Well i had a quick couple of minutes to peruse this always hot topic while glossing over sushi's excellent links to the discussion over at AVS. I don't have very long on the dial in account so here goes.
Cooper:
In reply to:
Graphs of horizontal dispersion and noise floors do not prove anything, though they are useful.
EVERYTHING to measure is worth measuring.
From a scientist perspective, that is the ultimate truth.
In reply to:
One reason I started this thread was not so much to convince everyone that they must believe in break-in, but rather to keep people open to the possibility; when I comment on the changes I have heard, I don't want them to be dismissed out of hand because people feel that break-in is logically impossible.
No one has dismissed these ideas but the logic behind some of the ideas stumps the laws of physics (biwiring for example). From an analytical point of view, it just doesn't make sense.
In reply to:
I think it's important to never let your theories overrule your empirical or common sense. This leads to academic, synthetic answers which may or may not be accurate.
Of the empirical evidence mentioned by Alan based on the tests at the NRC (anechoic chamber) in controlled experiments using both electronic measuring equipment and human subjects, the speaker break-in idea was concluded as myth or in the least, inconsequential if you prefer. That is empirical proof based on the science, not conjecture. This answer is not synthetic nor derived from a random mind. It has been tested. It has been proved.
Whether people choose to believe it or not is ultimately still up to them.
To decide on auditory change aside from electronic measurements you can certainly use human subjects, but designing the experiment is hard to do. You absolutely must remove the individual bias before trying to do it. Home audio listening, audio shops, talking with others is loaded with aspects that will sway your perceptions no matter how hard you try or believe you will be objective. The experiment requires that a third party controls those elements so your brain is put into as neutral ground as possible and so far the only experiments i know of that have tried to do this were the NRC experiments that Alan had mentioned.
Never rule out the power of the mind. Bias is a powerful thing, more so since it is primarily an unconcious entity.
Sushi had the far most eloquent response i have seen yet to date on my equivalent opinion on the break-in issue (if he doesn't mind i'm going to repost this from the AVS forum):
I do not disagree with you at all that you definitely hear the differences. What I (we) are trying to discuss here is whether the perceived difference is due to a real physical change in the sound coming from the speaker, or it is due to a change in the psycho-auditory processing in your own brain, which can be evoked by your very thoughts and knowledge that you have presumably "improved" the equipment. I do not think anybody is lying, denying or rejecting anything. Just that some people here (including myself) want a more rigorous "proof" that an actual physical change, not merely a psycho-acoustic alteration, has occurred on the sound quality.
Just out of curiousity, what is your particular belief in regards to biwiring, expensive cables and biamping?
Any quick thoughts on those subjects?
I will try to keep reading this thread over the next couple of days but there are no guarantees i can reply.
If i don't, have a good weekend all!
