Cheers guys! If you want to support me build a fort out of speaker boxes, please consider using my affiliate link the next time you shop at Thomann! Thanks! Mwua! Mwua! www.thomann.de/de/index.html?offid=1&affid=3394
Hello Speaker Fanatics Community! Ignazio from Jensen Speakers here. John, thank you very much for such an interesting and accurate video. It's clear you invested a lot of time and effort to make an objective and accurate test. I'd like to chime in, to dig a little deeper in this debate that is so interesting for those like us who are obsessed with Tone, and therefore with Speakers. First of all, let me clarify what we define as Break-In: to have the speaker to behave as designed, winning over the rigidity that the moving parts (membrane, suspensions, spider etc.,) have developed, being stuck in their "neutral" position for weeks or months or more, from the manufacturing time to the moment you start playing them. Aging is a different concept, as I'll discuss later below. Rolling the tape back to my interview with Kristian Kohle, I confirm I stated that an average of 20-30 hours of playing at a decent "band practice" volume will bring you a long way towards the "maturation" of the speaker. Unfortunately, there is no hard rule in the guitar speaker world, because, in spite of the sheer simplicity of the concept, there are many variations among different speakers builds that impact also on the break-in length. Let me go through a few of those: 1) membrane material and shape: the material is almost invariably cellulose, i.e. paper. Even if we'd assume that the pulp may have quite similar characteristics, which is not that case, the rigidity and thickness of the foil is a big variable. A thin foil, with a minimum amount of concentric ribs (or corrugations, that is the tech term we use in the factory) , will be faster to break in, because it is less rigid, so it will gain compliance and flexibility earlier than a thicker one. Moreover, a "formed" cone will be easier to break-in than a "seamed" cone. A formed cone is built by wetting and then pressing a flat sheet into a cone form. A seamed cone is a flat sheet, bent into shape, and then seamed with glue. It's obvious that the latter will be more rigid, assuming the formulation of the pulp may be the same. 2) Doping or painting or applying dampening coats onto the membranes or specific portions of the membrane also changes the scenario. Certain dopings are applied to increase rigidity, while others to reduce it. Certain dopings will layer themselves on the surface of the paper foil, while others will impregnate the membrane. 3) The same can be said for the spider. Material may change, treatments may be applied onto them, and so on and so forth. 4) As far as the suspensions or "edges": in a guitar speaker almost invariably, the "suspension" is simply the membrane being shaped in form of "waves" or "rolls", to allow a well controlled membrane excursion. Once again, the shape and doping of the suspensions may be more or less rigid. In essence, any building technique or treatment that will increase the rigidity, will also slow down the break-in process. Therefore it makes sense to say that, as a general rule, a fair amount of playing time will bring the speaker "in the zone", as it has been designed to sound. Technically, by measuring the same speaker before and after our "factory developed" break-in process, the most average finding is a change in the Resonance Frequency, that shifts down in the spectrum, generally by 10% - 15% (as shown also in John's measurement... those small changes below 100Hz...). As an example, from 80Hz to 72Hz or even 68Hz. This may seem small, but it's not. The anechoic chamber curves clearly show this variation, but the dynamic and THD measurements also show a slightly looser behavior and a harmonically richer response (i.e. a higher THD, Total Harmonic Distortion). These small differences usually translate into a fatter, warmer, fuller tone. How much? Well, it depends on all the variables described above. With certain speakers, it's very evident. With others it's there, but barely appreciable. This is what Break-In is in our view. This process has been developed in 40+ years of manufacturing, tested thousands of times, with highly sophisticated gear, in a controlled environment, on speakers of all kinds such as the ones we manufacture, from titanium dome compression drivers, to silk dome tweeters, to 18" subwoofers for Sound Reinforcement. Each of these speaker species shows a different behavior before and after the break in. On the other side, AGING is the magic word, and shall not be confused with Break-In. I totally understand the concept of "200/300 hours", as stated by Nolly, even though I see that amount of time being closer to the concept of "aging" rather than "break-in". The point is that the mechanical evolution of the speaker is an on-going process, highly influenced by external factors such as humidity, dust, smoke, etc.. Also, a speaker played only at moderate levels will AGE differently form a speaker that has been pushed to its limit every night. It is pretty obvious that a speaker with years of heavy playing in a smokey, damp environment will sound very different from its twin brother played only at bedroom level in an air-conditioned apartment. Which of the two has aged "in the right way"? We found vastly different response curves among different units of the same vintage speaker model; in certain cases the resonance frequency has dropped by even more than 25% along with time and use/abuse, changing dramatically the tone and feel of the speaker. Hope all the above might be interesting for you all... don't hesitate to comment and ask, if this stuff thrills you!
Hello Ignazio, I'm thrilled to see you here! I'm a fan of your work. Thank you for leaving this amazing comment full of knowledge. It is a fascinating read and I very much appreciate your input here!
@@TheOtherJohnBrowne I’m glad you found this way-too-long post :) I love sharing what we’ve learned in all these years, and I love tech-tone talking :) we should have a chat and maybe do something with some of our speakers as well, let’s get in touch!
@@JensenSpeakersVideos I'd be delighted to! I have a few of your speakers lined up here already but I'd be delighted to explore more Jensen speakers or just have a chat. My email address is on my youtube page as is my Instagram. Please, feel free to message me any time
Wow what an amazing comment! I love both channels videos. If you see this I have a question. Because of Ignazios videos I bought a Jensen "mod" speaker 50w 8ohm and a "Hempback" 5w 8ohm speaker. I want to do a recorded test of the new vs break in stages. I planned on doing New vs 24hrs vs 48 hrs vs 76 hrs vs 96 hrs. Mix each speaker seperate with 2 condensor mics as room. I am confused as to what is best for playback to break them in. Some people say guitar playing, some people are using pink noise or similar constant wavs playing. I think back to when Ignazio was saying that even small pauses in the playing was enough to keep the coil temperatures regular. Is this the same with these pink noise signals? Is it going to overheat my coil if I was to leave a constant signal playing? Thank you in advance IF you see this!
@@dudarino666 Hello, Ignazio here! Great question... what signal is besst to use to break in speakers? In our experience, we recommend MUSIC. either playback of music tracks, or even guitar loops. This method may be less effective in the short term than white or pink noise or sine waves, but is MUCH safer. Music is made of transients and pauses and even a few milliseconds of pause contribute to avois excessive build-up of heat in the voice coil. Of course you can use continuous signals such as white/pink noise or sine waves BUT you gotta know what you're doing, and preferably you should have a set of measurement tools such as digital thermometers etc. to monitor the voice coil temperature. If you would like to use these continuous signals, I would recommend feeding the speakers with cycles of maybe one or two minutes, allowing some seconds of silence, and then repeating until you're happy. Use moderate volume, and watch out for the speaker to stay within its maximum excursion capabilities (Xmax parameter). I would not go over 30 to 60 minutes of breaking in with noise or waves. This kind of signals do stress the speaker much harder than music. That's why it may be an efficient system but also potentially more dangerous, if you use too much volume or too prolonged cycles. Hope this helps!
Some thoughts: I kinda always thought, logically, that a broken in speaker would have better treble response. A more malleable spider and suspension would be easier to move for small ranges like higher frequencies, whereas the paper of the cone would likely maintain the same stiffness as it's not flexing nearly as much. The thing about having more treble is that, psychoacoustically, it makes it sound like you have more bass as well, so people are going likely to prefer that more scooped sound. I think having more treble in a guitar sound will help it sit in a mix. It's always better to remove treble if there's too much than add if there isn't enough. You are most likely correct that "professional" break-ins would be using white or pink noise, which would more evenly exercise frequencies. It might be nice to see the graphs represented as diffs, to better illustrate the ... differences, looking at two squiggly lines can be a bit hard, I imagine! In any case, thanks so much for all the work, I really appreciate the test methodology discussion and implementation.
Epic! I'm not surprised by the results, but I also have the benefit of experience as an engineer in the paper industry. A fun experiment would be measuring one speaker at very high humidity and again at very low humidity. Paper stiffness and dimensions change continuously with ambient conditions. Additives improve stability, and are part of each manufacturer's "secret sauce".
Yep, try playing guitar under different conditions…not only does humidity affect the way your cab will sound, changes I. Air pressure change how you hear it. We’ve all been there, one day your Mesa sounds glorious….without touching the controls, it sounds awful just the next day - right?
Temperature has it's effects too. Amir of ASR had it when tested Neumann monitors, got some strange results which did not correlate with Neumann's own, and it turned out speakers were colder when he measured.
My personal hypothesis always was that moisture and odd numbered frequency formation will have greatest impact on how the speaker breaks in. By odd numbered frequencies i mean to say that a buildup of interferences across the cone perhaps leads earlier into structual changes of the cones fibers and glues than even frequencies would do. Therefore a pure sinewave will perhaps not even have great impact at all. Secondly i think that moisture is a great party that is all so often forgotten about. Look at reherseal rooms, venues, load in during rain. We are living in an enviroment that we cannot subtract from the vintage speakers that we love. Again, this is just my personal hypothesis. Other than that i am actually surprised that the break in changes are noticeably louder in the presence region. Perhaps these structual changes in the cone actually build tiny areas which then have it easier to withstand the dominant wave and therefore can transport more of their information. All speculation... Great video!
This is one of those youtube channels that's making me happy it exists,lots of quality content,hard and precise work,also some good jokes now and then! Keep those videos coming,man! Happy Hollydays,John!
Ok, I’ve finished watching the entire video now 😳, for the first time anyhow. My brain just loves the whole background engineering side of things, it really makes sense to me formatted this way, the precision of a planetary reentry & gaffer tape. A cable tie is what keeps Australian engineers employed. 🇦🇺👊
A true Christmas miracle! Another excellent video, well done John. Very much looking forward to a deep dive on pre and/or power tubes - that one will stir some emotion in the tone nerd community for sure.
The differences were subtle but noticeable and proves that there is something to vintage speakers sounding different and also manufacturers claims that they are *exactly* reproducing the speakers to original specifications. New speakers made to sound like old speakers may become less desirable as they age than those that make them authenticity. The next ingredient would be the age of the speaker. Paper changes as it ages as do the adhesives.
As it ages, it gets dry ... absorbs some atmospheric humidity ... then dries again. There's no substitute for an original 50's or 60's Jensen 12 in. speaker.
Regarding the thin blanket I see the follow up question as thus- could the differences in the A/B be negated by turning knobs on the amp? Regarding the break in signal- another thing to consider may be that Class D amplification moves the speaker (as I understand it, which is admittedly rudimentary) with PWM control whereas a traditional tube amp uses amplitude. As a side note, I have a personal theory that this is why modelers have very little "push" at any given volume compared to a tube amp.
Oh man... Both are really interesting thoughts. Maybe I will have to do another one using a conventional tube amp at some point. If the differences in before and after can't be tweaked with the amp, they could certainly be corrected with an EQ in the DAW.
Excellent video John. Thank you so much for extensive testing and displaying your results. The combination of visual and audio presentation takes much of the subjectivity out of the results to me.
Some years ago, I took a new speaker an ran it for 24 hours on pink noise very loud and had the frequencymeter of the DAW running all the time. Result: nothing. And when I listened to your results here with out seeing the switches from one file to another, I was not able to say when the was an ohter file (passive Tannoy Reaval speakers in my office). Schöne Feiertage noch.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, too, John! This was super interesting. I'm as surprised as you, that the high end/presence appartently goes up, and I can definitely follow the logic, that the speaker is sort of malleable to the signal you feed it. It would make sense to me, that a not super solid material such as paper or cellulose fibers could be affected by continuously being "stimulated" in the same frequency ranges. You've done a massive job and a huge service to the guitar community. A true Mythbuster! Maybe now we can start having real, informed discussions about gear? I don't know if I've even put 30 hours into my Orange 412 with the V30s and Creambacks yet, but I'm excited to hear if the newer speakers in there will someday match the brightness in the '90s Mesa 412 cab I recently purchased. The Mesa definitely seems "played in".
Cheers, Jesper! Thanks for leaving such a great comment! I really was surprised. Not the result I expected! Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you too!
What a monumental undertaking, and what a year. Been a pleasure following you through this ❤️ As for the results, I must say that it is super interesting. I did prefer the broken in versions every time. I think that you draw some good conclusions where possible, and I think that you have a pretty good hypothesis with regards to signal dependent breakin.
So you could, hypothetically, calibrate (or re-calibrate going by the same logic) a given speaker. Amazing work! Thanks for taking the time to go through this.
Wahnsinn!!! Ich habe jetzt wohl alle V30 Videos der Serie angeschaut und bin auch sehr überrascht von dem Ergebnis...aber viel mehr von der Art und Weise wie DU die Videos gemacht hast. Perfekt! Aller höchsten Respekt vor der ganzen Arbeit!!! Und danke dafür!!!
Another great video. Thanks for all the effort in conducting all these experiments. It's really helpful to have channels like your that separate fact from fiction because guitarists love the idea of Mojo, but we're terrible to confirm anything outside of anecdotal evidence.
Thank you! I very much appreciate your comment. I can't be too hard on guitarists as it took me long enough to realise that I can't trust my own mind/ears all the time either. Acoustics are tricky. The only thing worse is thermodynamics 😂
Very nice test you did here1 When i was listening to the two clips comparing each other you can definitely tell that: A sounds stiffer compared to B A sounds as if it has less harmonic content or saturation than B A sounds quieter than B in general A sounds like there's a blanket over the speaker and B is open and clear sounding
The easiest and cheaper way to break-in speakers is to record a short loop on a looping pedal. Overdub with bass heavy and treble heavy layers. Plug into a cheap tube amp with a solid state amplifier, such as a Joyo Bantamp. Run through the speakers in a cab for a week or less, including periods of loud volume. The cheap tube amp will keep your expensive amps from wearing down tubes, as the Bantamp only uses a single preamp tube. The Bantamp is also super light and portable, so you can bring the amp and pedal to the speaker cabs instead of hauling them around.
Sounds like a solid process. As I mentioned, I had intended to use my Orange Micro Terror for this which also uses a single tube preamp... but somehow fried it
Just came here to say that discovering your channel and nerding out to oblivion has been such a treat. Recently discovered my Mesa V30s are from the year 2000 and was a totally stoked. Your approach to your videos is so sick because it removes all the weird biases we all have in regards to tone/gear/etc. Coming from someone that has spent HOURS analyzing eq graphs and audio over the years these videos are so enjoyable haha. Thanks for all the effort and making crazy good content!
Hey Tom, I believe I have seen some of your videos too! Good stuff! Thanks for the kind words. It's been a pleasure sharing my obsessive passion with such an awesome community!
Finally got around to watching this, man what a difference!!! Frequency response didn't change all that much as you showed but, listening to the guitar examples the broken in ones (other than tube town) are WAY more dynamic and responsive to my ears, almost like the difference between playing really stiff and playing relaxed and in the flow state. The transients are almost muted on the new speaker compared to the broken in one almost seems like there are more harmonics/overtones as well. Its funny because after you listened to that you said you wouldn't hear much of a difference in a mix, where I had the exact opposite feeling, new speaker I would immediately reach for a reamp of some kind, broken in had much more life and felt like a better performance to my ear (expect for the tube town one that sounded exactly the same). the musicality of the broken in speakers is like 10X higher than the new speaker to my ear. Very interesting. I'd be curious if you did this test measuring other things besides just frequency response, not entirely sure how but dynamics, harmonics, transients etc I think are overall more useful than frequency response in a guitar context at least (especially since you've done the frequency response tests) I'd also be curious to hear how breaking in a speaker with a low frequency test would work, aka playing like a 10hz sine wave to get the motor/suspension moving (where you can actually see the cone pulsing) I've heard from some people that's the way to do it but who knows, certainly is visually appealing.
So i installed some Infinity Reference 6530cx speakers in my car, they are 6 1/2" and have Poly-something cones and pretty hard Rubber suspension, it is safe to say, having them run from minute 1 to 10, they did have 0% Bass, the Speakers didnt budge at all. It was very damp and smooshy, simply by the fact that the Spider and Suspension were still so hard and unused that the voice coil at low Herz--> 60-100Hz wasnt able to get the Cone to move a lot at this low wave. So i am fairly sure that getting the Spider and Suspension used for 20-30 hours will make it more responsive and have more low herz response. One big factor to this is size i would guess! A 12" sub has a much bigger spider and therefore already allows more movement than a small speaker... thats also why Subs are big and tweeters small... I do not think that loudness really gets a big change since it is not controlled by the responsiveness of the speaker itself, rather the Watts being translated more efficient into movement..
Fantastic testing and methodology! I noticed some changes in the 300 hour speaker, the others shifted slightly but I'd be hard pressed to tell which is which if I wasn't listening carefully. In some ways I liked the 0 hour speakers. Less bright and the high mids were very slightly warmer. Again, nothing I'd notice when jamming through a cab normally though. Awesome work. Happy holidays! See you next year \M/
Thank you so much for putting in this work. The results are very enlightening., and... well... sobering. In a good way. Less for us to worry about. I fully agree with your conclusions and speculations. Maybe I may add that the differences were not only in the frequency spectrum changes, but in richness, warmth and fullness....you know, attributes we would describe to tape saturation or something. Anyway, way to subtle to worry about. Moving forward, let's all just enjoy creating vastly differing tones with different speakers and save break-in for the mastering stage 😂. Loved the video ❤ Happy Holidays John !
Very interesting. I'll need to go over this again before I comment on anything except you method. I'm just on my phone/headphones now. I find your method sound and well thought out. Certainly valid.
Thanks for this video!!! Now I can understand why the most rated rock speakers the eminence 1258 after many years played and abused is now my favorite, even friends which have tested recently said the same! Looks like the mids became more prominent, fatter Bass and little less presence, making it a very nice choice to Blues Rock on any of my amps. I remenber when I got this speaker new it wasn't usable for overdriven sounds, too bright and tiny middles...
Great and revealing video, I'm definitely looking forward to the vacuum tube tests. I'm pretty confident, that it depends on the amps circuit and it is linked to the biasing of the amp. Plexis and JMPs/JCMs seem to show a more noticable difference between used tubes then modern tube amps. Also I think the most differences can be noticed in not super saturated preamp settings, but rather sort of AC/DC type gain level or slightly above. And finally happy new year and merry christmas to you!
First of all, dude, this was amazing science. I could only hear the difference on one of the speakers, but it was barely noticeable, but what's more interesting to me, and I never would've guessed this, is that the speaker gains a bit more in the high frequencies. My guess would've been that the opposite would happen.
20 years as an audio enthusiast, I break in speakers that way - measure T/S parameters of the new speaker, play sine wave below Fs with power enough to reach it's Xmax. Every 2 hours I measure T/S again till the point that there's no significant difference between tha last 2 measurements. For me that's the best way - the suspension loosens and Fs goes down for extended bass reproduction. However that's important for Hi-Fi speakers, where cabinet construction and crossover networks are critical, so they have good response without EQ correction. I have never done this for guitar speakers, I just dial the tone that I like from the amplifier.
Well I'm so late to this one that I can skip the Christmas part and go directly to saying Happy New Year! Thanks for another very interesting installment - the insane amount of work you put into these is amazing! All the best for 2024! Cheers!
Really great video as I've been obsessing with speakers, break in and "maturing". I became obsessed with this as I noticed nearly every old speaker I own (20+ years old) sounds immense better to me at all volumes, more dynamic, more alive, clearer and overall funner to play thru. I have not done anything technical in the analysis like this other than do my own experiments with a pairs of fresh speakers. My results aligned with what I was hearing in your video, that the more broken in speaker sounds slightly brighter, clearer and has more "depth" or "3d" effect for a lack of better words. I still personally prefer the older more mature, "worn" speakers as again I feel they are much more lively. The thing I noticed instantly between old speakers and fresh speakers even if broken in, the old speaker cones are much softer, more pliable and very easy to push in, which I give to the cone AND the spider being very well broken/worn in... Or tired depending on your perspective. Great watch!!!
This was a huge job Man. Finally somepne made it properly, or in the way it should be done. Very interesting conclusion. I would not expect that. Waiting for more of your videos. Happy New Year to you.
I am a pedal reviewer that has just passed reviewing 3000 pedals. About 80% are dirt pedals. I also use 10 guitars fitted out with all well known PU, PAF, high gain HB, P90, Strat, Tele, Rickenbacker, Gold Foil and Firebird. I am missing Lipstick, Burns and mini HB although i have owned all but the Burns at some time. My point is different is 'NOT' better or worse in 95% all cases, dirt pedals or guitar PU's. In that other 5% it is often a matter of nasty artifacts that cancel them out or simply a design to meet a price point not a pleasing sound. So the difference in all the speakers you have shown us to date is ascetics.
I think I know who you are. I believe you had linked my Diezel Herbert pedal video on your blog. I'm not sure I quite understand the point you are trying to make. Could you elaborate?
Thanks for this. I actually really like the way your break ins after 300 hours sound, more so than the pro ones. Brighter yes, but also less congested sounding and clear. Awesome test. Subtle (but noticeable) on one speaker but if you think about great old sounding cabs, that's all 4 speakers getting that treatment which adds up I think. I never factored in what you feed the break in would change the sound but it makes sense, its getting hit with certain dominate frequencies more than others which probably loosening the speaker compliance in those ranges.
Ha! I fixed a speaker with a hammer. The speaker had a rubbing voice coil, and I was able to hammer the frame in the right place to free the coil up. The vintage guitar speaker turned out to be a real nice one!
John, this video ist so was von cool, aber... if possible, please kindly and thank you, include a waterfall plot for speaker analyses like these. Frequency response graphs like at 16:03 are awesome tools, but sound has two dimensions: frequency and time. And waterfall plots show you frequency response over time so you can really delve into the transient response of the speaker, not just how it sounds in one moment in time or as an average (averaged by your sampling rate; 20-20k over 20s? or whatever your sweep was). Future research: Maybe, breaking in "improves" the transient response? What does improve mean? does breaking in remove edge glue stiffness so it can flex better and have more attack? Surely temperature will affect this?. If you isolate one frequency and measure a broken in vs new speaker, does that frequency have a great attack in one but terrible response in the other? (this specific testing methodology would show up the same in a freq response graph where you don't measure freq over time). [insert 431 other questions I have but this is enough for now] Also, in REW, you can smooth the response graph so it more closely resembles what the human ear might perceive. Psychoacoustic Smoothing (ctrl shift y, repeat to undo) will put more smoothing to peaks and you might get a more obvious, relative change in ALL SPL view. It might just be more easily analyze-able in relation to how the ear will hear it, because we don't really hear every individual peak of a speaker as colored as is a guitar speaker. It MIGHT be a better method than looking through the raw spectrum data, you'll be the better judge of this for your application! Love the general scientific approach in your vids and as everything in the world of science there is room for improvement. Take care, bud, and I look forward to every video of yours 🤘🤘
Played bass through my closed back 1x12 G12H 55hz with my sv20 at band practice. Sounds pretty great now, wish I took a before recording so I could actually tell.
Break in makes a night and day difference with speakers like Blue Alnicos. Installed in a 5e3 amp I had to set the tone control of the amp around 4 before break in. After a 48h break in with a variac (Scumback method) I started to set the tone control around 6-7. In addition, the amp sounds thicker in the low end too.
I just wanted to add my thanks here to all of the work you've done this year. I appreciate your commitment to being thorough and precise. here's to more knowledge gained in 2024!
More music science experiments, the perfect Christmas gift! Thanks John for all your brilliant work and the amazing effort you've put in to help better everyone's knowledge. Seasons greetings sir!
Just found you recently, but your methodical and level headed approach is refreshing. I'm a fan. I really look forward to what you have in store (especially the tube video as I am an amp tech by trade).
Great video, as always! By watching it, i thought:"please, talk about the dip about ca. 2.8kHz going down even more over the testing period of speaker 50." Because: This is a crucial frequency area in the human hearing. And, bringing frequencies down, has the effect of feeling other frequencies being featured. But, in the end it doesn't even matter. (Where did i hear that phrase, before?!🤔😂) I didn't hear drastic shifts, only slight ones.
Very interesting. Could be that lower-level high freq signals loosen up the surround more uniformly than higher-level low freq signals, which would mainly allow more cone movement below the resonance point of the surround bends. The test also shows how a speaker Z curve affects the response of a Hi-Z tube amp very differently than a Low-Z SS or class D amp. The mid dip of the tube amp follows the speaker Z curve.
Hey John, really appreciate these kind of videos. I can barely imagine the work you put into them, and I can't thank you enough🙏🙏🙏 And being an engineer myself, I am literally longing for more stuff like that ❤ ...albeit the outcome might stir up some 😊 I as well am looking forward to something similar from you on tubes. After you're done with that, I'd suggest you enter (or end..?) the "does tone wood matter in solidbody guitars" debate 😂 I may just shut up now and wish everyone a happy new year❤
Thanks for these great videos and merry christmas! i agree with your theories on why, and i also have my own test i conducted a little over a year ago, semi-related. i've done my own test, not that scientific, but more relating to heat. my hypothesis was that environmental factors (warmth, moisture) affected my toanz. my method of testing was pre-heating an open back 2x12 with a space heater for 15 minutes, not aimed directly at the back, only increase the ambient temp of the cab. week 1 was a control, week 2 was the test week, and week 3 was another control. week 1&3 was consistent and i never noticed any more change than my usual recordings. week 2 was, relatively speaking, """smoother""" sounding and had a less pronounced midrange. additionally, after letting the cab (and amp!) cool and settle down and then some, on the same day a few hours later they would sound "cold" again and match with the control weeks. my conclusion: environmental factors matter a lot more than what i originally thought. of course, this test was an extreme, but it proved a point. my theory: material expands, and thus becomes less resistant to the movements of the voice coil. the cone and/or spider may absorb moisture and add weight (and thus resistance) to movement. that being said, my usual recordings vary a noticeable (though not major) amount due to, what i theorize, is said warmth and moisture
The topic of signal dependence of the break in process literally sprang to my mind when I heard the loop you were using. Would be interesting, if it is possible to prime the speaker to one's liking with a specific bandwidth of either a sine sweep let's say within that 4-5khz range or noise (pink or white?) with a band pass or notch filter applied in said bandwidth. Anyway, keep up the great work!
John, have you considered measuring the actual static resistance (not impedance) of a speaker before and after break-in? Whereas impedance is the change in resistance based on frequency and would not be a reliable static measurement. I'm assuming that the current going through the coil at length will impact it as well, just like any resistor changes after time-just my thoughts. In any event thanks for taking the time and in-depth analysis of these speakers, I find it fascinating!
That's a good idea. I might have to do one more test with another speaker down the road, employing some lessons learned. In my big V30 shootout, I checked the speakerd with a multimeter and they all read the same DC resistance but I might have to do a more accurate measurement before and after with a more accurate LCR meter.
I would use my solid state rocktron speaker out to play speakers at about 85 Db for a week. They did eventually break in and brought out some highs in the greenback 10s I was breaking in. It sounded better foresure, but not sure if it was massive earth shaking difference. I wish I had recorded pre and post breakin.
Only at the beginning but dude THANK YOU I’ve wanted to know scientifically whether speaker break in is real or bullshit, and if real what is it really. Can’t wait to see the results.
@@TheOtherJohnBrowneit totally did! Great analysis. This was super fascinating especially that the speakers got brighter in general which like you said, baseless internet horseshit would have us believe the opposite. Whether that’s because of the signal eq profile you used to break the speaker in was “biased” toward those frequencies, who knows. But I also ultimately reached the same conclusion - it didn’t matter all that much. By no means does that make the test worthless or pointless, quite the opposite. What I arrived at, as I have so many other things, is that you can generally EQ these shifts out or in to your liking and most importantly - if it sounds good/you like the way it sounds, that’s all that really matters. I’d still be interested to see if the overall tonal profile of the break in signal does bias the speaker to accentuate those frequencies after break in but I understand if you don’t want to do that, it would be an even bigger undertaking than this experiment was. I’d also be interested to see if that same method would bump the low end on your already broken in speakers that were biased toward high end bumps, and thus showing whether you can continue breaking in a broken in speaker. In any case, I think things like EQ and grille cloth (see Jim Lill’s speaker cabinet video but I’m sure you have) probably have a more pronounced and immediate effect on the tone than break in. And in a mix, you wouldn’t hear most of any of this break in differential because of cymbal wash frequencies covering it up. Again super fascinating, thanks for putting in the work and having tight controls and great analysis!
I think the worn in speakers sound more "round" in die upper mids/ presence and a bit less harsh/ edgy (suddle). Might not really matter in a mix. btw...great video!
Speaker breakup is real. Frequency response doesn't give you the whole picture (it gives enough to see that there's a difference though). You can also perform impedance measurements - with break-in the Fs should go lower and be a bit less tall. That's because the speaker suspension gets less stiff (more compliant - CMS goes up). I suggest that you also check the harmonic distortion graphs that are already there in REW anyway - slight changes are possible there as well because speaker suspension nonlinearities are one of the main reasons for harmonic distortion. IMD is also affected but you need specific measurements to see that...
I think ive figured it out. The build up of moisture and dust in the cone makes the speaker weigh more which is what effects the sound. Just likenwhen you add weights ro a speaker
Awesome work! Loving the channel 🤘 hoping to see a comparison of all V30 type clones in the future. The Eminence CV-75 is a personal favorite of mine and would be awesome to see how it holds up with Celestion V30, WSG Veterans, Mojotone BV30, ect.
Really enjoying your V30 videos. Have you tried a Celestion G10 Vintage? Its my favourite “mixing” speaker. It shares the same voice coil design as the V30, only it doesn’t have a lot of lows or harsh highs. It has a beautiful mid range and really fills out a 12”. I’ve been mixing it with either a V30 or a G12H30. I get nice lows and highs from the 12” and a great punchy mid range.
I think that room humidity is changing the tone. My amps regardless of tube or solid state don't feel the same from day to day. Maybe just my ears though.
I suppose the next question is how do we accelerate this process? What part of the cone and suspension system affects the 5-6kHz range the most? What is the fastest and and most efficient (maybe even 'quietest') break-in method to have measurable results?
it is hard to see the difference from a freq responce because the db scale is huge. try fab filter match eq you can take as reference the 0 hour and then measure at 100 hours and it will show just the difference. it is more easy to see small differences.
Excellent job... transformers seem to be a very controversial topic lately... country of origin and price being factors. It would be great to take on the question of transformer mythology.. what is fact and what is false!
Big question is do you want to buy new, and break it in in your amp, or is it better to buy a second hand speaker that's been broken in in another amp?
So, usage of speakers alters the sound. I guess, most of us expected that. I don't think that the frequency response of the raw chassis matters all that much, compared to cabinet and room environment. What you somehow ignored is the dynamic response, which will change with time, as the membrane and the spider very likely will have different stiffness compared to new after millions or billions of movements back and forth. Just wiggle any material 1 billion times and it will become softer, which means that the dynamic response of the cone should improve or at least change over time. Any thoughts on that?
Hey man. Apprecite the comment. Wouldn't the live FFTs of Voxengo SPAN while playing back both audio sources cover dynamic response? How would you suggest I quantify dynamic response?
@@TheOtherJohnBrowne Sorry, I'm not too much of a technical nerd when it comes to measuring speakers. I do know however, that there is such a thing as waterfall diagrams, which capture the time-dependant aspect of a speaker. When it comes to gitar speakers, I have made the experience that some chassis will feel quite a bit snappier than others, even in the same cabinet. I used to own a 1968 Marshall 4x12 which had completely worn out speakers, to a degree that every hard pick stroke would feel and sound mushy. Nowadays, I like speakers with fast and precise transients, which make me feel much better "connected". Currently I have a cabinet with two EVM 12S - snappy as a slingshot and a real boulder to carry around, but well worth it. I guess, speaker sound is much more than just frequency response.
Thanks for all the hard work doing this test!!! The results are interesting, but I worry that there is one thing that is missing, and I'm not sure it has been talked about in the comments: A control speaker is missing! Obviously the best thing to do would be to have 5 speakers that are EXACTLY the same and to leave one alone, and vary the amount of "break-in" time for each speaker, but since each speaker sounds different, the options are quite limited. What I propose is matching (at least) two speakers (two speakers that have a similar frequency response; not exactly the same) and comparing the difference of SPL at a few key frequencies. Then, choose one as the "control" and break in the other. Then, measure the frequency response of each speaker at set times of break-in (20 hours, 40 hours, 60 hours, etc) much like you did in the video. I'm sure there would be similar results, but as one commenter pointed out, the weather can cause the speaker to react differently. This lines up with the fact that the seasons change and so does the humidity, temperature, etc, all of which might be hidden variables in the results of this video. If you have a control speaker, this could easily dispel any doubt that the weather or some other hidden variable was the main reason for change, and not speaker break-in.
Thanks for the feedback and the input. I agree that that approach would be even more solid with regards to methodology. At the same time that would be a fair bit more ressource intensive and a bit beyond my scope. In general, the differences I see are not large enough to me personally to warrant further investigation into the effect of other parameters. Also, the 300 hour speaker and the two externally broken in speakers were "end of line" tested on the same day or at the very least within 24 hours of each other in pretty much the same climate and each showed a different break in pattern. I acknowledge that that is of course anectdotal but it is sufficient for me to not worry much about humidity and temperature in context of this test although I certainly think that both these paramteres can affect the tone of a speaker at least temporarily.
Cheers guys! If you want to support me build a fort out of speaker boxes, please consider using my affiliate link the next time you shop at Thomann! Thanks! Mwua! Mwua!
www.thomann.de/de/index.html?offid=1&affid=3394
Hello Speaker Fanatics Community! Ignazio from Jensen Speakers here. John, thank you very much for such an interesting and accurate video. It's clear you invested a lot of time and effort to make an objective and accurate test. I'd like to chime in, to dig a little deeper in this debate that is so interesting for those like us who are obsessed with Tone, and therefore with Speakers.
First of all, let me clarify what we define as Break-In: to have the speaker to behave as designed, winning over the rigidity that the moving parts (membrane, suspensions, spider etc.,) have developed, being stuck in their "neutral" position for weeks or months or more, from the manufacturing time to the moment you start playing them.
Aging is a different concept, as I'll discuss later below.
Rolling the tape back to my interview with Kristian Kohle, I confirm I stated that an average of 20-30 hours of playing at a decent "band practice" volume will bring you a long way towards the "maturation" of the speaker. Unfortunately, there is no hard rule in the guitar speaker world, because, in spite of the sheer simplicity of the concept, there are many variations among different speakers builds that impact also on the break-in length. Let me go through a few of those:
1) membrane material and shape: the material is almost invariably cellulose, i.e. paper. Even if we'd assume that the pulp may have quite similar characteristics, which is not that case, the rigidity and thickness of the foil is a big variable. A thin foil, with a minimum amount of concentric ribs (or corrugations, that is the tech term we use in the factory) , will be faster to break in, because it is less rigid, so it will gain compliance and flexibility earlier than a thicker one.
Moreover, a "formed" cone will be easier to break-in than a "seamed" cone. A formed cone is built by wetting and then pressing a flat sheet into a cone form. A seamed cone is a flat sheet, bent into shape, and then seamed with glue. It's obvious that the latter will be more rigid, assuming the formulation of the pulp may be the same.
2) Doping or painting or applying dampening coats onto the membranes or specific portions of the membrane also changes the scenario. Certain dopings are applied to increase rigidity, while others to reduce it. Certain dopings will layer themselves on the surface of the paper foil, while others will impregnate the membrane.
3) The same can be said for the spider. Material may change, treatments may be applied onto them, and so on and so forth.
4) As far as the suspensions or "edges": in a guitar speaker almost invariably, the "suspension" is simply the membrane being shaped in form of "waves" or "rolls", to allow a well controlled membrane excursion. Once again, the shape and doping of the suspensions may be more or less rigid.
In essence, any building technique or treatment that will increase the rigidity, will also slow down the break-in process.
Therefore it makes sense to say that, as a general rule, a fair amount of playing time will bring the speaker "in the zone", as it has been designed to sound.
Technically, by measuring the same speaker before and after our "factory developed" break-in process, the most average finding is a change in the Resonance Frequency, that shifts down in the spectrum, generally by 10% - 15% (as shown also in John's measurement... those small changes below 100Hz...). As an example, from 80Hz to 72Hz or even 68Hz. This may seem small, but it's not. The anechoic chamber curves clearly show this variation, but the dynamic and THD measurements also show a slightly looser behavior and a harmonically richer response (i.e. a higher THD, Total Harmonic Distortion). These small differences usually translate into a fatter, warmer, fuller tone.
How much? Well, it depends on all the variables described above. With certain speakers, it's very evident. With others it's there, but barely appreciable.
This is what Break-In is in our view. This process has been developed in 40+ years of manufacturing, tested thousands of times, with highly sophisticated gear, in a controlled environment, on speakers of all kinds such as the ones we manufacture, from titanium dome compression drivers, to silk dome tweeters, to 18" subwoofers for Sound Reinforcement. Each of these speaker species shows a different behavior before and after the break in.
On the other side, AGING is the magic word, and shall not be confused with Break-In. I totally understand the concept of "200/300 hours", as stated by Nolly, even though I see that amount of time being closer to the concept of "aging" rather than "break-in". The point is that the mechanical evolution of the speaker is an on-going process, highly influenced by external factors such as humidity, dust, smoke, etc.. Also, a speaker played only at moderate levels will AGE differently form a speaker that has been pushed to its limit every night.
It is pretty obvious that a speaker with years of heavy playing in a smokey, damp environment will sound very different from its twin brother played only at bedroom level in an air-conditioned apartment. Which of the two has aged "in the right way"? We found vastly different response curves among different units of the same vintage speaker model; in certain cases the resonance frequency has dropped by even more than 25% along with time and use/abuse, changing dramatically the tone and feel of the speaker.
Hope all the above might be interesting for you all... don't hesitate to comment and ask, if this stuff thrills you!
Hello Ignazio,
I'm thrilled to see you here! I'm a fan of your work. Thank you for leaving this amazing comment full of knowledge. It is a fascinating read and I very much appreciate your input here!
@@TheOtherJohnBrowne I’m glad you found this way-too-long post :) I love sharing what we’ve learned in all these years, and I love tech-tone talking :) we should have a chat and maybe do something with some of our speakers as well, let’s get in touch!
@@JensenSpeakersVideos I'd be delighted to! I have a few of your speakers lined up here already but I'd be delighted to explore more Jensen speakers or just have a chat.
My email address is on my youtube page as is my Instagram. Please, feel free to message me any time
Wow what an amazing comment! I love both channels videos. If you see this I have a question. Because of Ignazios videos I bought a Jensen "mod" speaker 50w 8ohm and a "Hempback" 5w 8ohm speaker. I want to do a recorded test of the new vs break in stages.
I planned on doing New vs 24hrs vs 48 hrs vs 76 hrs vs 96 hrs. Mix each speaker seperate with 2 condensor mics as room. I am confused as to what is best for playback to break them in. Some people say guitar playing, some people are using pink noise or similar constant wavs playing. I think back to when Ignazio was saying that even small pauses in the playing was enough to keep the coil temperatures regular.
Is this the same with these pink noise signals? Is it going to overheat my coil if I was to leave a constant signal playing? Thank you in advance IF you see this!
@@dudarino666 Hello, Ignazio here! Great question... what signal is besst to use to break in speakers? In our experience, we recommend MUSIC. either playback of music tracks, or even guitar loops. This method may be less effective in the short term than white or pink noise or sine waves, but is MUCH safer. Music is made of transients and pauses and even a few milliseconds of pause contribute to avois excessive build-up of heat in the voice coil.
Of course you can use continuous signals such as white/pink noise or sine waves BUT you gotta know what you're doing, and preferably you should have a set of measurement tools such as digital thermometers etc. to monitor the voice coil temperature. If you would like to use these continuous signals, I would recommend feeding the speakers with cycles of maybe one or two minutes, allowing some seconds of silence, and then repeating until you're happy. Use moderate volume, and watch out for the speaker to stay within its maximum excursion capabilities (Xmax parameter). I would not go over 30 to 60 minutes of breaking in with noise or waves. This kind of signals do stress the speaker much harder than music. That's why it may be an efficient system but also potentially more dangerous, if you use too much volume or too prolonged cycles.
Hope this helps!
Some thoughts:
I kinda always thought, logically, that a broken in speaker would have better treble response. A more malleable spider and suspension would be easier to move for small ranges like higher frequencies, whereas the paper of the cone would likely maintain the same stiffness as it's not flexing nearly as much.
The thing about having more treble is that, psychoacoustically, it makes it sound like you have more bass as well, so people are going likely to prefer that more scooped sound.
I think having more treble in a guitar sound will help it sit in a mix. It's always better to remove treble if there's too much than add if there isn't enough.
You are most likely correct that "professional" break-ins would be using white or pink noise, which would more evenly exercise frequencies.
It might be nice to see the graphs represented as diffs, to better illustrate the ... differences, looking at two squiggly lines can be a bit hard, I imagine!
In any case, thanks so much for all the work, I really appreciate the test methodology discussion and implementation.
Epic! I'm not surprised by the results, but I also have the benefit of experience as an engineer in the paper industry. A fun experiment would be measuring one speaker at very high humidity and again at very low humidity. Paper stiffness and dimensions change continuously with ambient conditions. Additives improve stability, and are part of each manufacturer's "secret sauce".
Awesome! That is a great idea!!!
In his Guitar Amp Handbook Dave Hunter talks about putting a silica packet in a box with a speaker for a bit to dry it out for more “woodiness”.
@@jonoftheford "My lucky day! This cab came with some candy." - the bassist
Yep, try playing guitar under different conditions…not only does humidity affect the way your cab will sound, changes I. Air pressure change how you hear it. We’ve all been there, one day your Mesa sounds glorious….without touching the controls, it sounds awful just the next day - right?
Temperature has it's effects too. Amir of ASR had it when tested Neumann monitors, got some strange results which did not correlate with Neumann's own, and it turned out speakers were colder when he measured.
My personal hypothesis always was that moisture and odd numbered frequency formation will have greatest impact on how the speaker breaks in.
By odd numbered frequencies i mean to say that a buildup of interferences across the cone perhaps leads earlier into structual changes of the cones fibers and glues than even frequencies would do. Therefore a pure sinewave will perhaps not even have great impact at all.
Secondly i think that moisture is a great party that is all so often forgotten about. Look at reherseal rooms, venues, load in during rain. We are living in an enviroment that we cannot subtract from the vintage speakers that we love.
Again, this is just my personal hypothesis. Other than that i am actually surprised that the break in changes are noticeably louder in the presence region. Perhaps these structual changes in the cone actually build tiny areas which then have it easier to withstand the dominant wave and therefore can transport more of their information. All speculation...
Great video!
This is one of those youtube channels that's making me happy it exists,lots of quality content,hard and precise work,also some good jokes now and then!
Keep those videos coming,man!
Happy Hollydays,John!
Thank you for your kind comment. It made me smile! Happy holidays to you too!
Ok, I’ve finished watching the entire video now 😳, for the first time anyhow.
My brain just loves the whole background engineering side of things, it really makes sense to me formatted this way, the precision of a planetary reentry & gaffer tape.
A cable tie is what keeps Australian engineers employed.
🇦🇺👊
Haha! I love this comment! Tape and cable ties are definitely where the rubber meets the road in my world
A true Christmas miracle! Another excellent video, well done John. Very much looking forward to a deep dive on pre and/or power tubes - that one will stir some emotion in the tone nerd community for sure.
Hahaha! Appreciate your feedback, ZEN!
The differences were subtle but noticeable and proves that there is something to vintage speakers sounding different and also manufacturers claims that they are *exactly* reproducing the speakers to original specifications. New speakers made to sound like old speakers may become less desirable as they age than those that make them authenticity.
The next ingredient would be the age of the speaker. Paper changes as it ages as do the adhesives.
As it ages, it gets dry ... absorbs some atmospheric humidity ... then dries again. There's no substitute for an original 50's or 60's Jensen 12 in. speaker.
Regarding the thin blanket I see the follow up question as thus- could the differences in the A/B be negated by turning knobs on the amp?
Regarding the break in signal- another thing to consider may be that Class D amplification moves the speaker (as I understand it, which is admittedly rudimentary) with PWM control whereas a traditional tube amp uses amplitude. As a side note, I have a personal theory that this is why modelers have very little "push" at any given volume compared to a tube amp.
Oh man... Both are really interesting thoughts.
Maybe I will have to do another one using a conventional tube amp at some point. If the differences in before and after can't be tweaked with the amp, they could certainly be corrected with an EQ in the DAW.
Excellent video John. Thank you so much for extensive testing and displaying your results. The combination of visual and audio presentation takes much of the subjectivity out of the results to me.
Some years ago, I took a new speaker an ran it for 24 hours on pink noise very loud and had the frequencymeter of the DAW running all the time. Result: nothing. And when I listened to your results here with out seeing the switches from one file to another, I was not able to say when the was an ohter file (passive Tannoy Reaval speakers in my office). Schöne Feiertage noch.
Yep. I'm not sure I would have noticed if I hadn't been listening for changes
In sum, broken-in speakers have more bite. I much preferred the "older" speakers. Makes me want to play more and more!
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, too, John! This was super interesting. I'm as surprised as you, that the high end/presence appartently goes up, and I can definitely follow the logic, that the speaker is sort of malleable to the signal you feed it. It would make sense to me, that a not super solid material such as paper or cellulose fibers could be affected by continuously being "stimulated" in the same frequency ranges.
You've done a massive job and a huge service to the guitar community. A true Mythbuster! Maybe now we can start having real, informed discussions about gear?
I don't know if I've even put 30 hours into my Orange 412 with the V30s and Creambacks yet, but I'm excited to hear if the newer speakers in there will someday match the brightness in the '90s Mesa 412 cab I recently purchased. The Mesa definitely seems "played in".
Cheers, Jesper! Thanks for leaving such a great comment! I really was surprised. Not the result I expected!
Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you too!
What a monumental undertaking, and what a year. Been a pleasure following you through this ❤️ As for the results, I must say that it is super interesting. I did prefer the broken in versions every time. I think that you draw some good conclusions where possible, and I think that you have a pretty good hypothesis with regards to signal dependent breakin.
Thank you very much, bro!
So you could, hypothetically, calibrate (or re-calibrate going by the same logic) a given speaker.
Amazing work! Thanks for taking the time to go through this.
Amazing. Loved the theories at the end as well! Merry Christmas and happy New year oh aerodynamic one!
Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you, mate! Thanks again for having me on the pod and being an awesome person
As a fellow "engineer" (software), I love the talking part, looking forward to it!
Wahnsinn!!!
Ich habe jetzt wohl alle V30 Videos der Serie angeschaut und bin auch sehr überrascht von dem Ergebnis...aber viel mehr von der Art und Weise wie DU die Videos gemacht hast. Perfekt! Aller höchsten Respekt vor der ganzen Arbeit!!!
Und danke dafür!!!
Dankesehr!
Deutsche Gründlichkeit 😅
Thanks! You do great work. This is important for guitarists to know. I agree 100%. It’s cork sniffing at that point.
Another great video. Thanks for all the effort in conducting all these experiments. It's really helpful to have channels like your that separate fact from fiction because guitarists love the idea of Mojo, but we're terrible to confirm anything outside of anecdotal evidence.
Thank you! I very much appreciate your comment. I can't be too hard on guitarists as it took me long enough to realise that I can't trust my own mind/ears all the time either. Acoustics are tricky. The only thing worse is thermodynamics 😂
Rambling on and speculating are all good, hearing theories about what 'might' be happening is eye-opening thought provoking.
Thank you! I enjoyed this video a lot! Almost like a whole documentary series about guitar gear! Hope there will be more in the future!
Thanks man! There will be more test videos like this in the future
Very nice test you did here1 When i was listening to the two clips comparing each other you can definitely tell that:
A sounds stiffer compared to B
A sounds as if it has less harmonic content or saturation than B
A sounds quieter than B in general
A sounds like there's a blanket over the speaker and B is open and clear sounding
another legendary video! the results were right what I expected - something happens, but it's not worth losing sleep over it
The easiest and cheaper way to break-in speakers is to record a short loop on a looping pedal. Overdub with bass heavy and treble heavy layers. Plug into a cheap tube amp with a solid state amplifier, such as a Joyo Bantamp. Run through the speakers in a cab for a week or less, including periods of loud volume.
The cheap tube amp will keep your expensive amps from wearing down tubes, as the Bantamp only uses a single preamp tube. The Bantamp is also super light and portable, so you can bring the amp and pedal to the speaker cabs instead of hauling them around.
Sounds like a solid process. As I mentioned, I had intended to use my Orange Micro Terror for this which also uses a single tube preamp... but somehow fried it
Just came here to say that discovering your channel and nerding out to oblivion has been such a treat. Recently discovered my Mesa V30s are from the year 2000 and was a totally stoked. Your approach to your videos is so sick because it removes all the weird biases we all have in regards to tone/gear/etc. Coming from someone that has spent HOURS analyzing eq graphs and audio over the years these videos are so enjoyable haha. Thanks for all the effort and making crazy good content!
Hey Tom, I believe I have seen some of your videos too! Good stuff!
Thanks for the kind words. It's been a pleasure sharing my obsessive passion with such an awesome community!
Finally got around to watching this, man what a difference!!!
Frequency response didn't change all that much as you showed but, listening to the guitar examples the broken in ones (other than tube town) are WAY more dynamic and responsive to my ears, almost like the difference between playing really stiff and playing relaxed and in the flow state. The transients are almost muted on the new speaker compared to the broken in one almost seems like there are more harmonics/overtones as well. Its funny because after you listened to that you said you wouldn't hear much of a difference in a mix, where I had the exact opposite feeling, new speaker I would immediately reach for a reamp of some kind, broken in had much more life and felt like a better performance to my ear (expect for the tube town one that sounded exactly the same). the musicality of the broken in speakers is like 10X higher than the new speaker to my ear. Very interesting.
I'd be curious if you did this test measuring other things besides just frequency response, not entirely sure how but dynamics, harmonics, transients etc I think are overall more useful than frequency response in a guitar context at least (especially since you've done the frequency response tests)
I'd also be curious to hear how breaking in a speaker with a low frequency test would work, aka playing like a 10hz sine wave to get the motor/suspension moving (where you can actually see the cone pulsing) I've heard from some people that's the way to do it but who knows, certainly is visually appealing.
So i installed some Infinity Reference 6530cx speakers in my car, they are 6 1/2" and have Poly-something cones and pretty hard Rubber suspension, it is safe to say, having them run from minute 1 to 10, they did have 0% Bass, the Speakers didnt budge at all. It was very damp and smooshy, simply by the fact that the Spider and Suspension were still so hard and unused that the voice coil at low Herz--> 60-100Hz wasnt able to get the Cone to move a lot at this low wave. So i am fairly sure that getting the Spider and Suspension used for 20-30 hours will make it more responsive and have more low herz response.
One big factor to this is size i would guess! A 12" sub has a much bigger spider and therefore already allows more movement than a small speaker... thats also why Subs are big and tweeters small...
I do not think that loudness really gets a big change since it is not controlled by the responsiveness of the speaker itself, rather the Watts being translated more efficient into movement..
Fantastic testing and methodology! I noticed some changes in the 300 hour speaker, the others shifted slightly but I'd be hard pressed to tell which is which if I wasn't listening carefully. In some ways I liked the 0 hour speakers. Less bright and the high mids were very slightly warmer. Again, nothing I'd notice when jamming through a cab normally though.
Awesome work. Happy holidays! See you next year \M/
Thank you so much for putting in this work. The results are very enlightening., and... well... sobering. In a good way. Less for us to worry about.
I fully agree with your conclusions and speculations. Maybe I may add that the differences were not only in the frequency spectrum changes, but in richness, warmth and fullness....you know, attributes we would describe to tape saturation or something.
Anyway, way to subtle to worry about. Moving forward, let's all just enjoy creating vastly differing tones with different speakers and save break-in for the mastering stage 😂.
Loved the video ❤ Happy Holidays John !
Thank you! I could not have phrased that any better!
Happy holidays to you too
Very interesting. I'll need to go over this again before I comment on anything except you method. I'm just on my phone/headphones now.
I find your method sound and well thought out. Certainly valid.
This video is going to make a fools of us all for years to come. 😆
Thank you and happy new year!
Cheers, James! I appreciate the comment! HNY to you too!
Thanks for this video!!! Now I can understand why the most rated rock speakers the eminence 1258 after many years played and abused is now my favorite, even friends which have tested recently said the same! Looks like the mids became more prominent, fatter Bass and little less presence, making it a very nice choice to Blues Rock on any of my amps. I remenber when I got this speaker new it wasn't usable for overdriven sounds, too bright and tiny middles...
Truly great video! This was a ton of work and I can't be the only guitar player who appreciates it.
Thank you, mate!
great test i like your measurement with v30 type speakers
Another great video!!!
What an excellent comparison. it proves scientifically what I heard all these years.
Great and revealing video, I'm definitely looking forward to the vacuum tube tests. I'm pretty confident, that it depends on the amps circuit and it is linked to the biasing of the amp. Plexis and JMPs/JCMs seem to show a more noticable difference between used tubes then modern tube amps. Also I think the most differences can be noticed in not super saturated preamp settings, but rather sort of AC/DC type gain level or slightly above. And finally happy new year and merry christmas to you!
Thanks, Luca! Yes, I think bias plays an important role. It will take a while as there are many paramteres to consider
First of all, dude, this was amazing science.
I could only hear the difference on one of the speakers, but it was barely noticeable, but what's more interesting to me, and I never would've guessed this, is that the speaker gains a bit more in the high frequencies. My guess would've been that the opposite would happen.
20 years as an audio enthusiast, I break in speakers that way - measure T/S parameters of the new speaker, play sine wave below Fs with power enough to reach it's Xmax. Every 2 hours I measure T/S again till the point that there's no significant difference between tha last 2 measurements.
For me that's the best way - the suspension loosens and Fs goes down for extended bass reproduction.
However that's important for Hi-Fi speakers, where cabinet construction and crossover networks are critical, so they have good response without EQ correction.
I have never done this for guitar speakers, I just dial the tone that I like from the amplifier.
Well I'm so late to this one that I can skip the Christmas part and go directly to saying Happy New Year!
Thanks for another very interesting installment - the insane amount of work you put into these is amazing!
All the best for 2024! Cheers!
There you are! I was starting to worry!
Good to see you, man! All the best to you too! Cheers
@@TheOtherJohnBrowne Thanks man! Was just a little bout of end-of-year-hectic ;)
Really great video as I've been obsessing with speakers, break in and "maturing". I became obsessed with this as I noticed nearly every old speaker I own (20+ years old) sounds immense better to me at all volumes, more dynamic, more alive, clearer and overall funner to play thru.
I have not done anything technical in the analysis like this other than do my own experiments with a pairs of fresh speakers. My results aligned with what I was hearing in your video, that the more broken in speaker sounds slightly brighter, clearer and has more "depth" or "3d" effect for a lack of better words. I still personally prefer the older more mature, "worn" speakers as again I feel they are much more lively.
The thing I noticed instantly between old speakers and fresh speakers even if broken in, the old speaker cones are much softer, more pliable and very easy to push in, which I give to the cone AND the spider being very well broken/worn in... Or tired depending on your perspective.
Great watch!!!
Thanks! I appreciate your comment with your own experiences
This was a huge job Man.
Finally somepne made it properly, or in the way it should be done.
Very interesting conclusion. I would not expect that.
Waiting for more of your videos.
Happy New Year to you.
I am a pedal reviewer that has just passed reviewing 3000 pedals. About 80% are dirt pedals. I also use 10 guitars fitted out with all well known PU, PAF, high gain HB, P90, Strat, Tele, Rickenbacker, Gold Foil and Firebird. I am missing Lipstick, Burns and mini HB although i have owned all but the Burns at some time. My point is different is 'NOT' better or worse in 95% all cases, dirt pedals or guitar PU's. In that other 5% it is often a matter of nasty artifacts that cancel them out or simply a design to meet a price point not a pleasing sound. So the difference in all the speakers you have shown us to date is ascetics.
I think I know who you are. I believe you had linked my Diezel Herbert pedal video on your blog.
I'm not sure I quite understand the point you are trying to make. Could you elaborate?
Thanks for this. I actually really like the way your break ins after 300 hours sound, more so than the pro ones. Brighter yes, but also less congested sounding and clear. Awesome test. Subtle (but noticeable) on one speaker but if you think about great old sounding cabs, that's all 4 speakers getting that treatment which adds up I think. I never factored in what you feed the break in would change the sound but it makes sense, its getting hit with certain dominate frequencies more than others which probably loosening the speaker compliance in those ranges.
Thanks man! Love your music btw!
@@TheOtherJohnBrowne Thanks dude, I appreciate that!!
Ha! I fixed a speaker with a hammer. The speaker had a rubbing voice coil, and I was able to hammer the frame in the right place to free the coil up. The vintage guitar speaker turned out to be a real nice one!
Awesome! Funnily enough, I managed to do the same with the speaker from the intro.
Most Jeremy Clarkson thing I've ever done
John, this video ist so was von cool, aber... if possible, please kindly and thank you, include a waterfall plot for speaker analyses like these. Frequency response graphs like at 16:03 are awesome tools, but sound has two dimensions: frequency and time. And waterfall plots show you frequency response over time so you can really delve into the transient response of the speaker, not just how it sounds in one moment in time or as an average (averaged by your sampling rate; 20-20k over 20s? or whatever your sweep was).
Future research: Maybe, breaking in "improves" the transient response? What does improve mean? does breaking in remove edge glue stiffness so it can flex better and have more attack? Surely temperature will affect this?. If you isolate one frequency and measure a broken in vs new speaker, does that frequency have a great attack in one but terrible response in the other? (this specific testing methodology would show up the same in a freq response graph where you don't measure freq over time). [insert 431 other questions I have but this is enough for now]
Also, in REW, you can smooth the response graph so it more closely resembles what the human ear might perceive. Psychoacoustic Smoothing (ctrl shift y, repeat to undo) will put more smoothing to peaks and you might get a more obvious, relative change in ALL SPL view. It might just be more easily analyze-able in relation to how the ear will hear it, because we don't really hear every individual peak of a speaker as colored as is a guitar speaker. It MIGHT be a better method than looking through the raw spectrum data, you'll be the better judge of this for your application!
Love the general scientific approach in your vids and as everything in the world of science there is room for improvement. Take care, bud, and I look forward to every video of yours 🤘🤘
I don't know what I love more; the comment or your user name!
Anyway, great constructive feedback! Thank you very much! I appreciate it!
Man, I absolutely love your work. Thorough, meticulous, methodical, and funny all at the same time.
Thank you! I appreciate the feedback
Played bass through my closed back 1x12 G12H 55hz with my sv20 at band practice. Sounds pretty great now, wish I took a before recording so I could actually tell.
Sounds like a cool rig
Break in makes a night and day difference with speakers like Blue Alnicos. Installed in a 5e3 amp I had to set the tone control of the amp around 4 before break in. After a 48h break in with a variac (Scumback method) I started to set the tone control around 6-7. In addition, the amp sounds thicker in the low end too.
I've never tried the Alnico Celestions but would love to one day
Amazing videos, as always, John! They are really informative, and it's great to finally get some tactible evidence on Internet forum myths.
I just wanted to add my thanks here to all of the work you've done this year. I appreciate your commitment to being thorough and precise. here's to more knowledge gained in 2024!
Thank you! This means a lot to me!
Merry Christmas!! 😊
More music science experiments, the perfect Christmas gift! Thanks John for all your brilliant work and the amazing effort you've put in to help better everyone's knowledge. Seasons greetings sir!
Thank you very much, mate!
Amazing video, mindblowing depth and accuracy on the test, very German! Cheers from Italy and happy holydays
Cheers, mate! Happy holidays to you too
Just found you recently, but your methodical and level headed approach is refreshing. I'm a fan. I really look forward to what you have in store (especially the tube video as I am an amp tech by trade).
Awesome! Thanks for being here
Great video, as always! By watching it, i thought:"please, talk about the dip about ca. 2.8kHz going down even more over the testing period of speaker 50." Because: This is a crucial frequency area in the human hearing. And, bringing frequencies down, has the effect of feeling other frequencies being featured. But, in the end it doesn't even matter. (Where did i hear that phrase, before?!🤔😂) I didn't hear drastic shifts, only slight ones.
Thank you, my friend!
Thanks for doing this and dispelling this myth once and for all. I’m going to enjoy the epic tones from my brand new EVH 2 x 12. Merry Christmas.
Merry Christmas! Those cabs are cool! I usef to have one
🤯 WOW !! Amazing job doing this!!!!! Keep up the good work !!
Will do! Thanks for the positive feedback
Great job on your testing! Fascinating work that few are tackling
You did the community a great service. 👌. Although i‘d really be interested in. 100+ hours of even response or more bass low mid heavy signal
Thank you, John. This is really interesting and I guess nobody expected the result.
Very interesting. Could be that lower-level high freq signals loosen up the surround more uniformly than higher-level low freq signals, which would mainly allow more cone movement below the resonance point of the surround bends. The test also shows how a speaker Z curve affects the response of a Hi-Z tube amp very differently than a Low-Z SS or class D amp. The mid dip of the tube amp follows the speaker Z curve.
Love your experiments
Hey John, really appreciate these kind of videos. I can barely imagine the work you put into them, and I can't thank you enough🙏🙏🙏
And being an engineer myself, I am literally longing for more stuff like that ❤
...albeit the outcome might stir up some 😊
I as well am looking forward to something similar from you on tubes.
After you're done with that, I'd suggest you enter (or end..?) the "does tone wood matter in solidbody guitars" debate 😂
I may just shut up now and wish everyone a happy new year❤
I am delighted there are other engineers out there as enthusiastic about guitar gear
Thanks for these great videos and merry christmas! i agree with your theories on why, and i also have my own test i conducted a little over a year ago, semi-related.
i've done my own test, not that scientific, but more relating to heat. my hypothesis was that environmental factors (warmth, moisture) affected my toanz.
my method of testing was pre-heating an open back 2x12 with a space heater for 15 minutes, not aimed directly at the back, only increase the ambient temp of the cab. week 1 was a control, week 2 was the test week, and week 3 was another control.
week 1&3 was consistent and i never noticed any more change than my usual recordings. week 2 was, relatively speaking, """smoother""" sounding and had a less pronounced midrange.
additionally, after letting the cab (and amp!) cool and settle down and then some, on the same day a few hours later they would sound "cold" again and match with the control weeks.
my conclusion: environmental factors matter a lot more than what i originally thought. of course, this test was an extreme, but it proved a point.
my theory: material expands, and thus becomes less resistant to the movements of the voice coil. the cone and/or spider may absorb moisture and add weight (and thus resistance) to movement.
that being said, my usual recordings vary a noticeable (though not major) amount due to, what i theorize, is said warmth and moisture
Thanks man! You too!
You're test sounds really, really cool!
... or hot. I may have to look into that parameter
Super interesting - loved that you did this John. Have a fantastic Christmas and New Year! Looking forward to the content for next year.
Thanks mate! You too!
Cool video here man!
The topic of signal dependence of the break in process literally sprang to my mind when I heard the loop you were using. Would be interesting, if it is possible to prime the speaker to one's liking with a specific bandwidth of either a sine sweep let's say within that 4-5khz range or noise (pink or white?) with a band pass or notch filter applied in said bandwidth.
Anyway, keep up the great work!
Thank you! I appreciate your support
John, have you considered measuring the actual static resistance (not impedance) of a speaker before and after break-in? Whereas impedance is the change in resistance based on frequency and would not be a reliable static measurement. I'm assuming that the current going through the coil at length will impact it as well, just like any resistor changes after time-just my thoughts. In any event thanks for taking the time and in-depth analysis of these speakers, I find it fascinating!
That's a good idea. I might have to do one more test with another speaker down the road, employing some lessons learned. In my big V30 shootout, I checked the speakerd with a multimeter and they all read the same DC resistance but I might have to do a more accurate measurement before and after with a more accurate LCR meter.
I would use my solid state rocktron speaker out to play speakers at about 85 Db for a week. They did eventually break in and brought out some highs in the greenback 10s I was breaking in. It sounded better foresure, but not sure if it was massive earth shaking difference. I wish I had recorded pre and post breakin.
Thank You man! Great stuff!
Cheers, Euge!
Cheerios! @TheOtherJohnBrowne 😎
Only at the beginning but dude THANK YOU I’ve wanted to know scientifically whether speaker break in is real or bullshit, and if real what is it really. Can’t wait to see the results.
I hope it satisfies your curiosity
@@TheOtherJohnBrowneit totally did! Great analysis. This was super fascinating especially that the speakers got brighter in general which like you said, baseless internet horseshit would have us believe the opposite. Whether that’s because of the signal eq profile you used to break the speaker in was “biased” toward those frequencies, who knows. But I also ultimately reached the same conclusion - it didn’t matter all that much. By no means does that make the test worthless or pointless, quite the opposite. What I arrived at, as I have so many other things, is that you can generally EQ these shifts out or in to your liking and most importantly - if it sounds good/you like the way it sounds, that’s all that really matters. I’d still be interested to see if the overall tonal profile of the break in signal does bias the speaker to accentuate those frequencies after break in but I understand if you don’t want to do that, it would be an even bigger undertaking than this experiment was. I’d also be interested to see if that same method would bump the low end on your already broken in speakers that were biased toward high end bumps, and thus showing whether you can continue breaking in a broken in speaker. In any case, I think things like EQ and grille cloth (see Jim Lill’s speaker cabinet video but I’m sure you have) probably have a more pronounced and immediate effect on the tone than break in. And in a mix, you wouldn’t hear most of any of this break in differential because of cymbal wash frequencies covering it up. Again super fascinating, thanks for putting in the work and having tight controls and great analysis!
Amazing!
I think the worn in speakers sound more "round" in die upper mids/ presence and a bit less harsh/ edgy (suddle). Might not really matter in a mix. btw...great video!
Speaker breakup is real. Frequency response doesn't give you the whole picture (it gives enough to see that there's a difference though). You can also perform impedance measurements - with break-in the Fs should go lower and be a bit less tall. That's because the speaker suspension gets less stiff (more compliant - CMS goes up). I suggest that you also check the harmonic distortion graphs that are already there in REW anyway - slight changes are possible there as well because speaker suspension nonlinearities are one of the main reasons for harmonic distortion. IMD is also affected but you need specific measurements to see that...
At that point is it really relevant as a guitar player/recording engineer anymore?
Those are some great suggestions! Thank you! Duely noted
Merry Christmas. Thank you for this whole thing. Have you checked out the TDR plugin Prism?
You're welcome, mate! No, I hadn't heard of it before. Looks cool! Thanks for the recommendation
Really enjoyed this video , and enjoy all your videos!❤
Cheers, my friend!
Talk to Bob Gjika about Mesa Celestions and breaking in by hand. His CL80 cab beats all and he breaks the speakers in three ways.
Loe your work man
Thank you, my friend
I think ive figured it out. The build up of moisture and dust in the cone makes the speaker weigh more which is what effects the sound. Just likenwhen you add weights ro a speaker
Moisture/environmental conditions could absolutely play a role
Merry Christmas John :)
Merry Christmas, Moggo!
again highly interesting content! thank you for putting in the effort (and cash)!
Nothing like a good scientific mythbusting for Christmas - delivered without yelling to mask up unscientific approaches 😅 Merry Christmas!
Cheers, buddy! I hope you have a great Christmas and a short break before things get huge next year!
Wow. That was a great video and the results are very interesting.
Awesome work! Loving the channel 🤘 hoping to see a comparison of all V30 type clones in the future. The Eminence CV-75 is a personal favorite of mine and would be awesome to see how it holds up with Celestion V30, WSG Veterans, Mojotone BV30, ect.
Thanks, man! Yeah! I need to find a used CV-75 because nobody in Europe seems to stock them anymore
Really enjoying your V30 videos. Have you tried a Celestion G10 Vintage? Its my favourite “mixing” speaker. It shares the same voice coil design as the V30, only it doesn’t have a lot of lows or harsh highs. It has a beautiful mid range and really fills out a 12”. I’ve been mixing it with either a V30 or a G12H30. I get nice lows and highs from the 12” and a great punchy mid range.
No. I have yet to try any 10" speaker. I do like your description though.
Well this totally satisfied my inner nerd :D
I think that room humidity is changing the tone. My amps regardless of tube or solid state don't feel the same from day to day. Maybe just my ears though.
Could absolutely be a factor
You’re a legend John! Thanks for putting in the work to make these tests and videos!
Cheers!
I suppose the next question is how do we accelerate this process?
What part of the cone and suspension system affects the 5-6kHz range the most?
What is the fastest and and most efficient (maybe even 'quietest') break-in method to have measurable results?
All fantastic questions!
A broken early Z batch cone V30 😞
Mate, I wanted to punch myself in the face...
it is hard to see the difference from a freq responce because the db scale is huge. try fab filter match eq you can take as reference the 0 hour and then measure at 100 hours and it will show just the difference. it is more easy to see small differences.
Good tip. Thanks
Excellent job... transformers seem to be a very controversial topic lately... country of origin and price being factors. It would be great to take on the question of transformer mythology.. what is fact and what is false!
I'd love to investigate that
Big question is do you want to buy new, and break it in in your amp, or is it better to buy a second hand speaker that's been broken in in another amp?
Given the choice, I always buy used. Hate buyibg new
Low frequency seems like it would break in better
Merry xmas, interesting vid !
Celestion info Daddy is back.
Daddy Browne.
LOL
So, usage of speakers alters the sound. I guess, most of us expected that. I don't think that the frequency response of the raw chassis matters all that much, compared to cabinet and room environment.
What you somehow ignored is the dynamic response, which will change with time, as the membrane and the spider very likely will have different stiffness compared to new after millions or billions of movements back and forth. Just wiggle any material 1 billion times and it will become softer, which means that the dynamic response of the cone should improve or at least change over time.
Any thoughts on that?
Hey man. Apprecite the comment. Wouldn't the live FFTs of Voxengo SPAN while playing back both audio sources cover dynamic response?
How would you suggest I quantify dynamic response?
@@TheOtherJohnBrowne Sorry, I'm not too much of a technical nerd when it comes to measuring speakers. I do know however, that there is such a thing as waterfall diagrams, which capture the time-dependant aspect of a speaker. When it comes to gitar speakers, I have made the experience that some chassis will feel quite a bit snappier than others, even in the same cabinet. I used to own a 1968 Marshall 4x12 which had completely worn out speakers, to a degree that every hard pick stroke would feel and sound mushy. Nowadays, I like speakers with fast and precise transients, which make me feel much better "connected". Currently I have a cabinet with two EVM 12S - snappy as a slingshot and a real boulder to carry around, but well worth it.
I guess, speaker sound is much more than just frequency response.
Thanks for all the hard work doing this test!!! The results are interesting, but I worry that there is one thing that is missing, and I'm not sure it has been talked about in the comments:
A control speaker is missing! Obviously the best thing to do would be to have 5 speakers that are EXACTLY the same and to leave one alone, and vary the amount of "break-in" time for each speaker, but since each speaker sounds different, the options are quite limited.
What I propose is matching (at least) two speakers (two speakers that have a similar frequency response; not exactly the same) and comparing the difference of SPL at a few key frequencies. Then, choose one as the "control" and break in the other. Then, measure the frequency response of each speaker at set times of break-in (20 hours, 40 hours, 60 hours, etc) much like you did in the video.
I'm sure there would be similar results, but as one commenter pointed out, the weather can cause the speaker to react differently. This lines up with the fact that the seasons change and so does the humidity, temperature, etc, all of which might be hidden variables in the results of this video. If you have a control speaker, this could easily dispel any doubt that the weather or some other hidden variable was the main reason for change, and not speaker break-in.
Thanks for the feedback and the input. I agree that that approach would be even more solid with regards to methodology.
At the same time that would be a fair bit more ressource intensive and a bit beyond my scope.
In general, the differences I see are not large enough to me personally to warrant further investigation into the effect of other parameters. Also, the 300 hour speaker and the two externally broken in speakers were "end of line" tested on the same day or at the very least within 24 hours of each other in pretty much the same climate and each showed a different break in pattern. I acknowledge that that is of course anectdotal but it is sufficient for me to not worry much about humidity and temperature in context of this test although I certainly think that both these paramteres can affect the tone of a speaker at least temporarily.