spinali
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2003
- Posts
- 1,602
- Likes
- 12
First, please pardon another journey on a well-worn path.
I wonder sometimes if resolving this whole headphone "burn-in" controversy comes down to semantics.
It makes sense that headphones can change over time. In a recent email, an AKG representative wrote that the process would take around 300 hours for my new 701s.) It's sometimes said that increased flexibility of the diaphragms makes for a smoother tone, though the degree seems to vary from one product to another. Moreover, the pads conform to your ears better over time, producing a better fit.
If that's the case, I can appreciate the various objectionss to "burn-in." It should more accurately be called "break-in." In fact, even our "Burn-In FAQ" says the process is like "breaking in a pair of shoes." In short, we're talking about a mechanical effect, not an electronic one. We're not talking about true "burn-in" (unless, of course, we generalize the term).
That's not to say that burn-in doesn't happen for electronic components or even headphones. Heat is indeed produced along with sound. (IEMs don't burn-in, but once I left my UM2s amped and under my pillow all night; in the morning, they were almost hot to the touch.) I think it's possible that burn-in in the traditional sense happens; but it's easier and probably faster to achieve change in headphone sound through mechanical action.
I don't think most skeptics would have much of a problem with the idea of headphone break-in.
While all this might seem a little semantic and trivial, its bearing on an endless debate perhaps deserves attention.
I wonder sometimes if resolving this whole headphone "burn-in" controversy comes down to semantics.
It makes sense that headphones can change over time. In a recent email, an AKG representative wrote that the process would take around 300 hours for my new 701s.) It's sometimes said that increased flexibility of the diaphragms makes for a smoother tone, though the degree seems to vary from one product to another. Moreover, the pads conform to your ears better over time, producing a better fit.
If that's the case, I can appreciate the various objectionss to "burn-in." It should more accurately be called "break-in." In fact, even our "Burn-In FAQ" says the process is like "breaking in a pair of shoes." In short, we're talking about a mechanical effect, not an electronic one. We're not talking about true "burn-in" (unless, of course, we generalize the term).
That's not to say that burn-in doesn't happen for electronic components or even headphones. Heat is indeed produced along with sound. (IEMs don't burn-in, but once I left my UM2s amped and under my pillow all night; in the morning, they were almost hot to the touch.) I think it's possible that burn-in in the traditional sense happens; but it's easier and probably faster to achieve change in headphone sound through mechanical action.
I don't think most skeptics would have much of a problem with the idea of headphone break-in.
While all this might seem a little semantic and trivial, its bearing on an endless debate perhaps deserves attention.
