Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions Breaking in a set of axioms.

Dantana, i have not had the chance to hear either of these brands.
Send me some links and i'll take a look though.
I'm interested in trying to get ahold of a pair of newer Paradigms and well as some Monitor Audios to bring home. I think i'll head down to the audio shop tomorrow to see what they've got.

Ok, enough of the foreign imperial measurements here eh? No more chains, furlongs, gills, digits, pennyweights, scruples, pecks or drams.
Lets get modern and metric.

Or does no one recall the error made by Mars lander scientists using an outdated system, once based on regal body measurements, in an attempt to convert to a modern and more common metric one?

> You mean if I hear someone scratch a blackboard
> enough times I would get used to the sound or it
> would change because my perception of it would
> be different? I don't buy that one bit.

I'm not sure that something painful makes for a good analogy here. It's very difficult to ignore pain.

For those of you that wear glasses, perhaps you had an experience like I did: I hadn't been to the eye doctor in a while, and when I received a new set of glasses with a stronger perscription, I at first thought that they were "broken" or simply not the right ones for me. Because of the way the new perscription bends light, the world literally seemed to be warped. I told my eye doctor, and he assured me that the perscription was fine and I should give it a couple of days. Sure enough, after wearing the new glasses for a full day, the "world settled back to normal". Of course, my glasses didn't need to break in, it just took a while for my brain to adjust.



If speakers really do sound significantly different after breaking in, and companies claim that matching broken in speakers for superior sound is important, then it should be pretty easy to provide some empircal evidence, yes?

Until then, I think it's pretty reasonable to believe that this is a myth. In fact, I would suggest that it's our responsibility to believe that it is a myth until we see empirical evidence.

In a free market, customers get the products that they deserve. If we all allow ourselves to believe that sonic improvements can be found in interconnects made during a full moon, and lucky rabit feet volume control knobs, then we're going to get just that.

Water and titanium are very different materials, so I'm not sure this is a good analogy.

But in defense of DanTana, in general, metal does expand throughout a broad range of temperatures, not just suddenly at its melting point.

I've read rave reviews on Monitor Audio's, especially the Gold Reference Series. I would love some of them if I could afford them. I try to keep an eye on ebay for them when I can. The links for Ascend is http://www.ascendacoustics.com and Aperion http://www.aperionaudio.com I think one you pay 1/2 shipping and the other is free shipping to you, but you pay full shipping to return them if your not satisfied after 30 days. People on avsforum speak very highly of Ascend CBM-170's, and they are a 2002 Audio Review recommend product.

I know sometimes I used extreme examples, but only to get my point across. If ice melts at 33 degree's then at 100 metal molecules would most likely be expanding as well. I'm sure we've all heard our aluminum engines cooling and "crackling" while they contract. But the main point I'm really trying to get across, is that anything mechanical does change it's properties from a "new" state to a "used" or broken in state, and a speaker is definitely a mechanical device. Even electronic components are "broke" or "burned" in and I can't remember the last time I seen a capacitor move other than explode...lol.

I've heard that the Monitor Audio have a similar bass as the Axioms do, very tight and fast. I don't know about the rest but i plan on going tomorrow to do some looking around for fun.

I don't know what the Ascends sound like but several of the specs on the Ascend website look a little funky.
For example they state their frequency response is virtually flat yet their graph only shows the frequencies up to 10khz or so. Their impedance curve does the same, and some of the spikes are quite amazing.
Those speakers are listed as 4 ohms?
That's certainly untypical for such a small speaker.
Heck, no wonder they are cheap. They didn't even use 3/4" MDF or better for construction. I can't stand the thin or flaky box structure. Does something unnatural to the sound. Personally i think the old particle board is better than thinner MDF.
Seems to be alot of marketing statements on the website too, the kind of 'presentation' you see at Polk or Bose. Incidentally, the Audio Review award and website link they give for those CBM 170s is littered with ppl saying their similar used products were mostly Bose, M&K, Paradigm Atoms and Polk. Not surprising that most of them would like anything better than most of those speakers but i guess it happens to be that price range.
I don't think i would be leaning towards those Ascends as potential speakers for me, but again, one should still hear them before judging.

The Aperions are built alot more solid at least based on the materials used. I can't say much about the drivers but the frequency graph looks good, although a bit suspect (that little bookshelf seems to be holding a steady curve even at the 30hz range which for some reason makes me begin to doubt its accuracy). I like their return policy, very simliar to Axiom. I think i would give their speakers an audition for sure.

I do like the fact the Aperion has the 1" mdf board, reviewers say it has a solid feel, no doubt. I believe it uses soft dome tweeters like the Ascend. I like the fact both have built-in screw mounts too. Each Aperion comes packaged in a jewel like bag, which is a nice touch. The Aperion uses the DiAural crossover which I know little about other than what's on their website, I'd be curious to take one apart and see how it's made. Which ever one you do get, remember to break it in...lol. j/k

DanTana,

It's conceivable that perhaps the titanium could expand a tiny bit, but the point to remember is the flexing angle I mentioned. Titanium can be bent 25 degrees before the distortion is too much for it to spring back.

The part your missing in your comparison is that water and metal are molecularly very different. Water is bonded largely through very weak hydrogen bonds which is why it slips through your fingers when you try to pick it up at room. Metal is an entirely different can of worms...

In reply to:

---

Ok, enough of the foreign imperial measurements here eh? No more chains, furlongs, gills, digits, pennyweights, scruples, pecks or drams.
Lets get modern and metric.

Or does no one recall the error made by Mars lander scientists using an outdated system, once based on regal body measurements, in an attempt to convert to a modern and more common metric one?

---

My car gets 40 rods to the hogs head and that's the way I like it!

Most definitely speakers break in. The amount of time varies with the design of the speakers.
I've been in this business long enough and had enough exposure to 'fresh' and broken in speakers to come to that conclusion.
I'm really gonna get flamed too when I say electronics need to burn in too.
I'm not a scientist and not about speculate on the reasons. I am a keen listener though and will confirm these things are fact.