I find it real - but also mental, not placebo.
Placebo to me is like trying to believe something is better, but it never was in the first place.
Brain-burn-in or psychological burn-in - exists with anything - including driving a car.
At firs you might think its very hard to drive - 1 month later you find yourself drifting around corners -> just takes getting used to.
In actual burn-in - as in not mentally - If you gave me as said above, 2 DD's that iv'e heard, blind testing one being burnt in, the other not - I'm guaranteed I'll find differences.
The fact I use guaranteed is that I'm so sure I'll hear a difference that I don't even have to "explain it"
Good one. I don't think anyone who's been in a physics class argues burn-in occurs. Although people like to argue in terms of "burn-in happens or not", that's an oversimplification. The real question should be: can the human audition notice it or not? I believe in most cases it cannot, the differences should be very small. But until someone can explain how a cellulose or some other synthetic polymer diaphragm can suffer pressure shifts in miliseconds for days and not acquire micro-crevices and dents, I think it's safe to assume a driver driver change over time. But like other users have mentioned, our hearing memory is really crappy compared with other amazing stuff the human body has, so it's much easier for us to believe we heard a difference than to actually notice it. And even in high-end models there's enough variation so that a burned-in model and a not burned-in have differences from the beginning that are not related to burn-in, and I think they might even in some cases surpass the differences a driver suffers from burn-in. So it's not at all a black-and-white subject.
I'm no physicist, neither am i that go by science or anything like that.
I believe what I hear/experience.
If I hear the IE8's being rubbish, then that is what I go by, for their range of products. Doesn't mean because of the hype on head-fi i should be lead to believe they are good or bad.
I don't understand. Are you saying there are differences in analog cable performances? Of course, if you consider like normal copper vs OCC copper, or better yet, vs OCC silver. Can humans perceive those differences in headphones? Definitely not as much as they say, and probably not enough for most to pass double-blind tests even with high-end headphones.
Now what puzzles me is the analogy. Are you saying that because there are differences in needles or headphones with different enclosures, there is a comparable number of differences in cables? Because I don't even know where to start.
Well I would love to test or see someone actually telling the difference between a silver and copper cable.
I don't find its THAT much of a difference - even from stock to custom cable.
I've still yet to understand people spending hundreds or even thousands on audio cables.
Of course length etc matters...but really...for a 1m cable paying over $200?
Then those people say the HDMI guys who buy expensive cables are not smart...