Ask the same question to one of the few billion religious folks on the planet…
Obvious stuff isn’t obvious to a majority of people on the planet, unfortunately.
Ask the same question to one of the few billion religious folks on the planet…
Obvious stuff isn’t obvious to a majority of people on the planet, unfortunately.
Exclusivity is not the point - we have, on the one hand, well-known and reasonably well understood mechanisms that would explain it, and on the other hand we have unknown, undiscovered mechanisms that have never been observed in other uses of cables. Occam’s razor probably applies.
I came across this post No. 16 I dont know Niels Bohr and i have not investigated as i only google my brain else i would spend a life time gathering information. But some may wish to look at his work.
So many perceived changes in temperature, humidity and light are due to subjective bias?
I think we can be sure that the post was in jest. “Pumping argon gas into your listening room” would be an extreme measure.
Not sure I understand your question…
I think Bohr is a bit out of fashion nowadays.
Presently, you cannot pretend to know the position and the speed of the electron, at the same time.
Saying ‘I don’t believe in burn in’ seems odd. In this case we have umpteen reports of cables changing over time that it just seems impossible to say ‘I don’t believe’ so categorically. It just seems closed minded to be.
It’s almost certainly the case that a lot of these hifi ‘changes’ are people getting used to things, but I have no doubt that there are physical changes going on too. To deny one or the other so categorically is foolish. It’s a bit like saying ‘I don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy.’
Naim equipment improves over a while as it runs in. All it is is a box with circuits, wires, transistors and stuff. So it’s logical that wires can change too. That’s not saying all wires, as they are made of different materials and some may change more than others. But let’s keep an open mind on this.
The first is also an assumption, or a believe if you will, not a fact.
Which makes the second part not a deducible result.
It has been stated before that it is highly unlikely that (any type) of equipment would only be able to improve as it runs in, since the chance of it degrading would be just as high. It’s all about the optimal balance between components for it to sound right, and not all components change linearly over time.
I know! I added the Wikipedia blurb just because “don’t know who Niels Bohr is”.
His great achievements at the time notwithstanding, they have been replaced by better theories.
There are an awful lot of Bohrs in the world of hifi.
I find pumping gas into the room helps the sound. Well…not gas exactly. More like smoke. And not exactly into the room…
It is well known that Naim equipment (and sound) deteriorates with time. That is why Naim owners send their equipment for service.
Fact? Truth? Who is right here?
Of course both, one is not exclusive of the other. Equipment settles and improve at the beginning of life, and with enought time it performs worse and finally breaks down. This can be easily represented by a well known mathematical function.
Ok but the vast majority would agree that Naim equipment improves over time and indeed Naim say so themselves. So being a reasonable person, rather than an excessively picky one, I’d say that the second follows from the first.
I am helping you with my post, please give me a like.
Or at least do not be too aggressive with my CO2 production. In a taxi now, going to Orly.
That’s just not a fact, it’s an assumption.
Yes and the vast majority of humans agree that there is a metaphysical being floating in the sky that listens to their personal prayers.
Which doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible! But it’s just not a fact you can use to base further assumptions on, it needs more substantiating evidence.
We are making progress here.
You accept that equipment deteriorates at the end of life.
I will document for you that equipment improves at the beginning of life. This is demonstrated using statistical calculus, I hope to find something amusing so that it is useful for everyone in the thread.
This is possible, with thoughtful design of the research methods.
In this case, however, the proposed method does not answer the primary question of whether we can hear/appreciate burn in.
If it’s audible, it’s measurable. And if it’s measurable then we’d have tons of data on it from multiple fields where signal integrity is paramount.
Which we don’t. Because it doesn’t happen.
You have missed the point of energising the bridge using square waves and the periodic pulse.
Not true we are not suggesting this as the single criterion for a buying decision. We are specifically suggesting this only as a quantitative analysis of the effect.