Originally Posted by Elihawk
Btw, since I am a scientist...
1. We get better at science all the time and as we do, we can make new conclusions. The old conclusions were "made with the info available at the time"...
Not always. Sometimes it's made with built in biases based on the attitudes of the times, poor testing methodologies and poor testers. I harken back to the one Mars rover that crashed into Mars before deploying its boosters because a bunch of NASA scientists/coders input the wrong longer measure for distance and no one caught it until it was too late. I believe in science and scientific testing methodology. I just also think you should always be retesting in general over time for both your reasons and mine.
2. Second, things like Eggs and salt has always been considered bad, in higher doses by scientist and clinicians. Some wack-a-doodle promoting Atkins diets or other high protein diets might point to some poorly done studies (Like my last speaker challenge- no double or even single blind, and just my impression of one speaker, then the next, etc) and say "science says"....
Actually they weren't. Eggs and whole milk were a staple part of the American diet until egg yolks along with dairy were incorrectly linked with a higher risk of heart disease. The issue with salt was linking harm from its higher use beyond
those already suffering from high blood pressure saying it was a contributing factor when in fact it is not. I don't know anything about wack a doodle diets as I don't believe in dieting and I don't get my information from quacks pushing Atkins or South Beach etc... I believe in good science but I also believe scientific studies and conclusions in general should be constantly scrutinized as even peer reviewed studies have been shown to be wrong in their conclusions for a whole host of reasons.
Now in terms of speakers, I have yet to see ONE scientific study, with measurement, that suggests that a speaker will change enough to be heard, after the first couple minutes/maybe hour of play time. We all know our ability to perceive audio changes after days, hours or even minutes is very hard to gauge. As Dennis pointed out above, maybe some trained listener can tell differences after a few hours. However, a mic is more sensitive than our ears, so if you cannot measure changes, then you cannot hear changes.
It's no secret that money in audio for extensive studies of anything is extremely lacking and this isn't a high priority for studying extensively as there's no money in it. It's mostly done by private individuals and enthusiasts. I'm actually skeptical that it's audible as well and it's more breaking in your ears that's taking place. My main point is that who is the decider that something has been properly and thoroughly studied enough? Whole host of alphabet govt agencies, corporations, engineers, scientists, statesman, investors decided Theranos was well founded in good science. You literally had a sociopath with no degree of any kind other than a high school diploma dictating testing procedures to highly degreed and published scientists and engineers. They also let her put her name on patents she had not put any work into whatsoever. Don't think it's so bonkers to just say "Hey I'd like to see some more driver types tested."
Also Audioholics has a whole article
on how inadequate a mono microphone is at substituting for the human ear(great read by the way.) Sensitivity is just a small part of it. This is the main reason active room EQ is so limited and needs to be used along with passive EQ and the consumers own ears. For the record I own a CSL UMIK1 and have used REW. I also have my own ears and use them as well. Nothing wrong with doing both.
One thing I have learned from almost 10 years on AVS..if you believe in speaker break in, you will hear speaker break in. If you don't believe in it, you won't hear it!
I'll tell you what I believe in. I believe in research. I believe in institutions. I believe in science. I also believe that each and every one these beliefs should always be rigorously challenged on a regular basis because like you said things change and like a believe testers and testing methodology can be fallible. Do I think testing one or 2 drivers is some definitive study? No. Do I believe that most all cases of speaker break in is actually ear break in? Yes. At the end of the day believing or not believing in it doesn't hurt anyone as long as the consumer isn't being led out of any no hassle return window by a manufacturer. Most all speaker makes that don't push driver break in still promote some type of passive biamping. Are they also trying to get their customers to keep their speakers past their return window? Probably not. The bottom line is to understand what your listening biases are and then demo speakers that align with those biases. Ordering bookshelves initially is a good way to reduce return shipping costs if any as you get a chance to hear their sounds design strategy without having to box back up large towers if not satisfied. Take your time and vary your content and both drivers and ears will break in accordingly
. Good discussion.