Did we abandon science/any objective tests??
- Thread starter MexicoMiike
- Start date
twiiii
Lunatic Member
The only break in problem I had was with my new MC240's MC 60's and 275's. When they get hot the potting they use for the transformer smell permeates the room. It took about 90 days of many hours of use before the smell dissipated. The new SS Macs I have don't have the issue, but then don't run as hot either. I wonder if the 275's and 2301's built today still need a smell break in period. I guarantee it was real in the 60's .
Sure glad that doesn't apply to brass instruments. They may corrode a bit, but they never sound better or worse than on day one. It's all in the hands and mouth of the musician.
twiiii
Lunatic Member
Oh and when I use to recone speakers, some of the glues and solvents really smelled. Especially some of the epoxies I used on EV, Cerwin Vega and JBL woofers. I guarantee they need a break in period, especially with the doped fabric surrounds. Normally I would place the drivers outside when the weather was good to let the smells dissipate. I do agree big woofers sag and there resonance point drops with use.
MexicoMiike
Active Member
I'm not sure it applies to wood instruments either but a lot of people believe it does…
One interesting study in 2012 re this was that in testing, a group of professional violinists selected a new violin as being better sounding than two different Strads and a Guarnari.
I have guitars that I have owned from new that are MANY years old and I cannot say any of them sound better than they did when new.
There is clearly much more to "hearing" than actually hearing.
OK, but it's just people saying they like SET amps up to this point. I'll wager somebody out there has even said SET sounds best.
But if people bought SET amps solely based on measurements, they'd be off to SS in a flash. That's sort of a conundrum, plenty of folks like SET amps despite solid state pro amps measuring markedly better. In an entirely measurement-driven, objective world, there would be no SET amps.
So what? Well, what if you discovered the speaker you really like doesn't measure all that great? I imagine a great many of the vintage speakers that are loved here wouldn't measure all that great. Would a new speaker, with similar measurements, ever sell a single pair?
Should manufacturers try to sell people what they like, or sell them a "perfect" speaker they might not like? FWIW, the JBL M2 measures very well and is said to sound very good, but they rely on DSP to get there. The speakers themselves aren't perfect.
Some people prefer the sound of technically inferior gear? Horror of horrors.
It might be helpful if you would list some of the speakers that you find to be marketing over measurement, there's a chance somebody might be able to find some measurements done on them at some time.
GuyK
Addicted Member
I'm not sure it applies to wood instruments either but a lot of people believe it does…
One interesting study in 2012 re this was that in testing, a group of professional violinists selected a new violin as being better sounding than two different Strads and a Guarnari.
I have guitars that I have owned from new that are MANY years old and I cannot say any of them sound better than they did when new.
There is clearly much more to "hearing" than actually hearing.
Similar, but not quite the same. Just because it's old does not mean it will sound it's best. Ask a string player to play an instrument that has been unused for some period of time. Many of them will tell you they can feel it's response changing while they are playing it. I remember the test when it came 'round a couple years ago and I'm not about to claim it is invalid, it quite clearly showed the best made contemporary instruments are as good as those from the old masters; but I wonder how long the Strads and Guarneri had sat unused in some museum before this test, and if this is the case, had they had been played regularly for some period of time beforehand, would the results have been different?
Naptown Rob
Ponographer
Don't you read the papers (or their digital equivalent)?
Science is currently completely out of fashion in large swaths of the country.
Science is currently completely out of fashion in large swaths of the country.
You're right. What percentage of guys here own the gear needed to accurately measure speakers? 1 in 50? 1 in 100? Not many, I'll wager.
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
This, terrifyingly, is quite true...
True, but I'd wager more than at any point in the past, when science was more 'in fashion'
Last edited:
MexicoMiike
Active Member
"It might be helpful if you would list some of the speakers that you find to be marketing over measurement, there's a chance somebody might be able to find some measurements done on them at some time."
The two that have stood out so far in that category to my way of thinking are Blumenstein and Hornshoppe. There are a couple of others but they struck me as the most OTT in the the claim dept. It's not that other brands don't make great claims but they are not quite at that level and they do, at least, provide some response figures OTHER than just saying something like 45Hz to 20kHZ. Without a +/- figure, the spec is useless.
Again, I MIGHT really like those speakers though reviews of Hornshoppe make me think those particular speakers wouldn't appeal to me much but who knows? I will admit to a bias against the concept that there can be such a thing as a single driver "full range speaker," at least in the realm of "high fidelity." But I'd be happy to be able to be convinced otherwise. Though with no brick/mortar stores around that carry all this stuff, the only way to hear one is to buy it. The Blums are not all that efficient (89) and so might not make a good SET speaker anyway
There is always Klipschhorns at 105dB! But they are a LOT bigger (as in NFW as far as the WAF is concerned!) and pricer than what I'm looking for!
The two that have stood out so far in that category to my way of thinking are Blumenstein and Hornshoppe. There are a couple of others but they struck me as the most OTT in the the claim dept. It's not that other brands don't make great claims but they are not quite at that level and they do, at least, provide some response figures OTHER than just saying something like 45Hz to 20kHZ. Without a +/- figure, the spec is useless.
Again, I MIGHT really like those speakers though reviews of Hornshoppe make me think those particular speakers wouldn't appeal to me much but who knows? I will admit to a bias against the concept that there can be such a thing as a single driver "full range speaker," at least in the realm of "high fidelity." But I'd be happy to be able to be convinced otherwise. Though with no brick/mortar stores around that carry all this stuff, the only way to hear one is to buy it. The Blums are not all that efficient (89) and so might not make a good SET speaker anyway
There is always Klipschhorns at 105dB! But they are a LOT bigger (as in NFW as far as the WAF is concerned!) and pricer than what I'm looking for!
Didn't take a lot of digging to find some fairly comprehensive measurements of the Hornshoppe Horns.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/horn-shoppe-horn-loudspeaker-measurements
http://www.stereophile.com/content/horn-shoppe-horn-loudspeaker-measurements
MexicoMiike
Active Member
Yes, I found that review several days ago which is what I referring to when I said I'm pretty sure Hornshoppes wouldn't appeal to me - the commentary (though I haven't paid much attention to Stereophile since JGH left - they sort of lost the plot IMO) sounds decidedly poor. The anechoic response plot is abysmal by any standard for any "hiFi" speaker I have ever used/heard. Yes, I know they say it MIGHT sound good with an SET but that's damning with faint praise.
Last edited:
They sound terrible with SETs too, even more constipated.
MexicoMiike
Active Member
To be fair, I have to say that the first reviewers comments in the article were somewhat favorable to the speaker though there were sections that seemed troubling to me but overall he seemed to like it…at least that's the impression I now have - even given the lack of response he noted above 10kHz and below around 80Hz and the boominess around 250Hz.
But again, my initial post was not about a review of the speaker, it was about the CLAIMS for the speaker by the manufacturer with no accompanying useful specs. I suppose that the reason the specs aren't published for such speakers is because one look at that response curve would pretty much turn most potential purchasers in another direction.
But again, my initial post was not about a review of the speaker, it was about the CLAIMS for the speaker by the manufacturer with no accompanying useful specs. I suppose that the reason the specs aren't published for such speakers is because one look at that response curve would pretty much turn most potential purchasers in another direction.
musician2358
Active Member
Speakers do need 4-6 hours of break-in time. I think a vendor suggesting 400 hours are needed is in fact saying that the product is so expensive that you are not allowed to identify any defects so we'll say they will go away after you are past the point of returning them. (Any purported electronic circuit break-in longer than 3-5 minutes is poppycock IMHO, but speaker cones may need a few hours to limber up).
In any case, if a vendor were to claim a long break-in, if they weren't demo'ing "broken in" items in the listening room, I would consider them disreputable and look elsewhere.
While the highest quality audio products are indeed high end in price, 75% of so-called audiophile equipment are just fashion statements.
M2
In any case, if a vendor were to claim a long break-in, if they weren't demo'ing "broken in" items in the listening room, I would consider them disreputable and look elsewhere.
While the highest quality audio products are indeed high end in price, 75% of so-called audiophile equipment are just fashion statements.
M2
Brian
An Old Geezer
I find little useful information with speaker specs. Frequency response statements are almost useless as 20-20000 +/-3db tells nothing where the files and peaks are. A true graph readout is best while those graphic representations on the labels are pure bs.
Of all the specs, sensitivity and distortion are the most meaningful but most companies do not publish distortion figures and if they do, it is at some almost meaningless point to be useless in real life. Mine and max power ratings are somewhat useful but generally not as most companies never spec the type of power, i.e. peak, rms, etc. Bozak used to stated theirs in rms watts while my KLH Nines used volts and the KLH Fives state I.H.F. My Symphonys listed min as 20 while the Fives are listed as 25 watts but it is ales and oranges.
Impedance is another dog measurement. Typically is is not much more than some number representing either the average or the mean range. I have seen a model speakers with the same drivers and crossover labels as 4 an as 8 ohms. Years ago, when ss amps were generally known to be rather unreliable into 4 ohms and would all but melt down into 2 ohms it was not uncommon for speaker manufacturers to favor skewing the impedance special to 8 ohms and later when amps because even more stable at 4 ohms and marketing suggested using a 4 ohms speakers bought more power for no money, makers skewed their specs to 4 ohms.
Specs do not describe if a speaker or, in fact, any component will sound good or not. Recently, I sold off a JVC receiver. Subjectively it sounded more powerful than its published spec and it seemed noticeably less distorted than other amps I used but overall the sound lacked any refinement, just raw power. Fine with rock but on classical and acoustic instruments it was at the bottom of my lineup. I really wanted to like the unit but could not. I finally located the schematic and specs. The distortion figures were lower than any amp I have ever had from memory. Stated frequency, noise, etc. All pointed to this amp and preamp should be the best I ever had but it totally failed. It was closer the the Dyna SCA80 and SCA50 than even say the Pioneer SX525 I could not stand. The schema showed the unit was loaded to the gills with ICs for almost every circuit.
In the end, objective test results may help in narrowing and help in focusing one in a component search but in the end can not predict the sound. And sometimes it may help reconcile why 2 entirely different sounding units may be preferred over a third. For instance, during my early years I found I preferred electrostatics and good horn based systems over most dynamic driver systems and acoustic suspension designs less than the infinite baffle old ported systems. I found the electrostatics and horn systems have extremely low distortion compared to dynamic driver systems and older ported and infinite baffles systems while having more distortion than electrostatic and horns also had far less than acoustic suspension. The distortion may or may not be the common denominator but it trended that way.
Efficiency in the past has not been an issue; KLH Nines and Horns are at opposite ends of the scale but in helping others build systems I found it useful in matching their wants to their budgets to listening experiences. More recently, as I downsize, it has become more important for me, especially as I do not want a big amp in size or power, want good dynamics but wanted the system to open up at quite low volume. Sadly, electrostatic speakers fail with these requirements but with my old set of requirements they topped the list. Horns that did not make the grade back then now are at the top or near the top of the list.
Of all the specs, sensitivity and distortion are the most meaningful but most companies do not publish distortion figures and if they do, it is at some almost meaningless point to be useless in real life. Mine and max power ratings are somewhat useful but generally not as most companies never spec the type of power, i.e. peak, rms, etc. Bozak used to stated theirs in rms watts while my KLH Nines used volts and the KLH Fives state I.H.F. My Symphonys listed min as 20 while the Fives are listed as 25 watts but it is ales and oranges.
Impedance is another dog measurement. Typically is is not much more than some number representing either the average or the mean range. I have seen a model speakers with the same drivers and crossover labels as 4 an as 8 ohms. Years ago, when ss amps were generally known to be rather unreliable into 4 ohms and would all but melt down into 2 ohms it was not uncommon for speaker manufacturers to favor skewing the impedance special to 8 ohms and later when amps because even more stable at 4 ohms and marketing suggested using a 4 ohms speakers bought more power for no money, makers skewed their specs to 4 ohms.
Specs do not describe if a speaker or, in fact, any component will sound good or not. Recently, I sold off a JVC receiver. Subjectively it sounded more powerful than its published spec and it seemed noticeably less distorted than other amps I used but overall the sound lacked any refinement, just raw power. Fine with rock but on classical and acoustic instruments it was at the bottom of my lineup. I really wanted to like the unit but could not. I finally located the schematic and specs. The distortion figures were lower than any amp I have ever had from memory. Stated frequency, noise, etc. All pointed to this amp and preamp should be the best I ever had but it totally failed. It was closer the the Dyna SCA80 and SCA50 than even say the Pioneer SX525 I could not stand. The schema showed the unit was loaded to the gills with ICs for almost every circuit.
In the end, objective test results may help in narrowing and help in focusing one in a component search but in the end can not predict the sound. And sometimes it may help reconcile why 2 entirely different sounding units may be preferred over a third. For instance, during my early years I found I preferred electrostatics and good horn based systems over most dynamic driver systems and acoustic suspension designs less than the infinite baffle old ported systems. I found the electrostatics and horn systems have extremely low distortion compared to dynamic driver systems and older ported and infinite baffles systems while having more distortion than electrostatic and horns also had far less than acoustic suspension. The distortion may or may not be the common denominator but it trended that way.
Efficiency in the past has not been an issue; KLH Nines and Horns are at opposite ends of the scale but in helping others build systems I found it useful in matching their wants to their budgets to listening experiences. More recently, as I downsize, it has become more important for me, especially as I do not want a big amp in size or power, want good dynamics but wanted the system to open up at quite low volume. Sadly, electrostatic speakers fail with these requirements but with my old set of requirements they topped the list. Horns that did not make the grade back then now are at the top or near the top of the list.
Gang-Twanger
Resident Wharfedaliophool
Jeez... I'm sure glad my main speakers don't HAVE spiders... As an OCD-sufferer, that would drive me bonkers thinking about it.
Everything you said makes perfect sense in my uninformed, newbie-shaped head (except maybe that last part where you went all "logic-loop" on us), so I think I'll go with that and be done with it (Can I use some of this in conversation at hi-fi lounge parties and online and what not, as if it was my own?
).
Last edited:
Gang-Twanger
Resident Wharfedaliophool
This has not been the case with my gear. My Denton reissues DEFINITELY went through a break-in that last weeks (The bass got stronger/better, and the highs got smoother, and the sound opened up more and more. The same thing happened with my Grado RSII headphones. I hated the bass so-much at first that I switched earpads to try and punch things up, which did help due to the shape and being closer to my ears, but after living with them like that for months, I went back and tried the stock pads one more time (even though I had swapped back and forth repeatedly in the first week or two to no avail), and sure enough, the bass was just the way I wanted it, and the highs have DEFINITELY smoothed out. I remember vividly how bright and a tad overly-brilliant they were. Combine that with the weakish bass, and I certainly had my doubts, but now they're as close to perfect as I've heard so far in a pair of headphones.
And the used speakers I own all went through a RE-break-in of sorts (for reasons stated earlier, including softening old surrounds). That was obvious.
Is this any different than the warmup time our gear goes through? The only thing in my system with 3-5 minutes of warmup time is my turntable. My Fisher 800C/W90 combo takes EASILY 30-45 minutes (probably depending on the room temperature) and probably can mostly be attributed to the Fisher. My Sansui 2000x ALSO had a noticable warmup time. Not as much as the Fisher though
I'm no expert on any of this. No oscilloscope in my basement. Just stating what I've noticed over a 5-6 year period (I got a late start).r
Last edited: