Speaker Asylum General speaker questions for audio and home theater.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Speaker Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Ah yes, another subjectivist who wants to dictate preferences!

Posted by Pat D (A) on May 29, 2007 at 08:19:36

In Reply to: "Barton has examined his own speakers to test this" posted by Craiger56 on May 28, 2007 at 12:10:05:

Craiger
"You've never noticed speakers break-in? What could that mean? You once claimed that your Stratus Minni's sounded better than your Quad ESL 57s, that might have said something about your biases, as you would likely be alone in that observation."

This has nothing whatever to do with hearing break-in effects. I did point out that forward radiating speakers suited our listening room better than dipoles.

I've never owned the Quad '57, it was the ESL-63, and it is a great loudspeaker if they can be set up properly. I explained why I was trying forward radiating speakers. Here are a couple of things I wrote: "The rooms in our house are small enough to make it difficult to get the best out of dipolar or bipolar speakers." And: "Indeed, I am finding that most recordings sound better in our room with the Stratus Minis than they did with the Quads."

http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=speakers&n=169515&review=1

As for the alleged effects of speaker break-in, you're the one who adopted Vandersteen's terminology of "sonic aberration:"I just lived it and "sonic aberration" is exactly what I heard, but no longer." This fits in with Paul Barton's suggestion that it is most likely your mind that breaks in.

You have missed an important logical point in the following exchange:

Me
""You have not proved that you have heard any break-in phenomena in speakers, which would not be an easy thing to do. There are other explanations for why you perceived changes in the behavior of the loudspeakers over time, and one of them is simply that perception is biased: there is no need to bring imagination into it."

Craiger
"You have not proved that I didn't hear our speakers improve after break-in."

Of course not. That's why I made no such claim. How on earth can someone prove something doesn't occur? But you are making a positive claim, that you hear speaker break-in and I pointed out you have not proved you have and that you have not eliminated other explanations for your perceptions.

Again, I point out that drivers do have some break-in, and below I gave another reference, this one to an article by Mark Sanfilipo. But how long does it take and how audible is it?

http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/speaker-break-in-fact-or-fiction

Craiger
"If you could get everything you wanted in a loudspeaker at a price you'd be willing to pay, but can not accept that a break-in period will take place before hearing them at their best that's your right, but you could miss out on a great sounding speaker."

There are just oodles of reasons I might miss out on a great sounding loudspeaker--chiefly that I cannot possibly even be aware of all the likely candidates, much less be able to listen to each one of them. I now have two sets of great sounding speakers, one of them subsequently given Stereophile's highest rating. But I do expect that a loudspeaker on display should be in a listenable condition. If not, tough luck for the manufacturer and dealer.

Craiger
"People that review speakers for a living are not likely all fooling themselves, they accept the practice as a necessary step to see what's there."

Not all speaker reviewers believe in long term speaker break-in. In any case, I don't see any reason why audio reviewers should be less liable to fool themselves than many others.

Craiger
"Think about what you saying here, I claim to have heard our speakers break-in and you claim it's just bias, yet you "never noticed break-in"
Barton himself said "minimal" and that could be use to describe the difference, but for some anything audible, is substantial."

Again, I reiterate, I only claim you have not proved you have heard speakers break-in. I have simply suggested that perceptual bias is a plausible reason for your perception that speakers break-in.

Actually, Doug Schneider wrote that the difference was "slight," and I will quote at some length for interest.

"Barton has examined his own speakers to test this. He has taken a Stratus Gold loudspeaker, built and measured some ten years ago, and re-measured it today. The deviation is slight, perhaps 1/4dB at most. Although that deviation can possibly be heard, it is certainly not a huge difference that one may attest to hearing. Instead, Barton surmises that the difference in sound that people are hearing over time is conditioning of the brain. He cites experiments done with sight that indicate the brain can accommodate for enormous changes fairly quickly and certainly within the hundreds of hours that audiophiles claim changes occur in."

http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/psbnrc/
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

• http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_signature_s2/   (Open in New Window)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---