 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.211.50.68
In Reply to: RE: Excellent Points posted by thetubeguy1954 on June 04, 2007 at 06:40:57
> I don't believe it's all that difficult to argue that speakers require a break-in period
> but then state they are resistant to not overshooting the target...
I think this is a good example of the wishful thinking that accompanies many beliefs in the world of audio. We take a known phenomenon (in this case, the physical change or deterioration of materials with mechanical movement) and then use only as much of it as necessary to confirm our belief. Any part of the known phenomenon that is out of sync with our belief can be discarded with the "but audio is special" caveat.
In short, use only as much of the science as supports our belief, never more. (And heaven forbid that an audiophile be subject to any of the psychological issues that affect ordinary mortals!)
Here we take the loosening of driver surrounds and spiders, believe that it takes hundreds of hours for them to condition correctly, and then they magically know when to stop further change at precisely the point when the sound has gotten to what we like.
As someone else noted, it is odd that in audio things only improve with break-in, they never change for the worse. I find it hard to believe with all of the diverse approaches to audio equipment that this is the one area where all equipment designers have universal understanding and agreement and have implemented it with near perfection. In short an industry wide, completely uniform approach to designing around the break-in process. All with perfect results. Interesting.
This is rather at odds with the way that things work in the rest of the physical world, but then we always have the "but audio is special" rule. ;-)
Follow Ups:
mls-stl,I think it's shame that you're taking an intelligent discussion on the known phenomenon of the physical change or deterioration of materials with mechanical movement and twisting it into a sideshow with the usage of the words like magical, simply because you disagree with others suggestions/beliefs of what's actually occuring. At no time did I suggest or say that things work this way in the rest of the physical world, but with audio there is special rule. That comment is simply one of a couple of your childish attempts to discredit statements you don't agree with rather than disprove them. Another example is when you claimed: "Any part of the known phenomenon that is out of sync with our belief can be discarded with the "but audio is special" caveat." You're the only one suggesting any such thing mls-stl. I find your comment about the loosening of driver surrounds and spiders, and how it takes hundreds of hours for them to condition correctly, and then they magically know when to stop further change at precisely the point when the sound has gotten to what we like is quite simply ludicrous.
It's well known that ALL speakers are ELECTRO-MECHANICAL, which means they take an electrical signal and convert to mechanical motion. When first assembled the mechanical properties of speakers such as their cone and spider material, suspension material, cone material, voice coil, magnetic material flux density. ribbon weight, area, tension, panel dimensions, magnet distance, stator distance, electrostatic voltage differential etc., require a certain amount of time (typically 50-100hrs) to break or settle in to an optimal point. This isn't a magical event as you sarcastically suggested, it's simple physics. What seems to bother you and the other naysayers is that there's an optimal point of break in. But there's is no "magic" inherent in speaker break-in. The speakers (like your car engine and all other mechanical components) will continue to break-in naturally throughout its lifespan, it's simply a fact that the most noticeable amount will occur early on.
I'm really amazed that you have difficulty with the concept and find it to be odd that in audio things only improve with their initial break-in. All one need do is remember the designer/manufacturer developed the component in question basing it's performance on what a broken in components sounds like. So whereas the sound the designer/manufacturer wants you to hear is the sound of a component that's been broken in, it stands to reason that what you hear will improve until it gets to that point, no? No one (besides YOU) said the components will never get worse. Eventually they will, but after they're initially broken in, that will be a long way down the road. In fact it will most likely be so slow and gradual that you won't even hear the deterioration until there's a serious problem which requires intervention to repair, that's why speakers eventually need to be reconed, surrounds need to be replaced or voice coils realigned.
So NO this is NOT at odds with the way that things work in the rest of the physical world. If you believe that we always have the "but audio is special" rule mls-stl so be it! But in this case you're the only claiming that's so...
Thetubeguy1954
> When first assembled the mechanical properties of speakers such as their cone and spider material,
> suspension material, cone material, voice coil, magnetic material flux density. ribbon weight, area,
> tension, panel dimensions, magnet distance, stator distance, electrostatic voltage differential etc., require
> a certain amount of time (typically 50-100hrs) to break or settle in to an optimal point.
That is quite a laundry list but I've never seen anything but anecdotal evidence that states it takes "50-100hrs" for this to happen. (And how convenient that they all get better on the same time schedule!) If I am paying thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of dollars for a pair of speakers, why hasn't the manufacturer already done this? Shouldn't it be part of the quality control effort to make sure I get a proper product?
> The speakers (like your car engine and all other mechanical components) will continue to
> break-in naturally throughout its lifespan...
Nice thought, but implicit in your statement is that things stay put at some magical (or "optimal" to use your phrase) point or improve. That is certainly not the case with cars, to use that example. My car currently has 30,000 miles on it. It was better when it had 20,000 on it and better still when it was at 10,000. Does it still work pretty good? Sure, but I don't have this pretense that the car has now stabilized at some optimal perfection or even continues to get better as I pile the miles on. Cars are far more an example of my point than yours. The fact that no part currently needs to be replaced doesn't mean the car is at it's 100% optimal status.
> No one (besides YOU) said the components will never get worse.
I'd love for you to point out the great body of messages from the adherents of long break-ins who have treated break-in as anything other than an improving process.
> If you believe that we always have the "but audio is special" rule mls-stl so be it!
> But in this case you're the only claiming that's so...
Dream on. The "but audio is special" rule is invoked around here so often that it makes one's head spin. It may be phrased differently, but it is pulled out as the all-purpose answer nearly every time one of the beloved modern audio truisms bumps heads with science or engineering.
Keep in mind that I've already acknowledged that as a device with moving components, there is a break-in period. I've just not seen any credible evidence that it takes tens or hundreds of hours to accomplish.
that new tires on a car take time to run in? They usually ride a bit rougher when new and then smooth out with time and milage. Oh I forgot, AJ would say that is entirely due to your butt breaking in as I haven't done a DBT. I do admit, though, in racking up a 100K+ miles I changed a few sets of tires. Come to think about it, even the new shocks took a while to 'break in'.
Stu
TG1954: When first assembled the mechanical properties of speakers such as their cone and spider material, suspension material, cone material, voice coil, magnetic material flux density. ribbon weight, area, tension, panel dimensions, magnet distance, stator distance, electrostatic voltage differential etc., require a certain amount of time (typically 50-100hrs) to break or settle in to an optimal point.
mls-stl: That is quite a laundry list but I've never seen anything but anecdotal evidence that states it takes "50-100hrs" for this to happen. (And how convenient that they all get better on the same time schedule!)
TG1954: GOD mls-stl we're having an intelligent discussion about speaker break in, so why do you fell you must treat those who disagree with your POV with such sarcasm? The list I provided you wasn't a laundry list. It was to give you an idea of all the items that need to be broken in. You claim you've never seen anything but "anecdotal evidence" that it takes between 50-100hrs for speakers to break in. But your statement is simply untrue because the term anecdotal evidence is used in contrast to scientific evidence, as evidence that cannot be investigated using the scientific method. Yet a speakers break in IS verifiable and measureable via scientific methods!
As far as addressing your sarcastic remark of how convenient that speakers all get better on the same time schedule. No one said it couldn't or wouldn't take less or more than 50-100hrs. That was used as the time period most speakers seem to break in by. This is hardly surprising when you take into consideration that most dynamic speakers are basically made via the same materials and process. Ribbons, planars and electrostatics might take more or less time, I don't personally know what their typical individual break in time are.
=========================================================================
mls-stl: If I am paying thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of dollars for a pair of speakers, why hasn't the manufacturer already done this? Shouldn't it be part of the quality control effort to make sure I get a proper product?
TG1954: You ask why hasn't the manufacturer already done this? I believe the reasons are;
1) The OEM designer/manufacturer of the drivers used in a speaker developed the drivers specifications based on the performance of an "optimally" broken in driver and the speaker manufacturer knows this. I'm sure initially the OEMs test a few pairs to be sure they sound the same when broken in. That's all part of their R&D. Once satisfied the drivers all break in as close to the same as they can possibly achieve, they manufacter the drivers.
2) The designer/manufacturer of the loudspeaker purchases OEM drivers either based on the specifications of an "optimally" broken in driver or as built to their specific specifications after "optimally" broken in. Now the speaker designer/manufacturer initially tests a few pairs of the speaker they've designed. That's all part of what their R&D is about. Once satisfied the speakers all break in as close to the same as they can possibly achieve, they manufacter the speakers with unbroken in drivers which they now know what they'll sound like once broken in. This is why they routinely mention their speakers will require X amount of time to break in and sound their best.
3) Many manufacturers don't have the room to have 100's if not 1000's of pairs of speakers breaking in. Plus if they were to pre "break in" every pair of speakers for the consumer they would have to charge for the time it took to do that no? That would only serve to raise the price of speakers you're already complaining about paying thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of dollars for! No mls-stl it just makes good business sense to inform the potential client the speaker will require some time to break in and sound it's best. That's precisely why speaker manufacturers routinely mention in their manuels their speakers will require a break in period BEFORE sounding their best.
=========================================================================
TG1954: The speakers (like your car engine and all other mechanical components) will continue to break-in naturally throughout its lifespan...
mls-stl: Nice thought, but implicit in your statement is that things stay put at some magical (or "optimal" to use your phrase) point or improve. That is certainly not the case with cars, to use that example. My car currently has 30,000 miles on it. It was better when it had 20,000 on it and better still when it was at 10,000. Does it still work pretty good? Sure, but I don't have this pretense that the car has now stabilized at some optimal perfection or even continues to get better as I pile the miles on. Cars are far more an example of my point than yours. The fact that no part currently needs to be replaced doesn't mean the car is at it's 100% optimal status.
TG1954: Actually you're being a bit deceptive here. I NEVER said there was a point, be it "magical" as you sarcastically suggested or optimal like I stated where things stay put. You're selectively using parts of what I said. What I said was:
1) What seems to bother you and the other naysayers is that there's an optimal point of break in. But there's is no "magic" inherent in speaker break-in. The speakers (like your car engine and all other mechanical components) will continue to break-in naturally throughout its lifespan, it's simply a fact that the most noticeable amount will occur early on.
2) No one (besides YOU) said the components will never get worse. Eventually they will, but after they're initially broken in, that will be a long way down the road. In fact it will most likely be so slow and gradual that you won't even hear the deterioration until there's a serious problem which requires intervention to repair, that's why speakers eventually need to be reconed, surrounds need to be replaced or voice coils realigned.
So as you can see what I said was just like with a car's engine speakers will break in to an optimal point. With car engines I believe broken in is somewhere between 500-1000 miles with speakers it's typically 50-100 hrs. Then after that point both the car's engine and the speakers will continue to break-in naturally throughout their lifespan, it's simply a fact that the most noticeable amount will occur early on. Eventually they will both get worse, but after they're initially broken in, that will be a long way down the road. In fact it will most likely be so slow and gradual that you won't even hear the deterioration until there's a serious problem which requires intervention to repair, that's why speakers eventually need to be reconed, surrounds need to be replaced or voice coils realigned and cars engines need new valves, timing belts etc.
=========================================================================
TG1954: No one (besides YOU) said the components will never get worse.
mls-stl: I'd love for you to point out the great body of messages from the adherents of long break-ins who have treated break-in as anything other than an improving process.
TG1954: Once again you're being deceptive with your use of selective memory. Things will be an improving process for the speakers until an optimal point is reached, but as I stated before the speakers will continue to break-in naturally throughout its lifespan until the point of eventually needing a repair due to mechanic break down. It just that this break down point is not something that occurs quickly after the optimal plateau is reached. This is evidenced by the many speakers on eBay that are 10, 20 or more years old.
=========================================================================
TG1954: If you believe that we always have the "but audio is special" rule mls-stl so be it! But in this case you're the only claiming that's so...
mls-stl: Dream on. The "but audio is special" rule is invoked around here so often that it makes one's head spin. It may be phrased differently, but it is pulled out as the all-purpose answer nearly every time one of the beloved modern audio truisms bumps heads with science or engineering.
TG1954: I NEVER said the "but audio is special" rule is not used here. You need to stop twisting my words. What I said is in this case YOU'RE the person invoking the "but audio is special" rule. The way I see it mls-stl in physics it's a known phenomenon that materials with mechanical movement will have a physical change and eventual deterioration over a period of time and that's what speakers are doing when "breaking in". So I have to admit it really amazes me that you as what I'd call an objectivist and part of the specs/measurements crowd here on PHP who are always ridiculing subjectivists for having a "but audio is special" attitude, are now by claiming speakers do NOT "break in" the group who's saying "but audio is special."
> why do you fell you must treat those who disagree with your POV with such sarcasm?
You must have very selective eyesight. From what I read in this forum in particular, sarcasm is part of the lingua franca around these parts. There is certainly no shortage of subjectivists who spend a major portion of their time writing in that voice. You need to get out more!
> Yet a speakers break in IS verifiable and measureable via scientific methods!
Yet I haven't seen this verification. I've only seen personal stories presented so far.
As for the manufacturers not doing this, offhand I can't think of any other product, expensive or otherwise, that warns me to expect sub-par performance for the first 50 or 100 hours. I know many electronic manufacturers do a burn-in for a number of hours, but that is more to check for early failures. So, Bryston has time to do 100 hours of burn-in on their amps, but speaker makers don't?
An alternative thought is that speaker makers want you to become comfortable with the sound of the speakers. The buyer's expectation of improvement over a few weeks can help that person become emotionally invested in the sound of the product and reduce the chance of buyer's remorse. Encouraging buyers to think in terms of burn-in is an effective way of helping a buyer to transition to a new set of speakers that probably don't sound much like their old pair.
> Things will be an improving process for the speakers until an optimal point is reached,
> but as I stated before the speakers will continue to break-in naturally throughout its lifespan
> until the point of eventually needing a repair due to mechanic break down.
Actually you make my point very well. You continue to treat break-in as an always "improving" or at least a static situation. I find some irony that we have people who can tell the minutest difference in brands of wire and other tweaks (even frozen photos in some cases), but are perfectly comfortable with the variability of speakers over time. Taking a car as an example, your tires will lose some of their gripping ability long before they need repair from a break down. In a speaker, I'm not sure which of three alternatives you are arguing: 1) speakers naturally improve until they fail, 2) after 100 hours they don't change until they fail, or 3) they deteriorate gradually but we don't care until they fail.
> are now by claiming speakers do NOT "break in"...
Who's putting words in whose mouth now? I've stated multiple times that as a mechanical device speakers do break-in. However, I will state for the record that I think the 50 or 100 hour requirement is BS. The people who have looked closely at the change in physical parameters indicate that most of those changes in a new driver take place very quickly. From that point forward, I think most of what is heard as change is better explained by the listener's growing familiarity and comfort with the speaker.
We obviously have a disagreement on this issue, which is certainly fine by me. I have no strong urge to convert you or anyone else to my way of thinking. And how I think about speaker break-in has zero influence on whether I can play my rig and enjoy some music. (As I did tonight with some Emmylou Harris from 1975 and a Kinks album from '72. Both sounded just fine to me.)
Disagreements are de rigeur for this forum, so I'm a bit surprised by anyone who hangs here being overly sensitive.
mls-stl,You objectivist types are really something. You guys have a BS answer for everything. Most of you claim we never said all wires sound the same, yet you don't believe subjectivists can really hear differences in wires. Now I'm finding when I reply in what I consider to be the same type of obnoxious, sarcastic style you're using. I'm told I have an anger problem. Then when I try to strictly discuss the topic at hand sans any sarcasm I'm told I'm too sensitive! You guys are really something. You all want it both ways, have your cake and eat it too! Twisting and turning everything said to fit your POV. GEEESSSHHHH.
I stated that speaker break in IS verifiable and measureable via scientific methods, to which you claim "Yet I haven't seen this verification. I've only seen personal stories presented so far." So just because YOU haven't seen the evidence that means it doesn't exist? Talk with some speaker manufacturers, they'll tell you and perhaps even provide you with some measurements. Pjay said he's done some measurements on this issue.
What about these quotes from various speaker manufacturers?
THIEL Break-In - The CS3.7s, like most speakers, require a period of playing before they perform optimally. The time required depends on how loudly the speakers are played; more time is required if played softly, less if played loudly. At least 50 hours at moderately loud levels are required before the speaker is performing near optimum. You should notice even more improvement after 100 hours of playing.
MARTIN-LOGAN Break-In - When you first begin to play your Summit speakers, they will sound a bit bass shy. This is due to the high quality, long-life components used in our woofer. Our custom made, butyl surround woofer requires approximately 72 hours of break-in at 90 dB (moderate listening levels) before any critical listening. The break-in requirements of the crossover components (and, to a lesser degree, the stator) are equivalent.
DYNAUDIO Break-In - The moving parts of a newly manufactured Confidence loudspeaker have been acoustically checked after production, but nevertheless are not as flexible as they need to be for optimum results to be realized. The higher the quality of any driver system, the more demanding the loudspeaker will be regarding time for running-in the system. A newly unpacked Dynaudio loudspeaker therefore requires several weeks running/playing to reach its optimum performance capability. After that period, a couple of minutes before every listening session will be helpful to ‘warm up’ the loudspeakers.
ENERGY Break-In - It is VITAL that your new Veritas i™ Series speakers be allowed to break In properly before you perform any precise set up procedures, system adjustments, and before you play them at higher volume levels. The best method of performing the break in is to play a full range musical passage at a moderate level as long as possible. Utilizing the repeat function on your CD or DVD player can assist greatly. Optimum sound will not be achieved until approximately 100 hours of playing time. After break-in, the volume level can be increased. Do not play the speakers at higher levels until the break in process has been completed. The transducers need to "loosen up", and until this occurs, damage can result to the transducers.
What advantage is there for a speaker manufacturer to tell a client in so many words Our speakers won't sound as good as they can for 100 hrs or so? If this was an audiophile myth as objectivists would have us believe wouldn't it be a marketing advantage for a speaker manufacturer to proclaim: Unlike many other speakers our ABC speakers sound great right out of the box with no break-in period required?
mls-stl you're trying to claim that speaker manufacturers makes these statements because they want consumers to become comfortable with the sound of their speakers. But that's idea is full of holes. First any intelligent audiophile bought the speakers is because they prefered what they heard at the audio salon or friends house to their speakers at home already! Second you seem to believe an audiophiles expectation of improvement over a few weeks (a form of "expectation bias") can help that person become emotionally invested in the sound of the product and reduce the chance of buyer's remorse. Again I say that's full of holes because it's just as easy to direct an audiophiles expectation bias to believe the ABC speakers sound great right out of the box with no break-in period required. Thus they'll become emotionally invested in the sound of the product immediately and reduce the chance of buyer's remorse. See you "expectation bias" works both ways!
I find this statement of yours: "Encouraging buyers to think in terms of burn-in is an effective way of helping a buyer to transition to a new set of speakers that probably don't sound much like their old pair." To be the most ludicrous proposition of anything you've said. We're talking about an audiophile who's quite familiar with how his speakers sound. Then hearing another different speaker in an audio salon or friend's home he prefered how they sounded. If this person has an ounce of intelligence like 99.9999% of the subjectivists I know, he'll either bring his speakers to the audio salon or friend's home to directly compare them with the speakers he's thinking of buying (after all even objectivists know different electronics & different rooms will affect a speaker's sound) or he'll ask for an in-home audtion of the new speakers.
So why would he need a time to transition to a new set of speakers that probably doesn't sound much like his old pair when he already knows exactly how they sound different, and chose to purchase the new different pair, hmmmm??? A much more likely & reasonable reason would be that the new unbroken-in speakers he'll purchase won't sound the same in his home as the demo pair did in the audio salon where he first heard them or in his home if he did an in-home audition. That makes a lot more sense than anything you've suggested so far. It also completely supports what speaker manufacturers say and what I've heard.
Of course I suppose there's the possibilty that this person who bought the new different speakers was an objectivist who only listened at the audio salon, liked what he heard while reading the speaker's specs and just bought them without ever directly comparing them against his speakers in the audio salon or his home. Perhaps for someone like that your arguements would make sense. I guess I just assumed the person buying the speakers would act intelligently like a subjectivist would and compare the new speakers against his own speakers BEFORE buying them. I keep forgeting that objectivists do things differently. So perhaps with an objectivist buyers remorse could occur, but still that doesn't mean the speakers aren't breaking in---- they are! Besides objectivists are always telling us audiophiles hear what they're told to hear, no? So if a person read a statement in their ABC speaker manuel that said the speakers will sound great out of the box, they should hear the speakers sound great out of the box, no? After all that's what their "expectation bias" will be at that point.
Thetubeguy1954
It seems we disagree. And that's fine.
> So just because YOU haven't seen the evidence that means it doesn't exist? Talk with some speaker
> manufacturers, they'll tell you and perhaps even provide you with some measurements.
You said earlier there were measurable and scientific facts. I still haven't seen any. The comments you posted from a few manufacturers contained no measurements or anything that could be independently checked.
I'm not quite sure why I'm supposed to run down your evidence. If you take a look at the top of this particular thread, you'll note that you started it, not me. In the world of science that would mean your side would be posting something like "at 50 hours we noted a 10% change in the driver's widgit factor." At that point, someone could run their tests and say "we found that, too" or "excuse me, you failed to control for the sprocket variable...."
We're still at the point where the psychological aspects of a long break-in are as strong a contender as anything that has actually been posted. I understand that a person's state of mind is one of the biggest variables in listening. Come home tired and inattentive with your mind still on the day's work and your stereo is going to sound different than when you walk in all pumped up and ready to hear a new recording you've been anxious to get your hands on. In short, I accept my subjective judgment for what it is and don't elevate it to supremacy nor dismiss it as non-existent.
You can't treat "expectation bias" as a simplistic "hearing what you're told to hear" response. Humans don't react consistently and I don't think anyone has mapped out all the variables that impact us. Psychologists, advertisers, marketers, and others go to great lengths to try and influence us in many areas of our life. I don't think we cease to have human responses when the subject switches to audio.
So, we're back to the point that you and I disagree. You like 100 hour speaker break-ins and I think those things are pretty easily taken care of well within the first hour. The future of civilization as we know it is not dependent on our settling this thorny issue. I wish many other issues in the world could be like this - come to a conclusion of irreconcilable difference and have the adverse implications at level zero.
mls-stl: In the world of science that would mean your side would be posting something like "at 50 hours we noted a 10% change in the driver's widgit factor." At that point, someone could run their tests and say "we found that, too" or "excuse me, you failed to control for the sprocket variable...."
TG1954: The problem is I'm not a scientist. I've stated many times here I'm not very technically adept. That said I still try to understand why I hear what I hear and I perform tests to verify I'm actually hearing them. I don't know about you but I cannot afford to throw away my very hard earned dollars on imagined differences, can you? I'll grant you my particular tests won't satisfy the scrutiny of an ardent scientific exam, but they're good enough for me.
=========================================================================
mls-stl: You can't treat "expectation bias" as a simplistic "hearing what you're told to hear" response. Humans don't react consistently and I don't think anyone has mapped out all the variables that impact us. Psychologists, advertisers, marketers, and others go to great lengths to try and influence us in many areas of our life. I don't think we cease to have human responses when the subject switches to audio.
TG1954: You're claiming "expectation bias" can't be treated as a simplistic "hearing what you're told to hear" response. Yet that's EXACTLY what many of the "supposedly" rational, measurements & specifications, scientifically oriented, objectivists here claim when a subjectivist such as myself speaks about differences I hear between wires, amps etc! I cannot tell you how many times one of these objectivists has chalked up the differences I've heard to "expectation bias" caused by being previously told (either in a magazine or by a salesperson) one wire, amp etc would sound better. Yet now you're claiming it's not that simple? With all due respect this is a perfect example of why I cannot believe anything objectivists say. You guys will use a specific arguement like "expectation bias" to support your POV, but once that same arguement is directed against you, you claim that's not how it works. Nor do any of you correct other objectivists when they use an arguement incorrectly like you're claiming I did here. "IF" objectivists really wanted the scientific facts about what happening in audio and really don't have a hidden agenda of just being correct at all costs, you'd correct each other as well, not just subjectivists.
So yes we're back to the point that you and I disagree. I believe/know that speakers require a 50-100 break-in and you think those things are pretty easily taken care of well within the first hour. But I propose a possible test that can be done with the speakers hidden* to examine this phenomenon:
1) Take two identical sets of new unbroken-in speakers and play one song on both to see if they sound the same to a group of people who:
a) listen to the speakers individually.
b) record whether the speakers sound the same or not individually.
c) leave individually.
2) If the consensus is the two identical sets of new unbroken-in speakers do sound the same:
a) disconnect one set.
b) play the other set for 50-100hrs.
c) leave the disconnected pair next to the pair breaking in (that way they're both exposed to the same affects of heat, humidity, sunlight etc)
3) After 50-100hrs reconnect the one set that wasn't broken in, have the original group of people return and have them:
a) listen to both sets of speakers using the same song used in step #1 individually.
c) record whether the speakers sound the same or not individually.
d) leave individually.
4) If the two sets of identical speakers now sound different to these same people that previously thought these speakers sounded the same, it would make sense that the differences heard would be due to the one pair being broken in for 50-100hrs. For in this case the ONLY thing that has changed between the two sets of speakers is one pair was played for 50-100hrs. Other than that both sets have been exposed to the same affects of heat, humidity, sunlight etc.
If that isn't a satisfactory test for you than that we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's the best this non-scientist can do.
* the reason I suggest hiding the speakers is to prevent any biases objectivists are always complaining about from interfering with the tests. This is one time where I'll agree that seeing two identical sets of speakers might bias the people in the test from believing there could possibly be a difference in how two identical sets of speakers sound. Especially if they are objectivists!
Thetubeguy1954
.
q
When a flaming voice coil shoots across your living room...
;-)
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]