[kingpage]

Quote:

Just a question I read in some other forum which I'll paraphrase and post here.
 
Everyone says burn in makes their headphones better. If we believe burn in exists, it changes the sound signature. Why then, do people always say it makes their headphones better if it changes a highly subjective element. If you really liked the sound signature of a headphone before burn in what's to stop burn in from making it worse?

Most likely, burn-in makes the headphones converge to their true sound as was designed by the companies. It isn't always the case, there have been a few instances in which people liked it better before the burn-in. Usually when that happens, they either exchange for another one, keep using it but keep their mouth shut or do mods. Burn-in in general will either open up the soundstage (as the coils are moving less stiffly), tame down or smooth out the mids and treble and making the bass more controlled. As you can see, the changes are almost always "regression to the mean" or convergence to middle ground, it makes sense that most people will find it more pleasant except for the few who like extremes in either way.
 

 
Quote:

Have you guys ever thought that it might be that some materials used in some headphones alter with use, but some don't? What I mean to say is that the idea that the sound of headphones change over time is neither fact or false, but is something that needs research for individual models?

No one says all headphones go through noticeable changes with use. In fact, the opposite is true - we think some models change more than others; some take longer to change than others; and some have little change if at all.

 

[castleofargh]

i could understand the purpose of this thread, but i must confess you guys are not the best theory sellers i ve seen.
 
1/ godwin in the first post is a major offense to the geneva convension of trolling.
 
2/ you cannot ask people to trust you on something and in the same post say they should not believe in science results. (maybe if jesus was a raptor then ... )
 
3/ i'm not trying to troll as in fact i do believe there is some minor kind of burn in effect, in part cause no flexible material can come back 100/100 to how it was before being flexed. and a little cause i believe i might have experienced it myself.
i could'nt tell if it was in part cause of some burn-in process, or only my brain getting used the new stuff. imo it was both.
 
all this to come to my main point. whatever the reason, the fact is you need time before what you hear can be somewhat permanent when you buy something. and that's what we need to tell people. so they don't decide that some product is **** after a 10mn trial in a shop.
to me the simple fact of expecting to ear something with loud bass makes me bass desapointed when i get to hear it. but that's because my imagination goes to 11.
 
 

 

[kingpage]

If I wanted to "sell" my theory, I would be a lot more rigorous in my approach considering I'm a research student. The main purpose is to stop people from saying things that are off-topic to posts where the OPs just want some burn-in procedures or methods ad hoc or in general. So I appealed to your emotions instead, as that's how I felt it.
 
Quote:

2/ you cannot ask people to trust you on something and in the same post say they should not believe in science results. (maybe if jesus was a raptor then ... )

 
There must have been a misunderstanding there. Because it is a fact that nothing in this unverse is 100%, even the purest gold is not 100% pure, even gender is not purely dichotomous as most like to think. While abtract mathematics and abtract logics make us think there are things that can be proven beyond any doubt, the reality is those proofs have their own assumptions. Assumptions in science can't be proven. Everything comes down to finding the line. In statistics, you'd need to balance between type-I and type-II errors; 10%, 5% or 1% significance level. A smaller alpha makes beta bigger non linearly. The paragraph was addressing the issue of unrealistic expectation in an experiment. Statistics can only go so far, the rest is up to you to interpret.
 
The magin of error is one of the most important things any scientist or engineer should learn early in their career.
 

 

[Willakan]

The problem isn't so much whether burn-in exists, but the utterly ridiculous differences attributed to it. The Innerfidelity test established, with the AKG flagships no less (supposedly a headphone which is transformed by burn in) a subtle difference that required a bit of listening practise to absolutely reliably distinguish.*
 
Tyll did not say "There was an utter transformation in the bass, mids, soundstage, treble, detail and PRAT and I distinguished it in under 2 seconds standing on my head."
 
 
*If you take the test to demonstrate that - all it conclusively shows is that Tyll can distinguish two headphones. Manufacturing variances and the like are hard to account for.
 
 
 

 

[dwinnert]

I believe things that have movement like speakers have a burn in....which imho really never ends. Cables.....nah.

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

Quote:

If one admits burn-in is real, follow up by asking why burn-in is not done at the factory. Further, ask them how they would handle a warranty claim where someone was happy with the product for the first 300 hours, then did not like the way they changed.

 
Hi Erik,
 
You use this argument a lot, but I don't buy it.  Do shoes break-in? Of course. If someone said, "I liked the way they feel at first, but don't like the feel after they've broken in, the manufacturer would say buy another pair then, they all do that. (And also mutter under their breath whan an idiot the customer is.)  If the customer insists on the money back, they'd just give it to them and shoe them off.
 
Burn-in exists, but it's not a big deal.
 
 

 

[fubar3]

I plan to join the "burn-in is pseudo-science team" since they get to enjoy new headphones right away! 

 

[swbf2cheater]

Tyll or Jude should totally make a video about this
 
 

 

[Uncle Erik]

Tyll, shoe companies and salesmen are upfront about break-in and wear.

I'm wondering why headphones manufacturers aren't equally forthcoming.

It's not necessarily a bad thing. Shoe salesmen use it as a selling point.

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

Tyll, shoe companies and salesmen are upfront about break-in and wear.
I'm wondering why headphones manufacturers aren't equally forthcoming.
It's not necessarily a bad thing. Shoe salesmen use it as a selling point.

If a company has a 14 day return policy it could benefit the company saying you need to burn them in. People will burn them in and if they are unsatisfied won't be able to return them. It makes sense to me economically. Futureshop has a return policy of 14 days with the exception of warranties.  After warranty they give a futureshop gift card worth what you purchased so futureshop still makes money off of you. There is many companies which can benefit from these practices even though it's unfortunately taking advantage of the consumers. Luckily i haven't seen any of these companies claiming burn in as real.
 
Now before anyone claims me as a doubter i believe burn in occurs but i don't think you should think about it to much as it should happen over general listening. I also don't think there will be any substantial difference between pre and post burn in.

 

[MegaMushroom]

One day someone here will buy a set of headphones, and will test em out to see if burn-in does occur at all.  I look forward to that day. 

 

[swbf2cheater]

Kind of like trying to prove the sun rises every morning to a person who insists on wearing a bucket over their head, or is actually blind :\

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Speaker companies have mixed views on whether burn in exists. Tests of woofers find that they do change with use, but when rested go back to their original state.
 
 

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

Kind of like trying to prove the sun rises every morning to a person who insists on wearing a bucket over their head, or is actually blind :\

No. No it is not.

 

[swbf2cheater]

Yes, it is.  You have ears, if you can't tell there are minor subtle differences then odds are good your hearing isn't so good...which makes it just like trying to prove light exists to a blind person