[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawang /img/forum/go_quote.gif no two headphones (even same model) sound exactly the same, so that comparison won't be valid.

That's kind of a bogus excuse, imo. If burn in changes the sound as much as some people claim, it would be relatively easy to notice differences. All you would need to do is get two identical model headphones that sound the same (most do), and then burn one in and leave the other one unused. Check them again after X hours of "burn in," and you should have your answer. Even better, do it "double blind," so that when you listen to them, you don't know whether you are listening to the burned-in or the stock version.

One of the strongest arguments against burn-in, imo, is the fact that no one who claims it happens is willing to do that very simple experiment. It could be done very easily with two pairs of cheap headphones or earbuds - easily under $50. If burn-in was as real and caused as dramatic a difference as its proponents claim, it should be relatively easy for most people to hear major differences between the two headphones (or amps, dacs, etc. -- whatever was being "burned in"). I doubt most people would hear any difference at all, or be able to tell which was which from double blind testing.

 

[mark_h]

"double blind testing" meh!

 

[beamthegreat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawang /img/forum/go_quote.gif no two headphones (even same model) sound exactly the same, so that comparison won't be valid.

What do you mean? If I get 2 exact same headphones and leave one headphone in the box and burn in another for 200 hours, why wouldn't that be a valid comparison?

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark_h /img/forum/go_quote.gif "double blind testing" meh!

What's that supposed to mean?

Oh, I see - just another excuse. Because there's no logical reason why the person can't be kept unaware of which headphone is which while they're doing the listening, right? I mean, if the burn-in is so real and dramatic as its proponents claim, why not do it double blind? It should be obvious which one is which.

Answer: because you don't really want to find out (and have to admit) that there's no difference.

 

[beamthegreat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's kind of a bogus excuse, imo. If burn in changes the sound as much as some people claim, it would be relatively easy to notice differences. All you would need to do is get two identical model headphones that sound the same (most do), and then burn one in and leave the other one unused. Check them again after X hours of "burn in," and you should have your answer. Even better, do it "double blind," so that when you listen to them, you don't know whether you are listening to the burned-in or the stock version. One of the strongest arguments against burn-in, imo, is the fact that no one who claims it happens is willing to do that very simple experiment. It could be done very easily with two pairs of cheap headphones or earbuds - easily under $50. If burn-in was as real and caused as dramatic a difference as its proponents claim, it should be relatively easy for most people to hear major differences between the two headphones (or amps, dacs, etc. -- whatever was being "burned in"). I doubt most people would hear any difference at all, or be able to tell which was which from double blind testing.

+1. Why didn't anyone did that for the past 10 years????

 

[mamaloney]

Perhaps burning in allows the drivers to settle in and such. Its like with bike suspension, your internals slowly get oil through them and your seals break in.

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beamthegreat /img/forum/go_quote.gif +1. Why didn't anyone did that for the past 10 years????

I have a back-up pair of ksc75s that I keep in the drawer basically unused. So far no difference at all between those and the ones I use regularly that have hundreds of hours on them. I guess this particular model must take thousands of hours.

 

[abellaw]

I am not sure if burn-in really exists or not. When i first got my Alo-780s they sounded really bassy and muddy. I burned them in for 200 hours and listened to the headphones throughout that time. I can't lie i heard changes, but now looking back it seems a lot more likely that these changes were all psychological. During the whole burn in process i would be at school, work etc thinking about how much better my 780s would sound when i got to listen to them at night and when i got home lo and behold they did sound better.

Now being a little more experienced i didn't bother burning in my HF2s and i couldn't tell you if they changed since i have had them. I tried to burn in my s4s and i don't think they sound any different i just got used to them and found out which songs to avoid and which ones really sounded best with them.

I won't say too much about amps. But i know changing source really does help, when i got a CDP vs listening to music through a icon mobile. I could easily tell the difference.

I honestly don't think that burn in exists outside of one's mind.

 

[stang]

I have some brand new HF-2 on the way to me and yes, they are BRAND new, never taken out of the package

$550us I paid

. Will do a review with my MAD Ear+ HD amp when they arrive in 2 or so weeks. Now to decide to burn them in on my head or have initial impressions, burn in for 100 hours and see if there is any change

. Most likely will burn in on my head though. I can't wait

 

[Currawong]

I own gear that changed tonally during the first few hundred hours, with periods of distinct treble drop-out for instance. Other people had the same experiences too. Some experimentation has suggested this was due to the gear running quite warm, as it happened even if left on for days without music playing. I don't believe that this universally means burn-in is real, but is different for different things. I'm sure my ears adapt considerably to different headphones, for instance.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Why is burn in always a positive thing? That tells me it's BS right there.. Your brain gets accustomed to the sound.. Like songs you hate when you first hear them.. Then after the 10th listen the song just clicks & sounds right! Did your ears need burning in??

 

[stang]

Yes but I believe in 10 years they would have gotten worse.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by abellaw /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am not sure if burn-in really exists or not. When i first got my Alo-780s they sounded really bassy and muddy. I burned them in for 200 hours and listened to the headphones throughout that time. I can't lie i heard changes, but now looking back it seems a lot more likely that these changes were all psychological. During the whole burn in process i would be at school, work etc thinking about how much better my 780s would sound when i got to listen to them at night and when i got home lo and behold they did sound better. Now being a little more experienced i didn't bother burning in my HF2s and i couldn't tell you if they changed since i have had them. I tried to burn in my s4s and i don't think they sound any different i just got used to them and found out which songs to avoid and which ones really sounded best with them. I won't say too much about amps. But i know changing source really does help, when i got a CDP vs listening to music through a icon mobile. I could easily tell the difference. I honestly don't think that burn in exists outside of one's mind.

The only burn in change I got was from upgrading my gear..

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only burn in change I got was from upgrading my gear..

Lol. Yeah, your wallet gets burned in.

 

[stang]

More like my PayPal account gets burned in