[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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. 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?

Almost every time these issues are discussed,, someone brings up religion or a belief in God. Those matters of "faith "are not comparable to what we're discussing here, and in any event, such discussions are not permitted on this forum. And I won't discuss that issue and break the forum rules, even though I'd like to respond.

I think I clarified the point I was trying to make in response to Vel's post. It's probably not worth further discussion. Carry on.

 

[Vel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

Subjective evidence is not objective evidence. Ever heard of the placebo effect? That would explain why people feel something without any objective proof.

Notice how this thread is in the Sound Science forum? Do you know what science is based on? Repeatability and objective evidence, ie the scientific method. Maybe there should be a forum for subjectivism or something but it has NO place in science.

I'm not trying to attack you, just differentiating between objectivism and subjectivism. They are like oil and water to me and I (being a scientist) live by objective evidence as much as I can.

 

[AtomikPi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe there should be a forum for subjectivism or something but it has NO place in science.

There is a subjectivism forum; it's called every single other forum than Sound Science

I suppose there is a little bit of objectivism sprinkled in.

 

[Vel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtomikPi /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is a subjectivism forum; it's called every single other forum than Sound Science I suppose there is a little bit of objectivism sprinkled in.

Haha true true. So let's make this forum 100% objective then

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadcykler /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, if you use this device to burn in your cables and power it via a battery, will your cables have a lower noise floor or blacker blacks than if you use the wall wart?

Yes. You can also leave your cables out in the sun for awhile if you want a warmer sound.

If cable burn in is real, wouldn't that necessitate a physical change to the cable? Put another way, you could take a length of cable, cut it in half, and "burn in" half, then compare it to the other non-burned in half.

Then again, DMMs, oscilloscopes and other standard test equipment are inherently unreliable and produce no usable results, so you can't prove anything. Or so some claim.

Then again, there might be nothing there at all. I appreciate burn in the same way I appreciate mythology and folklore. As much as I love these stories, they're entertainment and not to be taken literally. The sun may be a golden egg laid by an enormous galactic bird every morning, but I'd rather rely on objective results than oral tradition.

 

[Speederlander]

Hi everyone, still waiting for some physics, any physics, to explain the claims of cable burn-in. Even if it's conjecture, please feel free to offer it up.

For anyone claiming it's beyond the purview of modern physics, please expand on that. What exactly do you mean? It's new physics yet to be discovered? We need to apply superstring theory to audio cables to completely understand what happens during burn-in? What makes you think this is more likely than other explanations?

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speederlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi everyone, still waiting for some physics, any physics, to explain the claims of cable burn-in. Even if it's conjecture, please feel free to offer it up.

Like I said in my first post in this thread... Good luck.

Now, where did I put that MP3 of crickets chirping...

k

 

[JaZZ]

Just a reminder for those who think «we» already know everything when it comes to music reproduction and related gear: We don't even know why different amps sound different. Maybe it's not that we don't have enough data, but we still don't know how to interpret them to reliably predict the sound of a specific amplifier on the basis of measuring data.

This just to put the few arrogant attitudes popping up now and then into perspective (feel free to feel concerned!).
.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just a reminder for those who think «we» already know everything when it comes to music reproduction and related gear: We don't even know why different amps sound different.

You're putting the cart before the horse here.

We don't know that different amps DO sound different. At least not in any objective sense and where the actual physical differences of the amps are below already known thresholds.

You're asserting as fact that which has not yet been demonstrated.

Quote:

Maybe it's not that we don't have enough data, but we still don't know how to interpret them to reliably predict the sound of a specific amplifier on the basis of measuring data.

Or maybe it's because no one has yet to objectively demonstrate that different amps sound different when the differences are below known thresholds.

Quote:

This just to put the few arrogant attitudes popping up now and then into perspective (feel free to feel concerned!). .

Arrogant attitudes? What's more arrogant than trying to pass off opinion as fact?

k

 

[Speederlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just a reminder for those who think «we» already know everything when it comes to music reproduction and related gear: We don't even know why different amps sound different. Maybe it's not that we don't have enough data, but we still don't know how to interpret them to reliably predict the sound of a specific amplifier on the basis of measuring data. This just to put the few arrogant attitudes popping up now and then into perspective (feel free to feel concerned!). .

But in this case we are talking about a length of wire. What changes in the wire due to burn-in? This is the simplest of possible situations. You have a length of wire, what is the mechanism for the change in the signal through that wire after, say, 6 weeks of burn-in, a change is so dramatic it can affect the music? Indeed, given what I have read here, it appears in almost every case to improve the music, rather than to cause random unwanted changes. What is required to explain this? Is it undiscovered quantum mechanics? Is it m-theory?

Continuing on this last point, I have yet to read a review of cable burn-in that wasn't talking about how the music improved. What is it about the physics of cable burn-in that always seems to improve the sound? Why improve in every case (or at least the vast majority of them)?

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're asserting as fact that which has not yet been demonstrated.

And I share this opinion with the gross majority (of Head-Fiers). I demonstrate it to myself on an almost daily basis.

BTW, has anybody ever demonstrated without a doubt that different headphones sound different?

On the other hand, you with your amplifier-sound skepticism belong to a diminishing minority among audiophiles.
.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speederlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif Continuing on this last point, I have yet to read a review of cable burn-in that wasn't talking about how the music improved. What is it about the physics of cable burn-in that always seems to improve the sound? Why improve in every case (or at least the vast majority of them)?

Another interesting phenomenon is that burn in was never mentioned 20 years ago.

The first notion of burn in that I recall was from a cable manufacturer in response to someone who wasn't all that pleased with that manufacturer's cables.

Oh, well of course they don't sound all that good right now. They haven't burned in yet. You have to burn them in for some period of time before they sound good.

Then once the concept of "burn in" was implanted in people's brains, it wasn't long before suddenly EVERYTHING needed to burn in before it sounded its best. From cables to equipment racks.

Funny that 20 years previously no one seemed to have noticed.

k

 

[Bullseye]

Koyaan, thanks for your contribution. Even so there is, in my opinion, on problem that the majority of people in this community do when making conclusions.

They prefer to disregard science and believe that the product change was the responsible for any change (even if there was not). I think there is a lack of criticism in the people's tests or "comparisons".

Instead of giving it more thought and trying to find a mistake in their method, they prefer to go to the easy way and try to explain that change due to some cable change, amp change or burn-in process.

Recently I have been trying to share my point if view and encourage people to criticize their own experiences, to know what their limits as a human are an to finally try to make good conclusions out of their experience.

There is this sentence people keep using of "trust your ears", and what they are basically doing is trusting their eyes, wallet or suggestion due to the hype present in this forums.

We all want to find the best SQ possible, but damn it, we have to keep using our brains as well... There is this idea that achieving what is technically great SQ is always followed up by insane amounts of money, when that is not true. There is a time when you are getting into a "luxurious" product rather than a technically better one.

And what we always have to keep in mind is that our ears are imperfect, we have some limits and machines already surpass us when measuring. The thing left for us is to enjoy and have a great subjective opinion.

Well, gonna put my mask on. Need to "burn in" some stuff

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif BTW, has anybody ever demonstrated without a doubt that different headphones sound different? [/COLOR]

It depends on your interpretation of "without a doubt" - to be sure, we don't know if gravity exists without a doubt, or even if we exist without a doubt. With enough radical skepticism, you can doubt literally everything, but that's not particularly useful nor interesting. There is, OTOH, tons of evidence for transducers sounding different - enough to the point where it's uninteresting. Headphones vary wildly in frequency response, so that there's an audible difference is uncontroversial and uninteresting.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Funny that 20 years previously no one seemed to have noticed.

Break-in of speaker drivers is a really old phenomenon and something speaker-builder magazines deal with since eons. I've measured it myself. Actually I remember the advice of breaking in a pair of new speakers since my first occupation with high fidelity – and that's a long time ago.
.