Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
chris
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start.

Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your
experiences?

Bare OFC 5N + PVC +48hrs
Bare OFC 4N + PE about 1 hour
ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st)

  #3   Report Post  
John Deans
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

"chris" wrote in message
...
Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start.

Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your
experiences?

Bare OFC 5N + PVC +48hrs
Bare OFC 4N + PE about 1 hour
ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st)

I have heard half convincing arguments for speaker burn in, i.e. the
suspension becomes more flexible with use I reply how does the manufacturer
guarantee the final result. But I can see now way that the performance of
any form of wire will change with normal use.

John D
  #4   Report Post  
Beppo@Work
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

"chris" wrote in message
...

/cut/

ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st)


Silver + Teflon shielding (FPE, or better) with some internal mylar
shielding of different silver gauges and air as dialectric may take up to
400+ hrs, from my experience.
The sound goes thru obvious changes, and after I've already begun thinking
the burn-in period was over, there still were some change: not in sound
character, but in more subtle way.

Silver of some complicated weave geometry takes about the 600+ hrs, but all
the measured time is not the 'burn-in only' period measured: so don't take
it for granted.

Of course, these are my own findings, in my system and may not prove as
'standard': so take it only for what it's worth.

Respekt,
J.

--
The difference between Theory and Practice is much greater in Practice than
it is in Theory.

  #5   Report Post  
John Deans
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

"Henrik" wrote in message
...
"John Deans" wrote in message
...
"chris" wrote in message
...
Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start.

Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your
experiences?

Bare OFC 5N + PVC +48hrs
Bare OFC 4N + PE about 1 hour
ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st)

I have heard half convincing arguments for speaker burn in, i.e. the
suspension becomes more flexible with use I reply how does the

manufacturer
guarantee the final result. But I can see now way that the performance

of
any form of wire will change with normal use.

John D


I do not see it.

I´m certain that these experiences are not in any kind related to the

cable.
Instead, it's the speaker that changes its resonance frequency, "Fs", to

the
specified (lower) value. Just as you first said, John. Quite audiable on a
new speaker setup. The difference is first noticed in the bass. After
measurements a friend of mine did a couple of years ago, on a common 12"
driver, there was a change from Fs=33 Hz (brand new) to Fs=26Hz (as
specified in datasheet), after a night's playing.

Henrik

OK, but my main cause for concern is that can a manufacturer guarantee the
final parameters of a driver after this burn in
was the post burn in parameter measured immediately after the burn in period
when the driver may still have been warm or had the driver been left fore
several hours to cool down.



  #6   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

"Henrik" wrote:


"John Deans" wrote in message
...
"chris" wrote in message
...
Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start.

Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your
experiences?

Bare OFC 5N + PVC +48hrs
Bare OFC 4N + PE about 1 hour
ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st)

I have heard half convincing arguments for speaker burn in, i.e. the
suspension becomes more flexible with use I reply how does the

manufacturer
guarantee the final result. But I can see now way that the performance of
any form of wire will change with normal use.

John D


I do not see it.

I´m certain that these experiences are not in any kind related to the cable.
Instead, it's the speaker that changes its resonance frequency, "Fs", to the
specified (lower) value. Just as you first said, John. Quite audiable on a
new speaker setup. The difference is first noticed in the bass. After
measurements a friend of mine did a couple of years ago, on a common 12"
driver, there was a change from Fs=33 Hz (brand new) to Fs=26Hz (as
specified in datasheet), after a night's playing.

Henrik


I've done that experiment several times on raw woofers with manufacturer
break-in recommendations of 24,48 and 150 hours. What happens is; if you take
measurements immediately following the break-in period when the voice coil is
still hot you'll find that the Fs will be 5-10% lower and the Vas (compliance)
will be 5-10% greater. If you allow the woofer to cool off for several hours
you'll find that the values will have 'reverted' to those taken before
'break-in.'

Another variable in your experiment was taking 'data sheet' values for
comparison. T/S measurements of speakers can vary quite a bit from unit to unit
or same-sample measured twice with many set-ups.
  #7   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

They do just that, they operate them. The best makers extensively test
their designs and do excelerated aging tests to produce drivers that
both meet their specs when in real use and stand the test of time.
There is no other way to do it as they or any other system just
doesn't work on the first go as designed from paper initially. All
designs are tested and revised accordingly to meet their design goals
more closely. As makers get more experience, they gather more evidence
and can refer to that rather than start from scratch at each attempt
as a novice, hobbyist or upstart might. They don't share their hard
earned secrets either so those that can't duplicate their efforts
simply dispute them. Try making your own simple pair of two way
speakers from a textbook example and you will see the light, not hear
it...
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"John Deans" wrote in message
...
"chris" wrote in message
...
Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start.

Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's

your
experiences?

Bare OFC 5N + PVC +48hrs
Bare OFC 4N + PE about 1 hour
ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st)

I have heard half convincing arguments for speaker burn in, i.e. the
suspension becomes more flexible with use I reply how does the

manufacturer
guarantee the final result. But I can see now way that the

performance of
any form of wire will change with normal use.

John D


  #9   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

John Deans wrote:
"chris" wrote in message
...

Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start.

Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your
experiences?


How long does it take to break in your TV antenna?

What about your electric shaver?

What about your lightbulbs?

Burn-in doesn't exist. Any problems you have are either in your
mind or are your ears adjusting to the sound.

  #10   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


Colin wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message
...

"chris"
wrote:


Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start.

Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your
experiences?

Bare OFC 5N + PVC +48hrs
Bare OFC 4N + PE about 1 hour
ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st)

My experience is that speakers do not burn-in and wires do not burn-in.

Unless
they're driven so hard they become fuses.

The only case of serious burn-in I've encountered was a melted cone and
seriously rubbing voice coil of a 6.5-inch woofer under EIA 426-B

conditions.

That ain't breaking -in it's breaking !!!



Couldn't this "break in" just be our own ears and brain getting use
too a new characteristic of the speakers or wires. I've heard that
speakers do break in though, the rubber and other material the makes
up the cone and connects the cone to the frame of the driver may
loosen up abit.


Right. For sepakers, though, it is maybe a day at most. More likely
an hour from new. Once the surrounds are softened up and it's working
properly, anything you still hear is defects.


Surrounds do not soften up. It is true that common spiders de-stiffen when
first used but that happens the first time the speaker is excercised, usually
at QC on the assembly line.

It is true that raw drivers when stored on their backs may need to recenter
(gravity effect) but this takes a few seconds at most; and how many people
store their towers on their backs

But your mind will filter
out all but the grossest inaccuracies given a week or two of adjustment
time.


Agreed.



  #11   Report Post  
Schizoid Man
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
news:CYWOa.18944$ye4.16410@sccrnsc01...
John Deans wrote:
"chris" wrote in message
...

Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start.

Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your
experiences?


How long does it take to break in your TV antenna?

What about your electric shaver?

What about your lightbulbs?

Burn-in doesn't exist. Any problems you have are either in your
mind or are your ears adjusting to the sound.


I agree.

I ran a group-theoretic metaheauristic to measure sound dispersion after a
considerable break-in period of a couple of integrated amps and found the
measurements inconclusive. Logically, the only component that might actually
need break-in are the speakers - since the cones need some loosening up.

Extending Oberlander's argument - what about cellphones, alarm clocks and
cameras? I have a background in electrical engineering and the idea of a
cable break-in just doesn't seem to make any sense.

A cable's conductive properties depend on its composition. A cable might
sound different after several hundred hours of 'break-in' if it undergoes a
change in its chemical composition.

And I don't think you'll find that passing a current through a copper cable
will significantly change its composition in a few (hundred) hours.

  #12   Report Post  
Wylie Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

After being an audiophile for 25 years I worked in my audio store for 22
years and I have some experience with break-in of speakers. I found that
some speakers sounded disappointingly harsh and thin when new, so in my
store we started breaking them in so we could make them sound their best.
Depending on the models they sounded deeper, warmer ,and smoother with
continued play until a certain point was reached, depending on the speaker.
And, no, it was not getting that we were getting accustomed to the sound
because we did not listen to the speakers while they were being broken in.
We di it three ways: we played them loud overnight on FM while the store was
closed, or we used CDs (including some "break-in" and CDs with bass test
frequencies), or we ran the speakers off the lower voltage taps of a
transformer. For this we set up the speakers in a receiving shed, put them
face to face, connected them out of phase and let them rip for a week or so.
We proved to ourselves time after time that break in is a reality for
speakers, some more so than others, and more important usually on the better
speakers, especially the ones with butyl surrounds.
As for wire break in, that too is real, though not always dramatic. My most
dramatic personal experience was when using 25 foot silver coated speaker
wire in my home. The first listen was dreadful. Extremely and unlistenably
harsh. At that time I was already a believer in cable break in and I had a
device called a cable enhancer that used a proprietary test tone to break in
cables and interconnects. After 10 days of break in I found the cables to be
vastly inproved. My wife, an impartial observer, had hated the cables first
time. When I played them after break in she said she liked the sound and
asked what I had changed. She was amazed that the cables that had been so
dreadful were now an improvement over my previous speaker wire.
I'm not selling anything. Having insufficient technical background I don't
know why cable and speaker break in work beneficially. But break in is real
for everything in audio as far as I can tell, although it's not always easy
to tell. The situation in a store let us listen and compare the same music
on the same sets of speakers so often that we could easily tell changes.

Wylie

"chris" wrote in message
...
Hi I though it would be an interesting thread to start.

Burn in of speaker cables, how long for what dielectric. What's your
experiences?

Bare OFC 5N + PVC +48hrs
Bare OFC 4N + PE about 1 hour
ive not tried Silver+ Teflon yet (need an overdraft 1st)

  #13   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

Wylie Williams wrote:
After being an audiophile for 25 years I worked in my audio store for 22
years and I have some experience with break-in of speakers. I found that
some speakers sounded disappointingly harsh and thin when new, so in my
store we started breaking them in so we could make them sound their best.
Depending on the models they sounded deeper, warmer ,and smoother with
continued play until a certain point was reached, depending on the speaker.
And, no, it was not getting that we were getting accustomed to the sound
because we did not listen to the speakers while they were being broken in.


You're expecting them to sound ''bad' at first and 'better'
when you're done. Amazingly enough, they do. But the question remains,
was the change in the speakers or in your 'attitude'?

We di it three ways: we played them loud overnight on FM while the store was
closed, or we used CDs (including some "break-in" and CDs with bass test
frequencies), or we ran the speakers off the lower voltage taps of a
transformer. For this we set up the speakers in a receiving shed, put them
face to face, connected them out of phase and let them rip for a week or so.
We proved to ourselves time after time that break in is a reality for
speakers, some more so than others, and more important usually on the better
speakers, especially the ones with butyl surrounds.


Your standards of proof appear to be somewhat less than rigorous.

As for wire break in, that too is real, though not always dramatic. My most
dramatic personal experience was when using 25 foot silver coated speaker
wire in my home. The first listen was dreadful. Extremely and unlistenably
harsh. At that time I was already a believer in cable break in and I had a
device called a cable enhancer that used a proprietary test tone to break in
cables and interconnects. After 10 days of break in I found the cables to be
vastly inproved. My wife, an impartial observer, had hated the cables first
time. When I played them after break in she said she liked the sound and
asked what I had changed. She was amazed that the cables that had been so
dreadful were now an improvement over my previous speaker wire.


Classic.

I'm not selling anything. Having insufficient technical background I don't
know why cable and speaker break in work beneficially.


You worked in audio for 22 years and you never bothered to
investigate *why* this extraordinary phenomenon might be occurring?

But break in is real
for everything in audio as far as I can tell, although it's not always easy
to tell. The situation in a store let us listen and compare the same music
on the same sets of speakers so often that we could easily tell changes.


Did you ever, even once, do the comparisons in a controlled fashion, in
all that time?

  #14   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

"Wylie Williams" wrote:

......large snips.....

As for wire break in, that too is real, though not always dramatic. My most
dramatic personal experience was when using 25 foot silver coated speaker
wire in my home. The first listen was dreadful. Extremely and unlistenably
harsh. At that time I was already a believer in cable break in and I had a
device called a cable enhancer that used a proprietary test tone to break in
cables and interconnects. After 10 days of break in I found the cables to be
vastly inproved. My wife, an impartial observer, had hated the cables first
time.


Ah the Cable Enhancer. This product brings back an anecdote that some might
find interesting about misinterpretation of data and how bias and hidden
assumptions are introduced in listening sessions.

At a CES a few years ago I walked into a display where the Cable Ehancer was
being exhibited. I spent a moment and decided to leave, but the exhibitor
snagged me by the collar and said that I just "had" to listen to wires
'enhanced' by this device.

Sensing an odor of bovine feces I said OK but asked that he start with the best
possible material so the 'differences' would be most dramatic right from the
start. In the meantime a writer for another magazine had appeared in the
exhibit.

So the demonstration began with me, him and a 3rd party whom I didn't know as
listeners. The Exhibitor held up two sets interconnects one which was said the
be new and other had been broken-in overnight with the Enhancer.

One set was hooked up to this cd player and we listened for 2-3 minutes. Then
the other set was installed and we repeated the test for roughly the same
duration. (Recall this was with, what was agreed to be the most dramatic
programming.)

The Exhibitor then asked expectantly "what did you think?" One of the other
listeners thought the 1st one sounded 'better' while the other said that the
2nd sounded better. I said they sounded the same to me, which they did.

The Exhibitor then said "Let's try again with BETTER program material" and he
repeated the test. This time the other two had reversed opinions about which
sounded 'better' and they still sounded the same to me.

So....we did it one more time and both the other listeners agreed that the 2nd
alternative sounded 'better.' My answer was the same as before. Because this
time the enhanced cable was said to sound 'better' the demo was finished and
the others began chatting animatedly about cable-enhancement and I sneaked out.

Well we've all been in simialr situations before but I was surprised to read in
the other guy's column a few months later that he had been 'amazed' that this
demo had shown the Cable Enhancer was able to 'change' the sound quality of
wire.

But there was no evidence of that from the event. Of course, there were no bias
controls employed. We had not been officially informed of which cable was
enhanced and which was not, but it wasn't too hard tofigure that out....the
demo ended when the 'right' answers were given.

But, even so, the differences were not such that the 1st run with the already
agreed upon 'best' program had inconclusive results. The Exhibitor agreed to
use his best stuff first. When that didn't get the right response then he
resorted to "better" programs.

Furthermore the test only ran long enough to get the 'right' answer. Once that
was garnered no more data was gathered and all that went before was ignored.

Let's dredge the data. We had no statistical evidence that a real difference
was heard; opposing responses on the first 2 trials and 'no difference' on 3
trials. The chances of getting 2/3 to give the same response when 2 identical
sound presentations are given is practically assured.

So wrong answers were ignored. No difference, the most radically wrong
response, answers were ignored. Only the proper responses are accepted.

I see the same kind of thing happen when people will try to negotiate
differences in demonstrations. "We'll maybe you didn't hear the suave midrange
but surely the lack of hoodedness in the lower treble was clearly audible" is
the kind of thing I see all the time in group demonstrations or sales
presentations.

But my point here is that wires don't break-in, speakers don't break-in and
nothing in audio breaks-in except lps and they ain't breakin'-in they're
wearing out. But, it's easy to convince yourself otherwise.

But even if there were a break-in process components would naturally break-in
anyway. If break-in makes you feel better go ahead but observe caution with
speakers. The speaker break-in procedure of feeding a pair of speaker placed
face-to-face and wired in reverse polarity with noise is potentially dangerous.
It's not that hard to drive them hard enough and long enough to cause the voice
coil glue to heat up and bubble in the gap. Be careful.

  #15   Report Post  
Schizoid Man
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Wylie Williams wrote:


snip

You worked in audio for 22 years and you never bothered to
investigate *why* this extraordinary phenomenon might be occurring?

But break in is real
for everything in audio as far as I can tell, although it's not always

easy
to tell. The situation in a store let us listen and compare the same

music
on the same sets of speakers so often that we could easily tell changes.


Did you ever, even once, do the comparisons in a controlled fashion, in
all that time?


I am a wire break-in skeptic myself. In fact, I might extend that skepticism
to all solid state electronics. My local Radio Shack doesn't tell me to
break in my cellphone or TV remote control before using it.

I have two degrees in electrical engineering and I've never heard of
break-in periods for electronic devices (microprocessors, computers,
multimeters or microwave ovens). Yes, you do have break-in periods for
mechanical devices, but then a piece of wire has no moving parts
(disregarding those pesky electrons).

Until the contacts or the wire itself undergo some change in chemical
composition that would distill the sound in a different manner, the cable
should be broken in in about 0.0000000101010101010 seconds for a 10-ft pair.
And no amplifier current is going to change the chemistry of the wire in a
few hours.



  #16   Report Post  
Keith A. Hughes
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

snip

You're expecting them to sound ''bad' at first and 'better'
when you're done. Amazingly enough, they do. But the question remains,
was the change in the speakers or in your 'attitude'?


I don't know that expectation bias plays *that* significant a role
in the "notion" of speaker break-in. From my own experience, I've
found that several pairs of *used* (one pair with hundreds of
hours playing time on them) and/or *floor demo* speakers exhibited
the same break-in phenomenon when I got them home.

For my experiences, clearly the "break-in" required was a function
of *my* adaptation to the differing sound of the new speakers, and
*not* a function of physical changes in the speakers' performance.

Certainly, not having done any associated measurements, I make no
claims about the possible mechanical changes that *may* occur in
use, but given the magnitude of the adaptation requirements I've
found, for me personally, I doubt any such mechanical changes that
may exist are of relative significance.

Keith Hughes

  #17   Report Post  
Wylie Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

Steve,
Actually I didn't use the words "bad" or "better" so quotes are not
inappropriate. I said that "I found that some speakers sounded
disappointingly harsh and thin when new". Nowhere did I say that that I
expected them to sound that way. I found that out by listening.
Did the speakers change, or was it just my attitude? I always thought it
was the speakers that changed, but then nobody knows the depths of their own
mind. I may mention that many of my independent minded argumentative young
salesmen who loved to have a contrary opinion heard the same thing. Or
maybe their attitude changed.
My "standards of proof appear to be somewhat less than rigorous". I admit
that am not a scientist doing rigorous testing. I'm just a person telling
what I have found to be so for the general information of the group.
No, I never "investigated". Nor performed controlled tests. I listened a
lot to alot of various stuff.. I thought about it and formed some
conclusions, but my conclusions are the sort of personal unproved
speculation that I would not pass to the group. Similarly I have a computer
that works. I don't know how or why, and I will never investigate why; I'm
just convinced that it does and am willing to say so without further
investigation.

Wylie Williams

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Wylie Williams wrote:
After being an audiophile for 25 years I worked in my audio store for 22
years and I have some experience with break-in of speakers. I found

that
some speakers sounded disappointingly harsh and thin when new, so in my
store we started breaking them in so we could make them sound their

best.
Depending on the models they sounded deeper, warmer ,and smoother with
continued play until a certain point was reached, depending on the

speaker.
And, no, it was not getting that we were getting accustomed to the sound
because we did not listen to the speakers while they were being broken

in.

You're expecting them to sound ''bad' at first and 'better'
when you're done. Amazingly enough, they do. But the question remains,
was the change in the speakers or in your 'attitude'?

We di it three ways: we played them loud overnight on FM while the store

was
closed, or we used CDs (including some "break-in" and CDs with bass test
frequencies), or we ran the speakers off the lower voltage taps of a
transformer. For this we set up the speakers in a receiving shed, put

them
face to face, connected them out of phase and let them rip for a week or

so.
We proved to ourselves time after time that break in is a reality for
speakers, some more so than others, and more important usually on the

better
speakers, especially the ones with butyl surrounds.


Your standards of proof appear to be somewhat less than rigorous.

As for wire break in, that too is real, though not always dramatic. My

most
dramatic personal experience was when using 25 foot silver coated

speaker
wire in my home. The first listen was dreadful. Extremely and

unlistenably
harsh. At that time I was already a believer in cable break in and I had

a
device called a cable enhancer that used a proprietary test tone to

break in
cables and interconnects. After 10 days of break in I found the cables

to be
vastly inproved. My wife, an impartial observer, had hated the cables

first
time. When I played them after break in she said she liked the sound

and
asked what I had changed. She was amazed that the cables that had been

so
dreadful were now an improvement over my previous speaker wire.


Classic.

I'm not selling anything. Having insufficient technical background I

don't
know why cable and speaker break in work beneficially.


You worked in audio for 22 years and you never bothered to
investigate *why* this extraordinary phenomenon might be occurring?

But break in is real
for everything in audio as far as I can tell, although it's not always

easy
to tell. The situation in a store let us listen and compare the same

music
on the same sets of speakers so often that we could easily tell changes.


Did you ever, even once, do the comparisons in a controlled fashion, in
all that time?



  #18   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

Wylie Williams wrote:
Steve,
Actually I didn't use the words "bad" or "better" so quotes are not
inappropriate. I said that "I found that some speakers sounded
disappointingly harsh and thin when new". Nowhere did I say that that I
expected them to sound that way. I found that out by listening.
Did the speakers change, or was it just my attitude? I always thought it
was the speakers that changed, but then nobody knows the depths of their own
mind. I may mention that many of my independent minded argumentative young
salesmen who loved to have a contrary opinion heard the same thing. Or
maybe their attitude changed.


I think it's safe to say that you thought they sounded bad at first,
then they sounded better after break in, yes?

I wasn't there at these trials, and you're recounting them considerably
afte rthe fact. Once you've decided that speakers *can* sound bad out of
the box but better after break in (and where did you get this idea in the
first place?) then there's expectation involved. And when comparisons
aren't done independently, then there's always the chance for
influence ("'Now, doesn't this speaker sound so much better after
break-in', said one salesman to another").

My "standards of proof appear to be somewhat less than rigorous". I admit
that am not a scientist doing rigorous testing. I'm just a person telling
what I have found to be so for the general information of the group.


And I'm just a person reading and responding to your post.

No, I never "investigated". Nor performed controlled tests. I listened a
lot to alot of various stuff.. I thought about it and formed some
conclusions, but my conclusions are the sort of personal unproved
speculation that I would not pass to the group.


I think you already passed on some conclusions, or maybe they're
assumptions...those are what I was responding to.

Similarly I have a computer
that works. I don't know how or why, and I will never investigate why; I'm
just convinced that it does and am willing to say so without further
investigation.


But if you were to investigate, you'd find that there's sound engineering
and scientific reasons why a computer does what it does. No one seems
to be able come up with such reasons why or how cables or speakers would
need to 'break in'. (Or why computers *don't* need to break in , if so.)

  #19   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

Keith A. Hughes wrote:
snip


You're expecting them to sound ''bad' at first and 'better'
when you're done. Amazingly enough, they do. But the question remains,
was the change in the speakers or in your 'attitude'?


I don't know that expectation bias plays *that* significant a role
in the "notion" of speaker break-in. From my own experience, I've
found that several pairs of *used* (one pair with hundreds of
hours playing time on them) and/or *floor demo* speakers exhibited
the same break-in phenomenon when I got them home.


For my experiences, clearly the "break-in" required was a function
of *my* adaptation to the differing sound of the new speakers, and
*not* a function of physical changes in the speakers' performance.


But AIUI in the case reported, there was one listening session prior to
an extended break-in period (where noise was used to do the breaking-in),
followed by the second listening session. DUring the first hearing the
speakers were pronounced bad
and on second hearing they were pronounced 'broken in'. Since AIUI
no listening took place during the actual break-in regime, expectation,
rather than adaptation, would seem to be acting.

Of course, when 'break-in' involves an extended period of listening
to music, then adapatation is what's taking place.

--
-S.
  #20   Report Post  
Wylie Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

My observation is that much of the high end advancement seems to have been
made by making changes that the best educated people say are not appreciable
improvements.Who can you trust to know what is better? Listeners or
engineer/scientists? Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other. I
remember several McIntosh tube owners I knew who switched to the new
improved transistors. All the EEs said transistors were an advancement.
Now there are a few contrary opinions in that regard. .
As for the cable enhancer it isn't fair to judge a product because the
salesman failed to make his point. Even the best products are sold by
incompetents or con men at times, but the pitch doesn't affect the product,
just your attitude. In an almost related context I recall reading that in
the early days electricity was thought to be a vapor in the air called
effluvium. Somehow they figured out how to store it in a "condenser". Now
the effluvium theory is discredited . However condensers (now called
capacitiors) work just the same as before, only with a new theory. The words
did not affect reality at all.
I just wish to share my experience; feel free to prefer your own opinion.

Wylie Williams

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Wylie Williams" wrote:

.....large snips.....

As for wire break in, that too is real, though not always dramatic. My

most
dramatic personal experience was when using 25 foot silver coated speaker
wire in my home. The first listen was dreadful. Extremely and

unlistenably
harsh. At that time I was already a believer in cable break in and I had

a
device called a cable enhancer that used a proprietary test tone to break

in
cables and interconnects. After 10 days of break in I found the cables to

be
vastly inproved. My wife, an impartial observer, had hated the cables

first
time.


Ah the Cable Enhancer. This product brings back an anecdote that some

might
find interesting about misinterpretation of data and how bias and hidden
assumptions are introduced in listening sessions.

At a CES a few years ago I walked into a display where the Cable Ehancer

was
being exhibited. I spent a moment and decided to leave, but the exhibitor
snagged me by the collar and said that I just "had" to listen to wires
'enhanced' by this device.

Sensing an odor of bovine feces I said OK but asked that he start with the

best
possible material so the 'differences' would be most dramatic right from

the
start. In the meantime a writer for another magazine had appeared in the
exhibit.

So the demonstration began with me, him and a 3rd party whom I didn't know

as
listeners. The Exhibitor held up two sets interconnects one which was said

the
be new and other had been broken-in overnight with the Enhancer.

One set was hooked up to this cd player and we listened for 2-3 minutes.

Then
the other set was installed and we repeated the test for roughly the same
duration. (Recall this was with, what was agreed to be the most dramatic
programming.)

The Exhibitor then asked expectantly "what did you think?" One of the

other
listeners thought the 1st one sounded 'better' while the other said that

the
2nd sounded better. I said they sounded the same to me, which they did.

The Exhibitor then said "Let's try again with BETTER program material" and

he
repeated the test. This time the other two had reversed opinions about

which
sounded 'better' and they still sounded the same to me.

So....we did it one more time and both the other listeners agreed that the

2nd
alternative sounded 'better.' My answer was the same as before. Because

this
time the enhanced cable was said to sound 'better' the demo was finished

and
the others began chatting animatedly about cable-enhancement and I sneaked

out.

Well we've all been in simialr situations before but I was surprised to

read in
the other guy's column a few months later that he had been 'amazed' that

this
demo had shown the Cable Enhancer was able to 'change' the sound quality

of
wire.

But there was no evidence of that from the event. Of course, there were no

bias
controls employed. We had not been officially informed of which cable was
enhanced and which was not, but it wasn't too hard tofigure that

out....the
demo ended when the 'right' answers were given.

But, even so, the differences were not such that the 1st run with the

already
agreed upon 'best' program had inconclusive results. The Exhibitor agreed

to
use his best stuff first. When that didn't get the right response then he
resorted to "better" programs.

Furthermore the test only ran long enough to get the 'right' answer. Once

that
was garnered no more data was gathered and all that went before was

ignored.

Let's dredge the data. We had no statistical evidence that a real

difference
was heard; opposing responses on the first 2 trials and 'no difference' on

3
trials. The chances of getting 2/3 to give the same response when 2

identical
sound presentations are given is practically assured.

So wrong answers were ignored. No difference, the most radically wrong
response, answers were ignored. Only the proper responses are accepted.

I see the same kind of thing happen when people will try to negotiate
differences in demonstrations. "We'll maybe you didn't hear the suave

midrange
but surely the lack of hoodedness in the lower treble was clearly audible"

is
the kind of thing I see all the time in group demonstrations or sales
presentations.

But my point here is that wires don't break-in, speakers don't break-in

and
nothing in audio breaks-in except lps and they ain't breakin'-in they're
wearing out. But, it's easy to convince yourself otherwise.

But even if there were a break-in process components would naturally

break-in
anyway. If break-in makes you feel better go ahead but observe caution

with
speakers. The speaker break-in procedure of feeding a pair of speaker

placed
face-to-face and wired in reverse polarity with noise is potentially

dangerous.
It's not that hard to drive them hard enough and long enough to cause the

voice
coil glue to heat up and bubble in the gap. Be careful.




  #21   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

"Wylie Williams" wrote:

My observation is that much of the high end advancement seems to have been
made by making changes that the best educated people say are not appreciable
improvements.


The "high-end" has never made an 'advancement' in sound quality. They merely
package current technology in different ways (sometimes grossly incompetent
ways) or simply make merchandising/marketing claims for it.

Ionce had a great debate with a person claimimg that the original MacIntosh
amplifier was proof that my statement that the audio industry in general and
the high-end in particular simply used communications industry trickle-down
technology was false. Inerestingly enough another poster noted that he still
owned one of the MacIntosh units referenced and that the interior of the
chassis still had a sticker that said "licensed from Western Electric" where
Frank MAcIntosh had previously worked.

Who can you trust to know what is better? Listeners or
engineer/scientists? Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other.


But this carries the assumption that engineers/scientists are not also
listeners.The dichotomy is patently false. Much of the seminal listening
evaluation of communications technology (which forms the platform for pro and
consumer audio, including the invention of 'stereo') was conducted at Bell Labs
in the 30s.

I
remember several McIntosh tube owners I knew who switched to the new
improved transistors. All the EEs said transistors were an advancement.
Now there are a few contrary opinions in that regard.


So why does modern day MacIntosh make solid state amplifiers these days?

As for the cable enhancer it isn't fair to judge a product because the
salesman failed to make his point.


This demonstration was claimed to have been conducted by the manufacturer.

Even the best products are sold by
incompetents or con men at times, but the pitch doesn't affect the product,
just your attitude.


Yes, but the pitch didn't make the case although naive subjects bought it. That
was the point. IF that product was able to change the sound of cables why
wasn't the experimental outcome more obvious? Why did it rely on the semi-open
easily-biased demonstration? Why didn't the company have a paper with published
results that could be replicated?

In an almost related context I recall reading that in
the early days electricity was thought to be a vapor in the air called
effluvium. Somehow they figured out how to store it in a "condenser". Now
the effluvium theory is discredited . However condensers (now called
capacitiors) work just the same as before, only with a new theory. The words
did not affect reality at all.
I just wish to share my experience; feel free to prefer your own opinion.

Wylie Williams


So you still believe a Cable Enhancer changes the sound of cables? Want to
prove that in a bias-controlled experiment? I'm assuming you still have a Cable
Enhancer. No?
  #22   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

Wylie Williams wrote:
Steve,
Actually I didn't use the words "bad" or "better" so quotes are not
inappropriate. I said that "I found that some speakers sounded
disappointingly harsh and thin when new". Nowhere did I say that that I
expected them to sound that way. I found that out by listening.
Did the speakers change, or was it just my attitude? I always thought it
was the speakers that changed, but then nobody knows the depths of their own
mind. I may mention that many of my independent minded argumentative young
salesmen who loved to have a contrary opinion heard the same thing. Or
maybe their attitude changed.


It is a known fact that the human mind will work like an equalizer on
sound input and listen a bit harder for certain areas and detune for others
once we get enough exposure to the sound.

Case in point - people who have a grandfather clock. I had one growing
up and to this day still walk all around my parents house and cannot
hear the thing chiming - I have permanently tuned it out.

People also tune out airplanes and freeway noise.

They also tune in specifics like their kids crying and TV programs
in a noisy environment.

Break-in is very real. The source of it is your mind and not the
hardware.
  #23   Report Post  
Richard D Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Wylie Williams wrote:
I'm not selling anything. Having insufficient technical background I don't
know why cable and speaker break in work beneficially.


You worked in audio for 22 years and you never bothered to
investigate *why* this extraordinary phenomenon might be occurring?


More importantly, why has the phenomenon of wire break-in
NEVER been observed in ANY field otherv than by a few
casual observer under completely uncontrolled condition in
an "industry" that is the backwater of backwaters. WHy has this
phenomenon NEVER been observed, much less quantified, in areas
that deal with signals FAR more fragile than audio signals?

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

  #24   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

chris wrote:
I agree the actual loudspeaker is a highly complex piece of flexible
engineering (theirs science in the olde wind waggling motors :=AC) and =

the
different parts of its construction will work harden or soften over a p=

eriod
of usage.


This takes years and is a sign of shoddy design and quality of materials.
The surrounds if foam will degrade half a dozen times before the drivers
wear out, in any case.

Barring abuse. Thrashing your coils and bottoming them out even once
can horribly mangle the speaker's sound. Some speakers survive it
and some do not.

Does an aluminium cone harden with the work of moving the air about?=20


No, actually, Aluminum MAY be an exception to the rule as it is known to
take flexing until a specific point where it suffers sudden failure.
This is a well known effect on racing bikes - lightweight, but it fails
over time.

Paper softens.=20


Properly treated and stored/cared for paper is good. The cones are
99% of the time made from acid-free paper and coated for durability.
I've seen 1000+ year old treated parchment that is almost as good as
new. In a person's 20-30 year typical listening/ownership period,
the cabinet and crossover and surrounds will fall apart faster.

I've seen some old tannoy (guess cira 1960's) ali coned speakers
fetch very high $'s on ebay, so they must still be good.


Properly made - just fine. Needs some updating of crossover
parts and new surrounds - easy to do.

Another thing people don't think about:
- Over-stressed and over-heated components will sound differently.
- Over-stressed capacitors WILL affect the sound as they start to fail.
This means if you pummel your speakers, expect the crossovers to die
quickly. Not to mention outright crud capacitors. There is a firm in
Taiwan that made a batch that got into thousands of components and
motherboards - and they have a 80% leaking ratio.

Lastly - I think most of the "break-in" myth was started by people
in the 70's and 80's listening to Alcino magnet speakers. They do
moniceably change their sound and suffer greatly over time AND
if driven too hard - even for a few hours. Widely known. I can
imagine people really hearing their speakers suffering and thinking
it was "breaking in" - when it was really just getting less precise
and a bit fuzzier and muted.

Take a computer monitor. Display TV signals on it. It looks grainy
and bad due to the image being too precise. Now, turn to contrast and
focus down a bit and presto - it blurs just enough to look good.

Of course, modern speakers don't generally use Alcino magnets, so
break-in is a myth. That's one thing new technology has done for
us in audio - gotten rid of crud like that.

I've also seen some complex laser stress patterns in the actual cones j=

ust
reproducing sine/square/triangular waves, when playing music it gets me=

ga
complex, and the bits of the cones move at different rates and the poor
"rubber" suspension has to cope with the whole lot.


Again, stressing it to failure mode or bottoming out the coils - well -
that's damage and not "breaking in" - merely "broken".

As for rubber, there IS a problem that people overlook. Ozone.
High smog areas will degrade the surrounds on your speakers in as
little as a *year*. This also can blur the sound a bit and make
it sound more "mellow" - thereby masking flaws and such.

But in all cases I listed, it is really changes that are due to
the components *failing* to work at new specs anymore.

"Break-in" shold really be called "Break-down". They'd sell more
speakers IMO, if they started to promote that speakers needed to
be repaired and replaced every decade or so - because for most
cheap speakers, it's true.

With composite materials it must be worse (but according to my ears it
seems to sounds better) but that is probably why the manufactures spend=

all
that money in R&D.


Composites offer great performance - strength, flexability, and light
weight. If properly made, they will last at least 20-30 years. Of
course, get the mix wrong, as with any new technology and who knows
when it will fail.

Carbon-fiber, for instance, is a miracle material for most things
it is used for - strong, light, and easily formable whatever shape
you require.

The original thread was to try and get some data from everyone on their
"experience of the running in" of speaker cables. I know the concept is
controversial, but I wondered if their was a correlation between the
materials used in their construction and the time before they "settled =

down"

Nope. More likely your upstream and downstream components are degrading
due to some other factor if anything real is happening. 95% of the time,
though, it is your mind.
  #25   Report Post  
Ed Seedhouse
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Lastly - I think most of the "break-in" myth was started by people
in the 70's and 80's listening to Alcino magnet speakers.


Well I think Alnico was well out of the picture by then, by and large.
I bought a pair of 8" full range Wharfedale speakers in the early 1960's
that had large ceramic magnets, and I think Alnico was only a niche
market by the 1970's.

Gilbert W. Briggs, founder of Wharfedale, wrote a book about
loudspeakers back in the 1950's and was already talking about speaker
break in at that time. I read it in the Public Library - alas it has
long been lost from the collection.



  #26   Report Post  
Michael Squires
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

In article ,
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
chris wrote:

I've seen some old tannoy (guess cira 1960's) ali coned speakers
fetch very high $'s on ebay, so they must still be good.


Properly made - just fine. Needs some updating of crossover
parts and new surrounds - easy to do.


I own some University 315-C's made ca 1960; surrounds are cloth.
No problems with either the cones or surrounds.

I had to repair a Jensen G610B many years ago when the back-to-back
electrolytics used as crossover caps failed.

Lastly - I think most of the "break-in" myth was started by people
in the 70's and 80's listening to Alcino magnet speakers. They do


Bookshelf speakers from the 70's and 80's used ferrite magnets, and
not AlNiCo. Professional speakers from the 60's, at least, used
AlNiCo magnet structures and I doubt that they changed much over
time.

Mike Squires
--

Mike Squires ) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564 (h)
546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408
  #28   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote:


Lastly - I think most of the "break-in" myth was started by people
in the 70's and 80's listening to Alcino magnet speakers.



Well I think Alnico was well out of the picture by then, by and large.
I bought a pair of 8" full range Wharfedale speakers in the early 1960's
that had large ceramic magnets, and I think Alnico was only a niche
market by the 1970's.

Gilbert W. Briggs, founder of Wharfedale, wrote a book about
loudspeakers back in the 1950's and was already talking about speaker
break in at that time. I read it in the Public Library - alas it has
long been lost from the collection.


Interesting.

I lost a URL years ago to an article about Alcino magnets and how
they degrade. They took a pair of old JBL speakers and tested
them after replacing the drivers with new ones. They changed
their sound in days if driven too hard. Of course, re-magnetizing
them fixed this, but the change was not imaginary.

I know that JBL and a few others held onto this technology all
through the 70's and into the first few years of the 80's.

Also, in the 50's and 60's, it was not uncommon to have less
than optimal capacitors and crossovers, as well as surrounds.
Thankfully, this was less of a problem a decade or two later.

Briggs was likely hearing changes due to this and the other
reasons I listed if anything at all. Note - 95% or more of
"break in" is mental, but sometimes speakers do develop changes
in sound due to "breaking down".

  #29   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

Tom said


The "high-end" has never made an 'advancement' in sound quality. They merely
package current technology in different ways (sometimes grossly incompetent
ways) or simply make merchandising/marketing claims for it.


I said


I think that one can find plenty of advancement in sound quality from the
likes
of Martin Logan, Vandersteen, Rockport, VPI, Forsell, Clearaudio, Koetsu,
SME,
Oracle,Sound Lab, Reference Recordings, Shefield Labs, Waterlily, Wilson
Audio
and many other high end companies regardless of your beliefs on the
audibilities of amplifiers and cables.


Tom said


I'd love to argue this but NONE of the companies you list make amplifiers nor
have conntributed materially to improvements in amp-sound (mostly because there
haven't been any

I thought you said "The 'high-end' has never made an 'advancement' in sound
quality. They merely package current technology in different ways (sometimes
grossly incompetent ways) or simply make merchandising/marketing claims for it.
" The companies I listed are, to my knowledge, all considered to be "high end"
companies that you claim none of which have made an advancement in sound
quality.

  #30   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

(S888Wheel)


Tom said


The "high-end" has never made an 'advancement' in sound quality. They

merely
package current technology in different ways (sometimes grossly incompetent
ways) or simply make merchandising/marketing claims for it.


I said


I think that one can find plenty of advancement in sound quality from the
likes
of Martin Logan, Vandersteen, Rockport, VPI, Forsell, Clearaudio, Koetsu,
SME,
Oracle,Sound Lab, Reference Recordings, Shefield Labs, Waterlily, Wilson
Audio
and many other high end companies regardless of your beliefs on the
audibilities of amplifiers and cables.


Tom said


I'd love to argue this but NONE of the companies you list make amplifiers nor
have conntributed materially to improvements in amp-sound (mostly because
there
haven't been any

I thought you said "The 'high-end' has never made an 'advancement' in sound
quality. They merely package current technology in different ways (sometimes
grossly incompetent ways) or simply make merchandising/marketing claims for
it.
" The companies I listed are, to my knowledge, all considered to be "high
end"
companies that you claim none of which have made an advancement in sound
quality.


None of those companies have made major contributions to improved sound
quality. Some of them are still trying to perfect a basically flawed medium
that has long been obsolete.

One of them has made some reasonably decent loudspeakers using a technology
that was found to be 2nd best in the 20s when the moving coil loudspeaker was
also invented. They have also found a way to make one of the most expensive and
arguably worst sounding center channel speakers ever made.

One makes terrifically expensive 'full range' loudspeakers that have no output
below 40 Hz, just like most other tower speakers. Rather pedestrian IMO.

But none of these companies has implemented advanced technologies or special
improvements in sound quality that weren't invented or implemented elsewhere
first.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but the fact remains that all of
audio, especially high-end, simply uses tricle-down technology from the
communications industry.

For example, the first time Americans used digital audio was in 1962 when
Illinois Bell installed the initial digital carrier systems in the Bell System
networks. The reason we don't all use electrostatic speakers is because Western
Electric figured out they weren't the best way to do it in the 30s.



  #31   Report Post  
Richard D Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

In article ,
chris wrote:
Does an aluminium cone harden with the work of moving the air about? Paper
softens. I've seen some old tannoy (guess cira 1960's) ali coned speakers
fetch very high $'s on ebay, so they must still be good.


Yeah, well I saw a Nikon 35mm F/1.4 non-AI lens with a jammed
focussing helicoid and serious cleaning scratches on the front
lens finally for TWICE what a brand new AIS with modern coatings
lists for. I later communicated with the seller, who was
dumbfounded that anyone would in their right mind pay more than
$25 for it, which was my bid.

The fact that some idiot is willing to pay more than good money
for something is NO indication that it's any good. The fact that
an entire group of idots will do the same, well, is merely
depressing.

I've also seen some complex laser stress patterns in the actual cones just
reproducing sine/square/triangular waves, when playing music it gets mega
complex,


Wanna bet? Monsieur Fourier would suggest that this is not the
case.

and the bits of the cones move at different rates and the poor
"rubber" suspension has to cope with the whole lot.
With composite materials it must be worse


Why?

(but according to my ears it
seems to sounds better) but that is probably why the manufactures spend all
that money in R&D.


Actually very little money is specnt, in the grand scheme of
things, on such R&D. I recall, for example, "repeating" some
simply experiments in cone shape and thickness tapering,
experiements that were seemingly obvious, and got a bunch of
interesting results. Interesting in the sense that no one else
had reported them. On talking to a number of engineers at major
driver companies, I was somewhat shocked to learn that NOBODY
had done such experiments, as elementary as they were. Their
"R&D" was to ASSUME such-and-such behavior, and they were, for
the most part, wrong.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

  #32   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default speaker cable burn in.

Richard D Pierce wrote:

Actually very little money is specnt, in the grand scheme of
things, on such R&D. I recall, for example, "repeating" some
simply experiments in cone shape and thickness tapering,
experiements that were seemingly obvious, and got a bunch of
interesting results. Interesting in the sense that no one else
had reported them. On talking to a number of engineers at major
driver companies, I was somewhat shocked to learn that NOBODY
had done such experiments, as elementary as they were. Their
"R&D" was to ASSUME such-and-such behavior, and they were, for
the most part, wrong.


Materials testing would be the FIRST thing a good engineer would
focus on. I theory, for instance, wood would be a great driver
material - but unless someone comes up with a micron-thick
laminating process... The best musical instruments are made
from it, afterall.

But a good engineer would at least try a few things. Maybe
a certain oval shape. Maybe a bit thicker at the edges.
Maybe two materials or something you'd not think of like
maybe aluminum for surrounds or making more than one port
in the box. Who knows - it may give you unexpected results
that are better.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bose 901 Review William Sommerwerck General 149 January 8th 05 05:49 PM
My equipment review of the Bose 901 TonyP Audio Opinions 65 February 13th 04 02:06 AM
cabling explained Midlant Car Audio 8 November 14th 03 04:07 AM
Seeking advice on speaker cable Eric the Mac Guy General 12 September 17th 03 11:39 AM
Seeking advice on speaker cable Eric the Mac Guy Audio Opinions 12 September 15th 03 03:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:45 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"