B&W Owner's Thread - Page 412

Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice 

When woofer Fs can drop by 10% it's hardly insignificant, especially if the enclosure is vented and designed to work with a specific set of T/S specs, which are measured by driver manufacturers post-break in. IME most of those who argue against the efficacy of woofer break in don't know what Fs is, nor have they ever tested raw versus broken in drivers or speakers.

Originally Posted by Avliner 

Howdy Bill,
what's your opinion about Audioholics way of seeing speakers break-in, which, btw, is a mere 03 seconds?? Just couldn't find the link though, but that's what they said way back when...

Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice 

There's no question that woofer response can change with break in, as Fs can come down by as much a 10%. Midranges and tweeters can have a lowering of Fs as well, but not as much, and it's less audible. However, the period of break-in for typical drivers is no more than 40 hours of use, if not less.
If you see any manufacturer claiming break-in periods of more than 40 hours are required that's snake oil; the only thing that changes after 40 hours is that you get used to the sound, even if it's bad. As for electronics and cables, there is no break in, and any manufacturer that claims otherwise is either a fool or takes you to be one. If you buy into their piffle, you are.

Originally Posted by Avliner 

Howdy Bill,
what's your opinion about Audioholics way of seeing speakers break-in, which, btw, is a mere 03 seconds??

Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice 

I never go there. No woofer will break in after 0.3 seconds; maybe 30,000 seconds. However, after a woofer cools down from use the spider and surround will stiffen up a bit. Not nearly to the extent as when new, but noticeably so. I can test a speaker, come back the next day, test it again and get a very different result. But it only takes a few seconds of use to get the suspension and spider loosened up and working normally again.

Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy 

Human Error tolerance in measurement as well.
If you measure the same speaker 15 minutes apart, you may get 2 slightly different measurements. That does not mean a speaker has broken-in after 15 minutes.
And even if you can physically measure the very slight change in speaker drivers, even ignoring the tolerance of human error, the audible difference is insignificant.

Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy 

I should have been more specific and said midrange & tweeter. I always listen in 2.1, so I usually don't pay much attention to the speaker's woofer.

Originally Posted by [DANGERDAN] 

It all depends on the equipment my friend, some amplifiers have capacitors that change with time and can take days or even weeks before they are relaxed and produce their full potential. Not all do but some have this effect and the same goes for other audio equipment's that have this outcome.
Speakers also can change in sound, i had the chance to challenge myself and a friend into doing blind test's with two B&W 683 which both had different break in times. One was straight out of the box and the other was a floor model which had been used for quite a few months, we set the two on a switch and proceeded with some random comparisons with both of us testing each other so we were not vulnerable to cheating or incorrect testing.
We were quite enjoyable able to tell the difference and understand why, this is not the case for all speakers and it is so very dependent on the materials used from different variants of speaker technology and i think the b&w have the most complex of materials which is probably why it should be more noticeable.
Experience is very important in discovering what is true and what is not, if you have unbiased judgement and tend to not be affected by placebo then you probably have the best chance to test things accurately, people like to judge things based on technical research evidence and however much that is quite reliable there are things that cannot be tested or proven at least not with equipment. Physical changes in audio equipment can affect the sound output but show no changes in the signal when tested and these are one of the things that people don't sometimes grasp but engineers do understand why.

Originally Posted by tedcousens 

You may not have heard of these for quite some time but I am still using my original DM-7 Mk II's. They are 33 years old and still sound pretty good. Since they have no monetary value, I was considering relegating them to surround/wides and upgrading to 7.1 from 5.1. Does anyone have an opinion on the 684 or 683 line? I would using them as my mains. Yes, price is an issue. I have an Adcom GFA-555 MkII to drive them (200w RMS per channel AB)..

Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy 

So let me get this straight. The DBTs that showed how audiophiles could not statistically tell the difference between amps is not SCIENTIFIC proof. But your word of mouth is SCIENTIFIC proof?
Subjective opinion with pure BIAS is more proof than double-blinded test that removes BIAS?
Do you know what is a double-blinded test? And you know what bias is? And know what level matching is? No, it's not by ear.

Originally Posted by Brian Fineberg 

hi guys,

how would 686's fair paired up with a denon 1612? I am looking to use these as mains with a svs pb12? 90%HT 10% music room 13x17x8

Originally Posted by tedcousens 

You may not have heard of these for quite some time but I am still using my original DM-7 Mk II's. They are 33 years old and still sound pretty good. Since they have no monetary value, I was considering relegating them to surround/wides and upgrading to 7.1 from 5.1. Does anyone have an opinion on the 684 or 683 line? I would using them as my mains. Yes, price is an issue. I have an Adcom GFA-555 MkII to drive them (200w RMS per channel AB)..

Originally Posted by ap1 

Pass. 685 are a lot better for not much more money.

Originally Posted by beaveav 

The differences you heard might be due to break-in, but you don't know that for sure.
1. Even if you had them side-by-side, their different relative position in the room would be enough to affect their bass output, making "identical" speakers sound slightly different.
2. On top of that, the drivers and the components in the crossovers have tolerances (small variations from one unit to the next). It is possible the small differences in sound were from parts tolerance issues, not from breakin.
Edit to add this: As for the capacitors, you're likely referring to the big electrolytic caps in the amps power supply. They do have some "break in," but I seriously doubt it's audible. Those caps aren't even in the signal path.

Originally Posted by ThumbtackJack 

Hi Ap1. I have not heard the 683 but did hear the 684 at a local dealer Hi-Fi Sales in Cherry Hill, NJ. I was pretty impressed by the 684, I thought they sounded very smooth; good bass for their size. Very easy on the ears.

Originally Posted by jima4a 

I think some CM owners need to weigh in but from what I know go for the CMC2, a better center choice.

Originally Posted by raycie 

In the end, and the upper range if my budget, i am thinking of building the CM8 theater package. I believe that comes with the CM8 / CM1 / and CMC. I was just thinking where i should start.
As i will be watching movies as well as music, i think i will add in the cmc first, then save up for the final CM8 purchase... Thanks.

Originally Posted by bthrb4u 

Thumbtackjack Don't know about your rotel gear but the rc70 and cm series to me, are two different type of speakers. The cm9's are a much warmer sound with smoother mids and better at blending in all frequencies together as the rc's were pretty bright with a very non musical, bland midrange that did not reproduce vocals naturally to me. The tweeter did not come off as being smooth to me like the cm series, but rather had a consistent rough thin metal texture to it that i could not stand.The mid bass was very punchy which i liked but mixed with the way the speaker went about all the other frequencies, i felt like the speaker was more of a mess than anything.
The cm series does not hit hard in the mid bass region compared to the rc's but did seem to dig lower and have more detail with instruments.
You might not feel that way about your speakers but maybe you're use to them. When i heard both of these speakers in the same setup in a dedicated listening room, i had never heard either of them. I'm saying this because i believe that when listening to a speaker or headphone over an amount of time, you hear it differently. I base this on a difference i heard in a pair of headphones that i modded. The headphone had an 1/8th in layer of thick fabric over it which i removed and then made the cloth covered bass ports more stiff by adding a little bit of super glue to them. After this was done, the bass hit harder,the mids were more forward and i heard more detail. The treble had also changed and for the worse. It had become to hot to my ears. I thought i had made a mistake that i could not fix so i used them anyways. After a while i got use to the sound. While the treble doesn't sound as hot as it was originally after the mod, after an hour or so my ears get very fatigued. Before the treble did not ever bother me.
I'm rambling lol. Just like sharing my thoughts.
You might enjoy the musicality of the cm9's. They're an all around seducing speaker with hair raising mids (alternative ending sentence: with mids that will make you drool in extacy)

Originally Posted by jeahrens 

I'll weigh in briefly as I have gone into more detail in other posts.
CMC2 vs. CMC - No contest. CMC2 is able to blend almost seamlessly to the CM9 and CM8. The CMC has less clarity, midrange and low end response. I enjoyed a very capable center with my old setup. The CMC2 was a factor in going with the CM line. A lot of the competitors centers didn't integrate nearly as well and weren't as sonically capable.
CM1 - This speaker is the weakest of the line. I know it's the least expensive, but it really doesn't blend like it should with the rest of the lineup. The main fault is that it's high/midrange performance just doesn't integrate well. I can forgive it's lack of low end performance and would have liked to save the money vs. the CM5, but the fact is despite a lot of time tweaking it I could never get a cohesive sound with the CM9's. Not as much of a show stopper with movies, but with music it was certainly noticeable. The CM5's on the other hand made a seamless soundstage, which sounds wonderful to my ears.

Originally Posted by raycie 

So definitely worth it to spend the extra 500 and go for the cm5s?
Either way, i will have a 3.1 setup for a while.
Cmc2 / REL T5
Cm5 or cm1

Originally Posted by [Irishman] 

Hang on, guys. It seems like there's some truth in what he says, maybe just not in the way he's saying it.
Example: why do we avoid amps/avrs with a high THD? To eliminate garbage sound.
Why do we pick high-current amps? To get the precision and dynamics lower-quality gear can't provide.
These are just 2 examples I can think of off the top of my head. These are audible differences, not inaudible differences.
Discuss.

Originally Posted by raycie 

So definitely worth it to spend the extra 500 and go for the cm5s?
Either way, i will have a 3.1 setup for a while.
Cmc2 / REL T5
Cm5 or cm1

Originally Posted by jeahrens 

I would definitely recommend going with the CMC2 and CM5's for a 3.1 setup. The beauty of that is if you buy the set of CM8's you're considering, you'll have a wonderfully matched 5.1 setup. And in the interim I think you'll be quite pleased with what you have. You may also consider sites that have used speakers for sale. I was able to get all three of my front channels for less than what a pair of new CM9's cost.