In article mS%Ra.80029$OZ2.14175@rwcrnsc54,
"Uptown Audio" writes:
To answer your question directly; the one who assumes he is correct
because he cannot hear a difference.

Sorry, but that's the same as saying that the earth seems flat, but
since science tells us it isn't, then science needs to look further
because it sure seems to be flat to many people who walk on it every
day.

More empirically, I'm not making
any leaps.

Actually you are make gigantic bounds to those who understand the
operation and design of electronics.

You again are assuming what must be from your own static
point of view.

Actually you are making assumptions, I'm making very knowledgeable
statements.

Your expererience simply does not mirror the experience
of many others; others that are engineers, doctors and scientists,
which account for only a portion of our customers whom we have had
direct contact and discussion with about the effects.

First of all, how many were electrical/electronic engineers? The list
of fields in engineering is large. Same for doctors or scientists,
quite a few have no training in electronics and so wouldn't
necessarily understand it such that they would know what is possible
and what isn't. And as I've mentioned before, I tended to believe in
such things myself until the reality of thinking I heard a noticeable
difference due to a change I'd made in my system wasn't actually
connected. Without the use of controls it is easy to be mistaken
about audible differences.

So you have a
difference of opinion. So what?

Mine is not an opinion, it's statement of professional knowledge,
training, and experience. Big difference.

- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:IwXRa.91759$ye4.65299@sccrnsc01...
In article ,
"Uptown Audio" writes:
You leap to assume that because you do not know what to measure or
how
to measure it that it is immeasuable. Also further it by stating
that
is does not exist. Not being able to measure something is not
proof of
its non-existance. It could be proof of our ignorance,
insignificance,
stubborness, arrogance, self-importance, etc. I am not directly
lableling you, just pointing out other possiblities. Let's not
close
our minds to what many see as real alternatives. Better yet,
challenge
ourselves to discover those causes and effects to better
understand
the science of it rather than to waste time on what we already
know.

While you leap to assume that becuase someone thinks they've heard a
difference, then it exists. Who is taking the bigger leap and more
likely inccorrect leap, he who has no technical knowledge of the
subject or he who has over 20 years of schooling, training, and
experience combined in the subject matter?

"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:SqERa.83344$N7.10085@sccrnsc03...
In article ,
"All Ears" writes:
The real point with this tread, was to prove that something
actually does
happen during burn-in of electronic equipment.

The difference between this and audio equipment is that you have
an
easily measurable parameter here that shows the change, i.e.
clock
speed, while the supposed effects of burn-in or break-in of audio
equipment don't show up in performance related measurements.

Seems like, even with computers, that all aspects of this
phenomenon cannot
be explained from a technical point of view, but it is
generally
accepted
that the issue exist.

Yet it is measureable and so is certainly a real effect as
opposed
to
audio equipment.