First 500 Miles Observations/Comments

[Rob V]

So I've had my X3 for 3 weeks now and have a little more than 500 miles with it. I wanted to share some observations about the X3 that I've come up with. Firstly, this is the most incredible car I've ever owned. Not so much in the fact that it's incredibly fast or anything it's that it moves, reacts and DRIVES the way you tell it to! It's slightly sluggish out of the gate but beyond that it has more than enough power to do anything you need it to do. Corners?....I've yet to meet one it couldn't take.

Now I know that's nothing new. I'm sure you've all heard that already and I expected it. What I didn't expect were a couple things that came to light on a highway trip yesterday. There was a moment where I sped up so that I could pass the car in front of me and in the blink of an eye I was doing 100mph. The fact that it accelarated so fast was not what got me, what got me was that it litterally felt as stable and controlable as it does driving through my neighborhood! I had never experienced that and it was great to finally drive a car that walked the talk. Oh yeah, and I averaged 29 mpg on that trip as well. BONUS!

Has anyone discovered the "Speed Volume" function? This may already be common knowledge but I was poking around with the stereo buttons and while holding down the Music button it came up with a "Speed Volume" function. I couldn't figure out what this was for at first until I realized that the stereo volume would increase and decrease along with the cars speed to compensate for road noise. Pretty cool :thumbup: .

As for negatives I would have to say brake dust and the musky A/C odor when you start it up. I know that there are ways to avoid the odor but I haven't been able to figure it out. Ah well, I'm not going to let it take away from the best driving experience I've had.

[Liverman]

You have the Premium Sound System, right?

Premium sound with DSP(Digital Sound Processor) AM/FM stereo/CD audio system with 8 upgraded speakers, upgraded amplification, and vehicle-speed-sensitive equalization; prewired for 6-disc CD changer and compatible with auxiliary audio input adapter for sudio connection of portable music players
I wish this was standard in the base sound system...it is a useful feature. It has been standard in GM cars for years.

I know what you mean about the acceleration. When I took a test drive in a 3.0i and got on I-25 I was doing 80 before I knew what happened - with four adults aboard.:yikes:

Greg

[calgaryx3]

Hmm....my "base" stereo (MY 2005 CDN spec) has the speed sensitive volume??

Asif

[Rob V]

No, my stereo is the base stereo. No 6-Disc Change, no Aux input.

[simoncpw]

- Speed Volume - should be standard on all "BMW Business CD", or at least the 2005 models. Press and hold the "music note" button for a few seconds (second button from the left), press + / - to adjust. The higher the number, the louder it gets when your car speeds up.

- A/C odor - it's one of the options for the Key Memory; by default, it's set to "Off" (air coming in from outside). I had to bring the car back to the dealer to change it to "On" when the car starts.

Hope this helps.

[beware_phog]

Oh yeah, and I averaged 29 mpg on that trip as well. BONUS!



I'd suggest you check your math. Were you going downhill the whole time and in neutral? The X3 doesn't get that kind of MPG.

[motordavid]

Rob: congrats on your new X3!
A/C mustiness: while not convenient, if you turn off "Auto" and A/C and go to std vent, (outside air is ok), a couple miles from destination, it greatly reduces mustiness. Running heat through those vents on chilly mornings, for a few mins, helps too. All the Xs have that prob to some degree, though running on Auto and A/C 24/7 seems to acerbate situ.

Nice pics in your folder...I agree on the mpg wonderment, lol!

You musta been checking it only on the down the mtn run, car in neutral or off. Do some full tank to full tank arith checks; the OBC mpg is a tad optomistic. GL,md

[mguhler]

standard on all stereos since day 1. I have a very early '04, base sound system and I have it. I think it was added in '03 or '04 to all models. It is nice for raod trips with the family, but I turn it off during the week when I have it cranked most of the time.

[Rob V]

As for the MPG, I started the trip on a full tank and cleared the MPG reading on the OBC as I left my home. It fluctuated from 24 - 29 but when I arrived it read 28.9. I cleared it again on the return trip when I got home it read 25. The trip was from Colorado Springs to Denver so anyone familiar with I-25 will be familiar with the Up and Down hills. But what can I say? That's what the OBC was reading. I'll be sure to take a piture next time.

I will say this, around my immediate neighborhood such as going to the grocery store, going to the in-laws house, etc....I only get about 12.5mpg. Is THAT being optemistic?

[Liverman]

No, my stereo is the base stereo. No 6-Disc Change, no Aux input.
I love being wrong when it works out better for me!! :)

Thanks, Rob!

Greg

[wingrove]

ive had cars with the SSV on before and this is the first car where my sensitive (fussy) ears dont mind it. its very well set up and simply does what ts meant to do and unless you really listen hard it just does it in the background seemlessly. didnt know you could turn it on and of at the radio though. thought it was one of those annoying 'dealer programmable' things.
j

[Caesar]

ive had cars with the SSV on before and this is the first car where my sensitive (fussy) ears dont mind it. its very well set up and simply does what ts meant to do and unless you really listen hard it just does it in the background seemlessly. didnt know you could turn it on and of at the radio though. thought it was one of those annoying 'dealer programmable' things.
j

Actually, by default it is set to 3, and it can be changed from 1 to 6. With 6 being the greatest differential in volume between moving fast and not moving. 1 being the least differential.

It isn't just an on or off sort of thing.

[JG]

There was a moment where I sped up so that I could pass the car in front of me and in the blink of an eye I was doing 100mph. The fact that it accelarated so fast was not what got me, what got me was that it litterally felt as stable and controlable as it does driving through my neighborhood!

I took a trip from Toronto to Pennsylvania through the mountains a few months ago on state highway 15 for a good portion.

One of those trips where every once in a while there were a group of cars doing up to 150km/hr in the empty middle part of the state (before Williamsport).

At one point it started to rain heavy. The X3 had no problem accelerating and being stable at 120 - 150 km/hr on steep uphill highway slopes - as if there were dry conditions.

That impressed me very much. It would be interesting to see if there are any other SAV type vehicles that could match the X3 for handling, acceleration and stability in poor weather conditions (maybe the Touareg, and a few of the Subarus's?)

[Rob V]

I should also make a comment about the sound quality in general. In a thread about 2months ago I had posted that I felt the radio in my Freelander was slightly better than the X3 radio. At that time I had just taken a couple of test drives and didn’t' want to blow the speakers while testing it. I can now say that I could not have been any more wrong. Are you kidding me with this thing? I couldn't imagine how much better the Premium Sound system must sound like. With the exception of the sub-woofers, what other major upgrades does the Premium system have?

[pipo]

I should also make a comment about the sound quality in general. In a thread about 2months ago I had posted that I felt the radio in my Freelander was slightly better than the X3 radio. At that time I had just taken a couple of test drives and didn’t' want to blow the speakers while testing it. I can now say that I could not have been any more wrong. Are you kidding me with this thing? I couldn't imagine how much better the Premium Sound system must sound like. With the exception of the sub-woofers, what other major upgrades does the Premium system have?

One fact about sound systems that many people don't know is that they have a break in period. This varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, and is most noticeable on tweeters and midrange speakers, as well as amplifiers. You should notice that the sound will open up and feel less restricted/harsh as the components break in. By the way, your X3 itself will break in over time, so stay tuned!

The premium system comes with DSP, which stands for Digital Sound Processing, and I find it to be mostly useless for my listening. It provides three customized equalization settings titled church, jazz club and rock. The only one I ever use, and only on very anemically recorded rock, is -- you guessed it -- the rock setting. It adds some reverb and makes the sound more dynamic. But on good recordings, I leave it turned off; it makes the spoken voice sound like it's in a cave, and makes the sound too bass-heavy.

Both the 8-(base) and 10-(premium) speaker systems come with subwoofers, but the headunit is improved/more powerful on the premium system.

Many have commented that the 10-speaker system is not much better than the 8-speaker system.

Here's some more info I got from another site:

"THE 'STANDARD ' HiFi system has 8 speakers
the 6 channel (Carver) amplifier is a modified version of the 10 channel HiFi amplifier from the E85 (Z4) and E46 (3 Series)
Output is 4x25 watts for the mid-range and high ranges
and 2x40 watts for the low frequency

the Top HiFi audio system has 10 speakers - 2 additional rear tweeters mounted - 1 in each rear door

the central woofers (Carver) in the Top HiFi
system are simply adapted to the increased voltage level of the bass end levels (8 ohm) the amplifier (Carver) delivers 6x20 watts , 2x40 watts, and 2x100 watts , 10 channel amplifier

the digital connection between the Top HiFi amplifier and the
CD changer is an SPDIF (Sony Philips Digital Interface) connection"

[jdeday]

Rob,

I have the premium sound in my X3. It rocks!!!!

Premium sound includes the following: a total of 10 speakers (including 2 subs under the front seats and tweaters located in the rear doors), DSP (Digital Sound Processing), and upgraded output amplifier.



Jeff

[saloveku]

I presume that similarly to good receivers, a more powerful amplifier will deliver better sound at LOW volumes. I also presume that the stardard receiver is just fine for most. As I ordered the premium package in Canada, the upgraded stereo is included.

[IMR]

One fact about sound systems that many people don't know is that they have a break in period. This varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, and is most noticeable on tweeters and midrange speakers, as well as amplifiers. "

This is not a "fact", this is actually audiophile folklore. Just like painting the edges of CDs with green paint and claiming differences in how two sets of speaker cables of similar AWG sound. No one I'm aware of has ever published a measured difference in performance due to break-in, either in speakers or circuitry. Lots of people claim to hear break-in, but this is most likely due to humans becoming accustomed to the sounds they're hearing and perceiving differences that don't exist.

[Rob V]

Just like painting the edges of CDs with green paint

Huh!? What benefit does this (supposedly) have?

[IMR]

Huh!? What benefit does this (supposedly) have?

Supposedly, painting the edges of a CD green somehow is claimed to affect the information retrieved by the laser reading the pits on the disc, improving the sound in various ways. It was quite an audiophile fad in the '90s, to the point where at least one product I know of painted the inside of the disc drive chamber green! Anyway, people did measurements trying to explain the claimed benefits, but no one found anything that supported the case for green edges. No effect on error rates at all. Some people offered some pretty far out explanations, like reduced laser head movements reducing power supply stress improving the quality of the analog output signal, but nothing panned out.

Wine-tasting reminds me of audiophile nonsense, but you can measure chemical differences between wines, so I suppose I should shut up and just admit I have a dysfunctional sense of taste. I just get a kick out of hearing people describe the differences they think they taste. I've often wondered about double-blind tests for wine. :)

Regarding your brake dust problems, you can fix them completely with Hawk ceramic brake pads. I'm swapping out ours soon.

[Rob V]

..........Regarding your brake dust problems, you can fix them completely with Hawk ceramic brake pads. I'm swapping out ours soon.

Thanks for the tip. But one of the reasons I got the X3 was because of the free brake replacements under warranty. My Freelander had the pads and rotors go out @ 16k miles and it cost me hundreds to replace and I didn't even replace all 4 rotors. I think I'll live with the brake dust "problem" as long as they're free. Anyway, I cleaned the wheels this weekend and the dust doesn't appear to be building up as quickly. Maybe the Brakes have a Brake-In period as well!?!? Get it? Get it? :rofl: Ah well, I'll just shut up now.

[ChiefCrazyTalk]

Thanks for the tip. But one of the reasons I got the X3 was because of the free brake replacements under warranty. My Freelander had the pads and rotors go out @ 16k miles and it cost me hundreds to replace and I didn't even replace all 4 rotors. I think I'll live with the brake dust "problem" as long as they're free. Anyway, I cleaned the wheels this weekend and the dust doesn't appear to be building up as quickly. Maybe the Brakes have a Brake-In period as well!?!? Get it? Get it? :rofl: Ah well, I'll just shut up now.
Is the brake wear on the X3 that bad? My Subaru Forrester with 56,000 miles had the original rear breaks (still life left, passes inspection), and the front break pads have only been changed once at about 40k miles.

[JG]

Thanks for the tip. But one of the reasons I got the X3 was because of the free brake replacements under warranty. My Freelander had the pads and rotors go out @ 16k miles and it cost me hundreds to replace and I didn't even replace all 4 rotors. I think I'll live with the brake dust "problem" as long as they're free. Anyway, I cleaned the wheels this weekend and the dust doesn't appear to be building up as quickly. Maybe the Brakes have a Brake-In period as well!?!? Get it? Get it? :rofl: Ah well, I'll just shut up now.

I found after the first month or so - the brake dust issue is minimal.

[mrbelk]

Is the brake wear on the X3 that bad? My Subaru Forrester with 56,000 miles had the original rear breaks (still life left, passes inspection), and the front break pads have only been changed once at about 40k miles.

It's not really a matter of brake wear; just that they spew black dust over the wheel. I sold my 2001 330i/5sp last year with 48000 miles and original brakes (rotors and pads) and still had several thousand miles of life left in them. They still spewed out dust.

-MrB

[pipo]

This is not a "fact", this is actually audiophile folklore. Just like painting the edges of CDs with green paint and claiming differences in how two sets of speaker cables of similar AWG sound. No one I'm aware of has ever published a measured difference in performance due to break-in, either in speakers or circuitry. Lots of people claim to hear break-in, but this is most likely due to humans becoming accustomed to the sounds they're hearing and perceiving differences that don't exist.

You are simply wrong about break-in of audio components. Sorry for your consternation about the "golden-eared" crowd and your specious reliance on the scientifically measureable as the sole arbiter of reality. But I'm sure you know that there is a very large part of reality that escapes the meager tools of scientific inquiry. :nono: Any advanced physicist will tell you that, for example.

Remember those who asserted that the world was flat, before it was scientifically disproven, and found explanations for the misguided claims of those who asserted that the world was round without conclusive proof. One of the biggest fallacies of pseudo-scientific rigor is that a claimed phenomenon is non-existent unless and until it is measured and published. :spank:

That said, I would bet good money that a rigorous double-blind study would unequivocally demonstrate the break-in phenomenon, particularly in today's speakers, whose speaker cones are constructed of materials much less compliant than the paper of yesteryear. Just as the springs in an automobile perform differently over time as they break in (is that automobile folklore?), the cones in a speaker do the same. :smokin:

[Rob V]

You are simply wrong about break-in of audio components. Sorry for your consternation about the "golden-eared" crowd and your specious reliance on the scientifically measureable as the sole arbiter of reality. But I'm sure you know that there is a very large part of reality that escapes the meager tools of scientific inquiry. :nono: Any advanced physicist will tell you that, for example.

Remember those who asserted that the world was flat, before it was scientifically disproven, and found explanations for the misguided claims of those who asserted that the world was round without conclusive proof. One of the biggest fallacies of pseudo-scientific rigor is that a claimed phenomenon is non-existent unless and until it is measured and published. :spank:

That said, I would bet good money that a rigorous double-blind study would unequivocally demonstrate the break-in phenomenon, particularly in today's speakers, whose speaker cones are constructed of materials much less compliant than the paper of yesteryear. Just as the springs in an automobile perform differently over time as they break in (is that automobile folklore?), the cones in a speaker do the same. :smokin:

:eeps: ...*blink, blink*.......this one goes to 11.

[pipo]

:eeps: ...*blink, blink*.......this one goes to 11.

??? goes to 11? Please explain.

[Rob V]

LOL! Sorry if you didn't catch that. It's one of the greatest movies quotes.

http://members.aol.com/chiprowe/gotoeleven.wav

http://members.aol.com/chiprowe/gotoeleven2.wav

It's too bad this is broken up into two files. Without the video clips it doesn't do it justice anyway though. If you haven't seen Spinal Tap I would highly recommend it. I didn't mean it as an insult or anything. It's just something I like to say when after a long uncomfortable pause. Which is what I envisioned after your dissertation on pseudo scientific findings....and stuff.

[tromar1]

Now i'll get the movie....LoL...

[pipo]

LOL! Sorry if you didn't catch that. It's one of the greatest movies quotes.

http://members.aol.com/chiprowe/gotoeleven.wav

http://members.aol.com/chiprowe/gotoeleven2.wav

It's too bad this is broken up into two files. Without the video clips it doesn't do it justice anyway though. If you haven't seen Spinal Tap I would highly recommend it. I didn't mean it as an insult or anything. It's just something I like to say when after a long uncomfortable pause. Which is what I envisioned after your dissertation on pseudo scientific findings....and stuff.

ROFL! That is definitely a classic quote. I saw the movie when I was pretty young -- will have to re-rent it. By the way, I also happen to be a pretty hardcore heavy metal fan, so that movie will be right up my alley.

Sorry about the long speech -- one thing that makes me see red, as you probably noticed, is people who just refuse to accept that something may be real even though they themselves can't or won't observe it. Whatever, done with that... I definitely went a bit too far with it. Audiophile folklore... Bah, Humbug!

More importantly, our X3s definitely go to 11. :thumbup:

[Rob V]

More importantly, our X3s definitely go to 11. :thumbup:

Right on! Now that's the best quote yet. I may have to add that to my signature.

[IMR]

You are simply wrong about break-in of audio components. Sorry for your consternation about the "golden-eared" crowd and your specious reliance on the scientifically measureable as the sole arbiter of reality. But I'm sure you know that there is a very large part of reality that escapes the meager tools of scientific inquiry. :nono: Any advanced physicist will tell you that, for example.

Remember those who asserted that the world was flat, before it was scientifically disproven, and found explanations for the misguided claims of those who asserted that the world was round without conclusive proof. One of the biggest fallacies of pseudo-scientific rigor is that a claimed phenomenon is non-existent unless and until it is measured and published. :spank:

That said, I would bet good money that a rigorous double-blind study would unequivocally demonstrate the break-in phenomenon, particularly in today's speakers, whose speaker cones are constructed of materials much less compliant than the paper of yesteryear. Just as the springs in an automobile perform differently over time as they break in (is that automobile folklore?), the cones in a speaker do the same. :smokin:

:rofl: You have GOT to be kidding. My specious reliance on the scientifically measurable? Any advanced physicist will tell me that there is large part of reality that escapes us about the functioning of speaker surrounds and spiders?

Just a couple of corrections...

1. The first people to assert the world is round used a lunar eclipse to prove its roundness by the shape of the Earth's shadow on the moon. That is scientific evidence, and it has been documented for about 2500 years. The belief that the earth is flat was propagated by people who did not believe in the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

2. Speaker cones are not meant to be compliant. Cone surrounds and voice coil spiders are. Whether the cones are paper or polypropylene or aluminum or carbon fiber has nothing to do with the mechanical compliance of a speaker. Spiders are usually some sort of fabric, and have been for at least 60 years, and surrounds are either folded paper (on cheap paper cones), foamed plastic, rubber, or some sort of silicone derivative. The break-in you discuss assumes some sort of change in the physical properties of a surround or a spider, which has only been observed to happen due to aging or degradation. Modern rubber surrounds last for decades without measurable changes.

Electronics don't break-in at all. Burn-in is often used to find examples that will fail easily or quickly, but that is not a break-in process.

It would be good if you had even a modest notion of what you were talking about before you went off on a harangue about whether or not measured evidence is worthwhile.

BTW, automotive springs don't break-in. Suspension assemblies break-in as loads are applied for the first time, changing the way the parts fit together slightly. But springs aren't supposed to change in load rating (that would occur when they're tested in the factory anyway, if it did). Springs can wear out from material fatigue, but that's going to take a long, long time.

As for your bet... that wouldn't be advisable. :)

[pipo]

You are either totally missing the point, or purposely ignoring it to avoid a basic truth that you have a difficult time reconciling with your belief system. Speaker cones, cone surrounds and voice coil spiders may or may not some day give us the explanation of an observed phenomenon, but again, you fall into the trap of concluding that because you can't explain break-in through your scientific analysis, it doesn't exist.

That, my friend, is specious reliance on the scientifically measurable as the sole arbiter of reality. Perhaps, instead of concluding that break-in doesn't exist, you could say that you have found no physical or scientific evidence of break-in, without calling it audiophile folklore or trying to provide an unsupported psychological explanation for a phenomenon that has been confirmed by many people with very acute hearing capabilities. Unless you can prove scientifically that break-in cannot occur -- speculation about break-in having to be based on measurable changes in the surround or spider will not suffice -- then I suggest that we categorize break-in as an unexplained phenomenon, not a nonexistent one.

Another way of putting it is that I believe a good scientist needs to be humble in understanding the limitations of his discipline. Science and engineering have yielded some stunning accomplishments, but the more we learn, the more we realize how little we know. I applaud you and scientists/engineers generally for the good work that they do (I assume you fall into that category). But measurements do not tell the whole story.

[mkh]

You are either totally missing the point, or purposely ignoring it to avoid a basic truth that you have a difficult time reconciling with your belief system. Speaker cones, cone surrounds and voice coil spiders may or may not some day give us the explanation of an observed phenomenon, but again, you fall into the trap of concluding that because you can't explain break-in through your scientific analysis, it doesn't exist.

That, my friend, is specious reliance on the scientifically measurable as the sole arbiter of reality. Perhaps, instead of concluding that break-in doesn't exist, you could say that you have found no physical or scientific evidence of break-in, without calling it audiophile folklore or trying to provide an unsupported psychological explanation for a phenomenon that has been confirmed by many people with very acute hearing capabilities. Unless you can prove scientifically that break-in cannot occur -- speculation about break-in having to be based on measurable changes in the surround or spider will not suffice -- then I suggest that we categorize break-in as an unexplained phenomenon, not a nonexistent one.

Another way of putting it is that I believe a good scientist needs to be humble in understanding the limitations of his discipline. Science and engineering have yielded some stunning accomplishments, but the more we learn, the more we realize how little we know. I applaud you and scientists/engineers generally for the good work that they do (I assume you fall into that category). But measurements do not tell the whole story.
This reminded me of a continuing debate on digital technology a decade ago when the majority of digital engineers claimed that "All digital components sound the same because all signals are interpreted by 0s and 1s. As long as all 0s and 1s are exactly transferred from input to output, it is impossible to sound different." Obviously, some people still believe if anything can't be measured, it must not exist!

[IMR]

This reminded me of a continuing debate on digital technology a decade ago when the majority of digital engineers claimed that "All digital components sound the same because all signals are interpreted by 0s and 1s. As long as all 0s and 1s are exactly transferred from input to output, it is impossible to sound different." Obviously, some people still believe if anything can't be measured, it must not exist!

The majority of digital engineers claimed all digital components sound the same? None that I know, and I know a few. Digital components from the '80's and early '90's often sounded terrible, and you could measure it. Digital audio components have differences in filtering for digital artifacts, as well as analog op-amps for driving 2v outputs. It is true that recent advances in ADC/DAC chips put into well-designed digital audio components are so good that most would sound identical in double-blind tests, but there are measurable differences, and I for one have preferences.

The debate here is not about about something that can't be measured, it very much can be measured - loudspeaker break-in - it has been measured, and it has not been found to be audibly significant, to put it politely. Bluntly, it has not been found to exist. Measuring the frequency response of speakers in anechoic chambers is something done every day for quality control purposes, R&D purposes... you name it. If it could be documented someone would love to publish that paper, I'm sure. :) And break-in has not been found to be a factor. So, to repeat simply for effect, this is not a case of something that can't be measured, it is a case of something that clearly has been measured and found to be insigificant or nonexistent by instruments capable of resolution beyond anyone's hearing.

I find it fascinating that I'm the one under mild attack here, when I wasn't the person that mixed up compliance in speaker cones with compliance in surrounds and spiders, and then proceeeded to use that misconception as the basis for an argument about loudspeaker break-in. :dunno:

Is rigorous analysis so daunting that it's necessary to fall back on quasi-mystical speculations about what might exist that we don't know how to measure? I agree that there's a lot about the universe we don't understand, but audio and its reproduction are understood awesomely well. A short time ago I played a recording of my step-daughter playing the flute, while she stood between the speakers and played along with herself. Admittedly, I have spent a fortune on stereo equipment, but the effect was stunning. If you're willing to spend enough, and given the acoustical limitations of rooms, etc., audio seems to be a solved problem. Audio is not quantum physics, and lack of understanding in one field does not imply that all of our understanding in every field is similarly lacking.

[pipo]

We're clearly not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, which is fine: not everyone, however "smart" they may be, can be enlightened. :angel: Even quasi-mystically. :thumbup: You believe that I'm not as technically knowledgable as you, which is true, and I believe that you don't really understand the limitations of measurements in the field of audio. For me, the ultimate measuring stick is the listener's ear.

One more example to demonstrate my assertion: You use the phrase "instruments capable of resolution beyond anyone's hearing" to conclude, incontrovertibly, in your view, that speaker break-in does not exist. While such instruments may be conceived of in a thought experiment and are at least theoretically possible, and while existing instruments are capable of higher resolution than anyone's hearing in certain identified areas, instruments do not have human brains, and even you will have to admit that the brain is involved in hearing (we'll leave the mind and the soul out of the discussion for now). And an instrument that is capable of replicating the processing that goes on within the human mind in response to music is probably a few years down the road of technological innovation, I would surmise.

Sorry, IMR, science and technology take us a long way, but they do not provide all the answers, even (or, in my view, especially) in the field of audio reproduction. Now, if you were to create a team composed of a brilliant scientist and a golden-eared listener to design audio components -- akin to creating a team composed of brilliant automotive engineers and high performance drivers to design BMWs... Hmmm, I may be on to something here. :yikes:

[IMR]

You are simply wrong about break-in of audio components. Sorry for your consternation about the "golden-eared" crowd and your specious reliance on the scientifically measureable as the sole arbiter of reality. But I'm sure you know that there is a very large part of reality that escapes the meager tools of scientific inquiry. :nono: Any advanced physicist will tell you that, for example.

Remember those who asserted that the world was flat, before it was scientifically disproven, and found explanations for the misguided claims of those who asserted that the world was round without conclusive proof. One of the biggest fallacies of pseudo-scientific rigor is that a claimed phenomenon is non-existent unless and until it is measured and published. :spank:

That said, I would bet good money that a rigorous double-blind study would unequivocally demonstrate the break-in phenomenon, particularly in today's speakers, whose speaker cones are constructed of materials much less compliant than the paper of yesteryear. Just as the springs in an automobile perform differently over time as they break in (is that automobile folklore?), the cones in a speaker do the same. :smokin:

When I saw the linked article I thought about pipo and his controversial remarks about loudspeaker break-in. Finally - some objective data. Funny how the test echoed some of my remarks.

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/loudspeakers/SpeakerBreakIn.php

[adc]

You are either totally missing the point, or purposely ignoring it to avoid a basic truth that you have a difficult time reconciling with your belief system. Speaker cones, cone surrounds and voice coil spiders may or may not some day give us the explanation of an observed phenomenon, but again, you fall into the trap of concluding that because you can't explain break-in through your scientific analysis, it doesn't exist.

That, my friend, is specious reliance on the scientifically measurable as the sole arbiter of reality.

If the sole measure of the speaker break-in is the human ear (and brain behind it), then a double-blind test should reveal this phenomenon in all it's glory.

This IS a scientific approach, you know. Scientific does not imply electronic measurement equipment - it can use the same instrument that seemed to detect the phenomenon in the first place.

Now I am not a specialty person, but the fact that in all these years the ardent supporters of this theory did not bother to conduct this test - and publish the results - leads me to conclude that it belongs to the psychological realm, not to the one of audio reproduction equipment.

:dunno: I could be wrong, of course.

adc
03 330 ZHP

[JBasham]

If your stereo isn't good enough to resolve the differences between cable types or component break-in, you're missing out. Come, drink the Kool-Aid, spend thousands of dollars and endless hours, and finally you'll see. Otherwise, no sense pounding on the temple gate and screaming "double blind testing." We're immune to the cries of the untutored. In fact, my incredibly sexy listening companion and I can't hear you over my stereo, and we wouldn't do blind testing if we could, since that would just be the blind leading the blind. Console yourself that you have a nice BMW. We can't afford one because we spent all our bucks on vintage Western Electric 300Bs.

BRAKE PADS: Have you guys checked out metal matrix brake pads? Whenever I'm getting my pads replaced, I just ask my mechanic to use metal matrix. Zero brake dust. Stopping power and service cycles seem fine to me. They can squeak just a tiny bit for a second when you engage them at a near stop -- like when you roll forward two feet in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

[adc]

I can't hear you over my stereo

Isn't that conclusive proof that it's your ears that are being broken (in?) and not your equipment? :rofl:

adc
03 330 ZHP

[JBasham]

WHAT?
:thumbup:

[mkh]

WHAT?
:thumbup:
hmm... it's impossible since your 300B's output is so low compared to the 1500W professional car audio. :p