For Your Edification and Enjoyment re "Burn In", etc.

If you call a blind test fruitless, you have just basically stated that your opinion is worthless.

Do you think Helmholtz ever needed an equalizer in his times to set his music room right?
A clue: no more than the Wright brothers needed a boeing 747 to prove flight....

Do you think he ever needed a blind test to prove his room is acoustically well set?
A clue: no more than Faraday, devising experiments for the coming Maxwell, needed blind test....

If you think so in spite of common sense and history of science, you are doubly wrong, it is called acoustic and it is also an empirical science even today....

Then apply to yourself this sentence you wrote for others....

You may want to think on that one a bit more before saying it again.

Have you read the japanese acoustic article yet?

I cannot wait to communicate to you how an "idiotic audiophile" like me read a research paper with an experiment of his own on the "imaging" concept you seems to know like the "timbre" concept .... A clue: it is acoustic not material or electronic engineering....

With this experiment i just created my last control device for the acoustical working embedding dimension ... Cost: peanuts....Effect on S.Q. : Huge, that is to say, more than audible if you want, transformative....

But you can call that a stupid "tweak" and speaking of placebo effect .... But it is a pure application of Helmholtz science, nothing less, nothing more.... Thanks to the Japanese article for the inspiration....

empirical: adjective
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

thesaurus: practical, heuristic, firsthand, hands-on, observed, seen, heard, evidence based

I guess that covers what we hear for ourselves and not what's written down somewhere. Just saying. You can challenge what someone hears to a parlor trick of a "test" but that's going overboard when all you want to do is discredit what one hears.

All the best,
Nonoise

If you ever discover what the word empirical means in a scientific sense, not an audiophile sense, then maybe we would have something to talk about. I don’t hold up much hope of that happening though.

I dont just serve only insults like you did...

I give you a serious research article....

I suggest an experiment...

You discreetly avoid these 2 points, article and experiment about "imaging", not from wiki here, but research paper, and go on attacking the person...

You take the same attitude in the last month with EVERYONE who disagree with you or everyone you disagree with...They are liars, deluded and incompetent... I am not a liar but i could be deluded, why not?, and i am certainly incompetent in audio science but i can understand a research paper not too slowly and i can experiment by myself and learn fast....I did it in the last 2 years and i am proud of my peanuts cost very good audio system...Thanks to my low cost embeddings controls...

Then you dont answered to my arguments only give me like usual an attack with no meaning about something a little far from my article and experiment : my alleged ignorance of what is "empirical" and your knowledge of it...

An article of research is not ethereal philosophy and an experiment is something very empirical to do....

Why going back to epistemology now?

I will mute myself .... Discussing with you is not very rewarding, it was so about the acoustical concept of timbre and it is the same thing now for imaging....


Meditate on this: knowledge is NOT understanding....Experiments are located between these 2 and encompass them at the same time....It is my koan ....

Try to imagine that attacking "audiophiles" make no sense at all, because this group encompass idiots and geniuses and all there is in between like any group, even the group to which you are a proud member.....