RCF Active Monitor Fatigue

steve_k

Inspired
I have been using these RCF 12NXSA's for a while and I am wondering if it is my ears or the active amps in the RCF that seem to be fatiguing. Seems like after a couple hours of messing around on the Axe, that the monitors seem to change tonally, some what. I've noticed this with two different Axe II units, so I know that isn't the issue. Was wondering if anyone else noticed this or has had an issues. Seems the monitors loose a little top end and might become a bit blanketed and thought it may be the active amps either getting warm or something else that causes them to sputter a bit.

Dunno....



Steve
 
What volumes are you playing at ??
When this happens have you tried listening to music at the same volume on your hi-fi set to see it your ears are shot listening to the hi-fi set as well??

I can't say for sure, as I haven't tested YOUR specific set of monitors, but my first guess would be ear fatigue, as
1) I have the RCF NX10SMA's and haven't experienced them changing their tone from prolonged use or when pushing them hard
2) I've experienced ear fatigue after long rehearsals or long shows with limited if any breaks. Ear fatigue can have the effects you describe and can have slightly differing effects from time to time.

Hope this helps
RB
 
Very seldom does the tone actually change ,it does with tubeamps as they warm up ,but not digital units or solid state. It's pretty much allways ear fatigue or pressure changes! The change in your room can be pretty noticable as the heat from you gear warms it up and changes the humidity!
 
Oh, and Yes I experience this a lot, I've retweaked my patches before ( would swear it's changed) only to come back later and find they are too bright and etc! I've learned to walk away a while when it starts to irritate me , Ears and perception is the culprit!
 
Probably is just that - ear fatigue. Time to take a break. BTW, these are great active monitors. I just bought a 3rd one. 2 for all of me in stereo and one for the band mix.

Steve
 
Probably is just that - ear fatigue. Time to take a break. BTW, these are great active monitors. I just bought a 3rd one. 2 for all of me in stereo and one for the band mix.

Steve

Or you could get a small mixer and do what I'm doing with the Axe II and 3 CLR's - wet-dry-wet rig with the band mixed in on the wet channels, sounds absolutely stellar.
 
This is exactly the reason why people should think about this and speaker break in crap before posting something like this:
my RCF sounded better to me a few months down the road as well.
I know Jay Mitchell states this in "our heads" and there is no such thing as speaker break in , but I disagree.
I listen with my ears not a spectrometer (or whatever you use to measure this type of stuf LOL!).
You can't trust your ears.
 
I have been reviewing hi-fi speakers for two decades for various magazines, and every time they have insisted to deliver "brooken-in" sets to me. Both the spider and surround in tweeters midrange-units and woofers are drastically changing their physical values after several hours. Sorry, you are on your own on this and it make me wonder on which basis Mr. Mitchell works.
 
Old mixdown axiom.. "A pizza may be the best investment you'll make in a good mix." The idea was to take a break and let your ears recover. Your ears will fatigue before your equipment does, and the highs will start to disappear. Mix to fatigued ears and you'll have a mighty crispy sound when you listen the next day.

It's a natural thing, but take notice from what your ears are telling you: get some hearing protection.
 
Old mixdown axiom.. "A pizza may be the best investment you'll make in a good mix." The idea was to take a break and let your ears recover. Your ears will fatigue before your equipment does, and the highs will start to disappear. Mix to fatigued ears and you'll have a mighty crispy sound when you listen the next day.

It's a natural thing, but take notice from what your ears are telling you: get some hearing protection.
The 'Hearos' are awesome. $15 on Amazon. Once that hearing starts to wane were screwed!
 
Here here with taking more breaks... I try to do this at least once an hour (if I'm lucky enough to get a few to play/practice/whatever). I tend to play towards the slightly 'too loud' side of the curve where I think this is really critical. But.. I also think certain speakers are more fatiguing than others over time.
 
I have been reviewing hi-fi speakers for two decades for various magazines, and every time they have insisted to deliver "brooken-in" sets to me. Both the spider and surround in tweeters midrange-units and woofers are drastically changing their physical values after several hours. Sorry, you are on your own on this and it make me wonder on which basis Mr. Mitchell works.

I'm really no-one in electroacoustic. I'm aware of what Mr. Mitchell thinks on the matter, but other professional people I happen to esteem think differently and I tend to agree with them.

What I rather find most amazing here is how come that "professional listeners" can have different opinions on the subject, when they all have proven their skills and competence in several years of activity.
This genuinely puzzles me, not trying to discredit Mr. Mitchell here (not that I could even if I wished to, I guess LOL)
 
Even in the pro studio-world, every contractor knows, that you have to "run the whole monitor system in". Pre- and power-amps alter their sonic signature the first couple of hours. I have never ever been to an audio show where whatever company presented a unit right from the production line.
From my POV, a serious loudspeaker manufacturer should know this. Otherwise his customers could be disappointed after using the product for some time.
 
I respect your opinions and know I won't be able to change them, but I found this nice piece of reading:
Floyd Toole: Sound.Reproduction.The.Acoustics.And.Psychoacoustics.Of.Loudspeakers.And.Rooms page 353:

"
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 benefi t 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 satisfi ed by the fi nding. 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 deterioration—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 worse with use? The reality is that engineers seek
out materials, components, and construction methods that
do not change with time. Suppose that the 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 advertisement for a vintage loudspeaker:
“An audiophile dream. Model XX, manufactured 2004,
broken in with Mozart, Schubert, and acoustic jazz. Has
never played anything more aggressive than the Beatles.
Originally $1700/pair. Now at their performance peak—a
steal at $3200!”
"
 
Old mixdown axiom.. "A pizza may be the best investment you'll make in a good mix." The idea was to take a break and let your ears recover. Your ears will fatigue before your equipment does, and the highs will start to disappear. Mix to fatigued ears and you'll have a mighty crispy sound when you listen the next day.

It's a natural thing, but take notice from what your ears are telling you: get some hearing protection.

I like the "Pizza Theory" best. My biggest problem (and brought on by my own OCD) is making sure the EQ of a preset is spot on when taking the Axe out of the man-cave to stage. I like to audition the unit and my presets at gig volume through the monitors prior to packing up. One tweak leads to another, then after messing about for a while, walk away and come back later, only to find usually that it sounds like someone threw a blanket over the monitors. Where I question myself is at higher frequency ranges. The RCF's are pretty directional too and that may have a bit to do with it - but it's almost opposite of what is described above. Either way, the fresh take I assume is best. Just want to make sure the FOH on a flat EQ is hearing what I am hearing.

Steve
 
Back
Top Bottom