Speaker burn-in question
GUCCIPHILE
speakers and in the process of burning them in. I use a
mid-fi amp and CD player and put the XLO burn-in track on repeat.
I put the speakers facing each other with the wires switched out of
phase to cancel the noise. After 4 hours of continuous playing on
high SPL, the cabinets and drivers are very warm to touch which is
rare under normal use. Is this normal for burn-in or am I doing
something wrong that can damage the speakers?
Arny Krueger
news:8ej8i8$m0h$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
IME, this could be. You may have literally "burnt-in" your speakers and
caused permanent damage.
John Busenitz
news:8ej8i8$m0h$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> I just bought a new pair of Sonus Faber Grand Piano
> speakers and in the process of burning them in. I use a
> mid-fi amp and CD player and put the XLO burn-in track on repeat.
> I put the speakers facing each other with the wires switched out of
> phase to cancel the noise. After 4 hours of continuous playing on
> high SPL, the cabinets and drivers are very warm to touch which is
> rare under normal use. Is this normal for burn-in or am I doing
> something wrong that can damage the speakers?
Yes; you are using a mid-fi amplifier and a CD player. Such
musical speakers should be burned in only with vinyl and an
expensive amplifier, preferably a tube model. Also, what type
of interconnects are you using? You wouldn't bottleneck your
system with cheap cabling, would you? So why burn them in that
way?
Your speakers are warm to the touch to compensate for the cold
grainy hardness of your midfi amplifier. A tube amplifier should
solve that problem, and burn them in to sound more musical as
well.
Good luck!
arthur bye
> Concertos, which use the same drivers and they broke in within 20
> hours of moderate SPL. The heat does not sound normal though,
Arthur Bye
DALJHD
attained their present level of competence, some drivers did require
a modest break-in period.
However, for properly designed, accurate loudspeakers, using high
quality drivers and crossover components, there should be no
"burn-in" or "break-in" time.
I don't know who is responsible for propagating such nonsense, but
for present-day audiophile loudspeakers designed by a competent
engineering staff, using high quaolity components and submitted to a
complete anechoic measurement session, no audible or measurable
changes should occur after they have been subjected to normal usage.
(Some loudspeaker manufacturers that choose to use drivers whose
measurable and audible properties are subject to change after some
period of initial use, typically submit them to a "break-in period"
before they are installed during the final assembly process. This is
accomplished by submitting the drivers to a prolonged session of
"broadband noise" at rather high power levels. This heats the voice
coil and surrounding structure to a fairly high temperature that
stabilizes affected properties.)
Oftentimes, the so-called "break-in time" suggested by some
manufacturers merely serves the purpose of letting a new user to
become acquainted with the "different sound" of a new loudspeaker
that may be less than "truly accurate".
John D.
arthur bye
no less than 4 new sets of mid to high end speakers and it is very
easy to tell the differences of a speaker after burn in.
Arthur Bye
Roland Saldanha
<urba...@home.com> wrote:
I believe Paul Barton (of the PSB line) also stated in an interview
that he did not believe in break in of speakers and in effect the
listeners ears were being broken in to the "new sound" so count two
designers of respected lines of speakers saying "no break in
required" vs the pulp audio press mythologizing "burn in".
If in in fact gucciphile has damaged his speakers by running them at
high SPL with a "burn in disk" it is a good example of the real
damage that unscrupulous cable and other bogus gear manufacturers
wreck through their dubious products.
Roland
Timothy McTeague
esteemed and experienced producers of high-end speakers in the
world. I guess that your experience with up to 4 sets of speakers,
in what I feel sure was an uncontrolled situation, puts to shame John
Dunlavy's meager career of building and testing thousands of pairs.
Sorry to seem so brusque but it is difficult being interested in
audio and critical thinking at the same time. The two seldom appear
employed together in this arena.
Tim McTeague
"Life is a tragedy for those who feel...a comedy for those that think."
"arthur bye" <urba...@home.com> wrote in message
news:8ekik4$fub$1...@news.aud.alcatel.com...
DALJHD
differ with you in this regard. I have purchased no less than 4 new
sets of mid to high end speakers and it is very easy to tell the
differences of a speaker after burn in."
Well, I can only relate my own experience with accurate loudspeakers
using high quality components. The inability of myself and a few
members of my staff (all critical listeners) to hear any confirmable
differences during "critical listening sessions", repeated over
periods of a few weeks, was also confirmed by comparing a complete
set of anechoic measurements made at the time of manufacture with the
same measurements made after the prolonged break-in period.
These measurements provided no evidence to support the existence of
any audible differences, i.e., any alterations in properties that
might be audible within a high-end audio system playing high quality
SACD, DSD and DVD recordings..
However, I would not rule out the possibility that some loudspeakers
might exhibit properties that do change after some period of
"break-in" and create differences in one or more audible categories.
John D.
Alan Homka
these noticable differences are?
Do the speakers sound worse after burn in? I have been listening to
several speakers and would like to think that they will sound as good as
they do now for several years after I purchase them.
Are the manufacturer's specs typically indicative of pre-burn in or
post-burn in measurements?
If speakers sound better after burn in, then why don't the manufactures
burn them in?
Is this a characteristic of just cheap speakers or all speakers?
--
Alan Homka
arthur bye wrote:
> John: I would beg to differ with you in this regard. I have purchased
> no less than 4 new sets of mid to high end speakers and it is very
> easy to tell the differences of a speaker after burn in.
>
> Arthur Bye
John Hughes
John's opinion is widely known on this forum. There are many
competent and respectable loudspeaker manufactures who believe
in the contrary, that dynamic loudspeakers do typically undergo a
break-in period. I have heard a range of between 48 hours and 3
months given from different manufacturers.
And no, speakers will not "sound worse" after burn-in.
johnh
"DALJHD" <dal...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:8ek9ep$dqm$1...@news.aud.alcatel.com...
> Many years ago, before "high-end" driver designers and
manufacturers
> attained their present level of competence, some drivers did
require
> a modest break-in period.
>
> However, for properly designed, accurate loudspeakers, using
high
> quality drivers and crossover components, there should be no
> "burn-in" or "break-in" time.
>
> I don't know who is responsible for propagating such nonsense,
but
> for present-day audiophile loudspeakers designed by a competent
> engineering staff, using high quaolity components and
submitted to a
> complete anechoic measurement session, no audible or measurable
> changes should occur after they have been subjected to normal
usage.
>
> (Some loudspeaker manufacturers that choose to use drivers
whose
> measurable and audible properties are subject to change after
some
Philip Vafiadis
news:8ej8i8$m0h$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> I just bought a new pair of Sonus Faber Grand Piano
> speakers and in the process of burning them in. I use a
> mid-fi amp and CD player and put the XLO burn-in track on repeat.
> I put the speakers facing each other with the wires switched out of
> phase to cancel the noise. After 4 hours of continuous playing on
> high SPL, the cabinets and drivers are very warm to touch which is
> rare under normal use. Is this normal for burn-in or am I doing
> something wrong that can damage the speakers?
YES, you can damage your speakers.
Domestic speakers are usually not designed to take high continuous power on
broadband sound. Almost all of the power you put into your speakers is
dissipated in the driver voice coils as heat. Under circumstances where
there is little dynamic range in the signal (like your run in disc) and you
are playing hard, the voice coils are going to get very hot....this is why
the drivers and cabinets are warm after your burn in procedure.
Many claimed benefits of running in speakers are not supported by my own
experiments or experience, some changes, however, are. The resonance
frequency (Fs) of almost all drivers gets lower with some use and then
settles to a value that will be maintained for some time. If the designer
has done their job right the final system alignments should have been
developed based on the 'run in' Fs...so speakers may sound a little
unbalanced when new. Some manufacturers 'run in' drivers before using them
in production but this is rare for larger companies, and frankly even for
most smaller companies as well.
Philip Vafiadis
VAF Research Pty Ltd
www.vaf.com.au
Stewart Pinkerton
>As a novice here, I would like to know if you could better describe what
>these noticable differences are?
>
>Do the speakers sound worse after burn in? I have been listening to
>several speakers and would like to think that they will sound as good as
>they do now for several years after I purchase them.
>
>Are the manufacturer's specs typically indicative of pre-burn in or
>post-burn in measurements?
>
>If speakers sound better after burn in, then why don't the manufactures
>burn them in?
I'm afraid that you are rather missing the point. You buy a pair of
expensive new 'designer label' speakers, take them home and are
disturbed by their sound compared to the old much-loved ones. You
panic and call the store, where the nice sales person soothes your
shattered nerves by assuring you that these are extremely high quality
speakers and just like a Ferrari or a pair of hand-made boots, they
need a little time to 'break in', in fact the better the speaker, the
more time they take to break in.
You then relax, stop worrying about it, play your hi-fi a *lot* for a
few weeks (until the 'full return if not satisfied' time has run out),
and lo and behold, your ears have now become accustomed to the
different tonal balance of the new speakers and you can appreciate
that they always were better speakers, which is why you bought them in
the first place. Simple, really.........
Oh, did I mention that 'high-end' speakers *always* improve during the
break-in period, and then magically never change after that, until the
launch of a new model begins to rot the cone surrounds?
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Richard D Pierce
arthur bye <urba...@home.com> wrote:
>John: I would beg to differ with you in this regard. I have purchased
>no less than 4 new sets of mid to high end speakers and it is very
>easy to tell the differences of a speaker after burn in.
Well, there are those of us that will differ with you in this
regard, and none of us need to beg.
I have been responsible for the purchase, design, building, what
have you of several thousand times as many drivers as you, and
the data I have before me suggests something different.
There are effects from use, for example, reduction in efficiency
due to temperature rise, increase in compliance due to elastic
deformation of the surround, changes in the mechanical
properties of adhesives and cone material, etc., that are the
result of extended playing at moderate to high power levels, for
sure.
However, every one of these effects can be shown to be
reversible simply by removing the signal from the loudspeaker
for the time needed for it to reach thermal equilibrium with the
surroundings (minutes to hours), or for elastic deformation to
recover (seconds, at most). There exiwst no objective data to
suggest that there is anything to long-term performance change,
OTHER THAN WEAR AND DETERIORATION, to the break-in legends.
What break-in does occur in drivers occurs withing the first few
SECONDS of operation, and this is normally done during driver
qualification and system testing.
Further, the sound and, indeed, objective measurements of
loudspeakers show significant changes due to simply evironmental
differences, such as changes in temperature and humidity.
No one doubts that you perceived there is a difference, but you
fail to account for a variety of factors that have nothing to do
with the loudspeaker.
The only data that would substantiate any claims of real changes
would involve direct comparisons between identical drivers that
differ only in their age. This, in and of itself, is a difficult
experiment to conduct if, for no other reason than the fact that
it's nearly impossible to find two identical drivers to begin
with.
On the other hand, it IS possible that the 4 sets of drivers you
have DID change markedly over a period of several hours of use.
After all, it IS possible that some drivers are defective in
this fashion.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
arthur bye
telling was a set of Soliloquy 5.0 minimonitors that were truly awful
when I unpacked them. They were so bad I called the manufactuer.
There was no bass and the high end sounded shrill. I had two freinds
tell be to take them back. The Mfg said to give them 200 hours. I
did. The change was incredible.
I had two sets of Sonus Fabers before them that required little or no
break in.
Go figure.
Arthur Bye
BELJAN E
tube amplifier being used, which brought to mind the idea I have had
over the past several weeks. My question is has anyone attempted to
build a tube preamp on their own without any sort of a kit? I ordered
several tubes from Radio Shack (low priced ones operating within specs
of parts I could easily obtain) to attempt to do this with. I obtained
spec sheets for the tubes, drew up a schematic (well you cannot really
call it that, kinda a messy drawing is more like it!) and got the parts
to do it based on my design. The design I drew up is fairly simple,
point to point hard wired, one set of inputs, one set outputs and only
a level control (all this could be changed but I wanted to see if this
would work before I invested much in it). I simply am wondering if
anyone else ever got the ambition to do a project like this and if they
had any success in doing it. I do have some the preamp done, enough to
get the tubes running at least, give them a bit of burn in at least
before I finalize everything else and assure it works.
Arny Krueger
news:8emsk8$rf3$1...@news.aud.alcatel.com...
>There exist no objective data to
>suggest that there is anything to long-term performance change,
>OTHER THAN WEAR AND DETERIORATION, to the break-in legends.
The president DLC Design, an independent audio consulting house that
specializes in doing comprehensive tests of loudspeaker drivers says
the same thing.
>What break-in does occur in drivers occurs withing the first few
>SECONDS of operation, and this is normally done during driver
>qualification and system testing.
DLC's preside even said just that in an AES paper. I don't think
anybody has ever tried to argue it with him.
> On the other hand, it IS possible that the 4 sets of drivers you
> have DID change markedly over a period of several hours of use.
> After all, it IS possible that some drivers are defective in
> this fashion.
This makes such perfect common sense.
I think of things that actually do "break in" like leather products.
They also seem to wear out pretty quickly. There is an obvious
connection.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Hi all,
>
>John's opinion is widely known on this forum. There are many
>competent and respectable loudspeaker manufactures who believe
>in the contrary, that dynamic loudspeakers do typically undergo a
>break-in period. I have heard a range of between 48 hours and 3
>months given from different manufacturers.
>
>And no, speakers will not "sound worse" after burn-in.
Really? Why not? The answer to that question goes to the heart of all
this snake-oil nonsense about speaker burn-in. Supposedly, they sound
bright and brash out of the box, then they magically ( 'cos there's no
rational *physical* mechanism) smooth out during 'break-in', after
which they magically don't 'wear out', but stay at peak performance
for ever. ROTFLMAO!
Richard D Pierce
arthur bye <urba...@home.com> wrote:
>Tim: I can only relate to you from personal experience. The most
>telling was a set of Soliloquy 5.0 minimonitors that were truly awful
>when I unpacked them. They were so bad I called the manufactuer.
>There was no bass and the high end sounded shrill. I had two freinds
>tell be to take them back. The Mfg said to give them 200 hours. I
>did. The change was incredible.
Fine. Did you then bother to compare them directly with a NEW
pair, one that had NOT gone through the 200 hour "break in?"
How on earth could a manufacturer, in good conscience, allow a
pair of speakers that sounded, as you assert, so bad out of
their plant?
Seung
world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net (Richard D Pierce) wrote:
> There are effects from use, for example, reduction in efficiency
> due to temperature rise, increase in compliance due to elastic
> deformation of the surround, changes in the mechanical
> properties of adhesives and cone material, etc., that are the
> result of extended playing at moderate to high power levels, for
> sure.
When we talk about loudspeaker break-in, why do we restrict the
subject to loudspeaker units? Other parts (e.g. capacitors in
crossover networks) might break-in.
--
Seung (seungse...@yahoo.com)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Philip T Ganderton
<html>
I have never experienced speaker break-in myself, but I've been reading
these posts, and thinking about the 100 or 200 hours of listening suggested
by some manufacturers (claimed). Even on the best of weeks I might
listen 10 hours, perhaps two 2 hour sessions during the week, and a 2/4
or 6 hour session on the weekend. And I'm a pretty dedicated audiophile
as defined by hardware, software, and setup investment. So it would
take me at least 2.5 months to put in 100 hours, and 5 months for the 200
hours. Would I have to "suffer" that long before the speaker sounded
any good? And Richard's point about comparisons is well taken: how
could anyone possibly remember the sound of the new un-broken-in speaker
from that long ago?
<br>I'm calling BS all over speaker break-in.
<p>regards,
<br> philip ganderton
<p>Richard D Pierce wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>[earlier post quoted, deleted here]</blockquote>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Fine. Did you then bother to compare them directly
with a NEW
<br>pair, one that had NOT gone through the 200 hour "break in?"
<br> </blockquote>
</html>
Howard Ferstler
>
> In article <8emslh$rf4$1...@news.aud.alcatel.com>,
> arthur bye <urba...@home.com> wrote:
> >Tim: I can only relate to you from personal experience. The most
> >telling was a set of Soliloquy 5.0 minimonitors that were truly awful
> >when I unpacked them. They were so bad I called the manufactuer.
> >There was no bass and the high end sounded shrill. I had two freinds
> >tell be to take them back. The Mfg said to give them 200 hours. I
> >did. The change was incredible.
>
> pair of speakers that sounded, as you assert, so bad out of
> their plant?
I agree completely. It seems like a good manufacturer, if they
really believe that their speakers need breaking in, would do the
break-in process themselves. That way, if the process does not
work out properly and the speakers break in wrong or end up
displaying post-production defects, they could be fixed in house.
Sending out speakers that supposedly need breaking in before
working properly looks like the manufacturer is turning every
customer into a beta tester.
I think that most individuals get used to their speakers as they
listen to them more and more, provided that the dealer or
manufacturer gets them properly psyched up for the hypothetical
break-in process, and that the speakers actually change little,
if at all. Manufacturers are almost certainly aware of this, and
so if one of them tells that customer that the speakers will get
better and better over time, the customer often gets excited
enough about the prospect to end up letting his imagination do
the breaking in for him.
Howard Ferstler
thom...@my-deja.com
speakers. It's regularly referred to in reviews of amps, pre-amps,
CD players and even cables.
Kirk
In article <8epl9d$88h$1...@news.aud.alcatel.com>,
Alan Dana
(Richard D Pierce) wrote:
> In article <8emslh$rf4$1...@news.aud.alcatel.com>,
> arthur bye <urba...@home.com> wrote:
> >Tim: I can only relate to you from personal experience. The most
> >telling was a set of Soliloquy 5.0 minimonitors that were truly awful
> >when I unpacked them. They were so bad I called the manufactuer.
> >There was no bass and the high end sounded shrill. I had two freinds
> >tell be to take them back. The Mfg said to give them 200 hours. I
> >did. The change was incredible.
>
> Fine. Did you then bother to compare them directly with a NEW
> pair, one that had NOT gone through the 200 hour "break in?"
I've done this on three occasions. And used admittedly poor
measurement tools, but nevertheless some form of measurement
to compare the "broken-in" speaker to the new speaker as well as
the "broken-in" measurements to that same speaker's measurements
when new.
My findings were in one case, I could neither hear or measure
any difference. In another case, I thought I could hear
distinct differences and I could measure small differences, but
these could have been due to measurement error. In the third
case I could both hear and measure significant differences.
I don't pretend to know why the third case was so dramatic. I
made an effort to control environmental conditions, such as
furniture placement, microphone placement, speaker placement.
And I wasn't a believer in speaker break-in effects until
this incident.
Oh, I should note that after this I then "broke-in" the
second speaker in the 3rd pair and it too had significant,
measurable differences after 50+ hours of use.
> How on earth could a manufacturer, in good conscience, allow a
> pair of speakers that sounded, as you assert, so bad out of
> their plant?
Can't answer this one. Seems to me that if I knew my stuff
wasn't going to sound good out of the box, then I would take
the necessary steps to make it sound better.
Alan, still no believer in any kind of solidstate or wire break-in.
Richard D Pierce
>subject to loudspeaker units? Other parts (e.g. capacitors in
>crossover networks) might break-in.
Because the drivers are the most variable and vulnerable units
in the system. However, let's address the ENTIRE system, then,
and ask precisely the same questions of it that we did the
drivers: how can one reasonably make a statement that changes
DID occur dur to burn in when NO direct comaprisons have been
made between two otherwise identical systems: one burned in and
the other not.
Further, like it or not, the high-end business is the absolute
backwater of electronic technology. There exists industries out
there that are HUNDREDS of times bigger and have DECADES more
experience in these matters than the high end could reasonably
lay claim to. There are applications in those industries that
are FAR more sensitive to these effects than music production.
With very RARE exception, the break-in issue as expounded by
high-end proponents DOES NOT EXIST in the kinds of components
used in these systems. Even in the case of electrolytic
capacitors used in crossovers, the amount of time needed to
reform the electrolyte, IF it ever got unformed, is on the order
of a second or two.
People who posit the break-in issue as real neatly sweep the
variability and documented poort auditory memory under the rug
when it's brought up. They simply deniy it's effect and even
it's existance.
But, directly to the point: Those who promote break-in as a ral
phenomenon are making a specific and somewhat extraordinary
claim; WHERE IS THEIR EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THIS
CLAIM? A simply comparison between a two systems, otherwise
identical, save for break-in time, where the ONLY means
available to the listener to choose one over the other is the
SOUND is one way for them to either support or refute these
extraordinary claims. Let them come to the table with such data
and then we'll talk.
But statements like "after 200 hours, they sounded different"
simply is not evidence. Prove to us your listening is utterly
unchanged after 200 hours, and that your memory of the sound
from 200 hours ago is absolutely complete and flawless.
Philip Vafiadis
measure differences in new drivers vs. one with some use. My company,
VAF Research is the largest producer of good quality speakers in
Australia. We measure many thousands of drivers per year and have a
well resourced facility including a large anechoic chamber and MLS,
FFT, Analogue etc test equipment.
As stated in an earlier post, many claimed benefits of running in
speakers are not supported by my own experiments or experience, some
changes, however, are. The resonance frequency (Fs) of almost all low
frequency drivers gets lower with some use and then settles to a
value that will be maintained for some time. If the designer has done
their job right the final system alignments should have been
developed based on the 'run in' Fs...so speakers may sound a little
unbalanced when new. Some manufacturers 'run in' drivers before using
them in production but this is rare for larger companies, and frankly
even for most smaller companies as well.
I expect that most of the unspecified measurements discussed in this
thread relate to amplitude response envelope at higher frequencies.
Most companies do not have the resources to make accurate low
frequency amplitude measurements as most use MLS or FFT based systems
and 'gate' out the early room (or chamber) reflections which
compromises the accuracy of the measurement at lower frequencies. I
concur that such measurements yield no statistically valid proof that
'running in' alters the performance of a driver.
It may be that my company's standards are higher than most, however
the change in Fs should be obvious to those who are looking and the
result on low frequency alignment is easily calculated or measured
with the appropriate tools.
Best regards
Philip Vafiadis
VAF Research Pty Ltd
www.vaf.com.au
Richard D Pierce <world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net> wrote in message
news:8eqc9t$6vq$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Jonathan Fredrick
keeping in mind the original question/post by Guccifill: Is it safe to
conclude that he either heated his expensive new speakers up for
nothing (and to no end) or ruined them?
I agree with the remainder of your post. I work in an area of
electrical engineering where I regularly make measurements of
time, phase, magnitude on the order of pico seconds, tenths of
degrees, and hundredths of decibels. If such differences exist,
WHY haven't they been measured and documented?
Take care,
Jonathan
PS: To all, before you do something that may risk destroying
your new high-end equipment, ask!
Richard D Pierce wrote:
> IBut statements like "after 200 hours, they sounded different"
> simply is not evidence. Prove to us your listening is utterly
> unchanged after 200 hours, and that your memory of the sound
> from 200 hours ago is absolutely complete and flawless.
--
Jonathan Fredrick
fred...@ee.ucla.edu
laboratory: 310-206-1024
cubicles: 310-825-7855 (ask for me in cubicle #47)
fax: 310-206-4819
http://www.mwlab.ee.ucla.edu/~fredrick
auplater
> Even in the case of electrolytic
> capacitors used in crossovers, the amount of time needed to
> reform the electrolyte, IF it ever got unformed, is on the order
> of a second or two.
actually... it's the dielectric that needs re-forming in an
electrolytic capacitor, be it tanalum or aluminum... these devices
are produced by imposing an anodic (+) potential on one side of the
foil in the presence of an oxidizing electrolyte, which forces an
increase in the thickness of the normally present oxide film on one
side of the metal. Since this film has high dielectric strength and
is very thin, large values of capacitance can be realized in small
volumes... cathodic potentials can cause degradation of this film,
hence the polarity rules....
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
auplater
John Lichtenberger
MetaPlate Inc.
ROBERT C. LANG
attribute my perceptions that some audio equipment, particularly
speakers, improve over time are due to the fact that *I* had
adjusted to their sound much more than that they had actually
improved or changed in some measurable way. But at the same
time I do not completely dismiss claims by those who value
speaker "burn in", especially those claims of speaker
designers whom I respect. First, I could never disprove their
belief and second, in some ways those beliefs do not seem
entirely unreasonable. So while I generally agree with you, I
will play the devil's advocate.
Speakers are mechanical devices in that they are comprised of
parts that move. Most devices with parts that move or flex,
whether they be new car engines, a clutch, skate board, new
door hinge, new shoes etc. at a minimum change, and most would
agree, improve, with a little break in. A cars straight line
performance, as well as its efficiency definitely improves,
slowly but surely, during the first few thousand miles. Now
I am not directly comparing a loud speaker to a car, or shoes,
but they all have parts that move or flex.
Therefore, it may not be unreasonable that loudspeakers,
especially woofers and subs, would change their mechanical
performance to some degree. Perhaps these changes in performance
are too miniscule or complex to be physically measured but not
too small or complex to be perceived by the ear and brain.
It has been suggested that if a speaker manufacturer knows or
believes their speakers sound better after "burn in", why don't
they burn them in before they leave the factory. Well, that
would almost certainly be very cost prohibitive. Besides, if a
manufacturer "knows" that a product will break in a predictable
manner, like a car or a pair of shoes, there would be little
reason to break them in, especially since the buyer expects for
them to sound better overtime anyway.
As for my personal experience, for whatever reasons, I have
found speakers that I have owned to sound better over time. But
they sounded good to me right out of the box, and then seemingly
got better over time. I suspect that if there is any
truth to speaker burn-in that the speaker probably met minimum
specs (+/-) to begin with and then got "better" whether that
"better" can be measured by current instruments or not.
The designer of my speakers, the Nestorovic System 16A,
certainly made no excuses for how the speakers would sound
out of the box (he test them personally), but he definitely
advised that they would soundbetter after break in.
(He was much more concerned that the speakers be played at room
temperature. I inadvertently advised him of my practice of
bundling up to keep warm during the winter while listening to
music instead of heating the room. My forced
air system is not quiet and can be audible, especially during
quiet passages, so I choose to bundle up and keep the heat off.
Mr. Nestorovic was *very* concerned about that. So what I do now
during the winter is thoroughly warm the room before listening,
listen to music about an hour, warm the room up again, then
listen again. Sure enough, the music/speakers sounded much
better, but perhaps that is because I was a lot more comfortable.
Perhaps the speakers [and the rest of the gear sounded better]
or a combination of both because the room was warm.
May be this can be measured to within a scientific certainty;
maybe not).
Robert C. Lang
======================
Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
>
> It seems like a good manufacturer, if they
> really believe that their speakers need breaking in, would do the
> break-in process themselves. That way, if the process does not
> work out properly and the speakers break in wrong or end up
> displaying post-production defects, they could be fixed in house.
> Sending out speakers that supposedly need breaking in before
> working properly looks like the manufacturer is turning every
> customer into a beta tester.
>
> I think that most individuals get used to their speakers as they
> listen to them more and more, provided that the dealer or
> manufacturer gets them properly psyched up for the hypothetical
> break-in process, and that the speakers actually change little,
> if at all..................
DALJHD
designed loudspeaker crossover networks have no audible or measurable
break-in properties.
John D.
DALJHD
drivers, especially most woofers, does drop somewhat with use - and
is typically accompanied by a change in some "Q" properties.
It is the reason that many manufacturers of audiophile loudspeakers
submit such drivers to a "break-in" period before they are selected
for use.
John D.
ScottW
"Philip Vafiadis" <phi...@vaf.com.au> wrote:
(snip)
> Many claimed benefits of running in speakers are not supported by my
own
> experiments or experience, some changes, however, are. The resonance
> settles to a value that will be maintained for some time. If the
designer
> has done their job right the final system alignments should have been
> developed based on the 'run in' Fs...so speakers may sound a little
> unbalanced when new. Some manufacturers 'run in' drivers before using
them
> in production but this is rare for larger companies, and frankly even
for
> most smaller companies as well.
>
Thanks,
--
ScottW
Seung
world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net (Richard D Pierce) wrote:
> But, directly to the point: Those who promote break-in as a ral
> phenomenon are making a specific and somewhat extraordinary
> claim; WHERE IS THEIR EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THIS
> CLAIM? A simply comparison between a two systems, otherwise
> identical, save for break-in time, where the ONLY means
> available to the listener to choose one over the other is the
> SOUND is one way for them to either support or refute these
> extraordinary claims. Let them come to the table with such data
> and then we'll talk.
Frankly, I have not seen any scientific evidence that there is no
loudspeaker break-in, either. Would you show us measurement sets of
the same loudspeaker taken different times (when it's new, 1 minutes,
2 minutes, 4 minutes old ...) or give us a pointer to such data? It
would be better if the loudspeaker is from a manufacturer who
promotes loudspeaker break-in theory.
It will be a valuable service to the RAHE and the audiophile
community if someone with engineering knowledge and resources does
this.
--
Seung(seungse...@yahoo.com)
Richard D Pierce
Philip Vafiadis <phi...@vaf.com.au> wrote:
>I find it remarkable that so many report that they have failed
>to measure differences in new drivers vs. one with some use. My
>company, VAF Research is the largest producer of good quality
>speakers in Australia. We measure many thousands of drivers per
>year and have a well resourced facility including a large
>anechoic chamber and MLS, FFT, Analogue etc test equipment.
>As stated in an earlier post, many claimed benefits of running
>in speakers are not supported by my own experiments or
>experience, some changes, however, are. The resonance frequency
>(Fs) of almost all low frequency drivers gets lower with some
>use and then settles to a value that will be maintained for some
>time.
This is simply due to elastic deformation of the surround. It is
more prominent in rubber (actually, in most cases, a
polydutadene-styrene alloy often modified with PVC, almost never
"rubber" as in natural latex) that leads to an increase in
mechanical compliance.
However, if your assertion is correct, in that it is
unrecoverable elastic deformation, then the consequence of this
is a continuous relaxation of the surruound leading to eventual
failure. I'm sure you don't mean to say that this is what your
drivers do, or do you?
In all cases I have seen, save breakup of sizing materials on
the centering spider, which occurs the first time the spider is
stretched (i.e. in the first few milliseconds of driver test),
all such changes in resonant frequency due to flexing are fully
recoverable, the recovery time being as short as a few seconds
(the time being influenced to some extent by material and
ambient temperature.
>If the designer has done their job right the final system
>alignments should have been developed based on the 'run in'
>Fs...so speakers may sound a little unbalanced when new. Some
>manufacturers 'run in' drivers before using them in production
>but this is rare for larger companies, and frankly even for most
>smaller companies as well.
>
>I expect that most of the unspecified measurements discussed in
>this thread relate to amplitude response envelope at higher
>frequencies. Most companies do not have the resources to make
>accurate low frequency amplitude measurements as most use MLS or
>FFT based systems and 'gate' out the early room (or chamber)
>reflections which compromises the accuracy of the measurement at
>lower frequencies. I concur that such measurements yield no
>statistically valid proof that 'running in' alters the
>performance of a driver.
I have these facilities and they do not support your assertion.
Not only that, but the claims of HOW things sound different do
not match your assertion that the changes occur in the
low-frequency behavior of the driver.
Further, you assert that it is the low frequency properties that
change, specifically Fs. Now, that is a parameter that can be
measured to great accuracy DIRECTLY without the use of the
extended facilities you say are required to measure these
changes. And in all cases (several thousand) that I have before
me, no driver shows unrecoverable break-in changes on these
sorts of parameters that is not directly associated with either
deterioration or outright failure.
Moreover, your assertion simply ignores the fact that, for
example, in the case of the vast majority of sealed-box systems,
it is NOT the woofer's mechanical compliance that determines
system resonant frequency. This is because the total compliance
of the system is dominated by the substantially lower acoustical
compliance of the cabinet. It is not uncommon to see
driver/cabinet compliance ratios of 4:1, and in such cases,
changes in the woofer's low frequency parameters are simply not
going to have the effect claimed on the >system< performance..
>It may be that my company's standards are higher than most,
>however the change in Fs should be obvious to those who are
>looking and the result on low frequency alignment is easily
>calculated or measured with the appropriate tools.
It may also be that, to date, NO claim of such changes has been
substantiated with any supporting data, any claims of the
AUDIBILITY of such changes has never been accompanied by any
reasonable comparison between two units whose only difference is
break-in.
It may well be that such claims are, in fact, only claims.
Again, I ask the question: where are the direct comprisons
between two otherwise identical components: one new and one not
"broken-in", where the comaprison bnetween the two is ONLY based
upon the SOUND of the two and the differences in the sound.
Until we see such fair comparisons, they remain unsubstantiated
claims.
Alan Dana
Dana) wrote:
> I've done this on three occasions. And used admittedly poor
> measurement tools, but nevertheless some form of measurement
> to compare the "broken-in" speaker to the new speaker as well as
> the "broken-in" measurements to that same speaker's measurements
> when new.
>
> My findings were in one case, I could neither hear or measure
> any difference. In another case, I thought I could hear
> distinct differences and I could measure small differences, but
> these could have been due to measurement error. In the third
> case I could both hear and measure significant differences.
I should have noted that the only measurable differences I
could find were on low bass. I used a tone generator and
after 50 some hours, the used speaker's bass output was greater
than the new speaker. For example, when fed a 35Hz note the
new speaker's output was a good 4dB below that of the used
speaker - using the same amp, same channel, same preamp and
same measured output voltage on my multimeter. Later after
the ex-"new" speaker had been played for a while, they were
within 1dB of each other.
Alan
Richard D Pierce
Seung <seungse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <8eqc9t$6vq$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net (Richard D Pierce) wrote:
>
>> But, directly to the point: Those who promote break-in as a ral
>> phenomenon are making a specific and somewhat extraordinary
>> claim; WHERE IS THEIR EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THIS
>> CLAIM? A simply comparison between a two systems, otherwise
>> identical, save for break-in time, where the ONLY means
>> available to the listener to choose one over the other is the
>> SOUND is one way for them to either support or refute these
>> extraordinary claims. Let them come to the table with such data
>> and then we'll talk.
>
>Frankly, I have not seen any scientific evidence that there is no
>loudspeaker break-in, either.
Nor did the world see any scientific evidence that the moon was
made a green cheese before the Apollo landings in 1969.
Look, the claim is made that break-in is a real phenomonenon.
Break-in of speakers, break-in of components, break-in of cables
and more. These ARE rather extraordinary claims in light of the
rather HUGE amount of scientific and technical experience
outside of the realm of high-end audio. Thus, the burden of
proof lies on those making these claims to substantiate them,
not on others to refute them.
It is an impossibility to prove the non-existance of some
phenomenon. to do so would require us to test EVERY imaginable
instance where such a phenomenon might hold. That's simply
impossible. On the other hand, IF the effect is as dramatic as
some claim, it would be simple to prove, via the fair and
unbiased comparison I have proposed, to prove the phenomenon
DOES exist. If it's SO easy, where's the proof. All we need is 1
instance of a fair, unbiased and REPEATABLE case to prove it
exists.
Back to our original example, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove the moon
is NOT made of green cheese: to do so would require us to
examine EVERY single speck of rock and dust on the moon. Now, we
could examine a LOT of rock and dust and be reasonably
confident, but there are those that would still say: ah, but we
haven't yet looked in the right place AND SCIENCE CAN'T PROVE
IT'S NOT MADE OF GREEN CHEESE!
Sorry, but the burden of proof for that lies on those claiming
it is made of curdled cow's milk: all they have to do is show up
with just 1 piece of verifiable evidence: have a lunar probe
bring back 1 piece of cheese from the moon, and they're done:
they have the existance proof.
>Would you show us measurement sets of
>the same loudspeaker taken different times (when it's new, 1 minutes,
>2 minutes, 4 minutes old ...) or give us a pointer to such data?
You want to rifle through several THOUSAND measurements I have
on file here? And, geuss what, your STILL won't be satisfied
because you can alwasy claim that the data I am missing proves
it. Well, sorry, to DISPROVE the claim is not my or ANYONE
else's job: it's the job of those MAKING the claim to prove it
exists.
>It
>would be better if the loudspeaker is from a manufacturer who
>promotes loudspeaker break-in theory.
To date, no such manufacturer has been forthcoming with either
the verifiable data OR the actual physical instances in hand to
support the claim.
I have, on the other hand, described properties and measurements
that are repeatable by anyone with access to a moderate amount
of equipment that shows there ARE changes over short-term usage
that show every evidence of being fully revoverable when the
system is allowed to relax in a quiescent state.
>It will be a valuable service to the RAHE and the audiophile
>community if someone with engineering knowledge and resources does
>this.
Where is the same requirement of those making the claim? Why
are THEY not held to the same standard of proof? THEY are the
ones making the claim, THEY need to come to the table with the
evidence.
I have proposed a simple, easily conducted experiment that will
show if there is anything to the audibility of the "break-in"
claims: simply compare two otherwise identical products, one
broken in and one not, under identical conditions, where the
listener is allowed to choose between them based on the
potential difference in sound ONLY.
Where is the data?
Philip Vafiadis
news:8eslhv$l5v$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> In article <8elron$8sp$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> How many hours of use are typically required to stabilize Fs?
Some designs take longer than others. As little as 5 min to 30-40 Hrs. In
VAF's experience even for the long run in time drivers most of the 'running
in' is achieved in the first 30-60 min or so.
Best regards
Paul Szabady
many co-workers) can testify that there is indeed a change in
loudspeaker sound within the first few hours of play. It's fairly common
practice for shops to sell their demonstrators at reduced prices, and
being in a particularly cost-conscious market this happened quite often
at our store. Consequently we were constantly replacing demos with new
products. The intensity of the effect varied from manufacturer to
manufacturer, and speaker model to speaker model, but the change did
occur. Most often, new-from-the-box speakers sounded brighter, and
thinner in the bass than models that had been played for a few hours.
They then smoothed-out in the high frequencies and the bass response
improved. The amount of time for this to happen varied, but we usually
would play a new speaker overnight just to be safe before using it for
demonstration purposes. Some speakers required week-end play before
coming into song. Since these speakers often left the store to go into
prospective customer's homes for audition, we felt it was better for the
customer NOT to spend his week-end audition time burning-in the
product...
Since these were speakers whose sound was familiar to us, the jaded and
cynical imputation that this was somehow just a phenomenon of 'getting
used' to the sound of an alien product just doesn't hold up. We
eventually reached the somewhat waggish view that maybe we should charge
more for the 'broken-in' speaker rather than less :)
Similar effects occurred with cables/speaker wire and with fresh
hardware, which we left on all the time to eliminate any potential
changes in the their sound arising from warm-up.
Frankly I'm really beginning to wonder what all the hub-bub is about all
these effects. I don't see how anyone is being misled or being taken
advantage of by the recommendation to play new components in the home
for a few days before attempting critical listening.
I make no speculation as to why these effects occur.
Paul Szabady
Nousaine
snip......
>>It will be a valuable service to the RAHE and the audiophile
>>community if someone with engineering knowledge and resources does
>>this.
>
>Where is the same requirement of those making the claim? Why
>are THEY not held to the same standard of proof? THEY are the
>ones making the claim, THEY need to come to the table with the
>evidence.
>
>I have proposed a simple, easily conducted experiment that will
>show if there is anything to the audibility of the "break-in"
>claims: simply compare two otherwise identical products, one
>broken in and one not, under identical conditions, where the
>listener is allowed to choose between them based on the
>potential difference in sound ONLY.
>
>Where is the data?
Actually I have conducted the experiment on two occasions with four
a/d/s drivers of which two were given 50 hours of break-in and two
were out of the box.
Later I repeated the experiment with 4 Dynaudio 12-inch drivers two
of which were broken-in by 200 hours by the factory.
The results were that the modeled and measured frequency response
differences between the 'fresh' and 'broken-in' drivers in a given
enclosure were LESS than the manufacturing differences between the
between two samples of the same driver under either condition.
I. personally, was unable to hear any differences between fresh and
busted...if you will....samples following.
Indeed even if you follow the lowered Fs (and resulting Q changes
because Fs is included in the formula) you find that the Vas also
changes accordingly....yeilding the SAME performance in most
enclosures.
Lighten up. IF break-in has a positive effect WHY would any
respectable manufacturer let ONE speaker out of the factory without
ensuring that it was 'properly' broken-in?
Murray Dawson
>
> I have proposed a simple, easily conducted experiment that will
> show if there is anything to the audibility of the "break-in"
> claims: simply compare two otherwise identical products, one
> broken in and one not, under identical conditions, where the
> listener is allowed to choose between them based on the
> potential difference in sound ONLY.
>
> Where is the data?
Interesting. Are you going to calibrate the frequency response of the
listener's ears to make it a somewhat more repeatable experiment? And
what data do you expect this experiment to generate, other than
subjective opinion?
I agree that a simple comparison experiment should show any
difference, but do it in a lab with a spectrum analyser with multiple
samples of different speakers from different manufacturers.
Murray
Philip Vafiadis
scientific methodology however your experience in this area appears
limited....courtesy of my senior technical manager Keith Arnold,
here is the evidence you requested, your other points are covered in
the inserted text following this data, it's a long way down so please
read everything.
Just a note, almost all of the drivers that VAF use are proprietary,
but the one below we modify 'in house', and in it's basic form as
tested, it is freely available and of undeniably high quality....
anyone interested should easily be able to verify the data below.
Best regards
Philip Vafiadis
VAF Research Pty Ltd
www.vaf.com.au
Results of detailed running in.
Driver: Excel W21EX001
Manufacturer: SEAS Fabrikker AS Norway
Serial #: 2/00-50 and 2/00-48
Manufactured: February 2000
Overview.
Tests were conducted to qualify the existence of, and/or quantify the
magnitude of, changes in electroacoustic parameters of a loudspeaker
driver over time. The aim of the test described herein was to measure
the parameters of a new driver, by impedance measurement and
analysis, and compare them with the same parameters measured after
specified periods of 'running in' with a suitable test signal. The
results were then examined for evidence of time related changes.
No attempt was made in this test to examine the parametric behaviour
over long time scales. This will be done in another series of tests
to accurately establish the existence or otherwise of such long term
changes.
No attempt was made to examine the relative effects of different
'running in' waveforms.
Test Conditions.
Tests were conducted in VAF Research anechoic chamber, solely for the
purpose of noise isolation. No acoustic measurements were taken. The
Drivers were suspended asymmetrically in free air at least 600mm from
the nearest (heavily absorptive) surface.
Temperature was controlled at 21degrees C +/- 2degrees as dictated by
the thermostat hysteresis of the air-conditioning system.
Test signals.
The 'running in' signal was generated using proprietary VAF signal
generating software. The signal comprised a swept sine wave from
10Hz-100Hz with a sweep time of 1 second. This was applied to the
drivers at a level of 4 Volts p-p (2 Volts peak, 1.414 Volts RMS,
approx 0.25 Watts). This level was selected arbitrarily because it
results in significant excursion of the driver cone (approx +/- 2mm)
at the lowest frequencies but does not approach the maximum linear
excursion of the driver (specified by SEAS as +/- 6mm).
The impedance measurement waveform was generated by a proprietary MLS
Measurement System and constituted a low frequency MLS signal sampled
at 1.9kHz. This was applied at a level of 4 Volts p-p. Impedance
measurement bandwidth was 10Hz - 200Hz. No smoothing or windowing was
applied.
The resonant frequency Fs was taken to be the frequency at which the
impedance phase angle passed through 0 degrees.
This method has been verified to our satisfaction in comparison with
manual swept sine wave tests and commercial MLS impedance
measurements. It has the advantage of exposing the driver to very low
average power and hence minimises thermal effects.
Method.
The impedance of the driver was tested by application and analysis of
the MLS impulse. The driver was then subjected to the running in
signal for a fixed period as shown in the results below. The
parameters were again measured immediately to allow for
quantification of driver thermal effects. The driver was then allowed
to cool by natural convection for ten minutes. The parameters were
then measured again and the cycle repeated.
Additionally, a control driver was measured once at the commencement
of the test and again at its completion. No 'running in' was applied
to this control driver. results are included below for comparison.
Results.
Sample 2/00-50
Conditions Total RunIn Fs Qts
---------------------------------------------
Initial Test 0 min 35.47 0.49
Run in for 1 minute
Cool down 10 minutes 1 min 34.7 0.42
Run in for 1 minute
Cool down 10 minutes 2 min 34.64 0.43
Run in for 1 minute
Cool down 10 minutes 3 min 34.63 0.44
Run in for 1 minute 4 min 34.34 0.43
Cool down 10 minutes 4 min 34.54 0.44
Run in for 1 minute 5 min 34.41 0.41
Cool down 10 minutes 5 min 34.65 0.43
Run in for 5 minute 10 min 34.33 0.43
Cool down 30 minutes 10 min 34.68 0.43
Run in for 10 minute 20 min 33.35 0.42
Cool down 30 minutes 20 min 33.65 0.43
Run in for 20 minute 30 min 32.14 0.42
Cool down 30 minutes 30 min 32.80 0.42
Run in for 30 minute 60 min 32.03 0.41
Cool down 60 minutes 60 min 32.06 0.42
Run in for 60 minute 120 min 31.23 0.41
Cool down 60 minutes 120 min 31.62 0.41
SEAS Specification FS: 31Hz Qts: 0.41
Sample 2/00-50 Initial Fs: 35.38 Qts: 0.48
Final Fs: 35.37 Qts: 0.48
Conclusion.
It has been demonstrated that the Fs and Qts of a high quality bass
driver change from their initial values with use. The rate of change
appears to decrease as the final value (in this case very close to
the values specified by the manufacturer) is approached. This would
support the theory that this driver will settle down to parameters
somewhat different from those tested when the driver was new. The
difference in Fs in particular is approximately 11% which, with the
changes in Qts also noted, will significantly alter the final
alignment of a system using this driver. Note that Vas also changed
during 'run in'.
Richard D Pierce <world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net> wrote in message
news:sh3tf77...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <8es219$i2p$1...@news.aud.alcatel.com>,
> Philip Vafiadis <phi...@vaf.com.au> wrote:
> >As stated in an earlier post, many claimed benefits of running
> >in speakers are not supported by my own experiments or
> >experience, some changes, however, are. The resonance frequency
> >(Fs) of almost all low frequency drivers gets lower with some
> >use and then settles to a value that will be maintained for some
> >time.
>
> However, if your assertion is correct, in that it is
> unrecoverable elastic deformation, then the consequence of this
> is a continuous relaxation of the surruound leading to eventual
> failure. I'm sure you don't mean to say that this is what your
> drivers do, or do you?
I made no assertion as to the cause, just the observation that a
shift in Fs is clearly evident in most drivers, particularly low
frequency drivers.
> In all cases I have seen, save breakup of sizing materials on
> the centering spider, which occurs the first time the spider is
> stretched (i.e. in the first few milliseconds of driver test),
> all such changes in resonant frequency due to flexing are fully
> recoverable, the recovery time being as short as a few seconds
> (the time being influenced to some extent by material and
> ambient temperature.
In my experience the spider takes more than a few milliseconds to
stabilise, see data above.
> >If the designer has done their job right the final system
> >alignments should have been developed based on the 'run in'
> >Fs...so speakers may sound a little unbalanced when new. Some
> >manufacturers 'run in' drivers before using them in production
> >but this is rare for larger companies, and frankly even for most
> >smaller companies as well.
> >
> >I expect that most of the unspecified measurements discussed in
> >this thread relate to amplitude response envelope at higher
> >frequencies. Most companies do not have the resources to make
> >accurate low frequency amplitude measurements as most use MLS or
> >FFT based systems and 'gate' out the early room (or chamber)
> >reflections which compromises the accuracy of the measurement at
> >lower frequencies. I concur that such measurements yield no
> >statistically valid proof that 'running in' alters the
> >performance of a driver.
>
> I have these facilities and they do not support your assertion.
> Not only that, but the claims of HOW things sound different do
> not match your assertion that the changes occur in the
> low-frequency behavior of the driver.
I can not account for your inability to confirm what is so readily
observable in VAF's facility. Who's claims of HOW things sound are
you referring? I specifically said that most of the claims were NOT
supportable, however some were and specifically the change in Fs. A
change in Fs over time has a measurable and audible effect on the
sound. In part the scale of the effect is dependant on the system
alignment BUT IN ALL CASES where a change in Fs is measurable then I
have found that differences in the final system response can also be
measured. Changes in Fs and the consequent changes in Q, in many
commercial systems, effect response from around 100Hz - 200Hz and
below (this is based on 2 and 3 way designs with F3 over 40Hz ie most
speakers in the market). On listening, this change in spectral
balance is referenced against the mid and high response of the same
system, which does not change significantly over time....the result
is perceived by most consumers as harsh mids and unbalanced
bass....the unbalanced bass is a fact, the harsh mids are the result
of incorrect harmonic relationships between the 2 frequency ranges.
> Further, you assert that it is the low frequency properties that
> change, specifically Fs. Now, that is a parameter that can be
> measured to great accuracy DIRECTLY without the use of the
> extended facilities you say are required to measure these
> changes. And in all cases (several thousand) that I have before
> me, no driver shows unrecoverable break-in changes on these
> sorts of parameters that is not directly associated with either
> deterioration or outright failure.
You are correct. Fs is readily measurable electrically and I made no
claim that sophisticated equipment was needed for Fs measurement. As
the changes in Fs were so easy to define by us, my ASSUMPTION was
that most contributors to this thread must be using 'gated' MLS or
FFT measurements which are inaccurate in most environments at low
frequency. I do assert, however, that sophisticated facilities are
essential in measuring the acoustic effects of these changes in low
frequency performance.
> Moreover, your assertion simply ignores the fact that, for
> example, in the case of the vast majority of sealed-box systems,
> it is NOT the woofer's mechanical compliance that determines
> system resonant frequency. This is because the total compliance
> of the system is dominated by the substantially lower acoustical
> compliance of the cabinet. It is not uncommon to see
> driver/cabinet compliance ratios of 4:1, and in such cases,
> changes in the woofer's low frequency parameters are simply not
> going to have the effect claimed on the >system< performance..
You are correct that many alignments are less effected by changes in
Fs than others but they are still effected and the results are
quantifiable. Your observation that any effects would have less
impact in some designs does not appear relevant to this thread which
is about whether or not reported benefits of 'running in' exist or
not.
> >It may be that my company's standards are higher than most,
> >however the change in Fs should be obvious to those who are
> >looking and the result on low frequency alignment is easily
> >calculated or measured with the appropriate tools.
>
> It may also be that, to date, NO claim of such changes has been
> substantiated with any supporting data, any claims of the
> AUDIBILITY of such changes has never been accompanied by any
> reasonable comparison between two units whose only difference is
> break-in.
See data above. Please refer to the comparison between the driver
under test and the control driver.
> It may well be that such claims are, in fact, only claims.
And it may well be that you have something to learn, Again see data
above
> Again, I ask the question: where are the direct comprisons
> between two otherwise identical components: one new and one not
> "broken-in", where the comaprison bnetween the two is ONLY based
> upon the SOUND of the two and the differences in the sound.
>
> Until we see such fair comparisons, they remain unsubstantiated
> claims.
Sounds like your saying put up or shut up....I've done the first
part, the rest is up to you.
Seung
world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net (Richard D Pierce) wrote:
> In article <8espls$n7h$1...@news.aud.alcatel.com>,
> Seung <seungse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In article <8eqc9t$6vq$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> > world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net (Richard D Pierce) wrote:
> >
> >> But, directly to the point: Those who promote break-in as a ral
> >> phenomenon are making a specific and somewhat extraordinary
> >> claim; WHERE IS THEIR EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THIS
> >> CLAIM? A simply comparison between a two systems, otherwise
> >> identical, save for break-in time, where the ONLY means
> >> available to the listener to choose one over the other is the
> >> SOUND is one way for them to either support or refute these
> >> extraordinary claims. Let them come to the table with such data
> >> and then we'll talk.
> >
> >Frankly, I have not seen any scientific evidence that there is no
> >loudspeaker break-in, either.
>
> Nor did the world see any scientific evidence that the moon was
> made a green cheese before the Apollo landings in 1969.
I do not think this analogy has any meaning to this thread. Since the
scientific evidence I asked can be produced by someone with
engineering knowledge and resources. I asked something that can be
verifiable.
> >Would you show us measurement sets of
> >the same loudspeaker taken different times (when it's new, 1 minutes,
> >2 minutes, 4 minutes old ...) or give us a pointer to such data?
>
> You want to rifle through several THOUSAND measurements I have
> on file here? And, geuss what, your STILL won't be satisfied
> because you can alwasy claim that the data I am missing proves
> it. Well, sorry, to DISPROVE the claim is not my or ANYONE
> else's job: it's the job of those MAKING the claim to prove it
> exists.
I'll be satisfied with one measurement set of the same loudspeaker
from a manufacturer who promotes loudspeaker break-in. I won't claim
that you are missing something if the measurements are as complete as
Mr. Dunlavy explained in RAHE many times. Such data would be very
interesting not only to me but to many RAHE'ers and audiophiles.
> I have proposed a simple, easily conducted experiment that will
> show if there is anything to the audibility of the "break-in"
> claims: simply compare two otherwise identical products, one
> broken in and one not, under identical conditions, where the
> listener is allowed to choose between them based on the
> potential difference in sound ONLY.
The above experiment is not as simple as you think since I doubt you
can find "two otherwise identical products". Measuring the same
loudspeaker at different ages seems to me much easier.
Richard D Pierce
Paul Szabady <sza...@uswest.net> wrote:
>Having worked in retail audio for 25 years (before retiring), I (and
>many co-workers) can testify that there is indeed a change in
>loudspeaker sound within the first few hours of play.
Testimony is wonderful. Are you under oath?
>It's fairly common
>practice for shops to sell their demonstrators at reduced prices, and
>being in a particularly cost-conscious market this happened quite often
>at our store. Consequently we were constantly replacing demos with new
>products. The intensity of the effect varied from manufacturer to
>manufacturer, and speaker model to speaker model, but the change did
>occur. Most often, new-from-the-box speakers sounded brighter, and
>thinner in the bass than models that had been played for a few hours.
>They then smoothed-out in the high frequencies and the bass response
>improved. The amount of time for this to happen varied, but we usually
>would play a new speaker overnight just to be safe before using it for
>demonstration purposes. Some speakers required week-end play before
>coming into song. Since these speakers often left the store to go into
>prospective customer's homes for audition, we felt it was better for the
>customer NOT to spend his week-end audition time burning-in the
>product...
But this is simply more proof-by-assertion. You've not presented
a single instance of actual evidence, in the form of comparing
two otherwise identical units that differ ONLy in break-in,
where the listener is allowed to make a choice based on the
difference in sound only.
>Since these were speakers whose sound was familiar to us, the jaded and
>cynical imputation that this was somehow just a phenomenon of 'getting
>used' to the sound of an alien product just doesn't hold up.
You have yet to present any other explanation. Can you, for
example, prove incontrovertably that one's hearing does not
change AT ALL over that period of time? Can you prove
incontrovertably that your detailed auditory memory over the
interval is flawless (if so, you will be the first human in
recorded history to do so).
>Similar effects occurred with cables/speaker wire and with fresh
>hardware, which we left on all the time to eliminate any potential
>changes in the their sound arising from warm-up.
Again, more proof by assertion, which is no proof at all.
Where's the result of a fair side-by-side comparison wherte
sound is the only stimulus to the listener?
>Frankly I'm really beginning to wonder what all the hub-bub is about all
>these effects. I don't see how anyone is being misled or being taken
>advantage of by the recommendation to play new components in the home
>for a few days before attempting critical listening.
>
>I make no speculation as to why these effects occur.
No, but you do speculate that they do occur, and transform those
speculations into fact via proof-by-assertion.
If the differences are, as you claim, so apparent, than it would
be easy to prove they exist via a fair, unbiased comaprison
between broek-in and non-broken units that are otherwise
identical. Why hasn't a SINGLE proponent of the claimed break-in
effect stepped forward with such a comparison?
Richard D Pierce
Murray Dawson <Murray...@anu.edu.au> wrote:
>Richard D Pierce wrote:
>>
>> I have proposed a simple, easily conducted experiment that will
>> show if there is anything to the audibility of the "break-in"
>> claims: simply compare two otherwise identical products, one
>> broken in and one not, under identical conditions, where the
>> listener is allowed to choose between them based on the
>> potential difference in sound ONLY.
>>
>
>Interesting. Are you going to calibrate the frequency response of the
>listener's ears to make it a somewhat more repeatable experiment?
Irrelevant: the comparison is a side-by-side experiment using
the same set of ears.
>And
>what data do you expect this experiment to generate, other than
>subjective opinion?
If the listener is, using the sound only, unable to
differentiate between the two, then that says something.
>I agree that a simple comparison experiment should show any
>difference, but do it in a lab with a spectrum analyser with multiple
>samples of different speakers from different manufacturers.
But people are making claims about how different they SOUND, not
how different they measure. Further, one respondant suggested
that whatever differtence might exist are below the threshhold
of measurement, but not hearing. The fact that this claim
contradicts the well-established and known limits of hearing
and measurement is irrelevant, a side-by-side comparison of the
SOUND is what we're after.
Look, people are making speicific CLAIMS about the SOUND of
something before and after break-in and are utterly unwilling or
unable to provide ANY substantiation of those claims other than
further claims.
Don Levstik
Revelation 3's.
While not scientific, here are my perceptions (and those of my wife).
For the first two weeks, we just played our normal music material at
normal listening levels through the system. The speakers mids and highs
were very good, but the bass just didn't have any real impact.
The low bass was there, but the level was very much subdued. I tried
moving the speakers as Hales recommends with very marginal difference
in the perceived bass.
My room is small; 13ft x 19ft rectangle with 8ft ceiling. Speakers placed
at the short end of the room with AV furniture between them and a lot of
other furniture in the room. The floors are hardwood. Not optimal by any
definition, but that's the way it goes.
Anyway, after two weeks of this very subdued bass, I figured it was due to
overall bad room layout. Just for grins, I decided to try breaking in the
speakers using Hales recommended technique. The setup is as follows:
Place speakers facing each other as close as possible, wire one speaker
out of phase, and tune the FM tuner between stations to get just the inter-
station 'hiss'. Toss a heavy blanket over the speakers to help muffle
the sound, and turn up the volume. I set it to 1/2 way, which wasn't
distracting enough to bother us. With the tv playing, you barely noticed it.
This was on a Friday evening. The next Saturday, we didn't notice anything
different, and were now accustomed to the low 'hiss' in the room and didn't
pay much attention to it. I decided to leave things as they were for a
while longer, at least through the weekend.
Next day:
Sunday morning was another matter entirely. When I got up, I noticed a loud
hissing coming from the living room. Even my wife said 'is that from the
speakers?' The apparent volume of the hiss had increased dramatically from
the day before. Nothing was touched from the initial setting Friday evening,
but now the noise was a lot louder. It was much too loud to even watch tv
now, so I backed off the volume control 1/4 turn just to bring the level
down to where it was again tolerable.
That evening I hooked everything back to normal, and we played the same
music we listened to the previous two weeks before. There was a definite
increase in the level of the lower bass. In particular, we have a CD with
vocals and pipe organ that sounded 'nice' before without any real impact.
Now the lower registers were actually shaking things in the room.
We find ourselves playing all of our music at lower volume settings and
are getting a lot more intense low bass than before I tried the break in.
A change really did take place for low bass in the system. If there was a
change in the mids/highs it was very subtle at best. The change in bass was
not subtle, however.
The break in didn't cost anything, and was well worth the small effort.
Take it for what it's worth, but I'm a believer!
Don Levstik
e-mail: d-le...@ti.com
auplater
>
>
> Frankly I'm really beginning to wonder what all the hub-bub is about all
> these effects. I don't see how anyone is being misled or being taken
> advantage of by the recommendation to play new components in the home
> for a few days before attempting critical listening.
>
> I make no speculation as to why these effects occur.
>
> Paul Szabady
you know... if a physician made an assertion that "chest pain" was
due to "over exertion" and would go away in a few hours, and stated
that in all cases this was fact and not opinion, based on "years of
observations", that physician would be roundly drummed out of the
profession, if not hauled into court for malpractice.
before you state that this is a specious argument, you must realize
that the hub-bub is about stating opinion as fact without
independently verifiable proof. Pure and simple. No one argues that
you might have heard changes, and that you might think that those
changes were attributable to break-in, but those trained in
engineering and science learn early on that carefully controlled and
defined methods are a prerequisite to any determination of fact, and
that preconceptions and bias are the rule, not the exception.
You (and others, with the exception of Mr. Vafiadis) have failed to
provide ANY control or definition of your observations, hence they
are ONLY opinions, and should be stated as such.
auplater
Russell DeAnna
Richard D Pierce <world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net> wrote:
>But statements like "after 200 hours, they sounded different"
>simply is not evidence. Prove to us your listening is utterly
>unchanged after 200 hours, and that your memory of the sound
>from 200 hours ago is absolutely complete and flawless.
I agree. It is understandable how novices, some usenet readers here,
and readers of some of the popular audio magazines could be
persuaded into believing that speaker break-in is necessary.
I forgive them. But I can't forgive the reviewers writing for
Stereophile or HFN&RR or other high-end magazines who still
claim vast differences associated with equipment break-in.
Surely they must be aware that there are human psychological
and physiological explanations for perceived sonic changes.
But they convieniently ignore this issue when writing reviews.
That's not forgivable. Wake up guys. It ain't the end of your
careers if you claim the sound changed because you changed.
-Russell
Richard D Pierce
Philip Vafiadis <phi...@vaf.com.au> wrote:
>The impedance measurement waveform was generated by a proprietary MLS
>Measurement System and constituted a low frequency MLS signal sampled
>at 1.9kHz. This was applied at a level of 4 Volts p-p. Impedance
>measurement bandwidth was 10Hz - 200Hz. No smoothing or windowing was
>applied.
And the length of the MLS sequence and measureing window is
what? Because THAT puts a fundamental lower limit on the
accuracy of the frequency measurements you present below.
>The resonant frequency Fs was taken to be the frequency at which the
>impedance phase angle passed through 0 degrees.
Unforuntaely, since you have failed to specify what the
measurement window was, we cannot take in ANY seriousness your
frequency measurement to an accuracy of 1/100 Hz. Assume a
window width of 1 second: your accuracy is now, at best 1 Hz. At
that point, MOST of your zero-phase Fs measurements are now
interpolations.
Of course it did! That's why BOTH Fs and Qts changed! All of the
changes are DIRECTLY due to changes in compliance. Now, let's
look at the SYSTEM performance of that driver in an enclosure.
The Qt of the driver suggests its use as a sealed box driver.
Assume a target Qtc of 0.707, i.e. B2 alignment. You did not
specify what the Vas was, but that's irrelevant for the time
being as what's of interest is the tuning ratio, the system
compliance to box compliance ratio. Let's assume the designer
picked the "broken-in values of Fs=31 Hz and Qt=0.41. This
design suggests a tuning ratio of 1.77:1.
The resulting SYSTEM (we ARE talking about people bringing
SYSTEMS home) will end up with a system resonance of 52 Hz with
a target Qtc of 0.707. Fine. Now let's look at performance with
the unbroken-in driver, where Fs=35 and Qt=0.49 in the same
enclosure (we'll agree the enclosure size does not change due to
break-in, I hope). Unless you are suggesting some heretorfore
unheard of mechanism, such as mysterious mass loss or such,
we'll also agree, as you suggest, that ALL the change is due to
change in compliance, or Vas. That would suggest, then, that an
11% change in Fs is made possible by a roughly 20% change in
Vas, as resonant frequency goes as the inverse sqaure root of
compliance. Agreed?
Fine, so now we have a driver with 11% higher resonance and a
20% lower Vas and the Qt follows. Put THAT driver in the same
enclosure and we end up with a system that, in fact, a higher
resonant frequency BUT A LOWER F3 and a HIGHER Qtc. Fine, but by
how much? Well:
No break-in Break-in
Fc 54.4 Hz 51.6 Hz
F3 49.2 Hz 51.6 Hz
Qtc 0.79 0.71
Rh 0.2 dB 0 dB
The difference in the F3 of the system is interesting, along
with the response of the system near cutoff, the unbroken-in
driver shows a LOWER cutoff and a 0.2 dB peak at resonance,
while the broken-in driver shows a HIGHER cutoff and now peak.
Now, survey the comments made by people claiming the change:
almost universally, they claim that, at the start, the system
had LESS bass, or bass at a lower level, yet the physics dictate
quite clearly that, in fact, the systems will have MORE bass.
How much more? Not a hell of a lot. I think you will agree that
the differences we see here are the same kinds of driver-to-
driver difference seen due to manugfacturing variances. your 20%
delta in Vas is typical even among high-quality drivers.
I am simply using your data to illustrate the point that what
people are THINKING they are hearing is NOT what they are
claiming. Not only does the data not support the claims, it is
CONTRADICTORY to their claims. Thus, another explanation is
demanded.
Further, the SAME claims have been made regarding cables, a
completely absurd claim because FAR more is known about the
behavior of cables by other industries. The ONLY industruy that
is rampant about the behavior of cables is the high-end audio
industry, much to the advantage of several manufactirers, who
themselves demonstrate some of the most egregious ignorance yet
seen.
But, as to your data, franbkly, I am surprised and somewhat
saddened that you chose to present frequency measurements with
4 significant digits with the implication that your are capable
of measuring low frequencies to 1 part in 10,000. Sorry, but
that is VERY difficult to believe, ESPECIALLY with MLS or FFT
based measurement systems. To do such directly REQUIRES you to
have measurement windows that are at least 100 seconds long PER
MEASUREMENT. AT a sampling rate of 1.9 kHz, that's a sample
window size of 200 kSamples.
That is not to say your entire set of measurement are useless.
Rather, it suggest that somewhere your organization, at least in
presenting data, does not appreciate the fundamental
time/frequency uncertainty relationships that ALL such
measurements are constrained by. From Reid and Passin, :Signal
Processing in C," section 8.10 "The Uncertainty Relation:"
"The uncertainty relation is also true for signal processing.
One practical consequence is this: an accurate determination
of the frequency content of a signal requires a long meas-
uring time. And equivalent statement is: A short-duration
signal contains a wide range of frequencies.
"The difference between these two points of view is that the
first is analytic and the second is constructive. The ana-
lytic view asks what is needed to make a particular meas-
urement. ...
"These facts are both results of the same inequality that
relates properties of a function and its Fourier transform.
They are results of the way the quantities and their un-
certainties are defined. The first step is to define exactly
what is meant by the time of a signal, (t), and its uncer-
tainty, delta T, the frequency of the signal, (w), and its
uncertainty delta w. Once these are define, the uncertainty
principle is stated as the inequality:
delta t 1
--------- >= ---
delta w 2
"THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF IMPROVING UPON THIS FUNDAMENTAL
INEQUALITY, unless you aaccept some new definition of time,
frequency or uncertainty. (You may find some journal articles
that claim to have improved upon this fundamental limit.
There actually has been a fair amount of activity in this
direction in certain communities. However, look closely and
you will find either a mistake, a new definition of frequency
or a new definition of uncertainty)"
Thus, by that uncertainty relation, under OPTIMUM conditions,
assuming the frequency uncertainty, delat t, is 1/100 of a
second as your measurements imply, the delta time, i.e., the
length of measurement must be extremely long.
Again, this does not refute your physical data per se. We can
certainly through out, without any loss of actual information, 1
1/2 digits of accuracy.
But, more to the point, the data when incorportaed into a REAL
system DOES NOT support the fantastic laims made by many. Simple
as that.
>> However, if your assertion is correct, in that it is
>> unrecoverable elastic deformation, then the consequence of this
>> is a continuous relaxation of the surruound leading to eventual
>> failure. I'm sure you don't mean to say that this is what your
>> drivers do, or do you?
>
>I made no assertion as to the cause, just the observation that a
>shift in Fs is clearly evident in most drivers, particularly low
>frequency drivers.
No, it's clearly evident only in ONE driver.
>> In all cases I have seen, save breakup of sizing materials on
>> the centering spider, which occurs the first time the spider is
>> stretched (i.e. in the first few milliseconds of driver test),
>> all such changes in resonant frequency due to flexing are fully
>> recoverable, the recovery time being as short as a few seconds
>> (the time being influenced to some extent by material and
>> ambient temperature.
>
>In my experience the spider takes more than a few milliseconds to
>stabilise, see data above.
Does it takes several WEEKS at high listening levels as
claimed?
>> I have these facilities and they do not support your assertion.
>> Not only that, but the claims of HOW things sound different do
>> not match your assertion that the changes occur in the
>> low-frequency behavior of the driver.
>
>I can not account for your inability to confirm what is so readily
>observable in VAF's facility. Who's claims of HOW things sound are
>you referring? I specifically said that most of the claims were NOT
>supportable, however some were and specifically the change in Fs.
That is my misunderstanding. In fact, about those claims, you
and I may be in more agreement than it seems.
>> Again, I ask the question: where are the direct comprisons
>> between two otherwise identical components: one new and one not
>> "broken-in", where the comaprison bnetween the two is ONLY based
>> upon the SOUND of the two and the differences in the sound.
>>
>> Until we see such fair comparisons, they remain unsubstantiated
>> claims.
>
>Sounds like your saying put up or shut up....I've done the first
>part, the rest is up to you.
No, where is the data I suggested be brought forward by those
who claim the drammatic differences in SOUND? Your data, for
whatever we may dispute on it, simply does not support the
claims of break-in on the effects of sound because the simply
fail to account for huge piles of uncontrolled variables.
Where is the comparison of the SOUND?
Philip Vafiadis
> from a manufacturer who promotes loudspeaker break-in. I won't claim
> that you are missing something if the measurements are as complete as
> Mr. Dunlavy explained in RAHE many times. Such data would be very
> interesting not only to me but to many RAHE'ers and audiophiles.
>
> > show if there is anything to the audibility of the "break-in"
> > claims: simply compare two otherwise identical products, one
> > broken in and one not, under identical conditions, where the
> > listener is allowed to choose between them based on the
> > potential difference in sound ONLY.
>
> can find "two otherwise identical products". Measuring the same
> loudspeaker at different ages seems to me much easier.
How's this?
thermostat hysteresis of the airconditioning system.
Test signals.
The 'running in' signal was generated using proprietary VAF signal
generating software. The signal comprised a swept sine wave from 10Hz-100Hz
with a sweep time of 1 second. This was applied to the drivers at a level of
4 Volts p-p (2 Volts peak, 1.414 Volts RMS, approx 0.25 Watts). This level
was selected arbitrarily because it results in significant excursion of the
driver cone (approx +/- 2mm) at the lowest frequencies but does not approach
the maximum linear excursion of the driver (specified by SEAS as +/- 6mm).
The impedance measurement waveform was generated by a proprietary MLS
Measurement System and constituded a low frequency MLS signal sampled at
1.9kHz. This was applied at a level of 4 Volts p-p. Impedance measurement
bandwidth was 10Hz - 200Hz. No smoothing or windowing was applied.
The resonant frequency Fs was taken to be the frequency at which the
impedance phase angle passed through 0 degrees.
This method has been verified to our satisfaction in comparison with manual
swept sine wave tests and commercial MLS impedance measurements.
It has the advantage of exposing the driver to very low average power and
hence minimises thermal effects.
Method.
The impedance of the driver was tested by application and analysis of the
MLS impulse. The driver was then subjected to the running in signal for a
fixed period as shown in the results below. The parameters were again
measured immediately to allow for quantification of driver thermal effects.
The driver was then allowed to cool by natural convection for ten minutes.
The parameters were then measured again and the cycle repeated.
Additionally, a control driver was measured once at the commencement of the
test and again at its completion. No 'running in' was applied to this
control driver. results are included below for comparison.
Results.
Sample 2/00-50
Conditions Total RunIn Fs Qts
---------------------------------------------
Initial Test 0 min 35.47 0.49
Run in for 1 minute
Cool down 10 minutes 1 min 34.7 0.42
Run in for 1 minute
Cool down 10 minutes 2 min 34.64 0.43
Run in for 1 minute
Cool down 10 minutes 3 min 34.63 0.44
Run in for 1 minute 4 min 34.34 0.43
Cool down 10 minutes 4 min 34.54 0.44
Run in for 1 minute 5 min 34.41 0.41
Cool down 10 minutes 5 min 34.65 0.43
Run in for 5 minute 10 min 34.33 0.43
Cool down 30 minutes 10 min 34.68 0.43
Run in for 10 minute 20 min 33.35 0.42
Cool down 30 minutes 20 min 33.65 0.43
Run in for 20 minute 30 min 32.14 0.42
Cool down 30 minutes 30 min 32.80 0.42
Run in for 30 minute 60 min 32.03 0.41
Cool down 60 minutes 60 min 32.06 0.42
Run in for 60 minute 120 min 31.23 0.41
Cool down 60 minutes 120 min 31.62 0.41
SEAS Specification Fs: 31 Qts: 0.41
Sample 2/00-50 Initial Fs: 35.38 Qts: 0.48
Final Fs: 35.37 Qts: 0.48
Conclusion.
It has been demonstrated that the Fs and Qts of a high quality bass driver
change from their initial values with use. The rate of change appears to
decrease as the final value (in this case very close to the values specified
by the manufacturer) is approached. This would support the theory that this
driver will settle down to parameters somewhat different from those tested
when the driver was new. The difference in Fs in particular is approximately
11% which, with the changes in Qts also noted, could significantly alter the
final alignment of a system using this driver. Note that changes in Vas were
not monitored and so an accurate estimation of the alignment error is not
possible.
ROBERT C. LANG
> Frankly I'm really beginning to wonder what all the hub-bub is about all
> these effects. I don't see how anyone is being misled or being taken
> advantage of by the recommendation to play new components in the home
> for a few days before attempting critical listening.
>
I agree. There are no victims here. To me, whether or not speaker
burn in results in audible or measurable changes is not particularly
relevant. Most seem to agree that changes do occur. Whether these
changes occur as a result of changes in the speakers themselves or
changes come about as a result of changes or adjustments by the
listener or both the net result is, it would seem, the same. As far
as I am concerned, either way these changes are real.
If one buys a speaker and believes that "burn in" is of no
consequence, so be it. If the speaker improves during the period some
call burn in he or she will benefit anyway. If there is no
improvement nothing is lost. If a person believes a few minutes or
few hours is essential prior to critical listening, so be it. Either
way its a win win situation.
Besides few among us have the tools, skills or inclination to varify
scientifically one way or the other anyway. "Proof" that I have seen
over the years on either side falls short of being a "slam dunk".
Perhaps providing definitive proof is beyond what science is
presently capable of. In any event, it is not a high priority from my
standpoint.
Robert C. Lang
Philip Vafiadis
appearing to be:
1) any quantifiable differences in driver performance with use is
recoverable to their new state with rest.
2) That no-one is providing evidence of audible differences between
'run in' and non 'run in' drivers.
With regard to this thread, I have made 2 main points:
1) many claimed benefits of running in speakers are NOT supported by
my own experiments or experience
2) that some changes, however, are. In particular the resonance
frequency (Fs) of almost all low frequency drivers gets lower with
some use and then settles to a value that will be maintained for some
time
On your first point above.... a Quote from you:
"I have, on the other hand, described properties and measurements
that are repeatable by anyone with access to a moderate amount of
equipment that shows there ARE changes over short-term usage that
show every evidence of being fully recoverable when the system is
allowed to relax in a quiescent state."
Now drop the decimal points from VAF's measurements if you
prefer....that still leaves an approximate 10% variation with no sign
of recovery.....or do you consider that the 60 min we allowed for
cool down insufficient? Your claim is inconsistent with our
measurements......can you provide your evidence that these readily
observable changes in measured parameters are reversible with some
'relaxation'? Until then I think I'll stick with what I now to be
fact.
With regard to your second point above, from your posting history, I
expect that nothing short of you being involved in the listening
tests will satisfy you.....however, while I have not reported any
audible effects of these quantifiable changes in this thread...Here
Goes....
VAF is one of the VERY few speaker manufacturers that routinely make
individual performance verification documents on assembled
loudspeakers with actual measured data from each loudspeaker. Our
most popular model is our DC-X. (specifications can be found at
http://www.vaf.com.au/dcx_spec.html ). We keep a minimum of 2 pairs
in our sound rooms (we have 3 sound rooms). We currently have 5 pairs
in our showroom & soundrooms for demonstration, (colour and finish
options are important to many customers). Measured at 3 Metres there
is less than 0.5 dB variation between these samples above 30Hz and
below 20KHz and no discernable difference in phase response,
cumulative spectral decay or impedance. I pick the DC-X because we
make a lot of them and we listen to them daily and repeatedly. The
sound of a new speaker is easily identifiable against the well 'run
in' demonstration stock. My staff and I can, in 100% of cases,
identify new a speaker on sound alone, when judged against the others
that are 'run in'. Now is this proof to a scientific certainty....NO
IT IS NOT.... I believe, however, that it is imprudent to dismiss the
observation....we have a good depth of experience with loudspeakers
and are not 'tweekers'.
In the end what are we to make of 'running in' speakers....it matters
little for my company...We design our speakers with 'run in' parts
and whichever 'camp' you are in, we seem all in agreement that the
sound and measured performance of a speaker will be the same for the
vast majority of it's life.
Now to my second point, (from above)....."some changes". I started
with Fs as it is easy to demonstrate (BTW, thanks DALJHD for
confirming the changes in Fs with time) but there are others too,
dynamic linearity for instance also changes during 'run in'....again
what does it matter to VAF....not much, we design using run in
parts....BUT what does it matter to those who design using new parts,
or a mixture of new and 'run in' parts, WHO KNOWS?
A long way past burning in Sonus Fabers, and I think far enough for
me.
Seung
"Philip Vafiadis" <phi...@vaf.com.au> wrote:
> > I'll be satisfied with one measurement set of the same loudspeaker
> > from a manufacturer who promotes loudspeaker break-in. I won't claim
> > that you are missing something if the measurements are as complete as
> > Mr. Dunlavy explained in RAHE many times. Such data would be very
> > interesting not only to me but to many RAHE'ers and audiophiles.
> >
> > > I have proposed a simple, easily conducted experiment that will
> > > show if there is anything to the audibility of the "break-in"
> > > claims: simply compare two otherwise identical products, one
> > > broken in and one not, under identical conditions, where the
> > > listener is allowed to choose between them based on the
> > > potential difference in sound ONLY.
> >
> > The above experiment is not as simple as you think since I doubt you
> > can find "two otherwise identical products". Measuring the same
> > loudspeaker at different ages seems to me much easier.
>
> How's this?
>
> Results of detailed running in.
>
> Driver: Excel W21EX001
> Manufacturer: SEAS Fabrikker AS Norway
> Serial #: 2/00-50 and 2/00-48
> Manufactured: February 2000
>
[very interesting and informative result snipped to save space]
Thanks a lot for sharing the result with RAHE'ers. I think this is the
first time for me to see such an experiment. (Of course, it would be
better if it were a loudspeaker system and more complete measurements
were taken.)
The result seems to suggest that it is not a bad practice at all to
break-in (should I use a different term here instead of break-in?) a
brand new loudspeaker a few hours (or just give it a couple of days to
make it certain it's done) before we start to listen to it critically.
Thank you again for sharing your data with RAHE'ers.
Timothy McTeague
set the volume at a level that is comfortable to my ears. Invariably in the
morning the volume seems WAY too loud even though the setting is the same.
Human beings hearing has the ability to adjust to surroundings. Have you
ever gone to a movie and found that the sound was too loud but that part way
through it did not seem to be a problem? I too am waiting for real proof
that speakers change after break-in. There is so much pseudo science in
audio, it is a wonder that products ever get any better. Thank goodness for
the Thiels and Dunlaveys of this world.
Tim
BELJAN E
<mcte...@home.com> writes:
>
> I too am waiting for real proof
>that speakers change after break-in.
>
What you would have to do is take the new pair of speakers, take
measurements on them and listen to them at a specified set parameters.
Leave the room, perhaps the house if necessary to avoid hearing them,
and as you are leaving activate the stereo remotely (either using your
remote through a window or a timer). Allow the speakers to play for a
set amount of time, turn the amp off remotely, reenter the room and
repeat the measurements and listening. Then you would have to compare
whether or not the speakers measured our sounded different.
Paul Szabady
>
> In article <8eulbd$l6r$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> Paul Szabady <sza...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >Having worked in retail audio for 25 years (before retiring), I (and
> >many co-workers) can testify that there is indeed a change in
> >loudspeaker sound within the first few hours of play.
>
> Testimony is wonderful. Are you under oath?
Yes I am. What reason would I have to lie?
>
>
> But this is simply more proof-by-assertion. You've not presented
> a single instance of actual evidence, in the form of comparing
> two otherwise identical units that differ ONLy in break-in,
> where the listener is allowed to make a choice based on the
> difference in sound only.
No it's not *proof* of anything. It's reporting of perceptions over
years of time. Why does one have to *prove* their perceptions?
>
> >Since these were speakers whose sound was familiar to us, the jaded and
> >cynical imputation that this was somehow just a phenomenon of 'getting
> >used' to the sound of an alien product just doesn't hold up.
>
> You have yet to present any other explanation. Can you, for
> example, prove incontrovertably that one's hearing does not
> change AT ALL over that period of time? Can you prove
> incontrovertably that your detailed auditory memory over the
> interval is flawless (if so, you will be the first human in
> recorded history to do so).
What does this have to do with anything? If our store ran through 5 demo
pairs of Snell C-IV, Spica Angeluses, and Audio Physics Sparks in a 6
month period (and there were times when both 'broken-in' and
'non-broken-in' speakers were on the sales floor at the same time) and
the break-in phenomenon occurred each time, would I be wrong in
detecting a pattern here?
>
> >Similar effects occurred with cables/speaker wire and with fresh
> >hardware, which we left on all the time to eliminate any potential
> >changes in the their sound arising from warm-up.
>
> Again, more proof by assertion, which is no proof at all.
> Where's the result of a fair side-by-side comparison wherte
> sound is the only stimulus to the listener?
Again, no proof at all, but the honest telling of perception.
>
> >Frankly I'm really beginning to wonder what all the hub-bub is about all
> >these effects. I don't see how anyone is being misled or being taken
> >advantage of by the recommendation to play new components in the home
> >for a few days before attempting critical listening.
> >
> >I make no speculation as to why these effects occur.
>
> No, but you do speculate that they do occur, and transform those
> speculations into fact via proof-by-assertion.
>
> If the differences are, as you claim, so apparent, than it would
> be easy to prove they exist via a fair, unbiased comaprison
> between broek-in and non-broken units that are otherwise
> identical. Why hasn't a SINGLE proponent of the claimed break-in
> effect stepped forward with such a comparison?
Because it's not important for listening to music. If one buys a new
amplifier, speakers, and wire, and there is/is not any change in, say,
the first 24 hours of use, what difference does it make to the listening
of music for the rest of the component's use by the owner?
Paul Szabady
John Busenitz
news:shf0qa...@corp.supernews.com...
> Richard D Pierce wrote:
> > But this is simply more proof-by-assertion. You've not presented
> > a single instance of actual evidence, in the form of comparing
> > two otherwise identical units that differ ONLy in break-in,
> > where the listener is allowed to make a choice based on the
> > difference in sound only.
>
> No it's not *proof* of anything. It's reporting of perceptions over
> years of time. Why does one have to *prove* their perceptions?
You don't have to unless you want it to actually mean something.
Perception is not the same as the actual sound. And your perception
is different from others'.
> What does this have to do with anything? If our store ran through 5 demo
> pairs of Snell C-IV, Spica Angeluses, and Audio Physics Sparks in a 6
> month period (and there were times when both 'broken-in' and
> 'non-broken-in' speakers were on the sales floor at the same time) and
> the break-in phenomenon occurred each time, would I be wrong in
> detecting a pattern here?
Yes, unless you were able to ensure that bias didn't affect your
perception.
auplater
> Because it's not important for listening to music. If one buys a new
> amplifier, speakers, and wire, and there is/is not any change in, say,
> the first 24 hours of use, what difference does it make to the listening
> of music for the rest of the component's use by the owner?
>
> Paul Szabady
then... by your own reasoning, this entire argument about "break-in"
becomes a tautology.. so why are you persuing it?? What's the point
of even mentioning it if it is, as you say, "not important for
listening to music"? Kinda like saying "if I step on a bug, it will
get squished to death, but if I don't step on it, it will live".
"Testify" implies a bit more than "perception" in the written word.
auplater
Jonathan Fredrick
directly? Gucciphile asked in the original post if damage
may have been done to the new speakers from this
"burn-in" proceedure.
If no damage was done then maybe burn-in isn't such a
big deal. But if the overall feeling is that this process
was bad for the speaker maybe we should look at it in a
different way.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Ed Seedhouse
>No it's not *proof* of anything. It's reporting of perceptions over
>years of time. Why does one have to *prove* their perceptions?
Well, our perceptions tell us, for example, that the earth is flat and
that the sky is a blue dome in daytime and a black vault with holes
that let the light shine through it in the nightime.
The main thing so many audiophiles seem to ignore is that their
perceptions can fool them, and often do. There are very good reasons
to believe that speakers, and especially properly designed cables and
amplifiers don't change significantly after they are installed in our
homes, and the assertion that "it sounds like they do to me" is not,
to my mind, evidence enough to outweigh these very good reasons
discovered by some of the leading minds of their times.
On the other hand I find condemming a manufacturer who talks about
"break in procedures" a little harsh. Put yourself in the shoes of a
manufacturer and remember the aphorism that "the customer is always
right". So if I sell a speaker that I am virtually certain leaves my
factory fully broken and that I know meets high standards both in
measurements and in actual sound as determined by carfull blind
listening tests,in but the customer complains that they sound lousy,
what am I to do?
I know the speakers he is replacing is much worse than the one I just
sold him, and that if I can just persuade this person to give my
speakers a fair chance he'll almost certainly love them. But on the
other hand if I just tell him "It will take some time for *you* to
adjust to the sound" I will just make him mad and likely to return the
speakers. Human nature seems to be, if somthing is wrong it is
somebody elses' fault!
So what do I do? If I tell him the truth as I see it I'll likely lose
the sale. Not only will that cost *me* mony but it will result in the
customer not getting a chance to learn to appreciate a much better
speaker system than he is used to.
So I tell a "little white lie" and say "it takes some time for these
systems to break in". Result? The customer gives my system a chance
he never would have otherwise, and he relaxes and gives the system
some time to, as he now supposes, "break in". In other words he gives
my system a fair listen and adusts to the sound, and comes to
appreciate it's true quality. He keeps a good set of speakers and I
keep the mony he paid me for them. We both win.
The Buddhists call this kind of thing "upaya" which translates roughly
as "skilful means". Instead of trying to force another person to see
things our way we play a trick which allows him to suspend his
predjudices and eventually see things as they really are. They use as
a humerous example the idea of giving yellow leaves to a child who is
crying because he wants gold/
Mind you I'm not saying that manufacturers who use this "trick" are
being perfectly ethical, but the harm is relatively slight and it must
be tempting to do things that way even when you know that "break in"
is a myth. The customer wins and the manufacturer wins, what could be
better than that? Except of course we are left with a lot of people
who sincerely and strongly believe in the "break in" phenomina even
though the evidence is very strong that it does not actually occur.
An unfortunate byproduct, in my opinion, but does it really do more
harm to people than them spending their money on systems that "sound
nice" to them but don't tell the truth about the music and which in
the long run may just turn them off the "high end" once and for all?
Do we, in other words, make a good system and perhaps tell a white lie
to trick people into give them a fair listen, or do we make a flawed
but pleasing system that we *know* is flawed yet sell anyway? Which
is more "moral"?
Fortunately for me I am not a manufacturer and never will be so I'll
never have to deal with the dillema. But I find it hard not to
sympathise with the people who do.
Ed Seedhouse
Victoria, B.C.
Larry Cox
And why is this? Testifying is nothing more than making a promise to repeat
what you saw, how you felt or what you heard to the best of your ability. It
is nothing more. There is nothing in mr Szabady's comments here that don't
qualify for "testifying." There may, however, be something that doesn't
satisfy YOU. That is substantially different than what was written here.
Arthur Miller, former dean of Harvard Law School once said, "it's crazy but
it's the law." I'd add to Mr. Miller's comments that what people think about
the law is crazy, and in this newsgroup sober moments of commentary on "law"
rarely appear. (I say that conservatively as I have yet to read a roughly
accurate statement of law)
Cheers,
Larry Cox
http://www.audiomusings.com
>
> auplater
auplater
> auplater wrote:
>
> > Paul Szabady wrote:
> >
> > > Because it's not important for listening to music. If one buys a new
> > > amplifier, speakers, and wire, and there is/is not any change in, say,
> > > the first 24 hours of use, what difference does it make to the listening
> > > of music for the rest of the component's use by the owner?
> > >
> > > Paul Szabady
> >
> > then... by your own reasoning, this entire argument about "break-in"
> > becomes a tautology.. so why are you persuing it?? What's the point
> > of even mentioning it if it is, as you say, "not important for
> > listening to music"? Kinda like saying "if I step on a bug, it will
> > get squished to death, but if I don't step on it, it will live".
> >
> > "Testify" implies a bit more than "perception" in the written word.
>
> And why is this? Testifying is nothing more than making a promise to repeat
> what you saw, how you felt or what you heard to the best of your ability. It
> is nothing more. There is nothing in mr Szabady's comments here that don't
> qualify for "testifying." There may, however, be something that doesn't
> satisfy YOU.
> Cheers,
> Larry Cox
> http://www.audiomusings.com
that's ONE definition of "testify". Others abound including "to
serve as evidence or proof", "to make a solemn declaration under oath
for the purpose of establishing a fact", "to serve as evidence of:
PROVE"... etc. (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary). But let's
not digress to semantics.
I don't really understand the UPROAR over those of us in technical
fields requesting accuracy in statements made about various
observations regarding audio as to their factual basis (i.e.,
provable under independent review) vs. opinions and inuendo, often
with hidden agendas designed to enrich and ingratiate.
As for the original posted question, that was answered by Mr.
Krueger.... the "burn in" procedure is at worst damaging to the
speakers involved, and at best completely unnecessary.
auplater
Roland Saldanha
<fred...@ee.ucla.edu> wrote:
> Can someone answer the original question of this post
> directly? Gucciphile asked in the original post if damage
> may have been done to the new speakers from this
> "burn-in" proceedure.
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
Also could Gucciphile say how the speaker sounds now. Did your
contact Sonus Faber and what was their take on the situation? How
did your dealer handle this if you contacted them?
Roland
I.S. Clavner
About your question about building custom tube Pre-amps!
I have personally built and designed quite a few of them
in my day, they are quite fun to do!
To get you started: Look up a copy of the old RCA
receiving tube manual. In the appendix are samples of
various circuits including HiFi amplifiers and special
purpose pre-amps. Examples of these special purpose
preamps range from tape heads, to MM cartridges, to
ceramic (High Impedance) designs.
If you really want to get into it further, look up
copies of Sams Photofacts for various commercial gear
from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. A good source for this is a
neighbor of mine, A. G. Tannenbaum, at
http://www.agtannenbaum.com/. Following the designs of
the "ancient masters" and modifying them to your
specific needs can be very rewarding.
Best of luck, and keep those "watt sucking fire bottles"
glowing!
I. S. Clavner
Philadelphia
Bob Myers
>Paul Szabady <sza...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>>No it's not *proof* of anything. It's reporting of perceptions over
>>years of time. Why does one have to *prove* their perceptions?
>
>Well, our perceptions tell us, for example, that the earth is flat and
>that the sky is a blue dome in daytime and a black vault with holes
>that let the light shine through it in the nightime.
Or, to answer the original question in a somewhat different
way:
You are not being ASKED, EVER, to "prove" your perception.
What you are being asked to do, or at least to acknowledge
the need for, is "proof" (better, to simply provide evidence)
that the perception reported IS, in fact, due to the cause
proposed. I don't think you'll find anyone who is going to
deny that you may hear a difference when comparing, say,
cables or speakers or anything else under sighted-test
conditions. The question is whether or not that PERCEPTION
is due to an actual, physical change or difference in the
equipment - which is what many propose - or whether it's
due instead to other effects. In simpler terms, sure, you may
hear a difference - but how are you sure you know what caused
it?
Bob M.
Richard D Pierce
Jonathan Fredrick <fred...@ee.ucla.edu> wrote:
>Can someone answer the original question of this post
>directly? Gucciphile asked in the original post if damage
>may have been done to the new speakers from this
>"burn-in" proceedure.
If I remember the post, the statement was made that the entire
speaker, cabinet and all, was significantly warm to the touch.
For this to be, it suggest strongly that there are parts of the
speaker, notably the voice coil, former and the neck of the
cone, is at a significantly higher temperature. Depending upon
the exact construction details, the potential is there for
substantial, permanent damage and deterioration.
>If no damage was done then maybe burn-in isn't such a
>big deal.
Here's a potential existance proof that damage IS possible.
>But if the overall feeling is that this process
>was bad for the speaker maybe we should look at it in a
>different way.
Indeed. We should also explore the possibility it does not harm
AND no good, and thus is an unnecessary waste of time and
effort.
Richard D Pierce
Ed Seedhouse <eseed...@home.com> wrote:
>Paul Szabady <sza...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>>No it's not *proof* of anything. It's reporting of perceptions over
>>years of time. Why does one have to *prove* their perceptions?
>
>Well, our perceptions tell us, for example, that the earth is flat and
>that the sky is a blue dome in daytime and a black vault with holes
>that let the light shine through it in the nightime.
No, our PRECONCEPTIONS tell us that. Actually, only some of us
have preconceptions that tell us that.
>So what do I do? If I tell him the truth as I see it I'll likely lose
>the sale. Not only will that cost *me* mony but it will result in the
>customer not getting a chance to learn to appreciate a much better
>speaker system than he is used to.
>
>So I tell a "little white lie" and say "it takes some time for these
>systems to break in". Result? The customer gives my system a chance
>he never would have otherwise, and he relaxes and gives the system
>some time to, as he now supposes, "break in". In other words he gives
>my system a fair listen and adusts to the sound, and comes to
>appreciate it's true quality. He keeps a good set of speakers and I
>keep the mony he paid me for them. We both win.
No, The entire industry looses, again. Another myth, another
lie, be it white, grey or black, is passed off as TRVTH (tm), to
join the ranks of other little white lies and hoaxes.
>The Buddhists call this kind of thing "upaya" which translates roughly
>as "skilful means". Instead of trying to force another person to see
>things our way we play a trick which allows him to suspend his
>predjudices and eventually see things as they really are.
How does lying eventually lead to the person seeing things as
they really are? Instead, you have merely reinforced the
preconceived notions.
How about a little something called "education?" Yeah, maybe
it's not the dealers' job, but exactly WHOSE job is it then?
Certainly the high-end rags are doing a spectacularily LOUSY job
in this respect, they're as much a part of the problem, indeed,
they may be the SOURCE of the problem.
So the guy takes the speaker home, he doesn't like it, you tell
him to give it time to break in. 2 days later, he still doesn't
like it, you tell him it takes a week. Meanwhile, his check has
cleared. He comes back in a week, he STILL doesn't like it. You
tell him it can take a month, ...
When, Ed, does it come time to acknowledge the fact THAT HE
DOESN'T LIKE THE SPEAKER and deal with THAT piece of reality?
>Mind you I'm not saying that manufacturers who use this "trick" are
>being perfectly ethical, but the harm is relatively slight and it must
>be tempting to do things that way even when you know that "break in"
>is a myth. The customer wins
How's that: he may well decide that after a month of break-in
and stonewalling on the part of the dealer, he's going to end up
dissatisfied and suspicious from that point forward.
> and the manufacturer wins, what could be better than that?
Having everybody win BASED ON FACTS, not on little white lies.
>Except of course we are left with a lot of people
>who sincerely and strongly believe in the "break in" phenomina even
>though the evidence is very strong that it does not actually occur.
Another little white lie.
>An unfortunate byproduct, in my opinion, but does it really do more
>harm to people than them spending their money on systems that "sound
>nice" to them but don't tell the truth about the music and which in
>the long run may just turn them off the "high end" once and for all?
It's their choice. Why obfuscate their choice with yet another
collection of myths and "little white lies?"
>Do we, in other words, make a good system and perhaps tell a white lie
>to trick people into give them a fair listen, or do we make a flawed
>but pleasing system that we *know* is flawed yet sell anyway? Which
>is more "moral"?
Educate the consumer and let them make the informed choice.
Armed with the data, if they decide to make a bad choice, they
have done so fully armed and are more than willing to take
responsibility for the choice.
>Fortunately for me I am not a manufacturer and never will be so I'll
>never have to deal with the dillema. But I find it hard not to
>sympathise with the people who do.
I find it hard to condone the continuing propagation of myths,
voodoo, hucksterism, half truths and white lies simply for the
purpose of simply promoting business. More than one of these
manufacturers and their high-end rag lackeys either through
their own naive and warped belief systems or through deliberate
deception continue the tired tradition of first separating the
customer from their rational thought processes, then separating
the customer from their money. Why would anyone want to
sympathise with that?
Paul Szabady
>
> You don't have to unless you want it to actually mean something.
> Perception is not the same as the actual sound. And your perception
> is different from others'.
Perception is, however, our only way of meaningfully knowing the
'actual sound', since any attempt at defining what that actual sound
might be is still rooted in perception. This is doubly the case with
audio equipment, since we are listening to the illusion of music and
the creation of that illusion involves not only perception, but an
imaginative act of willing suspension of disbelief.
I've spent 30 years listening to music at least 8 hours a day, and
for a period of a year recently I went long periods, 2 months or so,
without listening to audio at all. When listening again, I found that
for a fraction of a second, I'd lost that ability to suspend
disbelief and the 'actual sound' was raucous and incoherent,
unrecognizable as music. Then suddenly, the gestalt reformed and I
experienced these electro-mechanical rumblings and scrapings as music
again.
The point of this is that we 'learn' to perceive reality through the
illusory, distorted media of audio and whatever aids in that creation
of a convincing illusion for the individual is what's really
important for musical satisfaction.
>
> > What does this have to do with anything? If our store ran through 5 demo
> > pairs of Snell C-IV, Spica Angeluses, and Audio Physics Sparks in a 6
> > month period (and there were times when both 'broken-in' and
> > 'non-broken-in' speakers were on the sales floor at the same time) and
> > the break-in phenomenon occurred each time, would I be wrong in
> > detecting a pattern here?
>
> Yes, unless you were able to ensure that bias didn't affect your
> perception.
I had no prior inclination either for or against the phenomenon of
'break-in' and I've learned over the years to be very aware of
pre-suppositions and biases that influence judgment. (Formal
Phenomenological discipline helps a lot.) Here it was simply a case
of noticing a recurring pattern.
Paul Szabady
Paul Szabady
>
> I don't really understand the UPROAR over those of us in technical
> fields requesting accuracy in statements made about various
> observations regarding audio as to their factual basis (i.e.,
> provable under independent review) vs. opinions and inuendo, often
> with hidden agendas designed to enrich and ingratiate.
>
I think that the problem stems from the conflict of 2 cultures that
interestingly intersect and often speak past each other in the world
of audio - I speak of the the humanistic/aesthetic and the
scientific/technical. We are dealing here, obviously, with the
experience of music from equipment based on technological principles.
The former perspective judges the quality of performance based on
aesthetic principles, that is, perception and subjective reaction.
Having to 'prove' that judgment, and the often corollary sub-text
that the judgment and it's perception is illusory (or delusory),
ignorant, insane, susceptible to be influenced by trivia such as the
appearance and price of the component in question, plus any hidden
agendas (monetary or otherwise) strikes that perspective as insulting
and missing the point.
The aesthetic/humanist perspective has no difficulty with statements
like "I prefer Pinchas Zuckerman over Itzhak Perlman in the
performance such-and-such piece of music." There is no real need to
prove the judgment (although one would be expected to elaborate on
it); and to this perspective the scientific/technological perspective
would appear, in this case, to say: "There's no difference between
these two performances. In fact such differences are impossible and
illusory. The performers are both Jewish, stand 5 ft. 8 in., have
brown hair and eyes, were born in Tel Aviv, and both played the same
instrument. Furthermore they both played all the notes of the score
in the proper order. Therefore, any differences are impossible."
The technically minded perspective, used to screening reality through
the nets of theory in order to guarantee practicality, and to
speaking a different, technical language often finds this aesthetic
view preposterous. "The midrange was liquid, but the mid-bass was
somewhat chocolate-y and there wasn't much air" tends to communicate
nothing to the s/t mindset about the phenomenon described.
A further difference in these 2 worlds is the attitude towards
'opinion'. The h/a holds opinions and perception as datum: they might
be informed or not, but are still phenomenological fact. The s/t
holds a differentiation between opinion and fact.
As one who was educated formally in the humanist/aesthetic
perspective, and ad hoc in the scientific/technological because of
involvement in audio sales for 25 years, I can see the limitations
and difficulties in both perspectives, but must admit that the
humanist/aesthetic has to hold priority. The point of high-end audio
is, after all, music. And the scientific/technological perspective is
there only to serve that end.
Paul Szabady
Submariner
wrote:
>..............So it would take me at least 2.5 months to put in 100
>hours, and 5 months for the 200 hours.
Indeed, I don't believe the 200 hour figure is an arbitrary number.
The bean counters at the speaker manufacturers probably have a
warehouse full of statistical data that would allow them to arrive at
a number that would go beyond the return period allowed by the dealer.
"Sure, you can return them in 30 days for a full refund if you're not
completely satisfied, but please be aware that they require 200 hours
of break-in to sound their best".
I have always believed this break-in business was completely without
technical merrit. What really burns me up is when supposedly above
board audiophile magazine reviewers make comments like "the new
interconnects required a 10 hour break-in period before the midrange
opened up." If audiophiles truly believe this hooey, we're certainly
a more gullible bunch today than we used to be...........
Ed Seedhouse
>>Well, our perceptions tell us, for example, that the earth is flat and
>>that the sky is a blue dome in daytime and a black vault with holes
>>that let the light shine through it in the nightime.
>No, our PRECONCEPTIONS tell us that. Actually, only some of us
>have preconceptions that tell us that.
Well, I know very well that the sky is not a blue dome arching over my
head, but it still looks for all the world like it is. I also know
that the moon is at a greate distance and does not move with me when I
walk. But when I do walk at night it certainly looks for all the
world that it is indeed moving along with me at the same speed at
which I am walking. This effect is impressive enough to fool lots of
people into believing that Venus is a U.F.O.
>>So I tell a "little white lie" and say "it takes some time for these
>>systems to break in". Result? The customer gives my system a chance
>>he never would have otherwise, and he relaxes and gives the system
>>some time to, as he now supposes, "break in". In other words he gives
>>my system a fair listen and adusts to the sound, and comes to
>>appreciate it's true quality. He keeps a good set of speakers and I
>>keep the mony he paid me for them. We both win.
>No, The entire industry looses, again. Another myth, another
>lie, be it white, grey or black, is passed off as TRVTH (tm), to
>join the ranks of other little white lies and hoaxes.
I sympathise with this viewpoint, but wonder how great the loss really
is, compared to some of the real problems of life. I am not trying to
approve of the practice though, merely trying to understand how
tempting it must be to indulge in such a practise and wondering just
how big a sin it is compared to, say, murder or kidnapping. I am also
speaking with my tongue slightly in my cheek.
Ed Seedhouse
Victoria, B.C.
Arny Krueger
> auplater wrote:
> > I don't really understand the UPROAR over those of us in technical
> > fields requesting accuracy in statements made about various
> > observations regarding audio as to their factual basis (i.e.,
> > provable under independent review) vs. opinions and innuendo, often
> > with hidden agendas designed to enrich and ingratiate.
> I think that the problem stems from the conflict of 2 cultures that
> interestingly intersect and often speak past each other in the world
> of audio - I speak of the humanistic/aesthetic and the
> scientific/technical. We are dealing here, obviously, with the
> experience of music from equipment based on technological principles.
Here we see yet another recitation of one of the greatest and most
divisive fallacies that goes around and around in the world of
audio. It is the idea that there are two worlds, humanistic/aesthetic
and the scientific/technical, and never the twain shall peacefully
meet and coexist.
Yes, there is a the humanistic/aesthetic realm, and yes there is a
scientific/technical realm.
The fallacy is not that they exist, but rather that they don't or
can't co-exist or that one has to be subservient to the other.
> The former perspective judges the quality of performance based on
> aesthetic principles, that is, perception and subjective reaction.
I think that every serious audiophile and engineer agrees that
perception and subjective reaction is the final and most reasonable
way to judge the performance of technology designed to recreate a
humanistic/aesthetic experience.
> Having to 'prove' that judgment, and the often corollary sub-text
> that the judgment and it's perception is illusory (or delusory),
> ignorant, insane, susceptible to be influenced by trivia such as the
> appearance and price of the component in question, plus any hidden
> agendas (monetary or otherwise) strikes that perspective as insulting
> and missing the point.
This is yet another all-too-typical defensive tirade that we hear
when cherished but hard-to-support opinions are under technical
scrutiny.
For example, we see considerable offense being taken at the idea that
a perception or subjective reaction could possibly be an illusion.
Yet, open just about any book on perceptual psychology and the
difference between reliable and unreliable perceptions (illusions)
leaps right out at you. Why is this? The answer is that many human
perceptions are illusions, plain and simple.
In fact, the essence of audio is the creation of an illusion - the
illusion that music is being played by musicians when in fact the
musicians are not playing right now.
So why should a reasonable person take offense about questions of
illusion being raised when the whole humanistic/aesthetic experience
at hand is an illusion?
> The aesthetic/humanist perspective has no difficulty with statements
> like "I prefer Pinchas Zuckerman over Itzhak Perlman in the
> performance such-and-such piece of music." There is no real need to
> prove the judgment (although one would be expected to elaborate on
> it);
So far so good. And let's review the issues at this point. There is
no controversy over whether there is an audible difference in the way
these two men play. The fact that they play the same music with great
skill and power but yet differently is one of those sweet facts of
life.
> and to this perspective the scientific/technological perspective
> would appear, in this case, to say: "There's no difference between
> these two performances. In fact such differences are impossible and
> illusory. The performers are both Jewish, stand 5 ft. 8 in., have
> brown hair and eyes, were born in Tel Aviv, and both played the same
> instrument. Furthermore they both played all the notes of the score
> in the proper order. Therefore, any differences are impossible."
Here we have a statement that magnifies divisiveness by stuffing
made-up words into the mouths of one side of an imaginary
controversy.
I know of no person who is interested in music that has ever heard
Zuckerman and Perlman play who does not think that they sound
different.
It is very clear that this Zuckerman and Perlman comparison is yet
another straw man argument.
> The technically minded perspective, used to screening reality through
> the nets of theory in order to guarantee practicality, and to
> speaking a different, technical language often finds this aesthetic
> view preposterous. "The midrange was liquid, but the mid-bass was
> somewhat chocolate-y and there wasn't much air" tends to communicate
> nothing to the s/t mindset about the phenomenon described.
Fundamental to evaluation of any perception is the question of
whether it is a reliable or unreliable perception. We don't have to
get into the details of what the perception is in order to determine
whether or not the perception is reliable. All we have to do is to
see if the perception is consistent.
In the case of loudspeakers, it is axiomatic that under almost all
circumstances two loudspeakers will sound different unless they are
carefully matched in a technical sense, and then only if the
loudspeakers occupy the same space when being played. These sound
like pretty hard technical requirements to meet, but in fact they can
be met. However, I know of no hi fi salon that is capable of meeting
them.
In the case of listeners, we know that under almost all circumstances
listeners have a strong tendency to report the presence of audible
differences, even if the identical same sound is falling on their
ears. However, by means of technology for about 50 years we have had
listening methodologies that deal quite effectively with that issue.
These methodologies have been widely implemented in audio for at
least 20 years. However, I know of no hi fi salon that is capable of
routinely implementing them.
If we look back at the anecdote that led to the divisive posturing
and construction of a straw man argument that I noted above, we see
that the anecdote fails to deal with either of two very well-known
issues dealing with listening tests involving speakers. Therefore,
the observations contained in the anecdote are very difficult to
reliably and credibly assign to a technical effect.
> A further difference in these 2 worlds is the attitude towards
> 'opinion'. The h/a holds opinions and perception as datum: they might
> be informed or not, but are still phenomenological fact. The s/t
> holds a differentiation between opinion and fact.
This is of course, yet another false, divisive distinction. Of
course, opinions and perceptions are data. However, data is not
proof, it is just one kind of possible support for a proof. The mind
that races from raw data to proof does not seem to be a very
well-trained or disciplined mind.
However we know that salesmanship is not always based on maximizing
the training or discipline of the person being sold. If fact, some
forms of salesmanship are based on trying to overcome training and
discipline in the person being sold.
> As one who was educated formally in the humanist/aesthetic
> perspective, and ad hoc in the scientific/technological because of
> involvement in audio sales for 25 years, I can see the limitations
> and difficulties in both perspectives, but must admit that the
> humanist/aesthetic has to hold priority.
I think that it is very important to avoid jumping to conclusions
based on data that there has been a large number of serious questions
about for over 20 years. It really does not seem to matter whether
the question at hand is of a humanistic/aesthetic nature or one of
scientific/technical nature. Creating artificial divisions is not
productive. Creating straw men is not good rhetoric. Raw data is not
proof.
> The point of high-end audio is, after all, music. And the
> scientific/technological perspective is there only to serve that end.
AFAIK other than voice, clapping, finger snapping and various low
frequency transients created by the air and body gas passing over
flesh, all possibly musical sounds are produced by technical devices
known as musical instruments. Much music is played by following
technical notation on pieces of paper. I'm repeatedly told that
technical training is a key part of any effort to become a good
musician.
Audio is a technology - a blending of science and art. Music is a
technology - a blending of science and art.
Attempts to show that somehow the science and technology that are
inherent in music or audio can be separated and one made subservient
to another are therefore fatally flawed, and all arguments that are
based on that idea lack credibility because of this fundamental flaw.
Arny Krueger
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Paul Szabady <sza...@uswest.net> wrote:
>I think that the problem stems from the conflict of 2 cultures that
>interestingly intersect and often speak past each other in the world
>scientific/technical.
Yes, but there need be no conflict.
>We are dealing here, obviously, with the
>experience of music from equipment based on technological principles.
Yes, some people forget that.
>The former perspective judges the quality of performance based on
>aesthetic principles, that is, perception and subjective reaction.
Yes, that is true.
>Having to 'prove' that judgment, and the often corollary sub-text
>that the judgment and it's perception is illusory (or delusory),
>ignorant, insane, susceptible to be influenced by trivia such as the
>appearance and price of the component in question, plus any hidden
>agendas (monetary or otherwise) strikes that perspective as insulting
>and missing the point.
It is, however, true, and at least some of the time is offered
without any intention to insult.
>The aesthetic/humanist perspective has no difficulty with statements
>like "I prefer Pinchas Zuckerman over Itzhak Perlman in the
>performance such-and-such piece of music."
The scientific/technical viewpoint has no trouble with that,
either. It's a preference. This is fine. Preferences are fine.
They are. Questioning preference is silly, rude, and annoying,
as well as a waste of time, and it only annoys the bear, too.
>There is no real need to
>prove the judgment (although one would be expected to elaborate on
>it); and to this perspective the scientific/technological perspective
>would appear, in this case, to say: "There's no difference between
>these two performances.
It would say no such thing. Even two nearly identical performances by
the same performer with the same ensemble in the same hall will show
enormous technical differences, in both the musical and the
scientific meaning of "technical'.
>In fact such differences are impossible and
>illusory. The performers are both Jewish, stand 5 ft. 8 in., have
>brown hair and eyes, were born in Tel Aviv, and both played the same
>instrument. Furthermore they both played all the notes of the score
>in the proper order. Therefore, any differences are impossible."
The paragraph directly above this sentence is an insulting,
incorrect stereotype. Such a statement is absurd. It confuses
prefernce with objectivity, and it promulgates a completely
disgusting, incorrect, and offensive view of the technical
viewpoint, and a destructive one to boot.
>The technically minded perspective, used to screening reality through
>the nets of theory in order to guarantee practicality, and to
>speaking a different, technical language often finds this aesthetic
>view preposterous.
It does NO SUCH THING, Paul. Preference is preference is preference.
End of sentence. I don't care if you prefer Downtown Julie Brown
playing Mozart's 4th Horn Concerto with Flanders and Swann, IT IS A
PREFERENCE. I may not agree with your preference, that's fine, but
there is NO SUCH THING as "proving" or "testing" a preference, it has
to be accepted the way it comes out of the individual stating the
preference, and it need not even be consistant or unchanging.
Preference just IS.
>"The midrange was liquid, but the mid-bass was
>somewhat chocolate-y and there wasn't much air" tends to communicate
>nothing to the s/t mindset about the phenomenon described.
Well, that's true. Now you've confused language with preference and
with descriptive value. In general, I have no idea what the
individual would mean if they said that, although "liquid midrange"
is something I could create my version of. I have NO idea what
"chocolatey" means in this context, I prefer Callibaut.
>A further difference in these 2 worlds is the attitude towards
>'opinion'.
No, an opinion is an opinion. The problem comes when an opinion
is stated as a technical fact.
>The h/a holds opinions and perception as datum: they might
>be informed or not, but are still phenomenological fact. The s/t
>holds a differentiation between opinion and fact.
No, between preference and perception on one side, and objective
fact on the other. (Using "objective" as testable, repeatable,
and verifiable, here. Let's not get into what "truly objective"
means at the minute, that is NOT a simple argument, and we can
devolve directly to solipcism in the process.)
>As one who was educated formally in the humanist/aesthetic
>perspective, and ad hoc in the scientific/technological because of
>involvement in audio sales for 25 years, I can see the limitations
>and difficulties in both perspectives, but must admit that the
>humanist/aesthetic has to hold priority. The point of high-end audio
>is, after all, music. And the scientific/technological perspective is
>there only to serve that end.
Paul, your "positions" for the technical person are completely
offensive straw men. You may not have meant them that way, but in
fact you have created a straw man to burn down. (The reason I don't
think you meant it that way is that you didn't burn it down.)
Please, Paul, consider the difference between expressing personal
preference (absurd example follows)
I like frammitz-fnord cables because the black jacket makes
the room feel dark.
and
Borderline Technical statement (also absurd example)
Frammitz-fnord cable changes the audio signal and makes the sound out
of the speakers come out dark like the cable jackets.
and
Outright technical statement (also absurd)
Frammitz-fnord's black jackets, even though they don't even
touch the wire, impart their dark flavour to all of the
electronic signals passing down the wire.
No technical person should have any gripe with the first statement.
The second statement can be construed as a technical statement or
as preference, and may cause some excitement.
The third statement is a technical claim, and is subject to violent
ridicule if there isn't some evidence standing by.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2000, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
auplater
> auplater wrote:
> >
> > I don't really understand the UPROAR over those of us in technical
> > fields requesting accuracy in statements made about various
> > observations regarding audio as to their factual basis (i.e.,
> > provable under independent review) vs. opinions and inuendo, often
> > with hidden agendas designed to enrich and ingratiate.
> >
>
> I think that the problem stems from the conflict of 2 cultures that
> interestingly intersect and often speak past each other in the world
> of audio - I speak of the the humanistic/aesthetic and the
> scientific/technical. We are dealing here, obviously, with the
> experience of music from equipment based on technological principles.
>
> The former perspective judges the quality of performance based on
> aesthetic principles, that is, perception and subjective reaction.
> Having to 'prove' that judgment, and the often corollary sub-text
> that the judgment and it's perception is illusory (or delusory),
> ignorant, insane, susceptible to be influenced by trivia such as the
> appearance and price of the component in question, plus any hidden
> agendas (monetary or otherwise) strikes that perspective as insulting
> and missing the point.
no one asks you to "prove" a subjective judgement... only to state it
as a "subjective" observation, not a statement of fact. You're
missing the point if you infer that questioning the reliability of
subjective judgements being presented as factual data is somehow
meant as an "insult".
> The aesthetic/humanist perspective has no difficulty with statements
> like "I prefer Pinchas Zuckerman over Itzhak Perlman in the
> performance such-and-such piece of music." There is no real need to
> prove the judgment (although one would be expected to elaborate on
> it); and to this perspective the scientific/technological perspective
> would appear, in this case, to say: "There's no difference between
> these two performances. In fact such differences are impossible and
> illusory. The performers are both Jewish, stand 5 ft. 8 in., have
> brown hair and eyes, were born in Tel Aviv, and both played the same
> instrument. Furthermore they both played all the notes of the score
> in the proper order. Therefore, any differences are impossible."
this strawman has no legs... the "scientific/technological
perspective" would either recognize this as a subjective evaluation
not amenable to evaluation, or would simply measure a statistically
significant number of opinions and draw conclusions based on a
relevant sample of those opinions. Pure and simple. The statistics
would tell you, perhaps, that out of 500 randomly selected
individuals hearing this performance, 378 thought that Zuckerman's
interpretation was more succinct, with some appropriate defined
margin of error, whereas 238 felt that Perlman's performance met the
defined criteria better. etc.. etc.. based on the agreed upon method
of evaluation.
> The technically minded perspective, used to screening reality through
> the nets of theory in order to guarantee practicality, and to
> speaking a different, technical language often finds this aesthetic
> view preposterous. "The midrange was liquid, but the mid-bass was
> somewhat chocolate-y and there wasn't much air" tends to communicate
> nothing to the s/t mindset about the phenomenon described.
wrong again... this can be meaningful if more than one person agrees
on what is meant by "liquid", "chocalate-y", etc. Jeez.. maybe that's
what "Statistics" is for, huh? More often than not, the
"aesthetic/humanistic" mindset fails miserably in attempting to
define what exactly it is they're describing. Any attempt to
characterize these terms in easily understood language is roundly
criticized as being "insulting" or "missing the point".
> A further difference in these 2 worlds is the attitude towards
> 'opinion'. The h/a holds opinions and perception as datum: they might
> be informed or not, but are still phenomenological fact. The s/t
> holds a differentiation between opinion and fact.
this is nonsense... unless the fact you're speaking of is that
someone has an opinion...
> As one who was educated formally in the humanist/aesthetic
> perspective, and ad hoc in the scientific/technological because of
> involvement in audio sales for 25 years, I can see the limitations
> and difficulties in both perspectives, but must admit that the
> humanist/aesthetic has to hold priority. The point of high-end audio
> is, after all, music. And the scientific/technological perspective is
> there only to serve that end.
> Paul Szabady
as one who was educated formally in both the scientific/technological
perspective AND the humanist/aesthetic (as you put it) perspective, I
don't find them to be mutually exclusive, once one fully understands
both disciplines.
auplater
Arny Krueger
news:8fcuuo$oi0$1...@news.aud.alcatel.com...
> auplater wrote:
> > I don't really understand the UPROAR over those of us in technical
> > fields requesting accuracy in statements made about various
> > observations regarding audio as to their factual basis (i.e.,
> > provable under independent review) vs. opinions and innuendo, often
> > with hidden agendas designed to enrich and ingratiate.
> I think that the problem stems from the conflict of 2 cultures that
> interestingly intersect and often speak past each other in the world
> of audio - I speak of the humanistic/aesthetic and the
> scientific/technical. We are dealing here, obviously, with the
> experience of music from equipment based on technological principles.
Here we see yet another recitation of one of the greatest and most
divisive fallacies that goes around and around in the world of
audio. It is the idea that there are two worlds, humanistic/aesthetic
and the scientific/technical, and never the twain shall peacefully
meet and coexist.
Yes, there is a the humanistic/aesthetic realm, and yes there is a
scientific/technical realm.
The fallacy is not that they exist, but rather that they don't or
can't co-exist or that one has to be subservient to the other.
> The former perspective judges the quality of performance based on
> aesthetic principles, that is, perception and subjective reaction.
I think that every serious audiophile and engineer agrees that
perception and subjective reaction is the final and most reasonable
way to judge the performance of technology designed to recreate a
humanistic/aesthetic experience.
> Having to 'prove' that judgment, and the often corollary sub-text
> that the judgment and it's perception is illusory (or delusory),
> ignorant, insane, susceptible to be influenced by trivia such as the
> appearance and price of the component in question, plus any hidden
> agendas (monetary or otherwise) strikes that perspective as insulting
> and missing the point.
This is yet another all-too-typical defensive tirade that we hear
when cherished but hard-to-support opinions are under technical
scrutiny.
For example, we see considerable offense being taken at the idea that
a perception or subjective reaction could possibly be an illusion.
Yet, open just about any book on perceptual psychology and the
difference between reliable and unreliable perceptions (illusions)
leaps right out at you. Why is this? The answer is that many human
perceptions are illusions, plain and simple.
In fact, the essence of audio is the creation of an illusion - the
illusion that music is being played by musicians when in fact the
musicians are not playing right now.
So why should a reasonable person take offense about questions of
illusion being raised when the whole humanistic/aesthetic experience
at hand is an illusion?
> The aesthetic/humanist perspective has no difficulty with statements
> like "I prefer Pinchas Zuckerman over Itzhak Perlman in the
> performance such-and-such piece of music." There is no real need to
> prove the judgment (although one would be expected to elaborate on
> it);
So far so good. And let's review the issues at this point. There is
no controversy over whether there is an audible difference in the way
these two men play. The fact that they play the same music with great
skill and power but yet differently is one of those sweet facts of
life.
> and to this perspective the scientific/technological perspective
> would appear, in this case, to say: "There's no difference between
> these two performances. In fact such differences are impossible and
> illusory. The performers are both Jewish, stand 5 ft. 8 in., have
> brown hair and eyes, were born in Tel Aviv, and both played the same
> instrument. Furthermore they both played all the notes of the score
> in the proper order. Therefore, any differences are impossible."
Here we have a statement that magnifies divisiveness by stuffing
made-up words into the mouths of one side of an imaginary
controversy.
I know of no person who is interested in music that has ever heard
Zuckerman and Perlman play who does not think that they sound
different.
It is very clear that this Zuckerman and Perlman comparison is yet
another straw man argument.
> The technically minded perspective, used to screening reality through
> the nets of theory in order to guarantee practicality, and to
> speaking a different, technical language often finds this aesthetic
> view preposterous. "The midrange was liquid, but the mid-bass was
> somewhat chocolate-y and there wasn't much air" tends to communicate
> nothing to the s/t mindset about the phenomenon described.
Fundamental to evaluation of any perception is the question of
> A further difference in these 2 worlds is the attitude towards
> 'opinion'. The h/a holds opinions and perception as datum: they might
> be informed or not, but are still phenomenological fact. The s/t
> holds a differentiation between opinion and fact.
This is of course, yet another false, divisive distinction. Of
course, opinions and perceptions are data. However, data is not
proof, it is just one kind of possible support for a proof. The mind
that races from raw data to proof does not seem to be a very
well-trained or disciplined mind.
However we know that salesmanship is not always based on maximizing
the training or discipline of the person being sold. If fact, some
forms of salesmanship are based on trying to overcome training and
discipline in the person being sold.
> As one who was educated formally in the humanist/aesthetic
> perspective, and ad hoc in the scientific/technological because of
> involvement in audio sales for 25 years, I can see the limitations
> and difficulties in both perspectives, but must admit that the
> humanist/aesthetic has to hold priority.
I think that it is very important to avoid jumping to conclusions
based on data that there has been a large number of serious questions
about for over 20 years. It really does not seem to matter whether
the question at hand is of a humanistic/aesthetic nature or one of
scientific/technical nature. Creating artificial divisions is not
productive. Creating straw men is not good rhetoric. Raw data is not
proof.
> The point of high-end audio is, after all, music. And the
> scientific/technological perspective is there only to serve that end.
AFAIK other than voice, clapping, finger snapping and various low
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>interestingly intersect and often speak past each other in the world
>scientific/technical.
Yes, but there need be no conflict.
>We are dealing here, obviously, with the
>experience of music from equipment based on technological principles.
Yes, some people forget that.
>The former perspective judges the quality of performance based on
>aesthetic principles, that is, perception and subjective reaction.
Yes, that is true.
>Having to 'prove' that judgment, and the often corollary sub-text
>that the judgment and it's perception is illusory (or delusory),
>ignorant, insane, susceptible to be influenced by trivia such as the
>appearance and price of the component in question, plus any hidden
>agendas (monetary or otherwise) strikes that perspective as insulting
>and missing the point.
It is, however, true, and at least some of the time is offered
without any intention to insult.
>The aesthetic/humanist perspective has no difficulty with statements
>like "I prefer Pinchas Zuckerman over Itzhak Perlman in the
>performance such-and-such piece of music."
The scientific/technical viewpoint has no trouble with that,
either. It's a preference. This is fine. Preferences are fine.
They are. Questioning preference is silly, rude, and annoying,
as well as a waste of time, and it only annoys the bear, too.
>There is no real need to
>prove the judgment (although one would be expected to elaborate on
>it); and to this perspective the scientific/technological perspective
>would appear, in this case, to say: "There's no difference between
>these two performances.
It would say no such thing. Even two nearly identical performances by
the same performer with the same ensemble in the same hall will show
enormous technical differences, in both the musical and the
scientific meaning of "technical'.
>In fact such differences are impossible and
>illusory. The performers are both Jewish, stand 5 ft. 8 in., have
>brown hair and eyes, were born in Tel Aviv, and both played the same
>instrument. Furthermore they both played all the notes of the score
>in the proper order. Therefore, any differences are impossible."
The paragraph directly above this sentence is an insulting,
incorrect stereotype. Such a statement is absurd. It confuses
prefernce with objectivity, and it promulgates a completely
disgusting, incorrect, and offensive view of the technical
viewpoint, and a destructive one to boot.
>The technically minded perspective, used to screening reality through
>the nets of theory in order to guarantee practicality, and to
>speaking a different, technical language often finds this aesthetic
>view preposterous.
It does NO SUCH THING, Paul. Preference is preference is preference.
End of sentence. I don't care if you prefer Downtown Julie Brown
playing Mozart's 4th Horn Concerto with Flanders and Swann, IT IS A
PREFERENCE. I may not agree with your preference, that's fine, but
there is NO SUCH THING as "proving" or "testing" a preference, it has
to be accepted the way it comes out of the individual stating the
preference, and it need not even be consistant or unchanging.
Preference just IS.
>"The midrange was liquid, but the mid-bass was
>somewhat chocolate-y and there wasn't much air" tends to communicate
>nothing to the s/t mindset about the phenomenon described.
Well, that's true. Now you've confused language with preference and
with descriptive value. In general, I have no idea what the
individual would mean if they said that, although "liquid midrange"
is something I could create my version of. I have NO idea what
"chocolatey" means in this context, I prefer Callibaut.
>A further difference in these 2 worlds is the attitude towards
>'opinion'.
No, an opinion is an opinion. The problem comes when an opinion
is stated as a technical fact.
>The h/a holds opinions and perception as datum: they might
>be informed or not, but are still phenomenological fact. The s/t
>holds a differentiation between opinion and fact.
No, between preference and perception on one side, and objective
fact on the other. (Using "objective" as testable, repeatable,
and verifiable, here. Let's not get into what "truly objective"
means at the minute, that is NOT a simple argument, and we can
devolve directly to solipcism in the process.)
>As one who was educated formally in the humanist/aesthetic
>perspective, and ad hoc in the scientific/technological because of
>involvement in audio sales for 25 years, I can see the limitations
>and difficulties in both perspectives, but must admit that the
>humanist/aesthetic has to hold priority. The point of high-end audio
>is, after all, music. And the scientific/technological perspective is
>there only to serve that end.
Paul, your "positions" for the technical person are completely
Larry Cox
auplater wrote:
> <snip>
> > >
> > > "Testify" implies a bit more than "perception" in the written word.
> >
> > And why is this? Testifying is nothing more than making a promise to
> repeat
> > what you saw, how you felt or what you heard to the best of your
> ability. It
> > is nothing more. There is nothing in Mr. Szabady's comments here that
> don't
> > qualify for "testifying." There may, however, be something that doesn't
>
> > satisfy YOU.
> > Cheers,
> > Larry Cox
> > http://www.audiomusings.com
>
> that's ONE definition of "testify". Others abound including "to
> serve as evidence or proof", "to make a solemn declaration under oath
> for the purpose of establishing a fact", "to serve as evidence of:
> PROVE"... etc. (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary). But let's
> not digress to semantics.
Well, there are only semantics when one uses words. Rather problematic, I'd
say. Moreover, testify comes from the latin "teste" which means "to bear
witness formally." Moreover, the plural "testes" while implying a body part,
translates from the latin as "witnesses." Black's Law Dictionary. If you
like, I have another two pages of the use of teste and its amendments over
time, all of which relate to an eye witness relating what they saw, not
necessarily "proving" anything, simply offering their witnessing of an event.
Again, Paul expressed his witnessing of events. You think that they have
credibility issues. Fine. As an expression of a witness Paul's statement is
complete, perfect and "correct," it is what he witnessed, whether that is reliable
or not. It is not the same thing as satisfying YOU or being "proof." To be
obvious about this (I have a possibly insane notion that being obvious is similar
to clarity and the assumption that a reader will read to understand rather than
reading from the position of preparing a rebuttal without thinking about what was
said) a witness repeats his/her experience and a "trier of fact" determines
whether the witness has sufficient knowledge, experience and access to the events
to be determined able to add a fact (or "factoid" in the current culture) to a
review of an event.
Oh, finally. Everything identified by auplater simply goes back to a
legal, quasi-legal or a derivative thereof. In case you were wondering (I offer
this as something potentially interesting, not because I think auplater or anyone
else was wondering) the purpose of "cross-examination" of testimony is to test the
credibility of the witness, not to accept the testimony as "truth."
> I don't really understand the UPROAR over those of us in technical
> fields requesting accuracy in statements made about various
> observations regarding audio as to their factual basis (i.e.,
> provable under independent review) vs. opinions and inuendo, often
> with hidden agendas designed to enrich and ingratiate.
Well UPROAR seems appropriate language to me, although “requesting
accuracy” does not. Uproars occur on both ends of these often silly upsets.
For clarity's sake, I’m not saying the topics are silly, but how the interactions
occur is quite frequently no better than juvenile, and that goes for many if
not all posters on this NG.
"Requesting accuracy" is language far too gentile from some of the nasty retorts
posted on RAHE. More often the language seems to devolve into name calling,
bullying (aka ad hominem) or a derisive form of obfuscation. Again, for clarity's
sake, I don't argue against posters requesting accuracy. What I'm speaking to, and
the only thing I intend by this comment, is that the tone of this expression very
frequently bears NO RESEMBLANCE to the tone used to "request accuracy."
<SNIP>
>
> auplater
Cheers,
Larry Cox
http
>
>
> I don't really understand the UPROAR over those of us in technical
> fields requesting accuracy in statements made about various
> observations regarding audio as to their factual basis (i.e.,
> provable under independent review) vs. opinions and inuendo, often
> with hidden agendas designed to enrich and ingratiate.
>
Larry Cox
Arny Krueger wrote:
> > I think that the problem stems from the conflict of 2 cultures that
> > interestingly intersect and often speak past each other in the world
> > of audio - I speak of the humanistic/aesthetic and the
> > scientific/technical. We are dealing here, obviously, with the
> > experience of music from equipment based on technological principles.
>
> Here we see yet another recitation of one of the greatest and most
> divisive fallacies that goes around and around in the world of
> audio. It is the idea that there are two worlds, humanistic/aesthetic
> and the scientific/technical, and never the twain shall peacefully
> meet and coexist.
I think this mis-states in an important way what Paul says. He doesn't
actually say that they don't meet peacefully nor that they cannot coexist,
but that their contemporaneous existence with different language and
different valuation systems means that they don't speak directly one to the
other.
> Yes, there is a the humanistic/aesthetic realm, and yes there is a
> scientific/technical realm.
>
> The fallacy is not that they exist, but rather that they don't or
> can't co-exist or that one has to be subservient to the other.
> > The former perspective judges the quality of performance based on
> > aesthetic principles, that is, perception and subjective reaction.
>
> I think that every serious audiophile and engineer agrees that
> perception and subjective reaction is the final and most reasonable
> way to judge the performance of technology designed to recreate a
> humanistic/aesthetic experience.
It is invariably a problem for one person to speak for another. This is
territory best left alone, unless you like sparks. The funny part of this
post is the "reasonable" language. What one person finds "reasonable"
another would not, even where there are groups of people who hew to a
particular description of what is "reasonable" or even "reason." Different
subsets of "reason" invite either different rules for "proof" or simply
whether the reasoning process takes place.
> > Having to 'prove' that judgment, and the often corollary sub-text
> > that the judgment and it's perception is illusory (or delusory),
> > ignorant, insane, susceptible to be influenced by trivia such as the
> > appearance and price of the component in question, plus any hidden
> > agendas (monetary or otherwise) strikes that perspective as insulting
> > and missing the point.
>
> This is yet another all-too-typical defensive tirade that we hear
> when cherished but hard-to-support opinions are under technical
> scrutiny.
And this is an all too typical choice by respondent to describe how the
speaker should speak. Listening is hearing what is said and responding, not
to inform the speaker how to speak.
> For example, we see considerable offense being taken at the idea that
> a perception or subjective reaction could possibly be an illusion.
Well, this is interesting language. It is VERY INFREQUENTLY couched this
way. Rather, the responsive language is derisive, rather than conciliatory
and instructive. What would jibe with my experience is a characterization
that includes distinctly rude retorts.
> > and to this perspective the scientific/technological perspective
> > would appear, in this case, to say: "There's no difference between
> > these two performances. In fact such differences are impossible and
> > illusory. The performers are both Jewish, stand 5 ft. 8 in., have
> > brown hair and eyes, were born in Tel Aviv, and both played the same
> > instrument. Furthermore they both played all the notes of the score
> > in the proper order. Therefore, any differences are impossible."
>
> Here we have a statement that magnifies divisiveness by stuffing
> made-up words into the mouths of one side of an imaginary
> controversy.
Well, actually controversy seems like a good characterization. It is defined
as a "discussion, often heated, in which a difference of opinion is
expressed."
This is an interesting retort here. To underscore or highlight what you
disagree is quite likely to magnify, to place in bold relief. What's wrong
with that? "Stuffing made up words" now that seems like you're "stuffing
made up words" in Paul's metaphorical mouth.
> <SNIP>
> > As one who was educated formally in the humanist/aesthetic
> > perspective, and ad hoc in the scientific/technological because of
> > involvement in audio sales for 25 years, I can see the limitations
> > and difficulties in both perspectives, but must admit that the
> > humanist/aesthetic has to hold priority.
>
> I think that it is very important to avoid jumping to conclusions
> based on data that there has been a large number of serious questions
> about for over 20 years. It really does not seem to matter whether
> the question at hand is of a humanistic/aesthetic nature or one of
> scientific/technical nature. Creating artificial divisions is not
> productive. Creating straw men is not good rhetoric. Raw data is not
> proof.
Arny, I think Paul just stated an opinion. Are you going to deny him the
right to have one? You don't have to believe it, really!
Larry Cox
not interesting to me (A PREFERENCE for those who want to know).
"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" wrote:
> Paul Szabady <sza...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >I think that the problem stems from the conflict of 2 cultures that
> >interestingly intersect and often speak past each other in the world
> >of audio - I speak of the the humanistic/aesthetic and the
> >scientific/technical.
>
> Yes, but there need be no conflict.
No need stated, just that there is conflict. That there is conflict
may or may not be proveable. We can only offer our interpretations of
what conflict is and how it operates and identify components of the
interactions that match that "interpretation" of what conflict is.
Again, Paul didn't say conflict was necessary.
> >In fact such differences are impossible and
> >illusory. The performers are both Jewish, stand 5 ft. 8 in., have
> >brown hair and eyes, were born in Tel Aviv, and both played the same
> >instrument. Furthermore they both played all the notes of the score
> >in the proper order. Therefore, any differences are impossible."
>
> The paragraph directly above this sentence is an insulting,
> incorrect stereotype.
Totally off the subject, but when have you heard a stereotype that
wasn't insulting? As a further aside, I'd say the problem with
stereotypes isn't that they exist, stereotypes exist. The problem
lies in treating individuals not as individuals but as stereotypes.
> I may not agree with your preference, that's fine, but
> there is NO SUCH THING as "proving" or "testing" a preference, it has
> to be accepted the way it comes out of the individual stating the
> preference, and it need not even be consistant or unchanging.
> Preference just IS.
I have a preference for this last comment. :)
> >As one who was educated formally in the humanist/aesthetic
> >perspective, and ad hoc in the scientific/technological because of
> >involvement in audio sales for 25 years, I can see the limitations
> >and difficulties in both perspectives, but must admit that the
> >humanist/aesthetic has to hold priority. The point of high-end audio
> >is, after all, music. And the scientific/technological perspective is
> >there only to serve that end.
>
> Paul, your "positions" for the technical person are completely
> offensive straw men. You may not have meant them that way, but in
> fact you have created a straw man to burn down. (The reason I don't
> think you meant it that way is that you didn't burn it down.)
JJ, I disagree with you here. Language is a tricky thing to control
and have your words (as thought substitutes) received in the manner
and sense it is sent. I read Paul's comments to mean something
different than what you are responding to. I think Paul expressed an
opinion here, he sees the technical in the service of his
"aesthetic." Again, this occurs for me as you describe it as a
preference. Whether this was said as well as it could be, I won't
say. However, I have a preference for Paul's choices here.
> Please, Paul, consider the difference between expressing personal
> preference (absurd example follows)
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Outright technical statement (also absurd)
> Frammitz-fnord's black jackets, even though they don't even
> touch the wire, impart their dark flavour to all of the
> electronic signals passing down the wire.
>
> No technical person should have any gripe with the first statement.
> The second statement can be construed as a technical statement or
> as preference, and may cause some excitement.
> The third statement is a technical claim, and is subject to violent
> ridicule if there isn't some evidence standing by.
Here, I part substantially from your position, JJ. Why is "violent
ridicule" appropriate? If there is angst passing between people on
this NG, and it occurs to me that there is, violence begets violence.
To quote one of the great heads (counterposed to minds) of our time,
"Can't we all just get along?"
Paul Szabady
>
> Paul Szabady" <sza...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> news:8fcuuo$oi0$1...@news.aud.alcatel.com...
>
>
> > I think that the problem stems from the conflict of 2 cultures that
> > interestingly intersect and often speak past each other in the world
> > of audio - I speak of the humanistic/aesthetic and the
> > scientific/technical. We are dealing here, obviously, with the
> > experience of music from equipment based on technological principles.
>
> Here we see yet another recitation of one of the greatest and most
> divisive fallacies that goes around and around in the world of
> audio. It is the idea that there are two worlds, humanistic/aesthetic
> and the scientific/technical, and never the twain shall peacefully
> meet and coexist.
>
> Yes, there is a the humanistic/aesthetic realm, and yes there is a
> scientific/technical realm.
>
> The fallacy is not that they exist, but rather that they don't or
> can't co-exist or that one has to be subservient to the other.
You don't see the often vituperative debate in high-end audio as a
sign that to a large degree the 2 cultures are not peacefully
co-existing? Frankly I've always been extremely disappointed in the
degree of nastiness that often occurs in discussions in this area of
audio, and hope that the two would peacefully co-exist.
And you're absolutely correct about dualistic concepts: they can lead
to diviseness, only rarely in our culture do we understand that they
can also be seen as leading to a higher harmony.
>
> > The former perspective judges the quality of performance based on
> > aesthetic principles, that is, perception and subjective reaction.
>
> I think that every serious audiophile and engineer agrees that
> perception and subjective reaction is the final and most reasonable
> way to judge the performance of technology designed to recreate a
> humanistic/aesthetic experience.
>
> > Having to 'prove' that judgment, and the often corollary sub-text
> > that the judgment and it's perception is illusory (or delusory),
> > ignorant, insane, susceptible to be influenced by trivia such as the
> > appearance and price of the component in question, plus any hidden
> > agendas (monetary or otherwise) strikes that perspective as insulting
> > and missing the point.
>
> This is yet another all-too-typical defensive tirade that we hear
> when cherished but hard-to-support opinions are under technical
> scrutiny.
Please note that this is how the h/a perspective can see the opposing
viewpoint and is not a tirade, defensive or otherwise.
>
> For example, we see considerable offense being taken at the idea that
> a perception or subjective reaction could possibly be an illusion.
> Yet, open just about any book on perceptual psychology and the
> difference between reliable and unreliable perceptions (illusions)
> leaps right out at you. Why is this? The answer is that many human
> perceptions are illusions, plain and simple.
>
> In fact, the essence of audio is the creation of an illusion - the
> illusion that music is being played by musicians when in fact the
> musicians are not playing right now.
>
> So why should a reasonable person take offense about questions of
> illusion being raised when the whole humanistic/aesthetic experience
> at hand is an illusion?
Bingo! Lately it strikes me that much of psychoacoustic research as
applied to high-end audio ignores this distinction: that what we
really need to know for our purposes is how we can create a
believable hallucination. For we are actually concerned here with a
special type of perception: how can we most effectively delude
ourselves into believing that we are actually listening to music when
we know that it's not really happening?
I'm afraid that the h/a perspective has had more to offer us here
than the s/e, since this question points to the basic ability of
human beings to experience emotions and states of being through art.
Drama is probably the clearest example. Even though the events are
not 'really' happening and we know that actors are pretending, we are
moved into experiencing real emotions, emotions that are often of
greater intensity, focus and meaning than if the events depicted in
the drama were happening in real life. Aristotle opined that mimesis,
or imitation, was critical to creating the aesthetic affect. Just how
much mimesis is necessary for this affect to occur is largely
unanswered.
The point is that from the a/e perspective, this is how some of the
statements from the s/e side appear.
>
> > The technically minded perspective, used to screening reality through
> > the nets of theory in order to guarantee practicality, and to
> > speaking a different, technical language often finds this aesthetic
> > view preposterous. "The midrange was liquid, but the mid-bass was
> > somewhat chocolate-y and there wasn't much air" tends to communicate
> > nothing to the s/t mindset about the phenomenon described.
>
> Fundamental to evaluation of any perception is the question of
> whether it is a reliable or unreliable perception. We don't have to
> get into the details of what the perception is in order to determine
> whether or not the perception is reliable. All we have to do is to
> see if the perception is consistent.
But what about the solitary single perception? Is it invalidated
because it is not consistent? If the first time we come under the
spell of a given piece of music an unreliable perception because
later experiences don't have the same force? I don't ask this idly.
We want repeatable and reliable perception to offer some degree of
certainty in hi-fi matters, but it is true that are perceptions can
change with experience and exposure to different systems, and even
within known ones. The strength of the illusion varies.
>
> > A further difference in these 2 worlds is the attitude towards
> > 'opinion'. The h/a holds opinions and perception as datum: they might
> > be informed or not, but are still phenomenological fact. The s/t
> > holds a differentiation between opinion and fact.
>
> This is of course, yet another false, divisive distinction. Of
> course, opinions and perceptions are data. However, data is not
> proof, it is just one kind of possible support for a proof. The mind
> that races from raw data to proof does not seem to be a very
> well-trained or disciplined mind.
Is scientific testing not commonly held, and routinely advocated (nay
demanded), to be a procedure for making that precise distinction
between opinion and fact?
>
> Audio is a technology - a blending of science and art. Music is a
> technology - a blending of science and art.
>
> Attempts to show that somehow the science and technology that are
> inherent in music or audio can be separated and one made subservient
> to another are therefore fatally flawed, and all arguments that are
> based on that idea lack credibility because of this fundamental flaw.
Bravo! I agree. If applied conscientiously perhaps some of the rancor
rampant in high-end circles could subside and some genuine progress
could be made to make the illusion of music that hi-fi produces more
consistent and repeatable.
Paul Szabady
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Larry Cox <Lc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Here, I part substantially from your position, JJ. Why is "violent
>ridicule" appropriate? If there is angst passing between people on
>this NG, and it occurs to me that there is, violence begets violence.
>To quote one of the great heads (counterposed to minds) of our time,
>"Can't we all just get along?"
Larry, there is a long historical record of fallacies, mistakes,
illusions, etc, passed off as "technical fact".
The history is quite ugly, really.
I have no quibble with seeing a preference stated, and I try to
give slack to language so that I consider most things preferences.
The problem with people who veer into techincal-appearing statements,
simply put, is that the create myth galore, and that it's much easier
to refute the myth at the start.
Now, indeed I shouldn't have said 'ridicule', because that
isn't called for, and that's not what I do, in any case. I will
have to say I slid into a bit of hyperbole there.
As to Paul's stereotyping of the "technical" side, well I still
find it completely offensive. He simply says "this is the
technical side" when that simply IS NOT THE CASE, and when
what he says looks like a characture built of straw, with a
match provided for the burning.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Paul Szabady <sza...@uswest.net> wrote:
>Bingo! Lately it strikes me that much of psychoacoustic research as
>applied to high-end audio ignores this distinction: that what we
>really need to know for our purposes is how we can create a
>believable hallucination. For we are actually concerned here with a
The term is not "hallucination", rather it is "illusion".
>special type of perception: how can we most effectively delude
>ourselves into believing that we are actually listening to music when
>we know that it's not really happening?
Delusion is not necessary, an illusion or good simulation is all
that is required, I think. Were we to see an orchestra emerge
visually from our stereo, that would be hallucination, but that's
not what we mean here.
>I'm afraid that the h/a perspective has had more to offer us here
>than the s/e, since this question points to the basic ability of
>human beings to experience emotions and states of being through art.
And thi sis where I disagree entirely. The Scientific and Engineering
communities can, and to a great extent have, provided the information
by which good illusions can be created and maintained.
The problem is that many people have taken exactly your position, and
simply ignored what is already known and available, although
not out in the field.
>The point is that from the a/e perspective, this is how some of the
>statements from the s/e side appear.
Each side needs to learn some of the other, Paul.
>But what about the solitary single perception? Is it invalidated
>because it is not consistent? If the first time we come under the
>spell of a given piece of music an unreliable perception because
>later experiences don't have the same force? I don't ask this idly.
Paul, again you're talking about perception and preference. An
attempt to refute either perception or preference is absurd, and
any s/e person is afield when they do it. Now, it IS possibly
to study why a perception or preference exists, indeed, and
that is often necessary work, but that is not necessarily
judgemental and should not be so at all.
>We want repeatable and reliable perception to offer some degree of
>certainty in hi-fi matters, but it is true that are perceptions can
>change with experience and exposure to different systems, and even
>within known ones. The strength of the illusion varies.
Quite. That's one reason why nearly all perceptual things are
statistical, for instance.
>Is scientific testing not commonly held, and routinely advocated (nay
>demanded), to be a procedure for making that precise distinction
>between opinion and fact?
Not quite. It can distinguish between mere opinion and
"as close to the facts as we can get right now".
>Bravo! I agree. If applied conscientiously perhaps some of the rancor
>rampant in high-end circles could subside and some genuine progress
>could be made to make the illusion of music that hi-fi produces more
>consistent and repeatable.
Paul, I'm not sure why you haven't replied to my article, but I must
point out that some of us who you appear to put on the s/e side
do exactly that sort of thing, myself surely included.
Larry Cox
"violent ridicule." There is no need for violence, even of the written
source. Lest you think me thin skinned, that is not my point. I really
enjoy in a big way hyperbole, litotes and even sarcasm a relation of
ridicule (as in to make ridiculous) - there is more to be had in fun,
even fun than in angry disagreement. To quote you, JJ, it just makes
the bear mad. Not much gained there. My comments here pick up again on
the last place where I chose to participate in a discussion on this
newsgroup, and that went to civility. I still stand for civil
exchanges on this NG. As perhaps related to my first paragraph here,
your comments are essentially inapposite to MY POST. I go nowhere in
my post to do more than say there is no need for violent ridicule, but
you add your ax to grind about "stereotyping." I didn't and don't take
up that particular part of the thread. Not only do I not prefer that
thread, I don't care for it and am not interested in it and choose to
step over it for the turd it appears to be to me. You may have a
preference for that thread and great, pick it up with those who want
to play catch with it. Finally, to complete the thought here, and the
reason for my comments above - PERHAPS if we responded to the threads
instead of inserting our own bear arousing or UPROARING activities,
we'd get to conversations that we are MUTUALLY interested in, instead
of foisting our own agendas on one another.
"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" wrote:
> In article <8fhhsd$rcf$1...@news.aud.alcatel.com>,
> Larry Cox <Lc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Here, I part substantially from your position, JJ. Why is "violent
> >ridicule" appropriate? If there is angst passing between people on
> >this NG, and it occurs to me that there is, violence begets violence.
> >To quote one of the great heads (counterposed to minds) of our time,
> >"Can't we all just get along?"
>
> Larry, there is a long historical record of fallacies, mistakes,
> illusions, etc, passed off as "technical fact".
>
> The history is quite ugly, really.
>
> I have no quibble with seeing a preference stated, and I try to
> give slack to language so that I consider most things preferences.
> The problem with people who veer into techincal-appearing statements,
> simply put, is that the create myth galore, and that it's much easier
> to refute the myth at the start.
>
> Now, indeed I shouldn't have said 'ridicule', because that
> isn't called for, and that's not what I do, in any case. I will
> have to say I slid into a bit of hyperbole there.
>
> As to Paul's stereotyping of the "technical" side, well I still
> find it completely offensive. He simply says "this is the
> technical side" when that simply IS NOT THE CASE, and when
> what he says looks like a characture built of straw, with a
> match provided for the burning.
See above. Play if you want, but knock on the door to make sure you have a willing
partner to play catch with.
> --
> Copyright j...@research.att.com 2000, all rights reserved, except transmission
> by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
> use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
> article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Cheers,
Larry Cox
http://www.audiomusings.com
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Larry Cox <Lc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>JJ: I'm not saying you agree or disagree. I'm saying why the need for
>"violent ridicule." There is no need for violence, even of the written
>source. Lest you think me thin skinned, that is not my point. I really
>enjoy in a big way hyperbole, litotes and even sarcasm a relation of
>ridicule (as in to make ridiculous) - there is more to be had in fun,
>even fun than in angry disagreement.
Allow myself to quote what I said in the article you
replied to:
>> Now, indeed I shouldn't have said 'ridicule', because that
>> isn't called for, and that's not what I do, in any case. I will
>> have to say I slid into a bit of hyperbole there.
Isn't that a pretty clear statement on my part?
auplater
> "jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" wrote:
>
> > Paul Szabady <sza...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > >I think that the problem stems from the conflict of 2 cultures that
> > >interestingly intersect and often speak past each other in the world
> > >of audio - I speak of the the humanistic/aesthetic and the
> > >scientific/technical.
> >
> > Yes, but there need be no conflict.
>
> No need stated, just that there is conflict. That there is conflict
> may or may not be proveable. We can only offer our interpretations of
> what conflict is and how it operates and identify components of the
> interactions that match that "interpretation" of what conflict is.
> Again, Paul didn't say conflict was necessary.
as long as opinions are stated as such and facts based on qualified
research and engineering are stated as such, I see no conflicts
whatsoever. It's this railing against being held accountable for
opinion stated as fact that doesn't hold water... even anecdotal
observations are nothing more than opinion as to causality...
> > >As one who was educated formally in the humanist/aesthetic
> > >perspective, and ad hoc in the scientific/technological because of
> > >involvement in audio sales for 25 years,
hardly a rigorous training environment for the
"scientific/technological" perspective
> > Paul, your "positions" for the technical person are completely
> > offensive straw men. You may not have meant them that way, but in
> > fact you have created a straw man to burn down. (The reason I don't
> > think you meant it that way is that you didn't burn it down.)
>
> JJ, I disagree with you here. Language is a tricky thing to control
> and have your words (as thought substitutes) received in the manner
> and sense it is sent. I read Paul's comments to mean something
> different than what you are responding to. I think Paul expressed an
> opinion here, he sees the technical in the service of his
> "aesthetic." Again, this occurs for me as you describe it as a
> preference. Whether this was said as well as it could be, I won't
> say. However, I have a preference for Paul's choices here.
BINGO...!! that's great!!... now we're getting somewhere...
expressing "preferences" in an appropriate fashion....
> > Please, Paul, consider the difference between expressing personal
> > preference (absurd example follows)
> >
> > <SNIP>
>
> >
> > Outright technical statement (also absurd)
> > Frammitz-fnord's black jackets, even though they don't even
> > touch the wire, impart their dark flavour to all of the
> > electronic signals passing down the wire.
> >
> > No technical person should have any gripe with the first statement.
> > The second statement can be construed as a technical statement or
> > as preference, and may cause some excitement.
> > The third statement is a technical claim, and is subject to violent
> > ridicule if there isn't some evidence standing by.
as an example... stating that one's experience with "freezing" cd's
and subsequent listening somehow improves the sound is inarguable...
however, when one presents a rationale as to why this happens, such
as re-organizing the molecular structure of the polycarbonate lattice
such that the damage caused in the pressing operation is alleviated,
further data showing x-ray xtallographic studies, density
alterations, changes in refractive index, determination of the glass
transition temp., etc. should be forthcoming, if one expects to be
taken seriously. This is not to say differences were not perceived;
just that the causality cannot be stated until confirmed by
independent observers. So why isn't this done??? Too much effort,
cost, lack of knowledge, fear of the unknown, efforts to "bluff and
bamboozle" the purchader, who knows??
auplater
Richard D Pierce
Paul Szabady <sza...@uswest.net> wrote:
>I think that the problem stems from the conflict of 2 cultures that
>interestingly intersect and often speak past each other in the world
>of audio - I speak of the the humanistic/aesthetic and the
>scientific/technical.
I think the problem here is confabulating a strawman opponent.
>The aesthetic/humanist perspective has no difficulty with statements
>like "I prefer Pinchas Zuckerman over Itzhak Perlman in the
>performance such-and-such piece of music." There is no real need to
>prove the judgment (although one would be expected to elaborate on
>it); and to this perspective the scientific/technological perspective
>would appear, in this case, to say: "There's no difference between
>these two performances.
Paul, this is a totally absurd and nonsensical claim. Where on
earth did you ever dream up such a ridiculuous assertion? Show
me 1, just 1, piece of data that suggests that ANY technically
competent person has EVER made such a preposterous claim. NO
technical practitioner that I know of has ever claimed that two
performances have no technical difference, because, in fact, the
differences are ENORMOUS.
This is yet another case of, to use your terms, a self-appointed
representative of some group that that representative has called
the "humanist/aesthetic" constructing an absurd strawman
argument as a means of misrepresenting a supposed opponent.
>In fact such differences are impossible and
>illusory. The performers are both Jewish, stand 5 ft. 8 in., have
>brown hair and eyes, were born in Tel Aviv, and both played the same
>instrument. Furthermore they both played all the notes of the score
>in the proper order. Therefore, any differences are impossible."
This is plain b*llsh*t and you know it.
>The technically minded perspective, used to screening reality through
>the nets of theory in order to guarantee practicality, and to
>speaking a different, technical language often finds this aesthetic
>view preposterous.
This is more divisive, absurdist posturing. You jave not the
slightest bit of evidence that such a statement was ever made,
that any technical person holds such a position.
>As one who was educated formally in the humanist/aesthetic
>perspective, and ad hoc in the scientific/technological because of
>involvement in audio sales for 25 years,
Then I would say by your own admission here that your ad-hoc
scientific educartion is demonstrably and seriously defective
first, because your source of your education, "involvement in
audio sales" has amongst the WORST record for scientific
accuracy around these parts and second becuase you simply got
whatever of value wrong.
>I can see the limitations
>and difficulties in both perspectives, but must admit that the
>humanist/aesthetic has to hold priority. The point of high-end audio
>is, after all, music. And the scientific/technological perspective is
>there only to serve that end.
Wrong, the point of high-end audio is a BUSINESS that serves
music, no more than the technical side does. And that's where
your own bigotry becomes apparent.
Sorry, but your characterization of these two camps is absurdly
flawed, as your strawman whitewash misrepresentation of the
technical side about which you now apparently admit you know so
little is just plain wrong.
Paul Szabady
>
>
>
> >ourselves into believing that we are actually listening to music when
> >we know that it's not really happening?
>
> that is required, I think. Were we to see an orchestra emerge
> visually from our stereo, that would be hallucination, but that's
> not what we mean here.
Considering the importance in US high-end circles of imaging and
soundstage information in all its nuances, in short the stereo effect,
and the popularity of listening with one's eyes (even if they're closed
:-), it seems that a true hallucination would be the Holy Grail for much
of the high-end community.
>
> >I'm afraid that the h/a perspective has had more to offer us here
> >than the s/e, since this question points to the basic ability of
> >human beings to experience emotions and states of being through art.
>
> And thi sis where I disagree entirely. The Scientific and Engineering
> communities can, and to a great extent have, provided the information
> by which good illusions can be created and maintained.
While this is true to a large degree in the sense of what's important
for identification of the instrument and its location in space
(frequency response, time-based distortions, transient behavior and the
like), it gets a bit more touchy, I think, if we use the technical
meaning of 'fidelity' as an equivalent to Aristotle's mimesis. Because
it is true that we can still experience the illusion of music through
media or components which flunk the 'fidelity' test.
And if high 'fidelity' is not necessary for the experience of music,
then the question arises: what is? It seems to point at the
'subjectivity' of the listener, an area which science attempts to
eliminate by its methodology. This subjectivity involves the
reality-seeking orientation of the senses, the formation of gestalts,
experience, taste and sensibility, imagination, mood, receptivity, bias
and by the range of phenomena often called 'placebo'. It seems to me
that the enjoyment of music through electronic media has as much to gain
by improving and exploring the subjectivity of the listener as by
application of technology to hardware.
Paul Szabady
Paul Szabady
>
>
> find it completely offensive. He simply says "this is the
> technical side" when that simply IS NOT THE CASE, and when
> what he says looks like a characture built of straw, with a
> match provided for the burning.
I'm sorry, but that's not what I said: I said that the s/e view CAN be
seen that way by the a/e view and often, is. No 'straw man' was intended
or should be inferred. Perhaps elaboration to an absurd conclusion, or
exaggeration for comical effect would be more correct a description. It
is telling that literary devices are mistaken for logical arguments by
the s/e mindset, again illustrating how the 2 groups 'speak past each
other.'
Paul Szabady
Thomas Nulla
wrote:
>> And thi sis where I disagree entirely. The Scientific and Engineering
>> communities can, and to a great extent have, provided the information
>> by which good illusions can be created and maintained.
>
>While this is true to a large degree in the sense of what's important
>for identification of the instrument and its location in space
>(frequency response, time-based distortions, transient behavior and the
>like), it gets a bit more touchy, I think, if we use the technical
>meaning of 'fidelity' as an equivalent to Aristotle's mimesis. Because
>it is true that we can still experience the illusion of music through
>media or components which flunk the 'fidelity' test.
This is frequently true, and is not necessarily connected at all with
the 'high-end' of audio. Musicians often own notoriously poor stereo
system, and are able to resynthesize what's important to them musically
with very little recorded information.
I've argued in the past that we audiophiles are handicapped, in that we
require more information in order to have a satisfying musical
experience than either musicians or the general population do.
>And if high 'fidelity' is not necessary for the experience of music,
>then the question arises: what is? It seems to point at the
>'subjectivity' of the listener, an area which science attempts to
>eliminate by its methodology. This subjectivity involves the
>reality-seeking orientation of the senses, the formation of gestalts,
>experience, taste and sensibility, imagination, mood, receptivity, bias
>and by the range of phenomena often called 'placebo'. It seems to me
>that the enjoyment of music through electronic media has as much to gain
>by improving and exploring the subjectivity of the listener as by
>application of technology to hardware.
It is an unfortunate aspect of the 'high-end' that this 'exploration of
subjectivity' has come to be associated with very high prices, as well
as a great deal of pseudo-scientific claptrap. Is it really necessary
for a placebo to be so expensive and BS-laden? Perhaps for some.
Despite the subjectivist scorn of technological ways of thinking, the
'high-end' repeatedly kowtows to the power and success of science.
Witness the laughably bogus advertising explanations (to anyone who has
even a little scientific education) of how so many tweak products work.
Modern voodoo, using the language of science as impressive but
meaningless incantations.
>Paul Szabady
Thomas <now playing: singing birds outside>
http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/index.htm (high fidelity and more)
"There's more to the Internet than warez and porn. But who cares?"
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Paul Szabady <sza...@uswest.net> wrote:
>like), it gets a bit more touchy, I think, if we use the technical
>meaning of 'fidelity' as an equivalent to Aristotle's mimesis. Because
>it is true that we can still experience the illusion of music through
>media or components which flunk the 'fidelity' test.
Um, I've long said that accuracy in a technical sense is not the
way to a full auditory experience, haven't I? (It happens to be
a most likely impossible goal, physics is like that.)
What's more, even sacrificing accuracy AT ONE POINT in a room
can create more 'accurate perceptions'. I think I can show that
very clearly.
You seem to forget, as I know you once knew, that I work on the
perceptual frontier of audio, not on the "technically accurate"
frontier, and that in fact I have said often, and with some
feeling, that strict accuracy is not a useful goal.
Having said all that, why do you imagine that anyone is
seriously putting forth "accuracy" in any technical sense?
Paul Szabady
>
> In article <8fcuuo$oi0$1...@news.aud.alcatel.com>,
> Paul Szabady <sza...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >I think that the problem stems from the conflict of 2 cultures that
> >interestingly intersect and often speak past each other in the world
> >of audio - I speak of the the humanistic/aesthetic and the
> >scientific/technical.
>
> I think the problem here is confabulating a strawman opponent.
Here is an example of the 2 worldviews speaking past each other.
>
> >The aesthetic/humanist perspective has no difficulty with statements
> >like "I prefer Pinchas Zuckerman over Itzhak Perlman in the
> >performance such-and-such piece of music." There is no real need to
> >prove the judgment (although one would be expected to elaborate on
> >it); and to this perspective the scientific/technological perspective
> >would appear, in this case, to say: "There's no difference between
> >these two performances.
>
> Paul, this is a totally absurd and nonsensical claim. Where on
> earth did you ever dream up such a ridiculuous assertion? Show
> me 1, just 1, piece of data that suggests that ANY technically
> competent person has EVER made such a preposterous claim. NO
> technical practitioner that I know of has ever claimed that two
> performances have no technical difference, because, in fact, the
> differences are ENORMOUS.
>
> This is yet another case of, to use your terms, a self-appointed
> representative of some group that that representative has called
> the "humanist/aesthetic" constructing an absurd strawman
> argument as a means of misrepresenting a supposed opponent.
It was supposed to be totally absurd and nonsensical. Here again we
have the s/e viewpoint failing to understand a literary device. And
also failing to understand that, to the opposing viewpoint, the s/e
worldview can appear that way.
>
> >In fact such differences are impossible and
> >illusory. The performers are both Jewish, stand 5 ft. 8 in., have
> >brown hair and eyes, were born in Tel Aviv, and both played the same
> >instrument. Furthermore they both played all the notes of the score
> >in the proper order. Therefore, any differences are impossible."
>
> This is plain b*llsh*t and you know it.
Again taking a literary device literally and thus misunderstanding
it.
>
> >The technically minded perspective, used to screening reality through
> >the nets of theory in order to guarantee practicality, and to
> >speaking a different, technical language often finds this aesthetic
> >view preposterous.
>
> This is more divisive, absurdist posturing. You jave not the
> slightest bit of evidence that such a statement was ever made,
> that any technical person holds such a position.
You have aptly demonstrated it in all your misunderstandings of what I
wrote and how I wrote it.
>
> >As one who was educated formally in the humanist/aesthetic
> >perspective, and ad hoc in the scientific/technological because of
> >involvement in audio sales for 25 years,
>
> Then I would say by your own admission here that your ad-hoc
> scientific educartion is demonstrably and seriously defective
> first, because your source of your education, "involvement in
> audio sales" has amongst the WORST record for scientific
> accuracy around these parts and second becuase you simply got
> whatever of value wrong.
This hardly seems like a rational s/e viewpoint argument. You jump to
conclusions and make factual statements without knowing anything of
the specifics. Furthermore you demonstrate an inability to read and
understand a text. Involvement in audio sales was the *cause* and
inspiration for the ad hoc education, not it's source. Please refer
accurately to the text before making ad hominem assumptions and
accusations about my "wrong" and "seriously defective" scientific
education.
Ad hoc education is not necessarily inferior to formal,
degree-seeking schooling, as long as one can read a book and follow a
line of linear thinking. I mean, acoustics, electrical engineering,
speaker design, and psychoacoustics aren't exactly mystery religions
that require initiation to understand.
>
> >I can see the limitations
> >and difficulties in both perspectives, but must admit that the
> >humanist/aesthetic has to hold priority. The point of high-end audio
> >is, after all, music. And the scientific/technological perspective is
> >there only to serve that end.
>
> Wrong, the point of high-end audio is a BUSINESS that serves
> music, no more than the technical side does. And that's where
> your own bigotry becomes apparent.
I cannot disagree with you more: the point IS music for me. I think
that the a/e - s/e conflict has reached a new low when a
self-described audio professional calls it bigotry when one demands
that music is what is to be served.
>
> Sorry, but your characterization of these two camps is absurdly
> flawed, as your strawman whitewash misrepresentation of the
> technical side about which you now apparently admit you know so
> little is just plain wrong.
>
Is there a clearer demonstration than Mr. Pierce's comments that the
conflict between the a/e and s/e camps is real? And non-productive?
Paul Szabady
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Paul Szabady <sza...@uswest.net> wrote:
>I'm sorry, but that's not what I said: I said that the s/e view CAN be
>seen that way by the a/e view and often, is.
Hmm....
I don't have an editic memory, but I suspect you were somewhat
unclear.
>No 'straw man' was intended
>or should be inferred.
I said as much. I said that given that you didn't burn it down,
I didn't think you intended it.
>It
>is telling that literary devices are mistaken for logical arguments by
>the s/e mindset, again illustrating how the 2 groups 'speak past each
>other.'
We use language to communicate. If you deviate from the usual,
well, my mindreading is very poor, in fact nonexistant.
I do not, simply put, regard your description as a literary
device, in fact, I would expect a characture of both if such
was the case, and I didn't see that.
If I were to be reading Joyce, I would read differently. This
is netnews.
Paul Szabady
>
I personally find the term "high end" unfortunate and distorting of
what it attempts to describe. The popularization of it stems from
Harry Pearson and he meant it (it appears) to mean any component that
strives for 'ultra fidelity' or to be the state of the art. I think
he felt it necessary to use this term as 'high fidelity" had become
so corrupted that it had no meaning anymore.
I say unfortunate because the common and prior meaning of the term
refers to to a market segment = high price. As late as 1980, a
"state-of-the-art" system was affordable by the average Joe. As the
Reagan-era Yuppie phenomenon developed and as the blooming of wealth
in certain areas of the economy (high-tech workers and the stock
market) in the 90's, the price of a 'state-of-the-art' system rivals
that of a house. Exceeds it in many cases.
So despite the intended meaning of 'ultra-fi', high-end has come to
mean, simply, very expensive. The unfortunate aspect of this is that
high personal income is no guarantee of musical sophistication and
connoisseur-like acumen. In fact one could argue that the professions
that offer the largest incomes in our society often absorb so much
time and energy in both preparatory education and demands of the job
that little time is available to cultivate a deep understanding or
appreciation of music.
My experience in 25 years in audio sales bears this out: by far the
large majority of dedicated 'music heads' had incomes that precluded
purchasing high-end products. Consequently I've always had a greater
respect for products that delivered the musical goods at price points
where the average music lover could afford them. And I've always
actively sought them out. A $50,000 amplifier had better sound damn
good: there's no excuse for it not to. But it seems to me that a
musical and music-delivering $600-1500 amplifier demands wiser, more
clever, and more effective and creative design and engineering.
Similarly, the term 'placebo' is out of place in audio. It's medical
meaning is too dominant to allow it to be used without loaded,
negative, and distorting connotations. I don't think an audiophile
exists who has not experienced the 'late night listening syndrome'
where the music and sound is particularly moving, aesthetically and
emotionally riveting and sonically gorgeous. Does calling it
'placebo' offer any understanding of the phenomenon or does it cause
it to be too easily discarded by the connotations of the term? So by
'exploring the subjective aspects' I mean getting wiser about what
allows greater receptivity to music in the listener.
It may be that audiophiles are to pitied rather than admired, since
the experience of better components, the cultivation of a
discriminating ear, and the development of critical listening skills
can inhibit the enjoyment of music that led them to become
audiophiles in the first place. It's like Blake puts it - "What is
the cost of experience?" The loss of innocence and everything we hold
dear?
One of the reasons I left audio sales after 25 years (other than a
total lack of interest in selling CD and home theater) was the desire
to get away from critical listening, a skill that can get very
refined with 25 years of constant practice, and return to listening
to the music rather than the equipment. One can, of course, balance
the two and with discipline and practice, learn to move at will
between the 2 types of listening or, ultimately, to fuse the two.
Paul Szabady
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Paul Szabady <sza...@uswest.net> wrote:
>Is there a clearer demonstration than Mr. Pierce's comments that the
>conflict between the a/e and s/e camps is real? And non-productive?
Paul, you described a reasonable position for an a/e person and
a very ugly, nasty, and unsupportable position for the s/e person.
This is called "propaganda". Literary devices or not, propaganda
is propaganda.
Now, you would point and say "aha" when people OBJECT to the
propaganda?
Be serious.
auplater
> "jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" wrote:
> >
> >
> > As to Paul's stereotyping of the "technical" side, well I still
> > find it completely offensive. He simply says "this is the
> > technical side" when that simply IS NOT THE CASE, and when
> > what he says looks like a characture built of straw, with a
> > match provided for the burning.
> It is telling that literary devices are mistaken for logical arguments by
> the s/e mindset, again illustrating how the 2 groups 'speak past each
> other.'
>
> Paul Szabady
When shortcomings of a particular philosophical perspective
are pointed out, whether through "literary devices" or
critical inspection, and those shortcomings are dismissed as
being narrow minded and pedantic, one has to wonder what the
agenda being persued really is....
A major problem of many subjective/aesthetic descriptions of
musical appreciation stems from lack of a
common language to describe observations and events. At the
least, intellectual honesty precludes the use of terms like
"chocalate'y", "lush", "euphonic", etc. when describing
qualities of sound systems. No one else knows what you're
talking about!! This would go a long way toward debunking the
snake oil and mysticism of the "high end" audio field.
auplater
Thomas Nulla
>I personally find the term "high end" unfortunate and distorting of
>what it attempts to describe. The popularization of it stems from
>Harry Pearson and he meant it (it appears) to mean any component that
>strives for 'ultra fidelity' or to be the state of the art. I think
>he felt it necessary to use this term as 'high fidelity" had become
>so corrupted that it had no meaning anymore.
Indeed, there is little relation between 'high-end' and 'high-fidelity'.
The original hi-fi goal of reproducing the recorded music as accurately
as possible seems quite passe in some circles.
>I say unfortunate because the common and prior meaning of the term
>refers to to a market segment = high price. As late as 1980, a
>"state-of-the-art" system was affordable by the average Joe. As the
>Reagan-era Yuppie phenomenon developed and as the blooming of wealth
>in certain areas of the economy (high-tech workers and the stock
>market) in the 90's, the price of a 'state-of-the-art' system rivals
>that of a house. Exceeds it in many cases.
Very true. The most expensive system I heard in the last year cost
about 120% of the price of my house.
>So despite the intended meaning of 'ultra-fi', high-end has come to
>mean, simply, very expensive. The unfortunate aspect of this is that
>high personal income is no guarantee of musical sophistication and
>connoisseur-like acumen. In fact one could argue that the professions
>that offer the largest incomes in our society often absorb so much
>time and energy in both preparatory education and demands of the job
>that little time is available to cultivate a deep understanding or
>appreciation of music.
>
>My experience in 25 years in audio sales bears this out: by far the
>large majority of dedicated 'music heads' had incomes that precluded
>purchasing high-end products. Consequently I've always had a greater
>respect for products that delivered the musical goods at price points
>where the average music lover could afford them. And I've always
>actively sought them out. A $50,000 amplifier had better sound damn
>good: there's no excuse for it not to. But it seems to me that a
>musical and music-delivering $600-1500 amplifier demands wiser, more
>clever, and more effective and creative design and engineering.
I've seen the phrase, "Engineering is doing for a dollar what any fool
can do for ten" (Henry Ford?) and yes, I'm much more impressed with
cost-effective design. The ultra-expensive system I mentioned above
was, IMO, musically inferior to one in the next room costing less than a
third as much.
>Similarly, the term 'placebo' is out of place in audio. It's medical
>meaning is too dominant to allow it to be used without loaded,
>negative, and distorting connotations. I don't think an audiophile
>exists who has not experienced the 'late night listening syndrome'
>where the music and sound is particularly moving, aesthetically and
>emotionally riveting and sonically gorgeous. Does calling it
>'placebo' offer any understanding of the phenomenon or does it cause
>it to be too easily discarded by the connotations of the term? So by
>'exploring the subjective aspects' I mean getting wiser about what
>allows greater receptivity to music in the listener.
I think the term is useful to describe devices whose design is such that
they are *highly* unlikely to make any truly audible or measurable
difference in the music. I think this type of "late night" syndrome
(though it can and does happen at any time) does not depend at all on a
physical placebo, but rather on the attainment of a ecstatic state of
mind. Meditators, etc. can obtain these marvelous states of mind
without placebos, music, or any external factors whatever. Though in my
experience, music is a great aid in achieving these mind states.
>It may be that audiophiles are to pitied rather than admired, since
>the experience of better components, the cultivation of a
>discriminating ear, and the development of critical listening skills
>can inhibit the enjoyment of music that led them to become
>audiophiles in the first place. It's like Blake puts it - "What is
>the cost of experience?" The loss of innocence and everything we hold
>dear?
If attaining these delights was closely related to the expense of the
audio hardware involved, with no upper end to the "costs more, sounds
better" relationship we see claimed so often in the audiophile press, it
would be a sad loss of innocence indeed. IMO this misconception is
perhaps the most destructive myth that the 'high-end' magazines have
foisted upon us.
>One of the reasons I left audio sales after 25 years (other than a
>total lack of interest in selling CD and home theater) was the desire
>to get away from critical listening, a skill that can get very
>refined with 25 years of constant practice, and return to listening
>to the music rather than the equipment. One can, of course, balance
>the two and with discipline and practice, learn to move at will
>between the 2 types of listening or, ultimately, to fuse the two.
Yes, yes, yes! There is *no* inherent separation between an aesthetic
appreciation of the music and a sensual reaction to it.
>Paul Szabady
Thomas <now playing: silence>
http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/index.htm (high fidelity and more)
"All bowby humans have B.O. Chingers can't sweat. Chingers forever!"