[eucariote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif What's that supposed to mean? Oh, I see - just another excuse. Because there's no logical reason why the..

??? It means that if the effect is due to hope, adaptation, expectation, etc. as it may well be, then double blind testing is a technique for factoring that out. If the tester is blind to the source, and can choose the older headphone with a frequency that that would occur less than 5% due to random variation, given adequate samples and assuming a binomial distribution of outcomes, than the effect is real. If the choices fall within a 95% distribution of random outcomes, than the effect is not real.

 

[tomb]

It's interesting that every time I see one of these threads lately, it seems that someone posts legitimate proof of measured changes in response vs. time played - new and with burn-in. All of the rest of the posters in the thread studiously ignore it - completely. It's like the Emperor's clothes in reverse - no one can see it and everyone is afraid to comment on it.

 

[Snuggles]

I personally believe in burn-in, but is this really that big of a problem? When you buy new headphones you have plenty of time to analyze its sound. It is not like you will know the subtle nuances immediately after you open the box and plug it in.

The idea of just playing music through your headphones for the first week is such a simple task that can either 1) do absolutely nothing or 2) open up the sound. I wonder why people wouldn't just take the chance since it is so trivially easy to do with basically no negative effects. (One may argue that you are causing wear on your equipment, but only tube amp users should really complain about this IMO)

 

[stang]

Some people may not like the effects of burn in. On some cans it reduces the bass quantity and tightens it up, people may not like this outcome.

 

[Snuggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stang /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some people may not like the effects of burn in. On some cans it reduces the bass quantity and tightens it up, people may not like this outcome.

Well then that would regrettable, it seems they either bought the wrong headphone, or they will spend a lifetime of buying a new pair and then reselling them in a week or two, and getting a new pair, repeat

 

[Drubbing]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomb /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's interesting that every time I see one of these threads lately, it seems that someone posts legitimate proof of measured changes in response vs. time played - new and with burn-in. All of the rest of the posters in the thread studiously ignore it - completely. It's like the Emperor's clothes in reverse - no one can see it and everyone is afraid to comment on it.

I'm not. Because it isn't proof. Not unless those FRs were reproduced similarly elsewhere for confirmation. Small changes in FR may not even be audible - and that is where the decision as to whether a sound has changed or not occurs, and therefore whether burn in has any validity.

So you'd also have to do DBT with users. But as soon as you bring people into it, the results are less valid. Different people will hear and measure different things, plus listening fatigue sets in and skews perceptions.

Lots of people new to this topic think they've come up with some obvious and common sense approaches to solve or prove it, but that only reveals the issues as to why it can't.

It's a bored forum troll's go-to thread starter.

 

[jaycalgary]

"On some cans it reduces the bass quantity and tightens it up, people may not like this outcome."

I guess it can work the opposite also. My burned in K702 has more bass than my new K702.

 

[Keithpgdrb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brendon /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^^ That is a very thought provoking post. It makes a lot of sense actually. Why wouldn't manufacturers burn-in their products before they selling it ? However I am a strong believer in burn-in so its very confusing to me as logically it doesn't seem possible. However when I have burned in some of earphones the change was drastic. How can sibilance prevalent in one earphone almost disappear after burn-in ? Very strange.

this may have been said, because i dont want to read all of this, but I believe Ray Samuals audio burns in all of his amps before they are sold. must mean something.

 

[oqvist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigerwoodkhorns /img/forum/go_quote.gif The argument that you get used to them is not correct. I have a regular system that I have listened to for years and a pair of HD 580's on loan while my new HD600's were breaking in. I did not like the 600's at first and preferred the 580's. After a few hundred hours the 600's started to sound like the 580's (less bright, more instrument separation). If I was just "adjusting" I should have started to think that the 580's sounded muffled and that my main system, that I have had for years, should also start to sound muffled as I became "used" to the increased treble. I listened to the 600's, then ran them for a few days, then listened again, then ran them for several more days. If I was adjusting it would be difficult as I was not listening to them for hours every day. I also listen to a lot of vinyl, so my turntables should also have started to sound muffled because I was "re-learning" to adjust to my new phones. Manufacturers will not burn in equipment because it is expensive. Ever been to an audio show? Most manufactuers can't get their equipment burnt in for the shows and most room sound terrible (bright). They are too busy and usually just get whatever comes off the assembly line, fresh out of the box. Shows are notorius for having bad sound, and there are a lot of shows where I live.

We have muscle memory but I also think we have audio memory... If you once have get used to a headphone it goes much faster to retune to them.

Also is the 580 and Hd 600 really that different? It wasn´t that hard go from the 750/900. Sure they are different but soundstaging is similar and they are not THAT different.

 

[tomb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drubbing /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not. Because it isn't proof. Not unless those FRs were reproduced similarly elsewhere for confirmation. Small changes in FR may not even be audible - and that is where the decision as to whether a sound has changed or not occurs, and therefore whether burn in has any validity.

That's only one example - there have been many others if you've been paying attention. Again, it's interesting that although you chose not to ignore it now after my post, one of the first things you suggest is that they need confirmation. Why?
Quote:

So you'd also have to do DBT with users.

Says who? The measurement itself is proof - whether every person hears it or not. Since when are the foibles of human senses required for confirmation of scientific measurement? I thought the whole issue was that we were hearing things that couldn't be measured. Now we have to hear them before they can be measured??

Quote:

But as soon as you bring people into it, the results are less valid. Different people will hear and measure different things, plus listening fatigue sets in and skews perceptions.

Proof of burn-in is not dependent on any way whether people can hear the difference in a DBT. It's not realistic to suggest that burn-in doesn't exist because proven measurements can't be heard in a DBT. The measurements themselves are proof. There are many other factors going on in a DBT that have little to do with scientific measurement.
Quote:

Lots of people new to this topic think they've come up with some obvious and common sense approaches to solve or prove it, but that only reveals the issues as to why it can't.

So unless there's a human analog of feeling that confirms scientific measurement, the measurement itself is faulty?

OK ... next time I want to bias my tubes or my amplifier, I'll make sure that the tubes or transistors look OK before I believe my measurements.

 

[eucariote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomb /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's interesting that every time I see one of these threads lately, it seems that someone posts legitimate proof of measured changes in response vs. time played - new and with burn-in. All of the rest of the posters in the thread studiously ignore it - completely. It's like the Emperor's clothes in reverse - no one can see it and everyone is afraid to comment on it.

I was struck by those graphs too (post #22), but going to the source page, they are made by a person matching volumes against test tones. That is MUCH better than trying to rely on memory of something that was heard weeks ago. Especially since memory does not retain details like those (believe me, I work and publish in neuroscience). But to be conclusive, those results would have to be repeated ~10 times with a blind tester or they would have to be done with a microphone in a very well controlled manner, and none of those were the case.

 

[Drubbing]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomb /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's only one example - there have been many others if you've been paying attention. Again, it's interesting that although you chose not to ignore it now after my post, one of the first things you suggest is that they need confirmation. Why?

Everything that is wrong with this whole topic is contained in your post, where minutiae gets argued point for pointless point. Measurement aren't good enough, because there's no proof they are audible - have you ever bought headphones because you wanted to hear a certain FR at 20dB?

Measurements mean nothing til they are reproducible within a given tolerance. Again, they mean nothing if people can't hear any difference.

If it were scientific, it would have been proven by now, and manufacturers wouldn't duck and weave when asked about it. The fact Ray Samuel's burns in product, only proves he believes in it; he's hardly Sennheiser and Beyerdynamic - and doesn't he make amps anyway? Well, I'm sure you know what the burn in heretics think about SS burn in.

This is just a quasi religious debate between believers and non believers, and they fire up when people put their beliefs out there and try and argue their own scriptures.

I really do not care what people believe, but this site, bar a few old hands who buck the trend, has a sickness of presenting burn in as a fait accompli; that it is irrefutable and scientific, and belittles people who believe otherwise, based on their own experiences that happen to differ.

And a huge number of the impressionable newbs on here jump on and agree with the post count kings, because they wannabe audiophiles too.

 

[tomb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eucariote /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was struck by those graphs too (post #22), but going to the source page, they are made by a person matching volumes against test tones. That is MUCH better than trying to rely on memory of something that was heard weeks ago. Especially since memory does not retain details like those (believe me, I work and publish in neuroscience). But to be conclusive, those results would have to be repeated ~10 times with a blind tester or they would have to be done with a microphone in a very well controlled manner, and none of those were the case.

An earlier thread actually had spectral analysis plots from a guy in Japan. If he's the same one I'm thinking about - his data is well respected. His post, too, was completely ignored in the context of a huge and contentious thread.

The opinions on this topic border on religion. I sometimes think we need a parting of the red sea before someone will recognize the existence of some burn-in. Heck, headbands loosen over time and will directly affect the sound of the headphone. Granted, that's tangentially related to whether the actual driver loosens up, but it all depends on how one chooses to define the argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drubbing Everything that is wrong with this whole topic is contained in your post. Measurement aren't good enough, because there's no proof they are audible - have you ever bought appear of headphones because you wanted to hear a certain FR at 20dB?

No, with respect - that's what wrong with this whole topic. You can't on the one hand refute the existance of burn-in because someone can only claim to hear it. Then on the other hand, refute the existence of actual measurements because someone can't hear it. How on earth does that make any logical sense.?

 

[eucariote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomb /img/forum/go_quote.gif Again, it's interesting that although you chose not to ignore it now after my post, one of the first things you suggest is that they need confirmation. Why?

You'll find the answer to that question in this book:

p.s. I have absolutely no idea/opinion on the validity of burn-in

 

[tigermilk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drubbing /img/forum/go_quote.gif If it were scientific, it would have been proven by now, and manufacturers wouldn't duck and weave when asked about it. The fact Ray Samuel's burns in product, only proves he believes in it; he's hardly Sennheiser and Beyerdynamic - and doesn't he make amps anyway? Well, I'm sure you know what the burn in heretics think about SS burn in.

NASA does burn-in on electrical components. Why? Look for infant mortality in electrical systems. Burn-in is a quality control issue, not acoustical (in my opinion).