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 25  

post #361 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teja View Post

100% right. This is a nonsens discussion and total headphone voodoo BS. Where are the experts that can in a blind test proof that burn in exists? There are none! Same is true for a correct build amplifier for a portable hp. At the same volume level none of the so called experts can proof in a scientific blind test that they can hear a difference. (Of course u can hear much louder!) Some people just "want to believe" aka "the mulder syndrom"

Heck even Mulder was far more of a skeptic than the folks who are anti-DBT.

post #362 of 520

The, arguably, premier instrument speaker manufacturer says that burn in is real. Here is their recommended method: http://celestion.com/speakerworld/guitartech/104/How_to_break-in_a_guitar_speaker/

 

Obviously, the driver size of a bass or guitar amp is much larger than a headphone.

 

In my experience, burn-in (break-in) is fairly notable with a guitar speaker. Depending on the headphone, I have found subtle to negligible change with burn-in. I think ear pad break-in and the resultant change in the distance relationship of the ear to the driver being the reason for most change, if any, for headphones.

post #363 of 520
Afaik no one disputes speaker break in.
post #364 of 520
I beg to differ:

"In parts of the audio industry, there is a belief that all com-
ponents from wires to electronics to loudspeakers need to
“break in.” Out of the box, it is assumed that they will not
be performing at their best. Proponents vehemently deny
that this process has anything to do with adaptation, writing
extensively about changes in performance that they claim
are easily audible in several aspects of device performance.
Yet, the author is not aware of anycontrolled test in which
anyconsequential audible differences were found, even in
loudspeakers, where there would seem to be some oppor-
tunities for material changes. A few years ago, to satisfy a
determined marketing person, the research group per-
formed a test using samples of a loudspeaker that was
claimed to benefit from “breaking in.” Measurements
before and after the recommended break-in showed no
differences in frequency response, except a very tiny
change around 30–40 Hz in the one area where break-in
effects could be expected: woofer compliance. Careful lis-
tening tests revealed no audible differences. None of this
was surprising to the engineering staff. It is not clear whether
the marketing person was satisfi ed by the fi nding. To all of
us, this has to be very reassuring because it means that the
performance of loudspeakers is stable, except for the known
small change in woofer compliance caused by exercising
the suspension and the deterioration—breakingdown—of
foam surrounds and some diaphragm materials with time,
moisture, and atmospheric pollutants. It is fascinating to
note that “breaking-in” seems always to result in an
improvement in performance. Why? Do all mechanical and
electrical devices and materials acquire a musical aptitude
that is missing in their virgin state? Why is it never reversed,
getting worse with use? The reality is that engineers seek
out materials, components, and construction methods that
donot change with time. Suppose that the sound did
improve over time as something broke in. What then? Would
it eventually decline, just as wine goes “over the hill”? One
can imagine an advertisement for a vintage loudspeaker:
“An audiophile dream. Model XX, manufactured 2004,
broken in with Mozart, Schubert, and acoustic jazz. Has
never played anything more aggressive than the Beatles.
Originally $1700/pair. Now at their performance peak—a
steal at $3200!”
http://www.scribd.co...s-Floyd-E-Toole-p569
post #365 of 520

^^

If you've bothered to read the comments earlier, no one is denying loudspeaker break in.

post #366 of 520
What? I deny it and science also... That was the point of my post.
post #367 of 520
And by science I mean it like this: Imagine you have two perfect dices, in one you have engraved with nano technology "science is awesome" and with an electronic microscope you can see it very clear. But with your own eyes you just can't. Would you bet you can spot the engraved dice for 10 times each at $1000? I dont think so. Likewise there is no one who would do such a bet for burned in or not burned in speakers in a blind test scenario. Yes, maybe you can measure differences but to the human ear they are just not relevant.
post #368 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post
 

^^

If you've bothered to read the comments earlier, no one is denying loudspeaker break in.

All the while making it obvious you didn't read HIS post.

post #369 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sxooter View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post
 

^^

If you've bothered to read the comments earlier, no one is denying loudspeaker break in.

All the while making it obvious you didn't read HIS post.


LOL

That post brings up a good point -- why does burn-in always seem to result in an improvement? That's an awfully convenient coincidence. You would think the opposite could happen as well. 

post #370 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by manbear View Post
 


LOL

That post brings up a good point -- why does burn-in always seem to result in an improvement? That's an awfully convenient coincidence. You would think the opposite could happen as well. 

Yeah the fact that things ALWAYS get better points to the human audio / aural circuitry in your brain MAKING things sound better over time. It's your brain's job to make it sound better and to compensate for bad environment, sound, hearing, etc. You brain almost never makes things sound worse over time. Add in the human nature of not wanting to be wrong, and you've got a double whammy. You WANT those new headphones / DAC / Amp / widget to sound better. So they DO sound better, because you believe they do.

 

It's how people convince themselves that an $80 USB cable makes a real difference for their DACs.

post #371 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by manbear View Post


LOL


That post brings up a good point -- why does burn-in always seem to result in an improvement? That's an awfully convenient coincidence. You would think the opposite could happen as well. 
If this issue was down to logic I think this post would nail it.
post #372 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sxooter View Post

Yeah the fact that things ALWAYS get better points to the human audio / aural circuitry in your brain MAKING things sound better over time. It's your brain's job to make it sound better and to compensate for bad environment, sound, hearing, etc. You brain almost never makes things sound worse over time. Add in the human nature of not wanting to be wrong, and you've got a double whammy. You WANT those new headphones / DAC / Amp / widget to sound better. So they DO sound better, because you believe they do.

It's how people convince themselves that an $80 USB cable makes a real difference for their DACs.
Nail, hit on head.
post #373 of 520

+115,897.  Which is why I just bought this:  $4.97

post #374 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teja View Post

And by science I mean it like this: Imagine you have two perfect dices, in one you have engraved with nano technology "science is awesome" and with an electronic microscope you can see it very clear. But with your own eyes you just can't. Would you bet you can spot the engraved dice for 10 times each at $1000? I dont think so. Likewise there is no one who would do such a bet for burned in or not burned in speakers in a blind test scenario. Yes, maybe you can measure differences but to the human ear they are just not relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sxooter View Post

All the while making it obvious you didn't read HIS post.

My sincere apologies. Keep going.
post #375 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teja View Post

And by science I mean it like this: Imagine you have two perfect dices, in one you have engraved with nano technology "science is awesome" and with an electronic microscope you can see it very clear. But with your own eyes you just can't. Would you bet you can spot the engraved dice for 10 times each at $1000? I dont think so. Likewise there is no one who would do such a bet for burned in or not burned in speakers in a blind test scenario. Yes, maybe you can measure differences but to the human ear they are just not relevant.

 

If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?

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?