Equipment Break-in: Fact or Fiction

REDKIWI,

This is what i missinterpreted(see paragraph below)

The alternative explanation is that some people have brains that immediately decode the distortions in a new system and others are handicapped in this ability and take 300 hours. Being biased I don't like the thought of being handicapped in the brain department, so you can guess which one I prefer.
- The 300 hours burn in is the most persuasive point for me. How come the burn in appears to occur whether we listen to it while it is burning in or not. The alternative explanation is... we are deluded by our prevailing belief in burn in, or I guess we are just lying to prove our point. I can imagine how you could make that assumption. But you can imagine why I don't.

/

As far as i know i am the only retarded idiot (on this thread) that claimed to have heard differences till 300hrs. And was lying to make his case.
I APOLOGIZE...I misread that 100%... I read that as coming
right at me.

I certainly dont mean to crash the party. I am here because i love music/equipment not TDR'S or scopes. I had no idea you guys are so biased against Engineers. Just remember we are the ones who design this overpriced gear. Your welcome.

Again I apologize.

I am gonna switch to de-caff tommorow...

That's totally cool Spluta, and pleased to make your acquaintance. There is no bias against engineers that I can see, just a bias against those with closed minds that always assume posts here that don't match their knowledge must be the ravings of deluded fools.

I am surrounded by hundreds of engineers at work and I can see why the issues arise. While there are fantastically clever and interesting engineers in the team, most are worker-bees by comparison (not their fault, just dipped out in the gene pool) who are trained to work within engineering rules that have been established by others - nothing wrong with this, just good practise. But the years of not questioning their boundaries seem to me to take them far from being experimental scientists and they get evry rigid in their thinking. Now I am not saying you are like this. When I read your posts I can that is unlikely. But we do get one or two here who like to pounce on someone who is honestly expressing their experiences and beliefs and demand scientific proof or a retraction and a thousand hail Marys.

That's totally cool Spluta, and pleased to make your acquaintance. There is no bias against engineers that I can see, just a bias against those with closed minds that always assume posts here that don't match their knowledge must be the ravings of deluded fools.

I am surrounded by hundreds of engineers at work and I can see why the issues arise. While there are fantastically clever and interesting engineers in the team, most are worker-bees by comparison (not their fault, just dipped out in the gene pool) who are trained to work within engineering rules that have been established by others - nothing wrong with this, just good practise. But the years of not questioning their boundaries seem to me to take some of them them far from being experimental scientists and they get very rigid in their thinking - only some.

Now I am not saying you are like this. When I read your posts I can see that is not so. But we do get one or two here who like to pounce on someone who is honestly expressing their experiences and beliefs and demand scientific proof or a retraction and a thousand hail Marys. Their justification for taking a 'holier than thou' attitude is often a statement about how they are engineers and our poor dumb fools should just listen up - hence the occasional cringe factor.

Now being mainly an economist, I can understand the sentiment. Boy do you hear some really dumb theories from 'bush' economists. But it is simply rude, arrogant and self-defeating to say - your opinion does not count, because I am the economist and you are not, and I say you are wrong.

Alright then gentlemen; I agree let's all bury the hatchet & I retract any controversial inflamatory remarks.
I have heard these audiophile theories & have laughed at probably 95% of them too - but when I hear the evidence for myself then I have to believe that there's a lot more to this than the textbook theories ever taught me in engineering school. That's right; I'm one of *those* myself. Not to be haughty about it though; long ago I too refused to believe I'd ever accept any of this nonsense, but an open mind + experience has admittedly taught me differently & made my rig sound so much the better for it. And *that* my friends is the bottom line IMO.

Redkiwi,

Good to meet you also... Sorry I really thought i was
being attacked.

Im guessing most of the people in this forum are pretty smart (yes even if their not engineers) and alot of them are probably perfectionists also. There seems to be a certain type that gets drawn into HI-FI.

One point i want to make is alot of the engineering people
i know dont have the faintest idea the difference between
a good audio component and a bad one. One of my buddies
is a brilliant engineer and he thinks the stock CD player in his car is just fantastic. I almost puked when i drove somewhere with him and he turned it up. My dad has been
in electronics since he was 16... thinks 50 bucks is too
much for a speaker its unbelievable. You should see the look
on his face everytime he comes over there's always new stuff.. He just shakes his head and gives me that your crazy
look. So what im trying to say is even being a good or even brilliant EE doesnt qualify anyone as being an audio expert
automatically...I do understand that.

There are plenty of people here that i want to learn from.
With years and years of experience. I have years with musicical instuments and electronics but i dont have years of HI-FI knowledge. And that is what i love now.
So whenever i think i can make a good point i will throw
it out there but at the same time im listening more than
anyone for other points.

Bob just read your post I understand 100% and i agree.
Thats why im here.

To learn..

Best regards