Just got a new pair of Shure SRH 840s, do i have to break them in?

Heya,

It's not necessary. It also is just a bunch of audiophile ritual more than anything. For every one person who claims they hear a difference, there's another person who can say "it's psychology, and you're just used to the sound now." Putting them wrapped in a towel, stuffed in a drawer, blasting pink noise sine waves into them for 1000 hours isn't going to change how they sound. You know what sounds different after long term wearing them and "breaking" them in? The pads change, you get used to certain differences from what you were listening to.

Put them on, listen to music, and don't worry about "breaking them in" or "burn in." They work, so use them.

Very best,

Food for thought: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break

But, honestly, I have to agree with MalVeaux here. Just enjoy your headphones :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothing4me 

Food for thought: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break

 

But, honestly, I have to agree with MalVeaux here. Just enjoy your headphones :D

Heya,

Tyll is a good guy, but before you go and read this and start screaming the sky is falling, note what Tyll summarizes:

This is not evidence of break in / burn in. There are way too many variables that he cannot account for, and since he's reasonable about this, he's summarized as such. To improve upon his experiment, he should take the burn in at 20~40 hours and measure it 100 times separately, once per day, allowing all equipment the same cool off time and pre-warm up time, in a facility with the same exact ambient temperature and humidity every time. The problem is, you would want to do this to more than one pair of headphones, and you'd not be able to accurately measure if it's the headphone being different from the other headphone (micro differences in build quality, fitting, production), or if it's in fact "settling" as time goes on more and more.

There currently is no evidence of burn in, other than attempts at measuring it with experiments that are simply not elaborate and accurate enough, and of course done so with many golden ear subjective trials for those that listen and make the claim based solely on their ears.

This is not to be negative. It's simply to point out that the more you try to put emphasis on this ritual the more silly it gets. We're not going to be putting a pair of $300 headphones into the Large Hadron Collider to measure minute changes over instants in time while playing back some pink noise test tones.

Very best,

While the over all sound signature will remain the same, I did notice the treble mellowing out and the bass becoming smoother as my 840s were broken in over a few days.

I don't think this was just my ears getting used to them because I bought 4 other pairs of headphones the same week and compared them back and forth. My ears didn't have time to get used to one in particular.

Good choice though, the 840s are excellent. Currently trying to return my HM5 clones. They don't hold a candle to the 840s imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalVeauX 

 

Heya,

 

Tyll is a good guy, but before you go and read this and start screaming the sky is falling, note what Tyll summarizes:

 

 

 

This is not evidence of break in / burn in. There are way too many variables that he cannot account for, and since he's reasonable about this, he's summarized as such. To improve upon his experiment, he should take the burn in at 20~40 hours and measure it 100 times separately, once per day, allowing all equipment the same cool off time and pre-warm up time, in a facility with the same exact ambient temperature and humidity every time. The problem is, you would want to do this to more than one pair of headphones, and you'd not be able to accurately measure if it's the headphone being different from the other headphone (micro differences in build quality, fitting, production), or if it's in fact "settling" as time goes on more and more.

 

There currently is no evidence of burn in, other than attempts at measuring it with experiments that are simply not elaborate and accurate enough, and of course done so with many golden ear subjective trials for those that listen and make the claim based solely on their ears.

 

This is not to be negative. It's simply to point out that the more you try to put emphasis on this ritual the more silly it gets. We're not going to be putting a pair of $300 headphones into the Large Hadron Collider to measure minute changes over instants in time while playing back some pink noise test tones.

 

Very best,

Oh, don't worry, I came to the same conclusion. I just wanted OP to check it out and hopefully he would have came to the same conclusion as well :D

No you don't. Your ears may adapt to the sound and you may think you're hearing something different but you aren't. Our brain tends to trick us.