[jaqueh]

Observations about the burn in phenomenon are facts until they are intepreted by the experimenter or by a critical scholarly audience, and i know that i do not have enough audio engineering understanding to interpret the data. However, from what i have seen from tinyman's conclusions, the data generally shows that in the frequency curves do change after a period of using the headphones for a certain amount of time. Although the experiments weren't repeated enough under the same conditions to escape random statistical variability, if any of the naysayers can use the same objective evidence to support their claim or offer counter observations, i'll be here waiting for you to offer your conclusions.
 
Also, merry christmas! these past two days have been times to spend with your family and friends, whether or not you are christian, i for one am not. so stop posting here and go spend time with them!

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

Observations about the burn in phenomenon are facts until they are intepreted by the experimenter or by a critical scholarly audience, and i know that i do not have enough audio engineering understanding to interpret the data. However, from what i have seen from tinyman's conclusions, the data generally shows that in the frequency curves do change after a period of using the headphones for a certain amount of time. Although the experiments weren't repeated enough under the same conditions to escape random statistical variability, if any of the naysayers can use the same objective evidence to support their claim or offer counter observations, i'll be here waiting for you to offer your conclusions.
 
Also, merry christmas! these past two days have been times to spend with your family and friends, whether or not you are christian, i for one am not. so stop posting here and go spend time with them!

 
Thanks for that, appreciate it.
 
LOL, I did that yesterday actually (my family doesn't celebrate Christmas, but we do spend time together).  They are currently at temple (parents are Buddhist) and church (brother is Christian), so I have nothing to do but be on here and other blogs, etc   Parents should get home soon hopefully.  I wish you a merry Christmas as well, thanks for the wishes (regardless of whether or not I celebrate it, I do appreciate it).
 

 

[Shike]

Quote:

This....
 
 
@Shike: Quite honestly, this is precisely what you're doing when you call every piece of evidence I've collected, and others (yes, I've cited a friend or two from other forums as well here)...  It's not point in arguing at this point, it's dismissing evidence cause it doesn't agree with you.  You can freely remove yourself from the conversation this point as well...  Until you can accept others testomonials, you can't really be doing science and your ideas invalid.
 
Anecdotes aren't evidence or we'd all believe in UFOs, yeti. lach ness, etc.  I accept testimonials, I also accept that they can be wrong with large misinterpretations of what occurred.  I imagine you would do the same for extremely large claims: that's what it means to be open minded.  To listen and consider, but that doesn't require taking anything at face value (being gullible).
 
Also, you said placebo before this, then went to mental, then went back to placebo. 
 
Read again, because once again you aren't getting it.  I said there was multiple possibilities with no relation to you at the beginning.  You then wanted me to explain YOUR particular situation.  I posed that it could be mental burn-in or placebo since I wasn't familiar with your particular instance.  Once you showed that there was no way it could be mental burn-in, I stayed on placebo.
 
Alternatively, that link you gave me has nothing to do with burn in, the members were given placebos (knowningly) but still had ideas of what can happen (EG, getting better).  A placebo only works with this idea in place.  No idea, no placebo.  Period, end of discussion, go no further with it.  Find a link, that uses an experiment that calls something a placebo when there is no base expectation at all...  You won't find one, why?  It's not a placebo. Quite honestly, a placebo without an expectation is a mental/psychological error.  We're back at square two.
 
Placebo can work based on a notion or an expectation.  A notion: an idea that something can or will happen.  An expectation: a belief that something WILL happen, period.  Anyone can have a notion it would change, moreover they can come to this thought process on their own through analogous reasoning as seen with engines.  There's self proclaimed skeptics that have claimed something changed between IC's for example, but when blinded they realized they couldn't hear a change again.  The study seems to confirm this.  For your case though, you said the manufacture said it would improve.  There's a notion or suggestion, and if you believed them, an expectation.
 
I'm going to state it again, since we don't know what the norm is (we don't know if burn in is real or not since there's evidence for both at the moment), we can honestly say that not hearing is the placebo.  We can also say that hearing it is the placebo.
 
Err, no . . . that's not how it works.  It must be proven, you can't just say it is.  I'm pointing out that currently it's a plausible explanation in-spite of you saying it can't be.  Note, I never claimed it IS the case, but I do see some serious problems with burn-in claims that would heavily indicate it being the case for a large amount of instances.  Furthermore, my own level matched DBT confirmed it for my sample - though small.  Half of which exclaimed night and day differences not unlike many here.
 
We don't know what's normal yet, so we can't name something fake (which is what the placebo does) when you don't know what fake is.
 
This shows a clear misunderstanding of the placebo effect - it has real measurable effects on the brain even though the cause should arguably have none.
 
The placebo argument is trite and invalidated for that point.  Oh yeah, since we don't know the norm, we can't also call either mental or psychological either.
 
Except in my case I've actually performed a DBT - and half of them were (note: were) burn-in believers that claimed "night and day differences".  I also have not made any claims beyond placebo still being a possibility.  You wish to deny that a notion or suggestion is enough for placebo effect to occur, and I'm pretty sure it's already been proven.  Rather than acknowledge this you wish to rely on semantic arguments which others here have noticed.
 
Now, for your insults, stop it...  Seriously?
 
I have done no such thing.  I've asked you to re-read because you've misrepresented my posts and points MULTIPLE times, and gone as far to make claims I've never made.
 
I make a claim, and support it with evidence (that is through personal experience).
 
Anecdotes aren't considered material evidence, or we'd all believe in UFOs as stated earlier.
 
I don't need citation for this as they are my ideas (or ideas I've learned from school overtime with Evolution, but put to real practice)
 
Not what I was asking a citation for, which is why I believe you haven't read my posts or aren't understanding them.  If you had you would understand that I was asking fora citation of my quote "bouncing back and forth" and the supposed word (psychological) you say I keep using.
 
I honestly don't know why you think you're so big...  Remove yourself from the conversation?  What, you don't like my ideas (that are clearly supported forcing you to result to personal attacks) so you think the best thing to do is eliminate me?  Really?
 
It at this time would be more productive than speaking with you.

PS: Please cite the personal attacks you claim I've made?
 
Yes, dismiss me like you dismissed the evidence.  I accept your evidence (you don't hear it)
 
Six people DBT, half of which claimed night and day differences when in DBT could no longer hear the difference.  If you accepted my evidence you would accept that placebo is still a possibility.  Moreover, I would like to see you take part in a DBT as I want material evidence.
 
but you can't accept mine when you start marking it as mental, and placebo, and psychological problem. 
 
See the last word in the series?  That's your own again.
 
Remember the premise of my statements thus far, your evidence is as valid as mine in my eyes.  In your eyes however, your evidence is more valid than mine; apparently mine isn't valid cause you think I'm hearing things.
 
No, it's because unlike you I've at least performed a test even if the sample size is small.  Furthermore, you don't believe that a notion or suggestion is enough to trigger placebo effects.
 
One final thing, I want you to invalidate this statement here: Not hearing the effects of burn in is due to the outcomes of the placebo effect.  Now, you can't use placebo
 
The line of questioning is flawed, it's akin to "prove this god doesn't exist" and using it as evidence for existence of a deity.  I could just go as far as to ask you prove UFOs, yetis, ghosts, goblins, santa, etc. do not exist.  This is why burden of proof - that the change is real - will always fall on the one making the claim.  If you're claiming burn-in is real, it is up to you to prove it is real.  This is how the scientific method works.
 
I want to know in your ideas how this is invalid, or if it is valid (won't that be a turn of events).
 
You can't prove the non-existence of something, that's why science assumes the null and why we have the term "burden of proof".  Anyone could claim that don't here something, or convince themselves they don't.  Those that claim they do, however, can be tested to find out if they really do once their ability to know the product beyond a certain effect (in this case sound) is tested.
 
Remember, since placebo falls under both mental and psychological (EG placebo is mental and psychological, but mental and psychological is not placebo since they are bigger than that), you cannot use those arguments either.
 
The strawman again?  Seriously?  Not like the imposed limits matter because your line of questioning in inherently flawed, but this reflects on you poorly to say the least.
 
I'm curious on how you're going to attack this.  Remember, you have to prove that it isn't the placebo effect.
 
No, I don't.  It's your job to prove the existence of burn-in since you're claiming it exists.  If you were going to claim aliens exist, we'd need substantial proof.  Anecdotes aren't enough.
 
Remember, lack of evidence won't work either since both sides (burn in and no burn in) are equally matched. 
 
See: scientific method.  Lack of evidence to the contrary isn't evidence of the positive.
 
You'll note I never said burn-in doesn't exist, just noted it as unlikely in comparison.
 
I just realized this as well...  You said you agreed that it wasn't mental in the previous post you made...  Well, placebo falls under mental...
 
I said it wasn't "mental burn-in".  Way to create a strawman again though - and you wonder why I don't wish to carry on this conversation?  Well, this sort of misrepresentation solidifies it.

Responses in bold, you won't see another because my day could be more productive than a discussion with you at this time . . .
 
@Head Injury
 
Hopefully you have more patience for this than I do, but I doubt he would provide evidence that would please either of us in the least.

 

[The Slow Down]

Quote:

Observations about the burn in phenomenon are facts until they are intepreted by the experimenter or by a critical scholarly audience, and i know that i do not have enough audio engineering understanding to interpret the data. However, from what i have seen from tinyman's conclusions, the data generally shows that in the frequency curves do change after a period of using the headphones for a certain amount of time. Although the experiments weren't repeated enough under the same conditions to escape random statistical variability, if any of the naysayers can use the same objective evidence to support their claim or offer counter observations, i'll be here waiting for you to offer your conclusions.
 
Also, merry christmas! these past two days have been times to spend with your family and friends, whether or not you are christian, i for one am not. so stop posting here and go spend time with them!

From an experimental point of view nothing on this board in regard to burn-in is solid enough to even attempt to submit to peer review skewering. I will leave it at that for simplicity.

 
Note: that doesn't mean something is wrong, there is just nothing rigorous enough to be considered a complete well-done experiment using a documented process, proof of calibrated instruments, correctly applied instrumentation, adequate trial data to calculate standard deviation, variance, et cetera.
 
To believe in burn-in or not... up to you. Why worry about others in this regard? Until then, because I'm pissed there isn't any snow where I am:
 

 

[tinyman392]

However, the placebo can be used for both ends...  It fits.  Seriously?  How can something prove and disprove the same things at the same times?
 
 
Quote:

Placebo can work based on a notion or an expectation.  A notion: an idea that something can or will happen.  An expectation: a belief that something WILL happen, period.  Anyone can have a notion it would change, moreover they can come to this thought process on their own through analogous reasoning as seen with engines.  There's self proclaimed skeptics that have claimed something changed between IC's for example, but when blinded they realized they couldn't hear a change again.  The study seems to confirm this.  For your case though, you said the manufacture said it would improve.  There's a notion or suggestion, and if you believed them, an expectation.

 
What happens if there is no notion, this person is clueless, and never heard of burn in.  Yet they hear it.  He had no ideas that something can or will happen (this is an expectation; an expectation is a special instance of a notion; by definition, a placebo uses the term expectation, so I go with that definition).  Quite honestly, the idea of a notion, is that something can happen.  With placebos, there are normally two expectations that confront one another.  Either way, some of my evidence doesn't have a notion at all (they don't know about burn in, they aren't expecting anything to happen; they have no notion of it happening, yet it does).
 
 
Quote:

The strawman again?  Seriously?  Not like the imposed limits matter because your line of questioning in inherently flawed, but this reflects on you poorly to say the least.

 
Saying that placebo is mental isn't a straw man...  Please define strawman since it's defined as attacking a mis-representation of the opponents position (Wikipedia).   Is the placebo not your position/defense?  Then when I attack it, I'm not attacking a strawman (assuming it's your position/defense).  Your statement was that you agreed taht it wasn't mental, so I used that to show that the placebo was mental (expose a contradiction in your position).  It's not a strawman.
 
 
Quote:

Six people DBT, half of which claimed night and day differences when in DBT could no longer hear the difference.  If you accepted my evidence you would accept that placebo is still a possibility.  Moreover, I would like to see you take part in a DBT as I want material evidence.

 
I've taken a look at the placebo being a possibility...  Actually, I've specifically stated that the placebo is a fitting argument against burn in (did you miss that?).  Then again, I stated that the placebo is a fitting argument for burn in (you read this one).  Now, the question remains, how can you use an argument that fits both stances?  That stance must then be put down until it is objectively verified. 
 
Quote:

See: scientific method.  Lack of evidence to the contrary isn't evidence of the positive.
 
You'll note I never said burn-in doesn't exist, just noted it as unlikely in comparison.

 
I never said this proved that burn in existed, I said that this shows that the placebo effect cannot prove that burn in doesn't exist (we still don't know if it does).  Now, my question still remains, how is it unlikely (remember, placebo is fitting for both arguments since you can't dismiss the fact that if fits both to prove and disprove burn in)?  That statement still needs to be supported with evidence
 
As for my evidence: http://www.head-fi.org/t/586415/burn-in-real-or-not/135#post_8000610  It's objective and based on graphs, user testomonials (you can't deny what people said, you can't say they are crazy for saying it and just dismiss it, you have to explain it).  This isn't a question of why burn in exist or not, it's past that, it's a question of why people hear it, and why people don't.  Placebo just doesn't seem to be the answer though since it is only 30% effective (http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/medication/placebo-effect.htm) while 50% of us are experiencing this "placebo effect" (half hear it, half don't).  That's a 20% error rate there. 
 
 
Quote:

Err, no . . . that's not how it works.  It must be proven, you can't just say it is.  I'm pointing out that currently it's a plausible explanation in-spite of you saying it can't be.  Note, I never claimed it IS the case, but I do see some serious problems with burn-in claims that would heavily indicate it being the case for a large amount of instances.  Furthermore, my own level matched DBT confirmed it for my sample - though small.  Half of which exclaimed night and day differences not unlike many here.

 
Where's your objective evidence that it works for not burning in?  I stated both statements as being true...  Then I went further to state this wasn't possible for them to both be true (in this time and day) and that only one of them can be.  Since the argument is equally supportive of both arguments how can it be used to only support yours? 
 
______
 
I'll agree that my subjective evidence is small in number (ones that I'm personally connected with are small samples, however, if you look all over the web, you'll see that it's a split (~50:50) between those that have heard it, and those that haven't).  Alternatively I also give something else your placebo doesn't explain...  How could it be that one person who doesn't believe in burn in since he didn't hear it in the first 3 IEMs he had heard it in his Turbines?  It can't be the placebo since he was expecting the opposite to happen (chances are that the brain would have played great roles here to make that happen if it did).  <==  Please not I'm not trying to say that placebo is the reason why he didn't hear it.
 
My hypothesis here explains all of this, along with every instance of burn in (and not burn in) out there.  http://www.head-fi.org/t/586415/burn-in-real-or-not/135#post_8000610  It takes into consideration every type of FR graph used to determine burn-in out there as well and takes into consideration error rates.  My hypothesis can be found here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/586415/burn-in-real-or-not/135#post_8000610
 
Note: Essentially, this argument here is trying to validate the ideas of those who have heard about burn in otherwise, it creates a hole in my hypothesis since it relies on them to show why we hear things happen, and don't hear things happen.  It's not to prove burn in. 
 
Note 2: I'm not trying to prove burn in/no burn in through terms of placebo.  I'm trying to prove that placebo is not valid evidence (in this day and age) for or against burn in (since it does work equally for both).  At the current moment, your evidence against burn in is placebo and small group of evidence (doubting of accuracy).  I'm trying to say that placebo is not a valid offense/defense for or against burn in.  As for the small amount of evidence, what I present is small, what everyone else's observations present is large (increases accuracy of what they are hearing).

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Slow Down /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
To believe in burn-in or not... up to you. Why worry about others in this regard? Until then, because I'm pissed there isn't any snow where I am:
 

I just don't like them saying that I'm hearing things (placebo effect) when I hear this burn in...  I am also mad that there is snow here   It's Christmas, where's the snow?!
 

 

[goodvibes]

Quote:

To make me happy, the data has to be derived from measurements or from listening tests specifically designed to remove human bias (ABX tests for example). In other words, the only human bias is in the interpretation.

Early in the thread which has been conveniently ignored. Very repeatable, consistent and with significant enough change to eliminate questioning of perception.
http://www.vikash.info/audio/audax/
 
 
 

0 hours break-in

Fs Vas Qms Qes Qts Le L1 R1 Driver A 93.8 2.03 3.04 0.94 0.72 0.16 0.29 13.7 Driver B 93.5 2.12 2.84 0.94 0.71 0.16 0.29 14.2 Driver C 91.1 2.27 3.07 0.89 0.69 0.16 0.30 14.2 Driver D 95.5 2.05 3.20 1.02 0.77 0.16 0.28 13.4 Driver E 92.9 2.18 2.65 1.01 0.73 0.16 0.31 15.2 Driver F 88.2 2.44 2.79 0.89 0.66 0.16 0.29 13.8   Variance 8% 17% 17% 13% 14% 4% 10% 12% Average 92.5 2.18 2.93 0.95 0.71 0.16 0.29 14.1

After 50 hours break-in

 
 

	Fs	Vas	Qms	Qes	Qts	Le	L1	R1
Driver A	81.0	2.65	2.75	0.86	0.66	0.17	0.32	14.5
Driver B	82.9	2.47	2.58	0.95	0.69	0.17	0.33	14.7
Driver C	79.4	2.93	2.73	0.76	0.59	0.16	0.30	14.7
Driver D	80.9	2.76	2.83	0.84	0.65	0.16	0.28	13.6
Driver E	79.2	2.85	2.41	0.82	0.61	0.16	0.31	14.8
Driver F	75.6	3.22	2.47	0.74	0.57	0.16	0.29	13.8
Variance	9%	23%	15%	21%	17%	8%	16%	8%
Average	79.8	2.81	2.63	0.83	0.63	0.16	0.30	14.2

 

Personally, I hear movement in things I doubt I could measure or know what to measure to figure it out so I don't need these table but it's so obvious with dynamic drivers as demonstarated here that it really should't be questioned. Whether a setup or individual is capable of discerning is another matter but to tell someone what he or she is actually hearing from afar is fraught with fail.
 
 
 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

Early in the thread which has been conveniently ignored. Very repeatable, consistent and with significant enough change to eliminate questioning of perception.
http://www.vikash.info/audio/audax/
 
 
 

0 hours break-in

Fs Vas Qms Qes Qts Le L1 R1 Driver A 93.8 2.03 3.04 0.94 0.72 0.16 0.29 13.7 Driver B 93.5 2.12 2.84 0.94 0.71 0.16 0.29 14.2 Driver C 91.1 2.27 3.07 0.89 0.69 0.16 0.30 14.2 Driver D 95.5 2.05 3.20 1.02 0.77 0.16 0.28 13.4 Driver E 92.9 2.18 2.65 1.01 0.73 0.16 0.31 15.2 Driver F 88.2 2.44 2.79 0.89 0.66 0.16 0.29 13.8   Variance 8% 17% 17% 13% 14% 4% 10% 12% Average 92.5 2.18 2.93 0.95 0.71 0.16 0.29 14.1

After 50 hours break-in

 
 

	Fs	Vas	Qms	Qes	Qts	Le	L1	R1
Driver A	81.0	2.65	2.75	0.86	0.66	0.17	0.32	14.5
Driver B	82.9	2.47	2.58	0.95	0.69	0.17	0.33	14.7
Driver C	79.4	2.93	2.73	0.76	0.59	0.16	0.30	14.7
Driver D	80.9	2.76	2.83	0.84	0.65	0.16	0.28	13.6
Driver E	79.2	2.85	2.41	0.82	0.61	0.16	0.31	14.8
Driver F	75.6	3.22	2.47	0.74	0.57	0.16	0.29	13.8
Variance	9%	23%	15%	21%	17%	8%	16%	8%
Average	79.8	2.81	2.63	0.83	0.63	0.16	0.30	14.2

 

 
 
 
 

Thanks for this information, it shows even more variance in burn in which does support my hypothesis about sensitivity to change of sound over time I posted earlier as well. 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

@Head Injury
 
Hopefully you have more patience for this than I do, but I doubt he would provide evidence that would please either of us in the least.

I really don't. This'll be my last response.
 
Quote:

OK, my hypothesis (note, I'm not saying it's right), but it has a better chance at being right than a hypothesis like the placebo (since a person can't walk into my head and tell me I'm not actually hearing change and that I want to hear change).  Please also note that this is the third time I typed this up...  It was accepted the first time, then someone called everything an assertion so I retyped it with reasoning in paragraph form (and that's when things went spiced up).  Since it was asked for again, my hypothesis is below in a better explained format.  Tried to remove paragraphs to make it easier to read.
 
Premise One: Some people hear the change. (objective observation - It isn't just me hearing change)
Premise Two: Some people don't hear the change. (objective observation - there are other people who don't hear change)
Premise Three: Tyll's graphs (although unfinished) do show a little change in the drivers, although nothing 100% audible (I'll agree with this for your sake).
Premise Four: Winding ME-10EX graphs show evidence of burn in (small tweaks in the bass: ~2-3dB; larger change in the mids: ~3-4dB; some spikes in the treble: ~6-8dB in the higher treble). - http://www.head-fi.org/t/556732/partial-proof-that-iem-burn-in-works-yes-scientific-frequency-response-charts-included
Premise Five: there was another graph (I do want to mention it) that did show signs of burn in.  However, I can't find it, so it will not be used in my hypothesis.  I do want to mention it just in case anyone finds it.
Premise Six: A persons sensitivity to sound is different (per person)
Premise Seven: A persons time for the phenomena of decay varies (learned in Psychology 1100) and happens naturally.

1. Decay is defined as the drowning out of a constantly changing sound over time.

Premise Eight: A persons sensitivity to the change of sound is different since their sensitivity to sound is different and their time it takes them to drown out a constantly changing sound is different as well (everyone's decay period for a certain sound will be different). 
 
Note: Premise Three and Four both show measurable graphs that are objective in everyone's definition.  Premise one and two are objective from my perspective since they don't pertain directly to me, so I take them for truth.  They are mere observations of others.  Although it may not be objective, whatever works in the objective realm should work in the subjective realm.  The information on decay and persons sensitivity to sound have also been objectively verified in researches and are now taught in classes for truth (hopefully I don't have to sight studies as I took what my professor said for truth).
 
Conclusions:

1. Based on the frequency graph of the 10EX, some headphones burn in
2. Based on both frequency graphs, we can conclude that different headphones burn in at different rates. (you cannot deny that the headphones did change a little in the 65 hours, audible or not).
3. Based on user testomonials we can conclude that some people can hear burn in and some people cannot.
4. Based on the definition of burn in and the varying rates, we can conclude that each headphone has a different change in the change of sound over time.
5. Based on the ideas about decay and hearing sensitivity we can conclude that not everyone will hear these changes the same over time [for the same headphone] (look at the definition of decay, drowning out a changing sound over time; If it happens).  - this is the question I plan to answer.

 
Grand conclusions (based upon above conclusions):

1. Since people have different sensitivities, if a persons sensitivity is too low (EG, they decay quickly), they may not be able to hear the burn in of a pair of headphones over time. 
2. If a pair of headphones change of sound over time  < their sensitivity to said change (their sensitivity to change in change of sound over time); then they will not hear those headphones burn in.
3. If a pair of headphones change of sound over time > their sensitivity to said change (their sensitivity to change in the change of sound over time); then they will hear those headphones burn in.
4. Some headphones burn in really slow (or at least look that way) -> Look at Tyll's graphs, it took 65 hours for the headphones to burn in .5 dB...  If we were to continue, they would have burned in more, maybe even eventually become audible (maybe not become audible at the same time; we won't know until someone else does the test).
5. Some headphones don't change enough to be audible (in the case of Tyll's graph from all we know at this point about it).

 
Notice, that this conclusions is based on all evidence (for and against burn in).  In not only includes the user testomonials, but answers why it happens.  Naming placebo (or other mental ailment) will not be able to address the second FR graph. 
 
Remember, in order for burn in to not exist, there must be no signs of it in the graph.  Even with the given .3 dB error rate in Tyll's graph, it still showed signs of change (min change = .1 - 1.6 dB; max change = .8 - 2.3 dB; remember error rate is a +/-, it can go either way, up or down; actual change can be anywhere from .1 dB to 2.3 dB in the first 65 hours) in the 65 hours it was used.  Although the change is small, it's still large enough to show some sort of burn in.  Remember, these headphones were said to be infamous for big change after 200+ hours, they aren't done burning in, but do show signs of that change... 
 
So, why did I get into a huge argument with that other guy?  He dismissed all my premises (that were in paragraph form at that time) calling them either assertions, inaccurate, placebo, mental, or psychological (EG, he fitted it with some arbitrary reason why it was wrong; when in fact his argument was weak).  Essentially, I was trying to show him that he was in denial of evidence and literally throwing it all away.

Good start. However, you're stretching your conclusions a little too far from the data given. See, that's the danger of subjectivity.
 
Your first three normal conclusions:

1. It's much safer to conclude that this particular headphone burned in. One copy of brand of headphone with significant changes is not enough to conclude that any significant number of other headphones burn in. It depends on what you mean by "some", but I'm not going to get into another semantics argument over such a vague word.
2. How can we conclude that headphones burn in at different rates?
3. Again, go with the safer conclusion. Not "some hear burn in", rather "some hear differences". As much as you'd love to, placebo cannot be ignored.

 
Your fourth "grand" conclusions:

1. You can't come to this conclusion at all. There is no guarantee that the trend continues at a linear rate. No data suggests that.

 
Here are the conclusions I come to:

1. Over a period of 10 hours, the Winding ME-10EX changed to a degree that would be audible
2. Over a period of 65 hours, the K701 changed to a degree that may be audible

 
That's it. No sweeping generalizations about who can and can't hear it, no definitive conclusions about burn-in in general. There are still too many variables, such as product variation, aural memory, and mental burn-in, to conclude that even differences on the order of the Winding account for a large portion of reported "burn-in". It's a great start and really shows that the Winding can change, but you can't conclude anything about the significance without more data and testing.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

I really don't. This'll be my last response.
 

Good start. However, you're stretching your conclusions a little too far from the data given. See, that's the danger of subjectivity.
 
Your first three normal conclusions:

1. It's much safer to conclude that this particular headphone burned in. One copy of brand of headphone with significant changes is not enough to conclude that any significant number of other headphones burn in. It depends on what you mean by "some", but I'm not going to get into another semantics argument over such a vague word.
2. How can we conclude that headphones burn in at different rates?
3. Again, go with the safer conclusion. Not "some hear burn in", rather "some hear differences". As much as you'd love to, placebo cannot be ignored.

 
Your fourth "grand" conclusions:

1. You can't come to this conclusion at all. There is no guarantee that the trend continues at a linear rate. No data suggests that.

 
Here are the conclusions I come to:

1. Over a period of 10 hours, the Winding ME-10EX changed to a degree that would be audible
2. Over a period of 65 hours, the K701 changed to a degree that may be audible

 
That's it. No sweeping generalizations about who can and can't hear it, no definitive conclusions about burn-in in general. There are still too many variables, such as product variation, aural memory, and mental burn-in, to conclude that even differences on the order of the Winding account for a large portion of reported "burn-in". It's a great start and really shows that the Winding can change, but you can't conclude anything about the significance without more data and testing.

OK, clarifications on how I came to things:

1. Using Goodvibe's data (for drivers) we can see that things burned in a different amount between the 10EX (I keep wanting to say EX10; damn you Sony!) and even the K701 did show change, this change was slower (different that that seen in the ME-10EX.  That's how I came to that conclusion. 
2. As for why all headphones burn in (so far, with all FR graphs, it does show change in the sounds).  Whether it be audible or not is of no concern as the machine still picked up a change over time.  Remember what burn in is specifically, the change of sound of a driver over time due to the actual driver breaking in.  Since all three drivers did show changes in FR (which in turn shows changes in overall sound, we can say they did 'burn in'.  When I see an FR graph that shows no differences (or differences that are only within .3dB), then I will change that part of the hypothesis.
3. Based on the FR graphs, we can see that these headphones (all of them) do change FR over time (again, changes may be small, but there is some change; no matter how slow).  This is part of the definition of burn in.
4. You are absolutely right that I can't assume that they will burn in linearly...  Actually, it would be impossible as headphones do plateaue (spell?).  I do wish Tyll did continue his measurements up to at least 200+ hours to see full effects of time.  This is the reason why I use the loose term may [continue to create bigger change]. 
5. The conclusion is that the people hear these differences because something burns in (the drivers; especially shown in the EX10 graph) and the drivers in Goodvibe's link.  Although change can't be detected in the K701s, there is still a chance they will change, there is also the same amount of chance they won't.  In essense, this results inconclusive.  Since it does result that way (showing little change, but nothing that can prove or disprove burn in; it did change, but there's always the possibility of changing back, etc; anything can happen).  It really shouldn't be used as evidence for either occasion (you're right on this).

 
As for your conclusions:

1. I came to the same one, which essentially shows that headphones that burn in will burn in at different rates (can we agree to that at least?).  I know we can't prove all headphones burn in, so I'll stick with the loose term many.  Goodvibe's link also shows this, even yours does as you stated diffferent rates of burn in (large change/10 hrs vs small change over 65 hrs).

 
As for my arguments on placebo, I was simply trying to state that that isn't a valid reason why some people hear the change and some don't.  It wasn't a reason for burn in (and my argument against placebo was that it shouldn't be used as a reason against it either).  As I stated before, I've retyped and revised this hypothesis quite a lot (three times; this would be a forth revision here) in this thread alone.  The argument I had with the other guy started with him stating that I was making assertions (he labeled all my evidence, premises, as either assertions, placebos, mentals, or psychologics).  In order for anything in this hypothesis to stand, I had to argue against why it wasn't (EG, disprove each of those statements).
 
I would like to give you my thanks for not doing what others did and labeling each form of evidence I had (premises) as false and helping me actually revise my hypothesis to keep it running and working.  The idea of the hypothesis is to get something everyone can agree with.  Obviously, there will be some people who don't agree with it (for whatever reason) and try to derail it. 

 

[The Slow Down]

Quote:

...
That's it. No sweeping generalizations about who can and can't hear it, no definitive conclusions about burn-in in general. There are still too many variables, such as product variation, aural memory, and mental burn-in, to conclude that even differences on the order of the Winding account for a large portion of reported "burn-in". It's a great start and really shows that the Winding can change, but you can't conclude anything about the significance without more data and testing.

Agree with some of the above. Nothing here is rigorous enough to be evaluated properly. I would say please believe what you will for the mean time. If anyone lived near me I would invite you guys over for some Christmas special Corsendonk beers.

 


Quote:

Early in the thread which has been conveniently ignored. Very repeatable, consistent and with significant enough change to eliminate questioning of perception.
http://www.vikash.info/audio/audax/
 

0 hours break-in

Fs Vas Qms Qes Qts Le L1 R1 Driver A 93.8 2.03 3.04 0.94 0.72 0.16 0.29 13.7 Driver B 93.5 2.12 2.84 0.94 0.71 0.16 0.29 14.2 Driver C 91.1 2.27 3.07 0.89 0.69 0.16 0.30 14.2 Driver D 95.5 2.05 3.20 1.02 0.77 0.16 0.28 13.4 Driver E 92.9 2.18 2.65 1.01 0.73 0.16 0.31 15.2 Driver F 88.2 2.44 2.79 0.89 0.66 0.16 0.29 13.8   Variance 8% 17% 17% 13% 14% 4% 10% 12% Average 92.5 2.18 2.93 0.95 0.71 0.16 0.29 14.1

After 50 hours break-in

 

	Fs	Vas	Qms	Qes	Qts	Le	L1	R1
Driver A	81.0	2.65	2.75	0.86	0.66	0.17	0.32	14.5
Driver B	82.9	2.47	2.58	0.95	0.69	0.17	0.33	14.7
Driver C	79.4	2.93	2.73	0.76	0.59	0.16	0.30	14.7
Driver D	80.9	2.76	2.83	0.84	0.65	0.16	0.28	13.6
Driver E	79.2	2.85	2.41	0.82	0.61	0.16	0.31	14.8
Driver F	75.6	3.22	2.47	0.74	0.57	0.16	0.29	13.8
Variance	9%	23%	15%	21%	17%	8%	16%	8%
Average	79.8	2.81	2.63	0.83	0.63	0.16	0.30	14.2

 
Personally, I hear movement in things I doubt I could measure or know what to measure to figure it out so I don't need these table but it's so obvious with dynamic drivers as demonstarated here that it really should't be questioned. Whether a setup or individual is capable of discerning is another matter but to tell someone what he or she is actually hearing from afar is fraught with fail.

 
Unfortunately, this is very poor quality data. If I tried to present something like this at work I'd probably be ridiculed out of a job. The test methodology, test environment, and instrumentation used opens up an extreme amount of variables as to make this a curiosity but nothing more. Also, these drivers cannot be compared to your average headphone driver. They are different beasts - but both lovely in their own ways.

 
However, for these particular types of drivers with this testing method, et cetera, yes there appears to be a change. This alone is irrelevant though as you point out above. There is still that terrifying perception issue... can the given change be perceived by the average listener (stratified random sample of a given population, let's say)? If so, how do you adequately quantify that?
 
I think I'll go listen to some music. Enjoy yourselves, hope you guys or family aren't on call (medical field) like my wife.

 

 

[goodvibes]

LOL here's an example of opinion guiding a rationalization of data. 6 drivers all moving the same way in a similar amount with some measurements like resonance points that can't be messed with. Any minor deviation in method is neglegible to the great amount of change. It's not your work where tolerance may need to be more critical. Lets not throw common sense out the window due to bias. As if anything discovered or proven before we had extremely accurate equipment should be disregarded as poppycock. 
 
A negative result does not prove a result for every instance. A positive doesn't either but that's not the point as it does prove existance and in this case, it is common regardless of your bias.

 

[The Slow Down]

Hahahaha, that's hilarious.
 
I have not once stated my opinion prior to this post right here.
 
Yes, I might have a bias... in that I think burn-in perception might be real from personal rather unscientific experience.

 
I was merely commenting on the lackluster data collection, the speaker drivers which are vastly different than headphone drivers, et cetera...
 
Won't argue about the physical aspects of driver usage. There are absolutely some physical changes throughout usage. What's more fuzzy is if the psycho acoustic perception regarding burn-in can be positively validated in a scientifically satisfactory manner. Not worth arguing over. Really.
 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

LOL here's an example of opinion guiding a rationalization of data. 6 drivers all moving the same way in a similar amount with some measurements like resonance points that can't be messed with. Any minor deviation in method is neglegible to the great amount of change. It's not your work where tolerance may need to be more critical. Lets not throw common sense out the window due to bias. As if anything discovered or proven before we had extremely accurate equipment should be disregarded as poppycock. 
 
A negative result does not prove a result for every instance. A positive doesn't either but that's not the point as it does prove existance and in this case, it is common regardless of your bias.

Thank you for saying this.  Just like you can't throw out anything without first looking at how accurate it can be (even old tools still have good accuracy).  As long as the results are within range of accuracy, it counts (and should be counted). 


Quote:

Hahahaha, that's hilarious.
 
I have not once stated my opinion prior to this post right here.
 
Yes, I might have a bias... in that I think burn-in perception might be real from personal rather unscientific experience.

 
I was merely commenting on the lackluster data collection, the speaker drivers which are vastly different than headphone drivers, et cetera...
 
Won't argue about the physical aspects of driver usage. There are absolutely some physical changes throughout usage. What's more fuzzy is if the psycho acoustic perception regarding burn-in can be positively validated in a scientifically satisfactory manner. Not worth arguing over. Really.
 

With proper data and theory that supports the data, it won't be fuzzy anymore, no joking here.  We do have ample information to create some idea of how it works, and why it behaves the way it does.  Although it's not a headphone, it's still a dynamic driver, and if it behaves a certain way in the big world, it will behave the same way in the small world (assuming we don't get atomic/sub-atomic). 
 

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Quote:

Hahahaha, that's hilarious.
 
I have not once stated my opinion prior to this post right here.
 
Yes, I might have a bias... in that I think burn-in perception might be real from personal rather unscientific experience.

 
I was merely commenting on the lackluster data collection, the speaker drivers which are vastly different than headphone drivers, et cetera...
 
Won't argue about the physical aspects of driver usage. There are absolutely some physical changes throughout usage. What's more fuzzy is if the psycho acoustic perception regarding burn-in can be positively validated in a scientifically satisfactory manner. Not worth arguing over. Really.
 

So it boils down to "we can measure it but we don't know if we can hear it"?  Well we can forget about ever coming to a conclusion since it's impossible to perform an ABX test of an unbroken in headphone vs a broken in headphone.  Although we could come close by, say, measuring the impulse response of the unbroken in headphone, the broken in headphone, then convolve the unbroken in impulse response over the broken in impulse response (uh, I don't know the correct terms to use here) to simulate the sound of the unbroken in phones on the broken in phones then see if people can ABX between them.  Any change in frequency response is probably the most important thing to simulate.