Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Is there scientific evidence that "Pink Noise"-Burn-In changes the sound?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is there scientific evidence that "Pink Noise"-Burn-In changes the sound? - Page 2

post #16 of 304

Here is a thought.  Why is it that every case of "burn in" , be it iem's, cables, or electronics is reported as an improvement in the sound.  This does not make sense, it is not logical.  "Burn in" implies change, logic will tell you that change will be both positive and negative, good and bad, not always positive.  It is also odd that when the results of "burn in" are discussed, those areas in sound of the item that were found lacking upon first listening are the areas that improve.  Again, this does not make sense.  Have you ever read where someone listened to a new iem and they sounded great but after so many hours they sounded like crap. 

post #17 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcticears View Post

Here is a thought.  Why is it that every case of "burn in" , be it iem's, cables, or electronics is reported as an improvement in the sound.  This does not make sense, it is not logical. 


What is illogical is your assumption that it always is an improvement.  It isn't.  Read more burn in threads.  Myself and others have gotten rid of headphones and IEMs that got worse w/ burn-in.  Please read the threads before perpetuating the same myths and circular, rehashed debate.

post #18 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcticears View Post

Here is a thought.  Why is it that every case of "burn in" , be it iem's, cables, or electronics is reported as an improvement in the sound.  This does not make sense, it is not logical.  "Burn in" implies change, logic will tell you that change will be both positive and negative, good and bad, not always positive.  It is also odd that when the results of "burn in" are discussed, those areas in sound of the item that were found lacking upon first listening are the areas that improve.  Again, this does not make sense.  Have you ever read where someone listened to a new iem and they sounded great but after so many hours they sounded like crap. 


Well bringing us back to the question of the thread, is there scientific evidence?

 

This could be in the form of observed changes but blind ABX testing is also I think a good source of scientific evidence.

 

I don't know if blind ABX testing has been performed on the "burn in" business, but it might reveal some interesting data.

 

Personally I suspect reported burn in experiences are for the most part just acclimatisation of the human not alterations in the equipment.

 

In the cases where people don't like the sound after "burn in" then maybe what has happened is that they've just gone off the stuff.

 

I'd love to see some real blind ABX tests on this issue to get an idea of what is really going on.

 

The big problem we have is that the hi fi press today is just a vehicle for advertising and promotion, it doesn't seem at all interested in any "real" testing. Instead we just get endless "reviews" which are just someone's personal opinion and this I suspect is very coloured by auto-suggestion.

post #19 of 304

I volunteer to conduct such a test under the premise that the interested party supply me with two sets of identical headphones wink.gif

post #20 of 304
post #21 of 304
Thread Starter 

Ah ok........so its better to use pink noise for burn in because it covers all frequences at the same strength?

post #22 of 304


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by inarc View Post

An interesting experiment... http://www.headfonia.com/test-burn-in-and-production-variations/

 

It is a nice idea to test things but there are so few controls and so little rigour on most of the tests that most of them are firmly in the sighted anecdotal category, the idea that you can listen to one pair of headphones and then burn the same pair in for 50 hours and then be able to **accurately** recall what they sounded like in the first place is highly flawed.

 

A far better test would be to take two samples measure them first to make sure they are identical (or as good as) then burn one pair in and the other not, then switch between the two pairs , still not perfect but *far* better than relying on a memory of something from several days back.

post #23 of 304

But he did notice that the same model phone could sound different because of production variation, that is interesting (note that he tested with two sample, an old well burned M50 and a newly bought and opened M50). 

 

Though personally I believe in burn-in as I remember how muddy my RX700 sounds at first, it was pretty much unlistenable.

post #24 of 304


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post




Oh god, use the right thread please:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/505113/my-theory-as-to-why-headphones-appear-to-burn-in

 

 



I would skip the first part of the thread and read from post 166 on, as there is evidence that burn in takes place with woofers. There are changes measured with the speakers, but they disappear after a period of non use. It is not unreasonable to apply the same to headphone speakers. Post 190 finds grarrgrarr returning to some unused headphones after a month and finding them to sound the same as they did when new.

 

So I would say that there is a measurable change, but that change does not necessarily last and is not necessarily audible.

post #25 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDreamthinker View Post

Ah ok........so its better to use pink noise for burn in because it covers all frequences at the same strength?


Not necessarily.  Just play music man.  Why you would ever want to stress a driver beyond conditions they would ever be exposed to is beyond me.  I get the idea, just don't agree that pink noise is 'ideal'.  You could overdrive them and cause damage as well.

post #26 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

 

So I would say that there is a measurable change, but that change does not necessarily last and is not necessarily audible.


With respect to the sampling in question, yes.  The question of what is or isn't audible change and the physics behind the material stresses remains unsettled for the skeptics although it makes sense to others like myself.

post #27 of 304

Yeah, why not put on some of your favorite music and enjoy?!

4 days and counting...

post #28 of 304

^ Yep, no one says you have to wait for burn in to enjoy right out of the box. 

 

There isn't much money in funding scientific studies to evaluate physical changes with burn in and how it applies to audiophile sound. So, there is a lot of hot air being thrown around without factual basis. So, why waste the time arguing. I'm with Nikongod, burn in is real but stating hourly changes is problematic at best. 


Edited by robm321 - 10/8/10 at 2:32pm
post #29 of 304

I enjoy the learning and debate as well as my music. I post as I listen.

post #30 of 304

Before listening I always treat my headphones with several hours of infra-aural de-stressing, a lobertz-russell diaphragm calibration current and driver impedance matched pink noise whilst being bombarded with amplitude inverted sine waves in accordance with the Hecklebrocht-Douglas theorem.  To finalise the drivers before listening - and this step is crucially important - they are connected to the positive end of a battery (must be lead-acid, irreversible galvantic contamination will result from any other cell chemistry) ONLY via tip and ring, and a copper-doped negative ion breeze is passed over the voice coils to repair any atomic nano-fissures in the structure of the conductive copper layer, as induced atomic eddy currents veil and muddy the sound due to non-inducting capacitance between the crystalline boundaries.  


Edited by googleborg - 10/9/10 at 7:20am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Is there scientific evidence that "Pink Noise"-Burn-In changes the sound?