or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Burn-in: Real Or Imagined???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Burn-in: Real Or Imagined??? - Page 7

post #181 of 665
Ah, keep this up, The Bogg. I mean, if someone with QueueClimber's tested aptitude, equipment, and room treatment is willing to spend thousands of dollars on speaker cables and still can't hear the difference---well, then that pretty much exposes a good 95% or so of the subjectivist community with lesser pedigree as a bunch of hallucinators. So maybe that leaves mike lavigne in the clear but not too many others.

Again, if someone who puts his money where his mouth is is going to be dismissed so handily by the cable nerds, why the hell should we objectivists give a rats ass about your criticisms that we just "don't listen"?
post #182 of 665
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Grant View Post

Ah, keep this up, The Bogg. I mean, if someone with QueueClimber's tested aptitude, equipment, and room treatment is willing to spend thousands of dollars on speaker cables and still can't hear the difference---well, then that pretty much exposes a good 95% or so of the subjectivist community with lesser pedigree as a bunch of hallucinators. So maybe that leaves mike lavigne in the clear but not too many others.

Again, if someone who puts his money where his mouth is is going to be dismissed so handily by the cable nerds, why the hell should we objectivists give a rats ass about your criticisms that we just "don't listen"?

Micheal, one test subject trying a few cables hardly scientifically a proper test sample? Or do you deny that?

I'm not saying all cables make a system sound better or even sound different?
There's lots of BS in cable marketing and cables themselves - but that doesn't , mean that all are like that.

Did you flunk statistics in college (kidding, you "DOG" you)!
post #183 of 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Grant View Post

I mean, if someone with QueueClimber's tested aptitude, equipment, and room treatment is willing to spend thousands of dollars on speaker cables and still can't hear the difference---well, then that pretty much exposes a good 95% or so of the subjectivist community with lesser pedigree as a bunch of hallucinators.

His tested aptitude has no bearing with the discussion. Pitch is unaffected, nor is rythm memory.

I passed a cardiac stress test..so?

As for trashing the bulk of the subjective community, why does Q's null result do that? I do not believe it is that simple.

Cheers, John
post #184 of 665
Quote:


His tested aptitude has no bearing with the discussion. Pitch is unaffected, nor is rythm memory.

I agree with this statement Michael.
post #185 of 665
Quote:


I do not believe it is that simple.

This statement goes a lot further for me than the one above. I respect Jneutron's opinion a lot more than Queue's (rightly or wrongly) as JNeutron never seems to have to validate his comments BUT for me (even as a subjectivist) they are more the voice of reason (much the same as Dizzman)
post #186 of 665
several posts deleted

attacking other members is not allowed
post #187 of 665
Quote:


if you don't mind me pointing out another common theme running between the both of you besides your medical backgrounds.

The rest of this sentence is ...."that you both understand me"

Personally I would have shown you more respect for merely stating your opinion and letting it go based on your hearing no difference. I am cool with that. Both Bogg and I have given your room kudos. It is beautiful and well thought out. But all of your posts to me as a doctor are filled with your desire to add whatever form of credentials you feel are necessary. And then to add the Sesame Street song....give me a break
post #188 of 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bogg View Post


All this talk about "science" is pretty silly. There is more "dogma" than "science" behind a lot of things out there. If someone came to my ER, was diagnosed with appendicitis and then asked me for "evidence" and "scientific proof" that they should have an appendectomy I wouldn't have any to give them. But I'd still recommend they have their appendix removed! Just because no-one's done a study it doesn't mean that there is no effect.

You should read more:
Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonography in diagnosis of acute appendicitis, incorporating the Alvarado score
Charles D Douglas, surgical registrar a, Neil E Macpherson, medical student b, Patricia M Davidson, associate professor of paediatric surgery b, Jonathon S Gani, senior lecturer b.

A prospective randomized trial comparing open versus laparoscopic appendectomy.
R C Frazee, J W Roberts, R E Symmonds, S K Snyder, J C Hendricks, R W Smith, M D Custer, 3rd, and J B Harrison
Department of General Surgery, Scott and White Memorial Hospital, Sherwood, Texas.

A prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.
Attwood SE, Hill AD, Murphy PG, Thornton J, Stephens RB.

A Prospective Randomized Trial to Compare One Dose Preoperative, Three-Dose Perioperative and 5-Day Full Course Antibiotics for Non-Perforated Acute Appendicitis
Authors: Mui, L.M.; Ng, E.K.W.; Lee, D.W.H.; Lam, Y.H.; Fung, T.M.K.; Wong, S.K.H.; Law, K.B.; Chung, S.C.S.
Randomized controlled trial of appendicectomy versus antibiotic therapy for acute appendicitis
J. D. Greig 1, S. J. Nixon 1, S. Eriksson 2, L. Granström 2

Antibiotic Therapy Versus Appendectomy for Acute Appendicitis

This study is currently recruiting patients.
Verified by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris June 2005
Sponsored by: Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
post #189 of 665
Swampfox--I think Bogg as a surgeon is indicating his clinical accumen that if he were summoned to the ER to a patient who he believed had appendicitis he would recommend it be removed. If there was some doubt he would admit and observe. We all know as physicians that not all appys that are removed are pathologic.
post #190 of 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneobgyn View Post

The rest of this sentence is ...."that you both understand me"

Personally I would have shown you more respect for merely stating your opinion and letting it go based on your hearing no difference. I am cool with that. Both Bogg and I have given your room kudos. It is beautiful and well thought out. But all of your posts to me as a doctor are filled with your desire to add whatever form of credentials you feel are necessary. And then to add the Sesame Street song....give me a break

I wouldn't have posted on my musical history or my aptitude testing if people didn't directly call into question my "resolving power." If people want to attack my ability to hear as a reason why I'm not hearing these differences from burn-in (or cable quality), then you can be assured, I'm going to post proof that I hear not only fine, but exceptionally well.

If people call into question my ability to do certain things, whether it is hearing, reading, writing.... I'm going to either agree if they are correct or post to the contrary, especially if I have proof. I wouldn't need to vindicate myself if people weren't trying to belittle my faculties.
post #191 of 665
could we get back on topic now?
post #192 of 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post

His tested aptitude has no bearing with the discussion. Pitch is unaffected, nor is rythm memory.

So what is affected? That is the real question. If indeed something is affected, how come I don't hear it and why can't it be measured? Quite a quandary.
post #193 of 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneobgyn View Post

actually just the opposite...it undermines the wisdom of the people who showed the WP 8 a most inefficient speaker.

Just going by the specs isn't the WP8 about 2dB less efficient then the X2? Granted with a lower powered amp that could be the difference between success or failure but a 2dB difference isn't a huge difference in efficiency. Could be one is much more reactive then the other which would cause more interaction with the output impedance of the amp to alter FR.


Shawn
post #194 of 665
Steve,

"one test subject trying a few cables hardly scientifically a proper test sample? Or do you deny that?"

That is the whole point the 'subjectivists' miss. Objectivists can not *prove* there is no difference. We can not prove a negative. The claims that objectivists don't 'do the work' are nonsense. They have done more controlled *listening* tests then subjectivists have ever done. They are not trying to prove a negative... that can't be done. They are looking for a positive result. 10,000 people could be tested and all come back negative. That doesn't mean someone somewhere might pass and then therefor prove that at least one person is capable of hearing a difference... even if it is rare it would have just been proven to exist.

Like you said a negative result on one test doesn't mean the test will always come back negative. Can't prove a negative. However a positive result proves it is possible, even if it only occurs a very small percent of the time.

Real world example. I am not color blind. To extrapolate from that and say that therefor no one is color blind is obviously faulty logic. My negative result does not prove the condition. However my father is color blind... he proves that it is possible to be color blind. Even if it only effects a small portion of the population.

In other words the only people that can 'prove' anything would be those that claim to hear a difference being able to demonstrate that in controlled listening tests. Just shouting it loudly and repeatidly is not proof. Some might say that they won't/can't prove it in a controlled listening test is telling. Don't you think a cable company would love to be able to say something like the Pepsi Challange.... 9 of out 10 people prefer brand xyz cables instead of the psuedoscience drivel some put in their marketing?

Shawn
post #195 of 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueueCumber View Post

So what is affected? That is the real question. If indeed something is affected, how come I don't hear it and why can't it be measured? Quite a quandary.

Agreed, it is a quandry. As to why don't you hear it, the real question is...hear what?? "Burn in" will not alter any of the metals, and it is questionable as to whether or not it can affect the typical insulations.

If there is an insulation characteristic change, I would have expected a BI vendor to be shouting from the rooftops with test results.. but alas, there is none.

Personally, I note that many changes I make to my systems, is immediately heard but over time it becomes less apparent. Clearly, not burn in in my case, just my hearing getting used to it.

Hypothetically speaking, if a reproduction system is intolerant of small changes, the effect would be obvious. If the system is tolerant of small changes, I would expect the effect could go un-noticed.

If one used a 901 system, would subtle soundstage cues in the program be noticed?? The 901 design is specifically made to provide us soundstage information, even if it is not within the origional program, so this system I would categorize as tolerant. The level of tolerance a system has to changes is not indicative of the system's quality.

Your system, I cannot say.

Cheers, John
post #196 of 665
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfogg View Post

Steve,

"one test subject trying a few cables hardly scientifically a proper test sample? Or do you deny that?"

That is the whole point the 'subjectivists' miss. Objectivists can not *prove* there is no difference. We can not prove a negative. The claims that objectivists don't 'do the work' are nonsense. They have done more controlled *listening* tests then subjectivists have ever done. They are not trying to prove a negative... that can't be done. They are looking for a positive result. 10,000 people could be tested and all come back negative. That doesn't mean someone somewhere might pass and then therefor prove that at least one person is capable of hearing a difference... even if it is rare it would have just been proven to exist.

Like you said a negative result on one test doesn't mean the test will always come back negative. Can't prove a negative. However a positive result proves it is possible, even if it only occurs a very small percent of the time.

Real world example. I am not color blind. To extrapolate from that and say that therefor no one is color blind is obviously faulty logic. My negative result does not prove the condition. However my father is color blind... he proves that it is possible to be color blind. Even if it only effects a small portion of the population.

In other words the only people that can 'prove' anything would be those that claim to hear a difference being able to demonstrate that in controlled listening tests. Just shouting it loudly and repeatidly is not proof. Some might say that they won't/can't prove it in a controlled listening test is telling. Don't you think a cable company would love to be able to say something like the Pepsi Challange.... 9 of out 10 people prefer brand xyz cables instead of the psuedoscience drivel some put in their marketing?

Shawn

Shawn, I do not disagree with anything you have said. My own subjective belief that I have at times with certain components or configurations heard a burn-in phenemena are merely my own subjective perception, and if the "burn-in" time improved the sonics to where I like them then all is good. But of course it ain't scientific or objective proof of the same.

But I don't like folks tellling me that I am pschologically nutso or hearing things, either. Just cause the proof doesn't rise to the scientific level doesn't mean that my perceptions are necessarily wrong, either.
post #197 of 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneobgyn View Post

Swampfox--I think Bogg as a surgeon is indicating his clinical accumen that if he were summoned to the ER to a patient who he believed had appendicitis he would recommend it be removed. If there was some doubt he would admit and observe. We all know as physicians that not all appys that are removed are pathologic.

You know me well enough to know he hit a couple of pet peeves.

Physical phenomenon can be measured and verified. Metaphysical nomenon defy the scientific method. Which are we speaking of when we talk of cable break-in?
post #198 of 665
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

You know me well enough to know he hit a couple of pet peeves.

Physical phenomenon can be measured and verified. Metaphysical nomenon defy the scientific method. Which are we speaking of when we talk of cable break-in?

Mebbe. Or maybe we haven't developed a proper scientific explanation yet? Or maybe its BS all the time? Or maybe its BS some of the time?

I can't say that I've particularly noticed speaker cable or interconnect break-in.
Sometimes too many variables, new cables with new speakers or other componentns.

When I had various non-Granite Audio power cords I didn't particularly subjectively notice any break-in phenomena, including Harmonic Tech, even though that manufacturer advised some break-in would occur.

When I obtained Granite Audio power cords which were fully burned-in (two weeks) at the factory, I observed/heard no break-in phenomena.

But when some years ago I was in a hurry and Don Hoglund of Granite Audio agreed to let me have the cables after only two days, not two weeks, burn-in, I put them in and my system sound and picture sucked!!! Few hours later I put back in the old power cords and all was fine. The Granite Audio power cords then got two more weeks factory burn-in, I put them in, and all was better than ever.
My psychological expectation was that burn-in couldn't make much of a difference for power cords, which is why I picked up a bunch of them after only two days factory burn-in. I was SO WRONG! Granite Audio made an exception for me that one time and no longer makes any exception for anyone as a result.

No I can't objectively explain the above. No I do not expect anyone to BELIEVE
my observation is scientific proof. But that is my observation and it certainly
surprised me.

My understanding is that Granite Audio does not burn-in speaker cables or interconnects as Don Hoglund has checked this himself and doesn't believe burn-in is significant for those.
post #199 of 665
Reread my post. I said there were no randomized controlled data SPECIFICALLY to say that someone SHOULD HAVE THEIR APPENDIX REMOVED WHEN APPENDICITIS HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED. I didn't say there was no data about diagnosing appendicitis. Are you and Q related?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

You should read more:
Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonography in diagnosis of acute appendicitis, incorporating the Alvarado score
Charles D Douglas, surgical registrar a, Neil E Macpherson, medical student b, Patricia M Davidson, associate professor of paediatric surgery b, Jonathon S Gani, senior lecturer b.

A prospective randomized trial comparing open versus laparoscopic appendectomy.
R C Frazee, J W Roberts, R E Symmonds, S K Snyder, J C Hendricks, R W Smith, M D Custer, 3rd, and J B Harrison
Department of General Surgery, Scott and White Memorial Hospital, Sherwood, Texas.

A prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.
Attwood SE, Hill AD, Murphy PG, Thornton J, Stephens RB.

A Prospective Randomized Trial to Compare One Dose Preoperative, Three-Dose Perioperative and 5-Day Full Course Antibiotics for Non-Perforated Acute Appendicitis
Authors: Mui, L.M.; Ng, E.K.W.; Lee, D.W.H.; Lam, Y.H.; Fung, T.M.K.; Wong, S.K.H.; Law, K.B.; Chung, S.C.S.
Randomized controlled trial of appendicectomy versus antibiotic therapy for acute appendicitis
J. D. Greig 1, S. J. Nixon 1, S. Eriksson 2, L. Granström 2

Antibiotic Therapy Versus Appendectomy for Acute Appendicitis

This study is currently recruiting patients.
Verified by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris June 2005
Sponsored by: Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
post #200 of 665
Steve,

"My own subjective belief that I have at times with certain components or configurations heard a burn-in phenemena are merely my own subjective perception"

Right, and subjective perception can be misleading. You may have heard what you thought, or it may have been from some other factor. Again without controlled listening we really can't reliabily say which is which. Until someone has experienced how powerful those other factors really can be it is hard to understand how much of an influence they can have. For example I have said it many times in the past but simple level differences can have a huge effect on the outcome of comparisons... yet few actually match levels when comparing devices. The end result is the comparison results are effected by the level differences. But until someone compares the same device against itself 0.5dB or 1dB or 2dB lower in level and hears how one perceives that they simply can't grok how much of an effect level has. It likely won't be heard as level differences... one will have more clarity, better focus...etc...etc....

FWIW, I think I have heard some break in on drivers. On a set of speakers I built I thought the ScanSpeak tweeters sound changed over the first hour or two of use. Subjective impression and I am fully aware that I could be wrong on that. Too expensive to purchase a bunch of their tweeters to try and test it closer. Likewise I have felt that a couple of different subs I have had 'loosened up' after getting a little use on them. I think it was with my current subs that after some amount of use after I built them that I thought I had to rebalance their levels a little as they appeared to become a little more efficient. But again that is subjective it might not have been that at all.

"Just cause the proof doesn't rise to the scientific level doesn't mean that my perceptions are necessarily wrong, either."

No, it doesn't. But it also doesn't mean they are correct either. We can't say one way or the other. Unless you wanted to try and test it with controlled listening tests.

"But I don't like folks tellling me that I am pschologically nutso or hearing things, either."

OK, but on the same topic the possibility exists that you may be fooling yourself wether you want to consider that or not. Remember you signature here a few years back that was along the lines of 'I removed all the tweaks and my system sounds better?' So telling someone that may not be fooling themselves they are 'deaf' is not terribly bright. The possibility exists that they may in fact be a better trained listener who isn't as effected by outside factors. Or you might really be hearing it and they are not. As I said about their failing to hear a difference in a test doesn't prove it isn't possible. Likewise their failing to hear a difference in the test doesn't mean they are deaf either.... you might fail the same test too.... or you might pass.

Shawn
post #201 of 665
The Bogg

enough

move on please
post #202 of 665
Steve,

"Or maybe we haven't developed a proper scientific explanation yet?"

Putting the cart in front of the horse. There is no need for a scientific explanation for something that hasn't been objectively demonstrated yet.

If someone reliably could hear the difference between say two cables in a properly performed double blind listening test yet all current electrical measurements show no difference then that is when some new scientific explanation would be needed.

There are existing scientific explanations that could explain what we have right now. Bias/placebo/power of suggestion and for extreme cable cases LCR.

Shawn
post #203 of 665
Quote:


Are you and Q related?

Careful here Bogg

Swampfox is an MD boarded in Radiation Therapy and faculty at a very prominant medical school
post #204 of 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post

Shawn, I do not disagree with anything you have said. My own subjective belief that I have at times with certain components or configurations heard a burn-in phenemena are merely my own subjective perception, and if the "burn-in" time improved the sonics to where I like them then all is good. But of course it ain't scientific or objective proof of the same.

But I don't like folks tellling me that I am pschologically nutso or hearing things,

NO ONE is saying you are 'psychologically nutso' (at least, not for 'hearing' burn-in)
In fact, you've been told again and again, rather the opposite -- that' it's normal for people to report hearing differences that aren't really there. That's why blind protocols exist.

If you dislike being told you're 'hearing things', well, tough luck. The science is conclusive on this point: people are prone to 'hearing things' and there's no disgrace in it. It's just a nuisance when trying to determine whether something has made a real difference. And it should inform all claims of heard difference, unless there's some good independent reason to assume such difference exists.

Quote:


either. Just cause the proof doesn't rise to the scientific level doesn't mean that my perceptions are necessarily wrong, either.

And again, no one says they're necessarily wrong-- they are necessarily subject to psychological biases and errors of interpretation, though.
post #205 of 665
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfogg View Post

Steve,

"My own subjective belief that I have at times with certain components or configurations heard a burn-in phenemena are merely my own subjective perception"

Right, and subjective perception can be misleading. You may have heard what you thought, or it may have been from some other factor. Again without controlled listening we really can't reliabily say which is which. Until someone has experienced how powerful those other factors really can be it is hard to understand how much of an influence they can have. For example I have said it many times in the past but simple level differences can have a huge effect on the outcome of comparisons... yet few actually match levels when comparing devices. The end result is the comparison results are effected by the level differences. But until someone compares the same device against itself 0.5dB or 1dB or 2dB lower in level and hears how one perceives that they simply can't grok how much of an effect level has. It likely won't be heard as level differences... one will have more clarity, better focus...etc...etc....

FWIW, I think I have heard some break in on drivers. On a set of speakers I built I thought the ScanSpeak tweeters sound changed over the first hour or two of use. Subjective impression and I am fully aware that I could be wrong on that. Too expensive to purchase a bunch of their tweeters to try and test it closer. Likewise I have felt that a couple of different subs I have had 'loosened up' after getting a little use on them. I think it was with my current subs that after some amount of use after I built them that I thought I had to rebalance their levels a little as they appeared to become a little more efficient. But again that is subjective it might not have been that at all.

"Just cause the proof doesn't rise to the scientific level doesn't mean that my perceptions are necessarily wrong, either."

No, it doesn't. But it also doesn't mean they are correct either. We can't say one way or the other. Unless you wanted to try and test it with controlled listening tests.

"But I don't like folks tellling me that I am pschologically nutso or hearing things, either."

OK, but on the same topic the possibility exists that you may be fooling yourself wether you want to consider that or not. Remember you signature here a few years back that was along the lines of 'I removed all the tweaks and my system sounds better?' So telling someone that may not be fooling themselves they are 'deaf' is not terribly bright. The possibility exists that they may in fact be a better trained listener who isn't as effected by outside factors. Or you might really be hearing it and they are not. As I said about their failing to hear a difference in a test doesn't prove it isn't possible. Likewise their failing to hear a difference in the test doesn't mean they are deaf either.... you might fail the same test too.... or you might pass.

Shawn

Shawn, why can't everyone be a gentleman/person like you?
post #206 of 665
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

NO ONE is saying you are 'psychologically nutso' (at least, not for 'hearing' burn-in)
In fact, you've been told again and again, rather the opposite -- that' it's normal for people to report hearing differences that aren't really there. That's why blind protocols exist.

If you dislike being told you're 'hearing things', well, tough luck. The science is conclusive on this point: people are prone to 'hearing things' and there's no disgrace in it. It's just a nuisance when trying to determine whether something has made a real difference. And it should inform all claims of heard difference, unless there's some good independent reason to assume such difference exists.



And again, no one says they're necessarily wrong-- they are necessarily subject to psychological biases and errors of interpretation, though.


It would be more polite and less confrontational to say "you may be hearing things or making assumptions which are not objectively grounded". HA!
post #207 of 665
You giving lessons on politeness is pretty rich.

Really, what's the point of this thread?? I'm thinking it exists only draw Chu or speco out. Your first post basically asks people to post their objective *or subjective* reasons for their stance on burn-in. Way to set the bar high, Steve. In other words, say anything that 'feels' right to you! Then after a few days of the usual bickering, some subjectivists start saying they don't really CARE why they hear what they hear, they just DO! So much for giving reasons. Hilarious.
post #208 of 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneobgyn View Post

Swampfox is an MD boarded in Radiation Therapy and faculty at a very prominant medical school

I ain't impressed...

Hey swampfox, you work with carbon at varying energy? Or you "old school" with protons?

Cheers, John

ps...If I had appendicitis, I certainly wouldn't want to be in the "control group" ...if it's bad, it goes..
post #209 of 665
Quote:


ps...If I had appendicitis, I certainly wouldn't want to be in the "control group" ...if it's bad, it goes..

Absolutely

The mantra is "a chance to cut is a chance to cure"
post #210 of 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post

I ain't impressed...

Hey swampfox, you work with carbon at varying energy? Or you "old school" with protons?

Cheers, John

ps...If I had appendicitis, I certainly wouldn't want to be in the "control group" ...if it's bad, it goes..

lol
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Burn-in: Real Or Imagined???