Do Studio Monitors Need to be Broken In?

[Paul]

I guess this is another debate that can go on forever...

[William Sommerwerck]

My experience is that conventional ("cone-type") drivers need little or no
break-in.

Some planar drivers (such as Magnepans and "orthodynamic" drivers) require a
break-in period. However, this is is a matter of hours (driven at a high
volume level), not days or weeks.

[Paul]

My local Guitar Center didn't have new HS80Ms, so
they let me use the floor models while I waited for
brand new ones to come in, which I picked up yesterday.

At first, I thought maybe the new ones sounded slightly
different, but that may have been a bit of a placebo effect,
because after hearing a few more albums, I'm pretty sure
they are quite closely matched. Some people think break-in
periods for speakers are a myth, and that it's more something
the manufacturers want buyers to do so their ears get accustomed
to their new speakers. More people believe headphones need
a break-in period.

Fantastic high end detail on these, and a very smooth low
end, even without the matching sub-woofers.

[eth...@ethanwiner.com]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 2:34:05 AM UTC-4, Paul wrote:
> I guess this is another debate that can go on forever...

It doesn't have to go on forever! All it takes to prove the point one way or the other is a proper measurement. That said, dynamic speaker drivers do "settle" some, but it's nothing like the purveyors of magic would have you believe.

--Ethan

[Frank Stearns]

Might it depend on cone mass and materials used? If large, such as a 12-15"
sub driver, I could see them being a little extra stiff at the time of manufacture
just to make it easier/safer to align and glue all the parts. A little "accelerated
wear" to accomplish in short order what might take a much longer with regular music
seems reasonable.

The app notes for the Daytons used in my subs recommended applying 10 hz for 72
hours with a 1/2" cone excursion in free air (or something like that).

They said you didn't absolutely have to do this, but if you planned on measuring T/S
and/or fine-tuning a cabinet you would be well advised to do this first. You'd then
have a more representative measurement accuracy that would be more valid over the
life of the driver.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.

[Peter Larsen]

Just what IS a proper measurement for resolution? - and no less important,
what is the perceptual issue that matters, is it the loudspeaker or is it
the brain learning to subtract it?

There is also the old Steve Court statement (from some english book on audio
engineering) to the effect that large studio monitor systems are about as
stable as a concert grand, which I understood to be about frequency response
but which did not come with examples.

> --Ethan

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen]

Frank Stearns wrote:

> The app notes for the Daytons used in my subs recommended applying 10
> hz for 72 hours with a 1/2" cone excursion in free air (or something
> like that).

It has no merit to use an excursion larger than what you will use with them
mounted in a proper box at your preferred loudness level. It may or may not
be interesting to measure Fs with small as well as with large excursion, but
the excursion that matters is the one you actually use.

> They said you didn't absolutely have to do this, but if you planned
> on measuring T/S and/or fine-tuning a cabinet you would be well
> advised to do this first. You'd then have a more representative
> measurement accuracy that would be more valid over the life of the
> driver.

Stuff also happens to membranes that break up when playing a wide band
signal, be it music or white noise - or sweeping tones. Beware of actual
powerhandling, not the multiple digit one from the sales sheet, the fewer
digit real world one.

> Frank
> Mobile Audio

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
news:51bccea8$0$6972$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...

eth...@ethanwiner.com wrote:

>>> I guess this is another debate that can go on forever...

>> It doesn't have to go on forever! All it takes to prove the point
>> one way or the other is a proper measurement. That said,
>> dynamic speaker drivers do "settle" some, but it's nothing like
>> the purveyors of magic would have you believe.

> Just what IS a proper measurement for resolution? - and no less
> important, what is the perceptual issue that matters, is it the
> loudspeaker or is it the brain learning to subtract it?

Good questions.

My own (unsubstantiated) experience is that cone-type speakers don't change
much, probably because there's nothing to break in -- the surrounds are are
relatively pliable from the get-go.

It's drivers with relatively "stiff" surrounds that seem to require breaking
in. I've heard this mostly with Magnepans, whose bass end "develops" over a
period of days (not weeks).

I've heard similar effects with headphones. Electrostatic and orthodynamic
'phones usually require a break-in period. Simply playing them "overnight"
with loud noise is usually enough.

Because these changes occur relatively quickly, and with /specific/ driver
types, I'm inclined to believe they're "real", and not the byproduct of the
brain adapting to driver colorations.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <kph1ke$81q$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I guess this is another debate that can go on forever...

Not at all, it's easy enough to measure. You'll notice a change in the
low frequency corner when the suspension loosens up a little. Play
some reggae music at loud levels overnight with the door closed up,
and you'll find the swept sine plot is different than it was before you
did that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>My own (unsubstantiated) experience is that cone-type speakers don't change
>much, probably because there's nothing to break in -- the surrounds are are
>relatively pliable from the get-go.

It's more the spider than the surrounds. But agreed, it doesn't change
very much, and it doesn't require much time to do the job.

[Trevor]

"Paul" <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kpi3od$fa1$1...@dont-email.me...

>Some people think break-in
> periods for speakers are a myth, and that it's more something
> the manufacturers want buyers to do so their ears get accustomed
> to their new speakers.

Exactly, (well brain not ears actually) but surprising how many people are
unaware of it.

>More people believe headphones need a break-in period.

And they'd be wrong, the same brain accustomisation takes place.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

<eth...@ethanwiner.com> wrote in message
news:0c412b4f-4da0-491c...@googlegroups.com...

Right, the person on usenet with more speaker measurement experience than
anybody else, Dick Pierce, said the small changes usually don't last anyway
after they are unused for even a short time.
Gross changes would indicate something has failed!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Peter Larsen" <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:51bccea8$0$6972$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...

> There is also the old Steve Court statement (from some english book on
> audio engineering) to the effect that large studio monitor systems are
> about as stable as a concert grand,

Far more so, any piano requires regular tuning.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:kpiuav$oe6$1...@panix2.panix.com...

> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>My own (unsubstantiated) experience is that cone-type speakers don't
>>change
>>much, probably because there's nothing to break in -- the surrounds are
>>are
>>relatively pliable from the get-go.
>
> It's more the spider than the surrounds. But agreed, it doesn't change
> very much, and it doesn't require much time to do the job.

And if you make proper measurements with a rest between each, it will
probably take no time at all, or forever depending on just what you expect
to happen.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:kpiu6p$a4c$1...@panix2.panix.com...

> In article <kph1ke$81q$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <Quill...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I guess this is another debate that can go on forever...
>
> Not at all, it's easy enough to measure. You'll notice a change in the
> low frequency corner when the suspension loosens up a little. Play
> some reggae music at loud levels overnight with the door closed up,
> and you'll find the swept sine plot is different than it was before you
> did that.

Then leave it a while and measure it again. Fact is the response will change
a little every time you play the speaker as it warms up, more so if your
room is not constant temperature to begin with. Fortunately the changes are
mostly small enough to not notice.

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message news:kpk4jr$i36$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

"Paul" <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kpi3od$fa1$1...@dont-email.me...

>> More people believe headphones need a break-in period.

> And they'd be wrong, the same brain accustomisation takes place.

Not in my experience. Headphones with planar drivers need a break-in of
several hours. Cone or mic-type drivers don't. The changes are fairly audible.

As for the brain adjusting to the sound of headphones or speakers... In my
experience, if this occurs with speakers, its over a long period of time --
weeks or months. But it seems to occur fairly quickly with headphones. I
noticed this 25 years ago when reviewing headphones. If I spend an extended
period of time auditioning a given pair, the next pair will sound "odd" for a
while.

If these observations are correct, I have no idea why this should be so.

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:34:05 -0400, Paul wrote
(in article <kph1ke$81q$1...@dont-email.me>):

>
> I guess this is another debate that can go on forever...

I once reviewed some Alesis monitors that sounded really fatiguing out of the
box. They told me they needed to be broken in. I didn't believe it. We tried
it for 24 hours or so and they still sucked.

They sent me a pair that had been previously broken in. They did sound
different. Don't know what they did to 'em.

Was the first pair broken? Dunno.

So if it takes a particular monitor X amount of time to break in, how long
does it take before they go far enough to break out?

Regards,

Ty Ford

Try my blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r

[Paul]

On 6/17/2013 12:39 PM, Ty Ford wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:34:05 -0400, Paul wrote
> (in article <kph1ke$81q$1...@dont-email.me>):
>
>>
>> I guess this is another debate that can go on forever...
>
> I once reviewed some Alesis monitors that sounded really fatiguing out of the
> box. They told me they needed to be broken in. I didn't believe it. We tried
> it for 24 hours or so and they still sucked.
>
> They sent me a pair that had been previously broken in. They did sound
> different. Don't know what they did to 'em.
>
> Was the first pair broken? Dunno.
>
> So if it takes a particular monitor X amount of time to break in, how long
> does it take before they go far enough to break out?
>

I think the debate will continue, because if there is an AUDIBLE
break in period, it will certainly vary depending on the brand and
model, and then even on the particular unit.

As you said, your first pair may just have been a lemon unit.

Obviously, we hope the break out period is much, much, much longer
than any break-in period!

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/17/2013 3:39 PM, Ty Ford wrote:

> I once reviewed some Alesis monitors that sounded really fatiguing out of the
> box. They told me they needed to be broken in. I didn't believe it. We tried
> it for 24 hours or so and they still sucked.
>
> They sent me a pair that had been previously broken in. They did sound
> different. Don't know what they did to 'em.

Probably put different drivers in them.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:51bccea8$0$6972$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...

> Just what IS a proper measurement for resolution? - and no less important,
> what is the perceptual issue that matters, is it the loudspeaker or is it
> the brain learning to subtract it?

Depends what you are measuring. I know of some folks who designed a ton of
really pretty good speakers and did a goodly number of published and
unpublished but paid-for technical reviews, some of the designs were very
sucessful both commerically and technically, with 12 bit 50 KHz audio
interfaces.

> There is also the old Steve Court statement (from some english book on
> audio engineering) to the effect that large studio monitor systems are
> about as stable as a concert grand, which I understood to be about
> frequency response but which did not come with examples.

As a rule speakers don't get out of tune. I suspect that the amplitude
response of speakers is more stable than pianos, including the potentially
beneficial effects of the intelligent operator. I've analyzed recordings of
skilled pianists trying to play the same musical selection consistently, and
by audio standards both the timing and the amplitude is all over the map.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message
news:kpk4uh$iq3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Exactly. IME anything that breaks in significantly and stays that way is
actually wearing out pretty quickly. It will probably change some more the
next time you use it. That's basically called "Wearing out".

Case in point being car engines. When I was a boy car engines ran about
35-50,000 miiles between major overhauls, which included redoing the
bearings, valves and pistons. They also had farily elaborate break in
procedures after being built or rebuilt.

These days it is not unusual for cars to go 200,000+ miles (even American
cars!) and its been several cars (at over a decade each) since the last time
that I even looked to see what the break in procedure was. Most cars are
scrapped for problems other than the engine or engine problems that could be
repaired for a reasonable price but are just too much of a hassle given the
replacement value of the vehicle.

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:36:08 -0400, Paul wrote
(in article <kpnrmm$cof$1...@dont-email.me>):

Paul,

What was interesting to me was that 6 months or so later, I was in a GC and
they had the same models for sale. I explained what happened and they opened
one up and ran some audio to it. It sounded similarly fatiguing.

Regards,

Ty

[Scott Dorsey]

Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>What was interesting to me was that 6 months or so later, I was in a GC and
>they had the same models for sale. I explained what happened and they opened
>one up and ran some audio to it. It sounded similarly fatiguing.

Maybe they all sound like that except the special hand-picked ones they send
to reviewers. It wouldn't be the first time.

[Paul]

On 6/20/2013 11:16 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> What was interesting to me was that 6 months or so later, I was in a GC and
>> they had the same models for sale. I explained what happened and they opened
>> one up and ran some audio to it. It sounded similarly fatiguing.
>
> Maybe they all sound like that except the special hand-picked ones they send
> to reviewers. It wouldn't be the first time.
> --scott
>

Well, that would throw objectivity out the window. Ideally you
would base your review on an average unit Joe Blow would get, not
some cherry-picked one.

That's like reviewing a restaurant by first telling the waiter
which paper you work for! Certainly you'll get better service....

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <kpvkrr$po9$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/20/2013 11:16 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> What was interesting to me was that 6 months or so later, I was in a GC and
>>> they had the same models for sale. I explained what happened and they opened
>>> one up and ran some audio to it. It sounded similarly fatiguing.
>>
>> Maybe they all sound like that except the special hand-picked ones they send
>> to reviewers. It wouldn't be the first time.
>

> Well, that would throw objectivity out the window. Ideally you
>would base your review on an average unit Joe Blow would get, not
>some cherry-picked one.

I assure you that the LAST thing manufacturers want in reviews is objectivity.

> That's like reviewing a restaurant by first telling the waiter
>which paper you work for! Certainly you'll get better service....

Oh, I'm sure they have a set of photos of all the local restaurant reviewers
posted in the kitchen somewhere for identification already.

[Jason]

On 20 Jun 2013 15:54:09 -0400 "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in
article <kpvml1$1cg$1...@panix2.panix.com>

>

> Oh, I'm sure they have a set of photos of all the local restaurant reviewers
> posted in the kitchen somewhere for identification already.
> --scott

That's funny! My daughter worked in restaurants when she was a college
student and can confirm that! ...and the photos of reviewers on the
bulletin board in the kitchen had been, um, amended by the staff, with
magic markers.

[Paul]

On 6/20/2013 12:54 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <kpvkrr$po9$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/20/2013 11:16 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What was interesting to me was that 6 months or so later, I was in a GC and
>>>> they had the same models for sale. I explained what happened and they opened
>>>> one up and ran some audio to it. It sounded similarly fatiguing.
>>>
>>> Maybe they all sound like that except the special hand-picked ones they send
>>> to reviewers. It wouldn't be the first time.
>>
>> Well, that would throw objectivity out the window. Ideally you
>> would base your review on an average unit Joe Blow would get, not
>> some cherry-picked one.
>
> I assure you that the LAST thing manufacturers want in reviews is objectivity.
>

That's a reason not to trust the "professional" reviewer: they are
too close the manufacturers...they are sleeping in the same bed!

I'll stick to regular Joe Blow reviews on Amazon, etc (yes, a small
% of the reviewers may be paid, but Amazon doesn't delete the bad
reviews, and as we all know, bad news travels faster than good). At
least you know they are reviewing average units, and you also
get more than one opinion....

[hank alrich]

Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I'll stick to regular Joe Blow reviews on Amazon, etc (yes, a small
> % of the reviewers may be paid, but Amazon doesn't delete the bad
> reviews, and as we all know, bad news travels faster than good). At
> least you know they are reviewing average units, and you also
> get more than one opinion....

The only research article I read suggested that a very large perecentage
of positive reviews at many sites were the work of shills.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[Paul]

On 6/21/2013 12:08 AM, hank alrich wrote:
> Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'll stick to regular Joe Blow reviews on Amazon, etc (yes, a small
>> % of the reviewers may be paid, but Amazon doesn't delete the bad
>> reviews, and as we all know, bad news travels faster than good). At
>> least you know they are reviewing average units, and you also
>> get more than one opinion....
>
> The only research article I read suggested that a very large perecentage
> of positive reviews at many sites were the work of shills.
>

I'm paying more attention to the number of negative reviews.

Nearly all products have a good amount of bad reviews....it's
the distinctive products that have very few bad reviews that are
the winners. So far, Amazon reviewers have been right in my book....

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/21/2013 6:21 AM, Paul wrote:

> Nearly all products have a good amount of bad reviews....it's
> the distinctive products that have very few bad reviews that are
> the winners. So far, Amazon reviewers have been right in my book....

I occasionally buy things through Amazon for convenience, but it's rare
that anything I buy via that route has a review, positive or negative,
that I find meaningful. I bought a TRRS-3xRCA cable through Amazon and
they asked me to write a review of it. Geez, what can you say about a $3
cable? But I'll tell you that I did have some difficulty finding one at
a civilized price. My review read something like "It was cheap and
electricity gets from one end to the other. How much better can it be?"
I hope that was helpful to someone.

When I write a review, I don't do it with the intention of encouraging
or discouraging a purchase, I write to tell the reader more than he can
find out about the product by reading what the manufacturer tells him.
Hopefully it will help a potential purchaser decide if it's the right
product for him, but sometimes I hear from people who own something that
I've reviewed, saying that they learned some things about their device
from my review that they never knew.

Real reviewers don't get stuff for free, though we're sometimes offered
a price break if we want to keep what we've reviewed. I can only
remember one thing that I reviewed and bought, and that was a Mackie
1402 VLZ-Pro mixer. And that was even after I worked for Mackie.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <kq0nmq$o3u$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'll stick to regular Joe Blow reviews on Amazon, etc (yes, a small
>% of the reviewers may be paid, but Amazon doesn't delete the bad
>reviews, and as we all know, bad news travels faster than good). At
>least you know they are reviewing average units, and you also
>get more than one opinion....

Yes, but that's even worse, because so many of those reviews are written
by people who don't have any standard of comparison at all with other
products. Just read the reviews in Tape Op.... they are all over the map
and some are excellent and some are terrible, but unless you are familiar
with the review you can't always tell which is which.

[Paul]

Some of those reviewer's may not review for a living, but
many of them are musicians with great ears themselves, and
with something as subjective as what sounds "good", I'd
rather hear from many people rather than one person's
opinion/taste.

But if you are a professional reviewer with any
integrity at all, wouldn't you refuse the cherry-picked "samples"
that the manufacturers want to give you, and insist on reviewing
a unit you bought from a regular store?

[Paul]

Ah! The 1402 VLZ is the unit I have. Awesome, and certainly worth
keeping.

Look at the ratings for the HS80M on Amazon. They are nearly perfect:


http://www.amazon.com/Yamaha-HS80M-Studio-Reference-Monitor/product-reviews/B000QPHCB4/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

How many products do you see get almost a perfect 5 stars? But now
I know why. These things sound phenomenal, and I enjoying listening
to everything on them now. It's quite startling to hear all the poorly
recorded and mixed audio out there.

It's amazing the clarity and detail you get from these guys. And many
people feel you don't really need the sub-woofer unless you are mixing
hip-hop or rap. I can see how the subs would help fill in the low end,
but I think if I listen to reference recordings, there is enough low-end
for me to judge it correctly.

Still, I am considering the HS10W.....

[William Sommerwerck]

"Paul" wrote in message news:kq1p0i$nk1$1...@dont-email.me...

> Look at the ratings for the HS80M on Amazon. They are nearly perfect:

http://www.amazon.com/Yamaha-HS80M-Studio-Reference-Monitor/product-reviews/B000QPHCB4/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

> How many products do you see get almost a perfect 5 stars? But now I know
> why. These things sound phenomenal, and I enjoying listening
> to everything on them now. It's quite startling to hear all the poorly
> recorded and mixed audio out there.

But "poorly recorded and mixed audio" is in the context of how a recording
sounds //on this speaker//. Not all listeners have a speaker of such quality.

The question in my mind is... What is the //practical// purpose of a monitor
when recording pop music?

In the case of classical or jazz recordings, there's an "acoustical event" one
can easily audition, and which serves as reference. An accurate monitor thus
gives a good idea of whether the engineer is getting what he wants (ie, an
accurate rendering of the original sound).

But pop recordings are largely artifice-ial. There is no reference. The HS80M
might "sound phenomenal", but what does that tell you about how the home
listener will perceive it?

[Les Cargill]

The function of monitors for pop music is
to identify tracking errors and to establish a basic
mix ( when that's appropriate ) for playback to support
decisions on whether or not to retrack.

Various well known pop songs now have
the raw multitracks published in various ways. What
you find is that the actual "magic" went into the front of the
microphone and was not synthesized by the recording process.

'Course, some things are "Pet Sounds" creations and
have a lot of dubs. But even those are about good
performances.

The two "modes" are not perhaps as different as we might
think.

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/21/2013 10:43 AM, Paul wrote:

> But if you are a professional reviewer with any
> integrity at all, wouldn't you refuse the cherry-picked "samples"
> that the manufacturers want to give you, and insist on reviewing
> a unit you bought from a regular store?

I try to avoid reviewing things that are important because of how they
sound, because that's so subjective. If all you do is record drums and
all I do is record vocals, how could my review of a mic be of any value
to you?

My reviews are much more about how something works, what you can do with
it that might not be obvious, and how clear it is to operate, how easy
it is to make a mistake, and details about technical performance that
can be measured, and may be audible in some (or many) situations.

Some people just want to know if a mic preamp sounds warm, or that a mic
works very well on the high hat. They can read Tape Op.

[geoff]

"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:kq1ksf$7sn$1...@panix2.panix.com...

Reviews in Sound On Sound don't mince words when they think somnething could
or should be better, or is inferior. And Mike Rivers has a way of expressing
a negative opinion.

Amazon review often have a higher S/N ration than r.a.o , and more often
tell more about the 'reviewer'.

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/24/2013 7:04 AM, geoff wrote:

> Reviews in Sound On Sound don't mince words when they think somnething could
> or should be better, or is inferior. And Mike Rivers has a way of expressing
> a negative opinion.

I try to find some good even in things that I don't care for, or at
least understand what the designer was after. Manufacturers don't
intentionally design bad products, but some of them don't use their
products the same way I do (or, sometimes I think, the way nobody else
does either) and that deserves some analysis and comment.

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message

>> In article <kq0nmq$o3u$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <Quill...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll stick to regular Joe Blow reviews on Amazon, etc (yes, a small
>>>% of the reviewers may be paid, but Amazon doesn't delete the bad
>>>reviews, and as we all know, bad news travels faster than good). At
>>>least you know they are reviewing average units, and you also
>>>get more than one opinion....
>>
>> Yes, but that's even worse, because so many of those reviews are written
>> by people who don't have any standard of comparison at all with other
>> products. Just read the reviews in Tape Op.... they are all over the map
>> and some are excellent and some are terrible, but unless you are familiar
>> with the review you can't always tell which is which.
>

>Reviews in Sound On Sound don't mince words when they think somnething could
>or should be better, or is inferior. And Mike Rivers has a way of expressing
>a negative opinion.

Sound On Sound is pretty much the only place I know where you can see reviews
that are both honest and informed, on a consistent basis. There are other
magazines that have good reviews and bad reviews, but you can pick up SoS and
know exactly where the reviewer is coming from and how he's working and how
that informs his opinions, as well as what the opinions are.

>Amazon review often have a higher S/N ration than r.a.o , and more often
>tell more about the 'reviewer'.

I suspect most of them are from shills, but you can often pick the shills
out readily.

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:

> you can often pick the shills out readily.

Only if you know what they were supposed to be talking about. Otherwise,
one brings one's acquired "Internet whizdumb" to bear on the
incomprehensible.

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
news:1l4yoqh.1ll0shy1mg1togN%walk...@nv.net...

Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:

>> you can often pick the shills out readily.

> Only if you know what they were supposed to be talking about.
> Otherwise, one brings one's acquired "Internet whizdumb" to
> bear on the incomprehensible.

I know the sorts of reviews that look like shills /to me/. They usually read
something like this:

"This is an incredible product, and I really love it. I'd recommend it to all
my friends."

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:08:14 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article <1l4sgct.cscscr1e2korqN%walk...@nv.net>):

> Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'll stick to regular Joe Blow reviews on Amazon, etc (yes, a small
>> % of the reviewers may be paid, but Amazon doesn't delete the bad
>> reviews, and as we all know, bad news travels faster than good). At
>> least you know they are reviewing average units, and you also
>> get more than one opinion....
>
> The only research article I read suggested that a very large perecentage
> of positive reviews at many sites were the work of shills.

+1

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 06:21:06 -0400, Paul wrote
(in article <kq195l$5fo$1...@dont-email.me>):

>> The only research article I read suggested that a very large perecentage
>> of positive reviews at many sites were the work of shills.
>>
>
> I'm paying more attention to the number of negative reviews.
>
> Nearly all products have a good amount of bad reviews....it's the
> distinctive products that have very few bad reviews that are the winners. So

> far, Amazon reviewers have been right in my book....

I know for a fact that company A pays someone to piss in Company B's online
reviews by average guys.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:43:36 -0400, Paul wrote
(in article <kq1ohq$l9h$1...@dont-email.me>):

> Some of those reviewer's may not review for a living, but many of them
> are musicians with great ears themselves, and with something as subjective as

> what sounds "good", I'd rather hear from many people rather than one person's

> opinion/taste.
>
> But if you are a professional reviewer with any integrity at all,
> wouldn't you refuse the cherry-picked "samples" that the manufacturers want
> to give you, and insist on reviewing a unit you bought from a regular store?

Well, going back to my original post, when I reviewed the Alesis monitors and
the first ones sounded like crap I called them and told them. I also put in
my review that the first monitors sounded like crap.

That's just a very small part of good reviewing, I think.

I've had users come here with mics they are AMAZINGLY HAPPY with and have
showed them how to make a decent assessment of the mic with one of mine.
Their elation slowly deflates as I point out the differences that they never
had considered or COULD consider because they didn't have the experience or
the "other" gear to make those comparisons. They are musicians, most of 'em,
as am I, and all have a passion for what they do, but that does not guarantee
that they know good from bad.

Guys like Mike, Scott and myself have been at this game a while. We know when
something's not right and, given half a chance, can hear through the smoke
and mirrors.

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/25/2013 10:43 AM, Ty Ford wrote:

> I know for a fact that company A pays someone to piss in Company B's online
> reviews by average guys.

Hey, I could do that. How can I get that gig?

[Paul]

On 6/25/2013 7:53 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:43:36 -0400, Paul wrote
> (in article <kq1ohq$l9h$1...@dont-email.me>):
>
>> Some of those reviewer's may not review for a living, but many of them
>> are musicians with great ears themselves, and with something as subjective as
>
>> what sounds "good", I'd rather hear from many people rather than one person's
>
>> opinion/taste.
>>
>> But if you are a professional reviewer with any integrity at all,
>> wouldn't you refuse the cherry-picked "samples" that the manufacturers want
>> to give you, and insist on reviewing a unit you bought from a regular store?
>
> Well, going back to my original post, when I reviewed the Alesis monitors and
> the first ones sounded like crap I called them and told them. I also put in
> my review that the first monitors sounded like crap.
>
> That's just a very small part of good reviewing, I think.
>

You mean you have to be honest if you're going to be
trusted as a reviewer!? Great idea.

Did you write in your review the possibility that the second
set were cherry-picked by Alesis, and may not be representative
of what an Average Joe can get at an average store?

> I've had users come here with mics they are AMAZINGLY HAPPY with and have
> showed them how to make a decent assessment of the mic with one of mine.
> Their elation slowly deflates as I point out the differences that they never
> had considered or COULD consider because they didn't have the experience or
> the "other" gear to make those comparisons. They are musicians, most of 'em,
> as am I, and all have a passion for what they do, but that does not guarantee
> that they know good from bad.
>
> Guys like Mike, Scott and myself have been at this game a while. We know when
> something's not right and, given half a chance, can hear through the smoke
> and mirrors.
>

Well, sure, but even the "experts" sometimes disagree on which mics
sound good or usable. Everybody hears things differently.

But I'd like to know more details about how you personally make
your assessment of a mic.....

[Paul]

On 6/25/2013 7:43 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 06:21:06 -0400, Paul wrote
> (in article <kq195l$5fo$1...@dont-email.me>):
>
>>> The only research article I read suggested that a very large perecentage
>>> of positive reviews at many sites were the work of shills.
>>>
>>
>> I'm paying more attention to the number of negative reviews.
>>
>> Nearly all products have a good amount of bad reviews....it's the
>> distinctive products that have very few bad reviews that are the winners. So
>
>> far, Amazon reviewers have been right in my book....
>
> I know for a fact that company A pays someone to piss in Company B's online
> reviews by average guys.
>

I'm sure that paid BAD reviews by the competition also happens.

Perhaps company A's shills are balanced out by company
B's paid negative reviews, and it all evens out in the end.

But you can usually tell a dishonest review: a truly honest
review will usually have BOTH pros and cons in it.

If companies were paying Amazon to remove negative reviews,
I'm sure that would leak out eventually, so when I saw the HS80Ms
got near perfect reviews (Everywhere, not just on Amazon), I was
definitely interested. Turns out those reviews were right. These
things are phenomenal.

I think paid reviews, whether good or bad, are a small percentage.
Most of them are real...I've written quite a few myself....

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/25/2013 1:56 PM, Paul wrote:

> Did you write in your review the possibility that the second
> set were cherry-picked by Alesis, and may not be representative
> of what an Average Joe can get at an average store?

That would be for the suspicious reader to decide. But really, I've
never heard of such a practice. Have you? Or do you just figure that
it's what they do to get a good review? If they really had a better
design, they'd sell that one.

> Well, sure, but even the "experts" sometimes disagree on which mics
> sound good or usable. Everybody hears things differently.

This is why that kind of information should be considered for what it's
worth when reading a review. If there's sound involved, you should hear
it yourself. It's why I rarely comment on how something sounds (and why
I don't review microphones or loudspeakers) unless there's an obvious
fault and I can determine the reason for it. For example, I noted in my
recent Cymatic LR-16 review that with the default setup, the headphone
and line outputs distort badly. But this can be fixed by lowering the
levels of the channels in the mixer. Not every reviewer would take that
extra step but would just dismiss it as "the headphone amplifier sucks."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <kqd2g3$b8r$1...@dont-email.me>, Mike Rivers <mm1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 6/25/2013 1:56 PM, Paul wrote:
>> Did you write in your review the possibility that the second
>> set were cherry-picked by Alesis, and may not be representative
>> of what an Average Joe can get at an average store?
>
>That would be for the suspicious reader to decide. But really, I've
>never heard of such a practice. Have you? Or do you just figure that
>it's what they do to get a good review? If they really had a better
>design, they'd sell that one.

I see that practice frequently with products that have quality control
problems, but only when the sales people actually realize that they have
quality control problems. And sadly, they often don't.

Alesis? I don't know how and where they had the monitors made, so I
can't say anything. Now, about their semiconductor fab quality control
issues, I can go on for days about that....

[geoff]

"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:kqd5n2$cns$1...@panix2.panix.com...

>
> Alesis? I don't know how and where they had the monitors made, so I
> can't say anything. Now, about their semiconductor fab quality control
> issues, I can go on for days about that....

I'm sure they don't have QC on that. That would be the actual semiconductor
manufacturers' responsibilities. FOn the final product, maybe .

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

Alesis had their own fab line for many years, in house. It has since been
split off, however, in part because of some QC issues. The ADATS are full
of custom semis made in-house that you can't get replacements for.

[geoff]

"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:kqfmnv$11$1...@panix2.panix.com...

Fabrication, or programming arrays sourced elsewhere ?

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>

>> Alesis had their own fab line for many years, in house. It has since been
>> split off, however, in part because of some QC issues. The ADATS are full
>> of custom semis made in-house that you can't get replacements for.
>

>Fabrication, or programming arrays sourced elsewhere ?

No, they had their own full and complete fab line. It has since been split
off as Wolfson Microelectronics. No arrays, no semicustom stuff. (Well, there
is some of that as well in some of the later stuff).

My suspicion is that the reason they went that route originally was because
of their VCA blocks.

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:56:42 -0400, Paul wrote
(in article <kqclb8$sq3$1...@dont-email.me>):

> You mean you have to be honest if you're going to be trusted as a
> reviewer!? Great idea.
>
> Did you write in your review the possibility that the second set were
> cherry-picked by Alesis, and may not be representative of what an Average Joe

> can get at an average store?

I always suggest that people use their ears before using their credit cards
or check books.

Then you said: "Well, sure, but even the "experts" sometimes disagree on

which mics sound good or usable. Everybody hears things differently.

But I'd like to know more details about how you personally make your
assessment of a mic....."

And I'm saying: Objectives like self noise and distortion are really
arguable.

I spend several hours over several days getting to know a mic I'm reviewing.
You can get a good idea of the process by reading the results.

Some of them are here: http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com