http://www.gr-research.com/myths
Just in case anyone thought it was just one driver that exhibited the measured behavior of break in.
Just in case anyone thought it was just one driver that exhibited the measured behavior of break in.
Magico S5 vs KEF Blade 2 vs TAD Evo One vs YG Kipod II Sig w/pwr bass
Post removed |
http://www.gr-research.com/myths Just in case anyone thought it was just one driver that exhibited the measured behavior of break in. |
That larger room is what the Blade needs to sing. And man, they do. Like no other speaker I've heard, when they have the space around them is where they work best and have a remarkable ability to project the most defined soundstage I've ever heard. Depth and width of the soundstage is just uncanny. When I heard the Blade in a smaller room it just wasn't right, and that's where the Blade 2 did better. Both are a critical speaker in that if you have poor quality recordings, you'll know it. |
@csmgolf Good points! I agree with you. Yes these small changes which are usually attributed to spider compliance are well known. Should the spider dominate the in box designed response - probably not on a good design? So what seems not to be well understood is that an excellent driver and box design will be quite insensitive to spider compliance. A poor speaker and drive design will be sensitive to the spider compliance. It has a lot to do with the acoustic suspension (which dominates) and the power of the drive motor (magnet and coil diameter). 20 hours sounds about right for most of the break-in to have occurred on some drivers like the $30 one you referred to. I am confident Magico would use much higher spec and commensurately more expensive drivers. An analogy is towing a trailer. A large diesel truck with a poweful 5 liter motor is not going to be as sluggish towing a trailor as a small gasoline van. In this case the higher torque perfornance of the truck makes the impact of the trailer mass less influential. |