Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
but I see nothing inferring a disagreement regarding noise in the break-in process.
Do you usually "play" brown noise on your system? Is it your perception that most folks have brown or pink noise to play?
Rather than extrapolating comments from two folks and trying to create a psuedo-disagreement
How many Richard Vandersteens are there? I visited his website (follow the previously provided link to "Ask Richard") and reviewed his many comments about what he thinks about break in.
You're certainly welcome to disagree with what you find written by him on his website. :)
My perception is...that any audiophile who's aware of (and interested in) break-in requirements of speakers will surely be capable of finding some pink noise excitation signal. It's extremely easy to find on the internet and/or a person could easily generate a track with their computer.
FYI, playing pink noise on a pair of speakers (facing each other) with one wired in opposite polarity is a break-in procedure that's been used for many decades.
Companies use pink or white noise because that's the generators they have. Not that it's bad because it is random and does have more bottom octave. And that's were a lot of the break in lies. In the larger cones.
And have no reason to disagree with the concept or potential value, but...
how many folks will actually "play" pink noise for 100-400 hours on their systems?
I can understand that being done more readily in a lab or manufacturing environment where such could be automated and could well be how Vandersteen gets the stated 1000 hours on their drivers "before doing any design work".
You don't read too well. I've already answered that question, but I'll answer it again anyway.
Read carefully this time......Anybody who wants to accelerate the process of break-in for their speakers and not be swayed by subjective evaluation during said process.
The dementia must have a strong hold on you. So sorry.
you failed to respond to subsequent questions of mine. Go figure. :)
I only respond to serious questions.
you'll figure out how many Richard Vandersteens there are whose comments I've quoted. :)
That's your problem. Quoting everybody else and not understanding any of it yourself.
Your lack of technical knowledge was obvious to me immediately in our first go 'round. I identified you as a troll right then. :)
Clearly, you're not a "big picture" kind of guy. :)
1. Bare references Vandersteen as an example
2. Salesman says Bare is incorrect because "he's an insider"
3. Quite amused with the "insider's" assertion, I observe that Richard Vandersteen's (everybody else to you) many comments from his website don't agree with his perception.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: