[haloxt]

If I don't answer something it's because I don't feel like answering it.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f5/aud...ml#post5347559

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I don't answer something it's because I don't feel like answering it. http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f5/aud...ml#post5347559

if you don't feel like answering half of my post that's fine. just don't post flames accusing me of skipping half your post, when you clearly admit to doing the same thing.

I'll keep my word from earlier though. I admit I am wrong in saying "everybody thinks burn-in sounds good." Your quote definitively disproves me here. I'll revise my argument to say the same thing that iggy said, which is that the vast majority of head-fiers (very possibly 99%, like iggy said) think burn-in sounds good.



Anyway, I'll still maintain the point about mental placebo, which I'm not going to repeat again. I don't care if you continue to ignore this point. But if you are going to quote me and call my entire post false, don't single out sentences and use them to make blanket statements.

 

[haloxt]

Placebo is a complex mental phenomena that nobody understands to such a degree that they can state objective truths about it which is why I don't like to discuss it here. It's a pretty misunderstood concept and people are constantly making new theories about it.

I think it's cute you're getting all angry at me supposedly not reading your posts when in fact all of it is due to you not reading my posts. Since you don't want to read my posts carefully, I'll state it here again: I have in fact talked about the possibility of placebo. Actually I believe the entire phenomena of burn-in may be an amalgamation of placebo, sensory adaptation, in some ways becoming technically worse, and in some ways becoming technically better. But I also believe there is no way to know for certain with our current understanding of science and psychology.

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Placebo is a complex mental phenomena that nobody understands to such a degree that they can state objective truths about it which is why I don't like to discuss it here. It's a pretty misunderstood concept and people are constantly making new theories about it. I think it's cute you're getting all angry at me supposedly not reading your posts when in fact all of it is due to you not reading my posts. Since you don't want to read my posts carefully, I'll state it here again: I have in fact talked about the possibility of placebo. Actually I believe the entire phenomena of burn-in may be an amalgamation of placebo, sensory adaptation, in some ways becoming technically worse, and in some ways becoming technically better. But I also believe there is no way to know for certain with our current understanding of science and psychology.

When did I ever post anything that suggests I am angry? Since when do me asking questions and disagreeing with you over an argument imply anger?

For your reference, quotes like the one below, DO imply anger:

Quote:

jawang, I just read your post where you quote me when I repeated that not everybody says burn-in is good and you repeat again that nobody has said burn-in made headphones sound worse. I mean really, have you even read this thread? Do you even read what you quote? I have a lot of tolerance for people who read with selective memory but it is embarrassing to see them make the same mistakes over and over again. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones.

As for your comments about placebo, none of it answers my point about mental placebo. I asked for evidence that suggests placebo is NOT a factor in the burn-in process. Your comments about placebo are completely irrelevent to my point.

Also, are you telling me that placebo is not fully understood by science, therefore I can't use it as the basis of an argument?

If that's the case (ignore me if my understanding is wrong), then what gives you the justification to use personal opinions ("I hear a difference") as the basis of an argument?



At very best, your comments can be stretched to "prove" that we don't know anything about burn-in. If this is the case, then how are you so confident that "burn-in perception" is caused by physical changes to sound quality?

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sampson_smith /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow. Thanks so much for the ringing endorsement! I am humbled. I obviously totally agree, especially now that it is clear to me that there is much contention about burn-in which hopefully can be resolved somewhat.

Actually, I was being facetious. This issue has been discussed more times than one can count on this forum, and virtually nothing new is ever said. It's the same arguments over and over again, repeated about once every two weeks on this forum or the portable headphones forum.

Oh well, one more thread probably won't hurt anyone, and it seems to be therapeutic for certain folks to have these discussions now and then.

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh well, one more thread probably won't hurt anyone, and it seems to be therapeutic for certain folks to have these discussions now and then.

I was about to make a comment about this statement, but then I realized there's really nothing I can say... me arguing with you would only further prove your point, lol

I guess I still miss my speech&debate days

 

[haloxt]

jawang, I said my observations are just observations. And my theories are just theories. And I really am not pushing anything I've said about burn-in as objective facts, though hard to believe if you don't actually read my posts.

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif jawang, I said my observations are just observations. And my theories are just theories. And I really am not pushing anything I've said about burn-in as objective facts, though hard to believe if you don't actually read my posts.

That's not the impression that I got. It seems to me you were pushing plenty of your opinions onto people in this thread. Here are some quotes that I remembered off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more.

Quote:

I'm sure in your little theoretical fantasy land you have asked manufacturers why they don't burn in their equipment themselves.

Quote:

You don't know nothing fido2, in theoretical fantasy land all manufacturers don't burn-in their gear and people who believe in burn-in are wrong.

Quote:

I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones.

also, to address this specific sentence:

Quote:

And I really am not pushing anything I've said about burn-in as objective facts

maybe I am confused, can you explain to me how these quotes can be interpreted as subjective opinions?

Quote:

It's not really for burn-in purposes but for quality control purposes. If they will fail they are much more likely to fail within the first 100 hours.

Quote:

Sorry, but in theoretical fantasy land it is impossible for things to change after the first few seconds of burn in.

 

[haloxt]

jawang, the problem is you don't read right. It's pointless for me to try to discuss with someone with as distorted reading skills as yours. The only question I find remotely worth answering is when you quote me out of context about what audio-gd does before sending out their goods. 1. Audio-gd said themselves it is for quality control purposes, and 2. it has nothing to do with what I've remarked about burn-in on this thread.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Think about this, people. When was the last time you heard of a component that was burned in incorrectly? If there's a "right" way to do it, then there also must be a wrong way. That necessarily means that there are poorly burned-in components that sound bad as a result of the poor burn-in. So where are they? Also, if burn-in is integral to sound quality, why don't manufacturers burn-in before they ship the product? It's very simple to construct a burn-in board where components can be left to cook for X number of hours before they're installed. So why doesn't anyone do that? It wouldn't cost anything and then you'd have a "burned-in" product that customers could enjoy straight out of the box. So why doesn't this happen?

I have yet to experience the magical moment when my headphones burn in. I was giddy when I heard that my headphones would improve over time. Major disappointment.

 

[Aynjell]

People who don't believe in hardware (solid state) burnin, I only have one thing to say. It's called "Annealment" and it's a phenomenon that's noticed elsewhere, not just in the audio department. Overclockers (like myself) have found that letting a chip run for a while under slightly abusive conditions will allow them to reduce the abuse and get even more out of their product. We also refer to it as burnin, but I can't say it's also not placebo. It could be any number of things that may have changed elsewhere...

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif jawang, the problem is you don't read right. It's pointless for me to try to discuss with someone with as distorted reading skills as yours. The only question I find remotely worth answering is when you quote me out of context about what audio-gd does before sending out their goods. 1. Audio-gd said themselves it is for quality control purposes, and 2. it has nothing to do with what I've remarked about burn-in on this thread.

I guess it's pretty easy for you simply say I "don't read." I mean, it saves you the effort of putting together an argument right? It's pretty arrogant to insist that you're right about something and then refuse to back up your argument because its "not worth your time" (as you said earlier). If you are going to be highly opinionated about a topic, you should be willing to debate it openly.



As for your "1." and "2." comments, I pointed out technicalities in your arguments for a reason. If you tell me that placebo is an illegitimate point because science doesn't fully understand it, then how are your points legitimate? (which also have plenty of of technicalities, like the ones I quoted). Can you verify what you heard/read from audio-gd? Do you work for audio-gd? Where did you get your other information?

Also, how do your comments about manufactor burn-in have "nothing to do" with your comments about burn-in? That statement is such a blatant lie I can't even respond to it



Oh, but wait, nothing that I said applies right? Because I am unable to read. You're also completely free to say anything you want, because you made this blanket statement which you can always fall back on.

Quote:

jawang, I said my observations are just observations. And my theories are just theories. And I really am not pushing anything I've said about burn-in as objective facts, though hard to believe if you don't actually read my posts.

Clearly, I'm just misreading your posts. You are just telling me observations. You aren't pushing any opinions, nor are you directly telling me that I'm wrong (even though you literally said these words. obviously, I must've misread).

 

[haloxt]

You constantly misread me, just for example your last sentence where you said I said I am not pushing any opinions. I didn't say I'm not pushing opinions, I said I'm not pushing my opinions as objective facts. Big difference. Pointless for me to discuss with you, please stop talking to me.

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif You constantly misread me, just for example your last sentence where you said I said I am not pushing any opinions. I didn't say I'm not pushing opinions, I said I'm not pushing my opinions as objective facts. Big difference. Pointless for me to discuss with you, please stop talking to me.

Obviously, I misread this line:

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt And I really am not pushing anything I've said about burn-in as objective facts

edit: I took out the flamebait

 

[The Monkey]

I'm not much of a believer in burn in. Especially when those claims get into the hundreds or even thousands of hours territory. But it is obvious from threads such as these that there are two sides (at least) to this debate, and that we are not close to resolving said debate. Accordingly, I'd really like to see reviewers cease dedicating such large parts of their reviews to "burn-in." Just review the equipment and describe how your opinions have changed over time, if at all. Ascribing such changes to burn in without acknowledging that there is another side to the debate sucks credibility from a lot of reviews. More importantly, it's just a waste of space because so many of those reviews become more about the burn in process than the actual equipment under review. In many ways, it seems to be a crutch that people use when they are having trouble making a decision about whether or not they like a product.