@ozzy62 while i appreciate his reviews and many of his comments, i would have to agree with you on this ozzy... |
audition_audio, I did not seek reviewing, and I am not paid to write/review, so you are off the mark with your assertion. Perhaps you would like to spend 1,000+ hours doing the work associated with reviewing unpaid! I spent thousands of my money attending shows so that I would become familiar with the gear offered in North America. So, you can walk back your insinuation/assertion. :) The community can see my body of work over the past 14 years at Dagogo.com, which I humbly offer is the evidence of building hundreds of systems, learning what does and does not work in building systems. It is not necessary to have a degree, apprenticeship, etc. to reach the conclusions I have, but it is necessary to build hundreds of systems and conduct dozens of interviews (unpaid, conducted of my own impetus). I suggest that your inference that I have nothing more to offer than the average hobbyist is incorrect. Many years ago I used to have an attitude similar to yours. An interesting thing happened to me, however; I was offered an opportunity to review. Along the way, I realized that I was able to conduct comparisons, to learn things I never would have been able (or, more accurately, would not have spent the money on) if not for reviewing. Now, gratis, I am sharing them with a community rife with skepticism on some topics and hubris on other topics. So be it. A few will see the wisdom in my approach, and will benefit. Thank you for sharing your opinion here, and I invite to to go back and reread my two articles to gain more insight. :) |
Well I think it humorous that doug thinks he has more to offer in terms of opinion than the average hobbyist. Is believing in component change really a big deal and I would challenge doug to prove that this belief or many others he finds distasteful are deleterious to the hobby. For some all amps sound the same, for others there is no difference in cables and others believe in any claim no matter how absurd. There is no proof in this hobby and I thought we were done with the idea that we can objectify the subjective. Why in the world would I spend hours and extra funds to prove something that I have accepted and that I perceive as significant? This would be a total waste of time. But what I find most objectionable is the fact that he feels the need to ascribe reasons for those that dont share HIS opinion. Hey Doug please refresh me on the qualifications of becoming a reviewer. Is there a degree, apprenticeship, or a school...I want to get me one of them high paying gigs. |
The phenomenon of thinking one hears change to a system over time is universal, and I experience it, too. I happened to question whether it was in fact equipment changing. I conducted informal testing and learned that it is not the equipment changing, but inconsistent impressions of the audiophile. It's quite simple, but with significant implications. |
I find the arrogance in declaring what I hear to be nonsense quite objectionable. One of the problems with so-called experts is that they tend to end up believing their own blasé utterances. In this particular case, I happen to think he is on hopeless ground arguing that you should compare things straight out of the box. That is so patently non-sensical that it actually doesn’t warrant any objecting argument. Enjoy the music |
Reubent, ah, one of my generation; good job! I suspect you get my intent; it's a big "put on" by all these people who want to make a big impression about what they can hear, about how break in/burn in is SO important, and how it makes SUCH a big difference, and... there's nothing much behind it. People forget, indeed, that they are as susceptible to floating impressions and wandering subjectivity as anyone else. I have demonstrated it. It's not a very comfortable discussion for all the manufacturers, dealers, etc. who lean heavily on these concepts in support of their products and/or services. Notice how break in and burn in is never demonstrated, that is, the purported benefit/change etc. is never actually shown in a side by side comparison? Because they can't - or won't. I have demonstrated that it is relatively easy to get to the bottom of it. The average audiophile can do so for themselves with 2 pair of cables, or two amps, etc. Many have the means to see for themselves whether their impressions have any basis in reality. Most prefer to avoid such a clear test of their impressions. They would rather sit in their smug confidence that they are able to hear equipment changing. Whatever. I'm far from an enemy of the industry; I have worked with many manufactures and have good relationships with them. It's the nonsense, the peripheral, tangential, useless aspects that I have no need, nor respect for, and I see them as hindrances, not aids. The average audiophile has believed a lot of crap that is actually counter-productive in setting up superior systems. The average audiophile would never discover this. I had to set up hundreds of rigs to get to the point where I was clearly questioning the process, and had the equipment available to conduct a more involved comparison. I would not expect that of the average HiFi enthusiast. I would, however, expect that some might be open to the suggestion that they are changing rather inconsistency. But, of course, that is beyond the pale of most enthusiasts; their ego can't take consideration of that outcome. :( |
I agree with antigrunge and my experiences with most components has been that use makes a serious difference in sound. I dont even care why this might be. However, I read most of the article and I dont think that anything schroeder said was objectionable. In fact I am not sure he said much of anything. Kind of milquetoast. I agree with most of what was written, but am not sure why he felt the need. |
@douglas_schroeder Hmmm, I can only comment from admittedly limited experience. I have upgraded from a well run-in Antelope Audio Zodiac Gold to a Zodiac Platinum. For the first 500(!) hours I thought I had made a mistake until literally all of a sudden the fog cleared and I had substantially enhanced micro-detail, soundstage width and depth as well as significantly improved impulse performance. In a similar vain, I replaced JAN Philips 7581a tubes with NOS cryo‘ed Svetlana Winged-C 6L6GCs in my Wavac EC 300b amp. The goal was to eliminate a slightly forward, discant emphasising sound. What I got for the first 50 hours was numb, incongruous sound and I was ready to give up. All of a sudden though, holographic soundstage, sweet but intense violin sound and an overall organic presentation that I was looking for. In summary: while I agree that for basic ‘good-better’ comparisons, burn-in can be largely ignored, for real fine tuning it is essential to account for it. |
bluemoodriver, thank you! I seem to occupy a position in the industry and community that is fairly vacant, that of eschewing most forms of system enhancements/methods called "tweaks", and endorsing other methods that some ridicule. It all comes out of building hundreds of systems, not theory. I will disgruntle those who take a hard objectivist position in terms of components, and disgruntle those who take a hard position on tweaks. So be it. OTOH, I have split the difference once again in not only this article, but also a cable review that has just been submitted. It reveals with very strong evidence, if one explores the materials the company has made public, that 1. Geometry, conductor material, etc. do make an audible difference, and 2. That when well designed according to strict parameters (measurable), it sounds better than other cables. So, that article steps a bit into both camps. I recall my father, who when discussing particular subjects would opine, "There are a lot of left fielders, and a lot of right fielders, but not a lot of center fielders." I’m trying to play center field. BTW, can we please for once have our reactionist politically motivated disturbers hold their tongue? The comment has zero relevance to politics, and I don't care what your opinion is on the matter. The topic is tweaks. Thank you! :) |
I addressed "break in" and "burn in" in the article as it pertains to the phenomena under assessment. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said Douglas, several times before. I have NEVER heard the term "BURN IN" used by professional repairmen. ONLY by rookies. Just like the term "MOTOR" in lue of "ENGINE". The term is used all the time by WHO? Drivers not mechanics. The same with "burn in". If words don’t matter to you, they do to the people like me. Why? I can’t think of a single time you can substitute burn in, for break in in any way other than people in the audiophile community. WHY BURN IN? A lack of command of the English language, (not a first language). My counterparts in other countries would use words like this, but would point to the word "BREAK IN" in the BOOK. If you mean breakin but type burnin, what other word salad, do I have to decipher. I can’t hear a difference means, "Sometimes" I can’t hear a difference? or ALL the time? Terms like brake in, conditioned, seated, lapped, settled, ran in, trued, lined up, within tolerance, out of spec, misaligned, tune up, etc. Even BRAKES are seated, but NEVER EVER BURNT IN. BUT they can BURN UP, catch on fire, go up in flames, up in smoke, burn to the ground, become glazed, BUT they never burn in.. Is the MOTOR "blowed up", Goober. :-( Aunt Bee, would have said "Are you having engine trouble, Andy"? Seized a piston, due to a lack of oil? :-) That "Dipstick" Goober... What next, you'll want to borrow a cable conditioner. :-) Regards.. |
