Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Partial proof that IEM burn-in works. Yes, scientific frequency response charts included!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Partial proof that IEM burn-in works. Yes, scientific frequency response charts included!

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 

I've had enough of this. So why don't I bring out the big guns?

This test was NOT done by me. Original test here. NO AFFILIATION.

IEMs used: Chinese-made "Widing ME-10EX", a rave product over there that sells around the price point of an SE530.

 

Frequency response chart of a virgin ME-10EX.

Wav1.jpg

Software interface of Cool Edit 2000. This file was used to burn-in the ME-10EX continuously for ten hours.

Cooledit2000.jpg

After burn-in: Left side. Green before blue after.

NewL.jpg

After burn-in: Right side. Red before violet after.

NewR.jpg

Frequency response chart of the burnt ME-10EX.

Wav2.jpg

I make no observations.

Start the discussion.

post #2 of 16

Interesting results. Let the flame war begin!

post #3 of 16

Were the headphones moved in any way between the measurements? What dummy head was used (if at all)?

 

Without knowing the test setup nobody can really comment on the differences that were measured.


Edited by xnor - 6/2/11 at 3:13pm
post #4 of 16
Two things strike me right off the bat. First, the differences in response are not symmetrical, which seems odd, if burn-in is tending towards some "better" response. Second, would these differences be audible? Burn-in, as I understand it, is not simply about change, but a perceptible improvement in a headphone.
post #5 of 16

Tyll wrote something similar.. The bottom line is, can you hear the difference? 

 

I see Widing ME-10EX is a dynamic type. According to Akihiko Hosaka-san, the senior manager at Samsung electronics, some micro dynamic drivers, depending on the thermal characteristic of their spider-surrounds(are homogeneous on micro drivers), might get affected upon breaking-in, resulting in response changes mainly at the resonant frequency(f0). It seems ME-10EX's f0 must be at ~500 Hz.

post #6 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rroseperry View Post

Burn-in, as I understand it, is not simply about change, but a perceptible improvement in a headphone.


So true.

 

Honestly I don't care anymore. If it does change, then it happens gradually and I don't notice it. There's not going to be a huge difference after 24 hours that I'll notice, nor a difference after 120 hours because I'd have forgotten by then. If people need the notion of burn in to justify a purchase then let them; it's not like it affects you anyway.

post #7 of 16

Interesting results from this dynamic IEM. It's hard to make any generalizations, and certainly too early, but...it's interesting.

post #8 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Were the headphones moved in any way between the measurements? What dummy head was used (if at all)?

 

Without knowing the test setup nobody can really comment on the differences that were measured.


Then there's the measurement equipment's capability of being reproducible/repeatable....Gage R&R anyone?
post #9 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rroseperry View Post

Burn-in, as I understand it, is not simply about change, but a perceptible improvement in a headphone.


You understand wrong and any subjective value associated is mythological hyperbole.  Burn-in/break-in is change or settling to a drivers normal operational state.  Whether it is positive or negative is purely subjective and irrelevant to the phenomena.  

 

Most of the fallacious debate and claims people make on both sides obviously derives from a lack of defined terms.  Plenty of ad nauseam discussion around this topic/forum already. 

 


Edited by Anaxilus - 6/4/11 at 10:16pm
post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post




You understand wrong and any subjective value associated is mythological hyperbole.  Burn-in/break-in is change or settling to a drivers normal operational state.  Whether it is positive or negative is purely subjective and irrelevant to the phenomena.  

 

Most of the fallacious debate and claims people make on both sides obviously derives from a lack of defined terms.  Plenty of ad nauseam discussion around this topic/forum already. 

 


Ok, I can accept that my understanding is flawed, but seriously, any discussion of burn-in on head-fi has always been about how playing X through Y new gear over X hours or days has resulted in some improvement. That's where I'm coming from on this thread. I'm agnostic about burn-in for dynamic elements, but extremely skeptical otherwise.
post #11 of 16

Here is the translated version:  http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.51erji.com%2F%3Fp%3D563

 

From what I can tell it looks like the controls on this test were weak at best.  If I am not mistaken such tests need to be done repeatedly with the driver in the same position because there is usually measurement variation between repeated tests.  There is little or no mention of the equipment used during the test or the ambient conditions.  There's a ton more qualification needed here to even begin to legitimize the results of this test- let alone whether or not they matter to our ears.

 

Edit:  After re-reading, I'm not sure if they're even using the same actual IEM for before/ after.  I'm leaving my burn-in worries to my ears and maybe InnerFidelity.


Edited by Mkubota1 - 6/4/11 at 11:09pm
post #12 of 16
Is this just one pair?

I'd like to see a statistically significant amount used. If a number of pairs show similar results, I'd be inclined to believe it.

Though you cannot extrapolate these results across every piece of audio gear. The results would only apply to the tested model.

It would also be interesting to see listening tests.
post #13 of 16

Interesting results .

 

Nobody should rationally argue that their is no such thing as as "burn in". In the context of the mechanics of headphones & I.E.M's that have mechanical moving parts .Though depending on the physics of the headphones and I.E.M's some will have slight changers that no human can hear whilst others may have a noticeable audio change due to a physical change .

 

Eventually any headphone or I.E.M's sound will change over a period of timing . Until the point that the Audio device will cease to operate as the mechanical parts break down and malfunction .

 

I would of thought the actual debate about burn in would be more productive if a list of headphones and I.E.M's that were the most sensitive to these changers in audio was to be compiled .

 

Then a general consensus's could be reached that would be of use to potential buyers of new Audio equipment .

 

The list could have information like :- How long was the average reported optimum burn in time and what changers were to be expected . So if you bought some headphones and felt they had too much or too little of something you could take a look at the list & see if there were many reports that any of these sounds you didn't like were likely to change with burn in .

 

Scientific measurement can prove or disprove a theory .

 

Everything that's moving is changing . As change and movement are just two words that fundamentally relate to the same force/energy .

 

frown.gif I feel a little sad now knowing that one day my Earsonics SM3 are inevitably going to wear down & break . But no problem,unless we make it one, provided we look after our resources we can continue to recycle old for new & make and evolve audio equipment indefinitely .<<< though that theory depends if you scientifically lean towards the balanced kinetic perpetual energy model of 1 universecool.gif .( main stream popular science leans towards a Big fat 0 Theoretical model of the universe ) popcorn.gif

 

 

 

 


Edited by ib1dance - 6/5/11 at 9:13am
post #14 of 16

A comparison between two brand new IEMs would also be interesting to see if they all differ anyway.

 

Based on the frequency graphs shown, how audible are the differences likely to be?

post #15 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

Based on the frequency graphs shown, how audible are the differences likely to be?


I'd like to see some scientific basis or comprehensive research for anyone that feels they can answer this one way or the other.  The generic response of 'Oh, you can't or won't hear Delta X' is getting a little tired.  

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Partial proof that IEM burn-in works. Yes, scientific frequency response charts included!