| Author |
Message |
Laurence Payne
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:07 pm Post subject:
Re: Do any engineers believe in speaker break in? |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:45:10 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
| Quote: | From my DALI's owner's manual: 'Like any other mechanical system, a
speaker needs to be "run in", so you can look foward to a gradual
improvement in sound quality over the initial period.'
|
So don't send it back under warranty because it sounds odd, wait a bit
and you'll get used to it :-)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Barry Mann
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:02 pm Post subject:
Re: Do any engineers believe in speaker break in? |
|
|
I recall one world class speaker line that included a graph with each
speaker, comparing it to their "reference" speaker. They also claimed
that the speakers needed to break-in.
I've never been sure exactly what that graph meant to the customer. To
me it meant that the speaker at hand sounded exactly as their reference
speaker sounded at some point in the manufacturing process. Hopefully,
after break-in, the reference speaker sounded wonderful and the
customer's speaker will too -- some time in the future.
It did, however, produce wonderfully flat graphs. There weren't any
dips, peaks, or room problems to worry about.
-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
----------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
E.J. Pitt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:54 pm Post subject:
Re: Do any engineers believe in speaker break in? |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 08:37:41 GMT, "E.J. Pitt"
esmond.not.pitt@not.bigpond.com> wrote:
To allay your doubts as well as your imputations of bad faith with the
implication that I have fabricated a 66-word quote you will find it in
G.A. Briggs, 'Loudpeakers', 4th ed., Wharfedale Wireless Works Pty Ltd
1955, reprinted 1957, pp72-3.
OK, I gave him more credit than he deserved.
|
Your apology is accepted.
| Quote: | So the official r.a.t. position is that speaker materials definitely
never improve?
For someone so precious and spiky, you seem to have no problem with
distorting what others say.
|
Cut it out, Stewart. The only person I have quoted is Briggs.
| Quote: | The official *sensible* position is that loudspeaker *driver*
materials have improved enormously, as have the analytical tools
available for their design. OTOH, it remains the case that a
loudspeaker should ideally have *no* resonances whatever. It is
absolutely *not* a musical instrument, it should produce *no* sound
other than that of the instrument it is *reproducing*.
|
A more sensible and scientific position would be not to assert a
universal proposition which can be and has been disproved by
counter-example.
'Should' is nice, what about real speakers? and real vendors? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 3:31 pm Post subject:
Re: Do any engineers believe in speaker break in? |
|
|
"E.J. Pitt" <esmond.not.pitt@not.bigpond.com> wrote in
message news:YMG8f.3691$Hj2.1862@news-server.bigpond.net.au
| Quote: | Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 08:37:41 GMT, "E.J. Pitt"
esmond.not.pitt@not.bigpond.com> wrote:
To allay your doubts as well as your imputations of bad
faith with the implication that I have fabricated a
66-word quote you will find it in G.A. Briggs,
'Loudpeakers', 4th ed., Wharfedale Wireless Works Pty
Ltd 1955, reprinted 1957, pp72-3.
OK, I gave him more credit than he deserved.
Your apology is accepted.
So the official r.a.t. position is that speaker
materials definitely never improve?
For someone so precious and spiky, you seem to have no
problem with distorting what others say.
Cut it out, Stewart. The only person I have quoted is
Briggs.
The official *sensible* position is that loudspeaker
*driver* materials have improved enormously, as have the
analytical tools available for their design. OTOH, it
remains the case that a loudspeaker should ideally have
*no* resonances whatever. It is absolutely *not* a
musical instrument, it should produce *no* sound other
than that of the instrument it is *reproducing*.
A more sensible and scientific position would be not to
assert a universal proposition which can be and has been
disproved by counter-example.
|
You already flunked the test Mr. Pitt. Any fool can see that
there are a number of assertions in Pinkerton's paragraph.
Some of them are fundamental to the obvious meaning of the
phrase "High Fidelity". Therefore the paragraph in its
entirety can't possibly be disproved by any means, including
counter-example.
However, I think there is one sure loser in Pinkerton's
paragraph, which is the following:
"... it remains the case that a loudspeaker should ideally
have *no* resonances whatever."
It appears to me that it would be permissiable for a speaker
with ideal audible performance to have a number of
resonances. Here are some reasons why:
(1) I don't think that an ideal speaker would actually have
to have unbounded or infinite high frequency response. All
an ideal speaker needs to do on the high end is to have
enough high frequency response to satisfy the ear, which
itself has severely limited high frequency response.
Therefore any resonances that are outside the range of the
ear, and that have no effects within the range of the ear,
are permissable.
(2) It is possible to create a system with any reasonable
desired technical performance, even if it is composed of
components or subsystems that have resonances.
Now these are pedantic points. I do agree with the probable
spirit of Pinkerton's statements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:22 am Post subject:
Re: Do any engineers believe in speaker break in? |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:31:25 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | "E.J. Pitt" <esmond.not.pitt@not.bigpond.com> wrote in
message news:YMG8f.3691$Hj2.1862@news-server.bigpond.net.au
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 08:37:41 GMT, "E.J. Pitt"
esmond.not.pitt@not.bigpond.com> wrote:
To allay your doubts as well as your imputations of bad
faith with the implication that I have fabricated a
66-word quote you will find it in G.A. Briggs,
'Loudpeakers', 4th ed., Wharfedale Wireless Works Pty
Ltd 1955, reprinted 1957, pp72-3.
OK, I gave him more credit than he deserved.
Your apology is accepted.
So the official r.a.t. position is that speaker
materials definitely never improve?
For someone so precious and spiky, you seem to have no
problem with distorting what others say.
Cut it out, Stewart. The only person I have quoted is
Briggs.
The official *sensible* position is that loudspeaker
*driver* materials have improved enormously, as have the
analytical tools available for their design. OTOH, it
remains the case that a loudspeaker should ideally have
*no* resonances whatever. It is absolutely *not* a
musical instrument, it should produce *no* sound other
than that of the instrument it is *reproducing*.
A more sensible and scientific position would be not to
assert a universal proposition which can be and has been
disproved by counter-example.
You already flunked the test Mr. Pitt. Any fool can see that
there are a number of assertions in Pinkerton's paragraph.
Some of them are fundamental to the obvious meaning of the
phrase "High Fidelity". Therefore the paragraph in its
entirety can't possibly be disproved by any means, including
counter-example.
However, I think there is one sure loser in Pinkerton's
paragraph, which is the following:
"... it remains the case that a loudspeaker should ideally
have *no* resonances whatever."
It appears to me that it would be permissiable for a speaker
with ideal audible performance to have a number of
resonances.
|
You can't call something a 'sure loser', and then say that this is so
because I said that an *ideal* loudspeaker should have no resonances,
while you argue that it's *permissible* for a speaker to have some.
| Quote: | Here are some reasons why:
(1) I don't think that an ideal speaker would actually have
to have unbounded or infinite high frequency response. All
an ideal speaker needs to do on the high end is to have
enough high frequency response to satisfy the ear, which
itself has severely limited high frequency response.
Therefore any resonances that are outside the range of the
ear, and that have no effects within the range of the ear,
are permissable.
|
Still, it would better if no such resonances existed - they might fold
back IM artifacts to the baseband.
| Quote: | (2) It is possible to create a system with any reasonable
desired technical performance, even if it is composed of
components or subsystems that have resonances.
|
But it's easier to do it with non-resonant components, and
'reasonable' is not 'ideal'.
| Quote: | Now these are pedantic points. I do agree with the probable
spirit of Pinkerton's statements.
|
I never suggested that my ideally non-resonant speaker had real
existence!
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barry Mann
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:13 pm Post subject:
Re: Do any engineers believe in speaker break in? |
|
|
In <_9KdnbBNiPFl0v7eRVn-3A@comcast.com>, on 10/29/05
at 06:31 AM, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> said:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | Therefore any resonances that are outside the range of the ear, and
that have no effects within the range of the ear, are permissable.
[ ... ] |
Do you allow that there may be some body responses not attributable to
the aural channel?
-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
----------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:18 pm Post subject:
Re: Do any engineers believe in speaker break in? |
|
|
"Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:43678693$1$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com
| Quote: | In <_9KdnbBNiPFl0v7eRVn-3A@comcast.com>, on 10/29/05
at 06:31 AM, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> said:
[ ... ]
Therefore any resonances that are outside the range of
the ear, and that have no effects within the range of
the ear, are permissable.
[ ... ]
Do you allow that there may be some body responses not
attributable to the aural channel?
|
Of course. So let me restate what you quoted:
Therefore any resonances that are outside the range of
the human senses, and that have no effects within the range
of
the human senses, are permissable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barry Mann
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Do any engineers believe in speaker break in? |
|
|
In <hfGdnQV14ajbV_XeRVn-rg@comcast.com>, on 11/02/05
at 09:18 AM, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> said:
| Quote: | "Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:43678693$1$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com
In <_9KdnbBNiPFl0v7eRVn-3A@comcast.com>, on 10/29/05
at 06:31 AM, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> said:
[ ... ]
Therefore any resonances that are outside the range of
the ear, and that have no effects within the range of
the ear, are permissable.
[ ... ]
Do you allow that there may be some body responses not
attributable to the aural channel?
Of course. So let me restate what you quoted:
Therefore any resonances that are outside the range of
the human senses, and that have no effects within the range of
the human senses, are permissable.
|
And do these other body responses effect what we hear or think we hear?
-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
----------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:03 am Post subject:
Re: Do any engineers believe in speaker break in? |
|
|
"Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:4368df4b$1$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com
| Quote: | In <hfGdnQV14ajbV_XeRVn-rg@comcast.com>, on 11/02/05
at 09:18 AM, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> said:
"Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:43678693$1$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com
In <_9KdnbBNiPFl0v7eRVn-3A@comcast.com>, on 10/29/05
at 06:31 AM, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> said:
[ ... ]
Therefore any resonances that are outside the range of
the ear, and that have no effects within the range of
the ear, are permissable.
[ ... ]
Do you allow that there may be some body responses not
attributable to the aural channel?
Of course. So let me restate what you quoted:
Therefore any resonances that are outside the range of
the human senses, and that have no effects within the
range of the human senses, are permissable.
And do these other body responses effect what we hear or
think we hear?
|
Some of them, I think so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in