Why no “Break in” period?
Prof, It is good to see you're softening up a bit in regard to sound quality & break in. From 12/8 you posted this: 12-08-2019 10:51am Nelson Pass, John Curl, and Ralph Karsten all believe in equipment break-in, burn-in, or what ever you want to call it. The late Charles Hansen did as well."The point wouldn't be that some electronics designers think AUDIBLE break in occurs (note the capitalized word), but what evidence they have for the claim. Do they have objective measurements showing the change and Do they have tests correlating the objective changes with their audible consequences, that control for well known listener biases? If not, it's just more of the same audiophile anecdotes, unfortunately." And in your post above you state: "Not claiming break in doesn’t exist. Not claiming "you can’t be hearing X" or that it isn’t audible if it does exist. Not claiming to know the answer. Willing to accept it happens." That is progress. |
@boxer12 So clearly the answer was "no, I will not do nuance, and I will continue to strawman you." You did of course completely strawman my position as telling you: "we can’t possibly be hearing what we are hearing." You believe that measurements trump personal experience & there is nothing that can be said to persuade you of this until science catches up to our hobby. As I’ve pointed out: we can also have "personal experience" pointing toward the existence of a real phenomena. It’s just that, if we want to be more careful about the inferences we are drawing, increasing some control over that type of personal experience can be helpful. So for instance, I had no measurements to back up that some CDPs and DACs seemed to sound different to me. But I did do some listening with some better controls for bias that suggested that there was in fact a sonic difference to be heard. The times where I think "measurement trump personal experience" are when measurements have been correlated to human thresholds of experience. We can measure a signal at 30 khz, but if you claim to hear it, and all you have is an anecdotal claim, then, yeah, given what we know about the usual human threshold of hearing, appealing to the measured frequency of that signal to cast doubt on your claim makes all the sense in the world. I’d hope you are rational enough to agree. In the case of fuses, AC cables etc, I’m NOT saying there is no phenomenon there, that there is nothing measurable, that people aren’t hearing anything real. I’m simply pointing out that the evidence that HAS been offered tends to be dubious (as in technical/psycho-acoustic claims from high end cable manufacturers that other people with relevant expertise dispute, along with anecdotal uncontrolled listening ’evidence.’). Though there has been some intriguing measurements offered for burn in (drivers), capacitor change, etc. The way you phrased your strawman seems to contain the implicit claim that there is a phenomenon that science "hasn’t caught up to" yet. How dogmatic of me to ask what kind of evidence there is for the claim! So, again: Not claiming break in doesn’t exist. Not claiming "you can’t be hearing X" or that it isn’t audible if it does exist. Not claiming to know the answer. Willing to accept it happens. Just looking for evidence beyond audiophile anecdote for the phenomenon. Someone doesn’t have to be a scientist to measure something - someone with some engineering knowledge can do it.Don’t have to be a scientist to bring in some bias controls. Just have to be willing to do it. And as I’ve said many times, no one has to do ANY of this to enjoy high end audio. We can all put whatever we want in our system and go on what we experience. But if we are going to make *claims* about what is going on in audio gear, then it’s perfectly fair to look at what type of claims are being made, and on what type of evidence they stand. I use tube amplification. To me it produces much more enjoyable sound than any SS amps I’ve had. That’s good enough for me to own the tube amps - no science offered, none demanded of anyone else. BUT...if I want to CLAIM that my tube amps produce objectively "better" or "different" sound than an SS amp, I’d have to admit that, while my claims are on some plausible ground given how tube amps can measure/interact with speakers within our hearing thresholds, that it remains *possible* what I "hear" is influenced by listening bias, and no I haven’t done blind tests to establish otherwise. That’s just being intellectually honest about the nature of the evidence I rest my decision upon. Hey...I could be wrong. But I ain’t selling my tube amps any time soon! We don’t have time to put everything to scientific testing. The problem for me arises mostly with people who vehemently pronounce their subjective impressions are, for all intents and purposes, infallible, insofar as they will not countenance any skepticism of their experience or talk of the problem of human bias; that if someone else doesn’t hear it, that could ONLY be due to insufficiency on their part, not possibly on the part of the audiophile making the confident claim himself. That is actually a form of dogmatism that many "subjectivists" seem self-blind to.
No, it appears your willingness to engage with nuance doesn’t exist. I don’t suppose you would be willing to admit that your characterization:"we can’t possibly be hearing what we are hearing"was inaccurate? Given that I’ve explained numerous times that certainly is not my position? It would take allowing yourself to observe nuance in the position of someone you don’t agree with. I’m rooting for you to do so....but, that’s up to you... |
Definitely something more than subjective acclimatization, albeit with no objective confirmation method. When a process unravels over time before your ears, with all other variables (local power demands, ambient atmospheres, etc.) controlled by repetition, the explanation must be a physical adaptation of the signal passageway itself, from raw flat asphalt (new Cardas copper) to hard biased pavement. Because of the traffic, and maybe the nature of the traffic. Very different from unicorns or magic fairies in the sky. Too bad there's no evident way of making bombs or curing cancer out of it, or maybe we'd know by now the mechanism by which this occurs. |
My Hana el cartridge sounds nothing like it does now at least 15 hours to break in. easy to hear the difference... voices were to big not natural ,a friend said so too. Then after 15 or so hours everything fell into place . He came back a week or so later and said that’s better . And all I did was play records. |
If you don't believe your ears, maybe it's easier to believe your eyes. I've owned several PS Audio Power Plants over the years and I always break them in using my TV since I hate the break-in process and watch more TV than listen to music. The first time I did this the picture initially looked crap- colors were oversaturated and the tonal balance was off. But after a a number of days days everything started to change and the improvement was obvious- a more three-dimensional picture, better shadow detail and more subtlety in colors etc. Since music is constantly changing we tend to play the same track over and over and it's difficult to know if our memory is fooling us sometimes. But a picture is somewhat steady state, say at a live football game. You'll get the same camera shot of the same scene for hours and it's very easy to analyze the picture quality. The first time I used my TV in this manner I made the mistake of changing my settings after a day or two, only to have to do it again a few days later once the Power Plant settled down. I was already well aware of the break-in requirement in audio because I've had some components with very long and painful break-in period. But the TV was the most dramatic proof that something was changing in the electronics. Since I'm a mechanical engineer by training, I don't believe in unicorns or alchemy, but I do believe that electronics require break-in, and the more revealing they are the more likely you'll hear the difference. |
Exactly, TIM was the same situation. We all heard something wrong then they finally figured out what it was and how to measure it. But this is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about differences people hear when there is nothing wrong. We are not talking about what the ear hears. We are talking about how our central nervous systems interpret what the ear is hearing and that is a far more complicated and plastic issue and it seems in this forum modulated by ego. Many of the explanations are being devised by people who have no idea what they are dealing with or talking about with an unfortunately high level of arrogance. What is even more interesting is that the people who are closest to the truth are attacked the hardest. If people do not want to understand how their brains can trick them and spend their money on worthless garbage that is their prerogative. Do not think this is the search for the truth. It is more or less the re enforcement of mythology. Geoffkait, Einstein was a "Newbie" when he came up with the theory of relativity. |
Re speakers: not to enflame anybody, but I believe it's the spiders more than the drivers that need breaking in. Re electronics: I can understand certain components like capacitors benefiting slightly from break in, but I have never experienced any clear improvement over time with any electronics. But I'll cheerfully concede that it's possible. |
All items require a specific breakin period.i have been into audio 40+ years and owned a audio store for almost a decade dielectrics ,as well as new metals expand and contract untill threal ey temper or settle in ,even upgrading connectors from say a brass to a good copper detail and refinements improves over time,the crap thst your esr just gets used to it is BS li have done many a blind test .believe what you will ,I have the best instruments In the world the ear to determine what is real and what is an illusion!! |
prof, " Do you get this nuance...yet? Do you think you’d be able to actually depict my argument without strawmanning?" Me, Again, try to be honest with yourself. You believe that measurements trump personal experience & there is nothing that can be said to persuade you of this until science catches up to our hobby. As a consequence of this opinion, what you believe to be "nuance" doesn't exist. I'm really not "strawmanning" you... it's just that on this footing (measurements trump personal experience & there is nothing that can be said to persuade you of this until science catches up to our hobby), your argument simply can not be argued. |
There is also this little part of the story that seems to be skimmed over. In the end we invariably find a measurement that matches what the ear hears and it becomes very obvious to everybody. So they don't stop with well some think they hear something and some don't they investigate what's going on. |
boxer, Why not try to understand an argument, rather than presume it is wrong and waste time misrepresenting it? You've presented quotes AS IF they don't form part of a coherent stance, while not actually showing any effort to understand what you quoted. My point has been that it makes sense that if a phenomenon is objectively real - that we are detecting something that is objectively changing a signal and that we can perceive this change - it makes sense to look both for measurable evidence of a change and evidence that measurable change is audible. At the very least, reliable evidence that *something audible* is happening to begin with. But the problem for the way audiophiles tend to discern these things is "trust your ears." Which is to just ignore the facts we know about how our perception is NOT necessarily so trustworthy. We know that varios forms of perceptual bias can lead us to think we "hear" (or see, or whatever) things that aren’t actually happening. That’s one BIG REASON we have a scientific method to begin with! To try to route through these variables to more reliable results. So if you say "X capacitor produces different sound from Y" capacitor, it makes sense to ask "how do you know?" Do you have measurements supporting this? Even so, are the measured differences in the realm you’d expect to hear, given the limits of our hearing? If you are simply claiming this on the basis "I believe I hear a difference" then there is the problem of sighted bias. How have you discerned between "I heard something objectively changing" and "I imagined it, due to biased perceptual errors?" Those are exactly the questions science asks. Why in the world would you imagine audio to exist in some bubble where those questions are not relevant? See, it doesn’t matter "who" you are when you are making the claim. What matters is the method. No scientist establishes justification for a claim merely by saying "I’m a scientist, so you should just believe me." Or "I’m a Well Known Scientist, so you should believe me." No! That’s antithetical to science.Science recognizes that every human can be biased and in error, so ANY scientist proposing a hypothesis or claim needs to show his work, to show how he has weeded out the variables and how the work can be replicated by others. So, back to Curl, it doesn’t matter a DAMN whether Curl is a well-known audio engineer. What matters for him is the same for any audiophile making a claim: What METHOD does he offer for vetting his claim that, say, capacitors "just sound different?" If he is taking no more steps to weed out sighted bias than the average audiophile, it’s just as dubious methodology as the average audiophile. And...AGAIN...this is NOT AN ARGUMENT THAT CURL IS WRONG. Or that you or anyone else aren’t perceiving real things. It’s simply a lookat the TYPE OF EVIDENCE offered for the claims, and the liabilities of THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE. It’s like saying "I know it’s sunny outside!" I say" well, you may be right! How do you know?" You answer "because I flipped a coin - heads it was going to be sunny, tails it was rainy. It came up heads, so it’s sunny!" Well, it MAY WELL BE SUNNY OUTSIDE, but the method you’ve used to come to that conclusion has some problems we can talk about. Similarly, if MAY WELL BE THAT CAPICITORS (or AC cables etc) sound different...but the type of evidence on offer has some problems we can talk about (particularly if it’s the "I think I hear it, so I know it’s true" form of anecdote). Do you get this nuance...yet? Do you think you’d be able to actually depict my argument without strawmanning? |
+1 nonoise Prof, "You MAY be hearing what you claim, but the method you are using to come to your conclusion or argue for it isn't as reliable as you seem to assume." Me, Again, how is this any different than what I previously posted: "Just trying to teach us that we can't possibly be hearing what we are hearing" Prof, C'mon, we can do nuance around here can't we" Me, Let's see if we can find nuance in your last post to mill: "That a high end audio designer gave up providing objective or reliable methods for vetting his designs hardly supports your case. The Curl quote is just appealing to the same subjectivity as you are; it's assertion, not justification" "Did you stop for a second to consider why the instruments were developed in the first place? Yeah...to measure things not only that our sense can detect, but that our senses can NOT detect - to go BEYOND the capabilities of our senses. You do know that distortion profiles and various objective electrical phenomena can be measured that you with your Super Duper Golden Ears can't possibly hear, right?" And finally... "I've actually had more coherent conversations with flat-earthers, who at least try to offer objective evidence for their claims vs constant repetition of personal assertions" It's easier to "Find Waldo" than "Nuance" in your posts prof |
Humans hear and process sound in a non linear manner. Measurements can only approximate what and how we hear. They can even go farther and deeper into the weeds but by that time, out brains have already processed the sound and moved on, in real time. One can capture the sound in real time and go back and retroactively process the values, signatures and other criteria of a sound and match it to what we hear. Again, our ears and brains have done it on the fly and are way past that, since they can differentiate and assess it with the help of millions of years of evolutionary processing prowess. Before the advent of measurements, and our hubris, we did a hell of a job tuning instruments and playing music, as well as appreciating all the aspects of listening. It's second nature for a trained ear to pick out differences that others would scratch their heads at. Being able to pick out concussive phenomena meters away that would escape our attention is misleading. Take, for example, an electron microscope. It can "see" a hell of a lot better than we can for it's intended purpose, but it's severely limited in what it can see. I wouldn't go so far as to say that since it can see better than I can, at the microscopic level, I would want to drive my car using it. Can anyone here say that, 10 years from now we'll not have better ways to measure sound? That we will not be able to learn more? Or, are we at the height of our abilities and there's nothing left to learn? As for an accu-timer, it can measure the value, duration and time signature of a note, but how does it differentiate between the different kinds of notes if they're played the same way? All the best, Nonoise |
millercarbon, That a high end audio designer gave up providing objective or reliable methods for vetting his designs hardly supports your case. The Curl quote is just appealing to the same subjectivity as you are; it's assertion, not justification. Pin it to the top of every thread where someone is trying to invalidate actual human experience just because it is beyond the measure of their silly primitive instruments. Sure, if you just go about ignoring everything we know about sighted bias. And it's hilarious to see you call measurement instruments "silly" and "primitive." Did you stop for a second to consider why the instruments were developed in the first place? Yeah...to measure things not only that our sense can detect, but that our senses can NOT detect - to go BEYOND the capabilities of our senses. You do know that distortion profiles and various objective electrical phenomena can be measured that you with your Super Duper Golden Ears can't possibly hear, right? Or...maybe you don't know this? It's hard to tell, frankly. I've actually had more coherent conversations with flat-earthers, who at least try to offer objective evidence for their claims vs constant repetition of personal assertions. |
boxer, No, I'm honestly representing what I argue for and believe. Insofar as you would include me in your previous complaint: boxer: They are the victims here. Just trying to teach us that we can't possibly be hearing what we are hearing. You are making a strawman. I have been explicit in pointing out I'm NOT claiming: "you aren't hearing what you claim!" I'm pointing out instead "You MAY be hearing what you claim, but the method you are using to come to your conclusion or argue for it isn't as reliable as you seem to assume." C'mon, we can do nuance around here can't we, to understand another person's point of view rather than dismiss it with strawmen versions? |
Prof, " And I pointed out I hadn't come to a firm conclusion on the matter myself" Me, You are not being completely honest with yourself here prof. You're a measurements guy who will not be swayed by any "conversation" I can possibly have with you on this subject. Maybe someone else can, but it will not be me. Sailboat, I'm hopeful that someday science will catch up to our hobby & be able to accurately measure all the improvements we hear. |
Well I’ll be....! "So what was I to complain about? Finally I stopped measuring and started listening, and I realized that the capacitor did have a fundamental flaw. This is were the ear has it all over test equipment. The test equipment is almost always brought on line to actually measure problems the ear hears. So we’re always working in reverse. If we do hear something and we can’t measure it then we try to find ways to measure what we hear. In the end we invariably find a measurement that matches what the ear hears and it becomes very obvious to everybody. " He’s putting it a little differently, but this is exactly what I’ve been saying over and over again- it is NOT on the listener to prove with measurement, not at all. The listener, what we hear, is the ultimate measure. Then and only then you can go looking for a way to measure what we are hearing. It is NOT the other way around! Pin it to the top of every thread where someone is trying to invalidate actual human experience just because it is beyond the measure of their silly primitive instruments. the ear has it all over test equipment. Read it and weep. RIP, techies, RIP. |
even if the only one hearing the change are those with superior hearing like miller carbon or Michael Greene.... if they can hear it.. then it can be measured. PERIOD. Our instruments are far more sensitive than even the very best ears on the planet. This is science fact. not opinion. not rhetoric. not trying to sell you a solution. sailboat |
Measurements....... John Curl Interview Page 15/18http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/JCinterview.pdf "So what was I to complain about? Finally I stopped measuring and started listening, and I realized that the capacitor did have a fundamental flaw. This is were the ear has it all over test equipment. The test equipment is almost always brought on line to actually measure problems the ear hears. So we’re always working in reverse. If we do hear something and we can’t measure it then we try to find ways to measure what we hear. In the end we invariably find a measurement that matches what the ear hears and it becomes very obvious to everybody. " . |
@andy2 you state: "Metals are good heat conductor because mostly of free electrons carrying kinetic energy (heat). Car engine breaking in is possible because of friction and heat. And of course electric current in cables is carried by electron which generating friction and thereby generating heat." you are a little off in the fact here. 1) electric current does not generate friction. Friction is a mechanical phenomena. (elementary physics). Electric current can produce heat via resistance and inductance. But this is not friction. Friction is mechanical resistance to slipping. like a tire slipping or not slipping on the road. now, I agree, regards burn in that the changes observed fall into two categories: one: mechanical or chemical changes. Speakers have moving parts.. hence mechanical. And capacitors have capacitance based on chemistry. And chemistry changes over time. two, far more subtle changes in electronics which are smaller (yes, chip sets age). Changes "heard" from aging of wires... would be much much smaller... tiny really. Finally, if a change due to burn in can be heard... then it can be measured. PERIOD. Measurement tools available are far more sensitive and have far greater bandwidth than the human ear. Even if you are an expert listener like millerC or Michael G. Sound waves are a physical thing propagating through air (sound does not propagate through a vacuum) and they can absolutely be measured. if you cannot measure it (regarding sound changes), then it is probably opinion and swayed by perception bias, Science. Now admittedly it is challenging to measure all sound waves and all reflections and all nulls or additive signals in a sound room. Takes time and is expensive. So for lack of that investment... our ears are reasonably good. key word: reasonably. we are going for pleasure here. But if someone claims they can hear something due to burn in.. and if at the same time it cannot be measured.. the it is BS! Again, we can measure EVERYTHING we can hear, in far greater resolution and precision and accuracy than our ears can deliver. (note: resolution, precision and accuracy are all different metrics). In my world, we have to measure and isolate vibrations to a FAR lower threshold than anyone in audio ever experiences or needs. Orders of magnitude better performance regards vibration isolation than in audio. Our equipment racks cost 10x up to 100x the cost of the very best audio equipment racks. We can measure the effects of one foot fall outside the building at 10's of meters away from the building and isolated by the ground, dirt, the building foundations, etc. (this is a research building with some of the best noise and vibration isolation in the world.) |
djones51 Not sure about power conditioners but when I purchased speakers from a company that does online sales when I asked about break in the president of the company told me the only break in would be me getting used to the speakers. I should give it a month or two before I made a final decision. >>>>“I’m not only the President of Hair Club I’m also a customer.” 🤗 |
Prof: +1000. I get weary of the thinly veiled insults. And more wearying is the constant shilling for certain cable company. Almost as though he has stock in the company.... Now good that he likes them and believes in them. And good that he listens. but not good how he insults others by insinuating that he has such superior ears that he knows better than everyone else. Others can listen. For sure. And.... since sound waves can easily be measured (you cannot HEAR it if it is not a sound wave propagating through the air)... changes in electronics should be measurable. Are measurable. No data.. then it is just opinion. There is NOTHING you can hear that sensitive measurement systems cannot pick up and quantify. Note: I have been an audiophile for just as long as he has. since early 70's. And have been actively listening since then. My ears are well trained. I even produced music festivals and concerts for a time. My last festival was so historic that the Smithsonian came out and recorded the 3 days for posterity. sailboat |
Hi Boxer you said "The reason I'm asking is capacitor companies (these are people who made there life profession, capacitors), state there is a break in period." exactly correct! How many will read this and not understand or have the need to debate on is always mind blowing to me. I don't believe these debate teams are here for audio at all. mg |
If you switch to M and P, it makes all the difference. Instead of divergence, there’ll be convergence. And there’ll be solution to the equations. HURRY UP PLEASE ITS TIME |
@boxer12
Who is "they?" Me (in this very thread): There is of course nothing wrong with just buying gear and trying it, feeling like it makes a difference we like, and buying it. As I’ve pointed out a million times, I don’t go trying to test everything I buy with scientific rigor. ..... I am not saying you are wrong in your claims. I’m actually open to the possibility of fuses sounding different, burn-in etc. And I pointed out I hadn't come to a firm conclusion on the matter myself. |
geoff, geoff, geoff,... They are the victims here. Just trying to teach us that we can't possibly be hearing what we are hearing. BTW mijostyn, are you a doctor of capacitors or does your knowledge just automatically apply to capacitors? The reason I'm asking is capacitor companies (these are people who made there life profession, capacitors), state there is a break in period. |
I sort of think we are chasing our tails here and Andy you really need to put that stuff down. Oregonpapa, a new tight belt may slow certain types of motors down fractionally turning some energy to heat so there is a rational for the change in sound. Although I must say we are very bad a discerning slow changes. We are much better with abrupt ones. If capacitors "break in" at all it is withing seconds to a minute of being charged for the first time. That would also be a pretty bad cap as their performance is specified to be within a certain percentage. They may deteriorate over time I have no idea how fast. I'll have to look that up. As I said before the most variable and unpredictable part of any audio "system" is the brain that is listening. Think of a viable reason why something would occur and test for it. In the turntable with a new belt case just check the speed when the belt is new then check it every 24 hours and document the speed change then buy another belt and do it again. One of the most important characteristic of a scientific fact is that it is repeatable. Prof, I have come to the conclusion that Geoff can not slow down. He is bipolar 1. So don't blame him he is not responsible for his actions/words. Geoff, yes I agree. Vinyl sounds better but you really have to stop counting the revolutions:) |
Uh....these: while refusing to acknowledge that ONLY experimentation(the heart of the Scientific Method), provides PROOF, regarding anything discussed. Most of those are proffering their opinions, without ever having tried what’s being discussed. What you hold true, in your listening room, is all that matters. Experiment and trust your ears. Anyone that discredits another’s abilities to hear improvements, in their own systems, in their own listening environments, with their own ears, should be considered condescending, insulting and/or(probably), simply projecting their own ineptitude. Perhaps, to be pitied. Are you unaware that the above quote constitute a series of "claims?"Ones that you have continued to make? Again: If you and I sat in front of the same system and swapped, say, power cords, and you think you heard a difference, and I think I heard no difference....on your view...what does this tell us about the actual piece of equipment we are "testing" this way? In your view, would such a "test" imply the cable did in fact change the sound, but only you heard the change? Or....what? If we care about what is actually happening, whether a cable (or tweak) actually DOES change the sonic signal, just saying "try it for yourself" as if that will decide the matter is of no help, if "trying it for yourself" can yield contradictory results for different people. Why be so resistant to these perfectly reasonable questions about your ideas on this question? |
"rodman, I asked you sincere questions to try and understand your position. Ok, you don’t want to have a conversation where you think through your position to show anyone else it actually makes sense. I guess the whole "here are the reasons why you should take my claim seriously" stuff is just "blah, blah, blah" to you? (I infer this from your constant disparagement of any questions about your claims)." What, "claims" have I made? AGAIN: My ONLY agenda is to encourage others to LISTEN/EXPERIMENT for THEMSELVES. This is the internet, which(to me) is a vast playground, in where anyone can make any claims they want, regarding themselves or their theories, "prof". Call me a skeptic, but I don’t care to play. "......don’t want to have a conversation...."??? It’s cute, you think I spend my day, hovering over a keyboard, with such as you in my head. My reality extends beyond the virtual(I actually have a life, to occupy my time). |
I personally don't like the sound of power conditioners. Nor do I like the sound of anything over built. If one is having a problem with ac they should take a look at their transformers, thick wires, banana plugs (all big plugs or connectors) and component chassis to see why there is signal blockage. |
| Post removed |
“In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he's the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.[1]” - Richard FeynmanI think the missing element was the "control tower". And probably some RF radios. And maybe runway led lights. |
geoff, >>>>Yes, I know, that’s why I said you or anyone else can’t draw conclusions based on one test. In other words, nobody can. Your argument was a Strawman. Amazing, you still don't get it. I wasn't presenting an argument for a conclusion based on the listening results I depicted. I was asking what type of conclusions rodman thinks HE could draw, and giving variations "do you think THIS is a reasonable conclusion? Do you think THAT is a reasonable conclusion?" etc. You clearly interpreted it as if I were arguing for those conclusions, and trying to diss me for it. Sloooow dooooown geoff. Sloow doown. I know it's your thing to try to knock everyone down a peg, but it wastes even your own time to end up looking silly by not bothering to understand what your object-of-derision is actually writing. You aren't going to have any feet left if you keep firing holes in them like this. Well, unless you like the feeling of shooting your own foot, which also would make sense of your posting here ;-) |
“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” Albert Einstein.lols I managed to squeeze that in. And here is mine that even muchas better than that a$$ :-) and mark my words. There is no such thing as "mechanical device" or "electrical device". It only exists in the human mind. There is no difference in "biological thing" or "non-biological thing". It only exists in ... oh wait ... damn I run out of hierarchy ... well may be in God's mind. Am I a "thing" dreaming of a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming of a "thing" ... Infinity ... coffee ... morning ... night ... infinity ... |
mijostyn ... Yes, you are correct ... cartridges are mechanical devices. I remember when I upgraded the turntable belt and bought one from "Originlive." Upon first listening, I, and a buddy could discern the belt breaking in over an hour period. That was fascinating to be sure. Very obvious too. https://www.originlive.com/hi-fi/turntable-upgrades-modification/turntable-belt-upgrade/ When I received two new Audio Research REF-75 amps, the capacitors had to break in over about a 500 hour period. The improvement was incremental over time and the end result, compared to when new was remarkable. Frank |
prof Geoff, In your rush to judge you have, as usual, misunderstood the point. If you ever slow down to read before firing off a rant, it would have been blazingly obvious I wasn’t taking about what conclusions I would actually draw in the scenario I outlined, but rather probing rodman with questions about what conclusions HE would think to be reasonable. >>>>Yes, I know, that’s why I said you or anyone else can’t draw conclusions based on one test. In other words, nobody can. Your argument was a Strawman. The conclusions of two people that have different results based on one test can BOTH be thrown away. For example, one of you might have a cold. 🤧 |
mijostyn geoffkait, what in god’s name are you talking about? A single experiment can be perfectly valid if done correctly. "Sorry pal" is offensive. Do you really need to be as immature as rodman? All you have to say is that you have faith (The Cure) that "break in" exists for electronics and no mater what you tell me I am going to believe in that. I can live with that and I know for a fact prof can also. Then we can just discount everything else you have to say as a religious moment and be done with it. >>>>>What a pretty thought - that you know all the variables involved and how to control them. Good luck with that! Oh, you mean some anonymous person out there knows all the variables and how to control them? Good luck with that too! “It’s what I choose to believe.” Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, Prometheus |
