Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Breaking In
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    In parts of the audio industry, there is a belief that all components from wires to electronics to loudspeakers need to “break in.” Out of the box, it is assumed that they will not be performing at their best. Proponents vehemently deny that this process has anything to do with adaptation, writing extensively about changes in performance that they claim are easily audible in several aspects of device performance. Yet, the author is not aware of any controlled test in which any consequential audible differences were found, even in loudspeakers, where there would seem to be some opportunities for material changes.

    A few years ago, to satisfy a determined marketing person, the research group performed a test using samples of a loudspeaker that was claimed to benefit from “breaking in.” Measurements before and after the recommended break-in showed no differences in frequency response, except a very tiny change around 30–40 Hz in the one area where break-in effects could be expected: woofer compliance. Careful listening tests revealed no audible differences. None of this was surprising to the engineering staff. It is not clear whether the marketing person was satisfied by the finding. To all of us, this has to be very reassuring because it means that the performance of loudspeakers is stable, except for the known small change in woofer compliance caused by exercising the suspension and the deterioration—breaking down—of foam surrounds and some diaphragm materials with time, moisture, and atmospheric pollutants.

    It is fascinating to note that “breaking-in” seems always to result in an improvement in performance. Why? Do all mechanical and electrical devices and materials acquire a musical aptitude that is missing in their virgin state? Why is it never reversed, getting worse with use? The reality is that engineers seek out materials, components, and construction methods that do not change with time. Suppose that the sound did improve over time as something broke in. What then? Would it eventually decline, just as wine goes “over the hill”? One can imagine an advertisement for a vintage loudspeaker: “An audiophile dream. Model XX, manufactured 2004, broken in with Mozart, Schubert, and acoustic jazz. Has never played anything more aggressive than the Beatles. Originally $1700/pair. Now at their performance peak - a steal at $3200!”

    Floyd Toole

  • 10 Replies sorted by
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Interview with Toole

    Also check his article in http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_28_r.pdf

  • trevmartrevmar

    It is sad that this generation of engineering expertise will die out. In the same way as the original DGG analog classical recording catalog from the 60's and 70's is still regarded as the epitome of recording excellence, the reasons for that have disappeared into history -- together with the recording engineers who made them.

    I have designed speakers from scratch. Magnets, cones, voice coils and all, and it is very much a 'black art.' A designer has to be guided by their own ability. Books or podcasts cannot possibly convey a lifetime of engineering experience. When I look at today's HiFi shops I am appalled by not only the lack of fidelity of today's equipment -- which is invariably a step backwards from the technology of 20 years ago -- but also by the basic rules which are being broken, basic rules which, 20 years ago, used to be well-understood and sacrosanct.

    Let me point out just one of them. This podcast is being broadcast in monophonic sound. There is no sense of image of the interviewer or interviewee. Subtleties of nuance are missing -- head turning, lowering of gaze, etc. Yes, video would have helped communicate this but, for Heaven's sake, why can't a broadcast about perceptual audio be conducted by somebody who understands enough about human communication to be using a stereo audio feed....

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    When I look at today's HiFi shops I am appalled by not only the lack of fidelity of today's equipment -- which is invariably a step backwards from the technology of 20 years ago -- but also by the basic rules which are being broken, basic rules which, 20 years ago, used to be well-understood and sacrosanct.

    I do not agree here. Most of todays speakers made by more or less reputable brand are better. They measure better and sound better two. If you check book written by Toole he has similar opinion.

  • trevmartrevmar

    And Floyd is entitled to his opinion. As am I. As are you. But, before framing your own opinion, have you heard or seen what he and I have heard? The early Quad electrostatics, for example? Celestion Dittons? The early SEAS? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad_Electrostatics

    Wharfedale and Celestion speakers have disappeared now, swallowed by Chinese suitors, but they helped set the standard which allowed the Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft engineers to master all those wonderful recordings in the 60's and 70's.

    These days I see too much emphasis (in my opinion) on the large array, and too little attention to the basics. True, I have an array of Wharfedales in my living room, but the system designed for my workroom would never sell in any HiFi shop. Small and unobtrusive omnidirectionals, they don't attract attention. But they do their job superbly. Unobtrusively. Which is for me the way a speaker should be. Unobtrusive. Creating a sound field without distracting from the source content :) http://trevormarshall.com/ground-effect-omni/

    Oh, and 'on topic' again -- it is the owner's ears which need to be broken in, not the speaker cones. Every new set of speakers needs to be assimilated, or rejected, by the unique psychoacoustical model sitting in each of our heads. That model has been shaped by the Vienna Philharmonic or by AC/DC. Or by both :)

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    And Floyd is entitled to his opinion. As am I. As are you. But, before framing your own opinion, have you heard or seen what he and I have heard?

    It is not opinion, it is measurements and proper tests that show this.

    The early Quad electrostatics, for example? Celestion Dittons? The early SEAS?

    Quad, yes (but ESL63 design is improvement still). Others, no. But I heard very big amount of old stuff. Including various very advanced Japanese stuff. You can even find good description of them by author in Loudspeakers and Headphone Handbook.

    These days I see too much emphasis (in my opinion) on the large array

    What is "large array' exactly? Surround speakers setup?

    As for omnidirectionals, Toole has very good points about them and dipole speakers like magneplans and electrostats.

    it is the owner's ears which need to be broken in, not the speaker cones. Every new set of speakers needs to be assimilated, or rejected, by the unique psychoacoustical model sitting in each of our heads.

    Again, check Toole book, as it is about the things you are talking about. If you don't have problems with ears or hearing no such thing as "unique psychoacoustical model" exist.

  • trevmartrevmar

    "If you don't have problems with ears or hearing no such thing as "unique psychoacoustical model" exist"

    When one comes home from a rock concert, one usually seeks to listen to carefully manicured recordings of that concert, or to a studio recording. Your brain can equate what you experienced in the concert arena with what you are listening to on a stereo, even though an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyzer would tell you they are totally different. An innate psychoacoustical model allows your mind to interpret the differences and equate the similarities.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    When one comes home from a rock concert, one usually seeks to listen to carefully manicured recordings of that concert, or to a studio recording. Your brain can equate what you experienced in the concert arena with what you are listening to on a stereo, even though an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyzer would tell you they are totally different. An innate psychoacoustical model allows your mind to interpret the differences and equate the similarities.

    I think you are lost now. As I said, check the book. I have good habit - I check experts and facts about such things, instead of forum opinions.

  • trevmartrevmar

    "I check experts and facts about such things, instead of forum opinions"

    Oh, I see. I am sorry. Experts don't post in forums do they? I forgot that... Silly me...

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Oh, I see. I am sorry. Experts don't post in forums do they? I forgot that... Silly me...

    They do, sometimes. If you really checked Toole book and his articles, you are welcome post your disagreement with facts in hand. I have nothing against it.

    As for forums. Audio forums are mostly trash with ultra low S/N ratio.

  • vic20vic20

    "Audio forums are mostly trash with ultra low S/N ratio."

    so true!

Add a Comment