Quote:
Originally Posted by
n3rdling 
"The scale of the load, the time applied, and temperature determines the "creep" or deformation of Mylar film. Under testing, Mylar shows no large levels of creep. In a 212 degree Fahrenheit oven after 4,000 hours, 35 hundred millimeter gauge and 50 100,000 lbs. per square inch Mylar experiences an insignificant creep of 9/10 percent."
Ask a former engineer at Accuphase if burn in exists and they'll say no, ask a salesman at Accuphase if burn in exists and they'll say yes. You can believe the people that will tell you anything to get a sale, I'll believe the people that actually designed the stuff.
This has actually been measured in dB before. I can't remember the exact figure (I want to say .5 dB) but nick_charles or somebody could probably tell you the accurate figure. What people fail to take into account though is the quality of our aural memory. The human's aural memory is absolutely dismal compared to what self proclaimed audiophiles will have you believe.
So what does the measured "creep" of mylar translate to in terms of what we hear? Also what about loosening of the glue? Where is this quote from?
I am not arguing for a serious burn-in issue with Stax drivers, as I have said, but I also think it is not proper to totally disregard it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spritzer The ear is a vastly overrated by audiophiles. In truth they can't pass DBT's or even simple tests such are AC vs. DC coupled.
It is certainly true that audio memory like all human memory capability is detail poor. This makes testing of auditory capabilities difficult. Whereas you can put 2 visual stimuli up side by side in the field of vision and make an immediate comparison, you have to present sounds sequentially and compare the second sound with what you remember the first sounded like. Inevitably auditory testing for the subtleties of audio comes up short.
However this does not mean that the subtleties were not initially perceived, just that the first sound can not be brought back accurately by memory to make an accuate comparison with a current one.
This is part of the reason why I don't have much faith in most of the objective testing (often erroneously called dbt - double-blind testing in these forums) of audio equipment beloved of the dbt-debunkers in these forums. I did this work for a living and know how hard it is to get it right, and even if the experiment passes muster the interpretation is generally unclear. In my experience, academics are more modest about the weight to be given to 'scientific" studies than the dbt-debunker crowd. I remember one of my old prof's telling me, when I asked about some big issue in memory, that "There's plenty we don't know before we don't know that!." (spoken in a broad Missouri drawl)
I personally put more weight in the opinions of golden ears, i.e. people with a lot of listening experience both of equipment and live concert experience, tempered by my own listening.
Edited by edstrelow - 6/19/11 at 1:28pm
