Tyll and Stevie's discourse

No real surprises actually.  I think anyone whom had seriously thought about it would be able to come to the conclusion that "what sounds accurate" doesn't necessary equal to "what sounds good" and vice versa - as one is an objective measurement while the other is a subjective opinion.  It's easy to have a person who loves a massive 5db bass boost which would prefer a headphone which gives him what he wants but by all objective measure that headphone would not be "accurate" etc.

With all that said this doesn't mean that measurements are completely useless and that we can just accept audio myths  which CAN be objectively measured and tested to be true/false like cables and burn-in etc. The line isn't blurred there.

Let me give you an example:  I really like my B&W P5. But I rarely use it for music listening. It's got a great look and feel.  It's comfortable. It's cable is a nice length for use as a headset on my phone and on my iPad while watching movies.  The big bass and laid back highs is a signature I can listen to for hours...with movies. It's got surprisingly good isolation, so I can use it walking around town. 

Headphone utility is very application specific. So good measurements (very competent sound quality) is only one of many attributes that makes for a satisfying headphone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by autumnholy 

I'm not aware about that. So they did do a controlled test and found out that burn-in has been proven to not alter anything in regards to Sound Quality? Is there a report for that?

Well even Tyll himself had done a test on the Q701 burn-in and while he found evidence for change, you still need to make another leap to prove that the change actually results in "better" sound quality (or more correctly as objectively more "accurate sounding", since we've already established that "better sound" is actually a subjective opinion).     

Also the other problem with most people's advocating of burn-in is that its results is always for the better, however the simple fact is that not all change could be positive (say hypothetically speaking a burn-in lead to a drop of 3db in the lower bass region thus causing a fast roll-off from 0db, by objective measurement this is bad) so why do we never seem to see reviews which says "hey after 100 hours of burn-in it made my headphone sound WORSE!!!", food for thought....  And if you accept that's the case you really don't want your phones to change at all (or within a very small tolerance) due to burn-in, think about it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by autumnholy 

Yes, I do agree with the trend that almost all burn-in results in favorable changes and some has no audible changes (that's from what I've read and what my friends around told me). It'd be amazing if someone actually tells me that their headphones had became worst after burn-in...waiddaminut..Coming to think of that, I DID hear this before, and the response I heard was: Burn-in longer. You're not there yet.

HA!

Burn-in seems to have become the wonder drug that will cure all your ills.

se

I'm more used to BURN OUT ! 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy 

 

HA!

 

Burn-in seems to have become the wonder drug that will cure all your ills.

 

se

Quote:

Originally Posted by autumnholy 

Yes, I do agree with the trend that almost all burn-in results in favorable changes and some has no audible changes (that's from what I've read and what my friends around told me). It'd be amazing if someone actually tells me that their headphones had became worst after burn-in...waiddaminut..Coming to think of that, I DID hear this before, and the response I heard was: Burn-in longer. You're not there yet.

Come to think of it there is another case where people will say that it became worse - when they claim that a "bad/incorrect burn-in" broke the headphones.   But again this raises the question whether there's been any reviews which uses supposedly "correct" burn-in methods like running pink noise or just plain playing music at moderate volume or whatever which resulted in worse sound?

A statement without comparison, rigorous testing, and simplified results is nothing more than conjecture and marketing.

Please pass the snake oil...the expensive one.

I know a fella that fills his coffee cup up half with sugar before filling it. Drinking glop like that would make me gag, but he likes it. I think there are people who actually like that horrible boom-boom bass and shrill piercing highs. But they're exceptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot 

I think there are people who actually like that horrible boom-boom bass and shrill piercing highs.

That was me up to my mid-teens. Bass and treble all the way up.

se

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanaholic 

No real surprises actually.  I think anyone whom had seriously thought about it would be able to come to the conclusion that "what sounds accurate" doesn't necessary equal to "what sounds good" and vice versa - as one is an objective measurement while the other is a subjective opinion.  It's easy to have a person who loves a massive 5db bass boost which would prefer a headphone which gives him what he wants but by all objective measure that headphone would not be "accurate" etc.

 

With all that said this doesn't mean that measurements are completely useless and that we can just accept audio myths  which CAN be objectively measured and tested to be true/false like cables and burn-in etc. The line isn't blurred there.

Pretty much. Why would a person who sees audio in an objective manner not enjoy an XB700, or a P5? It doesn't measure well, and so it's technically not as good a headphone, but we enjoy it more.