Separate names with a comma.
it may or it may not
It may or may not be listening to headphones and it may or may not be burning them in...it also may or may not be a cat.
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?
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.
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?
we all answered to that already.
I did it with sound and then with picture analogy. don't know if it's a matter of you not understanding or just not wanting to know.
it's not that it cannot be measured. it is measured! the reason we fail to extrapolate the data for say soundstage (and we actually can extrapolate a lot already, go ask the dolby guys), is because we don't know enough about brain, not because we don't know enough about the sound. microphones and computers fail at being humans, not at retrieving data or telling if any change occurs. new technology will tell us even more details, but it won't magically create a data to brain bridge.
you can't have a change in soundstage without frequency, crossover, and timing changes. it cannot happen(if you desagree with this there is no need of us talking anymore). but a dummy head can record frequencies and crossover and timings, so soundstage changes are visible in data.
but ofc only when they actually exist.
same for ghosts, people keep seeing and hearing them yet we have a hard time recording them on tape. do you think it's also a technological problem?
You are mistakenly assuming I think that science is the only metric with which to measure a headphone. If you have read my posts you will see that I repeatedly assert and state that the human ear can hear things we cannot currently measure. Soundstage, burn-in, for some of the many examples.
To clarify, I am making an analogy. If you cannot post a graph that maps to soundstage (and you did not), then we cannot measure everything that we can hear (unless you also dismiss sound-stage as pseudoscience that does not exist and is a 'ritual' similar to burn-in). If we cannot measure everything that we can hear, and we cannot as we cannot currently measure soundstage, then it follows that burn-in may also be an aspect of headphones that we cannot measure, but that we can hear. Note the usage of the word 'may'.
So when I request your proof to your own standards (post a measurement graph that maps with acceptable p-values to soundstage similar to what one could post to show sibilance, etal), you provide none. Your opinion is 'good enough' to support your position.
However my position is pseudoscience as "my* opinion is 'not good enough'.
More name-calling from your side of the debate.
Got it. /instense sarc tag
Your opinion is right, my opinion is wrong. Your values are acceptable, mine are not. Your observations are valid, mine are not.
See the issue?
I am not on the side calling others names. That single fact that you and yours frequently resort to that tactic should tell you that your position is tied up in a belief system.
Belief, btw, is not science.
To repeat, I don't care that you believe that science is the be all and end all and that if you cannot measure it, it does not exist.
I am compleatly fine with you having that belief system.
However you are NOT fine with allowing me my position.
That is, to repeat again, very telling about your stance.
The problem here is that you don't get what I and several other people have tried to explain to you multiple times now, so this will be the last time from me.
Headphone driver -> sound (change in air pressure) -> ear/mic -> brain
(The brain has many other inputs besides the ear, that can change what you hear. )
We're interested in the headphone driver -> sound -> ear/mic part. If the driver changes, we can measure a difference in the sound with the mic.
What you're doing is relying on anecdotes (pseudoscience) and confusing this situation by adding perception that happens inside the brain.
"If you cannot" ... shifting the burden of proof again
"post a graph that maps to soundstage" ... red herring, irrelevant as has been pointed out many times before
We can measure the sound that is being produced by the driver. That's everything you need to measure.
Also, your "analogy" is neither an analogy nor is it logically sound.
Yeah, the issue is that you don't get it. AT ALL.
I am trying to rely on evidence as good as possible, you're relying on anecdotes that fit whatever you like (pseudoscience).
Your posts are littered with logical fallacies and I'm too tired to point them out. Please at least read the wiki entries on "scientific method", "hypothesis", "logical fallacies".
Yeah right, calling others "religionists" is not name calling. Are you starting trolling too now?
That is not my belief system. I am allowing you your position. All I'm doing is pointing out how wrong and irrelevant it is.
There is a subtle yet crucial difference between trying to shift the burden of proof and making an argument from ignorance. I don't think you understand it. Look up argument from ignorance. The basic concept is summarized in a phrase you may have you heard before -- "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
You are saying that a lack of an example implies that the thing in question does not exist. The basic logic of this assertion is just wrong.
I think our friend marone here has not tried to search for evidence. A simple google search on sound localization brings up lots of data.
Now its more of a prestige problem.
The simple fact that sound stage is created means its understood well, otherwise one cannot create it. Its not like the sound engineers dance around a bonfire.
marone: Some reading for you (and everyone): http://www.head-fi.org/a/stax-sr-007-omega-ii-a-review-after-4-years-of-ownership-darth-nuts-epic-review
How our brain interprets different frequencies is known. That relates to our perception of "soundstage". It isn't something that has been well described on the forums though, as not many people know about it, beyond the effects of the strength of the mid-range frequencies in a headphone's frequency response to our perception. I think I found some discussion of it in this review: http://rinchoi.blogspot.ru/2013/08/ultrasone-hfi-780-and-s-logic.html.
While it is known that our ears are physically capable of picking up the noise of a pin dropping on tarmac 4 miles away (or whatever the distance was, assuming no other noise) in practice, especially without a lot of training and experience, we pick up a lot less.
We can train ourselves to do amazing things though: There's an Iaido (sword drawing) master here that can cut a plastic bb pellet in half that has been shot at him. A test of his reactions showed that they weren't fast enough for him to be doing it visually, so he must be somehow anticipating the position of the pellet. In a high speed video it shows his eyes closed at the moment of cutting the pellet as well. Quite amazing and something that science partially understands.
So I think that while we can measure a lot of things, applying them to our experiences is a lot more difficult, as our experiences are made up of numerous things happening simultaneously.
I had to look up the sword thing. Awesome.
But perception of soundstage (or as I like to call it with headphones: "headstage") is irrelevant for providing evidence for headphone driver break-in. I also know one or the other thing about that, having developed DSPs that manipulate the "soundstage" (a fb2k crossfeed plugin is freely available), but it just is of no concern here.
On that guy above:
21 meters and the bullet speed is approx. 90 m/s, which gives him over 230 ms of time to position the sword. Reaction time can be as low as 110-120 ms in humans, maybe some individuals achieve even lower reaction times.
Also notice where they're aiming the gun. And there's no mention of how many tries it took him.
Such "documentaries", especially the American ones, are always cut to be overly dramatic and unbelievable. The background music is also chosen accordingly.
I am impressed, but it's not much more than a simple reaction test. But I guess that would be too boring for the audience.
I am not trying to "ruin" this for anyone, just pointing out the science behind it which makes it even more interesting imo.
Here's how to ruin it: shoot him with a real gun from the same distance actually aiming at him and you will hit him 100% of the time.
No, just no. That reminds me of you posting that children have supernatural abilities...
edit: Oh yes, attempting to "discredit science".
God you're gullible. It's almost adorable.
problem solved, soundstage and other stuff can only be heard by the soul, not the ears. that explains why us poor guys believing in "unreliable laws of physic" can't measure it nor hear it.
to prove this we need a graph showing how many gingers heard a headphone breaking in over time. marone can you get me that? no? then my point is made!
and a good argument for this, it also explains cables opening soundstage. I was blind but now I see!
marone I'll go on a limb here and make a guess: as a student, your main course wasn't math or science.
I'm a psychic or what?
Personal attacks are totally unacceptable. You guys know this. If all the Sound Science forum is going to be is a forum to mock people with different viewpoints, with little to no actual discussion of science, I'll suggest to Jude that we close it down.