Dont buy Adam A7 - good trble, high mid lower end missing.

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:59 pm

Then don't believe what I say. That's your right. If you say the absense of something isn't a proof then all I can say is that an audible difference between used speakers and new speakers is absent. So, from your perspective there is no way to prove it. Here's how we proved it.

Our group tested the concept several years ago. We took loudspeakers that had been used for several months and compared them to brand new ones of the same model in bias-controlled listening tests. We were able to do this because one of the members of the group was an audio dealer who arranged it with his customers.

We found no audible difference between the "broken in" speakers and the new ones. That's the fact. If you want to accept the opinions instead of the fact, that's up to you. The speaker manufacturers know this. The break-in has been used to help prevent returns for over 1/2 a century.

I should add that tests like these have been done by other experienced testers with the same results. So something may break in or not in a speaker, but it isn't audible - or at least isn't audible in any speaker that has been tested so far.

One of the problems with audio is the bias and perception we all deal with in our hearing. It is perfectly human and natural but it isn't understood by most people.

Again, when audible differences are subtle to non existent, the human brain substitutes audible differences through bias. The audible differences between one model of speaker and another is not subtle and it is real. The audible difference between the same speaker new and used is either non existent or subtle enough that bias is involved. The way to discover that is to do bias controlled testing. It's the best we can do.

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:05 pm

Davedog wrote:

I dont know how long you've been buying high-end speakers but when I got my first set of JBL 4310's in 197something, they recommended at least 72 hours of continuous program through them at 80 db's and there wasnt a single thing in this information regarding sitting there and listening to this.....for how long????????.....72 hours for yer earballs pardner.......please...... Rolling Eyes

I dont think that even trying to fool us they really believe someone is going to sit there for that long listening...

It IS to exercise the cone surrounds and such. Also the fail rate is higher in this time period......

I understand, Dave. That is the common belief. All I can suggest is, that if you get an opportunity to test it for yourself and do it in a bias controlled manner, do it. I promise you, you will abandon that belief. I've been doing this stuff for over 10 years. I've learned which audio phenomena are real and which are affected by bias.

We can trust our ears when audible differences are meaningful. It gets a little hazy when they aren't.

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:54 pm

fmw wrote:

All I can suggest is, that if you get an opportunity to test it for yourself and do it in a bias controlled manner, do it.

The problem is that your test is biased. If you are listening for no change or some change it doesn't matter which speaker is which. Even if you took 10 speakers of the same make and model, 5 used, and 5 new, and had 10 people rank them from 1 to 10 it wouldn't prove anything. You have to remember you are also testing the hearing ability of the listener.

Your test is not measurable or repeatable. If you want a real answer, measure the frequency response and transient response across a broad band. After measuring all 10 speakers, measure them again. This will give you correlation. If your standard deviation on each measurement is smaller than twice your max-min spread at each point of measurement, then you have data you can work with...

My point is that "proof" is not sitting in front of speakers saying "I think they sound the same" From your post that's what is sounds like you did. If you did something different I would like to hear.

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:58 am

How about when you put a brand new big block crate engine into your shiny car.
The manufacturer tells you to run it in, specifically to run the cam in. Now, if you don't would you be able to tell a difference driving that car? Compared to one that was run in? Willing to do this test blind?

Anyways, when you shear a lobe off the cam you'll know which car your in. Razz

I honestly do believe that manufactures use the "running in" period to quell antsy cunstomers, but the way you talk about bias controlled listening tests without telling me where, who, how, what and without giving any access to testimonials, which is what you're basing all this on.
I'll argue psychology all day long. Because you can't be wrong. Razz

Oh, and don't get me wrong, I just like to argue. Razz

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:57 am

Meanwhile, to get back the original topic (which I agree is a bit harsh and perhaps over the top). If I may add my .02 worth here, devalued due to the current economy, of course....

I reviewed a larger version of this line of speaker - the Adam P33A - for Mix magazine a while back, and wasn't terribly happy with them for a few things. (At least for mixing and mastering purposes). I even offered to pass on the review and give it on to someone else. I was told: No, it's ok, we'll run with what you feel is honest. Well, they mostly did that, as you can read below. (You may want to read BETWEEN the lines as well here, as the article goes on. Most of the review they used is just a list of specs, if you catch my drift.)

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_adam_pa_studio/index.html

I suspect part of the problem is the tweeter design and the lack of sub. (as I implied in the review). I'm not slamming ADAM here, and I'm not recommending anyone buys (or doesn't buy) their stuff. But I couldn't help noticing the title of this thread and was of course intrigued.

I may be out of step with the rest of the world, but I just didn't feel they were the right choice for ME, for critical mixing & mastering. I can tell you, the Adam rep was NOT happy about it either, and said some not too nice things to say about me at the time....heheheh. Twisted Evil

PS: I've heard the "Break in" suggestions from other Manufacturers as well for some of the other reviews I've done. I go with the automobile internal parts & drive-train analogy, and I take it with a grain of salt, assuming there's SOMETHING to the argument with brand-new, right out of the box items. One company insisted I keep their product for a MONTH before doing any reviews. Wellllll, sure....if you insist! Wink

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:02 am

Well, I certainly couldn't answer the question about monitor speakers. I doubt they need much, if any, break-in period.

I wonder if this is an extension of the idea behind the practice of "breaking in" guitar amp speakers....which IS real. I've had several Webers that sweetened up after a bit of "controlled abuse".

There's a difference between the two, though. A guitar amp speaker is more rigid, with stiffer surrounds, and usually, "relatively" smaller voice coils. A monitor speaker normally has a more flexible surround that allows for more cone excursion, with beefier...relatively...voice coils.

Exercising the tighter paper and stiffer surrounds of a guitar speaker does help loosen it up a bit, when new. It gets "less harsh", and smoother sounding.

I have my doubts whether that would be necessary on a speaker that is already designed to be "loose". And if it did, I doubt it would be as much perceptible as a guitar amp speaker.

I wonder if something like that is where this all started?

Just a thought.

Kapt.Krunch

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:27 am

Honestly...if you have B&W 604s why are you wasting your time with the Adams speakers?

I have a pair of B&W 685 and they mop the floor with every "studio monitor" I've used in the sub $2k price range.

In my experience Adams A7 monitors sound good, but there isn't much to them beyond that. Even the cheapest B&W speaker I've heard has a sense of depth, detail, balance, and clarity that isn't available in budget monitors.

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:42 am

GeckoMusic wrote:

fmw wrote:

All I can suggest is, that if you get an opportunity to test it for yourself and do it in a bias controlled manner, do it.

The problem is that your test is biased. If you are listening for no change or some change it doesn't matter which speaker is which. Even if you took 10 speakers of the same make and model, 5 used, and 5 new, and had 10 people rank them from 1 to 10 it wouldn't prove anything. You have to remember you are also testing the hearing ability of the listener.

Your test is not measurable or repeatable. If you want a real answer, measure the frequency response and transient response across a broad band. After measuring all 10 speakers, measure them again. This will give you correlation. If your standard deviation on each measurement is smaller than twice your max-min spread at each point of measurement, then you have data you can work with...

My point is that "proof" is not sitting in front of speakers saying "I think they sound the same" From your post that's what is sounds like you did. If you did something different I would like to hear.

What we do is set up a switchbox. We put the speakers side by side and connect them with the switchbox. The switchbox is handled by someone other than the listener. We use a random set of selections that are generated by a computer. There are 20 iterations of the test. The speakers are behind a curtain with the switchbox operator. The switchbox operator says A or B? The listener makes his ID. The operator scores it right or wrong. A score of 50-50 is random, no audible difference, a 60-40 score is a subtle audible difference and 70-30 or higher is a gross audible difference.

There is no bias. The listener can't tell which speaker is operating except by ear. He doesn't even try to guess which is the old one and which the new. We played A and B at the beginning of the test and he as to ID which one is hearing on each iteration of the test.

It is the only way to measure an audible difference validly. Anything else introduces bias.

Yes it is repeatable. We have repeated it on several different speaker models. In fact we repeated every time circumstances gave us a chance. I explained the measurement system above.

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:09 am

fmw wrote:

There is no bias.

GeckoMusic wrote:

... remember you are also testing the hearing ability of the listener.

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:20 am

No, these tests work with people of any hearing acuity and, in the first of these tests, we used 8 separate listeners each getting 20 iterations of the test. It is as valid as a test can be. I've been doing this stuff for 10 years. I'm reasonably conversant on the science involved in it.

The fact is that speakers don't display an audible difference from "breaking in." There have even been tests and papers written for the AES on the subject. Those that hear a difference should know that the difference isn't in the equipment, it is in their own expectations and biases.

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:30 am

fmw wrote:

No, these tests work with people of any hearing acuity and, in the first of these tests, we used 8 separate listeners each getting 20 iterations of the test. It is as valid as a test can be. I've been doing this stuff for 10 years. I'm reasonably conversant on the science involved in it.

The fact is that speakers don't display an audible difference from "breaking in." There have even been tests and papers written for the AES on the subject. Those that hear a difference should know that the difference isn't in the equipment, it is in their own expectations and biases.

That makes seance. Thanks for clarifying.

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:50 am

Happy to help. The reason we know hearing acuity isn't an issue is that we get results from all the listening panel members that are the same or similar enough to the total score. This has been true in literally hundreds of comparative tests.

By they way, I consider monitors to be the second most important component of a recording studio. I put the microphones in first place but not by much.

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:54 am

therecordingart wrote:

In my experience Adams A7 monitors sound good, but there isn't much to them beyond that. Even the cheapest B&W speaker I've heard has a sense of depth, detail, balance, and clarity that isn't available in budget monitors.

Have you heard some of the Westlake monitors?

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:25 pm

You guys are so funny. Regardless if speakers need an hour, 72-hours or no hours to break in, if your a real working pro, it shouldn't take much more than 72-hours to power them on and let me play for that long. You then can consider them burned in, whether they needed it or not, and just go about using them like one should be spending their time and effort doing.

Burn in of speakers or anything else is more about catching gross failures early than is about something like speakers breaking in.

This topic sponsored by: