New Speakers Burn In? (Beginner's Question)
Eugene Zhang
I have recently purchased a pair of entry level JBL speakers (N38)
to start to build a home theater system. After I set it up, I am not
satisfied with the sound after I read so many positive reviews on
audioreview.com. (weak bass, slight hiss sound and etc. ) I read
that new speakers requires a "burn-in" period to make it reach its
optimum performance. If this is the case, do you have any
suggestion/advices on how to do that?
I am using a Sony Receiver (DB-940) and use Monster cable to
hook up the receiver to the speakers)
Thanks,
Eugene
Joseph Oberlander
>
> Dear Experts,
>
> I have recently purchased a pair of entry level JBL speakers (N38)
> to start to build a home theater system. After I set it up, I am not
> satisfied with the sound after I read so many positive reviews on
> audioreview.com. (weak bass, slight hiss sound and etc. ) I read
> that new speakers requires a "burn-in" period to make it reach its
> optimum performance. If this is the case, do you have any
> suggestion/advices on how to do that?
Take the speakers back and get a REAL pair of JBL speakers. :)
Seriously, JBL makes their Pro 4200 and 4400 lines, and even their
smallest models offer very good sound. Musician's Friend has
great prices on the whole line.
They have the 4408A for $299 each - a 60% discount - evidently they
have a lot of them they are trying to move. These will have the same
frequency response, much better accuracy, and sound clean. Yes, it's
more money, but right now, at that price, it's the least expensive
decent studio montior that I know of.
Richard D Pierce
Eugene Zhang <eugene...@oracle.com> wrote:
>Dear Experts,
>
>I have recently purchased a pair of entry level JBL speakers (N38)
>to start to build a home theater system. After I set it up, I am not
>satisfied with the sound after I read so many positive reviews on
>audioreview.com. (weak bass, slight hiss sound and etc. ) I read
>that new speakers requires a "burn-in" period to make it reach its
>optimum performance. If this is the case, do you have any
>suggestion/advices on how to do that?
Your speakers do not need burning in. The hiss you hear has
absolutely NOTHING to do with speaker burn in and, in fact, has
nothing whatsoever to do with rthe speakers. The hiss is being
produced by the electronics the speakers are connected to. If
the speakers are more efficient than the ones you've been using,
then the hiss might be a little louder, but the hiss has ALWAYS
been there.
As for weak basss, it's FAR more likely that its due to
placement or room effects, or you may even have expectations of
bass that the speakers simply can never fulfill.
But what you're experiencing is NOT a "break in" problem, no
matter WHAT a dealer or magazine wonk tries to convince you.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
Kevin McMurtrie
I've had some pairs of car speakers that needed burning. They lacked
low-end bass until they had been turned up for a while.
I don't think home speakers would need burn-in time. They don't have
the stiff, weather resistant suspension that car speakers do.
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>I've had some pairs of car speakers that needed burning. They lacked
>low-end bass until they had been turned up for a while.
>
>I don't think home speakers would need burn-in time. They don't have
>the stiff, weather resistant suspension that car speakers do.
So, does that mean they are less weather resistant when they sound
better? ;-)
Kal
Mark Zarella
are you sure it wasn't possible stiffness in the suspension due to sub-zero
temperatures?
--
Mark Zarella
www.decriminalizefreedom.com
Remove the "NO" and the "SPAM" to reply via email.
For sale:
Alpine MRVF-302, 50x4 wrms amplifier, fully adjustable HP/LP xovers, $125
MTX 752, 37x2 wrms amplifier (birth certificate lists 72x2), 90 Hz LP xover,
$90
Eclipse 5342, cd/cd changer ctrls/EQ and DSP ctrls for external unit, 3 sets
of preouts w/ sub level ctrl, $145
Audiocontrol 4xs, 3/4-way xover, perfect for controlling 3-way components
and sub, $70
Polk MM6520, 6-1/2" coaxial, MM-series is the predecessor to dB-series, $65
Polk DX3045 4" component set, $125
4 GB IBM Laptop HDD, no bad sectors, $75
Add shipping from Massachusetts to the above prices. I accept Paypal.
"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmu...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-A928B3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Alan Maier
At the risk of being flamed and shot here, yes speakers normally do sound
better after being run for a bit of time. If they are totally dreadful - do
that upgrade now while you can. If they are "just not quite right", beat on
them a bit (IOW share your music with your neighbors ;) to loosen up the
suspensions a bit.
Simply said, when a speaker driver is new, it is not uncommon for the woofer
surround (in particular) to be stiffer than when broken in. You'll have
plenty off bass, but not as deep as it should be. Tweeters can be quirky
here too.
Common mass-market speakers aren't what they used to be - this stuff they
call speakers today is so bad when compared to what was setting on the same
shelf in the same store just a few years ago - it's scary. It's as though
speakers are as crappy as the receivers on the market (shudder). Be willing
to take the time to shop, and spend as much as you can for your speakers.
Alan (ducking for cover)
"Eugene Zhang" <eugene...@oracle.com> wrote in message
news:ixZ%8.12$FT2...@news.oracle.com...
Steve Urbach
Pierce) wrote:
>In article <ixZ%8.12$FT2...@news.oracle.com>,
>
>As for weak basss, it's FAR more likely that its due to
>placement or room effects, or you may even have expectations of
>bass that the speakers simply can never fulfill.
At the risk of flames
Did you check for a phasing (connection) error at both ends of the
cable? Been there, done that while standing on my ear making thos
termination in a crowded enclosure :/)
Phasing really affects Bass.
Steve U
>
>But what you're experiencing is NOT a "break in" problem, no
>matter WHAT a dealer or magazine wonk tries to convince you.
>
>--
>| Dick Pierce |
>| Professional Audio Development |
>| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
>| DPi...@world.std.com |
, _
, | \ MKA: Steve Urbach
, | )erek No JUNK in my email please
, ____|_/ragonsclaw dragons...@mindspring.com
, / / /
Running United Devices "Cure For Cancer" Project 24/7 2 systems. Have you helped?
Jerry G.
some dealers use to
get the client used to hearing the new speakers. Outdoor speakers are
the exception. It is the
listener
that is getting burnt in, and not the speakers!
If you get hiss this is the amp, and your speakers are efficient enough
to reproduce this. Hiss does not come from the speakers. You will
require an amp with higher signal to noise ratio, or it is defective.
For the response of the speakers, room placement is critical, the
content of the room, if the speakers are properly connected in phase.
As for entry level speakers. This is a waste of money. Get the proper
speakers in the first place, so you don't have to spend more money
later. Used equipment has little resale value, if you are thinking to
sell these a year later. Don't listen to dealers who want fast
commissions.
--
Greetings,
Jerry Greenberg GLG Technologies GLG
==============================================
WebPage http://www.zoom-one.com
Electronics http://www.zoom-one.com/electron.htm
Instruments http://www.zoom-one.com/glgtech.htm
==============================================
"Eugene Zhang" <eugene...@oracle.com> wrote in message
news:ixZ%8.12$FT2...@news.oracle.com...
Kevin McMurtrie
there now needed break-in time. It wasn't just the sound, they actually
felt much different when pushing on the woofer cone.
The Pioneers were the stiffest when new, probably because they have a
rubber surround. They distorted the bass badly at just half power for
about a week. I almost took them back thinking their power ratings were
a scam.
The 'Shacks loosened up within a day but their flimsy foam surrounds
tore within a year :(
The 6 inch Kicker component subs in the front didn't seem to change any
with use.
(I'm using a 65W RMS x 4 amp.)
In article <MF009.645654$352.136806@sccrnsc02>,
Joseph Oberlander
> I've had some pairs of car speakers that needed burning. They lacked
> low-end bass until they had been turned up for a while.
>
> I don't think home speakers would need burn-in time. They don't have
> the stiff, weather resistant suspension that car speakers do.
Even this takes a few minutes or an hour at most for home audio speakers.
Beyond this, it's the speakers or a hardware problem.
AD
good speakers, without a doubt, sound better as they loosen up. But breaking
in speakers won't solve funamental sound problems you are having.
Garth Everett
Well Eugene I see we have a lot of folks frowning on the issue of
speaker Break In..
I used to be one of them.. But.
A few months ago I added a 3rd set of speakers to my monitoring
system, a pair of Dynaudio BM-15's..
I was really disappointed upon first hooking them up to my Byrston
4B-St.
Lack of detail in the high end & a much narrower stereo image compared
to my other 2 sets of speakers which I have had for years.. But the
Bottom End was firm & Impressive..
In the owners manual it clearly said don't begin to judge these
speakers until they are well broken in.
Ya Right.
Weeks went by & I was still disappointed in these BM-15's - Lack of
high End Detail - Could not hear reverb tails as well as I was used to
& narrow stereo Image...
I hated these speakers & kept saying I was going to take them back.
Well that was about three months ago & they get played several hours
every day At moderate levels..
Now they sound (Almost) great.. The high End detail has changed
dramatically & the stereo image is where it should be..
And before anyone chimes in to say that it was my ears that got broken
in to the sound of the speakers... I don't think so.
Why.. Well all along I was comparing the BM-15's to the other 2 sets
of speakers I have had for a long time, Which had a wider stereo image
and more high end detail..
When I compare all three sets now, my older ones sound like they
always did..
And the BM-15's are now equal in the width of stereo image & I can now
hear the reverb tails as well on them as my other 2 sets (One of which
is a 3/way system)..
What can I say... I now believe in speaker burn in..
I Have no choice as I have experienced it first hand & the fact
I have 2 other sets of speakers to compare them with only confirms
what I am hearing. Had I not of had them to AB at the same time I
just might think my ears finally got used to the new set of speakers.
No So here.. I Don't think.
In your case I can't say for sure..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
***Something You might try (Which I did not) that was in the Dynaudio
BM-15 Manual regarding accelerated Break In..
They Say:
---------
Place the 2 speakers facing each other as close as possible.
Connect one speaker Out of Phase with the other. (reverse the cables)
Send your favorite musical material at a Moderate Level "In MONO" to
the speakers for a period of at least 12
hours.. Who Knows-- Give it a try...sure can't hurt..
------------------------------------------------------
I thought this speaker break in thing was just a Bunch of Crap so I
did not try the above..
Perhaps I should have, then I would not have had to wait 2 months to
be satisfied. :-).
**PS: I have also had a similar experience with Speaker Cable Break In
& always run them in the same direction. I have marked all my cables
as to which direction they get plugged in - Even Guitar cables..
Oh Boy- I can hear the screams coming now > but I don't want to get
into that topic. :-)
All I can say is, I used to be a Non Believer but now I am - even
though it was reluctantly..I guess it depends on your playback system
and how you listen.
(My system in definitely not the greatest either & I am aware of that,
but i'm slowly getting there, would have preferred to try out a pair
of Quested's but could not access any in my area.) There is always
better in all things.
-Listening is also an Art to be learned.- (It took me a long time to
believe that one too). But once learned it can cause a loss of
enjoyment (if your not careful) in the emotional Musical content of a
lot of material, if that good sound is just not there..
Kind of like - Spam used to taste good till you had your first great
steak..
But the odd Spam sandwich is still an enjoyable experience-if you
drown it in mustard. :-)
Enjoy your meal:
Garth E.
Richard D Pierce
Steve Urbach <drago...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 22:28:12 GMT, DPi...@TheWorld.com (Richard D
>Pierce) wrote:
>
>>In article <ixZ%8.12$FT2...@news.oracle.com>,
>>
>>As for weak basss, it's FAR more likely that its due to
>>placement or room effects, or you may even have expectations of
>>bass that the speakers simply can never fulfill.
>At the risk of flames
>Did you check for a phasing (connection) error at both ends of the
>cable? Been there, done that while standing on my ear making thos
>termination in a crowded enclosure :/)
>Phasing really affects Bass.
Indeed. Wiring the two speakers out of phase could have a
profound effect on the bass. And it's actually a common mistake,
so check that as well.
Richard D Pierce
Alan Maier <alan....@verizon.net> wrote:
>Simply said, when a speaker driver is new, it is not uncommon for the woofer
>surround (in particular) to be stiffer than when broken in. You'll have
>plenty off bass, but not as deep as it should be. Tweeters can be quirky
>here too.
Simply said, and simply unsupportable as well.
First, indeed the stiffness of the surround does loosen up upon
use, but this phenomemon deomstrably happens over a period of
seconds or minutes, NOT days weeks or months like some claim.
Second, MOST of the change in stiffness reverses after the
speaker sits at rest for maybe a few minutes. Third, there's a
far greater change in stiffness due to simple temperature
changes than "burning in." Fourth, all this hand-wringing about
suspension changes ignores the fact that the suspension is not
the ONLY source of stiffness for the soofer cone: the cabinet
itself provides a significant and, in many speaker the DOMINANT
source of stiffness in the system: in such cases even LARGE
changes in the suspension stiffness will have, at most, a minor
effect on the system response.
No, if the original poster's description of the sound is
correct, then he has some combination of 1) defective drivers,
2) bad room placement, 3) out-of-phase hookup, or some other
problem that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with "burn-in."
Arny Krueger
> Dear Experts,
>
> I have recently purchased a pair of entry level JBL speakers (N38)
> to start to build a home theater system. After I set it up, I am
> not satisfied with the sound after I read so many positive
> reviews on audioreview.com. (weak bass, slight hiss sound and
> etc. ) I read that new speakers requires a "burn-in" period to
> make it reach its optimum performance. If this is the case, do
> you have any suggestion/advices on how to do that?
Speaker burn-in takes a few seconds.
Acclimatizing yourself to how a new speaker sounds can take longer.
As others have pointed out, weak bass can be caused by out-of-phase
speaker wiring, and it can also be caused by improper speaker
positioning in the room.
Speakers don't generally hiss, they just reproduce high frequency
hiss that is coming from the electronics in the system, and/or the
recording. If there is too much response at high frequencies, you can
address this by re-orienting the speakers so that you aren't sitting
exactly on-axis, trying a variety of recordings and signal sources,
and again perhaps by moving the speakers around in the room. These
are floor-standers so you can't reorient them like you might with
bookshelf speakers. Absence of bass can lead to the perception that
there is too much hiss.
Mark Zarella
usually loosens within minutes (or less) and will re-tighten up again after
you let it sit. Maybe it was defective? The supposed benefit of "break-in"
has to do with the post curing process requiring a gradual heating for
optimal results, but I've yet to ascertain whether or not this "optimal
result" means it'll be able to handle an extra 2 and a half watts or
something.
"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmu...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-1FA1A3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Alan Maier
a change.
Clearly you have never owned any truly good loudspeakers. Those who have,
know break-in is part of life. Those who disagree, have a problem with a
closed mind.
Alan
.
"Richard D Pierce" <DPi...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:Gzuwt...@world.std.com...
Richard D Pierce
Alan Maier <alan....@verizon.net> wrote:
>Your comment is simply unsupportable too. Use your ears, not your "mind" for
>a change.
>
>Clearly you have never owned any truly good loudspeakers. Those who have,
>know break-in is part of life. Those who disagree, have a problem with a
>closed mind.
Excellent argument, Alan, based as it is on absolutely no fact
or data whatsoever.
Having, in fact, owned several HUNDRED loudspeakers, and
measured, listened to and evaluated several THOUSANDs drivers
and systems, your retort stands, again, as an utterly
unsupportable and competely uninformed opinion devoid of factual
underpinnings.
It should be noted, as well, that your comment about not using
your mind is something that you have honed to a fine edge
yourself, it would seem. Rather than attempting to counter the
very specific technical assertions I made regarding the
phenomenon, you instead chose to resort to the standard knee-
jerk reaction of "don't confuse me with facts" bullshit.
The possibility exists, good sir, that I have owned, measured,
listened to more loudspeakers than you have ever seen.
Arny Krueger
Richard D Pierce wrote:
>> Your comment is simply unsupportable too. Use your ears, not your
>> "mind" for a change.
> Clearly you have never owned any truly good loudspeakers.
Richard Pierce has no doubt owned truly good loudspeakers, but more
significantly, he's also designed several of them as well.
> Those who have, know break-in is part of life.
People who *really* understand loudspeakers, whether Richard D
Pierce, or David L Clark, or Tom Nousaine, or Earl Geddes or Floyd
Toole (you can find out more about these people at www.aws.org), or
any number of other widely-recognized authorities in this field ,
know that speakers do break in - in the first few seconds they are
used after they have been unused for a while. They stabilize their
operation pretty quickly. This can be confirmed with listening tests,
it can be confirmed with over-all measurements of loudspeaker system
performance, and it can be confirmed with detailed measurements of
loudspeaker and crossover component parameters. There are changes in
the first few seconds of operation after a speaker has been unused
for a while, but they quickly stabilize and remain constant after
that.
>Those who disagree, have a problem with a closed mind.
Their only *problem* with the people who disagree with the common old
wife's tales and urban myths about loudspeaker break-in, is that they
know what they are talking about.
Alan Maier
Okay you have my attention in a positive, constructive way.
Please explain to me (stated seriously, not just for the sake of argument)
why many loudspeakers of respectable quality very often do not sound
pleasing at all when they are fresh and new. However this same pair of
loudspeakers will improve over time as they are used.
I appreciate the argument that a person becomes "used to" the sound, and
become "numb" to the sonic imperfections of a loudspeaker system. However
such perceived areas as imaging, spatial definition (the list of silly terms
could run on here) do seem to improve during usage. I'd question the user
again, but time and time again - I have stumbled across a fresh pair and a
used pair... and that used pair definitely sounded better overall. However
over time, they sounded the same. This is hard to simply imagine, or
write-off as sonic perception. Or as the old phrase goes, if it sounds like
a duck, and walks like a duck and looks like a duck.... here we move to "if
it sounds better after several hours of time, and when compared to an unused
sample it sounds better over time....." we then assume we are dealing with a
"break-in" period.
So if mechanical issues are not the cause, what is?
Alan
"Richard D Pierce" <DPi...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:Gzv4...@world.std.com...
Arny Krueger
> Richard,
>
> Okay you have my attention in a positive, constructive way.
>
> Please explain to me (stated seriously, not just for the sake of
> argument) why many loudspeakers of respectable quality very often
> do not sound pleasing at all when they are fresh and new. However
> this same pair of loudspeakers will improve over time as they are
> used.
Here's why: The human ear is connected to the most complex and
powerful organ in the human body, the brain.
> I appreciate the argument that a person becomes "used to" the
> sound, and become "numb" to the sonic imperfections of a
> loudspeaker system.
The nice word is "adapted".
> However such perceived areas as imaging,
> spatial definition (the list of silly terms could run on here) do
> seem to improve during usage.
The relevant phrase is "ear training".
>I'd question the user again, but
> time and time again - I have stumbled across a fresh pair and a
> used pair... and that used pair definitely sounded better
> overall.
If you want a real thrill, try to DBT some speakers.
>However over time, they sounded the same.
Odds are great that they will always sound different in a good, tight
DBT.
> This is hard to simply imagine, or write-off as sonic perception.
Perhaps for you. I have quite a bit of respect for the power and
influence of the brain.
>Or as the
> old phrase goes, if it sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck
> and looks like a duck.... here we move to "if it sounds better
> after several hours of time, and when compared to an unused
> sample it sounds better over time....." we then assume we are
> dealing with a "break-in" period.
I've taken two pair of speakers, used one for months, and then
swapped it with the pair in the closet. Not much changed.
> So if mechanical issues are not the cause, what is?
Here's why: The human ear is connected to the most complex and
powerful organ in the human body, the brain.
Alan Maier
Well I am open to input as I posted in my reply to Richard. While I am
having difficulty with the issue of what I hear is not how it is (my
observation), I am open to input.
Or in other words, okay dag nabbit - tell me why I hear what I hear ;)
Alan
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Hpe09.419$id6.21...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
GregS
>Arny,
>
>Well I am open to input as I posted in my reply to Richard. While I am
>having difficulty with the issue of what I hear is not how it is (my
>observation), I am open to input.
>
>Or in other words, okay dag nabbit - tell me why I hear what I hear ;)
Why not just do it and don't worry about it. Breakem in i say.
If you think it sounds better, just do it.
greg
Peter Larsen
> Well Eugene I see we have a lot of folks frowning on the issue of
> speaker Break In..
Shall we keep the context clear, thank you very much. Yes, on some
subtle level speakers change over the first few weeks of use. The issues
referred to in the original question - and in a similar one over in
rec.audio.high-end - are way beyond that magnitude.
> Garth E.
--
*************************************************************
* This posting handcrafted by Peter Larsen, MCSE *
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
* I subscribe to http://www.spamcop.net *
*************************************************************
Rob Adelman
the installer that I may want to tweak the sub woofer volume after it
broke in. I did a lot of tweaking but I don't think it had anything to
do with the break in period. Now, the position of the sub in the trunk
makes a big difference.
-Rob
James Thomas Day
I read
> that new speakers requires a "burn-in" period to make it reach its
> optimum performance.
-----------------------
now i've heard everything...
Arny Krueger
> I read
>> that new speakers requires a "burn-in" period to make it reach
>> its optimum performance.
> -----------------------
> now I've heard everything...
That component break-in is a myth, is well-documented, but this myth
resurfaces again and again. Where do audiophiles get the idea that
component break-in is so important? What is a leading source of
misinformation, urban legends and old wife's tales for the audio
industry?
A little online research and I come up with:
http://www.stereophile.com/fullarchives.cgi?630
"Gad-sometimes I just hate it when audiophiles visit. The speakers
require considerable break-in. How long? I don't know. The usual
answer is 100 hours. I wasn't counting, but that seems about right.
The important thing is not to yump to conclusions before the speakers
are run in."
http://www.stereophile.com/fullarchives.cgi?424
"To use this track for breaking-in loudspeakers and power amplifiers,
set the CD player to Track Repeat and adjust the playback level to a
moderately loud level-make sure that the 5Hz content at the beginning
doesn't make the woofer voice-coils hit their end-stops!"
http://www.stereophile.com/fullarchives.cgi?333
"The other consideration is break-in time-always a problem for hi-fi
writers in a hurry, and sometimes for dealers in a hurry, too. I
didn't like the sound of this speaker at all, fresh out of the box.
There was rawness in the midrange, the top seemed rolled-off, and I
could describe the bass only as constipated."
http://www.stereophile.com/fullarchives.cgi?391
"Dan Anagnos had warned me that while the review samples did have
some play time on them, the ES SS-M9ED requires "a substantial amount
of additional aging time before any serious listening." I therefore
tried to accelerate their break-in by facing the speakers together,
hooking them out of phase, and playing the "Special Burn-In Noise"
track from Stereophile's Test CD 3 overnight for a few nights."
Needless to say this sampling was limited by the small portion of the
magazine's archives that has been posted on their web site.
Brad Blackwood
> That component break-in is a myth, is well-documented, but this myth
> resurfaces again and again. Where do audiophiles get the idea that
> component break-in is so important? What is a leading source of
> misinformation, urban legends and old wife's tales for the audio
> industry?
Might come from misunderstanding why manufacturers burn in electronic
components before shipping, but that's a measure to insure that the
individual components don't die upon first power up...
Could also be spread by the hi-fi manufacturers themselves so you give
yourself time to grow to like their particular coloration...
--------------------------
Brad Blackwood
Mastering Engineer
Ardent Studios
www.ardentstudios.com
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:Tyj09.537$Ql7.25...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> That component break-in is a myth, is well-documented, but this
>> myth resurfaces again and again. Where do audiophiles get the
>> idea that component break-in is so important? What is a leading
>> source of misinformation, urban legends and old wife's tales for
>> the audio industry?
> Might come from misunderstanding why manufacturers burn in
> electronic components before shipping, but that's a measure to
> insure that the individual components don't die upon first power
> up...
Right. Over the years, burn-in has IME become less significant, even
in situations where it used to be necessary.
>
> Could also be spread by the hi-fi manufacturers themselves so you
> give yourself time to grow to like their particular coloration...
Or, a way to deal with "buyer's remorse".
Jan Philips
wrote:
>That component break-in is a myth, is well-documented, but this myth
>resurfaces again and again. Where do audiophiles get the idea that
>component break-in is so important? What is a leading source of
>misinformation, urban legends and old wife's tales for the audio
>industry? ...
Are there any double-blind tests of speaker burn-in?
Arny Krueger
Not that I know of. The problem is that it is very difficult to start
out with two different speakers that sound identically the same in a
DBT.
WindsorFox
> Your comment is simply unsupportable too. Use your ears, not your "mind" for
> a change.
>
> Clearly you have never owned any truly good loudspeakers. Those who have,
> know break-in is part of life. Those who disagree, have a problem with a
> closed mind.
>
> Alan
>
So, maybe you would like to share your qualifications and what
speakers you have owned the changed over a weeks time and what the
change was.
--
"The frozen North will hatch a flightless bird, who will spread his
wings and dominate the Earth. He will cause an empire by the sea to
fall, to the astonishment and delight of all."
BOYCOTT Excessive Motorsports !!
http://www.geocities.com/fordracing68/xm.html
"I'm sorry, I'm afraid I subscribe to the theory of
intellectual osmosis. As such, I must now cease our
conversation and move away from you before my intelligence
begins to drop. Good day." the Gord http://www.actsofgord.com
Alan Maier
> So, maybe you would like to share your qualifications and what
> speakers you have owned the changed over a weeks time and what the
> change was.
We haven't the space nor bandwidth to cover all of the loudspeakers I have
owned or reviewed which required what I consider break-in time.
WindsorFox
> Richard,
>
> Okay you have my attention in a positive, constructive way.
>
> Please explain to me (stated seriously, not just for the sake of argument)
> why many loudspeakers of respectable quality very often do not sound
> pleasing at all when they are fresh and new. However this same pair of
> loudspeakers will improve over time as they are used.
>
> I appreciate the argument that a person becomes "used to" the sound, and
> become "numb" to the sonic imperfections of a loudspeaker system. However
> such perceived areas as imaging, spatial definition (the list of silly terms
> could run on here) do seem to improve during usage. I'd question the user
> again, but time and time again - I have stumbled across a fresh pair and a
> used pair... and that used pair definitely sounded better overall. However
> over time, they sounded the same. This is hard to simply imagine, or
> write-off as sonic perception. Or as the old phrase goes, if it sounds like
> a duck, and walks like a duck and looks like a duck.... here we move to "if
> it sounds better after several hours of time, and when compared to an unused
> sample it sounds better over time....." we then assume we are dealing with a
> "break-in" period.
>
> So if mechanical issues are not the cause, what is?
>
> Alan
I have to wonder why anyone would purchase for a presumably large
some of money, a pair of speakers that "do not sound pleasing at all"
under the assumption that they *may* sound better a week later.
WindsorFox
> People who *really* understand loudspeakers, whether Richard D
> Pierce, or David L Clark, or Tom Nousaine, or Earl Geddes or Floyd
> Toole (you can find out more about these people at www.aws.org), or
> any number of other widely-recognized authorities in this field
The American Welding Society ????
WindsorFox
So which one was your favorite, the original 901's or the newest
"revision" :D
Jan Philips
wrote:
>Not that I know of. The problem is that it is very difficult to start
>out with two different speakers that sound identically the same in a
>DBT.
OK, I see. Here's what I think about burn in. I never believed in
it. About 2 years ago I listened to speakers that sounded good in the
store and bought a new pair. At first I thought they sounded
terrible. With the second (and next several playings) I noticed that
they seemed to sound bad for the first few seconds up to perhaps 1/2 a
minute. As time went on, this initial period of bad sound seemed to
become shorter and less pronounced. Now, I'm well aware that this
could all be subjective, but that is how it seemed to me.
Alan Maier
time to comment.
On your point of buying a loudspeaker in hopes that it would sound better in
a week - one would assume the display model in the store would be a good
working sample. If I purchased a loudspeaker which did not sound as good at
home (and yes, I have done that as have many people), I would first deal
with room acoustics properties and investigate significant differences in
electronics. After all, if they sound good in a reputable dealer's demo
room - but do not sound as good at home, there is a difference which needs
to be addressed.
As for your Bose 901 joke, IMHO Series III was the best. This was the first
generation to use the current molded enclosure and drivers. However I also
believe it did not use incandescent lamps for overload protection as was
found in Series V and I believe the current Series VI. Series IV was simply
Series III less the additional outward flaking driver connections for use
with the Bose Spatial receiver. None of them have impressed me overall, but
for many consumers - they are pleasing to listen to. Gee, ask a totally
smart ass question and receive a serious answer.
The third question is beyond any rational answer.
"WindsorFox" <windso...@SPAMcox.net> wrote in message
news:3D41FDD3...@SPAMcox.net...
Rob Adelman
each other and sum your amp to mono. A/B them and make sure they sound the
same. Now keep playing one of them until it is properly broken in. Switch
the second one back on and see if they still sound the same. For the last
part of the test make sure to have someone else do the switching and not
tell you which is which.
-Rob
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> People who *really* understand loudspeakers, whether Richard D
>> Pierce, or David L Clark, or Tom Nousaine, or Earl Geddes or
>> Floyd Toole (you can find out more about these people at
>> www.aws.org), or any number of other widely-recognized
>> authorities in this field
>
> The American Welding Society ????
unhh typo time> Correction: www.aes.org
Thanks for pointing it out.
Arny Krueger
> Obviously you are simply here to stir up an argument - but I will
> take the time to comment.
> On your point of buying a loudspeaker in hopes that it would
> sound better in a week - one would assume the display model in
> the store would be a good working sample.
Yes, but it's probably in a vastly different room, and rooms strongly
affect the sound of the speakers in them.
> If I purchased a
> loudspeaker which did not sound as good at home (and yes, I have
> done that as have many people), I would first deal with room
> acoustics properties and investigate significant differences in
> electronics.
OK.
>After all, if they sound good in a reputable
> dealer's demo room - but do not sound as good at home, there is a
> difference which needs to be addressed.
How about this. I listened to the speakers in the a reputable
dealer's showroom. They sounded like crap. I mentally factored out
what I thought the dealer's room sounded like and multiplied back in
what mine sounded like, and decided to buy the speakers. They worked
out very nicely.
In general, I buy speakers without listening to them at all, or after
listening just enough to be polite to the salesman.
Arny Krueger
Well, good thing that you are open minded about it being
psychological, because that very much seems to be what it is.
Joseph Oberlander
> I appreciate the argument that a person becomes "used to" the sound, and
> become "numb" to the sonic imperfections of a loudspeaker system. However
> such perceived areas as imaging, spatial definition (the list of silly terms
> could run on here) do seem to improve during usage.
The reverse also happens. Our brains inherently know what is realistic and
have a tendancy to adjust our hearing to be more sensitive to areas
that are a bit weak and to tun out those that are a bit too strong.
We are our own equalizer as it were. Given a few weeks, our hearing
adjusts to the environment that it is being presented with.
Try this: don't listen to your stereo for two weeks. Turn it on.
Notice how it sounds like your speakers did when new?
:)
Stewart Pinkerton
<pla...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>Garth Everett wrote:
>
>> Well Eugene I see we have a lot of folks frowning on the issue of
>> speaker Break In..
>
>Shall we keep the context clear, thank you very much. Yes, on some
>subtle level speakers change over the first few weeks of use. The issues
>referred to in the original question - and in a similar one over in
>rec.audio.high-end - are way beyond that magnitude.
Nope, on some subtle level, your *ears* get used to the sound of the
new speakers over the first few weeks. Try replacing your 'broken-in'
speakers with a brand new pair, and you'll find that the factory now
supplies them already 'broken in'.....................
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
<windso...@SPAMcox.net> wrote:
> I have to wonder why anyone would purchase for a presumably large
>some of money, a pair of speakers that "do not sound pleasing at all"
>under the assumption that they *may* sound better a week later.
And is it not bizarre that these speakers never sound *worse* after a
few weeks of use? :-)
Stewart Pinkerton
<bblac...@ardentstudios.com> wrote:
>"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>news:Tyj09.537$Ql7.25...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> That component break-in is a myth, is well-documented, but this myth
>> resurfaces again and again. Where do audiophiles get the idea that
>> component break-in is so important? What is a leading source of
>> misinformation, urban legends and old wife's tales for the audio
>> industry?
>
>Might come from misunderstanding why manufacturers burn in electronic
>components before shipping, but that's a measure to insure that the
>individual components don't die upon first power up...
>
>Could also be spread by the hi-fi manufacturers themselves so you give
>yourself time to grow to like their particular coloration...
Bingo! Give that man a kewpie doll! :-)
Stewart Pinkerton
<alan....@verizon.net> wrote:
>Obviously you are simply here to stir up an argument - but I will take the
>time to comment.
>
>On your point of buying a loudspeaker in hopes that it would sound better in
>a week - one would assume the display model in the store would be a good
>working sample. If I purchased a loudspeaker which did not sound as good at
>home (and yes, I have done that as have many people), I would first deal
>with room acoustics properties and investigate significant differences in
>electronics. After all, if they sound good in a reputable dealer's demo
>room - but do not sound as good at home, there is a difference which needs
>to be addressed.
Quite so, but this has nothing to do with the myth of 'break in'.
>As for your Bose 901 joke, IMHO Series III was the best. This was the first
>generation to use the current molded enclosure and drivers. However I also
>believe it did not use incandescent lamps for overload protection as was
>found in Series V and I believe the current Series VI. Series IV was simply
>Series III less the additional outward flaking driver connections for use
>with the Bose Spatial receiver. None of them have impressed me overall, but
>for many consumers - they are pleasing to listen to. Gee, ask a totally
>smart ass question and receive a serious answer.
Sorry, there is no such thing as a serious answer, when it refers to
the biggest joke in audio!
Rich Andrews
> Alan Maier wrote:
>
> Richard D Pierce wrote:
>
>>> Your comment is simply unsupportable too. Use your ears, not your
>>> "mind" for a change.
>
>> Clearly you have never owned any truly good loudspeakers.
>
> Richard Pierce has no doubt owned truly good loudspeakers, but more
> significantly, he's also designed several of them as well.
>
>> Those who have, know break-in is part of life.
>
> People who *really* understand loudspeakers, whether Richard D
> Pierce, or David L Clark, or Tom Nousaine, or Earl Geddes or Floyd
> Toole (you can find out more about these people at www.aws.org),
The American Welding Society???
r
--
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
numbered...My life is my own."
"I am not a number. I am a free man."
No. 6
Peter B.
Wait till you find out about speaker cable break in! Yet that's
nothing compared to power cord break in.
Peter B.
Ronald Pit
"Richard D Pierce" <DPi...@TheWorld.com> schreef in bericht
news:Gztt3...@world.std.com...
> In article <ixZ%8.12$FT2...@news.oracle.com>,
> Eugene Zhang <eugene...@oracle.com> wrote:
> >Dear Experts,
> >
> >I have recently purchased a pair of entry level JBL speakers (N38)
> >to start to build a home theater system. After I set it up, I am not
> >satisfied with the sound after I read so many positive reviews on
> >audioreview.com. (weak bass, slight hiss sound and etc. ) I read
> >that new speakers requires a "burn-in" period to make it reach its
> >suggestion/advices on how to do that?
>
> Your speakers do not need burning in. The hiss you hear has
> absolutely NOTHING to do with speaker burn in and, in fact, has
> nothing whatsoever to do with rthe speakers. The hiss is being
> produced by the electronics the speakers are connected to. If
> the speakers are more efficient than the ones you've been using,
> then the hiss might be a little louder, but the hiss has ALWAYS
> been there.
>
> As for weak basss, it's FAR more likely that its due to
> placement or room effects, or you may even have expectations of
> bass that the speakers simply can never fulfill.
>
The free air resonance of a (bass-)unit will drop about 10% after
some time .
How do you call that professor Pierce ????????
> But what you're experiencing is NOT a "break in" problem, no
> matter WHAT a dealer or magazine wonk tries to convince you.
>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | DPi...@world.std.com |
DuBois
Alan Maier wrote:
> Or as the old phrase goes, if it sounds like
> a duck, and walks like a duck and looks like a duck.... here we move to "if
> it sounds better after several hours of time, and when compared to an unused
> sample it sounds better over time....." we then assume we are dealing with a
> "break-in" period.
A fable: Alan subscribed to many magazines such as "Waterfowl Week" and
"Duck
Times". The editors of these magazines had determined that it would sell
magazines
if they included articles like "Know your ducks by their long ears" and
"That
hee-honk you hear is called 'quacking'" and "The hooves of the
ducklings".
The best donkey salesman in town always touted his wares as "ducks", and
they sold like hotcakes. Young Alan, a recent customer, pleased with his
purchase, met a zoologist who pointed out that the donkey was a donkey,
not a duck. "It quacks like a duck, it has long ears like a duck, and
grey
fur like a duck. Why don't you judge animals by what you see, instead of
all that college-boy mumbo jumbo 'science' stuff that they teach in the
University? I don't need that wasteful knowledge; my third grade
education
is all I need to know a duck when I see one! And this long-eared mallard
pulling my duck cart is as fine a duck as you will ever see!"
Some people place a great deal of stock in magazine articles and
statements
by salesam. In the field of Audio, these people are often known as
Gullible
Chumps. Hee-Honk. People hear speaker break-in; and they also see UFOs
and
visions of the weeping madonna in tree stumps, and they flock to see Uri
Gellar bending spoons with his mind. Hee-Honk. Ho-Hum.
-- Aefop's Stables.
John Atkinson
news:<Tyj09.537$Ql7.25...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
> Needless to say this sampling was limited by the small portion of the
> magazine's archives that has been posted on their web site.
than 700 articles and reviews available free of charge in the
http://www.stereophile.com archives and 5 or 6 more are posted
each and every week. You should be able to find more fuel to feed
your obsession as the weeks go by. :-)
But now that you are posting about Stereophile's content again, could
you please withdraw the baseless accusations you have repeatedly made
about me on the newsgroups. You have, in effect, admitted that there
is no foundation for these accusations, yet you continue to make them.
To refresh your memory, here is the most recent request I have made of
you:
Begin quoted text:
---------------------------------------------------
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:<jB909.333$4j5.17...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
> Jamie Benchimol asked of Howard Ferstler:
>> I guess we can conclude that since you support Arny's position
>> here of engaging in making malicious allegations against people
>> without having to provide any valid factual evidence in support
>> of them, you are fully supportive of your friend Mr. Krueger's
>> scurrilous lies against Mr. Atkinson, about the mocking of the
>> tragedy of Arny's son's death.
>
> Since I have made no definite statement about that, how could I lie
> about it?
You seem confused about what it is you actually wrote on the
newsgroups,
Mr. Krueger. You say you have made no definite statement about this
subject. Let me refresh your memory:
Begin quoted text
--------------------------------------------------
"Arny Krueger" (ar...@hotpop.com) wrote in message
<EQcZ8.1699$R24.44...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>
> Another aspect is the absolute moral vacuum that they carry
> around them. I'd really like to know which one of them first
> hit on the idea of telling all those lies about my late son's
> death. Was it Atkinson?
and
Arny Krueger (ar...@hotpop.com) wrote in message
<ksRZ8.9772$pP1.50...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>
> I never said that Mr. Atkinson told lies about my late son. He's
> told lots of lies, but not on that topic. Instead, he encouraged
> others to tell that lie.
---------------------------------------------------
End quoted text
It seems clear that even if you phrased the first accusation as a
question, not a statement, the second accusation is indeed phrased as
a definite statement that "Atkinson...encouraged others to tell that
lie."
You have been repeatedly assured that this statement of yours is
incorrect. You have been repeatedly asked to provide substantiation
for this "definite statement," yet to date, you have produced
_nothing_ to substantiate it, other than to repeat this false and
defamatory statement, a statement that you now deny having made!
>> We can also conclude from this that you [Howard Ferstler] support
>> Mr. Krueger's unfounded accusations that John was responsible for
>> the recent posting of two messages disparaging Krueger's wife and
>> late son.
>
> Since I have made no definite statement about that, how could I lie
> about it?
Again you seem confused about what it is you wrote on the newsgroups,
Mr. Krueger. You say you have made no definite statement about this
subject. Let me refresh your memory:
Begin quoted text
--------------------------------------------------
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:<55m%8.854$nZ7.95...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
> Let's see Mr. "Benchemol, that would cover Atkinson's responsibility
> for the recent "Susan Krueger" and "Dead Nate" posts? I would prefer
> that he take credit for them himself and not rely on you to take
> credit for them...if he deserves the credit.
and
Arny Krueger (ar...@hotpop.com) wrote in message
<wnR%8.1099$FK5.14...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>
> Jamie Benchimol asked:
>> What I'm hearing you say Mr. Krueger, is that John Atkinson, well
>> respected editor of the largest high end audio magazine in the
>> world (and although it may "just be a coincidence", I note that
>> you seem to have a fanatic zealotry against high end audio), is
>> the person responsible for anonymously posting grossly vulgar
>> forged messages in the name of your wife and deceased son.
>
> Why not?
---------------------------------------------------
End quoted text
It is clear that even if you phrased the first accusation as a
conditional statement, the second example is indeed phrased as
a definite statement. By asking "why not?" you imply that you
have sufficient reason to make the accusation.
You have been repeatedly assured that this statement of yours is
incorrect. You have been repeatedly asked to provide substantiation
for this "definite statement," yet to date, you have produced
_nothing_ to substantiate it, other than to repeat this false and
defamatory statement, a statement that you now deny having made!
Again, I am politely requesting that you acknowledge that you have no
reason for making these false and defamatory statements, Mr. Krueger.
Again, Mr. Krueger, I am politely requesting that you withdraw these
statements.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Alan Maier
Are you serious?! (yes I know you are - but my jaw is still hanging) Now
that takes a lot of mental calculation to say the least.
My luck has normally been the opposite. I will buy a pair that I am really
pleased with in the showroom... only to be unhappy when I set them up at
home.
One issue I deal with has to do with my home acoustics. I have heavy plaster
walls (not drywall) and hardwood floors. I do have heavy area rugs on the
hardwood floors, and I prefer heavy drapes. That can still make selecting a
loudspeaker a sticky issue - you don't find too many stores with
acoustically live rooms.
There is some irony here. I've returned to college (where I am older than
many of the instructors) and a LOT of the "good stuff" is gone, or will be
sold soon. I am putting up with my humble home theater system as my source
for music. Yes I have a set of M&K's, but the H/K receiver I am using is
hardly up to the task here. Anyway I have a humble set of Jamos (507's from
a few years back) which do sound pleasing. I'd have to say here that I am
simply used to their sound. That room, BTW, is heavily damped.
Some day, I will be replacing what has been sold. This sounds more fun that
it really is.
Alan
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:jxo09.816$yS.30...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Alan Maier
True story - I did that once with my car. Between having a cold, and really
not caring to hear the $*%&* news on every channel during my quick commute
to college (I've returned for another degree) - I did not turn on the stereo
in the car for a good 2 weeks. I should add there that the system is the
premium (non-Bose) stock Delco system in a Bonneville.
I about wanted to puke when I pressed the power button!
You have a really good point.
Alan
"Joseph Oberlander" <josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D422A6A...@earthlink.net...
Alan Maier
I confess, I've been a believer in breaking-in a speaker (duh!) - but
breaking in a cable is lunacy!!!!!
(ducking for cover ;)
Alan
"Peter B." <thecat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f03c0e77.02072...@posting.google.com...
Alan Maier
( I cancelled my WaterFowl Week and Duck Times subscriptions after the rate
increase).
Alan
"DuBois" <spam...@hormel.com> wrote in message
news:3D42C202...@hormel.com...
Kurt Albershardt
>
> How about this. I listened to the speakers in the a reputable
> dealer's showroom. They sounded like crap. I mentally factored out
> what I thought the dealer's room sounded like and multiplied back in
> what mine sounded like, and decided to buy the speakers. They worked
> out very nicely.
>
> In general, I buy speakers without listening to them at all, or after
> listening just enough to be polite to the salesman.
Am I the only one that finds this process somewhat incongruous with the
author's usual style?
Arny Krueger
"Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:3D43196E...@nv.net...
I reserve the right to do things my own way!
;-)
Trevor
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d423f8d....@news.fsnet.co.uk...
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:25:05 GMT, WindsorFox
> <windso...@SPAMcox.net> wrote:
>
> > I have to wonder why anyone would purchase for a presumably large
> >some of money, a pair of speakers that "do not sound pleasing at all"
> >under the assumption that they *may* sound better a week later.
>
> And is it not bizarre that these speakers never sound *worse* after a
> few weeks of use? :-)
Not true at all, there are a lot of people who find their new speakers sound
worse after a couple of weeks or months, and go buy something else :-)
Trevor.
Joseph Oberlander
>
> Joseph,
>
> True story - I did that once with my car. Between having a cold, and really
> not caring to hear the $*%&* news on every channel during my quick commute
> to college (I've returned for another degree) - I did not turn on the stereo
> in the car for a good 2 weeks. I should add there that the system is the
> premium (non-Bose) stock Delco system in a Bonneville.
>
> I about wanted to puke when I pressed the power button!
>
> You have a really good point.
Thanks. :) Our brains de-program themselves after a few weeks. Same deal
with caffeine, internet, soap operas - anything that we get used to.
A couple of weeks off and our bodies start to return to a neutral state.
Joseph Oberlander
>
> Joseph,
>
> True story - I did that once with my car. Between having a cold, and really
> not caring to hear the $*%&* news on every channel during my quick commute
> to college (I've returned for another degree) - I did not turn on the stereo
> in the car for a good 2 weeks. I should add there that the system is the
> premium (non-Bose) stock Delco system in a Bonneville.
OPne other thing - if you do this often enough, you can eventually
get to the point where bad always sounds bad reguardless of how long you
listen to it.(the "away" period shrinks to less that a day). I for instance
can't stand my car stereo no matter what it plays - it's just grating after
a while as I realize exactly how awful it is.(yet I'd have to take the whole
dash apart to even get to the front speakers - sigh) Three years and still
even after listening to it every day for months, it still sounds like junk.
(but some noise is better than being bored I guess, so I still listen)
Andreas Grube
> Here's why: The human ear is connected to the most complex and
> powerful organ in the human body, the brain.
I am afraid, it's even more different, but the thought is right.
Take a piece of white paper, make a bright red dot on it. Hold it
in the sun while staring at the dot for one minute. Then cover your
eyes with your hand. Can you see the green dot?
Winter: Just start a snowball war without gloves. After a quarter
hour get in wash your hand with icecold water, doesn't it feel warm?
It's nothing your brain does. All those senses base on chemical
reaktion. And the adjustment of what you feel or not is made
by running short on chemics.
Please transfer to analyser/equalizer.
Speakers with hiss are defekt (or really crappy). One test before
a speaker leaves factory is a sine at low frequency and a "house-wife"
listens for additional noises ( in a small cabin to separate from
factory noise). That's the burn-in :P
Even if there's a burn-in for the component, what does it in relation
to
our for "contrast" optimized human senses.
Andreas Grube
sometimes it's better to reverse-phase the bass-speaker, because
otherwise the
door rattles it the lock from 115 to 135dBA.
Jason Kau
> People who *really* understand loudspeakers, whether Richard D
> Pierce, or David L Clark, or Tom Nousaine, or Earl Geddes or Floyd
> any number of other widely-recognized authorities in this field ,
> know that speakers do break in - in the first few seconds they are
> used after they have been unused for a while. They stabilize their
> operation pretty quickly. This can be confirmed with listening tests,
Don't forget Paul S. Barton of PSB.
From http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/psbnrc/
"Finally, and perhaps most controversially, Barton talks about the
supposed break-in effect of components that has become so popular in audio
today. Break-in refers to running components for a long time (sometimes
hundreds of hours) to the point where their components "settle" into their
proper operating mode. Barton doesn.t doubt that some components do change
subtly, but he thinks that the major improvements people think they.re
hearing aren.t in the components at all. Barton doesn.t doubt that people
are hearing these changes, but thinks that what they.re hearing is
actually brain break-in."
"Barton has examined his own speakers to test this. He has taken a Stratus
Gold loudspeaker, built and measured some ten years ago, and re-measured
it today. The deviation is slight, perhaps 1/4dB at most. Although that
deviation can possibly be heard, it is certainly not a huge difference
that one may attest to hearing. Instead, Barton surmises that the
difference in sound that people are hearing over time is conditioning of
the brain. He cites experiments done with sight that indicate the brain
can accommodate for enormous changes fairly quickly and certainly within
the hundreds of hours that audiophiles claim changes occur in. Could this
apply to hearing, too? Barton thinks that more often than not, what
happens is that the changes in perceived sound that are attributed to
component break-in are simply the brain becoming accustomed to the sound.
He warns listeners not to fool themselves."
--
Jason Kau
http://www.cnd.gatech.edu/~jkau
Stewart Pinkerton
Naw, the speakers still sound fine, it's just that they have sadly
been eclipsed by this month's radically new mkXVIII model which has a
Thai silk tweeter dome, allowing masses more inner detail than the
previous Chinese silk dome........
Peter Larsen
> Nope, on some subtle level, your *ears* get used to the
> sound of the new speakers over the first few weeks.
There is a very simple problem with your statement. The suggestion that
the stretching of the suspension when dust is removed from a speaker
membrane is the cause of the perceived improvement of the sound of the
speaker.
> Try replacing your 'broken-in' speakers with a brand new pair,
Yes, getting used to loudspeaker coloration is an issue. For that very
reason I use four different pairs with different vices for evaluating
recordings.
> and you'll find that the factory now supplies them already
> 'broken in'.....................
Real simple: take a pair of loudspeakers that have been unused for more
than say 6 weeks. Listen. Make notes. Leave them playing white noise
from an FM tuner or similar at modest level for 96 hours. You could also
wear suitable ear protection and try massaging your loudspeakers with a
tone generator and say 1 watt of swept sinewave or set up something to
do it automatically while your are not present. Listen. Make notes. Tell
us that you have found that your asumptions was correct or incorrect.
Notice the point of not being present during the play-in voiding the
psychoacoustic customisation point, a point that certainly is valid.
(Just that is my reason for having 4 playback systems!) If you want to
state that NO changes occur, then the very least you can do is to make a
decent job of it and address those issues, rather than just assuming
silly and unskilled listeners behaving in a silly way.
Again, in the context what this thread started with does not appear to
be play in subtleties, but other issues. I sympathise with you wanting
to get the misunderstandings about play-in out of the way. I find it
deplorable if the play-in card is used to sell crappy or defective
equipment.
But stop making silly asumptions about how I would want to play-in
loudspeakers that have been left unused for an extended period of time,
ask instead and you could haved saved us both a virtual disagreement,
virtual unless you are hellbent on predeterming what other people are
able to hear. If you want to say that my quite modest and fair
statements on this is false, then you really should do a much better job
of it than just spraying your favorite brand of "I can't hear, you must
be deaf too" all over the topic. We can meet on it being a minor effect
that is not usable as a pass-fail criterium - if it is good, then it is
good out of the box - but we can not meet on it being non-existant. And
trying to make that point just after the general agreement that
loudspeaker suspension stretching in dusting would influence loudspeaker
reproduction quality is quite far from the usual high quality of
comments you post.
It remains my experience that a reproduction system that is to be used
for qualified listening should be turned on and left playing softly for
a couple of hours prior to use and it remains my experience that
transducers that have been left unused for some time improves their
resolution of detail during some period of time, not necessarily long.
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
--
*************************************************************
* This posting handcrafted by Peter Larsen, MCSE *
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
* I subscribe to http://www.spamcop.net *
*************************************************************
Peter Larsen
> > In general, I buy speakers without listening to them at
> > all, or after listening just enough to be polite to the
> > salesman.
> Am I the only one that finds this process somewhat incongruous
> with the author's usual style?
Mostly listening facilities are so poor that listening in the shop can
be a complete waste of time unless you A) come after hourse and B) bring
your own signal chain less what ever it is you want to listen to.
So most of what I have bought has also been bought sans listening, but
sometimes I have bought "more like it" if one was good, and I do like to
shop where they allow a full refund within 8 days if dissatisfied.
I have occasionally asked to see a device inside to check whether it
would be required to replace certain components and how easy it would be
and ordered a service manual right away expecting that it would be worth
listening to after modification.
Product names intentionally omitted on seeing how much confusion it can
cause if someone says "not worth listening to until played in" about
something. The products in question did however reach expected high end
performance after modification and thus were extremely cost-efficient.
WindsorFox
>> So, maybe you would like to share your qualifications and what
>>speakers you have owned the changed over a weeks time and what the
>>change was.
>
>
> We haven't the space nor bandwidth to cover all of the loudspeakers I have
> owned or reviewed which required what I consider break-in time.
>
I suspected as much ROFL...
--
"The frozen North will hatch a flightless bird, who will spread his
wings and dominate the Earth. He will cause an empire by the sea to
fall, to the astonishment and delight of all."
BOYCOTT Excessive Motorsports !!
http://www.geocities.com/fordracing68/xm.html
"I'm sorry, I'm afraid I subscribe to the theory of
intellectual osmosis. As such, I must now cease our
conversation and move away from you before my intelligence
begins to drop. Good day." the Gord http://www.actsofgord.com
WindsorFox
>
> Bingo! Give that man a kewpie doll! :-)
>
A what?
WindsorFox
>
> The free air resonance of a (bass-)unit will drop about 10% after
> some time .
> How do you call that professor Pierce ????????
>
I personally would refer to it as "a steaming pile"...
WindsorFox
> Now that is simply not true!!!!
>
> ( I cancelled my WaterFowl Week and Duck Times subscriptions after the rate
> increase).
>
> Alan
They went up??? I guess I'll go with Ducks Unlimited. At least they
don't sell donkeys.
Chris Johnson
"Alan Maier" <alan....@verizon.net> wrote:
> Arny,
>
> Well I am open to input as I posted in my reply to Richard. While I am
> having difficulty with the issue of what I hear is not how it is (my
> observation), I am open to input.
>
> Or in other words, okay dag nabbit - tell me why I hear what I hear ;)
>
> Alan
Be careful: you're only baiting them to reply 'because you're an
idiot and you're imagining it'. Which is unhelpful...
What I'm reminded of is pictures of pistonic motion in physical
transducers. Have you ever seen pictures of a speaker driver attempting
to produce pistonic motion? They fail miserably. They flap, go into bell
mode resonances for cone drivers, dome drivers have their own break-up
modes, and these are always present- there is no material that is
perfectly rigid and massless.
If the material a driver is made of contains stresses, areas of
higher rigidity (like a strand of fiber in a paper cone, or an area in a
metal structure taking more load due to the shape of the structure), use
will break down this area first. Remember, the driver is subject to
distortion in its normal operation- it WILL flex and distort.
You could think of it like a bedsheet with straws stuck to it- like
broom-straws, not drinking straws. When you shake the bedsheet and cause
it to ripple, the straws wildly distort the energy you're putting into
it. At the same time, this energy concentrates around the straws and
breaks them, resulting finally in a bedsheet that ripples evenly without
being disrupted too much by inconsistencies in the material.
In the same way, the distortions (which have been photographed and
computer-modeled) of physical speaker diaphragms break down minute
stresses in the diaphragms and result in drivers which distort in a
looser, more predictable way under normal use.
Now, over to a variety of people who are invited to reply, "because
you're an idiot and you're imagining it" :D
Chris Johnson
Richard D Pierce
Alan Maier <alan....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> So, maybe you would like to share your qualifications and what
>> speakers you have owned the changed over a weeks time and what the
>> change was.
>
>We haven't the space nor bandwidth to cover all of the loudspeakers I have
>owned or reviewed which required what I consider break-in time.
The bandwidth of the internet is HUGE, it's capacity is
staggeringly large. What seems to be lacking is not our
bandwidth or space, but your facts and data.
Richard D Pierce
"What" I call that is your incplete understanding of what is
actually occuring.
Fact: The free-air resonance COULD change, indeed, but upon
allowing the driver to relax for maybe on the order of 30
seconds or so, this change is found to have completely
recovered: you're back to the original resonant frequency.
Fact: The free air resonance of the driver is a direct
consequence of the moving mass of the driver and the mechanical
compliance of the suspension, and is directly proportional to
the reciprocal of the suqre root of their product. Your claim
that the free-aor resonance drops by 10% suggests a change in
compliance on the order of 20%. That's a bit extraordinary on
its face.
Fact: While the suspension CAN show an increase in compliance
due to excercise (and, the facts show that that change is
completely recoverable upon relaxation), the actual SYSTEM
resoonance, which is what's relevant, is dependent upon the
SYSTEM compliance, which especially in modern closed box
systems, dominated NOT by the suspension compliance but by the
enclosure compliance. That enclosure compliance does not change
AT ALL with so-called breaking, leaving your claim of changes in
free-air resonance sitting squrely in the irrelevant category.
That's "how" I call the claim what it is.
Richard D Pierce
Alan Maier <alan....@verizon.net> wrote:
>Richard,
>
>Okay you have my attention in a positive, constructive way.
>
>Please explain to me (stated seriously, not just for the sake of argument)
>why many loudspeakers of respectable quality very often do not sound
>pleasing at all when they are fresh and new. However this same pair of
>loudspeakers will improve over time as they are used.
Consider a VERY simple experiment. Acquire TWO pairs of
otherwise identical loudspeakers (a challenge in and of itself,
but the way). Give them both to a disinterested third party with
instructions for breaking in ONE pair of them, and have that
person, indeed, break in ONLY ONE PAIR. At the end of the
break-in period, have that person give back BOTH pairs, but DO
NOT LET THAT PERSON TELL YOU WHICH PAIR WAS BROKEN IN.
Your job: since you insist that break-in results in such
significant changes, YOU should have NO problem picking out
which is which, right?
Fine, let's extend the experiment not to 2 pairs, but, say, to
10. Numberthese pair 1 through 10. Give them to the trusted
third party. That person, by the flip of a coin, will decide
which he's going to break in, which he's not. He'll write down
which were bnroken in and which weren't on a piece of paper that
he will put in a safe deposit box when he starts the break-in.
When he's done, he'll give the speakers back to you and YOU
will then write down on a different piece of paper which were
broken in and which were not. At then end of your selection,
we'll compare the two pieces of paper.
If and only if that comparison shows significant non-chance
correlation between the first and second lists will the
phenomenon of break-in be considered as real.
Have you done this? Have ANYONE done this?
If the break-in phenomenon is as real and as dramatic as
claimed, why has not a single mention of such an obviiousn
experiment with its obvious outcome NEVER been advanced?
Joseph Oberlander
>
> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> > People who *really* understand loudspeakers, whether Richard D
> > Pierce, or David L Clark, or Tom Nousaine, or Earl Geddes or Floyd
> > Toole (you can find out more about these people at www.aws.org), or
> > any number of other widely-recognized authorities in this field ,
> > know that speakers do break in - in the first few seconds they are
> > used after they have been unused for a while. They stabilize their
> > operation pretty quickly. This can be confirmed with listening tests,
>
> Don't forget Paul S. Barton of PSB.
>
> From http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/psbnrc/
>
> "Finally, and perhaps most controversially, Barton talks about the
> supposed break-in effect of components that has become so popular in audio
> today. Break-in refers to running components for a long time (sometimes
> hundreds of hours) to the point where their components "settle" into their
> proper operating mode. Barton doesn.t doubt that some components do change
> subtly, but he thinks that the major improvements people think they.re
> hearing aren.t in the components at all. Barton doesn.t doubt that people
> are hearing these changes, but thinks that what they.re hearing is
> actually brain break-in."
(snip)
Exactly. :) The converse of this is the whole "fatigue" propblem with
speakers. The reality is that our brain re-equalizes on the fly and
after a while, this gives you stress if it is working hard(ie - speaker
stinks). Good speakers won't fatigue your hearing much or at all.
I would bet that there is a direct correlation to perceived break-in
and the distortion and "fatigue" of the sound. I hear of very few people
ever talking about electrostatic speakers breaking-in, or most high-end
studio monitors either. They just work correctly to begin with and
our brains don't have to adjust. These same people don't complain about
fatigue either.
Joseph Oberlander
>
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> >
> > Bingo! Give that man a kewpie doll! :-)
> >
>
> A what?
Sigh. I'm not old. I'm not old. I'm not...
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>In article <Lwh09.1309$NX5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> "Alan Maier" <alan....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Arny,
>>
>> Well I am open to input as I posted in my reply to Richard. While I am
>> having difficulty with the issue of what I hear is not how it is (my
>> observation), I am open to input.
>>
>> Or in other words, okay dag nabbit - tell me why I hear what I hear ;)
>>
>> Alan
>
> Be careful: you're only baiting them to reply 'because you're an
>idiot and you're imagining it'. Which is unhelpful...
>
> What I'm reminded of is pictures of pistonic motion in physical
>transducers. Have you ever seen pictures of a speaker driver attempting
>to produce pistonic motion? They fail miserably. They flap, go into bell
>mode resonances for cone drivers, dome drivers have their own break-up
>modes, and these are always present- there is no material that is
>perfectly rigid and massless.
There are however materials and drivers which do not break up *within*
their frequency range of operation - many modern bass drivers and
tweeters in fact *are* truly pistonic within their designed frequency
ranges. It's midrange drivers which tend to have the most severe
problems, which can of course be solved by *using* bending-mode
operation. This requires both skill and excellent measuring equipment.
> If the material a driver is made of contains stresses, areas of
>higher rigidity (like a strand of fiber in a paper cone, or an area in a
>metal structure taking more load due to the shape of the structure), use
>will break down this area first. Remember, the driver is subject to
>distortion in its normal operation- it WILL flex and distort.
>
> You could think of it like a bedsheet with straws stuck to it- like
>broom-straws, not drinking straws. When you shake the bedsheet and cause
>it to ripple, the straws wildly distort the energy you're putting into
>it. At the same time, this energy concentrates around the straws and
>breaks them, resulting finally in a bedsheet that ripples evenly without
>being disrupted too much by inconsistencies in the material.
>
> In the same way, the distortions (which have been photographed and
>computer-modeled) of physical speaker diaphragms break down minute
>stresses in the diaphragms and result in drivers which distort in a
>looser, more predictable way under normal use.
>
> Now, over to a variety of people who are invited to reply, "because
>you're an idiot and you're imagining it" :D
This *may* be true of certain constructions, cheap pulp cones in
particular, but does not IME apply either to metal domes or to
injection-moulded plastic cones. I don't believe it applies to most
Kevlar and carbon-fibre cones either, but the mechanism is certainly
there for those materials. I doubt that B&W would be happy if their
cones changed characteristics audibly over time.......
--
Stewart Pinkerton
<pla...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> Nope, on some subtle level, your *ears* get used to the
>> sound of the new speakers over the first few weeks.
>
>There is a very simple problem with your statement. The suggestion that
>the stretching of the suspension when dust is removed from a speaker
>membrane is the cause of the perceived improvement of the sound of the
>speaker.
This will take place in the first few *seconds* of use....
>> Try replacing your 'broken-in' speakers with a brand new pair,
>
>Yes, getting used to loudspeaker coloration is an issue. For that very
>reason I use four different pairs with different vices for evaluating
>recordings.
Perthaps you should get one *good* pair? :-)
>> and you'll find that the factory now supplies them already
>> 'broken in'.....................
>
>Real simple: take a pair of loudspeakers that have been unused for more
>than say 6 weeks. Listen. Make notes. Leave them playing white noise
>from an FM tuner or similar at modest level for 96 hours. You could also
>wear suitable ear protection and try massaging your loudspeakers with a
>tone generator and say 1 watt of swept sinewave or set up something to
>do it automatically while your are not present. Listen. Make notes. Tell
>us that you have found that your asumptions was correct or incorrect.
>Notice the point of not being present during the play-in voiding the
>psychoacoustic customisation point, a point that certainly is valid.
>(Just that is my reason for having 4 playback systems!) If you want to
>state that NO changes occur, then the very least you can do is to make a
>decent job of it and address those issues, rather than just assuming
>silly and unskilled listeners behaving in a silly way.
Dunlavy, PSB, B&W and KEF have all conducted such experiments with new
and 'broken in' speakers, and they find no differences. Indeed,
*every* KEF 'Reference' speakers is measured with respect to an
original prototype, and if returned to the factory for driver
replacement, this measurement is rechecked. Any of these companies
would be shocked and disappointed if their products were so fragile
that they 'broke in' in the manner so beloved of the lunatic fringe,
since it would inevitably follow that such speakers would also 'wear
out' in very short order.
>Again, in the context what this thread started with does not appear to
>be play in subtleties, but other issues. I sympathise with you wanting
>to get the misunderstandings about play-in out of the way. I find it
>deplorable if the play-in card is used to sell crappy or defective
>equipment.
>
>But stop making silly asumptions about how I would want to play-in
>loudspeakers that have been left unused for an extended period of time,
>ask instead and you could haved saved us both a virtual disagreement,
>virtual unless you are hellbent on predeterming what other people are
>able to hear. If you want to say that my quite modest and fair
>statements on this is false, then you really should do a much better job
>of it than just spraying your favorite brand of "I can't hear, you must
>be deaf too" all over the topic. We can meet on it being a minor effect
>that is not usable as a pass-fail criterium - if it is good, then it is
>good out of the box - but we can not meet on it being non-existant. And
>trying to make that point just after the general agreement that
>loudspeaker suspension stretching in dusting would influence loudspeaker
>reproduction quality is quite far from the usual high quality of
>comments you post.
See my intial comment on that matter.
>It remains my experience that a reproduction system that is to be used
>for qualified listening should be turned on and left playing softly for
>a couple of hours prior to use and it remains my experience that
>transducers that have been left unused for some time improves their
>resolution of detail during some period of time, not necessarily long.
It remains my experience that no such effect occurs, except with
electrostatic speakers, which indeed *are* fragile creatures which
tend to accumulate large amounts of dust when not in use. As noted,
the first few seconds of use are adequate to restore full function.
--
GregS
>
>As for your Bose 901 joke, IMHO Series III was the best. This was the first
>generation to use the current molded enclosure and drivers. However I also
>believe it did not use incandescent lamps for overload protection as was
>found in Series V and I believe the current Series VI. Series IV was simply
There is no lamps in 901's that I know of.
I think III was the worst. Very poor equalizer build and design. All the ones
III on up have hollow interiors. Bose could not take the time to damp the
enclosures. Best way to burn them in, plug them into the AC outlet.
greg
s76fitz
RCA male to AC ( household )
Artie Turner
years back as the "JC"? I remember it had a funny "meet-your-maker"
name. I hope I didn't just dream this up.
Artie
Alan Maier
"WindsorFox" <windso...@SPAMcox.net> wrote in message
news:3D442ECC...@SPAMcox.net...
Alan Maier
I am very much aware of the capabilities of the Internet. We all thank Al
Gore for inventing it ;) 'tis I who does not have the time to waste here on
a newsgroup which has gone from helpful to rec.audio.bitch.piss.moan.
This used to be a good newsgroup. Too bad it has gone south and never came
back.
Alan
"Richard D Pierce" <DPi...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:GzzE1...@world.std.com...
Kalman Rubinson
<alan....@verizon.net> wrote:
>This used to be a good newsgroup. Too bad it has gone south and never came
>back.
Just curious: To which of the 4 newsgroups to which this is
cross-pointed are referring?
Kal
DuBois
I think he means all the newsgroups where his absurd
claims of speaker break-in were exposed as yet more
snake oil. Free subscriptions to Donkey Monthly
still available (for those who ASSume that what they
imagine they hear MUST be speaker break-in, or
anyone who actually has the poor judgement to use
that old "if it walks like a donkey" cliche to support
their crazy ASSumptions.) Hee-honk. QUACK QUACK.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>Wasn't there some kind of XLR-to-AC adapter that was marketed a few
>years back as the "JC"? I remember it had a funny "meet-your-maker"
>name. I hope I didn't just dream this up.
That's a perfectlty reasonable device, since there does exist such a
thing as a mains power XLR connector. And no, it doesn't mate with the
small-signal ones!
WindsorFox
Ok, so I know what it is, but I have never seen one.
WindsorFox
> the most un requested adapter=
>
> RCA male to AC ( household )
>
>
Perhaps Dr. A Bose should consider sending these free with each pair
bought.
WindsorFox
> Richard,
>
> I am very much aware of the capabilities of the Internet. We all thank Al
> Gore for inventing it ;) 'tis I who does not have the time to waste here on
> a newsgroup which has gone from helpful to rec.audio.bitch.piss.moan.
>
> This used to be a good newsgroup. Too bad it has gone south and never came
> back.
>
> Alan
>
What's wrong with it? You are saying these groups are no longer good
because the people here are littered with professionals who have
scientific fact proving your theory is false??
Arny Krueger
> Alan Maier wrote:
>> Richard,
>> I am very much aware of the capabilities of the Internet. We all
>> thank Al Gore for inventing it ;) 'tis I who does not have the
>> time to waste here on a newsgroup which has gone from helpful to
>> rec.audio.bitch.piss.moan.
>> This used to be a good newsgroup. Too bad it has gone south and
>> never came back.
> What's wrong with it?
What's wrong is that the NG is no longer safe for snake oil. For
some people, the charm of audio seems to be in the snake oil. The
mystique, the freedom to claim that *anything* they spend money on is
"revealed truth".
> You are saying these groups are no
> longer good because the people here are littered with
> professionals who have scientific fact proving your theory is
> false??
It seems like we've got a number of amateurs who know their science
pretty well, too!
Richard D Pierce
Alan Maier <alan....@verizon.net> wrote:
>Richard,
>
>I am very much aware of the capabilities of the Internet. We all thank Al
>Gore for inventing it ;) 'tis I who does not have the time to waste here on
>a newsgroup which has gone from helpful to rec.audio.bitch.piss.moan.
>
>This used to be a good newsgroup. Too bad it has gone south and never came
>back.
Your self-congratulatory tone is noted.
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>Kalman Rubinson wrote:
>> Just curious: To which of the 4 newsgroups to which this is
>> cross-pointed are referring?
>I think he means all the newsgroups where his absurd
>claims of speaker break-in were exposed as yet more
>snake oil. Free subscriptions to Donkey Monthly
>still available (for those who ASSume that what they
>imagine they hear MUST be speaker break-in, or
>anyone who actually has the poor judgement to use
>that old "if it walks like a donkey" cliche to support
>their crazy ASSumptions.) Hee-honk. QUACK QUACK.
Thanks for more wasted bandwidth. Obviously, only the original poster
could answer the question.
Kal
WindsorFox
It was mildly amusing, therefore not a waste. Not to mention a pretty
accurate answer.
DuBois
You're welcome! And thanks for wasting even more, yourself!
> Obviously, only the original poster could answer the question.
Then why did you ask the question in a public newsgroup?
Have you figured out that this is Usenet, not email?
DuBois
< snip >
> accurate answer.
Not a waste like your moronic sig file, replete with
banal quaotations that impress exctlty one person: you.
Give it a rest, please. It was tiresome the first time.
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>Then why did you ask the question in a public newsgroup?
Because the statement was made in public newsgroups about
one or more newsgroups, it is reasonable to attempt to clarify the
point in those same newsgroups. The responses to my simple
query merely confirms that original criticism.
s76fitz
WindsorFox
I don't know what sewer you crawled from since I've never seen you
before, but I change my sig file for no one and it is too complicated
for you to understand it is neither my fault nor your place to get nasty
about it. Crawl back and FOAD...
--
"The frozen North will hatch a flightless bird, who will spread his
wings and dominate the Earth. He will cause an empire by the sea to
fall, to the astonishment and delight of all."
BOYCOTT Excessive Motorsports !!
http://www.geocities.com/fordracing68/xm.html
I like cows, but it's ok that people eat them.
They are stupid. If cows were smart they would get
together and have everyone crap in the same spot.
After a while they would be able to walk up the crap pile,
over the fence and on to freedom. - ARIZONA
WindsorFox
BTW, perhapse if you re-read that, you may notice that I actually
defended your waste of bandwidth, jackass.
--
"The frozen North will hatch a flightless bird, who will spread his
wings and dominate the Earth. He will cause an empire by the sea to
fall, to the astonishment and delight of all."
BOYCOTT Excessive Motorsports !!
http://www.geocities.com/fordracing68/xm.html
I like cows, but it's ok that people eat them.