It was also found that when test sessions included two test subjects, and one subject was female, 49% of the test subjects tended to ignore visual sensory input of the actual test devices.
Sounds like they might have discovered a new protocol for blind testing! Certainly worth further research IMHO. Maybe a couple of bikini-clad mud wrestlers would guarantee a "blind test" result that even hardcore audiophiles wouldn't futilely try to find fault with?
Sounds like they might have discovered a new protocol for blind testing! Certainly worth further research IMHO. Maybe a couple of bikini-clad mud wrestlers would guarantee a "blind test" result that even hardcore audiophiles wouldn't futilely try to find fault with?
It was discovered several decades ago at trade shows that all products demo better if bikinis are involved. Heck I almost bought a $500 IEC power cord once....but then reason kicked in and I asked about the included accessories. The answer was "no". Or was it "get out of our booth", not sure which.
Are you saying that firmware breaks in? How is that? I've never experienced any change in performance of solid state electronics unless it gets hot and starts erring. But that isn't a good thing at all.
No there is actually directions in the firmware that read like an owners manual expressing the use of hours of burn-in (200 hours) until the capacitors become “stable”. The strange thing is the players actually sound super grainy until about 50 hours, then things smooth out, with better sound at 200. Also there are two amplifiers in the DAPs, one balanced and one single-ended.....so 400 hours total per unit.
No there is actually directions in the firmware that read like an owners manual expressing the use of hours of burn-in (200 hours) until the capacitors become “stable”. The strange thing is the players actually sound super grainy until about 50 hours, then things smooth out, with better sound at 200. Also there are two amplifiers in the DAPs, one balanced and one single-ended.....so 400 hours total per unit.
Ah yes, the etherial, undefinable, unmeasurable parameter of "sound quality". If you look up those electrolytics, one of their strong points is stability over time. The other electrical parameters all pretty much guarantee low distortion, high performance, out of the bag.
That’s so true about a guitar getting acquainted with the humidity and temperature of the house. Who knows what causes the guitar to change after playing. It’s often reported. I’m just as accepting as it being all mental also? It’s also an amazing phenomena about old guitars sounding different than when they were new. Also acoustic guitar manufacturers attempting to pre-age wood by heating and drying it?
Probably the best wear-in proof is jeans and shoes. Though Sony now uses specific capacitors which do actually change over time. Literally in the firmware of the DAP players they make they recommend 200 hours of play before the units are “burned-in”. Also with the ones I have owned it was super noticeable the first 50 hours with dramatic change, until 200 hours when they had the recommended burn-in. They then continue to actually sound better and better, even better at 1000 hours.
The strings change over time for sure, at first for the better, as the tuning stabilizes, and then over time they mellow, maybe too much. That affects the sound too. And then you break the high E string after pretending you are a rock star and you need a new set. And then one of your kids breaks a xylophone mallet. All severe forms of burn-in, aka break-in, I suppose. Was at guitar center this weekend to play with all the toys (unfortunately, no bikini-clad women were there, hope as I might). Bought a pack of new guitar strings and some mallets for a xylophone. As I get older I understand less and less why some guitars cost so much.
-For the ability of a listener to notice as much as possible, there is obviously a part related to the listener's hearing and his listening skill. He'd also typically need a frequency response as flat as possible(to his ear if he's using headphones), because of how auditory masking works.
B:
-For someone's impression of details, you can probably get away most of the time with rather crappy fidelity. Maybe just trick people by boosting some key areas of the frequency response to make it seems like some instruments are super clear and crispy. Or even just by tuning the headphone to be overly bright so stuff like instrument location can feel very precise. That would not actually be the most detailed situation, but it would probably feel like it is to many people. because the feeling of details and actual audibility are different, just like how the impression of fidelity and actual fidelity can be very different. or how the impression of big sound changes from burn in, can be very different from the objective sound change over time.
[C]:
No it was yet another weird Sony DAP marketing joke. They mentioned for some DAPs how they were using special capacitors that needed burn in. On some models they also argued that the sound was better because they used like 4 or 8 caps instead of 2 reaching the same total value...
I am going to pick a nit with [A], noting that you have effectively refuted yourself at B, at least in part. Please regard this as an unflinching personal attack. I think when you (yes, you personally) emphasize those mid to high frequencies you often really do hear more “detail,” at the expense of fidelity, including overall tonal balance and timbre of instruments. It’s like a photo where you are pulling up shadows or that’s oversharpened—it’s an unrealistic amount of detail as compared to what you’d hear (or see) in the real world. IMHO, YMMV, & etc. An excess of detail if you will (or won’t). Somewhere the analogy breaks down I am sure. To those of you who would point that out, I say, “Whatever.”. ; )
As to [C], I must agree with you without reservation, and I think we should have a whole thread bashing Sony’s DAP marketing department, and any part of their audio marketing department that deals with stuff over 22 khz. They deserve it.
I do not know why this all got bolded. I guess it’s part of my new “in your face” approach. Sort of an “auto-font.”
The honor of my family over 6 generations weights on this argument, so here is my strongest counterattack ever: I cannot have refuted myself at B when there is no B part in the quote. AHAHhhhh!!!! I have taken a daguerreotype of the screen and given it to a journalist who will expose you in case there is any attempt to edit your post to add a [ B ] in it, or steal my personal reserve of Nutella in the next few days.
If you boost a frequency, you obviously gain the ability to better notice it. But in many cases(depends a lot on the slope of that boost), it's going to be at the expense of the directly surrounding frequencies where auditory masking will also go up. So now we have to consider what is gained and what is lost. The total might not offer to hear "as much as possible". Probably won't IMO.
edit: trololol, the [ B ] is a the tag for bold. you were set to lose this battle by the holy laws of HTML.
Ah yes, the etherial, undefinable, unmeasurable parameter of "sound quality". If you look up those electrolytics, one of their strong points is stability over time. The other electrical parameters all pretty much guarantee low distortion, high performance, out of the bag.
I’m one of the first to guess burn-in is mostly mental. I remember thinking my headphones changed after 100 hours of use, only to buy a second brand new pair to have the two sound identical. Though another time I was at a store listening to the demo IEMs with 2 hundred hours on them, only to try a new out of box set and have them sound way different. Then eventually the new set started to sound like the demo set after close to 100 hours. So I simply believe in burn-in as it doesn’t hurt. The entire Walkman thread believes in the suggested burn in period, with many hearing benefits expanding over the 1000 hour mark. The Blue Clouds are big over there!
The strings change over time for sure, at first for the better, as the tuning stabilizes, and then over time they mellow, maybe too much. That affects the sound too. And then you break the high E string after pretending you are a rock star and you need a new set. And then one of your kids breaks a xylophone mallet. All severe forms of burn-in, aka break-in, I suppose. Was at guitar center this weekend to play with all the toys (unfortunately, no bikini-clad women were there, hope as I might). Bought a pack of new guitar strings and some mallets for a xylophone. As I get older I understand less and less why some guitars cost so much.
My favorite trend to see in music is famous or on their way to famous musicians starting to play less savory instruments. The guitars we avoided like Kay guitars are now used and respected? One very famous country music star found some old broken used Gibson and had it completely rebuilt. So the guitar is not valuable but simply a good player. Though if you study custom guitar builders it starts to make sense for how they price their work? I agree on the whole vintage guitar prices going totally nuts! In the 1970s old guitars were low cost no matter what, or relatively expensive for the time but not priced like today. It’s BS.
Though on the flip-side, guitars are not really related to home Hi/Fi audio-reproduction. Though this whole concept can give clues as to how and why stuff becomes popular. Look at response as character. Look at trends in purchases here, as they are not always winners in some big technical ability but give new hype due to perception of musicality which gets attributed to neutrality and correctness; but it’s not........it’s response character.
IEMs or headphones which are the sound equivalent to Willie Nelson’s Trigger guitar. Thus maybe correct in some ways but it’s more about a character of response.........TONE. Manufacturers of headphones love this, as their product is separate from the products out there to purchase, unique and loved.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_(guitar)
Willie Nelson’s guitar has a long history; is irreplaceable and a unique sound. It may be hard to judge as technically correct, as technically correct doesn’t matter.....it’s all about musicality and mood. Only way down the line do we have IEMs or headphones readdressed on their ability.....only to find what they offered was something new and different.
[1]The honor of my family over 6 generations weights on this argument, so here is my strongest counterattack ever:
[2][3][4] I cannot have refuted myself at B when there is no B part in the quote. AHAHhhhh!!!! I have taken a daguerreotype of the screen and given it to a journalist who will expose you in case there is any attempt to edit your post to add a [ B ] in it, or steal my personal reserve of Nutella in the next few days.
[5] If you boost a frequency, you obviously gain the ability to better notice it. But in many cases(depends a lot on the slope of that boost), it's going to be at the expense of the directly surrounding frequencies where auditory masking will also go up.
[6]So now we have to consider what is gained and what is lost.
[7] The total might not offer to hear "as much as possible". Probably won't IMO.
[8] trololol, the [ B ] is a the tag for bold. you were set to lose this battle by the holy laws of HTML.
I will cut to the chase, even though you have gone COMPLETELY off-topic:
[1][8] This is not a holy war or a battle upon which rests the honor of six generations of your family! Could you PLEASE tone down the RHETORIC? I am trying to DE-ESCALATE but you are making it DIFFICULT!!!!!!
[2] This again? And still without a shred of objective evidence? Here we go, around and around again, year after year, over thousands of posts in dozens of threads.
[3] You are again doing exactly what you accuse others of doing in other threads-LYING!
[4] For the umpteenth time, will you please upload the daguerreotype you blithely assert will prove your ridiculous claims? No? Wonder why that is. I'm waiting. Oh wait, maybe there is an explanation. Maybe you are LYING again! Maybe there is no such daguerreotype!!!
[5] As usual, you have inadvertently ADMITTED TO BE TRUE the EXACT OPPOSITE of your OWN "HUMBLE" OPINION!!!!! You have CONCEDED that if the slope of the boost in the middle to upper high frequencies is sufficiently GENTLE, you will hear an INCREASE IN DETAIL, without auditory masking!!!!!!!!
[6] Did you see my sig about what is lost and what is gained, WITH TWO REFERENCES? Go ahead, click through, IF YOU DARE to leave that comfy little cocoon of dreamy fantasy you live in!!
[7] AGAIN, this is NOT the "what does @castleofargh think 'might not' or 'probably won't' happen" in his humble opinion forum!!! This is the SOUND SCIENCE forum!!!
I will cut to the chase, even though you have gone COMPLETELY off-topic:
[1][8] This is not a holy war or a battle upon which rests the honor of six generations of your family! Could you PLEASE tone down the RHETORIC? I am trying to DE-ESCALATE but you are making it DIFFICULT!!!!!!
[2] This again? And still without a shred of objective evidence? Here we go, around and around again, year after year, over thousands of posts in dozens of threads.
[3] You are again doing exactly what you accuse others of doing in other threads-LYING!
[4] For the umpteenth time, will you please upload the daguerreotype you blithely assert will prove your ridiculous claims? No? Wonder why that is. I'm waiting. Oh wait, maybe there is an explanation. Maybe you are LYING again! Maybe there is no such daguerreotype!!!
[5] As usual, you have inadvertently ADMITTED TO BE TRUE the EXACT OPPOSITE of your OWN "HUMBLE" OPINION!!!!! You have CONCEDED that if the slope of the boost in the middle to upper high frequencies is sufficiently GENTLE, you will hear an INCREASE IN DETAIL, without auditory masking!!!!!!!!
[6] Did you see my sig about what is lost and what is gained, WITH TWO REFERENCES? Go ahead, click through, IF YOU DARE to leave that comfy little cocoon of dreamy fantasy you live in!!
[7] AGAIN, this is NOT the "what does @castleofargh think 'might not' or 'probably won't' happen" in his humble opinion forum!!! This is the SOUND SCIENCE forum!!!
I figuratively rolled on the floor laughing while reading this.
Also I concede, everything you wrote here is correct and I don't actually own a daguerreotype of anything. I got caught red empty handed, holding a punchline.
You have escalated and de-escaleted me. I liked it. Will do it again(unless the modo catches us being too sarcastic)
No there is actually directions in the firmware that read like an owners manual expressing the use of hours of burn-in (200 hours) until the capacitors become “stable”. The strange thing is the players actually sound super grainy until about 50 hours, then things smooth out, with better sound at 200. Also there are two amplifiers in the DAPs, one balanced and one single-ended.....so 400 hours total per unit.
Common dude. They are selling you are overpriced product, of course audiophile placebo is going to be presented in the package. So that your ears gets accustomed to the different sound. They all know, your brain will eventually become accustomed to the sound.
The reason why audiophiles gear-cycle is the due to boredom from being accustomed to the sound. New product, something different initially, and become accustomed, and keep repeating in a cycle, and it's just so obvious. I wonder why so many gullable-ness goes on with grown ass men.
Why another burn-in discussion? Always the same O crap around here. It's like an autistic person repeating same crap over again.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
