Burn-in advice

Quote:

Originally Posted by doogg 

I just bough a pair  Degauss Dual Driver  today do i need to use any burn in software or should i just listen to music

 

Any advise would be appreciated. 

 

I have to say for the moment they sound Amazing.

If you like them out of the box.  Enjoy them.  If you don't.  Attempt a burn in.  You can burn in while you listen to music as well :)

You don't need to "burn-in" headphones, no matter what anyone here tells you.

Manufacturers might say you need to burn them in so you keep them long enough for the return-by date to pass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eisenhower 

You don't need to "burn-in" headphones, no matter what anyone here tells you.

Manufacturers might say you need to burn them in so you keep them long enough for the return-by date to pass.

Please don't start this argument...  You don't have enough proof on your side to prove it, I don't have enough proof on my side...  It'll just end up like another one of "those" threads XD

doogg, just listen to the music. If you feel like being without them for a few days, go ahead and burn them on. Plug them into an iPod loaded with some heavy bass music like (drum and bass, house, hip hop), and play them louder than you normally play. Leave it for a week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by doogg 

So in the end should i burn them  or just go along with the music?!

Note*** they are armature drivers

If you don't mind the way they sound (like the sound right now), just go with music...  If you don't like the sound, try burning in. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinyman392 

 

Please don't start this argument...  You don't have enough proof on your side to prove it, I don't have enough proof on my side...  It'll just end up like another one of "those" threads XD

I won't, and I don't need to, since the burden of proof lies on your side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eisenhower 

 

I won't, and I don't need to, since the burden of proof lies on your side.

How so?  Proof goes both ways (scientifically speaking).  We don't live in a binary world, we live in a fully diverse world with infinite possibilities.  Proving something something false doesn't instantly mean that the other must be true.  Again, we aren't binary.  !true != false (!false != true) in a non-binary world (!true = false and !false = true iff true and false are binary).  False = false (true = true)... You have to prove your side just as much I have to mine. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinyman392 

 

How so?  Proof goes both ways (scientifically speaking).  We don't live in a binary world, we live in a fully diverse world with infinite possibilities.  Proving something something false doesn't instantly mean that the other must be true.  Again, we aren't binary.  !true != false (!false != true) in a non-binary world (!true = false and !false = true iff true and false are binary).  False = false (true = true)... You have to prove your side just as much I have to mine. 

The negative cases don't have to be proven, in other words, the null hypothesis is the default position ("burn-in doesn't exist"). In the scientific method, you make a hypothesis ("burn-in is real, and makes and audible improvement to sound") and then you conduct an experiment to prove it. If you cannot, you remain at the null hypothesis.

Now, if you provided some sort of evidence for your hypothesis, then I could conduct my own research to disprove it (disprove is sort of like "proving" the null hypothesis).

If we had to prove null hypotheses, we'd be spending all day trying to disprove ridiculous claims about faeries, aliens, ghosts, etc... none of which have any evidence of existing to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eisenhower 

 

The negative cases don't have to be proven, in other words, the null hypothesis is the default position ("burn-in doesn't exist"). In the scientific method, you make a hypothesis ("burn-in is real, and makes and audible improvement to sound") and then you conduct an experiment to prove it. If you cannot, you remain at the null hypothesis.

 

Now, if you provided some sort of evidence for your hypothesis, then I could conduct my own research to disprove it (disprove is sort of like "proving" the null hypothesis).

 

If we had to prove null hypotheses, we'd be spending all day trying to disprove ridiculous claims about faeries, aliens, ghosts, etc... none of which have any evidence of existing to begin with.

Default hypothesis may not be right...  EG, the null may not be correct.  You still made a hypothesis (even if it's the null/default), you just fail to attempt to prove it. 

tinyman392 - How come you cause controversy and arguments in every thread you participate in? Why can't we all just get along?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinyman392 

Default hypothesis may not be right...  EG, the null may not be correct.  You still made a hypothesis (even if it's the null/default), you just fail to attempt to prove it. 

.... I don't have to "make" the null/default hypothesis by definition.

Similarly, I don't have to enter the default values in a computer program, or else they wouldn't be defaults.

Do ghosts exist? Unless they have been proven to exist, we assume they do not exist. In your world, I'd have to prove that they don't exist, which is absurd and a waste of time, since their are an infinite number of things which could exist (blue ghosts, white ghosts, ghosts with hair, ghosts who wear pants, ghosts made of wood, ghosts with pillows for antlers, ghosts who smell like hammers, God, ghosts who eat cake upside down, ghosts who are good darts, ghosts who are bad at bowling...). Unless there is any evidence that they exist, I don't have to spend one modicum of my time disproving them.

but yeah, the null hypothesis could be wrong. However, I'm not the one claiming it is wrong, you are, so you have to prove it.