[ph0rk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif burn in seems real. that's for sure.

Every time I figure I have you about pegged as my Ideological nemesis you go and say something I fully agree with

 

[vvs_75]

You don't have to measure anything!

Just think a bit. The current goes through the coil and move diaphragm with high frequency, right? Ok now Do you think your new shoes have same fit and feel on your feet after a month of wearing them?

 

[jonnywolfet]

id say that for me, it takes me a lot longer to get used to the sound signature (and learn its in and outs) of a new piece of equipment than makes it possible for me to comment about any changes.
i associate perceived changes to mental adjustment, i have never conclusively noticed burn in, nor have i ever noticed changes in quality with different cables (i know, can of worms), but im a sceptic, and possibly suffering from counter-placebo. or maybe i have tin ears, i dunno.
YMMV

 

[fatcat28037]

Go here and read '10 Biggest Lies in Audio'

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_i...ritic_26_r.pdf

 

[natural_nut]

want evidence of burn-in? Get a pair of Creative EP630s

 

[tjumper78]

i think burn-in is "real". i dont know about headphones but pretty much every single user of imod swears that they'd heard improvement in sq after 400-500 hours of burn-in, and i just have to believe what that many people swear. if burn-in is real for imod, why shouldnt it be for headphones?

personally, i just dont bother to burn-in my headphones. i just listen and i like what i hear, and i dont wanna waste time trying to hear a tiny bit of sound difference.

 

[touchzen]

Burn in is real for speakers and headphones. But I really doubt the burn in with amp/player etc.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Headphones are mechanical devices and they do change over time.

Still, it's not a big deal. All of them sound fine right out of the box and they still sound good 1,000 or more hours later.

Just listen. The correct answer is to not care and to put on another disc instead. You only have so much time to listen to music in your life, so get busy enjoying it with the nice gear you paid a lot of money for.

 

[dgbiker1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatcat28037 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Go here and read '10 Biggest Lies in Audio' http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_i...ritic_26_r.pdf

I'd like to learn more about that author because he is completely wrong on lie #3 (I don't care about LP vs CD, his technical understanding of sampling and digital signals is severely flawed), so I don't know if I can take any of his comments seriously.

 

[Drumonron]

...wrong thread...sorry

 

[sigsegv0x0B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgbiker1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd like to learn more about that author because he is completely wrong on lie #3 (I don't care about LP vs CD, his technical understanding of sampling and digital signals is severely flawed), so I don't know if I can take any of his comments seriously.

When you say something like that "his technical understanding of sampling and digital signals is severely flawed" You have to assume we're not all Einstein and explain to us what do you think so?

 

[dgbiker1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigsegv0x0B /img/forum/go_quote.gif When you say something like that "his technical understanding of sampling and digital signals is severely flawed" You have to assume we're not all Einstein and explain to us what do you think so?

OK, you asked for it

First, he cites the Nyquist sampling theorem which states that your sampling rate must be at least twice the frequency of the source. About 2 minutes after you learn that, you learn that twice isn't actually good enough. If you're lucky your 2 samples per period (one full cycle) will land at the max and min sound pressure. In reality, your recording will probably be out of phase with the source, so your samples are just as likely to land when the wave passes 0 in which case your recording would say there is no sound. The recording would also be a square wave, which sounds nothing like a sine wave. When he says the lowest Hi-Fi source samples at 44.1kHz, it's true that it satisfies the sampling theorem since you theoretically would want at least 2X20kHz to cover the hearing range, but that doesn't make it good. For good sampling (in the medical field at least) you want at least TEN times the source frequency. I don't know of any mainstream 200kHz audio equipment. An analog signal has a virtually infinite sampling frequency, so it is technically superior. Where analog sources fall behind is in the shortcomings of the medium itself (LP, tapes). He came to the right conclusion, but not the right way, so I can't be assured that his other conclusions are right. I did agree with the burn-in conclusion though, hearing about cable, resistor and transistor (I can understand electrolytic or oil/film caps though- fluid dynamics could come into play) burn-in makes my head hurt.

He also talks about how 0s and 1s can't be corrupted in the signal stream. This is also completely wrong. It is less susceptible to line noise for sure, but you can lose 0s and 1s. In reality the 1 is a TTL signal, around 5V +/- some threshold. It is entirely possible for line noise to pass that threshold and send a false value. It is more robust than an analog signal though since it can handle some line noise without changing the actual signal, but it's not bulletproof as the author suggests.

 

[santiclaws]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif burn in seems real. that's for sure.

If it didn't seem real we wouldn't be having this discussion. That said, I've absolutely experienced "burn in." Do I believe it had anything whatsoever to do with the sound coming out of the headphone? No.

 

[eruditass]

dgbiker1, your understanding of waveforms is flawed so I don't know if I can take your argument seriously.

a 20Khz square wave has tons of harmonics of the 20Khz fundamental. A perfect square wave is thus of course impossible to capture perfectly digitally at all. any harmonics above 20Khz won't be heard by the human ear, but all the harmonics below 20Khz will. so all recordings have less than 20Khz including harmonics. even if an analog recording of a perfect square wave on vinyl existed (i dont know exactly how vinyl works), because our hearing only goes up to 20Khz, that square wave sampled at 44.1Khz will sound exactly the same. I don't believe there are any actual waveforms (not theoretical) that can't be produced without sine waves. My understanding that the nyquist rate will infact reproduce anything perfectly has not been tainted by your argument.

From my understanding, the only reason there exist sampling rates above 44.1Khz is because of the heavy processing done on those signals in mixing, mastering, and the like to avoid artifacts/aliasing/etc, none of which happen when we actually listen to it.

p.s. the audio critic says burn in is real...

 

[fordgtlover]

Here's an interesting quote:

...the resulting amplitude response graphs indicated that an end user would likely encounter larger system-to-system amplitude response differences (~1.04 dB Spl) owing to normal driver variances than would be encountered breaking in raw drivers...

Speaker Break In: Fact or Fiction? - page 2 — Audioholics Home Theater Reviews and News

So, perhaps burn-in is real, but as suggested by the quote above, there would be more variation between drivers due to material and manufacturing tolerances.

Perhaps you'd be better off buying four pairs of the same model headphone; listen to them all and simply keep the ones you prefer.

IMHO, brain burn-in is the most likely scenario. If you don't like your new headphones out of the box - sell them and try something else.