or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Is burn in real or placebo?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is burn in real or placebo? - Page 23  

post #331 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelostMIDrange View Post
 

so we've established that burn-in is real, since it can and has been measured by people, that innerfidelity experiment being one, but that most of the psycholgical affect is familiarity affect, cognitive rebiasing if you will. I think this discussion is over. on to more important things like learning how to can these peaches i got from old man jefferies.......

Why can what you can get to eating

post #332 of 520

Here's a good article. NAY.......

 

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/11/tnhyui-earphone-burn-in/

post #333 of 520
I just posted this on another forum on the same subject.

I had an interesting (to me at least) time with my 8's last night.
I hadn't listened to them for a couple of days. They sounded awful! Pretty much the same as I remember when I first heard them. Thick and muddy.
I tried a few different things. Including sticking a bit of tape over the bass screws. (AKA "The Tape Mod") that improved clarity but screwed with all the other frequencies. Very similar to switching phase on loudspeakers IMO.
Anyway after trying various different things I gave up and reverted to how I usually listen.
The muddiness had gone.
This leads me to believe that any change over time with the IE8's is down to my brains ability to tune out what it does not like.
I wonder if this is a phenomena that could be harnessed? Then maybe I will try telekinesis!
Edited by krismusic - 11/17/13 at 3:36am
post #334 of 520

I bought a used of LCD-3s and a Mjolnir/Gungnir a month ago.

 

When it first came I more or less thought it sounded terrible. I was used to listening to DT-990s so the difference from a "bright" headphone to a "dark" headphone were way too much for me to handle. The warmth was absolutely destroying the sound of the guitars in almost everything that I usually listen to. It sounded as if the mids were out of control!

 

In the end I stuck with it and now, aside from the worst mastered albums I have, my set-up is definitely superior than what I had before. 

 

Only problem (as far as "burn-in" is concerned) is that all my "new" gear was already quite used. The only thing that changed was in my head as I adapted to the new way my favorite songs were being presented to me.

post #335 of 520

yeah,If you don't like a pair of headphones before break-in, then burn-in probably isn't going to make you really like it.thanks

hDIQWz

post #336 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by bangshoushang View Post

yeah,If you don't like a pair of headphones before break-in, then burn-in probably isn't going to make you really like it.thanks
hDIQWz
Yup agreed. If there is a burn in effect it will have a very slight change in the sound. It is more on our brain that adapts to the sound.
post #337 of 520

I don't really believe in mechanical burn-in, I think its our ear that adapts. Last year I lost my hearing for several months, and I remember when I finally got it back every sound was excruciating. Talking sounded like shouting, I would jump back at the sound of paper rustling, playing violin was like taking a chainsaw to the side of the head. But after three days it sounded fine. I think that's an example of the 'burn-in' effect, although it might be a bit more extreme than that with headphones.

post #338 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by badwolf259 View Post

I don't really believe in mechanical burn-in, I think its our ear that adapts. Last year I lost my hearing for several months, and I remember when I finally got it back every sound was excruciating. Talking sounded like shouting, I would jump back at the sound of paper rustling, playing violin was like taking a chainsaw to the side of the head. But after three days it sounded fine. I think that's an example of the 'burn-in' effect, although it might be a bit more extreme than that with headphones.
I agree with you. I read a report from a senior tech at Shure. They measured the FR of a new pair of IEMS and a pair with 2000 hrs. Exactly the same. I would take that over anecdotal reports. It must have been horrible losing your hearing. Especially as it sounds like you are a musician. Very glad you got it back.
post #339 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by badwolf259 View Post
 

I don't really believe in mechanical burn-in, I think its our ear that adapts. Last year I lost my hearing for several months, and I remember when I finally got it back every sound was excruciating. Talking sounded like shouting, I would jump back at the sound of paper rustling, playing violin was like taking a chainsaw to the side of the head. But after three days it sounded fine. I think that's an example of the 'burn-in' effect, although it might be a bit more extreme than that with headphones.

 

When people discuss their setups, they usually talk about things like the music source, their DAC, their amplifier, and their headphones. Some folks also discuss their cables, their power supplies, perhaps power filtering equipment. Some folks discuss issues with ground loops, noise, and other issues stemming from the connection of various components. Others discuss their recordings, whether they are lossy or loss-less, what the bitrate is, and so forth. I think that it's safe to say, that every individual piece of the components used to reproduce music, comes under intense scrutiny on this website.

 

This amazingly detailed analysis generally stops at the interface between the headphone, and the human listening to the music.

 

There is another chain of components involved that seem to be less frequently discussed, and even more poorly understood. I'm talking about our ears, the response of our ears, and our minds - which includes the understanding of what sound quality is, how to describe the various aspects of sound quality, our varied tastes in music, and so on. Of necessity, this also includes the age of the listener (which has an affect on how well we can hear things), as well as the "wear and tear" on each person's ears (those who've listened to loud music for years are less able to hear minor aspects of sound quality, vs those who have been kinder to their hearing).

 

It is my assertion that these details are what causes many disagreements and arguments over what we are hearing. We cannot ignore the fact, for example, that a man of my age (50+), who also has a provable hearing loss, simply is not able to hear the same detail as a man of say, 18 years old, who hasn't damaged his hearing. Similarly, a person much younger than I, who hasn't spent years of his/her life as a musician, may not have the same level of music appreciation that I do.

 

This is not a put-down. I'm just illustrating the fact that people's perceptions of music and sound quality differ. We often discuss such topics as sound quality without any regard to comparisons of the listeners. We like to pretend as if everyone has the same level of music appreciation, the same level of hearing ability, and the same ability to identify and compare very slight differences and aspects in sound quality.

 

This simply is not the case. People are different. I think it would be more accurate to say that everyone has their own individual perception of what sound quality means to them.

 

My observations on this thread (and others), years of being a musician, and years of listening to music, demonstrate that my perception of sound quality changes, from one day to the next, and from one set of equipment to another. It is horribly difficult to establish an accurate basis of comparison, just for one individual - nevermind attempting to establish a basis of comparison between any two human beings on this planet.

 

That being said, we still attempt to compare things. We try to identify and quantify such things as "burn in" - whether this is real or imaginary. I have previously stated my beliefs on this thread. My observations are relevant to individual pieces of audio equipment, and not to the human beings using them. Most of us have discussed these issues on this thread, without paying any attention to the human factors involved. And therein lies the problem: we're comparing the wrong things.

 

Outside of the fact that tubes actually do "burn in", headphones may "break in" due to mechanical wear, and solid state components don't change much (if at all) with use, we still need to discuss the real variables in this equation: our ears, our minds, and our perceptions. In my opinion, those are the things that vary far more than any of our audio equipment. And since it is very difficult to establish a basis of comparison, we're arguing over something that we'll never be able to prove.

post #340 of 520
Really excellent post.
post #341 of 520

Audiophiles like to blow everything out of proportion.

 

Amp "sound", DAC "sound", cable "sound", break-in, magical tweaks, etc. To most myths there is a grain of truth, but the remaining 99% is nonsense.

 

Just because large woofers break-in with small audible difference doesn't mean tiny headphone drivers' break-in will cause small audible differences too... see #88.

post #342 of 520
A couple of years ago the German magazine "ct" invited readers to blind test CD vs MP3 many of those readers considered themselves as audiophiles and were very sure that they could hear the difference. At 128kbit most participants were able to hear the difference. But at 256kbit it was only guessing. This is just one example there are lot more tests that debunk hifi myths.The audiophile community is full of more or less religious myths about SQ improvement. Most of these people wouldnt even be able to hear a difference between CD and high bit Mp3 but spent happily big money for cables, amps and insist that they must burn in their cans. It is not possible to prove that the tooth fairy does not exist but very strong evidence suggest it. Same is true for cables, burn in and amps. Yes amps! An amp is - for Christ's sake - just a device that increases the power of a signal. To all the believers in the voodoo BS it is just like the great American philosopher James Hetfield once said to his audience in Seattle: " Wake up, the fxxx!"...
post #343 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by krismusic View Post


I agree with you. I read a report from a senior tech at Shure. They measured the FR of a new pair of IEMS and a pair with 2000 hrs. Exactly the same. I would take that over anecdotal reports. It must have been horrible losing your hearing. Especially as it sounds like you are a musician. Very glad you got it back.

 

FR can be a very limited type of measurement. I can show you graphs of headphones measuring almost the same and sounding completely different.

Can you see on a FR graph if the bass is tight, the mids silky, the highs harsh and the soundstage huge? You can see if the bass is tight looking at other measurements though, or at least to some degree.

We have to know what to measure and how to best measure it in the first place if we want to figure out burn in on a scientific level. Or a lack of burn in.

post #344 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmustBKidn View Post
 

 

When people discuss their setups, they usually talk about things like the music source, their DAC, their amplifier, and their headphones. Some folks also discuss their cables, their power supplies, perhaps power filtering equipment. Some folks discuss issues with ground loops, noise, and other issues stemming from the connection of various components. Others discuss their recordings, whether they are lossy or loss-less, what the bitrate is, and so forth. I think that it's safe to say, that every individual piece of the components used to reproduce music, comes under intense scrutiny on this website.

 

This amazingly detailed analysis generally stops at the interface between the headphone, and the human listening to the music.

 

There is another chain of components involved that seem to be less frequently discussed, and even more poorly understood. I'm talking about our ears, the response of our ears, and our minds - which includes the understanding of what sound quality is, how to describe the various aspects of sound quality, our varied tastes in music, and so on. Of necessity, this also includes the age of the listener (which has an affect on how well we can hear things), as well as the "wear and tear" on each person's ears (those who've listened to loud music for years are less able to hear minor aspects of sound quality, vs those who have been kinder to their hearing).

 

It is my assertion that these details are what causes many disagreements and arguments over what we are hearing. We cannot ignore the fact, for example, that a man of my age (50+), who also has a provable hearing loss, simply is not able to hear the same detail as a man of say, 18 years old, who hasn't damaged his hearing. Similarly, a person much younger than I, who hasn't spent years of his/her life as a musician, may not have the same level of music appreciation that I do.

 

This is not a put-down. I'm just illustrating the fact that people's perceptions of music and sound quality differ. We often discuss such topics as sound quality without any regard to comparisons of the listeners. We like to pretend as if everyone has the same level of music appreciation, the same level of hearing ability, and the same ability to identify and compare very slight differences and aspects in sound quality.

 

This simply is not the case. People are different. I think it would be more accurate to say that everyone has their own individual perception of what sound quality means to them.

 

My observations on this thread (and others), years of being a musician, and years of listening to music, demonstrate that my perception of sound quality changes, from one day to the next, and from one set of equipment to another. It is horribly difficult to establish an accurate basis of comparison, just for one individual - nevermind attempting to establish a basis of comparison between any two human beings on this planet.

 

That being said, we still attempt to compare things. We try to identify and quantify such things as "burn in" - whether this is real or imaginary. I have previously stated my beliefs on this thread. My observations are relevant to individual pieces of audio equipment, and not to the human beings using them. Most of us have discussed these issues on this thread, without paying any attention to the human factors involved. And therein lies the problem: we're comparing the wrong things.

 

Outside of the fact that tubes actually do "burn in", headphones may "break in" due to mechanical wear, and solid state components don't change much (if at all) with use, we still need to discuss the real variables in this equation: our ears, our minds, and our perceptions. In my opinion, those are the things that vary far more than any of our audio equipment. And since it is very difficult to establish a basis of comparison, we're arguing over something that we'll never be able to prove.

Breathtakingly simple and IMO exactly right, the most overlooked component of our hobby. Well put U!

post #345 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmustBKidn View Post
 

 

<snip>

 

It is my assertion that these details are what causes many disagreements and arguments over what we are hearing. We cannot ignore the fact, for example, that a man of my age (50+), who also has a provable hearing loss, simply is not able to hear the same detail as a man of say, 18 years old, who hasn't damaged his hearing. Similarly, a person much younger than I, who hasn't spent years of his/her life as a musician, may not have the same level of music appreciation that I do.

 

<snip>

 

I agree. 

 

While the older listener may not be able to hear the same detail as an 18 year old, the younger listener hasn't been listening long enough to be able to fully appreciate what he is hearing.

 

This is not a put down either.  :beerchug:

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Is burn in real or placebo?