[Killcomic]

...and they want you to get used to it so you won't realize it really isn't what you want and return it!

Oh, those dastardly cads! Taking advantage of our biology and such!
CONSPIRACY!

 

[jagwap]

Sure we aclimatise to a new sound.

However I have heard break-in between examples of the same speaker. I have heard it repeatedly, sighted, blind and double blind (not everyone has a speakers ABX bow unfortunately). This is often testing and listening to a pilot run of a new product to check they sound like the sonic golden sample. ABX is the best way to confirm ths.

I'm sorry but I only have sighted experience on headphones, but it seems reasonable that when experts in this field tell me break-in also applies to headphones. My sighted experience comparing new and broken in models agrees.

 

[SilverEars]

...and they want you to get used to it so you won't realize it really isn't what you want and return it!

Sure, they want you to get used to the sig as it may sound better, but there other facets to this. Audiophiles can have the wow period when they initially get new stuff as well, and as they used to it, sound becomes meh or bored of it due to not getting that high as you are used to it.

I do acknowledge that I should give it enough time or listening period before finalizing my opinion about the equipment as like pointed out, our hearing is not consistent. I fully acknowledge that there is that contrasting interface point when equipment get switched over, and some headphones takes a bit of getting used to over others, and this depends on how much of a contrast there are between the two headphones when switching over.

 

[SilverEars]

Comparisons are quite tricky I realized. You cannot go by memory, you'd have to do a direct comparison to be reliable. Also, even direct comparisons can be tricky do to the immediate differences in sigs to be reliable. On one hand, you'd need to get used to the sig, but also you are comparing directly and switching two different sounding stuff as contrasts are felt more if the differences in sigs are more signficant.

There are so many variables you'd have to take account of and question as you do comparisons.

Alot of the audiophile tracks sound good due to the recordings, and those are the types of recordings they'd have for you when they demo their products.

 

[Killcomic]

Let us not forget also that people don't like wasting money and you will subconsciously make yourself like something.
I guess that's why you never hear anyone say "After 8 hours of pink noise everything sounded horrible"

 

[SilverEars]

Let us not forget also that people don't like wasting money and you will subconsciously make yourself like something.
I guess that's why you never hear anyone say "After 8 hours of pink noise everything sounded horrible"

I wouldn't say make myself like something. I try to listen attentively for faults(or weak aspects) as that's most useful info. This is partially the reason why I need to give things a bit of time to form an opinion.

Here's an interesting example. At times I listen attentively to the tonality of audience clapping to notice if there is unnaturalness, and I had moments of hearing the clapping sounding not natural. First thing that would come to mind was, they headphones are probably not tonally balanced. But, other way to deduce this variable is to try several headphones until I run into one that sounds tonally correct(or the closest to real representation). Something I realized is that, it's probably the recording. LOL.

My point is that there is things in consideration that people would pinpoint one variable that may not be it. There are several variables you'd have to deduce to arrive at a reasonable culprit.

 

[Killcomic]

I wouldn't say make myself like something.

But how would you know if you're doing it subconsciously?

 

[rule42]

@jagwap : Do the manufacturers of said speakers provide information that says they will audibly change over time to the expected level of tuning?
:
@SilverEars : You've lost me and seem to be talking about ear/brain break-in rather than the headphone stuff.

 

[jagwap]

@jagwap : Do the manufacturers of said speakers provide information that says they will audibly change over time to the expected level of tuning?

Most of them (from memory) do. The manual will mention they may benefit from being played for a day or two. The retailer will also suggest this.

Edit: http://www.klipsch.com/blog/how-and-why-to-break-in-your-new-speakers

https://www.marten.se/marketing/manuals/Marten_Coltrane_Supreme_2_manual.pdf

 

[Killcomic]

Most of them (from memory) do. The manual will mention they may benefit from being played for a day or two. The retailer will also suggest this.

Edit: http://www.klipsch.com/blog/how-and-why-to-break-in-your-new-speakers

Of course they do. They don't want you to return it right away and put the suggestion in your head that it will sound better if you stick to it.
Mind you, I've neer seen anything anywhere from a manufacturer advising that there may be benefits after a couple of days of usage. But that could be because I never read the manuals.

 

[bigshot]

However I have heard break-in between examples of the same speaker. I have heard it repeatedly, sighted, blind and double blind.

Tell us about how you conducted your double blind test of speaker burn in. I'm interesting how you would set up a test like that to account for all the variables.

 

[jagwap]

Tell us about how you conducted your double blind test of speaker burn in. I'm interesting how you would set up a test like that to account for all the variables.

It is difficult... I didn't conduct them but took part. I did the electronics blind testing, which is easier to achieve.

One company: Using an ABX switching box to change between the samples, which are set up next to each other. The test is repeated with the positions swapped to null the spacial aspects.

Another: leaving the room while an assistant swaps or doesn't swap the samples. This needs longer accoustic memory, but removes the spacial cues.

This was also done on occasion with supposedly transparent material in front of the units, with less success. The conclusion was the acoustically transparent material was not transparent enough when units sounded quite close.

However it is easy to hear when the drivers are new. After break-in it gets harder not to imagine a difference so that is when ABX helps confirm the pre-production units.

 

[rule42]

@jagwap : I was going to ask the same quetion but @bigshot beat me to it. Additionally, how does the time factor allowed for break-in work in these tests?

 

[pinnahertz]

It is difficult... I didn't conduct them but took part. I did the electronics blind testing, which is easier to achieve.

One company: Using an ABX switching box to change between the samples, which are set up next to each other. The test is repeated with the positions swapped to null the spacial aspects.

That's a sighted test, and the ABX switcher would be pointless.

Another: leaving the room while an assistant swaps or doesn't swap the samples. This needs longer accoustic memory, but removes the spacial cues.

This was also done on occasion with supposedly transparent material in front of the units, with less success. The conclusion was the acoustically transparent material was not transparent enough when units sounded quite close.

Echoic qualitative auditory memory is less than a second long with peak ability to discern small differences occurring with no switching gap, and decreasing radically with increased gap time. The more similar the samples, the less gap time is required to reduce comparison ability to zero.

Unless the material in front of the units affected the samples unequally, or imposed a radical response modification that changed with frequency (and should never have been presumed acoustically transparent in the first place), the delta between samples was not affected by the material, and would still be apparent. But the long switch time would invalidate the test anyway.

However it is easy to hear when the drivers are new. After break-in it gets harder not to imagine a difference so that is when ABX helps confirm the pre-production units.

What was being compared? New drivers to broken-in ones? New to other new? Regardless, the long switch time would invalidate the comparison.

In no case in the above description was there an actual ABX/DBT, the test protocol design seems quite amateur.

 

[jagwap]

That's a sighted test, and the ABX switcher would be pointless.
Echoic qualitative auditory memory is less than a second long with peak ability to discern small differences occurring with no switching gap, and decreasing radically with increased gap time. The more similar the samples, the less gap time is required to reduce comparison ability to zero.

Unless the material in front of the units affected the samples unequally, or imposed a radical response modification that changed with frequency (and should never have been presumed acoustically transparent in the first place), the delta between samples was not affected by the material, and would still be apparent. But the long switch time would invalidate the test anyway.

What was being compared? New drivers to broken-in ones? New to other new? Regardless, the long switch time would invalidate the comparison.

In no case in the above description was there an actual ABX/DBT, the test protocol design seems quite amateur.

I was wondeeing when you were going to jump in and p!ss on peoples' chips.

So the curtained ones weren't DBT?

Please give your method to verify if two aparently identical speakers sound the same?