Da er jeg endelig kommet gjennom denne boken - noe av det mest lærerike jeg har lest på lenge og den anbefales. Jeg kjøpte den i høst og satte av julen til lesing - det holdt så vidt.
Han gir en balansert fremstilling - og jeg tror noen og hver vil finne tema av interesse. Iht Toole så bør vi bl a gå flerkanalveien, det bør dempes - men kanskje ikke slik du tror og digital/akustisk kontroll i bassområdet er nødvendig.
Et utsagn jeg falt for er det følgende (side 353 med min understreking), selv om det ikke direkte er innenfor bokas hovedemne:
"Breaking in
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 benfit 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 detoriation - 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 wors with use? The reality is that engineers seek out materials, components, and construction methods that do not change with time. Suppose that 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 advertisment for a vintage loudspeaker:"An audiophile dream. Model XX, manufactured 2004, broken in with Mozart, Schubert, and acoustic jazz. Has never played anything aggressive than the Beatles. Originally $1700/pair. Now at their performance peak - a steal at $3200!"" (Unnskylder herved mulige skrivefeil.)
Jeg har faktisk en erfaring vedrørende "breaking-in". For noen år siden kjøpte jeg en Klipsch RSW12 brukt. Selgeren fortalte meg at den trengte meget hard innspilling - sikkert inspirert av et herværende tidsskrift - og at den ikke lød godt før etter et par-tre uker. Ingen problemer for meg tenkte jeg fordi den er jo innspilt. Så ville tilfellet at jeg fikk kjøpt en ny RSW12 - jeg ville teste ut om to subwoofere har noe for seg selv ved relativt lav deling. Jeg husket hva den første selgeren sa og forberedte meg på en lang innspillingsperiode. Imidlertid tenkte jeg at dette er en mulighet for å sjekke om slikt har noe for seg og jeg bestemte meg for å forsøke en sammenligning. Jeg brant en CD med 20-50Hz sinus for å riste litt løs - ca fem minutter - og satte meg ned for å sammenligne. Jeg klarte ikke å høre noen forskjeller hvilket jeg fant meget tilfredsstillende, og jeg kunne slappe av med musikken. Mvh.
