66.211.50.68
In Reply to: RE: Excellent Points posted by thetubeguy1954 on June 04, 2007 at 06:40:57
> I don't believe it's all that difficult to argue that speakers require a break-in period
> but then state they are resistant to not overshooting the target...
I think this is a good example of the wishful thinking that accompanies many beliefs in the world of audio. We take a known phenomenon (in this case, the physical change or deterioration of materials with mechanical movement) and then use only as much of it as necessary to confirm our belief. Any part of the known phenomenon that is out of sync with our belief can be discarded with the "but audio is special" caveat.
In short, use only as much of the science as supports our belief, never more. (And heaven forbid that an audiophile be subject to any of the psychological issues that affect ordinary mortals!)
Here we take the loosening of driver surrounds and spiders, believe that it takes hundreds of hours for them to condition correctly, and then they magically know when to stop further change at precisely the point when the sound has gotten to what we like.
As someone else noted, it is odd that in audio things only improve with break-in, they never change for the worse. I find it hard to believe with all of the diverse approaches to audio equipment that this is the one area where all equipment designers have universal understanding and agreement and have implemented it with near perfection. In short an industry wide, completely uniform approach to designing around the break-in process. All with perfect results. Interesting.
This is rather at odds with the way that things work in the rest of the physical world, but then we always have the "but audio is special" rule. ;-)
Follow Ups: