Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › How many of you actullay believe IE8 burn in effect?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How many of you actullay believe IE8 burn in effect? - Page 5

post #61 of 208
7/22/09 at 12:23am
What's next - a thread to discuss the difference in sound between a 99.9% 10ga interconnect and a 99.999% 12ga interconnect?

There will never be a consensus on burn-in, cables, politics or religion. In fact, I think we have a better shot at a world government than we do at a consensus on burn-in or cables...
Reply
post #62 of 208
7/22/09 at 12:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
Hearing is believing. The change in the IE8's in the first twenty hours is not subtle. No golden ears required...
Exactly. When I got my pair and listened to it out of the box, I was not very please with its sound. The bass was excessive and sloppy. Funny thing is I didn't have to come to the forum and read feedbacks about the IE8 to draw my own conclusion. Neither did anyone else. We all experienced burn in in very similar, NON SUBTLE ways, which is pretty much proof that burn in exists.

I've had a pair of TF10 before buying my pair of IE8. I experienced no burn in with my TF10, and did experience burn in with my IE8. Does my brain get tricked into thinking one IEM burns in, while another doesn't?

For those of us that experienced burn in with the IE8, it's pretty much fact that it does exist. Those that don't believe in it just might not be able to hear the difference of sound of equipment being burned in over time.
Reply
post #63 of 208
7/22/09 at 1:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GN85 View Post
Exactly. When I got my pair and listened to it out of the box, I was not very please with its sound. The bass was excessive and sloppy. Funny thing is I didn't have to come to the forum and read feedbacks about the IE8 to draw my own conclusion. Neither did anyone else. We all experienced burn in in very similar, NON SUBTLE ways, which is pretty much proof that burn in exists.
And yet these "obvious" changes are not measurable and have never been shown by double blind tests.

On the other hand, a mechanism by which such "obvious" effects could occur is well known, easily measurable, and scientifically non controversial. Namely that your own perceptions changed, not the headphones.

Quote:
I've had a pair of TF10 before buying my pair of IE8. I experienced no burn in with my TF10, and did experience burn in with my IE8. Does my brain get tricked into thinking one IEM burns in, while another doesn't?
Why coudn't it be? Are you some superhuman who can't be fooled? That is an extraordinary claim since we already know that all of us can be fooled rather easily. In fact the very perception of stereo itself is only possible because our ears are fooled into hearing two separate sounds played over two entirely separate transducers as being instead a single sound coming from a single place in space. If you couldn't be fooled this way you couldn't hear stereo at all.

Quote:
For those of us that experienced burn in with the IE8, it's pretty much fact that it does exist. Those that don't believe in it just might not be able to hear the difference of sound of equipment being burned in over time.
The believers always end up claiming that they have super ears while the rest of us are implied to have tin ears. Argument by insulting those who disagree, in other words.

But we all hear the differences - I hear the differences, I just don't fool myself into thinking it's the headphones that have changed instead of me. The evidence is rather overwhelming that it's not the phones that are changing, but we ourselves who are changing.
Reply
post #64 of 208
7/22/09 at 1:25am
The truth i believe, Dynamic Drivers dramatically improve after long periods of burn in, and Balanced armatures only burn in a tad and Crossovers and cable burn in also. Don't come arguing to me, this is what my ears tell me and what science and technology tells me, so leave me alone.
Reply
post #65 of 208
7/22/09 at 1:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Seedhouse View Post
And yet these "obvious" changes are not measurable and have never been shown by double blind tests.

On the other hand, a mechanism by which such "obvious" effects could occur is well known, easily measurable, and scientifically non controversial. Namely that your own perceptions changed, not the headphones.



Why coudn't it be? Are you some superhuman who can't be fooled? That is an extraordinary claim since we already know that all of us can be fooled rather easily. In fact the very perception of stereo itself is only possible because our ears are fooled into hearing two separate sounds played over two entirely separate transducers as being instead a single sound coming from a single place in space. If you couldn't be fooled this way you couldn't hear stereo at all.



The believers always end up claiming that they have super ears while the rest of us are implied to have tin ears. Argument by insulting those who disagree, in other words.

But we all hear the differences - I hear the differences, I just don't fool myself into thinking it's the headphones that have changed instead of me. The evidence is rather overwhelming that it's not the phones that are changing, but we ourselves who are changing.

Dude, you owned a lot of high end IEM? What makes you think you are right if you got nothing practical to back you up.

People do have different ear. Believe it or not, you can not persuade people burn in is nothing but some mind game, at least not me.

I heard my UM3X change as I kept repeating a song over and over again after a certain amount of time. I don't care about the fact I read a lot about burn in does not exist, it just happens. Sorry if you can't hear any difference happened even if you own IE8, for me, it is quite text book example for how obvious the effect of burn in is.
Reply
post #66 of 208
7/22/09 at 1:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaoDi View Post
The truth i believe, Dynamic Drivers dramatically improve after long periods of burn in, and Balanced armatures only burn in a tad and Crossovers and cable burn in also. Don't come arguing to me, this is what my ears tell me and what science and technology tells me, so leave me alone.
"My mind is made up, do not confuse me with the facts". Well, if dissent causes you distress you do not have to read this thread, and you did not have to post in it.

You are of course perfectly entitled to believe what you do. But last I heard I was also entitled to believe what I do too. The difference between us seems to me to be that my view is supported by actual evidence.

However it is most certainly not what "science and technology" tell you, and in making that claim you are overstepping the boundaries of personal belief and so should expect to be argued with. Science and technology actually tell us quite the opposite, which is presumably why you have been unable to cite any actual "science and technology" that supports you.

If you don't like to be argued with, why are you posting your opinions on an opinion forum?
Reply
post #67 of 208
7/22/09 at 1:42am
@Ed Seedhouse:

It's a moot point debating whether your ear adapted to the new IEM or your perception
changed, the question is is that enough to explain what we experienced? No, with the IE8
appreciation thread as the source of information, just statistically line up people who
heard IE8 changed with burn-in and who haven't and you'll find an overwhelming
majority who did. IMO what you are trying to do is to shove us (people who heard the
change) into a "they-fooled-themselves" camp in order to fit in with current theories and
measurements, without doubting that science has its limit still and this "burn-in" might
not be properly explained until further advancement in (*insert names of related fields").

Don't ignore the fact that although we do change, an sudden and hardly explicable
change is not "normal" in any sense. So why did we change only because of a canal phone
we heard once a day/week/month ago bizarrely evolved on a second try? You are the one
who's ignoring the overwhelming evidence in front of you.
Reply
post #68 of 208
7/22/09 at 2:08am
I have heard these same type of arguments in a variety ways - from letters to the editor at Stereophile, newsletters, mailing lists, Compuserve, usenet, AOL and internet forums, since the mid 1970's. Give it up - this isn't going to be resolved - no matter how many DBTs are conducted and no matter how many first-hand reports are collected - neither side will budge. Live and let live...
Reply
post #69 of 208
7/22/09 at 2:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post
I have heard these same type of arguments in a variety ways - from letters to the editor at Stereophile, newsletters, mailing lists, Compuserve, usenet, AOL and internet forums, since the mid 1970's. Give it up - this isn't going to be resolved - no matter how many DBTs are conducted and no matter how many first-hand reports are collected - neither side will budge. Live and let live...
True.Endless debate with no result
Reply
post #70 of 208
7/22/09 at 2:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Seedhouse View Post
"My mind is made up, do not confuse me with the facts". Well, if dissent causes you distress you do not have to read this thread, and you did not have to post in it.

You are of course perfectly entitled to believe what you do. But last I heard I was also entitled to believe what I do too. The difference between us seems to me to be that my view is supported by actual evidence.

However it is most certainly not what "science and technology" tell you, and in making that claim you are overstepping the boundaries of personal belief and so should expect to be argued with. Science and technology actually tell us quite the opposite, which is presumably why you have been unable to cite any actual "science and technology" that supports you.

If you don't like to be argued with, why are you posting your opinions on an opinion forum?
Technology tells me that a dynamic driver has a diaphragm, Science tells me the material and the way the diaphragm moves causes it to loosen and become more flexible being able to produce higher and lower frequencies with less effort. I'm not disagreeing with your belief, just don't come and say that mine is wrong because i believe what i believe. Did the information that i listed not just come from science and technology?
Reply
post #71 of 208
7/22/09 at 2:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by decay View Post
@Ed Seedhouse:

It's a moot point debating whether your ear adapted to the new IEM or your perception
changed, the question is is that enough to explain what we experienced? No, with the IE8
appreciation thread as the source of information, just statistically line up people who
heard IE8 changed with burn-in and who haven't and you'll find an overwhelming
majority who did. IMO what you are trying to do is to shove us (people who heard the
change) into a "they-fooled-themselves" camp in order to fit in with current theories and
measurements, without doubting that science has its limit still and this "burn-in" might
not be properly explained until further advancement in (*insert names of related fields").

Don't ignore the fact that although we do change, an sudden and hardly explicable
change is not "normal" in any sense. So why did we change only because of a canal phone
we heard once a day/week/month ago bizarrely evolved on a second try? You are the one
who's ignoring the overwhelming evidence in front of you.

I like what you're saying....
Reply
post #72 of 208
7/22/09 at 3:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by decay View Post
It's a moot point debating whether your ear adapted to the new IEM or your perception changed, the question is is that enough to explain what we experienced? No
Yes, I believe it is.

Quote:
with the IE8 appreciation thread as the source of information, just statistically line up people who heard IE8 changed with burn-in and who haven't and you'll find an overwhelming majority who did.
No. The overwhelming majority think they did, I'll agree. But since these were in no way controlled observations their evidenciary weight is nill.

Quote:
IMO what you are trying to do is to shove us (people who heard the change) into a "they-fooled-themselves" camp
Well, no. I am just as fallible as they are and they are in the very same group as I am, namely the "human being" group. Now if they want me to believe that they are somehow less fallible than I, they'll have to provide some convincing evidence that they are, such as a positive result on a well conducted double blinded test. Or a good set of well controlled measurements showing an observable change in frequency response.

Human beings are fallible, period. Including me.

Quote:
Don't ignore the fact that although we do change, an sudden and hardly explicable change is not "normal" in any sense. So why did we change only because of a canal phone we heard once a day/week/month ago bizarrely evolved on a second try?
That human beings adapt to the sound of a given transducer is not extraordinary, it is ordinary and has been known to be so since at least the 1950s when I first started reading about the subject. This is neither sudden nor unusual, but normal. It's basically how people work. Nor is it inexplicable except in the sense that we still cannot fully explain the observed normal workings of our own minds.

Quote:
You are the one
who's ignoring the overwhelming evidence in front of you.
Neither you nor the other believers in "burn in" have provided any.
Reply
post #73 of 208
7/22/09 at 3:06am
[QUOTE=MaoDi;5867896]Technology tells me that a dynamic driver has a diaphragm, Science tells me the material and the way the diaphragm moves causes it to loosen and become more flexible being able to produce higher and lower frequencies with less effort.[QUOTE]

What science would that be? Can you provide a link to it?

Well, actual measurements do not show the effects you claim science should show, and no one has ever been able to distinguish this "clearly audible" difference in a properly conducted blind test.

Quote:
Did the information that i listed not just come from science and technology?
Well no, it didn't. It came in my opinion from a tragic misunderstanding of science which is, alas, widespread in our society.

It is interesting that in a topic which invites discussion of this topic, only the side of the "believers" in "burn in" seem to get upset when their views are contradicted.
Reply
post #74 of 208
7/22/09 at 3:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Seedhouse View Post

Neither you nor the other believers in "burn in" have provided any.
Science and Technology is enough to prove to you that Dynamic Drivers/Moving coils, cones and diaphragms do burn in. There's no way around it, if you argue to the Head-Fi community that Balanced Armatures don't burn in then that's very reasonable Balanced Armatures are designed and configured so they don't change in sound overtime, it's jsut the way they're built.

But dynamic drivers are different, they're diaphragm and they material holding the Diaphragm starts to loosen up after burn-in.
Reply
post #75 of 208
7/22/09 at 3:09am
Honestly it doesn't matter guys believe what you want there is no sense in trying to make others feel differently from what they believe.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › How many of you actullay believe IE8 burn in effect?