[ueyteuor]

burn in is true

/thread

 

[Dobro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgbiker1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

I think you misinterpreted what he said. You're right that digital files can be corrupted, but he not saying that they can't be, what he is saying is that music in binary format can not be distorted like analog music can be. All "1s" are equal to all other "1s" and all "0s" are equal to all other "0s" and none can be a poorer copy of another. If you copy a song in analog format using analog equipment in series, i.e. make a copy of one file and then copy the copy and repeat that on and on it won't be too long before the copies start becoming unrecognizable. With digital you can make copy on top of copy ad infinitum and the last copy will be just as good as the first, in fact they will be identical. This assumes that there is no compression involved of course. So if you are listening to a digital recording there will be no distortion of the sound till the file hits the DAC.

 

[vcoheda]

buy 3 K701s (since that is said to be very prone to burn in). burn in 2 of them (or 1) and not the other. then have someone - someone who is familiar with the K701 sound - blindly listen to them and see if he or she can tell you which 2 sound the same and which different. repeat a few times.

it wouldn't be conclusive, but it would be interesting.

 

[Acoustic Chef]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif buy 3 K701s (since that is said to be very prone to burn in). burn in 2 of them (or 1) and not the other. then have someone - someone who is familiar with the K701 sound - blindly listen to them and see if he or she can tell you which 2 sound the same and which different. repeat a few times. it wouldn't be conclusive, but it would be interesting.

#1734 with ~9000 hours (broke).
#17835 With ~ 700 hours.
#15233 With ~10 hours.

#1734 -> #17835 was night and day. But #1734 was also the old build. Still #17835 -> #15233 very differant.

 

[amanieux]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acoustic Chef /img/forum/go_quote.gif #1734 with ~9000 hours (broke). #17835 With ~ 700 hours. #15233 With ~10 hours. #1734 -> #17835 was night and day. But #1734 was also the old build. Still #17835 -> #15233 very differant.

this is intersting but only if the 3 headphones had identical sound before burn-in.

has someone ever noticed differences in sound from same models out of the box ?

if in fact there is differences when comparing brand new models out of the factory then then the only simple test is the one i proposed initially

which is : record sound with a mic from a headphone before and after burn-in and compare recorded sound in a sound edit software. all other test requiring a lot of units from the same model is not very likely to happen unless your work in a headphone factory and are in charge of the final quality testing

 

[amanieux]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ueyteuor /img/forum/go_quote.gif burn in is true /thread

sorry but it does not help, here is why :

when i meant share your experience i should have precised you must provide the conditions of your test because if this a comparison from today sound with the memory of the sound you had 1 year ago whithout a comparison to another headphone as reference (and the reference headphone must not have changed in-between) your are just sharing your impressions and it does not help our subject because it is obvious that our brain get trained to the sound of a headphone in time (we all know that our brain is a highly adaptative organ that evolve in time - and we can easily set up an hyphotesis of a "brain burn-in" as an evolving mental process that progressively "filters" or "corrects" sound from the headphone to match the original sound your ear+brain mechanism is used to hearing in the real world).

i want to precise that the subject of this post (as i initially considered it) concerns "headphone burn-in" (that can be heard by anyone) and not this hypothesis of a "brain burn in" (that can be only heard by you).

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amanieux /img/forum/go_quote.gif this is totally false, of course scientific interpretations of FACTS (FACTS=experimental results and not the interpretation you make of it) are changing in time with the constantly evolving threories but numbers measured in an experiment are FACTS that remains valid. if you measure the sound from headphones using a microphones you interpret it as you like but these numbers will not change depending on what most of us believe in. example : * fact is : we measure a difference of 0.1dB over 16Khz before and after burn in. * interpretation is : the best human ear cannot identify a difference under 0.3db over 16khz so we conclude burn in is busted. so if you want to put in question the interpreation it is up to you but you will have to bring evidence that you can hear a sound difference under 0.3db over 16khz. note : the number of 0.1 db and 0.3 db is pure invention, i don't have the real numbers, it is just to ilustrate my point. i am a computer scientist not an audio specialist so you guy must have these numbers and draw the conclusion by yourself if your a minimum honest. i have no interest of proving that burn in exist or not, i am just curious (as every scientist should be).

Honestly speaking (and no offense), your understanding of science is not impressing. We can have a discussion of the fundamental theory of science and how a proper scientific experiment should be carried out, but it will probably take a few weeks, so here is the short/simple version:

1) You observe the nature (or any setting related to your interest) and find an observation/claim/theory that hold a particular interest to you. In this case, the theory/claim of headphone burn-in, as defined as the phenomenon of noticeable change in headphone SQ to the user after a certain amount of time in cumulative active usage. In layman term: 'My headphone sounds better after XXXhrs of usage!

' Are we on the same page?

2) You define a theory which you like to challenge (prove/disprove): I believe your is: "There is no headphone burn in". In the world of science, it will be 'There is NO noticeable change of headphone SQ to the user after a certain amount of time in cumulative active usage'

3) You define an opposite theory, which is '"There is headphone burn in" or 'There is noticeable change of headphone SQ to the user after a certain amount of time in cumulative active usage'

4) You define the parameter of which your theory has based on. In your case, you need to define these term: 'noticeable change', 'headphone', 'headphone SQ', 'user', 'a certain amount time', and 'cumulative active usage'.

I can keep writing, but here we already encountered a few fundamental fault of such an experiment:

How are you planning to define the term 'headphone'? To totally disprove the effect of burn in, you must account for every kind of headphones in every style and shape (IEM, canalphone, dynamic open/close, electrostatic, 5.1 channels, what-ever) , than you must conduct experiment on every one of them, can you do that?

Second, how are you planning to define the term 'headphone SQ'? I will have no clue about this. What quality of sound must a headphone have? Is it the official measurement done by the manufacturer of the 'phone? Can we account for the variation within the same model in every single case? If we can, what scientific study has been done to verify our theory/assumption that such variation can be accounted for?

Than comes the big one: The 'noticeable change' by the 'user'.

How are you planning to define the term 'user'? Is it everyone that capable of using a headphone? How about the hearing capacity of them? Do we have to specify only the golden ear can be enlisted for trial? Certainly not. So I think we have to include a few thousands of user (probably more) from 5yrs-old to 85yrs-old in multiple classes which based not only on age, but also living environment, habit, biological inherent and heath? That's the only way I see that can be called a 'fair' trial.

Than how are you planning to define the term 'noticeable change' in hearing? I am sure you can try and source a dozen of scientific study done on the human hearing sensitivity in responds of sight change across hearing range, but I doubt you will find an absolute number that tell you 'such and such dB can be detected but such and such can not'. Well, good luck with that.

In the end, how are you planning to define the terms 'a certain amount time', and 'cumulative active usage'? How can you be certain that 100hrs of cumulative usage on one headphone equal the same effect on another? If you can, what is the scientific proof that 100hrs is better than 500hrs, or 1000 hrs?

Have you see how many variables must be accounted for even before you can try to scientifically prove/disprove the theory of burn in? If you can account for all them so far, we can start discussing how to collect data and what those data means.

Here is a preview on data collection: You can make a thousand measurement on the same pair of headphone with the most sensitive device there is, and I can absolutely sure that you will not get the same result repeated a thousand times. In fact, you will be lucky if you get 2/3 of your result close to what you wanted. We talk about the 'significant' of the data we collected while we discarded that we believe to be mathematically insignificant to our theory (Be warned however, insignificant is NOT equal to irrelevant).

The most basic rule of being a Scientists is, we don't deal with 'absolute', no even when collecting data. Even the best experiment you can make up will not cover every single being you are testing, therefore any data or conclusion from any experiment contents not the 'fact', but merely the 'suggestion of the fact'. For example, an experiment is testing the color of a certain species of fly in a specific region in UK. After the experiment which involving catching 2/3 of the total population of such species of fly, the scientist observes that all of them are blue in color, therefore they draw the conclusion that such species of fly in such region in UK is blue in color, in 98% of certainty. So why didn't they say it in 100% certainty? Cause they can not, and will never be sure that there will not be an orange colored fly living in the deep forest of the same region, and it is impossible for them to catch every one of such fly (well, unless God is helping them, but lets leave God out of this).

Does data actually tell us 'Fact'? I am very much doubt so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by amanieux /img/forum/go_quote.gif because my 2experiments are not significant , a valid experiment must be done mutiple time and in multiple configurations to bring enough material in order to start doing interpretations and conclusions. i was just asking people to put here all their experiences to collect data. if your read me carefully i wrote " from my 2 experiences , (unless my new headphones had already been burned in at the factory (audio technica, grado)), my conclusion is : burn-in is busted ". and it is because i am aware that 2 experiences is not significant that i proposed us to regoup all our experiences so we can draw a FINAL CONCLUSION. a final conclusion which i have not made yet because i read evidences from people that had positive experiences of burn-in. ( especially interested by the post that said that more than one person noted differences from a headphone to headphone comparison beteween an old and a new headphone of the same model but again this is not conclusive because the difference could have pre-existed out of the factory, this experiment must be done with more than 2 headphones like 10 people doing blind test from 10 new headphones and 10 burned-in headphones of the same model).

Well, i was thinking of replying that^, but now it is very much redundant after my reply above. Anyway, if you have a lots of money to burn, I am sure there are scientists out there (me included) ready to do a scientific research for you. No desired result guaranteed though.

 

[amanieux]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClieOS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Honestly speaking (and no offense), your understanding of science is not impressing. We can have a discussion of the fundamental theory of science and how a proper scientific experiment should be carried out, but it will probably take a few weeks, so here is the short/simple version: 1) You observe the nature (or any setting related to your interest) and find an observation/claim/theory that hold a particular interest to you. In this case, the theory/claim of headphone burn-in, as defined as the phenomenon of noticeable change in headphone SQ to the user after a certain amount of time in cumulative active usage. In layman term: 'My headphone sounds better after XXXhrs of usage! ' Are we on the same page? 2) You define a theory which you like to challenge (prove/disprove): I believe your is: "There is no headphone burn in". In the world of science, it will be 'There is NO noticeable change of headphone SQ to the user after a certain amount of time in cumulative active usage' 3) You define an opposite theory, which is '"There is headphone burn in" or 'There is noticeable change of headphone SQ to the user after a certain amount of time in cumulative active usage' 4) You define the parameter of which your theory has based on. In your case, you need to define these term: 'noticeable change', 'headphone', 'headphone SQ', 'user', 'a certain amount time', and 'cumulative active usage'. I can keep writing, but here we already encountered a few fundamental fault of such an experiment: How are you planning to define the term 'headphone'? To totally disprove the effect of burn in, you must account for every kind of headphones in every style and shape (IEM, canalphone, dynamic open/close, electrostatic, 5.1 channels, what-ever) , than you must conduct experiment on every one of them, can you do that? Second, how are you planning to define the term 'headphone SQ'? I will have no clue about this. What quality of sound must a headphone have? Is it the official measurement done by the manufacturer of the 'phone? Can we account for the variation within the same model in every single case? If we can, what scientific study has been done to verify our theory/assumption that such variation can be accounted for? Than comes the big one: The 'noticeable change' by the 'user'. How are you planning to define the term 'user'? Is it everyone that capable of using a headphone? How about the hearing capacity of them? Do we have to specify only the golden ear can be enlisted for trial? Certainly not. So I think we have to include a few thousands of user (probably more) from 5yrs-old to 85yrs-old in multiple classes which based not only on age, but also living environment, habit, biological inherent and heath? That's the only way I see that can be called a 'fair' trial. Than how are you planning to define the term 'noticeable change' in hearing? I am sure you can try and source a dozen of scientific study done on the human hearing sensitivity in responds of sight change across hearing range, but I doubt you will find an absolute number that tell you 'such and such dB can be detected but such and such can not'. Well, good luck with that. In the end, how are you planning to define the terms 'a certain amount time', and 'cumulative active usage'? How can you be certain that 100hrs of cumulative usage on one headphone equal the same effect on another? If you can, what is the scientific proof that 100hrs is better than 500hrs, or 1000 hrs? Have you see how many variables must be accounted for even before you can try to scientifically prove/disprove the theory of burn in? If you can account for all them so far, we can start discussing how to collect data and what those data means. Here is a preview on data collection: You can make a thousand measurement on the same pair of headphone with the most sensitive device there is, and I can absolutely sure that you will not get the same result repeated a thousand times. In fact, you will be lucky if you get 2/3 of your result close to what you wanted. We talk about the 'significant' of the data we collected while we discarded that we believe to be mathematically insignificant to our theory (Be warned however, insignificant is NOT equal to irrelevant). The most basic rule of being a Scientists is, we don't deal with 'absolute', no even when collecting data. Even the best experiment you can make up will not cover every single being you are testing, therefore any data or conclusion from any experiment contents not the 'fact', but merely the 'suggestion of the fact'. For example, an experiment is testing the color of a certain species of fly in a specific region in UK. After the experiment which involving catching 2/3 of the total population of such species of fly, the scientist observes that all of them are blue in color, therefore they draw the conclusion that such species of fly in such region in UK is blue in color, in 98% of certainty. So why didn't they say it in 100% certainty? Cause they can not, and will never be sure that there will not be an orange colored fly living in the deep forest of the same region, and it is impossible for them to catch every one of such fly (well, unless God is helping them, but lets leave God out of this). Does data actually tell us 'Fact'? I am very much doubt so. Well, i was thinking of replying that^, but now it is very much redundant after my reply above. Anyway, if you have a lots of money to burn, I am sure there are scientists out there (me included) ready to do a scientific research for you. No desired result guaranteed though.

i like you being so precise, i would love a ten year study on the subject but i am not sure we can find money for this.

but ok you are right , i was asking too much, i take back my words "final conclusion" i am just asking for a "first temporary conclusion".

so why not reducing the range of this study to ONE experiment on ONE headphone that is claimed to be very sensible to burn-in : the k701 for example (so no conlusion can be extended to all headphones but it will give us an idea - because for the moment i have no data so no idea) and measure wth a microphone (an average microphone) after a "arbitrary chosen time" like 500 hours for example and then see if what we measure is a under or above the range of what an "average man" can discernate( i dont have the numbers but i am sure it can be easily found in statistical studies on the subject).

it just take one head fi member that buys a new k701 with a microphone and an audio freeware editor. maybee it wont satisfy you but with just this unique result i would be happy.

are we on the same page Mr science ?

 

[Shahrose]

sry but burn-in is true. both physical (headphones) and psychacoustic (brain).

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amanieux /img/forum/go_quote.gif it just take one head fi member that buys a new k701 with a microphone and an audio freeware editor. maybee it wont satisfy you but with just this unique result i would be happy.

If that is so, and since you are the one who are most interested in proving/unproving burn-in, why not do it yourself? After all, there isn't much a reason to ask another member to spend the money and time so you can satisfy your curiosity, right? Well, I am certainly interested in learning what outcome you might find

 

[vcoheda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acoustic Chef /img/forum/go_quote.gif #1734 with ~9000 hours (broke). #17835 With ~ 700 hours. #15233 With ~10 hours. #1734 -> #17835 was night and day. But #1734 was also the old build. Still #17835 -> #15233 very differant.

hmm. interesting. also, what do you mean by "broke." the 701 just stopped working one day for no apparent reason or it was dropped, or the cable came loose, or something else.

 

[fordgtlover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif buy 3 K701s (since that is said to be very prone to burn in). burn in 2 of them (or 1) and not the other. then have someone - someone who is familiar with the K701 sound - blindly listen to them and see if he or she can tell you which 2 sound the same and which different. repeat a few times. it wouldn't be conclusive, but it would be 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

As I previously posted, there is a fair chance that there would be at least as much variation between the three due to material and manufacturing tolerances as there might be from burn-in.

I would be interested to see the order of preference in their original condition (no burn-in) - based on ratings gathered over several listening sessions. Then burn in the 2 least preferred cans. Then have the same person listen to all three and rank them - based on ratings gathered over several listening sessions.

I agree that this would be a very interesting test.

Anyone have 3 virgins sets of K701, a reliable assistant we can borrow and can wait between 100 and 400 hours to get their 3 pairs of K701 back?

 

[amanieux]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClieOS /img/forum/go_quote.gif If that is so, and since you are the one who are most interested in proving/unproving burn-in, why not do it yourself? After all, there isn't much a reason to ask another member to spend the money and time so you can satisfy your curiosity, right?

am i the only one being curious about burn in reality being measured ?

why not ask if someone already made this simple test ? isn't what forums are made for ? sharing information ?

by the way the response seems to be here : Speaker Break In: Fact or Fiction? — Audioholics Home Theater Reviews and News

 

[freestyler]

To me the change existed (after burning amp+cans) but it wasn't that great.
But like one poster on previous page said,i think it's on your brain as well. Meaning that for example i have to listen many times an album to start liking it.

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amanieux /img/forum/go_quote.gif am i the only one being curious about burn in reality being measured ?

At least I am not one of those who are curious about burn-in to a point that I must prove it. I am here to check out news, read interesting comment and maybe find an idea of my next purchase. Do I like to know about everything on burn-in? Sure I do. Do I need to prove it? No, I don't. Do other has to prove it to me? No, they don't.

Whether burn-in is real or not, eventually I will use my headphone to a point of time when what supposes to happen will happen (or vise versa), so therefore worrying about what the next 100hrs or 1000hrs of usage will do to my headphone is essentially a waste of my time, the time better spends on enjoying music. If my headphone does appear to burn-in, than I will feel great since the SQ is improved. If it is the opposite, than at least I can say I have given the headphone a chance to prove a reasonable doubt (of whether burn-in affects it or not). If I just so happen to find its sound to be distasteful, I can always sell it off without questioning myself what other alternative can there be. This is more for my comfort (for not feeling guilty on the time and money wasted) than for any other proposes.

My guess is, people like me are not in the minor.
Quote:

Originally Posted by amanieux /img/forum/go_quote.gif why not ask if someone already made this simple test ? isn't what forums are made for ? sharing information ? by the way i had my response in a previous post : Speaker Break In: Fact or Fiction? — Audioholics Home Theater Reviews and News

Of course people can share info on forum, but the validity of such info can not be easily validated in a scientific manner (=peer review) which left room for argument - therefore we also like to call our reply as 'comment' and use 'IMO' in a reply more often than we like.

In all seriousness, if any one want to prove/unprove burn-in without any doubt (well, most doubt), the assumption, methods of experiment and the conclusion should/must be published on a scientific journey which is opened for peer review.

Sharing information in a forum is fine, but it is dangerous to take such information too seriously (on general issue at large). You can choose what you want to believe in, and so can others choose whether to lie to you or not - it is way too easy in the internet era.