2. digital
  3. 132190-89202

Does a new cd transport require break-in time?

I just ordered a new Cambridge CXC transport to go along with  Gungy DAC.
Does it require any break-in time?
rvpiano

Showing 3 responses by cleeds

cleeds
6,087 posts
 
geoffkait

I'm not saying Blind Tests or any tests are not useful sometimes. Im pointing out the fallacy that blind tests or ANY tests can prove an argument. A test is only one data point. If the results are negative or inconclusive it might be due to errors in the test. Therefore when naysayers throw up Blind Tests as a way to prove something or another it's a logical fallacy. Same for any tests, you have to take all the tests and their results and analyze them.
I agree completely. Another fallacy is when people say, "He flunked a blind test." The devices under test in an abx blind evaluation don't include the listener. The test is designed to judge components. If a listener claims to hear differences between two components when sighted, but can't identify the difference in a blind test, we can only conclude that the difference - if it exists - was not detected by that listener during that blind test. The result does not prove that there is no difference.
cleeds
6,087 posts
 
geoffkait
... The dreaded Double Blind Test raises its ugly head! 👹 The threat of double blind testing has done a great deal of harm to the hobby by preventing progress and suppressing innovation and creativity. Double Blind Testing is the favorite weapon of died in the wool pseudo skeptics and knuckle dragging naysayer ...
That sounds a little bit harsh to me. I think double blind testing, such as abx testing, is a very useful tool. But it is just one tool. Oddly, many of its advocates insist that it is the only reliable way to evaluate audio components, and now williemj narrows that even further, proclaiming that "comparing a product over the course of many hours is an invalid methodology."

Double blind testing has its place in many fields, including audio. But for actual audiophiles, I think it is of limited value. If it is applied with a strict time constraint, I think its value is near nil.
cleeds
6,087 posts
 
willemj
... comparing a product over the course of many hours is an invalid methodology, of course, because given humans’ short audio memory you cannot do a direct comparison over time, and time travel is yet to be invented. So what you would need to do is a double blind level matched comparison ...
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. You can't logically on the one hand insist on a double blind level matched evaluation, and then deny a listener the opportunity to listen at his leisure. Either your testing methodology is capable of producing a valid result independent of listener bias and other testing errors, or it isn't. Your position sounds like you have no faith in the testing protocol you so tirelessly promote here. Perhaps you should search for a test in which you can place more confidence.
More to discover