Tizman

A Mac SET amp? No such thing. It appears that you dismiss things that you don’t have any understanding of.

ODS123 has never heard a SET amp in his system. He doesn’t want to because he does not consider SETs to be linear. That is what he says. I would argue that anyone who can’t hear that there are differences in sound between different amps with a given set of speakers is not going to be able to hear the differences in distortion between .05% and .5%. Also, a well executed SET is low distortion. It would appear that ODS123 listens at lowish volume based upon his posts. With his Cornwalls this would mean under a quarter Watt, SET amps have lower distortion at low Watts because distortion in SETs increases linearly with output. His contention that SET amps have high distortion is inaccurate. This is especially true in his specific application. Have a look online at distortion levels and the types of distortion that SETs produce and how this correlates to output levels, and you can see that at non damaging SPL with high sensitivity speakers, distortion is very low in a well executed SET amp. It’s kind of pointless looking at distortion levels of a 300B amp at its full 8 Watts output when you are normally using it at a quarter Watt.

You brought the topic up, and opined on it, thus predisposing the almost certainly non-existent beginners reading this thread into believing that break in doesnt exist for speakers. This is a disservice to beginners, as it does exist, and changes in TS parameters have been measured and quantified for certain drivers. These non-existent beginners might return excellent speakers because they did not break them in. The Audio Nirvanas were really terrible sounding prior to break in. It’s funny that you don’t see yourself as also predisposing beginners to expectation bias. What do you think is happening when beginners read your posts? Do you think that it’s okay because you are predisposing them to the “right” bias? Bias is bias, and predisposition is predisposition.

It's not unreasonable to expect that something mechanical, like a driver, might change from its freshly produced state to something different after being used for a while. This probably has to do mostly with the compliance of the surrounds. There has been changes in Thiele/Small parameters measured and recorded by speaker builders in the past. These changes will change the sound of a speaker system, as they change the tuning of drivers in enclosures. I don't think that there is much room for argument on this point.

My most notable experience with break in was with a pair of new Audio Nirvana drivers that I bought, built cabs for and listened to for the first time. They were screechy and had very little bottom end. Very disappointing. I then did what the manufacturer recommended and gave them a break in. I did this by playing music through them, at moderate levels, face to face and wired out of phase for a couple of days. I also didn't listen to them during that time. After this break in, they were more even sounding with much more bass. It made them go from completely unlistenable to listenable. I have never had a speaker that imaged as well as these did. That said, they could drill a hole in your head with certain material. They are currently in speaker limbo with a bunch of other non Klipsch speakers....

Yes they have been, earlier in this thread. They have nothing to do with sound quality, if I remember correctly. Although I'm sure that the Mac is capable of excellent sound quality. Features and shiny, which is fine. For me it's sound quality and shiny.

I'm sure that it would be more difficult to hear much difference with multi-way speakers. Also, expectation bias is in play in your case. Obviously.

Great idea!

A McIntosh MA6600, is not about utility. It's full on shiny. It's utilitarian like a stretch Hummer used to take the kids to school is utilitarian. Given ODS123's beliefs, his choice of a Sony receiver would be utilitarian.

This is going to depend on the drivers in the speaker. For example, a high efficiency full range driver with a low xmax and a rigid surround does loosen up somewhat and sound different in my experience. The result is a more balanced overall sound compared to out of the box. Specifically, there is more low end when broken in. This is also more likely to be noticeable because one driver is reproducing the full range (or most of it), so changes in frequency response will be more noticeable. I would guess that the change in sound of a more normal DR driver, with a more compliant surround, would not be as noticeable. This is especially true if that "normal" speaker is used in a manner that limits its frequency range such as in a two, three or four way speaker with a crossover. Have you tried this test yourself ODS123? If so, what drivers did you use, and what was the result?

We shall see how jimjimbo does on his double blind test.

Okay. What am I?

In a double blind test, most audiophiles can’t distinguish between a Republican and.a Democrat based on their posts on online forums.

A bit OT, but since it is the OP’s contention that only speakers make a difference to sound quality, what is your favourite upgrade to Cornwal lII?

Also, don’t let any bias about not being able to hear a difference affect your results.

Nice. Enjoy. Please let us know how your double blind test goes. I am looking forward to the results. It might be the first time ever that someone says his Mac amp sounds the same as a Sony receiver.

Interesting. I will reread the conditions of the test. It’s been a while since I looked at it. The stringency of the test, however, is unreasonable. A winner is highly unlikely even if there are obvious differences. Statistical relevance is another matter and different from winning.

Wow. I really need to hear this myself. If it works, I can save myself a truckload of money and effort.

Really? Again? Is this a mantra? A ridiculously difficult test is just that. It’s not proof of anything. If he was so confident about his assertions, he would have created a more reasonable test, and/or the prize would have been bigger. It’s like betting on football games. Pick the winner for 24 games instead of 2 games. It’s a flawed test, just as the test referred to in post 1 was flawed.

The differences between different models of CD/‘DVD players are also audible to me. Most of the conversations about these differences online seem to be about the DACs used, but I think that most of the audible differences come from the output stages of the players. In other words, the amplifier that steps up the signal in the player to line level. There are many crappy output stages in CD and DVD players, and some good ones. More players should be built with quality Class A output stages.

In my opinion, a careful scientific analysis will show that everything sounds the same as a careful scientific analysis sounds like my opinion.

Do you mean in the speaker crossovers, amps or CD players?

That’s not a spec the last I checked. Is this one on your clipboard yet? Maybe you are right, just drink the Kool-aid and take your Soma. It’s easier than questioning things.

This article is very interesting. I have put my faith in science for a long time. However, the history of science is rife with the negative influences of orthodoxy, money and many other things that have slowed the path of its progress. It's easy to move along with the crowd and believe in the things that everyone else believes in. The world isn't round, ulcers are caused by stress, its impossible to fly, etc. I believe that "If it measures good and sounds bad, it's bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, you've measured the wrong thing." is absolutely true. We aren't measuring the right thing. The THD wars of the end of the last century are a clear example of this. So many bad components sold by measuring only one thing and talking about it as though it was the only thing that mattered. Does anyone know exactly what to measure that will correlate to audio quality? It appears that the answer is no, although a lot of things are measured and presented to the public as being the things that correlate to audio quality. It also appears that orthodoxy and market pressures conspire not only to keep the answer from us, they also conspire to keep us from even asking the question. I have seen a lot of crappy audio products in the past 30 years presented as being of good quality, and I have seen the people that said they were crappy at the time being told that they didn't know what they were talking about. It's not about blind testing. It's entirely subjective because there is currently no objective way to measure whatever it is that correlates to my subjective experience. I will not ignore my subjective experiences in order to satisfy the Objectivists that haven't figured out what to measure yet, but feel like they have all the information required to tell me I'm wrong. Maybe next year they will figure it out.

A butt kicking is supposed to be unpleasant. But not any more unpleasant than the monotonous drone of the OP. Deang is right about cutting and pasting to save keystrokes. The OP is consistent in pretty much all posts in all threads on this forum and, apparently, on other forums as well. At least Romy the Cat is interesting. Not everybody’s cup of tea, obviously, but definitely interesting. Also, Romy the Cat’s opinions appear to come from a dizzying amount of experimenting and trying new things, unlike the OP’s “not interested”. “Not interesting” is more accurate. If someone says to me “I put your SET amp in my system with my speakers, that you said would work well with it, and it sounds like crap”, I would be perfectly okay with it. But “not interested” says too invested and too closed minded to me. It also says “not qualified to advise beginners”.