[VocaloidDude]

I keep hearing people say that burn in improves the sound of their equipment. I would like to know the scientific evidence of this, perhaps some blind studies, or perhaps some frequency response charts. I don't really know how to interpret frequency response charts, but I guess if the response on the graph varies then it would mean that there was a difference. 
 
I have a hunch that it's just buyers remorse and placebo effect, but I keep an open mind.

 

[ClieOS]

I have no evidence to offer, but do want to make note that as far as the principle of science goes, having no evidence to prove something doesn't in anyway make any theory hypothesis invalid. That is, what hasn't been proved to be real isn't unreal - it is just unproven (*to be either real or unreal), yet.
 
On the other hand, here is something Tyll did quite a few years ago: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break

 

[castleofargh]

any moving part will change over time, quality ones will settle rapidly into a stable system and last long that way.
the pads on the headphone definitely change the sound and change themselves over times(losing elasticity, taking in the shape of the head, letting the driver closer to the ear....).
so like everything physical in the world, time has an impact on it.
 
 
now perhaps more relevant questions:
how comes audiophiles always think it's an improvement?

what are the real magnitudes of changes? how do they compare to simply taking the headphone off and putting it back on the head?
do we know of a method to make the "burn in" process end up with better sound? has it been measured by anybody?
are the people who talk about how things improved, considering that human senses constantly recalibrate themselves to the new experiences?
 
my personal quest to answering those questions led me to believe that most of people's feedback on burn in are BS pure and simple. if only because they don't have a clue how to test anything properly and as such do not have the right to a claim. yes changes occur, anytime I tried to measure it, it ended up being smaller than the way I put the headphone on my head, smaller than the difference between 2 pairs of the same headphone, and smaller than the difference between left and right driver. it has to me, been an irrelevant quantity of change and I have seen nothing to say that I could control it so I do not have a burn in ritual.
 
after a real long time and great many hours of use, any damping filter becomes dirty and as a result acts like a higher value damper. it's very obvious with IEM filters. between ear wax, dust, human skin, etc. and them being so small, you are guaranteed to notice an attenuation of the resonance freq, along with an attenuation of mid-trebles area. IDK if that should be called burn in, like IDK if the pads giving in over time should be called burn in. what I know is that after changing both with new ones, the sound goes uncannily back to what it was when new(I mean measured, not putting a wet finger in the air and decide I am able to tell how something sounded 1year ago by ear).

 

[gregorio]

  [1] I have no evidence to offer, but do want to make note that as far as the principle of science goes, having no evidence to prove something doesn't in anyway make any theory invalid.
 
[2] That is, what hasn't been proved to be real isn't unreal - it is just unproven (*to be either real or unreal), yet.

 
1. That's NOT the principle of science!! Having no evidence absolutely makes EVERY theory invalid, because you can't have a scientific theory without supporting evidence in the first place!
2. Are you really saying that faeries, unicorns, mermaids, etc., are not "unreal", they're just unproven?
 
There would be an awful lot less conflict on head-fi if more people did actually know the principles of science. It's not just amazing how few do, but that so many of those who don't seem to believe that they do. Even to the point of going to a forum dedicated to science and publicly demonstrating that they don't!!
 
G

 

[PETEBULL]

 I don't really know how to interpret frequency response charts

Regarding sound quality or even perceived flatness of response, frequency response charts are more trouble than they're worth. But in case of "burning in" they could prove at least that it's real. Still no data available. One could just measure new headphones, leave them on the stand to burn in and later measure again. Any links?

​There would be an awful lot less conflict on head-fi if more people did actually know the principles of science.

So your revered opinion on the phenomenon is that it doesn't exist at all?

 

[ClieOS]

   
1. That's NOT the principle of science!! Having no evidence absolutely makes EVERY theory invalid, because you can't have a scientific theory without supporting evidence in the first place!
2. Are you really saying that faeries, unicorns, mermaids, etc., are not "unreal", they're just unproven?
 
There would be an awful lot less conflict on head-fi if more people did actually know the principles of science. It's not just amazing how few do, but that so many of those who don't seem to believe that they do. Even to the point of going to a forum dedicated to science and publicly demonstrating that they don't!!
 
G

Having no evidence can be one of two things: (A) Someone has spent the effort to look for evidence but found none, or (B) No one has bother to look, so no one know whether evidence exists or not.
 
In (B), we as people do not have any knowledge of the situation, thus we as people have no evidence to prove or disprove anything. Remember, evidence is the conclusion we draw from data the was collected in a research. If there is no research or data collecting in the first place, how can we have any evidence?. For example, there is no evidence to clearly point out that there is human-like alien living on another earth-like planet, thus it is just as likely as it is unlikely there is human-like alien living on another earth-like planet.
 
In (A), the only situation when you can say in absolute certainty there is no faeries, unicorns, mermaids, etc on earth is that you have some kind of divide power that can monitor every single inches on earth (or you have used such power to wipe them out). A true scientist only deals in probability - which is why any actual scientific research paper with large enough sample size will give you a summery that is '95% confidence' (*95% is the most common, but it can be higher or lower). Any scientist will know that science doesn't deal with absolute truths. Given there is no absolute truths in science, there is always a small (*and sometime very very small) chance that something that seems completely impossible might actually be true. That's how science works - by continue to question the conventional knowledge and never settle for what most have taken for granted.

 

[castleofargh]

 Greg was answering to the quote and use of "theory" specifically. in science it's a clearly defined term. no theory would come from something that hasn't been extensively tested.
so

  I have no evidence to offer, but do want to make note that as far as the principle of science goes, having no evidence to prove something doesn't in anyway make any theory invalid. That is, what hasn't been proved to be real isn't unreal - it is just unproven (*to be either real or unreal), yet.
 
On the other hand, here is something Tyll did quite a few years ago: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break

the bold part is false by definition of theory. let's agree on replacing "theory" by "hypothesis" in the sentence and IMO, we're good ^_^.

 

[ClieOS]

   Greg was answering to the quote and use of "theory" specifically. in science it's a clearly defined term. no theory would come from something that hasn't been extensively tested.
so
the bold part is false by definition of theory. let's agree on replacing "theory" by "hypothesis" in the sentence and IMO, we're good ^_^.

 
If that makes anyone happy, sure.

 

[sonitus mirus]

  the bold part is false by definition of theory. let's agree on replacing "theory" by "hypothesis" in the sentence and IMO, we're good ^_^.

 
I'd be good with replacing "theory" with "guess" in the context that it was being used.  

 

[Karlthehusky721]

   
1. That's NOT the principle of science!! Having no evidence absolutely makes EVERY theory invalid, because you can't have a scientific theory without supporting evidence in the first place!
2. Are you really saying that faeries, unicorns, mermaids, etc., are not "unreal", they're just unproven?
 
There would be an awful lot less conflict on head-fi if more people did actually know the principles of science. It's not just amazing how few do, but that so many of those who don't seem to believe that they do. Even to the point of going to a forum dedicated to science and publicly demonstrating that they don't!!
 
G

 
Absence of evidence has nothing to do with the truth value of a proposition. The proposition, "cows have the capacity to fly over celestial bodies unassisted by any craft" is not rendered false because there are currently, no cows flying over celestial bodies unassisted by any craft, but because to do so would violate the nature of what it means to be a cow. Such an organism would both a cow and not a cow. That, is a contradiction, and contradictions are false.
 
The statement, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is lazy reasoning. Often times the subject of such a statement happens to be true; however, it is not universally true. Thus, it is an invalid argument.
 
Perhaps before we move onto the "principles of science" we should begin with the principles of logic.
 
*Aside*
 
In the context of a Scientific Theory, it is true that an absence of evidence renders the theory false by the definition of a Scientific Theory as someone else pointed out. My comment is addressing point 2 unless you were using loose language in point 1, it then applies to both.

 

[sonitus mirus]

   
Absence of evidence has nothing to do with the truth value of a proposition. The proposition, "cows have the capacity to fly over celestial bodies unassisted by any craft" is not rendered false because there are currently, no cows flying over celestial bodies unassisted by any craft, but because to do so would violate the nature of what it means to be a cow. Such an organism would both a cow and not a cow. That, is a contradiction, and contradictions are false.
 
The statement, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is lazy reasoning. Often times the subject of such a statement happens to be true; however, it is not universally true. Thus, it is an invalid argument.
 
Perhaps before we move onto the "principles of science" we should begin with the principles of logic.
 
*Aside*
 
In the context of a Scientific Theory, it is true that an absence of evidence renders the theory false by the definition of a Scientific Theory as someone else pointed out. My comment is addressing point 2 unless you were using loose language in point 1, it then applies to both.

 
Thank God, because I really had hoped to meet a mermaid before this slab of mobile meat I inhabit seizes to function.  Just kidding, I don't have a soul, and there is no free will.  

 

[Karlthehusky721]

If by mermaid you're referring to the aquatic creature with the upper body of a female human and the tail of a fish, I'm terribly sorry to inform you that human lungs do not function underwater. I would advise you to limit your expectations in regard to the possibility of a future interaction with mermaids.

 

[sonitus mirus]

  If by mermaid you're referring to the aquatic creature with the upper body of a female human and the tail of a fish, I'm terribly sorry to inform you that human lungs do not function underwater. I would advise you to limit your expectations in regard to the possibility of a future interaction with mermaids.

 
Perhaps their tail is mammalian, like that of a whale, which also uses lungs to breath air?
 
Edit: If stories of mermaids existing are true, it would be a whale of a tale, regardless of their tail.

 

[Karlthehusky721]

With the amount of changes to the concept of a mermaid necessary to allow for such a creature to exist, we might as well just call it a dolphin. Perhaps it's due time for a trip to SeaWorld?

 

[sonitus mirus]

  With the amount of changes to the concept of a mermaid necessary to allow for such a creature to exist, we might as well just call it a dolphin. Perhaps it's due time for a trip to SeaWorld?

 
All creatures have to adapt to exist, so I will just refer to all of us as Earthlings for the time being, unless we delve into the atoms that we consist of, then I will refer to ourselves as Universians.  Hello U!