[penguin121]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speederlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif Someone provide some common-sense physics behind this effect please.

Obviously the electron spirits in the cable lack the strength to properly convey a signal at first since they have been just sitting around doing nothing until the cable is actually used. The burn-in process simply whips these lazy maggots into shape until they can effortlessly carry the signal without missing a beat. Naturally, if you don't use your cable for a while the electron spirits will grow lazy and out of shape again, requiring a fresh burn-in to straighten them out. Effort should be taken to ensure that this does not happen to your cables!

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif It seems you like to argue by pigeon-holing other people, or their viewpoints. I don't find it particularly illuminating. But then, it seems to be standard practice on this forum.

I don't see that I pigeonholed anyone.

Why don't you address what I actually said?

k

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't see that I pigeonholed anyone. Why don't you address what I actually said?

Ok. It's not a reasonable or fair characterization to say that someone who believes that they have heard a change in the sound of a cable is acting on "faith," just because they can't prove scientifically the cause of what they hear (or think they hear), or cannot provide a scientific explanation. It is a complete non sequitur to say that the inability to provide a scientific explanation for what one has observed renders an opinion based on that observation as one that is "faith based." And in asserting that, you are, IMO, disparaging the opinions of certain folks who don't agree with you, and doing so deliberately.

Second, I don't agree with your characterization of subjectivists as "pseudo objectivists," or with your comments about what they really believe and why. On the other hand, perhaps you're just engaging in semantic games. (Doesn't anybody who comments on a personal experience to some extent pass off their experience as "an objective reality"?) In any event, it seems to me that your intent is the same as with the "faith based" statement, i.e., to cast a group of people who don't agree with you in a somewhat negative light.

But, in some sense, your comments are not entirely out of line, as threads like this are typically created in the first place to set up certain folks to make statements like the ones you made.

How's that? Happy now.

 

[anetode]

If someone is BSing you to your face, "subjective" is the least you can call that person.

 

[Vel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ok. It's not a reasonable or fair characterization to say that someone who believes that they have heard a change in the sound of a cable is acting on "faith," just because they can't prove scientifically the cause of what they hear (or think they hear), or cannot provide a scientific explanation. It is a complete non sequitur to say that the inability to provide a scientific explanation for what one has observed renders an opinion based on that observation as one that is "faith based." And in asserting that, you are, IMO, disparaging the opinions of certain folks who don't agree with you, and doing so deliberately.

Isn't faith by definition a belief without evidence? So if I say I can hear a difference in something without: a) possible cause b) measurements of the difference and c) no evidence for being able to tell the difference (such as through ABX), then I think that should be called faith based. In a sense you are believing without evidence that there is a difference, when you cannot measure or explain it at all... seems like a fair judgement to call it faith based to me.

Note: I know nothing about cables and have never done any difference tests on them, just commenting generally.

 

[crapback]

Could someone please explain to me how to measure soundstage and instrument separation?

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ok. It's not a reasonable or fair characterization to say that someone who believes that they have heard a change in the sound of a cable is acting on "faith," just because they can't prove scientifically the cause of what they hear (or think they hear), or cannot provide a scientific explanation.

When one holds the objective belief that cables do in fact "burn in" and in such a way as to produce an actual audible difference without there being any objective evidence to support such a belief, then indeed, that belief is based on faith, no differently than religion is based on faith.

Quote:

It is a complete non sequitur to say that the inability to provide a scientific explanation for what one has observed renders an opinion based on that observation as one that is "faith based." And in asserting that, you are, IMO, disparaging the opinions of certain folks who don't agree with you, and doing so deliberately.

The non sequitur is asserting one's subjective experience as an unerring reflection of objective reality, i.e. "I heard (in the purely subjective sense) a difference after the cable was burned in, therefore burn in is real."

And again, what I call "faith based" is holding the objective belief that burn in is real without there being any objective evidence to support it.

Quote:

Second, I don't agree with your characterization of subjectivists as "pseudo objectivists," or with your comments about what they really believe and why.

Then don't agree.

And my statement wasn't a blanket characterization of all subjectivists. I said that most of those who call themselves subjectivists aren't truly subjectivists as they routinely assert their subjective experiences as objective reality. You simply can't be a subjectivist and do that. So I coined the term "pseudo objectivists" to describe these people. Because while they often make objective claims, they never substantiate them with objective evidence.

And I base this on my observations of the audio community over the past 30 years or so.

Quote:

On the other hand, perhaps you're just engaging in semantic games. (Doesn't anybody who comments on a personal experience to some extent pass off their experience as "an objective reality"?)

No. You have to go out of your way to do that.

If one simply says they burned in a cable and it sounded better to them, there's nothing inherently objective in such a statement. And if they don't go beyond that, then they are not asserting their subjective experience a reflection of any objective reality.

Quote:

In any event, it seems to me that your intent is the same as with the "faith based" statement, i.e., to cast a group of people who don't agree with you in a somewhat negative light.

Not at all.

If someone holds the objective belief that cables burn in and in such a way as to produce an actual audible difference without there being any objective evidence to support it, then how on earth is such a belief not faith based?

If that's not a faith based belief, then neither is the belief that there is a God. And if believing there is a God is not faith based, then what the hell is a faith based belief?

k

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crapback /img/forum/go_quote.gif Could someone please explain to me how to measure soundstage and instrument separation?

"Soundstage" and "instrument separation" are subjective evaluations.

However, given that what you actually hear is ultimately produced by changes in air pressure over time, anything which would have an objective effect on your perception of "soundstage" and "instrument separation" would manifest itself as a difference in the changes in air pressure over time. And we have the ability to measure changes in air pressure over time to virtually the thermal noise floor of air itself.

You can take this same concept back to the audio realm with regard to changes in voltage and current over time, which we can measure down to and often below the noise floor of the system.

k

 

[crapback]

Ok, so back to my question. How are they measured? I didn't ask if it's be possible to measure them. You say that soundstage and instrument separation are subjective. If i'm listening to a live performance they are not subjective. I'm hearing the sound coming from exactly where it's source is. When listening to audio reproduction equipment of any kind i'm looking for the closest recreation of that listening experience.

So once again I ask, how do they measure that?

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crapback /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ok, so back to my question. How are they measured? I didn't ask if it's be possible to measure them. You say that soundstage and instrument separation are subjective. If i'm listening to a live performance they are not subjective. I'm hearing the sound coming from exactly where it's source is. When listening to audio reproduction equipment of any kind i'm looking for the closest recreation of that listening experience. So once again I ask, how do they measure that?

Sorry, I thought your question had something to do with the thread topic. It's bad enough that so much has been said so far that doesn't really address the topic and I don't want to contribute more to that than I already have.

k

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Isn't faith by definition a belief without evidence? So if I say I can hear a difference in something without: a) possible cause b) measurements of the difference and c) no evidence for being able to tell the difference (such as through ABX), then I think that should be called faith based. In a sense you are believing without evidence that there is a difference, when you cannot measure or explain it at all... seems like a fair judgement to call it faith based to me.

Exactly.

k

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadcykler /img/forum/go_quote.gif Think about what goes between the L and the R on a pair of headphones? That's the only place that changes happen.

Ah! Gotcha.

Sorry for being so slow on the uptake on that one.

k

 

[crapback]

So you don't know either, eh? As for being on topic, you said that "perceived" changes due to burn-in are subjective and "faith" based. I asked how 2 "subjective" qualities of headphone listening are measured. You said that it is possible.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crapback /img/forum/go_quote.gif So you don't know either, eh? As for being on topic, you said that "perceived" changes due to burn-in are subjective and "faith" based.

That's not what I said at all.

The original poster asked what it is that was supposed to change in the cable by burning in and asked someone to provide an explanation of the physics behind it.

I said that I have yet to see any explanation that holds any water and that the belief that cables do in fact burn in and do so such that the effect is actually audible burn in is faith based.

Quote:

I asked how 2 "subjective" qualities of headphone listening are measured. You said that it is possible.

I didn't say that either.

You can't directly measure such subjective qualities as "soundstage" and "instrument separation."

What I said was that any change a burned in cable would make that could effect your perception of "soundstage" and "instrument separation" could be measured.

k

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Isn't faith by definition a belief without evidence? So if I say I can hear a difference in something without: a) possible cause b) measurements of the difference and c) no evidence for being able to tell the difference (such as through ABX), then I think that should be called faith based. In a sense you are believing without evidence that there is a difference, when you cannot measure or explain it at all... seems like a fair judgement to call it faith based to me.

I also interpreted the use of the term "faith based" in the present context to mean there is no evidence for the phenomenon. But there is some evidence, i.e., people's observations. The fact that some do not consider them persuasive or to constitute evidence that would be accepted by a scientist does not mean that they are not evidence, such that a belief that a cable sounded different after burn in is entirely based on "faith," as I understood it was being used herein.

Anyway, that's the point I was trying to make.