[bfreedma]

  As already stated, I do have the requisite evidence, since I burned them in on the table, not on my head, so there can be no discussion of pads giving in or the brain getting accustomed. Not to mention the little low-tech spectral analyses I did with my phone just to have that extra data. Yet I keep getting these "it must be the pads" comments, like people can't or won't read anything that goes against their preconceptions.

 
You used a phone mic to do analysis?  Phone mics are nowhere near accurate enough for that.  For anything viable, you really need a calibrated microphone and a rig to ensure the headphones and mic are in exactly the same position each time.
 
Also curious as to how you tested them without putting them on your head.  Or how you ensured that they were positioned identically on your head when you did listen.  Millimeters matter.

 

[abm0]

  You used a phone mic to do analysis?  Phone mics are nowhere near accurate enough for that.

Um, yes they are - I was looking for huge differences, not a correct response curve every time, and huge differences are what I found.
 

Also curious as to how you tested them without putting them on your head.

So you haven't even read my account of how I kept track of the burn-in but you want to criticize it. And I'm supposed to, what, repeat everything I said because you're too lazy to look a few pages back?
 

Or how you ensured that they were positioned identically on your head when you did listen.  Millimeters matter.

Not in this case. I'm not some uber-audiophile with decades of experience, I'm not going to hear the subtle differences that come with shifting the headset on my head by a millimeter. I just heard the really big stuff like: pre-burn - piercing and unbearable, post-burn - not piercing, a joy to listen to; pre-burn - ugly and frequently triggered sibilance, post-burn - tolerable and rarely triggered sibilance. And these were confirmed by my measured curves as well. There's no way I "got used to" that atrocious piercing sound through 3 5-minute listening sessions spaced about 3-4 weeks apart each time.

 

[bfreedma]

 You used a phone mic to do analysis?  Phone mics are nowhere near accurate enough for that.

Um, yes they are - I was looking for huge differences, not a correct response curve every time, and huge differences are what I found.
 

Also curious as to how you tested them without putting them on your head.

So you haven't even read my account of how I kept track of the burn-in but you want to criticize it. And I'm supposed to, what, repeat everything I said because you're too lazy to look a few pages back?
 

Or how you ensured that they were positioned identically on your head when you did listen.  Millimeters matter.

Not in this case. I'm not some uber-audiophile with decades of experience, I'm not going to hear the subtle differences that come with shifting the headset on my head by a millimeter. I just heard the really big stuff like: pre-burn - piercing and unbearable, post-burn - not piercing, a joy to listen to; pre-burn - ugly and frequently triggered sibilance, post-burn - tolerable and rarely triggered sibilance. And these were confirmed by my measured curves as well. There's no way I "got used to" that atrocious piercing sound through 3 5-minute listening sessions spaced about 3-4 weeks apart each time.

A phone mic is only intended to be accurate enough to capture the audible range of the spoken voice. In no way is it accurate enough or useful as a scientific measurement instrument.

Sorry, but I don't find your anecdotal evidence and testing methods compelling or sufficient to cause reconsideration of the results of actual controlled testing. I'm glad you like your headphones more now, but "huge differences" occurring and "atrocious piercing sound" becoming enjoyable due to break in? I'm not buying unless significantly more evidence from properly executed tests is presented.

BTW, The differences in perceived audio from moving headphones a few millimeters is measurable. It's certainly far more impactful than any break in changes measured in a proper study.

 

[abm0]

Sorry, but I don't find your anecdotal evidence and testing methods compelling or sufficient to cause reconsideration of the results of actual controlled testing.

What actual controlled testing? This? http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.htm
Or maybe Tyll's little test at InnerFidelity, where he did not disprove burn-in and says as much in the article?
What use is controlled testing if you're just going to ignore its results and stick to your dogma?

 

[abm0]

  I'm sorry but your test doesn't mean much to me. for it to be relevant I would at least need to know:

And are you sure after you got that information you wouldn't ask for an even more tightly controlled experiment? You have to start getting a sense of the ridiculous when your criteria for proof become as demanding as if you were considering putting a new substance in the water supply.
 

I have a pair of headphones here that are still in their original box, I could try to set up something

If you've never experienced or measured any burn-in effects and you feel you need extraordinary evidence, I can't agree with using just any headphones for this - it has to be the Superlux HD668B, like I said in my first post here.
 

also I don't understand what is so bad about the idea that the pads and positioning make most of the actual differences?

Nothing wrong with the idea in general, it's just ridiculously implausible relative to my own particular burn-in method: pads getting softer absoutely cannot have anything to do with the sound changes I measured and experienced. Nothing was done to them during burn-in that would soften them up, they were not clamped onto anything.

 

[castleofargh]

 

  I'm sorry but your test doesn't mean much to me. for it to be relevant I would at least need to know:

And are you sure after you got that information you wouldn't ask for an even more tightly controlled experiment? You have to start getting a sense of the ridiculous when your criteria for proof become as demanding as if you were considering putting a new substance in the water supply.

 
you seem to think I have something to disprove, an agenda or something, but that's what any wannabe scientist does. skepticism all the way and we stop only when the confidence from evidence is so high that we have little doubts left. what I try to force is what I also try to remind myself of as often as I can because I'm like anybody else, my objectivity hasn't turned me into a perfect rational robot just yet. the starting point of any objective test is to admit that I have preconceptions, I'm biased, I will try to get a result that complies with those preconceptions, I can't separate my senses from one another, and I can't control placebo. now what can I do to remove all that so my experience means something not just to me, but also to the other humans?
 
 
if you had come here with 2 strictly identical measurements to show burn in didn't happen on your headphone, I would have had the same skepticism. and I would have also contested any idea that it was evidence that burn in didn't exist in general. obviously I wouldn't have asked if you moved, as it would be impossible to get exactly the same measurements if something moved. so my questions would have been different. like "what is the scale of the measurement?", because 2 perfectly identical graphs would trigger my fake proof alarm.
it's when evidences and arguments can survive scrutiny that they become accepted truth.
 
from the start what I contest is the confidence put into not so reliable evidence, from you or anybody else, pro or against burn in. I don't care what really happens to one pair of headphone, I care about people forcing what they believe onto others as fact when it doesn't comply with the requirements of a fact. 
I can contest that something is really happening because it's happening in the world and should be verifiable. I can't contest that you feel something or that you believe in something. so it's all a matter of what people decide to say and how they say it. having an opinion is free for all, expressing an opinion has a few limitations, and stating a fact has a lot of requirements.
 
 
 
 

 

I have a pair of headphones here that are still in their original box, I could try to set up something

If you've never experienced or measured any burn-in effects and you feel you need extraordinary evidence, I can't agree with using just any headphones for this - it has to be the Superlux HD668B, like I said in my first post here.

oh experience the effect of burn in subjectively, of course I did. 100% of the time I get a new gear, my experience of it the first 10minutes and my experience of it a month later are always different! sometimes more than others but always different.
but I have had both objective evidence that I was wrong, and objective evidence that some changes could be explained by other means than driver burn in. driver burn in is merely one of the possibilities. and from what I have seen so far, a minor possibility.
and in case you're feeling that I'm unfair with you, I also felt like Tyll's experiment was wrong, the good thing going for him is that he saw it and didn't try to pretend it was a proper test and didn't make any claim based on it. so no harm no foul.
 
 
 

 

also I don't understand what is so bad about the idea that the pads and positioning make most of the actual differences?

Nothing wrong with the idea in general, it's just ridiculously implausible relative to my own particular burn-in method: pads getting softer absoutely cannot have anything to do with the sound changes I measured and experienced. Nothing was done to them during burn-in that would soften them up, they were not clamped onto anything.

about that, you just decided I was talking to you directly that time. you mentioned a video of somebody else, Ancipital also talked about perceived burn in, if I was going to reply to you specifically, I would have done it with your quote or right after your post.

 

 

[abm0]

  about that, you just decided I was talking to you directly that time.

It's not about talking directly, it's about insisting on the same criticism ad nauseam even after new information has been published that the burn-in effects can manifest quite independently of any pad softening. Direct reply or not, you guys continuing to talk about pads like nothing happened gave me the impression you were simply ignoring new data (my posts) that was contradicting your preconceptions.

 

[castleofargh]

 

  about that, you just decided I was talking to you directly that time.

It's not about talking directly, it's about insisting on the same criticism ad nauseam even after new information has been published that the burn-in effects can manifest quite independently of any pad softening. Direct reply or not, you guys continuing to talk about pads like nothing happened gave me the impression you were simply ignoring new data (my posts) that was contradicting your preconceptions.

I believe @bfreedma explained clearly why we don't accept your test with open arms. showing a change without making sure it doesn't come from somewhere else doesn't prove anything. and moving the headphone or microphone have a very direct and easy to prove relation with measurements. so if you did nothing to control that much, your results are irrelevant, it's expected to show a variation even if nothing else really changed when you move stuff around.
it's a pity because I truly wish I could congratulate you for trying to demonstrate something instead of just making empty claims like so many do, but a bad measurement is a bad measurement, even when done with the bests of intentions.

 

[voxie]

The old debate re "burn in" returns! Its never ends. IMHO their is not a definitive answer. BUT...two years ago i bought my son a pair of V-Midas M80's True Bloods. He loved the design and wanted something different than his friends Beats. Just to stand out from the maddening crowd! Personally did not like the sq on first listen thought they were a bit cold and not engaging. Two years later gave them a listen and difference is night and day. Deffo a huge change in quality a lot warmer and harder hitting. 

 

[abm0]

 
so if you did nothing to control that much, your results are irrelevant, it's expected to show a variation even if nothing else really changed when you move stuff around.

Funny how simple operations one can do out of negligence ended up providing consistent improvements to the sound though. If only we could move our cheapo Monoprices around on our heads a bit and turn them into Sennheisers, what a wonderful world this would be.
 

a bad measurement is a bad measurement, even when done with the bests of intentions

So it gets back to what I said initially (post #94): someone with good measuring equipment should test this hypothesis on a new pair of 668Bs. Then we can talk about "final verdicts" like in this thread's overconfident title. For me the "final verdict" is that headphones (like dynamic speakers in general) definitely definitely burn in and change their sound: some by a lot, some only a little, some not at all. You read enough reviews and discussions, you can even find out which model belongs to which category before you buy it (which is how it worked for me).

 

[sonitus mirus]

  So it gets back to what I said initially (post #94): someone with good measuring equipment should test this hypothesis on a new pair of 668Bs. Then we can talk about "final verdicts" like in this thread's overconfident title. For me the "final verdict" is that headphones (like dynamic speakers in general) definitely definitely burn in and change their sound: some by a lot, some only a little, some not at all. You read enough reviews and discussions, you can even find out which model belongs to which category before you buy it (which is how it worked for me).

 
Why not make consecutive tests, where you completely breakdown the entire setup and begin over again to see if the results are consistent or if there is any significant variation in your results?  Your process, as much as the cell phone's microphone quality, is suspect.  As was stated above, a tiny change in distance and angle could impact the results; some by a lot, some by only a little.  Also, you should consider every test result, and do not retest until you observe the results you might be expecting to see.  Providing the details from this step in the process might strengthen or weaken your position.  It won't change my mind about burn-in, but it might show you something.

 

[abm0]

  Why not make consecutive tests, where you completely breakdown the entire setup and begin over again to see if the results are consistent or if there is any significant variation in your results?

I don't have proper equipment and it doesn't make financial sense to buy it just to convince a few denialists about something that's not really life-changing. Especially with so many taking the anti-scientific attitude I'm seeing at the end of your post, that they will not change their minds no matter what new data is presented to them.
 

Also, you should consider every test result, and do not retest until you observe the results you might be expecting to see. Providing the details from this step in the process might strengthen or weaken your position.

Not sure what you were even trying to say here. Something along the lines of "you will fail, but keep trying and after enough failures you will learn the effect is not real"? Nice omniscient condescension you've got going there, Master Yoda.

 

[sonitus mirus]

  Not sure what you were even trying to say here. Something along the lines of "you will fail, but keep trying and after enough failures you will learn the effect is not real"? Nice omniscient condescension you've got going there, Master Yoda.

 
What I was suggesting was that you take multiple tests to see if your results are consistent, and if the results are wildly different, keep all of those results and move on to the next test.   Don't throw away any results if they seem way off from the rest of the tests.  Aren't you curious to find out that you are capable of reproducing consistent results every time?  I don't mean set everything up and take multiple recording sessions, I meant picking up the phone and headphones, and attempting it again.  Are you always using the same exact positioning, even several months later?  My opinion is that your test results are inconclusive, and I doubt you would convince me otherwise with this particular testing methodology.  I was merely suggest that you might want to see how consistent your own testing might be, for yourself.   And for the record, I mostly resemble a cross between Yoda and Chewbacca from the Star Wars lore, so perhaps Dilettante Yobadda would be more appropriate. 

 

[Ancipital]

  I don't have proper equipment and it doesn't make financial sense to buy it just to convince a few denialists about something that's not really life-changing. Especially with so many taking the anti-scientific attitude I'm seeing at the end of your post, that they will not change their minds no matter what new data is presented to them.
Not sure what you were even trying to say here. Something along the lines of "you will fail, but keep trying and after enough failures you will learn the effect is not real"? Nice omniscient condescension you've got going there, Master Yoda.

 
At the risk of stoking the fires here (as it's getting ugly), I feel like I have to stick my oar in again. Please wait until I am done blathering before you throw things.
 
Like you, I very strongly feel that there's a burn-in effect, especially given my overwhelming experience with my new HE-400i (they sound amazing now, BTW, performing well out of their price range). It's jaw-dropping. However, I am aware that the senses serve very poorly as a calibrated measuring device. What you can very strongly perceive can simply not exist outside of your brain- here is a lovely example:
 
http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=212
 
Psychoacoustics is a very weird and counter-intuitive field sometimes. There are many examples that lavishly illustrate how little we can trust our ears.. another one:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
 
No-one thinks you're lying, but please keep in mind that they might be a little frustrated too. Measuring things like this is hard, and does require some accuracy- as well as a good idea of what you're measuring and how to interpret the results objectively, while ensuring statistical significance. Hearing an effect and then measuring it badly is more or less a gift to confirmation bias.
 
I believe you're hearing what you're hearing, and hell, that I am too. What I don't know is what's causing us to hear it.. 

 

 

[castleofargh]

 

  Why not make consecutive tests, where you completely breakdown the entire setup and begin over again to see if the results are consistent or if there is any significant variation in your results?

I don't have proper equipment and it doesn't make financial sense to buy it just to convince a few denialists about something that's not really life-changing. Especially with so many taking the anti-scientific attitude I'm seeing at the end of your post, that they will not change their minds no matter what new data is presented to them.
 

Also, you should consider every test result, and do not retest until you observe the results you might be expecting to see. Providing the details from this step in the process might strengthen or weaken your position.

Not sure what you were even trying to say here. Something along the lines of "you will fail, but keep trying and after enough failures you will learn the effect is not real"? Nice omniscient condescension you've got going there, Master Yoda.

you just keep creating your own enemies. I never told you burn in couldn't exist to some levels or was proved not to exist, @bfreedma also didn't, he just talked about expected magnitudes and how your test has fatal flaws(like I explained too). @sonitus mirus suggest you do more measurements and experiments with positions and stuff so that you can see for yourself the flaws of your test and what needs to be addressed.
you're the only one in denial here if you still believe your little experiment represents valid data even after 3 people explained to you why it isn't.  just strawmaning your way to make it look like a black&white fight where you're the only rational guy won't change reality and the requirements to make proper measurements.