[poikkeus]

I also suspect that a blind testing would not demonstrate a difference between new and broken-in headphones. Then again, I suspect that a blind testing wouldn't demonstrate the difference between an HD201 and HD202, or SR60 and SR80 - not because there aren't any, but because the experimental method wouldn't reveal significant differences. 
 
Taking detailed, graphical readings of headphones would be the best evidence, in my opinion, since it would provide data without the muddying effect of blind tests. 
 
Blind tests are ideal for disbelievers of headphone break-in, since these tests are unlikely to demonstrate differences. Detailed graphical readings are better if you want to document break-in. However, which tests should be done, at what level, with which headphones? I'm not interested in proving break-in right or wrong; I just want to know the truth, and I sense that readings offer the best chance of uncovering the truth.

 

[Albedo]

Agreeing with kiteki and poikkeus, blind test are just like relative pitch..
Wikipedia:

Many musicians have quite good relative pitch, a skill which can be learned. With practice, it is possible to listen to a single known pitch once (from a pitch pipe or a tuning fork) and then have stable, reliable pitch identification by comparing the notes heard to the stored memory of the tonic pitch. Unlike absolute pitch, this skill is dependent on a recently perceived tonal center.

 
A measurement on the other hand would be more relevant, but that too would be refuted as bogus, a fluke or just ignored as it doesn't fit the model a man of science have of the world. As seen in this thread, why none has anything to say about Jenving Technology AB and audio consultant Ben Duncan. Why?
 
Is this spectral technique just bogus because ha, ha.. Ben is also a Holistic designer LOL?

 

[kiteki]

Yes, blind tests can be faulty, just look at that garbage on wikipedia about blind-testing the difference between SACD and "regular CD" at 24/192 or whatever it was.

 

[Albedo]

Here in Europe absolute pitch memory are subconcious, so a blind test can never be of any importance what so ever as most people are not that aware of their feelings. Blind test with people having Absolute Pitch would be more interesting, but only one out of every ten thousand possesess that abilty, so rounding candidates up would be very difficult. If such a improbable event would take place, it's not a scientific proof, merely statistical data, that either support or refute current popular fashion of thought.
 
.. as for now even universal gravity isn't proven, it's just a theory. Arguing with scientist high on their ego reminds of the other aspect blind camp of creationism, both misses the cardinal point.
 
It's a paradox..

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Please read my above example of MIND BURN-IN as I don't think it has been mentioned in this thread yet.
 
Ok have a nice day bye.

Oh yes it has.  Done to death more than Bill Murray in 'Groundhog Day'.  There is nothing new under the sun here.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Yes, blind tests can be faulty, just look at that garbage on wikipedia about blind-testing the difference between SACD and "regular CD" at 24/192 or whatever it was.

Are you refering to Meyer and Moran 2007, where SACD and DVD-A sources were blind-tested with and without separate AD DA stages added on so reducing the bit-depth/sampling rate to 16/44.1
 
Are you are saying it is garbage because it does not fit in with your view that High Res must be audibly superior ? Or do you have some rational critique of DBTs ?

 

[kiteki]

 
Quote:

Are you refering to Meyer and Moran 2007, where SACD and DVD-A sources were blind-tested with and without separate AD DA stages added on so reducing the bit-depth/sampling rate to 16/44.1
 
Are you are saying it is garbage because it does not fit in with your view that High Res must be audibly superior ? Or do you have some rational critique of DBTs ?

 
I think I have to look into the details of the test.... unless I'm mistaken it was between 16/44.1 redbook CD and SACD.
If the outcome was that they sound the same then I find that rather strange, not because SACD is superior on paper but rather simply from listening to it. 
If the test was using DVD-A or something then I'm mistaken and it would make sense that they sounded roughly the same.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

 
Quote:

I also suspect that a blind testing would not demonstrate a difference between new and broken-in headphones. Then again, I suspect that a blind testing wouldn't demonstrate the difference between an HD201 and HD202, or SR60 and SR80 - not because there aren't any, but because the experimental method wouldn't reveal significant differences. 
 
Taking detailed, graphical readings of headphones would be the best evidence, in my opinion, since it would provide data without the muddying effect of blind tests. 
 
Blind tests are ideal for disbelievers of headphone break-in, since these tests are unlikely to demonstrate differences. Detailed graphical readings are better if you want to document break-in. However, which tests should be done, at what level, with which headphones? I'm not interested in proving break-in right or wrong; I just want to know the truth, and I sense that readings offer the best chance of uncovering the truth.

Such has been done with woofers. They do change (burn in) with use and then if left to rest revert back to their original state. So if you use them again they burn in again. I see no reason why headphone speakers should not behave in the same way, but accept that measurements are needed to confirm that.
 
Blind tests are important, as they link any measured change to audibility. There is no reason why a measured change could then turn out to be inaudible.

 

[Antony6555]

A blind test seems more relevant, since it determines if such differences are audible or not. Even if differences exist, if they're inaudible it's irrelevant for all practical purposes.
 
Quote:

Agreeing with kiteki and poikkeus, blind test are just like relative pitch..
 
A measurement on the other hand would be more relevant, but that too would be refuted as bogus, a fluke or just ignored as it doesn't fit the model a man of science have of the world. As seen in this thread, why none has anything to say about Jenving Technology AB and audio consultant Ben Duncan. Why?
 
Is this spectral technique just bogus because ha, ha.. Ben is also a Holistic designer LOL?

 

[Albedo]

Here in Europe absolute pitch memory are subconcious, so a blind test can never be of any importance what so ever as most people are not that aware of their feelings. As I see it DAB-radio isn't all that, especially with this loudness war, but people no longer care I guess. There's always a hope that artist at least offer a 24-bit audiophile quality WAV download option like Brian Eno -> http://brian-eno.net/listen/#cd-download

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

Here in Europe absolute pitch memory are subconcious, so a blind test can never be of any importance what so ever as most people are not that aware of their feelings. As I see it DAB-radio isn't all that, especially with this loudness war, but people no longer care I guess. There's always a hope that artist at least offer a 24-bit audiophile quality WAV download option like Brian Eno -> http://brian-eno.net/listen/#cd-download

Sorry, still do not understand how absolute pitch memory makes blind tests unimportant. Are you saying that between switches we cannot remember accurately what has been heard before?

 

[Albedo]

Yes, as explained in post #242, most of us are in need of a tuning fork or there just a mish-mash, a hodgepodge.. but most will blindly accept compressed pop music on a DAB-radio.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

I do not see the connection with the ability to hear very well and the ability to remember what you have just heard.

 

[Albedo]

Difference in hearing is nothing physiological, having no reference (tuning fork) even seasoned musicians gets entangled and play some sour notes compared to the standard. As of now current accepted method are DBT-tests, but to get my attention at least there has to be a test that has a standard to measure up against, a reference, a 24 bit/ 192 kHz sample.
 
Not knowing what's what, there just a hodge podge as none of the test subjects possesses an Absolute Pitch and just relies on their blurry pitch memory that subject to many different influences that such a test do not account for or for that matter doesn't take into consideration.
 
Most DBT-test I've seen gets to a ridiculous point in claiming the truth, of what?
 
Consciousness meaning knowledge is just the person child of wisdom and understanding, but some tends to see the world according to Popper, others are leaning more to word games and Wittgenstein, then a hot debate follows as my link in post #133 shows.
 
There's no such thing as an objective result, all Western science centered on an objective observer attaining independent facts are a major fail, objectivity is just a condition of consciousness, not of thinking. It's not possible to think without being subjective about it, but it's possible to be without being subjective about it.
 
Funnily enough, modern science kind of choked itself when it discovered (to its complete and total dismay) that there cannot (logically) ever be such thing as an objective observer. The person watching the experiment, even if he's in a different room and touches nothing -- he still affects the experiment... just by watching.
 
If you think about that for a moment, it makes sense, but if you want it to *logically* make sense, you have only to consult some basic particle physics for proof.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

I think that one reason why you have not had many responses to your posts is that you use language that is hard to follow. You also have a very complicated view mixing philosophy, science and your own beliefs.
 
You say (or appear to) that only the few can really pick out differences between say two headphones. In that case there is no point to any of this as it only applies to a very few, but i find that hard to believe based on my own experience of hearing differences and other credible reports of the same.
 
I agree that a standard test would be good. But how do we pick an agreed standard?
 
The rest of your post pokes holes in science as a means of testing. Fine, but if we all took your approach we would appear not to be able to test anything. But we can and do and do so reliably.