[z50j]

there should be a sticky on what has and what doesnt have burn in

 

[The Monkey]

I think there should be a sticky to take the topic elsewhere.

 

[haloxt]

MrGreen and The Monkey, any comment on chinesewiki's links on page 2 of this thread?

 

[z50j]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think there should be a sticky to take the topic elsewhere.

that wont stop people from asking questions

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif MrGreen and The Monkey, any comment on chinesewiki's links on page 2 of this thread?

Yes; they belong in sound science or elsewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by z50j /img/forum/go_quote.gif that wont stop people from asking questions

That's ok, they also can be directed elsewhere.

 

[z50j]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes; they belong in sound science or elsewhere. That's ok, they also can be directed elsewhere.

stuff like this thread should be directed to the sound science

 

[pdupiano]

You guys do realize that the video proved that burn in is true correct? Its just that burn in won't get you from craptastic to fantastic. Anyone who's ever said burn in is night and day is lying through their tooth, just like anyone who's ever said a cable change is a night and day difference. Simply put, these changes WILL impact the sound. BUT Not to the extent of "night and day" differences. Refinement and tightening up maybe, but nothing more. But anyone with half a mind should be aware of that.

The video does show that burn in will affect the sound by +/- 1db. last time I checked 1db/16db is GREATER than 5% which is the usually accepted variance from the norm to indicate something is going on. I picked 16 db because that was the greatest difference from the flat response to the headphone's output response. Even in his conclusion, he states that burn in does affect the sound -BUT BE REALISTIC. It only affects it by a little TINY-ITTY-BITTY bit. That's it. And the same is true with audio cables and a lot of other things that people keep on saying is snake oil. The whole issue with people saying that burn-in isn't true is that they have incredibly high expectations from hearing "night and day" differences and get disappointed when in fact only a little bit changes. If you ask me, THATS the real myth and snake oil ("night and day" differences), not headphone burn-in.

By the way in case someone brings up that the differences could be based on the equipment, he does state prior to showing the results that the resolution on the gear was more than enough to clearly depict changes in the headphone's frequency response. Should you choose to neglect this detail and still promote the idea that it was just instrument error -you will have to disregard the video in its entirety because how can you trust the results of an instrument riddled with errors?


So take a lesson from the guy (weird as that sounds), pick up a pair of headphones, if you like em -keep em. If you don't, chuck em or return them. Because a pair of headphones isn't a diamond in an ore, its just a diamond that needs to get polished. What you see is what you get and down the line an added bit of refinement. You're just fooling yourself otherwise.

And for those who keep asking for proof, you should sticky the video as proof because it does prove burn-in is true.

 

[Seamaster]

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).

Totally agree. Those people should go to Audio 101: How to clean your ear wax

My wife is at oversea, so I talk on the cell phone with headset a lot when I am driving. Even all the headset for the cellphone need brun-in, otherwise sound too sharp to my ear when theu are new. They need little more than 15 hours to settle in

 

[Double F]

Burn-in possibly loosens new drivers for better sound. Cables and cable burn-in is totally bogus except for making manufacturers money with very little R&D.

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif MrGreen and The Monkey, any comment on chinesewiki's links on page 2 of this thread?

What about them exactly?

 

[drewfus420]

flaky/stoney as Dave Rat seems, he is actually pretty well respected in the live audio world...

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif And for those who keep asking for proof, you should sticky the video as proof because it does prove burn-in is true.

Did you watch the same video? He came to no conclusive proof. The frequency bars were bouncing up and down and the changes from the old graph with the "live" graph was also with that same bouncing up and down margin of error. The proof, in the big scheme of things, not a heck of a lot.

He also snubs the Ultrasone Pro 900 for having a drastically non-flat FR. He's using a board with a hole drilled in it and a microphone shoved in. That's not how to get a proper measurement from an Ultrasone. Put the Pro 900 on backwards and they'll sound very different and wrong. They very much depend on an outer ear being there and not a flat piece of wood. Course for his purpose testing burn-in the board and microphone do fine. Just don't diss the Pro 900 for having an even more humped FR than they actually do.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewfus420 /img/forum/go_quote.gif flaky/stoney as Dave Rat seems, he is actually pretty well respected in the live audio world...

Yeah, I went to his web site and had a look around. Some neat big venue concert speaker sound system setups. And I like what I see about his subs. Real subs. No foo foo horn subs.

 

[pdupiano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did you watch the same video? He came to no conclusive proof. The frequency bars were bouncing up and down and the changes from the old graph with the "live" graph was also with that same bouncing up and down margin of error. The proof, in the big scheme of things, not a heck of a lot. He also snubs the Ultrasone Pro 900 for having a drastically non-flat FR. He's using a board with a hole drilled in it and a microphone shoved in. That's not how to get a proper measurement from an Ultrasone. Put the Pro 900 on backwards and they'll sound very different and wrong. They very much depend on an outer ear being there and not a flat piece of wood. Course for his purpose testing burn-in the board and microphone do fine. Just don't diss the Pro 900 for having an even more humped FR than they actually do.

3min 13 seconds

Well if you do reject the testing methodology then... the quest continues to disprove head-phone burn in... although we all know it exists.

 

[dasmb]

Burn in just does not exist. I burnt in my new Audio Technicas for 24 hours and they sound much worse. At 450º -- am I doing it wrong?