Banned
Joined 2002
My newest of audio. 
Still lots of break in time left to do.
Still lots of break in time left to do.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
jleaman said:My newest of audio.
Still lots of break in time left to do.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
pretty boxes
Banned
Joined 2002
I hope no one is doubting that. To scoff at break-in is to deprive yourself of what the driver can do by listening too much, too early. I was having fun with auplater's question of how do you know when they are "done" I don't know if there is a more correct answer than mine, although some may argue that it is when the T/S parameters settle in and stop changing.
Personally I believe there are two components to break-in and only one of them has to do with the driver.
Personally I believe there are two components to break-in and only one of them has to do with the driver.
break-in (so what?)
I figured it was tempting bait...
I've always wondered about the pro/con break-in argument. Never quite figured out why it mattered, since I've always listened to my speakers for hundreds of hours anyway, whether new or old.
Plus, with the sensitivity to room placement, quality of reproduced source material, etc., breakin seems to be the least of one's worries.
I recall several heated exchanges on RAHE, etc. years ago with Tom Nousaine, Dick Pierce, John Dunlavy etc. all wondering why it mattered. I tended to agree with them as well, especially wrt if there is a "correct" break in method (as in oppositely wired woofers playing 30 Hz sinewaves at maximum excursion for 20 hrs., etc)... what's the point?
Afa t/l paramaters settling in, it seems somewhat of an academic exercise, unless one is trying to meet the theoretical absolute perfection of a given design (unobtainium, holy grail, that sort of thing) Being of the materials science sort, I'd agree that spiders/surrounds/insulation probably change with flexion and heat, but then again, it's gonna happen anyway.
just my 2sense (sic)
John L.
I figured it was tempting bait...
I've always wondered about the pro/con break-in argument. Never quite figured out why it mattered, since I've always listened to my speakers for hundreds of hours anyway, whether new or old.
Plus, with the sensitivity to room placement, quality of reproduced source material, etc., breakin seems to be the least of one's worries.
I recall several heated exchanges on RAHE, etc. years ago with Tom Nousaine, Dick Pierce, John Dunlavy etc. all wondering why it mattered. I tended to agree with them as well, especially wrt if there is a "correct" break in method (as in oppositely wired woofers playing 30 Hz sinewaves at maximum excursion for 20 hrs., etc)... what's the point?
Afa t/l paramaters settling in, it seems somewhat of an academic exercise, unless one is trying to meet the theoretical absolute perfection of a given design (unobtainium, holy grail, that sort of thing) Being of the materials science sort, I'd agree that spiders/surrounds/insulation probably change with flexion and heat, but then again, it's gonna happen anyway.
just my 2sense (sic)
John L.
Cal Weldon said:
If the loudspeakers in general are better (say you've tweaked a pair) then they were before, yet somewhat considerably different at the same time. There can always be a certain 'rightness' to the sound upon the first bars of music played. However ( assuming the system is well broken in) after you have listened to the system for an hour or two, your brain does appear to become acclimatised to the new sound. Sometimes, the sound can be very 'right', but at the same time you can tell somethings wrong. Given an hour or two, after your brains adapted, the wrong goes away, assuming the wrong isn't anything bad, its just a change in presentation you have to become used to.
On the flip side, I think we can become lackadaisical when it comes to hifi. Those pair of speakers that completely blew you away on first listen, and indeed revealed something 'new' in almost everything you play, will, after a time, tend to err towards the boring, no matter how good they are.
Am I the only one who finds this? Acclimatization to the extreme. I become so used to the sound that nothing in it excites me any more, so I go looking for something better. This surely makes sense with most things in life, hopefully not people as they continually change, so nothing becomes old and boring. But with the hifi, I can be so amazed with one upgrade, at how much better it sounds, yet come 6 months later and I don't hear that improvement anymore, as it is now common place. Of course the improvement IS there, the smooth, massively detailed, separated spread of sound still persists, but I don't hear anything new as its not instantly apparent.
Indeed sometimes a switch to new music solves this problem, play things you've never heard, buy music rather then upgrade the hifi, after all there is an almost endless supply of music out there, you just need to find it.
Interestingly enough there is always something 'wrong' with the hifi as it has been in a state of evolution since it was first created, and as such all the links in the chain, have seldom fit together perfectly. Hence there has always been room for improvement. Not an 'upgrade' so to speak, more optimization.
In the current 'upgrade/optimization' (yes this time it does both) I hope to achieve technical 'perfection' such that nothing will niggle in my mind. The active crossover will suite the drive units used perfectly, rather then, 'damnit I need just one more notch filter'. Once I've built all the new stuff, there will not be room for improvement in that area, so I will not have an easy port of call for upgrades. Lets hope I will be endlessly satisfied.
But this brings about another question. Have I sought out upgrades because I KNEW there was something that could easily be improved if done again? Or have I wanted to alter things because the sound became 'boring'? Once I've Ironed out all the easily apparent 'flaws', will I be satisfied, or still seek out improvements?
To a certain extent, it seems like it would be beneficial if a system never fully broke in and continued to change over time. But perhaps this is what we call 'upgrading'
Matt
planet10 said:
How audible is the difference between a new tweeter and one that has 100 hours on it? Is the breakin period on a tweeter actually a break down period? Is it just wearing out?
Woofers are a real mechanical unit with considerable excursion, I will agree that it is reasonable to expect that it will take some time for the suspension of the woofer to loosen up.
Caps are electrical devices. They give the same performance from day 1 till their dielectric starts to break down. I compare it to a light bulb, do they need a breakin period?
MJL21193 said:
When examined in the context of the size of the waveform they reproduce a tweeter is no different than a woofer.
A little effort to understandof the mechanical & chemical properties of a capacitor would go a long way to understanding why break-in can be real.
The process of the dielectric "breaking down" starts the 1st time electrons starting flowing thru it -- so it is changing for its entire life.
dave
Size of the waveform + limitations of human hearing = no audible difference.planet10 said:
Caps are not in any way mechanical. No moving parts. The caps we use for filtering purposes have no chemical breakdown, unless you use "audiophile" oil&paper ones, or you are using elecrolytics. For dieletric breakdown to occur, the rated voltage must be exceeded repeatedly. The filtering caps I use are rated 400 volts. A basic understanding of capacitance and capacitor construction is needed here.