Burn in time for the New Tweeters?

FTGV

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Beat ya to it.

U da man.

megasat16

I am burned out now. :biggrin::biggrin:

FTGV

megasat16 wrote: »

I am burned out now. :biggrin::biggrin:

So soon?it's only page 2!Don't be a quitter James.:biggrin:

megasat16

FTGV wrote: »

So soon,it's only page 2?Don't be a quitter James.:biggrin:

I changed Doc and Insurance. I am now on better med now. :biggrin:

megasat16

Keiko wrote: »

Well, you know that ol' saying, megs; It's better to burn out, than to fade away.

Megs? A pie? :eek::redface:

I always feel burned out whenever I tried the Hawaiian Pie. Geez...I need another one. :biggrin:

megasat16

Keiko wrote: »

What about the Doc? Is she hot?

Oh heck, u can say that twice.....

ben62670

Cool CF is back to bless us with his wisdom. I can't believe I have been duped by my own brain for so long.

ben62670

Cough cough

jcandy

Charlie Freak wrote: »

1. It can work both ways. For example I've spent a lot of time ABXing lossy codecs. Sometimes variations in frequency response (a peak at certain frequencies) of poor gear can make certain artifacts *easier* to hear than they would be on equipment that is more accurate.

2. True. It's often a matter of training to hear the differences, or knowing how to interpret what you hear rather than 'golden ears'.

I don't think anyone who knows what they're talking about would tell you that you don't really hear what you think you do in subjective listening, it's very real. Just search youtube for the McGurk Effect and you can easily see that what you see with your eyes can make you ACTUALLY hear something that doesn't exist. It's completely fabricated inside your brain, but it's very real, and even knowing that the sound is not actually there cannot prevent you from hearing it.

Placebo and expectation bias are very well documented. It shouldn't be seen as an insult against you to suggest that without carefully controlling certain factors, that you could have been been victim to a phenomena that all humans are susceptible to... Especially in a situation where blind testing, and all known methods of seperating fact from fiction seem to point to a different conclusion. After all, what special insights do you get from peeking at the brand labels?

A carefully-worded, sensible, on-point post like the one above is enough -- actually, a guarantee -- to get the usual suspects here completely riled up and swarming.

I think the essential point that gets (purposely, I'm sure) lost is that its the one making the positive claim about the objectivity of some phenomenon that bears the burden of proof, whether its the subtle benefits of cables, burn-in or boutique capacitors. Remarkably, there is a learned response that I see repeatedly; that is, to deny a priori the validity of measurements in sorting out truth from fiction in these matters. It is just a given that quantitative methods must fail. That is the smoking gun of delusion.

megasat16

Keiko wrote: »

Cool! :cool: Schedule us for a hernia check up, but I wanna go first. :biggrin:

Ok! It's not really hard to ask her.

ben62670 wrote: »

Cough cough

You want a check up to, Ben?












































I just asked. Coz she's watching TV on the love seat.....

She said there is a package deal offer now.

Hernia check comes with Free Castration / Fixing. :biggrin::biggrin: LOL J/K...I can't resist, guys!


Anyway, I got to go now....the Doc is waiting, the med is working, the time seems ripe....This part not Joking. OK?

Oh by the way, J, you win! I got to do some burning in....:eek: So, enjoy!

Just a piece of advise, proof read the posts if you copy and quote from the Internet.

Charlie Freak

ben62670 wrote: »

Cool CF is back to bless us with his wisdom. I can't believe I have been duped by my own brain for so long.

I didn't come here to bless anyone with my wisdom. :frown: Actually I'm a loyal Polk customer, and audio enthusiast since the mid 70's. I recently picked up a pair of rti a9's due to a boxing day sale at future shop that I just couldn't pass up, and discovered (on the registration page of my speakers) that Polk had a forum.

I admit my opening post on this thread was a bit strong and trollish, but there seems to be very few objective 'voices of reason' on this forum, and any that do appear here face a very strong tide of opposition from people with nothing but anecdotal evidence to back up their questionable claims.

I really wouldn't mind. Everyone is welcome to his own opinion, and to spend his hard earned money as he sees fit - but it pains me to see people new to the hobby being told about night and day differences between cables, power conditioners, digital vs. analog, amplifier differences, etc. And it pains me to see someone such as jcandy presenting his views in a calm, objective, and rational way being treated like he has no business being here.

ben62670

Awe poor Jcandy. Now you are playing the victims for the trolls song. It pains you. How cute. Let me get you a box of tissues.

Charlie Freak

ben62670 wrote: »

Awe poor Jcandy. Now you are playing the victims for the trolls song. It pains you. How cute. Let me get you a box of tissues.

:biggrin:

mdaudioguy

A lot of what's discussed here is not so much the easily measured stuff, like volume or frequency response. The critical parameter for most here seems to be the "soundstage" created by a pair of stereo speakers. This seems to be as much a perceptual phenomenon, as it is a physical one, perhaps moreso. So, how are you going to objectively measure someone's perception? All I can expect is for them to attempt to relate their perceptual experiences. Could they be real? Imagined? Does it matter?

Taste the Kool-Aid - it's full of yumminess!

inspiredsports

jcandy wrote: »

You are exactly 100% at odds with the owner of Harbeth, and 100% at odds with measurements. Do you have a permit to sell snake-oil here?

Why the obsession with Harbeth? It was already stated that no burn in is his personal marketing policy, and that's his prerogative. Dozens here with no agenda other than to help new vintage Polk owners know otherwise. It's simple. With new RDO tweeters, you give them a couple of hundred of hours before worrying about critical listening.

starless

mdaudioguy wrote: »

So, how are you going to objectively measure someone's perception?

That's done all the time by academic psychologists.
Do blinded (single-blinded should be OK) A/B tests to see if listeners can distinguish between "burned in" and "fresh" speakers. Use a sufficient number of test subjects to achieve reasonable statistical significance. "40 undergraduate students" is a standard sample size in many psychology tests. Use a moderate number of different speakers. Do tests on different days to avoid audio perception "fatigue". Use subjects who have reasonable audio perception, such as music majors and/or audio engineering students. Don't have to prove that one type of speaker is better, just distinguishable.

mdaudioguy wrote:

Could they be real? Imagined? Does it matter?

It seems of sufficient interest to enough people to often keep long flame wars going!:biggrin:
It would probably make a nice Master's thesis for someone to do the study.
If optimum burn-in time (if it exists at all) can be determined that'd be likely be useful to some professionals.

inspiredsports

starless wrote: »

Use subjects who have reasonable audio perception, such as music majors and/or audio engineering students. Don't have to prove that one type of speaker is better, just distinguishable.

I have an alternate idea:

Why don't we use a collection of folks who have a better than "reasonable" audio perception, have been listening for thousands of hours per year spanning several decades, and have actually replaced tweeters (as well as drivers, wires, cables, caps, resistors, inductors, power conditioners, reseptacles, breaker boxes and hundreds of components) in numerous models of their own gear.

inspiredsports

starless wrote: »

It would probably make a nice Master's thesis for someone to do the study.

You might be interested in work forum member DarqueKnight is doing, that in my opinion, surpasses what is involved in a Master's thesis.

starless

inspiredsports wrote: »

You might be interested in work forum member DarqueKnight is doing, that in my opinion, surpasses what is involved in a Master's thesis.

Is there a link or reference for that?
Thanks.

inspiredsports

starless wrote: »

Is there a link or reference for that?
Thanks.

I typed "publishing audio paper" into the Search box and found it for you

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103417&highlight=publishing+audio+paper

Now you have a week's worth of studying ahead of you :biggrin:

starless

inspiredsports wrote: »

I typed "publishing audio paper" into the Search box and found it for you

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103417&highlight=publishing+audio+paper

Thanks. From this I managed to find a link to the actual article which is available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2010.00306.x/abstract
(This might be behind a paywall, but I was able to access it from my work network.)

tonyb

inspiredsports wrote: »

I have an alternate idea:

Why don't we use a collection of folks who have a better than "reasonable" audio perception, have been listening for thousands of hours per year spanning several decades, and have actually replaced tweeters (as well as drivers, wires, cables, caps, resistors, inductors, power conditioners, reseptacles, breaker boxes and hundreds of components) in numerous models of their own gear.

Stop it now...useing common sense is forbid in academia.:biggrin:

m1aman

So do tweeters break in or what?

starless

inspiredsports wrote: »

I have an alternate idea:
Why don't we use a collection of folks who have a better than "reasonable" audio perception,

May well be better, but a lot harder for the average university-based researcher to get hold of than the generic "40 undergraduates". (I'm actually a space physicist, not a psychologist, but have glanced at the occasional psychology paper.) A study of either group of people would be interesting to me.

thesurfer

WoW,, Look at it this way, Either you believe in speaker burn in,, or you dont,, i do,,, But, if you dont like the sound after awhile, get different speakers,,, Aside from that,, i wonder what DR,Bose has to say on the subject????

jcandy

m1aman wrote: »

So do tweeters break in or what?

Actually, no. If somebody says they do, ask what exactly part of the tweeter is changing. Aside from minor and largely inaudible compliance changes in the woofer suspension, no breaking in occurs in loudspeakers.

What's known about people, however, is that their perception is quite variable and subject to all sort of bias and suggestion. This is a rather huge variable, in contrast to the electromechanical parameters of the tweeter, which are constant in time.

heiney9

jcandy wrote: »

the electromechanical parameters of the tweeter, which are constant in time.

You sure about that? Pretty lofty and closed ended statement.

H9

thesurfer

jcandy wrote: »

Actually, no. If somebody says they do, ask what exactly part of the tweeter is changing. Aside from minor and largely inaudible compliance changes in the woofer suspension, no breaking in occurs in loudspeakers.

What's known about people, however, is that their perception is quite variable and subject to all sort of bias and suggestion. This is a rather huge variable, in contrast to the electromechanical parameters of the tweeter, which are constant in time.

Hey, you seem like a very clever fellow,, you should have your own Audio talk show,,

PrazVT

I think studies need to be done on all these topics.

- speaker burn in
- ICs
- PCs
- spkr wires

Should there be a difference in what is output from speakers due to changing these items / changes in these items (ex. burn in) - in theory.

If yes, then what is the root cause? The item? a connected component that can impact what is finally output from the speakers?

If no, then why are people hearing differences?
Are the differences psychological?
Are they physiological?

I'm generalizing, but you get where I'm going. Otherwise these "religion vs science" debates are going to continue forever.

I, in general, just want to know "WHY"

Ok. I'll shut up now. Carry on.

jcandy

starless wrote: »

Thanks. From this I managed to find a link to the actual article which is available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2010.00306.x/abstract
(This might be behind a paywall, but I was able to access it from my work network.)

You're lucky. Its not in the realm of journals I have access to. I would be willing to read it if someone will send me a copy.

The abstract makes it pretty clear, however, that the work describes a methodology rather than validation of a specific hypothesis (like, does the tweeter response actually change in time).