So provide the measurements. I will wait.
If you post graphs, meeting your own standard, then you have a valid point.
I have met my own standard. My ears hear it and I do not seek to convince you.
You, however, seek to convince others based on your opinion and no measurements?
Until you can provide a measurement for burn-in, or sound-stage, or any other aspect we hear but cannot currently measure, then what we have are two differing points of view that currently can neither be proven nor unproven.
I am ok with that. You are not.
Only one side is using insulting and condescending language (superstitious ritual, etal.) in this debate here and elsewhere.
This is not supposed to be insulting, but what you've just described as "your standards" are those of pseudoscience, if at all.
There really should be a basic course on science.
There are indeed scientific standards of evidence. Please look it up (
wiki).
"In science evidence is valued when it is collected in a rigorous manner and is as divorced as possible from personal bias."
Your and other's anecdotes are worthless as evidence. They may be used to form a hypothesis however. Now you gather evidence which may or may not reject that hypothesis.
Since we're interested in change of the headphone driver we measure that before and after extensive use.
Here's a question for you: How do you justify your assumption, that it is the headphone driver that is changing and nothing else?
How is it falsifiable? That is, how would you prove that your assumption is wrong? How would you show that it is not the headphone driver changing but something else?
You only require proof that meets your standards, when you disagree with someone.
You, on the other hand, are above providing said proof.
"There's no need..."
I am trying to get you to realise a few things:
-Your position is opinion just like mine
-Your position is neither better nor worse than mine
-Your position does not even meet your own standards using measurements and the SM
I know sound-stage exists and I think most here would agree.
I also claim that there is no current measurement that maps to sound-stage with any p-value confidence.
You frivolously claim it can be measured, but then dismiss the need for you to do this.
However when burn-in is discussed you require proof because your opinion is that burn-in does not exist so I must meet your burden of proof; but when you agree that sound-stage exists you dismiss your need to meet any burden of proof to your own standards and actually use my standard i.e. you hear it.
But that's when we agree. If you disagree, it's different.
There is no need because your whole point about perception is a red herring.
If I want to test the claim that headphone drivers change with extensive use I test that. I measure the headphone driver before and after extensive use.
I do not, however, add perception and psychoacoustics into it because all it does is confuse, and it seems that that is your goal.
My position is based on evidence, not anecdotes. Your position would be unacceptable by any skeptic/scientist, since you have nothing concrete.
As for "you frivolously claim" .. no, please read exactly what I write. But if you want to talk about psychoacoustics and the like, then please open a new thread. It doesn't fit here.
I would state that there are things that currently CAN NOT be measured, at all.
We know what they are - soundstage, dimensionality, harmonic compleatness, 2D instruments, etc.
I am fine with the fact that these things cannot be measured yet we can hear them.
IRRELEVANT.
If you show an image of noise to someone, and he sees nothing, and show him the image a couple of days later and suddenly he sees a face, did the image change?
According to you, you saw something you didn't see before so the image must have changed.
Don't you see how patently absurd that is?