I wasn't able to adjust? What? Have no clue what you are talking about...
Our brains tend to compensate for flaws in audio reproduction looking for patterns of how something *should* sound. This is why dips tend to be less noticeable than peaks for example. On the other hand, some flaws our brain just can't seem to compensate for.
But they did change sound, bass went down to improve them a bit, but it just wasn't enough. Highs remained stringent, lows never really settled, mids were just lost the whole time... See, the pattern follows again, I create a valid counter-argument and you call fault on my head (doubt of accuracy). Each and every time...
Except you haven't, you're saying it DID change - but not enough. Instead, that re-enforces my point.
As for the good to bad to good, I'm not the only one that went through this, others have noticed it as well. Even the manufacurer has noticed it and asked people to give it 200 hours before judging (cause they know it goes bad, but then the end result is good).
You'll also note many say to put other headphones away and strictly use theirs for a period of time, and the headphones that sounded great to you before when you pick them up sound odd. Once again, if your brain compensates for something and you try to change it the cycle starts again. The longer you have to get used to a headphone, the less likely you are to return it as you adjust to it.
The bass started really powerful with a huge midbass bump. Then then bump went down and turned the body slightly large and flabby. The mids still hadn't come in yet and the highs were slightly stringent. The bass body cooled down, the mids came in then the highs settled.... This is way too much change for everyone to notice. The manufacturer didn't even tell me to burn in 200 hours, they just told me to use it for a week. I had no idea this would happen. However, I'm not the only ones that see this pattern. It can't be the placebo if I have no clue it's going to happen.
Possible outcomes:
You've mentally adjusted to the signature and others did too.
You could have read a post and agreed after the fact that "yes, THAT'S what happened" after the fact.
You all expected the flaws many agreed upon to be fixed, thus your end results were similar.
The second point doesn't work against me because they weren't informed of what changes will happen. They stated straight observations that matched others, now the placebo can
only work if the listener knows a possible expected outcome beforehand... In this case they don't.
Or they agreed after reading others impressions? Or, they adjusted to the sound signature? Or they all heard the flaw, but when told burn-in may fix it it planted the notion that it would?
The placebo effect is no longer
possible because of this. As for psychological, if it was truly psychological, we would not see the same change over the same time span, but we do. Both of these ideas are invalid and shouldn't be used. Don't blame the listener because they don't agree with you. Use these (mass amount) of observations and come up with a revised hypothesis on
why it happens.
You must first prove that it does happen at a physical and not mental level. You have not provided sufficient evidence of this, as first evidence must be provided that one can properly identify a new and burned-in set. Moreover you've skipped my point that each driver should wear DIFFERENTLY - that a single time-span is more likely to be a result of placebo. Even worse, if test tones aren't used and music is that isn't Mono the wear wouldn't be symmetrical should the drivers should sound different between L/R . . . yet I doubt you'll hear an imaging complaint or channel imbalance afterwards . . .
I still stick to my idea that it's the fact that drivers do change over time, and at the same rate (so if you can hear it, it'll follow the same patter; in = out). If a person is not sensitive enough to the change in the change of sound over time (ds^2/d^2t), then he will not be able to hear it. If you are that sensitive, then you will hear it, and since the headphones really can't change at any other rate, then it'll burn in at relatively the same rate. Therefore, they not only will hear it, but they'll hear it (relatively) the same as everyone else who can hear it. The time it takes to notice it may differ a little (that's why it's a time frame for something to happen; eg, 20-30 hours).
You ignore the fact that each methodology for burn-in is different, yet somehow all of these opinions are the same? How does that not strike one as odd or flawed in the least? Each one is done at different volume levels - how can we even assume the levels used are enough to induce the MINIMAL measurable differences Tyll showed (once again, within margin of error too)? Yet somehow, magically almost, everyone decides on the same point where everything changes night and day.
In-spite of all the odds though, somehow almost everyone agrees on this arbitrary number. The guy that cranks headphones till he can still hear it through a drawer agrees 200 is enough, as does the guy that's listening to classical at moderate levels that 200 is enough - yet the levels of theoretical wear over time should be COMPLETELY different (and assuming burn-in is real, so should the sound).
Now, I'm surprised no one has questioned it yet, but why can some people be sensitive enough, and some not? We're all human right? Evolution, blame that. Less sensitivity to a changing sound over time actually allows us to drown out annoying sounds which in turn allows us to relax and get to sleep quicker. Now, how was it an advantage before? Well, take a step back, when we were animals, there was no way we lived in nice protected houses; hearing a small noise (small change in the change of sound) would result in out defense mechanism working up. This would be the difference between life and death. However, in todays day and age, it makes sense that sleep > protection since we have houses to protect us; so evolution will run in that direction. As time goes on, less and less people will be able to hear this burn in (if my theory is correct). I'll be long gone before that happens though
That's a hypothesis, and with absolutely no evidence. On the other hand placebo and mental compensation have plenty of studies and aren't nearly as far reaching as you seem to think.
Now, do we know burn in exist? Do I know it exist? No, this is just a hypothesis that can always use some updating. However, the ideas of psychological and placebo are no valid (read above, the others didn't know about it at all, but still came up with similar results), so those ideas mustn't be used.
You're assuming it's invalid yet the idea can be planted by merely suggesting it may fix flaws or improve the product. Furthermore, there's cases of placebo working even when the subject was told it was placebo - so even if they went in with no expectation or a contrary one it could STILL create a false positive. Our brains are amazing, but honestly quite screwy in this sense.
As for the idea that you and your group of friends didn't hear change, I really can't account for that unless chance had it that all of you were not sensitive enough. Now let's say it is psychological or placebo, someone would have (at least one of you) created some phoney connection (according to your hypothesis) when someone told them to list down any changes. But they didn't... It's human nature to connect these ideas, but none of you did.
They weren't allowed to communicate as they were done at different times. It was also DBT, so they weren't asked to find changes - instead identify the "burned-in" pair vs the "newish" (less than 2hrs) pair. This is the only way I know of to properly identify placebo v. physical changes. You can quantify all day long . . . once you can actually properly identify them.
Now how does this differ from my idea? These observations I use are pure. That is, they weren't done experimentally, people just came out of the blue and said they did hear these changes. You can't use the human nature to connect ideas since there are no 2 ideas to connect. These ideas (that were created entirely on their own) also matched my ideas (created entirely on my own) since I didn't know about burn in yet (yet I still noticed this). Remember, psychological and placebo have requirements to work:
I
s any idea truly out of the blue or unique in this particular case though? If you believe something will fix an issue, and you all note the same flaws, you will all come to the same fixed conclusion. Furthermore, there's cases of people being told they're taking a placebo and it STILL working. You all may have shared the same expectation which isn't all that far fetched.
- The listener must be informed of it at some point (neither me or other forum members have) about it
False, they just need to assume the same flaws they noted are fixed within a similar degree. If they all adjust to the sound or assume the sound is fixed they will report the same results. Therefore you can not eliminate the possibility of placebo or mental compensation for flaws in this case.
- It will differ in time span (for psychological) as for mentally adjusting to something, it takes time - this time is different/differs from one person to the next. -> now why must mine not require time span? Because it's based on the fact that the drivers do burn in at the same rate, you can't hear anything else if you do hear it.
You ignore the vast differences in burn-in methods, including levels, tones, music, etc - yet are arriving at the same level of wear . . . how? How plausible is it that everyone is burning in identically so that they all arrive at the same time like you suggest?
These are the two main flaws you have in your argument is that there are way to many observations that contradict these... Remember, my question is no longer, does burn in exist, I can really care less. I'm more into why people hear these things the way they do and why some people don't. We need a universal reason, and one exists, but it won't be psychological (mental) or placebo as there is evidence against it.
You ignore obvious things like differences in mechanical wear. An engine in a car used as a daily commuter vs. one regularly taken to races will be different right? Yet you're saying the methodology is irrelevant and all that matters is a number of hours and as such proves your point that it's clearly based on the driver . . . it doesn't follow.
