Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Is burn in real or placebo?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is burn in real or placebo? - Page 14  

post #196 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingtsun View Post

The other day I connected my iPhone 5 to my Predator using a 10+ year old RnB Audio (don't think he exists any more) mini cable, having previously connected it using a cheap one I'd bought to use in my Jeep. The difference was astounding and I sat there for a few minutes quite shocked at what I was hearing. Many "scientists" would claim there could be no audible difference.. Their reality would be quite different from mine. 

A true scientist would claim there should (not could) be no audible difference, and wouldn't completely discount the fact that a difference may exist.

 

The scientist would then attempt to discover two things: 1, if there was a difference, measurable or repeatably audible, bypassing perception bias, and 2, if a difference exists, what caused the difference.   And in doing so, would also uncover if the difference was repeatable.  

 

Good science is not closed minded, but open minded.  It's only through opening possibilities, regardless of how improbably, that the truth can be discovered.  Sometimes the truth involves simply qualifying a generality. For example, the "scientific" statement, "cables make no audible difference", would scientifically be more correct as, "cables can make an audible difference under the following conditions:"  

 

Now, regardless of all of that, personally, I would be the last person to take away your reality.  If it's sweet, enjoy it, it may not last indefinitely.


Edited by jaddie - 7/1/13 at 7:25am
post #197 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Camper View Post

Science minded people are so rigid that they often miss even the most simple of things for the blind reason that it does not compute. It's the noisy ones that make such fools of science by not considering their world hasn't all the answers. Science is human's attempt to apply logic (by their definition) to explain nature. They are so vigilant to point out how flawed humans are yet are so sure of their human logic.......rolleyes.gif For as far as we've come technologically, we are re-defining it every day. Good soldiers that they are, they will march to it's rules until proven wrong, then complain the proof invalid for it was human error until irrefutable.

This is an artistic hobby so why do you persist in so passionate a crusade?

Doubting burn in or any subjective impression isn't saying that science has all the answers. It's about questioning why things are the way they are, rather than drawing premature conclusions.

 

Taking a subjective impression and saying it is the definite truth and that you know all the reasons that were the cause of this perceived change is what I'd call rigid.


Edited by chewy4 - 7/1/13 at 7:26am
post #198 of 520
Matter of fact attitudes? Pot calling the kettle.......come in kettle.
post #199 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingtsun View Post

 

Sounds to me like you really want to debate something for the sake of debating it. Unfortunately, I'm just not that interested to take the debate further than I already have. I hear what I hear and I'm happy with that. I just don't take listening to music through a set of headphones so seriously that I want to throw hours at this, debating on whether my ears are telling me the truth. In fact, if I ever do take it that seriously I hope that my Chinese Crested Naked Dog bites me on the ass as hard as she can to remind me that I have bigger fish to fry. eek.gif

No, I'm just discussing whether break-in is real or placebo, which is what the thread is about. If you say it there is a physical change going on that causes the large differences you hear I'm asking for evidence. It's as simple as that.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Camper View Post

Science minded people are so rigid that they often miss even the most simple of things for the blind reason that it does not compute. It's the noisy ones that make such fools of science by not considering their world hasn't all the answers. Science is human's attempt to apply logic (by their definition) to explain nature. They are so vigilant to point out how flawed humans are yet are so sure of their human logic.......rolleyes.gif For as far as we've come technologically, we are re-defining it every day. Good soldiers that they are, they will march to it's rules until proven wrong, then complain the proof invalid for it was human error until irrefutable.

This is an artistic hobby so why do you persist in so passionate a crusade?

Science minded people are open-minded, open to the possibility that they are wrong, and more coherent in rejecting claims. They don't insist on their hearing telling them absolute truth, because they know how easily bias creeps in. They are also not as gullible believing the kind of marketing stuff you see targeted at science-illiterate audiophiles.

Science minded people are also the first to openly admit that they don't know everything, far from it actually.

 

Humans are flawed and we have scientific evidence and countless examples in history for it. People are irrational, make non sequiturs and other fallacies. Your implication (how I picked it up anyway) that science is somehow self-refuting because flawed humans use flawed logic is a perfect example of such a fallacy.

The video linked above shows that for example vision can clearly change what we hear. Even if you know what is going on you're probably still hearing the wrong thing. That does not mean you cannot trust your hearing only.

 

What are we re-defining every day, logic? As for complaining proof to be invalid after being proven wrong, that's just grouchy anti-science talk. Heard of controlled, repeatable experiments and reproducible results? The scientific method?

 

Accurate sound reproduction is a matter of science. It may be that you're not after that, which is fine, or that you re-define hi-fi to not mean high fidelity, which I'm less fine with, but anyway break-in is not a matter of opinion nor does it have anything to do with art.

 

Why are science minded people persistent in looking for the truth? Because they actually care what is true, no matter how comforting the alternative/delusion.


Edited by xnor - 7/1/13 at 10:42am
post #200 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

Taking a subjective impression and saying it is the definite truth and that you know all the reasons that were the cause of this perceived change is what I'd call rigid.

No, that's just stupid. tongue.gif

post #201 of 520

I haven't read through the entire thread but is electronic burn-in a myth? Like amplifier burn-in? Some dealers say you should run them in for best performance. Is that BS or is there some merit to doing this?

post #202 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mezzo View Post

I haven't read through the entire thread but is electronic burn-in a myth? Like amplifier burn-in? Some dealers say you should run them in for best performance. Is that BS or is there some merit to doing this?

 

LOL! Depends who you ask. For me and many others it's perfectly true. Scientists don't always believe it as it's not something easily scientifically proven. I just let my ears tell me what's happening, which in a hobby that involves listening, sounds pretty logical to me. biggrin.gif


Edited by wingtsun - 7/1/13 at 11:32am
post #203 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

No, I'm just discussing whether break-in is real or placebo, which is what the thread is about. If you say it there is a physical change going on that causes the large differences you hear I'm asking for evidence. It's as simple as that.

 

Science minded people are open-minded, open to the possibility that they are wrong, and more coherent in rejecting claims. They don't insist on their hearing telling them absolute truth, because they know how easily bias creeps in. They are also not as gullible believing the kind of marketing stuff you see targeted at science-illiterate audiophiles.

Science minded people are also the first to openly admit that they don't know everything, far from it actually.

 

Humans are flawed and we have scientific evidence and countless examples in history for it. People are irrational, make non sequiturs and other fallacies. Your implication (how I picked it up anyway) that science is somehow self-refuting because flawed humans use flawed logic is a perfect example of such a fallacy.

The video linked above shows that for example vision can clearly change what we hear. Even if you know what is going on you're probably still hearing the wrong thing. That does not mean you cannot trust your hearing only.

 

What are we re-defining every day, logic? As for complaining proof to be invalid after being proven wrong, that's just grouchy anti-science talk. Heard of controlled, repeatable experiments and reproducible results? The scientific method?

 

Accurate sound reproduction is a matter of science. It may be that you're not after that, which is fine, or that you re-define hi-fi to not mean high fidelity, which I'm less fine with, but anyway break-in is not a matter of opinion nor does it have anything to do with art.

 

Why are science minded people persistent in looking for the truth? Because they actually care what is true, no matter how comforting the alternative/delusion.

 

OK, I'm allowing myself to be lured into this again, but hey ho. The point is, I can't prove to you anything. I can only tell you my experience.

 

Maybe scientists' brains are wired differently and part of that wiring affects their hearing?

 

Kind of reminds me of this scene from "White Men Can't Jump":

 

Sidney Deane: "Look man, you can listen to Jimi but you can't hear him. There's a difference man. Just because you're listening to him doesn't mean you're hearing him." biggrin.gif

post #204 of 520

how come components always change in a good way?  where is the headphone that is amazing for 80hours then slowly becomes utter crap?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mezzo View Post

I haven't read through the entire thread but is electronic burn-in a myth? Like amplifier burn-in? Some dealers say you should run them in for best performance. Is that BS or is there some merit to doing this?

 

people in electronic must have solved this mystery long ago.  but if the characteristics of a component lack stability over time, wouldn't it be considered a bad component? 


Edited by castleofargh - 7/1/13 at 11:36am
post #205 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingtsun View Post

 

OK, I'm allowing myself to be lured into this again, but hey ho. The point is, I can't prove to you anything. I can only tell you my experience.

Let me quote the founder of Stereophile:

Quote:
Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel.

 

 

Quote:
Maybe scientists' brains are wired differently and part of that wiring affects their hearing?

If there is some difference in wiring I'd assume it's audiophile brains, because they're usually the ones obsessed about stuff like break-in, expensive cables, wires, DACs, amps, all kinds of tweaks aka voodoo etc.. They're also usually the ones hearing stuff that's not there, as has been shown many times in the past with listening tests, measurements or plain logic.


Edited by xnor - 7/1/13 at 11:57am
post #206 of 520
. Edited forward.
Edited by Happy Camper - 7/1/13 at 1:26pm
post #207 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Let me quote the founder of Stereophile:

 

 

If there is some difference in wiring I'd assume it's audiophile brains, because they're usually the ones obsessed about stuff like break-in, expensive cables, wires, DACs, amps, all kinds of tweaks aka voodoo etc.. They're also usually the ones hearing stuff that's not there, as has been shown many times in the past with listening tests, measurements or plain logic.

 

OK, but how is that relavent to what I wrote?

post #208 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

If there is some difference in wiring I'd assume it's audiophile brains, because they're usually the ones obsessed about stuff like break-in, expensive cables, wires, DACs, amps, all kinds of tweaks aka voodoo etc.. They're also usually the ones hearing stuff that's not there, as has been shown many times in the past with listening tests, measurements or plain logic.

 

But I'm not obsessed. Nor am I obsessed in proving to you what my ears already tell me. If you can't hear it, you can't hear it. That must be a tad annoying for you, granted, but don't blame me for the ears you were born with. I can't beat Bolt in the 100ms. I'm not going to hate him for that, though, or ask him to scientifically prove why he and I are different.

post #209 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingtsun View Post

 

OK, but how is that relavent to what I wrote?

It's relevant in that you should prove it to yourself first (before trying to prove something possibly untrue to others) being honest to yourself and submitting to the basic honesty controls mentioned above.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wingtsun View Post

But I'm not obsessed.

I'll let readers decide:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wingtsun View Post

 

I've experienced a change in the sound of all my headphones and amps during their "burn-in" period. I loathe having to burn in audio equipment and if I thought it was unnecessary or likely to help to a degree that I was barely able to hear then I just wouldn't bother. Having to leave my cans and amps playing for hundreds of hours by themselves whilst I sleep is a PITA and hardly an enjoyable part of this hobby. However, after around 300 hours of play I can usually hear a discernable difference in my equipment and usually for the better and to such an extent that I un(graciously) put myself through the rigmarole to try to speed up that process.

 

IIRC, there are entire threads about where to best put headphones during burn-in because of the annoying noise, or what signals to best use, at what level, duration, how long and many breaks .. and so on and on. If this isn't obsession I don't know what is. And that's just one of the many points I mentioned audiophiles obsess about.

 

 

Quote:
Nor am I obsessed in proving to you what my ears already tell me. If you can't hear it, you can't hear it. That must be a tad annoying for you, granted, but don't blame me for the ears you were born with. I can't beat Bolt in the 100ms. I'm not going to hate him for that, though, or ask him to scientifically prove why he and I are different.

No, I can for example hear differences over time even if I just switch from my current headphone to my old one. (old as in having played music for hundreds of hours) That doesn't mean my old headphones are constantly changing. What's changing is me, i.e. getting accustomed to the different sound signature.

I also have my hearing checked regularly and I've always done well in listening tests.

 

The only thing that's annoying is that you either didn't read #197 or think you're somehow superhuman and immune to illusions, bias, cognitive dissonance etc.

 

The difference between you and Bolt is that he can prove scientifically what he achieved. His time was taken with a device called stopwatch. tongue.gif Sorry.

I'm not hating anyone, but you assuming me hating you for your supposedly above-average, uninfluenceable by stuff mentioned above hearing is just sad.


Edited by xnor - 7/1/13 at 12:39pm
post #210 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

It's relevant in that you should prove it to yourself first (before trying to prove something possibly untrue to others) being honest to yourself and submitting to the basic honesty controls mentioned above.

 

I'll let readers decide:

 

IIRC, there are entire threads about where to best put headphones during burn-in because of the annoying noise, or what signals to best use, at what level, duration, how long and many breaks .. and so on and on. If this isn't obsession I don't know what is. And that's just one of the many points I mentioned audiophiles obsess about.

 

 

No, I can for example hear differences over time even if I just switch from my current headphone to my old one. (old as in having played music for hundreds of hours) That doesn't mean my old headphones are constantly changing. What's changing is me, i.e. getting accustomed to the different sound signature.

I also have my hearing checked regularly and I've always done well in listening tests.

 

The only thing that's annoying is that you either didn't read #197 or think you're somehow superhuman and immune to illusions, bias, cognitive dissonance etc.

 

The difference between you and Bolt is that he can prove scientifically what he achieved. His time was taken with a device called stopwatch. tongue.gif Sorry.

I'm not hating anyone, but you assuming me hating you for your supposedly above-average, uninfluenceable by stuff mentioned above hearing is just sad.

 

But I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. I'm simply telling you my experience. Add it to your list of stats and use it how you will.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Is burn in real or placebo?