Originally Posted by jon parker
The guy from that website clearly has no actual experience - as usual he is someone spouting an opinion based on something he himself has read and for some childish reason believes without the adult maturity to investigate for himself - slightly irrelevant but looking at the picture - yeah, I wouldn't burn in a pair of apple buds!
Im amazed at how different my DT 880's sounded after 50 hours burn in - i listened before, after 1 hour and other times - the sound signature totally changed :D
Also I really dont trust or understand someone who publically creates and posts on the www to try to prove a 'negative' - just comes from pride, anger & arrogance
He says there is not enough 'evidence' from audiophiles! - why would we waste precious time with 'Doubting Thomas's' when we are perfectly happy and content with our beautifully burned in Headphones and equipment - It takes a certain maturity and the capacity to sit down and quietly listen (concentrate) which many people don't have. as they say - Empty vessels make the most noise :)
The main point from the audiophile side almost always simply comes from their experience - 'facts' and science and graphs have no relevance compared to someones actual experience. Even if their experience was somehow wrong - so what, they are still going to carry on enjoying their delusionally better sounding equipment!
To be honest I have no time for the types of minds that seem desperate to cling to facts and graphs whilst avoiding actual experience - such tight babyish small minds.
Science = looking at thing with eyes and naming them - there is slightly more to life than that :D
My own experiences seem to point to headphone burn in not being real, lol. I am still using the same headphones I got back in 2009, still going strong, sound the same as I ever recall them sounding which is good. However that wasn't my test. My test was that I, fairly recently, picked up a brand new pair of the same headphones. Stuck them into my DX50 with the same EQ settings, they sound 100% exactly the same. Exactly. I was actually surprised by how identical the new sounded right next to the old highly-burned in pair. Direct a/b comparisons lead me to believe burn in is a mental thing. To really know for sure you need two pairs of the same headphones. Burn in one pair, leave the other pair alone. Do a/b comparisons. Mine resulted in no change, so I became a believer that burn in is not relevant. Which is also good, since I feel it should sound optimal out of the box so I can make my decision of whether or not I like the new sound after my brain is done getting use to it. In the meantime I'll be listening to it directly, not letting it play on its own for a couple days.
I do find that article a pretty good one. Based on my own experiences, he speaks truth. I'd prefer to see scientific graphs, if a pair of headphones looks the same on paper before and after burn in then nothing should have changed. Only pure data can reveal the truth, what anyone thinks they hear is not a proper test, mind has been proven to play tricks on us. I don't trust my own brain anymore than I would someone else's.
I still don't even know if I can hear differences between 16/44.1 or 24/192 khz. I like to think I do, that I identify new details and clarity or something that I haven't noticed before. Then I return to the cd counterpart and hear the new found details the same way, which proved my mind was just looking for something different. It hasn't found anything concrete. Right now as would seem I like listening to HD tracks only purely because the numbers and bitrates are higher, so it's better. :p Generally consumes too much space though. In this situation the data on paper actually shows that the HD tracks are better. Of course they are. I like to pretend I'm taking advantage of the better quality on the few albums I have that are HD, even if I can't figure out how they're better with my ears.