[gout]

some headphones burn in... some dont...

 

[Earwax]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti Burden of proof is on assertors.

Spoken like someone out to fan the flames , rather than someone who wants to illuminate.

 

[bdormer]

Not to fan the flames. But it would seem only logical (since entropy increases) that, over time, there must be some change (for better or worse) in the transducers. This would suggest that there could be a change in the characteristics of the sound produced by a transducer.

Since the voice coils will heat up when used and the surrounds will undoubtedly loosen up with use - there may be an acelleration of the rate of change thru use and/or burn-in.

Whether we can measure or hear that change is debatable.

Whether we can accellerate the phenomenon is also debatable. However, anecdotal evidence exists that supports the burn-in hypothesis.

Since we can't determine a "good" sounding headphone from just measurements - how one would prove that time or burn-in "improves" the sound is an open issue.

Since we cannot, as listeners, agree on what is a "good" sounding headphone, about all we could say is that there is or is not some measurable change in the output of a burned-in .vs. new transducer.

Improvement is in the ear of the beholder.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by bdormer You, sir, know nothing about me, my thinking skills, what I do and don't believe or what I will and won't accept. You ASSUME, based on a few lines of text. Where's your critical thinking? As for asking questions - I did.

All we have to go by is what you wrote. I cannot tell what you may have been thinking, but from all indications you swallowed this whole thing, hook, line, and sinker.

You went from:

"I've read a lot of posts saying that some cans really need to be burned in before their true sound character emerges."

to

"So what procedure(s) or technique(s) do you recommend for performing a 'burn in'?"

Every day, in every aspect of life, we need to use our critical thinking skills. You did not even question whether there was any substance to these sorts of unsupported and fanciful assertions.

There is no substantive evidence whatsoever to support wild claims of fantastic improvement in the sound of headphones from 'burn-in'.

And it's perfectly proper for me to point that out to you.

In case you were asleep during that philosophy class....

Take care

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by sacd lover Nope its not. Your asserting there is no break in.

The burden of proof is on the assertor. I assert nothing. Suppose ***you*** claim that you were kidnapped by aliens last night and a duplicate put in your place with your memories tranferred into the duplicate.

If I react skeptically, what shall we do?

The burden of proof on this assertion is you, my friend. If I question it, I do NOT have to disprove it. You have to prove it.

You CANNOT prove a negative. I CANNOT disprove that you were kidnapped by aliens last night and a duplicate put in your place with your memories tranferred into the duplicate. Does that mean that you were? Does that mean that you may make such an assertion willy-nilly, and demand credence? Of course not! Skepticism is ALWAYS warranted in the face of wild claims.

If someone walks up to me and say he can expose Kodachrome 64 at 200,000, I'm naturally skeptical, because I understand photographic film, and I know the nature of the material does not allow this.

I would demand some sort of evidence of this feat. If I say 'I'd like to see some evidence for that', any response from the other fellow along the lines of 'prove it can't be done' is illegitimate.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by bdormer Not to fan the flames. But it would seem only logical (since entropy increases) that, over time, there must be some change (for better or worse) in the transducers. Improvement is in the ear of the beholder.

Permanent? Temporary? Caused by heat? Does it disappear after storage? Does it occur only with certain models?

Only an exhaustive testing program covering many models would answer these questions. Absent that, it remains UNPROVED HEARSAY.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by sacd lover I dont think everyone is fully aware of his tactics, especially new members. But if he is finally called upon to provide and reciprocate proof,.... Provide some proof Mike. Lets see some of your proof burn in doesnt exist. I for one wont accept less or you will be ignored in the future.

For the LAST TIME!
I am not obliged to provide proof of the non-existence of anything. Those who claim it exists are!

Do you remember Heaven's Gate people who commited mass suicide a few years ago?

What they believed could not be disproved!

http://www.rickross.com/groups/heavensgate.html

Is this so difficult to understand? This is basic stuff! In a court of law, the prosecution must prove its case. The defense has only to establish reasonable doubt.

There is reasonable doubt that burn-in exists.

 

[bdormer]

I hereby nominate Mr. Scarpitti to be the official Head-Fi Investigator in Charge on the subject of headphone burn-in.

Since he is so interested in this subject that he can't stop himself from incessant posting - he will now have the chance to prove or disprove his point.

It's time for him to put his effort where his keyboard is. Design the experiment. Perform the experiment. Write up the results and post 'em for all to see. He claims to have such wonderful critical thinking skills, this should be a cinch. So, how about it? Show us some results! We're waiting on your report.

If he can't/won't do it - then he has no place making the comments he has been. It will only prove that his only reason for posting is that he likes to see his name come up on the screen.

Meanwhile, I'm putting him in my ignore list.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by bdormer I hereby nominate Mr. Scarpitti to be the official Head-Fi Investigator in Charge on the subject of headphone burn-in. Since he is so interested in this subject that he can't stop himself from incessant posting - he will now have the chance to prove or disprove his point. If he can't/won't do it - then he has no place making the comments he has been. Meanwhile, I'm putting him in my ignore list.

I have no such inclination, nor such obligation.

The burden of proof is on those who assert the existence of the effects.

Believe what you want. Ignore whom you want.

I don't care. This was an opportunity for you to learn something.

Take it or leave it.

 

[Geek]

Mike,

Why are you trolling on a topic inquiring about the most effective way to burn-in a pair of headphones?

If you don't think burn-in makes a difference, then don't post. Just as if you don't think cables make a difference, you don't post in the cables forum about cable burn in techniques, or if you think better CD players make any difference, you don't post about better CD players.

Use some common sense. This guy asked a simple question and the answer doesnt have to involve flame wars.

Shouldn't moderators be banning trolls?

Cheers,
Geek

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by Geek Mike, Why are you trolling on a topic inquiring about the most effective way to burn-in a pair of headphones? If you don't think burn-in makes a difference, then don't post. Just as if you don't think cables make a difference, you don't post in the cables forum about cable burn in techniques, or if you think better CD players make any difference, you don't post about better CD players. Use some common sense. This guy asked a simple question and the answer doesnt have to involve flame wars. Shouldn't moderators be banning trolls? Cheers, Geek

I have no opinion of the existence of 'burn-in'. I have an opinion on the methodologies of those who claim it exists. That opinion is, that those methodologies are very poor and the results therefore inconclusive.

I have not made a 'flame 'war, I have just insisted that claims be backed up by substantive evidence.

No name-calling, no insults, just demands for evidence other than unsupported wild claims.

How is that flaming?

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by sacd lover I have another sennheiser hd650 that was new and unused until today. I had not had a chance to hear it. I compared it to my first hd650 (150+ hours est) using an identical setup. Its not a huge difference but I could pick out which one was which without looking. I could plainly hear a difference and I am not that familiar with either of these pair of hd650's yet. This is hardly conclusive but its more direct evidence than the skeptics have given to this point. I want to add that its not just up to the believers to prove their point. I DONT CARE WHO BELIEVES WHAT, but If I cant prove something, that doesnt necessarily mean the opposite is true. Those who disagree need to site evidence as well. What proof is there products, like headphones in this case, dont break in? At best the answer will likely remain WHO KNOWS.

Of course it is up to the believers to prove their assertions. Always has been, always will be. What if a police officer came to your house to arrest you with a complaint that your neighbor made, saying you killed her cat with voodoo. Do you have to disprove that?

Certainly not!

I have repeatedly pointed out this principle to all of those who have read these posts and discussions.

That said, what you've presented is a claim that you can tell two HD650's apart. The difference between them may be burn-in, or it may be sample-to-sample variation. We cannot tell. This was not a critical test.

Good evidence would be to leave them both running for a week, then see whether you can tell them apart.

 

[hop ham]

word geek.

mike, your posts are hurting my eyes (so why don't i stop reading right?, yeah, done). you seem very passionate on this subject. perhaps you should start a new thread with your inquiries. i don't believe this thread was started with any intention to start up flaming debates on the subject at hand, but rather explore techniques that were useful to some.

getting back to the topic...i usually just run my new headphones for a couple days straight playing basically anything. i will listen to them while burning in so i can enjoy them. i play the phones at about listening volume, maybe a little higher.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by hop ham word geek. mike, your posts are hurting my eyes (so why don't i stop reading right?, yeah, done). you seem very passionate on this subject. perhaps you should start a new thread with your inquiries. i don't believe this thread was started with any intention to start up flaming debates on the subject at hand, but rather explore techniques that were useful to some. getting back to the topic...i usually just run my new headphones for a couple days straight playing basically anything. i will listen to them while burning in so i can enjoy them. i play the phones at about listening volume, maybe a little higher.

The question is one of method. How we conduct our lives. How gullible we allow ourselves to be.

 

[JaZZ]

My method of breaking in a quartet of Monacor/Number One SPH-250KE 10" speakers:

First step: measuring their free-air resonance, which, according to the specs, should be at 23 Hz. Oops... all samples show something around 30 Hz. Now certain people would wrinkle their noses and return that crappy stuff, with parameters far from the specified ones. Well, to me as an experienced speaker builder that's not alarming at all... break-in has always helped in these cases. In fact it's a very normal procedure, and I haven't met any new speaker chassis reaching the specified parameters; all of them show a resonance at least 20% higher than specified. If you're into speaker building (am I really the only one at Head-Fi?), you are familiar with this phenomenon, which BTW is described in every better DIY magazine.

Second step: setting the tone generator to ~28 Hz, to achieve maximum voice-coil/cone displacement with minimum current charge. There's not much power needed to move uninstalled speaker chassis near its resonance frequency, and the maximum displacement with this model is very high, so I give them some juice and allow them to vibrate with a displacement around ±8 mm in average, with some 5-10-minute pauses every 2 hours.

Results:

Chassis..........0 hours......after 15 hours

No.1..............30.0 Hz..........25.2 Hz

No.2..............30.0 Hz..........25.2 Hz

No.3..............30.2 Hz..........25.4 Hz

No.4..............30.0 Hz..........24.8 Hz

These values are stable, at least 2 hours after «cooling down».

I don't explicitly need the «promised» 23 Hz, so I'm satisfied with the result so far. These chassis will be built into some folded dipole baffles, where the resonance will be dropped by the air charge by approx. 20%, so it will be below 20 Hz anyway, hence out of the audible range, and the higher Q factor coupled with the higher resonance frequency is welcome as well, so no problem at all. (The bass dipole is the only principle allowing a loudspeaker completely lacking resonances within the audio band.)


I suspect this «proof» will not impress the fanatic skeptics, as the past has shown. There have been some proofs given, one of them was another comparable example from my side. But it will certainly prove once more the partial blindness of these self-proclaimed «neutral» and «unbiased» persons. Well, people calling physical break-in phenomena with sound transducers (literally) «extremely unlikely» can't really be unbiased. Even Mike should know that the industry still hasn't managed to design tennis-racket strings which don't wear in (actually out) during play.

Of course the decreased resonance frequency with speakers still doesn't really prove audible break-in effects with headphones. But I guess it's extremely unlikely that they aren't real. Actually I for one didn't need this proof, because my listening experiences with their clearly positive results have already convinced me.
.