• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Did we abandon science/any objective tests??

M

MexicoMiike

Active Member
Semi-rant follows:

I've been doing a lot of recent searching/research into new speakers, specifically those that might work well with a low power SET amp, specifically with a lot of what I'd call "boutique" makers. And I've come to a tentative conclusion that any objective-type info is sadly lacking. EVERYTHING, it seems, is totally hype. Here's an example:

"Hypnotically holographic, deeply honest, surprisingly powerful, engaging, and emotive, our … speakers provide a relaxing musical presentation with a flat frequency response approaching that of well-designed studio monitors." There are no accompanying specs that could be considered useful.

Also, suddenly, it seems there is a need for hundreds of hours of break in. One company says 400 hours. FOUR HUNDRED HOURS? You have to be kidding me! So the manufacturer is telling me that I need to wait for 400 hours before "expecting" them to sound OK? What that means to me is that the marketers understand that I will become used to the sound by then and will no longer realize that they don't actually sound very good. That way they don't get returns.

I've bought a lot of speaker systems over MANY years of doing this stuff. If a speaker sounds bad out of the box, it sounds bad and it always will. Would you buy a new acoustic guitar that sounds bad in the shop, believing some notion that somehow it will magically sound good in a year or two? Or would you buy the one that sounds good NOW? Although a guitar's sound may change over the years (for better OR worse) NOBODY picks the bad-sounding new guitar at the shop over a better sounding one. Notice that in the boutique speaker world as well as in the guitar world, everyone claims their sound will IMPROVE; nobody says that the sound will CHANGE but could change for the worse… ;)

I have never seen any of these manufacturers provide test info that shows a speaker's "improvement" in sound with "break-in." With all the claims re such, it would be childishly easy to verify. Just do a response test when new and repeat it 400 hours later. Any change in the sound would be easily visible in a response plot; if you can actually HEAR a change, the plot will show a difference. If this "improvement" was so obvious, speaker builders making these claims would be falling all over themselves to "prove" it.

The "real" speaker makers still publish useful specs. I realize that specs don't tell you that you will or won't like the sound but it does give you some useful information. If the spec says 40Hz-20KhZ +/- 3dB then at least you know you are really going to hear that 40Hz note.

If the speakers in question were available to audition at a real store, none of this would matter - you'd just go and listen. But that's not possible nowadays and the fact that it's a PITA to rebox/reship a product back means that most folks probably keep items that they would never haver purchased in the first place had they been able to audition them first. And, after a while, the purchaser's ears "break in" to the sound of the speaker and they sound pretty good.

Thank you for allowing the opportunity to rant about the current state of audio where anybody with an internet connection/pretty web site can claim to make wonderful speakers (or any other component) and prove it simply by stating it to be the case. :(
 
Register to hide this ad
Many pro speakers such as Danley, JBL Pro and EV have the high sensitivity needed for SET use as well as excellent sound. And comprehensive specs.
 
MexicoMiike said:
Semi-rant follows:

I've been doing a lot of recent searching/research into new speakers, specifically those that might work well with a low power SET amp, specifically with a lot of what I'd call "boutique" makers. And I've come to a tentative conclusion that any objective-type info is sadly lacking. EVERYTHING, it seems, is totally hype. Here's an example:

"Hypnotically holographic, deeply honest, surprisingly powerful, engaging, and emotive, our … speakers provide a relaxing musical presentation with a flat frequency response approaching that of well-designed studio monitors." There are no accompanying specs that could be considered useful.

Also, suddenly, it seems there is a need for hundreds of hours of break in. One company says 400 hours. FOUR HUNDRED HOURS? You have to be kidding me! So the manufacturer is telling me that I need to wait for 400 hours before "expecting" them to sound OK? What that means to me is that the marketers understand that I will become used to the sound by then and will no longer realize that they don't actually sound very good. That way they don't get returns.

I've bought a lot of speaker systems over MANY years of doing this stuff. If a speaker sounds bad out of the box, it sounds bad and it always will. Would you buy a new acoustic guitar that sounds bad in the shop, believing some notion that somehow it will magically sound good in a year or two? Or would you buy the one that sounds good NOW? Although a guitar's sound may change over the years (for better OR worse) NOBODY picks the bad-sounding new guitar at the shop over a better sounding one. Notice that in the boutique speaker world as well as in the guitar world, everyone claims their sound will IMPROVE; nobody says that the sound will CHANGE but could change for the worse… ;)

I have never seen any of these manufacturers provide test info that shows a speaker's "improvement" in sound with "break-in." With all the claims re such, it would be childishly easy to verify. Just do a response test when new and repeat it 400 hours later. Any change in the sound would be easily visible in a response plot; if you can actually HEAR a change, the plot will show a difference. If this "improvement" was so obvious, speaker builders making these claims would be falling all over themselves to "prove" it.

The "real" speaker makers still publish useful specs. I realize that specs don't tell you that you will or won't like the sound but it does give you some useful information. If the spec says 40Hz-20KhZ +/- 3dB then at least you know you are really going to hear that 40Hz note.

If the speakers in question were available to audition at a real store, none of this would matter - you'd just go and listen. But that's not possible nowadays and the fact that it's a PITA to rebox/reship a product back means that most folks probably keep items that they would never haver purchased in the first place had they been able to audition them first. And, after a while, the purchaser's ears "break in" to the sound of the speaker and they sound pretty good.

Thank you for allowing the opportunity to rant about the current state of audio where anybody with an internet connection/pretty web site can claim to make wonderful speakers (or any other component) and prove it simply by stating it to be the case. :(
Click to expand...

Fostex drivers can sound terrible out of the box. They really do need many hours of break-in.
 
Well, OK, but where is any data that actually shows the speaker's change response-wise? I have heard plenty of speakers - Heck, including those in my iMac - that, after a while sound "acceptable" when it doesn't get compared to anything else.

Just like your nose can get used to a bad odor after exposure to it for a while so that it "disappears," the ears do the same. It's a well-known phenomena that your ears can "fill in" sounds that are actually missing in the reproduction of music.

I'm a solo musician (singer/guitar), playing regularly at bars/clubs/gatherings - just me and a guitar - and one very obvious thing that happens is that if you "suggest" a bass line or riff in a song that people know, they "hear" it through the whole song even if you don't actually play it throughout. I have had people ask me, "How did you keep that bass part going?" The response is, "I didn't, YOU did!" :)

Frankly, I think the same thing happens with some of these speakers that claim to be full range with one 4-5" driver.
 
A funny thing happed on my way to the ultra-high end audiophile forum, I found science kicked to the side of the road! :-)
 
Wednesday I lit up a new line array that I just finished building. 16 3" drivers per channel. I'm running it as a 2-way with an active crossover. Initially the balance didn't seem to need to be changed from the previous mains efficiency.

After about an hour and a half, I noticed the bass light and had to click it up 1 stop, 1db I believe. A couple hours later, I noticed it had gradually become very light. I put on some easy to evaluate music I'd played hours before and found I needed 3 more clicks to bring the weight back into balance.

So levels changed about 4db over the first 3-4 hours. Tonal balance, yes, it changed some too. Highs are coming out and the lower range is getting smoother sounding and less wooly.

While it'd be nice to have numbers that would tell you something, so much of speakers comes down to placement and the pattern from them and how it uses the room. So all the numbers in the world may not do a very good job of telling you in advance how they'll work in your space. Let alone how they'll do in the situation of a lower power, higher impedance source.

Good luck with your search though!

EV3
 
There has always been hoopla/hype in the audio industry. Objective data is not lacking, just go to the specs page.
 
In the words of Steve Earle:"Snake oil y'all, it's been around for a long long time " .... "if you ain't impressed yet stick around and I'll tell you what you want to hear "
 
We've been hosed.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the break-in period thing. It sounds like a sales gimmick that's been pounded into us just enough to become accepted as a natural phenomena.
I hope someone links some actual data, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Porkloin said:
I think you hit the nail on the head with the break-in period thing. It sounds like a sales gimmick that's been pounded into us just enough to become accepted as a natural phenomena.
I hope someone links some actual data, but I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to a point but I will also back up Poultrygeist about the Fostex drivers.
A couple of years ago I bought a pair of 2nd hand Hornshoppe BLH speakers and replaced the Fostex 126en drivers with new ones.
I was severely disappointed initially. Bass sounded like it was coming from a hollow log or something. Bad stuff and no getting used to it.
But, after learning about the the break-in period for these drivers I decided to give them a chance. True enough, these little puppies really opened up and started to pump out some nice, tight bass after about 400 - 500 hours of play time. Not just really, really low bass but better bass.
No empirical data here but I truly believe and know what I'm hearing now is much better than what I heard to start with.
 
You'll never get rich selling science, in fact you probably won't be able to put dinner on the table.
 
Having bullshitted myself on many occasions I've no doubt of the ability of others to bullshit themselves.

In 100 hours a loudspeaker playing 50hz makes 18 million cycles.

Let's see, some say Lowthers need 500 hours for the highs to break in. Anyone care to cipher how many 10khz cycles are made in 500 hours? I get this--18,000,000,000.
 
Last edited:
I have seen data on before and after a "break-in" period and there are measurable changes to the QTS parameter. The QTS does go lower and you should get better bass. This is due to the suspension softening up compared to unused stiffness. The spider incurs micro-fractures in the coating. Mostly, this occurs very early in a speakers life, say within the first 20-40 hours. After that, changes are very slight although changes will probably occur over the life of the speaker up to and including the point where the suspension is too soft and needs replaced. 400 hours seems an excessive time. After listening to a speaker that long, you have gotten used to it and have learned to enjoy it. When I switch speakers, I immediately hear a vast difference in sound but in a little while, I stop hearing the differences and enjoy the music.
 
Every speaker designer I have ever talked to uses pretty well the same approach. The use measurements to get them close and listening to get it right.

Science does NOT yet have all the answers on building equipment to reproduce sound. They only recently learned that their assumptions on hearing, and the range of people's hearing were wrong. Yes, equipment gets better with every year, but we are still a far way away from perfect reproduction.

So where does that leave us? Just listening.
 
MexicoMiike said:
Well, OK, but where is any data that actually shows the speaker's change response-wise? I have heard plenty of speakers - Heck, including those in my iMac - that, after a while sound "acceptable" when it doesn't get compared to anything else.

Just like your nose can get used to a bad odor after exposure to it for a while so that it "disappears," the ears do the same. It's a well-known phenomena that your ears can "fill in" sounds that are actually missing in the reproduction of music.

I'm a solo musician (singer/guitar), playing regularly at bars/clubs/gatherings - just me and a guitar - and one very obvious thing that happens is that if you "suggest" a bass line or riff in a song that people know, they "hear" it through the whole song even if you don't actually play it throughout. I have had people ask me, "How did you keep that bass part going?" The response is, "I didn't, YOU did!" :)

Frankly, I think the same thing happens with some of these speakers that claim to be full range with one 4-5" driver.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of "break in" time for rings, valves and such in engines. There is a huge difference in that with engine parts you are talking about mechanical components that are touching, etc. and their contact surfaces change with use.

Speakers? First, of course are caps which have to "charge" before becoming effective. Capacitors do have a "cycle" that varies, and consequently produces different behavior while in operation. I don't buy the 400 hours, but I do believe that if the speaker is not used, caps eventually discharge and need to re-charge (much like that of a photo flash for a camera) before reaching full capacity.

Driver spiders. These are inherently stiff, but I would tend to argue that break in is not a proper description but rather a constant break down. The spider is not going to suddenly "break in" and stop changing. It's a material that is moving in and out, often very rapidly, and will continue to deteriorate over time. Surely you've seen sagging spiders before?

Same, I would argue, applies to surrounds. Each surround behaving differently. There is the popular foam, rubber, cloth and even paper (often used in instrument drivers). Again I would argue that there is no break in period but rather and constant deterioration.

So, what exactly am I saying? I agree that a speaker will change over time. So your argument of measuring before and after is plausible, but for how long? And should all manufacturers adopt that standard for their speakers? And what, if any, forms of reference can we deduce when considering the types of caps, spider material, surround material, etc? Different "break in" periods? Who decides what is best?

I would solidly argue that speakers do NOT sound exactly the same out of the box as they do after a period of use. I'm confident that could be proven.

Now, just to make your head spin. Just imagine a company builds a speaker. Performs tests in an anechoic chamber. During the course of these tests network changes are made, but absent of any "practical" break in period. Over time, in the hands of the consumer, the speaker is going to change such that it's not what the manufacturer intended.

So then you have to ask yourself, how long is a speaker tested BEFORE revisions are made? With all the talk about break in, is this not a valid question?
 
Lot of hype in the musical instrument realm too. I have seen way more early Martin, Gibson, Fender Strat, Teles, and P Basses that had quality issues from the factory that never had a chance of sounding better just because they got 50 years older, but that doesn't stop people from paying top dollar for gear that won't even play properly.
 
Bigerik said:
Every speaker designer I have ever talked to uses pretty well the same approach. The use measurements to get them close and listening to get it right.

Science does NOT yet have all the answers on building equipment to reproduce sound. They only recently learned that their assumptions on hearing, and the range of people's hearing were wrong. Yes, equipment gets better with every year, but we are still a far way away from perfect reproduction.

So where does that leave us? Just listening.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the problem isn't science. No two ears function the same. Thankfully we have many many choices of equipment and speakers.

Science DOES allow us to form a reference point. Take T/S specs. While this won't tell us how a speaker sounds, it's does allow us to make some decisions based on the physical limitations. If a speaker has an Fs of 50 you bloody well can't expect it to hit 30 solidly.

So we can't, of course, discount science as it does have it's place.

As for marketing? There's a sucker born every minute.
 
... and, on the other hand, some of us audiophile-types are scientists in our day jobs. It's kind of nice to take a break from objectivity sometimes.

It's also good, I'd opine, to have a basic understanding of the physics behind hifi electronics and transducers.

It's very good, for a subjectivist or for a pure-play, "Western-style" scientist, to keep an open mind. Nothing's 100% understood... and it'll stay that way if we decide that "we" as a culture/society know all there is to know about stuff.

Erstwhile HH Scott Chief Engineer Daniel von Recklinghausen (1925-2011) seemed to understand the conundrum pretty darned well.

"If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, -- you've measured the wrong thing."
Click to expand...
source: http://hhscott.com/vonrecklinghausen.htm
 
I have no issue with the idea that science and hearing may disagree on what sounds good. A speaker that tests better response-wise may not sound better to my ears - I've personally heard that happen several times. The Heil AMT-1 would literally drive me from the room due to what I heard as painfully bright treble. But the response curve was quite good as I recall.

What I wonder about though is when we hear a perceived difference over time, are we really hearing an actual difference or are we just getting accustomed to the sound? That difference - for good or ill - should be able to easily be measured. IOW, if the bass really does get better (deeper), the old/new response curve would clearly show that.

Another "ear thing" that is quite common is the need to turn up the volume after extended listening to get the same satisfaction as you did when you first sat down. To me, that fits into the same concept… but did the speakers change in that relatively short period or did ears/brain perception change?

Oh well…it's not THAT hard to buy some speakers and then box them up, send them back. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom