[KingStyles]

Ill start off by saying that i do believe in burn in. I have heard changes in some of my equipment over time, but sometimes I hear very little change even though the manufacture says a large amount of burn in is required. That brings me to my question. Do you think manufactures state a large amount of burn in required so that people will listen to the equipment for 100-200 hours hoping that the buyer will adjust or learn to like the new sound signature in that time frame rather than making an immediate judgment of the sound and returning it? It almost seems that everything says it needs 100-200 hours of burn in almost as a prerequisite. The manufactures seem to state this regardless if burn in was needed or not. What do yuo think.

 

[DanielCox]

Quite probably.
I'm not sure on the burn in thing - I've heard it myself but then again I think that was psychological because i've been back to compare equipment and it sounds the same.
However for some equipment there may be a burn in period - I'm thinking tubes here.

Whatever the status of burn in if it does exist I'd guess it would be a fairly short affair and certainly not hundreds of hours.

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingStyles /img/forum/go_quote.gif What do yuo think.

I think if the equipment itself produces higher quality audio after, say, 200 hours burn-in, why don't manufacturers burn them in for 200 hours before selling them? I would think they would want their product at its best when the customer buys it.

 

[Anonanimal]

Might be worth comparing the recommended burn-in time with your manufacturer's money-back guarantee date

. I'm mostly joking there, but yes, sometimes it does feel like if a manufacturer wanted to sell their product "as-intended", they'd perform the break-in themselves.

I've been around a lot of fiber optic and solar manufacturing processes, and most of them have some sort of burn-in process (24-48hrs) but I'm fairly certain this is only done to make sure the circuit is stable and constructed to spec. It's probably perfectly reasonable to expect that most driver manufacturers do something similar.

An interesting thing that has occurred to me is: why would Sennheiser package frequency response test plots with their new HD800s if they fully expected the response to change over the first couple hundred hours? Not trying to start a flame war or anything, but just an observation.

 

[KingStyles]

I was just sitting here thinking when I was posting this saying to myself, if I was selling an audio component, I would put in my manual that 100 hrs of burn in is required for optimal performance. It just allows the user to become used to the sound signature and less likely to return it. If you bought product x and was thinking about returning it because the sound wasnt for you but you see in the manual that the sound will change in the next 100 hours, not only does it perk your curiosity as to what changes might occur, but it also will give you time to get used to the sound. You are more likely to return it after 1 hour than 100 hours so if the manufacture buys themselves that time, what do they care if they put that in there manual. Just for the record, I am not accusing any manufactures of doing this or have any evidence of this happening. It just a though that I was wondering if anybody else ever thought of.

 

[Currawong]

I have owned some gear that changed, very audibly, during the first 350 hours, with the treble dropping out for 50 hours or so. This was confirmed with other people. I think it's a rare case though and related to the particular components used. The first 100 hours seem to be the most likely during which components electrically settle the most.

 

[883dave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielCox /img/forum/go_quote.gif Quite probably. I'm not sure on the burn in thing - I've heard it myself but then again I think that was psychological because i've been back to compare equipment and it sounds the same. However for some equipment there may be a burn in period - I'm thinking tubes here. Whatever the status of burn in if it does exist I'd guess it would be a fairly short affair and certainly not hundreds of hours.

Tubes do not burn in, they burn out. When you power a tube up the cathode starts to emit electrons, once the cathode is used up the tube is done.

 

[Uncle Erik]

It's also a convenient excuse if you call a manufacturer to enquire about a return. They're usually quick to point out that the item isn't burned in and persuade the owner to give it a bit longer. You also tend to get more attached to objects as you use them, which is another good reason to perpetuate the myth.

 

[1Time]

Listen to 2 new headphones, same model. If they sound the same upon first listen, burn one in but not the other. Then compare how they sound. I suspect many headphones would sound different if compared in this way.

Several headphones that I've owned sounded like crap to start with and then became normal and clear sounding after a few hours or days of use.

I recall a 120 Ohm HD595 cleared up within just a few minutes of use. This was from a H/K receiver. It was obvious as I witnessed it happening while still listening to the headphones.

The HD280 was another obvious benefactor of burn-in, but it took MUCH longer, going from muck to gradually better and eventually enjoyable. This was from a cheap sound card and onboard sound.

One thing that surely affects burn in is the associated equipment used. For example, hard to drive headphones should burn in sooner and more completely with a good source and adequate amplification, while not so when burned in with a poor source and inadequate amplification.

 

[TStewart422]

Here's the rule of thumb: If it moves, it needs burn-in. Do HEADPHONES need 10,000 hours of burn-in time? Absolutely not. Do speakers need a day or two? Sure. Headphones? Give it a few hours at the most...

 

[1Time]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TStewart422 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's the rule of thumb: If it moves, it needs burn-in. Do HEADPHONES need 10,000 hours of burn-in time? Absolutely not. Do speakers need a day or two? Sure. Headphones? Give it a few hours at the most...

Here's the better rule of thumb. Check Head-Fi to see what equipment others used with their particular headphones and how burn-in went for them.

 

[TStewart422]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1Time /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's the better rule of thumb. Check Head-Fi to see what equipment others used with their particular headphones and how burn-in went for them.

And what $10,000 cables to use to REALLY bring the best out, too!

 

[KingStyles]

Quote:

Here's the rule of thumb: If it moves, it needs burn-in. Do HEADPHONES need 10,000 hours of burn-in time? Absolutely not. Do speakers need a day or two? Sure. Headphones? Give it a few hours at the most...

Your rule seems to leave out cables, dacs, amps, etc. There are a lot more than speakers and cans that manufactures say need to be burned in. Is it a marketing ploy or legitmate claims.

 

[TStewart422]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingStyles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your rule seems to leave out cables, dacs, amps, etc. There are a lot more than speakers and cans that manufactures say need to be burned in. Is it a marketing ploy or legitmate claims.

No amp that I've used (granted, a limited variety) has ever changed. Maybe it's different with tube amps, but a SS amp is SS. I don't believe in cables. I can't completely comment on DACs because I don't own a dedicated one, but I would speculate (see: SPECULATE) that it would be the same as a SS amp in that regard.

 

[1Time]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TStewart422 /img/forum/go_quote.gif And what $10,000 cables to use to REALLY bring the best out, too!

Sure, that's one way to do it. Upgrade the associated equipment and then burn in. However, it seems most burn in their new headphones with stock cables and their current rig.