[jilgiljongiljing]

Quote:

I have no "proof" but I do know my 780s sounded like clock-radio speakers when I first bought them, and 6 months later they sound pretty darn good.

^ This!

For me it was with the 680's.

 

[pp312]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif A frequency response graph isn't the ultimate measure of how a headphone sounds. You can have two headphones with identical FR graphs that sound completely different. One may be analytical and quick while the other is slow and smooth yet they both have the same FR graph.

Of course. And since two headphones with identical FRs can sound quite different, how is FR a measure of change? Frankly I'm astonished that some people just don't get this concept, that (a) they don't hear it for themselves (wow, the 702 I had went from diabolical to nearly acceptable in a week) and (b) that they don't get it that nearly everything new changes over time with use. Does your car still feel the same as it did when new? Doesn't it feel less stiff, a little more responsive? Aren't even the seats a little more comfortable, a little more forgiving? Virtually everything mechanical is in a state of flux, and never more so than from new. Why is it so radical to believe that a small driver radiating sound by vibration might loosen up and change its characteristics with use? To me it sounds perfectly logical and accords exactly with what I hear.

A far more interesting subject would be: how much do your headphones change over time after burn-in?

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KriLi /img/forum/go_quote.gif But then you're talking about 2 different headphones right? and not comparing stock and burned in headphones.

The example was with two different headphones. That's not the important part. The point I wanted to make is that a frequency response graph is not the ultimate measure (or even a good measure) of sound quality characteristics. Characteristics like transient attack, speed of decay, grainyness, smoothness, changes in soundstage, changes in accuracy of positioning of sounds, all sorts of "audiophile" sound characteristics. A FR graph only measures frequency and sound quality is more than just frequency.

Rather than two different headphones having the same FR graph, lets say you have the same headphone pre burn-in and post burn-in. The FR is identical for both. Yet listening tests indicate a change in bass character. The bass became quicker, more snappy, attack and decay sounds faster. How are those changes going to show up in a simple FR graph or frequency analyzer like Mr. Rat used? A waterfall graph could possibly show those changes. But what about other aspects of sound quality. How do you measure an improvement or change in soundstage or 3D positioning of sounds in space? How do you measure a difference in how grainy something sounds pre burn-in and post burn-in? The list of unmeasurable, or very difficult to measure, aspects of sound quality could go on and on.

So the simple frequency analyzer graph Mr. Rat did means very little. What about other aspects of sound quality? Any changes?

 

[chinesekiwi]

The only measure the FR graphs show is a general jist of the overall sound signature of a headphone or in-ears (you cannot compare the FR graphs of in-ears vs. headphones) and that's it.

 

[haloxt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pp312 /img/forum/go_quote.gif A far more interesting subject would be: how much do your headphones change over time after burn-in?

I'd like to A/B because my headphones have about 2000 hours and I get the feeling it is getting tinnier, and my headphones are rather tinny new or old.

 

[MikePio]

Does it really matter? I have noticed burn-in on my HE-5's for sure, though they did sound great from the beginning, so maybe it was just my "brain". Either way, it really makes no difference in the end, if it sounds better to you after 100 or 200 hours, then all the power to you. Debating this is pointless, since everyone will have a different opinion. I guess thats the beauty of sound, is that we all perceive it in different ways, have many likes and dislikes of what sounds good or bad. The brain is a very powerful organ, if you truly believe your 50 dollar headphones are the best, they will be. Its that simple... Anyways cheers! and Enjoy your cans, with or without "burn-in"!

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikePio /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does it really matter? I have noticed burn-in on my HE-5's for sure, though they did sound great from the beginning, so maybe it was just my "brain". Either way, it really makes no difference in the end, if it sounds better to you after 100 or 200 hours, then all the power to you. Debating this is pointless, since everyone will have a different opinion. I guess thats the beauty of sound, is that we all perceive it in different ways, have many likes and dislikes of what sounds good or bad. The brain is a very powerful organ, if you truly believe your 50 dollar headphones are the best, they will be. Its that simple... Anyways cheers! and Enjoy your cans, with or without "burn-in"!

"If it sounds good, it IS good." --Duke Ellington.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pp312 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course. And since two headphones with identical FRs can sound quite different, how is FR a measure of change? Frankly I'm astonished that some people just don't get this concept, that (a) they don't hear it for themselves (wow, the 702 I had went from diabolical to nearly acceptable in a week) and (b) that they don't get it that nearly everything new changes over time with use. Does your car still feel the same as it did when new? Doesn't it feel less stiff, a little more responsive? Aren't even the seats a little more comfortable, a little more forgiving? Virtually everything mechanical is in a state of flux, and never more so than from new. Why is it so radical to believe that a small driver radiating sound by vibration might loosen up and change its characteristics with use? To me it sounds perfectly logical and accords exactly with what I hear. A far more interesting subject would be: how much do your headphones change over time after burn-in?

Amen bro' .... amen!!

 

[z50j]

I dont call it burn-in myself

I just call it not bnew

but burn-in is real. for some of my phones at least. before "burn-in" they sound a bit crispy, high and accurate highs but. after burn-in it all levels out

 

[The Monkey]

The burn-in/cable nonsense is ruining this forum. Pro or con, I don't care, but the debates are endlessly boring and find their way into way too many threads. People used to post useful stuff here. Worse, we have all of these "experts" spouting their bs and leading others astray. I implore the powers that be to relegate these discussions to the appropriate subforums (e.g., sound science, cables etc., nonsense).

 

[cck5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by THAY BRAN /img/forum/go_quote.gif my ears have lied to me all these years , i could swear blind that my gs1k sounded crap for the first 300 hrs i must be mad they must have sounded great all along , i feel so foolish thankyou for showing me the light.

lol burn in is real.my grados sounded horrible during rehersal but sound amazing now.

 

[z50j]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif The burn-in/cable nonsense is ruining this forum. Pro or con, I don't care, but the debates are endlessly boring and find their way into way too many threads. People used to post useful stuff here. Worse, we have all of these "experts" spouting their bs and leading others astray. I implore the powers that be to relegate these discussions to the appropriate subforums (e.g., sound science, cables etc., nonsense).

so is the amp burn-in

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by z50j /img/forum/go_quote.gif so is the amp burn-in

of course.

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif The burn-in/cable nonsense is ruining this forum. Pro or con, I don't care, but the debates are endlessly boring and find their way into way too many threads. People used to post useful stuff here. Worse, we have all of these "experts" spouting their bs and leading others astray. I implore the powers that be to relegate these discussions to the appropriate subforums (e.g., sound science, cables etc., nonsense).

x2.

Not only this, but this whole burn-in thing is getting out of hand.

I remember back in the day when people would smirk at people suggesting 200+ hours of burn-in. Now there are legitimate suggestions to burn-in K701s for 1000 hours to "bring out the bass". Just how stiff do you think these cones are?

Also, as per the above post - I've never encountered a headphone that sounds terrible and then starts to sound amazing. I've encountered headphones I did not like at first, but have come to like since, but I doubt they sound radically different.

I disagree with a large portion of the video, but I do agree with the guy when he says "get a pair of headphones you enjoy and start listening to music".

Spending $1000 on a rig and then wasting power so you can "burn them in" is ludicrous; you get the exact same thing by listening to them - arguably better becuase of the complexity of the wave form. I never understood the desire for people to use sine sweeps etc, as these result in basic motion of the coil rather than complex movement. *shrug*

I believe in burn-in (but believe that it is logarithmic and most of it occurs in the first few minutes of operation).

 

[The Monkey]

^Agree. What we have here is a bunch of groupthink and it stinks. Burn-in could be real. I have no idea. I don't much believe in it, but what do I know. What I do know is that we have people here saying the equivalent of "Burn it in until you agree with everyone else. And if you don't agree with everyone else, then not enough burn-in."

It needs to stop.