As I see it, Tweakers Sanctuary is a specific place for "fanatics" (as mentioned in Forum motto) who want to share their tweaking experiments, observations and findings. SY, if you have nothing to share (I don't recall reading about your subjective experiments, only about your believes), why are you posting here?
I didn't say anything on the subject yet, so how you know "what Peter agrees with"? I might as well agree with everything you say, but I also respect the space that others where given and I'm curious what they have to say. Your one track minded posts, in this dedicated space here, somehow prevent it.
I didn't say anything on the subject yet, so how you know "what Peter agrees with"? I might as well agree with everything you say, but I also respect the space that others where given and I'm curious what they have to say. Your one track minded posts, in this dedicated space here, somehow prevent it.
Last edited:
Why not just call it the Measurement Sanctuary or perhaps the Hearing Aid Sanctuary.
This is quickly turning into a farce. Tweakers are listeners. If you don't want to listen go elsewhere with your "opinion".
Listening is an art. It takes some sensitivity. It also requires a little training of your ear just as a musician would.
Most of these these guys would be spending their time more wisely calibrating their test equipment. Get that wrench and the rubber mallet out and tune up the O'l HP analyzer, Bubba.
Again, to use the term "Santuary" here is a joke.
Keith
This is quickly turning into a farce. Tweakers are listeners. If you don't want to listen go elsewhere with your "opinion".
Listening is an art. It takes some sensitivity. It also requires a little training of your ear just as a musician would.
Most of these these guys would be spending their time more wisely calibrating their test equipment. Get that wrench and the rubber mallet out and tune up the O'l HP analyzer, Bubba.
Again, to use the term "Santuary" here is a joke.
Keith
Yes, but i have a very pertinent question: do "ignore" list work in the new forum? There is a sufficient number of posters dead set to destroy this and other similar threads.
What would the real reason be that aerospace, telecom, etc use teflon?
Assuming that burn-in has a minimal effect. It is clear why those engineers would not burn in. They have a certain set of requirements. When those requirements have been met or exceeded there is no incentive for them to try to improve the circuit or elements in that circuit. And after the circuit has been in operation for x amount of hours it will have been burned in. No need increasing costs by pre burn-in.
Not before the forum is renamed to "Honest Tweakers Sanctuary". Then the moderators would have enough grounds to remove 80% of the posts.
Why do so many hear the difference in Teflon capacitors that the measurement crowd does not? Can you quantify that for us? Other than we are all delusional? If so why bother us with your thoughts about "there is no burn-in required", when we that notice the effect(audiophiles and most manufacturers of higher quality audio gear) emphasize it. Sales pitch? I am not buying it based upon what I am told. I do it because I hear what burn-in does, at least to me. You do what you feel is right and allow the rest of us to as we see fit. Why is that so hard for the measurement crowd to understand? We do not attack you for your beliefs in only measuring your equipment. I have trained my ears after over 20 years involvement in the retail audio industry to know when a system or component sounds right, at least to my satisfaction.
Last edited:
No claim, I hear it! They change a great deal over the first 100 or so hours and can then turn nasty sounding again for another period of time (at least the ones that I have experience with myself)until they finally smooth out and become stable. I have heard this many times, not just once, as have many other people.
Last edited:
Sorry mate, but until proven with evidence, it's a claim.
That you think you hear it, has no weight as evidence.
This is exactly the kind of stuff that triggers people like SY and yours truly as well.
If you instead were saying that you think you hear it, now that would first of all command some respect, as it would indicate, that you are educated enough to know that there is a difference between claims, and proven facts.
Second it should lead to a test, to prove to both yourself, and the rest of the world, that what you think you hear, actually is what you hear.
Now given that, you would be respected for your work, but just spewing out claims, as if they were proven facts, that's just not ok.
Magura
This is a funny statement if I must say so myself. In general...many reliable statistics are established by interviewing a certain number of people and reporting on their findings. These results are based on what people "say" they hear, feel, do, etc.... So......in our case....I guess the "established" results are pretty much supporting the viewpoint that burned-in caps....SOUND BETTER. I don't know about you....but I only see a couple guys saying that it doesn't matter. The rest of us KNOW that it does.
Having said that...
Again....please can we stick to the original topic on this thread instead of bickering back and forth???
Sorry mate, but until proven with evidence, it's a claim.
That you think you hear it, has no weight as evidence.
This is exactly the kind of stuff that triggers people like SY and yours truly as well.
If you instead were saying that you think you hear it, now that would first of all command some respect, as it would indicate, that you are educated enough to know that there is a difference between claims, and proven facts.
Second it should lead to a test, to prove to both yourself, and the rest of the world, that what you think you hear, actually is what you hear.
Now given that, you would be respected for your work, but just spewing out claims, as if they were proven facts, that's just not ok.
Magura
First I do not have to prove anything to you or anyone else about what I hear! I am not your lab rat! I love music and investigate any and all means to improve my hobby! There are far too m any people that share similar results for it to be an aberration.
Why are you even posting here if you do not agree with the "Tweakers"? Do you think that you are going to change our minds about what we hear? All that I can see by statements like "That you think you hear it, has no weight as evidence." it is supposed to enlighten us. Again if it stirs you go over the main forum and spread the word. Tweakers neither want or need to hear your opinions as we have heard it a thousand times before. Why is that people like yourself find that you have suddenly became the "Audio Police" and have the right to try to tell us that we are not hearing what we are hearing. Amazing is all that i can think to say right now.
Last edited:
Curly and Stephano, this is a farce. They give you sanctuary, like a church and then the atheists come in an start with argument and ridicule.
Now, I just want to make a simple statement:
When Charles Hansen and I talk about caps, we get down to business.
We don't just use any cap, and we find that break in is necessary in almost every case, especially with the 'better' quality caps.
In fact my former business partner Bob Crump (now deceased) engaged another engineer to build him a break-in box with generator, over 10 years ago, that he then used to break-in CTC Blowtorches and other components. I have one in my own lab, today.
Charles Hansen has gone out of his way to learn about cap quality and break-in. In fact, he even wanted to buy the Cap company that WE both use, in order to assure continued operation and cap quality into the far future. The majority of ultra quality electronics manufacturers us this brand of cap. This is because it is a great sounding cap, yet we still have to break it in.
I will say this: We would not bother to break-in our equipment, if there was no audible difference. Why would we bother? We, too, have better things to do.
Please remember Clarke's 1'st law, formulated decades ago:
'If an elderly and respected scientist gives the opinion that something is possible, he is probably right, however if the same scientist insists that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.'
Look it up, if you don't believe me.
Now, I just want to make a simple statement:
When Charles Hansen and I talk about caps, we get down to business.
We don't just use any cap, and we find that break in is necessary in almost every case, especially with the 'better' quality caps.
In fact my former business partner Bob Crump (now deceased) engaged another engineer to build him a break-in box with generator, over 10 years ago, that he then used to break-in CTC Blowtorches and other components. I have one in my own lab, today.
Charles Hansen has gone out of his way to learn about cap quality and break-in. In fact, he even wanted to buy the Cap company that WE both use, in order to assure continued operation and cap quality into the far future. The majority of ultra quality electronics manufacturers us this brand of cap. This is because it is a great sounding cap, yet we still have to break it in.
I will say this: We would not bother to break-in our equipment, if there was no audible difference. Why would we bother? We, too, have better things to do.
Please remember Clarke's 1'st law, formulated decades ago:
'If an elderly and respected scientist gives the opinion that something is possible, he is probably right, however if the same scientist insists that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.'
Look it up, if you don't believe me.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.