...
I'm a cable proponent, but that's different in that when I swap a cable I'
m hearing the change immediately.
@douglas_schroeder --
How's that different to people perceiving sonic changes with either new/old or cold/warm gear? You could, say, turn on your gear and listen to it shortly, get out of the room and return in an hour or so, and then maybe you (that is, someone else) would notice a change immediately as well (I'm not saying the difference heard here would necessarily be as substantial than with cables, but that's irrelevant for this discussion)? This way you would "swap" one scenario with another, albeit with a longer interval between audition/evaluations - but one that would still leave room for perceptive reasoning. I'll admit ones ability to assess sonic changes over longer time as a gradual process (i.e.: burn-in) to be more challenging, but so is trying to unravel who're merely "under the influence" of Placebo, and who are not. The issue though of Placebo or time between evaluating one scenario against another (or the specific nature of what is evaluated) is not as relevant here as something else..
What's being discussed that I find impossible is the notion that humans can accurately hear changes to gear over hours, days, weeks, months, etc. The belief in that is predicated up on the arrogant concept that humans have more consistent perception of what we hear than equipment has consistency in playing it back. That's laughable.
Speaking of arrogance I'd say your assuming for all (of humanity) the right premise for when to be able to hear a difference comes awfully close; how would you know, exhaustively, the intricate inner workings and mechanisms of gear and the abilities of the human ear(s)? Mostly measurements and theory only gets you so far. Stick with your own impressions, and let others have theirs (with authority) as well.
