Burn in time for the New Tweeters?

thesurfer

jcandy wrote: »

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).

Hey candy man, ive got a good idea,, and you sound like you got the dough to do this,,, go out, and get 2 sets of polk, rtia3,s Play one set for 100, hours, then hook up the other, new set, a, and b, them, then, we will know, the true answer,,, just an idea,

jcandy

heiney9 wrote: »

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

In fact, I think its the default assumption. Look at your LCD monitor; does it improve with break-in? On the contrary, it functions in a stable, regular fashion until there is a component failure. If you started asserting that the "image detail" opens up and purples are more luscious, people would dismiss your assertions out-of-hand unless you backed them up.

A related quandry would be, why would we expect the subjective quality of the tweeter's sound to improve rather than diminish over time? In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say a degradation is more likely. Like an old CRT television, I would guess it would be all downhill over the course of the components lifetime.

Of course, in the case of a tweeter, the most likely thing is that subjective reports over 200-hour intervals are simply not reliable.

jcandy

thesurfer wrote: »

Hey candy man, ive got a good idea,, and you sound like you got the dough to do this,,, go out, and get 2 sets of polk, rtia3,s Play one set for 100, hours, then hook up the other, new set, a, and b, them, then, we will know, the true answer,,, just an idea,

Actually, something very much like this is on my to-do list. I am working on some audio projects with much bigger "payoff" now so it will have to wait. What I do will be based on objective measurements, so many here will reject the results out-of-hand when the null hypothesis is recovered.

In more detail, I plan to do an en masse study of the measurable difference in all the "classic" audiophile bits: wire, capacitors, tweeters, power cords, polishing speaker cabs with yak butter, etc.

heiney9

jcandy wrote: »

In fact, I think its the default assumption.

So now it's an "assumption", the way you worded it before, it was a certainty.

Which is it? Or does it depend on your audience or the validity of your particular point.

H9

thesurfer

heiney9 wrote: »

So now it's an "assumption", before the way you worded it, it was a certainty.

Which is it? Or does it depend on your audience or the validity of your particular point.

H9

I was thinking the same thing,, Whats your natural candy man????

heiney9

jcandy wrote: »

In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say a degradation is more likely.

But you stated it was constant in time, again which is it? Now it degrades over time? If it's not subject to changing during break-in or atleast your assumption is the change is so slight as to be no existent. If it can't change over time, it can't degrade. If you agree/assume it can degrade over time (because changes occur) ergo you have to assume break-in can occur.

H9

shack

I hope there isn't a max limit to my IL.

jcandy

heiney9 wrote: »

So now it's an "assumption", the way you worded it before, it was a certainty.

That my daughter is not Supergirl is the default assumption; it is also a certainty.

heiney9 wrote: »

Which is it? Or does it depend on your audience or the validity of your particular point.

It depends on the claim. That adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in globally-averaged temperatures is the default assumption, because it should according to some basic principles of college-level physics and chemistry. Certainly of this claim, however, requires more detailed analysis of the effect of clouds, solar forcing, and so on.

jcandy

thesurfer wrote: »

I was thinking the same thing,, Whats your natural candy man????

Are you being held hostage and typing with a pencil in your mouth?

thesurfer

jcandy wrote: »

Are you being held hostage and typing with a pencil in your mouth?

Yeah,,, howed you know that????

Charlie Freak

mdaudioguy wrote: »

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!

Yes, everyone's perception is different - even my own, from one moment to the next, or one listening session to the next. I might find my attention drawn to the interesting bass line and completely overlook the fact that the high-hat sounds rather obviously smeared.

Even though you say you can't measure someone's perceptions, surely you would admit that if I claimed I could hear obvious sonic differences while using a couple of these, and I was using poetic, folksy language to describe the sounds I hear, you might have some doubts?

But like numerous posters in the various threads about power cords, I can simply claim that if you haven't tried them, you have no right to question how I came to my conclusions? And if we decide to test my claims by controlling the listening conditions, I will simply retreat into some nonsense about how the testing procedure itself is too stressful and inhibits my ability to hear the same differences that were so crystal clear before, or the equipment is not sensitive enough to reveal the obvious differences, or the test subjects hearing is obviously inferior to mine.

ben62670

Does anyone else find it funny that members with "candy" in their names are prone to be trolls.

newrival

I still don't get why he's a "troll."
It seems that term gets thrown around a lot in here. If I had to surmise a definition based on its application in the forum, I'd say a troll is anyone who's opinion deviates from that of a handful of very specific people.
This is a very small pond and there are a few who fancy themselves very large fish.
I've enjoyed the conversation and the different opinions from all sides, but fallacious comments and intellectual dishonesty of some people are really making me question the defensiveness of the "pro-break-in/burn-in" crowd.

newrival

mdaudioguy wrote: »

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!

a very interesting set of points.

The philosophical questions at the end may have been rhetorical, but I think that's a very good point. In the end, does it matter if it can be measured? There are thories out there that question whether we all hear the same at all.

ben62670

Where does he post? He tells us that we are hearing some sort of effect, and not the true sound. He posts a few articles and it is now fact that we can not hear a change? Do I say people are trolls that can't hear a difference? No I don't. People who show up and tell us what we hear and don't are trolls. If you can't step back and see that I don't know what to tell you.

jcandy

ben62670 wrote: »

Does anyone else find it funny that members with "candy" in their names are prone to be trolls.

We are hearing over and over (from people like newrival) that your accusations of trolling are really just a cover-up for intolerance. I feel that if you were really interested in getting the correct answers to technical issues like tweeter burn-in, you'd be less aggressive and more constructive.

Related to this, that you attack me personally rather than the issues is a solid indicator that you are not able to participate on an intellectual level, and therefore must operate on a juvenile one.

I am a physicist and its my job to sort out truth from fiction with respect to complicated problems. With practice the ability to do this dispassionately can be cultivated.

heiney9

newrival wrote: »

I still don't get why he's a "troll."
It seems that term gets thrown around a lot in here. If I had to surmise a definition based on its application in the forum, I'd say a troll is anyone who's opinion deviates from that of a handful of very specific people.
This is a very small pond and there are a few who fancy themselves very large fish.
I've enjoyed the conversation and the different opinions from all sides, but fallacious comments and intellectual dishonesty of some people are really making me question the defensiveness of the "pro-break-in/burn-in" crowd.

You asked that question once, I guess you didn't like or agree with my answer.

Here it is again, if you don't know the difference then you need to get a little more experience on the board.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1531053&postcount=86

H9

heiney9

jcandy wrote: »

We are hearing over and over (from people like newrival) that your accusations of trolling are really just a cover-up for intolerance. I feel that if you were really interested in getting the correct answers to technical issues like tweeter burn-in, you'd be less aggressive and more constructive.

Related to this, that you attack me personally rather than the issues is a solid indicator that you are not able to participate on an intellectual level, and therefore must operate on a juvenile one.

I am a physicist and its my job to sort out truth from fiction with respect to complicated problems. With practice the ability to do this dispassionately can be cultivated.

Does anyone else find it funny that members with "candy" in their names are prone to be trolls.

That wasn't an attack, it was an observation. You should learn the difference. I see you haven't addressed the logic I posted earlier about the tweeter being constant in time and then stating it degrades over time. It can't be both. If you agree tweeters degrade over time then you agree they aren't constant and therefore it is possible break in occurs.

H9

newrival

I see what you're saying, but it's his point of view.
[the following is paraphrasin, with liberties taken, of course]
He contends your brain is creating the effect that you're hearing.
You're saying he just can't hear the obvious mechanical effect.
Both sides have posted links, and both sides have said their opinions are the truth.
Now, where's the harm? Whom is righteous? I'm sorry but I don't see any difference in the intentions of the debaters here of either side.
This is me stepping back, as you advised.

heiney9

These types of posters aren't true participants. They have a mantra and an agenda and the only time they "participate" is to furthur their mantra or to stir things up and finally to play the victim. It's a textbook case.

H9

thesurfer

All kidding aside, newrival, makes a good point, just the other day, i made a comment about something, and was told i was lost, by another member, for my beliefs, this guy was not even in on the post at this time, when i let him know it bothered me, i was suddenly, a baby, and told to get some thick skin,, It does seem, like there are certain members who seem to assume they know more than others,, than mask it by saying there just kidding,,, Big fish, little fish,,, Sure seems that way,

jcandy

newrival wrote: »

The philosophical questions at the end may have been rhetorical, but I think that's a very good point. In the end, does it matter if it can be measured? There are thories out there that question whether we all hear the same at all.

I don't have an objection to people saying things like "after 200 hours, the tweeters seem to become more alive to me", because indeed this may indeed be a completely true account of a subjective experience. I do have a problem with people claiming that "after 200 hours, the tweeters become more alive", because that is a claim not about your perception but about the properties of the tweeter.

You might also discover that "after 4 bong hits the tweeters become more alive to me", but that says nothing about the tweeters.

heiney9

thesurfer wrote: »

All kidding aside, newrival, makes a good point, just the other day, i made a comment about something, and was told i was lost, by another member, for my beliefs, this guy was not even in on the post at this time, when i let him know it bothered me, i was suddenly, a baby, and told to get some thick skin,, It does seem, like there are certain members who seem to assume they know more than others,, than mask it by saying there just kidding,,, Big fish, little fish,,, Sure seems that way,

Ha, welcome to life.

H9

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

You asked that question once, I guess you didn't like or agree with my answer.

Here it is again, if you don't know the difference then you need to get a little more experience on the board.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1531053&postcount=86

H9

Yep, I did ask that question. And, I'm sorry, I didn't find your response all that useful only because your argument was that their intentions seemed suspect. That's a pretty weak argument to me, as it is solely predicated on your skepticism. Additionally, I don't think you meant the word veracity. Perhaps tenacity?

jcandy

heiney9 wrote: »

I see you haven't addressed the logic I posted earlier about the tweeter being constant in time and then stating it degrades over time. It can't be both.

When did I claim that a tweeter degrades over time? I've stated ad nauseum that it doesn't.

thesurfer

heiney9 wrote: »

Ha, welcome to life.

H9

Ya, should have joined back in 2001, would at least gotten some respect by now,:cool:

ben62670

Observations:
I see web feet, feathers, a bill, and it quacks a lot. Yep it's a duck.

megasat16

You guyz still not burning out yet?

Now excuse me, it's time for me to hit another dose again.

inspiredsports

jcandy wrote: »

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).

My point was that in ADDITION to understanding the measurement tools we currently have at hand, some here at CP are intently trying to determine why some things that measure good sound bad, and why some things that measure bad (or defy even defy measurement) sound good.

Many have rooms full of VOM's, scopes, test tones, node software, etc., etc., but have come to the reasonable conclusion that the more we know, the more we know what we don't know. I'm thinking maybe you aren't there . . . yet.

Once we have the methodology, I believe the invention of the tools will follow, and Raife was one of the first on that scene. I'm proud he's a Polkie.

ben62670

inspiredsports wrote: »

...the more we know, the more we know what we don't know...

Amen Brother. I have learned that very lession with age.