[Jensen]

The entire problem with believing in burn in is the underlying premises of "trust your ears."

Almost every single time I put my SE530's on they sound ok for the first 10 minutes, then get noticeably better sounding after about 20. There are hundreds of hours on them at this point, so it's not burn in... my brain simply adjusts to the sound. The ears are not a scientific instrument. The frequency that goes into them and what you perceive goes through this big thing called the brain, which does remarkable things. Basically, the middle man screws everything up.

Because of my own experiences with my brain adjusting itself to a sound signature, I could never prove or disprove burn in. Notice I didn't say I didn't believe in it... just that there is NO WAY my brain is reliable enough of a scientific instrument to form an opinion on its existence.

 

[MadDog]

Just for your Info..Here are two responses I got from Sennheiser.
Basically you are on your own deciding the validity of burn in effect...

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Re: Online Visitor Service Email - HEADPHONES


Hello -

Unfortunately I cannot provide an opinion on burn-in. We feel that our headphones sound fantastic right out of the box.

_________________


Eric Palonen
Product Manager
Sennheiser Consumer Electronics
Sennheiser Communications
1 Enterprise Drive
Old Lyme, CT 06371
epalonen@sennheiserusa.com
(877) 736-6434 x142

_________________



Subject: Re: Online Visitor Service Email - HEADPHONES


Hello -

Thank you for your inquiry and interest in Sennheiser. Sennheiser does not have any official stance on "burn-in" or "break-in". Please see the good folks at www.headfi.comfor more information regarding this practice.

If you need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

_________________

Eric Palonen
Sennheiser USA
1 Enterprise Drive
Old Lyme, CT 06371
(877) 736-6434 (TOLL FREE)

 

[gameboy115]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jensen /img/forum/go_quote.gif The entire problem with believing in burn in is the underlying premises of "trust your ears." Almost every single time I put my SE530's on they sound ok for the first 10 minutes, then get noticeably better sounding after about 20. There are hundreds of hours on them at this point, so it's not burn in... my brain simply adjusts to the sound. The ears are not a scientific instrument. The frequency that goes into them and what you perceive goes through this big thing called the brain, which does remarkable things. Basically, the middle man screws everything up. Because of my own experiences with my brain adjusting itself to a sound signature, I could never prove or disprove burn in. Notice I didn't say I didn't believe in it... just that there is NO WAY my brain is reliable enough of a scientific instrument to form an opinion on its existence.

Not Really, I owned 3 top tier IEM, IE8, SE 530, and UM3X. Only SE 530 does not gain any benefit from 100 hr+ burn in. IE8 changes most, UM3X stops change after it pass 200 hrs, somehow it seems to me it has little bit change right after 400 hr, that may be possible coming from new player after 100 burn in.

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aj_brown_99 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've never actually documented any of my burn-in, but I can say that I'm usually somewhat disapointed at the sound out of the box, and then I'm usually pleased with it in the long run.

But given what we already uncontroversially know about human beings, and have known for a long time, this experience (which is perfectly real and well known) does not need any "burn in" hypothesis to explain it.

Quote:

What we should do is at the next Can Jam, have someone with a bunch of sets of new headphones and a bunch of the same, burnt in ones, and have people do blind tests and then see which one they prefer. That would solve the debate right there.

No I am quite sure it would not. I would expect no difference to be shown, but this will by no means stop people believing in "burn in", nor end any controversy.

We alreay have sufficient evidence to hand to unequivically reject the "burn in" idea, yet the belief in it continues. People's perceptions adapt readily, but their beliefs don't.

 

[skeptic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Seedhouse /img/forum/go_quote.gif We alreay have sufficient evidence to hand to unequivically reject the "burn in" idea, yet the belief in it continues. People's perceptions adapt readily, but their beliefs don't.

I think you have it backwards Ed...

Empirical evidence is simply data gathered from observation.

Our ideas and hypotheses are tested against the existing empirical evidence, not the other way around. This is the foundation of modernism and the scientific method.

In this case, the empirical evidence consists of reports by at least a dozen of us (in this thread alone) and many many more in the IE8 thread, all of which indicate that there is an obvious change in the sound of the IE8's within the first 20 or so hours of run time.

If your hypothesis is inconsistent with the available empirical evidence, and in this case it seems that it is, the hypothesis must be rejected.

 

[kwang411]

Burn in definitely has an effect on IE8, and its not hard to hear it.
Out of the box, the bass is bloated and in mass quantities, even with the dial to 0.
After 400 hrs, it loses about half of its original quantity, now i have the dial turned up to 2 to get the same quantity of bass.

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you have it backwards Ed...

But you are wrong about that. It is you who has it backwards.

Quote:

Empirical evidence is simply data gathered from observation.

And is thus largely worthless since it has no controls. Scientific evidence, on the other hand, requires proper controls.

Quote:

Our ideas and hypotheses are tested against the existing empirical evidence, not the other way around. This is the foundation of modernism and the scientific method.

Only if you entirely misunderstand the scientific method. Most of scientific investigation involves the careful and painstaking analysis of observations made with very careful controls. The "empirical" observations you refer to have no controls whatsoever.

Quote:

In this case, the empirical evidence consists of reports by at least a dozen of us (in this thread alone) and many many more in the IE8 thread, all of which indicate that there is an obvious change in the sound of the IE8's within the first 20 or so hours of run time.

And since they are entirely uncontroled observations they are not useful evidence at all.

Quote:

If your hypothesis is inconsistent with the available empirical evidence, and in this case it seems that it is, the hypothesis must be rejected.

It is consistent with the evidence gathered by scientific methods and widely published in peer reviewed journals. That uncontroled empirical observations by human beings is very unreliable is also well established by science, which is why scientists work so hard to avoid making such untested and uncontroled observations.

The "evidence" you refer to is not really "evidence". "Evidence" like that would also lead us to the belief in flying saucers, ghosts, and faeries. All of the latter have just as much good reliable evidence for them as "burn in', namely none.

 

[Pepito]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Seedhouse /img/forum/go_quote.gif But given what we already uncontroversially know about human beings, and have known for a long time, this experience (which is perfectly real and well known) does not need any "burn in" hypothesis to explain it. No I am quite sure it would not. I would expect no difference to be shown, but this will by no means stop people believing in "burn in", nor end any controversy. We alreay have sufficient evidence to hand to unequivically reject the "burn in" idea, yet the belief in it continues. People's perceptions adapt readily, but their beliefs don't.

How do you know that a blind test wouldn't work? I think that it would be a fair test. This could easily prove if the SQ of the IE8 is affected by burn in.

If you can't hear the difference of a new IE8 with 0 hours on it and a IE8 200+ hours... oh boy.

Senneheiser can't comment on burn in because if they said that their headphones sounded like crap out of the box, nobody would buy it.

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepito /img/forum/go_quote.gif How do you know that a blind test wouldn't work?

I don't know, absolutely. Feel free to do one. But do it properly and with proper controls or it won't be evidence. Until you do my opinion remains the same.

Others have tried this, no one has shown "burn-in" to exist. There are sound technical reasons to conclude that it should not exist, and no one has ever measured such an effect.

Quote:

If you can't hear the difference of a new IE8 with 0 hours on it and a IE8 200+ hours... oh boy.

Then do it. Provide actual evidence, not anecdotes.

Quote:

Senneheiser can't comment on burn in because if they said that their headphones sounded like crap out of the box, nobody would buy it.

I have heard two pairs now that sounded just fine to me right out of the box. One of them still does.

 

[gameboy115]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepito /img/forum/go_quote.gif How do you know that a blind test wouldn't work? I think that it would be a fair test. This could easily prove if the SQ of the IE8 is affected by burn in. If you can't hear the difference of a new IE8 with 0 hours on it and a IE8 200+ hours... oh boy. Senneheiser can't comment on burn in because if they said that their headphones sounded like crap out of the box, nobody would buy it.

Can't agree more.Senneheiser also can't tell you IE8 will change when it reaches 200hours, what if some of IE8 need 250 hours, or more.

 

[3X0]

Dunno, maybe it's all in my head. Maybe if I didn't read that they change every so-and-so hours for so-and-so improvement, I wouldn't have heard any of the differences I (thought I) did.

 

[Pepito]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gameboy115 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can't agree more.Senneheiser also can't tell you IE8 will change when it reaches 200hours, what if some of IE8 need 250 hours, or more.

Haha, SENNHEISER LIES! Mine took 200.359204 hours to burn in not 200! Blasphemy! I'm going to sue their asses!

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3X0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dunno, maybe it's all in my head. Maybe if I didn't read that they change every so-and-so hours for so-and-so improvement, I wouldn't have heard any of the differences I (thought I) did.

Well, in your head is the most powerful computer ever put together. It can and often does change how it percieves the world. This is well known and well confirmed by experiment.

I have heard changes in the sound of loudspeakers over time on any number of occasions. I also know that measurements don't show such changes, and that my perceptions, on the other hand, often do change. So I think what changes is me, not my loudspeakers. And that's what the evidence supports.

 

[3X0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Seedhouse /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, in your head is the most powerful computer ever put together. It can and often does change how it percieves the world. This is well known and well confirmed by experiment. I have heard changes in the sound of loudspeakers over time on any number of occasions. I also know that measurements don't show such changes, and that my perceptions, on the other hand, often do change. So I think what changes is me, not my loudspeakers. And that's what the evidence supports.

Which is interesting because I'm confident I heard the changes everyone was mentioning, despite being very skeptical of burn-in myself. It never quite made sense to me that even a dynamic transducer would need more than perhaps a few minutes to get settled.

Then again, there's burn-out..

 

[gameboy115]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepito /img/forum/go_quote.gif Haha, SENNHEISER LIES! Mine took 200.359204 hours to burn in not 200! Blasphemy! I'm going to sue their asses!

Go, dude, get them paid for sin of lying