Tyll testing confirms: Burn-in is clearly audible  

Heya,
 

Why the experiment proves nothing of it's intended purpose:

 

Bias of two different headphones potentially sounding different regardless of burn-in.

 

Was it burn in? Or was it that they were two distinctly different headphones?

 

Even the conclusion of the experiment states this:

 

 

The title of this thread is extremely misleading.

 

Note: I'm critiquing the test, as it's completely flawed and not scientific and missed a huge bias pitfall, not whether or not burn-in phenomenon exists. I'm also critiquing the choice of title for this thread, which is misleading, and completely misrepresents what the experiment data and conclusion yielded. This, folks, is voodoo.

 

Very best,

Edited by MalVeauX - 9/8/11 at 2:00pm

A 20 trial test with no more than one wrong would be nice for the super-skeptical, but this is very interesting, I think. Varying the number of trials is also bad form. 

 

MalVeauX has a good point, could it be manufacture variation?

 

I have heard huge differences getting used to flatter headphones after listening to V-shaped headphones (and the other way around), but that was psychological.

 

I think burn-in exists one way or another (psychological or mechanical) - not just placebo. . . 

 

EDIT: one more thing, I believe dfkt stated that burning in headphones with pink noise etc. could actually damage headphones. :S Could that be another reason? 

 

Edited by Satellite_6 - 9/8/11 at 1:31pm

Problem 1 was using only one headphone.
Problem 2 was we don't know if the headphone was pre-burnt by the mfr.

For problem 2, you might fairly assume no pre-burns for mass-market items coming out of China, which might even include the Shure 940. But other makers' top quality headphones might just get some hours on an automated burn bench, especially before sending out to a professional tester. Question: Did Tyll inform the mfr that he was going to do a burn-in test with his sample(s)? Not that the mfr would respond by *not* doing a pre-burn.

Trasselkalle, you should be ashamed of your self for being so misleading in your OP. Tyll would be rather disappointed I imagine if he found out that people are taking his hard work/conclusions and twisting 'em in to something that the data doesn't conclusively support : /

 

.

The data does support it but other possible reasons for those results could come into play. At this point the proper thing to do would be to break in the second pair complete with a do over. That gives a control. Personally, I've been aware of break in to varying degrees but that is also not proof. Of course I don't really care much about proof as I'm confortable with what I percieve with no need to justify it to others. What I did find interesting is that with so much pressure and inherent second guessing, that he did so well.

As MalVeaux pointed out Tyll stated in the article that the only thing he proved is that he could tell the difference between the two headphones. He also makes the point though that a definitive test is beyond his capabilities.

 

Indeed, I'm wondering how a definitive test is even possible. You can't use two separate headphones cause everyone will claim manufacturing variances, and rightly so. But how do you do a proper double blind test on a single headphone new against burn-in. Tyll showed measurements of one headphone actually having small changes in the FR graph over time, but there is so many factors to consider that I'm just not sure it's reasonably feasible to get a definitive answer.

This is how I know burn in is real.  I put the headphones on and I listen to them over time, then I trust  my ears. I've trusted my ears as an editor for 24 years. They've fed, clothed and sheltered myself and my family for 24 years.  I don't need no stinkin blind test to tell me what I hear and what I don't hear.  But hey if you're not confident in your own ability to hear and perceive then I guess you need blind test proof, double blind test proof.  Measurements from instruments as proof.  Anything other than your own ears because who can trust those things.

This is how I know placebo is real 

kudos to Tyll for having the cojones to do the test, and to post the results.

it certainly piqued my interest.

 

Explain how this makes placebo real, and while your'e at it tell me why my statement seems to be false to you?   

 

Another issue with this test is that Tyll knew he was looking for a difference and he heard both headphones before the test. He was also familiar with the songs being played and knew what small nuances to listen to.

 

But then again, I don't think Tyll claims anywhere in the article that this is objectively conclusive proof that burn-in exists and is audible. Its great that this attempt to get some more data in this great big argument was made and I applaud it.

As soon as anyone trusts his ears, I know placebo is going to come into play.

 

I know, I know. You've worked in this industry for years, your ears are fool-proof.

I'm always curious as to why when people hear a change take place they do not think what they are hearing is real?