Breaking-in headphones, the final verdict!
Apr 4, 2018 at 9:21 PM Post #361 of 685
Sure they eventually disintegrate, but first they break in and allow the cone to move more freely. I don’t think it would be very hard to predict what the break in flexibility would be in a specified rubber compound used in a speaker surround.

My JBL woofers have cloth surrounds. So do the midrange drivers. The tweeter is a slot tweeter. I don't think any of that would break in. Maybe my Sunfire sub. It has heavy foam surround. But I haven't noticed any difference over time. Not that I would down at the bottom of the spectrum like that. Since only woofers have foam surrounds, I'm guessing that the change if they burn in would only affect the bass.

Assuming that headphones burn in, what frequencies do people hear changing? Would it be the frequencies that require the biggest excursion? That would be the bass. Is there any consensus among people who think they've experienced burn in about precisely what is changing? Is it distortion or response? What specific frequencies? If it's random, I would again lean towards placebo.
 
Last edited:
Apr 4, 2018 at 9:52 PM Post #362 of 685
Ok, but cloth surrounds are not only rare, but are actually weird. Foam and rubber compounds are the norm. I believe it is engineered, and all diaphragm drivers gain flexibility with use. Whether that makes a positive or negative difference is a matter of opinion, but there is no question the change happens.


My JBL woofers have cloth surrounds. So do the midrange drivers. The tweeter is a slot tweeter. I don't think any of that would break in. Maybe my Sunfire sub. It has heavy foam surround. But I haven't noticed any difference over time. Not that I would down at the bottom of the spectrum like that. Since only woofers have foam surrounds, I'm guessing that the change if they burn in would only affect the bass.

Assuming that headphones burn in, what frequencies do people hear changing? Would it be the frequencies that require the biggest excursion? That would be the bass. Is there any consensus among people who think they've experienced burn in about precisely what is changing? Is it distortion or response? What specific frequencies? If it's random, I would again lean towards placebo.
 
Apr 4, 2018 at 10:09 PM Post #363 of 685
I don't think any of that would break in.

I'm guessing

This is the sound science forum. This is inadmissible.

Assuming that headphones burn in, what frequencies do people hear changing? Would it be the frequencies that require the biggest excursion? That would be the bass. Is there any consensus among people who think they've experienced burn in about precisely what is changing? Is it distortion or response? What specific frequencies? If it's random, I would again lean towards placebo.

You can lean, but it is only opinion.

Why is it always about frequency response or THD? Just because amateurs and less well equiped "experts" can measure it easily it isn't the only factor that matters.

I linked to the measurement company that measures this and how much effect it has over time. Why do you doubt Klippel? It's like saying Audio Precision do not know what they are doing.
 
Apr 4, 2018 at 10:10 PM Post #364 of 685
Ok, but cloth surrounds are not only rare, but are actually weird. Foam and rubber compounds are the norm. I believe it is engineered, and all diaphragm drivers gain flexibility with use. Whether that makes a positive or negative difference is a matter of opinion, but there is no question the change happens.

I do believe you’d have a slightly shifting frequency response over the life of the speaker due to this very thing, but I’m more certain that it’s extremely gradual and ends effectively when the surround fails 20-odd years down the line. Measuring it would be interesting. I’d like to see if there were “inflection” points where the material properties change in some fashion that possibly creates a more noticeable frequency response change. Alas, this kind of testing would require some serious gear and some serious time to measure.
 
Apr 4, 2018 at 11:34 PM Post #368 of 685
Ok, but cloth surrounds are not only rare, but are actually weird. Foam and rubber compounds are the norm. I believe it is engineered, and all diaphragm drivers gain flexibility with use. Whether that makes a positive or negative difference is a matter of opinion, but there is no question the change happens.

Why can't people prove that there is a definite change then?

It's important to start out an investigation with openness to any conclusion. You don't want to cherry pick and try to force the hand. Once a pattern has been established, you can generalize. We are well into the range where we can generalize on this subject.

Jagwap, if you are going to pull quotes out of context, you'll not get much interaction with me. The fundamental aspects of reproduced sound are frequency response, amplitude and distortion. Those three elements in the broadest sense of the terms cover everything we can hear. That's why everything comes down to those three things.

I do believe you’d have a slightly shifting frequency response over the life of the speaker due to this very thing, but I’m more certain that it’s extremely gradual and ends effectively when the surround fails 20-odd years down the line..

I don't see any reason to think it's gradual or even. Once things start to fail, they shift big. I would think that a change would be a pretty good indicator that something is going to fail big soon. It's more likely at the end of life than the beginning. I can't see how manufacturers that care about the calibration of their products would send something out that is going to change over the first couple of weeks of use.
 
Last edited:
Apr 4, 2018 at 11:46 PM Post #369 of 685
I don't think we have learned anything new about this topic since this article was written.

https://www.wired.com/2013/11/tnhyui-earphone-burn-in/

I'm confident that it would be a waste of my time with no benefit to the sound quality.

You must be using the royal "we" because others may have been reading less selectively. Your article even sites a guy at Shure who agrees that larger headphones may change during burn in.

Your confidence is not shared by myself, especially as I have experienced in blind listening and those figures I linked to showing substancial changes in driver performance measurements in the first 20-100 hours. Perhaps you don't want to take this information into account over your own beliefs.
 
Apr 4, 2018 at 11:55 PM Post #370 of 685
Jagwap, if you are going to pull quotes out of context, you'll not get much interaction with me. The fundamental aspects of reproduced sound are frequency response, amplitude and distortion. Those three elements in the broadest sense of the terms cover everything we can hear. That's why everything comes down to those three things.

Not everything no. There is phase, inpulse, group delay, diffraction, resonance, noise, modulation, compression... and that's without going into the details of frequency response over distance, angle, time, or distortion type, modulation, frequency, masking. You need a larger view to have make creditable statement that something is unlikely.

I don't see any reason to think it's gradual or even. Once things start to fail, they shift big. I would think that a change would be a pretty good indicator that something is going to fail big soon. It's more likely at the end of life than the beginning. I can't see how manufacturers that care about the calibration of their products would send something out that is going to change over the first couple of weeks of use.

I've already linked to the figures that show it starts with a moderately large change that slows to an asymptotic long term state. Why are you still holding on to the idea this cannot happen? Others have tried to convince you with their baseball analogues. It happens in many materials without causing catestrophic fatigue. Also on the surrounds: the articles all state the spider is the most influential in their (expert as manufactures and engineers) opinion.
 
Apr 5, 2018 at 12:00 AM Post #371 of 685
Not everything no. There is phase, inpulse, group delay, diffraction, resonance, noise, modulation, compression... and that's without going into the details of frequency response over distance, angle, time, or distortion type, modulation, frequency, masking. You need a larger view to have make creditable statement that something is unlikely.
“Phase”, resonance, “modulation”, compression, diffraction, and group delay would all manifest themselves as distortion, either intermodulation or harmonic. I’m not 100% on what you mean by phase though, or group delay, unless you mean phase delay, in which case it would manifest itself as harmonic distortion...but these are both just measurements of a specific type of harmonic distortion.
 
Last edited:
Apr 5, 2018 at 12:24 AM Post #372 of 685
The loosening up of moving materials is just common sense and silly to deny. The less energy it takes to move a diaphragm, the more efficient the diaphragms are. This results in greater detail in the the sound given the same source.

Does anyone really disagree with that?


T
should we just accept an effect, and even better, accept it is audible and significant because it seems reasonable? is that the modern way of finding evidence?
for speakers, I've seen a bunch of data like @jagwap posted, those seem convincing(with the assumption that the experiments were done properly) and suggest measurable impact on various speaker drivers. with much fewer possible causes for sound change on speakers, it becomes easier to suggest causality. but while I've seen evidence suggesting change, I haven't seen much of anything about the greater details you see as an obvious result.
I also haven't seen the same sort of data for headphones. all I seem to find are poorly done experiments that neglect to consider other known causes of change by ignorance or on purpose to try and prove a point no matter what. what I've seen done with a little more care, always confirms change in sound over time for the headphone as a whole, but nothing of significance for the driver itself. my own attempt resulted in getting more significant changes from pretty much anything other than the driver alone. measuring at night would get me more variations than what I seem to be able to identify otherwise as being solely caused by the driver. so when I read claims of causality between audible difference and driver burn in based on subjective impressions, I can't help but facepalm. even if I was to ignore all the biases, placebo, and memory inaccuracy, I would still facepalm when reading those comments because they are measurably irrational. changes do happen for plenty of reasons, driver burn in is only one of them and seems to be consistently less significant than new pads, the room temperature, the source, if we played music too loud for the headphone specs, or if we dropped the headphone on the floor a few times.

as for your post specifically, the diaphragm becoming easier to move and bend over time, again that seems logical. how that will lead to the driver being more efficient should absolutely be measurable, but where are those measures for headphones? when I get consistent data on that, then and only then I'll agree with you and move on to the next step, finding out if and how audible those typical changes can be for a listener. but when you decide that this effect results in greater details. where did you get that idea?
why not lower mechanical damping leading to worst control, increased ringing and distortions, or plain shift in the resonance frequency leading to a change that isn't necessarily better or worst? that would seem just as reasonable to me it if were to happen. I guess how strong an electrical damping we have, how light the diaphragm is, and how open the headphone design is, would ultimately decide if we go toward better or worst fidelity. but all that is conjecture based on the hastily picked axiom that we'd get significant impact from the loosening of the material on a headphone. we can have ideas and make guesses all day long, and we should, but that alone doesn't demonstrate anything. experiment and measurements will provide the data for that. yet, not much to be seen as evidence of something so apparently obvious when following your reasoning.

You must be using the royal "we" because others may have been reading less selectively. Your article even sites a guy at Shure who agrees that larger headphones may change during burn in.

Your confidence is not shared by myself, especially as I have experienced in blind listening and those figures I linked to showing substancial changes in driver performance measurements in the first 20-100 hours. Perhaps you don't want to take this information into account over your own beliefs.
are you talking about headphones? I know I'm annoying but I could easily confirm small changes in my speakers with measurements, I never had such an easy time with headphones and IEMs once I removed pads, tips and placement from the equation. so I feel that headphone do deserve to be treated separately. maybe even individual drivers would deserve their own study, as more and more have shapes to reinforce the diaphragm at key places and facilitate movements at others. it's a little frustrating to think that manufacturers have all the data we need, but I'm here playing with one or 2 samples of a model at a time, never getting any statistically relevant result. and debating with people who mistake gut feeling for evidence is really not helping us going anywhere productive.
 
Apr 5, 2018 at 12:47 AM Post #373 of 685
More flexible = lower Q, less flexible = higher Q.

"In physics and engineering, the quality factor or Q factor is a dimensionless parameter that describes how underdamped an oscillator or resonator is, and characterizes a resonator's bandwidth relative to its centre frequency. Higher Q indicates a lower rate of energy loss relative to the stored energy of the resonator; the oscillations die out more slowly. A pendulum suspended from a high-quality bearing, oscillating in air, has a high Q, while a pendulum immersed in oil has a low one. Resonators with high quality factors have low damping, so that they ring or vibrate longer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor
 
Last edited:
Apr 5, 2018 at 12:53 AM Post #374 of 685
are you talking about headphones? I know I'm annoying but I could easily confirm small changes in my speakers with measurements, I never had such an easy time with headphones and IEMs once I removed pads, tips and placement from the equation. so I feel that headphone do deserve to be treated separately.... and debating with people who mistake gut feeling for evidence is really not helping us going anywhere productive.

That's exactly what you're doing though, man. A big speaker is a big small speaker, also a big medium size, but you're saying there's something about the small speaker that makes it different, just because you've found them hard to measure. That's not a reason. The two things, size and difficulty measuring aren't proven to be related, let alone difficulty measuring and whether they break in or not. All that's a 'gut feeling' on your part.
 
Last edited:
Apr 5, 2018 at 1:08 AM Post #375 of 685
That's exactly what you're doing though, man. A big speaker is a big small speaker, also a big medium size, but you're saying there's something about the small speaker that makes it different, just because you've found them hard to measure. That's not a reason. The two things, size and difficulty measuring aren't proven to be related, let alone difficulty measuring and whether they break in or not. All that's a 'gut feeling' on your part.
Material properties do not scale linearly with size. A big speaker is categorically not a big, small speaker.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top