Better sound with more hours? - Page 3

Guys... it's just your brain getting used to the sound signature and that is it. These companies that write that stuff on booklets do that for the purpose of not having their products returned if you do not like what you purchased.

Do you really think that a company of the caliber of Audio Note would do that? Do you really think that people who are spending upwards of a quarter of a million dollars on a loudspeaker would return that product on a whim, do you not think they would audition the product first?

It is a fact that speaker cones settle in, the rubber and paper of the cone alter slightly with use this is a mechanical thing. You comment is akin to saying a car engine never wears out and would never need maintenance of any kind!

I'm a firm believer in burn-in.  I'm also a firm believer that you get used to the sound.  I think a coupling effect is in play.

 

Any mechanical device will change after use.  Friction, warping, stretching, loosening, brittling, and other unavoidable consequences of usage may help or hurt over extended period of time.  You can't deny the laws of physics.

 

Some people swear by their musical instruments.  Remember when yo yo ma left his cello in a NYC cab?

 

Is some of it psychosomatic?  probably.  Is some of it physical?  has to be.  Can we hear the differences over time?  probably. 

 

If you believe it is changing over time, I'm sure it is, even if it just in your mind.  But perception is reality.

 

The thing is, there are a lot of other factors that come into play over the course of 1,000 hours.  Changes to equipment in the signal path, changing listening conditions, even human emotional states, etc.  As to whether there is a significant difference between hundreds or thousands of hours, honest-to-God who knows?  But I'd be inclined to look at other factors first.  Besides, I believe that a fair percentage of burn-in is simply acclimation.

 

 

This.  Or as obobs would say, this a thousand times.

Wooden instruments develop a more unique timbre over time but it's not necessarily an improvement. Many modern artists use new instruments because there is a greater "health" to the sound. The Stradivarius instruments are great because the wood of its time - and where it was retrieved - were of high and unique quality, and of course because they were made by a master. The woods of our time can't really parallel the woods that Stradivarius used because it's most likely polluted. You should read into a double blind test that people did in comparing Stradivari instruments with modern violins. Turns out that people even in the classical music world are biased towards the fame that Stradivarius instruments have established over time. Audio is a very tricky thing.  

 

And to add further, I highly doubt the wood that Grados use are anything of the same caliber that professional instrumental makers use. Bad instruments actually just get worse over time, not better, depending on the wood used. Things like varnish also plays a role in how the sound improves (or worsen) over time. 

May I ask why this would be such a hard thing to believe? Once again, I suspect this is one type of the most common biases that people have on this board. Kinda reminds me of what happened with NwavGuy and Schitt Audio.