[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
71.136.61.43
In Reply to: RE: Not DO, But WHY Speakers Require A "Break-In" Period posted by thetubeguy1954 on June 01, 2007 at 14:19:17
Anyone who has measured the T/S parameters of a brand new, out of the box driver, and one that has been run in for several hours, can demonstrate the changes. I believe that is what Jon Bau was referring to in his comments. So it makes sense to break in the driver to get an accurate picture of its resonance frequency, impedance and so on. A designer can't accurately model the enclosure or crossover without accurate T/S measurements.
Ultimately I think the argument is not whether changes in driver parameters occur, but how audible are these changes? Whether or not we hear the changes in the speaker's performance due to loosening of the driver suspension, or our ears become accustomed to to the sound of the new loudspeaker, is really at the crux of the debate.
If you think about it, a designer is going to have to break in each driver for several hours, perhaps dozens or hundreds, to get the most accurate parameter measurements. How many loudspeaker manufacturers can afford to do this? If they don't, then the crossover design will be off and consequently the loudspeaker system will never sound "right". But when we hear comments about a loudspeaker system finally reaching the point where one determines that it is in fact "broken in", why are those comments invariably positive? Isn't it conceivable that after many hours, a loudspeaker can actually sound worse? Have you heard of someone making that observation? I haven't which is why it makes more sense that it's our ears that are doing the breaking in, not our woofers.
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]