Is bi-wiring a myth?
Frank Moor
Mike Davis
> Are there actually any benefits to bi-wiring, is it basically hype?
Frank,
It's basically a myth. Many higher-end speaker makers avoid the
issue entirely by only putting one set of binding posts on their
speakers. Now bi-amping, that is a whole different ball game, and way
beyond the scope of your question.
All the best, Mike
--
Michael S. Davis Creative Media-Works
Computer/Audio/Video Convergence
"from Creative minds spring Creative solutions."
http://www.creativemedia-works.com
webm...@creativemedia-works.com
Member, International Webmasters Association http://iwanet.org
trotsky
Bill Foster-KSC wrote:
>
> Frank Moor smashed the following keys:
>
> >Are there actually any benefits to bi-wiring, is it basically hype?
>
> It's all hype and there are no benefits
How bad is your hi-fi, Bill?
Gary G. Vander Schel
sides of the issue then you can review this link:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/page7.htm
The other side is well represented in this forum.
Good Luck!
"Frank Moor" <f...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3bc33ec5$0$22092$73a6...@reader.city-net.com...
Nick250
Hype. Here is a link you may find informative.
http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioandhometheaterhomepage/id3.html
Arny Krueger
"Gary G. Vander Schel" <vande...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o6Mw7.3529$0Z6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> There are two schools of thought on this...and if you wish to
peruse both
> sides of the issue then you can review this link:
> http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/page7.htm
These claims have been pretty well technically deconstructed. For
example, Figure "Z" at http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/page8.htm
claims to show IM, but it doesn't. It shows that when you hook up a
woofer, more current flows.
> The other side is well represented in this forum.
And any place else there are people with respectable audio technical
expertise.
Frank Moor
names "speaker break-in" as one of the many audio myths, but I didn't see
any articles elaborating on this. Everything else in the list seemed to
belong there, but isn't it true, at least with many speakers, that they
sound better after several hours of use?
"Nick250" <nic...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011010005340...@mb-fn.aol.com...
Frank Moor
great number of persons who propagate this "break-in" belief on
audioreview.com, especially in reference to the Paradigms which this
newsgroup seems to hold in such high regard.
Frank Moor
rest of the listening experience is subjective rather than technical.
"Bill Foster-KSC" <No....@My.Computer> wrote in message
news:fS1x7.171557$sM1.47...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Frank Moor smashed the following keys:
>
> Because it SEEMS to be real.
>
> When I first went shopping for new speakers, I found many brands sounded
> too bright, including PSB, Paradigm, NHT, Energy, etc. I knew my older
> JBL speakers were rather dull sounding compared to all these other
> brands and wasn't too concerned. The first speakers I bought were a
> little bright at first, but seemed to mellow after a few days. If I
> didn't know better, I'd say they smoothed out after break-in.
>
> But the same demo speakers also sounded harsh at first and they were
> well used already (break-in not an issue), so obviously the speakers did
> not change, but rather my ears/brain became accustomed to the new sound.
>
> I listened to my old speakers again some time later and found they
> really seemed dull and lifeless, yet for years they sounded fine. I'm
> sure if I could go back and use my old speakers again for a couple of
> weeks, and then switched back to the Paradigms, I'd find the Paradigms
> too bright again for a while. The human ear and brain can accommodate
> great variances in sound.
Gary G. Vander Schel
from it. Don't let my opinions reduce your enjoyment of the life you lead or
the equipment you own! Don't let my opinions keep you from doing something
you want to do!"
If you discredit Mr. Risch then you discredit yourself. Please clarify.
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:pDVw7.10312$865.316...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Kim Grandjean
I think it depends on what you are trying to "break in" I too find it a bit
hard to bealieve that a CD-player needs break-in before sounding its best.
I can however assure you, that loudspeaker break-in is very real. It's
usually not an issue with smaller speakers, but from personal experience
with a pair of B&W Nautilus 803 I know that it is not psychological.
The reason I'm so sure is that they sounded so awful right out of the box,
that we were unable to listen to them. We had them play loud while at work
for a couple of days, and they got better to a point of perfection after
about 50-75 hours, I think.
I have no interesting thoughts about biwiring.
Regards
Kim
Arny Krueger
> "The ultimate value of any product to you is the enjoyment that you
derive
> from it. Don't let my opinions reduce your enjoyment of the life
you lead or
> the equipment you own! Don't let my opinions keep you from doing
something
> you want to do!"
> If you discredit Mr. Risch then you discredit yourself. Please
clarify.
You are obviously confused. The paragraph you quoted does not prove,
indicate or even suggest that if I discredit Mr. Risch, I discredit
myself. It just says that if you really want to do something, then do
it, my opinions be damned.
I stick by my claim that the Jon Risch claims I cited have been
pretty well deconstructed on technical grounds.
Arny Krueger
> Thank you for the link. On that page there is a list of Audio
Myths that
> names "speaker break-in" as one of the many audio myths, but I
didn't see
> any articles elaborating on this. Everything else in the list
seemed to
> belong there, but isn't it true, at least with many speakers, that
they
> sound better after several hours of use?
>
No. Speaker break-in exists, but it happens in seconds or minutes.
Arny Krueger
> That is really interesting. It causes one to wonder how much of
the
> rest of the listening experience is subjective rather than
technical.
Lots. You can research this for yourself by thoroughly investigating
www.pcabx.com. It promotes a style of listening that remains
subjective, but eliminates many of the deleterious effects of
prejudice.
Arny Krueger
IME audioreview.com is a lot about the blind leading the blind over a
cliff.
Frank Moor
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:nEgx7.10507$JK7.3233747013@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Nousaine
And that occurs during QC the end of the speaker assembly line. I just
completed an experiment with a low frequency driver that the manufacturer
claimed needed 48-hours of break-in.
Mounted in a 1.5-ft3 sealed enclosure the system had a resonance of 48 Hz.
Immediately following 48-hours of break-in (ramped sine burst at 16 Hz with
about 3/4 stroke and occasional full throw) the system resonance had fallen to
46 Hz. Within 10 minutes it had risen back to 47 Hz and the following morning
had returned to its initial value.
Frequency response was unchanged measuring the system either fresh, "hot" or
after a days rest.
Ron
<No....@My.Computer> wrote:
>Frank Moor smashed the following keys:
>
>>Are there actually any benefits to bi-wiring, is it basically hype?
>
>It's all hype and there are no benefits other than doubling the carrying
>capacity of your speaker wire.
It's all hype and it *doesn't* even double the carrying
capacity of your speaker wire.
> As long as you have sufficiently thick
>wires made of typical copper, say 12-14ga, then you have everything you
>need for wiring your speakers.
Depending on your speakers minimum impedance and length of
speaker cables, this may probably be true. In any case, it
makes sense to calculate the reuqired cables gauge -- to see
how, look at Arny's web site.
-- Ron
>Some speaker wire companies make wild claims about their fancy wires
>ability to improve the sound from your speakers, including bi-wiring.
>They use lots of interesting phrases that makes it sound technical and
>more convincing, but no one has ever been able to show an improvement
>over similarly sized zip cord in blind listening tests. Since bi-wiring
>doubles the cost of wiring your speakers, it's a great way for speaker
>companies and retailers to increase their profits at your expense, while
>not producing an audible improvement.
>
>In other words, any salesperson who says bi-wiring improves the sound is
>trying to scam you out of your money whether they know it or not. :-/
Ron
<f...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Thank you for the link. On that page there is a list of Audio Myths that
>names "speaker break-in" as one of the many audio myths, but I didn't see
>any articles elaborating on this. Everything else in the list seemed to
>belong there, but isn't it true, at least with many speakers, that they
>sound better after several hours of use?
Yes, it is. And not because your ears become accustomed, but
becasue the speaker characteristics change over time.
However, different speaker drivers require differnt times
and some, possibly (though I have never seen any) may not
require break-in at all.
-- Ron
Ron
In a previous life, I used to build speakers. Comments about
how the speakers improved over time were very common --
maybe, 80% of customers. I can't believe that such a large
percentage were given to halucinations.
In most of the desings, I used Wharfedale roll surround
speakers and Philips paper cone speakers. The latter
improved over a longer period of time. Improvement consisted
of better bass extension and cleaner mid range.
-- Ron
>
>
Stewart Pinkerton
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:03:32 -0400, "Frank Moor"
><f...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Thank you for the link. On that page there is a list of Audio Myths that
>>names "speaker break-in" as one of the many audio myths, but I didn't see
>>any articles elaborating on this. Everything else in the list seemed to
>>belong there, but isn't it true, at least with many speakers, that they
>>sound better after several hours of use?
>
>Yes, it is. And not because your ears become accustomed, but
>becasue the speaker characteristics change over time.
True, but we're talking seconds, not weeks..........
>However, different speaker drivers require differnt times
>and some, possibly (though I have never seen any) may not
>require break-in at all.
Yeah, riiiiiiight...........
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:54:17 -0400, "Frank Moor"
><f...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Thank you. I am inclined to agree with you. However, I am surprised at the
>>great number of persons who propagate this "break-in" belief on
>>audioreview.com, especially in reference to the Paradigms which this
>>newsgroup seems to hold in such high regard.
>
>In a previous life, I used to build speakers. Comments about
>how the speakers improved over time were very common --
>maybe, 80% of customers. I can't believe that such a large
>percentage were given to halucinations.
Ever seen the three card trick? :-)
trotsky
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> ron.remov...@yahoo.com (Ron) writes:
>
> >On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:03:32 -0400, "Frank Moor"
> ><f...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Thank you for the link. On that page there is a list of Audio Myths that
> >>names "speaker break-in" as one of the many audio myths, but I didn't see
> >>any articles elaborating on this. Everything else in the list seemed to
> >>belong there, but isn't it true, at least with many speakers, that they
> >>sound better after several hours of use?
> >
> >Yes, it is. And not because your ears become accustomed, but
> >becasue the speaker characteristics change over time.
>
> True, but we're talking seconds, not weeks..........
Lack of measurements noted, note.
Frank Moor
nevertheless appease bi-wiring enthusiasts by making bi-wire friendly posts
on their speakers. However, in regards to speaker "break-in," Paradigm does
nothing to suggest this is a myth. Infact, they do quite the opposite. I
refer to Paradgim because they appear to be a popular speaker with this
newsgroup.
http://www.paradigm.com/Support/TechFAQ/TechFAQ.html#Question18
Q18... Is there a break-in period for Paradigm® speakers?
A... Although Paradigm® and Paradigm® Reference speakers sound great right
out of the carton, they will sound even better once they are broken-in. We
therefore recommend that you operate the speakers for several hours before
you do any critical listening.
Stewart Pinkerton
>I understand that some speaker makers who do not believe in bi-wiring will
>nevertheless appease bi-wiring enthusiasts by making bi-wire friendly posts
>on their speakers. However, in regards to speaker "break-in," Paradigm does
>nothing to suggest this is a myth. Infact, they do quite the opposite. I
>refer to Paradgim because they appear to be a popular speaker with this
>newsgroup.
Sure they go along with this myth - it stops the customer dragging the
speakers straight back to the store when he doesn't like the sound at
home. The dealer tells him that they'll break in over a couple of
weeks and sure enough, in a couple of weeks the customers ears have
broken in to the new sound............
Alan Dana
Paradigm is but one of several dozen speaker manufacturers who make
similar statements.
However vendors of fancy wires say the same things! And, IMHO,
this is downright silly. I've tested it too, with null results.
I'm sure most of the effect is in the listener's minds. However I used
to disbelieve the effect until I measured break-in effects in my home
on two different brands of speakers. (I should note, that no such effects
seemed to be present on three other brands.) The effect was surprisingly
significant on one brand, easily measurable and was the difference between
that speaker sounding nice vs sounding flat & lifeless (with listener break-in
effects being controlled - i.e., no listening between the first and second
set of measurements).
Also, at least three high-end speaker driver manufacturers also state that
their drivers require a break-in period. I posted the citations to those
statements in other threads on other forums a while back. You'd think
they would know something about their own products.
Alan
Arny Krueger
"Stewart Pinkerton" <ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3bc7136d...@news.freeserve.net...
Yes, "break-in" does not cure poor-performing loudspeakers, but it
can be effective against buyer's remorse!
;-)
Kim Grandjean
I had kinda given up on this whole debate, and accepted, that a lot of
people here just (very passionately) did not believe in speaker break-in. No
need for me to spend time trying to convince people who've made up their
mind in advance.
But I find your approach to evaluating what works and what doesn't to be
quite cool (actually contacting Paradigm, and still not totally dismissing
that speaker break-in could be real, though there are valid arguments why
people would perpetuate this myth even if it isn't true) and the same way I
usually go about things.
So I thought I'd give it another try, and at least assure you that a
break-in period for speakers absolutely exists, but possibly only for
certain brands and maybe even only certain products. I have unpacked plenty
of B&W speakers at the store where I work to know that this is not a myth.
For some reason it seems to be mostly their most expensive speakers that
need a long period of time to sound their best. And I assure you, that if
you had a chance to listen for yourself to a pair of Nautilus speakers
(Especially N803 or N802) right out of the box, you would not doubt it.
There is no talk of subtle changes or psychological adaption. They sound
absolutely awful for the first few hours. A day or two later the play
wonderfully. For some reason I haven't had the same experience with their
DM600 series. Although I think there is a difference with those, it is
definitely subtle.
Now, I don't expect you to accept this as evidence (as I wouldn't do that
myself) of the existence of speaker break-in as a fact. But I would
encourage you to call up (or visit) a B&W dealer, and ask if break-in is
needed for a pair of Nautilus 803. I think you will find that they agree.
As a sidenote, I haven't experienced much need for break-in of (the smaller)
shelf- or stand-mounted speakers, and I seriously do doubt the merits of
biwiring.
Regards
Kim
"Bill Foster-KSC" <No....@My.Computer> wrote in message
news:ErKx7.181998$sM1.51...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> >I understand that some speaker makers who do not believe in bi-wiring
will
> >nevertheless appease bi-wiring enthusiasts by making bi-wire friendly
posts
> >on their speakers. However, in regards to speaker "break-in," Paradigm
does
> >nothing to suggest this is a myth. Infact, they do quite the opposite.
I
> >refer to Paradgim because they appear to be a popular speaker with this
> >newsgroup.
>
> I contacted Paradigm about this and if it was a real physical change or
> if it was psychological. The response was vague and merely repeated what
> the website says without much elaboration.
>
> What does that mean?
>
> I don't know, but what if perpetuating the myth solves more problems
> than saying it is a myth and then having to explain it? Think about
> it...if everyone says the same thing, it must be true, right? That's how
> marketing works.
>
> That's likely how this myth got started in the first place - everyone
> just assumed break-in was real and kept repeating it without taking the
> time to prove it. I used to think the same thing because EVERYONE told
> me so and it seemed to be accurate. But I have reconsidered it in the
> last few years based on my experience in listening tests using new and
> used speakers. I now believe it's merely our ears/brain becoming
> accustomed to the sound.
>
> Fancy wires, interconnects, bi-wiring, they're all the same too - no
> audible changes in listening tests, so any theoretical effect is moot.
Arny Krueger
"Kim Grandjean" <coo...@mailme.dk> wrote in message
news:3bc79187$0$51397$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
> I had kinda given up on this whole debate, and accepted, that a lot
of
> people here just (very passionately) did not believe in speaker
break-in. No
> need for me to spend time trying to convince people who've made up
their
> mind in advance.
> But I find your approach to evaluating what works and what doesn't
to be
> quite cool (actually contacting Paradigm, and still not totally
dismissing
> that speaker break-in could be real, though there are valid
arguments why
> people would perpetuate this myth even if it isn't true) and the
same way I
> usually go about things.
> So I thought I'd give it another try, and at least assure you that
a
> break-in period for speakers absolutely exists, but possibly only
for
> certain brands and maybe even only certain products. I have
unpacked plenty
> of B&W speakers at the store where I work to know that this is not
a myth.
Break-in is largely a psychological effect/ I guess you're claim that
you are immune to psychological effects. I think that means you don't
have a working human brain, because no working human brain has ever
been found that was immune to psychological effects. Its called
"learning".
Test equipment is pretty immune to psychological effects. A friend of
mine, David Clark owns DLC Design of Novi Michigan, has authored
many AES articles about speakers including testing speakers, and
invented the "Dumax" which is one of the most sophisticated and best
pieces of test equipment around for doing detailed tests on
loudspeakers. He says that his testing of literally 100's of drivers
shows that break-in happens just about every time you start using a
speaker that has been idle for some time, and it takes a few seconds.
The long-term break-in effects that audiophiles describe aren't
backed with measurements.
If long-term break-in existed, it would indicate that the speaker was
rapidly degrading, and the speaker would break in a relatively short
period of time.
Norm Strong
>I don't know, but what if perpetuating the myth solves more problems
>than saying it is a myth and then having to explain it? Think about
>it...if everyone says the same thing, it must be true, right? That's how
>marketing works.
Many years ago, the loading door on VCRs was always at one side or the other.
Some manufacturer decided to put out the new line with the tape in the middle,
saying it solved some performance problem--which of course it didn't.
Rather than argue the point, every other manufacturer quickly moved the
mechanism to the middle where it has stayed to the present day. Just another
example of taking the easy road.
Norm Strong (nh...@aol.com)
Seattle WA
Alan Dana
--
* Warning! Read this before paying a company*
* to name a star after someone! *
* http://home.columbus.rr.com/starfaq/
* http://home.carolina.rr.com/nirgal/buyastar.html
"Bill Foster-KSC" <No....@My.Computer> wrote in message
news:FrKx7.181999$sM1.51...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Alan Dana smashed the following keys:
>
> >significant on one brand, easily measurable and was the difference between
> >that speaker sounding nice vs sounding flat & lifeless
>
> If it was that noticeable, then like you said, it must be easily
> measurable. But where are the measurements?
I've published them in various newsgroups about 4 or 5 times.
I used a H-P oscillator as a source and ran the measurements
several times over, getting consistent results, on both trials.
The oddest thing was that when the speakers were new out of the
box, both of them had narrow "dropout" areas. Deep valleys
on the response curve. Both were within the 60-80Hz region,
but a bit different from each other. Couldn't believe it as I
heard it. The oscillator was adjustable in 1Hz increments, so
I slowly ran the tests back and forth across those regions, over
and over again. The "dropout valleys" remained constant.
After 40 hours of use, I measured again and there was no trace
of these valleys on either speaker. Also the -3dB point for
low bass rolloff moved a few Hz lower on both. I contacted
the designer of the speaker and he confirmed this was consistent
with his own tests (and he was a measurement freak ... he has
since gone into the test equipment business).
> >Also, at least three high-end speaker driver manufacturers also state that
> >their drivers require a break-in period.
>
> Claims that may not be true. Where are their results showing these
> audible changes?
Haven't seen any of them post results.
I've conducted these tests on 5 different sets (& brands) of new speaker
drivers. Two of them had measurable differences, three didn't.
> I've already read three reports that show it's a psychological effect
> from people I tend to believe (Paul Barton of PSB Speakers is one of
> them). But I have yet to see anyone post results showing it's a true. I
> won't take just anyone's word for it either. It has to be someone
> respected for their work. :)
Jim Thiel of Thiel Loudspeakers, who is known for being extremely
meticulous on speaker design and manufacturing, and whose company
builds their own drivers, claims that his speakers need a break-in period.
Dynaudio makes strong claims for the need to break in their drivers.
And John Dunlavy, who is skeptical about most claims about driver
break-in, has stated that there are some drivers that can take longer
to break-in.
> I don't expect anyone to take my word for it either. But at least I've
> done my own demo/new comparisons which have strengthened my resolve
> about this issue.
And my comparisons moved me in the opposite direction.
> And like Arny said, it helps to prevent buyer's remorse. :)
I agree that nearly all break-in claims are of this type.
Alan
Alan Dana
> Kim Grandjean smashed the following keys:
>
> >So I thought I'd give it another try, and at least assure you that a
> >break-in period for speakers absolutely exists, but possibly only for
> >certain brands and maybe even only certain products.
>
> different about the construction of B&W 800 series speakers that makes
> them unique from the rest of the speaker world?
To quote John Dunlavy on this subject,
"Most loudspeakers and their drivers require little or no break-in
time to achieve their level of long term performance. Indeed, 10
minutes of break-in time using music containing a wide range of
tones, especially in the low bass region of the audio spectrum
should be quite satisfactory.
However, not all woofers, mids, and tweeters are created by the
same designer using the same materials, etc. Some woofers with a
relatively stiff suspension may require more break-in time than
others. Tweeters and mids seldom (if ever) exhibit any
measurable or audible change in properties with use, despite
contrary claims by the "golden ear" set. As well, adequate
break-in usually occurs during the time required for the rigorous
testing and measurement procedures given loudspeakers by
manufacturers concerned with insuring the accuracy and
consistency of their products.
Best of listening!
John Dunlavy
Dunlavy Audio Labs"
> > And I assure you, that if
> >you had a chance to listen for yourself to a pair of Nautilus speakers
> >(Especially N803 or N802) right out of the box, you would not doubt it.
> >There is no talk of subtle changes or psychological adaption. They sound
> >absolutely awful for the first few hours. A day or two later the play
> >wonderfully. For some reason I haven't had the same experience with their
> >DM600 series. Although I think there is a difference with those, it is
> >definitely subtle.
This is close to my experience with a pair of Spica TC-60 speakers.
I unboxed them, set them up, played some music, and it was so dull
and cardboard-like in quality that I nearly reboxed them and sent
them back on the spot. That's when I decided to haul in a lot of
test equipment and run some measurements.
After I left my home for a couple of days, leaving the Spicas playing
FM music at a moderately loud level, I came back, put on the same
CD as the first time, and could not believe how much better it
sounded. I had the boxes right there in the room, ready to ship them
out (and I had not listened to them for even 1 minute between trials),
but there was no way I was shipping them back after the 2nd listen.
So I remeasured and found a number of changes had occured. Very
surprising to me.
In a later test, I "broke in" just one speaker out of new pair of Von
Schweikert VM-2 mini-monitors. I compared and measured both
speakers and then let one of them play for 40-50 hours and reran
both my listening and measurement tests. Once again there were
differences in the one that was played (and no differences in the
one that wasn't).
I subsequently tried this exact same procedure on two other
speakers and didn't observe any differences.
> What dealer on the planet would deny speaker break-in is required? None
> that I've come across, not even the dealer where I've bought my last two
> systems.
>
> I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here...I'm serious. What dealer would
> deny it? Has anyone ever talked to a salesperson who said break-in is a
> myth?
I agree with you here. If I were a dealer, I'd claim break-in on
everything. Even speaker spikes!
Alan
Stewart Pinkerton
>Kim Grandjean smashed the following keys:
>
>>So I thought I'd give it another try, and at least assure you that a
>>break-in period for speakers absolutely exists, but possibly only for
>>certain brands and maybe even only certain products.
>
>Why it would only exist for certain products? Is there something
>different about the construction of B&W 800 series speakers that makes
>them unique from the rest of the speaker world?
As it happens, the 'free edge' midrange driver does have a unique
suspension, but I don't think 'break-in' applies to these speakers any
more than to others, i.e. not at all.
>> I have unpacked plenty
>>of B&W speakers at the store where I work to know that this is not a myth.
>>For some reason it seems to be mostly their most expensive speakers that
>>need a long period of time to sound their best.
>
>Why just their expensive speakers though? What is different about them
>to make them so unique, even from their own lines?
>
>> And I assure you, that if
>>you had a chance to listen for yourself to a pair of Nautilus speakers
>>(Especially N803 or N802) right out of the box, you would not doubt it.
>>There is no talk of subtle changes or psychological adaption. They sound
>>absolutely awful for the first few hours. A day or two later the play
>>wonderfully. For some reason I haven't had the same experience with their
>>DM600 series. Although I think there is a difference with those, it is
>>definitely subtle.
>
>Tell you what...next time I'm in the area, I'll visit the B&W dealer
>again and see if I can get them to do a side by side comparison with
>demo and new Nautilus 800 series speakers.
>
>Unfortunately I doubt they will give me the latitude to do a blind test
>with a couple of friends to see if we can hear the difference between
>new and used speakers, simply because they don't know me very well and
>may not want to open new speakers just so we can get a listen. But I'll
>try it - even a simple listening test should be noticeable given the
>drastic differences you say you've heard.
As it happens, I've done this on a sighted basis with brand-new versus
six-month old demo N802s at my local friendly 800 series dealer, and
there was no difference that either of us could hear. The dealer still
insists that they break-in, however! :-)
Kim Grandjean
> >you had a chance to listen for yourself to a pair of Nautilus speakers
> >(Especially N803 or N802) right out of the box, you would not doubt it.
> >There is no talk of subtle changes or psychological adaption. They sound
> >absolutely awful for the first few hours. A day or two later the play
> >wonderfully. For some reason I haven't had the same experience with their
> >DM600 series. Although I think there is a difference with those, it is
> >definitely subtle.
>
> Tell you what...next time I'm in the area, I'll visit the B&W dealer
> again and see if I can get them to do a side by side comparison with
> demo and new Nautilus 800 series speakers.
Fair enough. I'll leave out any attempt to explain about my expreiences with
break-in further, as I realize i have no way of proving it without any
doubt.
> Unfortunately I doubt they will give me the latitude to do a blind test
> with a couple of friends to see if we can hear the difference between
> new and used speakers, simply because they don't know me very well and
> may not want to open new speakers just so we can get a listen. But I'll
> try it - even a simple listening test should be noticeable given the
> drastic differences you say you've heard.
I assure you, that what I listened to from the N803's didn't need any double
blind study to confirm.
> >Now, I don't expect you to accept this as evidence (as I wouldn't do that
> >myself) of the existence of speaker break-in as a fact. But I would
> >encourage you to call up (or visit) a B&W dealer, and ask if break-in is
> >needed for a pair of Nautilus 803. I think you will find that they agree.
> What dealer on the planet would deny speaker break-in is required? None
> that I've come across, not even the dealer where I've bought my last two
> systems.
> I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here...I'm serious. What dealer would
> deny it? Has anyone ever talked to a salesperson who said break-in is a
> myth?
Well, in Denmark we actually have fair and truthful dealers who will tell
you the truth (as they see it) about silver cables, biwiring and all other
dubious stuff. That said, your point is well made, of course dealers
shouldn't usually be trusted to be impartial fair if it hurts their own
business.
> > and I seriously do doubt the merits of biwiring.
> I've done comparisons and haven't found any audible difference. The
> claims of speaker wire manufacturers don't have any validity when put to
> the test. But it sounds really cool, and I'm sure lots of people fall
> for the hype.
How about different kinds of cable?
Have you tried testing for audible differences between stranded or
solid-core, rectangular solid-core, silver and air-cables (TaraLabs)?
Just curious.
Regards
Kim
Nousaine
much snipped ....
>Dynaudio makes strong claims for the need to break in their drivers.>
I've put Dynaudio 12-inch woofers to the test. In the first I broke-in one of a
pair for 50 hours and found there was zero difference in the performance of
either in the recommended enclosure.
Then I asked Dynaudio to send me four drivers two if which would be broken-in
by them for the suggested 150-hours. There were no differences in the
performance of any of them when combined in systems.
However, my own experiments did reveal that there was an increase in the
compliance of the drivers when measured immediately following break-in
(increase in Vas and decrese in Fs) but those changes were exactly off-setting
in box-design terms.
Very recently I conducted an additional experiment with a new 12-inch woofer
that was said to require 48-hours of break-in and, as Dick Pierce suggested,
found that break-in effects are also temporary.
I performed break-in tests on both a prototype version of the driver and then
with a production version that had a different surround. In both cases I found
that the Fsb of the driver in the intended enclosure fell by 10% and 5%
respectively when measured immediately after a 48-hour break-in but in both
cases returned to its original value with an overnight rest.
I've also measured several speakers after long term use over the years and
found they measured identically to their out-of-the-box condition. (with-in the
tolerance of modern acoustic measurements) These have included Mirage AVS-200
(4 samples but with tweeters replaced in each at one time or another) PSB
Stratus Mini, Paradigm Active 20, 40 and LCR 450, Bose 151, a/d/s M3 subwoofer
and a couple Velodyne subs.
I'm not suggesting that there aren't speakers that change performance with age
but generally speaking (pun intended) I've never seem one that improved with
use. All measurements were taken with MLSSA.
trotsky
Nousaine wrote:
>
> "Alan Dana" alan...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> much snipped ....
>
> >Dynaudio makes strong claims for the need to break in their drivers.>
>
> I've put Dynaudio 12-inch woofers to the test. In the first I broke-in one of a
> pair for 50 hours and found there was zero difference in the performance of
> either in the recommended enclosure.
Revisionist history. What about that Car Audio article where you
measured the parameters changing on ADS woofers, but just concluded that
"it all balanced out" in the end? That was a complete crock.
Nousaine
First break-in experiment included 4 a/d/s 12-inch subwoofers that showed same
changes (reduced Fs and increased Vas) immediately follwing break-in period but
with no differences in sound or performance that wasn't to be expected within
unit-to-unit variation of 'fresh' samples.
trotsky
Nousaine wrote:
>
> >Nousaine wrote:
> >>
> >> "Alan Dana" alan...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> much snipped ....
> >>
> >> >Dynaudio makes strong claims for the need to break in their drivers.>
> >>
> >> I've put Dynaudio 12-inch woofers to the test. In the first I broke-in one
> >of a
> >> pair for 50 hours and found there was zero difference in the performance of
> >> either in the recommended enclosure.
> >
> >
> >
> >Revisionist history. What about that Car Audio article where you
> >measured the parameters changing on ADS woofers, but just concluded that
> >"it all balanced out" in the end? That was a complete crock.
>
> First break-in experiment included 4 a/d/s 12-inch subwoofers that showed same
> changes (reduced Fs and increased Vas) immediately follwing break-in period but
> with no differences in sound
Mr. Nousaine, you have never once exhibited any sign whatsoever of being
able to discern differences by critical listening. I find your
conclusions to be highly suspect.
Alan Dana
> Alan Dana smashed the following keys:
>
> >> different about the construction of B&W 800 series speakers that makes
> >> them unique from the rest of the speaker world?
> >
> >To quote John Dunlavy on this subject,
> >
> >"Most loudspeakers and their drivers require little or no break-in
> >time to achieve their level of long term performance. Indeed, 10
> >minutes of break-in time using music containing a wide range of
> >tones, especially in the low bass region of the audio spectrum
> >should be quite satisfactory.
>
> of break-in period beyond the QC tests - it's done long before you get
> it out of the cardboard box.
>
> I don't think you helped your position with that part. :)
Not with that part ... the part that helped my position was the section
that you deleted from the original quote.
Even in the part you include above, please note that Dunlavy used
the term "Most loudspeakers ...", not "All loudspeakers ..."
>
> >So I remeasured and found a number of changes had occured. Very
> >surprising to me.
>
> What kind of changes?
>
> How many dB difference?
>
> >I subsequently tried this exact same procedure on two other
> >speakers and didn't observe any differences.
>
> The same VB mini's?
No, they were different brands, a Paradigm and a Lineaum.
> That doesn't say much for their consistency in QC, or for the
> consistency of the tests. :)
Since they were different brands, it says absolutely nothing about
their QC.
However since the one pair of Von Schweikerts that I did test were
consistent between both speakers, actually it does say something
positive about their QC.
I don't think anything in your followup took specific issue
with anything that I said.
Alan
Nousaine
I didn't see the answers to these questions in your subsequent reply, Alan.
>>
>> >I subsequently tried this exact same procedure on two other
>> >speakers and didn't observe any differences.
>>
>> The same VB mini's?
>
>No, they were different brands, a Paradigm and a Lineaum.
>
>> That doesn't say much for their consistency in QC, or for the
>> consistency of the tests. :)
>
>Since they were different brands, it says absolutely nothing about
>their QC.
>
>However since the one pair of Von Schweikerts that I did test were
>consistent between both speakers, actually it does say something
>positive about their QC.
>
>I don't think anything in your followup took specific issue
>with anything that I said.
>
>Alan
It seems to me that it might have. Why not just answer the first set of
questions?
Arny Krueger
"trotsky" <gsi...@qwestonline.com> wrote in message
news:3BCA1483...@qwestonline.com...
> Mr. Nousaine, you have never once exhibited any sign whatsoever of
being
> able to discern differences by critical listening. I find your
> conclusions to be highly suspect.
I don't believe that there is even one known case where Mr. Singh has
"heard" an audible difference without the assistance of his sight to
tell him what he is listening to. AFAIK, he can only pass a listening
test with the right answers presented to him by some means other than
"just listening".
I know for sure that Mr. Nousaine has reliably discerned a number of
subtle audible differences in blind listening tests, including those
among files downloaded from www.pcabx.com , particularly
http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm .
This is clearly a case of the chamber pot calling the bright shiny
apple "stinky".
trotsky
Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "trotsky" <gsi...@qwestonline.com> wrote in message
> news:3BCA1483...@qwestonline.com...
>
> > Mr. Nousaine, you have never once exhibited any sign whatsoever of
> being
> > able to discern differences by critical listening. I find your
> > conclusions to be highly suspect.
>
> I don't believe that there is even one known case where Mr. Singh has
> "heard" an audible difference without the assistance of his sight to
> tell him what he is listening to. AFAIK, he can only pass a listening
> test with the right answers presented to him by some means other than
> "just listening".
Blind tests are corrupt. Next question.
> I know for sure that Mr. Nousaine has reliably discerned a number of
> subtle audible differences in blind listening tests, including those
> among files downloaded from www.pcabx.com , particularly
> http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm .
>
> This is clearly a case of the chamber pot calling the bright shiny
> apple "stinky".
Lack of sanity duly noted.
Arny Krueger
> Why does Krooger keep lying about the "Accord"?
The lie here Mr. Singh, is your repeated cross-posting into
rec.audio.opinion, of posts I make elsewhere.
"The Accord" exists only on rec.audio.opinion, and this is not
rec.audio.opinion.
However, you seem equally desperate for attention where ever you go.
Perhaps if you had a life...
;-)
Alan Dana
"Nousaine" <nous...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011015023837...@mb-fi.aol.com...
Hadn't found my notes yet. I have since found a summary, but not the
complete and original notes.
From what I wrote when I ran these tests back in 1996:
Speakers: Spica TC-60
Source: H-P Oscillator, variable in 1Hz increments
Test Sweeps conducted 5 times for each speaker, to verify observations
Observations and measurements: Radio Shack analog SPL meter mounted on a
tripod, and my personal observations taken by ear and recorded at time of
test.
Findings:
New out of the box: One speaker began to audibly rolloff at 50Hz, the other
at 49Hz. Output significantly rolled off at 38Hz on both, with almost no
audible output below 35Hz.
After 30-40 hours of use: Both speakers now began to audible rolloff at
46Hz, gradually rolling off to 31-32Hz. Almost no audible output below
30Hz.
All measurements were repeatable, taken in the same room, with the
same equipment, and with the same room setup.
I haven't yet found just how many dBs they were different. Even when I do
they will be crude measurements. At that time I did not yet own my
Fluke true RMS multimeter to precisely level-match all readings. For
the most part, this is observation by ear that was backed up by the
SPL meter. That is, when I found a rolloff point by ear, and repeated it
to verify. Then I would also then run the same frequency sweep and
watch the meter to see how it reacted. In all cases, it dipped right where
my ears were telling me it dipped.
Thus let's discuss the output in the 35-36Hz region between the two
sets of comparisons. When the speakers were new out of the box,
there was almost no audible output. And my meter readings were
falling off the scale. After the break-in, output was easily audible
in that same region, with the meters showing a significant rolloff
from 50hz, but only around 10dB or so.
And then there were the astounding "dropouts" in the upper mid-
bass region. One new speaker's output fell into a chasm between
72Hz and 82Hz, dropping off around 6dB in the middle. After the
breakin, this odd falloff completely disappeared, remaining flat
across the same region. I was so shocked by it, that I repeated my
sweeps several times (perhaps 8 or 10 times) on both tests. And
the results were 100% consistent each time. It is possible that
something else in the signal path was causing this (preamp, amp,
oscillator), but I used the same equipment many times over and
this was the only time I've even seen this. And the "dropout" was
not evident through headphones that were connected at the same
time.
Alan
Nousaine
The results you describe are completely consistent with small changes in
microphone/speaker room positions that one might get with crude acoustical
measurements like this.
trotsky
Alan Dana
And exactly how it is that when I sat 6' directly in front of the same
speaker,
in the same room, on the same stand, just 3 days apart, and could hear a
repeatable, significant dropout across a well-defined region - and then it
wasn't there when sitting in the same location at the same distance and
multiple test runs the second time? None of this had anything to do with
mic placement. As I previously stated, I only used the SPL meter/mic as
a backup device, to see if its measurements confirmed what I was hearing.
Heck, I even got and walked around the room on
both and heard the dropouts at multiple locations the first times and at
no locations the second times.
Sounds like you are offering up just a standard dismissal response. I've
certainly seen the effects of minor movement of that SPL meter - and
they are very dramatic. That's why I typically just use it as a backup
device and rely more upon careful attention to setup details, my source
generator, repeating the tests and taking a lot of notes.
It was only in a later test, using different speakers, where I "broke" one
speaker in and left the other "new" and ran side-by-side comparisons
of the two. Well, actually, I did this three times. Two pair showed no
difference
and the other was dramatically different. There it was fascinating to
flip back and forth and hear the differences.
Alan
Nousaine
Listen to yourself? 35-36 Hz "Region"? "72 to 80 Hz" resolution with a Radio
Shack SLM in a re-do situation? Come-on. From your previous posts you must know
how difficult it is to replicate the results.
None of this had anything to do with
>mic placement. As I previously stated, I only used the SPL meter/mic as
>a backup device, to see if its measurements confirmed what I was hearing.
> Heck, I even got and walked around the room on
>both and heard the dropouts at multiple locations the first times and at
>no locations the second times.
Sure the old "walk around" replication. Even better than using a RS SLM in the
room. Seriously I'd surely try for a replication .... given that other folks
haven't been able to.
>Sounds like you are offering up just a standard dismissal response.
No sir. I've done the experiments with more precise acoustical equipment with
differing results.
I've
>certainly seen the effects of minor movement of that SPL meter - and
>they are very dramatic. That's why I typically just use it as a backup
>device and rely more upon careful attention to setup details, my source
>generator, repeating the tests and taking a lot of notes.
>
>It was only in a later test, using different speakers, where I "broke" one
>speaker in and left the other "new" and ran side-by-side comparisons
>of the two. Well, actually, I did this three times. Two pair showed no
>difference
>and the other was dramatically different.
Sure; you may not have exactly repeated the positioning.Or perhaps the speakers
did "change" BUT would you really accept a speaker that showed the gross
differences you cited as being "Ok" in a QC sense?
Have you ever found one that got worse? If so ... why do they always "get
better?" Why has every other break-in speaker experiment including those that
didn't use open acoustical test showed other results?
There it was fascinating to
>flip back and forth and hear the differences.
>
>Alan
Alan I really appreciate you obvious efforts here but quite frankly my tests
have shown completely different reults. Why not repeat them with near-field or
outside measurement techniques?
I know that is hard to do with products that you've already used. That's why
I've done that with brand new speakers where I could keep one or more "fresh'
and break-in the others.
My results show that break-in has zero effect on reasonably well designed
loudspeakers .... even those who's manufacturers claim break-in is a big deal.
Arny Krueger
>Alan Dana" alan...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Source: H-P Oscillator, variable in 1Hz increments
>>Test Sweeps conducted 5 times for each speaker, to verify
observations
>>Observations and measurements: Radio Shack analog SPL meter
mounted on a
>>tripod, and my personal observations taken by ear and recorded at
time of
>>test.
> The results you describe are completely consistent with small
changes in
> microphone/speaker room positions that one might get with crude
acoustical
> measurements like this.
Agreed.
MLS, anybody?
Alan Dana
Sure. I agree. But let's go back to the 72 to 82Hz "region" experience.
I was simply letting my oscillator sweep the entire 20 to 100Hz range,
on my new speakers, not looking at any meters or anything, seeing if I
could detect any emphasis (mid-bass) or the approximate point of
the bass rolloff. While doing so I noticed a "suckout" in the mid-bass.
As the oscillator swept through that region, I sat up and thought "what
the heck was that." The sound seemed to almost disappear through a
section of the mid-bass.
So I set the oscillator to manual and slowly starting sweeping the region,
a Hertz at a time. To my great surprise, I found that beginning at 72Hz,
I could detect an audible loss of output, dipping down several dB in the
mid-70's and rising again in the low 80's. I then swept back and forth
across this region several times - and it did the same thing every time.
I moved my head, I stood up, I moved around the room. The "suckout"
remained. I could not get that speaker to produce anything near a flat
response across that region.
After 30-40 hours of use, I reran the same procedure. The "suckout" was
now completely gone. I've retested a couple of times since, it has never
returned.
Likewise for bass response across the 30-50Hz region. When the speakers
were new out of the box, the bass response in the mid-30's through mid-40's
was alarmingly low. I was very disappointed. And I had no reason to
believe it would get any better, heck at that time I did not believe in speaker
break-in. However after the same 30-40 hours of use, bass output was
higher. High enough to be perfectly acceptable to me. Enough so that I
have never used a subwoofer with the speaker.
Likewise the low & mid-bass output from a new set of Von Schweikert
VM-2 mini-monitors was almost absent. I'd read a review that had stated
the bass output was extremely good considering the mid/bass driver was
only 5.25" (Audax aerogel-coated kevlar driver). Mine were so thin
that I couldn't stand to listen to music through them without a sub. The
overall balance was too bright. So, since I didn't have an immediate need
to use these speakers, I decided to try a test and "break-in" only one of them.
I had no idea if this would do anything. The two speakers I'd purchased since
the Spicas had shown no break-in characteristics.
But after about 40-50 hours, I compared them, playing CD test tones, sitting
side-by-side. The used one had more output from the 63Hz and 80Hz tones.
Both had the same output at 120Hz.
I wish I had continued that experiment further. Because now both of them have
over 1000 hours of use and are sitting in my family room (smaller room than
where I ran the original comparisons). The other day I ran the same sweep
tests and I could not believe the output that both of the showed, even down at
50Hz and 40Hz - where there had been essentially nothing in the other, larger
room. Since I did not conduct any listening tests to them in the smaller room,
I have no way of knowing how much they changed. All I can say now is that
the original reviewer's remarks are now true for me too - these little speakers
can put out a lot of bass for their size (still not enough to be considered a full-
range speaker, as it is much less than my large VR-4s and less than my larger
Spica TC-60 bookshelves).
> >It was only in a later test, using different speakers, where I "broke" one
> >speaker in and left the other "new" and ran side-by-side comparisons
> >of the two. Well, actually, I did this three times. Two pair showed no
> >difference
> >and the other was dramatically different.
>
> Sure; you may not have exactly repeated the positioning.Or perhaps the speakers
> did "change" BUT would you really accept a speaker that showed the gross
> differences you cited as being "Ok" in a QC sense?
>
> Have you ever found one that got worse? If so ... why do they always "get
> better?"
I've only had two experiences of where low-bass response got "better"
after some use. Neither later got worse. Can't explain why for either
case.
I've run other comparisons on wires and component break-in and had
absolutely null results. And I acknowledge my comparisons fall far
short of scientific standards. But I cannot deny that I found differences,
using test tones, in largely-controlled conditions, and that both speakers
sound better to me now than they did when new - and that their bass
response, as compared to the my primary speakers, seems to be better now
than it was then.
Alan
Alan Dana
> Alan Dana smashed the following keys:
>
> >> of break-in period beyond the QC tests - it's done long before you get
> >> it out of the cardboard box.
> >>
> >> I don't think you helped your position with that part. :)
> >
> >Not with that part ... the part that helped my position was the section
> >that you deleted from the original quote.
>
> the part where he repeats that break-in occurs during QC testing? Or
> perhaps it's the part we've all seen a million times from companies
> spewing the standard break-in line?
>
> I deleted those parts because we've already seen them and they're not
> essential to the ongoing discussion.
No, the part of,
"However, not all woofers, mids, and tweeters are created by the
same designer using the same materials, etc. Some woofers with a
relatively stiff suspension may require more break-in time than
others. Tweeters and mids seldom (if ever) exhibit any
measurable or audible change in properties with use, despite
contrary claims by the "golden ear" set. As well, adequate
break-in usually occurs during the time required for the rigorous
testing and measurement procedures given loudspeakers by
manufacturers concerned with insuring the accuracy and
consistency of their products."
Wherein Dunlavy provides reasons why certain drivers, with stiff
suspensions may require more break-in time. And where when
Dunlavy means to say that all or nearly all do break in easily, he
chooses words that say exactly that, as in his section about tweeters
and mids.
> >Even in the part you include above, please note that Dunlavy used
> >the term "Most loudspeakers ...", not "All loudspeakers ..."
>
> Yes, but I think he infers that there are few, if any, that actually are
> audible. His comments suggest he has never heard break-in, and is
> covering his ass by saying "most", just in case one company has an
> audible change.
Bill, all you are doing here is simply supplying your own interpretation
to what Dunlavy stated. Your spin is just that, your spin, not Dunlavy's.
>Even so, his comments actually align very similarly to
> Paul Barton who's own measurements (less than 1/4dB changes) indicated
> no audible changes and suspects the effect is purely psychological.
>
> These two speaker designers alone are grounds enough to make the
> break-in theory very suspicious and open to attack.
Again, more spin. You've aligned Barton and Dunlavy when there are
differences in what they've said. And you've eliminated my reference
to Jim Thiel, who is very well respected by the scientific-leaning types
in the audio world - for his careful analysis and design of his speakers.
In fact, here's what John Dunlavy had to say about Jim Thiel:
"With respect to present-day designers and their loudspeakers, I consider
both Jim Thiel and Richard Vandersteen to be good engineers and I believe
their loudspeakers represent excellent engineering feats - at affordable
prices. Both Jim's and Richard's loudspeakers exhibit exemplary impulse and
step responses, along with very smooth on-axis plots of amplitude Vs
frequency. "
BTW: Vandersteen also states a break-in period is needed for his speakers
to sound their best.
Also my Spicas were designed by John Bau. Bau was once named by
"The Audio Critic" as one of the ten good guys in the audio world, for
his careful scientific approach to audio design. Bau is a test freak and
has since left audio to go into the test equipment industry. I contacted him
about a year ago and asked him if he had measured speaker break-in under
controlled conditions and he said yes. That his speaker designs actually
incorporated the break-in effect as he had modeled his drivers' break-in
behavior and his speakers weren't designed to sound their best until
after a break-in period.
> I haven't seen any hard data that supports break-in, yet I have seen
> several reports from respected people that effectively suggest break-in
> is all in our heads.
>
> If a person who has never heard the theory before is introduced to it
> without any data to back it up, and at the same time is shown data that
> disproves it, what conclusions would they make?
No argument with this.
> If you could get an independent test of those VM-2 speakers in a lab or
> a blind listening test which clearly shows audible differences, then you
> have something solid to work with.
It would be hard to find a new pair now, as they went out of production
a couple of years ago.
I'm not saying there is absolute, definitive proof of speaker break-in.
I don't fault anyone for saying there isn't. All I'm saying is that even
amongst some of the most scientifically-inclined speaker designers
and driver designers, there is still a mix of opinions.
Alan
Nousaine
>
>> >> >Thus let's discuss the output in the 35-36Hz region between the two
>> >> >sets of comparisons. When the speakers were new out of the box,
>> >> >there was almost no audible output. And my meter readings were
>> >> >falling off the scale. After the break-in, output was easily audible
>> >> >in that same region, with the meters showing a significant rolloff
>> >> >from 50hz, but only around 10dB or so.
>> >> >
>> >> >And then there were the astounding "dropouts" in the upper mid-
>> >> >bass region. One new speaker's output fell into a chasm between
>> >> >72Hz and 82Hz, dropping off around 6dB in the middle. After the
>> >> >breakin, this odd falloff completely disappeared, remaining flat
>> >> >across the same region. I was so shocked by it, that I repeated my
>> >> >sweeps several times (perhaps 8 or 10 times) on both tests. And
>> >> >the results were 100% consistent each time. It is possible that
>> >> >something else in the signal path was causing this (preamp, amp,
>> >> >oscillator), but I used the same equipment many times over and
>> >> >this was the only time I've even seen this. And the "dropout" was
>> >> >not evident through headphones that were connected at the same
>> >> >time.
>> >> >
>> >> >Alan
Yes further suggesting that speaker/microphone placement were the culprits.
>> >> The results you describe are completely consistent with small changes in
>> >> microphone/speaker room positions that one might get with crude
>acoustical
>> >> measurements like this.
>> >
>> >And exactly how it is that when I sat 6' directly in front of the same
>> >speaker,
>> >in the same room, on the same stand, just 3 days apart, and could hear a
>> >repeatable, significant dropout across a well-defined region - and then it
>> >wasn't there when sitting in the same location at the same distance and
>> >multiple test runs the second time?
How did you determine that your listener/speaker/mic positions were identical?
It's not necessarily that easy.
>> Listen to yourself? 35-36 Hz "Region"? "72 to 80 Hz" resolution with a
>Radio
>> Shack SLM in a re-do situation? Come-on. From your previous posts you must
>know
>> how difficult it is to replicate the results.
>
>Sure. I agree. But let's go back to the 72 to 82Hz "region" experience.
>
>I was simply letting my oscillator sweep the entire 20 to 100Hz range,
>on my new speakers, not looking at any meters or anything, seeing if I
>could detect any emphasis (mid-bass) or the approximate point of
>the bass rolloff. While doing so I noticed a "suckout" in the mid-bass.
Sure and your 'ears' weren't in the microphone position either. The effect you
describe is one that you get with related listener/speaker/room (and even
battery conditions with the RS meter) interactions.
Do you really think that break-in allowed, did you say, several-dB changes in
the speaker performance? How could a manufacturer ever consider QC check-out
with variations that gross
Are you really thinking this kind of performance variation in the speakers
themselves is even possible...and not due to in-room variations? I hope not :)
>As the oscillator swept through that region, I sat up and thought "what
>the heck was that." The sound seemed to almost disappear through a
>section of the mid-bass.
You are describing a room-effect exactly.
>So I set the oscillator to manual and slowly starting sweeping the region,
>a Hertz at a time. To my great surprise, I found that beginning at 72Hz,
>I could detect an audible loss of output, dipping down several dB in the
>mid-70's and rising again in the low 80's. I then swept back and forth
>across this region several times - and it did the same thing every time.
>
>I moved my head, I stood up, I moved around the room. The "suckout"
>remained. I could not get that speaker to produce anything near a flat
>response across that region.
>
>After 30-40 hours of use, I reran the same procedure. The "suckout" was
>now completely gone. I've retested a couple of times since, it has never
>returned.
You've retested and duplicated the conditions?
>Likewise for bass response across the 30-50Hz region.
OK the 35-36 Hz "region" was a typo I'm guessing.
When the speakers
>were new out of the box, the bass response in the mid-30's through mid-40's
>was alarmingly low. I was very disappointed. And I had no reason to
>believe it would get any better, heck at that time I did not believe in
>speaker
>break-in. However after the same 30-40 hours of use, bass output was
>higher. High enough to be perfectly acceptable to me. Enough so that I
>have never used a subwoofer with the speaker.
And you duplicated the earlier conditions exactly? Ot just as you 'remembered'
it?
I trust you've read my prior posts with before/after comparisons of several
sets of loudspeakers using MLS test methods showing no differerences beyond
those of the testing tolerances .... less than 1-dB @ 2-meters.
It still seems that you didn't duplicate the prior conditions. Your choice of
test equipment/methods would allow that type of deviation in-room.
Nousaine
Yes, that needed for QC.
And where when
>Dunlavy means to say that all or nearly all do break in easily, he
>chooses words that say exactly that, as in his section about tweeters
>and mids.
>
>> >Even in the part you include above, please note that Dunlavy used
>> >the term "Most loudspeakers ...", not "All loudspeakers ..."
>>
>> Yes, but I think he infers that there are few, if any, that actually are
>> audible. His comments suggest he has never heard break-in, and is
>> covering his ass by saying "most", just in case one company has an
>> audible change.
>
>Bill, all you are doing here is simply supplying your own interpretation
>to what Dunlavy stated. Your spin is just that, your spin, not Dunlavy's.
>
>>Even so, his comments actually align very similarly to
>> Paul Barton who's own measurements (less than 1/4dB changes) indicated
>> no audible changes and suspects the effect is purely psychological.
>>
>> These two speaker designers alone are grounds enough to make the
>> break-in theory very suspicious and open to attack.
>
>Again, more spin. You've aligned Barton and Dunlavy when there are
>differences in what they've said. And you've eliminated my reference
>to Jim Thiel, who is very well respected by the scientific-leaning types
>in the audio world - for his careful analysis and design of his speakers.
This seems to me like your interpretation of things. Dunlavy and Barton seem to
be saying exactly the same thing. When their speakers leave the factory they
are "ready to go" and do not require additional break-in.
>In fact, here's what John Dunlavy had to say about Jim Thiel:
>"With respect to present-day designers and their loudspeakers, I consider
>both Jim Thiel and Richard Vandersteen to be good engineers and I believe
>their loudspeakers represent excellent engineering feats - at affordable
>prices. Both Jim's and Richard's loudspeakers exhibit exemplary impulse and
>step responses, along with very smooth on-axis plots of amplitude Vs
>frequency. "
>
>BTW: Vandersteen also states a break-in period is needed for his speakers
>to sound their best.
>
>Also my Spicas were designed by John Bau. Bau was once named by
>"The Audio Critic" as one of the ten good guys in the audio world, for
>his careful scientific approach to audio design. Bau is a test freak and
>has since left audio to go into the test equipment industry. I contacted him
>about a year ago and asked him if he had measured speaker break-in under
>controlled conditions and he said yes. That his speaker designs actually
>incorporated the break-in effect as he had modeled his drivers' break-in
>behavior and his speakers weren't designed to sound their best until
>after a break-in period.
He really said that? Here I thought he was a good guy. If he's actually the
experiments he ought to know that this is not true.
>> I haven't seen any hard data that supports break-in, yet I have seen
>> several reports from respected people that effectively suggest break-in
>> is all in our heads.
Check out the upcoming Jan/Feb Mobile Entertainment for an analysis of break-in
for a woofer that the manufacturer siad needed 48-hours of break-in. In fact IF
you measure the impedance curve of that speaker in the recommended enclosure
immediately after a 48-hour breakin I found that the voice coil imedance had
increased by 0.4-ohms and the Fsb had fallen by 2 Hz. However letting the
system rest overnight and everything returned to its pre-breakin state.
So the speaker will "warm-up" when you heat the coil .... but the apparent
change in compliance is simply a temporal measurement artifact.
And no they system didn't sound any different nor was frequency response
affected with or without warm-up.
>> If a person who has never heard the theory before is introduced to it
>> without any data to back it up, and at the same time is shown data that
>> disproves it, what conclusions would they make?
>
>No argument with this.
>
>> If you could get an independent test of those VM-2 speakers in a lab or
>> a blind listening test which clearly shows audible differences, then you
>> have something solid to work with.
>
>It would be hard to find a new pair now, as they went out of production
>a couple of years ago.
>
>I'm not saying there is absolute, definitive proof of speaker break-in.
>I don't fault anyone for saying there isn't. All I'm saying is that even
>amongst some of the most scientifically-inclined speaker designers
>and driver designers, there is still a mix of opinions.
>
>Alan
A "mix of opinions" is common. Testing those opinions in a detailed fashion
seems to be a province of just a few. I will say this: "belief" in break-in
really has no adverse effect as long as it doesn't tempt you to keep a product
you don't like beyond the return period AND .... you don't burn something out
with stupid break-in techniques. Please don't place your speakers face-to-face
and put large signal pink noise into them. It's a great way to burn-out the
smaller drivers in a system.
Alan Dana
Dunlavy said that QC "usually" occurs during QC. He also stated that
for tweeters & mids, that changes seldom (if ever) change. He very
distinctly does not say that for woofers that ALL of them will be
sufficiently broken-in during QC. He doesn't even say that 'nearly'
or 'almost' all of them will be. The term "usually" does not mean 100%.
And it would very rarely be used to describe a 99% or 98% situation.
So even if you take an extremely liberal position that it means 98%
in this situation, that means about 2% of the woofers would not break in
during QC. This would be 2% of the driver designs available. Any speaker
using one of these 2% drivers thus would need more break-in. And
this number could easily be 5% or 10%, as well as it could be 2%.
My own opinion is that the vast majority of drivers are broken-in during
QC. Thus I second Dunlavy's statement that it usually occurs during QC.
> >In fact, here's what John Dunlavy had to say about Jim Thiel:
> >"With respect to present-day designers and their loudspeakers, I consider
> >both Jim Thiel and Richard Vandersteen to be good engineers and I believe
> >their loudspeakers represent excellent engineering feats - at affordable
> >prices. Both Jim's and Richard's loudspeakers exhibit exemplary impulse and
> >step responses, along with very smooth on-axis plots of amplitude Vs
> >frequency. "
> >
> >BTW: Vandersteen also states a break-in period is needed for his speakers
> >to sound their best.
> >
> >Also my Spicas were designed by John Bau. Bau was once named by
> >"The Audio Critic" as one of the ten good guys in the audio world, for
> >his careful scientific approach to audio design. Bau is a test freak and
> >has since left audio to go into the test equipment industry. I contacted him
> >about a year ago and asked him if he had measured speaker break-in under
> >controlled conditions and he said yes. That his speaker designs actually
> >incorporated the break-in effect as he had modeled his drivers' break-in
> >behavior and his speakers weren't designed to sound their best until
> >after a break-in period.
>
> He really said that? Here I thought he was a good guy. If he's actually the
> experiments he ought to know that this is not true.
He said he based his claims upon his own test results. And it wasn't a year
ago, it was in March & April of this year.
Alan
pauld
"Brian L. McCarty" <opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote in message
news:B7F81FF4.46CBC%opera...@worldjazz.com...
> in article tt3ficl...@corp.supernews.com, Alan Dana at
> alan...@hotmail.com wrote on 21/10/01 4:12:
>
> > Any speaker
> > using one of these 2% drivers thus would need more break-in. And
> > this number could easily be 5% or 10%, as well as it could be 2%.
>
of
> play.
that does not change the fact that you have 37% body fat and are 100%
stupid. How did you get so fat and stupid, McFarty?
Alan Dana
news:B7F81FF4.46CBC%opera...@worldjazz.com...
> in article tt3ficl...@corp.supernews.com, Alan Dana at
> alan...@hotmail.com wrote on 21/10/01 4:12:
>
> > using one of these 2% drivers thus would need more break-in. And
> > this number could easily be 5% or 10%, as well as it could be 2%.
>
> play.
>
Poor Brian has misunderstood the discussion ...... AGAIN!
Your response makes no sense whatsoever. The figures being quoted
were guesstimates for the number of speakers that would NOT be broken-in
in a few seconds of play. So if we make it 20%, then that defeats the
second part of your own statement.
Alan
BillyBob
Wow! I live for this witty repartee! It says volumes about you and
really drives home your point. PLONK!