Dynaudio Contour 60

[GSOphile]

I have Magico S3 MkIIs. They take about 500 hours to break in.... and I think I heard improvements beyond that. But during the break in period I have to say that there were times when the bass sounded positively broken, loose, bloated. Now they are glorious. So my advice, before you obsess too much over your speakers, room, placement, etc, is to give the speakers time to break in properly.

 

[Puma Cat]

There's another thread on AG the owners new speakers had way to much output in the 100 hz area and I think he ended up with dirac after bass traps' placement adjustments, and packing the ports with plugs didn't help. It does seem strange that the C60 excites the room when the last pair didn't. I always thought "break in" was an excuse so we would be stuck with a product we were unsatisfied with until the return date expired. however, that was back in the day and all the shops still standing around here won't take my money unless i'm satisfied . One of the perks of buying new I guess.

its likely that the C60s are putting out more low frequency energy than the Contour 3.3s did. My guess is the C60s may be over-pressurizing the room, and also transferring energy and coupling to the floor, and walls and ceiling from resonance. For example, standard dry-wall on 2X4 studs have a resonant frequency of 70 Hz, so the walls could be re-radiating bass energy back into the room. The speakers should to be isolated with A/V RoomService EVPs, minimally.

 

[david rossmann]

The speakers should to be isolated with A/V RoomService EVPs, minimally.

I will take in account your advise regarding some bass absorbing panels or somethinglike taht, thanks.
I will also not talk about my impression till i didn't completed the break in process.
And yes i believe in break in effectivity but i hate it. In fact i cannot commercially accept it.
For this reason i will not buy any new audiogear anymore, only used. That is sure.

 

[Puma Cat]

I will take in account your advise regarding some bass absorbing panels or somethinglike taht, thanks.
I will also not talk about my impression till i didn't completed the break in process.
And yes i believe in break in effectivity but i hate it. In fact i cannot commercially accept it.
For this reason i will not buy any new audiogear anymore, only used. That is sure.

Hi David,
Acoustical panels will not solve the basic problem. You need to de-couple the mechanical coupling of your Contour 60s from your floor and the rest of your room (walls and ceiling). Please watch the videos by Norm Varney I linked to yesterday. I would recommend ordering the EVPs from A/V Roomservice and putting them under your Dyns.

 

[jaxwired]

Wow, interesting thread. Going to throw my 2 cents out there since it's somewhat out of line with the general consensus. I personally put zero stock in long periods of speaker "break in". While I can believe that a brand new speaker might change ever so slightly I would expect that the change would be extremely small, that the change would occur during the first couple hours of playback, and that the change is likely acoustically un-measurable. The idea that it takes hundreds of hours for a speaker to sound as intended by the designers seems highly improbable. That would mean that every new design that was R&D'd would have to undergo a month or two of "break in" before it could be tested. Additionally, the designers would have to account for this change in sound over time which would be nearly impossible. And, if true, how would the designers even know when "break in" was complete?

My guess would be that anyone that is switching speakers after more than a decade with the same speaker (as in the OP's case) would likely find any speaker a shock to the system. This would happen regardless of whether the speaker was superior simply because someone like this would be so very used to their old speaker. I also believe that people tend to like more what they are used to hearing. It is the reason why songs we hear more often become more popular. The more we hear them, the more we tend to like them (in general). The is likely true of speakers to. The longer you live with one, the more you tend to think of it as "sounding right". Not always, but in general I think this trend would hold true.

Just my opinion, could be wrong...

 

[GSOphile]

With respect to my Magicos you're dead wrong, jax. Break-in was not linear. Went from OK to really bloated to OK to better to great. Biggest change was over the first 250 hours or so. Magico understands break-in. They, like others, just can't bear the cost/time/facilities of breaking in large numbers of speakers simultaneously without delivery delays and a large increase in price. As for me just getting used to a compromised sound after a month or two and liking it, you're probably assuming the changes during break-in were not substantial. They were - big time. I'm not saying all speakers are like mine. This was just my experience.

 

[jaxwired]

With respect to my Magicos you're dead wrong, jax. Break-in was not linear. Went from OK to really bloated to OK to better to great. Biggest change was over the first 250 hours or so. Magico understands break-in. They, like others, just can't bear the cost/time/facilities of breaking in large numbers of speakers simultaneously without delivery delays and a large increase in price. As for me just getting used to a compromised sound after a month or two and liking it, you're probably assuming the changes during break-in were not substantial. They were - big time. I'm not saying all speakers are like mine. This was just my experience.

Understood and I can respect that you are genuinely describing what you experienced. It just seems very odd to me that a speaker can go from a 4 to a 10 in sound quality due to break in. Ultimately very little is changing in a physical way that would account for huge swings in sound quality. Same crossover, cabinet, drivers, room placement, and room acoustics the entire time yet a change in driver stiffness that is probably unmeasurable results in dramatic sound quality changes. Just seems unlikely.

The other thing that has always bothered me about this break in phenomenon is the fact that nobody ever reports that their speakers sound worse after break in. It’s always an improvement. If the speaker is going to sound different before and after breaking in wouldn’t it be possible for it to sound great and then deteriorate after break in is complete? Yet I’ve never heard anybody report that. Break in always improves the sound 100% of the time. This also seems odd. How come you never hear anybody say, hey it sounded so awesome right out of the box but then two months later it was total crap?

 

[MikeCh]

Physics for the drivers. A bunch of time for the getting-used-to stage and then add in that crossovers can contain componententry (Mundorf caps for instance) that need cycles to fully come into their own.

... but I do agree that 500 hours seems a bit much, and if it does take as long, that could cause a bit of hand wringing.

 

[GSOphile]

jax, in my case room placement, system components, etc, remained constant during the break-in period. Although I am not an expert in Magico's design and manufacturing process, I believe driver/driver surround and crossover capacitors were probably the key elements needing break-in. Magico's advice to my dealer was that driver placement in the the speaker cabinet caused the break-in time for each driver position to differ. I can assure you that the changes I heard during break-in were definitely measurable.

 

[u-sound]

Understood and I can respect that you are genuinely describing what you experienced. It just seems very odd to me that a speaker can go from a 4 to a 10 in sound quality due to break in. Ultimately very little is changing in a physical way that would account for huge swings in sound quality. Same crossover, cabinet, drivers, room placement, and room acoustics the entire time yet a change in driver stiffness that is probably unmeasurable results in dramatic sound quality changes. Just seems unlikely.

The other thing that has always bothered me about this break in phenomenon is the fact that nobody ever reports that their speakers sound worse after break in. It’s always an improvement. If the speaker is going to sound different before and after breaking in wouldn’t it be possible for it to sound great and then deteriorate after break in is complete? Yet I’ve never heard anybody report that. Break in always improves the sound 100% of the time. This also seems odd. How come you never hear anybody say, hey it sounded so awesome right out of the box but then two months later it was total crap?

lol, i really like your posts as your thinking is dry and logic.
then again, BREAK IN IS REAL, and yes, its always to positiv.
and yes, some part is that your brain gots to adapt to the new situation as hearing and localisation is very important for our safety. our brain for example does know 600 times faster where something comes from over what actually it is.
the other thing is not psycho. other people may explain you why. speakers do even get better after the first break in. ss-amplifiers take the longest, easy a year or two of normal use. many people sell theyr gear before peak performance.
and i share the opinion with you that manufactures should do the first part of break in.
there is no excuse. no big extra costs as said. just full books of orders and too humble clients.
overall, it would be easy to give them a 10 days nonstopp break in with a kind of weird sonics. much much easyer than for any client.
lol, even a breaked in gear needs another break in at the new place, although its more of a warm up two tree days

 

[steve59]

One dealer I know swears an amp has to be on for 24 hrs to be ready to listen with. He compares power cords 24 hrs apart!

 

[david rossmann]

Wow, interesting thread. Going to throw my 2 cents out there since it's somewhat out of line with the general consensus. I personally put zero stock in long periods of speaker "break in". While I can believe that a brand new speaker might change ever so slightly I would expect that the change would be extremely small, that the change would occur during the first couple hours of playback, and that the change is likely acoustically un-measurable. The idea that it takes hundreds of hours for a speaker to sound as intended by the designers seems highly improbable. That would mean that every new design that was R&D'd would have to undergo a month or two of "break in" before it could be tested. Additionally, the designers would have to account for this change in sound over time which would be nearly impossible. And, if true, how would the designers even know when "break in" was complete? <br>

Roughly the same have been my feelings too regarding break in. Then i bought a
Border patrol DAC for 1800 euro because apparently this was the very
best dac at this price in the market. I connected it to my system, i played
it for one hour and then i decided to give it back. It was sounding just
awful, honestly so awful as i never supposed i dac could sound. The
border patrol dac was supposed to replace my 200 euro SMSL M8a. The
border patrol sounded so harsh and confused that the smsl won easily.
Still i let the border patrol burn in for 60 hours. I played it again
and yes it sounded unbelievably better, easily a 70% of improvement.
But it didn't sounded good enough to justify the 900% price jump
compared to the smsl m8a.
To be honest even my previous Contour 60 sounded much better after
the first 150 hours...the problem was that the start was so bad that
even after the 50% of improvement they was not sounding as natural as
my contour 3.3. Just to clarify...i didn't owned the contour 3.3 for 10 years
but just for 16 months so i don't think I'm too biased.
The contour 3.3 wasn't also the only gear i was used to listen...
i have pair of genelec, a pair of martin logan an other pair
of contour 1.3 mkII... But the contour 60 was the only ridiculously
stupid sounding speaker i owned. It sounded just messed up. Indeed the
contour 60 i owned let me think that i would able to make a better
sounding speaker by my own, which is obviously not true...but for a
fraction of a minute i was thinking exactly that. By listening to my
genelecs or to the martin logans i never had that kind hallucination.

 

[jaxwired]

Given your description I’d say they were broken. Your experience contradicts many professional reviews not to mention a substantial number of contour owners.

 

[david rossmann]

Given your description I’d say they were broken.

It toke me 200 mails and 100 posts to make the Dynaudio guys understand that what you anderstood after a few posts. Crazy. Anyway i'm stil breaking-in the replecement C60 i got by dynaudio. I let you know!

 

[Shadowfax]

Good Luck David, the 60s are a fabulous speaker.

 

[kzhtoo]

It toke me 200 mails and 100 posts to make the Dynaudio guys understand that what you anderstood after a few posts. Crazy. Anyway i'm stil breaking-in the replecement C60 i got by dynaudio. I let you know!

Another reason why working with a responsible dealer is paramount.

 

[Mr Peabody]

When I bought a new set of Dyn's I thought they'd never break in, I'm sure the guys at the store were as glad as I was when they finally did, I'd call about once a week, "are you sure...."

On my Dyn's you just knew by listening they needed break in. It was like the bass was there but it was so tight. Tight not like the good tight bass, more like restrained kind of tight.

Tweeter I typically hear them smooth out over break in.

Keep in mind a driver is mechanical, so what's so hard to believe about break in?

The counter argument about it's not break in, it's just getting used to it, is the dumbest theory ever. Who ever had an annoying piece of gear and eventually just learned to like it? If you hear harsh, it isn't going away, you gotta move on. If we learn to just like it then why is there places like Audiogon? Why didn't I learn to like the NAD 50.2, and I had it a bit, just to sell it and spend more for an Aurender?

I have to quit, I'm getting worked up. But to sum up for anyone who buys the just get used to it theory, if you have Magico, send them to me, I will get used to them and will send you the budget speaker of choice you can get used to.

 

[jaxwired]

When I bought a new set of Dyn's I thought they'd never break in, I'm sure the guys at the store were as glad as I was when they finally did, I'd call about once a week, "are you sure...."

On my Dyn's you just knew by listening they needed break in. It was like the bass was there but it was so tight. Tight not like the good tight bass, more like restrained kind of tight.

Tweeter I typically hear them smooth out over break in.

Keep in mind a driver is mechanical, so what's so hard to believe about break in?

The counter argument about it's not break in, it's just getting used to it, is the dumbest theory ever. Who ever had an annoying piece of gear and eventually just learned to like it?

While I agree that speakers are mechanical and that they could potentially change when they are very first put into use, I think it’s likely that that change would occur quickly and over a short period of use. I also would think those changes would be relatively subtle. People are claiming hundreds of hours of use is required to achieve breakin. Furthermore they are claiming they can hear the speaker go through periods of improvement, then degradation, then more improvement and eventual perfection. In other words, wild swings in sound quality. None of that makes a lot of sense to me. I will not call that the dumbest theory ever, your words, but I will say it seems to contradict Dynaudios published position on break in which prescribes only 30 hours of breakin time. They also say nothing about wild swings in sound quality. They seem to indicate subtle improvements. Given their decades of experience, world class audio engineers, state of the art lab equipment and testing facility, I tend to feel that those stating that break in is so very long and complicated may be misguided. I have been in this hobby a very long time and I have found it wise to be aware that we are not infallible when it comes to assessing changes in sound quality. People engaged in this hobby that do not possess some level of skepticism in this way may find themselves the owners of expensive products that have little or no value.

 

[kzhtoo]

The counter argument about it's not break in, it's just getting used to it, is the dumbest theory ever. Who ever had an annoying piece of gear and eventually just learned to like it? If you hear harsh, it isn't going away, you gotta move on. If we learn to just like it then why is there places like Audiogon? Why didn't I learn to like the NAD 50.2, and I had it a bit, just to sell it and spend more for an Aurender?

100% agree. Sitting in their armchairs and somehow they have figured out everything there is regarding loudspeaker design, material science and acoustical engineering.

 

[jaxwired]

100% agree. Sitting in their armchairs and somehow they have figured out everything there is regarding loudspeaker design, material science and acoustical engineering.

Better than the alternative, sitting there thinking my ears are infallible and buying snake oil left and right. Besides, I’m not saying I know everything about acoustic science, I‘m merely saying that applying common sense and listening to the manufacturers opinions and the experts in the field might be a better approach than simply assessing all sound quality independently using nothing but my own analysis. That leads to a person becoming a Patsy. I won’t bother to list some of the incredibly ridiculous Audiophile products that have been produced and purchased by Audiophiles, as we all know they exist.

i’ll give you an example, my stereo absolutely sounds significantly better after I’ve had a couple of alcoholic drinks. I am positive that the alcohol does not somehow improve the acoustics in my room or the quality of sound produced by my system. If I noticed my system always sounded better when my cat was in the room I would not buy more cats.