CBM-170 SE newbie questions

[GaryB]

The only thing I might add is to ask why those who swear by speaker break-in always notice an improvement? Why shouldn't the processes that Dave describes, if they are indeed audible, be just as likely to cause subtle degradation in performance? Most mechanical devices wear out with use, not "in".

[shane55]

Gary.
It may simply be that the vast majority of those who actually notice any change at all view these changes as an improvement, and in turn they might be the only ones who comment on this process.

I would bet that those who experience any 'degredation' early on, simply dismiss the speakers and maybe that's a good thing. Perhaps good speakers do improve with break-in, and inferior ones do not. Those who notice this improvement praise the speakers as a result.

We have all experienced the slow dying of a 'worn-out' speaker. They definitely do degrade over time. But that's not break-in any more than wearing a hole in the sole of one's shoe is break-in. Well-made shoes, or fine leather items will break-in and become much better long before they wear-out.

Cheers

shane

The only thing I might add is to ask why those who swear by speaker break-in always notice an improvement? Why shouldn't the processes that Dave describes, if they are indeed audible, be just as likely to cause subtle degradation in performance? Most mechanical devices wear out with use, not "in".

[shane55]

Dave,
I also believe that what we are capable of hearing or observing is not necessarily measurable.

Cheers

shane

Speaker Break-in... edit...

What we can measure, does not necessarily determine what we are capable of hearing.

[bikeman]

Dave,
I also believe that what we are capable of hearing or observing is not necessarily measurable. Cheersshane

Our brain processes sound unlike any of the other sophisticated equipment that measures sound but that's not necessarily good news. The testing equipment measures sound exactly while our brains filter it in different ways so what we hear isn't exactly what's coming from the source. The brain can filter information (including sound) based on what we know. Those who know a certain brand of component and how they view that component will cause the brain to filter the sound differently. This line of study is not geared to the consumer audio business because it's not funded by the consumer audio business.
Gotta run to work but I'll try to pick this up later today.

David

[metalaaron]

contrast this to acoustic guitars. many many people strive for that vintage acoustic guitar sound which slowly breaks in over several years (time + playing). others don't care for it that much and just purchase a new instrument when they're tired of the older one (upgradeitis?). i would submit that one aspect of that vintage sound labeled as better is the satisfaction that comes with all those years of ownership, and the stories you've accumulated as that guitar has traveled with you. it's like the old neil young song, long may you run.

now i don't believe what i said above applies 100% to loudspeaker reproduction because of all the different matierals used, but it could shed some light on why some die hards believe their speakers broke in or are still breaking in to reach a better sound.

[shane55]

I think it's more a matter of new materials 'loostening-up' than what one might equate to a Guarneri violin or in your example an old handed-down guitar.

The break-in period is relatively quick. I seriously doubt that anyone would equate new speaker break-in to a fine patina or heirloom ownership.

cheers

shane

[GaryB]

Shane,

I knew shortly after submitting it that the last line of my last post didn't accurately address the issue at hand. OTOH, you're not really equating what happens to a new pair of shoes in its first few days of use to what happens to a new set of speakers, are you? Those really are completely different scenarios.

This issue has been addressed ad nauseam elsewhere, and we're not going to resolve it today. It just seems to me to be the height of arrogance to insist that one's senses are consistent and infallible, and that perceived differences in audio equipment must necessarily originate from the equipment. In fact, every one of our senses is profoundly influenced by many factors. Anyone with more knowledge of this subject than I could cite countless experiments which demonstrate how true this is.

Similarly, insisting that subtle improvement in the sound of new speakers during their first few hours of use is due to "break-in" and not due to the listener's adaptation ignores all that is known about human perception, even if this particular "myth" is relatively harmless, and doesn't involve the listener spending thousands of dollars on fire-hose speaker cable, or on mystically-shaped objects made of exotic alloys to support one's electronics...

[shane55]

Hey Gary,
Of course, you are most correct.
I never said that the changes in perceived sound were only produced by the speakers. I would never state that the 'ear-mind' doesn't account for a great deal of what we perceive.

I didn't state it because it was not part of the original discussion. The discussion was only about speaker break-in, not how we perceived sound or became accustomed to a particular speaker. The question was about speaker break-in and whether or not it was 'real'. It is, as David F has pointed out. Whether or not it is perceived by the listener, whether or not more factors are involved... well... that's another subject.

Subjectivity is HUGE in audio, video... well... everything.

When I stated that I perceived the change in my Ascends I didn't say that I was also 'getting used to their sound' (or some other euphamism for that process), because it seemed irrelevent to the discussion... whether true or not.

As to the shoes... equate? Nah! I would never want to walk a mile in my Ascends

cheers

shane

[GaryB]

I didn't state it because it was not part of the original discussion. The discussion was only about speaker break-in, not how we perceived sound or became accustomed to a particular speaker. The question was about speaker break-in and whether or not it was 'real'. It is, as David F has pointed out. Whether or not it is perceived by the listener, whether or not more factors are involved... well... that's another subject.

Shane, I would only split hairs to the extent that I think the discussion that ensued following Rooster's second post was precisely about the audibility of speaker break-in. I have no difficulty accepting the fact that real changes occur during the initial hours of using a speaker. The point is moot, however, if those changes are inaudible.

If you disagree, I guess I can somehow find a way to live with that.

[shane55]

Gary.
No, I don't disagree with you. I think we are in general agreement here.

I surely don't think that everyone can perceive these 'break-in' changes. Those who do are in the *extreme* minority (except for Ascend owners, of course).

And there is no doubt in my mind that those who perceive this change are adding 'more' to it by how their brain processes these minute changes in sound. I don't think it can be avoided by anyone... myself included.

Cheers

shane