This might be anecdotal evidence, but I witnessed it first hand just recently. I got a set of entry level 5" Tannoy speakers and a Tannoy 10" powered sub for my mother in law for Chrismass. At that time I set the system up by ear to the best of my ability (I used to do sound for living and can call sonic problems fairly easilly). I left thinking "oh well, these are a bit harsh and constrained, but what can you expect for under $300.00 a pair". She seemed to like them a lot anyway. I came back to visit for Easter. The system sounded so much smoother I had to ask, who was messing with my setup? She said "nobody". I don't know what broke in (speakers, the new Onkyo receiver, sub, all of the above), but the sound had a totally different quality. Not a trace of the hardness that I was so dissapointed with initially. The low end bloomed much more, to the point that I wanted to back it off by a couple of dB, but it just sounded so big and warm in the room that I decided to leave it alone. If it was my system, I would have gone for a more analytical sound, but for her it was just perfect. She listens to jazz, so the warmer tone is very appropriate.
There is no possibility of getting used to the tone, because I have not heard the system for 4 months. And I do know harshness or lack thereof when I hear it. I know, it's not a scientific proof, but for me it's good enough to stop questioning break-in.
There is no possibility of getting used to the tone, because I have not heard the system for 4 months. And I do know harshness or lack thereof when I hear it. I know, it's not a scientific proof, but for me it's good enough to stop questioning break-in.
Jan
Did you check the level of wax in your ears before and after you listen to the system??
"Break in" for loudspeakers takes about 30seconds.
"Burn in" for electronics exists, but what it means is that the electronic equipment is fault tested in ovens (yes hot ovens) for various quantities of time to try and induce a fault before you and I the consumer purchase.
Just my two bits
Dan
Did you check the level of wax in your ears before and after you listen to the system??
"Break in" for loudspeakers takes about 30seconds.
"Burn in" for electronics exists, but what it means is that the electronic equipment is fault tested in ovens (yes hot ovens) for various quantities of time to try and induce a fault before you and I the consumer purchase.
Just my two bits
Dan
The truth about break-in?
Hmmm... I might say that it is a common phenomenon in an argumentation.
That people won't stop until the other party accepts what he claims or says.
Sometimes, one party says that the earth is spherical and not square, while
the other party says that Ferrary is the fastest not Toyota, and the
argumentation or discussion never comes to an end still.
Most of the disbelievers are knowledgable people in electronics theory,
while the believers are mostly unknowledgable and even inexperienced.
If these unknowledgables "draw" a wrong conclusion, the knowledgable should
point out the mistake in drawing the conclusion, and not the conclusion
itself, especially if he cannot prove himself that the conclusion is wrong.
I have 2 sets of P17WJ, 1 new and another is old. It is very easy to
differentiate the drivers (new and old) in a blind test. And I like the
old one more than the new one because of some characters. The old one
seems to be more dynamic, it seems to be able to produce small current
impulse with ease. I don't know how will the knowledgables interprete
my language, but I don't really care with the "correct" terms, I just
care with what I hear.
Initially I didn't know that this was because of the driver. I blamed
the crossover and the unequal placing of the speaker in the room.
I matched the inductors and capacitors and the placing. But they still
sounded different. I pushed the cones of both drivers with my fingers.
And it is apparent that the old one has a flexible spider/rubber. So
I thought, if the mechanical/physical properties are not equal, why
should I expect equal sound?
That doesn't prove that break-in is real, but there are many people
out there who do not care if break-in is real or not, while they do
care with what their ears can tell.
Hmmm... I might say that it is a common phenomenon in an argumentation.
That people won't stop until the other party accepts what he claims or says.
Sometimes, one party says that the earth is spherical and not square, while
the other party says that Ferrary is the fastest not Toyota, and the
argumentation or discussion never comes to an end still.
Most of the disbelievers are knowledgable people in electronics theory,
while the believers are mostly unknowledgable and even inexperienced.
If these unknowledgables "draw" a wrong conclusion, the knowledgable should
point out the mistake in drawing the conclusion, and not the conclusion
itself, especially if he cannot prove himself that the conclusion is wrong.
I have 2 sets of P17WJ, 1 new and another is old. It is very easy to
differentiate the drivers (new and old) in a blind test. And I like the
old one more than the new one because of some characters. The old one
seems to be more dynamic, it seems to be able to produce small current
impulse with ease. I don't know how will the knowledgables interprete
my language, but I don't really care with the "correct" terms, I just
care with what I hear.
Initially I didn't know that this was because of the driver. I blamed
the crossover and the unequal placing of the speaker in the room.
I matched the inductors and capacitors and the placing. But they still
sounded different. I pushed the cones of both drivers with my fingers.
And it is apparent that the old one has a flexible spider/rubber. So
I thought, if the mechanical/physical properties are not equal, why
should I expect equal sound?
That doesn't prove that break-in is real, but there are many people
out there who do not care if break-in is real or not, while they do
care with what their ears can tell.
Not IME.Aural Dan said:
http://www.vikash.info/audio/audax/break-in.asp
http://www.vikash.info/audio/xls10/
Re: Re: everything...brakes
interesting theory
would 20th century air have been better than 21st?
Vikash said:
Hmmm...perhaps I need to break-in the air around my speakers...(oops, too late). Perhaps I could market canned air that provides superior acoustics. Anyone want in on my business proposition?
interesting theory
would 20th century air have been better than 21st?
Attachments
Re: Re: Re: everything...brakes
Hi,
<Off-topic>
That reminds me of a good friend of mine. Merely as a joke he canned 500 tins with fresh fish-air for an art exhibition. You could buy them for Fl 250,- a can. To his own amazement he was sold out in 2 days. Upon this success he started his Fi$h enterprise.
More about this:
http://www.akka.nl/servaas/links.html
Think there will be a market for canned concert-hall air
Cheers
synergy said:
Hi,
<Off-topic>
That reminds me of a good friend of mine. Merely as a joke he canned 500 tins with fresh fish-air for an art exhibition. You could buy them for Fl 250,- a can. To his own amazement he was sold out in 2 days. Upon this success he started his Fi$h enterprise.
More about this:
http://www.akka.nl/servaas/links.html
Think there will be a market for canned concert-hall air
Cheers
Attachments
Bill Fitzpatrick said:
I read a good quotation a while back that applies here:
"Talking about music (sound) is like dancing about architecture". This discussion will not go anywhere anyway. But just to clarify, while indeed- aural memory is short, it's not what I relied on in this case. When you go to a hi-fi store and listen to various speakers, it becomes clear what you like and what you dislike. And you make up your mind not to buy a certain model or brand based on some characteristics. When you come back to the same store on a different day you will prefer and dislike the same brands/models regardless of wheter you are hungry, tired or ****ed off. You don't have to go to that store with your laptop and post to a discussion board while listening to some speakers when describing what's wrong with them, because aural memory is short. No, you remember what bathered you. Same here. I walked in and found no faults that were embedded in my mind from last visit.
Aural Dan said:
I guess some wax accumulates in ones ears over 4 months, but that would not be the cause here. The offending area was in midrange and it was a lack of detail that stood out originally. With my ears clogged with wax I should hear even less detail after 4 months, not more. And I didn't remove any wax in that time.
roddyama said:
Agreed, by me at least _grin_
Ron E said:
Actually, I believe that one reason so many people are so fiirm in their conviction on opposing viewpoints here is because:
some people see the world and life in terms of black and white, others see a lot of gray.
Me? well, I see almost all gray and bet that Ron E sees almost all black and white _big grin_
Regards
Ken L
I like reading novels a lot, and not a single one looks like new after I'm finished with it. I dunno, but I don't think anyone can get me to believe that the physical properties of ANY solid substance doesn't change appreciably when subjected to constant mechanical stress.
I just finished a pair of FE207E bass reflexes a couple of days ago, and I can tell you they sound like $h1t. They're cold, thin, bassless speakers that so grate on my ears that I can't listen to them for more than an hour at a stretch. If it's true these speakers will sound better after time, just because my mind gets used to them, I'm going to go out and buy myself a set of Bose speakers and be done with it. I know I didn't need a single second of "mental adjustment time" to hear how clear, crisp and warm my boss' Bose car system sounded when I took a ride in his Skyline. Just imagine how good they'll sound once I get used to them...
*having just committed virtual harakiri for mentioning anything positive about a Bose system, greyhorse looks for other forums to lurk at...*
I just finished a pair of FE207E bass reflexes a couple of days ago, and I can tell you they sound like $h1t. They're cold, thin, bassless speakers that so grate on my ears that I can't listen to them for more than an hour at a stretch. If it's true these speakers will sound better after time, just because my mind gets used to them, I'm going to go out and buy myself a set of Bose speakers and be done with it. I know I didn't need a single second of "mental adjustment time" to hear how clear, crisp and warm my boss' Bose car system sounded when I took a ride in his Skyline. Just imagine how good they'll sound once I get used to them...
*having just committed virtual harakiri for mentioning anything positive about a Bose system, greyhorse looks for other forums to lurk at...*
Ken L said:
Well, you need to get a little closer to the page and then the grey blur turns into words and you might learn something
Perception is a tricky thing. Some people learn from experience and some don't. I heard of a man through a musician friend that thought he could hear the difference between types of batteries in his equipment. His other band members replaced his Kodak Gold Batteries with generic alkalines and he went on and on about how sweet his sound was with the kodaks. When he next replaced the batteries, he was really p'd off.....yet he continued to believe that the Kodaks sounded better.
Just in case anyone's wondering, the speakers I built were copies of a design I found on the audio asylum:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=bottlehead&n=69799&highlight=FE-207&session=
Here's a two shot with one next to my newly completed 12B4A preamp. Amplification is a Mini-A, but in this pic I happen to have a gainclone in a gutted Rega Elex on the bottom shelf. The speakers are just simple boxes, but they're supposed to sound rather good...
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=bottlehead&n=69799&highlight=FE-207&session=
Here's a two shot with one next to my newly completed 12B4A preamp. Amplification is a Mini-A, but in this pic I happen to have a gainclone in a gutted Rega Elex on the bottom shelf. The speakers are just simple boxes, but they're supposed to sound rather good...
Attachments
Re: Re: The truth about break-in?
Can be, but how do you explain what Vikash found:
http://www.vikash.info/audio/audax/break-in.asp
http://www.vikash.info/audio/xls10/
Had similar results with other speakers.
Cheers
454Casull said:
Can be, but how do you explain what Vikash found:
http://www.vikash.info/audio/audax/break-in.asp
http://www.vikash.info/audio/xls10/
Had similar results with other speakers.
Cheers
Re: Re: Re: The truth about break-in?
Excellent.
Pjotr,Pjotr said:
Can be, but how do you explain what Vikash found:
http://www.vikash.info/audio/audax/break-in.asp
http://www.vikash.info/audio/xls10/
Had similar results with other speakers.
Cheers
Excellent.
Perhaps one should do an uncertainty analysis on the data. Looking at values of Mms and Bl, which shouldn't change, show a 95% confidence level of accuracy of only 10% for those values. The derived values for Bl and Mms first decrease, then increase.
Apart from showing a change in Cms (which I never argued against, BTW) the results are completely inconclusive of the "audible" effects of break in. That any one of the break-in proponents would jump on Vikash's results as "proof" of anything shows their ignorance.
I see no documentation of temperature, a significant variable....
Apart from showing a change in Cms (which I never argued against, BTW) the results are completely inconclusive of the "audible" effects of break in. That any one of the break-in proponents would jump on Vikash's results as "proof" of anything shows their ignorance.
I see no documentation of temperature, a significant variable....
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.