No2headphones:
Well I am probably not the best one to asked about site conduct since I was just emailed that some of my posts will be deleted by a moderator.
I get it. Go away ganainm ! No science here! OK I'm gone. We can both poke around for alternatives. DIY Audio does have some folks who know one end of a soldering iron from another but have not been in a while. Good luck....
|
You will really make me go and buy new speaker cables. You are doing a good job at that.
sooner rather than later. |
bobbyd3
Hey geoffkait,
Since you’re on the Dielectric thingie now, maybe it would help if you knew the Definition if the term?
di·e·lec·tric/ˌdīəˈlektrik/PHYSICSadjectiveadjective: dielectric
1. having the property of transmitting electric force without conduction; insulating.
nounnoun: dielectric; plural noun: dielectrics
1. a medium or substance that transmits electric force without conduction; an insulator.
Capacitors use Dielectric material that blocks DC (Direct Current), and passes Alternating Current (AC), also known as Audio Electrical signals. There IS NO Dielectric material in Copper Speaker Cables, so I really don’t follow your point? But please keep believing all the Bullshit that Cable companies, and Their Advertisers spew to get Suckers to buy there $200/Ft Speaker Cable! “A fool and his money are soon parted”
>>>>>Bobby, you’re pulling my leg, right? Of course copper speaker cables have dielectric material. What planet are you from? Didn’t you read any of the burn in articles I posted? Let me guess, you don’t read explanations because your mind is closed, right?
|
Bobby only reads explanations without obvious conflict of interest. |
Or maybe, just maybe, he’s as inept as you are. Oddly, perhaps, the ones with no conflict of interest do not seem to know anything about it. Just an observation.
|
"This energy-absorption causes the dielectric’s molecules to re-arrange themselves from a random order into a uniform order. When the molecules have been rearranged, the dielectric will absorb less energy & consequently cause less distortion."
Molecular rearrangement of dialectric by way of music signal, hmm...
That’s a hoot. If the molecules of the polymeric dielectric restructured upon playing music through the cables, the breaking of covalent bonds in the dialectric would cause the insulation to fall apart and literally disintegrate.
But we all know that doesn’t happen now, don’t we?
And please don’t tell me that the music also forms new covalent bonds.
|
I think the nonbelievers are overlooking the circumstantial evidence of the vast numbers of listeners that can tell a difference and the cable manufacturers that spend untold thousands of careful listening hours to perfect their products while listening to burn in.. In a court of law would this prove burn in is not a fallacy but true? Known science would be taken into consideration. |
"In a court of law would this prove burn in is not a fallacy but true?"
As long as there is reasonable doubt, no. |
Circumstantial Evidence Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove. Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence. |
I doubt that proving, or disproving, some cable falling apart or sounding one way or another, would undergo the same mechanisms of establishing the conclusion as solving the bank robbery. Highway robbery, on the other hand... |
I have an experience I want to share with you guys. Yes it also takes time to break in a new cable. When it is broken in then don't feel safe like that when you buy second hand. I have bought second hand speakers and cables around the country (Denmark). Listen to it before paying and later transport. In winther time and if the speakers and cables are exposed to cold weather something happend to them. I have a van where the storage room has no heat. Typical transport time below zero can be from 1 to 4 hours. The gear that has been exposed to these temperatures do change their sound characteristics. Speakers that sounded good suddently sounds terrible and need to break in again. The same goes for cables. Happy listening - to music out there :-)
|
Cables should always wear their winter jackets when going out in the cold. |
In a court case that would consider what is being claimed here circumstantial evidence would be admissible from experts not from every Joe that claims he hears a difference. For every Joe you get who claims he hears a difference there is a Joe who claims he doesn't. Good luck finding enough experts on wire, i.e. scientists without a vested interest, independent experts not cable manufacturing shills, to support the notion wire changes over time due to the amount of energy passed from an audio signal. Cable manufactures can make their case to support their marketing claims using their experts but that's not the same thing and wouldn't prove anything. It is enough to keep them from being sued for some of the outlandish claims made since it's understood to be subjective opinion not an objective fact. |
I have not seen these outlandish claims cable manufacturers make. What are you guys talking about? Can someone do me a solid and post some of them. I want to viddy them with my own eyes 👀 Share! Share!
|
blueranger
I think the nonbelievers are overlooking the circumstantial evidence of the vast numbers of listeners that can tell a difference and the cable manufacturers that spend untold thousands of careful listening hours to perfect their products while listening to burn in.. In a court of law would this prove burn in is not a fallacy but true? Known science would be taken into consideration.
>>>>>I hate to judge too quickly but my sense is that naysayers aren’t really interested in evidence. Whoa! Did I just say that?! 😳
|
The opinion of a vast number of listeners , pro or con, doesn't rise to the level of circumstantial evidence. It seems to be on audio forums and popular TV shows but not in court. Opinions are not admisible as circumstantial evidence in court unless they are given by credtialed experts. This notion
"the vast numbers of listeners that can tell a difference and the cable manufacturers that spend untold thousands of careful listening hours"
is circumstantial evidence in court is wrong, it's opinion and would not be admissible. |
I’m pretty sure opinion is admissible in court. Some opinion is more “expert” than others, that’s all. That’s why, in the case of judges or lawyers’ opinions, they’re called legal opinions. Anyway, that’s my opinion. 😳
|
The question was
"In a court of law would this prove burn in is not a fallacy but true?"
The answer is no it's not even circumstantial evidence. |
No, My opinion on whether wire burns in would not be admissible, a scientist opinion who has tested and studied the phenomena and provide supporting evidence for his opinion would be. That would be admissible circumstantial evidence. |
Well, little dudes, it depends on whether you are in federal or state court, and if state court, whether the forum applies Frye or Daubert. I opine this notion would not be admissible under either test, and a motion in limine granted.
Nothing more disgusting than the smell of Kat 💩 in the morning. |
See the requirements for expert testimony from the Federal Rules of Evidence below. Can you imagine a thread here trying to define who is qualified to provide expert opinion on cables, fuses, and wire burn-in? That should be good for several months of worthless but entertaining back and forth.
Rule 702. Testimony by Expert WitnessesA witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
|
I have not seen these outlandish claims cable manufacturers make. What are you guys talking about? Can someone do me a solid and post some of them.
http://www.cardas.com/insights_break_in.php
"Cables, cats, pianos and rooms all need to relax in order to be at their best."
"A note of caution. Moving a cable will, to some degree, traumatize it."
I am not sure if it would be accepted as outlandish, but bizarre or silly it is.
Note: Above statements are from an article provided as a reference two days ago by........geoffkait. |
Those are not outlandish claims. Well, maybe to an inept person, but even then. Is that all you got? 😬
|
They may not be outlandish. They may be just right in Neverland or any other fantasy land. For normal living people, they are a sad joke. Relax your room, you will feel better. So will your cable. Nervous rooms and traumatized cables are a big problem in Hi-Fi.
It is not all I got. I use your references so you can easily find it yourself, too. |
I am a bit disappointed that the non-believers just absolutely refuse to acknowledge science or other people testimonies. That is in itself a dogma. |
On these 18 pages, and between both camps, you could not collect 100 sentences that would qualify as somewhat scientific. Most of the "scientific" attempts are good for shrugging shoulders and not much else. There are lots of testimonies, but they are on both sides. Nobody wins.
I follow this thread because I do not have an opinion if burn-in exists or not. However, some of the claims and theories presented are not making a strong case for it. For now, the opponents are a bit more eloquent in refuting it theoretically. |
For now, the opponents are a bit more eloquent in refuting it theoretically. Eloquent is the enemy of truth. That's why communism and marxism sound really good. |
Eloquent is not the enemy of truth at all. It is just nicer and more coherent way of expressing it. Think of it as "truth with a style" rather than "truth with whining". Whatever the truth about burn-in ends up being, it is, except for manufacturers, only of academic importance.
I am not sure where did Marx land from in all of this. He lived way before speakers and amplifiers, I think. |
Yes, since the truth is never pretty or eloquent. |
Huh, those are some depressing views. And incorrect in many other people’s views. |
A friend of mine once told me to never argue with a woman. They don't use logic and just going to frustrate you. I don't argue with woman a lot but I see similarity arguing with the non believers. |
Again, I am in neither camp on this burn-in issue, so I can somewhat objectively tell you that both sides seem entrenched in the same way. Same pattern with different prefix. If you have a firm belief in existence of burn-in, arguing with someone who has a firm belief in its non-existence will lead you nowhere, except for frustration. The only ones you could try to explain your views to are those with no loyalty to either camp. However, you may need to accept their doubts and questions as legitimate, too. So far, most of the burn-in proponents answers to challenging questions have been "it is that way, you just do not get it, shame on you" kind. Who would go for that? |
Seems like the non believers care more about being eloquent than being logical. |
Fine, frame a syllogism that rationally supports your views, free from rancor or sophistry. We shall go from there. 🐈💩 |
That's the problem with lawyers. They care more about confusing with subjectives than the truth. |
Eloquence and logic are not mutually exclusive. In fact, eloquence is ability to present logical thinking in a better and, often, easier-to understand, way. I think you are confusing magicians, con artists, swindlers, hustlers, little neighborhood crooks, and a few more with the skill and gift that eloquence actually is. You seem to think that anything that is laid out nicely must be there to get you somehow. It is not always the case. It really is not. Just like the truth which can also be pretty.
How did lawyers' personality characteristics end up here? |
There seems to be a trend or commonality in this thread. The non believers are acting like lawyers, the rationals follow logic and science. |
Devil’s advocates, those who are posting as supposedly objective viewers who are inept can serve no purpose in these kinds of discussions. They are simply stirring the pot. We all know what that’s called. The unmentionable. Oh, no!
|
I actually don’t think the so called non believers care one way or the other. They simply like to argue. It’s what non believers do. They like to get a reaction. It’s so obvious. When viewed as simply a whack-a-mole game, there really isn’t any harm in that. You can’t do anything about it, anyway. Relax and enjoy. 😛 |
Peaches and hamburgers!
A syllogism, please, as the accepted form of logical argument, rather than ad hominems.
🐈💩 |
geoffkait and his self-reflection. |
I was unaware huffing and puffing was an acceptable form of debate. Live and learn 🧠🍳
|
"The non believers are acting like lawyers, the rationals follow logic and science." From what I gathered in this thread, that would be the same group. Minus lawyers. I really have no idea how they came here. |
I see glubson is sharp as a tack today. Better fasten your seatbelts. |
I was speaking figuratively. When I use the word "lawyer", I don't mean it literally but using the term "lawyer" as a metaphor of a certain mentality. |
andy2, Now you are really confusing. What kind of mentality is that? I know a bunch of lawyers and they seem to be quite different in most of the things. |
geoffkait, Always fasten your seatbelt. It does help. |
Now you are really confusing. What kind of mentality is that? I know a bunch of lawyers and they seem to be quite different in most of the things.
I always heard that lawyers are of a certain type, different from honorable people. That's all I heard until I actually had direct contacts with actual lawyers. I then realized people were right that lawyers are different people from honorable people. Like Jack Nicholson said so clearly: You can't handle the truth. |
Over time on this thread, so-called "non-believers" have been asking for explanations grounded in science and rational thinking. The other ones, "believers", have been annoyed by that and frequently resorted to "you have to believe" and "there is more science that you just do not understand" or similar answers. That would make both of those groups mentioned in one of the above posts actually one and that would be "non-believers". |
Andy, May we have your syllogism, please? |
