[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif And I share this opinion with the gross majority (of Head-Fiers).

A majority of opinion, gross or otherwise, does not establish any sort of objective reality.

Quote:

I demonstrate it to myself on an almost daily basis.

Just as others have demonstrated to themselves that placing photographs of themselves in their freezers improves the sound of their systems.

Quote:

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

I'm sure someone has, as with loudspeakers. I can't name anyone specifically with regard to headphones, but with regard to loudspeakers, check out Floyd Toole.

This is a rather silly example though given that the differences between headphones and loudspeakers are rather commonly well within known thresholds of audibility.

Quote:

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

Again, simple opinion does not establish any sort of objective reality.

k

 

[Bullseye]

I want to ask something related to Jazz's quote done by royalcrown.

Has anyone had the sensation that after listening to a pair of headphones, the differences you heard on first contact don't seem so big, or they are not as present as before?

Like when you are enjoying your music, is that difference you found big before stops being so big? I believe I am not the only that that has had this type of sensation.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...Headphones vary wildly in frequency response, so that there's an audible difference is uncontroversial and uninteresting.

Agreed. But sonic differences with amplifiers are not far from being undisputed. It's clear that minor differences (such as in electronics components) are still more disputed than those on sound-transducer level. But it would be arrogant (

) to dispute sonic differences with other components beforehand. Moreover it would be unscientific to ask science (read: officially approved measuring differences above the officially approved hearing threshold) for permission when it comes to perceive sonic differences.

Long story short: «We» still don't know why different electronics components sound different.

.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Break-in of speaker drivers is a really old phenomenon and something speaker-builder magazines deal with since eons.

Sure. Loudspeakers are mechanical devices. I wasn't referring to mechanical devices. I was referring to cables.

Quote:

I've measured it myself.

Congratulations. You re-discovered the wheel.

k

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

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

Well said.

k

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif A majority of opinion, gross or otherwise, does not establish any sort of objective reality. Again, simple opinion does not establish any sort of objective reality.

However, statistics are a scientific discipline. And a gross majority shouldn't be ignored beforehand.

I'm sure statistics would also reveal that the majority of amplifier-sound skeptics have never seriously occupied themselves personally with high-end electronics – for admittedly somewhat understandable reasons.

We're still talking about cable burn-in. In this context I just wanted to point out that «we» still don't know everything about audio, even though some seem to think so.
.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure. Loudspeakers are mechanical devices. I wasn't referring to mechanical devices. I was referring to cables.

Then the provided link is entirely superfluous. If I only had known!


Quote:

Congratulations. You re-discovered the wheel.

That wasn't my intention.
.

 

[Speederlander]

So can I surmise there is no actual physical change in audio cables due to burn-in given not even the remotest theory of what may change has been offered through 4 pages of discussion?

This is simple, we have a strand of copper (or silver) wire. What changes in the wire from daily use that would affect the signal after X # of weeks of use? Come on, someone must have a theory at least. Additionally, why are these changes always positively reviewed, i.e. why do they always seem to happen in such a way that music is improved? What about the physics involved in the alteration of the wire properties so significantly changes the signal for the better?

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif However, statistics are a scientific discipline.

While statistics may be a scientific discipline, opinion polls do not establish objective reality.

Quote:

And a gross majority shouldn't be ignored beforehand.

Let's see the statistics that you base your gross majority claim on. Show us the data you have collected and your methods for collecting it.

And no one's ignoring anything beforehand. Just simply pointing out the fact that simple opinion does not establish objective reality and that to date no one has established in any objective sense that cables burn in and do so to such a degree as to result in actual audible differences.

Quote:

I'm sure statistics would also reveal that the majority of amplifier-sound skeptics have never seriously occupied themselves personally with high-end electronics – for admittedly somewhat understandable reasons.

This is nothing more than arrogance and condescension. And you have the balls to call others arrogant.

Quote:

We're still talking about cable burn-in. In this context I just wanted to point out that «we» still don't know everything about audio, even though some seem to think so..

No, we don't know everything. But neither do we know nothing.

One thing we do know however is that no one has demonstrated objectively that cables burn in and to such a degree as to produce actual audible differences.

k

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Let's see the statistics that you base your gross majority claim on. Show us the data you have collected and your methods for collecting it.

That's not necessary. Visit Head-Fi, not just the science forum, and you'll know (if you want to). But I agree, it still proves nothing, it's just a strong indication and not to be neglected.


Quote:

This is nothing more than arrogance and condescension. And you have the balls to call others arrogant.

What electronics components do you currently use and what have you extensively auditioned during your audio career (to come to your skeptic attitude)?


Quote:

One thing we do know however is that no one has demonstrated objectively that cables burn in and to such a degree as to produce actual audible differences.

Even cable sound itself is still a white spot. You're asking too much.

.

 

[Happy Camper]

Those with the scientific background to explain the physics are ran off by ignorance and rudeness. This topic has been covered by both sides to stalemate.

I am a hobbyist and am going to respond to the OP as a novice.

The conductive pathway of the wire is littered with barriers of oxidation during the molding/soldering process. Burning through the oxidation reduces the restrictions and forms the main conductive path for the signal/power transfer. If this is the case, a hi current flow through the wire is needed.

This is only an opinion as I understood the explanation. I'm not saying it's right, wrong, snakeoil or otherwise. There are many threads with some very educated people discussing this in detail. Give it a search.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's not necessary. Visit Head-Fi, not just the science forum, and you'll know (if you want to).

How utterly duplicitous of you.

You invoke the word "statistics" saying it is a scientific discipline, yet the "statistics" you attempt to foist on others here possess no scientific rigor whatsoever.

"Visit Head-Fi."

Oooooh. How... scientific.


Quote:

But I agree, it still proves nothing, it's just a strong indication and not to be neglected.

What exactly makes the indication particularly "strong"?

Statistics?

Oh, wait, that's right. You don't have any statistics.

And even if the statistics are what you claim they are, they're not being neglected, it's just that they do nothing to get us any further down the road than where we were when the first person made claims of burn in.

The real question is why haven't you or anyone else offered up anything which might possibly get us further down the road?

That's what this whole thread was about in the first place. And all you've done is stand there hand-waving.

Quote:

What electronics components do you currently use and what have you extensively auditioned during your audio career (to come to your skeptic attitude)?

My skepticism comes simply from my not being a blind faith believer in that for which there is no credible objective evidence to support.

k

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif How utterly duplicitous of you.

I had to consult the dictionary to know what «duplicitous» means. But I still don't know what you mean.


Quote:

You invoke the word "statistics" saying it is a scientific discipline, yet the "statistics" you attempt to foist on others here possess no scientific rigor whatsoever. "Visit Head-Fi." Oooooh. How... scientific.

You're being much too dogged. It's not hard to realize that the gross majority of Head-Fi members hears differences with different amps.


Quote:

What exactly makes the indication particularly "strong"?

The overwhelming majority.


Quote:

And even if the statistics are what you claim they are, they're not being neglected, it's just that they do nothing to get us any further down the road than where we were when the first person made claims of burn in.

True. But you may recall how we got to this side track.


Quote:

My skepticism comes simply from my not being a blind faith believer in that for which there is no credible objective evidence to support.

So you don't want to reveal which electronics components you have experience with and you're currently using? (No signature, no gear listed in your details...)
.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif I had to consult the dictionary to know what «duplicitous» means. But I still don't know what you mean.

Man, you're really creeping me out here.

After I wrote that line, I was thinking of adding "I'll give you a moment to look it up" in parentheses at the end of the sentence. I decided not to thinking it was perhaps a bit too condescending.

I kid you not.

Creepy.

Quote:

You're being much too dogged. It's not hard to realize that the gross majority of Head-Fi members hears differences with different amps.

I made that comment in the context of your invoking statistics and it being a "scientific discipline" and the decidedly un-scientific "statistics" that you offer up.

Quote:

The overwhelming majority.

But that's rather like saying the overwhelming majority of people who attend church believe in God.

Quote:

True. But you may recall how we got to this side track.

No. How?

Quote:

So you don't want to reveal which electronics components you have experience with and you're currently using? (No signature, no gear listed in your details...).

It wasn't relevant to the question you had actually asked regarding my skepticism.

But if you desire an answer outside of that context, suffice to say that I've been involved in the high end home audio industry in one way or another for going on 30 years.

My first commercial product was a unity gain "preamp" that I'd designed around 1987 and introduced in 1989 under the Alpha Logic name. It was the basis for Corey Greenberg's Aunt Corey's Homemade Buffered Passive Preamp DIY article for Stereophile (I provided Corey with the schematics, part sources, etc. and while Corey never mentioned this in the article, he made me Elvis so I figure that was a fair trade

).

Over the years I've had experience with dozens of not hundreds of different electronic components and I do and have done consulting and contract work for a number of other high end audio companies.

Oh yeah, and I had a VERY short career as a writer for Gordon Holt's short-lived Video Theater magazine.

I'm currently in the cable business, but plan to introduce some electronics either late this year or early next year.

I have no gear listed in my details because it's mostly all custom so it'd be rather pointless, though I don't really see much point in listing my gear even if it wasn't custom as I don't see that it would provide any truly useful information to anyone about me.

So there you have it.

Happy now?

k

 

[sanderx]

Quote:

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

Have there ever been tests to see, if how an amplifier will sound, can be predicted from measurements? If not, then how can you claim that this cannot be done? Even more, if you cannot predict how an amplifier will sound, how come there are companies with lines of amplifiers exhibiting a "house sound" to a smaller or larger amount?