To argue? Far from it, but if someone makes a claim that something went from unlistenable to super sound, simply from being broken in, then I want to know about it.
A subjective impression however isn't enough to show or prove to me that something went from unlistenable to super sound. If indeed the change was that dramatic then it should easily be measurable and it's those measurements that I want to see.
A subjective impression however isn't enough to show or prove to me that something went from unlistenable to super sound. If indeed the change was that dramatic then it should easily be measurable and it's those measurements that I want to see.
Believing you or not doesn't come into this, neither does the definition of unlistenable. If you've got some objective measurements to show how something changed from before break-in, to after break-in where it went from unlistenable to super sound, then I am interested in knowing more about it.
What's the point? Because if you do have measurements to back-up your statement then it is something that we'd all be very interested in seeing.
What's the point? Because if you do have measurements to back-up your statement then it is something that we'd all be very interested in seeing.
please, speak for yourself...
I have ears which are far superior "machines" than instruments
here for example, this little thing is unlistenable first few hours because of its HF sizzle (ignore the first rating and comment, it's a magical driver)
Tang Band W3-1797S 3" Neodymium Midrange Driver 264-888
and what benefit do you now have from this? none, it's just for the argue
I won't participate in this offtopic any more.
Last edited:
I think many here would be quite interested in seeing some objective measurements that backup a statement such as something going from unlistenable to super sound.
Maybe your ears are better then some instruments, but those instruments are still more then capable of showing differences that would fall under the definition of going from unlistenable to super sound.
Great, now get a new one, measure it, then break it in and remeasure it and we'll see what actually happens.
and what benefit do you now have from this? none, it's just for the argue
I haven't gained anything except learning that you so far don't have anything credible with which to backup your statement.
Sigh. A lot of good conversation and this is where it lands.
Anyway, I an going to continue to break in my Fostex. I trust some advice they take some time. They are horrid out of the box in my view compared to all my other speakers. I heard another pair in better boxes well broken in. I was not impressed, but I don't know the room. As we know, the room matters.
Anyway, I an going to continue to break in my Fostex. I trust some advice they take some time. They are horrid out of the box in my view compared to all my other speakers. I heard another pair in better boxes well broken in. I was not impressed, but I don't know the room. As we know, the room matters.
Doesn't that depend a lot on your listening environment and amplifier damping?
Michael, you know Cal, big woofer guy. Put me in a field with a bunch of 18" PA woofers and a big ol' PA amp and I am happy like pig in...
but and it's a big but...
...persons like Dave have shown me that in the right enviro, a small driver can offer more than what I was expecting, to the point where I have built these cute little things and had people build them for me because I found I could actually listen to them without thinking I was missing anything.
OMG, did I just say that in public? Don't let Dave read this.
Long day, I must go to bed before I spill anymore of these 'truths'
Perhaps I'm the lone dissenter here, but I don't agree with that at all.
Tweeter break-in ? What exactly would change on my ribbon tweeters with use (assuming I don't overdrive them enough to stretch the foils) that would cause an audible difference in their performance, especially when they're crossed over almost 2 octaves above their resonance ? I've taken a lot of very closely controlled measurements of them over time and I've never seen even the tiniest change in their response, I can literally overlay the lines in ARTA and see no divergence.
Saying that all drivers experience break-in is quite wrong IMHO, when any potential change due to break-in must be a change in materials properties and different materials behave differently to stress and other factors.
T/S parameters do change in woofers/mids/FR, sometimes quite a lot (I've measured a 2 to 1 change in Cms in my Coral drivers in varying conditions) but its not a break-in process, its a constant ongoing variation of Cms with excursion also with a memory effect where the stiffness is dependent not just on the current excursion but also recent excursion over the last few seconds, and to a lesser degree over the last few minutes. With enough rest time the figure slowly returns to the pre "break-in" figure.
Another thing that changes Cms is the temperature of the suspension - particularly with rubber surrounds. With enough "break-in" the rubber surround of a driver will become a bit softer and more pliable increasing the compliance, but again after a period of rest it will stiffen back up again. (The period of rest needed is a lot longer than that for spider creep though, maybe minutes to hours)
Re also varies with voice coil temperature and affects Qes and Sensitivity, but obviously that is a dynamic change as well, not a permanent one.
Even given these Cms changes its not enough to point at the free air changes of Cms, Fs and so on, and say "see", because as soon as we put the driver into a closed or vented box the box typically becomes the dominating factor for stiffness, so (fortunately) any variations of Cms are largely swamped out by the box meaning that the bass alignment changes very little, you might see a temporary variation in bass (typically an increase) on the order of 1dB or so around the cutoff corner frequency when the suspension is worked hard and becomes temporarily more compliant.
It's easy to model this by simply taking T/S parameters at a very low drive level, a second set of readings at a high drive level (I've used 1/2 Xmax before) and then modelling both "drivers" an a box simulator with the same box size and tuning, and you can see exactly the range of variation in the alignment with the change in Cms, and it's not much.
Potentially T/S variations would be more audible on an open baffle woofer system, I'll grant that, but in a closed/vented box, not really.
As I said earlier, paper cone full range drivers do seem to have a "break-in" like mechanism, and that is that the internal cone damping does seem to change a bit with humidity leading to modest but certainly measurable changes through the breakup region, making breakup resonances become more audible or less audible depending on the shift in humidity.
I'm not sure that I would call this break-in though, more a reaching equilibrium with environmental conditions. Any hygroscopic material like paper takes time for its moisture content to reach an equilibrium with the surroundings, on the order of days to weeks. (Think of planks of timber being dried out to reach a stable moisture content before sale...)
The better the internal damping in the cone is, the less change there is, it seems to be mainly cones that are poorly damped and have a lot of uncontrolled breakup that show this the most.
If there is a large and long term shift in humidity again that lasts for at least a few days the driver will change again. I used to notice this in New Zealand where hot summer days could be anywhere between a dry 30% and a humid 90% for as much as a week at a time - a definite change in the breakup character of some paper FR drivers was noticeable that went back the other way again when the humidity reversed for a few days.
One other change I've noted with paper cone full range drivers that again isn't quite break-in, but I would call "ageing", and that is that the paper does eventually soften somewhat, probably due to repeated uptake and expulsion of moisture through humidity swings, and with this softening the damping seems to improve slightly, making the breakup region a bit flatter.
I've noticed this with my Flat 8 II's which I've had since 2004, they now measure flatter than they did when I first got them, but its taken years for this change to gradually occur, and its not until I compared current measurements with old measurements that I've realised what's happened. Because the measurement software is different, microphone is different, room is different etc I can't directly overlay the results but I can still see a change...
Last edited:
You need to read what I said more carefully.
There was an almost put in there for a reason, because, like you said, what would break-in with a ribbon? Nothing. Unless you manage to break it.
Following on.
I never said the break-in would be audible, or in fact measurable (in terms of the loudspeakers performance) just that it happens. I would expect most materials in a mechanical system to undergo a small rapid change during the first few moments of operation, after which they would quickly settle down, then slowly deteriorate over time until they break.
ofcourse not, but where will you be then ? back here talking about what you have learned, or believe to know better
please dont hate me now
Cal, I'm shocked! Shocked!!
You're right, don't let Dave see this.I will grudgingly admit I've heard small drivers I like - and many were put in boxes by Dave himself. But in an overall sound quality and "feel", the bigger drivers seem better balanced to me.
ofcourse not, but where will you be then ? back here talking about what you have learned, or believe to know better
please dont hate me now
no, i mean, if someone wants to find out what sounds better to themselves, without being prejudiced
Cal getting thrown out of the Church of the Big Woofer--heresy! The Cardinal of the compression driver is now passing judgement--you must listen to a set of Bose AM-5's for 100 hours as penance--with no EQ allowed.
For me, I'm not sure if full range technology has progressed by leaps and bounds for sound quality, my ears have gotten worse or I always assumed Bose "sound" for the things so when running into a real full range--it shocked me. I think all factors are in play.
Normally, the high end drives the low end--in wide band or "full-range" sound it seems the other way around. The Lowthers caused ear burn but a $10 Tangband sounded decent? I then looked around for a real full range speaker that could make it to at least 16K flat, could handle some power, had decent Xmax and was fairly efficient. The MA 12P makes it to 22K, 92dB efficient, handles some power and has 5.6mm of Xmax.
I'm sure to gain passage to the Temple of the Full Range would require the MA 12P to be installed in a giant TQWT box tuned to 29Hz, chair bolted to the floor 3 meters away, a SET amp complete with speaker wire made of pixie dust but I don't belong to that religion. I'm more along the lines of the Audio Infidels of Wide-Band drivers with sub bass--add a side of heretic sizzle if needed. Desktop box with subs and switchable sizzle...
Just don't tell the Church of the Big Woofer that sub over there is actually running an 18" passive radiator--I have sinned against you.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.