That's a common misconception, but it's a misconception. Uppers on shoes (calfskin, shell cordovan, kangaroo, etc.) do not "break in" materially. At least, they shouldn't if one picks shoes made on lasts similar to one's own feet. I've had a good conversation about that with Hilary Freeman of Edward Green at their Jermyn St store, as well as with my favorite bespoke shoemaker, Georg Materna. Both agree that a suitable shoe or boot for one's foot should be comfortable from day one, and need only resoling over time. Even though it sometimes adds to their workload; my first Maternas went through a few iterations before he was happy to call them finalized.
(And what applies to a work of art such as an Edward Green Westminster double-monk also applies to a work boot such as an Alden 405.)
First, while the text I quoted does not say one way or the other, the clear implication is that it was someone else's speaker. "Reputed to sound better after break-in" does not sound Harman-y to me.
I think it's reasonable to presume MA knows people will soon enough get used to colorations, so they make up a tall tale about "break in. In that respect, they do have much in common with a shoe salesman spinning a tale about "break in" in order to make a sale on a pair of uncomfortable shoes.
Which you know because presumably you had it calibrated for both axial and grazing incidences.
I have stayed away from this thread because I kept reading 3/4" instead of 3"/4" in the title. With your blessing I will change it to 3" or 4". Just something about a 3/4" driver with high Xmax that I should have caught onto sooner.
I'm sure TangBand or someone makes one, given thin TV's, etc. Going a bit bigger (1") the Aura Cougar has very prodigious throw for the size.
I don't think it follows that if something that doesn't measure well can sound good, the wrong things are being measured. There are issues of environment and taste but I can't see how good technical performance is anything other than a good thing. If you want to adjust to taste, fine, but a drive unit (for example) with significant amplitude response errors will at best be more limited in its application. It may appeal to some tastes in some environments of course. As to how much and what kind of errors are 'sigificant', this will vary from person to person depending on a range of variables including room acoustics, preferred playback levels, musical tastes, associated equpment, experience and expectations, etc. It is not a reasonable criticism of drive unit measurements that the percieved sound cannot be predicted for all people in all environments surely?
Last edited:
On the face of it yes. But, if in an effort to achieve a good measured metric, we screw up something we don't measure yet that is important, then it certainly can be a bad thing. A good example of this is overuse of passive filters to make a speakers gross amplitude response flat. The negative side effects can be far worse than any benefit obtained.
dave
Sure, speaker design is a multi-dimensional problem Dave, I'm not suggesting it's as simple as just a (reasonably) flat amplitude response, but it is a useful start. Complicated high-level passive filters would presumably show measurable issues, or at least differences, compared to simpler arrangements? On that subject though, surely a technically well-behaved drive unit has at least the potential to work better with simple filters?
Just to be clear though, I have nothing against wide-range drivers at all, in fact I like the FAST idea a lot. I own some Alpair A7s- which I may even have time to listen to at some point- and intend to buy a pair of FF85WKs for a desktop set-up. I also have FE127s in my workshop system, albeit with a tweeter crossed in high up- using a simple crossover, naturally!
Just to be clear though, I have nothing against wide-range drivers at all, in fact I like the FAST idea a lot. I own some Alpair A7s- which I may even have time to listen to at some point- and intend to buy a pair of FF85WKs for a desktop set-up. I also have FE127s in my workshop system, albeit with a tweeter crossed in high up- using a simple crossover, naturally!
Last edited:
The reason for the MA breakin warning is I think much more to help unsophisticated users to get used to not thrashing the drivers.
Over 50 or 100 hours of "breakin" the listener will get normalized to a lower volume level as default setting.
The spider, the only thing that can break in, will have losened up over the first few hours.
Over 50 or 100 hours of "breakin" the listener will get normalized to a lower volume level as default setting.
The spider, the only thing that can break in, will have losened up over the first few hours.
That's a nice theory, but it flies in the face of the actual experience of just about everyone I know. Even you . . . "my first Maternas went through a few iterations" . . . in other words, you paid someone to break them in for you. My feet are a bit mismatched (mostly due to a bunion on one of them) . . . I buy for the "good one", and accelerate break-in of the other with a shoe stretcher. My kangaroo VFFs (which don't get the stretcher treatment) look substantially different after they have shaped (broken in) to my feet.
Well of course . . . one keeps one's tools sharp. Just a side note . . . if you have an older ECM8000 the odds are it's much flatter side incidence . . .
Matsubara-san, the star designing the MA spiders, has stated that some of his were designed to take up to 1500 hrs to break-in (i'm guessing in some of his Foster/Fostex designs).
Break-in is real.
dave
I suspect there's more than a little truth in that, and it's part of the reason Magneplanars ship with a low-amperage "break-in" fuse (which mine still have in them) . . . along with multiple warnings that toasted tweeters are not covered under warranty. But then I keep a SPL meter by the listening area anyway . . . it's a necessity when doing comparisons or voicing. Absolute level is almost impossible to judge by ear . . .
Sure it is, but most of it happens in the first few hours, then rapidly flattens into a flat curve that never quite hits 0.
I suspect the designer likes to tell cute stories. He's not lying, just dressing up the truth.
Last edited:
WOW! I can't believe I just read 305 posts on speaker dispersion! Here's what I have observed; (now 310 while I was writing)
I can't see any way to measure speaker driver response to 90 degrees out. If you have the speaker mounted through a flat wall, when measuring at 90 degrees the microphone will be tightly against the wall. That surely will affect the response. If the speaker is suspended in open air, you will get the sound from both the front and back. If it is in a cabinet, then the cabinet will change the response.
Manufacturers' graphs are given for speakers in a wall with an infinite baffle behind them. We put them in boxes. That will change the frequency responses. The cabinet will also affect the dispersion characteristics.
I would love to know if there is a speaker and cabinet combination that gives flat response over 180 degrees. I could use some in the future for a shallow, wide room.
Side Topic - Break in of Drivers;
I have made 2 sets of speakers with Mark Audio drivers. CHR-70 in Frugel Horns, and recently, Alpar 10P in Pensils. The CHR drivers sounded quite a bit different over time. I have not noticed as much change in the Alpars yet. I suspect that even with the CHR speakers, there would not be much change in the 1 watt sine wave response, but there was a noticable change when listening to music.
(Note to the person with the shoe break-in analagy; Yes, a good pair of shoes are comfortable when brand new, but you must admit that after walking 100 miles, the soles will flex a lot easier than when they were first purchased.)
I can't see any way to measure speaker driver response to 90 degrees out. If you have the speaker mounted through a flat wall, when measuring at 90 degrees the microphone will be tightly against the wall. That surely will affect the response. If the speaker is suspended in open air, you will get the sound from both the front and back. If it is in a cabinet, then the cabinet will change the response.
Manufacturers' graphs are given for speakers in a wall with an infinite baffle behind them. We put them in boxes. That will change the frequency responses. The cabinet will also affect the dispersion characteristics.
I would love to know if there is a speaker and cabinet combination that gives flat response over 180 degrees. I could use some in the future for a shallow, wide room.
Side Topic - Break in of Drivers;
I have made 2 sets of speakers with Mark Audio drivers. CHR-70 in Frugel Horns, and recently, Alpar 10P in Pensils. The CHR drivers sounded quite a bit different over time. I have not noticed as much change in the Alpars yet. I suspect that even with the CHR speakers, there would not be much change in the 1 watt sine wave response, but there was a noticable change when listening to music.
(Note to the person with the shoe break-in analagy; Yes, a good pair of shoes are comfortable when brand new, but you must admit that after walking 100 miles, the soles will flex a lot easier than when they were first purchased.)
Last edited:
A lot of speakers are used away from a wall for best stereo imaging and sound stage. In this way, it is easy to get a 90 deg measurement. Of course no one listens to a speaker this way but gives us an idea of where the limits are in terms of max polar dispersion.
Even with wall mounted speakers you can go to 90 deg if the driver is in a thin flat box and not mounted in the wall, as in the wall is the baffle.
Even with wall mounted speakers you can go to 90 deg if the driver is in a thin flat box and not mounted in the wall, as in the wall is the baffle.
Frequency response doesn't "translate directly to listener perception of sound-in-room" in your room? In my room it does.
Is there more to it? Sure but we have to start somewhere. And asking for objective data regarding a driver's most basic characteristics (namely polar response) isn't very far fetched, don't you think?
That's why I started this thread. This thread is also limited in scope if you would care to read post #1. I've said it before, if anybody wants to discuss what makes up "good sound" then start your own thread.
By the way, I care very much about how RECORDINGS sound. This is where the magic is. Sound reproduction is an engineering task though.
Last edited:
Hi Guys,
This thread has turned out to be timely as we're about to build a new anechoic chamber and likely renew our testing system. Also, several new Markaudio drivers will be hopefully be coming on stream this year, all needing your input and feedback before going to final production.
I've started a new thread on testing and data issues in the Markaudio section for those members-users of Markaudio drivers who'd like to input into their thoughts and ideas on future testing and data presentation.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mark...g-data-analysis-presentation.html#post3834652
I hope you'll support the new thread, as the only driver maker on diyaudio who actively supports Diyaudio and takes on board your views, its your opportunity to influence the new 2014 work agenda going on at Markaudio.
Thanks
Mark.
This thread has turned out to be timely as we're about to build a new anechoic chamber and likely renew our testing system. Also, several new Markaudio drivers will be hopefully be coming on stream this year, all needing your input and feedback before going to final production.
I've started a new thread on testing and data issues in the Markaudio section for those members-users of Markaudio drivers who'd like to input into their thoughts and ideas on future testing and data presentation.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mark...g-data-analysis-presentation.html#post3834652
I hope you'll support the new thread, as the only driver maker on diyaudio who actively supports Diyaudio and takes on board your views, its your opportunity to influence the new 2014 work agenda going on at Markaudio.
Thanks
Mark.
Thanks Mark, I'll take a look at that.
If it's not too OT folks, in terms of directivity is there anything about an in-wall or shallow box mounted on-wall speaker system that mitigates against soundstage perception, particularly the sense of depth in a recording, real or artificial? As xrk says above, most domestic speakers are used away from the wall behind them. OTOH, many studios use soffit-mount speakers sucessfully. Would the directivity requirement be different for this kind of placement compared to the requirements for 'free space' siting?
If it's not too OT folks, in terms of directivity is there anything about an in-wall or shallow box mounted on-wall speaker system that mitigates against soundstage perception, particularly the sense of depth in a recording, real or artificial? As xrk says above, most domestic speakers are used away from the wall behind them. OTOH, many studios use soffit-mount speakers sucessfully. Would the directivity requirement be different for this kind of placement compared to the requirements for 'free space' siting?
Fair enough, although as part of the practical application of the drive unit specified in the thread title, where it is located in the room may well have consequences for what 'good' dispersion actually is or needs to be. I suppose I am reaching a bit. I'll have a poke around to see if this has been covered elsewhere.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.