rodman99999, by your comment, " If I'm found religiously putting my faith in measurements and theories. developed in the 1800s and found sorely lacking, in the early 1900s, to explain what was so commonly being observed in the universe," that is a mischaracterization (intentional or out of ignorance I cannot tell) of the state of the scientific debate. I put a great deal of weight in current science. You seem misinformed. The bulk of the scientific evidence supporting my faith has developed in the past fifty years in sciences such as Information Theory, Astrophysics, and Molecular Biology that were in their infancy half a century ago. Perhaps you are unaware of books such as "Carved in Stone," which use data from the oil industry's drilling in another developing science, Lithography (pertaining to study of the Earth's rock layers) to create a coherent model of the Flood. I suggest you take a look at Michael Behe's "A Mousetrap for Darwin" to see how the playing field has shifted in molecular biology.
I'm not flaming you, I'm informing you.
When I was a more ignorant, arrogant audiophile I had extreme confidence that I was indeed hearing changes to gear. Time and experience - well, actually, building hundreds of systems - taught me that I needed to test, albeit informally, received wisdom of the community. I discovered many of the things in regard to system building that are deemed to be true simply do not advance audio systems all that well. Some, like belief in break in, actually are disadvantages to building better systems. I'm not interested in explaining it all here, but persons who wish to contemplate it will realize the strength of my assertion. I conclude that one of the reasons break in is so much defended in this community is because it is a primary way to satisfy the seemingly insatiable hubris of audiophiles. There are few things more arrogant in this hobby than declaring you can hear changes to gear over long periods of time and being unwilling to accept evidence that disproves it simply because YOU did not do so. :)
If your pride is so fragile that you will only believe it if you hear it for yourself, then by all means go ahead! Be precisely like those cable deniers, with the same arrogance and skepticism, who won't believe unless they experience for themselves. If you have no interest in such a comparison to demonstrate to yourself, then I would be wasting my time to continue to debate it with you. :)
I'm not flaming you, I'm informing you.
When I was a more ignorant, arrogant audiophile I had extreme confidence that I was indeed hearing changes to gear. Time and experience - well, actually, building hundreds of systems - taught me that I needed to test, albeit informally, received wisdom of the community. I discovered many of the things in regard to system building that are deemed to be true simply do not advance audio systems all that well. Some, like belief in break in, actually are disadvantages to building better systems. I'm not interested in explaining it all here, but persons who wish to contemplate it will realize the strength of my assertion. I conclude that one of the reasons break in is so much defended in this community is because it is a primary way to satisfy the seemingly insatiable hubris of audiophiles. There are few things more arrogant in this hobby than declaring you can hear changes to gear over long periods of time and being unwilling to accept evidence that disproves it simply because YOU did not do so. :)
If your pride is so fragile that you will only believe it if you hear it for yourself, then by all means go ahead! Be precisely like those cable deniers, with the same arrogance and skepticism, who won't believe unless they experience for themselves. If you have no interest in such a comparison to demonstrate to yourself, then I would be wasting my time to continue to debate it with you. :)