Next Speaker Break-In article?

[mtrycrafts]

Let me add perhaps another way to look at this. We say, through testing, that speaker break-in does not occur. Speaker performance does not change after perhaps the first 30 seconds of use.

No, that is not what is being said. Different parameters of the driver changes, some increase, others decrease. And, after it rests some time, it returns pretty much to original numbers.
What is being said, discussed and debated, is audibility of any changes in audio? Is a 3ft speaker cable sounds different from a 6 ft cable? You certainly can measure the differences in all its parameters.


But we also admit the possibility that our ears must become accustomed to different speakers.

Well, it is really the mind, not the ears, that is causing all this. The mind is the culprit for bias, hearing imagined sounds, etc.


Nuances of perception that were initially unnoticed become detectable, and eventually essential, as my senses learn to perceive new input.

But, if that is the case, it is testable. Relying on memory is unreliable, totally.

Is this not "break in"?

No. That is unreliable perception and human bias at play.


Does the fact that it's perceptual rather than physical make it less real?

Of course. If one only wants a perception, why not just imagine things and be happy? It will be just as real in your mind, no?

This isn't something that could be tested with a double blind A/B test because those tests don't provide the time needed for my nervous system to learn.


Absolutely not so. There is an unfortunate misconception that you don't have all the time in the world to listen under a DBT protocol.
Shanefield, Daniel, " The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double Blind Testing,: Hi-Fidelity, Mar 80, pg 57-61

This DBT was carried out over several months. Didn't help.

 

[mtrycrafts]

So you believe that all people are capable of judging all things, to the best of their capabilities, from the first moment they experience them?

You don't suppose that you could learn to distinguish and enjoy attributes of something, wine perhaps, after learning about and participating in wine tastings that you could not perceive from the moment you took your first sip?

A trained listener does it all the time. But, as I posted above, DBT is not time limited. That is an urban legend and is confused with rapid switching between components too. What that is about is when the listener is ready to switch components, it is swapped rapidly instead of being turned off, or unplugging components and taking minutes to switch. Memory is gone, outcome is worthless.

 

[mtrycrafts]

. Professional reviewers keep systems for extended times to really hear how they perform, they don't walk into a store and do a 15 minute demo and say "these are awesome, run out and buy them."

Please, don't confuse the so called professional who writes in magazines like Stereopile, know what they are doing and take their time for weeks. It looks impressive but it means nothing. A professional, trained listener gets answers rather quickly and doesn't take days or weeks. Training does that. Rag writes are not trained, just pretend. But, they are good at bsing.


An extended DBT would be the best, maybe not the most realistic, but best way to determine what speaker is better. Basically, a longer version of what Sheep said.

my $0.02

Jack

No one is preventing such a comparison.

 

[rmongiovi]

And, that is what the change is, in the mind only but not real.

Well, here's where we're really going to have to agree to disagree. Why is a change in the mind somehow less real to you? There is no reality, only the perception of reality.

You can spend all day telling a human being that the measurements say nothing has changed, and the truth is that if he hears a difference then there is a difference in his reality, and at the end of that day that's all that matters.

Is there a true "reality" out there? Absolutely! Can we ever experience it? Absolutely not! Your senses abtract only a small part of reality and pass it on to your brain, and your brain abstracts from that to create what you perceive. There is no way possible to remove those layers of abstraction from the human experience. You can remove it from our theory, by careful measurement and blind testing, but you can't remove it from our subjective reality.

 

[Sheep]

Well, here's where we're really going to have to agree to disagree. Why is a change in the mind somehow less real to you? There is no reality, only the perception of reality.

You can spend all day telling a human being that the measurements say nothing has changed, and the truth is that if he hears a difference then there is a difference in his reality, and at the end of that day that's all that matters.

Is there a true "reality" out there? Absolutely! Can we ever experience it? Absolutely not! Your senses abtract only a small part of reality and pass it on to your brain, and your brain abstracts from that to create what you perceive. There is no way possible to remove those layers of abstraction from the human experience. You can remove it from our theory, by careful measurement and blind testing, but you can't remove it from our subjective reality.

Mind changes are less real because not every mind changes the same way. Everyone perceives sound differently. By using measurments and science (you know, the thing that MADE the speakers and electronics) you can see how the speaker performs, without adding all the fluff that is contained between your ears.

You could go on and on. Assuming everyone has the exact same hearing range and sensitivity. They don't. Some do... but they don't. One reviewer with hearing loss would say the speakers sound dead, while another with sensitive hearing would say they're bright. By taking only measurements that show audible changes you can be free of any bias.

SheepStar

 

[rmongiovi]

Assuming everyone has the exact same hearing range and sensitivity. They don't. Some do... but they don't. ON reviewer is hearing loss would say the speakers sound dead, while another with sensitive hearing would say they're bright. By taking only measurements that show audible changes you can be free of any bias.
SheepStar

Hmmm. I agree, but I interpret this to support my claim that the mind is an integral part of the perception of sound and can't be discounted from the test, whereas obviously you draw the opposite conclusion.

So, from your point of view, how do you define "audible changes"? By the one person in the world with sensitive enough hearing and the training to detect the difference (the so-called golden ear, if you believe in him), or by the average uneducated Joe, or by some hypothetical someone in the middle?

Clearly we can't go all the way to the end of the spectrum and say "if we can measure it there's a difference" since our electronic measuring capabilities far outstrip our natural abilities.

To make an analogy (which I've apparently not been so successful with in previous postings so I'll leave the reductio ad absurdam out this time) that doesn't involve range or sensitivity, there are phonemes in other languages that sound absolutely indistinguishable from the point of view of an English speaker yet are as different as night and day to the person raised speaking that language. Or to pick an example from English, the "l" and "r" sounds to the Japanese. Measurable differences, of course. Audible? I'd say so, but perhaps you ought not....

 

[Tomorrow]

Hmmm. I agree, but I interpret this to support my claim that the mind is an integral part of the perception of sound and can't be discounted from the test, whereas obviously you draw the opposite conclusion.

So, from your point of view, how do you define "audible changes"? By the one person in the world with sensitive enough hearing and the training to detect the difference (the so-called golden ear, if you believe in him), or by the average uneducated Joe, or by some hypothetical someone in the middle?

Clearly we can't go all the way to the end of the spectrum and say "if we can measure it there's a difference" since our electronic measuring capabilities far outstrip our natural abilities.

To make an analogy (which I've apparently not been so successful with in previous postings so I'll leave the reductio ad absurdam out this time) that doesn't involve range or sensitivity, there are phonemes in other languages that sound absolutely indistinguishable from the point of view of an English speaker yet are as different as night and day to the person raised speaking that language. Or to pick an example from English, the "l" and "r" sounds to the Japanese. Measurable differences, of course. Audible? I'd say so, but perhaps you ought not....

...as in the deep south...."All the oil for you all." or "Awl the awl for y'awl."

(rmongiovi, the following is not directed at you. Your post just makes a good jumping off point.)

This discourse may, at best, be of some didactic importance, or prove some minutia of the science of sound. But whoa...because a protocol or test device can measure something and a theorem can be proven or disproven, doesn't make it at all relevant to human interfacing. Break-in or no break-in, the change if any, is so small as to be irrelevant, if even detectable by the human senses. Science is important. Just not in this case. (So it seems all parties are correct.)

And for the case in point....one doesn't (or shouldn't) buy a speaker because someone else, even an experienced reviewer says it's the bee's knees (which makes the issue of break-in irrelevant). One should buy a speaker because one likes the sound of it. Why in the world would one buy a speaker 'on the come'...perhaps not liking it initially and waiting (hoping) for it's sound to break-in to something more acceptable? (Or vice versa..."Gosh, I bought these cool sounding speakers that, when they broke in, sounded like monkeys beating on garbage cans!" That can happen too, one would surmise.)

Sorry for injecting practicality into a philosophical discussion. I just couldn't resist.

 

[Jack Hammer]

I'm getting a headache, ...

...just like the headache I got in my philosophy class when my professor would go off on an obscure tangent and I really had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. Oh, and I kind of get what is being said here, it's just getting to be hard (pronounced: adult) reading.

So back to the OP's original question, any idea when part II of the speaker break-in article will be posted, that is if it will be posted?

Thanks

Jack (anyone gotta aspirin ) Hammer

BTW, what's a bees knee?

 

[mtrycrafts]

..
BTW, what's a bees knee?

While I have not examined a bee under a microscope, I would assume that since they have legs, they must have knees?

 

[mtrycrafts]

You can spend all day telling a human being that the measurements say nothing has changed, and the truth is that if he hears a difference then there is a difference in his reality, and at the end of that day that's all that matters.

A singular reality is meaningless to others. therefore why bother telling ones singular reality to others if that cannot be experience by anyone else?



Your senses abtract only a small part of reality and pass it on to your brain, and your brain abstracts from that to create what you perceive.

Or, the brain creates its own reality out of absolutely nothing. That is the issue here. When is it imagined and when is it real?



There is no way possible to remove those layers of abstraction from the human experience. You can remove it from our theory, by careful measurement and blind testing, but you can't remove it from our subjective reality.


That is why we test in such manner to separate out imaginations from reality, when it is important to know the difference.

 

[mtrycrafts]

So, from your point of view, how do you define "audible changes"?

Changes that can be demonstrated to exit under bias free listening conditions.


By the one person in the world with sensitive enough hearing and the training to detect the difference (the so-called golden ear, if you believe in him), or by the average uneducated Joe, or by some hypothetical someone in the middle?

Certainly, if that one person exists, that would be something. If he was the only such person on the planet, it would be discounted as it would be meaningless to the rest of the population. But, if scores of trained listeners can replicate it, then it has meaning, even if I personally cannot replicate it, or many more could not replicate it. It exists beyond a fluke of nature.

Clearly we can't go all the way to the end of the spectrum and say "if we can measure it there's a difference" since our electronic measuring capabilities far outstrip our natural abilities.

We agree

To make an analogy (which I've apparently not been so successful with in previous postings so I'll leave the reductio ad absurdam out this time) that doesn't involve range or sensitivity, there are phonemes in other languages that sound absolutely indistinguishable from the point of view of an English speaker yet are as different as night and day to the person raised speaking that language. Or to pick an example from English, the "l" and "r" sounds to the Japanese. Measurable differences, of course. Audible? I'd say so, but perhaps you ought not....

Well, these apply to populations and is not singular reality
And, can be tested

 

[mtrycrafts]

Folks,
I am no expert by any means in this category, however I can tell you what I heard. I have owned my Paradigm Titans for about 6 months now I believe, and I use them every day at moderate listening levels. I don't blast them often, and I typically listen to good classical or classic rock, or easy listening or new age etc. No rap or gangsta stuff with heavy bass etc. In any case, I was very impressed with them out of the box, and I don't believe I have really heard any change in how they sound over these last 6 months. So just from that I am not sure if I really believe in break-in.

Now from just looking at the idea, I think I can understand it and maybe even accept it from the point of view that maybe as the cone moves more, the materials may become a bit more supple or may be able to move easier, kind of like a pair of shoes gets a bit softer and isn't quite as stiff once you wear them a bit. Martin Logan sure believes in it, I looked at the pdf manual that goes with their Dynamo subwoofer, and on page 12 it says:

Our custom made woofers require approximately 50 hours
of break-in at moderate listening levels before their optimal
performance occurs. This will factor in on any critical listening
and judgment.

So I am not sure who to believe. I don't own the Dynamo yet, but in a few months I will purchasing it I hope, so I will let you know if I hear any difference after 50 hours of listening to it once I get it. But if the sound of my Titans hasn't changed, then maybe the whole idea of speaker break in may just be bunk after all?

-capT

Well, you certainly could not remember well enough how exactly the speakers sounded 6 month ago. Acoustic memory has been tested and found to be very short for small differences. That is not the same as remembering large differences, like the names of your kids, or a whole song, or remembering a song from a few notes. We are talking about small changes of level, frequency, etc.

This issue of speaker break-in is testable indeed, properly, under bias controlled conditions. Speakers of the same make, model, etc and perhaps matched as closely as possible by actual measurements, one with many hours placed on it, the other not, then compared under such controlled conditions and see if it can be audibly distinguished or not. Tom Nousaine did that with some 12" drivers and found no difference. But, that is only one demonstration. Can anyone else come to a different conclusion?

 

[Jack Hammer]

quote=rmongiovi
So, from your point of view, how do you define "audible changes"?

Changes that can be demonstrated to exit under bias free listening conditions...

Realistically, that seems to me to be the biggest challenge on both sides of the debate, finding a bias free environment. I'm leaving that as a broad statement because there are so many potential biases to interfere with both our perceptions and testing (or their usable/readily available environments).

 

[captain_tinker]

Well, you certainly could not remember well enough how exactly the speakers sounded 6 month ago. Acoustic memory has been tested and found to be very short for small differences. That is not the same as remembering large differences, like the names of your kids, or a whole song, or remembering a song from a few notes. We are talking about small changes of level, frequency, etc.

Ok, perhaps I should clarify my statement somewhat. I have read where people claim that after about X amount of hours they suddenly hear this extraordinary difference in the sound of their speakers. It is like it just suddenly changes. It just opens up, or the bass just suddenly drops etc. Well I have NOT had this sudden change happen to my speakers, or if it did, I never noticed it. So since I don't have the equipment to measure it with, I cannot really say with any certainty that speaker break in is real or not. I can just say that I have not really heard any difference. So for me the entire subject is moot.

-capT

 

[rmongiovi]

So, from your point of view, how do you define "audible changes"?

Changes that can be demonstrated to exit under bias free listening conditions.

The problem, as I see it and have apparently been unable to articulate, is that even with the removal of bias through a blind listening test, you don't have an unchanging detector. As long as the sounds that my ear can discern are the product of learning, and not a constant based on my inherent ability, any judgement based on a test is a product of the moment. The fact that I cannot hear the difference between two sounds today does not (I hope) lead to the conclusion that with education I could not learn to discern the difference.

And though I've been accused of not understanding the concept of the double blind test, I think my accuser has forgotten that at the ultimate basis of a test is the concept of comparison. As tests have shown, auditory memory is quite transient. If it takes me time to learn how to hear a speaker, then I will have forgotten the other speaker I am comparing with, so my conclusions will alway be fuzzy....

 

[mtrycrafts]

The fact that I cannot hear the difference between two sounds today does not (I hope) lead to the conclusion that with education I could not learn to discern the difference.

Except that some differences are below the threshold of detection and no matter how hard you try to find those sounds, it will not happen. Hearing ability is not unlimited, no matter the training. That has been established pretty well over the many decades of acoustic research.

And though I've been accused of not understanding the concept of the double blind test, I think my accuser has forgotten that at the ultimate basis of a test is the concept of comparison. As tests have shown, auditory memory is quite transient. If it takes me time to learn how to hear a speaker, then I will have forgotten the other speaker I am comparing with, so my conclusions will alway be fuzzy....

Yes, it is a memory based decision. Yet, it works very well, or the researchers and the better makers would not rely on this protocol or the comparison listening.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Realistically, that seems to me to be the biggest challenge on both sides of the debate, finding a bias free environment. I'm leaving that as a broad statement because there are so many potential biases to interfere with both our perceptions and testing (or their usable/readily available environments).

The biggest and most important bias that needs to be removed is sight and knowing which component X is that is compared to A or B.
In most cases, even a single blind, level matched comparison will tell you a lot

 

[krabapple]

The problem, as I see it and have apparently been unable to articulate, is that even with the removal of bias through a blind listening test, you don't have an unchanging detector. As long as the sounds that my ear can discern are the product of learning, and not a constant based on my inherent ability, any judgement based on a test is a product of the moment. The fact that I cannot hear the difference between two sounds today does not (I hope) lead to the conclusion that with education I could not learn to discern the difference.

Once your ear has 'learned' to hear these 'differences', then do a DBT.
If they are real differences, and not something *wholly in your mind*, then you should be able to correctly identify A and B better than half the time, right?

And though I've been accused of not understanding the concept of the double blind test, I think my accuser has forgotten that at the ultimate basis of a test is the concept of comparison. As tests have shown, auditory memory is quite transient. If it takes me time to learn how to hear a speaker, then I will have forgotten the other speaker I am comparing with, so my conclusions will alway be fuzzy....

In a good blind test you have BOTH A and B available for comparison. Take all the time you want to 'learn' how they sound. The limiting factor then becomes the time it takes to SWITCH between them. You will basically be comparing the last few seconds of what you heard before, with the first few seconds of what you hear next...though of course you are free to listen to each one as long as you like.

You are exactly right that reliance on audio memory beyond a few seconds results in 'fuzzy' conclusions. So why would you believe so strongly that you have heard speaker break-in in a sighted condition? I haven't seen you say 'but it could all be imaginary', which is the only reasonable way to frame such a claim, without other data supporting it. You keep harping on the possibility that 'training' will improve discrimination of a real differnce. NO ONE disputes that. The issue is how one ultimately tests whether a difference that you REPORT hearing, is a real difference between *loudspeakers*, and not a pure figment of your imagination. There is no need to go off on philosophical tangents about this. You can argue that the reported difference is real because there are large *measurable* differences between the speakers (large enough in a known dimension for one to reasonably assume the difference is audible), or that they are real because you could still detect them reliably in blind test. That's about it! Danny Richie reports some measurable differences between new and 'broken in' speakers but it's unclear if such differences would be audible (assuming hte measurements are well done in the first place). No one seems to be offering results from blind tests of new vs. 'broken in' speakers. Meanwhile, everyone is still subject to 'sighted' bias, rendering ALL 'sighted' reports of 'break-in' difference inherently suspect by themselves.

I would hope the next installment of the Speaker Break-In article discusses Mr. Richie's results (methodology, replicability, etc), as well as the issue of audibility of measured differences.