Does R11 need dual subwoofer?

[MAB]

Yeah, I do.

You have group 1. Here is your five or ten tested products.
Group 2. All other products on the market.

You say group 1 is fact and right.

Then along comes one with a different experience. But he has a product which is not from group 1 but one of the 1 mil. other products on the market in group 2.
-Can you say with any credibility what so ever that this person is wrong?

Fair. To be honest though, the post you linked above is one of the few I have seen that show significant differences before and after use. I will say... really big differences too... in all parameters.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Here is the guy that tested TS parameters new and after use on a 7" paper woofer -->

TS Parameter changes during break-in - Techtalk Speaker Building, Audio, Video Discussion Forum

So I have no doubt this topic has been discussed many times here but given I am about to run this comparison for myself thought I would share! Re: How does a driver measure vs manufacturer specs and what effect does "break-in" have? Grabbed myself a fresh set of drivers for my current build...

techtalk.parts-express.com

And you say this difference is audible? (From your link - last page: Red: new and Yellowish: after 7hrs)
Am I overlooking something?

Maybe @fpitas can shed some light on it as he seemed to be part of the conversation back then.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Here's what might be happening:
1. When I buy a speaker, it's often cold outside, or it's been sitting in a cold warehouse for months
2. Bringing it home, it's never been turned on the electronics are cold, everything is cold or never been turned on. I'm talking about 0 degrees or less in storage.
3. Electronics burnin is absolutely real (I'm an EE) and heat and repeated usage absolutely does change things in the initial run
4. Combine the warming up of the box, warming up of the electronics, warming up of the rubber that's been cold and never moved

Once it's been running a few hours in my house for a few days, everything is warmed to room temperature, the rubber is now at room temperature (this is probably a MAJOR cause of the burn-in effect, cold rubber will act as a dampener as it isn't as elastic), the electronics have been fully running and the capacitors are filled to the brim and generating heat (so higher than room temperature).

I think people forget these facts, and that is most LIKELY the reason why I "hear" burn in, on subwoofers specifically, simply because the they have the most rubber and need the most power and temperature plays the biggest difference.

Throw in purchase bias, and confirmation bias and expectation bias, you have a stronger burn in effect than reality.

As mentioned before: This shows temperature differences for example of an otherwise very very flat and well engineered small speaker. Now with links for convenience.

Maybe audible. Certainly not easy to detect. I wouldn’t know if I could. I wouldn’t call it breakin either because it is reversibel, meaning when you put it back outside at lower temps the change comes back and vice versa. Plus notice that it took 15deg C in temp difference to cause -1.5dB difference at about 80Hz.

Neumann KH80 DSP Monitor Measurements #3

Seems that if you want to create a riot in the streets of ASR, all you have to do is show a non-ruler flat response of Neumann KH80 DSP professional monitor (speaker). Not knowing that, that is precisely what I did in my first review of KH80 DSP: This was one of the earliest speakers I...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[bodhi]

Yeah, I do.

You have group 1. Here is your five or ten tested products.
Group 2. All other products on the market.

You say group 1 is fact and right.

I said no such thing. I said that the subject of speaker break in has been discussed for a long time without evidence of it being an issue. I'm saying that if a sub has "almost no bass" then the QA of the manufacturer has failed miserably and in this case for four different units and two different manufacturers and this is very improbable. I'm also incredulous of this temperature explanation as if this is the case then it reliably caused this kind of clearly noticeable results for many units that would have reported for countless times before and also the manufacturer would have warned about it. Remember, we are now talking about performance issues that would cause the products to be almost completely defective.

So, for us in this thread this is about probabilities, truth we cannot know. With the information we have I'm rooting for some kind of user error or bias as the cause. You can of course believe whatever you want.

 

[simplywyn]

Yeah, I do.

You have group 1. Here is your five or ten tested products.
Group 2. All other products on the market.

You say group 1 is fact and right.

Then along comes one with a different experience. But he has a product which is not from group 1 but one of the 1 mil. other products on the market in group 2.
-Can you say with any credibility what so ever that this person is wrong?

And how do we know they even tested Group 1 perfectly. Do they put them all in a temperature controlled room

As mentioned before: This shows temperature differences for example of an otherwise very very flat and well engineered small speaker. Now with links for convenience.

Maybe audible. Certainly not easy to detect. I wouldn’t know if I could. I wouldn’t call it breakin either because it is reversibel, meaning when you put it back outside at lower temps the change comes back and vice versa. Plus notice that it took 15deg C in temp difference to cause -1.5dB difference at about 80Hz.

Neumann KH80 DSP Monitor Measurements #3

Seems that if you want to create a riot in the streets of ASR, all you have to do is show a non-ruler flat response of Neumann KH80 DSP professional monitor (speaker). Not knowing that, that is precisely what I did in my first review of KH80 DSP: This was one of the earliest speakers I...

www.audiosciencereview.com

View attachment 260935

That's a speaker, 4 inch woofer. I think I'm onto something, look at the mass loss in bass.

Now every subwoofer I"ve gotten is a 12inch, and the KF92's at 18 inches total combined size. I think we've found the issue.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

This makes sense. I've felt the same with my car - I thought I knew when it was time to change the oil. So whenever I "felt" my car needing oil change, I would go get the oil changed (usually at around the 7000km mark).

However, one day, my dad decided to change my oil without my knowledge and didn't tell me. I still had the same "feeling" that I needed to get the oil changed. And was about to take the car into get an oil change before he stopped me and said he already did it.

That was when I started trusting nothing.

...............except for your dad?

 

[Chrispy]

And how do we know they even tested Group 1 perfectly. Do they put them all in a temperature controlled room

That's a speaker, 4 inch woofer. I think I'm onto something, look at the mass loss in bass.

Now every subwoofer I"ve gotten is a 12inch, and the KF92's at 18 inches total combined size. I think we've found the issue.

You can't compare a two 9" drivers as equivalent to an 18", the math doesn't work that way. When I brought home my first good sub (a dual opposed 15") I had been reading about changes in break-in too....and convinced myself it was a thing for a bit, too. After building several subs since then I haven't had that particular impression again. I think we've all been there with some sort of audio myths...

 

[simplywyn]

...............except for your dad?

lol the last part was a joke, I mean to I stopped trusting my biased instincts.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

You can't compare a two 9" drivers as equivalent to an 18", the math doesn't work that way. When I brought home my first good sub (a dual opposed 15") I had been reading about changes in break-in too....and convinced myself it was a thing for a bit, too. After building several subs since then I haven't had that particular impression again. I think we've all been there with some sort of audio myths...

I think you kind of missed his point to be honest.

I've been building subs too. But for cars. And I assure you that with many of these kW monster drivers with 2 x 2 or 2 x 1 ohm there is not a subtle but a very "audible" (it's bass, -feelable?) difference between new and used or cold and warm.

I said no such thing. I said that the subject of speaker break in has been discussed for a long time without evidence of it being an issue. I'm saying that if a sub has "almost no bass" then the QA of the manufacturer has failed miserably and in this case for four different units and two different manufacturers and this is very improbable. I'm also incredulous of this temperature explanation as if this is the case then it reliably caused this kind of clearly noticeable results for many units that would have reported for countless times before and also the manufacturer would have warned about it. Remember, we are now talking about performance issues that would cause the products to be almost completely defective.

So, for us in this thread this is about probabilities, truth we cannot know. With the information we have I'm rooting for some kind of user error or bias as the cause. You can of course believe whatever you want.

Well, is the evidence of it NOT being a thing present do you think?

"Almost no bass" -well maybe it wasn't meant as literally as you took it.

I don't believe. I know by experience that for certain drivers there are differences. Ands statistically, looking at probability and at the many different drivers on market it is about probability and you should not be so hard cut on being right based on a handful of measurements on certain drivers.

 

[Chrispy]

I think you kind of missed his point to be honest.

I've been building subs too. But for cars. And I assure you that with many of these kW monster drivers with 2 x 2 or 2 x 1 ohm there is not a subtle but a very "audible" (it's bass, -feelable?) difference between new and used or cold and warm.


Well, is the evidence of it NOT being a thing present do you think?

"Almost no bass" -well maybe it wasn't meant as literally as you took it.

I don't believe. I know by experience that for certain drivers there are differences. Ands statistically, looking at probability and at the many different drivers on market it is about probability and you should not be so hard cut on being right based on a handful of measurements on certain drivers.

I get the point, you think you're hearing something, altho can't prove what particularly. Got any measurements?

 

[Deleted member 48726]

I get the point, you think you're hearing something, altho can't prove what particularly. Got any measurements?

I don't think you do.

Nope, you got any books in statistics and probability?

Or measurements that suggests all speakers behave the same?

 

[Chrispy]

I don't think you do.

Nope, you got any books in statistics and probability?

Should be easy to measure and show the particular differences if its audible....just an anecdote otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Should be easy to measure and show the particular differences if its audible....just an anecdote otherwise.

Like claiming there is no difference in all drivers based on a handful of measurements. -Yeah. That sounds about right and highly unlikely. Hence the remark about the subject of statistics..
I have no way to prove my point other than my experience and neither do you. So instead of tredding in circles when you clearly want to close your eyes for the obviously flawed and silly applied opinion based off of a handful of measurements that doesn't show it, maybe you should stop replying when you don't have any further to add but to just repeat yourself, asking for measurements that none have ever done.

 

[bodhi]

I have no way to prove my point other than my experience

And that's that. Next subject!

 

[antcollinet]

....
I have no way to prove my point other than my experience and neither do you....

The problem is - due to knowledge about how the human auditory system works - we have no idea if your exerience is of hearing stuff that actually is caused by change in the speaker - of if it is (just as likely) due to your built in cognitive biases.

So your description of your experience is meaningless to anyone other than you.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Well I dismiss the proof of break in not existing due to the knowledge of the way materials and mechanics work.

The arguments layed forth I also dismiss because of the extremely narrowminded way some are using a handful of measurements to be applied to each and every driver behaviour.
-This is a scientifically wrong method of proving a hypothesis and applying data and that's a fact.

 

[bodhi]

Well I dismiss the proof of break in not existing due to the knowledge of the way materials and mechanics work.

The arguments layed forth I also dismiss because of the extremely narrowminded way some are using a handful of measurements to be applied to each and every driver behaviour.
-This is a scientifically wrong method of proving a hypothesis and applying data and that's a fact.

You talk about science but dismiss the fact that it is impossible to prove that break in could not exist in any situation, ever. Or even that it didn't happen in your specific situation.

We can prove that it exists and it has been tried quite many times, without much success. You could have proven it in your case but didn't.

The burden of proof could be switched to people that don't believe in certain claims and in fact there are many forums where this is the case. Even better, you could get banned in these by voicing doubts about some members experiences in audio, even with evidence.

But isn't it more simple to have it like it is? As in if you have a claim that seems dubious based on previous experiences and especially research, physics and tests, you have to present some evidence? Based on what is known about human biases and research into break in phenomenon, why is it hard for you to accept that what you experienced probably wasn't real, although it could have? Do you feel uncomfortable accepting that your mind might be playing tricks with you? I'm asking because I don't understand the thought process as I, based on what I know about biases, always have them as one of the top explanations in situations where my experiences don't seem to match the known facts.

 

[antcollinet]

You talk about science but dismiss the fact that it is impossible to prove that break in could not exist in any situation, ever. Or even that it didn't happen in your specific situation.

We can prove that it exists and it has been tried quite many times, without much success. You could have proven it in your case but didn't.

The burden of proof could be switched to people that don't believe in certain claims and in fact there are many forums where this is the case. Even better, you could get banned in these by voicing doubts about some members experiences in audio, even with evidence.

But isn't it more simple to have it like it is? As in if you have a claim that seems dubious based on previous experiences and especially research, physics and tests, you have to present some evidence? Based on what is known about human biases and research into break in phenomenon, why is it hard for you to accept that what you experienced probably wasn't real, although it could have? Do you feel uncomfortable accepting that your mind might be playing tricks with you? I'm asking because I don't understand the thought process as I, based on what I know about biases, always have them as one of the top explanations in situations where my experiences don't seem to match the known facts.

To simplify:

It is not possible to prove a negative.
If someone believes (Hypothesises) a phenomena is happening (especially in the face of previous countering evidence in similar situations) it is up to them to prove it.


To simplify it further:
"Put up, or shut up"

 

[Deleted member 48726]

You talk about science but dismiss the fact that it is impossible to prove that break in could not exist in any situation, ever. Or even that it didn't happen in your specific situation.

We can prove that it exists and it has been tried quite many times, without much success. You could have proven it in your case but didn't.

The burden of proof could be switched to people that don't believe in certain claims and in fact there are many forums where this is the case. Even better, you could get banned in these by voicing doubts about some members experiences in audio, even with evidence.

But isn't it more simple to have it like it is? As in if you have a claim that seems dubious based on previous experiences and especially research, physics and tests, you have to present some evidence? Based on what is known about human biases and research into break in phenomenon, why is it hard for you to accept that what you experienced probably wasn't real, although it could have? Do you feel uncomfortable accepting that your mind might be playing tricks with you? I'm asking because I don't understand the thought process as I, based on what I know about biases, always have them as one of the top explanations in situations where my experiences don't seem to match the known facts.

Are there proof that it doesn't exist?
Please provide evidence of your claims.

Based on what we know about materials' behaviour in different climate your claim seems rather unlikely and based on so little data that it doesn't really makes sense to claim what you do. Is it really so hard for you to grasp that you hold on to so thin statistics that it looks like you are blind to anyone daring to point that out?
Either way I really think this way of debating and getting personal, insulting, missing the point is tiring. It's not getting anywhere if you are unable to look beyond what little data that exists. Not one has commented on the link I found to the changing TS parameters. Is it going against the belief?
Not one has commented on OPs post about it maybe is a thing that's more pronounced with subs and heavy drivers.

No, it's easier to just look away and demand measurements like a parrot.

 

[antcollinet]

Are there proof that it doesn't exist?
Please provide evidence of your claims.

He literally just said it is NOT possible to prove it never exists. And that it can only be proven to exist - which no-one has yet done.