when playing music it gets me= ga complex, and the bits of the cones move at different rates and the poor "rubber" suspension has to cope with the whole lot. Again, stressing it to failure mode or bottoming out the coils - well - that's damage and not "breaking in" - merely "broken". As for rubber, there IS a problem that people overlook. Ozone. High smog areas will degrade the surrounds on your speakers in as little as a *year*. This also can blur the sound a bit and make it sound more "mellow" - thereby masking flaws and such. But in all cases I listed, it is really changes that are due to the components *failing* to work at new specs anymore. "Break-in" shold really be called "Break-down". They'd sell more speakers IMO, if they started to promote that speakers needed to be repaired and replaced every decade or so - because for most cheap speakers, it's true. With composite materials it must be worse (but according to my ears it seems to sounds better) but that is probably why the manufactures spend= all that money in R&D. Composites offer great performance - strength, flexability, and light weight. If properly made, they will last at least 20-30 years. Of course, get the mix wrong, as with any new technology and who knows when it will fail. Carbon-fiber, for instance, is a miracle material for most things it is used for - strong, light, and easily formable whatever shape you require. The original thread was to try and get some data from everyone on their "experience of the running in" of speaker cables. I know the concept is controversial, but I wondered if their was a correlation between the materials used in their construction and the time before they "settled = down" Nope. More likely your upstream and downstream components are degrading due to some other factor if anything real is happening. 95% of the time, though, it is your mind. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Lastly - I think most of the "break-in" myth was started by people in the 70's and 80's listening to Alcino magnet speakers. Well I think Alnico was well out of the picture by then, by and large. I bought a pair of 8" full range Wharfedale speakers in the early 1960's that had large ceramic magnets, and I think Alnico was only a niche market by the 1970's. Gilbert W. Briggs, founder of Wharfedale, wrote a book about loudspeakers back in the 1950's and was already talking about speaker break in at that time. I read it in the Public Library - alas it has long been lost from the collection. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
In article ,
Joseph Oberlander wrote: chris wrote: I've seen some old tannoy (guess cira 1960's) ali coned speakers fetch very high $'s on ebay, so they must still be good. Properly made - just fine. Needs some updating of crossover parts and new surrounds - easy to do. I own some University 315-C's made ca 1960; surrounds are cloth. No problems with either the cones or surrounds. I had to repair a Jensen G610B many years ago when the back-to-back electrolytics used as crossover caps failed. Lastly - I think most of the "break-in" myth was started by people in the 70's and 80's listening to Alcino magnet speakers. They do Bookshelf speakers from the 70's and 80's used ferrite magnets, and not AlNiCo. Professional speakers from the 60's, at least, used AlNiCo magnet structures and I doubt that they changed much over time. Mike Squires -- Mike Squires ) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564 (h) 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408 |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
|
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote: Lastly - I think most of the "break-in" myth was started by people in the 70's and 80's listening to Alcino magnet speakers. Well I think Alnico was well out of the picture by then, by and large. I bought a pair of 8" full range Wharfedale speakers in the early 1960's that had large ceramic magnets, and I think Alnico was only a niche market by the 1970's. Gilbert W. Briggs, founder of Wharfedale, wrote a book about loudspeakers back in the 1950's and was already talking about speaker break in at that time. I read it in the Public Library - alas it has long been lost from the collection. Interesting. I lost a URL years ago to an article about Alcino magnets and how they degrade. They took a pair of old JBL speakers and tested them after replacing the drivers with new ones. They changed their sound in days if driven too hard. Of course, re-magnetizing them fixed this, but the change was not imaginary. I know that JBL and a few others held onto this technology all through the 70's and into the first few years of the 80's. Also, in the 50's and 60's, it was not uncommon to have less than optimal capacitors and crossovers, as well as surrounds. Thankfully, this was less of a problem a decade or two later. Briggs was likely hearing changes due to this and the other reasons I listed if anything at all. Note - 95% or more of "break in" is mental, but sometimes speakers do develop changes in sound due to "breaking down". |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
Tom said
The "high-end" has never made an 'advancement' in sound quality. They merely package current technology in different ways (sometimes grossly incompetent ways) or simply make merchandising/marketing claims for it. I said I think that one can find plenty of advancement in sound quality from the likes of Martin Logan, Vandersteen, Rockport, VPI, Forsell, Clearaudio, Koetsu, SME, Oracle,Sound Lab, Reference Recordings, Shefield Labs, Waterlily, Wilson Audio and many other high end companies regardless of your beliefs on the audibilities of amplifiers and cables. Tom said I'd love to argue this but NONE of the companies you list make amplifiers nor have conntributed materially to improvements in amp-sound (mostly because there haven't been any I thought you said "The 'high-end' has never made an 'advancement' in sound quality. They merely package current technology in different ways (sometimes grossly incompetent ways) or simply make merchandising/marketing claims for it. " The companies I listed are, to my knowledge, all considered to be "high end" companies that you claim none of which have made an advancement in sound quality. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
In article ,
chris wrote: Does an aluminium cone harden with the work of moving the air about? Paper softens. I've seen some old tannoy (guess cira 1960's) ali coned speakers fetch very high $'s on ebay, so they must still be good. Yeah, well I saw a Nikon 35mm F/1.4 non-AI lens with a jammed focussing helicoid and serious cleaning scratches on the front lens finally for TWICE what a brand new AIS with modern coatings lists for. I later communicated with the seller, who was dumbfounded that anyone would in their right mind pay more than $25 for it, which was my bid. The fact that some idiot is willing to pay more than good money for something is NO indication that it's any good. The fact that an entire group of idots will do the same, well, is merely depressing. I've also seen some complex laser stress patterns in the actual cones just reproducing sine/square/triangular waves, when playing music it gets mega complex, Wanna bet? Monsieur Fourier would suggest that this is not the case. and the bits of the cones move at different rates and the poor "rubber" suspension has to cope with the whole lot. With composite materials it must be worse Why? (but according to my ears it seems to sounds better) but that is probably why the manufactures spend all that money in R&D. Actually very little money is specnt, in the grand scheme of things, on such R&D. I recall, for example, "repeating" some simply experiments in cone shape and thickness tapering, experiements that were seemingly obvious, and got a bunch of interesting results. Interesting in the sense that no one else had reported them. On talking to a number of engineers at major driver companies, I was somewhat shocked to learn that NOBODY had done such experiments, as elementary as they were. Their "R&D" was to ASSUME such-and-such behavior, and they were, for the most part, wrong. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaker cable burn in.
Richard D Pierce wrote:
Actually very little money is specnt, in the grand scheme of things, on such R&D. I recall, for example, "repeating" some simply experiments in cone shape and thickness tapering, experiements that were seemingly obvious, and got a bunch of interesting results. Interesting in the sense that no one else had reported them. On talking to a number of engineers at major driver companies, I was somewhat shocked to learn that NOBODY had done such experiments, as elementary as they were. Their "R&D" was to ASSUME such-and-such behavior, and they were, for the most part, wrong. Materials testing would be the FIRST thing a good engineer would focus on. I theory, for instance, wood would be a great driver material - but unless someone comes up with a micron-thick laminating process... The best musical instruments are made from it, afterall. But a good engineer would at least try a few things. Maybe a certain oval shape. Maybe a bit thicker at the edges. Maybe two materials or something you'd not think of like maybe aluminum for surrounds or making more than one port in the box. Who knows - it may give you unexpected results that are better. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Bose 901 Review | General | |||
| My equipment review of the Bose 901 | Audio Opinions | |||
| cabling explained | Car Audio | |||
| Seeking advice on speaker cable | General | |||
| Seeking advice on speaker cable | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
