Re: Re: Burn in Techniques
Quote:
| Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti You're missing a step in your logical process here: |
As for burn-in, as you know, I was a non-believer, until I heard it with my own ears. Damn the logic......full speed ahead!

Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
| Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti You're missing a step in your logical process here: |

| Originally posted by joelongwood Mike, I think you're missing something...............if people on this site were logical, they wouldn't be here. As for burn-in, as you know, I was a non-believer, until I heard it with my own ears. Damn the logic......full speed ahead! ![]() |
| Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti Remember, it's not up to me to DISPROVE it, but rather the burden is on you to PROVE it. You cannot demand that I disprove that you were escorted from your bed last night, by extraterrestrials, and returned unaltered, and your memory of the event erased, now can you? You must offer some evidence for that claim. Same here. I don't have to supply evidence that burn-in does not occur. Those who claim it does must supply evidence that it does. This is elementary science. |

| Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti You're missing a step in your logical process here: 1. "I've read a lot of posts saying that some cans really need to be burned in before their true sound character emerges." 2. "I accept these statements without question." 3. "So what procedure(s) or technique(s) do you recommend for performing a 'burn in'? " The point is that premiss 1 must be supported, and it is not. So, premiss 2 is not justified, and of course the conclusion is too. |
| Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti The devoted believers won't even attempt it. |

| Originally posted by joelongwood Soooooo, I guess it's safe to assume you won't be going to church tomorrow? ![]() |
| Originally posted by bdormer Well, well... |
| Originally posted by sacd lover But neither will the skeptics. ![]() |
| Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti No, but you have not shown critical thinking skills. The point is warning you about being credulous, and urging you to use critical thinking. Don't be naïve, in other words. The issue is whether you're going to believe anything of this kind without SOME evidence. You jumped from reading about it to accepting it without even asking whether there was any substance to it. That's the point. You need to ask these sorts of questions. |
| Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti Burden of proof is on assertors. |
| Originally posted by fewtch It seems to me that Mike Scarpitti is a troll, and appears as the "star" on just about every break-in related thread. Why do you guys bother, why do people keep taking the bait? It's the same thing every time, repeated over and over again ad nauseum. Guess it must hold some entertainment value... |