[Daffy_Duck]

I just took a look at :http://www.omigaaudio.co.uk/CCfaq.htm

Which I believe was referenced at that ng discussion. I showed it to 4 of the engineers here, 2 of which are electrical engineers and we all had a good laugh. If you believe this stuff, I've got some auto parts to sell you.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Daffy_Duck I just took a look at :http://www.omigaaudio.co.uk/CCfaq.htm Which I believe was referenced at that ng discussion. I showed it to 4 of the engineers here, 2 of which are electrical engineers and we all had a good laugh. If you believe this stuff, I've got some auto parts to sell you.

If I'm not mistaken, that's talking about burning in cables. There's a difference between breaking in something with moving parts, and the supposed breaking in of a cable. In other words, there's nothing to prevent the possibility of transducer break-in, you've got moving parts subject to change in physical state via friction, vibration, etc. OTOH, "cable break-in" follows no known laws of physics (at least none I know of)...

 

[Daffy_Duck]

Speaker break-in is slightly more believable than cable break-in but I've already made my opinion on that clear so I won't rehash.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by stuartr I think we are talking about headphone break-in here, which is why it is in this forum. Anyway, I am a believer in break-in. It's what I have heard, and I think that whenever you are talking about something that is designed to vibrate, it is obviously going to adjust over time.

The point is whether it's PERMANENT or temporary. The discussion states that the only effect is due to heating, and that this lasts only so long as the heating is still a factor. It's not 'obvious' that it's permanent: that's the question.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lando Stuartr, my point was that we are talking about headphone break-in, the linked discussion is about cable and loudspeaker break-in, and the original poster did not make it clear what he wanted to discuss. Anyway, that's an interesting tidbit about Cary.

The original poster (I) wanted to point out that other opinions on the matter of break-in contradict what many here hold so dear. Speaker drivers are not different from headphone drivers, except in the amount of current they commonly see, and their power handling capacity.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch I have to apologize a little, as I had a few beers last night and jumped on this thread without much thought. But in my opinion this thread is basically an attempt at trolling. Scarpitti knows these 'debates' just go around in circles and often turn heated or argumentative, but he started it anyway -- purely out of the blue, on a whim. People who always have something to prove, who have agendas... grrrrr........

I repeat: are you afraid of something? I have made no assetions whatsoever. Just read what the writers have had to say and argue for or against, using something other than mere opinion.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti The original poster (I) wanted to point out that other opinions on the matter of break-in contradict what many here hold so dear. Speaker drivers are not different from headphone drivers, except in the amount of current they commonly see, and their power handling capacity.

Speaker drivers are indeed different than headphone drivers. All you have to do is look at them to see the differences! The basic principle may be the same with all dynamic drivers involving a coil and a magnet, but the materials are different... the construction is different... lots of things are different.

Who's to say that much smaller sonic changes may not be audible with a wafer thin diaphragm sitting right next to the eardrum... vs. a big, thick cone sitting on the other side of the room?

 

[Patrickhat2001]

Ouch, this really has turned into a nasty debate. Personally, I don't think we really can come to a conclusion about break-in without empiracal testing. The human mind is able to believe what it wants to believe to a point that it can't really be trusted (hence the placebo effect). And I don't think I'm alone in realizing that whenever someone mentions the effects of break-in it's always for the better--no one ever says that the treble got even more harsh or the bass gotten even looser with break-in. Hence we need empirical testing to really figure out what is going on.

I'm not taking one side or another I'm just stating what I've observed.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch Speaker drivers are indeed different than headphone drivers. All you have to do is look at them to see the differences! The basic principle may be the same with all dynamic drivers involving a coil and a magnet, but the materials are different... the construction is different... lots of things are different. Who's to say that much smaller sonic changes may not be audible with a wafer thin diaphragm sitting right next to the eardrum... vs. a big, thick cone sitting on the other side of the room?

Now, that's a good argument, and stated calmly.

 

[cscott23]

Quote:

Originally posted by Daffy_Duck I just took a look at :http://www.omigaaudio.co.uk/CCfaq.htm Which I believe was referenced at that ng discussion. I showed it to 4 of the engineers here, 2 of which are electrical engineers and we all had a good laugh. If you believe this stuff, I've got some auto parts to sell you.

Daffy, you exclude explanations that are beyond your scope of knowledge. That is, you dismiss scientifically accepted transient effects.

Two that readily come to mind are the following: polymer outgassing in the speaker cone; and electromigration in the cables.

I'm remain skeptical too, but I reserve judgment until I see a credible journal article on the subject.

 

[Daffy_Duck]

Quote:

Speaker drivers are indeed different than headphone drivers. All you have to do is look at them to see the differences! The basic principle may be the same with all dynamic drivers involving a coil and a magnet, but the materials are different... the construction is different... lots of things are different.

How does this support the concept of burn-in? What is happening to these materials that allows them to improve sound-wise? What mechanical property improves after burn-in? Why is it permanent? Why is it necessarily an improvement?

I don't expect an answer to these. I am new here and it's obvious that many that believe that headphones experience burn-in improvements believe this on a psuedo-religious basis and are almost offended when someone tries to argue about it in a scientific and rational way.

If there is a change in properties of the materials due to heat after extended use, they are likely to dissapear when the drivers return to room temp. Any potential change (most likely due to decrease in surround resistance to movement) will be undetectable by the human ear.

Here's an easy test to make during a cold winter day. Take your portable rig and listen in the warmth of your home for a few minutes. Turn it off a couple of minutes. Go outside and let the speakers cool off. The colder outside, the better. This is a worst case scenario as almost all materials become less elastic and more brittle (hence more resistive to motion) when colder*. Tell me honestly if you notice a difference.

*polymers are much less suceptable to change due to temperature changes than most other materials. A large percentage of surrounds are some kind of polymer.

 

[Geek]

The poster is referring to speaker break-in.

Mike, you should buy the following equipment:

1. Sennheiser HD650
2. Cardas upgrade cable
3. Headroom Max (w/stepped attenuators)

Hook up a $5,000+ class A digital or analog source to the above.

Then:

1. Listen carefully to your favorite recording for the first hour of play that the HD650s get. Write down what you hear and carefully analyse the sonic qualities observed.

2. Let play at a volume much higher than normal listening level for 50 hours.

3. Repeat #1.

4. Repeat #2.

5. At 250 hours, come back to these forums and tell me your conclusions.

It's a matter of opinion, but in order to be an "authority" on audio, one must use his ears as the ultimate judge. Otherwise, the entire purpose of high fidelity audio is rather pointless.

Cheers,
Geek

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Daffy_Duck How does this support the concept of burn-in? What is happening to these materials that allows them to improve sound-wise? What mechanical property improves after burn-in? Why is it permanent? Why is it necessarily an improvement? I don't expect an answer to these. I am new here and it's obvious that many that believe that headphones experience burn-in improvements believe this on a psuedo-religious basis and are almost offended when someone tries to argue about it in a scientific and rational way. If there is a change in properties of the materials due to heat after extended use, they are likely to dissapear when the drivers return to room temp. Any potential change (most likely due to decrease in surround resistance to movement) will be undetectable by the human ear.

Do you realize that the paragraph directly above is a pseudo-scientific/religious statement, and itself based on your beliefs?

"Any potential change will be undetectable by the human ear" -- did you perform an experiment? Did you even bother to listen for changes (or lack thereof) with your last new pair of headphones?

You offer no supporting evidence (neither objective nor subjective), no proof whatsoever -- just make the declaration and expect it to be believed. Pardon me if I fail to take you seriously.

 

[Daffy_Duck]

Quote:

Two that readily come to mind are the following: polymer outgassing in the speaker cone; and electromigration in the cables.

"Outgassing: The release of volatile chemical components in the form of a gas from an elastomer when it is placed in a vacuum. These volatile components can have the potential to cause undesirable effects, such as fogging optical system components, interfering with the proper functioning of sensitive electronic circuitry or micromechanical systems, or causing corrosion on components. Certain elastomer formulations are more susceptible to outgassing than others, depending on their ingredients."

This is what you are referring to I assume. I have yet to find anything that says that outgassing can be spurred by slight increase in temperature and increase in vibration of a polymer. Nor can I find anything that suggests a positive change in properties (for speaker cones, preferably an increase in stiffness...for speaker surrounds, a decrease in stiffness). My fiancee is a polymer researcher so I'll ask her about that.

I don't think electromigration is a factor in the macro world of speakers as it is in the micro world of IC chips. If you have some information to the contrary I'd like to see it.

 

[cscott23]

Quote:

Originally posted by Daffy_Duck How does this support the concept of burn-in? What is happening to these materials that allows them to improve sound-wise? What mechanical property improves after burn-in? Why is it permanent? Why is it necessarily an improvement? Any potential change (most likely due to decrease in surround resistance to movement) will be undetectable by the human ear.

My scientific considerations were offered to refute your "it can't be happening because I don't see how it can happen" stance on burn-in.

They were not submitted to support the notion of burn-in. Rather, they were offered to allow for the possibility of burn-in.

"Improve the sound"? You know better than to allow subjective metrics into your "scientific" discussion.

Both electromigration and polymer outgassing are permanent transients. They both change the physical properties of the materials. Research them both and you will find answers to your questions.

"Human ear"? I thought you are a Mechy, not a psychoacoutician. How are you an authority on the human ear?

[edit: spelling]