Olaf Posted June 17, 2001 Share Posted June 17, 2001 I've had 30 years of experience working with different types of speakers. With all the different brands that I have owned and the dozens of bands I've worked in I never heard of any speaker that needed 'broken in.' Is there a technical reason that 'Klipsch" speakers requires a break-in period? Is it the composition of material which the speakers are manufactured with? If the 'break-in' period is indeed necesary and factual,what type of improvements in their performance can I expect? The model of speaker is RF-3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted June 17, 2001 Share Posted June 17, 2001 Klipsch speakers don't need a break-in any more or any less than other speakers. I believe most of the break-in occurs within a new owner's ears. However, I have read a measurable break-in happens with subwoofers and I suppose that extends to woofers as well. The audible effect should be small at best. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olaf Posted June 17, 2001 Author Share Posted June 17, 2001 John Agreed!! I think the only thing that 'breaks in' are the listener's ears. There's a huge difference in the sound between my old Advent Legacies and the RF3's. It will take several months for my ears to adjust to the new and superior sound of the RF's. And yes! I did initially have 'ear shock.'(Original Legacies are still damn good speakers though) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted June 17, 2001 Share Posted June 17, 2001 I make a test some years ago on three Pyramid woofers. I measured the T-S parameters on a test box using a Linear-X LMS system. Then I ran them with good excursion at resonance overnight which put them through more than a million cycles. Then I ran the measurements again. The results were about as close to no change as you can get. Gil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted June 17, 2001 Share Posted June 17, 2001 Gil, does that mean that the speakers still weren't "broke in"? Keith Sorry,I couldn't resist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 Whoops, Ray G. is the most classically educated among us. Ray, who first wrote, "Many a truth is spoken in jest." ? Keith has a good point; if in jest. I assumed that 1 million cycles is enough to prove break-in or not and reached a conclusion, perhaps over generalized. Some wag is gonna come forward and suggest 100 million is the break point to audio heaven. Honestly guys, I wondered if there was any merit to the claim of break in. Testing parameters were reasonable and testing was accurate. I just don't find any support. I've experienced the same subjective effect though. On a given day you come back to the same old system, and it doesn't quite sound the same, with the same recording. Then you get a new recording. The system might sound a bit off. After a few replays of the CD, it sounds great. Gremlins? Nope, some things just take getting used to. Gil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J M O N Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 In regards to "breaking-in" new speakers, I'll share what I have heard/read about this topic (I don't even remember where I heard this from, it may very well have been from this boad). I can't make any claims about this either way as I have never made any comparisons between new speakers and "broken-in" speakers. What gets "broken-in" are the diaphrams in the drivers -- more specifically, the parts of the diagrams that are flexed when the drivers move (for example, the surrounds on the woofer). When a woofer moves, the cone doesn't flex (not supposed to anyway, but does a small amount). It's the surround that flexes to allow the cone to move. Now these diaphrams are supposedly stiffer when new and after they are "broken-in", they loosen up a bit and are not quite as stiff. It's supposed to be like breaking in a new pair of shoes. Once they are "broken-in", again, they are not as stiff, so they don't provide as much resistance to flexing and allow the diaphram to move as it's supposed to. This seemed to make sense to me in theory, but again, I can't make any claims either way. I also heard that it takes approximately 100 hours to "break-in" new speakers. It also isn't supposed to matter how loud the speakers are playing to break them in -- the diaphrams just need to be in movement. This information came from my same source (whatever it was). I have also read in many speaker reviews (Stereophile among others), that the reviewers generally "break-in" a new set of speakers that they have received for review before actually evaluating them. Accordingly, every speaker is supposed to need a "break-in", not just Klipsch. Anyway, that is what I have heard. Don't know if there really is any sonic improvement to it all though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 Hmmmm Speaker Break-in. Good question. My own opinion is that the sound a speaker plays will vary over time. Rubber mounts loosen up even speaker materials themselves (for woofers mainly) should undergo some form of change. What I cannot tell you is which sound is "correct". Is a speaker that is new closer to the sound originally intended by the designer or is the "broken-in" sound the one that was intended. I can tell you that as I cannot be sure what the change is I took my audiophile friend's advice and broke everything in. This was a terrible chore having to play my system constantly for 200 hours (not), and now I have the awful situation where my wife constantly asks why we have no music playing (on the odd ocasion when silence reigns). Maybe I have more bass now than at first - or maybe I just got used to it - who knows? Who cares? I just love my sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myram Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 I have never been a fan of "breaking in" a pair of speakers. I have heard many many techniques that are used for doing this, but I have never believed that it ever did anything other then waste a listeners time that he could be spending listening to them the way he wanted to. I remember when I bought my KG4's brand new back in 1990......as soon as I got them back home we had them hooked up and listening to them as if they had been there forever......and they are still going strong over 10 years later. So in my opinion......"breaking in" a pair of speakers is just a bunch of BS, and takes away from some of the time you could be enjoying a great new pair of speakers. ------------------ Home Theater System: Klipsch Quartets - mains for both systems Klipsch KV3 - center Klipsch KG.5's - rear surrounds Klipsch KSW12 subwoofer Denon AVR-1601 Music System: Adcom GFA-555 Musical Concepts Modified NAD 1600 Pre/Tuner Sony C-67ES CD Player Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 I'll add a little fuel to the fire. Last week I spent all day setting up my mother-in-laws new HT.Before leaving about 10:00 PM I picked up the boxes,packing,manuals and such to police the area and I quickly thumbed thru the Definitive Technology manual and read the notation that the speakers sound would improve after 30-40 hours use. I cannot remember the exact statement,but I will reread and post here.Use it for what its worth. My personal opinion is that there definitely is a break in period.I'm just not so sure what it is that gets "broke in"(speakers-ears). Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Garrison Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 Gil, The origins of memes that become widely quoted in popular culture rapidly become apocryphal. However, I think that, in this case, you can pretty much point your finger at the Rev. C.H. Spurgeon, in a sermon he delivered on September 14th, 1856, the inspiration for which was Luke 15:2. To cut a bit out of context... "...Many a true word has been spoken in jest, and many a true word has been spoken in slander. Men have said sometimes in jest, "There goes a saint;" but it has been true. They have said, "There goes one of your chosen ones, one of your elect," they meant it as a slander, but the doctrine they scandalized was to the person who received it a comfort; it was his glory and his honour..." As to speaker break in, I think I can conceive of some types of materials that might be used for, say, the spider or surrounds which, when brand new, would have a stiffer composition (and thus lower complience) than they would have after some period of vigorous flexing back and forth. Ray ------------------ Music is art Audio is engineering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 All I can say is that I made the correct call to pass the question to Ray. Seriously, Ray, how did you find the quote and where does more info appear about the Rev? A heavy thinker. A good buddy at the office presented the saying: "Many a truth is spoken in jest." He was unable to cite a source. Sounds like a Shakespere quip. Or something Mel Gibson playing Hamlet would throw out. For some years I've quoted: "I'm sorry this missive is so long, I didn't have time to make it short." (As A. Hitchcock would say, drolely (sp?) it is a "common problem" with my posts.) The same buddy claimed it was from Mark Twain. I thought Shaw. I consulted all the standard reference works starting with Bartlet's (sp?). Nada, zip, nothing. Eventually I found a reference attributing it to Blase Pascal. Interesting because his gas laws come into play with our speakers. My guess is that the people who compile quotations do it only from sources written in English. Pascal wrote in French. Thanks again Ray. Gil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Blorry Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 Well, I believe that my KLF series speakers have gotten better over time, but I may be able to conduct a reliable test. I first upgraded from KLF 20s to KLF 30s, and I thought the 20s had more bass. That was the day I lowered the 30s into place. Sadly, my 30s were damaged during shipment, and my dealer is replacing them. They estimate arrival by the end of this month, June 2001. Like the good little audiophile geek that I am, I have already marked the speakers locations on the carpet with tape (no WAF to deal with), so when the new ones are wrestled into the house, they will occupy the same location. I will also measure the spikes to insure equal height. I will then connect the same speaker wire to the same amplifier, and listen to the same music through the same CD player, blah blah blah. If there is no break in period, I should hear no difference in sound. I should invite a few friends over who have already heard my existing setup, and not tell them I have changed speakers. I am willing to wager that there will be a noticeable lack of bass response. If you wanna stop by, give me a shout, and we'll check 'em out together! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted June 19, 2001 Share Posted June 19, 2001 I added the "jest" portion of my response because there may possibly be someone whom would take offense to a seemingly direct question. And what is a "wag"(serious question)? Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badbob Posted June 19, 2001 Share Posted June 19, 2001 WAG = wild assed guess SWAG = scientific wild assed guess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted June 19, 2001 Share Posted June 19, 2001 wag, n. a person who is fond of a joke or of making jokes; on who is full of merry tricks or pranks; a humorist; a wit; a joker. I recall usually seeing it in the context of a mischievous student annoying a teacher with a bothersome or imponderable question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Garrison Posted June 19, 2001 Share Posted June 19, 2001 Gil, "...how did you find the quote and where does more info appear about the Rev? A heavy thinker." More info appears at http://www.spurgeon.org/mainpage.htm How did I know it was him? Hey, when you're the CTO, you have to know these things... Keith, Wag or wag = A jokester. WAG (acronym) = Wild Assed Guess Swag or swag = An ornamental drapery or curtain draped in a curve between two points. SWAG (acronym) = Seriously Wild Assed Guess RAY (Really Annoying Yuppie) ------------------ Music is art Audio is engineering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider124 Posted June 19, 2001 Share Posted June 19, 2001 The definitions of SWAG that I know are: An acronym for the SourceWare Archive Group. Also, 'swag' is cool junk, like door prizes at LAN parties. Charlie ------------------ "What's that noise?" "It's the carpet, it kinda mutes the speakers." "No, it sounded more like the chandalier falling." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest polymon Posted June 19, 2001 Share Posted June 19, 2001 My 2c worth on "Break-in": After nearly 18 years in audio retail, including two rather fun stints at Speakerlab, and now lucky enough to be actually working for the company who sponsors this forum (I'm still pinching my self after a year), I have heard alot of differing opinions on "break-in". I grew up around Klipsch as my Grandfather represented the company here in the Pacific Northwest for some 35 years. I remember attending a seminar (1978-ish) given for the local Dealers by none other than PWK himself. Someone asked about break-in. He uttered in the most gutteral tone and with much contempt, (this is pretty close to a quote) "That's BULLSHIT! Pure ruminant dung!" He then explained that neither he or any engineer who worked for Klipsch could measure a difference between a "virgin" speaker and one that had a few hours on it. I've heard a few claims about electronics and even cable (!! Give me a BREAK!!) needing hours of break-in. I believe it is just the listener getting accustomed to a different sound and adjusting phsycologically (sp?) to the change in the sound of a new set of speakers. If PWK says it's B.S., I tend to consider that the bottom line! ------------------ Polymon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Blorry Posted June 19, 2001 Share Posted June 19, 2001 PMon- What PWK says is gospel I suppose. Actually, I am not looking forward to the prospect of breaking in these bad boys; I would rather they be ready to rock the moment the current tickles the voice coils. I hope you and Mr. K are correct! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.