[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh my! Burn-in discussions never seem to end...

You mean you don't hear a difference after 300+ hours?

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif You mean you don't hear a difference after 300+ hours?

I have not commented burn-in at all.

I were talking about the burn-in topic/discussions, which are discussed to death once every month or two...

 

[ken36]

I love this thread.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have not commented burn-in at all. I were talking about the burn-in topic/discussions, which are discussed to death once every month or two...

So was I.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif So was I.

300+ hours of burn-in discussion...

 

[shigzeo]

indeed, discussion only get warmer, more involving with burn in. just watch parliament discussions. they certainly do well with a bit of time... things heat up quite nicely i am sure

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif 300+ hours of burn-in discussion...

Meta burn-in.
Do you hear a difference in the discussion after 100 hours?
Lows get better.
More definition.
Shrillness gone?

And after 300+ hours:
Suddenly more dynamics.
Detail increases significantly.

After 500 hours:
Head stage gets much wider (for some).
Definitely a much better over all balance.

Who knows what's next...

 

[andyo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClieOS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here is the Biography of my old professor (and I quoted):

Sorry, Clieos, but really, social sciences don't really work with the same evidence than hard sciences, just because of the nature of them. I was a communications science student, and never saw why it was called science. OK, your professor is a scientist, but what you quoted, I don't wanna say it's out of context because I don't really know that, but it's misleading as it was quoted, and what you said about it. It's true that scientific facts are changing, but the evidence for old theories is still valid. New facts have to account for that. So, again, the change is not just "change". The great majority of the time it's a refinement.

Your quote could be misinterpreted (I don't know if you meant that) as saying that something like scientific knowledge is provisional, just like any other kind of knowledge (cultural traditions, for example). The first part is technically correct. But scientific knowledge advances and progresses, and it's not the same as other kinds of "knowledge". That was what all the fuss with postmodernism was a few years back. And the evidence for that statement is, we're all doing it with our computers, science just works.

Anyway, don't wanna hijack the thread to a discussion about science. Forgive me, I just get a little ticked when people start saying or implying that because science changes, it is undermined. That's what our creationist friends and other groups like to tout. That it changes is actually its strength, because it follows the evidence and progresses.

 

[ClieOS]

andyo, the discussion of fundamental theory and philosophy of science isn't just dealing with hard science*, but science in general. If we must make an exclusion when we are talking on a specific kind scientific practice, than we might as well take it as faith. As I have said before, I'll leave my statement as it is. If you are interested in this topic, the article I linked previously will provide you with more detail.

Anyway, sorry about all the off topic posts

[size=xx-small]
P/S: The article also touches on the argument of science vs. non-science. If you read the whole thing, you will understand that your idea in your last paragraph might not be too far off from what the author has suggested.[/size]

 

[andyo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClieOS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyway, sorry about all the off topic posts

Me too, I'll leave it at that. Cheers.

 

[kappa_ii]

k701 change enormous in the the first 100-150 hour , in every way .
at the beginning i listen 10-15 minutes and i believed that is broken .
and make the same listen test after 20hour of burn-in - and so on -
is the freakiest headphone i ever have

now i make the burn-in on dt880 pro - the change is not so drastical .

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif Great question. Is there a reason that burn in seems to always be associated with better sound rather than worse?

When the driver is designed, the designer consider the optimal parameters of the materials to be used, and probably try to squeeze the best out of them (even while not always is achieved due to budget/profits constrictions...

) Some of those parameters, mainly mechanical, are not reached till some time had passed, and the drivers work for a while, as the membranes and other devices are still too stiff to offer them. Those parameters as stated by others, mainly affect the distortion you hear, and some frequencies extension, after you pass that period probably there will be other changes, due to maybe degradation of the magnet fields, etc...but those are smaller and smaller and so gradual, that maybe they are not so noticeable as the mechanical ones...

 

[NoiseGUI]

So most of this thread has been over my head, but I feel I have the following 2 cents for ya... Watch out now, I'm about to hit you with some low-fi...

I have Super.fi 3 IEMs and JBL 510 headphones. When I compare the two, there are huge differences... but there is a twist... and the story goes, I felt the JBL 510s were decent. The NC feature hissed and I hated that aspect, so I got UE SF3s, but my first impression was there was no bass. Decent highs, but no bass. After listening for awhile, the bass kicked in and I felt they were great. Nice reproduction. Great bass when the track had bass.

So I go back to try the JBL, and ugh. The bass is so bloated it sounded horrible. Can't believe I liked them. No clarity. After a few days of sticking it out with the JBL they started to sound respectable. Nice detail. nicely controlled low end. So back to the UEs I went, and man, how anemic on the bass are these? Where is it. And on and on it goes...

Anyway. Brain burn in. You get used to what you use. Somehow, each phone makes the other sound horrible.

On the other hand. My Tomahawk. Detail yes, bass no. Burn in at 200ish hours and whump...

bass heavy. Overnight wallop. Next day, bass more controlled, and perhaps back to normal. Is the amp more balanced at 300 hours or is it back to where it was new? I think it has a bit more bass, but I haven't a new Tomahawk to compare to. Nice amp. Something definitely changed, and I do believe there was a burn-in that occurred. How different from new, I have no idea.

Got a predator and hey. It was JBL déjà vu. But alls cool now

. Predator has 300+ on it now and hey 'Nice detail. nicely controlled low end.'

 

[eruditass]

wow this thread is huge, maybe ill read it later

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgbiker1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're absolutely right about the square wave being composed of a fundamental 20Hz wave. But to get a sampling rate that's 10X the frequency of the source means we are reliably sampling up to 4.41kHz. That leaves a large portion of the audible spectrum with some aliasing, and therefore extra harmonics that weren't in the original recording- though many likely won't be audible due to low relative amplitudes. I always go for 10X since that's what we sample biological signals at (where any tiny bump could be an abnormality), but I can imagine audio could be lower, but the "subconscious" (bad word, I mean hardly audible, amplitude << fundamental frequencies) harmonics could be what color the sound, either through us hearing them or even their effects on the dynamics of the headphone driver that may affect the real signal (purely theoretical now). Those higher frequency harmonics could be why digital recordings are seen as cold by vinyl junkies.

what? you sample with respect to the highest audible frequency, 20Khz, nyquist says 40Khz but we go up to 44.1Khz anyway. why would you sample thinking the highest wave is 20 Hz? To address harmonics above 20Khz that you may worry about... you run it through a low pass filter at 20Khz. Any anomalies above 20Khz in the recording won't be heard anyway. yes harmonics color the sound, thats what make instruments sound unique, but only harmonics below 20Khz. i mean fundamentals are like ~100hz~200hz.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgbiker1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif This doesn't change the fact that a 2X sample out of phase with the original signal will be completely off though. Plot a sine wave and take two samples; one at pi and one at 2pi. This is 2X sampling and you get a flat line from your "recording" even though the wave has a magnitude of 1. With 44.1kHz you might get a little bump, but it won't be representative of the full wave. Every 10-ish periods you would catch a peak, but 1/10 isn't great sampling.

nyquist says ABOVE 2x the highest frequency. theres 4.4Khz of extra sampling. even if its very close, the fourier transform will catch what you are describing as long as its more than one period. one period at 22Khz is.. 0.04535 ms. so i think anything that will have an effect on the sound will last longer than that. you don't need to catch a peak to reconstruct the waveform, just more than a period at near half the nyquist rate.
Quote:

Originally Posted by dgbiker1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif trying to filter a square wave is a PITA!

yes it is and it also will never ever happen in audio.

 

[EYEdROP]

Can continuous 24/7 sound harm the drivers, even if the volume is kept at a safe level?