New speaker "playing in" period?

[4 Strings]

[quote name='BILL POSTERS' timestamp='1354361855' post='1885159']
where you went wrong, is you didnt get one of these to compement it. [url="http://www.elucidate-cables.co.uk/MainsProducts.html"]http://www.elucidate...nsProducts.html[/url]
[/quote]

Hilarious...[i]"I replaced my 65inch plasma TV cable with an EPIC-2M and I’m very impressed, the colours have never been so vivid. I don’t think I’ve owned a better cable"[/i]

[4 Strings]

[quote name='solo4652' timestamp='1354366090' post='1885213']
So, with reference to my new Promethean combo, it seems that the sensible and easy thing to do is simply to play it at home practice volume for a few days and then take it to rehearsal. That's if it lasts that long.
[/quote]

No, no, no, playing it quietly will do little to loosen it up. Just use it they way it was intended, over the months you may notice it improving.

[stevie]

[quote name='andyjingram' timestamp='1354361613' post='1885154']
Stevie, I listened to the youtube clip, and as poor as the sound quality is, are you saying that you genuinely hear no difference whatsoever between the two speakers? Yes, the playing is inconsistent, and the changes are extremely subtle, but they are there in the way I have experienced with many guitar speakers in the past. I just want to emphasise the word [i]subtle[/i] here. We are talking about fractional, but audible differences.

You make a good point about people believing that they hear (or saying that they hear) what they are told to expect by advertising or snake-oil hearsay. That is true, and part of human nature to a degree- how many non-musos have asked you why you don't play a Fender through a Marshall, because they 'know' they are 'the best'? There are no doubt people who agree on speaker break-in without ever having heard the difference or without the ability to hear it, but that doesn't make it untrue.
[/quote]

Good post. I didn’t think the sound quality was that poor actually and yes, I thought I might have heard a difference, although not consistently from one sample to the next. But I’ve learned to be very sceptical about what I think I hear because I know how easily it is to be fooled, especially when differences are minor.

I would say straight away that I haven’t carried out any testing on guitar loudspeakers and wouldn’t argue against any claims that they “break in” or change over time. I simply don’t know. I can think of a couple of reasons why they might: 1) they are often used in open-back cabinets where a change of driver resonant frequency will impact differently on system response than in an enclosed cabinet, and 2) they are based on "old” materials (such as paper surrounds, non-impregnated cones, etc.) that are more liable to change – and keep changing - than modern materials.

Although that video is interesting, there are a couple of reasons why the comparison is flawed and why anyone should be cautious about drawing any firm conclusions from it.

Firstly, the level and quality of the test signal is inconsistent. As the guitarist is using a particularly horrible distortion sound, my personal preferences were directly related to the amount of distortion I heard. That is, I preferred the (quieter) clips when there was less distortion. Or to put it another way, I probably equated differences in the original signal to differences in the speakers.

Secondly, there were no real controls. In particular, there were no measurements to determine whether, for example, the first speaker was identical to the second. If they were different to start with (quite possible), all bets would be off.

Thirdly, we know in advance which speakers are being played in each clip. This invalidates the comparison because of expectation bias, the process where you listen out for cues that confirm what you expect to hear and ignore cues that don’t. In controlled listening tests, even the most skilled and practiced listeners will hear things that are not there if they expect to do so.

For any opinion on this comparison to be valid, a listener would have to identify each speaker correctly in 10 out of 12 of clips without knowing which was which. Do you think you could do that?

The reason I posted the YouTube clip initially was because of the comments: all of the people who left comments thought the broken-in speaker was better, mainly because they thought it was “smoother”. This should ring warning bells immediately because, as we know, one man’s “smooth" is another man’s “lack of high-end sparkle”. I suspect that if this video had been posted with the captions reversed, the response would still have been 100% in favour of whatever speaker people thought was broken-in.

You never hear of a run-in speaker sounding worse, do you? That soft bass never becomes softer; it always becomes tighter. And that lean bass never becomes thinner; it always becomes fuller. Interestingly, I didn’t hear any difference in the bass response between these clips.

To demonstrate why what you expect to hear can override what you actually hear, check out this YouTube clip on the McGurk Effect. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0[/media].

Definitely worth a minute of your time.

So, although none of this proves that speaker break-in does not exist, it does provide an explanation of why people might believe they’ve heard a change in their speaker when it hasn't changed at all. Especially if they’ve been told categorically by an expert that the sound will change and they then become a stakeholder in the whole process by downloading a burn-in file or CD and/or spending weeks playing pink noise through their system. And of course, they want to believe: they don’t want to admit they have made a mistake and they certainly don’t want the hassle of taking their speakers back to their dealer. (This is a bit Derren Brown, but I’m sure you get the picture).

It's very easy to measure whether there’s a difference in the frequency response of a speaker in a cabinet before and after running in. I’ve done it. These measurements are reproducible and repeatable. I also posted a link earlier to someone who did the same thing in a more thorough manner than my efforts.

Why do people believe in burn-in when there's no evidence for it? Well, it's a long story but it boils down to the fact that the longer you break your hi-fi components in, the less likely you are to return them. It’s a sales technique. And a very effective one too. Ask the people who sell two thousand dollar cables.

Edited December 3, 2012 by stevie

[Mr. Foxen]

You never heard a worn in speaker sounding worse, because when it sounds worse from being worn, its worn out.

[lurksalot]

I have replaced drivers and noticed them being 'tight' for a while and am familiar with the idea of letting them loosen up .
What DOES surprise me , is that while it generally seems valid that drivers do come from the factory 'tight' , why don't the suppliers/ manufacturers offer the added value of loosening them up ? I know Guitards who look for 'old' greenbacks and the like because they already can produce the tone they expect, but that is my point .
If you can sell brand new broken in drivers , there must be an added value for those that are looking for it

[Mr. Foxen]

The added cost. Some companies do do that though: http://www.avatarspeakers.com/hellatone.htm

[lurksalot]

Added Value , rather than cost , but yep , that is the sort of thing that will uplift a product's value by providing a service that is percieved as a need by the clients in the market

[4 Strings]

I think Alex did in the past, probably too many going through to be able to do that now, easier to link to a signal for home 'Hellatoning'.

I'm suspect the effect of loosening is different with different speaker construction/size etc. Perhaps the foam surrounds are less needing a loosen. (They certainly become loose after 10 years or so when the foam begins it's conversion to dust!).

[xgsjx]

If anyone needs their new speakers wearing in, send them to me & I'll get them sounding how they was meant to within 2 months or your money back!

[bremen]

[quote name='stevie' timestamp='1354557338' post='1887342']


To demonstrate why what you expect to hear can override what you actually hear, check out this YouTube clip on the McGurk Effect. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0[/media].

Definitely worth a minute of your time.


[/quote]

This explains the story I heard about a panel of experts consistently judging one pair of speakers to be 'brighter' than another.

In fact the speakers were identical; only the colour of the grille cloth was different.

[4 Strings]

Also explains why some people believe maple fingerboards make a guitar sound brighter.

[alexclaber]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1354612173' post='1887916']I think Alex did in the past, probably too many going through to be able to do that now, easier to link to a signal for home 'Hellatoning'.[/quote]

Yes we did. We're considering building a speaker storage / breaking-in / quality testing system, so we have a wall of shelving full of woofers half with polariity, half with polarity the other way, so we can run them in before they're put in the cabs - just need the time to design and build it. We wouldn't be considering this if it didn't make a difference sonically!

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1354612173' post='1887916']I'm suspect the effect of loosening is different with different speaker construction/size etc. Perhaps the foam surrounds are less needing a loosen. (They certainly become loose after 10 years or so when the foam begins it's conversion to dust!).[/quote]

Yes, the suspension type makes a huge difference - a woofer with polymer / rubber/ foam surround and low stiffness spider will barely change in low frequency response whilst a woofer with a corrugated doped fabric surround and heavy duty stiff spider (or two or three spiders!) will change a lot. Also a woofer with a very stiff cone will barely change in the upper frequencies whilst a woofer whose cone is designed to flex will change through the midrange and treble.

My Acme woofers sounded worse when they got worn out - a combination of cone creasing making them distort more easily but also the suspension having become floppy from being driven too far beyond Xmax too often, so they got boomier in the lows.

[ahpook]

[quote name='solo4652' timestamp='1354195572' post='1883377']
Maybe cover both with some pink noise?
[/quote]

joss stone is pink noise...

Edited December 4, 2012 by ahpook

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1354616623' post='1887999']
Also explains why some people believe maple fingerboards make a guitar sound brighter.
[/quote]Brighter than what, pine? Rosewood is brighter than maple, and ebony brighter than rosewood. The tonewood debate rages on amongst the wags in the same fashion that the driver break-in debate does. Luthiers don't debate tonewoods, because they know from experience what different density woods do. Loudspeaker designers don't debate break-in amongst themselves, for the same reason. But pundits will jabber on forever.

[bremen]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' timestamp='1354628075' post='1888317']
Brighter than what, pine? Rosewood is brighter than maple, and ebony brighter than rosewood.
[/quote]

But...but...ebony is black! How can it be bright?

Got it! It's UV.

[xgsjx]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' timestamp='1354628075' post='1888317']
Brighter than what, pine? Rosewood is brighter than maple, and ebony brighter than rosewood. The tonewood debate rages on amongst the wags in the same fashion that the driver break-in debate does. Luthiers don't debate tonewoods, because they know from experience what different density woods do. Loudspeaker designers don't debate break-in amongst themselves, for the same reason. But pundits will jabber on forever.
[/quote]

I didn't think the WAGS would be interested. I thought it was all shoes & handbags?

[4 Strings]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' timestamp='1354628075' post='1888317']
Brighter than what, pine? Rosewood is brighter than maple, and ebony brighter than rosewood. The tonewood debate rages on amongst the wags in the same fashion that the driver break-in debate does. Luthiers don't debate tonewoods, because they know from experience what different density woods do. Loudspeaker designers don't debate break-in amongst themselves, for the same reason. But pundits will jabber on forever.
[/quote]

Rosewood. I agree, if there is any difference (which I doubt) then the slightly harder the wood on which the metal fret is mounted the brighter the expected sound.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1354629502' post='1888358']
Rosewood. I agree, if there is any difference (which I doubt) then the slightly harder the wood on which the metal fret is mounted the brighter the expected sound.
[/quote]There's a difference, but slight, it is only a thin piece of wood. The body and neck material effects far overshadow that of the fingerboard.

[stevie]

[quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1354269305' post='1884213']
In a typical bass cab this will result in an increase in output between 50Hz and 100Hz - you can measure this and you can model this. And you can hear it! <snip>.... you'll hear a fresh woofer as having noticeably less bottom than a loosened up one.
[/quote]

This is impressively specific. If there's "noticeably less bottom" I'd expect at least a 3dB rise between 50 and 100Hz, wouldn't you agree? I'd be very interested in seeing the data you've used to arrive at this.

[solo4652]

The Promethean P3110 is going back to Thomann. I tried it at band rehearsal tonight and it wasn't loud enough.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='solo4652' timestamp='1354662242' post='1888982']
I tried it at band rehearsal tonight and it wasn't loud enough.
[/quote]I can't imagine it would be, other than for solo practice. You can only get so much out of a small 1x10 cab. IME 110 combos are good guitar rigs, but not good bass rigs.

[brensabre79]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' timestamp='1354635571' post='1888461']
There's a difference, but slight, it is only a thin piece of wood. The body and neck material effects far overshadow that of the fingerboard.
[/quote]
Most maple fingerboards are covered in laquer, which is a very hard surface wheras rosewood generally is not. A well respected Brighton luthier told me that it is usually maple fingerboards that get that 'clanky' sound that many who prefer them are after. But he said that if I had a rosewood board and laquered it I would also get pretty much the same experience. Which is probably why Rickenbackers sound that way, despite have a rosewood board, because they laquer them...

Breaking in speakers is definitely a given though

[Mr. Foxen]

Lacquering speakers changes the tone a fair bit too.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='brensabre79' timestamp='1354730983' post='1889760']
Most maple fingerboards are covered in laquer, which is a very hard surface wheras rosewood generally is not. A well respected Brighton luthier told me that it is usually maple fingerboards that get that 'clanky' sound that many who prefer them are after. But he said that if I had a rosewood board and laquered it I would also get pretty much the same experience. Which is probably why Rickenbackers sound that way, despite have a rosewood board, because they laquer them...

Breaking in speakers is definitely a given though
[/quote]Both brightness and sustain are enhanced by denser woods, reduced by less dense woods. The finish will have some effect, but not that much, unless it's a hollowbody. The fingerboard material has the least effect, followed by the neck material, with the body material having the most effect. While typical hardwood bodies like maple and ash give a lot better sustain and brightness than softer woods like birch and basswood they pale in comparison to tropical hardwoods like rosewood and ebony. But tropical hardwoods weigh a ton, so they're generally reserved for neck and fingerboards. My bass is all rosewood, but weight isn't an issue, as I used the same semi-hollow body construction as Rickenbacker employs. It weighs less than a poplar body Fender, but is brighter and sustains better than any commercial bass I've ever heard. I can hit a harmonic and let it ring literally indefinitely, until I damp the string.

[funkle]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' timestamp='1354732841' post='1889807']
Both brightness and sustain are enhanced by denser woods, reduced by less dense woods. The finish will have some effect, but not that much, unless it's a hollowbody. The fingerboard material has the least effect, followed by the neck material, with the body material having the most effect. While typical hardwood bodies like maple and ash give a lot better sustain and brightness than softer woods like birch and basswood they pale in comparison to tropical hardwoods like rosewood and ebony. But tropical hardwoods weigh a ton, so they're generally reserved for neck and fingerboards. My bass is all rosewood, but weight isn't an issue, as I used the same semi-hollow body construction as Rickenbacker employs. It weighs less than a poplar body Fender, but is brighter and sustains better than any commercial bass I've ever heard. I can hit a harmonic and let it ring literally indefinitely, until I damp the string.


[/quote]

I was of a similar opinion until recently, after going through different maple neck basses. I just cannot get on with them.

Roger Sadowsky seems to believe that fingerboard wood may be more important to tone than even body wood - http://btpub.boyd-printing.com/iphone/article.php?id=1236876&id_issue=135014&src=menu&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fbtpub.boyd-printing.com%2Fiphone%2F%3Fi%3D135014%26p%3D%26search_str%3D%26noframe%3D%26r%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bassgearmag.com%252Fbgm%252FMagazine.

He also seems to think maple is brighter than rosewood. http://www.sadowsky.com/pop/roger_talks.html

I have now come to agree with his point of view. I have never played a maple boarded bass that I have not found 'clattery', despite the different body woods being used. However, I find rosewood boards to sound pleasant on a variety of basses with different body woods (alder, ash, mahogany, maple) and pickups (PJ, JJ, dual MM, MM+J). I have found pao ferro pleasant for my tastes also.

Just my own personal experience.

Pete