No, KC, doesn't resonate with me. I think all the great technological accomplishments follow an increasingly deep understanding of nature. I don't think science is static and self proclaimed scientists like Chess who claim to know it all, who hold their opinions out as fact, miss the point - our understanding of nature, its structure, our ability to mathematically model processes great and small, is evolving and at least in part, tentative. The relationship between theory and observation - experimentation, is dynamic and each colors the way we see the other.I think for the most part, the methodology used by 'scientists' to formulate their audio theories is simplistic.
Now maybe there is an observable set of phenomena associated with 'breaking in' components, maybe there isn't. Same for use of different cables, sonic character of solid state amps. I can hear the difference between different amps, but have not subjected that ability to rigorous double blind testing.
My methodology is simple. I start with a system, in a room, which altogether have a sonic quality I'm familiar with. I then swap out one component at a time, listen to music I'm familiar with and determine whether there is a discernable difference. If there is, I then place a purely subjective value on the difference - better, worse, just different.
Now, I don't start threads on this subject. Scientific Mullahs who are in possession of the scientific truth, whose theories dictate that I don't really hear differences I hear, who, like Chess, trumpets that his opinions are 'facts,' well, that will provoke the occasional response.
KC, I trust the scientific method when applied intelligently and honestly, but I haven't heard the self proclaimed scientist say that he has conducted any experiment whatsoever.
So, chess, put down the stinky peach pit and get to work! Tell us about what you've heard not what your theories dictate we should or should not be hearing.
Last edited by 2x6spds; 04/30/04 09:58 PM.
