You don’t need an accurate measurement of time, you just need a solar eclipse!
Yes, that would work.
Point taken…but the underlying principle remains the same.
When we develop our construct of a phenomenon, we take into account all of the information available, rather than the first bit we encounter.
This was very neat thinking, indeed
Yes, of course, we should. This goes for all viewpoints, and it includes keeping in mind that all the information available is not the same as all possible information. “I cannot measure it, so it cannot exist” and “I trust my senses 100% and choose to ignore the ample evidence that I can’t” are just two sides of the same coin and equally unhelpful
Hi fr
I was referring to the Hans Christian Andersen tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”
Ian
I have mentioned things along this line previously not quite as well as you have done.
It is simply ignored by some as it does not fit their modus operandi dont assume what goes on
is simply about reasonable logic.
What is under discussion here is not solely about burn in, that just drifts in and out.
But relevant value of Technical people who do not engage in Subjective Testing because
Their Science says it is unnecessary ( Note how they have fully ducked the fact the Hobby is Subjective) and simply use Forums as a place to Pontificate over others. Time to call it out
for what it is!
So far they have been the ones to set their own Exulted Standing and it is time to understand it is we the peers that will bestow what it is that WE think is more fitting.
Albert Einstein had the theories but they did not mean as much till he had the Equations.
You have neither Equations or Testing so are on very shaky ground. Only a fool could accept
your opinions as FACT.
Richard…. Don’t worry about it. Just be confident with your own views. After all, it will do nothing for you to force someone into agreement.
Quite
Just to be clear, it’s a copy and paste of Galen Carol words on the subject.
Nobody said it is
This is the same science that gave us:
Thermionic valves
Transistors
Capacitors
Microphones
Loudspeakers
Electricity
understanding of magnetism, electronics, materials - the list goes on.
All this, presumably, you accept - do you think that science is useless at putting it all together to produce hifi systems? Or is science only inapplicable when it comes to what you think is true and false?
It’s a Strawman argument, another logical fallacy. It just shows a lack of real arguments to state their case, and instead having to resort to misrepresenting the other side’s argumentation.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.
Guys I’m sorry but this is complete drivel.
@frenchrooster - i do realise these are not your thoughts - you are simply echoing them.
Anyone who is interested in the interaction of cables with audio systems may be interested in the following research discussion paper in the AES library.
R. Black, "Audio Cable Distortion is Not a Myth!," Paper 6858, (2006 May.). doi:
It does indeed show the effects a cable (no burn in) can have in certain specific environments but only in interaction with reactive sources and loads, albeit of minute proportions.
However this was only for large loudspeaker cables - with small signal cables between none highly reactive source and loads no repeatable model or evidence could be found, other than it potentially acting as a very basic low pass filter.
Therefore if one was being generous to Nordost and that they were addressing and mitigating some sort of specific intermodulation distortion property in their loudspeaker cables - they would need to cite the source and load impedances (C+L) that their cable was operating between; that is any effect would be dependent on amplifier, length of cable and speaker model – in my opinion of course.
Now if Nordost stated - why not try our cables - and if you like them - then buy them - and even saying we like them best after we have done a, b or c to them when we make them - that would be totally fine in by books, and perhaps is what you would expect an artisan to state - but trying to justify some sort of pseudo science superiority to influence the gullible is poor - and instantly arouses my suspicion of snake oil.
I think in hifi there is an unhelpful confusion between science and engineering and artisanship … i would argue there is much in the hifi and hifi audio consumer electronics business that is NOT about engineering and science - it is more about technical adjustment through subjective assessment, trial and error, practices and beliefs - ie artisanship.
Indeed. I wrote they are not my thoughts. Just wanted to post what some theories on that subject can say. It may interest some.
Where logic doesn’t disprove something, it may be.
Where logic does disprove something, it can’t be.
As a former research scientist who has answered some of the theories as to HOW cable burn in occurs with proof that those specifically proposed mechanisms are flawed and cannot be, I assume you are including me in the proposition outlined above.
You should note that I have never stated that ‘burn in’ does NOT occur (indeed, the subjective experience of ‘burn in’ certainly does occur), it’s just that some of the proposed mechanisms for it certainly don’t occur.
Please stop trying to put words into my mouth by suggesting that “Technical people who (sic) do not engage in Subjective Testing because Their Science says it is unnecessary”
This isn’t so complicated i think:
Fact 1: There are known psychological processes such as Cognitive Easing that at least partially explain the phenomenon experienced as cable burn-in.
Fact 2: There are currently no known physical processes that explain the phenomenon known as cable burn-in to a substantial degree.
Claim 1: Science is stating that physical cable burn-in is impossible = False
Claim 2: Science is stating that subjective testing is unnecessary = False
Claim 3: If a person hears a difference in sound after a certain time period, that proves that physical cable burn-in is real = False
Claim 4: Science is stating that to substantiate the process of physical cable burn-in, more empirical data is needed to demonstrate that there is more taking place than purely psychological effects. Until more data is available, it is not reasonable to subscribe to the idea of physical cable burn-in based solely on anecdotal assessments and the absence of further disproving empirical evidence = True
= FALSE
There are thousands and thousands people observing burn in cable process. It’s far away from anecdotal.
But I agree it’s not an absolute proof, however very close to a fact.