Quote:
Originally Posted by zeplin
Mike,
Who the heck says we must completely follow the philosophic/scientific structure, especially when we (the majority of us) don't believe in using the scientific mthod for proving it exists. With that, I really don't see why we are the only ones who have to prove this idea (which is pretty much no longer just an idea) to you when you, just as much as us, are making such a claim that burn-in doesn't exist. You make all these claims about getting evidence, yet you have provided none yourself. Why? Because you want to so easily hide behind your scientific methods and "rules" that only we have to prove this idea to you. It is so easy that way, and it is a cop out and you know it. Since we are all debating this topic, I think it is perfectly realistic that you as well us have to provide some evidence to back up our ideas.
Futher more, this proof that you say we have to provide has actually been provided many various times over the past year or so. Jazz just talked about it in regards to messuring the frequencing changes that took place with his speakers. Another member also took the time to even write Sennheiser in order to ask them about burn-in. With little surpprize, they also claimed that there are audible differences in sound after burn-in. This proof that we have provided for you (because we're so nice and want to provide what you asked for) may not be enough to convince you. But you know what, at least we provided some documentation backing up our claims...where you haven't done any of that. Again, I don't care if you want to follow your philosophical/scientific methods by not providing proff yourself. The fact is you need to and you are looking ever so less credible each time you smack down out claims with you, "burn-in is absurd" comments, which are ridiculous in themselves. So either put up or shut up!!!
One more thing about what you had to say to the original poster that he/she expected the burning-in to happen and is therefore a faulty and biased claim so it does not count. Well, I have news for ya. Go back and re-read his first couple of posts. He plainly stated that he had no idea in expecting the burn-in to happen. It just happened, and he couldn't believe it seeing as how he was about to purchase a different pair of headphones. So again, there goes your claim about "expecting something to happen so it therefore happens." So I ask, if you wish to continue this conversation, that you at least get your facts straight and re-read this thread to be able to accurately quote what people have said, and not making their quotes out of context. The next thing I'm waiting for is for your proof. Lets hear your proof, what is it?????
|
1. The hypothesis that 'burn-in' is necessary or desireable contains the assumption that the manufacturer delivers a product that is not completely 'finished'. Since no manufacturer of headphones recommends 'burn-in' on the instructions packed with the product (unlike car companies who
do advise you to take it easy on the engine the first 1000 miles) it is incumbent upon those who make the claim to support it with some sort of objective evidence that is repeatable (not anecdotal).
2. Making a claim about the behavior of objects in the physical world is necessarily a scientific claim and is unavoidably subject to empirical scientific criteria. Suppose two photographers are standing at the counter in a camera store, and one says to the other 'what do you think of Kodak Hyper Color 400 film? Is it as fine-grained as Fuji Mysteria 400 or AGFA Überfarbe 400?' Such a question is realistic and objective, and the answer can be determined with an RMS measurement that is objective and meaningful. Neither one of the photographers would have any qualms about the results, though RMS values do not describe grain patterns completely. Two different films may have grain patterns having the same RMS values but still look a little different. The question, though, is a more or less a scientific one and one that can be answered scientifically. If photographer A says to photographer B that the Kodak emulsion is finer-grained, it is easily proved or disproved. They take some control images on the films, have them processed and printed, and compare them.
3. Once the notion of 'burn-in' has taken hold (i.e., becomes popular), it beomes a possible source of bias. I have never heard of it before joining this group, and to my knowledge I have never experienced it. If it has occurred in isolated instances, that still does not justify sweeping statements of the sort often encountered here, frequently with detailed instructions on how to perform 'burn-in'. If the poster had no expectation of 'burn-in', how was it possible for him to 'identify' it?
4. The existence or non-existence of 'burn-in' is an empirical question. Those who claim it occurs on a wide range of brands and models must provide some objective evidence that it occurs on a wide range of brands and models for it to be a meaningful claim. If it occured only on a Kaiser Machschnell 666 model that was discontinued in 1987, that does not count for much.
5. Many 'product myths' are in circulation at any given time in popular culture. In photographic circles, there are numerous ones concerning cameras, lenses, films, and papers. I have seen these come and go, often in cycles. Often they have no basis in fact. When they do have some basis in fact, they fail to take into account some important qualification. These myths rest upon a lack of complete undertsanding of the processes (chemical, optical, and mechanical) that govern photographic image formation. 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' is especially true when it comes to consumers and technology.
Are you familiar with the game called 'telephone'? (Also called 'Chinese Whispers' or 'Whisper Down The Alley'.)
http://www.harryrinker.com/col-902.html
"In a game of "Telephone" one child whispers a message to the child sitting next to her, who in turn whispers the message to the child sitting next to him, who in turn whispers the message to yet a fourth child, and so on until the message has been whispered to the last child in the queue. By the time the message reaches its destination, the final child, it has generally undergone significant change." (
http://www.2street.com/cyborg/tphone.htm)
This is what happens to people who are not experts in technology when they hear something from a friend or associate about a product. By the time it has been through enough hands, the facts are garbled and the story is distorted beyond recognition.
Suppose I say that nuclear weapons have a 'tamper' in them (they do). You can see how easily that could be misunderstood if it passed through 20 hands. Before long, we will have heard that all of our nuclear weapons have been tampered with by terrorists.
6. The presumption is that products are delivered in their finished, optimum state. To claim otherwise demands proof. That is, the burden of proof is on you.
Well, maybe the last one is true...
