Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Gear sounds worse after "burning in"?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gear sounds worse after "burning in"? - Page 3

post #31 of 55

My thoughts. Whether it's burn in or break in, to my ears it definitely exists with dynamic driver iem's and some headphones. I say this as I have no reason to prefer dynamic vs BA, yet even when trying and at times, wishing there would be a change on BA iem's, to the benefit or detriment of said iems there never to me was any detectable change. 

 

My headphone experience is more limited, but with the three I have had, 2 have changed, one more than the other two and the last pair didn't change to me.

 

I cannot comment on amps/devices burn in. I have noticed mild differences once, but I attribute that to familiarity.

 

I have noticed a cable improvement once which involved a swap to a non 3 button in line control cable on a pair of headphones. No comment on the whole this metal vs that metal vs flow of electrons etc etc. 

 

FWIW, whether you believe in burn in or cables or whatever really, is it not still a bias? Would you not then, tend to be in defense of your particular belief. I doubt you reading my findings with burn in would change your views anymore than me reading "yours" about it, if we disagree. 

post #32 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Rob View Post

FWIW, whether you believe in burn in or cables or whatever really, is it not still a bias? Would you not then, tend to be in defense of your particular belief. I doubt you reading my findings with burn in would change your views anymore than me reading "yours" about it, if we disagree. 
That's very true. The only point in the debate is to become aware that there are different opinions. There is also very scant hard evidence for burn in. The again if it works for "you" where's the harm?
post #33 of 55

I've seen the harm in this very subforum. People who feel the need to burn-in their headphones 24/7 not being able to sleep well because of the noise it makes. I'm not kidding!

Or convincing yourself that the headphone sounds better than it really does, by getting accustomed to the "particularities".

Or less to even no time to return the headphone due to long burn-in durations.

 

The manufacturers sure love it when you keep their headphones instead of returning it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by D Rob View Post
 

FWIW, whether you believe in burn in or cables or whatever really, is it not still a bias? Would you not then, tend to be in defense of your particular belief. I doubt you reading my findings with burn in would change your views anymore than me reading "yours" about it, if we disagree. 

No, you wouldn't change my beliefs but for a very important reason: lack of evidence.

If we look at more headphones and still cannot find evidence for physical break-in, then the hypothesis is looking really bad, isn't it?

 

We know that break-in happens in larger woofers largely due to the spider softening (the stress creates small cracks weakening the material/adhesive). Headphone drivers don't even need/have a spider so I'm already very skeptical. Measurements showed tiny differences that could have been due to environmental differences, heating up, earpad compression ... and in Tyll's measurements they even returned to the initial state ... still during burn-in!

 

Being open-minded, I'm happy to change my mind if there are sound arguments and some evidence to support the idea that small headphone drivers break-in. I'm not denying that moving parts change when they move, but the effects need to be magnitudes larger to cause audible differences. Just putting your headphones slightly differently on your head will cause 1000x stronger differences.

 

(Shure confirmed that there is nothing going on in their in-ears.)

 

 

PS: Are you open-minded enough to accept the idea that the differences do not come from the drivers?


Edited by xnor - 1/3/14 at 3:03pm
post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
 

I've seen the harm in this very subforum. People who feel the need to burn-in their headphones 24/7 not being able to sleep well because of the noise it makes. I'm not kidding!

Or convincing yourself that the headphone sounds better than it really does, by getting accustomed to the "particularities".

Or less to even no time to return the headphone due to long burn-in durations.

 

The manufacturers sure love it when you keep their headphones instead of returning it.

 

 

No, you wouldn't change my beliefs but for a very important reason: lack of evidence.

If we look at more headphones and still cannot find evidence for physical break-in, then the hypothesis is looking really bad, isn't it?

 

We know that break-in happens in larger woofers largely due to the spider softening (the stress creates small cracks weakening the material/adhesive). Headphone drivers don't even need/have a spider so I'm already very skeptical. Measurements showed tiny differences that could have been due to environmental differences, heating up, earpad compression ... and in Tyll's measurements they even returned to the initial state ... still during burn-in!

 

Being open-minded, I'm happy to change my mind if there are sound arguments and some evidence to support the idea that small headphone drivers break-in. I'm not denying that moving parts change when they move, but the effects need to be magnitudes larger to cause audible differences. Just putting your headphones slightly differently on your head will cause 1000x stronger differences.

I see your point. However, like all things with senses it is all very "touchy feely" and subjective. What one finds of taste another does not and to me, science does not explain all. Even if you told me the composition of tomato soup, be it ingredients or chemicals, one simply does not "taste" all of it to experience it. 

 

I may taste what you do not, or you may hear what I do not. As easily as it is written that the changes "could" have been attributted to "environmental differences, heating up, earpad compression" etc, can it be definitively proven any more that it was any of those than it can that it was none of them? 

 

I do not claim to know why or even if burn in is true of earphones and canalphones of various types. Yet, while acknowledging with high regard for the accoustical differencs in insertion for in ear monitors you speak of, I need no further hypothesis than that from which I have drawn my own conclusions. Healthy skepticism and experimentation.

 

In neither case have I ever played said earphone for more than 6 hours prior to burning in. To me lessening the likelyhood of accuostic familiarization so to speak. I was as skeptical as you are and with good reason, as you yourself have. However in my "experience" of my own exploration of the topic, my previous post outlines what I found to be true.

 

I do not think that, Tyll's testing was flawed. However I find this subject in similar fashion to the way we measure Scoville units. On one hand there is high-performance liquid chromatography, the objective test (attempts to measure capsaicin content) , and on the other the Scoville organoleptic test, the subjective test (panel of tasters).

 

The real conundrum to me is, how exactly does one create and execute a test to measure the "sense" side of sensory experiences? You can tell me how many BTU a grille releases, but can you measure the sensation of how "hot" it is if burned by it? To me, this is what is proposed in measuring what someone what actually "hears" vs what sound(s) are reproduced.

post #35 of 55
 

 

 

PS: Are you open-minded enough to accept the idea that the differences do not come from the drivers?

To this, yes I am. I do not know what has changed nor why, but did conclude appreciable changes in the instances I referred to. 

post #36 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Rob View Post
 

I see your point. However, like all things with senses it is all very "touchy feely" and subjective. What one finds of taste another does not and to me, science does not explain all. Even if you told me the composition of tomato soup, be it ingredients or chemicals, one simply does not "taste" all of it to experience it.

So taste, let's say, an organic vs. conventional tomato soup under controlled terms and let's see if you can taste a difference. That's science in my book.

I'm not surprised if you couldn't when the measured ingredients are not much different (assuming we can measure ingredients responsible for taste).

 

 

Quote:
I may taste what you do not, or you may hear what I do not. As easily as it is written that the changes "could" have been attributted to "environmental differences, heating up, earpad compression" etc, can it be definitively proven any more that it was any of those than it can that it was none of them?

Unless you repeat the test with a thermometer, additional microphone to record the noise produced by trucks driving by (which he said caused some of the tiny measured differences) ... no.

But even if those seemingly random changes were the effects of break-in, they were too small and didn't match what people reported ... and still report like parrots.

 

Besides positional changes, there are old vs new ear-pad measurements and the changes were enormous compared to anything you can find in break-in tests. If you do a 1000 hour test you'd think that the earpads maybe get flattened a little tiny bit.

 

All of this points to: whatever people are hearing, it doesn't seem to be the drivers breaking in.

 

 

Quote:

I do not claim to know why or even if burn in is true of earphones and canalphones of various types. Yet, while acknowledging with high regard for the accoustical differencs in insertion for in ear monitors you speak of, I need no further hypothesis than that from which I have drawn my own conclusions. Healthy skepticism and experimentation.

Shure doesn't advice burn-in. They measured in-ears and microphones over more than a decade with the obvious result: no change of sound due to use. And their mics have bigger transducers than their in-ears.

 

You mention healthy skepticism but how do you eliminate bias and all kinds of external influence on what you perceived? Why does "I heard a change" mean "the driver must have been burnt-in"? Taking all the stuff from above in account I don't see the connection.

 

 

Quote:
In neither case have I ever played said earphone for more than 6 hours prior to burning in. To me lessening the likelyhood of accuostic familiarization so to speak. I was as skeptical as you are and with good reason, as you yourself have. However in my "experience" of my own exploration of the topic, my previous post outlines what I found to be true.

 

I do not think that, Tyll's testing was flawed. However I find this subject in similar fashion to the way we measure Scoville units. On one hand there is high-performance liquid chromatography, the objective test (attempts to measure capsaicin content) , and on the other the Scoville organoleptic test, the subjective test (panel of tasters).

 

The real conundrum to me is, how exactly does one create and execute a test to measure the "sense" side of sensory experiences? You can tell me how many BTU a grille releases, but can you measure the sensation of how "hot" it is if burned by it? To me, this is what is proposed in measuring what someone what actually "hears" vs what sound(s) are reproduced.

Two things here: First, you can measure certain things more accurately than any subjective test will tell you. Can you "taste" or rather feel the difference between 850k and 900k scoville and reliably tell the difference?

 

Secondly, the real problem with headphones doing a comparison is that you need a perfect copy which doesn't exist. Even two headphones from the same batch will sound more differently (in some cases shockingly so) than doing 1000 hours of break-in...

 

 

Break-in just seems like a colossal waste of time, or at least a pointless exercise. That's what I have to conclude from all the information I have.


Edited by xnor - 1/3/14 at 5:19pm
post #37 of 55

After burn in by high frequencies my electrons flow smoother than yours!! All your base belong to us, silky smooth skin burned polished electrons! :)


Edited by StoneJack - 1/4/14 at 12:46am
post #38 of 55
I would suggest that burn in should not be longer than the opportunity to return. I guess there is always the secondhand market where not too much would be lost. That is the only real issue I can see.
Mind you. Designing headphones must be a pretty mystical art if designers are working with elements as they will be rather than as they are!
Edited by krismusic - 1/4/14 at 12:35am
post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
 

 

 

I did read it, just didn't want to quote it all and take up so much space. I see your stance, and it has been fun debating it with you (no sarcasm intended). I defer to the closing of my first post in this thread though, If you feel it's all placebo, that's fine, I respect that. 

 

But if you are indeed open minded, then my opinion can exist as well as yours. :beerchug:

post #40 of 55
So this means anything can be burnt in if a sufficient current is passed through it for a sufficient time. Given that it conducts electricity, of course.

Now I understand the reasoning behind shock therapy.
post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post

So this means anything can be burnt in if a sufficient current is passed through it for a sufficient time. Given that it conducts electricity, of course.

Now I understand the reasoning behind shock therapy.

 

It doesn't have to conduct electricity. It that case, it will literally "burn" :)

post #42 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post

So this means anything can be burnt in if a sufficient current is passed through it for a sufficient time. Given that it conducts electricity, of course.

Now I understand the reasoning behind shock therapy.

Totally agree here. My mind really 'opens up' after 200 hours of voltage passing through it.

 

It's been an enjoyable read (though I've been hoping for links to studies) but, as always, true 'faith' is very hard to break.

 

Is there a 'Sound Religion' section of this forum?

post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gignac View Post
 

 

Is there a 'Sound Religion' section of this forum?

 

Nah, but the 'Cables' section comes close.

post #44 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post
 

 

Nah, but the 'Cables' section comes close.

ROFL:D

post #45 of 55

cable voodoo 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Gear sounds worse after "burning in"?