Speaker Break In: Fact or Fiction?

Clint DeBoer said:

Consider this a public warning to not toss insults. Next time you get a week off. Argue your case, not the person.

Posting your many hours of research results using the groups of people you claim to have tested would be more productive - assuming that was actually documented by you.

We've already posted our research and findings.

Click to expand...

RMK! deleted many posts.

Well, we try to be fair, but I also don't spend all day on the forums. When I see a thread start to slide I try to catch it. Bottom line is always address the topic, not the person - and calling names was, to me, slightly more sophomoric than a repimand.

And I do still want to see the research data posted. It would make for a much more scientific discussion.

j_garcia said:

I caught Sleestack's post before it was deleted, so I know what he is talking about too.

Click to expand...

Make that 2 posts deleted. I guess the moderators are not too crazy about being called out on their own behavior here... even if it is the truth.

rjbudz said:

John, is the difference in sound, in your (and the others that heard them) opinion, an improvement, a degradation, or so miniscule that it was not worth the change? Also, when you played the speakers for comparison purposes, how did you set them up for testing?

Click to expand...

I had originally requested a pair to audition from Danny, and I was quite impressed with them, which is why I decided to go with them. When I got my pair, without the Sonicaps, I noted right away that they didn't sound the same so I ordered the upgrade.

All have said it was an improvement (one friend is a bit of a sound guy, does PA systems for churches, etc..., and I respect his opinion). The difference is subtle, but definitely worth it in my mind. Vocals are even smoother and the highs are a tiny bit more refined. Basically, the speakers seem to have more of a 3 dimenesional depth to them compared with the unmodified ones. I still like the way the unmodified ones sound, but I can tell the difference between them.

The guy who introduced me to these speakers came over to listen to them after I did the upgrade. He has owned GR speakers for years, and he heard my speakers when I first got them. His first comment was "I don't remember these sounding this good..." upon hearing them with the upgrade (which he didn't know I had done).

Clint DeBoer said:

Well, we try to be fair, but I also don't spend all day on the forums. When I see a thread start to slide I try to catch it. Bottom line is always address the topic, not the person - and calling names was, to me, slightly more sophomoric than a repimand.

And I do still want to see the research data posted. It would make for a much more scientific discussion.

Click to expand...

Good to hear you have a day job . I kinda liked "Minwax" and do not see how that is name calling. I have used their excellent products for years.

Just for the record, I have never heard speaker break-in personally but that does not mean it does not exist.

j_garcia said:

Using pseudo science to try disprove what you guys are calling pseudo science. I like that one. This is one of those debates that always ends up going nowhere. Regardless of data to support a position (or not), neither side will ever convince the other that one or the other is the definitive answer.

If you want to talk caps, I upgraded my speakers from Danny's company from the standard caps to the Sonicaps and there is a definite difference, subtle but audible.

Click to expand...

Well, no, in science a *definite* difference would be a conclusion arrived at by means other than sighted comparison. Like, good before-and-after measurements complemented by blind comparison data.

I have another pair that do not have the upgrade and basically everyone can hear the difference when played back to back - without telling them that there is a difference. Is that psychoacoustics? I think not.

Click to expand...

It could well be. Do you understand how 'psychoacoustics' works , as regards the need for controls?

RMK! said:

You are showing a very unflattering bias here. Danny is a well respected and credentialed person in the industry and deserves better than this sophomoric reprimand.

Click to expand...

His sophomoric 'Minwax' retort to WmAx, and his sad excuse for same (he 'messed up'?), deserve no better.

krabapple said:

Well, no, in science a *definite* difference would be a conclusion arrived at by means other than sighted comparison. Like, good before-and-after measurements complemented by blind comparison data.

It could well be. Do you understand how 'psychoacoustics' works , as regards the need for controls?

Click to expand...

And there we go again with "DBT is the ONLY way to really know; don't trust your ears, ears are fallable because we are human." arguement. Now we'll go back and forth about whether a DBT is sufficient and how to do one, and then again, arrive nowhere.

My eyes don't tell me what I am hearing. I do agree that people's perception can be influenced, but if they don't know what they are deciding about, how is there an influence?

Hey WmAx, Sorry for messing up your name. Looking at it and trying to say it just stuck in my head as Minwax for some reason.

Make that 2 posts deleted

Click to expand...

I'm probably lucky that they haven't deleted all of mine.

Hey j_garcia, next time just tell them that you closed your eyes. Then you can say it was all blind. Your next door neighbor did the switching, and he was blind folded, and you grampa that is also blind was there too. It was a triple blind test.

Okay fellows, another loudspeaker engineer just responded to my data. I just posted his response at the bottom of the page.

http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.htm

I'd have to give this one a lot of credibility as well.

j_garcia said:

And there we go again with "DBT is the ONLY way to really know; don't trust your ears, ears are fallable because we are human." arguement. Now we'll go back and forth about whether a DBT is sufficient and how to do one, and then again, arrive nowhere.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you've read some DBT threads...so I'm wondering, how is it you can still think blind comparison mean 'don't trust your ears' when in fact it means 'trust ONLY your ears'?

My eyes don't tell me what I am hearing.

Click to expand...

You're free to believe that you are immune from the sorts of perceptual noise that make controls a necessity for every field of scientific research into natural phenomena. You're also free to believe the moon's made of green cheese. The first suggests you know little about sensory psychology; the second that you know little about astronomy. But it's a free country.

I do agree that people's perception can be influenced, but if they don't know what they are deciding about, how is there an influence?

Click to expand...

You might want to read the story of 'Clever Hans', for insight into the ways people can influence, and be influenced, without knowing it. Btw, it's an old story.

Danny Richie said:

Hey WmAx, Sorry for messing up your name. Looking at it and trying to say it just stuck in my head as Minwax for some reason.



I'm probably lucky that they haven't deleted all of mine.

Hey j_garcia, next time just tell them that you closed your eyes. Then you can say it was all blind. Your next door neighbor did the switching, and he was blind folded, and you grampa that is also blind was there too. It was a triple blind test.

Click to expand...

So when medical researchers run a randomized double blind trial, everyone involved is closing their eyes. Or wearing blindfolds. And no peeking allowed.

That's funny. Or stupid.

Okay fellows, another loudspeaker engineer just responded to my data. I just posted his response at the bottom of the page.

http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.htm

I'd have to give this one a lot of credibility as well.

Click to expand...

I'd give John Dunlavy and Richard Pierce as much or more.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/9d04cb449c2ef0e8?dmode=source&hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/e52c59086811bd30?dmode=source&hl=en

(Dunlavy did sell his own 'designer' cables btw...which he freely admitted wouldn't sound any different than competently designed cables costing much, much less. *That's* credibility.)

That's funny. Or stupid.

Click to expand...

It was meant to be funny.

I'd give John Dunlavy and Richard Pierce as much or more.

Click to expand...

Funny that you mentioned those two guys. I have upgraded or fixed designs from both of them.

I thought John Dunlavy was one of the nicest guys in all of audio.

krabapple said:

It sounds like you've read some DBT threads...so I'm wondering, how is it you can still think blind comparison mean 'don't trust your ears' when in fact it means 'trust ONLY your ears'?

You're free to believe that you are immune from the sorts of perceptual noise that make controls a necessity for every field of scientific research into natural phenomena. You're also free to believe the moon's made of green cheese. The first suggests you know little about sensory psychology; the second that you know little about astronomy. But it's a free country.

You might want to read the story of 'Clever Hans', for insight into the ways people can influence, and be influenced, without knowing it. Btw, it's an old story.

Click to expand...

If you think that after ~15+ years of listening to hundreds of speakers, that I am going to wake up one day and have an epiphany that I suddenly find myself questioning what I hear, I think you have another thing coming.

The DBT group isn't saying trust only your ears, they are saying that your ears, eyes, brain, etc.. can all be fooled and that people who "think" they can hear subtle differences have no idea what they are talking about. I have NEVER seen one thread reach a point where one side or the other has suddenly said "Hey, you're right." or even "You MIGHT have something there." You and I both know it will not happen.

Danny Richie said:

It was meant to be funny.



Funny that you mentioned those two guys. I have upgraded or fixed designs from both of them.

Click to expand...

You're right. That is funny.

Danny Richie said:

Hey WmAx, Sorry for messing up your name. Looking at it and trying to say it just stuck in my head as Minwax for some reason.



I'm probably lucky that they haven't deleted all of mine.

Hey j_garcia, next time just tell them that you closed your eyes. Then you can say it was all blind. Your next door neighbor did the switching, and he was blind folded, and you grampa that is also blind was there too. It was a triple blind test.

Okay fellows, another loudspeaker engineer just responded to my data. I just posted his response at the bottom of the page.

http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.htm

I'd have to give this one a lot of credibility as well.

Click to expand...

There are just too many people who hear burn in differences to ignore it. So now we have a speaker engineer/designer who has measured the difference burn in makes.

j_garcia said:

If you think that after ~15+ years of listening to hundreds of speakers, that I am going to wake up one day and have an epiphany that I suddenly find myself questioning what I hear, I think you have another thing coming.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess that's crazy talk...to let logic intrude on all those years of listening.

Btw, one can *reasonably expect* there to be real differences between speakers.

The DBT group isn't saying trust only your ears, they are saying that your ears, eyes, brain, etc.. can all be fooled and that people who "think" they can hear subtle differences have no idea what they are talking about.

Click to expand...

No, that's not quite right. The 'DBT group' -- that is, people who think the scientific method has a pretty good track record -- doesn't assume such people have no idea what they're talking about (though that's depressingly often true); it's that they have no grounds to be so definite about what caused their perception of difference, because they haven't ruled out other well-known causes for such perceptions.

It is indisputable that ear/eye/brain can be fooled -- otherwise we'd be perfect recording devices -- which among other things would make the legal system and tghe practice of science run ever so much more efficiently than they do. Audiophiles may be in denial about fact, which is elsehwere utterly uncontroversial, but that's part of what puts the 'cult' in audiophile culture.

So the question is, how do you know you haven't fooled yourself? In the case of hearing, the best method science has come up with is to make sure the only 'evidence' presented to the listener is the sound. The only thing you're *able* to trust in a DBT, is your ears, because you have no other way of determining what's playing.

I have NEVER seen one thread reach a point where one side or the other has suddenly said "Hey, you're right." or even "You MIGHT have something there." You and I both know it will not happen.

Click to expand...

I have certainly seen people persuaded by evidence and argument -- and by themselves doing blind comparisons. But I suspect I've followed this trail a lot longer and a lot more closely than you have.

krabapple said:

Btw, one can *reasonably expect* there to be real differences between speakers.

Click to expand...

Maybe you missed the point of that...I've listened to many speakers, receivers, amps SS/tube/hybrid/vintage/digital, rooms, players, etc... to feel competent at hearing subtle differences. Nice to see that you seem to know what I hear.

I can troubleshoot some car problems by listening too, but I better do a DBT first to prove that I am hearing a tire that is feathering because it might be in my head.

But I suspect I've followed this trail a lot longer and a lot more closely than you have.

Click to expand...

Oh, well in that case

So what do Danny's measurements tell you? Is speaker break-in fact or fiction, since the numbers don't lie?

New info posted today after now 40 hours of burn in time.

http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.htm

See bottom of page.

Danny Richie said:

New info posted today after now 40 hours of burn in time.

http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.htm

See bottom of page.

Click to expand...

Good info Danny but I'm afraid you are wasting your time as this will fall on deaf ears (pun intended). Are the changes you note audible? That is the debatable point and I'm sure the debate will continue.

Good info Danny but I'm afraid you are wasting your time as this will fall on deaf ears (pun intended). Are the changes you note audible? That is the debatable point and I'm sure the debate will continue.

Click to expand...

I am afraid you are correct. Just because I have heard differences in burn in time and thousands of others claim the same doesn't mean everyone will, and it will never convince the nay sayers of anything.

Though it would be nice to see this site actually post some real measured data on driver burn in time. The misleading assumptions found here and supported by this site are a disappointment and a disservice.