[Mediahound]

A headphone or speaker driver is a physical mechanical device with rubber surrounds that become more pliable with use after new, as one example. It can indeed change with burn-in from new. 

 

[HipHopScribe]

  A headphone or speaker driver is a physical mechanical device with rubber surrounds that become more pliable with use after new, as one example. It can indeed change with burn-in from new. 

 
If significant physical changes actually occurred it would be fairly easy to prove with measurements, especially with people claiming what amount to night and day differences. I've never seen any measurements of supposed headphone burn-in that didn't represent changes so small that they couldn't be simple variations in how the measurements were taken (small changes in headphone positioning for example), and it's questionable whether such small changes would even be audible. The drastic changes some people report seem highly improbable 
 
Unless there's some new, reliable evidence out there that I'm not aware of, psychological factors seem much more important

 

[Mediahound]

  If significant physical changes actually occurred it would be fairly easy to prove with measurements, especially with people claiming what amount to night and day differences. I've never seen any measurements of supposed headphone burn-in that didn't represent changes so small that they couldn't be simple variations in how the measurements were taken (small changes in headphone positioning for example), and it's questionable whether such small changes would even be audible 
 
Unless there's some new, reliable evidence out there that I'm not aware of, psychological factors seem much more important

 
I'm sure it's difficult to measure, but that doesn't mean a change in sound does not exist. We are actually able to hear changes that are beyond what we are able to measure with today's measuring technology. 

 

[HipHopScribe]

   
I'm sure it's difficult to measure, but that doesn't mean a change in sound does not exist. We are actually able to hear changes that are beyond what we are able to measure with today's measuring technology. 

 
That's convenient 

 

[Mediahound]

If one does not want to believe what Audioquest says about burn-in right in the included instruction manual insert with the product (btw my Focal speakers say the same thing in their instruction manual), or the numerous personal accounts of it making a difference such as this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agy1tMx_zfI , or the tons of personal first-hand accounts in this and other threads online, that is their perogrative. 
 
I would however argue that that would be failing to look at all the evidence and instead basing your belief on some made up theory rather than actual evidence. 

 

[Gaikotsu]

"The human mind is much more changable than anything that goes into the construction of any headphone, so I'm more inclined to think that burn-in is mostly (probably almost entirely) psychological."

The issue with this methodology is that it creates an "us vs them" scenario, which doesn't actually prove anyone right. For example, just because you cannot hear the difference but I can suggests that there is some level of superiority or inferiority being implied. I believe there is a reason for everything where it concerns cables, speakers, electricity, etc. It also dismisses all the scientific explanation behind much of the technology. Additionally, by that rationale, we should never seek higher quality audio because higher quality audio is all in our heads and is dependent on "frame of mind at the time" or ear configuration.  With that way of thinking we can dismiss planar magnetic technology, or electrostatic tweeters or any other advancement made in sound quality.  I don't buy it. There are definite reasons why some speakers will sound better than others regardless of how savvy one's ear is.

In fact, I would challenge anyone to test "cable theory" using a complimentary cable from SONY (or any other mainstream manufacturer) vs any Audioquest cable that uses their Dielectric Bias system and then tell me there is no audible difference. A theory I stick by is that you can fool some people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.  If quality cables were snake oil, AudioQuest wouldn't still be in business after 40+ years and this Nighthawk discussion wouldn't exist.

Now, to be fair, AudioQuest does commit a faux pa with their cables from time to time. An example is the difference between Sydney and the Victoria analog cable. They downgraded Sydney's termination materials to what they call "pure purple copper" which is actually Copper Sulfate.  Which is basically impure copper that won't have as good sonic properties as pure red copper. If they had used "red copper" in the Sydney like they do in the Victoria, then the cables would be 100% identical with the exception of the Dielectric-bias system.  All that system does is keep the cable in a constant burned-in state (dielectric field), where as the Sydney would need to build a dielectric field from scratch and it would decay on non-use. 

I have contacted AuidoQuest on a number of occasions and have had these discussions with them. They have admitted that there are fault tolerances with every single one of their products.  They have also admitted that they assemble some product in-house and some they ship to a third party. That is precisely why I brought up the "Engineering Tolerance" factor.

Believe it or not I do have an open mind, but it requires that someone best my data with actual debunking data and not opinion or theory. So, if someone has definitive proof/data that burn in is psychosomatic....I am all ears (pun intended)  

 

[Venture Guy]

Isn't there a thread specifically for overamped drama?

 

[HipHopScribe]

  If one does not want to believe what Audioquest says about burn-in right in the included instruction manual insert with the product (btw my Focal speakers say the same thing in their instruction manual), or the numerous personal accounts of it making a difference such as this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agy1tMx_zfI , or the tons of personal first-hand accounts in this and other threads online, that is their perogrative. 
 
I would however argue that that would be failing to look at all the evidence and instead basing your belief on some made up theory rather than actual evidence. 

 
Audioquest is one of the biggest purveyors of audiophile snake oil out there, so while I love these headphones, I trust almost nothing they say in their marketing material. 
 
Personal anecdotes are great and all, and I believe that people do experience changes in how their headphones sound after burn-in, I just don't think their experience is useful in determining where those changes are coming from. And I am basing my view on evidence, people have taken measurements after various periods of burn-in to attempt to detect differences in the frequency response. If frequency response changed significantly with burn-in, as some claim, it would be measurable. 
 
Anyway, this discussion has been had many times on this site, so we can leave it there. I don't want this thread to get sidetracked by it. 
 
"Burn-in" can happen, regardless of the cause, so if you've had positive results, keep doing it I guess

 

[Mediahound]

   
Audioquest is one of the biggest purveyors of audiophile snake oil out there, so while I love these headphones, I trust almost nothing they say in their marketing material. 

 
Focal says it in their instruction manual as well as countless other manufactures. By your logic, they are all selling snake oil?

 

[Gaikotsu]

   
Focal says it in their instruction manual as well as countless other manufactures. By your logic, they are all selling snake oil?

Exactly.  I do not see how it is a marketing ploy to create a scenario to delay one's enjoyment of the thing they just bought.  Maybe if their warranty expired in 180 hours after purchase, that would make sense from a marketing perspective.  I would also buy into "all their products are snake oil" if they didn't have ANY scientific data to back it up.  My nephew in-law has a master's degree in materials engineering and he agrees with the science behind their products. Yet no one with an engineering degree has come out and given evidence that it is snake oil. 

The nay-sayers only ever have anecdotal evidence to back their claims so I have a hard time taking their side. 

Be that as it may....the Nighthawks are obviously a special headphone. I cannot imagine the sheer amount of engineering that went into their construction would amount to an attempt at snake oil audio quality.

 

[HipHopScribe]

   
Focal says it in their instruction manual as well as countless other manufactures. By your logic, they are all selling snake oil?

 
As I've said, burn-in happens, even if it is just psychological, and it's generally seen as a positive effect, so it's in the manufacturers best interest to advocate burn-in since it increases user satisfaction, regardless of the mechanism. 
 
Also yes, I believe most manufacturers of audiophile aimed products have some amount of snake oil running through their veins. Not really limited to the audiophile market, exaggerated claims and various forms of nonsense are part of marketing 

 

[eyoon]

  I would be curious about what equipment you are driving them with.  Perhaps that is the key? I am using portable equipment, are you using a dedicated headphone AMP and or DAC?  What music source are you using?

I've mostly been listening through my laptop with an E10K (FLACs stored on a NAS), but I've also listened straight out of my iPhone 6 (streaming through Google Play).

 

[Madmollusk]

  If significant physical changes actually occurred it would be fairly easy to prove with measurements, especially with people claiming what amount to night and day differences. I've never seen any measurements of supposed headphone burn-in that didn't represent changes so small that they couldn't be simple variations in how the measurements were taken (small changes in headphone positioning for example), and it's questionable whether such small changes would even be audible. The drastic changes some people report seem highly improbable 
 
Unless there's some new, reliable evidence out there that I'm not aware of, psychological factors seem much more important

I agree, the evidence regarding driver burn-in is mostly anecdotal, and therefore dubious, so I understand your skepticism. But the theory of driver burn-in is at least a fairly straightforward and falsifiable proposition: it can (and has been) tested. And we can analyze the data. (And yes, you're right, the evidence is inconclusive at best.) By contrast “brain burn-in” may seem like the more rational explanation, but as far as theories go—even crazy street-theories—it's an absolute mess. Really. As of yet, no one has taken the time to formally or crudely hypothesize how this type of burn-in might actually work—it's so often simply asserted as if it were a brute fact. But it's not.
 
Someone should really remedy this problem, and soon. But in order to do that, we'll need to gather a team of specialists: psychologists, neuroscientists, and audio engineers. And, oh yeah, a referee to help maintain a civil working environment when these folks invariably start to fight over the right “testing protocols” and other niceties pertaining to the scientific method.
 
I don't know about you, but I'm not holding my breath while I wait for all this to happen. Until then, I think it's okay to give Occam's Razor its due, which would, at present, favor Driver burn-in.  

 

[HipHopScribe]

  I agree, the evidence regarding driver burn-in is mostly anecdotal, and therefore dubious, so I understand your skepticism. But the theory of driver burn-in is at least a fairly straightforward and falsifiable proposition: it can (and has been) tested. And we can analyze the data. (And yes, you're right, the evidence is inconclusive at best.) By contrast “brain burn-in” may seem like the more rational explanation, but as far as theories go—even crazy street-theories—it's an absolute mess. Really. As of yet, no one has taken the time to formally or crudely hypothesize how this type of burn-in might actually work—it's so often simply asserted as if it were a brute fact. But it's not.
 
Someone should really remedy this problem, and soon. But in order to do that, we'll need to gather a team of specialist: psychologists, neuroscientists, and audio engineers. And, oh yeah, a referee to help maintain a civil working environment when these folks invariably start to fight over the right “testing protocols” and other niceties pertaining to the scientific method.
 
I don't know about you, but I'm not holding my breath while I wait for all this to happen. Until then, I think it's okay to give Occam's Razor its due, which would, at present, favor Driver burn-in.  

 
It would be an interesting experiment, but as you said, not holding my breath 

 

[Gaikotsu]

  I agree, the evidence regarding driver burn-in is mostly anecdotal, and therefore dubious, so I understand your skepticism. But the theory of driver burn-in is at least a fairly straightforward and falsifiable proposition: it can (and has been) tested. And we can analyze the data. (And yes, you're right, the evidence is inconclusive at best.) By contrast “brain burn-in” may seem like the more rational explanation, but as far as theories go—even crazy street-theories—it's an absolute mess. Really. As of yet, no one has taken the time to formally or crudely hypothesize how this type of burn-in might actually work—it's so often simply asserted as if it were a brute fact. But it's not.
 
Someone should really remedy this problem, and soon. But in order to do that, we'll need to gather a team of specialists: psychologists, neuroscientists, and audio engineers. And, oh yeah, a referee to help maintain a civil working environment when these folks invariably start to fight over the right “testing protocols” and other niceties pertaining to the scientific method.
 
I don't know about you, but I'm not holding my breath while I wait for all this to happen. Until then, I think it's okay to give Occam's Razor its due, which would, at present, favor Driver burn-in.  

Someone has done some measurements: 

www.  innerfidelity   .com/content/evidence-headphone-break#LsCMSA0Tk4ewDsje.97