Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:11:02 GMT, "Wally" wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Do you mean the speaker don't actually 'break in', but the
listener's lug-'oles / brain just compensate for the change?

In one.

Which begs the question, what's the point in changing bits of kit
if
the listener is going to adapt to the differences?

Good question............................. :-)

Yes, here's the irony.

On the one hand we have human beings, which are a well-known high
adaptable mechanism.

On the other hand we have loudspeakers, which tend to measure the same
over long periods of time.

So-called subjectivists tell us that the people are reference
standards, and the speakers change significantly with usage in a few
days or a few weeks.

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Yes, here's the irony.

On the one hand we have human beings, which are a well-known high
adaptable mechanism.

On the other hand we have loudspeakers, which tend to measure the same
over long periods of time.

So-called subjectivists tell us that the people are reference
standards, and the speakers change significantly with usage in a few
days or a few weeks.

Perhaps those who think speakers change dramatically after some magical
breaking in period also think they wear out after about the same sort of
time? Or would be able to explain the new laws of physics they've found
about the elasticity of rubber, etc?

--
*Why does the sun lighten our hair, but darken our skin?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Signal" wrote in message
...
"Bob Latham" emitted :

Well last year when I first set up the XQ3s they were tight (can't think
of a better way of saying it) and had an odd balance which I found
disappointing. At the time as always I was using my much older Kefs as a
reference and they murdered the XQ3. After some hours of run in they
loosened up and became tonally much more similar to my reference.

You may say it was my ears and my non hi-fi mate's ears but I am sure that
was not the case. I do accept they may well have measured identical before
and after as regards frequency response but they didn't sound it.

I'm sure you will not believe me but it was my friend who noticed they
were changing in sound before I did and he has no Hi-Fi or ever been in a
hi-fi shop or read a magazine as far as I know.

I might be wrong, but this sounds like listener acclimatization. You
would probably have experienced just the same thing if you had bought
used speakers which are already broken in.



Or even cheap crappy speakers.

In message , Stewart
Pinkerton writes
I don't understand how people can be so cock sure that this does not
happen, I presume it is based on their understanding of all the components
that make up a speaker.

Also on the fact that the most respected manufacturers say it doesn't
exist.

Stewart,

I've just read a review on audiophile.com of one of the speakers you
recommended, and the reviewer specifically says that he was told to
break the speakers in gently by the manufacturer

http://www.audioholics.com/productre...udio52sep2.php

" Dynaudio was adamant about breaking these speakers in prior to
critical listening tests so I kindly asked them to do it to save me some
time."

Are they one of the few?


--
Richard Faulkner

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:28:39 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

In message , Stewart
Pinkerton writes
I don't understand how people can be so cock sure that this does not
happen, I presume it is based on their understanding of all the components
that make up a speaker.

Also on the fact that the most respected manufacturers say it doesn't
exist.

Stewart,

I've just read a review on audiophile.com of one of the speakers you
recommended, and the reviewer specifically says that he was told to
break the speakers in gently by the manufacturer

http://www.audioholics.com/productre...udio52sep2.php

" Dynaudio was adamant about breaking these speakers in prior to
critical listening tests so I kindly asked them to do it to save me some
time."

Are they one of the few?

One of the few to use marketing hype in order to precondition the
reviewer to believe that he'd be hearing something really special? No,
just one of the cleverer ones....................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:


Well last year when I first set up the XQ3s they were tight (can't think
of a better way of saying it) and had an odd balance which I found
disappointing. At the time as always I was using my much older Kefs as a
reference and they murdered the XQ3. After some hours of run in they
loosened up and became tonally much more similar to my reference.

You may say it was my ears and my non hi-fi mate's ears but I am sure
that was not the case.

Alas, you may be "sure" of something, but might still be mistaken. It does
happen. Happens to me, so I suspect it can happen to you as well.

I do accept they may well have measured identical before and after as
regards frequency response but they didn't sound it.

I'm sure you will not believe me but it was my friend who noticed they
were changing in sound before I did and he has no Hi-Fi or ever been in
a hi-fi shop or read a magazine as far as I know. He's into IP stacks
and cisco routers and such.

So far as I know, human physiology/perception is not 'taught' how to adapt
by reading about this in hifi magazines, etc. Hence the facts you recount
about your friend do not mean he lacks the naturally inherent adaptive
processes which physiologists have measured as being usual in humans.

I am not certain that you are wrong. Just that I see no reason to accept
that your belief is well-founded.

Just because it has not been measured and you've not heard speakers
change doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

However IIUC the situation (as you report it youself earlier in your
posting) is that measurements show no change in the speakers. This is not
the same as "hasn't been measured" since the measurements conflict with your
belief that a change in the speakers occurs. Whereas, measurements on human
perception *do* seem to show relevant changes which may explain what
you hear.


This group is the only place I know of where such things are not
accepted as normal.

Perhaps that is because some of us are swayed by evidence. :-)

I don't understand how people can be so cock sure that this does not
happen,

I can't say that it "does not happen". However I see no reason to accept
that it is the normal or usual explanation given the measurements, etc,
mentioned above. So far as I can see, what you report is consistent with
changes in your perception rather than in the speaker. Perhaps you are
right, but if so I suppose we could ask why you are so "cock sure" that you
are correct in your belief - despite the measured evidence implying the
contrary.

I presume it is based on their understanding of all the components that
make up a speaker. I myself am a sceptic about knowledge of this type. I
don't deny it is the best way and the only sensible way to pursue
development but to assume we know everything is not only arrogant it is
stupid beyond belief.

You seem to have jumped from a disagreement on one specific point to a
generalisation about assuming "we know everything". It is not necessary to
"know everything" to form a view on one specific point. All you have to do
is consider the evidence relevant to the point and come to a view
consistent with the evidence.

Science has a habit of changing its mind as better theories come along.

Not quite. Science does not have a 'mind'. The scientific method is a
toolkit for trying to develop improved models and understanding. The
'theories' are those ideas which have so far shown to be consistent with
the evidence.

For how many centuries did we believe the earth was the centre of the
universe, people at the time knew it was, you only had to look with your
own eyes. But they were wrong.

Since I am not included in either "we" or "they" above I'm afraid I can't
take that particular rap. :-)

However if you want to argue about ideas being "wrong" then I am afraid
that you are using a language that may lead to most ideas - including your
own - being found "wrong" in due course. At any point we can only proceed
on the basis of the evidence we have, and set about collecting more to test
further our ideas.

There are far more things in heaven and earth and some humility would
fit well with some people on this group.

Fair comment. If you wish to apply that "humility" to your own ideas you
might like to consider what experimental tests you could devise whose
results would show your idea is supported and falsify the idea that the
changes are due to changes in perception. This critical testing and use of
new evidence is the "humility" that is part of the scientific method. The
aim being that our theories are tested by evidence, not accepted on the
basis of being cherished personal beliefs.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

like Audiolab amps,

**** off.

what the f*ck was that for? I'm taking the mickey out of Pinkerton you
****

On 5 May 2005 06:00:59 -0700, wrote:


like Audiolab amps,

**** off.

what the f*ck was that for? I'm taking the mickey out of Pinkerton you
****

Well, you're trying, but not very successfully! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Well, you're trying, but not very successfully! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


I think I succeeded perfectly- thank you.

Were Audiolab ever favourably reviewed anywhere other than What HIFI?

Even Chris Frankland could hear how awful they were!

On 9 May 2005 07:31:16 -0700, "Tim" wrote:

Well, you're trying, but not very successfully! :-)

I think I succeeded perfectly- thank you.

I wouldn't doubt that for a moment.................

Were Audiolab ever favourably reviewed anywhere other than What HIFI?

Of course they were - almost everywhere, in fact.

Even Chris Frankland could hear how awful they were!

You're an arse - but we knew that.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering