[swbf2cheater]

Quote:

 

Interesting, but exactly how did you prove 100% that burn in exists? What means did you show that "they've all got sub standard hearing..."? How many failed the bit rate tests and under what testing conditions? Was the last test a blind test and how was it conducted?

I few of my close friends are skeptics and were introduced to the world of headphones by me.  Having been sick of seeing the stock ipod buds they flash around but claim to love music more than anything.  Anyway, I have the ATH es7 for years, fully burnt in and a buddy bought his new about a year ago and we tested the same song on the same source.  The new was very tinny sounding and sucked, mine sounded great and was clear as a bell.  
 
ALL my friends failed the birate test.  There is a test online that plays one clip of a classical song at one birate and another at a slightly higher rate and you need to click on the version that is the better one.  Not one of my friends could pass the test.  Also, I lwet them try my Shure 840 a few months ago and they couldnt tell the difference in clarity or sound between that and stock ipod EARBUDS.  
 
so, in my experiences those who say burn in is fake and doesnt exist have substandard hearing, have no idea what they are talking about and have almost no experience outside of stock mp3 player headphones, and will almost always fail the birate testing, and lastly really do not know that there are drivers inside headphones that do move and need to learn how to vibrate and move, when you get headphones they will almost always be very stiff, they must be used for a time to learn how to produce optimal sound.  If you cant tell the difference between 128kbps and FLAC lossless..you've got substandard hearing lol
 
Edit:  a lot of people in my family and friends circle look at me like im nuts for it all, they usually always say "i cant hear the difference, its just headphones"
 
with that said, i just sigh and walk away,
 

 

[shane55]

Quote:

Actually all I disagree with is that burn in can take hundreds of hours and that it can change crappy headphones into great ones.

Understood. I said earlier that to my ears the majority of burn-in (for the DT880's) happened within the first 50 hours, but I re-metered them after a couple hundred... or so.
I will meter them again after another couple hundred just to see if there is further measurable change. Stay tuned.
 
My guess, based on my experience is that after the initial burn (25, 50 hours, whatever) is that it tapers off and probably plateau's. It most likely stays that way until the materials actually begin to break down after many years.
 
shane

 

[agjios]

OK, thanks for the clarification.  On that, you are on the same page as us.  Initial break-in produces a large difference in sound.  While headphones do continue to break in, the changes from 100 hours to 500 hours does occur.  Is it necessary to produce a good sound?  Highly doubtful.  Again, a headphone driver is just a piece of paper, plastic, metal, etc.  By moving it hundreds of times, you are going to change its responsiveness, elasticity, etc.  I don't think a headphone would need more than 10-20 hours to be considered broken in, although the sound from 20 hours to, say, 500 hours, will still change. 
 
The question here becomes, "So, when does the change occur from "breaking in" to "wearing out?"  The same thing can be asked of a car, and even of the human body (When do we stop growing up and just start growing old?)  The answer is different for everyone, it's rather subjective.  Some people that feel a headphone needs that 500 hours of break-in, in my opinion, are just reaching.  My dad is that way; he is a tinkerer.  If a car company made a car with 300 horsepower, he'd want 320.  If they made 320, he'd want 340.  He feels like he needs to modify the car from what the general person gets.  In the same way, someone that takes the time to burn in their headphone for hundreds of hours is probably just likes that sound that few others have worked to get to: he feels like he's reached some secret bonus level that others can't achieve.  Is the sound really different?  Yes.  Is is better?  Well, that's where psychoacoustics comes in to play.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

I had an interesting experience with my SR325is.  I bought them new.  Listened to them with regular music at regular volume for their initial burn-in.  I didn't do any off the head burn-in with pink noise or bass sweeps or anything like that.  Just on the head listening with regular music.  Took a few notes to note songs that didn't sound right and jot down sound impressions and trouble areas.  As the burn-in progressed some of the trouble areas improved or became less troublesome.  They went through a shouty stage where the midrange became more shouty and piercing then would decrease.  They had a resonance that sounded a little bit like the sound you get if you put your open hands a few inches from the back of the open cups.  That resonance sound would go away with burn-in.
 
Then one of the drivers failed.  Sent it back to Grado and Grado replaced it with a brand new headphone.  Not just replace the one driver, but the whole headphone was replaced.  So a fresh new guinea pig for the burn-in effects.  Listened to the new one just like I did with the previous one.  Regular music listening doing all of the burn-in with them on my head.  It went through the same stages.  It went through the shouty pieircing thing with the midrange.  The little bit of resonance type sound like open hands being close to the back of the cans clearing up.  It did the same things testing with the same songs.
 
If the burn-in was due to mental burn-in with my brain and ears just getting used to the Grado SR325is sound then why did the second pair go through a similar burn-in change?  My brain had already adapted and become accustomed to the Grado SR325is sound with the first pair.  Why would that mental adaptation not have carried over to the second pair?  Something physical in the headphones must/might be changing and changing the sound in subtle ways.

 

[shane55]

^^ Makes sense to me. 

 

[joelpearce]

To me, it makes perfect sense that the mechanical parts of headphones need some time to settle into a groove and loosen up a bit.  Beyond that, though, I think what changes is how we hear them.  I don't buy headphones needing hundreds of hours of burn-in to sound good.
 
I am also extremely skeptical of NON-mechanical burn-in.  Drivers will change slightly as they move, but the notion that wires somehow change as electrical current runs through them simply doesn't compute for me.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

 
Quote:

so, in my experiences those who say burn in is fake and doesnt exist have substandard hearing, have no idea what they are talking about and have almost no experience outside of stock mp3 player headphones, and will almost always fail the birate testing, and lastly really do not know that there are drivers inside headphones that do move and need to learn how to vibrate and move, when you get headphones they will almost always be very stiff, they must be used for a time to learn how to produce optimal sound.  If you cant tell the difference between 128kbps and FLAC lossless..you've got substandard hearing lol
 

Hearing MP3 artifacts and effects is different than listening for tonal quality and character and similar burn-in type changes.  You generally have to learn how to listen for MP3 compression effects.  The compression is designed not to affect the sound in audible ways.  Psychoacustics to mask what's been changed and all that.  The unnatural artifacts like pre-ringing you have to learn to listen for and even then it can be difficult for some people to hear (like me).
 
The changes and effects attributed to burn-in are different.  Different type of sound changes. 
 
I consider listening for MP3 artifacts to be one set of listening skills.  I consider listening for tonal and character changes and similar audiophile listening to be another set of listening skills.  Both sets are mostly distinct (mostly disjoint).  How much they overlap I'm not sure.  But being good at one style of listening doesn't necessarily mean you'll be good at the other.

 

[MosIncredible]

Quote:

How can you measure bass 'tightening' and being more 'controlled'? Food for thought...

I'd think you'd have to record the sound from the headphone of a song at the exact same mic position & volume as the previous measurements so that you are able to view waves. Play a double kick, 808 kick, bass sweep, etc. If the bass was slow, two quick 808 notes would look very blended together. After the bass becomes more controlled, the waves should show the attack of the second note. There's this one song I know that if I listen to it with a slow subwoofer, it blends the 4 quick 808 notes at the beginning of the song. Viewing the actual recording in waveform, I'm able to see that there's four notes.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

There have been attempts to measure the effects of headphone burn-in.  It's tricky.  There's lots of variables involved.  It's also difficult to get consistent measurements.  Just positioning the headphone slightly differently on the measurement head or measurement rig will give different results.  How do you get repeatability?  How to you look for differences that very well could be swamped by that variability in measuring?  A straight frequency response measurement isn't enough.  There's audible differences that don't show up in frequency response.  So you need other measurements as well.
 
It's messy and tricky.  As far as I know there hasn't yet been a measurement that has shown conclusively that burn-in of a headphone has had a measurable effect.
 
So we're in a situation of not knowing.  We all could be just hearing things that aren't really there.  Or the changes really may be there, we just haven't figured out how to properly measure for them.
 
Lots of uncertainty.  It would be funny to find out later that the changes I heard in my Grado didn't really happen and I've just been hearing things.  That's the joy of being human rather than a machine. 
 
I think that burn-in changes in headphones is reasonably possible.  I'm also OK with the notion that I'm just hearing things that aren't there.  For now though it's fun to listen and hear for myself what may or may not be there.  If the sound gets better the more I listen it's a win for me.

 

[shane55]

^^  Just for kicks, you may want to look at post #8.

 

[logwed]

Quote:

^^  Just for kicks, you may want to look at post #8.

I like what you did, it was a good thing to do, but before I would have to see repeated results with both your setup, and the setups of others before I can really accept it.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

 
Quote:

^^  Just for kicks, you may want to look at post #8.

I saw.  I wonder about measurement variability.  If you did the same measurements 5 times in a row, removing the meter and the rig from the headphone and repositioning the measurement rig on the headphone each time, how much variability would there be?  Would the variability be more than the difference measured?
 
Also there's things like the affect of pad wear.  As the pads soften with use the pads fit differently, they seal differently, and the driver gets closer to the ear.  That all affects the sound.
 
For all I know the difference I hear in my Grado with burn-in is due to the pads getting just slightly softer with 40 hours of use and better conforming to my head.  I don't know.
 
I like the results you got though.  Anything that suggests the highs (say 6K and above) tone down with a Beyer with burn-in is a good thing.   

 

[Mr Joboto]

Quote:

Actually all I disagree with is that burn in can take hundreds of hours and that it can change crappy headphones into great ones.

Agreed.

 

[shane55]

@ Ham Sandwich. I understand. Each plot is an average of 3 (sorry logwed, not 5, and not on other setups, etc.) runs. Assembled & tested, disassembled and re-assembled, etc. The runs were all within 1-1.5db max deviation. I tried to keep it simple.
 
What I'm hoping is that in a few months I come back to it and get the exact results I got the last time I measured them. That would indicate a couple things... to me... 1) that the cans have plateaued, and 2) that there is consistency in my testing methodology. Either that, or the first set of tests were just plain messed up.

  But it's all just for me anyway. My tests mirrored my observations. I am happy with them and their results. They confirm (again, for me only) the existence of break-in as a reality coexisting with psychoacoustics.
 
As I said in the first post... take it for what it's worth.
 
shane

 

[SP Wild]

I don't believe burn in can even change the tonal balance of a can.  However I feel that it can affect overall refinement.  If you don't like a can's tonal balance from new burn in won't change that.