Scientific Basis of Break In

AKA KURO · « **Reply #40 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:05 pm »

Quote

Prove you can hear it.

Turkey, I have my own proof--I have experienced it. Get your own.

turkey · « **Reply #41 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:06 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 1 Oct 2010, 06:05 pm

With my engineering background in mechanical and electrical, I can say that every material, every alloy assembled by man, nature immediately starts to dis-assemble.

Even a diamond? Those covalent bonds are mighty strong.

turkey · « **Reply #42 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:10 pm »

Quote from: AKA KURO on 1 Oct 2010, 06:59 pm

So, if you lack experience in equipment burn in, perhaps you should get some. Until you get some real-world experience, go back to those who tell you what to believe.

I suppose the proper response would be, "Don't try to teach your Grandma how to suck eggs."

Quote

If those who have told you what to believe have some scientific proof that equipment cannot possibly break in, then you would have cited those articles, but you cannot, can you? You cannot, because even those who require science have no basis by which to make their claims.

You have it backwards. You are the one making the extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof lies with you.

Wayner · « **Reply #43 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:11 pm »

We are not discussing the Aurora Borealis here. That was a visual happening that early man could not understand until it was scientifically explained, and the explanation stood the test of time and critics.

The thread speaks of Scientific Basis of Break In and so far, there are none. Many opinions, but that is about it. Several times in my life, I have held to some very strong beliefs, that later were proven wrong. Other elements that were not even considered came into play that changed the playing field (and my opinion). The lesson learned is that what you think is the absolute truth is actually a break down of the minds willingness to accept a theory based on a couple of apparent details, details that actually are quiet deceiving to the true nature of what is actually happening.

Wayner

*Scotty* · « **Reply #44 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:11 pm »

Wayner,I suspect that in many cases they do have the same measurements. The unit to unit variation in many drivers now in production is much lower than it was 20 years ago. Robotic assembly and superior control of raw material quality has contributed to this. Many drivers have production tolerances that are so tight that they no longer have to be pair matched before using them in loudspeakers.This is especially helpful
when replacing the occasional blown driver.
Scotty

Wayner · « **Reply #45 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:14 pm »

Scotty,

I agree that they may leave the factory that way, but humidity, elevation, temperature and a whole bunch of other things will make each speaker sound a tiny bit different. That is where I was going.

Wayner

turkey · « **Reply #46 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:16 pm »

Quote from: AKA KURO on 1 Oct 2010, 07:05 pm

Turkey, I have my own proof--I have experienced it. Get your own.

That's not proof, anymore than you seeing a flying saucer is proof that _they_ exist.

AKA KURO · « **Reply #47 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:16 pm »

Quote

You have it backwards. You are the one making the extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof lies with you.

I am not making an extraordinary claim. I have experienced a sound improvement over time with my new equipment, that is all, that is it, pure and simple. You have not, so you insist that I have not. You just don't get it, and you never will, until you have experience.

Wayner · « **Reply #48 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:19 pm »

Jimi Hendrix was "experienced" and now he's dead.

Wayner

nunhgrader · « **Reply #49 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:19 pm »

This should be good.

turkey · « **Reply #50 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:20 pm »

Quote from: wushuliu on 1 Oct 2010, 07:04 pm

The it's in your head argument is pretty tough to swallow. That's a very slippery slope, and ultimately leads you can't trust anything you hear or you believe that certain people are more qualified than you to know what you should hear. I find skeptics tend to lean towards the latter.

I don't trust my hearing when it comes to things like this. I know I can be fooled or mistaken. I require more proof than that - like the results of controlled tests.

turkey · « **Reply #51 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:22 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 1 Oct 2010, 07:19 pm

Jimi Hendrix was "experienced" and now he's dead.

Wayner

So do you get an Audio Mystic to hold a seance and contact Jimi from beyond the grave? Or will a regular Mystic work just as well?

*Scotty* · « **Reply #52 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:22 pm »

I wonder if they will even sound different. I would want to verify a measurement difference due to relative humidity and barometric pressure first. I would leave the ambient temperature out of the test as most people prefer to listen at room temperature.
Scotty

Wayner · « **Reply #53 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:24 pm »

Quote from: turkey on 1 Oct 2010, 07:22 pm

So do you get an Audio Mystic to hold a seance and contact Jimi from beyond the grave? Or will a regular Mystic work just as well?

I just play his records!

Wayner

wushuliu · « **Reply #54 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:25 pm »

Quote from: turkey on 1 Oct 2010, 07:20 pm

I don't trust my hearing when it comes to things like this. I know I can be fooled or mistaken. I require more proof than that - like the results of controlled tests.

Controlled tests would be great. I certainly wish more time was spent coordinating some instead of wasting bandwidth.

chlorofille · « **Reply #55 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:27 pm »

Quote from: turkey on 1 Oct 2010, 07:20 pm

I don't trust my hearing when it comes to things like this.

Same here. That's why I purchase equipment that does not require break in.

Quote from: Wayner on 1 Oct 2010, 07:19 pm

Jimi Hendrix was "experienced" and now he's dead.

RIP Jimi !! What a well endowed man!

*Scotty* · « **Reply #56 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:30 pm »

Turkey, under what conditions do you use what you hear as a basis for making a buying decision?
When do you trust what you hear to be real and not an illusion? Does it always take external corroboration from tests and measurements to support any conclusion you may reach?
Scotty

turkey · « **Reply #57 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:32 pm »

Quote from: wushuliu on 1 Oct 2010, 07:25 pm

Controlled tests would be great. I certainly wish more time was spent coordinating some instead of wasting bandwidth.

I'm not really motivated to do them in this case. I haven't heard the differences that people are claiming for break-in of things like wire.

I've done tests in the past, and found one Audiophile Myth after another to be busted.

Wayner · « **Reply #58 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:37 pm »

It's like buying wine. To me there are only 2 kinds of wine, the ones I like and the ones I dislike.

When it comes to stereos, I think they sound different every day. It's me or the atmospheric conditions or some other cause. Also, my own "audio memory" just isn't good enough to say the system sounded better 10 minutes ago. I think music sounds different with the eyes open or closed.

Wayner

turkey · « **Reply #59 on:** 1 Oct 2010, 07:42 pm »

Quote from: *Scotty* on 1 Oct 2010, 07:30 pm

Turkey, under what conditions do you use what you hear as a basis for making a buying decision?

When buying CDs, or perhaps speakers.

Quote

When do you trust what you hear to be real and not an illusion? Does it always take external corroboration from tests and measurements to support any conclusion you may reach?

When it comes to "do I hear a difference or don't I hear a difference," I now always require corroboration. I've been fooled in the past, so I've raised the bar.