Get Free, Friendly, Expert Advice
Call 1-866-244-8796 or email

Designed and Manufactured in Canada Since 1980


AxiomAudio Blog

Blind Listening Tests

Sneak Peek into Axiom’s Current Research and Development

Axiom’s Newest Speaker: The In-Ceiling M3

Wall'O'Fame
Greg's pseudo-HT room
EP175v4 with M3v4
Who's Online
1 registered (ClubNeon), 42 Guests and 7 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Financing
Forum Stats
13336 Members
11 Forums
22945 Topics
405847 Posts

Max Online: 378 @ 02/24/13 04:33 PM
Top Posters
Ken.C 17809
pmbuko 16298
SirQuack 13344
CV 11273
MarkSJohnson 10966
Meanwhile On Facebook

Shopping made easy! Need it by the 24th? Upgrade to air shipping for just $20!...

Just two more days! Better tell your gift-givers! http://axiomaudio.com/holida...

So many people took advantage of the weekend sales! Lots of auditioning about t...

Only a few hours left to get a gift card worth up to 25% of your purchase! http:...

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#15995 - 07/24/03 02:14 PM Re: An argument for component break in
Semi_On Offline
aficionado

Registered: 09/18/02
Posts: 737
Loc: Scottsdale, Arizona
I really hate when people post a "great post!" comment when someone backs them up. You never see such people do the same for those that refute them. It's a bit self serving and ugly.

In reply to:

First of all, Alan did not test for break-in, as I understand it. That was not his goal or design. Alan has compared many loudspeakers using controlled experiments, and he simply commented that his results did not indicate changing loudspeaker characteristics.




That's not how I read Alan's comment at all.

In reply to:

And while the Axiom crew has taken measurements to test for break-in, this does not magically overturn decades of empirical evidence for all other speakers and listeners.




Where is this empircal evidence? To date, I've only seen anecdotal

Anecdote != data.

In reply to:

Expensive cables? Better materials and construction often do sound better, but there are diminishing returns, as with anything in audio. I think you just have to keep your expenditures proportionate: cabling should be somewhere around 10% the system cost.




Why? ALL double blind tests that I've ever seen indicate that no one has successfully identified more expensive cables as sounding any better to a degree beyond random guessing.

In reply to:

having a separate amp for tweeter, midrange, etc. will also make it easier to drive.




You aren't seperately amplifying the signal for the highs, the mids or the lows in bi-amping. If both amplifiers are connected to the same pre-amp output, then both amplifiers are getting the same signal. The same signal is being amplified and then applied to the internal filters in the speakers. The speakers' filters then eliminate the lows and mids in the case of the tweeters and apply the signal, just as they would have if one consistant signal were applied to to both terminals of the speaker.

In reply to:

Sushi: how do you meausure the eneven performance of a tweeter when given a large burst of power, as opposed to a steady tone? The driver motion is so miniscule that I absolutely think there's room for things we don't yet know how to measure.




We CAN measure the physical changes in the speaker. Measuring the output may be a bit more difficult, but measuring the structure of the "burned-in" components is well known. Whether or not it's been done, I've really no idea, though.

Regards,
Josh

Top
#15996 - 07/24/03 04:27 PM Re: An argument for component break in
sushi Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 02/09/03
Posts: 1490
Loc: Dallas, TX
In reply to:

There is absolutely a lot of perception of break-in, as admitted by Sushi. Hence my comment that almost everyone who hears break-in hears a similar set of effects: relaxing treble, maybe extended bass response.



I somehow overlooked this statement, but I just noticed a possible misunderstanding here...

I never said I myself have heard a difference due to speaker break-in (did I?). In fact, I have NEVER personally encountered with a convincing case of the effect of speaker break-in so far. NEVER. Of course, that does not prove or disprove anything.

Rather, my point is that the very observation that "almost everyone who hears break-in hears a similar set of effects" makes the whole argument for the existence of a physical change very dubious.

Top
#15997 - 07/24/03 04:30 PM Re: An argument for component break in
cblake Offline
old hand

Registered: 07/21/03
Posts: 80
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Obviously we have reached a philosophical impasse. I believe that direct observation trumps theory, and many of you believe the opposite.

In reply to:

Where is this empircal evidence? To date, I've only seen anecdotal

Anecdote != data.




A definition of "empirical" which fits my use of the word:
"Guided by practical experience and not theory"

In this case, I am referring to the countless observations of audiophile listeners, reviewers, and others over past decades. I believe them; many of you prefer theory. Fine.


Is there a thread of common ground remaining? I am only here because I love the experience of my M22s. Because of the emotional effect these speakers can help conjure out of music, and because I value that experience greatly. Remember, we should all be spending much more time enjoying music than arguing in a forum! I have to remind myself sometimes.

-Cooper

Top
#15998 - 07/24/03 04:35 PM Re: An argument for component break in
pmbuko Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 04/02/03
Posts: 16298
Loc: Leesburg, Virginia
A good argument, but I've got one to counter it (just to add more fuel to the fire):

Break-in should always soften the harshness in a speaker. Think of the tweeter as being a new pair of shoes. Before they are worn, shoes can be stiff and uncomfortable. The leather or canvas softens only after extended use. So with a tweeter, wouldn't extended use also "loosen" the mechanical components that are designed to flex? If this is the case, then we have an explanation as to why we never hear of break-in making the treble harsher.

Keep in mind that I am a fence-sitter on this issue.
_________________________
"I wish I had documented more…" said nobody on their death bed, ever.

Top
#15999 - 07/24/03 04:39 PM Re: An argument for component break in
Semi_On Offline
aficionado

Registered: 09/18/02
Posts: 737
Loc: Scottsdale, Arizona
In reply to:

Obviously we have reached a philosophical impasse. I believe that direct observation trumps theory, and many of you believe the opposite.




I don't believe anyone has said that. Direct, scientific observation is not the same thing as what you've described throughout this thread. I require both, and it would seem, so far, that the skeptics have both on their side.

In reply to:

In this case, I am referring to the countless observations of audiophile listeners, reviewers, and others over past decades.




Then you're misusing it elsewhere. You keep switching in and out of the scientific definition of 'empirical'. Anecdotes and scientific evidence, empirical data, are not the same thing.

In reply to:

I believe them; many of you prefer theory. Fine.




False. All the scientific empirical data indicates you are wrong.

In reply to:

Is there a thread of common ground remaining? I am only here because I love the experience of my M22s. Because of the emotional effect these speakers can help conjure out of music, and because I value that experience greatly. Remember, we should all be spending much more time enjoying music than arguing in a forum! I have to remind myself sometimes.




I find room for both enjoying my music/movies AND arguing on internet fora.



Top
#16000 - 07/24/03 04:42 PM Re: An argument for component break in
Semi_On Offline
aficionado

Registered: 09/18/02
Posts: 737
Loc: Scottsdale, Arizona
pmbuko,

Analogies are good for explaining ideas, not making arguments. Just because leather and rubber loosen, doesn't mean metal, carbon fiber or whatever other materials you use in a speaker are going to change in a specific way to dull the amplitude of their high level notes.

A good example of why your argument isn't one would be to counter with the example of a car engine which supposedly gets TIGHTER and more aggressive with "break-in". But of course, using that would serve no purpose as neither are a speaker and neither employ the same physics.

Top
#16001 - 07/24/03 04:43 PM Re: An argument for component break in
pmbuko Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 04/02/03
Posts: 16298
Loc: Leesburg, Virginia
I think the issue with your use of the word empirical is that people forget that it has two definitions:


1a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment
1b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

_________________________
"I wish I had documented more…" said nobody on their death bed, ever.

Top
#16002 - 07/24/03 04:46 PM Re: An argument for component break in
pmbuko Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 04/02/03
Posts: 16298
Loc: Leesburg, Virginia
Sure.... pick apart the logic of my arguments. Just how low will you stoop?
_________________________
"I wish I had documented more…" said nobody on their death bed, ever.

Top
#16003 - 07/24/03 04:57 PM Re: An argument for component break in
sushi Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 02/09/03
Posts: 1490
Loc: Dallas, TX
In reply to:

It's infinitely easier to prove individual speakers DO exhibit break-in, at least subjectively, and maybe to a lesser degree, quantitatively.



I agree that it is always MUCH easier to prove something DOES exist. So, have you actually proven that your speakers (or any other speakers) do exhibit a break-in change in ANY CONVINCING WAY? If so, please describe the proof, either your own or somebody else's. I fully accept "subjective" observations as proof, AS LONG AS it is well-controlled.

As I stated in the AVSforum thread linked above, I myself is open-minded about this subject, and awaiting for a convincing proof either way. So far, I have never seen one piece of convincing evidence. ZERO. So, I tend to doubt its existence in the meantime -- and I repeat, this last part is my own FAITH. I am fully prepared to change my view, AS SOON AS somebody provides a convincing evidence showing that speaker break-in is not merely a psycho-acoustic phenomemon within your brain.

Top
#16004 - 07/24/03 05:09 PM Re: An argument for component break in
sushi Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 02/09/03
Posts: 1490
Loc: Dallas, TX
btw, what a beautiful expression that kid shows in the photo!

Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Moderator:  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 

Home  |  Corporate Info  |  Products  |  Message Board  |  FAQs  |  Warranty  |  Site Map  |  Privacy Statement   |  Contact Us

©2014 Colquhoun Audio Laboratories Limited
All Rights Reserved.