or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › "Please Stop 'Burning In' Your Earphones"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Please Stop 'Burning In' Your Earphones" - Page 11  

post #151 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostinspace View Post

Does Shrodinger's cat believe in burn in?

it may or it may not

post #152 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by KamijoIsMyHero View Post

it may or it may not

It may or may not be listening to headphones and it may or may not be burning them in...it also may or may not be a cat.
Edited by marone - 1/10/14 at 5:06am
post #153 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post

So provide the measurements. I will wait.

If you post graphs, meeting your own standard, then you have a valid point.

I have met my own standard. My ears hear it and I do not seek to convince you.

You, however, seek to convince others based on your opinion and no measurements?

Until you can provide a measurement for burn-in, or sound-stage, or any other aspect we hear but cannot currently measure, then what we have are two differing points of view that currently can neither be proven nor unproven.

I am ok with that. You are not.

Only one side is using insulting and condescending language (superstitious ritual, etal.) in this debate here and elsewhere.

This is not supposed to be insulting, but what you've just described as "your standards" are those of pseudoscience, if at all.

There really should be a basic course on science.

 

There are indeed scientific standards of evidence. Please look it up (wiki).

"In science evidence is valued when it is collected in a rigorous manner and is as divorced as possible from personal bias."

 

Your and other's anecdotes are worthless as evidence. They may be used to form a hypothesis however. Now you gather evidence which may or may not reject that hypothesis.

Since we're interested in change of the headphone driver we measure that before and after extensive use.

 

 

Here's a question for you: How do you justify your assumption, that it is the headphone driver that is changing and nothing else?

How is it falsifiable? That is, how would you prove that your assumption is wrong? How would you show that it is not the headphone driver changing but something else?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post


You only require proof that meets your standards, when you disagree with someone.

You, on the other hand, are above providing said proof.

"There's no need..."

I am trying to get you to realise a few things:
-Your position is opinion just like mine
-Your position is neither better nor worse than mine
-Your position does not even meet your own standards using measurements and the SM

I know sound-stage exists and I think most here would agree.
I also claim that there is no current measurement that maps to sound-stage with any p-value confidence.
You frivolously claim it can be measured, but then dismiss the need for you to do this.

However when burn-in is discussed you require proof because your opinion is that burn-in does not exist so I must meet your burden of proof; but when you agree that sound-stage exists you dismiss your need to meet any burden of proof to your own standards and actually use my standard i.e. you hear it.

But that's when we agree. If you disagree, it's different.

There is no need because your whole point about perception is a red herring.

If I want to test the claim that headphone drivers change with extensive use I test that. I measure the headphone driver before and after extensive use.

 

I do not, however, add perception and psychoacoustics into it because all it does is confuse, and it seems that that is your goal.

 

My position is based on evidence, not anecdotes. Your position would be unacceptable by any skeptic/scientist, since you have nothing concrete.

 

As for "you frivolously claim" .. no, please read exactly what I write. But if you want to talk about psychoacoustics and the like, then please open a new thread. It doesn't fit here.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post


I would state that there are things that currently CAN NOT be measured, at all.

We know what they are - soundstage, dimensionality, harmonic compleatness, 2D instruments, etc.

I am fine with the fact that these things cannot be measured yet we can hear them.

IRRELEVANT.

 

If you show an image of noise to someone, and he sees nothing, and show him the image a couple of days later and suddenly he sees a face, did the image change?

According to you, you saw something you didn't see before so the image must have changed.

 

Don't you see how patently absurd that is?

post #154 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post

I would state that there are things that currently CAN NOT be measured, at all.

We know what they are - soundstage, dimensionality, harmonic compleatness, 2D instruments, etc.

I am fine with the fact that these things cannot be measured yet we can hear them.

we all answered to that already.

I did it with sound and then with picture analogy. don't know if it's a matter of you not understanding or just not wanting to know.

 

it's not that it cannot be measured. it is measured! the reason we fail to extrapolate the data for say soundstage (and we actually can extrapolate a lot already, go ask the dolby guys), is because we don't know enough about brain, not because we don't know enough about the sound. microphones and computers fail at being humans, not at retrieving data or telling if any change occurs. new technology will tell us even more details, but it won't magically create a data to brain bridge.

 

you can't have a change in soundstage without frequency, crossover, and timing changes. it cannot happen(if you desagree with this there is no need of us talking anymore). but a dummy head can record frequencies and crossover and timings, so soundstage changes are visible in data.

but ofc only when they actually exist.

same for ghosts, people keep seeing and hearing them yet we have a hard time recording them on tape. do you think it's also a technological problem?

post #155 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

This is not supposed to be insulting, but what you've just described as "your standards" are those of pseudoscience, if at all.

You are mistakenly assuming I think that science is the only metric with which to measure a headphone. If you have read my posts you will see that I repeatedly assert and state that the human ear can hear things we cannot currently measure. Soundstage, burn-in, for some of the many examples.

To clarify, I am making an analogy. If you cannot post a graph that maps to soundstage (and you did not), then we cannot measure everything that we can hear (unless you also dismiss sound-stage as pseudoscience that does not exist and is a 'ritual' similar to burn-in). If we cannot measure everything that we can hear, and we cannot as we cannot currently measure soundstage, then it follows that burn-in may also be an aspect of headphones that we cannot measure, but that we can hear. Note the usage of the word 'may'.

So when I request your proof to your own standards (post a measurement graph that maps with acceptable p-values to soundstage similar to what one could post to show sibilance, etal), you provide none. Your opinion is 'good enough' to support your position.

However my position is pseudoscience as "my* opinion is 'not good enough'.

More name-calling from your side of the debate.

Got it. /instense sarc tag

Your opinion is right, my opinion is wrong. Your values are acceptable, mine are not. Your observations are valid, mine are not.

See the issue?

I am not on the side calling others names. That single fact that you and yours frequently resort to that tactic should tell you that your position is tied up in a belief system.

Belief, btw, is not science.

To repeat, I don't care that you believe that science is the be all and end all and that if you cannot measure it, it does not exist.

I am compleatly fine with you having that belief system.

However you are NOT fine with allowing me my position.

That is, to repeat again, very telling about your stance.
post #156 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post

You are mistakenly assuming I think that science is the only metric with which to measure a headphone. If you have read my posts you will see that I repeatedly assert and state that the human ear can hear things we cannot currently measure. Soundstage, burn-in, for some of the many examples.

The problem here is that you don't get what I and several other people have tried to explain to you multiple times now, so this will be the last time from me.

 

Headphone driver -> sound (change in air pressure) -> ear/mic -> brain

(The brain has many other inputs besides the ear, that can change what you hear. )

 

We're interested in the headphone driver -> sound -> ear/mic part. If the driver changes, we can measure a difference in the sound with the mic.

 

 

What you're doing is relying on anecdotes (pseudoscience) and confusing this situation by adding perception that happens inside the brain.

 

 

Quote:
To clarify, I am making an analogy. If you cannot post a graph that maps to soundstage (and you did not), then we cannot measure everything that we can hear (unless you also dismiss sound-stage as pseudoscience that does not exist and is a 'ritual' similar to burn-in). If we cannot measure everything that we can hear, and we cannot as we cannot currently measure soundstage, then it follows that burn-in may also be an aspect of headphones that we cannot measure, but that we can hear. Note the usage of the word 'may'.

"If you cannot" ... shifting the burden of proof again

"post a graph that maps to soundstage" ... red herring, irrelevant as has been pointed out many times before

 

We can measure the sound that is being produced by the driver. That's everything you need to measure.

Also, your "analogy" is neither an analogy nor is it logically sound.

 

 

Quote:

So when I request your proof to your own standards (post a measurement graph that maps with acceptable p-values to soundstage similar to what one could post to show sibilance, etal), you provide none. Your opinion is 'good enough' to support your position.

However my position is pseudoscience as "my* opinion is 'not good enough'.

More name-calling from your side of the debate.

Got it. /instense sarc tag

Your opinion is right, my opinion is wrong. Your values are acceptable, mine are not. Your observations are valid, mine are not.

See the issue?

Yeah, the issue is that you don't get it. AT ALL.

 

I am trying to rely on evidence as good as possible, you're relying on anecdotes that fit whatever you like (pseudoscience).

Your posts are littered with logical fallacies and I'm too tired to point them out. Please at least read the wiki entries on "scientific method", "hypothesis", "logical fallacies".

 

 

 

Quote:

I am not on the side calling others names. That single fact that you and yours frequently resort to that tactic should tell you that your position is tied up in a belief system.

Belief, btw, is not science.

Yeah right, calling others "religionists" is not name calling. Are you starting trolling too now?

 

 

Quote:

To repeat, I don't care that you believe that science is the be all and end all and that if you cannot measure it, it does not exist.

I am compleatly fine with you having that belief system.

However you are NOT fine with allowing me my position.

That is, to repeat again, very telling about your stance.

That is not my belief system. I am allowing you your position. All I'm doing is pointing out how wrong and irrelevant it is.

post #157 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post

 If you cannot post a graph that maps to soundstage (and you did not), then we cannot measure everything that we can hear 


There is a subtle yet crucial difference between trying to shift the burden of proof and making an argument from ignorance. I don't think you understand it. Look up argument from ignorance. The basic concept is summarized in a phrase you may have you heard before -- "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

You are saying that a lack of an example implies that the thing in question does not exist. The basic logic of this assertion is just wrong. 





 

post #158 of 164
I think our friend marone here has not tried to search for evidence. A simple google search on sound localization brings up lots of data.
Now its more of a prestige problem.

The simple fact that sound stage is created means its understood well, otherwise one cannot create it. Its not like the sound engineers dance around a bonfire.
Edited by proton007 - 1/10/14 at 5:17pm
post #159 of 164

marone: Some reading for you (and everyone): http://www.head-fi.org/a/stax-sr-007-omega-ii-a-review-after-4-years-of-ownership-darth-nuts-epic-review

 

How our brain interprets different frequencies is known. That relates to our perception of "soundstage". It isn't something that has been well described on the forums though, as not many people know about it, beyond the effects of the strength of the mid-range frequencies in a headphone's frequency response to our perception.  I think I found some discussion of it in this review: http://rinchoi.blogspot.ru/2013/08/ultrasone-hfi-780-and-s-logic.html.

 

While it is known that our ears are physically capable of picking up the noise of a pin dropping on tarmac 4 miles away (or whatever the distance was, assuming no other noise) in practice, especially without a lot of training and experience, we pick up a lot less.

 

We can train ourselves to do amazing things though: There's an Iaido (sword drawing) master here that can cut a plastic bb pellet in half that has been shot at him. A test of his reactions showed that they weren't fast enough for him to be doing it visually, so he must be somehow anticipating the position of the pellet. In a high speed video it shows his eyes closed at the moment of cutting the pellet as well. Quite amazing and something that science partially understands.

 

So I think that while we can measure a lot of things, applying them to our experiences is a lot more difficult, as our experiences are made up of numerous things happening simultaneously. 


Edited by Currawong - 1/10/14 at 5:20pm
post #160 of 164

I had to look up the sword thing. Awesome.

  

post #161 of 164

But perception of soundstage (or as I like to call it with headphones: "headstage") is irrelevant for providing evidence for headphone driver break-in. I also know one or the other thing about that, having developed DSPs that manipulate the "soundstage" (a fb2k crossfeed plugin is freely available), but it just is of no concern here.

 

 

On that guy above:

21 meters and the bullet speed is approx. 90 m/s, which gives him over 230 ms of time to position the sword. Reaction time can be as low as 110-120 ms in humans, maybe some individuals achieve even lower reaction times.

Also notice where they're aiming the gun. And there's no mention of how many tries it took him.

 

Such "documentaries", especially the American ones, are always cut to be overly dramatic and unbelievable. The background music is also chosen accordingly.

 

I am impressed, but it's not much more than a simple reaction test. But I guess that would be too boring for the audience.

 

I am not trying to "ruin" this for anyone, just pointing out the science behind it which makes it even more interesting imo.

Here's how to ruin it: shoot him with a real gun from the same distance actually aiming at him and you will hit him 100% of the time. :p

 

 

edit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
 

We can train ourselves to do amazing things though: There's an Iaido (sword drawing) master here that can cut a plastic bb pellet in half that has been shot at him. A test of his reactions showed that they weren't fast enough for him to be doing it visually, so he must be somehow anticipating the position of the pellet. In a high speed video it shows his eyes closed at the moment of cutting the pellet as well. Quite amazing and something that science partially understands.

No, just no. That reminds me of you posting that children have supernatural abilities...

edit: Oh yes, attempting to "discredit science".


Edited by xnor - 1/10/14 at 6:50pm
post #162 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

 

We can train ourselves to do amazing things though: There's an Iaido (sword drawing) master here that can cut a plastic bb pellet in half that has been shot at him. A test of his reactions showed that they weren't fast enough for him to be doing it visually, so he must be somehow anticipating the position of the pellet. In a high speed video it shows his eyes closed at the moment of cutting the pellet as well. Quite amazing and something that science partially understands.

 

 

God you're gullible. It's almost adorable.

post #163 of 164

problem solved, soundstage and other stuff can only be heard by the soul, not the ears. that explains why us poor guys believing in "unreliable laws of physic" can't measure it nor hear it.

to prove this we need a graph showing how many gingers heard a headphone breaking in over time. marone can you get me that? no? then my point is made!

 

 

and a good argument for this, it also explains cables opening soundstage. I was blind but now I see!

 

 

 

marone I'll go on a limb here and make a guess: as a student, your main course wasn't math or science.

I'm a psychic or what?

post #164 of 164

Personal attacks are totally unacceptable. You guys know this. If all the Sound Science forum is going to be is a forum to mock people with different viewpoints, with little to no actual discussion of science, I'll suggest to Jude that we close it down.

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 › "Please Stop 'Burning In' Your Earphones"