Sujet Les gri-gris en Hi-Fi
- 23 133 réponses
- 458 participants
- 2 621 970 vues
- 429 followers
Afficher le sujet de la discussion
frgirard
478
Posteur·euse AFfamé·e
Membre depuis 15 ans
le rodage des HP 
In parts of the audio industry, there is a belief that all components
from wires to electronics to loudspeakers need to
“break in.” Out of the box, it is assumed that they will not
be performing at their best. Proponents vehemently deny
that this process has anything to do with adaptation, writing
extensively about changes in performance that they claim
are easily audible in several aspects of device performance.
Yet, the author is not aware of any controlled test in which
any consequential audible differences were found, even in
loudspeakers, where there would seem to be some opportunities
for material changes. A few years ago, to satisfy a
determined marketing person, the research group performed
a test using samples of a loudspeaker that was
claimed to benefit from “breaking in.” Measurements
before and after the recommended break-in showed no
differences in frequency response, except a very tiny
change around 30–40 Hz in the one area where break-in
effects could be expected: woofer compliance. Careful listening
tests revealed no audible differences. None of this
was surprising to the engineering staff. It is not clear whether
the marketing person was satisfied by the finding.
To all of us, this has to be very reassuring because it means that the
performance of loudspeakers is stable, except for the known
small change in woofer compliance caused by exercising
the suspension and the deterioration—breaking down—of
foam surrounds and some diaphragm materials with time,
moisture, and atmospheric pollutants. It is fascinating to
note that “breaking-in” seems always to result in an
improvement in performance. Why? Do all mechanical and
electrical devices and materials acquire a musical aptitude
that is missing in their virgin state? Why is it never reversed,
getting worse with use? The reality is that engineers seek
out materials, components, and construction methods that
do not change with time. Suppose that the sound did
improve over time as something broke in. What then? Would
it eventually decline, just as wine goes “over the hill”? One
can imagine an advertisement for a vintage loudspeaker:
“An audiophile dream. Model XX, manufactured 2004,
broken in with Mozart, Schubert, and acoustic jazz. Has
never played anything more aggressive than the Beatles.
Originally $1700/pair. Now at their performance peak—a
steal at $3200!”
Floyd Tools : Sound Reproduction - Loudspeakers And Rooms
Vous gênez pas c'est en accés libre.
In parts of the audio industry, there is a belief that all components
from wires to electronics to loudspeakers need to
“break in.” Out of the box, it is assumed that they will not
be performing at their best. Proponents vehemently deny
that this process has anything to do with adaptation, writing
extensively about changes in performance that they claim
are easily audible in several aspects of device performance.
Yet, the author is not aware of any controlled test in which
any consequential audible differences were found, even in
loudspeakers, where there would seem to be some opportunities
for material changes. A few years ago, to satisfy a
determined marketing person, the research group performed
a test using samples of a loudspeaker that was
claimed to benefit from “breaking in.” Measurements
before and after the recommended break-in showed no
differences in frequency response, except a very tiny
change around 30–40 Hz in the one area where break-in
effects could be expected: woofer compliance. Careful listening
tests revealed no audible differences. None of this
was surprising to the engineering staff. It is not clear whether
the marketing person was satisfied by the finding.
To all of us, this has to be very reassuring because it means that the
performance of loudspeakers is stable, except for the known
small change in woofer compliance caused by exercising
the suspension and the deterioration—breaking down—of
foam surrounds and some diaphragm materials with time,
moisture, and atmospheric pollutants. It is fascinating to
note that “breaking-in” seems always to result in an
improvement in performance. Why? Do all mechanical and
electrical devices and materials acquire a musical aptitude
that is missing in their virgin state? Why is it never reversed,
getting worse with use? The reality is that engineers seek
out materials, components, and construction methods that
do not change with time. Suppose that the sound did
improve over time as something broke in. What then? Would
it eventually decline, just as wine goes “over the hill”? One
can imagine an advertisement for a vintage loudspeaker:
“An audiophile dream. Model XX, manufactured 2004,
broken in with Mozart, Schubert, and acoustic jazz. Has
never played anything more aggressive than the Beatles.
Originally $1700/pair. Now at their performance peak—a
steal at $3200!”
Floyd Tools : Sound Reproduction - Loudspeakers And Rooms
Vous gênez pas c'est en accés libre.
Chris Kazvon
17116
Drogué·e à l’AFéine
Membre depuis 12 ans
frgirard
478
Posteur·euse AFfamé·e
Membre depuis 15 ans
du même auteur,
La NS10
Also shown in Figure 18.22 is the directivity index, and it can be seen, especially
in the overlaid curves in (b), that they are almost identical. Interesting,
two very similar loudspeaker systems engineered for different purposes: one of
them to deliver accurate sound at short listening distances and the other at long
listening distances. So which one ends up being the informal international
standard near-field monitor? The one designed to be listened to at the far end
of the room, the NS-10M! How could this happen? How could audio professionals
be so wrong?
La NS10
Also shown in Figure 18.22 is the directivity index, and it can be seen, especially
in the overlaid curves in (b), that they are almost identical. Interesting,
two very similar loudspeaker systems engineered for different purposes: one of
them to deliver accurate sound at short listening distances and the other at long
listening distances. So which one ends up being the informal international
standard near-field monitor? The one designed to be listened to at the far end
of the room, the NS-10M! How could this happen? How could audio professionals
be so wrong?
Phoebus1
1382
AFicionado·a
Membre depuis 19 ans
Et si on parlait des câbles pour changer 
?
?
[ Dernière édition du message le 06/04/2017 à 18:25:48 ]
renardeaux
229
Posteur·euse AFfiné·e
Membre depuis 8 ans
phm78
486
Posteur·euse AFfamé·e
Membre depuis 20 ans
miles1981
8326
Je poste, donc je suis
Membre depuis 20 ans
Jimbass
11603
Drogué·e à l’AFéine
Membre depuis 18 ans
Ce qui m'a surtout fait marrer dans le nettoyeur de vinyle, ce n'est pas sa simple existence, c'est qu'il est livré sans capot et donc qu'il va foutre de la flotte partout ... 
Musikmesser 2013 - Bullshit Gourous - Tocxic Instruments - festivals Foud'Rock, Metal Sphère et la Tour met les Watts
Phoebus1
1382
AFicionado·a
Membre depuis 19 ans
Pucelle_Dabidjan
5835
Je poste, donc je suis
Membre depuis 19 ans
- < Liste des sujets
- Charte