|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
199.82.243.72
In Reply to: RE: Hearing, break-in etc. posted by fredtr on November 06, 2009 at 11:56:59
However, we do not need to quote the journal Nature to prove that the sky is blue. If you like a certain book, state that. But don't say that your novel personal theory is that the sky is blue and that there is some assiciated corollary with "Dr. Obscuro's" book on the topic.
___
Long Live Dr.Gizmo
Thought I did post my theory, "tuning in to what we like and don't like".
My personal observation, is that is what I do. There are a lot of bright people that post to this site. Was hoping someone might post that they have, or have not had similar experiences and maybe if so, why it is our brains do this.
Have been switching between amps and tube types last few weeks. Replaced 6CA7's with 6n3cE's (Russian lettering). After a few days the highs became very pleasing, but noticed to a minor degree clutter (possibly distortion) in the mid-range. Switched to EL84 amplifiers, high end sounded dull for a day or so, then started to hear the emotion in the mid-range.
Recalled a post, think it was audiogon discussion that said, "never listen to your system when you are in a bad mood". Don't agree with it, but do think that in part it was referring to a critical disposition, that is part of human hearing.
The other side of it, there are sound characteristics that I am particularly fond of. Have selected equipment that provides that, and find myself, even when music is a background, say working, when a song comes on that emphasizes it, quickly catches my attention, stop what I am doing to listen to it.
More generally, it seems our brain does something, over time, to tune what we hear in our systems. Did try to find peoples theories regarding this in earlier posts, didn't find much. Won't try to paraphrase Dr. Tomatis, but he found similar in human interaction, regarding what we tune in and out.
I think the reason you got teased by the mob is that your original post claimed a fairly well acknowledged phenomenon as being a theory of yours, and yet it's a phenomenon that's been discussed a fair amount (even if not in relation to the book you cited).
But I find your examples above to be interesting. Had you included them as observations in your original post, rather than presenting the phenomenon as a "theory", I think folks would have reacted differently and joined in with some of their own observations. Hey, it's tough crowd here sometimes!
I'll give an example to add to yours: When I first bought my CJ CA200, a 185wpc ss integrated, I bought it after an audition in which I loved the transparency and sweet top end, but was a bit put off by the leanness of its midrange. Not typical CJ sound in my experience. After deciding to buy it, I had buyer's remorse for awhile because the leanness was leaving me a bit cold. But after awhile, I really came to love the transparency and neutrality, the strong bottom end and the sweet highs. And yet, in this case, I know it was not burn in because the demo I'd heard had lots of hours on it, and yet out of the box I thought my new unit sounded quite similar.
It is an interesting phenomenon.
I have no doubt that a mechanical device (phono cartridge, speaker drivers) can break in, but I've often wondered whether amplifiers, cd players, etc. have a break in period, or if we just get used to them. For example, why is it always claimed that they get better with break in? I've never heard of a device sounding worse after a while; even cheap stuff. Why would the burn in period always result in an improvement?
I have no doubt that my Simaudio Moon CD5.3 sounded better with time, because I had also home auditioned a demo version less than a week before I bought the new one, with CDs I am very familiar with.
And to me, carts and speakers are obvious, and even turntables themselves seem to settle in after spinning for awhile.
And I had a pair of MIT cables that I am convinced sounded better after burn in because I left the system playing while at work, and because a good friend of mine heard them one weekend and then the next and commented on the difference without any prompting by me. Of course I cannot prove it because I didn't do any kind of double blind test or the like, so who knows for sure?
But I have never noticed any particularly noticeable effect on amps. Whether a Rotel, Krell, NAD or a Conrad Johnson, they sounded pretty much the same over time to me.
It'll never be settled, but I think it's fun to share observations, and certainly one gets used to how something sounds, whether or not its also subtly changing over time.
NT
"You go to Heaven for the climate and to Hell for the
company"...Mark Twain
"We lived for days on nothing but food and water." W.C. Fields
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley
___
Long Live Dr.Gizmo
Sorry, couldn't resist! ;-)
I did not click your link but I assume that is what it is. And, yes, it is what I was refering to.
___
Long Live Dr.Gizmo
I kind of figured that's where you were heading.
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]