Why no “Break in” period?

Humans hear and process sound in a non linear manner. Measurements can only approximate what and how we hear. They can even go farther and deeper into the weeds but by that time, out brains have already processed the sound and moved on, in real time.

One can capture the sound in real time and go back and retroactively process the values, signatures and other criteria of a sound and match it to what we hear. Again, our ears and brains have done it on the fly and are way past that, since they can differentiate and assess it with the help of millions of years of evolutionary processing prowess.

Before the advent of measurements, and our hubris, we did a hell of a job tuning instruments and playing music, as well as appreciating all the aspects of listening. 

It's second nature for a trained ear to pick out differences that others would scratch their heads at. Being able to pick out concussive phenomena meters away that would escape our attention is misleading.

Take, for example, an electron microscope. It can "see" a hell of a lot better than we can for it's intended purpose, but it's severely limited in what it can see. I wouldn't go so far as to say that since it can see better than I can, at the microscopic level, I would want to drive my car using it.

Can anyone here say that, 10 years from now we'll not have better ways to measure sound? That we will not be able to learn more? Or, are we at the height of our abilities and there's nothing left to learn?

As for an accu-timer, it can measure the value, duration and time signature of a note, but how does it differentiate between the different kinds of notes if they're played the same way?

All the best,
Nonoise

+1 nonoise 

Prof,
"You MAY be hearing what you claim, but the method you are using to come to your conclusion or argue for it isn't as reliable as you seem to assume."

Me,
Again, how is this any different than what I previously posted:
"Just trying to teach us that we can't possibly be hearing what we are hearing"  

Prof,
C'mon, we can do nuance around here can't we"

Me,
Let's see if we can find nuance in your last post to mill:

"That a high end audio designer gave up providing objective or reliable methods for vetting his designs hardly supports your case. The Curl quote is just appealing to the same subjectivity as you are; it's assertion, not justification"

"Did you stop for a second to consider why the instruments were developed in the first place? Yeah...to measure things not only that our sense can detect, but that our senses can NOT detect - to go BEYOND the capabilities of our senses.   You do know that distortion profiles and various objective electrical phenomena can be measured that you with your Super Duper Golden Ears can't possibly hear, right?"

And finally...

"I've actually had more coherent conversations with flat-earthers, who at least try to offer objective evidence for their claims vs constant repetition of personal assertions" 

It's easier to "Find Waldo" than "Nuance" in your posts prof

boxer,

Why not try to understand an argument, rather than presume it is wrong and waste time misrepresenting it?
You've presented quotes AS IF they don't form part of a coherent stance, while not actually showing any effort to understand what you quoted.

My point has been that it makes sense that if a phenomenon is objectively real - that we are detecting something that is objectively changing a signal and that we can perceive this change - it makes sense to look both for measurable evidence of a change and evidence that measurable change is audible. At the very least, reliable evidence that *something audible* is happening to begin with.

But the problem for the way audiophiles tend to discern these things is "trust your ears." Which is to just ignore the facts we know about how our perception is NOT necessarily so trustworthy. We know that varios forms of perceptual bias can lead us to think we "hear" (or see, or whatever) things that aren’t actually happening. That’s one BIG REASON we have a scientific method to begin with! To try to route through these variables to more reliable results.

So if you say "X capacitor produces different sound from Y" capacitor, it makes sense to ask "how do you know?" Do you have measurements supporting this? Even so, are the measured differences in the realm you’d expect to hear, given the limits of our hearing? If you are simply claiming this on the basis "I believe I hear a difference" then there is the problem of sighted bias. How have you discerned between "I heard something objectively changing" and "I imagined it, due to biased perceptual errors?"

Those are exactly the questions science asks. Why in the world would you imagine audio to exist in some bubble where those questions are not relevant?

See, it doesn’t matter "who" you are when you are making the claim. What matters is the method.
No scientist establishes justification for a claim merely by saying "I’m a scientist, so you should just believe me." Or "I’m a Well Known Scientist, so you should believe me." No! That’s antithetical to science.Science recognizes that every human can be biased and in error, so ANY scientist proposing a hypothesis or claim needs to show his work, to show how he has weeded out the variables and how the work can be replicated by others.

So, back to Curl, it doesn’t matter a DAMN whether Curl is a well-known audio engineer. What matters for him is the same for any audiophile making a claim: What METHOD does he offer for vetting his claim that, say, capacitors "just sound different?" If he is taking no more steps to weed out sighted bias than the average audiophile, it’s just as dubious methodology as the average audiophile.

And...AGAIN...this is NOT AN ARGUMENT THAT CURL IS WRONG. Or that you or anyone else aren’t perceiving real things. It’s simply a lookat the TYPE OF EVIDENCE offered for the claims, and the liabilities of THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE.

It’s like saying "I know it’s sunny outside!" I say" well, you may be right! How do you know?" You answer "because I flipped a coin - heads it was going to be sunny, tails it was rainy. It came up heads, so it’s sunny!"
Well, it MAY WELL BE SUNNY OUTSIDE, but the method you’ve used to come to that conclusion has some problems we can talk about.

Similarly, if MAY WELL BE THAT CAPICITORS (or AC cables etc) sound different...but the type of evidence on offer has some problems we can talk about (particularly if it’s the "I think I hear it, so I know it’s true" form of anecdote).

Do you get this nuance...yet? Do you think you’d be able to actually depict my argument without strawmanning?

There is also this little part of the story that seems to be skimmed over.

In the end we invariably find a measurement that matches what the ear hears and it becomes very obvious to everybody.

So they don't  stop with well some think they hear something and some don't  they investigate what's  going  on.  

prof,
" Do you get this nuance...yet? Do you think you’d be able to actually depict my argument without strawmanning?"

Me,
Again, try to be honest with yourself. You believe that measurements trump personal experience & there is nothing that can be said to persuade you of this until science catches up to our hobby. As a consequence of this opinion, what you believe to be "nuance" doesn't exist.

I'm really not "strawmanning" you... it's just that on this footing (measurements trump personal experience & there is nothing that can be said to persuade you of this until science catches up to our hobby), your argument simply can not be argued.