[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Any time you guys get tired of the circles, let me know and I'll be happy to close the thread.

What, you got sumfin' against circles?

SHAPIST!

se

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif What, you got sumfin' against circles? SHAPIST! se

Nah, man, I love circles. I go round all the time!

 

[haloxt]

Quote:

Then you need to come up with some cable properties other than resistance, inductance and capacitance. Look, you're basically saying you think cables may have properties other than resistance, inductance and capacitance, but you have no idea what those other properties may be. And yet you seem to think that some frequency response graphs are going to tell you what they are. I simply don't see how that will be the case. Let's say you're given a whole pile of frequency response graphs. What is looking at them going to tell you about any properties of the cables beyond resistance, inductance and capacitance?

Koyaan, your constant questions are incredibly fruitless. What makes you think I am somehow first obligated to say what else besides those three factors may cause a difference in headphone driver outputs by swapping cables before I can say testing headphones themselves should be done? I could say theoretical things like different cables deal with emf and vibration differently, but whether these things will show up during tests on headphone driver outputs I have no idea and it would be pointless speculation, but it is, I'll repeat for the 100th time, worth a try if only to see all avenues. I think testing from the headphone would be good even if there's no significant difference in those three factors between typical headphone cables you keep citing. And it would still be good if the test showed no differences in frequency graphs, because it'd at least make us certain about the matter and not have any possible doubts. Let me finish the discussion between you and me for the next ten pages.

You: "But there's no audible difference unless there's enough difference in inductance, capacitance, and resistance."

Me: "The test should be done anyhow if only to make sure there's no difference."

You: "But there's no audible difference unless there's enough difference in inductance, capacitance, and resistance."

Me: "The test should be done anyhow if only to make sure there's no difference."

You: "But there's no audible difference unless there's enough difference in inductance, capacitance, and resistance."

Me: "The test should be done anyhow if only to make sure there's no difference."

You: "But there's no audible difference unless there's enough difference in inductance, capacitance, and resistance."

Me: "The test should be done anyhow if only to make sure there's no difference."

You: "But there's no audible difference unless there's enough difference in inductance, capacitance, and resistance."

Me: "The test should be done anyhow if only to make sure there's no difference."

You: "But there's no audible difference unless there's enough difference in inductance, capacitance, and resistance."

Me: "The test should be done anyhow if only to make sure there's no difference."

You: "But there's no audible difference unless there's enough difference in inductance, capacitance, and resistance."

Me: "The test should be done anyhow if only to make sure there's no difference."

You: "But there's no audible difference unless there's enough difference in inductance, capacitance, and resistance."

Me: "The test should be done anyhow if only to make sure there's no difference."

You: "But there's no audible difference unless there's enough difference in inductance, capacitance, and resistance."

Me: "The test should be done anyhow if only to make sure there's no difference."

You: "But there's no audible difference unless there's enough difference in inductance, capacitance, and resistance."

 

[bergman2]

was that necessary?

 

[Steve Eddy]

haloxt, please don't put words in my mouth. I do not like their taste.

Thank you.

se

 

[omigawsh_lollercoaster]

There are many Head-Fiers who have years of experience and plenty of knowledge, real audiophiles.

There are several people who's posts I will read just because it's one of those people and I could get some valuable information.

Some of these people talk about burning in their equipment like it's a perfectly well known fact of life.

Some of these people say burn in is hogwash because it's not scientifically measured.

I've seen reviews of my CDP and HP that said burn in made them better but I haven't tried it, if they get better - great.

How can so many people believe in burn in? Are these otherwise knowledgeable and experienced audiophiles misinterpreting their own musical experience in this particular subject when otherwise they seem quite sane?

( other than the audio madness that has claimed us all that is

)

Are electronics like glue or paint that hardens in an hour but takes 24 hours to cure fully? Can the molecules in a component's itty bitty parts get just that perfect orientation to the flow of electricity like a person who makes those last little adjustments to their sleeping position till it's just right?

Does a HP shed it's factory fresh stiffness like a person warming up for a physical event? (and no a HP doesn't stiffen back up like a person, it's an example)

So where's the proof? Group A knows what they hear, Group B says you're trippin', prove it.

Into the laboratory where chemical tests and spectrographic analysis reveal the ingredients in a piece of birthday cake right down to the specs of the recipe.

Did the lab prove how the cake tastes?

Final answer: what do I know.

Edited because I said break in instead of burn in one time, oops.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by omigawsh_lollercoaster /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are many Head-Fiers who have years of experience and plenty of knowledge, real audiophiles. There are several people who's posts I will read just because it's one of those people and I could get some valuable information. Some of these people talk about burning in their equipment like it's a perfectly well known fact of life. Some of these people say burn in is hogwash because it's not scientifically measured. I've seen reviews of my CDP and HP that said burn in made them better but I haven't tried it, if they get better - great. How can so many people believe in burn in? Are these otherwise knowledgeable and experienced audiophiles misinterpreting their own musical experience in this particular subject when otherwise they seem quite sane?

I have no doubt that it's possible that after all these years and among so many audiophiles, the credit in sound difference ascribed to burnin has been grossly exaggerated. The issue isn't that there's a perceived difference in sound over many hours of use or when listening out for a change. It's the reason behind it that's the crux of the matter.

I've been here for a while and if you're a member of any professional organisation, you'll be well acquainted with the existence of beliefs and ideas that were held sacred and assumed truth until......

The evidence you put forward above is the weakest there is to put forward. That's simply being lured by the collective 'wisdom' and you need only one influencial, highly respected, but misguided member to start the ball rolling. You end up with a propagated belief, with no real basis, and which needs INCONTROVERTIBLE and at times, very difficult to produce, evidence to finally twist the belief out of the hands of the believers.

Your comments about molecules aligning etc., may well be true, but the crux of the matter is if it's genuinely audible.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh that the world were as simplistic and as easily understood as we would like it to be.

It is.

If it isn't you're just making it too hard.

 

[haloxt]

Quote:

Your comments about molecules aligning etc., may well be true, but the crux of the matter is if it's genuinely audible.

At the end of the day it doesn't even really matter if burn-in is real or cable differences is real because people will believe what they want and it doesn't really hurt anyone either way.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is. If it isn't you're just making it too hard.

As long as that works for you go with it!

 

[omigawsh_lollercoaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimlink /img/forum/go_quote.gif The evidence you put forward above is the weakest there is to put forward.

I don't recall putting forward any evidence or taking sides on the issue, some hypothetical questions and the fact that I don't know were my two cents 'IIRC'.

As I assume you infer, it could be an acquired taste by exposure as in how many children like beer at first, or an expectation that influences the perception for those who 'burn in' without listening then come back and think it's better.

If it's 'audible' to those who get an increased enjoyment I guess that's really the bottom line.

Testing to the limits of our physical and/or technical perception doesn't prove that while two people agree the sky is blue one of them hasn't always seen what the other person calls green when shown blue.

It's an endless topic I'm sure. Now I have to go get my ear-bones cryo'd.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by omigawsh_lollercoaster /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can the molecules in a component's itty bitty parts get just that perfect orientation to the flow of electricity like a person who makes those last little adjustments to their sleeping position till it's just right?

Hehe yeah that is a funny one too.

Such claims usually come from persons who don't even know what AC means.
And usually they don't provide any scientific background or sane explanations.
You could as well join a sect if you believe them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif At the end of the day it doesn't even really matter if burn-in is real or cable differences is real because people will believe what they want and it doesn't really hurt anyone either way.

It sure does matter and really hurts some people's wallet. Money that should have been spent on other things..

But you're right. Despite all efforts to help, most people believe what they want anyway. :/

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by omigawsh_lollercoaster /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't recall putting forward any evidence or taking sides on the issue, some hypothetical questions and the fact that I don't know were my two cents 'IIRC'.

The part of your text that I quoted is a form of evidence in that there aught to be some audible and very significant change with burnin since so many experienced audiophiles with years of experience believe in it. Though it is the weakest form of evidence in support of truth on a matter, it's still a form of evidence.

 

[omigawsh_lollercoaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hehe yeah that is a funny one too. Such claims usually come from persons who don't even know what AC means. And usually they don't provide any scientific background or sane explanations. You could as well join a sect if you believe them.

It was a hypothetical question.

Your components are powered internally by raw AC? Thanks for the education.

 

[omigawsh_lollercoaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimlink /img/forum/go_quote.gif The part of your text that I quoted is a form of evidence in that there aught to be some audible and very significant change with burnin since so many experienced audiophiles with years of experience believe in it. Though it is the weakest form of evidence in support of truth on a matter, it's still a form of evidence.

It's a question, not support, I said I don't know the answer as I have already repeated.

Apparently this is the thread for people who want to argue, I'm not here for that, I have better things to do than argue about unimportant controversies with people I don't know.

Here's a site you might love: Argue With Everyone Political Forums