[Shike]

Quote:

By your standards, a pair of headphones should (theoretically) burn in again after you haven't used them for a while... 
 
I never said that, I said a subwoofer is the only place I've seen it happen.  Even then usage would have to be 24/7 with no rest.
 
I review headphones, and I've switched back and forth between headphones numerous times (the ADDIEMs) being the main ones I went to for a good 6 months...  There have been times that I haven't listened to them for 2+ months...  Then when I go back they sound the same (again, according to your theory, my brain should have to adjust mentally to them again), but they don't.
 
Then we're talking placebo.
 
Furthermore, you also forget that when I swapped my ADDIEMs, I went from old ADDIEM to new ADDIEM which sounded different.  However, they somehow (over the course of a week) slowly turned into the sound of the old ADDIEM (Used the same tips throughout).  If it was mental, I would not have to mentally adjust to something I just heard, thus showing that it isn't a mental adjustment.
 
How could I forget if I never knew this?  Either way, you're arguing you're not compensating . . . so we're in the realm of placebo.
 
As for why different volumes and things don't change the time span for something to burn in, I wouldn't doubt that it does.  However, like a car engine, as long as it's running, it breaks in.
 
Err, not really.  Even the subwoofer had to be pushed and ran to certain levels to really show a difference.  A subwoofer without enough push would be like an engine without idle, and if one were logically going to carry it to headphones it would still have to be true.
 
You don't have to actually even driving it because it'll still break in as long as the engine is running it breaks in.  Same will apply to another mechanical device like headphones.  It's the fact that they are moving that burns them in.  Although if you do have it move more violently (push volume a bit), they do burn in a little faster, I won't doubt that (EG, another reason why we say something happens between 20-30 hours; we compensate for a range/error in timespan).
 
Your range of error is too great and doesn't include the ability for L/R issues with differences in source and methodology.  Yet somehow these issues never arise?  Not buying it.
 
As for your statement that placebo doesn't require a person to know the effect, that is entirely false misuse of language.  Placebo Effect is defined by TheFreeDictionary as:
 
See definition one, if they have an expectation.  If the expectation is it will fix audible issues they will theoretically experience it.  Nonetheless, there's cases where patients were told they were taking a placebo and still claimed they felt effects.
 
Note that in this definition it states that it arises from the patient's expectations...  What happens if there are no expectations (EG, they aren't told what to expect), then the placebo effect cannot happen.
 
Wrong. http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/27/placebos-work-even-if-you-know-theyre-fake-but-how/
 
Go to that link, the expectations were contrary and it still worked.  Surprisingly, some felt worse from the placebo which fills in for some oddities here.
 
The person must expect it to happen for it to happen.  Thusly, it cannot be the placebo effect (stop arguing it because any other use is a misuse of language).
 
It isn't a misuse, we're talking about the placebo effect in relation to a form of treatment.  We've found the effect can arise even when no expectations are present because they're still given a placebo and experiences an effect.
 
 Remember what a placebo is, it's trick (essentially a mind trick) used to make a person think somethigns going to happen (when it won't).  However, that person must think that it'll happen (in order to do this, they must have been told that burn in will/could happen).  Since they weren't, it's not a placebo effect.
 
See above, you're provably wrong.  Furthermore, if they think it will fix problems as they see them with the product then there could very well be expectations.  If you think there's a midbass hump, I don't need to mention it if I say "We've noticed better quality by burning-in this product for 200hrs".  You're immediately assuming they're talking of the flaws as you see it with such language.
 
The same goes for your term psychological.  You area also abusing language when you use this term as well.  Since I just showed an instance that wasn't psychological with another forum member telling me they thought the ADDIEMs became smoother (which in my recollection they did twice).  This other member didn't have any clues of what burn in was, he just out of the blue said it.  There is no placebo/psychological because he didn't know about it before.  Stop abusing language and redefining terms, use the actual definition and stop using your own.
 
You're confusing my point, I can't be responsible for your inability to follow what is being said.  I pointed out two possible issues: mental compensation (some here call it "mental burn-in", but it's really just adjusting to the sound) and placebo.  Placebo can occur without expectation as shown above.
 
By the way, YOU are the only one who's said "psychological" here.  I haven't said it in a single one of my posts, so please stop trying to misrepresent what is being said to fit your needs.
 
As for the evolutionary hypothesis with no evidence, read it more carefully.  You obviously are missing the evidence pertaining to better sleep/other modern day uses of decay (EG that big machine you're typing on and the television in the background).  In the past, a small noise (which you can easily ignore today due to evolution) would wake you up so you can go out and make sure it's not dangerous (we don't have to worry about a panther in our houses today; we did in the past).  Evidence comes in more than one form, the most primative being observation.
 
Is that actually an evolutionary trait, or merely a byproduct of being used to it?  You've made a hypothesis off an observation, but the observation in this case isn't evidence that can make it a theory.
 
As for your idea about car engines...  You should read up on them...  To begin, they use different materials and technology in the first place, they obviously are going to be different.  A race car engine is designed to last one race.  Some may not make it that far.  Furthermore, a race car engine is also run before it's actually raced to literally break it in....  Mechanical parts need break in, headphones are no different.
 
Err, there's many forms of race cars - some drag race and modify their stock cars to higher performance standards.  The wear on these cars is surely higher though.  Nonetheless, you've clearly missed the point being made in the difference of wear going on a tangent to ruin context that I will not continue in.
 
Your definitions of both placebo and psychological imply that the user knows about it, therefore he expects it.
 
Wrong, see the earlier linked study.
 
 If it happens out of the blue, it's an observation, not a psychological problem / placebo.
 
I'll repeat it again, you're factually incorrect.  The placebo effect occurs from a treatment, if the treatment is burn-in to alleviate issues that there is the expectation.  However, with no expectations the effect can STILL occur.
 
 Mental adaption is still defeated in my experiences with the ADDIEM...  By your standards, I would have to re-burn in the ADDIEM each time I reviewed a few headphones (without using the ADDIEM)
 
Wrong again, I only linked that to subwoofers.  I'm really saying that the odds of headphones burning in is so negligible it's not even funny if something like a subwoofer which actually exhibits measurably audible effects doesn't even retain them.
 
And the only time I had to do it was going from ADDIEM to new ADDIEM.  The new one burned in again.  Your mental/psychological explaination doesn't cover what happened there, stop trying to fit it.
 
But placebo effect still applies, whether you like it or not.

Responses in bold.  Call me when a sufficient DBT has been performed.  If you only evidence is "but people are saying they're problems are fixed" after the manufacture said it would fix them (the language doesn't need to be specific as I've shown), then it's not enough.  It's still not enough even if they went in with contradictory expectations, no expectations, or are part of the minority that worsened.  These are the reasons why DBT is one of the most important tools we have besides measurements for finding out what is and isn't placebo.
 

 

[tinyman392]

You call everything placebo when there is no placebo...  I already told you, you need an expectation for a placebo, even your link shows this...  The expectation here is to get better, they were told they can get better through the power of the brain, but that was the expectation (to get better)...  Whether or not they trust the doctor is entirely different....  The placebo effect only works if they are expecting something to happen... 
 
As for the ADDIEM, I wasn't expecting anything (I was testing the theory of burn in to see if it was mental or if it was real; at the time I was neutral)...  I put them on and sure enough, they sounded different...  Unless you can prove it's a placebo effect (EG I had the expectation of either or).  That argument has turned weak and trite...  I'm sick of hearing it.  I can call the fact that you're not hearing the placebo effect too, you're expecting not to hear anything, therefore, you don't hear it...  There, it's placebo to not hear differences...  The placebo effect can't be used until you have solid evidence that it works one way or the other...  Since we (neither of us) know it's real, the placebo effect can't be placed yet as it can be placebo to hear it, but it can also be placebo not to hear it...  That argument is now invalid since it is for the stance, while at the same time being against it.  Yes, it can be used both ways, the placebo effect is a double-edged sword since it depends on what has been proven to the the norm.  However, since neither has been proven to be the norm, that argument is not only trite, but invalid as well since it states that something (burn in) can be and cannot be at the same time...  Same thing with psychological. 
 
You sir have failed to define your terms still, you did give an example of placebo, but haven't given a formal definition.  You have used the following terms interchangably when they are indeed not.  Placebo = Psychological; Psychological != Placebo; Mental != Placebo; Placebo = Mental.  You use these three terms (psychological, placebo, and mental) interchangably, when they aren't the same thing...  They are similar, they may deal with one another in certain circumstances, but are still not the same thing.  When I say mental, I do not mean placebo. 
 
Honestly, your argument runs thusly, if I prove it's not placebo, you say it's mental or psychological.  If I prove it's not mental it's placebo.  We go in circles.  Your circular argument is flawed and invalid (actually it's a fallicy in logic).  Stop arguing placebo, mental, or psychological and get another idea.  That entire argument runs in a circle.  If you don't believe me, go four steps back when I disproved placebo...  YOu went back with mental/psychological...  Then I disproved that...  Then you went back to placebo.  Your arguments are trite.

 

[tinyman392]

One final thing I'm going to state...  And let's use an allegory here since it'll make more sense that way.  Let's say there is a scientist doing an experiment.  Now, he has a bias on how this experiment should turn out (according to his beliefs, and not scientific proof yet).  He goes out and collects data.  He collects a lot of data and even includes data from previous similar experiments to ensure his collection is grand and large.  He runs into a problem.  Half of his data agrees with his bias, while the other does.  He then says that there is something wrong (reason is fitting, but arbitrary) with the data that doesn't agree with his bias.  Due to this fitting reason, he invalidates all the data that goes against his bias and tosses it out (gets rid of it; it's not right, it's invalid, it has to be wrong).  Then he concludes his bias is right.  How scientifically sound is this argument?  Obviously, it's not.
 
Now lets look at what's happening here.  The people who don't believe in burn in have lots of data (observations) all over the web, some against burn in, and some for burn in.  They then go on to say that, well, since it must be a placebo effect that the people who hear it hear it and essentially, disregard and throw out their ideas (since they are the placebo effect).  After that, you take the data that you have obtained (again, this doesn't include the placebo things since they are obviously wrong) and see that it all agrees with your ideas.  So you formally conclude that you must be right, burn in is not real, it's a placebo. 
 
Now, let's look at what the people who believe in burn in are actually doing.  They take the data as a whole (observations) all over the web; some against burn in, some for burn in.  Then they look puzzled and don't understand why some people hear it and some don't.  Instead of naming all the data that don't agree with the burn in hypothesis and just call it a placebo, they try to find an objective view that can agree with both sides.  They accept that some people can't hear the differences and do include that in their hypothesis.  They then go on to form a hypothesis that may or may not be right (and agree to that idea as well). 
 
If you look all over any audio forum on the web, both parties act in this way, one accepts that some don't hear it while the people who don't hear it subjectively conclude that if you do hear it, it must be a placebo.  This is the third argument that I've been in on Head-Fi, and searching other audio forums on Google, I continue to see this sort of act going on.  People who don't believe in it call everything that doesn't agree with them a placebo (or some other little thing).  The people who do agree with it, understand that there is a group that doesn't and works hard to find some conclusion that makes good of both groups properly (and with reason; most of the time, this can't be done).  This pattern happens over and over and over again.  And honestly, I'm tired of it.  You say believers lack scientific evidence when you yourself aren't doing science, instead, you tread over crucial observations that are as useful and right as yours are and throw them away marked as mental, psychological, or placebo. 
 
Second case, just in case this one isn't strong enough.  Objectivity, vs subjectivity.  Your case is entirely subjective.  You are indirectly stating (you've done it more than enough now) that if you don't hear it your way (EG, you hear it), you're wrong because it's the placebo effect.  100% subjective, you can't sugar-coat that any direction.  I go on to try to explain that our data is just as valid as yours (cause I accept that fact that you can't hear differences, you think I'm crazy when I say I do and call it a placebo), and go on to try to prove that statement thusly.  I'm trying to create an objective hypothesis that validates all observations.  So what am I trying to say here?  Well, in a scientific world, nothing can be taken for truth until it has been objectively verified.  Objectively means that the majority of the outside world (there may be a few bad apples) see and agree to the observations (the base evidence) and not one is left out (again, few bad apples in the bunch; few bad apples does not mean half of the people who are in the experiment).  Your subjective views are invalid because they are not the truth and never will be since it's not objective (you aren't accepting of everyone's observations when you say they are placebo; placebo implies wrong).  My ideas do take yours (and everyone else's as valid), therefore are objective, but still not 100% correct yet.  However, with tweaking, they can become correct Truth (that's capital T Truth).  Your views will never be taken for truth until you accept that the observations of believers are not mental/psychological/placebo (EG,they are correct and valid evidence for or against the problem of burn in; EG, they can't be invalidated) thusly making them objective.
 
Don't try to say your views are objective when you attack each observation, others make,  I make, or any one who will stand up in the future make saying it's wrong and a placebo (cause you create a subjective stance there).

 

[goodvibes]

Good science starts with an observation and uses experiments and measurements to find the reason for what's observed. Just because a given individual particular measurement doesn't give what they consider enough difference to be important doesn't make it the only meaningful measurement or their opinion on what enough change is correct. Less than one db change when it comes to tonal balance is very easy to hear. Not so much for single tone comparison or full band change. I gave a link to a very controlled experiment that showed a great deal of repeatable change. Those that disagree with breakin chose to ignore. It's not science when you look the other way when results don't agree or when a single test exclude all others.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

You call everything placebo when there is no placebo...  I already told you, you need an expectation for a placebo, even your link shows this...  The expectation here is to get better, they were told they can get better through the power of the brain, but that was the expectation (to get better)...  Whether or not they trust the doctor is entirely different....  The placebo effect only works if they are expecting something to happen... 
 
And they expected to get better . . . yet some felt more pain?  Are you saying there were no neutral people in there that felt it would not work, and yet it still did?  I've also outlined that there IS expectation with burn-in regardless, or at least some form of suggestion if the advice is given by the manufacturer.  Heck, people can easily develop their own expectations, but that's outside the range of this conversation.
 
As for the ADDIEM, I wasn't expecting anything (I was testing the theory of burn in to see if it was mental or if it was real; at the time I was neutral)...
 
Yet your case mirrors the study PERFECTLY.  A manufacture makes a claim that something will improve, and many claim it does.  The participants are told they will heal by a sugar pill, and they do.  I'm sure there were plenty of skeptics with that claim too, and some in-fact turn around and felt more pain (equally, at least on person in this thread has claimed burn-in did a disservice).
 
I put them on and sure enough, they sounded different...  Unless you can prove it's a placebo effect (EG I had the expectation of either or).  That argument has turned weak and trite...  I'm sick of hearing it.
 
No one is forcing you to post you know?  You're free to not post, plug your ears, and turn a blind eye to this thread and discussion entirely.
 
I can call the fact that you're not hearing the placebo effect too, you're expecting not to hear anything, therefore, you don't hear it...  There, it's placebo to not hear differences...
 
Burden of proof isn't on the null result sir, scientific method and all that jazz.
 
The placebo effect can't be used until you have solid evidence that it works one way or the other...
 
"You can't say (deity, ufo, sasquatch, burn-in) doesn't exist because you can't prove it doesn't!" isn't exactly a well thought out argument.  Lack of evidence is not to be mistaken with evidence of the contrary.
 
 Since we (neither of us) know it's real, the placebo effect can't be placed yet as it can be placebo to hear it, but it can also be placebo not to hear it... 
 
Which is why we use DBT, which funny enough I've actually tried.  Go figure . . .
 
That argument is now invalid since it is for the stance, while at the same time being against it.  Yes, it can be used both ways, the placebo effect is a double-edged sword since it depends on what has been proven to the the norm.  However, since neither has been proven to be the norm, that argument is not only trite, but invalid as well since it states that something (burn in) can be and cannot be at the same time...  Same thing with psychological.
 
You keep using this word "psychological" even though I haven't used it once except to say I haven't used it.  Please stop going out of your way to misrepresent me, I've mentioned this once and you continue to do so which shows me you're simply not reading but rather assuming.
 
You sir have failed to define your terms still, you did give an example of placebo, but haven't given a formal definition.
 
I was never asked to?  Where did you magically place this requirement, or are you just going out of your way to move the goalpost and ignore the points I've made regarding inconsistencies in wear between channels somehow never showing?
 
You have used the following terms interchangably when they are indeed not.  Placebo = Psychological; Psychological != Placebo; Mental != Placebo; Placebo = Mental. 
 
I have not.  I've never even USED the word "psychological" once in my argument - you ALONE have done that.  I've talked about TWO possible effects.  The only one that seems confused by this is you, and maybe it would behoove you to try reading again; after all, you can't even keep track of words I have and haven't used and go to make a major point of it.
 
You use these three terms (psychological, placebo, and mental) interchangably, when they aren't the same thing... 
 
Hardly.  I haven't used one of those words and the other two were in regards to separate things.  Placebo effect is an effect from treatment that has no basis except for planted notions (it in itself not an expectation) or expectations (which even skeptics fall to).  You claim you're neutral, but with any notion being mentioned that something may improve you can no longer claim so as the earlier study showed.  The "mental burn-in" is when we adjust our listening to a new signature - it means time on the headphones themselves would be irrelevant and instead would depend on the user adjusting.  You're claiming this is not what you experienced, so we're left with only two possibilities.  Burn-in or placebo, and I'm highlighting first the flaws that should occur with the vast differences in burn-in methodology and second why placebo is STILL a valid explanation at this point.  The manufacture said the sound would improve, you yourself admitted this.  Well the doctors said to the patients their symptoms would improve.
 
They are similar, they may deal with one another in certain circumstances, but are still not the same thing.  When I say mental, I do not mean placebo.
 
And neither do I, why you think opposite I can only guess except for a poor attempt at misrepresenting my argument and shifting the focus of debate to remove light from the topic at hand.
 
Honestly, your argument runs thusly, if I prove it's not placebo, you say it's mental or psychological.
 
I suggest you read again if this is an honest mistake.  I listed plausible explanations of why something could sound different that is not burn-in.  For your case, placebo is the only other explanation beside burn-in that would make sense.  I have not changed this stance at all once you gave full details of your . . . err, "experience", but you're bent on attempts at character assassination rather than actually acknowledging the points being made.
 
If I prove it's not mental it's placebo.  We go in circles.
 
No, I've stayed on placebo now that we agreed it wasn't mental.  You're the only one claiming my focus shifted from this after, and quite frankly it hasn't.
 
Your circular argument is flawed and invalid (actually it's a fallicy in logic).  Stop arguing placebo, mental, or psychological and get another idea.
 
I'm pretty sure flat out lying about another persons argument is frowned on in debate, but you seem to relish in it?
 
That entire argument runs in a circle.  If you don't believe me, go four steps back when I disproved placebo...  YOu went back with mental/psychological...  Then I disproved that...  Then you went back to placebo.  Your arguments are trite.
 
Start citing the posts sir, and in specific relation to you since that's what you're claiming.  Either your disingenuous or are entirely incapable of understanding even the basics of what's been said.  The details of your experience were vague for three or so posts, and finally enough detail was given to rule out mental burn-in for your case.  I have since then worked on the premise of placebo, and you've argued it's not possible.  I've proven very simply it is, because you've banged on about a manufacture suggesting the sound would improve doing it.  We can see from the study that even a notion that something could improve may be enough to set off the effect, and the effect can actually create negative effect though rare.
 
The only way to eliminate this is a DBT, and unless you're willing to use two sets of headphones and submit to a proper DBT like I and others have it becomes hard to take you seriously beyond an anecdote.

 
Responses in bold, you have few options:
 
Remove yourself from the conversation.
Keep misrepresenting me so I remove myself from the conversation.
Keep changing the subject so I remove myself from the conversation.
Actually remain on-topic without misrepresenting me or my position.
 
 
@goodvibes
 
Link?

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

 
Responses in bold, you have few options:
 
Remove yourself from the conversation.
Keep misrepresenting me so I remove myself from the conversation.
Keep changing the subject so I remove myself from the conversation.
Actually remain on-topic without misrepresenting me or my position.
 
 
@goodvibes
 
Link?

This....
 
Quote:

Good science starts with an observation and uses experiments and measurements to find the reason for what's observed. Just because a given individual particular measurement doesn't give what they consider enough difference to be important doesn't make it the only meaningful measurement or their opinion on what enough change is correct. Less than one db change when it comes to tonal balance is very easy to hear. Not so much for single tone comparison or full band change. I gave a link to a very controlled experiment that showed a great deal of repeatable change. Those that disagree with breakin chose to ignore. It's not science when you look the other way when results don't agree or when a single test exclude all others.

 
@Shike: Quite honestly, this is precisely what you're doing when you call every piece of evidence I've collected, and others (yes, I've cited a friend or two from other forums as well here)...  It's not point in arguing at this point, it's dismissing evidence cause it doesn't agree with you.  You can freely remove yourself from the conversation this point as well...  Until you can accept others testomonials, you can't really be doing science and your ideas invalid.
 
Also, you said placebo before this, then went to mental, then went back to placebo.  Alternatively, that link you gave me has nothing to do with burn in, the members were given placebos (knowningly) but still had ideas of what can happen (EG, getting better).  A placebo only works with this idea in place.  No idea, no placebo.  Period, end of discussion, go no further with it.  Find a link, that uses an experiment that calls something a placebo when there is no base expectation at all...  You won't find one, why?  It's not a placebo. Quite honestly, a placebo without an expectation is a mental/psychological error.  We're back at square two.
 
I'm going to state it again, since we don't know what the norm is (we don't know if burn in is real or not since there's evidence for both at the moment), we can honestly say that not hearing is the placebo.  We can also say that hearing it is the placebo.  We don't know what's normal yet, so we can't name something fake (which is what the placebo does) when you don't know what fake is.  The placebo argument is trite and invalidated for that point.  Oh yeah, since we don't know the norm, we can't also call either mental or psychological either.
 
Now, for your insults, stop it...  Seriously?  You seriously want to make yourself look bigger by indirectly calling me an idiot?  I make a claim, and support it with evidence (that is through personal experience).  I don't need citation for this as they are my ideas (or ideas I've learned from school overtime with Evolution, but put to real practice).  I honestly don't know why you think you're so big...  Remove yourself from the conversation?  What, you don't like my ideas (that are clearly supported forcing you to result to personal attacks) so you think the best thing to do is eliminate me?  Really?  Yes, dismiss me like you dismissed the evidence.  I accept your evidence (you don't hear it), but you can't accept mine when you start marking it as mental, and placebo, and psychological problem.  Remember the premise of my statements thus far, your evidence is as valid as mine in my eyes.  In your eyes however, your evidence is more valid than mine; apparently mine isn't valid cause you think I'm hearing things. 
 
One final thing, I want you to invalidate this statement here: Not hearing the effects of burn in is due to the outcomes of the placebo effect.  Now, you can't use placebo, I want to know in your ideas how this is invalid, or if it is valid (won't that be a turn of events).  Remember, since placebo falls under both mental and psychological (EG placebo is mental and psychological, but mental and psychological is not placebo since they are bigger than that), you cannot use those arguments either.  I'm curious on how you're going to attack this.  Remember, you have to prove that it isn't the placebo effect.  Remember, lack of evidence won't work either since both sides (burn in and no burn in) are equally matched. 
 
I just realized this as well...  You said you agreed that it wasn't mental in the previous post you made...  Well, placebo falls under mental...  Mental might not be placebo, but placebo sure is mental.  In that way, your argument for placebo is not invalidated as well. 

 

[lee730]

lol this argument is getting old. Shike won't agree with you and you won't agree with him. Lets just drop it. All that matters is that you believe in your opinion and so do I . Shike "thinks" you are blinded and we "think" the same of him, or "maybe" that he just can't pick up on these differences in sound. Either way its a subjective matter. And both your perspective and shike's perspective are subjective, not objective. There are graphs that have been provided showing differences in sound signature of burned in cans, but people dismissed the sound differences as being inaudible. Even that fact alone is subjective as they have no proof to prove its inaudible either (its just their opinion that its inaudible).
Quote:

This....
 
 
@Shike: Quite honestly, this is precisely what you're doing when you call every piece of evidence I've collected, and others (yes, I've cited a friend or two from other forums as well here)...  It's not point in arguing at this point, it's dismissing evidence cause it doesn't agree with you.  You can freely remove yourself from the conversation this point as well...  Until you can accept others testomonials, you can't really be doing science and your ideas invalid.
 
Also, you said placebo before this, then went to mental, then went back to placebo.  Alternatively, that link you gave me has nothing to do with burn in, the members were given placebos (knowningly) but still had ideas of what can happen (EG, getting better).  A placebo only works with this idea in place.  No idea, no placebo.  Period, end of discussion, go no further with it.  Find a link, that uses an experiment that calls something a placebo when there is no base expectation at all...  You won't find one, why?  It's not a placebo. Quite honestly, a placebo without an expectation is a mental/psychological error.  We're back at square two.
 
I'm going to state it again, since we don't know what the norm is (we don't know if burn in is real or not since there's evidence for both at the moment), we can honestly say that not hearing is the placebo.  We can also say that hearing it is the placebo.  We don't know what's normal yet, so we can't name something fake (which is what the placebo does) when you don't know what fake is.  The placebo argument is trite and invalidated for that point.  Oh yeah, since we don't know the norm, we can't also call either mental or psychological either.
 
Now, for your insults, stop it...  Seriously?  You seriously want to make yourself look bigger by indirectly calling me an idiot?  I make a claim, and support it with evidence (that is through personal experience).  I don't need citation for this as they are my ideas (or ideas I've learned from school overtime with Evolution, but put to real practice).  I honestly don't know why you think you're so big...  Remove yourself from the conversation?  What, you don't like my ideas (that are clearly supported forcing you to result to personal attacks) so you think the best thing to do is eliminate me?  Really?  Yes, dismiss me like you dismissed the evidence.  I accept your evidence (you don't hear it), but you can't accept mine when you start marking it as mental, and placebo, and psychological problem.  Remember the premise of my statements thus far, your evidence is as valid as mine in my eyes.  In your eyes however, your evidence is more valid than mine; apparently mine isn't valid cause you think I'm hearing things. 
 
One final thing, I want you to invalidate this statement here: Not hearing the effects of burn in is due to the outcomes of the placebo effect.  Now, you can't use placebo, I want to know in your ideas how this is invalid, or if it is valid (won't that be a turn of events).  Remember, since placebo falls under both mental and psychological (EG placebo is mental and psychological, but mental and psychological is not placebo since they are bigger than that), you cannot use those arguments either.  I'm curious on how you're going to attack this.  Remember, you have to prove that it isn't the placebo effect.  Remember, lack of evidence won't work either since both sides (burn in and no burn in) are equally matched. 
 
I just realized this as well...  You said you agreed that it wasn't mental in the previous post you made...  Well, placebo falls under mental...  Mental might not be placebo, but placebo sure is mental.  In that way, your argument for placebo is not invalidated as well. 

 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

lol this argument is getting old. Shike won't agree with you and you won't agree with him. Lets just drop it. All that matters is that you believe in your opinion and so do I . Shike "thinks" you are blinded and we "think" the same of him, or "maybe" that he just can't pick up on these differences in sound. Either way its a subjective matter. And both your perspective and shike's perspective are subjective, not objective. As there is no objective proof to prove either wrong. End of story.


 

I know both are currently subjective, however, I want to create an objective hypothesis (EG, one that uses both evidence as valid) that both parties can agree to (for the time being).  I agree with what shrike hears, he doesn't agree with what I hear (but still takes argument).  I know he isn't blind, I trust that what he is hearing (or isn't hearing) is correct, but when he tries to force me to believe that it's a placebo (in an incorrect manner), it needs to be sorted out.  The whole argument stems from trying to show that the people's evidence who hear burn in is as valid as the next persons' (regardless of whether or not that next one hears it).  He's trying to invalidate everyone's opinion who hears it (but if I were to say I didn't hear it, it's perfectly fine). 
 
Now he did also insult me (a personal attack saying I can't read; or am an idiot for not being able to read) which doesn't ever fare well with me.  I don't take kindly on being cyber-bullied, so in such a case, I must stand up for myself there (I have dignity).

 

[lee730]

I agree with you on this. That is also why there is an ignore list for people you consider "trolls" lol.
Quote:

I know both are currently subjective, however, I want to create an objective hypothesis (EG, one that uses both evidence as valid) that both parties can agree to (for the time being).  I agree with what shrike hears, he doesn't agree with what I hear (but still takes argument).  I know he isn't blind, I trust that what he is hearing (or isn't hearing) is correct, but when he tries to force me to believe that it's a placebo (in an incorrect manner), it needs to be sorted out.  The whole argument stems from trying to show that the people's evidence who hear burn in is as valid as the next persons' (regardless of whether or not that next one hears it).  He's trying to invalidate everyone's opinion who hears it (but if I were to say I didn't hear it, it's perfectly fine). 
 

 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

I want to create an objective hypothesis

Start with objective data.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

Start with objective data.

I do...  I take everyone's data (EG, people who believe in burn in and people who don't believe in burn in) and try to create a hypothesis on it (can't get more objective than that)...  I thought I stated that more than once already. 
 
Remember, definition of objective is beyond yourself.  I accept his idea that he doesn't hear the change, but not his idea on why I do hear the change (cause quite frankly, it's incorrectly done).  The entire time we've been arguing, I've been trying to prove that my data is as important as what he gives.  The entire argument is a validation of every person who believes and hears burn in's data (since both parties already agree that there are people who don't hear it; yes that includes me).  Please note that the data I use for the hypothesis is not only the data of personal testomony, but also the data from all frequency graphs that have been done thus far as well.
 
If there is a way I can be more objective, please let me know.  As it can make the hypothesis better. 

 

[lee730]

Quote:

I do...  I take everyone's data (EG, people who believe in burn in and people who don't believe in burn in) and try to create a hypothesis on it (can't get more objective than that)...  I thought I stated that more than once already. 

He means data such as charts and measurements. Which have been furnished in the past and still doubted as unreliable. Although those saying its unreliable also have no data to prove so...

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

I do...  I take everyone's data (EG, people who believe in burn in and people who don't believe in burn in) and try to create a hypothesis on it (can't get more objective than that)...  I thought I stated that more than once already. 
 
Remember, definition of objective is beyond yourself.  I accept his idea that he doesn't hear the change, but not his idea on why I do hear the change (cause quite frankly, it's incorrectly done).  The entire time we've been arguing, I've been trying to prove that my data is as important as what he gives.  The entire argument is a validation of every person who believes and hears burn in's data (since both parties already agree that there are people who don't hear it; yes that includes me). 

Subjective impressions is not objective data.
 
You underestimate the power of the mind.
 
Quote:

He means data such as charts and measurements. Which have been furnished in the past and still doubted as unreliable. Although those saying its unreliable also have no data to prove so...

Tyll's measurements showed differences, but not ones more significant than product variation. His listening test was interesting as well, but didn't control for product variation and, because it's as significant as the differences found from burn-in, the test can't be used to make any definitive conclusions.
 
My issue is with the supposed dramatic differences heard from burn-in, not whether or not the burn-in exists to some degree. It makes sense that stressing a driver will change its response over time, but are the audible changes significant? That's never been shown.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

He means data such as charts and measurements. Which have been furnished in the past and still doubted as unreliable. Although those saying its unreliable also have no data to prove so...

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).

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

Subjective impressions is not objective data.
 
You underestimate the power of the mind.
 

Tyll's measurements showed differences, but not ones more significant than product variation. His listening test was interesting as well, but didn't control for product variation and, because it's as significant as the differences found from burn-in, the test can't be used to make any definitive conclusions.
 
My issue is with the supposed dramatic differences heard from burn-in, not whether or not the burn-in exists to some degree. It makes sense that stressing a driver will change its response over time, but are the audible changes significant? That's never been shown.

Subjective evidence from someone else (like you) isn't subjective.  Keep that in mind.  Observations from people as a whole is not subjective.  Remember that.  If it was, then it can be argued that everything science has done up to now is subjective as it's a collection of subjective observations and rules.  This is not the case.
 
The thing I realized about Tylls graphs is that it only goes up to 65 hours, agree that it is invalid.  But it still doesn't prove for or against burn in since he didn't go up to the 200 mark.  Some headphones (under hyporthesis) take longer to burn in and are relatively static.