Originally Posted by wingtsun
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Happy Camper
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.......
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