Do brand new speakers require a break-in period?

His challenge is flawed, A/B testing is not the proper way to discern the more subtle, finer detail of audio differences. It does not work unless the differences are blatant, like comparing AM radio to FM, or FM to CD.

Longer term listening in a relaxed, non stressful listening environment with varied music will reveal the true detail of "not in your face obvious" audio differences. Not some sterile A/B test under stress, and more than likely in the improper mood to even listen to music.

I've been changing components in several of my secondary systems for a while now, mixing and matching what I have laying around, even pulling out of storage older amps, preamps, receivers, integrated amps, CD players.

It's not real often I replace something and right off the bat it's hey, that is good/not good, unless it's speakers. And those take time to dial in their position anyhow before any final judgments can be made.

I'll have some relaxed listening sessions with varied music and develop an opinion. Yes, sometimes I've put a component in and right off the bat it was wow, this is not sounding so good, or wow this is great.

Tonight was a perfect example of hearing an obvious difference right away. Especially surprising considering my expectation actually was there was going to be no difference.

I've been using this setup for a week or 2 now. I was pretty pleased with it's sound.

I was doing some repacking of storage, I ran across a Pioneer A91D integrated amp, this current setup was using a Pioneer A717 integrated amp. I always thought the A91D was just a dolled up much more expensive, more feature laden A717. I did not use this A91D ever because when I got it the speaker selector was busted in shipping. I was refunded my money so there it sat. I dug into it tonight and bypassed the selector switch.

Plugged it in to see if it worked, it powered up so I replaced the A717 with the A91D.

Before the swap I checked listening level with a SLM mounted in a fixed position in my room with several test tones. Matched that volume with the A91D. Both amps were running in bypass mode, no controls in use. I've been playing a handful of CD's over and over the last 2 weeks on this system, I popped in the one I was way overplaying and in love with, Lou Reed Transformer. I smugly sat back to poke fun of this dolled up, overpriced amp I had gotten used, actually very cheap on a whim years back.


BANG! POW! WOW!

Bass was an order of magnitude tighter, faster, more realistic. Mids sounded much more natural, and highs/edge of reverb had much better air and detail. I was FLOORED, especially considering my expectation was there would be no difference.

Several CD's later and my initial findings are verified. I've put the A717 aside and I'll be using this A91D until it dies. I'm in love with it! I'm just sad it sat for almost 8 years unused.

The funniest part of this was my expectation was there would be no difference.

 

I have heard his opinion on enough to know i have no interest in clicking that link

A challenge you say? well to me that speaks of someone that may be desperate to prove his beliefs correct.

 

Years ago I was in a band that had four 15 inch speaker cabinets. One of the 15’s (JBL) blew and was replaced with a new one. The sound man would ask if anyone could pick out the new speaker. Three of us could. After about a week no one could tell a difference. So I’ll say yes there is a difference after burn in.

 

I think we would politely agree to disagree but that is ok. I just don't think that there is that much variation in amp design that it could lead to huge variations in sound (maybe at stratospheric price levels but certainly not at what us mere mortals can afford), I would not say they all sound the same nor that budget things would outperform all pricy stuff, just that it's not that big of a deal like speakers, the room and the recordings. Doug Self explained it all pretty well with his articles and books where he analyzed the most common amp topologies. One of the biggest factors is the # of output transistors per channel. I would want at least 2 pair per channel any thing less I think is a bad design but some very pricey stuff doesn't even have that or any dc offset protection. Yet some very modestly priced stuff does all this well, so go figure. Amps & CD players have advanced to the point where even modestly priced stuff have very decent performance characteristics and measurements. Why because the need to build something reliable, stable under load and with a relatively flat response dictates designers use one of only a few tried and true topologies. If someone could show me with examples that there is a huge variation in design of amps at a given price level or even at different price levels then I would be willing to re-evaluate my position, I think I am pretty open minded. Speakers have so much more variation in design by comparison.

As far as the testing I think there are problems with all types of comparisons and testing so we could probably agree there. It's so hard to do in any rigorously scientific way that I can find some fault with almost all of them. So then where does that leave you. The consumer is forced to rely on subjective reviews which are very flawed and objective performance measurements which are not the whole story, or worst of all total BS marketing claims from the manufacturer and then has to make some decision based on that. So yeah why not just choose on aesthetics at some point if the overall design is sound, the alternative is pretty nerve racking and leads people on this equipment buying merry go round where they are constantly replacing and obsessing about things. So in the end I think it's fine if people politely and respectfully agree to disagree about this stuff as not everyone has the time, money and patience. And yet others find that to be a fulfilling hobby. Different strokes etc

 

I choose (within my restricted budget) what sounds best to me

We are all different (and this goes beyond personal preferences....into hearing (for a small part, but more so the perceptive abilities of the brain), and each of us have different objectives and approaches in this hobby. I respect your view, It's just very different from my own experiences as I often can hear differences. Some of those differences if I told you...you would probably shake ya' head at

I take all marketing with a pinch of salt, and decide for myself if something is suitable for myself and my system. I rarely change amps players or speakers, just sorting out phono ATM, but I do obsess on getting each of those things optimal for my system, and that does mean carefully choosing the right mix of passives to get all I can form a given bit of kit, I enjoy this approach and it maximizes what I can do on a limited budget.... but it is far from everyone's idea of how to do things

 

This might play a big part in it, and why people have such different experiences for all I know. And it's so poorly understood we would just have to leave it at that and just respect each other and our love of all things music.

 

Norman, I agree, and I think when we get down to the bones of it we all have more in common with each other.. than we have differences pertaining to our hobby

 

Since its the high end merchants who claim "break in" the most ... why do they not "break in" for however long it takes?

I have heard merchants claim cables need to be broken in. Of course the break in of 100 hours or more is most certainly going to take the average person beyond their return window. So why do the makers of such things not just break them in? After all is someone is paying over 5000 fpr a set of speakers and almost all "hifi" sets are over that .. what meaningful extra cost could the factory break on possibly incur.

But there type of logical questions will never be answered. Several makers of high end equipment have already publicly stated they'd just rather not comment as to do so would ruin relationships with dealers.

I know for a fact that the longer I hear any audio product, the more my head will fill in the gaps. That sound will become your new sound to which all else is measured. Our brains are excellent at this.

 

If they did, then they would need to charge more, so you pay more.

I rather they do some and I do the rest, that way I can spend that bit that is saved on some other stuff...records maybe, or anything really

Oh, and every brain is different, no idea what yours does but mine pretty much doesn't do the compensation/filling thing.

Huh? beyond the return window, I don't understand this as I think mine have a 10 year warranty...or something like that.

 

Just need to add, that I will get familiar with the new sound, but any anomalies or faults would still be glaring to me.

A good speaker usually will not sound bad per-say, but can sound noticeably better after run time.

 

First time I have heard this. On the Aunt Linda scale I give it a 'Whaat?' and an 'Oh, Brother!'

 

I agree with GuildX700, AB does not show the more subtle things.

That is one reason longer listening is better, and it give you the chance to really relax... and remove some of the test stress factor.

Meh..just my little opinion.

 

And I agree with GuildX700 as well. It's something I learned long ago. Another test method I like is to listen to a new whatever for a period of time, say a week or two, then swap back in the old whatever. It tends to be very revealing.

I recall many, many years ago trying to decide between a pair of Polk's and a pair of Klipsch's at the local dealer. I sat there switching back and forth driving myself crazy because they were sounding pretty much the same in short order and I knew they were very different sounding speakers. I walked out shaking my head. I talked to a more experienced audio person about it and he made a suggestion. So, I went back days later and listened to one for an hour or so, then the other. The differences were glaring, I bought the Polk's.

That swapping back and forth in rapid succession stuff simply doesn't work.

 

Surprised you can hear anything.

 

IMO, It couldn't hurt.