[liamstrain]

Quote:

What some listeners fail to understand is that the very small changes after burn in that are measurable should not be dismissed, they are very audible. (assertion) Just like one drop of water can cause an already absolutely full glass of water to overflow. (bad analogy, sound is not a glass of water, and your ears are not the lip of the glass or surface tension of the molecules)  You will notice it when it happens due to even the smallest change.  Another thing some people must come to terms with is that they simply have bad hearing and cannot pick up on the subtle differences, nor have the auditory memory that is resilient enough to accurately recall exactly what it sounded like new as well as after any amount of hours of usage.  
 
Burn in is definitely real in both a physical sense as well as psychological.  Electrical components change over a short period of time and those very small physical changes are indeed audible. (assertion - do you have evidence?)  If you can't hear it in some sets known to change significantly after X amount of hours, then I am very sorry to have to be the one to inform you that you have hearing problems or are just not listening properly. (Or, there is nothing to hear. Part of my day job is mastering audio, my ears are regularly tested and I was a professional musician (singer - a capella early music)... I have good ears and know how to listen - care to try again?)  Focus on the bass, the mids, the highs, separation, any hint of coloration changes, pick something like that to focus on when you first get your headphones and then look for changes after some usage.  There are also psychological changes in that your ears must learn to adjust. (yes, this is not burn in, however, this is adaptive hearing) Take Ultrasones S logic technology for example. The majority of Ultrasone users will tell you that your ears need a short time to adjust and full grasp the soundstage.  I've experienced this many times with the Ultrasone models I've owned, when I first listened to them I really didn't at all notice anything special about the stage qualities, after some use it was like a kamehameha to the face in that I just couldnt accept my ears were "stupid" enough to not realize what they were hearing at first.  After my ears got used to the Slogic, the sound literally blossomed and bloomed into a massive cavernous type sound vs the flat oddly shaped sound I had originally hear the instant I first tried it.  

 
 

 

[tinyman392]

I proved that thing you called assertion.  Find the area over the frequency range, you'll find the change is quite large...  Again, you go on doubting without seeing the entire story. 

 

[liamstrain]

 
 
Quote:

Find the area over the frequency range, you'll find the change is quite large... 

 
 
No, it is quite small... mostly inaudible even at the largest deviations, and most of this data is unreliable (well under the margin of error). You have not shown that they actually are cumulative, or can have an audible effect... you've just stated it. An assertion. 
 
A longer, louder assertion is not proof. It's still just as assertion. 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

 
 
 
 
I don't disagree with this - but even if they do hear these changes, we should not leap to "burn in" being the reason. Equally (or more) plausible, it has been shown that the brain has an adaptive hearing function. That is, you get *used* to the sound of something over time - a time period that may be relatively consistent with these observations and would explain the similarity in results. You can test this yourself swapping between two headphones of very different sound signatures. The differences between the two will be very apparent for a while (with the K702, going to them from my Grados - they initially sound harsh, every time), then gradually, you get used to that and the harshness goes away - an observation consistent with every report of "burn in" effects. This is a function of listening to the same sound signature for that period of time, not the headphones themselves changing.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quite the assertion. You are assuming these changes don't cancel each other out. And no, I do not think that these changes are cumulative in the way that you seem to. A .4 db change in one part of the spectrum doesn't magically multiply into being audible just because it is now in music rather than a tone test. It's still only a .4db change and WELL below audibility. Further - that is a change small enough to be well within the +/- error in the testing process. Do the same test tomorrow and you may get no results at all, or different results... this is not an unfair "doubting of accuracy" - if a reported change falls within the margin of error for the methodology used, you can't claim with any certainty at all that the results are what you want them to be. That's basic statistics and reporting. Sorry. 
 
I'll be curious to see the other data you reference. I'm not familiar with it, myself.
 

These small changes cannot cancel each other out, why?  Because we are measuring for a change in sound (change = gain or loss; where we never add a negative value, otherwise, it isn't a change).  Either way, the integral finds the area between the curves, so technically the absolute value signs aren't needed   .4dB change over an entire frequency range will be audible since it will up, again why we use an integral, not a single frequency (we listen to a range, there has to be a way to incorporate that into this). 
 
As for the +/- in the testing process, there you go doubting accuracy again.  Take the data as raw (in this instance) and accept it (in this instance), unless you have raw data that disproves it.  With the other graphs done by a Chinese manufacturer, we saw an undoubtable 2dB change smack dab around the 1000 Hz range.  This is a huge change that will undoutably change the overall V in the signature and create more details and clarity.  There is at least one other graph out there, I forget what it looked like though. 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

No, you stated it. I disagree with your conclusion. There was no "proof" beyond your own assertion about how you choose to interpret the results. Especially since *most* of the data falls under the margin of error for the test. 
 
A longer, louder assertion by you doesn't prove the first one.

What did I start exactly?  And the proof is in the results of a test...  Test is not ever 100% accurate, but the error has been reduced to the highest degree...  It's the fact that you still doubt it, not matter how accurate we can get, you're still going to doubt it.  Even if we were to deliver a system that was 99% accurate you would still doubt it because that 1% can easily turn results different... This indeed is doubt, regardless of how you think it isn't doubt, it is doubt (since you question accuracy each and every time).
 
In a scientific world, any data obtained is taken for truth with accuracy in mind until someone else creates something that goes against it.  Unless you find another graph (with similar tests) that disproves that the change is less than .5dB, then you have to accept this data for truth. 
 
EDIT: now you say it falls under the margin of error...  May I ask what this margin of error is?  And what source do you have for this margin of error?

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

now you say it falls under the margin of error...  May I ask what this margin of error is?  And what source do you have for this margin of error?

 
I said that in my first responses to you. But I get that from the maker of the test head Tyl uses. All the specs are available for download. Granted he uses the II.3 analog head, not the newer HMS IV digital heads - but the accuracy has increased. My recollection is the older heads were +/- .3db (new ones are .1-.15). I'll have to see if I still have the old data sheet. 
 
http://www.head-acoustics.de/downloads/eng/hms_IV/D1501e4_HMS_IV_1.pdf
 
These heads are for measuring the localized effects of sound in a given environment - and do this very well. But their primary function is for sound safety and large scale noise testing... as a result their precision measurements (fractions of decibles) leave a bit to be desired when we are talking about changes this small. 
 
 
 
 
Quote:

.4dB change over an entire frequency range will be audible since it will up, again why we use an integral, not a single frequency

 
 
No. .4db over the entire range is the same as turning up the volume .4db - an inaudible difference. 

 

[jaqueh]

@liam, look i know that no amount of data will ever persuade you to think otherwise and i honestly thing that hearing is believing. I notice on your profile that you don't really own anything other than full sizes or IEMs with already pretty stiff drivers or BAs. if you really want to understand where we're coming from, i implore you to try buying a new dynamic IEM yourself and LISTEN to the difference playing them for a while will make. the best examples of burning in that i've heard have been fisher audio's silver bullets, the treble goes from recessed to screechy to spiky to perfect, and the CC51s where the midrange's god awful sibilance subsides after using them for some time.

 

[swbf2cheater]

 
What some listeners fail to understand is that the very small changes after burn in that are measurable should not be dismissed, they are very audible. (assertion)
 
-Irrelevant, this is a public form intended for users to post their views.  I can retaliate to your view of assertion in that you have absolutely no proof what so ever small changes are in fact audible and should not be dismissed.  Basically, you are supporting the idea that any possible changes occurring should actually be dismissed.  Immensely poor argument if that is the case. 
 
 
 Just like one drop of water can cause an already absolutely full glass of water to overflow.(bad analogy, sound is not a glass of water, and your ears are not the lip of the glass or surface tension of the molecules)
 
- Assertion
 
 
 
Burn in is definitely real in both a physical sense as well as psychological.  Electrical components change over a short period of time and those very small physical changes are indeed audible. (assertion - do you have evidence?)  
 
- I trust Tylls findings, pretty much every major well known audiophile user and my own ears over yours any day.
 
 
If you can't hear it in some sets known to change significantly after X amount of hours, then I am very sorry to have to be the one to inform you that you have hearing problems or are just not listening properly. (Or, there is nothing to hear. Part of my day job is mastering audio, my ears are regularly tested and I was a professional musician (singer - a capella early music)... I have good ears and know how to listen - care to try again?) 
 
-  Sure do.  I meet professional musicians every single day who are god awful at what they do.  Ever hear of Kanye West? What makes you so special? Your day job has nothing to do with changes in headphones, rather the music itself.  Have you conducted tests for burn in before that include test trials of all sorts including response changes, are you familiar with the idea that there currently are no pieces of gear that can tell you what coloration type headphones have or how big their soundstage is, perhaps what bass texture it has, thick, thin, splashy, rock solid?  All of these qualities usually make of the largest portion of what users hear after burn in and some usage.  You are easily the least qualified type of person to proclaim authority over this type of debate, as your ears are now likely tuned to the same general type of headphones ( monitors ) and do nothing but immerse yourself into ever changing audio qualities.  If your memory were actually good enough to remember what the headphones sounded like brand new to what they sound like right now after working 8+ hours a day for months if not years with ever changing audio sound bytes, music and vocals with likely a variety of EQ settings that change often, perhaps even by the minute ( constantly toggling settings ) you would be a Savant GENIUS beyond comprehension...and you really aren't.  Your view in that your ears are good enough is a subjective view.  
 
 
Focus on the bass, the mids, the highs, separation, any hint of coloration changes, pick something like that to focus on when you first get your headphones and then look for changes after some usage.  There are also psychological changes in that your ears must learn to adjust. (yes, this is not burn in, however, this is adaptive hearing) 
 
- Proof you have no clue what you are talking about.  You are saying that none of these qualities change or represent what burn in can achieve?  I have no valid counterpoints to this but to laugh uncontrollably.  
 
 
 
 

 

[liamstrain]

 
 
Quote:

look i know that no amount of data will ever persuade you to think otherwise and i honestly thing that hearing is believing. I notice on your profile that you don't really own anything other than full sizes or IEMs with already pretty stiff drivers or BAs. if you really want to understand where we're coming from, i implore you to try buying a new dynamic IEM yourself and LISTEN to the difference playing them for a while will make.

 
 
Incorrect. Good data WILL change my mind. I just have not been presented with good data.  
 
I own what I have liked over time. I've gotten rid of what I did not. 
 
Belief is fine and all - provided you don't pretend that is the same as a fact. That's where we get into trouble. 
 
 
 
 
Quote:

I trust Tylls findings, pretty much every major well known audiophile user and my own ears over yours any day.

 
Did you read Tyl's conclusions? They do not agree with you.
 
 
 
Quote:

You are saying that none of these qualities change or represent what burn in can achieve?

 
No. I'm saying that we observe these qualities does not mean we can attribute them to the headphones actually changing. There are other explanations - you yourself presented one. 
 
 
Quote:

 
Your view in that your ears are good enough is a subjective view. 

 
You intimated I must have hearing damage or not know how to listen critically if I'm not hearing differences. I'm saying I don't have hearing damage (I have regular audiologist tests which prove it) and as a result of my job and experience as a (albeit subjectively) good professional musician in a demanding medium, I know how to listen critically.
 
If not hearing differences that nobody can prove are really there in the first place means to you I don't have good ears, then so be it. 

 

[jaqueh]

Quote:

 
What some listeners fail to understand is that the very small changes after burn in that are measurable should not be dismissed, they are very audible. (assertion)
 
-Irrelevant, this is a public form intended for users to post their views.  I can retaliate to your view of assertion in that you have absolutely no proof what so ever small changes are in fact audible and should not be dismissed.  Basically, you are supporting the idea that any possible changes occurring should actually be dismissed.  Immensely poor argument if that is the case. 
 
 
 Just like one drop of water can cause an already absolutely full glass of water to overflow.(bad analogy, sound is not a glass of water, and your ears are not the lip of the glass or surface tension of the molecules)
 
- Assertion
 
 
 
Burn in is definitely real in both a physical sense as well as psychological.  Electrical components change over a short period of time and those very small physical changes are indeed audible. (assertion - do you have evidence?)  
 
- I trust Tylls findings, pretty much every major well known audiophile user and my own ears over yours any day.
 
 
If you can't hear it in some sets known to change significantly after X amount of hours, then I am very sorry to have to be the one to inform you that you have hearing problems or are just not listening properly. (Or, there is nothing to hear. Part of my day job is mastering audio, my ears are regularly tested and I was a professional musician (singer - a capella early music)... I have good ears and know how to listen - care to try again?)
 
-  Sure do.  I meet professional musicians every single day who are god awful at what they do.  Ever hear of Kanye West? What makes you so special? Your day job has nothing to do with changes in headphones, rather the music itself.  Have you conducted tests for burn in before that include test trials of all sorts including response changes, are you familiar with the idea that there currently are no pieces of gear that can tell you what coloration type headphones have or how big their soundstage is, perhaps what bass texture it has, thick, thin, splashy, rock solid?  All of these qualities usually make of the largest portion of what users hear after burn in and some usage.  You are easily the least qualified type of person to proclaim authority over this type of debate, as your ears are now likely tuned to the same general type of headphones ( monitors ) and do nothing but immerse yourself into ever changing audio qualities.  If your memory were actually good enough to remember what the headphones sounded like brand new to what they sound like right now after working 8+ hours a day for months if not years with ever changing audio sound bytes, music and vocals with likely a variety of EQ settings that change often, perhaps even by the minute ( constantly toggling settings ) you would be a Savant GENIUS beyond comprehension...and you really aren't.  Your view in that your ears are good enough is a subjective view.  
 
 
Focus on the bass, the mids, the highs, separation, any hint of coloration changes, pick something like that to focus on when you first get your headphones and then look for changes after some usage.  There are also psychological changes in that your ears must learn to adjust. (yes, this is not burn in, however, this is adaptive hearing)
 
- Proof you have no clue what you are talking about.  You are saying that none of these qualities change or represent what burn in can achieve?  I have no valid counterpoints to this but to laugh uncontrollably.  
 
 
 
 

being a musician i agree really doesn't mean you know what good audio is, just like how being a chef at a restaurant doesnt necessarily mean that you have a good palette 
 

 

[jaqueh]

http://www.head-fi.org/t/556732/partial-proof-that-iem-burn-in-works-yes-scientific-frequency-response-charts-included

 

[liamstrain]

Thanks jaqueh - I'll read through that thread and look at the data presented. 
 
At this point, since I seem to be the lone dissenter, and this has mostly dropped into debates about me, and not about the data, I'm going to bow out for a while.
 
Believe what you want. I'll believe what I think is backed by data. 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

 
I said that in my first responses to you. But I get that from the maker of the test head Tyl uses. All the specs are available for download. Granted he uses the II.3 analog head, not the newer HMS IV digital heads - but the accuracy has increased. My recollection is the older heads were +/- .3db (new ones are .1-.15). I'll have to see if I still have the old data sheet. 
 
http://www.head-acoustics.de/downloads/eng/hms_IV/D1501e4_HMS_IV_1.pdf
 
These heads are for measuring the localized effects of sound in a given environment - and do this very well. But their primary function is for sound safety and large scale noise testing... as a result their precision measurements (fractions of decibles) leave a bit to be desired when we are talking about changes this small. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No. .4db over the entire range is the same as turning up the volume .4db - an inaudible difference. 

.3 dB means nothing...  That could be .0000001% error all the way up to a 100% error...  I asked for a percent error (error rate is measured in %).  .3dB is not a percent.  By saying .3dB, you are basically saying that the measurements are either extremely accurate, or not accurate at all...
 
As for the .4dB over a frequency range, it isn't a constant, I should have said about .4dB over a frequency range.  The differences still range, so it isn't entirely just putting up the volume.  It's putting up the volume here, reducing it here, then putting it really up here, then down here...  It adds up over that entire frequency range.  The differences are not constant, so it isn't just increasing/decreasing volume.  This inherant varying difference will change the shape of the entire signature, and in turn shape the music differently.


Quote:

 
 
 
 
Incorrect. Good data WILL change my mind. I just have not been presented with good data.  
 
I own what I have liked over time. I've gotten rid of what I did not. 
 
Belief is fine and all - provided you don't pretend that is the same as a fact. That's where we get into trouble. 
 
 
 
 
 
Did you read Tyl's conclusions? They do not agree with you.
 
 
 
 
No. I'm saying that we observe these qualities does not mean we can attribute them to the headphones actually changing. There are other explanations - you yourself presented one. 
 
 
 
You intimated I must have hearing damage or not know how to listen critically if I'm not hearing differences. I'm saying I don't have hearing damage (I have regular audiologist tests which prove it) and as a result of my job and experience as a (albeit subjectively) good professional musician in a demanding medium, I know how to listen critically.
 
If not hearing differences that nobody can prove are really there in the first place means to you I don't have good ears, then so be it. 

This doesn't seem to be the case...  as you still doubt every piece of data that is shot at you calling them all assertions, assumptions and just plain inaccurate. 
 
Secondly, Tyl leaves the conclusion in question.  He says basically that this one test alone cannot prove for or against.  He doesn't say that the results disprove it, he doesn't say that the change proves it.  Saying that his stance was against burn in is incorrect. 
 
To add, I do wish Tyl would have continued measuring past 65 hours and gone up to 200+ hours to see the full scope of things...  Since it really wasn't done, the information will remain inconclusive (I remember reading that these headphones needed 200+ hours to actually break in...  Well, maybe they didn't change that much over the first 65 hours and made their major changes in the last 100 hours)...  Another thing I wish he did was take multiple tests within each data set and found an average (to greatly reduce error).  Again, there is always next time...  I wish I had a head   I could test cheapos on my own to test  
 
As for the hearing damage, that wasn't me, so I won't say anything about that except that my ears are as valid as your ears in terms of observations.  My mission isn't to prove or disprove burn in, instead, I try to find a universal reason why people hear these differences and some do not.  And I stand that my claim that I've made:
 

Burn in exist, it's different for different headphones, and some will be more apparent than others.  The reason why people hear it, and some don't deals with our sensitivity to the change in change of sound (We are out of the 2D SPL vs Frequency graph now, and into the 3D time vs SPL vs Frequency graph) depicting change over time...  Since everyone's sensitivity to this change is inconsistent, we will hear these changes differently.  This includes the fact that many hear it, but also some don't.  It also supports the idea that these drivers break in at the same rate since it's based on our sensitivity, if you can hear it, you'll hear the same change the same way each and every time (due to the 3D time vs SPL vs Frequency graph that is stable; we know it's stable due to people who hear these differences that say they hear the same things around the same time period). 

 
Now the reason why I believe this is more accurate than other ideas/hypothesis:

1. It's universal, it takes into account everyone's opinion both the people who can hear it, and people who can't.
2. It's universal across all headphones, whether they change quick, or take a long time to change.
3. It takes something that hasn't been taken into account yet, a person's sensitivity to change (which is related to his/her decay in a certain noise; faster decay = less sensitivity). 
4. It brings time into the equation.  I honestly do not know who no one has yet to bring that into the equation...  The whole thing is based on time, you can't talk about break/burn-in without a basis in time.
5. It avoids the entire psychological appeal since each person's psyche is different, they should hear that change in a different rate (which based on other observations isn't true <= This argument there is the main reason why the psychological idea doesn't work).

 
I have yet to see you actually make a hypothesis of this sort that takes into account everyone's experiences, but also dodge and avoid the little problems with the ideas that have been presented in the past.  Instead, you question accuracy of everything (literally throwing data out the window because it doesn't agree with you) and don't have any ideas to contribute of your own...  I am curious to what you believe is happening (please don't say psychological/placebo since those would entail different experiences upon people who hear it which isn't the case). 
 
Conclusion...  Is my idea 100% accurate, heck no!  But as of now, it may be the most universal out there that takes into account all data found (whether or not you believe it's accurate or not is different) since I still stand firm about the belief that each of our observations are accurate (your ears are as valid as mine, but there must be a reason for these differences).  And as stated, the reason, the core difference between you and I is actually gonna' be the sensitivity to a change in sound (which is the basis of my hypothesis). 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

Thanks jaqueh - I'll read through that thread and look at the data presented. 
 
At this point, since I seem to be the lone dissenter, and this has mostly dropped into debates about me, and not about the data, I'm going to bow out for a while.
 
Believe what you want. I'll believe what I think is backed by data. 

Thanks Jaqueh, that was one of the graphs I saw in the past...  That difference would make a complete difference.  Also note that the Inner Fidelity test really didn't complete (remember that, it's only mapping out the first 65 hours, and there still is the possibility of major change after the first 100 hours). 
 
Sorry if it sounded like a personal attack (it wasn't really meant to be), but literally taking data and throwing it out the window is not the way to win an argument... 
 
Although I believe that you don't hear a difference, I do not believe it's psychological as that just isn't universal enough for me (as it ignores the idea that from the people who do hear it, they hear it around the same time span).

 

[swbf2cheater]

Ego plays a serious role around this debate.  You think it, therefore you are correct and everyone else is wrong.  Take Liams replies for example, he will see what ever he wants to see and read what ever he wants to read, no matter how hard you mash it right into his face or how gentle your counter point is, you will always get someone with a subjective view telling others their views are subjective or overly assertive.  It's a "god complex".  He is an audio remastering engineer, therefore he must be correct and his ears must be truly golden.  In the nicest way possible, I respect all opinions and absolutely love reading everyones impressions on all subjects and I apologize if my reply seemed a bit harsh, that was not my intent.  As I read back on it, it was clearly a retaliation in an egotistical manner and that is unlike me in ever facet.  I apologize for that tone.  
 
Tyll and I agree completely, the changes were small yet audible.  I've said nothing to the contrary.  I've said this many times before, there are many factors to add into the burn in equation like Weather and Temperature: Cold weather will absolutely make the innards of all electronics tense.  Headphones that have been shipped on the back of a Fedex truck in the blistering cold will sound harsh and absolutely ugly right out of the box just like my HE500s were today.  Out of the box this morning I wanted to vomit.  Right next to my HE300, the HE500 sounded butt ugly and something I will never use.  However, hours later as it settled into room temperature without any use beyond the first 5 minutes of opening the package and playing some tunes, they sound immensely smooth and tonally...let me rephrase...exceptionally beautiful in every way.  Electronics do transmit electricity more efficiently over time, wiring wears out, batteries fail ect ect.  In the case of audio drivers, the immensely tiny changes equate to audible differences.  And there are many areas of sonic qualities that burn in effects
 
-Bass type, including texture and weight, thick or thin watery bass, how muddy and how broad, warmth or more neutral or cold?
-Soundstage size, how deep, how tall or wide, does it envelope, how spacious
-Separation qualities
-Tinny highs, how bright, how dull, how much snap, are they harsh or relaxed
 
So many of these factors are not testable right now and what ever physical changes occur inside the innards of audio gear will produce some audible changes in these areas.  Dismissing the possibility without proof right now is poor science to me and something I just cannot do.  I don't need to believe in it, I can hear it.  I've heard it repeatedly for years and on almost every set of headphones I've ever owned.  I need no real proof right now, I trust my own ears.