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 29  

post #421 of 520

In the same way that your eyes adjust to different levels of light (i.e. they behave differently when you're out in the sun, when you're indoors, and during the night) -- your ears adjust to different sound signatures. Put on a headphone that feels bright at first, listen to it for two hours, and it won't seem as bright anymore. Same with bass levels and every other feature.

 

So I think that's the biggest part of "burn in."

 

However, objective measurements have shown that full sized headphones do exhibit a different frequency response after burning in and, being mechanical objects, they can't be expected to behave exactly the same after a year of use as they do after one hour of use.

post #422 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by migasson View Post

I believe that burn in is bollocks, and if it does occur, it's not worth worrying about......

My 2 cents...

 

+1

 

 

Burn in, such as cable improvements, comes with self confidence.

 

If you cannot hear the difference, it's because you're weak.

I can hear it because...well I must be gifted. 

It goes with testosterone. :)

 

 

Most blind tests reveal another, more logical, truth.

 

As long as you haven't participate to a real blind test, you don't know how wrong you could be.

You don't know, and you often don't WANT to know.

 

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

post #423 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmustBKidn View Post

I don't believe that everybody seems to get what is being referred to. Because what is being referred to is quite often wrong. Which is why I am trying to say something about it. Should I feel bad? No. I don't think so.
I certainly do not want you to feel bad for making a contribution and I apologise if I came across as rude.
FWIW I completely agree with you about the infuriating amount of BS and miss information in this hobby.
I am interested to hear that Tropical fish is worse. I thought audio offered the most scope for charlatans.
The video you posted is priceless.
And yes. I have the same feeling of knowing less as I learn more!
post #424 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by ag8908 View Post
 

In the same way that your eyes adjust to different levels of light (i.e. they behave differently when you're out in the sun, when you're indoors, and during the night) -- your ears adjust to different sound signatures. Put on a headphone that feels bright at first, listen to it for two hours, and it won't seem as bright anymore. Same with bass levels and every other feature.

 

So I think that's the biggest part of "burn in."

 

However, objective measurements have shown that full sized headphones do exhibit a different frequency response after burning in and, being mechanical objects, they can't be expected to behave exactly the same after a year of use as they do after one hour of use.

 

Yes. I agree on both points. I am particularly intrigued by the first one. That brings up the question, is there some qualitative level of sound quality that our ears and minds are attempting to adjust to? And how do our ears or minds arrive at what we consider "the best" sound quality?

 

Further, if our minds have some sort of pre-set notion of what "the best" is, then how do we discover "better" sounding gear? You can read in any number of places on this website, how people discover newer and better gear of all sorts. Stranger still, their conclusions that some piece of gear is better, may come immediately, or after some extended period of usage (which often involves running the said piece of gear over time, without actively listening to it).

 

It is this notion that running new gear for a period of time after buying it, constitutes "burn in". It doesn't seem to matter what sort of gear is being discussed. This is where it gets weird.

 

It really amazes me to read the Schiit Vali thread, with people constantly discovering how awesome the Vali sounds, yet they consistently remark on the "ringing" effect of the tubes used in the device. In case you're not familiar, this is an American made, hybrid tube/ss amp, that is squarely in the middle of what I call "Budget-Fi" land ($119 bucks). It has been compared to amplifiers costing far more, by members of this forum whose opinions are considered quite reliable and trust-worthy.

 

Because of the extended period of time between news of the amp and it's actual release, that thread held a protracted series of discussions about sound quality. It really amazes me how this device was compared to amps costing many times more, by the few people who were lucky enough to have an advance copy of the device. Even after its release, many remain amazed by its performance for the price. I wonder how Schiit can continue to sell its more expensive devices, if the amp is truly the giant killer it's made out to be.

 

Given the ability of our ears and minds to adjust to new gear, it might not come as a surprise that people rave about the amplifier as much as they do. One might reasonably wonder whether they should spend $1000 for an amplifier, or $119 for an amplifier, given the rave reviews. If you are budget conscious like me, you might be very happy to spend only $119 on an amplifier, if it can sound as good as something ten times it's price. Especially with the knowledge that our ears will eventually adjust to whatever quirks might exist in the sound quality produced.

 

Of course, the manufacturers of audio gear would prefer that you spend cubic dollars to purchase their gear, because of course a Woo Wa7 at $999 sounds better than a Schiit Vali at $119. Right? Even if it does, won't our ears adjust to whichever device our wallets can afford?

post #425 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by The French View Post
 

 

+1

 

 

Burn in, such as cable improvements, comes with self confidence.

 

If you cannot hear the difference, it's because you're weak.

I can hear it because...well I must be gifted. 

It goes with testosterone. :)

 

 

Most blind tests reveal another, more logical, truth.

 

As long as you haven't participate to a real blind test, you don't know how wrong you could be.

You don't know, and you often don't WANT to know.

 

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

 

Well said, lol. ;)

 

Being new, you might want to read this comedic review of the Schiit Vali. It's definitely worth the laugh.

post #426 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmustBKidn View Post
 

 

Well said, lol. ;)

 

Being new, you might want to read this comedic review of the Schiit Vali. It's definitely worth the laugh.

 

"The tubes in the vali are not just decorations.  If they were they would be on the outside"

 

:etysmile:

post #427 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by krismusic View Post

I certainly do not want you to feel bad for making a contribution and I apologise if I came across as rude.
FWIW I completely agree with you about the infuriating amount of BS and miss information in this hobby.
I am interested to hear that Tropical fish is worse. I thought audio offered the most scope for charlatans.
The video you posted is priceless.
And yes. I have the same feeling of knowing less as I learn more!

 

Thank you for your comments. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish emotions over the Internet. I may have over-reacted as well. I just wanted to be clear. Sometimes I spend too much time trying to be clear ;)

 

I absolutely loved salt water tropical reefs. My favorite was an 80 gallon tank, that used 650 watts of metal halide lighting and another 55 watts of actinic light. I have some old pictures of it below. Many fond memories, my kids really loved the tank...

 

The 20 gallon saltwater:

 

The 26 gallon show tank, also saltwater:

 

A cute little freshwater tank:

 

My 80 gallon reef tank, shortly after a water change:

 

Another angle of the 80 gallon reef:

post #428 of 520
They look like a lot of care went into setting them up and looking after them. This may well be the most "off topic " a thread has ever gone on Headfi! There again probably not !! smily_headphones1.gif
post #429 of 520

Just my two cents... the first album I listened to with my AX-60s was the remastered "Wish You Were Here".  When it was playing "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" parts VI-IX and it hit those highs I thought I had bought some crappy IEMs.  Now after 50 hours that same guitar sounds very smooth.  Can't say what changed, my ear or the IEM.

post #430 of 520
Ear
post #431 of 520

It's possible that when you bought them there was some dust or plastic flange caught in the driver that shook out after a while. A hair in there can cause stuff like that. But I doubt that drivers would distort by themselves and then fix themselves.

post #432 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demo3 View Post
 

Just my two cents... the first album I listened to with my AX-60s was the remastered "Wish You Were Here".  When it was playing "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" parts VI-IX and it hit those highs I thought I had bought some crappy IEMs.  Now after 50 hours that same guitar sounds very smooth.  Can't say what changed, my ear or the IEM.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

It's possible that when you bought them there was some dust or plastic flange caught in the driver that shook out after a while. A hair in there can cause stuff like that. But I doubt that drivers would distort by themselves and then fix themselves.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KamijoIsMyHero View Post

Ear

 

In my subjective experience and opinion, both your ears and your IEM's changed.

 

The IEM, because mechanical devices do break in with use. Automotive engines do the same thing over time. Car engines don't really work optimally until about 1000 miles of use. That amounts to 1% or 2% of their expected lifetime. Ditto for motorcycles (though their expected lifetime is considerably shorter).

 

The ear, because I have read and personally experienced changes in my own gear, that occurred AFTER any possibility of mechanical break-in could have occurred (e.g. many many hours of use). In this review, I noted after a period of time that the sound quality of the same gear from my collection, in different combinations, triggers this "oh my god this sucks" and later, the "wow, this sounds good after all" reaction. THAT is what I am personally the most curious about. I really would like someone with experience in psychology, physiology, ontology, audiology, etc to chime in on this and try to explain what is happening. So far it remains an absolute mystery to me and everyone here, near as I can tell.

 

Btw, Kamijo, I bought Prince & Princess after watching a few of their video's. Amazing :D I'm still baffled why they broke up.

post #433 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmustBKidn View Post
 

 

 

 

In my subjective experience and opinion, both your ears and your IEM's changed.

 

The IEM, because mechanical devices do break in with use. Automotive engines do the same thing over time. Car engines don't really work optimally until about 1000 miles of use. That amounts to 1% or 2% of their expected lifetime. Ditto for motorcycles (though their expected lifetime is considerably shorter).

 

The ear, because I have read and personally experienced changes in my own gear, that occurred AFTER any possibility of mechanical break-in could have occurred (e.g. many many hours of use). In this review, I noted after a period of time that the sound quality of the same gear from my collection, in different combinations, triggers this "oh my god this sucks" and later, the "wow, this sounds good after all" reaction. THAT is what I am personally the most curious about. I really would like someone with experience in psychology, physiology, ontology, audiology, etc to chime in on this and try to explain what is happening. So far it remains an absolute mystery to me and everyone here, near as I can tell.

 

Btw, Kamijo, I bought Prince & Princess after watching a few of their video's. Amazing :D I'm still baffled why they broke up.

Although I agree physical change occurs within the IEM, the difference is tiny, maybe only 1-2 dB at certain frequencies. To me, that is insignificant enough and conclude that the ear/psychology amounts to 99% of the change.

 

 

OT:

Oh that's good to hear, that is actually my favourite release by them, what did you like about them? They haven't officially disbanded, just on a hiatus.

post #434 of 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by KamijoIsMyHero View Post
 

 

OT:

Oh that's good to hear, that is actually my favourite release by them, what did you like about them? They haven't officially disbanded, just on a hiatus.

 

I love the guitar work, mostly. I really like solid metal guitar work, and I was really impressed by Hizaki (and Teru, but mostly Hizaki). Accuracy in what I call "speed metal" is something that has forever impressed me. Perhaps because I never mastered Guitar, of all the instruments I played ;) I am also impressed by the ability of multiple guitarists to work together live, which this group seems to be adept at. For all of the distractions that Visual Kei offers, these guys are absolutely not distracted from their guitar work.  I just wish I could understand Kamijo, lol.

post #435 of 520
A couple of things.
The car analogy has been used in this context before.
It is not really relevant IMHO.
In point of fact I have been told when buying a new car that these days the engine is built to fine tolerances and subjected to ultrasonic washing to remove debris.
Running in is unnecessary.
More relevant is that a senior technician at Shure took an IEM with 2500 hrs and one straight off the production line.
They both measured the same.
Kamijoismyhero is right IMHO.
Any break in is likely to be so tiny as to be inaudible.
Edited by krismusic - 3/10/14 at 6:23am
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?