Do we believe in Machina Dynamics?

Tbg, as I have said many times in the past I keep an open mind when it comes audio. But with that said it is still tempered with a certain amount of commonsense. MD's phone tweak is a little hard to approach with any believe ability. The only way I would entertain any effect in perception the sound has changed is through the use of subliminal messages hidden within the phone message. Your subconscious is being told you will hear a difference... Would you at least consider that? You also need to think about how most audio equipment is designed, enclosed, housed within a metal case. A metal case that in it's design is to reject RFI as much as possible.
==================

.
Do solid state amps have a break in period?

08-30-07: Ojgalli
I would like to hear from someone who has actually taken measurements of a brand new piece of equipment immediately after unpacking and setup. Then follow up with additional measurements taken after precisely 50, 100, 200, and 400 hours of use. Is there a measurable difference? If so, is it enough to be audible? I have found tests results on raw speaker drivers tested in free air. Changes are measurable and significant, however once that driver is put in an enclosure, the properties of the enclosure override any changes in the driver. Tubes change gradually over time, but is that breaking in or wearing out? Capacitors are known to change within the first several hours of operation, but I've not found any other electronics with similar documentation.

We've heard lots of anecdotal claims, but never any hard evidence. Claims for break-in always vary wildly by quality and quantity even with the same piece of equipment.

Here's a quote from a manufacturer's website.

"You hear differently from day to day depending on atmospheric changes and the condition of your sinuses. As you become accustomed to the speakers and the system, you stop listening to them and listen through to the music. When the time comes that you only hear music when you turn the system on, the speakers are broken in, your electronics are broken in and your ears have determined that they really do like what they are hearing."

Or not. I've owned a pair of this manufacturer's speakers. They never got better, only worse, or at least, the time never came when I got past all the distortion to "only hear music."

Why have we never heard someone say the bass got thinner, the soundstage shrunk, the midrange muddled, and the highs became harsh after break-in?
Ojgalli (Threads | Answers)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

Curious how some who have posted here would respond to Mr Ojgalli's post...

.

This isn't about science or faith. It's about the gray area of plausibility.

If the latest tweak/craze involved wrapping up some dog s**t in aluminum foil and depositing it on top of your CD player, would you do it? I'd bet not, because it would cross the plausiblity threshold of nearly any sane person. Some would demand a bit of insight, and rightfully so. That is what is being alluded to as 'science' here. They (myself included) want some evidence that the claimed process, product or ritual is possible. Just a simple, plausible explanation, even sans conclusive proof. When that information is not forthcoming, most become suspicious. Again, rightfully so. Unfortunately Norm, MD products seem to set off the bulls**t detectors of many on this site, and the threshold of plausibility is breeched. Of course, it doesn't make them(us) right.

Having an open mind, or 'faith,' is the other side of this coin. Everyone has a certain amount of it, in various things. It is only interrupted by the same threshold of plausibility. How much confidence are you willing to invest in a tangible or conceptual thing without supporting evidence? If you hear an audible difference in your system, better or worse, brought forth by any kind of product, that doesn't make the difference real, nor the believer right.

The argument then lies not among two opposing sides afterall, because we all invest a certain amount of faith and demand a certain amount of evidence in our daily lives. It's a sliding scale that rests at a unique point for every individual.

P.S. I do find something wrong with being vindictive and petty in defending the indefensible. Neither side of this argument is 100% correct...

Loonytunz, you say, "The argument then lies not among two opposing sides afterall, because we all invest a certain amount of faith and demand a certain amount of evidence in our daily lives. It's a sliding scale that rests at a unique point for every individual." I agree. As I said long ago, when Geoff approached me to test his new phone treatment, I found it implasible. It took me some time to even have it explained that the phone itself was treated. I would not have bought it without a demonstration, but I seek evidence.

I learned some time ago after repeated experiences that some tweaks work and others do not, but that all lack really clear demonstrations of how they work.

The power of Placebo

"Doctors in one study successfully eliminated warts by painting them with a brightly colored, inert dye and promising patients the warts would be gone when the color wore off. In a study of asthmatics, researchers found that they could produce dilation of the airways by simply telling people they were inhaling a bronchiodilator, even when they weren't. Patients suffering pain after wisdom-tooth extraction got just as much relief from a fake application of ultrasound as from a real one, so long as both patient and therapist thought the machine was on. Fifty-two percent of the colitis patients treated with placebo in 11 different trials reported feeling better -- and 50 percent of the inflamed intestines actually looked better when assessed with a sigmoidoscope ("The Placebo Prescription" by Margaret Talbot, New York Times Magazine, January 9, 2000) "

A crotchety old man was successfully convinced that his hearing and sound system improved after receiving a 30 second phone call. ("Baiting Norm" by Pauly, Audiogon Forum, August 31, 2007)

I have learned two things and thats about it with this forum. Some audio guys will trust their ears and don't need science and others that have to have an explanation. Its fine either way and no need to hammer one or the other.

Two, there are a certain number of people who seem determined and get off on trashing Geoff Kait.

I asked the na sayers numerous times about the clock winning the BRutus award and having great reviews by solid sources. It was always ignored cause it shows that Kait does have some good products as there seems to be a wanting to tear him down by some..

I will give you guys that the phone thing sounds a little out there, but how can I trash it with out trying it. Many say the clocks science does not make sense but the Brutus award says different.

I don't know Geoff personally nor have I ever worked with him but, I see a desire to trash a mans reputation when I see it. I respect you to not try the products and think they may not work for you, but the blatant trashing of a man??????