[Head Injury]

Quote:

Oh, in that case, data comes in all sorts of forms... 
 
Not at you, but someone who might use this as a reason: Did you know Newton didn't use charts and measurements when he formulated his first three laws of motion?  Did you know that mathematicians don't use charts and measurements to get equations/formulas?  Did you know that some scientist don't even use charts and measurements to prove some of their formulas (potential and kinetic energy equations don't need charts/graphs to prove them, along with flux of an electric field).

We're not proving a formula. This is statistics and physics, not mathematics.

 

[tinyman392]

Ok, one final note about objective vs subjective.  I'm using the philosophical definitions found here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/ (which are the same when defined by Plate and Aristotle, along with many other scientist as well).
 
In my own words, objectivity is noting more than:

1. Ideas, observations, etc pertaining to anything but the self, or I.

As for subjective, it's the opposite:

1. Ideas, observations, etc pertaining to the self, or I.

 
I hope this clears things up.  All scientific objective evidence still falls under my definition of objective.  Even with the scientific definition that changes self/I to someone, that someone refers to a single being.  When I take someone else's information for truth, I'm objectifying either my evidence (which doesn't follow my definition), or their evidence (what I'm doing) since the someone in this case is the self/I.  When you accept someone else's information (EG don't deny it), it becomes objective from your stance of view (regardless of whether or not it supports your beliefs).

 

[Freefallr4545]

These Burn in Threads are funny 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

We're not proving a formula. This is statistics and physics, not mathematics.

We are trying to come up with a theory though (and with revisement(s) the theory becomes law; but not for a while, or ever)...  Newtons laws started as theories, but became laws eventually...  His first and third laws were originally not equations, even his second one (F=MA) was based on observations (he had no measuring tools back then).  We are proving a theory, and we don't need measurements for that. 
 
Further ideas on objective vs subjective: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Ok, one final note about objective vs subjective.  I'm using the philosophical definitions found here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/ (which are the same when defined by Plate and Aristotle, along with many other scientist as well).
 
In my own words, objectivity is noting more than:

1. Ideas, observations, etc pertaining to anything but the self, or I.

As for subjective, it's the opposite:

1. Ideas, observations, etc pertaining to the self, or I.

 
I hope this clears things up.  All scientific objective evidence still falls under my definition of objective.  Even with the scientific definition that changes self/I to someone, that someone refers to a single being.  When I take someone else's information for truth, I'm objectifying either my evidence (which doesn't follow my definition), or their evidence (what I'm doing) since the someone in this case is the self/I.  When you accept someone else's information (EG don't deny it), it becomes objective from your stance of view (regardless of whether or not it supports your beliefs).

Objectivity even from a philosophical standpoint is that which does not pertain to any "I". That means it is separate from anyone's personal experience, and is experienced by all as a strict function of natural law. Listening impressions are not objective, ever. They always pertain to some "I".
 
There you go. I've defined my terms. You'll need to meet those if you want to meet my expectations.
 
Quote:

We are trying to come up with a theory though (and with revisement(s) the theory becomes law; but not for a while, or ever)...  Newtons laws started as theories, but became laws eventually...  His first and third laws were originally not equations, even his second one was based on observations.  We are proving a theory, and we don't need measurements for that. 

In order to prove a theory you must first present objective information which supports your hypothesis. Newton did this through repeatable observation and mathematics. We can't use repeatable observation when it comes to subjective impressions because there is no metric on which to judge them. We must use repeatable objective data instead, which is immune (to some degree) from bias. You can use mathematics if you like.

 

[knubbe]

Quote:

We are trying to come up with a theory though (and with revisement(s) the theory becomes law; but not for a while, or ever)...  Newtons laws started as theories, but became laws eventually...  His first and third laws were originally not equations, even his second one (F=MA) was based on observations (he had no measuring tools back then).  We are proving a theory, and we don't need measurements for that. 
 
Further ideas on objective vs subjective: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

This is not how science works. Theories are the highest "level" you can achieve in science. Even Newton's "laws" are inaccurate in certain situations and have been replaced by Einstein's.
 
edit: Jeeez I didn't even really look that closely at your post. There's so much wrong there I can't even begin.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

This is not how science works. Theories are the highest "level" you can achieve in science. Even Newton's "laws" are inaccurate in certain situations and have been replaced by Einstein's.
 
edit: Jeeez I didn't even really look that closely at your post. There's so much wrong there I can't even begin.

We are trying to come up with a hypothesis then...  Either way, we are at the starting point, and even at that starting point, we don't need measurements. 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

Objectivity even from a philosophical standpoint is that which does not pertain to any "I". That means it is separate from anyone's personal experience, and is experienced by all as a strict function of natural law. Listening impressions are not objective, ever. They always pertain to some "I".
 
There you go. I've defined my terms. You'll need to meet those if you want to meet my expectations.
 

In order to prove a theory you must first present objective information which supports your hypothesis. Newton did this through repeatable observation and mathematics. We can't use repeatable observation when it comes to subjective impressions because there is no metric on which to judge them. We must use repeatable objective data instead, which is immune (to some degree) from bias. You can use mathematics if you like.

So in order to be objective, no one (since they are indeed I(s)) can collect the data...  even data collected from a machine must be taken by a person.  That person is an I.  By that standard, there is no objective possible at all...  Interesting. 
 
Your definitions need to be redefined otherwise, objectivity doesn't exist in your realm...  I = the self (an individual's perspective; EG, the I for me is me...  The I for you is you). 
 
Newtons observations were subjective...  However, to him, other's observations that agreed with his were objective (they didn't pertain to him).  Sam thing happening here.  I'm taking observations from more than myself (it's beyond myself, objective).
 
Let's explain this better...  Let's go to Tyll's observations from his graphs.  Now, to Tyll, those are subjective, he took and interpretted the graphs.  To us, it's objective. 
 
Now lets go to you... My observations lie in the objective realm to you, but your observations are subjective...  Reverse it to me...  Your observations are objective, while mine are subjective. 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

So in order to be objective, no one (since they are indeed I(s)) can collect the data...  even data collected from a machine must be taken by a person.  That person is an I.  By that standard, there is no objective possible at all...  Interesting. 
 
Your definitions need to be redefined otherwise, objectivity doesn't exist in your realm...  I = the self (an individual's perspective; EG, the I for me is me...  The I for you is you). 
 
Newtons observations were subjective...  However, to him, other's observations that agreed with his were objective (they didn't pertain to him).  Sam thing happening here.  I'm taking observations from more than myself (it's beyond myself, objective).
 
Let's explain this better...  Let's go to Tyll's observations from his graphs.  Now, to Tyll, those are subjective, he took and interpretted the graphs.  To us, it's objective. 
 
Now lets go to you... My observations lie in the objective realm to you, but your observations are subjective...  Reverse it to me...  Your observations are objective, while mine are subjective. 

You're overthinking things. In order to be objective, the data presented must be free from human bias. That means the data should not rely on a person's interpretation to be meaningful. It should be presented as-is.
 
Newton's observations were subjective, the formula he derived from them are objective because they don't rely on any specific interpretation. They work with anything they're given (minus relativistic things that Einstein discovered).
 
Tyll's data is objective, because the measurements do not rely on his interpretations. Tyll's conclusions aren't so objective, and cannot speak for themselves.
 
Why are we arguing semantics exactly? Is your position so weak that you have to fall back on that?
 
I gave you my criteria for objectivity. In order to convince me, your data needs to match that. There's no semantic discussion necessary beyond that point.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

You're overthinking things. In order to be objective, the data presented must be free from human bias. That means the data should not rely on a person's interpretation to be meaningful. It should be presented as-is.
 
Newton's observations were subjective, the formula he derived from them are objective because they don't rely on any specific interpretation. They work with anything they're given (minus relativistic things that Einstein discovered).
 
Tyll's data is objective, because the measurements do not rely on his interpretations. Tyll's conclusions aren't so objective, and cannot speak for themselves.
 
Why are we arguing semantics exactly? Is your position so weak that you have to fall back on that?
 
I gave you my criteria for objectivity. In order to convince me, your data needs to match that. There's no semantic discussion necessary beyond that point.

Human bias will always be in there...  To Tyll, his data is subjective.  He had to look at pixels on a screen a interpret it (it's his interpretation of the data).  I can look at this same data, and interpret it differently as well.  However, Tyll's interpretations are objective to me, but subjective to him.  Subjective and objective are entirely based on a persepctive.  Going through the perspective of a person, you can view what is objective to him, and what is subjective.
 
Your criteria for objectivity isn't possible.  You do have to accept my observations for truth, otherwise you end up ignoring it (which leaves out objective evidence).  Now, as for why I can't prove my point, we have to have a clear definition of objective before we can create an objective hypothesis.  My position is not weak, we need clarification on what words mean at this point. 
 
What exactly are your requirements for objectivity again? Since so far all it's boiled down to was that it must not have any subjective views in it...  Which isn't possible since there will be a perspective where that view is subjective. This definition falls apart so quickly though...  Observe:
 
Quote:

(Premise One): I see the Sears Willis Tower.
(Premise Two): You see the Willis Tower.
(Premise three): Both of our observations are subjective (by your definition).
(Premise Four): Since it's subjective, it's not objectively verified; therefore, it's not Truth and the Willis Tower isn't where we perceive it to be.

 
 

 

[Head Injury]

To make me happy, the data has to be derived from measurements or from listening tests specifically designed to remove human bias (ABX tests for example). In other words, the only human bias is in the interpretation.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

To make me happy, the data has to be derived from measurements or from listening tests specifically designed to remove human bias (ABX tests for example). In other words, the only human bias is in the interpretation.

These test results still need to be interpretted by a person...  Let's take Tyll's FR graph for example:
 
Quote:

Premise One: You see there is very little change (.5 dB)
Premise Two: I see there is very little change (.2 dB - 2 dB; there were some bigger spikes in the treble that added to this)
Premise Three: Tyll sees very little change in the graph (~1dB average chage)
Premise Three: Both of these are subjective interpretations of the same graph.  Therefore, by your definition of objective, it's not true because it was subjectively verified by people.

 
Nonetheless, I will type up my hypothesis to link up to your ideas (using graphs) but also personal testomony from everyone...  Sit tight.

 

[tinyman392]

OK, my hypothesis (note, I'm not saying it's right), but it has a better chance at being right than a hypothesis like the placebo (since a person can't walk into my head and tell me I'm not actually hearing change and that I want to hear change).  Please also note that this is the third time I typed this up...  It was accepted the first time, then someone called everything an assertion so I retyped it with reasoning in paragraph form (and that's when things went spiced up).  Since it was asked for again, my hypothesis is below in a better explained format.  Tried to remove paragraphs to make it easier to read.
 
Premise One: Some people hear the change. (objective observation - It isn't just me hearing change)
Premise Two: Some people don't hear the change. (objective observation - there are other people who don't hear change)
Premise Three: Tyll's graphs (although unfinished) do show a little change in the drivers, although nothing 100% audible (I'll agree with this for your sake).
Premise Four: Winding ME-10EX graphs show evidence of burn in (small tweaks in the bass: ~2-3dB; larger change in the mids: ~3-4dB; some spikes in the treble: ~6-8dB in the higher treble). - http://www.head-fi.org/t/556732/partial-proof-that-iem-burn-in-works-yes-scientific-frequency-response-charts-included
Premise Five: there was another graph (I do want to mention it) that did show signs of burn in.  However, I can't find it, so it will not be used in my hypothesis.  I do want to mention it just in case anyone finds it.
Premise Six: A persons sensitivity to sound is different (per person)
Premise Seven: A persons time for the phenomena of decay varies (learned in Psychology 1100) and happens naturally.

1. Decay is defined as the drowning out of a constantly changing sound over time.

Premise Eight: A persons sensitivity to the change of sound is different since their sensitivity to sound is different and their time it takes them to drown out a constantly changing sound is different as well (everyone's decay period for a certain sound will be different). 
 
Note: Premise Three and Four both show measurable graphs that are objective in everyone's definition.  Premise one and two are objective from my perspective since they don't pertain directly to me, so I take them for truth.  They are mere observations of others.  Although it may not be objective, whatever works in the objective realm should work in the subjective realm.  The information on decay and persons sensitivity to sound have also been objectively verified in researches and are now taught in classes for truth (hopefully I don't have to sight studies as I took what my professor said for truth).
 
Conclusions:

1. Based on the frequency graph of the 10EX, some headphones burn in
2. Based on both frequency graphs, we can conclude that different headphones burn in at different rates. (you cannot deny that the headphones did change a little in the 65 hours, audible or not).
3. Based on user testomonials we can conclude that some people can hear burn in and some people cannot.
4. Based on the definition of burn in and the varying rates, we can conclude that each headphone has a different change in the change of sound over time.
5. Based on the ideas about decay and hearing sensitivity we can conclude that not everyone will hear these changes the same over time [for the same headphone] (look at the definition of decay, drowning out a changing sound over time; If it happens).  - this is the question I plan to answer.

 
Grand conclusions (based upon above conclusions):

1. Since people have different sensitivities, if a persons sensitivity is too low (EG, they decay quickly), they may not be able to hear the burn in of a pair of headphones over time. 
2. If a pair of headphones change of sound over time  < their sensitivity to said change (their sensitivity to change in change of sound over time); then they will not hear those headphones burn in.
3. If a pair of headphones change of sound over time > their sensitivity to said change (their sensitivity to change in the change of sound over time); then they will hear those headphones burn in.
4. Some headphones burn in really slow (or at least look that way) -> Look at Tyll's graphs, it took 65 hours for the headphones to burn in .5 dB...  If we were to continue, they would have burned in more, maybe even eventually become audible (maybe not become audible at the same time; we won't know until someone else does the test).
5. Some headphones don't change enough to be audible (in the case of Tyll's graph from all we know at this point about it).

 
Notice, that this conclusions is based on all evidence (for and against burn in).  In not only includes the user testomonials, but answers why it happens.  Naming placebo (or other mental ailment) will not be able to address the second FR graph. 
 
Remember, in order for burn in to not exist, there must be no signs of it in the graph.  Even with the given .3 dB error rate in Tyll's graph, it still showed signs of change (min change = .1 - 1.6 dB; max change = .8 - 2.3 dB; remember error rate is a +/-, it can go either way, up or down; actual change can be anywhere from .1 dB to 2.3 dB in the first 65 hours) in the 65 hours it was used.  Although the change is small, it's still large enough to show some sort of burn in.  Remember, these headphones were said to be infamous for big change after 200+ hours, they aren't done burning in, but do show signs of that change... 
 
So, why did I get into a huge argument with that other guy?  He dismissed all my premises (that were in paragraph form at that time) calling them either assertions, inaccurate, placebo, mental, or psychological (EG, he fitted it with some arbitrary reason why it was wrong; when in fact his argument was weak).  Essentially, I was trying to show him that he was in denial of evidence and literally throwing it all away.

 

[The Slow Down]

I guess I haven't been on this board long enough but I'm going to shoot anyway: why all the hostility, back and forth, and bruised egos?
 
If you believe in burn-in fine. If you don't, also fine. Why try to prove your view to "non-believers" whatever view you hold? Is this a new religion where the wrong will get tortured, robbed, and then exterminated... errr, become subjects of an inquisition, I mean?
 
Experimental method: you can't just compare simple FR charts to evaluate burn-in. You would have to at least go John Atkinson & headphone.com on this beast... You need a lot of equipment, an unbiased staff, and a fair amount of money. And you know what? The result may be inconclusive. Psychoacoustics is the wild wild west. There is no definite answer anywhere because at it's base you have perception from a human perspective. As we all see, hear, and feel in N chaotic patterns and combinations it's not easy to say xyz applies to the whole population.
 
Philosophy, mathematics, calculus, physics (glorified calculus in this context)... a good % of people on here don't have a clue of one or the other or any. Integrals are one of the loves of my life. But it's useless to try to argue using Integrals or SAS Data Miner AI Node output with a musician (no offense). Likewise a philosophy major arguing about the finer details of some philosophical precept with an engineer or statistician (no offense).
 
A tiny bit of relevant knowledge together with a big ego and/or Type A personality (let's say unstable extrovert quadrant to spice things up) is a bad combination, no?
 
Can we just agree that we all hear and perceive in our own ways and be happy with that for now?
 
 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

Can we just agree that we all hear and perceive in our own ways and be happy with that for now?

I actually tried getting the other guy to agree with this exact statement before (not the guy about objectivity vs subjectivity), he kept on saying everyone who heard it was subject to the placebo effect.  That's what ends up happening.  The people who beleive will agree that some people don't hear it (and that's fine, in the end, a hypothesis will show why) while the people who don't hear it blame the people who do hear it for hearing it (placebo, mental, psychological, assertion, too subjective, etc.).  That's were the argument stems from (they can't accept the fact that people hear changes; and are correct to hear the changes) since it proves their ideas wrong (EG, burn in exists if someone were to hear it).