[Inks]

Not this again...  There is burn in with BAs...  It's not 100% psychological like you state... 
 

Unless you have pregraphed two new pairs and then noticed a difference after graphing them again, there's no basis for your claim. ABX isn't going to help much because you'll psychologically will want to hear differences.
 
 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

Unless you have pregraphed two new pairs and then noticed a difference after graphing them again, there's no basis for your claim. ABX isn't going to help much because you'll psychologically will want to hear differences.
 
 

And where is your proof that it doesn't exist...  Unless you've pregraphed 2 pairs and noticed no difference, along with some brain scans to prove it's psychological, you can't say much either... 
 
If it was truly psychological, mental, or placebo, everyone who heard a difference would hear differences at a different rate, and different times as each person's psyche will adjust differently.  However, several outcomes show that we all hear the changes, close to uniformly. 
 
Also, ABing them won't prove sufficient because you'll psychologically want to not hear differences...  Quite honestly, that argument is trite, overused, and works for both sides... 
 
Also note, so far, every test done regarding burn in has shown some sort of actual change in sound (although all may not be audible).  All tests (yes, this uses FR graphs, data, ect.) show some sign of burn in...  You're up at bat now.  Show me 2 graphs that show no signs of changing whatsoever (Tyll's graphs show change that is outside the error rate showing that those do change, they just change really slow; 65 hours may not have been sufficient enough for them to burn in).

 

[Totally Dubbed]

Guys ok, no arguments please !

Then let me re-phrase it:
Burn-in is not as noticeable on BA's as it is on DD's
 
DD's have a whole different sound sig/form when burned in, BA's from my experience don't change that much, if anything they don't change at all - what you hear out the box is what you get.
I hoped that my W2's would deliver more bass, but they didn't, "burn-in" + comply tips changed that a little, but still no where near to my liking.

 

[Inks]

And where is your proof that it doesn't exist...  Unless you've pregraphed 2 pairs and noticed no difference, along with some brain scans to prove it's psychological, you can't say much either... 
 
If it was truly psychological, mental, or placebo, everyone who heard a difference would hear differences at a different rate, and different times as each person's psyche will adjust differently.  However, several outcomes show that we all hear the changes, close to uniformly. 
 
Also, ABing them won't prove sufficient because you'll psychologically want to not hear differences...  Quite honestly, that argument is trite, overused, and works for both sides... 
 
Also note, so far, every test done regarding burn in has shown some sort of actual change in sound (although all may not be audible).  All tests (yes, this uses FR graphs, data, ect.) show some sign of burn in...  You're up at bat now.  Show me 2 graphs that show no signs of changing whatsoever (Tyll's graphs show change that is outside the error rate showing that those do change, they just change really slow; 65 hours may not have been sufficient enough for them to burn in).

I believe the believers have the burden of proof. Just because theres no proof for unicorns doesn't mean they exist. Even with dynamics InnerFidelity found insignificant differences using the test method I illustrated. Shure who would benefit from saying it exist have denied it. Who am I going to believe? Of course we all hear change but the specific changes have been all over the place from what I've read here for over 2 years. There are cases when they're the same but who's to say that reading about them had an effect. Regardless, there just isn't enough proof to speak of it as an absolute.
 
Exactly because it can lead to biases should that test be invalid regardless of the side, that's the point.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

I believe the believers have the burden of proof. Just because theres no proof for unicorns doesn't mean they exist. Even with dynamics InnerFidelity found insignificant differences using the test method I illustrated. Shure who would benefit from saying it exist have denied it. Who am I going to believe? Of course we all hear change but the specific changes have been all over the place from what I've read here for over 2 years. There are cases when they're the same but who's to say that reading about them had an effect. Regardless, there just isn't enough proof to speak of it as an absolute.
 
Exactly because it can lead to biases should that test be invalid regardless of the side, that's the point.

 
Nothing is enough proof to be an absolute...  Why, you doubt it, you simply say it's not good enough.  The bearer to bad news comes and tells you the bad news.  You deny it.  The next bearer comes and tells you the same thing, you deny it.  Same happens with the next.  Soon enough you're gonna have to bite the bullet. 
 
Not proving that burn in exist doens't automatically prove that burn in doesn't exist.  Not proving burn in doesn't exist doens't prove burn in's existence.  With that said, you have as much burden to prove your point as I do mine...  Without proof, your opinions are just that, an opinion.  With some supporting proof, your statements pass the realm of opinion and closer to the realm of truth (although it isn't yet), it becomes more valid than any opinion will ever be.  Prove your point with proof.
 
REmember, an argument is only as strong as it's supporting evidence.  No support = weak argument.  Essentially, without proof, you have no argument against burn in.  With some sort of proof (observations of everybody, including you; FR graphs, other tests that measure physical speed changes of a driver over time, etc), the argument gains strength.  Using all three of these, I can easily create an argument for burn in existence and show you why you don't hear it (it's not a bad thing you don't hear it either, nor are your ears lying to you, it's an insult to say mine are lying to me).

 

[Inks]

Theoretically yes, there is no absolutes, but you fail to see my point. 
 
Not having proof does mean it most likely isn't there. Sure there are possibilities but for the time being I don't think there's any solid grounds going for it.
 
Unfortunately neither side has much to offer for BA burn-in. For the time being I'm going to believe the Shure engineers over your post for this one.

 

[Inks]

Oh as for the 122 vs 132....
 
The new 232 filters are different and compatible so they may be using these for the 132.
 
But also the added controls do seem to make changes to the sound due to the cable differences. Coincidentally I noticed that the headroom graphs show differences between the HF3 and HF5. But the HF2 graphs identically to the HF5 due to the Simplicity of adding a single button mic to the cable, so it's no surprise that the single button PFE had no differences as well. MC3 and MC5 also graph differently, though all in all the differences are no more than 2db, thus very slight with the 3 button Etys.
 
 

 

[goodvibes]

 
Quote:

Oh as for the 122 vs 132....
 
The new 232 filters are different and compatible so they may be using these for the 132.
 
But also the added controls do seem to make changes to the sound due to the cable differences. Coincidentally I noticed that the headroom graphs show differences between the HF3 and HF5. But the HF2 graphs identically to the HF5 due to the Simplicity of adding a single button mic to the cable, so it's no surprise that the single button PFE had no differences as well. MC3 and MC5 also graph differently, though all in all the differences are no more than 2db, thus very slight with the 3 button Etys.
 
 

May just be unit variation between the hf 5 and hf3. I noticed the identical curves between the hf5 and hf2 there earlier and if you look at their individual responses instead of a comparison one, you'll notice identical channel abnomilies which is way too coincidental and would indicate that they're not seperate measurements. In fact the channel difference is far far greater than the difference between the hf5 and hf3. Nothing there to assume any difference sonically unless you're looking to find something. First is from both hf2 and hf5 from same site. Not a compare but used for both individually.

 

[goodvibes]

Unlike many here, I don't believe that we know how to measure everything we hear. I say that because I do understand measurements and they haven't always shown what I perceive. My experience and regardless of what anther's are, it's what I will use. I will never argue what someone hears due to a graph so I'm not trying to say the cable won't make a difference on the PFE. I just don't think the info on the HF graphs show this phenomena based on greater variability in channels than between models. When I first noticed this, headroom still showed channels on a large graph. I would wager that if the 2 cables of the PFE232 were measured inline with a resistive load, there would be no deviation in the audio band.
 
To me there is no 'burden' of proof. Why care if another believes in burn in or not? By the way, I've had 2 se530s, one new and one well broken in, they were a bit different until the new one had some time on it. With BAs, the change is subtle or less compared to Dynamics so I understand that many would feel it negligible and perhaps it's the cable or xover bits or coils in the armature we're hearing. May not be mechanical or so subtly so that it's not considered. Who knows but I don't really understand why everyone cares so much. I think it prudent to do some run in before an evaluation or review but otherwise, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Inks]

I would agree that it may be just a batch difference, Tylls graphs which shows channel differences in the HF5s shows as much difference as HF3 to HF5 on Headroom. Just found it odd the HF2 didnt have the difference. Still  very small difference, so I'll take it back as noteworthy.

 

[tinyman392]

Also concerning the filters, I've tested it with my 232s green filters vs my (partially used) 022 filters. No differences. To add, Phonak PR confimrs that the 132 drivers are the same as the 122/022 drivers and that the filters sound identical. 
 
As for differences in FR graph, remember, Etymotic isn't 100% perfect, I believe their quality control is a 2 dB L/R difference (read a story in another forum about this) for the ER4. All drivers are bound to be different. A different seal can also account for differences (Etymotics are highly reliant on seal for better bass and treble response). 

 

[goodvibes]

Green filters lack fine detail and I don't think anyone is implying a great difference between filters. I'm not saying that your wrong but I think gray filters should be the order of the day for this compare. Even if there's a difference, doesn't mean it's an important one. If it's smaller than the difference from insertion depth etc, it could be considered negligible by Phonak.

 

[Inks]

Also concerning the filters, I've tested it with my 232s green filters vs my (partially used) 022 filters. No differences. To add, Phonak PR confimrs that the 132 drivers are the same as the 122/022 drivers and that the filters sound identical. 
 
As for differences in FR graph, remember, Etymotic isn't 100% perfect, I believe their quality control is a 2 dB L/R difference (read a story in another forum about this) for the ER4. All drivers are bound to be different. A different seal can also account for differences (Etymotics are highly reliant on seal for better bass and treble response). 

Thanks for the info. It's a shame the 132 is overpriced like the 232 at the moment.  
 
Yeah but they do aim for less than 2db difference with the ER4S and match the ER4PT even more precisely. Seal can vary a bit when graphing and specially affects the subbass region.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

Thanks for the info. It's a shame the 132 is overpriced like the 232 at the moment.  
 
Yeah but they do aim for less than 2db difference with the ER4S and match the ER4PT even more precisely. Seal can vary a bit when graphing and specially affects the subbass region.

I'd hope they aim for less than 2dB, I just bring it up because a person on the forums (a long time ago) was complaining about the 2dB difference between the left and right channels on his ER4s, and continued complaining about it when Etymotic wouldn't replace them because that's their range of error.  Generally though, I agree, Etymotic does aim for something less than 2dB. 

 

[goodvibes]

I bet if it measured more than 1 db with pink noise and under warranty, it would have got swapped. I doubt anyone is better about this sort of thing than ET. These are usually filter or tip issues.