How many of you actullay believe IE8 burn in effect? - Page 8

Ok, everyone should just leave because if evidence like this is not convincing Ed Seedhouse that Burn-In effects are true. Then there's no point in arguing since his state of mind that "burn-in is all fake and it's just the user getting used to the sound of the earphone" then it's all just a waste of time.

Even claiming that speakers and dynamic drivers (which work in a same way) don't burn-in, and manufacturers say this to lure you to listening to their speakers longer.

This is all just a waste of time.

Yes, the accepted explanation among scientists would be "expecation bias" which you can read all about at the linked wikipedia article. Oh, and that is not an example of "empirical evidence" as a matter of fact.

I have never made any claim that "burn-in" ideas have been proven wrong. The state of the science (as I understand it) is that there is no reason to expect burn in, no measurements that show it clearly beyond a few seconds, and no reliable studies showing that humans percieve it under controlled conditions. Therefore a rational person will conclude that there is no evidence that it exists, and that, given what we already know, it is more reasonable to believe that it does not exist than to believe that it does.

None of that is an absolute "proof" and I know of no one who believes it is or has made the claim. On the other hand the "burn-in" believers in this thread have claimed that it is beyond doubt that it actually exists base only upon their uncontrolled perceptions.

It is of course a common tactic for people to put words in another's mouth and then attack the words that were never said by the other. It's known as 'beating a straw man'. That certainly appears to me to be happening here.

Yet such tests have already been done and you don't believe them.

I don't get your obsession with trying to persuade people burn in doesn't exist. If people believe it, let them. Do you try and convert religious people as well just because you don't have scientific testing proving in the existence of gods? If people want to believe it, let them. There are many things science and medicine cannot explain at the moment, and may never be able to explain. Just because Science can't prove something now doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Either way, peoples beliefs should be irrelevant and I see no reason why you are on a crusade to prove people are wrong. You don't believe in it? Fine. Don't bother burning anything in. People are responsible for making their own informed choices, and if they choose to believe in burn in, let them. They don't need someone going "omg well science said burn in doesn't exist so you must be imagining things."

Done with this thread. Let's see if our anti-burn in crusader can stay away.

Now come on guys - isn't this more about who is willing to walk away without having the last word.....?

I don't get how you can think I am doing that. As a matter of fact I have no such obsession and no such desire.

The very topic of this thread invites an opinion on the matter, which I gave. I had no plan of doing anything more. But then people started responding and claiming that I am wrong - apparantly it is they who want to change my beliefs, or perhaps it is their insecurity on the matter that leads them to demand that I change my mind.

I enjoy posting on forums because, among other things, it helps me to clarify my own ideas about things. And when people tell me I am wrong it I enjoy explaining why, if they don't convince me I am wrong, they are not convincing me.

More attacking of the opponent's character ("anti-burn in crusader") does not convince rational people that your position is any more valid than it is.

What's funny when arguments don't end is that both sides are right, they just don't know how and don't want to find out either.

hey Ed can you provide some evidence to your point? i'll use the ibuds i had (before i cared about SQ) i did notice after a few months they sounded much richer then a few months later they started to muddy up then died.

Both sides agree that IE8's will often sound better to a person over time. We just disagree as to why that is. One side believes it is a physical change in the transducers, the other side believes that it is an adaption of the human brain to a transducer's sound. The latter is my side and I think the evidence favours it.

I imagine most of us agree also that the IE8s are some great sounding IEMs.
I enjoyed them right out of the box for both pairs and still enjoy the second pair. They are not perfect, but then no transducer is.

The only really important thing, IMO, is that they allow us to enjoy music through them.

Well you can start with this article, which is fairly recent.

Sounds like "burn out" rather than "burn in". Your experience of liking the sound better with use is common and I don't deny it. It has happened to me. We merely differ as to why that would be so. I just don't think it has anything to do with a physical "burn-in".

i wouldn't call the first bit burn out.

This thread is dumb. the place for dumb threads is sound science - please move this

With my Westone 3's, Triple.Fi's, and my former SE530's, I have noticed some slight changes over time and sometimes they would sound the way I remembered them to be with various listening sessions (using the same tips of course). This leads me to believe that it was just a mental phenomenon that was occurring when I perceived slight changes. Even with my Monster Turbines which uses a dynamic driver, I noticed some small changes, but I can beleive that some brain adjustments were going on.
However the Sennheiser IE8 and IE7 are anomalies. Out of the box they both didn't sound great at all. In fact, I was contemplating on returning them because they were definitely not worth the price that I paid for them. I decided to 'burn' them in for a couple of weeks and then make my final decision. Still using the same tips I noticed dramatic improvements. Bass tightened and treble opened up. It was in effect, a metamorphosis of the sound signature. I could believe that it was a mental thing if only some slight changes occurred but the opposite is true for the IE7's and IE8's. I'm not sure if 'burn-in' or 'break-in' is responsible but due to my own experiences I can't believe that my brain was adjusting to these iems unless there is some sort of audio illusionary effect that is going on in particular with the IE7's and IE8's. If that is the case, then Sennheiser is a master audio illusionist. The modern day Houdini's of the audiophile communities.
I personally value both scientific evidence and human experience. Without human experience, there would be no scientific method.

Agree, just move this elsewhere. it is stale already

Look if that's all you got, then none of us have concrete scientific evidence, and it's my opinion vs yours.

My argument supporting my claim is that there are tons of people here that have posted similar observations about how the IE8's sound varies dramatically after about a day of burn-in. I still remember how my pair of IE8 sounded like out of the box. They sounded bad. Don't tell me that Sennheiser builds bad sounding phones that people adjust to and somehow start liking.

Your argument is that there is no scientific evidence, which leads you to believe with a 100% certainty that it's our perception that changes, even though neither theory has been proven.

Would you change your opinion if you saw evidence of burn-in with the IE8 phones?

I think what I'm trying to say is lack of evidence does not disprove a theory, and DEFINITELY does not reinforce another less probable one that is just as unfounded, ie. it's all in our heads, or it's our perception that is changing.

You are misrepresenting me. Nowhere do I claim 100% certainty. The best I would claim is 99% given the long history of measurements of transducers and the failure of any such effect to be observed. And also that our perception changes has been pretty well proven over and over.

Sure, if it was good reliable evidence and not the anecdotes that are presented in this thread.

But the second one actually has reams of evidence for it in the scientific literature. We pretty well know that such things occur. It is no longer at all controversial.

What we have is actually two theories "A" (burn-in) and B (Aural adaptation). A has no evidence in it's favour and B has a lot of evidence in it's favour. So I accept B unless and until overwhelming evidence against it is presented. But evidence against B would not support A. it would merely tend to disprove B. To believe A I need to see evidence for A, not evidence against B.