B&W loudspeakers
Anders Johansson
Hi all,
I have a Quad amplifiers and tuners equipement and a Sony DAT player
and a Philips CD 650 player. I am going to upgrade my speakers and I
am considering a B&W 803 S2 speakers. Music taste: opera and jazz, the
voice is very important but I also want more bass. My room is medium
size. Anyone has any comments on B&W 803's ?? Please reply to list or
e-mail, thanks!!
Anders
John Welcher
Anders Johansson wrote:
>
> size. Anyone has any comments on B&W 803's ?? Please reply to list or
> e-mail, thanks!!
I am using 803 s2 in a medium size room with Conrad johnson prem 11a
tube amp, theta digital and audio research pre amp. Listening is done
at low volumes. This combination does very well with the human
voice. It provides exellent depth, width and location of the stereo
image.
wel...@microw.com
herndon va. usa
KMK
> I have a Quad amplifiers and tuners equipement and a Sony DAT player
> and a Philips CD 650 player. I am going to upgrade my speakers and I
> am considering a B&W 803 S2 speakers. Music taste: opera and jazz, the
> voice is very important but I also want more bass. My room is medium
> size. Anyone has any comments on B&W 803's ?? Please reply to list or
> e-mail, thanks!!
I have been listening to music with the 803/S2's for almost a couple
of years now and can recommend them without hesitation. I previously
owned the 804's and the 803/S1's, but the 803/S2's are really special.
The imaging, midrange dynamics and clarity, and bass response are all
remarkable. The first time you hear vocals over these you will get
goose bumps. I am presently driving them with an Adcom 5500 power
amp. I also recommend biwiring. While waiting for biwired cables to
come in, I listened for a while with the usual single pair, and when I
got the biwired cable (Tara RSC 500 and 1000), the midrange clarity
improved noticeably. This could be due to a number of factors, but
the end result was an improvement.
- RK
Kris Beauchamp
Anders Johansson <a...@algonet.se> wrote in article
<53oicp$i...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>...
> Hi all,
>
> I have a Quad amplifiers and tuners equipement and a Sony DAT player
> and a Philips CD 650 player. I am going to upgrade my speakers and I
> am considering a B&W 803 S2 speakers. Music taste: opera and jazz, the
> voice is very important but I also want more bass. My room is medium
> size. Anyone has any comments on B&W 803's ?? Please reply to list or
> e-mail, thanks!!
>
>
If I were you, I would start considering some different
speakers. My first step into hi-fi were a pair of B&W 610s. From
there I went to B&W P4s, then, I was considering a pair of 803s. I
auditioned them, both in the showroom, and at home in my own system.
Sure they sound good, but definitely not great. They sound, quite
frankly, like all B&Ws sound, good, but harsh at the top end. I
noticed this with a number of amplifiers (ranging from solid-state to
tube), and front-ends (from digital to vinyl).
I was auditioning some new digital front-end equipment from a
new dealer in my area at the time of auditioning the speakers.
Thankfully I discussed with him the speakers (the 803s) that I was
considering. He suggested that I listen to a brand-new (at the time)
product that he had, the Metaphor 5. Sure, they're a little more
expensive, but the difference was profound. No harshness, just sweet,
sweet music. Needless to say, I am now the happy owner of a pair of
Metaphor 5s, and I will never return to the horrible top-end of B&W.
- Kris
o...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 14 Oct 1996 05:56:10 GMT, "Kris Beauchamp"
<kboc...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Anders Johansson <a...@algonet.se> wrote in article
><53oicp$i...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>...
>> I have a Quad amplifiers and tuners equipement and a Sony DAT player
>> and a Philips CD 650 player. I am going to upgrade my speakers and I
>> am considering a B&W 803 S2 speakers. Music taste: opera and jazz, the
>> voice is very important but I also want more bass. My room is medium
>> size. Anyone has any comments on B&W 803's ?? Please reply to list or
>> e-mail, thanks!!
The sound of the 803s can be improved dramatically by Sound Anchor
stands which remove the bass boominess caused by coupling with the
floor. Using a BAF will tune the system to 6th order Butterworth, as
it was intended to be. With these changes it is a great speaker
sherman amsel
> I have a Quad amplifiers and tuners equipement and a Sony DAT player
> and a Philips CD 650 player. I am going to upgrade my speakers and I
> am considering a B&W 803 S2 speakers. Music taste: opera and jazz, the
> voice is very important but I also want more bass. My room is medium
> size. Anyone has any comments on B&W 803's ?? Please reply to list or
> e-mail, thanks!!
hi anders,
for about the same price as b&w's, you can get a pair of tannoy d500
speakers. these are the sweetest sounding speakers i have ever heard,
and it goes without saying that i own a pair of these beauties. they
have incredible low and high ends, with uncompromising quality of
manufacture. i have a mcintosh mc500 powering them (along with a
'true' brand sub-woofer and smaller tannoy d100's as remote speakers).
my neighbors hate me. :-)
-sherman
MARK HARRIS
Anders..... Hi, I am responding to your question concerning B&W
speakers. I have owned several pair over the years and must say that
for Jazz and more specifically the human voice they are fantastic.
The 803 is a nice speaker at moderate listening levels, however I have
found it lacking at volume.... I recently set up a home theater
system for my wife with the 805 / HTM / 800ASW sub. The 805 & 800ASW
combination is truly dynamic and placement FLEXIBLE, something the
801, 802, 803 is not! I think this combination has drastically better
and flatter base response than the 802 or 803.
My music system is Thiel 3.6 & Classe'..... Jazz, you bet.
Let me know
Mark
Long Han
[ quoted text deleted -- bt ]
> Sure they sound good, but definitely not great. They sound, quite
> frankly, like all B&Ws sound, good, but harsh at the top end. I
> noticed this with a number of amplifiers (ranging from solid-state to
> tube), and front-ends (from digital to vinyl).
> ...
[ quoted text deleted -- bt ]
I really love B&W. I own 801's and HTM and would like to share my
perspective with you.
I sensed the harshness mentioned above also...but it was gone after a
week of listening/breaking in the speakers. I don't know about the
803's...but I believe they have the same tweeter as my 801's. The
Sound Anchor stands really improved the depth and size of the
image. The bass seemed more solid. I have heard that the
base-alignment filter from B&W is not as good as third-party
companies, but I don't intend to get one at this time. Hope this
helps.
SSS
Hi there,
the harshness everyone is talking about is not due to the speakers,
but to the electronics connected to them.
The 800 series are very revealing. Due to their amazing low cabinet
resonance, they reveal more of the sound coming from the drivers than
sound from the cabinet added to the sound from the drivers (like most
speakers).
Sure, they require a good break-in period, just like most better
speakers.
Definitely, a set of Sound Anchors stands improves everything, making
the speaker bass be heard instead of the boominess resulting from
having it improperly coupled to the floor. Also, midrange clarity and
definition as well as highs resolution improve quite a bit. It's
unbelievable how different (better) the 800 series sound with the
Sound Anchors. Like if a heavy cloth was removed from covering the
speaker. It also makes them sound A LOT more dynamic.
Similarly, proper speaker set up and angle further improves the sound
from these great speakers. The sonic results from the 800 series
setup can go from incredibly excellent to absolutely unlistenable.
Again, let me emphasize, in order to get the most of these great
speakers, very careful setup and MUCH BETTER THAN AVERAGE electronics
have to be used (like Krell, Mark Levinson, McIntosh, Bryston,
Spectral, Pass, etc.) most cheap japanese receivers or amps. do sound
horrible through the 800 series because the speakers reveal how bad
these components really sound.
Also, using good speaker cables and some power line conditioning help
in bringing the best the 800 series can offer.
I hope this is helpful
Regards,
Ramon
--
Ramon E. De la Cruz
rdel...@iastate.edu
o...@washingtonian.infi.net
I notice that you don't mention using the bass alignment filters on
the Matrix speakers. Hvae you been able to compare with and without
these? I have 801s and the addition of a good aftermarket (not the B&W
"walkman parts" version) BAF is NOT subtle. Last time I saw B&W demo
these speakers, they used them, and not their own.
Stewart Pinkerton
rdel...@iastate.edu (SSS) writes:
>the harshness everyone is talking about is not due to the speakers,
>but to the electronics connected to them.
>The 800 series are very revealing. Due to their amazing low cabinet
>resonance, they reveal more of the sound coming from the drivers than
>sound from the cabinet added to the sound from the drivers (like most
>speakers).
It's true that they are very transparent to even a trace of source/amp
harshness, but the B&W tweeter IS very bright and demands balancing
with a 'warm' source and amplifier, something like the Sony XA3ES and
TA-FA3ES works well, or tube amps will tame the sting in the top end.
(snip)
>Again, let me emphasize, in order to get the most of these great
>speakers, very careful setup and MUCH BETTER THAN AVERAGE electronics
>have to be used (like Krell, Mark Levinson, McIntosh, Bryston,
>Spectral, Pass, etc.) most cheap japanese receivers or amps. do sound
>horrible through the 800 series because the speakers reveal how bad
>these components really sound.
Better than a nasty mass-market receiver, but not necessarily in the
Krell/Levinson price bracket! Incidentally, the new Mark Levinson 331
is actually kinda bright with the 800 series, as is the Krell
KAV-300i. A Pass Aleph 3 or Sumo Five will do just fine, as will the
much cheaper Audiolab 8000S if you have a 'warm' source such as the
Sony XA3ES, while the matching Sony TA-FA3ES is a good MOSFET amp with
a nice smooth top end which doesn't trigger the brightness of the B&W
tweeter. The Jolida SJ502A will also do an excellent job at reasonable
cost if you like tube sound. This is one occasion when I would not
recommend the Yamaha AX-590 however, as the spotlit top-end of the 800
series would not be a good match, it goes much better with the silk
dome tweeters of the excellent new Mission 'Freedom' range.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | If you can't measure what you're making,
A S P Consulting | how do you know when you've got it made?
(44) 1509 880112 |
"I canna change the laws o' physics" - the other Scotty
SSS
In <54baaj$n...@agate.berkeley.edu> o...@washingtonian.infi.net writes:
>I notice that you don't mention using the bass alignment filters on
>the Matrix speakers. Hvae you been able to compare with and without
>these? I have 801s and the addition of a good aftermarket (not the B&W
>"walkman parts" version) BAF is NOT subtle. Last time I saw B&W demo
>these speakers, they used them, and not their own.
About the alignment filters, while I agree that the one B&W makes is
less than perfect, it does accomplish what it was designed to do. The
smaller (803, 804, and 805) benefit more from it than the larger ones,
whose bass is adecuate for most applications. For people who need (or
would like) more bass, the best solution is to get the matching B&W AS
800 matrix subwoofer.
Some pople think that because the speaker ratings are flat down to
subwoofer region frequencies, they will "subwoof" by adding some bass
alignment filter. The fact is that they won't.
It is important to point out that the 802 (as well as the smaller
ones) were designed for home use. The 801's however, were
specifically designed for professional studio monitor applications.
Of course, they can also be for home use, but as I pointed out
earlier, very carefull set up is needed in order to achieve their best
sound. They sound best in larger than average rooms and should only
be matched with very good electronics.
Also, while most aftermarket (especially the home brewed ones) bass
alignment filters do "improve" (or boost) some aspects of the speakers
bass response, it's hard to tell if their processing is really
matching the speaker slope and Q and response. Of course, there are
some who like what some of those filters do to their speakers bass,
even though it might not be the best electrical or frequency response
match.
In fact, ALL bass alignment filters produce some sound degradation and
distortion. The best ones degrade the sound the least, but still
degrade it. Those degradations range from harshness and lack of
dynamics to dullness and boominess.
The best advise is to try (when available) to use the same
manufacturer for the filter and preamp. (ie: Krell, Bryston, etc.)
that way, not only the components will be better matched, but usually
they will sound better. Another advise is to use whatever you think
it sounds best for you.
I hope this is helpful.
Stewart Pinkerton
rdel...@iastate.edu (SSS) writes:
>Some pople think that because the speaker ratings are flat down to
>subwoofer region frequencies, they will "subwoof" by adding some bass
>alignment filter. The fact is that they won't.
Absolutely true. Electrical equalisation of very low frequencies will
lift the level of deep bass, but will not improve response below the
port resonance (about 25Hz for the 801) and will cause massively
increased cone movement leading to high levels of doppler distortion
in the upper bass region.
>It is important to point out that the 802 (as well as the smaller
>ones) were designed for home use. The 801's however, were
>specifically designed for professional studio monitor applications.
>Of course, they can also be for home use, but as I pointed out
>earlier, very carefull set up is needed in order to achieve their best
>sound. They sound best in larger than average rooms and should only
>be matched with very good electronics.
The 801 was NOT 'specifically designed' as a studio monitor, although
it became popular with classical music recording studios, the famous
Abbey Road studios I believe were the first to use them. B&W do have
studio moniotors, such as the 808, but the 801 was always intended for
domestic use as its primary market.
>Also, while most aftermarket (especially the home brewed ones) bass
>alignment filters do "improve" (or boost) some aspects of the speakers
>bass response, it's hard to tell if their processing is really
>matching the speaker slope and Q and response. Of course, there are
>some who like what some of those filters do to their speakers bass,
>even though it might not be the best electrical or frequency response
>match.
The overall sound of the 801 does not benefit from the addition of the
BAF, which only has use in a VERY large room above say 25 x35 feet, in a
smaller room the boost to -3dB at 19Hz in the anechoic response will
simply cause excessive and unnatural levels of low bass. If you like
'Home Theater' bass, then fine but don't think you're getting higher
fidelity! The most common complaint about the 801 is in fact that unless
the room is at least 20x25 there is too much bass, not too little.
>In fact, ALL bass alignment filters produce some sound degradation and
>distortion. The best ones degrade the sound the least, but still
>degrade it. Those degradations range from harshness and lack of
>dynamics to dullness and boominess.
Undeniably true.
>The best advise is to try (when available) to use the same
>manufacturer for the filter and preamp. (ie: Krell, Bryston, etc.)
>that way, not only the components will be better matched, but usually
>they will sound better. Another advise is to use whatever you think
>it sounds best for you.
In a domestic situation, I'd say the best advice is to forget the BAF
altogether, but many Americans do love excess, especially loadsa bass!
J. Hartwig
I've been shopping for a Home Theater System. Looking at B&W 805's
for my front right and left speakers and the B&W Matrix HTM for the
center. I already have a Velodyne sub and will use my DCM Time Windows
for my rear effects for now. Then in the future purchase the B&W
SCM8's when I move the system from my current living room to a new
room I plan on remodeling in the basement. I'm vacillating between
the Marantz SR-96 Audio/Video Receiver and the Yamaha 3090. Any
comment, suggestions or thoughts would be most appreciated.
Flamant Serge
Hello,
J. Hartwig wrote:
<SNIP> <SNIP>
> I'm vacillating between
> the Marantz SR-96 Audio/Video Receiver and the Yamaha 3090. Any
> comment, suggestions or thoughts would be most appreciated.
You should also look at the Harman Kardon AVR80. It is supposed to be
nearly the same as the Marantz SR-96. At least that is what all
retailers told me, and I think they are right, because when you look
at the photo's in magazines of the internals of both machines, they
look very very similar. Also the specs are very alike. I won't get
into the question of who really came up with the design and who just
copied it (anybody ?).
The HK is slightly more expensive (at least here in Europe it is), but
it offers better power amplification, and has an SP/DIF coaxial input
(which the Marantz has not). There may be some other small
differences, just check them out. It depends on if you find them to be
important. I can only say : don't take the Marantz for its slightly
cheaper price, because in the end, your retailer will sell the HK for
the same price if you insist on it.
If you plan to use it for future surround systems, I suggest you stay
away from the YAMAHA 3090. Although it has AC3 build in, it cannot
later be upgraded with an outboard decoder (say for DTS or wathever
they come up with next)). The YAMAHA 2090 can, but it only has 5 IN
channels (and thus lacks a subwoofer IN), which makes it less than
ideal compared to the other receivers.
Greetings,
Serge.
P.S. : please also e-mail any replies to me (along with a reply to the
newsgroup of course), because some messages tend to get lost on my news-
server :-(.
* ALCATEL TELECOM \/ BELGIUM (ANTWERP) *
* Serge Flamant Dep. : WE221 *
* phone ext. : 4742 *
* e-mail : flam...@sebb.bel.alcatel.be *
Flamant Serge
Hello,
Greetings,
Serge.
******************************__*********************************
* ALCATEL TELECOM \/ BELGIUM (ANTWERP) *
* Serge Flamant Dep. : WE221 *
* phone ext. : 4742 *
* e-mail : flam...@sebb.bel.alcatel.be *
*****************************************************************
o...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 29 Oct 1996 10:42:46 -0500, Flamant Serge
<flam...@sebb.bel.alcatel.be> wrote:
>J. Hartwig wrote:
>> I'm vacillating between
>> the Marantz SR-96 Audio/Video Receiver and the Yamaha 3090. Any
>> comment, suggestions or thoughts would be most appreciated.
>You should also look at the Harman Kardon AVR80. It is supposed to be
>nearly the same as the Marantz SR-96. At least that is what all
>retailers told me, and I think they are right, because when you look
>at the photo's in magazines of the internals of both machines, they
>look very very similar. Also the specs are very alike. I won't get
>into the question of who really came up with the design and who just
>copied it (anybody ?). The HK is slightly more expensive (at least
>here in Europe it is), but it offers better power amplification, and
>has an SP/DIF coaxial input (which the Marantz has not). There may be
>some other small differences, just check them out. It depends on if
>you find them to be important. I can only say : don't take the Marantz
>for its slightly cheaper price, because in the end, your retailer will
>sell the HK for the same price if you insist on it.
The HK is identical in the amp section as well as in the preamp and
processor. The differences are only the cosmetics and the input. The
HK lists for more but is more widely discounted. The Marantz has a
claasy remote included.
John Welcher
J. Hartwig wrote:
>
> I've been shopping for a Home Theater System. Looking at B&W 805's
> for my front right and left speakers and the B&W Matrix HTM for the
> center. I already have a Velodyne sub
I am using B&W 803 L&R, HTM center, 805 rear, Velodyne ULD 15 sub with
a Yamaha 2070 for my home theater.
I can highly vouch for the B&Ws used in home theater. The HTM
integrates very well with the other matrix speakers.
Gloria McAdam
ha...@pitnet.net (J. Hartwig) wrote:
>I've been shopping for a Home Theater System. Looking at B&W 805's
>for my front right and left speakers and the B&W Matrix HTM for the
>for my rear effects for now. Then in the future purchase the B&W
>SCM8's when I move the system from my current living room to a new
>the Marantz SR-96 Audio/Video Receiver and the Yamaha 3090. Any
>comment, suggestions or thoughts would be most appreciated.
From : Chip Gorra, (using his wife's logon):
While I have no experience with the Marantz, I have had extensive
experience with the Yamaha DSP-A-3090 and can tell you that it is one
fine home theater piece! Some of the controls are a bit less than
intuitive, and I personally have no use for their seven channel
scheme, but the decoding is first rate, and the sound is clean and
quite dynamic. There is enough switching flexibility for almost
anyone, and the main controls are luxurious and easy enough to use!
You should audition it, and give it serious consideration! Do check
out the remote control, however, as it is strictly from the "chicklets
from hell" school of remote control design!
I have recently gotten my hands on a new Denon AVR-5600, Denon's
new THX certified Dolby Digital Receiver and must tell you that, for a
couple of hundred bucks more than the Yamaha, it offers it some
serious competition! More amplifier power, an easier-to-use remore
control, and an reasonable FM tuner ane part of it's package. The
initial set-up program is a bit easier to use than the Yamaha, ant it
has one of the easier-to-use remote control systems that I have
seen. It also uses the THX Dolby Digital 5.1 re-equalization formula
That I find of particular value: it appears to make the brightly
equalized Dolby Digital soundtracks sound quite a bit more natural
sounding. Yamaha, while not using the THX scheme, does also provide a
variable re-equalization (read: high freqency roll-off) To it's debit,
the Denon is huge, and may not it on every shelf. It is worth a
serious look, but at $2,800.00 retail, it is three hundred dollars
higher than the Yamaha. I'd be interested in hearing your comments
once you have auditioned both pieces!
Giles
I have been pondering the idea that speakers need to be broken in for
a while now - trying to figure out why this might be. Some posters
even go so far as to recommend particular CDs as being particularly
efficacious for performing this rite.
My question is two fold: why would speakers need breaking in ? Is
anyone aware of any measurements and tests having being done of before
and after performance that has shown a measurable difference?
I have been able to think of only one mechanism attributable to the
speaker that to me could conceivably be at play if there is indeed an
effect. It is that the elastomeric materials that form the suspension
of the cone of a driver are somewhat stiff to start with and become
more pliant through use, thereby allowing the cones of the drivers to
move more freely with use.
I don't believe this though, as an elastomeric material that exhibited
such a change in properties would surely continue to 'loosen' over
time so as to go beyond the point of aurally optimum elasticity so
that there was an eventual degradation in sound quality such as when
the voice coil made some unwanted high speed excursions into
stationary bits.
What I really think is at play in all this is the adaptive signal
processing abilities of the brain. It is not the speakers which get
broken in, rather it is ones 'ears'. When most of us buy new speakers
we are generally buying something better than what we had. 'Better'
implies that the new speakers are able to resolve finer detail than
the old and so provide 'more' information or that they at least have
the same resolution but present the signal in a way that is perceived
as better. Whichever, the brain is getting a different signal than it
did previously.
I am of the understanding that it has been well demonstrated that the
brain changes it's signal processing strategies in various
circumstances. Is it not likely that the brain would change it's
processing strategy when presented with a signal containing more
information or which is different and that it might take some time
before an optimum algorithm is arrived at - hence the break in period?
I would be interested to hear other opinions on this.
Giles
Greg Louie wrote:
<snip>
> All of the B&W speakers NEED at
> least 50-60 hours of reasonably high volume levels with music or
> preferably a breakin disc to sound their best.
Lee Meador
Giles wrote:
>
> I have been pondering the idea that speakers need to be broken in for
> a while now - trying to figure out why this might be. Some posters
> even go so far as to recommend particular CDs as being particularly
> efficacious for performing this rite.
>
> My question is two fold: why would speakers need breaking in ? Is
> anyone aware of any measurements and tests having being done of before
> and after performance that has shown a measurable difference?
There was an article in Speaker Builder that measured Theile/Small
parameters for some raw speakers as they "broke in." They changed for
a while and then stopped changing.
I use the number 24 hours and try to make it continuous. Since I
prefer to do break-in on a country music station turned up loud, I
don't really want to be in the house while its going on. (I think the
mixture of sounds from bass guitars, drums, fiddles and guitars is a
good thing. Country music has quite a variety.) So I may do several
hours at a time while we are out. When they add up to 24, I call it
done.
Although this is far from scientific, it works for me. I think I can
hear the difference ON NEW DRIVERS from before to after. Whether this
would be the case for complete speakers with boxes, crossovers,
etc. and counting the time the manufacturer may have driven the
speakers during manufacturing ... I just don't know.
-- Lee Meador
Richard D Pierce
In article <55dj48$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Giles <cno...@cygnus.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>My question is two fold: why would speakers need breaking in ? Is
>anyone aware of any measurements and tests having being done of before
>and after performance that has shown a measurable difference?
I am aware of at least one person who has done extensive measurements
of this type: me. I have a database of several thousand drivers that I
have measured.
>I have been able to think of only one mechanism attributable to the
>speaker that to me could conceivably be at play if there is indeed an
>effect. It is that the elastomeric materials that form the suspension
>of the cone of a driver are somewhat stiff to start with and become
>more pliant through use, thereby allowing the cones of the drivers to
>move more freely with use.
>I don't believe this though, as an elastomeric material that exhibited
>such a change in properties would surely continue to 'loosen' over
>time so as to go beyond the point of aurally optimum elasticity so
>that there was an eventual degradation in sound quality such as when
>the voice coil made some unwanted high speed excursions into
>stationary bits.
Well, there are, indeed, several mechanism that are, indeed, at work
that cause the operating parameters of drivers to change through use.
However, the notion that once one gets a speaker home it requires
"breaking in" suffers from several problems.
First, as a driver comes off the line, it's actual performance if
fairly far from it's intended performance target. Reasons for this
include the fact that the centering spider, typically manufactured
from a varnish- impregnated linen, is far stiffer than needed. Working
the driver back and forth lossens the spider considerably.
Now, one might say: there's objective proof of the need to "break in"
a loudspeaker! Not so fast. The break-in period for the spider is on
the order of several seconds, and if it takes you several seconds or
minutes or whatever once you get the speakers home to loosen the
centering spdier, it's not proof of the need to break thme in, it's
proof that the speaker you just bought HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED!
But, on to other points.
When I measure a driver, I can see a significant change in a variety
of operating parameters as the speaker is driven. Usually, in woofer,
the resonant frequency drops as the speaker is used, often by as much
as 10-20%. This is due, as you suggest, to a relaxing of the
elastomers used in the suspension.
However. If I turn the stimulus off, within a few minutes most, if not
all, of the change has completely recovered, and we're back to go
again. The elstomer has recovered from it's stresses (this is
especially true of certain polybutadene-styrene surround
formulations).
There are plenty of other, real, physical changes. For example, one
can see a reduction of the electrical Q with time under heavy use,
simply because of the positive temperature coefficient of the
resistance of the voice coil. Allow the speaker to cool down, and it's
completely recoverable.
Get it hot enough, and you might permanently loose some flux density
in the magnet. But you have to get REAL hot to do that. Hotter than
most of the compounds used in making a speaker can endure without
catastrophic failure (damned few glues, varnishes, cones and
insulating materials can withstand the temperatures neede to reach the
Curie points of the typical magnetic materials found in loudspeakers).
>What I really think is at play in all this is the adaptive signal
>processing abilities of the brain. It is not the speakers which get
>broken in, rather it is ones 'ears'.
When this has been suggested, despite the fact there's about a century
of research backing it, it is more often than not greated with jears
and cires. See, you can't sell special "break-in" CD's if the speakers
aren't broken in.
>I would be interested to hear other opinions on this.
Well, there will be loads of opinions. However, actual data on several
thousand drivers don't seem to give two shits about opinions, the
usual claims of "mysterious unmeasurable quantities" notwithstanding.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
| 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
| (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) |
Tim Brown
Giles wrote:
> I don't believe this though, as an elastomeric material that exhibited
> such a change in properties would surely continue to 'loosen' over
> time so as to go beyond the point of aurally optimum elasticity so
> that there was an eventual degradation in sound quality such as when
> the voice coil made some unwanted high speed excursions into
> stationary bits.
[ quoted text cut -- rgd ]
Woofer suspensions do indeed loosen up after a break in period, but
they stop changing after a time. It's been shown (and an article was
published in JAES) that changing the physical compliance of a woofer
has only a slight effect on the system frequency response in the bass
range.
Of course some claim much more changes during break in than
that. Others claim solid state equipment needs to be broken in, but
there's no scientific evidence or explanation for this.
TB
Donald A. West
DPi...@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce) wrote:
[Moderators note : lots of technical stuff snipped -- bt]
I don't know about all this technical mumbo jumbo. all I know is when
I got my new pair of NHT 3.3's, they sound horrible out of the box. I
could not believe how terrible they sounded. they was no bass at all
and the midrange was sucked in. I almost cried after spending so much
money. One day I left the amp on and left the house. When I came back
the house was rocking. This was the 3.3 I heard in the store. My tears
went to joy! Is this speaker break in?
Don
Richard D Pierce
In article <55l8o2$2...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, Donald A. West <Ho...@his.com> wrote:
>I don't know about all this technical mumbo jumbo. all I know is when
>I got my new pair of NHT 3.3's, they sound horrible out of the box. I
>could not believe how terrible they sounded. they was no bass at all
>and the midrange was sucked in. I almost cried after spending so much
>money. One day I left the amp on and left the house. When I came back
>the house was rocking. This was the 3.3 I heard in the store. My tears
>went to joy! Is this speaker break in?
Is it changes in temparature?
Is it changes in relativce humidity?
Is it changes in your mood?
Unless you have a means of answering no to all these postulates, you'll
never know what it IS.
The only thing you can be sure of is that it's not alien abduction.
Unless you live in Hew Hampshire, of course.
drb...@aol.com
bob