Dave A Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 19 hours ago, Dave A said: 19 hours ago, ODS123 said: Keep reading… He also talks about cable break in in the manual. OK I will bite. How does that change the comment you made on breaking in those specific speakers? Hey OD how come you have not answered my question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave A Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 7 hours ago, Westcoastdrums said: You sir are the skeptic of all skeptics. I missed the other 1000 or so pages, but what is your experience in audio or music as a whole besides all linear amps sound the same and no one on earth can tell the difference? Damn I wish I still worked in a music studio and could bring you in. Your posts would all be irrelevant in your own opinion within hours as long as you were able to pass a basic hearing test. Basic hearing test? First in line would be a cognition test because if the mind can't correctly process the audio input what would be the purpose of the hearing test? You have to remember in Troll 101 the basic premise is the Troll is always right irregardless of logical and provable data that says he is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave A Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 6 hours ago, ODS123 said: I played live/ unrecorded music for years, and spent an entire lifetime as a music obsessive who has been to countless live performance - both amplified and acoustic. ..I KNOW what real, live music sounds like. ..Not sure what you mean by "a dog in this race" but it's ridiculous to suggest I don't care about fidelity just b/c I don't believe that differences b/w modern day amplifiers - which are designed/ engineered to be linear under normal operating conditions - are audible. Evidence please or it did not happen. Baseless chest thumping does not prove on it's own merit you did these things. Although I imagine you direct orchestras better than any, write and produce quality music and have links to post to your past participation as a revered musician in many genres. What do you use in your mixing studio to get the correct sound we all aspire to hear? Enjoying 18 days of logic free commentary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veloceleste Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS123 Posted January 5, 2019 Author Share Posted January 5, 2019 1 hour ago, Dave A said: Hey OD how come you have not answered my question? I did. 2-3 pages ago. I said, "If he's promulgating the myth of cable break-in (seriously?) and amp break-in (not mentioned in the owner's manual, but he's said it elsewhere) it becomes hard to know whether or not to take seriously his remarks about Speaker break-in." As I said, with my last three pairs of speakers I was not able to discern ANY difference b/w the speaker that played overnight and the one that didn't. Given that that is a pretty small sample on which to base my opinion that speaker break-in is a myth (as compared with the abundance of information suggesting modern amps sound alike) and considering all the plausible explanations given here on why it might make a difference, I would probably qualify my statement a bit more carefully.. If I were given the opportunity to take back my statement I would and would re-state it as such: With my past three speakers I was not able to discern one-iota of difference b/w the speaker that had 12 hours of use and one that didn't. Of those last three speakers it was only the Vandersteen that came with any mention of break-in in the owners manual. Given that I heard NO break-in in his speakers AND that he also promotes the idea of cable and amplifier break-in I have to question his credibility on this point. Instead of break-in being a real thing, I think the idea is promoted b/c it serves a useful purpose for manufacturers such as Vandersteen and the retailers who sell his products; it reduces the amount of product being returned to the store which is enormously costly to both parties. How does it do this? When someone finds out the that their new speakers, amplifier, DAC, cables, interconnects... etc. failed to transform their system as much as they expected and they seek to return the item, they are met with the instruction, "Don't do any critical listening yet - It won't sound it's best for several hundred hours because of break-in." Manufactures know that during this time the return period may expire or you may adjust to how it sounds (referring to speakers). This won't head off ALL returns, but will certainly reduce them. ADDED: So I would urge beginners to add claims of "Break-in periods" to the list of things to be wary of as they shop for their 1st (and for many, it would end there) system. Particularly any break-in period that would extend beyond the return period. Vandersteen's ridiculous recommendation of 100 hours of break-in would take 50 days for those who listen 2 hours/ day - which would be a lot for most working people. ..Most return periods are 14 days for refund, 30 days for store credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave A Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 1 hour ago, ODS123 said: ADDED: So I would urge beginners to add claims of "Break-in periods" to the list of things to be wary of as they shop for their 1st (and for many, it would end there) system. Particularly any break-in period that would extend beyond the return period. Vandersteen's ridiculous recommendation of 100 hours of break-in would take 50 days for those who listen 2 hours/ day - which would be a lot for most working people. ..Most return periods are 14 days for refund, 30 days for store credit. You kill me OD. Normal people could and do solve this problem with 4.2 days (you know that 100 hour thing) of leaving the speakers running since they understand you don't have to physically be present to let them break in. How long was the return if not happy offer from the manufacturer? 1 hour ago, ODS123 said: As I said, with my last three pairs of speakers I was not able to discern ANY difference b/w the speaker that played overnight and the one that didn't. Given that that is a pretty small sample on which to base my opinion that speaker break-in is a myth (as compared with the abundance of information suggesting modern amps sound alike) and considering all the plausible explanations given here on why it might make a difference, I would probably qualify my statement a bit more carefully.. If I were given the opportunity to take back my statement I would and would re-state it as such: The problem is you take your scant experience and combine it with a refusal to believe anything you have not chosen to own is worthwhile. How you form your buying decisions is secret knowledge since the only one that knows the hidden secrets to audio nirvana is you. Then you trot this stuff out and pontificate regarding the only valid opinion which of course is yours. 1 hour ago, Dave A said: 8 hours ago, ODS123 said: I played live/ unrecorded music for years, and spent an entire lifetime as a music obsessive who has been to countless live performance - both amplified and acoustic. ..I KNOW what real, live music sounds like. ..Not sure what you mean by "a dog in this race" but it's ridiculous to suggest I don't care about fidelity just b/c I don't believe that differences b/w modern day amplifiers - which are designed/ engineered to be linear under normal operating conditions - are audible. Evidence please or it did not happen. Baseless chest thumping does not prove on it's own merit you did these things. Although I imagine you direct orchestras better than any, write and produce quality music and have links to post to your past participation as a revered musician in many genres. What do you use in your mixing studio to get the correct sound we all aspire to hear? So where is the evidence hmmm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizRotus Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 I agree with most of what you say ODS123, but I still find the use of the word “Beginners” in the subject condescending. IMO, this is all about the “O.” Like navels, everyone has one. I prefer digital playback in balanced mode from a Pono player (ESS Sabre DAC) through a class-D chip amp (Wiener TPA 3118 or TPA3255EVM) then through 12 gauge zip cord. I’d rather enjoy listening to music than debate the merits of the opinions of others regarding cables, break-in, etc. Since the 60s it has been my opinion, and advice to those who asked, that speakers are the most important component, with cartridges second. Those two components are, IMO, likely to produce the most clearly discernible subjective differences. Therefore, most of the budget should go to speakers. When more than 30 years ago I first saw and heard the stereo my now wife bought at Pacific Stereo in Chicago, I was furious. They fleeced someone who didn’t know any better. The “speakers” were hecho en Mexico sort of sealed boxes made from 0.25” particle board with no damping material. The crossover between a 6” “woofer” and a 2” cone “tweeter” was a single capacitor. These abominations were sold as a package consisting of a small Sherwood receiver and a Garrard record changer with a Shure cartridge. While hardly SOTA, the receiver, changer, and cartridge were way better than the speakers. To sell that mess as a “package” to a young woman “beginner” was, IMO, criminal. Truth be told, she loved her stereo. She listened to Carole King, and the like, by the hour and never felt she was missing anything. I still feel that speakers should absorb the bulk of the budget, but I now feel that room and recording issues produce more opportunities for subjective improvements than cables, break-in, etc., assuming you have good speakers. At least that’s my opinion. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS123 Posted January 5, 2019 Author Share Posted January 5, 2019 3 hours ago, Dave A said: The problem is you take your scant experience and combine it with a refusal to believe anything you have not chosen to own is worthwhile. How you form your buying decisions is secret knowledge since the only one that knows the hidden secrets to audio nirvana is you. Then you trot this stuff out and pontificate regarding the only valid opinion which of course is yours. So where is the evidence hmmm? Never said I conducted an orchestras as Dave A claimed I had (wth?!) ..I did play in one through school, though. And attended many many performances of a gifted son who sang in district, regional and now college choirs and musicals. ..As for being a lifelong music obsessive, not sure what evidence would suffice. ..A picture of my record collection? ..Ticket stubs? please. ..don't hold your breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS123 Posted January 5, 2019 Author Share Posted January 5, 2019 3 hours ago, Dave A said: You kill me OD. Normal people could and do solve this problem with 4.2 days (you know that 100 hour thing) of leaving the speakers running since they understand you don't have to physically be present to let them break in. How long was the return if not happy offer from the manufacturer? Not true. ..Most people (non-audiophiles, that is) would not leave their stereo playing at moderate levels for 24 hours straight let alone for 4.2 days. ..Most people don't have a dedicated listening room far from those trying to sleep at night or engage in other activities w/out hearing music. Nor would most people feel comfortable leaving music playing when they leave the house, apt. or condo. I don't understand your last question. Re-state it please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS123 Posted January 5, 2019 Author Share Posted January 5, 2019 4 hours ago, DizRotus said: I agree with most of what you say ODS123, but I still find the use of the word “Beginners” in the subject condescending. IMO, this is all about the “O.” Like navels, everyone has one. Diz.. I'm not sure what it is in the title that is inherently condescending. If I was a newbie in the market to buy speakers and went to the Klipsch website to do research, it's predictable I'd go to the user forum to learn. If I came upon this post I honestly don't think I'd find anything offensive or condescending about the title. Heck, I'd appreciate that someone created a post specifically for those who are inexperienced w/ hifi. ..Even if after I finished reading through the thread and ended up mostly disagreeing with the OP (me!) I still don't think I'd find the title inherently bothersome. Anyway, that notwithstanding, you said you agree with most of what I said so I suppose I should be thankful for that and not spend too much time splitting hairs over the one comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TubeHiFiNut Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 5 hours ago, ODS123 said: I did. 2-3 pages ago. I said, "If he's promulgating the myth of cable break-in (seriously?) and amp break-in (not mentioned in the owner's manual, but he's said it elsewhere) it becomes hard to know whether or not to take seriously his remarks about Speaker break-in." As I said, with my last three pairs of speakers I was not able to discern ANY difference b/w the speaker that played overnight and the one that didn't. Given that that is a pretty small sample on which to base my opinion that speaker break-in is a myth (as compared with the abundance of information suggesting modern amps sound alike) and considering all the plausible explanations given here on why it might make a difference, I would probably qualify my statement a bit more carefully.. If I were given the opportunity to take back my statement I would and would re-state it as such: With my past three speakers I was not able to discern one-iota of difference b/w the speaker that had 12 hours of use and one that didn't. Of those last three speakers it was only the Vandersteen that came with any mention of break-in in the owners manual. Given that I heard NO break-in in his speakers AND that he also promotes the idea of cable and amplifier break-in I have to question his credibility on this point. Instead of break-in being a real thing, I think the idea is promoted b/c it serves a useful purpose for manufacturers such as Vandersteen and the retailers who sell his products; it reduces the amount of product being returned to the store which is enormously costly to both parties. How does it do this? When someone finds out the that their new speakers, amplifier, DAC, cables, interconnects... etc. failed to transform their system as much as they expected and they seek to return the item, they are met with the instruction, "Don't do any critical listening yet - It won't sound it's best for several hundred hours because of break-in." Manufactures know that during this time the return period may expire or you may adjust to how it sounds (referring to speakers). This won't head off ALL returns, but will certainly reduce them. ADDED: So I would urge beginners to add claims of "Break-in periods" to the list of things to be wary of as they shop for their 1st (and for many, it would end there) system. Particularly any break-in period that would extend beyond the return period. Vandersteen's ridiculous recommendation of 100 hours of break-in would take 50 days for those who listen 2 hours/ day - which would be a lot for most working people. ..Most return periods are 14 days for refund, 30 days for store credit. ***FLAG*** on @ODS123 for "expectation bias". You've convinced yourself that speaker break in doesn't exist so your brain refuses to hear it. What's good for the goose..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 6 hours ago, veloceleste said: I ask this sincerely yet rhetorically. If, according to the OP, amplifier design has reached its pinnacle, has preamplifier design done the same? With all things being equal and optimized in a given system should or should not the sound change if the preamp circuit type is changed? Hypothetically, will two integrated amps with identical amp sections and different preamp sections sound different? I tried a passive pre-amp the other day, with a 3 W SET on Jube with K-402's and TADs, and I Liked it! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 23 hours ago, Zen Traveler said: Fwiw, here is what Trey says about speakers break-in: On 12/23/2010 at 6:53 AM, Trey Cannon said: Ok, there is such thing as break in , but we do it in 20 min with 75% `input voltage at 20Hz. The complance of the woofers is where you would see the change. However, with that said, after 8 hr at 32V they had about 1 - 1.5db more output gain...not a lot of change.... 35 minutes ago, TubeHiFiNut said: ***FLAG*** on @ODS123 for "expectation bias". You've convinced yourself that speaker break in doesn't exist so your brain refuses to hear it. What's good for the goose..... I'm not sure how other speakers compare but in the quote above I reposted and put in italics how much change in Klipsch speakers occurs--I guess the question is can you actually hear that much difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TubeHiFiNut Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 24 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said: I'm not sure how other speakers compare but in the quote above I reposted and put in italics how much change in Klipsch speakers occurs--I guess the question is can you actually hear that much difference? Most of the speakers I buy are used and well broken in by the time I get them. My Lowthers, however, were brand spanking new when I got them and it certainly did not take a "golden ear" to hear how they evolved as they loosened up and settled in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 I guess it’s time for a double blind test. It doesn’t sound like much, but it’s enough. People used to listening for change would probably hear it. Does it matter? Probably not, you can get that much or more just by moving your loudspeakers around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave A Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 4 hours ago, ODS123 said: Not true. ..Most people (non-audiophiles, that is) would not leave their stereo playing at moderate levels for 24 hours straight let alone for 4.2 days. ..Most people don't have a dedicated listening room far from those trying to sleep at night or engage in other activities w/out hearing music. Nor would most people feel comfortable leaving music playing when they leave the house, apt. or condo. I don't understand your last question. Re-state it please. Sure OD. I can see where forgetting to include period after return was a bit much for you to slog through. So to help you out how long was the return period on those? As for the rest of the stuff you said Comedy Central is calling you. 4 hours ago, ODS123 said: Never said I conducted an orchestras as Dave A claimed I had (wth?!) ..I did play in one through school, though. And attended many many performances of a gifted son who sang in district, regional and now college choirs and musicals. ..As for being a lifelong music obsessive, not sure what evidence would suffice. ..A picture of my record collection? ..Ticket stubs? please. ..don't hold your breath. OK you got me I threw that one in for free. But every musician I know can tell me where they played and what they play and has a scrap book with fond memories. School yearbooks f/instance would be another source. Not that I am expecting you to produce evidence I am just amusing myself with someone who can't back up what he says with any evidence he has done the things he claims. You have a credibility problem you see so I question everything you state and believe you are right sometimes just like a broken clock is right twice a day. The rest of the time not so much. (*urczy!!!*) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_kc Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 14 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said: And before anybody says that’s what the engineer and artist wanted me to experience I say bullshit 😄. As Floyd’s Toole has so well pointed out there is no real universal standards in the recording industry which leads to a real circle of confusion where it’s almost impossible to know what we we’re intended to experience by the recording engineers and artists. miketn http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html?m=1 14 hours ago, Westcoastdrums said: What the engineer intended is so different than your preference. The engineer intended on the best possible translation of what he or she mixed and (what was mastered and put of his or her hands) to translate as well as possible to as many systems as possible. A tough job indeed. This is only the mixing engineers prospective. There is then the recording and mastering engineers perspective aside from that. As the audio goes down the line, each is limited to what each engineer committed to prior. There are several threads relevant to this topic, so I apologize if I’m repeating myself. Here’s a brief summary of what I think are relevant issues: Those of us who listen to “natural” music (e.g., classical) know how a live performance should sound - i.e., natural instruments (e.g., violins, trumpets) performing live in the intended venue (e.g., symphony hall, opera house, perhaps a church with acoustics suitable for chamber music) where no electronics are employed (i.e., no sound reinforcement system), and the recording is not deliberately distorted using electronic tools. For the purpose of defining a benchmark for how classical music reproduced in the home “should” sound, IMO the “work of art” – and the benchmark - is the live performance. (“Work of art” may mean something different in intellectual property law.) My goal is for the sound reproduced by my hi-fi system to remind me of the live performance, and for inevitable distortions to sound pleasant vs. unpleasant. (Of course, a limitation of my approach is that it relies on my memory. And I recognize that different venues have different acoustics.) OTOH, a lot of music doesn’t involve natural instruments, and in some cases there never was a live performance, and/or the sound was electronically altered – so it seems to me that the benchmark isn’t as clear for how such music “should” sound. (For a lengthier discussion of this, please see the threads referenced below.) I am not a recording engineer. With that said, it seems to me that “Audio’s Circle of Confusion” is more of a problem for the second category (i.e., electronically produced and altered music), and less of a problem the first category (i.e., natural music) – at least from the perspective of the consumer. In other words, the consumer is less likely to be “confused” (or uncertain) about how classical music “should” sound, compared with electronically altered music. (I’m not suggesting that the recording engineer’s job of faithfully capturing the live performance of classical music is easy. Undoubtedly the recording process is much more complex than I’ll ever understand.) Your thoughts? Following are links to my lengthier comments on these issues. FWIW, I’d be interested in further discussion about this. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tizman Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 8 hours ago, Dave A said: Basic hearing test? First in line would be a cognition test because if the mind can't correctly process the audio input what would be the purpose of the hearing test? There is that. It should probably be part of every ABX test. Especially when the test samples are small. Small, as in a one person ABX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 15 minutes ago, Tizman said: 8 hours ago, Dave A said: Basic hearing test? First in line would be a cognition test because if the mind can't correctly process the audio input what would be the purpose of the hearing test? There is that. It should probably be part of every ABX test. Especially when the test samples are small. Small, as in a one person ABX. JBL did do hearing tests, as well as determining if a person participating in their preference study was a trained listener (musician, orchestra conductor, recording engineer) or not. The variance (a statistical term) in results was smaller in the trained listener group versus the regular people who participated. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 If I started thinking about investing $30-$50K in electronics, I would probably really want to know if it sounded “different” than stuff that cost a quarter or the less than that amount. But at the level I’m sitting, do I really care if a $200 integrated from parts express sounds the same as the $750 Cambridge integrated I’m currently using? I suppose it’s relative, because someone on an extremely tight budget might feel good knowing that the $200 integrated from partsexpress (that they can’t afford), doesn’t sound significantly different than the $50 T-amp they’re using. I think the testing is of more interest if you’re eying really high dollar stuff. At the level 90% or more inhabit - who cares. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.