Burn in time for the New Tweeters?

Charlie Freak

inspiredsports wrote: »

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.

I think any reasonable person would agree that listening is very important, or even the most imporant thing in this hobby. The proof is in the pudding.

But surely a person can't be expected to be taken seriously when his 'testing' methodology consists of - changing something in his audio setup, popping in his favourite Pink Floyd CD, and then coming to a forum and waxing poetic about the improved "air, rhythm and pacing"? Especially when his results seem to go against all known laws of physics, electronics, common sense, and previous blind tests by other experienced listeners? It's laughable.

heiney9

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I think any reasonable person would agree that listening is very important, or even the most imporant thing in this hobby. The proof is in the pudding.

But surely a person can't be expected to be taken seriously when his 'testing' methodology consists of - changing something in his audio setup, popping in his favourite Pink Floyd CD, and then coming to a forum and waxing poetic about the improved "air, rhythm and pacing"? Especially when his results seem to go against all known laws of physics, electronics, common sense, and previous blind tests by other experienced listeners? It's laughable.

Then instead of reading about it, do it, and draw your own conclusions instead of tearing apart others experiences based on science.

H9

thesurfer

Science, is just a bunch of guys trying to put logic, into what they dont understand,,,and calling it good,,,

BlueFox

thesurfer wrote: »

Science, is just a bunch of guys trying to put logic, into what they dont understand,,,and calling it good,,,

Yes. That is all it is. And the United States keeps sliding back into the Dark Ages. :rolleyes:

thesurfer

BlueFox wrote: »

Yes. That is all it is. And the United States keeps sliding back into the Dark Ages. :rolleyes:

With all the hate, rape, and mindless murder,, may as well be the dark ages,,:cool:

Toolfan66

thesurfer wrote: »

With all the hate, rape, and mindless murder,, may as well be the dark ages,,:cool:

That has been going on since the beggining of man and will continue far into the future. Very sad but it's truth.

Charlie Freak

heiney9 wrote: »

Then instead of reading about it, do it, and draw your own conclusions instead of tearing apart others experiences based on science.

H9

I do, but there's things I don't need to actually try to know that they can't possibly work.

I've read a lot of your posts, and I know that you know this already. For example your '200 watt' thread. Wasn't the purpose of that thread to debunk a common assertion in this forum that, no matter the variables, a 200+ watt amplifier is needed?

In your opening post, you linked to an article that explains at some length the science of it.

Does that mean you were "tearing apart other's experiences based on science?"

Toolfan66

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I think any reasonable person would agree that listening is very important, or even the most imporant thing in this hobby. The proof is in the pudding.

But surely a person can't be expected to be taken seriously when his 'testing' methodology consists of - changing something in his audio setup, popping in his favourite Pink Floyd CD, and then coming to a forum and waxing poetic about the improved "air, rhythm and pacing"? Especially when his results seem to go against all known laws of physics, electronics, common sense, and previous blind tests by other experienced listeners? It's laughable.

It's nice to see we have someone as educated as you to join the fourm to let us know that when we share the positves and negitives of our experiences that it's laughable.

Your a god among gods and we shall be the rats that follow you through the streets..

Do you really think we don't hear a positive or negitive???

megasat16

What the Hell do they teach you in schools nowadays?

inspiredsports

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I think any reasonable person would agree that listening is very important, or even the most imporant thing in this hobby. The proof is in the pudding.

But surely a person can't be expected to be taken seriously when his 'testing' methodology consists of - changing something in his audio setup, popping in his favourite Pink Floyd CD, and then coming to a forum and waxing poetic about the improved "air, rhythm and pacing"? Especially when his results seem to go against all known laws of physics, electronics, common sense, and previous blind tests by other experienced listeners? It's laughable.

You've lost me. Is this a hypothetical or real person you are referring to?

Charlie Freak

inspiredsports wrote: »

You've lost me. Is this a hypothetical or real person you are referring to?

It was just an example of the kind of 'proof' that high-end audio publications, and a certain group of posters here tend to offer when they make absurd claims about things like long speaker burn-in times, special cables (often costing thousands of dollars) and the like.

tonyb

Charlie Freak wrote: »

It was just an example of the kind of 'proof' that high-end audio publications, and a certain group of posters here tend to offer when they make absurd claims about things like long speaker burn-in times, special cables (often costing thousands of dollars) and the like.

And your experience with all this vodoo is what exactly ?

Charlie Freak

tonyb wrote: »

And your experience with all this vodoo is what exactly ?

I don't have a lot of experience with 'voodoo' stuff. I try to concentrate on things that have real potential to improve the sound quality.

inspiredsports

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I don't have a lot of experience with 'voodoo' stuff. I try to concentrate on things that have real potential to improve the sound quality.

I'm curious as to what components you are currently using in your 2-channel rig, if you are willing to share.

Charlie Freak

inspiredsports wrote: »

I'm curious as to what components you are currently using in your 2-channel rig, if you are willing to share.

I'd rather not get into a pissing contest about the specific components I use, because I fear that everything will get sidetracked into this:

1. "I see your gear is not bad, but I'm afraid it's not good enough to resolve the finest details that we're discussing here", and so forth.

But I do use solid state seperates from a reputable company with enough power to ensure that I've got the headroom for the SPL's that I normally listen at. I already said earlier in the thread that I recently purchased a pair of rti a9's (that I use for 2 channel listening also), which is how I ended up at this forum in the first place. I use ordinary cheap speaker cables (of sufficent gauge) and interconnects. My listening room is highly treated for reflections, etc.

I should also say that I'm not the type of person who believes measurements tell everything. I do believe that the things we can hear *can* be measured, but the measurements cannot tell me what my preferences are. Speakers, especially, have very real differences that can be easily measured and heard. But which speaker a person prefers is totally subjective, since they all have trade-offs and sound different in different environments.

Also, I do have extensive experience listening to live acoustic instruments (several hours a day for decades). I'm a professional musician and have a B.M. in Jazz Guitar Performance and M.M. in Composition.

I like to think that I'm a critical listener with a well-trained ear, but I am also well aware of the cognitive biases and placebo effects that all humans are vulnerable to - so when deciding to make a purchase, I do make some effort to rule out that my brain is not tricking me.

That's the only assertion I've tried to make here - that anyone making claims that seem to defy all measurements, and all controlled listening tests, should attempt to back up those claims with some description of how they arrived at their conclusions.

On the other hand, if a person is simply describing their preferences: "Charlie, I've listened to those speakers you have, and to my ears they sound like s@#t.". That's fine. That's a preference and no right-minded person could argue with it.

inspiredsports

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I'm with you jcandy - but on club polk, presenting any silly nonsense such as facts, objective evidence, or measurements is strongly frowned on by the entrenched tweako audio cultist regulars.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

It was just an example of the kind of 'proof' that high-end audio publications, and a certain group of posters here tend to offer when they make absurd claims about things like long speaker burn-in times, special cables (often costing thousands of dollars) and the like.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I don't have a lot of experience with 'voodoo' stuff. I try to concentrate on things that have real potential to improve the sound quality.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I'd rather not get into a pissing contest about the specific components I use, because I fear that everything will get sidetracked into this:

1. "I see your gear is not bad, but I'm afraid it's not good enough to resolve the finest details that we're discussing here", and so forth.

But I do use solid state seperates from a reputable company with enough power to ensure that I've got the headroom for the SPL's that I normally listen at. I already said earlier in the thread that I recently purchased a pair of rti a9's (that I use for 2 channel listening also), which is how I ended up at this forum in the first place. I use ordinary cheap speaker cables (of sufficent gauge) and interconnects. My listening room is highly treated for reflections, etc.

I should also say that I'm not the type of person who believes measurements tell everything. I do believe that the things we can hear *can* be measured, but the measurements cannot tell me what my preferences are. Speakers, especially, have very real differences that can be easily measured and heard. But which speaker a person prefers is totally subjective, since they all have trade-offs and sound different in different environments.

Also, I do have extensive experience listening to live acoustic instruments (several hours a day for decades). I'm a professional musician and have a B.M. in Jazz Guitar Performance and M.M. in Composition.

I like to think that I'm a critical listener with a well-trained ear, but I am also well aware of the cognitive biases and placebo effects that all humans are vulnerable to - so when deciding to make a purchase, I do make some effort to rule out that my brain is not tricking me.

That's the only assertion I've tried to make here - that anyone making claims that seem to defy all measurements, and all controlled listening tests, should attempt to back up those claims with some description of how they arrived at their conclusions.

On the other hand, if a person is simply describing their preferences: "Charlie, I've listened to those speakers you have, and to my ears they sound like s@#t.". That's fine. That's a preference and no right-minded person could argue with it.

Well, thanks at least for that explanation.

I'm just trying to learn how when a poster asks a very specific question like, "I have 8 new RDO's; What's the burn in time" and then several experienced members here reply with a comment like, "My RDO-198's started to sound better at about 100 hours and improved up to 300 hours", that you start posting.

Then your first post concurs with someone who has never worked with replacing SL tweeters with RDO's

Next, you go on to post this is voodoo stuff, and further, why you can's specifically share your basis of comparison.

I find it extremely disingenuous that our very specific advice based upon very specific experience to help the original poster is met with criticism based on what you think will happen if you post anything more specific than your disagreement.

You state you don't want to get into a pissing contest (that you have already instigated), yet you haven't really demonstrated you can piss standing up.

Tony M

Well said Inspiredsports, and others who have heard changes.

Somebody could solve this in this way.

One who bought replacement RDO's a year ago, could replace them with new ones.
I would do it but I can't really afford to this month. I think a set of Polks with one tweeter per speaker would be best for this switch out also.

I said before, I thought I disliked (only because they sounded muted by just a little bit) my 4 new RDO -194 replacements to begin with.Then after a few weeks or months, what ever timeline it was, I liked their sound. And I either like a sound or don't, period. No getting used to this and that. I've heard over 100 different types of speakers in this same environment over 12 years and almost in the same set-up location to. If I didn't like the new RDO-194's now, I'd be looking for replacements. And I have quite a few pairs of speakers to gut out and use their nice tweeters or just buy 4 off of some other recomendation from somebody who had heard a perticular brand somewhere along the way.

I don't think I was influenced by this forum to the fact that they will sound better by just giving them time. BUT, I did give them time to see if my ears would ever like them. I'm not a follower unless I'm following more knowlegable men. I asked for a capacitor recomendation here a week ago. I received some answers and then researched the answers. They were right.I followed and had a recomended pair delivered today. I don't know how they will sound compaired to others but I have a good feeling they directed me to ones in my budget.

There's enough experience from the veterans here on Club Polk concerning Polk speakers, that I will follow their leads anytime when my Polk speakers are concerned.

Have you heard a RDO replacement break-in? I have:biggrin:

newrival

I don't think anyone is arguing that people hear a change. The argument seems to be where the change is actually happening. It's a really interesting debate.

Charlie Freak

inspiredsports wrote: »

Well, thanks at least for that explanation.

I'm just trying to learn how when a poster asks a very specific question like, "I have 8 new RDO's; What's the burn in time" and then several experienced members here reply with a comment like, "My RDO-198's started to sound better at about 100 hours and improved up to 300 hours", that you start posting.

Then your first post concurs with someone who has never worked with replacing SL tweeters with RDO's

Next, you go on to post this is voodoo stuff, and further, why you can's specifically share your basis of comparison.

I find it extremely disingenuous that our very specific advice based upon very specific experience to help the original poster is met with criticism based on what you think will happen if you post anything more specific than your disagreement.

You state you don't want to get into a pissing contest (that you have already instigated), yet you haven't really demonstrated you can piss standing up.

Well you're right. And I did admit earlier that my first post was over-the-top and probably seemed to come out of left field. So I'm sorry for being a douchebag there.

But in my defense, I have seen objective posters here ripped apart over and over again in various threads. So while my first couple of posts in this thread may not seem very relevant to the exact topic, they were motivated by a feeling of general disdain for certain 'regulars' who engage in that sort of thing constantly.

Also, I felt qualified to comment on the 'voodoo' aspect of this because in my own experience, I've never found any benefit to long speaker burn-in (hundreds of hours) with guitar amplifiers or new audio speakers of my own. I can't argue any of this from a scientific view, because I'm not an engineer... and since most of the 'regulars' here seem to place very little value on the science anyway, and much more importance on actual listening, I didn't think it would matter.

But I never even got around to talking about that because of the hysteria that ensued (caused by me in the first place? lol).

thesurfer

Getting back to the point,, i told jcandy, what to do to solve this,, how to test this therory,,,, i know for a fact, that burn in time exits,,, my op, now, as far as other members, who have been on here for awhile,,, and downgrade others, for there non purist beliefs, yes, i agree, got insulted by one, or 2 allready, butting in, on a post, just to give there 2, cents, thats pretty much what has happend here,,, Simple question, about burn in time,,, Now its about does burn in time even exit,,,, that was not the original post,,,, jcandy,, freak,,, Start a different post,,, on the subject, DOES BURN in Exit,,,,

fishbones

Mods, close this thread already! ...It's like watching a car accident!


I'll sum up:

Those who know...know
Those who don't...doubt

It's that simple!

BlueFox

thesurfer wrote: »

Getting back to the point,, i told jcandy, what to do to solve this,, how to test this therory,,,, i know for a fact, that burn in time exits,,, my op, now, as far as other members, who have been on here for awhile,,, and downgrade others, for there non purist beliefs, yes, i agree, got insulted by one, or 2 allready, butting in, on a post, just to give there 2, cents, thats pretty much what has happend here,,, Simple question, about burn in time,,, Now its about does burn in time even exit,,,, that was not the original post,,,, jcandy,, freak,,, Start a different post,,, on the subject, DOES BURN in Exit,,,,

????? English, Swahili, Martian ????

thesurfer

BlueFox wrote: »

????? English, Swahili, Martian ????

Whats your point?????

megasat16

thesurfer wrote: »

Whats your point?????

I think he wants the translation for what you meant above???

thesurfer

What do you think,,,, Dolt,,,

megasat16

I think it's Russian???

thesurfer

You are correct,,,,

jcandy

newrival wrote: »

I don't think anyone is arguing that people hear a change. The argument seems to be where the change is actually happening. It's a really interesting debate.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-primate/201002/does-price-tag-have-taste

Since reported tastiness is a poor measure of true taste experience in the era of fMRI scanning machines, the researchers were careful enough to take a peek into their participant's brains as these tasted the wines, and found something fairly surprising: When tasting the wine out of the $10 bottle, the medial orbitofrontal cortex - an area of the brain that is strongly related to experiences of pleasure - showed only very little activity. When the exact same wine was poured out of a $90 bottle however, this brain area showed levels of activation which indicate that the participants were indeed drawing much more enjoyment from the same wine this time around. In other words, the price tag seemed to have a real physiological influence on the taster's taste experience.

To understand what really seems to be happening here, one needs to have a little more understanding of how the brain operates. For example, although the medial orbitofrontal cortex is correlated with deriving pleasure from tastes, odor and even music, it is not the brains primary taste area (which would be the insula cortex, the ventroposterior medial nucleus of the thalamus, or the prabrachial nuclei of the pons). Interestingly enough, the primary taste areas show no significant differences in activation for the different experimental conditions.
This offers the interpretation that the participant's taste experience is a combination of the actual sensory input as well as the participant's taste expectations. In the experiment the price tag seemed to awaken expectations that were sufficient to influence the resulting overall taste experience to cause what is essentially a Placebo effect. Participant's expected the wine to taste better, and subsequently it actually did taste better.

F1nut

The toilet needs flushing.

jcandy

F1nut wrote: »

The toilet needs flushing.

http://www.erinblaskie.com/are-you-rude-on-the-internet/

Another interesting point that Dr. Forni made on the show was that being rude is actually scientifically proven to make you sicker.

When you emit rude behavior, you actually release harmful and specific hormones (catecholamines) into your body. It may make you feel powerful or empowered in the moment but in the long run, it?s doing you more harm than good.

Catecholamines cause general physiological changes that prepare the body for physical activity (fight-or-flight response). Some typical effects are increases in heart rate, blood pressure, blood glucose levels, and a general reaction of the sympathetic nervous system.

So, why are people so rude? Aside from anonymity meeting stress, people also feel insecure. When insecurities come up, we push our own insecurities aside by calling out other people?s mistakes or flaws or by talking down to people. Remember that if you are exhibiting certain behaviors toward others, it?s usually something you need to deal with yourself that exists inside of you.