Frap, I've evened you out, though I prefer her "Blue" to Hejira. But that album got me on to her and I'll dig it out and listen to it tonight. Thanks for reminding me of its existence. Cheers |
Frank, cables -shnabels- you're right, listening to Hejira again--after many years- was quite an experience. Thanks for reminding me.
Regards, |
Ray, thanks, I understand. The phenomenon is real enough. |
Haven't we been through this all before ? And with the same yay and nay sayers? My humble opinion is that it is not voodoo, I think I have heard differences before, during and after burn in again and again, but the sceptical part in me would like cut and dried proof, that what I hear can really be attributed to this process in debate. |
Oh Sean,apaologies, "chucklehead" myself. I misunderstood, no, I did not use anything to speed up the process. Just played music. |
Steve, the dichotomy we are locked on here is probably not to be solved. I find it difficult to believe, that all of those who are aware of differences in the way a cable "sounds" after "burn-in" are victims of some sorts of mass hysteria, just as I find it difficult to believe, that the laws of physics should suddenly be null and void. So the idea, that something third is going on, which we really know nothing about, is perhaps not too far fetched after all. Double blind tests seem to show, that the " third factor" seems to lie rather within the psyche of the "believers", but since we know, that often the outcome of those experiments are heavily dependent on the experimental set-up and the maths involved and those factors again on the conscious or unconscious biases of the experimenters, also DBT are not really conclusive.
Hence, in my humble opinion, something like "sceptical modesty" would befit both parties in this never ending argument. I know of my own personal gullibility and know for sure, that emotional factors will influence the way I percieve things. So though of good musical hearing, I am also a sceptic. This dilemma however does not prevent me from enjoying the music. Besides, with new cables or not, my system never sounds the same. There are always subtle, however clearly noticeable differences to the day before.
The more complex the system, the more factors can influence the way it will perform. It can be likened to musical instruments, which also never sound the same from one day to the other. So I don't really care much, what causes a change, as long as the system "sounds right", i.e. musical and I'll start fretting and tweaking if it does not, until I've got it right again. Sometimes I also have to "fret and tweak" on myself, because, when I'm not "right", the system won't sound "right " either. So..and I say this with a selfironic grin .. the two way relationship between an audiophile and his system is a rather complex one, to say the least, and physics will never be able to explain all of it. |
Sean, you're so right! Hearing acuity can be trained well beyond that level, which even complex measurements will be able to show. Another example for what our senses are capable of: Wine tasters or perfume testers ( vive la France )are schooled for years and can point out subtle differences which no chemical testing ever could and the industry depends heavily on their results. Why should it be different on the aural level? |
702, granted and I also agree with Garfish, that we are often closer than it may seem, but I often sense absolutism on both sides, which is detrimental to progress of knowledge for both sides. |
Lets not bicker about wine experts 702 and of course wines change with age. Cables do not, you so adamantly say. I think it would have been more correct to have added something like " as far as the laws of physics tell us".
This would make a subtle but very significant difference, because it leaves open the possibility, slight as it may be, that new evidence could lead to new hypotheses and finally to new insights. Not with you, the way I percieve it and please forgive me, if I am wrong. To me, your statement has the quality of absoluteness to it and therin lies the weakness of all arguments from your side of the fence. It makes you vulnerable for attacks of dogmatism, of closed mindedness, of a basically deeply IRRATIONAL belief in the infallibilism of all precepts of science, whereas also here, as in all human endevour, there is questioning, movement and change on many fronts.
Tell me honestly - although I'll grant you, this is a poor example - how can you really KNOW , if cables change with age or not? All you could say, to my mind at least, that according to physics, this is highly improbable, that they could change. If you imply more, you move into the realm of BELIEFS, namely that in the unshakeable nature of the laws of physics. As far as makro physics are concerned, belief and knowledge are good bedfellows and I have no trouble with your argument. It gets more tricky, when we enter the realm of micro physics. I am no expert, not technically trained, but does not the flow of electrons through molecules of metal touch both fields of physics and thus inspite of the established laws of electricity does leave some white spots on this so well explored territory? So already here a doubt in respect of the absoluteness of your statement seems legitimate. But then there is another aspect, which lets me doubt the absoluteness of your assumtions about the audiophile quality of wires even more: And that is simply the very large number of people who report hearing differences and whose description of what they hear with what cables often has a certain uniformity to it. The hypothesis, that what they report could be safely put in the realm of phantasy, while the people themselves obviously suffered from some minor form of psychopathology, which more over is fed by unscrupulous manufacturers, dealers, the press and advertisers, is probably more then daring. In fact, it seems even highly infantile, when we consider sociological data of the average audiophile: Which is: over average education + training, high incidence of academics + professionals, over average positions and incomes..... etc. Doesn't really sound like a bunch of irrational, illadvised romantics, does it? No, the longer I follow this and similar arguments here, and I do this, because I am (also professionally) fascinated with how we come to find our "truths" and how we argue and defend them, I am slowly coming to the conclusion, that probably those that hear differences in wire are the REALISTS afer all, and those who deny it are the BELIEVERS. Just my thoughts, and 702, sorry if I accused you of an absolutism, which you perhaps don't have at all.. but well, it sounded like that to me.
Regards |
No money, basically you make a good point here, but don't many audiophiles react in the sense of : Since all "good", meaning very expensive, cables neeed to be burnt in and this is always expressively mentioned in the glossy literature, then something must be "wrong" with a cable, which is said to work right out of the box. So if you like, but I am not implying that this is so in most cases, you could just as well infer, that all that burning in stuff is merely a necessary marketing hype (next to clever pricing)for the manufacturer to sell his wire as something special and top notch. |
Redkiwi, fond greetings: There will be RHUBARB as long as humans debate. As for double blind tests, they DO have their merits. Many of us would not be around any more, if they did not exist. As you know, the pharmaceutical industry must rely heavily on them in the development and testing of new drugs. They seem to work on a biochemical, physiological level. Strangely, they often do not in the psychological field. What we see here in this debate, is just one example for this strange fact, which has bugged experimental psychology just as much as it bugs some of us here. |
Isn't this beginning to get really silly? RHUBARB to all. Lets do as Albert says, lets "shut up and dance", exchange and share with each other for the advancement of music in the home and its enjoyment. |
Sound jugement Bruce, in my opinion. |
Record it to what end Ray? To prove that the break -in phenomenon exists? |
Hear-hear, Redkiwi: Short and unrhubarbily to the point. Cheers, |
Here again 702, I must follow in the footsteps of no money and second his request. Apart from that, even if that will get me minus points, I am glad that your back. I would wish though, that you would be more open about your listening habits, your preferences and the gear you like and listen to. Regards, |
