I'm curious if most of these posts are sarcastic jokes, or if people actually believe any of this crap.
I'm a psychologist who works in the field of developing evaluations and study methods to test Human perception, ie I perform blind tests all the time. I have also looked into the matter of blind tests proving that all amps or speakers or wires, etc sound the same, and can say that, not only are there very few of these tests performed, but non by reliable scientific methods in correctly controlled situations. None is real scientific labs, none by universities, and none by real professionsals.
I would also add that, though it seems that electrical engineers and like minded people feel the truth is evident here, that we can measure in objective methods with solid accurate and repeatable numbers everything we can sense, those trained in that actual field, ie psychologist, do not agree at all. We do not believe that we yet have the ability to accuratly measure sound as it really pertains to humans. Though we can measure many aspects of a wave, we simply can not measure accuratly how the ear takes that wave and turns it into our audible perceptions. At best we are guessing, and more and more accuratly I will add, but still looking for a better method.
I'm a psychologist who works in the field of developing evaluations and study methods to test Human perception, ie I perform blind tests all the time. I have also looked into the matter of blind tests proving that all amps or speakers or wires, etc sound the same, and can say that, not only are there very few of these tests performed, but non by reliable scientific methods in correctly controlled situations. None is real scientific labs, none by universities, and none by real professionsals.
I would also add that, though it seems that electrical engineers and like minded people feel the truth is evident here, that we can measure in objective methods with solid accurate and repeatable numbers everything we can sense, those trained in that actual field, ie psychologist, do not agree at all. We do not believe that we yet have the ability to accuratly measure sound as it really pertains to humans. Though we can measure many aspects of a wave, we simply can not measure accuratly how the ear takes that wave and turns it into our audible perceptions. At best we are guessing, and more and more accuratly I will add, but still looking for a better method.
yeah I like to use large brushes it makes for less work.
I know, thats a major overstatement. I just constantly read all these people who either are electrical engineers or think they are who state that we need to only measure audio equipment, because it tells us everything we need to know about a piece of equipment. My belief based on my scientific background is this, measuring equipment has very strong internal validity and very weak external validity. In other words, measurements give us very concrete answeres, they are repeatable, we are certain of what we are measuring to within a reasonable level, etc. However the correlation between what we measure and what we hear is much less certain, if not unknown, this real world accuracy isn't so great. Subjective listening tests offer much greater external validity, but have far too weak internal validity, as we aren't sure what we are measuring, nor is it repeatable. Also, it introduces intervening variables that would be difficult to remove. I wrote a long post on all this once, along with my opinion on how to accuratly measure this stuff, using the currently accepted behavior observation coding methods used. The behavior coded hear happens to be hearing, which isn't as easily observed, but still, using the same principles, it can be incorparated just fine.
On a related rant, one of the things I hate most about the scientific community is the utter lack of interdisciplinary research work. Not to say it never happens, but not at the broad scale I would like to see. Instead we fight with each other over who has the right methods, or the most accurate ones at least. I feel that an electrical engineer has no more business telling us how to measure the sound of things than a psychologist does on how to design say an amp. Scientists frequently step out of their area of expertise and make very bold claims in the process, which simply dirties the waters of communication. I have tried for over a year now to get academic approval to study human perception with regard to hearing specificly, and earn a better understanding of what takes place between the reproduction of sound, and our perception of that reproduced sound. You will notice I have made a very narrow study claim, I'm not claiming anything about how we hear as a whole, or percieve live music, etc. Simply what I can study, I can easily put headphones on a person, or speakers in front of them, and study what happens, but the results will only apply to that situation.
I would also add that placebo effects are real, as real as anything else. Sure, we know that whats going on is simply a trick of the mind, but that doesn't mean nothing is happening, it just means that the only reason for the change is beacuse we believe in the change. Though I completely disagree that computer speakers of any grade sound as good as 1000,000,000 dollar home speakers, that isn't to say that peoples perception of the sound couldn't be improved greatly through placebo effects. Good advertising and reviews in a reputable magazine can do that, good online feedback can do that, etc. People may not like the existance of things like magic stones and sand filled stands, but even if they make no measurable difference, that doesn't mean that can't really improve the sound of reproduced music for a listener, as I said, placebo effects are just as real as anything else. If spending 50 dollars on a jar of marbles makes the imaging better in my head, I'm all for it, I would gladly spend 50 dollars to get a hypnotist to make me believe my speakers sound like a million bucks.
I know, thats a major overstatement. I just constantly read all these people who either are electrical engineers or think they are who state that we need to only measure audio equipment, because it tells us everything we need to know about a piece of equipment. My belief based on my scientific background is this, measuring equipment has very strong internal validity and very weak external validity. In other words, measurements give us very concrete answeres, they are repeatable, we are certain of what we are measuring to within a reasonable level, etc. However the correlation between what we measure and what we hear is much less certain, if not unknown, this real world accuracy isn't so great. Subjective listening tests offer much greater external validity, but have far too weak internal validity, as we aren't sure what we are measuring, nor is it repeatable. Also, it introduces intervening variables that would be difficult to remove. I wrote a long post on all this once, along with my opinion on how to accuratly measure this stuff, using the currently accepted behavior observation coding methods used. The behavior coded hear happens to be hearing, which isn't as easily observed, but still, using the same principles, it can be incorparated just fine.
On a related rant, one of the things I hate most about the scientific community is the utter lack of interdisciplinary research work. Not to say it never happens, but not at the broad scale I would like to see. Instead we fight with each other over who has the right methods, or the most accurate ones at least. I feel that an electrical engineer has no more business telling us how to measure the sound of things than a psychologist does on how to design say an amp. Scientists frequently step out of their area of expertise and make very bold claims in the process, which simply dirties the waters of communication. I have tried for over a year now to get academic approval to study human perception with regard to hearing specificly, and earn a better understanding of what takes place between the reproduction of sound, and our perception of that reproduced sound. You will notice I have made a very narrow study claim, I'm not claiming anything about how we hear as a whole, or percieve live music, etc. Simply what I can study, I can easily put headphones on a person, or speakers in front of them, and study what happens, but the results will only apply to that situation.
I would also add that placebo effects are real, as real as anything else. Sure, we know that whats going on is simply a trick of the mind, but that doesn't mean nothing is happening, it just means that the only reason for the change is beacuse we believe in the change. Though I completely disagree that computer speakers of any grade sound as good as 1000,000,000 dollar home speakers, that isn't to say that peoples perception of the sound couldn't be improved greatly through placebo effects. Good advertising and reviews in a reputable magazine can do that, good online feedback can do that, etc. People may not like the existance of things like magic stones and sand filled stands, but even if they make no measurable difference, that doesn't mean that can't really improve the sound of reproduced music for a listener, as I said, placebo effects are just as real as anything else. If spending 50 dollars on a jar of marbles makes the imaging better in my head, I'm all for it, I would gladly spend 50 dollars to get a hypnotist to make me believe my speakers sound like a million bucks.
A common straw man. None of the tests made by professionals and universities (like Greiner, Vanderkooy, Lipshitz, Toole, and the like) have ever made that claim. Their work is detailed, professional, well-controlled, and yes, interdisciplinary. So much so that the charlatans and gulls of this world spend an enormous amount of time misrepresenting that body of work and leading their minions in a Two Minutes Hate against those Goldbergs.
If you can find ONE published paper in JAES or a similar journal that makes this remarkable claim, please reference it.
pjpoes said:
Yes, I noticed. Sometimes, work needs to be visited, not avoided. In your zeal to avoid work, you are painting the trim and the window as well as the siding.
pjpoes said:
So much for your desire for interdisciplinary research.
pjpoes said:
Why is it not going through? From your descriptor, I can't think of anything that would distinguish it from any established work, from Nordmark to Bernstein, so I could easily see why you're not getting approval.
Is this for a thesis?
Forget headphones, lateralization's been beat to death. Go for speakers and localization...measure and characterize human ITD/IID response and human alteration of response due to shifts in these cues. And do it in 2-D, not a simplistic arc. And Pulllllleeeese, none of this "pointer/target" stuff using two entirely independent localization parameters in entirely useless, not found in nature, setups...ok?? It's bad enough we have to listen to entirely artificial ITD/IID cue constructs in the recorded material we buy, do we have to read it in the far too many studies which do not measure what we hear?
Course, me being an eeeeelectrikal injuneer, guess I shouldn't be telling ya anything bout localization stimulus and adaptation to varying response vs time, should I...you've told us it's not my business to discuss this "audible" stuff, who am I to argue???
Ah, youngins...the curve is ahead for you...
Cheers, John
ps...where in NY? What univ?
" ... The first is to cull out the units which will fail prematurely as a result of manufacturing defects. The second is to secure the operational parameters from unwanted drift. ..."
" ... burn-in is a myth, since all speakers sound the same anyway. ..." " ... period ..."
" ... I perform blind tests all the time. I have also looked into the matter of blind tests proving that all amps or speakers or wires, etc sound the same, and can say that, not only are there very few of these tests performed, but non by reliable scientific methods in correctly controlled situations. None is real scientific labs, none by universities, and none by real professionsals. ..."
" ... I agree with that, but these are not solid state devices, but electro-mechanical devices. ..."
...
All of my references are related to personal experience as: *) a radio engineer, *) an electronics engineer, *) a degreed physics teacher, *) a digital and analog device builder, *) a schooled, union communications technician ... decades of experience with this stuff.
Yes, a huge amount of the evidence vis a vis "burn in / break in" of electronic and electro-mechanical devices is from subjective reports = "... it sounds better to me ...".
But there is very solid, verifiable scientific evidence that the "burn in" and "break in" phenomena is very real. Mechanical: new shoes. Electro-mechanical: solenoid performance over time. Electrical: thermo-couples, solar panels and transformers. Electronic: diode and transistor barrier junction stabalization of resistance. Atomic and sub-atomic physics: electron orbit stabization or decay (not to mention radioactivity) ... all of this is objective, Ocum's Razor type reports from scientific and engineering laboratories. (Variously spelled Ocum, Occam, Occum, Ockume.)
<removed by moderator>
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
" ... burn-in is a myth, since all speakers sound the same anyway. ..." " ... period ..."
" ... I perform blind tests all the time. I have also looked into the matter of blind tests proving that all amps or speakers or wires, etc sound the same, and can say that, not only are there very few of these tests performed, but non by reliable scientific methods in correctly controlled situations. None is real scientific labs, none by universities, and none by real professionsals. ..."
" ... I agree with that, but these are not solid state devices, but electro-mechanical devices. ..."
...
All of my references are related to personal experience as: *) a radio engineer, *) an electronics engineer, *) a degreed physics teacher, *) a digital and analog device builder, *) a schooled, union communications technician ... decades of experience with this stuff.
Yes, a huge amount of the evidence vis a vis "burn in / break in" of electronic and electro-mechanical devices is from subjective reports = "... it sounds better to me ...".
But there is very solid, verifiable scientific evidence that the "burn in" and "break in" phenomena is very real. Mechanical: new shoes. Electro-mechanical: solenoid performance over time. Electrical: thermo-couples, solar panels and transformers. Electronic: diode and transistor barrier junction stabalization of resistance. Atomic and sub-atomic physics: electron orbit stabization or decay (not to mention radioactivity) ... all of this is objective, Ocum's Razor type reports from scientific and engineering laboratories. (Variously spelled Ocum, Occam, Occum, Ockume.)
<removed by moderator>
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
FastEddy said:
Fine and dandy. So where in that experience, is "solder joint settling in and wire resistance changes". You lack evidence on this, simply because there is none. Your credential, while nice, do not provide this evidence either.
FastEddy said:
I work with approximately 500 to 1000 world renowned physicists (depends on whether the experiments are on or not), do you really think any one of them would state that "electron orbit stabilization or decay" is altered by a two week burn-in??
Never saw a diode go through "barrier junction stabilization through burnin either, and I've burned in diodes from 12 mil by 12 mil up to 3 inch diameter. Reverse leakage issues due to passivation integrity are mechanical defects.
Cheers, John
" ... I work with approximately 500 to 1000 world renowned physicists (depends on whether the experiments are on or not), do you really think any one of them would state that "electron orbit stabilization or decay" is altered by a two week burn-in?? ..."
I didn't quite understand that we had decided that there was a specific time frame associated with this argument ... just that over a given length of time, the burn-in phenomina does exist.
And I refer the gentleman to the arguement I posed some moments ago.
...
Cal: I would remove it if it offends anyone. It does affect the arguement as both Logical Positivism and the possed Global Warming argument do relate to this question (although I agree, it may be a reach). (I [also] believe that my message has "burned in" as I can no longer edit it ...
" ... Sheesh, cal..I figured it was the other last line... " = me too ...
...
pinkmouse: Sir Karl Raimund Popper : " Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive ..." You mean this guy?
I didn't quite understand that we had decided that there was a specific time frame associated with this argument ... just that over a given length of time, the burn-in phenomina does exist.
And I refer the gentleman to the arguement I posed some moments ago.
...
Cal: I would remove it if it offends anyone. It does affect the arguement as both Logical Positivism and the possed Global Warming argument do relate to this question (although I agree, it may be a reach). (I [also] believe that my message has "burned in" as I can no longer edit it ...
" ... Sheesh, cal..I figured it was the other last line... " = me too ...
...
pinkmouse: Sir Karl Raimund Popper : " Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive ..." You mean this guy?
pinkmouse said:I really wish people would read Karl Popper before getting into this debate!
Boring..I liked "flatlander" better..by Abbott Abbott..
At least he liked Einstein..but, that was of course, relatively speaking..
Cheers, John
BTW, I'm positive he wrote it so he could call himself "A squared"..
Sheesh, cal..I figured it was the other last line...
FastEddy said:
I DID burn of military and high rel hardware for more years of my career than I care to let on with. What, you gonna say three weeks, five, ten, 5 years?? You asserted that electron orbital stabilization and decay was affected by burn in. You've no proof or data in support of that. Cause you'da presented it if ya had. The guys here are unaware of such. And they are most likely to have experienced it.
Burn in exists, I do it. Your interesting assertions did nothing to support your argument.
Cheers, John
" ... What, you gonna say three weeks, five, ten, 5 years?? You asserted that electron orbital stabilization and decay was affected by burn in. You've no proof or data in support of that. ..."
Absolutely correct about the length of time for electron orbital stabization, the mean times are usually quite short ... so I suppose I should use some other example ... however, as He said: "As above so below, as below so above ..."
Cool Dashboard Widget: http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/reference/theperiodictable.html ...
Considering Aluminum, Silver, Gold or Copper conductors, the electron spin resonance frequency (the number of events or changes in events over time) in the outer electrons' orbits with respect to temperature (and/or temperature changes) and other factors ... like "burn in" ... but you are correct that these changes take place over such a short amount of local real time, that for most practical purposes, it can be ignored ... except when applied to very small transistor junctions like those found in high density op-amps and modern class-d amp die ...
Absolutely correct about the length of time for electron orbital stabization, the mean times are usually quite short ... so I suppose I should use some other example ... however, as He said: "As above so below, as below so above ..."
Cool Dashboard Widget: http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/reference/theperiodictable.html ...
Considering Aluminum, Silver, Gold or Copper conductors, the electron spin resonance frequency (the number of events or changes in events over time) in the outer electrons' orbits with respect to temperature (and/or temperature changes) and other factors ... like "burn in" ... but you are correct that these changes take place over such a short amount of local real time, that for most practical purposes, it can be ignored ... except when applied to very small transistor junctions like those found in high density op-amps and modern class-d amp die ...
" ... it will still sound the same, because all speakers sound the same. no one has ever told the difference between two speakers in a double blind test. ..."
Here is a "double blind" test:
The guy in the next cubical has just turned off our office audio system (playing iTunes through an Alesys amp and a pair of planar Mannies (US$800 / pair) ... and turned on the Roland MA-150 "studio" monitors (US$150/pair) direct connected via internal amps to the USB ports on an Apple Mac Mini = same cpu, same iTunes, different amps and speakers.
He will now tell me if there is any differences ... waiting ... waiting ... he is now rolling his chair across the room to give a listen to each ... and back ... and back again ... the answer is:
"Well, I don't know ... " throws up his hands ... "I can't tell the difference ..."
My Q&A: "Now which do you want to listen to?"
His reply: "Those big guys ... 'cause they are not in my face ..."
Here is a "double blind" test:
The guy in the next cubical has just turned off our office audio system (playing iTunes through an Alesys amp and a pair of planar Mannies (US$800 / pair) ... and turned on the Roland MA-150 "studio" monitors (US$150/pair) direct connected via internal amps to the USB ports on an Apple Mac Mini = same cpu, same iTunes, different amps and speakers.
He will now tell me if there is any differences ... waiting ... waiting ... he is now rolling his chair across the room to give a listen to each ... and back ... and back again ... the answer is:
"Well, I don't know ... " throws up his hands ... "I can't tell the difference ..."
My Q&A: "Now which do you want to listen to?"
His reply: "Those big guys ... 'cause they are not in my face ..."
FastEddy said:
Why on earth did you try to use a completely incorrect example in the first place?? Do not assume that people here do not already understand that stuff, as you can see that some do.
Sigh..guess I forgot to mention the spin physics guys here. I build widgits for them. They can also explain why your last paragraph has nuttin to do with burn in. It's fun reading their papers and hearing their presentatiions (just had Roger Penrose here)..course, some of what they say is just a "tad" above me..but man, tis fun..Even at my level, I know ya's just "funnin" us with this stuff.FastEddy said:Considering Aluminum, Silver, Gold or Copper conductors, the electron spin resonance frequency (the number of events or changes in events over time) in the outer electrons' orbits with respect to temperature (and/or temperature changes) and other factors ... like "burn in" ... but you are correct that these changes take place over such a short amount of local real time, that for most practical purposes, it can be ignored ... except when applied to very small transistor junctions like those found in high density op-amps and modern class-d amp die ...
I've burned in every type and class of semiconductor known to man, diodes, zistors, digi's, analogs, every type ever made, exceptin for silicon carbide stuff. Didn't exist back in the day. ( But I expect that to change soon, as we may be purchasin a coupla thousand of em to fix a "yittle itty bitty" switcher supply problem.)
Small junctions ain't the key either. For dem widgits, it's the oxide quality as well as the passivation quality..
Some guys here are actually measurin eeeelectron type movement timeframes hear, it's called LEAF, a Laser/Electron type thingy, where they time reactions at the femptosecond level..neat stuff..
Cheers, John
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.