CBM-170 SE newbie questions

[Rooster]

I received my CBM-170 SE four days ago and have been in the process of running them in almost constantly since then. They definitely have opened up a bit. The bass has improved some, which is nice. Overall these are my impressions: very accurate, clear, image well, excellent with vocals, jazz, and well recorded acoustic guitar.

My only grip so far is a bit of 'hardness' or 'edgy-ness' with rock at moderate levels. I hear this especially with certain electric guitar riffs, or cymbals. It is a bit fatiguing. The listening level I am talking about is not loud by most standards, just moderate. My room is a smallish office (12'x11') without much in the way of soft furniture, only curtains on the windows, which I close during listening to soak up any radiant sound.

Has anyone else experienced this with the CBM-170s? Will this mellow as they burn in more or is this just the way they are?

Setup:
Vintage Fisher 500B - receiver
Cambridge Audio Azur 540C - CD
Transparent interconnects and wire
Sand filled stands 28" high.

Thanks in advance for any advice
Rooster

[bikeman]

Will this mellow as they burn in more or is this just the way they are?
Neither. Speakers, don't "burn in" and that's not the way Ascend's are voiced. Lots of possibilities. You've already mentioned some.

David

[Asliang]

I think a prominent DIYer mentioned he heard a slight harshness at around 1.2KHz, but this is a very minor tradeoff considering he considered the Ascends better than several prominent speakers around $1000 including from Dynaudio and Paradigm. Also, almost all speakers that are designed to be this linear are bound to have a few tiny areas that might have been slightly over EQed--of course I'm just speaking my mind now and not basing it on any proveable facts.

You could try a little bit of EQing to see if this really is a problem area for you.

[Asliang]

I think the Ascends do well with a lot of music personally. The only stuff that it seems to struggle abit with is enya, which seems a little harsh--possibly the source as well.

[Rooster]

Bikeman,

Please help me here; you said speakers do not "burn in" what is it then? Is the correct term, "run in"? Or are you saying that no such phenomenon takes place at all? Do you mean to say that a speaker sounds the same when first out of the box as when it has 100 hours of playing under its belt?

Regarding the mild harshness I am hearing, I will set the Ascends up in my living room where there is ample soft furniture and a rug and do some listening.

Thanks to those who took the time to reply.
Rooster.

[shane55]

Well I hate to argue, but speakers do 'break-in'.
Within the first two months I noticed a considerable difference in the sound of my Ascends (as well as other 'serious' speakers I've owned).

I believe this phenomenon is most noticable with subwoofers. The owner of the subwoofer company I purchased mine from confirmed my observations. I'd be surprised if Mr. Fabrikant didn't agree. (David... what say you?)

Anyway, yes... I also believe that the room acoustics can wreck havoc on the sound, as can the source material.

Older, early mastering of rock CD's are particularly painful. Since you liked the way the 170's produced other types of music... there might be a reason these rock sources sound harsh besides the speakers.;)

cheers and congrats on the 170's.

shane

[bikeman]

Bikeman,
Or are you saying that no such phenomenon takes place at all? Do you mean to say that a speaker sounds the same when first out of the box as when it has 100 hours of playing under its belt?
Correct. There is sometimes a period of adaptation but it's not the speakers that are adapting. Human hearing is very complex and is currently the subject of study, along with our other senses, in the field of psychology.
It's not that there isn't a change going on, it's the source of the change that gets some audiophiles confused. For some reason, these audiophiles feel their hearing is static and the speakers are adapting. If the speakers were adapting, it could be measured and there'd be no discussion. There may be some minute changes to the speakers in the first few moments of movement but that isn't what many audiophiles are referring to when they claim speaker break-in.
The thread on what difference audio cables make was just shut down on AVS. It's a religious type issue with some audiophiles. If any real evidence is ever uncovered about changes in audio equipment, you'll read about it in peer reviewed journals, not audiophile discussion groups.
It's alright to expect some degree of change when listening to audio equipment. Just don't assume the equipment is what's changing.

David

[GaryB]

If bikeman's refreshing assertions reflect more than the opinions of a few curmudgeons such as he and I, there may be hope for this world, after all... ;)

[Rooster]

I don't mean to argue either, but based on my own experiences and "conventional" wisdom in the hi-fi industry, it would seem that speakers do indeed undergo some type of 'break-in'.

Take for example the suspension of the mid bass driver. It has been explained to me on more then one occasion, and by different individuals, that this portion of the speaker will tend to loosen up, or become more free moving over time. This leads to a change in response and therefore sounds. Is there no truth to this?

Final point, if there is absolutely no changes what so ever that a speaker undergoes from first being powered up to many hours down the line, why then do so many industry folks recommend a 'break-in' period? Are they all misguided? Are all these individuals merely experiencing a change in their own hearing and attributing it to the speakers?

I am skeptical to say the least. No, I don't have any empirical evidence to back this up and I am not by any means an audiophile (what ever that is). I can just go on what I heard when initially playing the Ascends and other speakers I have owned over the years. Frankly, if there is some evidence to support or debunk speaker 'break in' I'd love to read it.

Rooster (trying to learn more through good natured discussion)

[davef]

Speaker Break-in...

This is difficult...

Do the components that make up a speaker change over time?

From a technical standpoint they do, especially woofers.

T/S parameters of a woofer will change over time; I have seen this first hand. When you consider that the woofer's spider is almost always made from some form of specialized fabric, compliance changes with more usage are expected. Suspensions do loosen up which will result in resonant frequency and compliance changes (usually for the better)

Tweeters break-in less. In my experience, tweeters with some form of magnetic fluid in the gap (like Ferro fluid) do improve after a very short time period. These fluids, which can be low viscosity, settle a bit with use.

Now, the real question is whether or not these changes are audible. They are indeed measurable so technically, they can be audible but there is absolutely no proof on either end of the argument. What we can measure, does not necessarily determine what we are capable of hearing.

To better answer the question, "Do loudspeaker's break-in? " Yes, whether or not we can actually hear these changes is the real question and that's one I can't answer...

Here is an interesting experiment on speaker break-in: http://www.vikash.info/audio/audax/

[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 :D

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). :D

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

[GaryB]

I think we are in general agreement here.I think the degree of agreement is now essentially complete. :)

[metalaaron]

shane,
those materials were once new as well.
i only find it interesting that there are a few similarities between the two realms in terms of the practice. sure there are many variables and differences, but i see this type of conversation discussed here and there among luthiers as well as audiophiles. Ex. some areas of an instrument resonate more than others just like woofers vs. tweeters. some would consider this (http://www.acousticguitar.com/Gear/advice/vibration.shtml) strange while some would consider running speakers face to face for a week before listening strange.

[shane55]

Hmmmm... running speakers face to face for a week! Brilliant!
Hey Rooster, maybe you should try this on your 170's. :D

And I love the instant aging machine!

cheers

shane