Quote:
| Now what I find disturbing is the length people would go to almost prove to themselves that what they hear is an illusion. They need measurements or proofs. If I can not measure it then it did not hear it. It does not exist. |
No, you misunderstand my points...
(1) I do not claim that I would necessarily need a measurement to be convinced. A positive difference in measurements would certainly be nice and convincing, but negative data would not disprove anything.
(2) I accept totally subjective evaluations of sound quality as fully valid data,
as long as the listening evaluation is properly controlled. Now, one thing you seem to underestimate is this wonderful and extremely powerful flexibility of our own brain as a sensory processor. I am
not talking about an illusion. It is a real perception. However, it is well known that a true difference in sensory perception can occur without a physical difference in the sensory input, which in this case is the speaker sound. All I want to do is try to dissociate between the physical versus perceptive changes, because that would make me "subjectively" feel better! :D
(3) The
only convincing way of dissociating these possibilities is to deprive the listener of his/her "knowledge" on the conditions of equipment. This is because, as long as the listener knows what he/she is listening, we cannot possibly exclude the effect of that very knowledge on his/her auditory perception. If you have a better idea on how to do this, let me know.
Quote:
| Now if they do not believe the additional hours or minutes make ANY difference why do they do it? It is a waste of time, when you know it will not matter? The logics of it escape me. Maybe just to be safe and have their speakers fully broken-up? |
Practically, it is very simple -- they simply leave the speaker playing overnight. No waste of time or efforts or anything, just in order to be on the safe side. I would not be surprised if they stop even doing this short "break-in," though.
Quote:
| A test (blind or otherwise) that shows that most people can not reliably distinguish between amp A and amp B does not prove that there is no difference between them or that one is not superior to the other. Note the emphasis on most, this is in itself an interesting subject… |
I agree. Like I said, negative data do not prove or disprove anything. My question for you is then, not talking about "most people", how about YOU? Do you hear a difference between, say, "broken-in" versus brand new cables or amps, or between $2000 versus $20 speaker cables, WITHOUT the knowledge as to which is playing? Have you done such tests yourself?
Quote:
| A simple yes or No would really help. Do your speakers sound the same after a few hours? I do not mind subjective impressions. |
No. I myself do not hear any subjective differences in mine. Either after several hours of playing, or after several weeks of "breaking-in." In fact, I just bought a new set of speakers a few weeks ago. They sound the same to me now, as compared with Day 1. Again, however, this is negative data, which prove or disprove nothing. That is why I would like to know more about the possible effects of speaker break-in.
Finally, your story on the Maggies is VERY convincing to me that something must have changed on the Maggies during the first 20 hours. But if they had been clearly "flapping," to me it sounds more like an overt initial defect that happened to go away spontaneously, rather than an "improvement" by a break-in. Nevertheless, something must have changed -- that much I am convinced of your story.
