The 9 Budget Speaker Shootout-- Only 1 Winner - Page 4 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1092Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 06:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,409
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4095 Post(s)
Liked: 2564
Quote:
Originally Posted by duckymomo View Post
In the words of someone who might know a thing or 2 about speakers:

"Human adaptation usually modifies our perceptions to make situations more acceptable "


And then long after the break-in of the first set, I then buy a second set of identical speakers as was the case with Pioneer FS52. Then with my Elac B6s when I later bought a set for my brother for X mas. They also sounded identifiably different from the first set for the first 20 or 30 hours and I can 'blind' identify which set is which. Then after 20+ or so hours of running time, I can't do that as well. Then after 50 hours or so I can't tell the difference at all. Or in the case of my B&W 685 S2s where things went the other way, that with acclimation, I disliked them more and more.

Last edited by Scotth3886; 06-20-2017 at 06:19 AM.
Scotth3886 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 06:48 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,762
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1366 Post(s)
Liked: 1564
Quote:
Originally Posted by AudioNewGuy View Post
Good point- that said since you brought up the car analogy, if memory serves, most car owner's manuals state that there should be some sort of 'gentle' use for the first 500-1000 miles. Gentle generally being defined as, don't redline the vehicle the first time you take it out lol. Just as an example, the 2010 or 11' Civic Si I had leased brand new back in the day essentially had a disclaimer that said 'don't be a dick for the first 600 miles' haha- but that's not to say Honda didn't QC the vehicle and engine prior to sending to a dealer.

My little anecdote is just a long winded way of saying that whether its audio, cars, TVs- whatever the product may be, there maybe some truth into letting a new product sort of unwind, loosen up, and mold into it's own.
My baseketball shoes in the 90s needed a breakin, leather was stiffer,
The basebally glove I had to rubber band, oil that thing down to get floppy stiff as ****

I can give 100 other examples or products still and needing a break in period

Its pretty dam funny, UNLESS ITS THE SAME SPEAKER YOU HAVE, this doesnt make sense...

Example-
1)Jim has SVS Ultra's, I say Ultra's sound better after break in, seems like maybe 20 hrs, I select SVS, Jim the SVS owner doesnt refute.

2)Same situation, I pick JBLs , then say SVS didn't sound good, Jim the SVS owner says you didn't give them enough time to break in

Did Some speakers start to sound better after playing for a few hours. Yes!! For me the most noticeable different was the bass with the Chane's A2.4. When I say there wasn't much bass, there just wasn't. Also, they were not as full sounding in beginning. This was very apparent listening conditions I witnessed with my own ears.

Not sure what I have to gain by saying speakers didn't sounds good at first and noticeable difference after using them down the road
mpk1970 is offline  
post #93 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 06:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,763
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 334 Post(s)
Liked: 1095
Back in the 80's and 90's I worked with a large exotic driver, a one-driver, "full-range" speaker with a bandwidth covering most of the spectrum above the bass. I designed fixed installation using them, organized a national installing dealer program with technical basis and use procedures, initiated a professional division – that led to extensive use of the device in commercial and institutional spaces (including national government) across North America, Europe, and elsewhere – developed data, and designed electronic filters for them based on that data.

As with all drivers, this hardware wasn't without flaw – none are. Typical installations involved electronic filtering to reach design goals and as noted, that filtering was based on the data concerning this technology.

It was midway through this process when a slightly nagging question resolved itself in an unexpected way. We'd noticed a slight but persistent affectation or coloration that didn't show itself in the measured responses. (Bear in mind that at this time we were using a variety of data acquisition and logging options, only the last generations of which went beyond simple amplitude magnitude, or frequency response in the common vernacular.)

We eventually studied the driver's cumulative spectral-decay plot - the energy-time behavior - where we found what had eluded us in the more conventional data. The driver had a ridge of clustered, high-Q energy stored "under" the standard FR measurement and nearly completely undetectable to it. And, as a relatively taut diaphragm driver, this behavior varied not just with simple sample-to-sample variations that affect virtually all drivers, it changed over time.

In other words, it broke in, and it broke in not as we'd expected and found in complex cellular material undergoing microscopic fracturing – the typical cellulose speaker cone - but as the homogeneous synthetic molecule it was, not unlike the behavior and action of standard plastic or metal speaker diaphragms. (We ended up beating the green drivers with enough low frequency inputs to exercise their diaphragms at least a few millimeters, and this gave us a fair representation of a driver in the field over the longer term.)

As I alluded above, the question is not if we can measure a thing. The question is if we have measured a thing or in many cases, if we even know what to look for, much less catalog to then undertake another theoretical challenge, which is if to do anything with or about it and if so, how. The question is if we even want to find a thing, an outcome impeded when we first decide it probably shouldn't exist.

The risk a field of endeavor has is in using 'science' as a universal identifier of all possible go/no-go outcomes – of deploying it in faith that it, as if it were conscious, can, will, or especially has answered our questions about reality. Bear in mind that if it does we've instantly rendered it obsolete. At that moment we've become 'scientifically' omnipotent.

Take a complex field, say cosmology. In the face of innumerable new phenomenon coming to our attention literally as we speak, man finds a bewildering new array of inputs and a substantially inadequate background by which to understand them. This is a science in one of the more purer definitions of the word.

The challenge we then have is not that abstract literal science cannot rise to the task, but that we cannot – after all, we are the only entities using it and we must constantly sort it from both theory and external phenomena. We can't do this perfectly, of course, and science, as the word is actually defined, remains the pursuit of the unknown, more or less. Science is the method and approach by which we hope to discover, qualify, and quantify. It is not the superstructure all knowledge is pinned to; rather its us who can elect to trust that such a superstructure exists.

The anecdote above isn't particularly sophisticated and it's almost certainly not surprising. It simply shows that the unknown remains so up until the moment when, having abandoned some previous assumption, it isn't unknown anymore. It's probably wise to differentiate what we believe about objective knowledge from knowledge itself. Both are temporary aspects of our existence.

Our little home loudspeakers don't really warrant all this or the time and effort we invest asserting X, Y, or Z about them. However when we do purport to make them into a 'scientific' project with a high degree of certainty, we could find there's a fair amount to them. Whether or not it's worth it to then explore that fully – and this applies to a good dozen of our best myths about them – is a debatable finality they don't really enjoy. Not yet anyway.

I apologize to the OP for the diversion. Perhaps some of this will resonate...

***
Wiki:

"Scientism is a term used to describe the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. It has been defined as 'the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society'.

"The term 'scientism' frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by economists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam and Tzvetan Todorov to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable. Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: 'Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.' Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also appropriated 'scientism' as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.

"Scientism may refer to science applied 'in excess'. The term scientism can apply in either of two senses:

"To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims. This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority.

[...]

"To refer to 'the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry', or that 'science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective' with a concomitant 'elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience'.

"The term 'scientism' is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge."

Chane Music & Cinema
Need advice? Avoid speculation; for solid referrals seek out real users.

Last edited by Jon Lane; 06-20-2017 at 06:59 AM.
Jon Lane is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #94 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 06:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Elihawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Posts: 6,090
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1950 Post(s)
Liked: 2104
Just curious Jon....with all the "lack of patience" of the consumer, why don't you guy pre-break in the speakers prior to sending. So many people will give a speaker 1 hour out of the box and then say "screw it" and send it back....
mpk1970 likes this.

Set up #1: EMP e5Ti, e5Ci, and EMP e5Bi surrounds, Outlaw LFM1 Plus sub, SVS NSD SB12 sub, Marantz Slimeline 1504 AV receiver
Set up #2: Def Tech SM450, CLR2002, SLS Qline surrounds and EMPtek10i10i sub, Denon 1910 AV receiver
Set up #3: Philharmonics- BMR in a 2.0 system, music only, Yamaha RXV-363 AV receiver
Elihawk is offline  
post #95 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 07:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 3,213
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1836 Post(s)
Liked: 1131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elihawk View Post
Just curious Jon....with all the "lack of patience" of the consumer, why don't you guy pre-break in the speakers prior to sending. So many people will give a speaker 1 hour out of the box and then say "screw it" and send it back....
My current Def Tech speakers took the longest to break in than any other speakers I've had. A month or so. Just gotta have patience. Once they did though, it was pretty awesome.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
BufordTJustice, yanks1 and mpk1970 like this.
Hetfieldjames is online now  
post #96 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 07:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,763
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 334 Post(s)
Liked: 1095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elihawk View Post
...why don't you guy pre-break in the speakers prior to sending.
The same reason other makers may not: High cost. (See #86)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elihawk View Post
So many people will give a speaker 1 hour out of the box and then say "screw it" and send it back....
Which they do, I'll admit freely...

I'm uncomfortable discussing such a minor topic here or anywhere - apologies again to the OP - but will do my best to address it with anyone offline. Thanks in advance.

Chane Music & Cinema
Need advice? Avoid speculation; for solid referrals seek out real users.
Jon Lane is offline  
post #97 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 07:09 AM
Advanced Member
 
Utopianemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 754
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post
Roger. I apologize for my reaction, then. Been a long day. Multiple homicides in Orlando​, FL over the weekend. LOTS of Forensic analysis and enhancement of video and audio to do.
Lots to handle for an ice cream truck driver! Makes being an electrician sound simple by comparison.

The more I read this thread, the more I'm thinking about getting a pair of A2's and throwing them up against my Epos Epic 2's. I bought them because I've long been a fan of that British midrange, but my ears are changing as I age....

Pioneer SC-95, 2x Crown XLS 1000 (LCR amps)
3x Epos Epic 2(LCR), 4x Emotiva UAW 6.2(Surrounds), 4x Aperion Intimus LC-I6(Atmos/DTS:X)
2x Dayton Ultimax 18" sealed(subs), Behringer Inuke 6000DSP(sub amp),
Vizio P-65C1 LED HDR
Oppo UDP-203 HD-Blu Ray Player, Oppo DV971H DVD Player, Roku Premiere+
Utopianemo is offline  
post #98 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 07:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,409
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4095 Post(s)
Liked: 2564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elihawk View Post
Just curious Jon....with all the "lack of patience" of the consumer, why don't you guy pre-break in the speakers prior to sending. So many people will give a speaker 1 hour out of the box and then say "screw it" and send it back....

I've been around this hobby for 60 years and live music for 70, but I came very close to doing just that with the Elacs. I knew better and still almost did it. The only thing that stopped me is that I got tied up with work and couldn't make to UPS before they closed. Since the speakers were already here, I let them run-in all night down in the listening room, and by the morning, I was hearing some improvement. I didn't listen to them all night because I couldn't stand to, but when I brought them back up here, they weren't bothering me in quite the same way as the previous day. So I thought, I've got 30 days to return them so might as well use it. So they're still here. At least it prepared for what I might hear with the second set that I got for my brother where we went through the same.
BufordTJustice likes this.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #99 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 07:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,409
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4095 Post(s)
Liked: 2564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post
The same reason other makers may not: High cost. (See #86)



Which they do, I'll admit freely...

I'm uncomfortable discussing such a minor topic here or anywhere - apologies again to the OP - but will do my best to address it with anyone offline. Thanks in advance.

I disagree. It's far from a minor topic.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #100 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 07:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
Utopianemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 754
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by duckymomo View Post
In the words of someone who might know a thing or 2 about speakers:
Floyd Toole is a brilliant engineer whose contributions to the audio industry are myriad....but he's not a god; he can be wrong, too.

We've heard two distinct descriptions of speaker break-in here to which Dr. Toole's explanation don't apply: First the OP's, who had multiple speakers on hand, and was switching them out continuously. The Chanes' sound character compared to other speakers changed over time while the other speakers did not.

Secondly, the user noted a change in sound character of a pair of speakers over time compared to another pair of the same model.

Of course you're free to disagree with most of the people in this thread, but you're not going to change our minds because there isn't really meaningful information against break-in you've presented that outweighs our own experiences. Cheers,

Pioneer SC-95, 2x Crown XLS 1000 (LCR amps)
3x Epos Epic 2(LCR), 4x Emotiva UAW 6.2(Surrounds), 4x Aperion Intimus LC-I6(Atmos/DTS:X)
2x Dayton Ultimax 18" sealed(subs), Behringer Inuke 6000DSP(sub amp),
Vizio P-65C1 LED HDR
Oppo UDP-203 HD-Blu Ray Player, Oppo DV971H DVD Player, Roku Premiere+
Utopianemo is offline  
post #101 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 07:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,763
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 334 Post(s)
Liked: 1095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
I disagree. It's far from a minor topic.
Well, topic, subject, or phenomenon will constitute important differences. As a topic I just think it gets us hung up. As a listener phenomenon I happen to think it's a ball. As a business model, well...

***

A(nother) final word about speaker conditioning and customer impressions (as Elihawk may have alluded). As occasionally futile as this thing is, consider that a maker will incur far fewer sales if his product is seen as unusual or odd than if he just stays mum and plays the odds. If the narrative becomes, OMG, Chane speakers require scads of break-in, then Chane becomes an outlier in just such popular narratives and those narratives - as was noted upthread - drive sales.

I happen to find that it's real and I'm willing to say so. It's not unusual - also see upthread here and elsewhere - but when it's marginalized as somehow unique or controversial you have to consider the ramifications. I've just elected to call it like I see it and hope that works.
BufordTJustice and leecreek like this.

Chane Music & Cinema
Need advice? Avoid speculation; for solid referrals seek out real users.
Jon Lane is offline  
post #102 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 07:36 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,762
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1366 Post(s)
Liked: 1564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopianemo View Post
Floyd Toole is a brilliant engineer whose contributions to the audio industry are myriad....but he's not a god; he can be wrong, too.

We've heard two distinct descriptions of speaker break-in here to which Dr. Toole's explanation don't apply: First the OP's, who had multiple speakers on hand, and was switching them out continuously. The Chanes' sound character compared to other speakers changed over time while the other speakers did not.

Secondly, the user noted a change in sound character of a pair of speakers over time compared to another pair of the same model.

Of course you're free to disagree with most of the people in this thread, but you're not going to change our minds because there isn't really meaningful information against break-in you've presented that outweighs our own experiences. Cheers,
Well said Utopianemo
BufordTJustice likes this.
mpk1970 is offline  
post #103 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 07:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
Utopianemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 754
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post
Back in the 80's and 90's I worked with a large exotic driver, a one-driver, "full-range" speaker with a bandwidth covering most of the spectrum above the bass. I designed fixed installation using them, organized a national installing dealer program with technical basis and use procedures, initiated a professional division – that led to extensive use of the device in commercial and institutional spaces (including national government) across North America, Europe, and elsewhere – developed data, and designed electronic filters for them based on that data.

As with all drivers, this hardware wasn't without flaw – none are. Typical installations involved electronic filtering to reach design goals and as noted, that filtering was based on the data concerning this technology.

It was midway through this process when a slightly nagging question resolved itself in an unexpected way. We'd noticed a slight but persistent affectation or coloration that didn't show itself in the measured responses. (Bear in mind that at this time we were using a variety of data acquisition and logging options, only the last generations of which went beyond simple amplitude magnitude, or frequency response in the common vernacular.)

We eventually studied the driver's cumulative spectral-decay plot - the energy-time behavior - where we found what had eluded us in the more conventional data. The driver had a ridge of clustered, high-Q energy stored "under" the standard FR measurement and nearly completely undetectable to it. And, as a relatively taut diaphragm driver, this behavior varied not just with simple sample-to-sample variations that affect virtually all drivers, it changed over time.

In other words, it broke in, and it broke in not as we'd expected and found in complex cellular material undergoing microscopic fracturing – the typical cellulose speaker cone - but as the homogeneous synthetic molecule it was, not unlike the behavior and action of standard plastic or metal speaker diaphragms. (We ended up beating the green drivers with enough low frequency inputs to exercise their diaphragms at least a few millimeters, and this gave us a fair representation of a driver in the field over the longer term.)

As I alluded above, the question is not if we can measure a thing. The question is if we have measured a thing or in many cases, if we even know what to look for, much less catalog to then undertake another theoretical challenge, which is if to do anything with or about it and if so, how. The question is if we even want to find a thing, an outcome impeded when we first decide it probably shouldn't exist.

The risk a field of endeavor has is in using 'science' as a universal identifier of all possible go/no-go outcomes – of deploying it in faith that it, as if it were conscious, can, will, or especially has answered our questions about reality. Bear in mind that if it does we've instantly rendered it obsolete. At that moment we've become 'scientifically' omnipotent.

Take a complex field, say cosmology. In the face of innumerable new phenomenon coming to our attention literally as we speak, man finds a bewildering new array of inputs and a substantially inadequate background by which to understand them. This is a science in one of the more purer definitions of the word.

The challenge we then have is not that abstract literal science cannot rise to the task, but that we cannot – after all, we are the only entities using it and we must constantly sort it from both theory and external phenomena. We can't do this perfectly, of course, and science, as the word is actually defined, remains the pursuit of the unknown, more or less. Science is the method and approach by which we hope to discover, qualify, and quantify. It is not the superstructure all knowledge is pinned to; rather its us who can elect to trust that such a superstructure exists.

The anecdote above isn't particularly sophisticated and it's almost certainly not surprising. It simply shows that the unknown remains so up until the moment when, having abandoned some previous assumption, it isn't unknown anymore. It's probably wise to differentiate what we believe about objective knowledge from knowledge itself. Both are temporary aspects of our existence.

Our little home loudspeakers don't really warrant all this or the time and effort we invest asserting X, Y, or Z about them. However when we do purport to make them into a 'scientific' project with a high degree of certainty, we could find there's a fair amount to them. Whether or not it's worth it to then explore that fully – and this applies to a good dozen of our best myths about them – is a debatable finality they don't really enjoy. Not yet anyway.

I apologize to the OP for the diversion. Perhaps some of this will resonate...

***
Wiki:

"Scientism is a term used to describe the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. It has been defined as 'the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society'.

"The term 'scientism' frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by economists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam and Tzvetan Todorov to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable. Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: 'Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.' Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also appropriated 'scientism' as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.

"Scientism may refer to science applied 'in excess'. The term scientism can apply in either of two senses:

"To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims. This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority.

[...]

"To refer to 'the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry', or that 'science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective' with a concomitant 'elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience'.

"The term 'scientism' is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge."
I totally agree. It drives me crazy when folks use science like some folks use religion(not speaking about anyone in particular).

I disiked "The Martian" for that reason. At one point, Matt Damon's character explains how he's going to survive by saying, "We're going to science the $#!+ out of it", as if invoking some mystical power. Later, another science-y character explains how they're going to accomplish a ridiculously unbelievable feat in space by saying casually, "Well the math checks out".
BufordTJustice likes this.

Pioneer SC-95, 2x Crown XLS 1000 (LCR amps)
3x Epos Epic 2(LCR), 4x Emotiva UAW 6.2(Surrounds), 4x Aperion Intimus LC-I6(Atmos/DTS:X)
2x Dayton Ultimax 18" sealed(subs), Behringer Inuke 6000DSP(sub amp),
Vizio P-65C1 LED HDR
Oppo UDP-203 HD-Blu Ray Player, Oppo DV971H DVD Player, Roku Premiere+
Utopianemo is offline  
post #104 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 08:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,349
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 869 Post(s)
Liked: 731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopianemo View Post
Floyd Toole is a brilliant engineer whose contributions to the audio industry are myriad....but he's not a god; he can be wrong, too.
Nothing in my post stated or suggested he is a "god" or that can't be wrong. What is suggested is that his opinion is backed by 45+ years of his research and scientific studies. No one who is posting in this thread (or any online thread really) can say the same. What they can say, is they believe _x_ based on their anecdotal experiences and perhaps those of their friends/coworkers/family etc...

He didn't wake up this morning and decide that speaker break-in was inaudible and another audiophile myth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopianemo View Post
We've heard two distinct descriptions of speaker break-in here to which Dr. Toole's explanation don't apply: First the OP's, who had multiple speakers on hand, and was switching them out continuously. The Chanes' sound character compared to other speakers changed over time while the other speakers did not.
OP's extremely casual "comparison" of the speakers most certainly doesn't exclude Toole's scientific explanation. You would need to perform rigorous blind testing to exclude things like confirmation bias from the comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopianemo View Post
Secondly, the user noted a change in sound character of a pair of speakers over time compared to another pair of the same model.
That in itself doesn't say a whole lot. What was the setup and procedures for this comparison? Is it repeatable? Even though the model is the same, were each of the speakers measured and matched beforehand? Were the drivers verified to be exactly the same from the same supplier? Were the results statistically significant? I could go on and on......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopianemo View Post
Of course you're free to disagree with most of the people in this thread, but you're not going to change our minds because there isn't really meaningful information against break-in you've presented that outweighs our own experiences. Cheers,
A large number of people will always believe in myths and magical things and it's almost impossible to change someone's mind. They will always believe things they want to be true.

I'm not trying to change the mind of anyone posting in this thread. I'm posting information for people who might read this thread that don't have predisposed biases and beliefs that speakers and amplifiers are magical things that defy scientific observation.

Lyngdorf MP-50 | Yamaha MX-A5200 | Ascend Sierra Towers | Ascend Sierra Horizon | Ascend Sierra Lunas | Ascend HTM-200SE | SVS SB-13 x4

Last edited by duckymomo; 06-20-2017 at 08:25 AM.
duckymomo is offline  
post #105 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 08:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,409
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4095 Post(s)
Liked: 2564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopianemo View Post
Floyd Toole is a brilliant engineer whose contributions to the audio industry are myriad....but he's not a god; he can be wrong, too.

We've heard two distinct descriptions of speaker break-in here to which Dr. Toole's explanation don't apply: First the OP's, who had multiple speakers on hand, and was switching them out continuously. The Chanes' sound character compared to other speakers changed over time while the other speakers did not.

Secondly, the user noted a change in sound character of a pair of speakers over time compared to another pair of the same model.

Of course you're free to disagree with most of the people in this thread, but you're not going to change our minds because there isn't really meaningful information against break-in you've presented that outweighs our own experiences. Cheers,

To clarify a bit, noticed the issue with the first set when new, then got a second set months (in the case of the FS52s) to over a year later (the Elac B6s) and could identify accurately blind for at least the first 25 hours or so. When I say blind, both sets were setting right next to each other, one on speaker selector A and the other on B, and were identical in appearance, and at my age I forget immediately where I put something. I the case of the FS52s, had the grandson rearrange several times while I left the room, and in the case of the Elacs, I had my brother do the same. When the second set was new, I could identify correctly 100% of the time with music I selected. After 25 hours or so, I wasn't quite so accurate. After 50 or so hours and on, it was 50-50. Confirmation of which set (new or old) I was listening to was done through the serial numbers and packing slips.
BufordTJustice likes this.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #106 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 08:30 AM
Audio Engineer
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,602
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 626 Post(s)
Liked: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopianemo View Post
Lots to handle for an ice cream truck driver! Makes being an electrician sound simple by comparison.

The more I read this thread, the more I'm thinking about getting a pair of A2's and throwing them up against my Epos Epic 2's. I bought them because I've long been a fan of that British midrange, but my ears are changing as I age....
It is.

I'm actually the lab head of a regional Forensic Media Lab which focuses on the analysis and forensic enhancement of video, audio, and image data. I'm currently the lead audio enhancement and analysis "guy" in the state of Florida. So I'm busier than Santi-Clause on X-mas Eve. I've been directly involved with every major incident in the Orlando area since late 2014, when I assumed this role. Gets tiring.

I list ice cream truck driver because I don't care to have some adventurous trial attorney digging through my hobby posts on this forum and trying to tangentially relate them to a topic at trial. NO THANKS. Lol.

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said 'faster horses'." -H. Ford | Krell Showcase 7.1/Anthem Statement D1 pre/pros | Musical Concepts' LX Elite Mini-Platinum Mod Adcom MOSFET GFA-5500 | Acurus/Mondial A200x3 | Bluesound Node 2/Apple TV 4K | Toshiba SD-9200 CD/DVD-A | Vizio 55" LED/LCD | L+R: Chane MTM Prototype | Chane A2.4 center | custom-finished Chane A5rx-c surrounds | Member: NATIA, LEVA, & AES.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #107 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 08:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,409
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4095 Post(s)
Liked: 2564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopianemo View Post
Floyd Toole is a brilliant engineer whose contributions to the audio industry are myriad....but he's not a god; he can be wrong, too.

We've heard two distinct descriptions of speaker break-in here to which Dr. Toole's explanation don't apply: First the OP's, who had multiple speakers on hand, and was switching them out continuously. The Chanes' sound character compared to other speakers changed over time while the other speakers did not.

Secondly, the user noted a change in sound character of a pair of speakers over time compared to another pair of the same model.

Of course you're free to disagree with most of the people in this thread, but you're not going to change our minds because there isn't really meaningful information against break-in you've presented that outweighs our own experiences. Cheers,

And further regarding your post: I'm sure he is, but he has PLENTY of very talented company all around the audio world. Where Toole lost me is his speaker shuffler, comparing a mono, as in one speaker at a time, versus another, completely eliminating sound field, including imaging, depth, width, height, three dimensionality, focus, etc. from the equation. All the attributes that are most important to me. What's left, other than dynamic range and frequency response?
rossandwendy likes this.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #108 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 08:37 AM
Audio Engineer
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,602
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 626 Post(s)
Liked: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopianemo View Post
Floyd Toole is a brilliant engineer whose contributions to the audio industry are myriad....but he's not a god; he can be wrong, too.

We've heard two distinct descriptions of speaker break-in here to which Dr. Toole's explanation don't apply: First the OP's, who had multiple speakers on hand, and was switching them out continuously. The Chanes' sound character compared to other speakers changed over time while the other speakers did not.

Secondly, the user noted a change in sound character of a pair of speakers over time compared to another pair of the same model.

Of course you're free to disagree with most of the people in this thread, but you're not going to change our minds because there isn't really meaningful information against break-in you've presented that outweighs our own experiences. Cheers,
An excellent point. In fact, just looking at Dr. Toole's own listening room, and reading his responses to questions about it, it seems that his stances on many of his "concrete" findings have been softened, if only in his own listening room. It shocked many, frankly. He has an inverted pair of Salon2's, wall-mounted (yes, directly up against the rear wall), with the tweeters at or just below ear-level, with large cavities in the rear wall, in a highly reflective room. BUT, it works for him (his words).

The room violates many of his previously stated tenets....or does it? Toole doesn't seem to think so, at least not in any meaningful manner.

Toole has done much work to advance the science of loudspeaker design, but his work is not sacrosanct...nobody's is. To assert the contrary is anti-scientific and is blatant fanboyism.

EDIT:

Toole's listening space (pictures):
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2515137-official-jbl-synthesis-pro-revel-home-theater-thread-51.html#post52485433

Toole's Explanation of same:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2515137-official-jbl-synthesis-pro-revel-home-theater-thread-51.html#post52520193

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said 'faster horses'." -H. Ford | Krell Showcase 7.1/Anthem Statement D1 pre/pros | Musical Concepts' LX Elite Mini-Platinum Mod Adcom MOSFET GFA-5500 | Acurus/Mondial A200x3 | Bluesound Node 2/Apple TV 4K | Toshiba SD-9200 CD/DVD-A | Vizio 55" LED/LCD | L+R: Chane MTM Prototype | Chane A2.4 center | custom-finished Chane A5rx-c surrounds | Member: NATIA, LEVA, & AES.

Last edited by BufordTJustice; 06-20-2017 at 09:11 AM.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #109 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 08:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
Utopianemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 754
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by duckymomo View Post
Nothing in my post stated or suggested he is a "god" or that can't be wrong. What is suggested is that his opinion is backed by 45+ years of his research and scientific studies. No one who is posting in this thread (or any online thread really) can say the same. What they can say, is they believe _x_ based on their anecdotal experiences and perhaps those of their friends/coworkers/family etc...

He didn't wake up this morning and decide that speaker break-in was inaudible and another audiophile myth.



OP's extremely casual "comparison" of the speakers most certainly doesn't exclude Toole's scientific explanation. You would need to perform rigorous blind testing to exclude things like confirmation bias from the comparison.



That in itself doesn't say a whole lot. What was the setup and procedures for this comparison? Is it repeatable? Even though the model is the same, were each of the speakers measured and matched beforehand? Were the drivers verified to be exactly the same from the same supplier? Were the results statistically significant? I could go on and on......



A large number of people will always believe in myths and magical things and it's almost impossible to change someone's mind. They will always believe things they want to be true.

I'm not trying to change the mind of anyone posting in this thread. I'm posting information for people who might read this thread that don't have predisposed biases and beliefs that speakers and amplifiers are magical things that defy scientific observation.
I should have made myself more clear. In this thread, I value my anectdotal evidence, and the anectdotal evidences of those expressed here over your quote of a respected engineer in the audio field, which in and of itself is an anectdote of an opinion which may be properly informed by rigorous scientific enquiry. I haven't read Dr. Toole's findings that rigorously performed double-blind scientific tests positively identify break-in of all speakers as a myth, so for now I'll just have to rely on my experiences.

You chose to ignore the fact that many of the people on this thread who believe speaker break-in is an actual phenomenon did not believe it was real until their own preconceptions were dispelled(mine included). We don't have axes to grind or myths to dispel; we're just trying to find speakers that we like.

Pioneer SC-95, 2x Crown XLS 1000 (LCR amps)
3x Epos Epic 2(LCR), 4x Emotiva UAW 6.2(Surrounds), 4x Aperion Intimus LC-I6(Atmos/DTS:X)
2x Dayton Ultimax 18" sealed(subs), Behringer Inuke 6000DSP(sub amp),
Vizio P-65C1 LED HDR
Oppo UDP-203 HD-Blu Ray Player, Oppo DV971H DVD Player, Roku Premiere+
Utopianemo is offline  
post #110 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 09:01 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,762
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1366 Post(s)
Liked: 1564
Quote:
Originally Posted by duckymomo View Post
Nothing in my post stated or suggested he is a "god" or that can't be wrong. What is suggested is that his opinion is backed by 45+ years of his research and scientific studies. No one who is posting in this thread (or any online thread really) can say the same. What they can say, is they believe _x_ based on their anecdotal experiences and perhaps those of their friends/coworkers/family etc...

He didn't wake up this morning and decide that speaker break-in was inaudible and another audiophile myth.



OP's extremely casual "comparison" of the speakers most certainly doesn't exclude Toole's scientific explanation. You would need to perform rigorous blind testing to exclude things like confirmation bias from the comparison.



That in itself doesn't say a whole lot. What was the setup and procedures for this comparison? Is it repeatable? Even though the model is the same, were each of the speakers measured and matched beforehand? Were the drivers verified to be exactly the same from the same supplier? Were the results statistically significant? I could go on and on......



A large number of people will always believe in myths and magical things and it's almost impossible to change someone's mind. They will always believe things they want to be true.

I'm not trying to change the mind of anyone posting in this thread. I'm posting information for people who might read this thread that don't have predisposed biases and beliefs that speakers and amplifiers are magical things that defy scientific observation.
I'm a casual listener not a Ph D in AV. To go thru all that for speakers I was auditioning in the 300-700 range is quite comical.

Try to have some degree of likeness in measuring but screw that if you think I'm gonna sit here for 100 hrs on each speaker and measure the wavelength at 7:01 am at 82 degrees when wind blowing out of the east.

I've got hot Colombian girls to measure down here in S Fla not speakers.

But I am interested in the tests and results you did on the speakers you have can you please share?
mpk1970 is offline  
post #111 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 09:03 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,762
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1366 Post(s)
Liked: 1564
My personal Av nightmare continues

Had to return my 2nd AVR. The Integra bottom sub port was not working.
Complete headache
BufordTJustice and Scotth3886 like this.
mpk1970 is offline  
post #112 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 09:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,409
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4095 Post(s)
Liked: 2564
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post
It is.

I'm actually the lab head of a regional Forensic Media Lab which focuses on the analysis and forensic enhancement of video, audio, and image data. I'm currently the lead audio enhancement and analysis "guy" in the state of Florida. So I'm busier than Santi-Clause on X-mas Eve. I've been directly involved with every major incident in the Orlando area since late 2014, when I assumed this role. Gets tiring.

I list ice cream truck driver because I don't care to have some adventurous trial attorney digging through my hobby posts on this forum and trying to tangentially relate them to a topic at trial. NO THANKS. Lol.

Trust me on this, that would happen. I taught many or even most attorneys in DTLA, BH, Century City to Soviet Monica, and even the South Bay and Long Beach at one time, how to do computer aided factual discovery way back the earliest days of the internet. First, prior to broad scale use of the internet, it was just primary source case law and statutory research through dedicated Wang terminals in large firm law libraries (from that, you've already guessed who I used to work for in those days), and then with the rise of the internet, taught specifically how to do what you mentioned. Whatever it took to impeach testimony. I believe it's Federal Rules of Evidence 608, 609 if I recall correctly IIRC and state equivalents for the details regarding what's admissible and what isn't.
BufordTJustice likes this.

Last edited by Scotth3886; 06-20-2017 at 09:17 AM.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #113 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 09:13 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 51
@mpk1970 - but you purchased from A4L right? They've got some solid CS and should be pretty straightforward for a defect... that said, after your auditioning and time spent- this is about the last thing you deserve!!
AudioNewGuy is offline  
post #114 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 09:15 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,409
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4095 Post(s)
Liked: 2564
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpk1970 View Post
I'm a casual listener not a Ph D in AV. To go thru all that for speakers I was auditioning in the 300-700 range is quite comical.

Try to have some degree of likeness in measuring but screw that if you think I'm gonna sit here for 100 hrs on each speaker and measure the wavelength at 7:01 am at 82 degrees when wind blowing out of the east.

I've got hot Colombian girls to measure down here in S Fla not speakers.

But I am interested in the tests and results you did on the speakers you have can you please share?

Still, all that being said, it comes down to what you hear. To me, IMO, in my case, IMHO, (plus all possible other disclaimers that might apply) screw the measurements, let the designers worry about that if they so chose. Let me hear them, set up properly (IMO that means well away from boundaries), well broken in, and I'll make the decision. I don't even want to see the 'measurements' until I hear them first. I still may never look at them. For all I know my Elac B6s and my B&W 685 S2s may measure similarly, but they sure don't sound the same. I for one, couldn't care less about measurements.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #115 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 09:20 AM
Audio Engineer
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,602
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 626 Post(s)
Liked: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Trust me on this, that would happen. I taught many or even most attorneys in DTLA, BH, Century City to Soviet Monica, and even the South Bay and Long Beach at one time, how to do computer aided factual discovery way back the earliest days of the internet. First, prior to broad scale use of the internet, it was just primary source case law and statutory research through dedicated Wang terminals in large firm law libraries (from that, you've already guessed who I used to work for in those days), and then with the rise of the internet, taught specifically how to do what you mentioned. Whatever it took to impeach testimony. I believe it's Federal Rules of Evidence 608, 609 if I recall correctly IIRC and state equivalents. .
Bingo. And I think you're correct on the federal evidence citation.

Impeachment isn't a concern for me in any degree. But, I'd rather avoid some really absurd, tangential conversations during my expert testimony about topics completely unrelated to the questions posed to the trier of fact. I have had local attorneys get creative, only to have me embarrass them during depos (hey, they started it; don't spring the trap unless you are 100% confident on whom is being trapped). Hasn't happened at trial yet and I'm loath to have it occur there. For the reason, more than anything, that it's simply not worth the trouble and is only a distraction from whatever actual forensic work has been conducted on any given case.

There would be no backpedaling of any of my testimony or opinions based on anything I've authored on the interwebz. But properly contextualizing said quotes would require a lot of extra work and time, as you apparently well know. Attorneys literally never fully quote anybody. A problem for a normal witness, but not as much an issue for en expert witness who can offer qualified opinion on the stand. And I've got the gift of gab. Kinda hard to un-ring the bell, if you know what I mean.

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said 'faster horses'." -H. Ford | Krell Showcase 7.1/Anthem Statement D1 pre/pros | Musical Concepts' LX Elite Mini-Platinum Mod Adcom MOSFET GFA-5500 | Acurus/Mondial A200x3 | Bluesound Node 2/Apple TV 4K | Toshiba SD-9200 CD/DVD-A | Vizio 55" LED/LCD | L+R: Chane MTM Prototype | Chane A2.4 center | custom-finished Chane A5rx-c surrounds | Member: NATIA, LEVA, & AES.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #116 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 09:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,409
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4095 Post(s)
Liked: 2564
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post
Bingo. And I think you're correct on the federal evidence citation.

Impeachment isn't a concern for me in any degree. But, I'd rather avoid some really absurd, tangential conversations during my expert testimony about topics completely unrelated to the questions posed to the trier of fact. I have had local attorneys get creative, only to have me embarrass them during depos (hey, they started it; don't spring the trap unless you are 100% confident on whom is being trapped). Hasn't happened at trial yet and I'm loath to have it occur there. For the reason, more than anything, that it's simply not worth the trouble and is only a distraction from whatever actual forensic work has been conducted on any given case.

There would be no backpedaling of any of my testimony or opinions based on anything I've authored on the interwebz. But properly contextualizing said quotes would require a lot of extra work and time, as you apparently well know. Attorneys literally never fully quote anybody. A problem for a normal witness, but not as much an issue for en expert witness who can offer qualified opinion on the stand. And I've got the gift of gab. Kinda hard to un-ring the bell, if you know what I mean.

Of course, I didn't mean you personally, but you wouldn't believe the stuff we've found over the years that was 'out there'. My job was to show these folks how to find it, and in some instances, help them find it. Then they can apply the FRE or state equivalent and make their decision regarding what they think is admissible. Then the pieces fall where they may.
BufordTJustice likes this.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #117 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 09:36 AM
Audio Engineer
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,602
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 626 Post(s)
Liked: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Of course, I didn't mean you personally, but you wouldn't believe the stuff we've found over the years that was 'out there'. My job was to show these folks how to find it, and in some instances, help them find it. Then they can apply the FRE or state equivalent and make their decision regarding what they think is admissible. Then the pieces fall where they may.
I didn't think you meant that. Yeah, I totally agree; I'm amazed at what is published online by people these days. The unit to which I'm attached specializes in surveillance (overt and covert) and we utilize all legal avenues.

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said 'faster horses'." -H. Ford | Krell Showcase 7.1/Anthem Statement D1 pre/pros | Musical Concepts' LX Elite Mini-Platinum Mod Adcom MOSFET GFA-5500 | Acurus/Mondial A200x3 | Bluesound Node 2/Apple TV 4K | Toshiba SD-9200 CD/DVD-A | Vizio 55" LED/LCD | L+R: Chane MTM Prototype | Chane A2.4 center | custom-finished Chane A5rx-c surrounds | Member: NATIA, LEVA, & AES.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #118 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 09:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,349
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 869 Post(s)
Liked: 731
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpk1970 View Post

But I am interested in the tests and results you did on the speakers you have can you please share?
How much time do you have When I get a chance, I'll type up a shortish version of the exhausting process that took almost a year.
mpk1970 likes this.

Lyngdorf MP-50 | Yamaha MX-A5200 | Ascend Sierra Towers | Ascend Sierra Horizon | Ascend Sierra Lunas | Ascend HTM-200SE | SVS SB-13 x4
duckymomo is offline  
post #119 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 10:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,409
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4095 Post(s)
Liked: 2564
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpk1970 View Post
I'm a casual listener not a Ph D in AV. To go thru all that for speakers I was auditioning in the 300-700 range is quite comical.

Try to have some degree of likeness in measuring but screw that if you think I'm gonna sit here for 100 hrs on each speaker and measure the wavelength at 7:01 am at 82 degrees when wind blowing out of the east.

I've got hot Colombian girls to measure down here in S Fla not speakers.

But I am interested in the tests and results you did on the speakers you have can you please share?

And even if I did all of that in the post you quoted, at the end of the day I'd still buy what I want and what I think sounds best. 'They' can drown me in charts, graphs and waterfalls, and still, my ears rule. I have as experienced a set of ears as just about anyone on the planet(s) so that still rules.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #120 of 752 Old 06-20-2017, 10:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Elihawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Posts: 6,090
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1950 Post(s)
Liked: 2104
And all this is relevant to mpk's speaker challenge how?
Jon Lane likes this.

Set up #1: EMP e5Ti, e5Ci, and EMP e5Bi surrounds, Outlaw LFM1 Plus sub, SVS NSD SB12 sub, Marantz Slimeline 1504 AV receiver
Set up #2: Def Tech SM450, CLR2002, SLS Qline surrounds and EMPtek10i10i sub, Denon 1910 AV receiver
Set up #3: Philharmonics- BMR in a 2.0 system, music only, Yamaha RXV-363 AV receiver
Elihawk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off