Quote:
Quote:
The reality of burn in with the LCD? How so exactly? You suggested it was so and then a group of new R.2 owners came along and backed you up and that results in making it reality? I think if we go all the way back to the introduction of the R.2 we will see that you were the one that first presented the so-called drastic burn in impressions. You have since then continued to be aggressively adamant about it, refusing to accept any other possibility for what you are hearing because in 24 years you supposedly have developed golden ears that are incapable of error. Grokit politely attempts to present another possibility to this phenomena, one that I happen to agree with, and you shoot him down with attitude and sarcasm.
Where is the actual data that proves the R.2 without a doubt goes through a drastic burn in process? Where can I find the frequency response charts of multiple R.2's at 10 hours and then at 300 hours to show the "reality" of their burn in? If one has an extremely high end system providing more than ample current to the R.2 will it burn in at a more improved rate with a higher intensity than someone powering it with an Ipod, or will it be the same? I think I missed all of that in this thread.
The R.1 exhibited no burn in. There was never anyone like you that championed the cause to try and convince everyone that they needed 300 hours of burn in before they were able to hear what they were fully capable of. So here is what I find truly amazing. Alex and Sankar were somehow able to develop a new driver and manipulate it so that at 300 hours it would be outputting the exact sound they were planning for all along? If that is the case, I must say it's pretty brilliant on their part.
First of all let me just state once again that I do not have a golden ear nor have I ever claimed to have one. I know a few people who actually do. I do not. I do not believe I was being sarcastic to Grokit just refuting his claim of placebo and bias which he always jabs me with, something I do not take as an aggressive gesture but more as playful barb. This after getting to know Grokit over time and his sense of humor.
Grokit and folks like yourself however always advance some placebo and bias notion at play instead of actual real physical changes and incidentally you guys are the ones who never produce proof. Just constant statements about this so called placebo bias phenomenon. It's not a case of being incapable of error for me but more a case that in my time as a professional mixer I have learned to perceive error and untruth from truth in audio working side by side with other professionals discerning the same truths, and I offer my extensive professional experience as substantial proof whereas you and Grokit (no offense Grokit) always seem to offer none. You offer no proof just the same two lines that bias and placebo and minds trick are at play. Now if you had a few decades of psychological research under your belt in which you did the research then I could take your experience and knowledge as substantial proof of this psychological phenomenon but again you offer none and I believe you have none. All you seem to have is the desire to claim this phenomenon over and over again.
Also you seem to divine a false understanding and comprehension of the posts you read. I do not remember anyone saying Alex and Sankar developed a driver and manipulated it so that at 300 hours it would be outputting the exact sound they were planning all along. I have never said that, no one here has ever posted that nor have I ever read that Alex and Sankar have stated that. What was said was that a conversation occurred with Alex in which the LCD's were found to come into their own somewhere between 200-300 hours. Something I myself read after I discovered this very fact to be true. What you might want to do is try calling them and asking them about it. It would be interesting to hear about your conversation. And BTW Alex and Sankar didn't develop the R.1 or the R.2 by sitting around wondering if what they were hearing was real or not they knew what they were hearing was real. They were not confused by some placebo or bias each time they tweaked their design. They obviously knew what they were hearing. They may have used instruments to measure some of their work but in the end they put the LCD's on their heads and discerned the truth about them.
True neither of my 2 pairs R.1's or anyone else's needed burn in. But the R.2s are drivers made differently than the R.1's they are thinner and use a different material.
There are plenty of people in this thread who have heard their LCD's change with burn in. No one championed the concept it was simply reported as fact. Most of these people felt the burn in process occurred in the same manner. I doubt I had anything to do with their findings or whether some mass placebo and bias took place that provided the same results. These folks came upon their results separately, many of them even stating they had been skeptical of reports of burin in until they experienced it themselves.
As for pedantic charts showing proof about burn in get over it and get yourself some confidence in the hobby and yourself. Can you show me proof that depth and layering exist in the soundfield with measurements? But it does exist in the real world and not in some imaginary dimension of the mind. Can you show me exact measurements of inner detail, micro dynamics, ambient decay, instrument separation? No you cannot. But it does exist and our ears can detect these things. If yours cannot I suggest you practice the art of audio perception more often and rely less on the visual proof of charts and measurement and not try to deny the experience or the truths that an experienced ear can detect.
