Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time  (Read 24575 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

EDIT: Just in case, I misremembered the source of the claim, but it was NOT the manual of the ML speakers and likely NOT ML at all. The manual recommends 72 hours, because of the woofer, not the ESL panel.

Hey guys

I just got a pair of Martin Logan Source (yeah the cheap ones) loudspeakers. I've always wanted ESLs, but my woo alarm goes off wildly every time I read the words "break" and "in", when said in that particular order. I don't know much about ESLs though, and the very ML manual says these require some time breaking in, IIRC, like a month.

I was planning on testing if sound changes, but there are some things discouraging me:

- I don't have pro measuring equipment (I'll explain how I'd do it below).
- My room sucks (my system is stuck in the living room).
- It takes some time to set up and I don't want to waste my time if both issues above are significant (what do you think?).

So I have a Pioneer VSX-01TXH. It has the MCACC room correction. You connect a mic and it calculates everything. What's cool about this one (compared to equivalent Audyssey systems on some Onkyos) is that it will give you the info on the EQ settings it changed, and for each speaker is different. I was going to test these MLs against each other when they're new, a significant amount of times (5? 10?) to make sure I got consistent readings, and then after a month or so, do it again. Maybe do more testing in-between.

So will I be wasting my time?

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #1 –
Quote from: andy o on
So will I be wasting my time?


If it satisfies your curiosity it's not a waste of time.  As as general rule of thumb I don't believe in burn in and I think manufacturers only put it their manuals to 1) appease the people who believe in it and 2) to allow people to adjust to the sound of the speakers.

If I had the eqiupment to do so I'd test burn in just out of curiosity.  Keep in mind that there are test to test variations so a variation is not an indicator of burn in.  I think the first thing you should do is run the calibration 5 times or so in a row.  See if the EQ setting changes.  If it does, then you know that test to test variations are going to change the EQ.  Following from that, you can decide if it makes sense to do an extended burn in test.

Assuming the test EQ variations from repeatedly testing are minor, you can then do a long term test.  One would assume that if there is such a thing as burn in then the changes from the first days test and the 50 hours test (or whatever) would be greater than running the test 5 times in a row.

BTW, your speakers are hardly "cheap."

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #2 –
I can't speak for ESLs, however you have to remember that speakers still are a mechanical thing, and as such their parameters change as they are used. I know for a fact that dynamic loudspeakers change their parameters after a break-in period. For example the sourrounding of bass speakers will get a bit softer during-break in (by movement), thus reducing the stiffness of the speaker suspension, thus lowering the resonance frequency of the speaker, thus the speaker is producing more bass after break-in.
These changes have been measured by several (DIY) speaker magazines, as well as indiviudal people on the net. The standard procedure of measuring dynamic speakers contains a break-in period of usually 24hrs before measurements are taken.

I don't know how this applies to ESLs, however given the fact that these are mechanical transducers too, some kind of break-in could happen. However, just because you can measure it, doesn't mean it will be audible.

Blubb

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #3 –
Quote from: odigg on
Quote from: andy o on
So will I be wasting my time?


If it satisfies your curiosity it's not a waste of time.  As as general rule of thumb I don't believe in burn in and I think manufacturers only put it their manuals to 1) appease the people who believe in it and 2) to allow people to adjust to the sound of the speakers.
I think they do mention that it's a property of ESLs, but you might just be right anyway. I was thinking it might be a waste of time because if those caveats I posted invalidated somehow my tests, they wouldn't be worth much anyway, and my curiosity would not be satisfied.

Quote
Assuming the test EQ variations from repeatedly testing are minor, you can then do a long term test.  One would assume that if there is such a thing as burn in then the changes from the first days test and the 50 hours test (or whatever) would be greater than running the test 5 times in a row.

BTW, your speakers are hardly "cheap."

I meant "the cheap ones". Cheap being relative. Have you seen how much the other ones cost? 

Quote from: hödyr on
The standard procedure of measuring dynamic speakers contains a break-in period of usually 24hrs before measurements are taken.

I don't know how this applies to ESLs, however given the fact that these are mechanical transducers too, some kind of break-in could happen. However, just because you can measure it, doesn't mean it will be audible.

Yeah, I know all that, I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. What made me curious is that they claim a significant length of time for break-in, far longer than 24 hours. A month or so is what I seem to remember.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #4 –
It sounds like an interesting experiment.  If you do it, please post the results!

If the manufacturer recommends break-in, why don't they do it at the factory before shipping?  It would be nice to "lock-in" (and confirm) perfomance before shipping.  If the performance drifts after delivery & break-in, how do we know its getting better?

I work for an electronics manufacturer (non-audio).  We "burn-in" everything at an elevated temperature for a week before shipping.  In our case, it's to weed-out any early failures.  It has nothing to do with performance.  (The pre and post-burn tests/specs are identical.)

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #5 –
Quote from: andy o on
Yeah, I know all that, I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. What made me curious is that they claim a significant length of time for break-in, far longer than 24 hours. A month or so is what I seem to remember.


Audiophiles and product makers/sellers sometimes claim some fairly ludicrous figures for burn in.  The AKG K701 (headphone) is supposed to need 300 hours of burn in.  Some people are reporting significant changes after 1000 hours.

If you put a size 7 1/2 cloth shoe on a size 8 foot I think it'd take less than 300 hours for the shoe to expand to the point where the person could wear them comfortably.  Apparently 300 hours not enough for a moving diaphragm. 

I know a trail runner who destroys a new pair of shoes in less time than that!

The variation of a persons hearing based on mood, weather, diet, etc is probably far greater than any changes that come out of burn in.  Even if the changes are there I doubt most people could hear and report the changes reliably.

It would be an interesting test though.  As DVDdoug said, if you do run the test please post your results.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #6 –
How strange.

Quad - which started the whole electrostatic ball rolling from a commercial standing - never used to make any mention of running in electrostatic loudspeakers. It's been making them since 1957. Perhaps mylar got more fussy recently.

I'm very hazy on the whole 'burn in' thing. Does it mean they let their customers soak test their own products?

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #7 –
Oh the gods! first of all, my apologies all!!! 

I must have read that piece of nonsense somewhere else, the manual actually states 72 hours, and it places the issue on the woofer, not on the ES panel. I guess that's it, and now I can just go and set up the things.

Anyway, sorry for the confusion!

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #8 –
Quote from: andy o on
Hey guys

I just got a pair of Martin Logan Source (yeah the cheap ones) loudspeakers. I've always wanted ESLs, but my woo alarm goes off wildly every time I read the words "break" and "in", when said in that particular order. I don't know much about ESLs though, and the very ML manual says these require some time breaking in, IIRC, like a month.

I was planning on testing if sound changes, but there are some things discouraging me:

- I don't have pro measuring equipment (I'll explain how I'd do it below).
- My room sucks (my system is stuck in the living room).
- It takes some time to set up and I don't want to waste my time if both issues above are significant (what do you think?).

So I have a Pioneer VSX-01TXH. It has the MCACC room correction. You connect a mic and it calculates everything. What's cool about this one (compared to equivalent Audyssey systems on some Onkyos) is that it will give you the info on the EQ settings it changed, and for each speaker is different. I was going to test these MLs against each other when they're new, a significant amount of times (5? 10?) to make sure I got consistent readings, and then after a month or so, do it again. Maybe do more testing in-between.

So will I be wasting my time?


Any decent scientific experiement is not a waste of time. Seems like you might have one.

I'd run your room correction facility several (maybe 5)  times at the beginning of the break-in period, and several times more at the end to see if it reliably seeks the same results on essentially the same speaker. It just might wander around, and your experiment needs to take that into account.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #9 –
What I've always wanted to know is this:
If burn-in is needed for some mechanical part of a speaker to reach its "optimum", then what is this magical mechanical wear process which stops once it reaches a certain point?  Seems to me that any material which has mechanical properties which change permanently as a result of operational stresses is a material I wouldn't want in a long-term investment.

Speakers aren't (to the best of my knowledge) analogous to machines (such as internal combustion engines), where there is friction between moving parts (rings against the cylinder bore for example).  In such a frictional environment near equilibrium will be reached once the contact areas grow to a point where load is no longer greater than the resilience of the materials.  What the concept of burn-in appears to imply is a non-continual change in the elastic modulus of a material.  Something I did not know existed.

Is there some other logical explanation for speaker burn-in outside a change in the properties of the surround?  There really isn't another component subject to wear, is there?
Creature of habit.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: andy o on
Hey guys

I just got a pair of Martin Logan Source (yeah the cheap ones) loudspeakers. I've always wanted ESLs, but my woo alarm goes off wildly every time I read the words "break" and "in", when said in that particular order. I don't know much about ESLs though, and the very ML manual says these require some time breaking in, IIRC, like a month.

I was planning on testing if sound changes, but there are some things discouraging me:

- I don't have pro measuring equipment (I'll explain how I'd do it below).
- My room sucks (my system is stuck in the living room).
- It takes some time to set up and I don't want to waste my time if both issues above are significant (what do you think?).

So I have a Pioneer VSX-01TXH. It has the MCACC room correction. You connect a mic and it calculates everything. What's cool about this one (compared to equivalent Audyssey systems on some Onkyos) is that it will give you the info on the EQ settings it changed, and for each speaker is different. I was going to test these MLs against each other when they're new, a significant amount of times (5? 10?) to make sure I got consistent readings, and then after a month or so, do it again. Maybe do more testing in-between.

So will I be wasting my time?


Any decent scientific experiement is not a waste of time. Seems like you might have one.

I'd run your room correction facility several (maybe 5)  times at the beginning of the break-in period, and several times more at the end to see if it reliably seeks the same results on essentially the same speaker. It just might wander around, and your experiment needs to take that into account.

Sigh... sorry again! Those claims either weren't made by ML themselves (at least it's not on the Source manual as I mistakenly seemed to remember), or I just confused spurious burn-in claims by someone else/about something else. I was pretty sure about it though, I guess my memory sucks.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #11 –
Anyway, I'm sure speaker burn-in in general must have been discussed ad nauseam here, but don't let that stop you in posting your opinions. Back a couple of years ago when I was searching for decent headphones I encountered many such claims too, especially regarding Grados.

EDIT: Looking for the damn source of my misrememberings, I stumbled upon this.

Why We Need Audiophiles? From a rather different perspective. I found it funny that here we were criticizing Giz for not being skeptical/rational enough, and over there they've thought that Giz always took a crap on the "high end". I joined that forum!  I wonder what's gonna do to me being a "Martin Logan Owner"... Now I fear for my soul!

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Soap on
Is there some other logical explanation for speaker burn-in outside a change in the properties of the surround?  There really isn't another component subject to wear, is there?


How dare you ask such a question.  You HA members and your logic! 

Let it be known that break in period is debatable in the car engine world.  It was a bigger issue in the past where tolerances, gaps, etc, were larger.  Designs are spec'ed very differently now.  There is a school of thought stating that a car should be broken in as aggressively as possible.  On many car forums you'll find people who babied their cars for the first 5000 miles and others who made sure to hit the rev limiter on the first day of ownership.  Usually, many miles and years later, both types of cars are still running well.

Burn in has always seemed like more of a brain function than a speaker function to me.  I've got the running theory that the more people dislike a headphone/speaker the more "burn-in" that transducer needs.  Some Ultrasone headphones have a drastically colored frequency response that many people initially hate.  People say they need 300+ hours of burn in.  The headphones that the majority of people like out of the box seem to require little burn in.

The brain has an incredible ability to adjust to just about anything (At one point in my life I even started liking Marmite) if there is a reason to.  If you listen to a headphone repeatedly during a 300 hour break in you'll probably eventually end up liking it if you really want to, which is usually the case with headphones which are fan favorites.

Of course, once that bias (such as group think) goes away, you might find those transducers sound like rubbish again.  OMG - At the 1000 hour mark they started to sound like they were at 10 hours again!  Got to break them in for 1500 hours.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #13 –
Quote from: Soap on
What I've always wanted to know is this:
If burn-in is needed for some mechanical part of a speaker to reach its "optimum", then what is this magical mechanical wear process which stops once it reaches a certain point?  Seems to me that any material which has mechanical properties which change permanently as a result of operational stresses is a material I wouldn't want in a long-term investment.

I have no clue whether or not this is relevant, but leather seems to behave a bit like this. The time for a new pair of shoes to get comfortable is much shorter than the plateau in which they feel fine, and are not worn out.

As I say, I have no right to an opinion on speaker burn-in, and no clue as to whether rubber or any of the synthetics behave like leather.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #14 –
Quote from: MichaelW on
I have no clue whether or not this is relevant, but leather seems to behave a bit like this. The time for a new pair of shoes to get comfortable is much shorter than the plateau in which they feel fine, and are not worn out.

As I say, I have no right to an opinion on speaker burn-in, and no clue as to whether rubber or any of the synthetics behave like leather.


What you are describing with leather is actually quite analogous to the ring/piston example I gave before. 
It would seem quite reasonable that shoe leather responds to the pressure of your foot by stretching to the point of equilibrium, that point where foot pressure and the resistance of the leather to deformation are in balance.

I could see such a situation being possible for surrounds, in that perhaps they must stretch to be able to reach the full cone extension point, but if this were the case - if the surround were stretched - would it no longer be performing its primary duty?
Creature of habit.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #15 –
I have a Pioneer AVR with MCACC.  Unless you keep the microphone in the exact same position in three dimensions, you won't get the same readings.
So if you plan to perform readings separated by days or weeks or months, you'd better find a way to mark the mic position very well.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #16 –
Quote from: krabapple on
I have a Pioneer AVR with MCACC.  Unless you keep the microphone in the exact same position in three dimensions, you won't get the same readings.
So if you plan to readings separated by days or weeks or months, you'd better find a way to mark the mic position very well.


Yeah, I figured just as much. I was gonna test anyway, but after the first 5 tries, without moving the mic, I got sort-of consistent results, but I'm guessing the variations are probably considerably higher than what the variations of breaking them in would be, if even existent. All in all, I don't think it's worth my trouble now.

I am having some trouble with sound though. Which Pioneer model do you have? My VSX-01TXH is spec'd only down to 6 Ohm, and the ML are 5 Ohm. I did set the amp to the 6 Ohm setting, although all my other speakers (C, SS and SB) are 8 Ohm. I don't even know what that setting is supposed to do.

Sound without MCACC is pretty bad, I don't think any amount of room crappiness could amount for that. No highs at all, they sound almost muffled. MCACC fixes this, to a degree that it almost sounds too bright. It's pretty OK, it might just be the weirdness of not having sound coming from a point that's throwing me off. Sweep tones have a big dip (not using a SW of course). Since it's not a professional test tone and I don't have instruments, I don't know exactly at what frequency though.

And boy they were not kidding when they said the ESLs are directional... that's not a problem for me though, and I guess it was expected.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #17 –
Quote from: andy o on
I am having some trouble with sound though. Which Pioneer model do you have? My VSX-01TXH is spec'd only down to 6 Ohm, and the ML are 5 Ohm. I did set the amp to the 6 Ohm setting, although all my other speakers (C, SS and SB) are 8 Ohm. I don't even know what that setting is supposed to do.



We should probably branch off a thread (or seek the appropriate AVSForum thread) but mine is a 74txvi.  Speaker resisitance is left at default, which I expect is nominally 8 Ohms.  My loudspeakers are NHT Superones , five of them.

Quote
Sound without MCACC is pretty bad, I don't think any amount of room crappiness could amount for that. No highs at all, they sound almost muffled.


Is your room heavily draped, carpeted?
Quote
MCACC fixes this, to a degree that it almost sounds too bright. It's pretty OK, it might just be the weirdness of not having sound coming from a point that's throwing me off. Sweep tones have a big dip (not using a SW of course). Since it's not a professional test tone and I don't have instruments, I don't know exactly at what frequency though.


"Sound not coming from a point'???  If you mean, the sound doesn't all seem to be coming directly from the loudspeakers, that's good. That's the way stereo/surround should work -- the loudspeakers shuodl 'disappear'.  If you mean it's really diffuse and there's no imaging, I would first suspect speakers out of phase (but MCACC would detect this and warn you), and second, an overabundance of early reflections.


Quote
And boy they were not kidding when they said the ESLs are directional... that's not a problem for me though, and I guess it was expected.


Wait, so some of your speakers are TOO directional???

Sorry, I'm confused about your description of what you're hearing.  There seem to be big 'room issues' and perhaps loudspeaker issues?

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #18 –
Quote from: andy o on
Sound without MCACC is pretty bad, I don't think any amount of room crappiness could amount for that. No highs at all, they sound almost muffled. MCACC fixes this, to a degree that it almost sounds too bright. It's pretty OK, it might just be the weirdness of not having sound coming from a point that's throwing me off. Sweep tones have a big dip (not using a SW of course). Since it's not a professional test tone and I don't have instruments, I don't know exactly at what frequency though.

And boy they were not kidding when they said the ESLs are directional... that's not a problem for me though, and I guess it was expected.


I've put the below in a spoiler box.  You may not like what you read so be warned before you peek into it.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #19 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Is your room heavily draped, carpeted?
No, the speakers are actually close to a wall, but I'm starting to think it was just all relative. It's just that MCACC ON sounds so different than MCACC OFF that when I switch, it either sounds overly bright, or overly muffled. After a while I kind of get used to it. Expected, I guess.

Quote
"Sound not coming from a point'???  If you mean, the sound doesn't all seem to be coming directly from the loudspeakers, that's good. That's the way stereo/surround should work -- the loudspeakers shuodl 'disappear'.  If you mean it's really diffuse and there's no imaging, I would first suspect speakers out of phase (but MCACC would detect this and warn you), and second, an overabundance of early reflections.
Sorry, probably should have said the high frequencies. I was referring to how with a speaker with a tweeter it sounds very different. It's a little bizarre especially when you put your ear to the speaker. They do have very good imaging, so it wasn't that. I'm not sure about reflections and how they're affecting all this.

Quote
Quote
And boy they were not kidding when they said the ESLs are directional... that's not a problem for me though, and I guess it was expected.


Wait, so some of your speakers are TOO directional???
Are you saying it like there isn't such a thing as TOO directional? They're directional in the sense that when you go off axis just a bit, especially in the verticals, you very clearly lose treble. The top of the speaker is about upper-chest high for me, but even at about 4m I can tell a difference in high frequencies when I stand up and sit down. I have no problem with this though.

Quote
Sorry, I'm confused about your description of what you're hearing.  There seem to be big 'room issues' and perhaps loudspeaker issues?
Hmm I think the directionality might just have thrown off the high frequency MCACC correction. I'll try to direct the things at a closer angle towards the mic/me and MCACC it again.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #20 –
Quote from: andy o on
but even at about 4m I can tell a difference in high frequencies when I stand up and sit down. I have no problem with this though.


Along the vertical axis it is a planar, so hardly any dispersion. This is 'normal' for a planar design.

It are dipoles, they make about as much noise at the front as at the rear.
In general they profit by putting them not to close to a wall.
TheWellTemperedComputer.com

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #21 –
Quote from: Roseval on
Quote from: andy o on
but even at about 4m I can tell a difference in high frequencies when I stand up and sit down. I have no problem with this though.


Along the vertical axis it is a planar, so hardly any dispersion. This is 'normal' for a planar design.

It are dipoles, they make about as much noise at the front as at the rear.
In general they profit by putting them not to close to a wall.

I have read conflicting versions of this actually. Right now after moving them it seems OK. I wonder how sound would compare with multi-tweeter dipoles.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #22 –
Quote from: hödyr on
I can't speak for ESLs, however you have to remember that speakers still are a mechanical thing, and as such their parameters change as they are used.


If parameter change were a significant issue as you say, then building good speakers would be impossible.

What really happens is that there are small parameter changes when a speaker system is started up after being idle for a long time (weeks, months). It may take a few seconds.

Quote
I know for a fact that dynamic loudspeakers change their parameters after a break-in period. For example the sourrounding of bass speakers will get a bit softer during-break in (by movement), thus reducing the stiffness of the speaker suspension, thus lowering the resonance frequency of the speaker, thus the speaker is producing more bass after break-in.


It turns out that this primarily applies to portions of the speaker (mainly the surround) whose properties the performance of the speaker system is not all that sensitive to.

Quote
These changes have been measured by several (DIY) speaker magazines, as well as indiviudal people on the net. The standard procedure of measuring dynamic speakers contains a break-in period of usually 24hrs before measurements are taken.


Not true as a general rule.  The designer of one of the most elaborate and sensitive loudspeaker driver measurement facilities called Dumax is a personal friend and informs much of what I have said here.

The reality of audio component break in is that it is a retailer's tool for overcoming buyer's remorse and the simple fact that audio store auditions are generally meaningless.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #23 –
Quote
Sound without MCACC is pretty bad, I don't think any amount of room crappiness could amount for that. No highs at all, they sound almost muffled. MCACC fixes this, to a degree that it almost sounds too bright. It's pretty OK, it might just be the weirdness of not having sound coming from a point that's throwing me off. Sweep tones have a big dip (not using a SW of course). Since it's not a professional test tone and I don't have instruments, I don't know exactly at what frequency though.
  I guess that's why the standard recommendation is,  "Audition the speakers at home" before purchasing."    I didn't do that because I built my speakers.  And, I've always been dissappointed with the slightly wimpy bass....  Until now...  I'm finishing-up a pair of home-built "overkill" subwoofers.

Break-in on electrostatic Martin Logan speakers, am I wasting my time

Reply #24 –
I really couldn't audition these. I got a very good deal, but I didn't buy them from a dealer. It was just one of those "meh, what the hell" moments. Still, they're not bad now. Positioning I guess is especially important with these. Or maybe I just got used to em.