Does a new cd transport require break-in time?

willemj wrote,

"Double blind tests are only part of the argument, of course. Starting point is that there is no existing physical theory that can explain such 'night and day' differences."

>>>>Uh, actually there are physical theories that explain the differences. You just prefer to ignore them.


willemj wrote,

"The next part of the procedure is to look at measurements. Since these do not show anything of potential significance either, the listening test is the last part."

>>>Sorry but we've already established we don't know what to measure. We cannot measure audiophile characteristics of sound such as transparency, soundstage dimensions, musicality, presense, the sense the sound is like paper mache, those sorts of things. So if you can't measure it the only thing left is listening. 

Here, expectation bias is an amply documented problem, hence the preference for double blind.

>>>>>Actually expectaion bias is not as widespread as naysayers claim it is. It's an old wives tale, like placebo effect. Besides naysayers DON'Texpect a thing to work so it must be reverse expectation bias. Experienced audiophiles know enough to eliminate expectation bias from consideration. It's the noobs who fall prey, if anyone. Expectation bias and blind testing at the no of the day are simply naysayer arguments that are fallacies.

willemj wrote,

"It is true expectation bias is only one of many potential issues, and it is of course true that there are many ways to mess up a test procedure/be dishonest. However, there is ample opportunity for those who believe that there is a difference, to do their own tests, document their methodology and demonstrate that there is difference."

>>>>Sorry, wrong again. It's not up to the believers to do the testing. The naysayers wouldn't believe them if they did, anyway. Naysayers are by definition unswayed by any evidence that does not conform to their foregone conclusion. Sound familiar?

Voodoo cults? I guess that would explain all the chicken bones. 🐔

I completely agree. I’ve been saying exactly the same thing for years. Blind tests are the threat made by naysayers in an attempt to win an argument over some controversial audiophile concept, device it tweak. "Controlled blind test will demonstrate that power cords all sound the same, all fuses sound the same, or that product X is a complete fraud."
in some cases intricately and "trap" style blind tests can be devised that no one can possibly pass. As in $1 Million Dollar Challenges. Plus ANY blind test protocol or procedure can be discredited as being too intricate or not intricate enough, or unworthy system, unworthy participant, errors in the procedure, unexpected or unaccounted for variables, etc.

Shadorne, you’re a little slower than usual today. I just told you the 200 hours is what Oppo was declaring 4 years ago. I'll ask you again, are so gullible that you believe their electronics have no break in? No need to respond, it’s a rhetorical question.

Shadorne, obviously you’re following the wrong sheep. Do you actually believe that Oppo statement? Give me a break. Boy are you gullible! When I bought my Oppo 102 4 years ago they claimed 200 hours. Claiming no break in at all seems dubious at best. New manufacturing processes? Are they cryo’ing their stuff? Are the Chinese suddenly ahead of us in the materials science race? Oh, please! If anything the break in times for capacitors is higher than ever, for the good ones anyway. How does 500 hours grab you? And if you'd been paying attention to all the aftermarket fuse threads you would know fuses THEMSELVES take 200 hours to break in. Helloo! Obviously Oppo is testing out some new bizarre marketing ploy aimed at naive gullible audiophiles who are AFRAID of break in and directionality and things of that nature. 😱 That’s akin to some cable company and fuse companies stating they do not believe there is such a thing as directionality. Of course, you guys swallow it up, pile it up higher, higher. 😀

Are you talking to yourself again?

willemj
Glad you are not in charge of quality control for critical components. You had better stay with your innocous magical boxes.

Huh? Nobody in the high end who has any credibility uses blind testing. Except maybe to attract people that actually believe such fairly tales. Good comeback, though (cough, cough). I actually have been in charge of quality control for critical components so I think I should know. I’m talking about critical to the military and air traffic, you know, where they have *standards* for testing, not some fluffy audiophile component. 🐩

 
cleeds
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.

>>>>I suspect you misunderstood my post. 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. 

Audio memory is a debatable subject IMHO. I don't believe for a second that most experienced audiophiles do not (rpt not) have excellent audio memory. I know I do. I do think that tracking the sound over long periods of time is made rather difficult however due to the influences of a large number of variables including but not limited to weather, time of day, day of week, how many other changes are made to the system or system configuration. I kind of doubt many audiophiles actually keep logs of their changes/additions/deletions, whatever. So in that respect their memory might get a little bit confused or forgetful.

Oh, please! Give me a break. Even Oppo, one of the largest manufacturers, recommends 200 hours of break in. 

Oh, no, not again! 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 naysayers, as if they automatically win any argument by declaring, "But it can’t pass a double blind test!" Ironically, the knuckledraggers never actually do double blind testing themselves. That’s for someone else to do. In fact the naysayers don't even know how to conduct a proper double blind test.