[kingpage]

Quote:

Sorry, but this shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science and the scientific method.  If the science is done properly, it would be repeatable and verifiable and peer-reviewed. Thus, the initial researcher's connection to industry would be rendered a moot point.  The nature of the scientific method is such that biases in the pursuit of profit are discovered, exposed and/or eliminated.  If the science supports burn-in as a legitimate phenomenon, it ill be accepted regardless of any perceived conflict of interest or vested interest.
 
FTR, Subjectively, I think that in some cases burn-in has an effect. I also know that I've seen no credible science to back it up and, therefore, I'm willing to attribute my perception of those changes to placebo.

This shows you only understand the theoretical side of the scientific method. In a perfect world, what you said is correct. As humans are still humans, that changes everything. You may want to learn more about fraudulent studies and funding bias in sciences.
 
Peer review and top scientists mean nothing sometimes, while some faudulent or biased studies are found out, many of them are still hidden unknown to man. This is also the reason why independent research is so very critical to obtaining reliable results. Science rests upon honesty, but it only goes so far. There are many factors that can increase or decrease one's propensity to cheat or produce biased results.

 

[Argo Duck]

^ unfortunately what kingpage says is true. Most work can be trusted, but of course the small amount that can't be is hard to detect.
 
There are other factors too. Recently (the last 10 years especially) there has been a seachange in statistical reporting and with what qualifies as good method in statistically supported papers. Journals are being very slow  implementing these new standards, partly because anonymous reviewers are themselves slow to catch up with the changes.
 
Bottom-line, replicability is key. However, it's a slow process. Less contentious findings tend to be accepted, even though they might easily be the product of sample error - which is one of the reasons replication is critical in the first place.

 

[liamstrain]

Interesting article in Wired:
 
"Sharing Information Corrupts Wisdom of Crowds" - which is shows an interesting parallel to how results and hypothesis (and hunches) are shared here.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/wisdom-of-crowds-decline/ 
 
Abstract for the most recent study here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/10/1008636108.abstract

 

[fubar3]

Can the burn-in skeptics leave us alone?

 
Apparently not.  The pragmatics can't abide babble about burn-in and cables.  The audiophiles claim that sense perception trumps measurement.
 
Perhaps more objectivity is called for but some subjectivity must be respected.

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

 some subjectivity must be respected.

Not to be glib, but... why? What about subjectivity means we must respect it? Its very nature makes it terribly suspect. We can recognize it, sure, and acknowledge it - even account for it, but ultimately, shouldn't we correct for it? Not respect it... 

 

[sailorman]

Quote:

This shows you only understand the theoretical side of the scientific method. In a perfect world, what you said is correct. As humans are still humans, that changes everything. You may want to learn more about fraudulent studies and funding bias in sciences.
 
Peer review and top scientists mean nothing sometimes, while some faudulent or biased studies are found out, many of them are still hidden unknown to man. This is also the reason why independent research is so very critical to obtaining reliable results. Science rests upon honesty, but it only goes so far. There are many factors that can increase or decrease one's propensity to cheat or produce biased results.

I'm aware that fraudulent studies exist and some have not been found out. That is beside the point of your original contention that any studies supporting the existence of burn in will be automatically and necessarily ignored or otherwise not taken seriously due to the possibility of industry bias by researchers.  You were suggesting that industry funded research into burn in would be somehow rendered useless due to the potential, or a general perception, of bias. That's no more valid an argument in the realm of audio gear than it is in any other sphere, from aviation to medicine, where industry research occurs regularly and is often challenged, confirmed or refuted by independent scientists with no axe to grind. Any honest corporation would never refrain from doing research into a phenomenon affecting their product simply out of fear that such research would be unfairly labeled as biased or fraudulent.
 
I agree that independent research is critical to obtaining reliable results. You can rest assured that the moment industry funded research provides evidence to suggest that burn in is a real phenomenon, there will be plenty of independent research, replication and peer review done to either verify or refute it.  The mere existence of the perception of bias is not a valid excuse for industry, any industry, to refrain from such research.  Your original post, to which I was responding, suggested that it is.
 
OTOH, if you are suggesting that they don't do the research because they would be accused of fraud and bias, and that they're afraid that subsequent independent research would confirm and expose that bias, you may have a point and I tend to agree. Manufacturers may well be hiding behind the excuse of "What's the use? We wouldn't be taken seriously anyway".  Some may buy that cop out. I don't.  But I don't believe that's the argument you were making anyway.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Can the burn-in skeptics leave us alone?

 
Apparently not.  The pragmatics can't abide babble about burn-in and cables.  The audiophiles claim that sense perception trumps measurement.
 
Perhaps more objectivity is called for but some subjectivity must be respected.

I'm an audiophile and I don't believe sense perception trumps measurement..... incorrect usage of the word.

 

[sailorman]

 
Quote:

Not to be glib, but... why? What about subjectivity means we must respect it? Its very nature makes it terribly suspect. We can recognize it, sure, and acknowledge it - even account for it, but ultimately, shouldn't we correct for it? Not respect it... 

We should respect it, but only for what it is, a contaminant in the petri dish. 
We should acknowledge its existence and account for it, but only while recognizing its nature and the detrimental effects it has upon the processes used to discern objective truth.

 

[LizardKing1]

You can have an objective truth with a fantastic degree of precision, and still not be subjectively satisfied, i.e., you can know for sure (cientifical certainty) that burn-in occured in your headphones and still hear absolutely no difference. In fact this probably happens a lot. As in the end no one buys gear only because it measures well, but because we like it (although if it measures well we assume we'll like it), purely objective statements about something aren't really helpful. I'm not siding with anyone, I believe this whole division of subjectivists vs. objectivists should have ended in pre-school. It looks like cowboys vs. indians. A human being is both, not only one. I like gear that sounds well and gear that measures well lets me know it will probably sound well to me. This isn't the discovery of the Higgs Boson, this is musical enjoyment, and enjoyment is almost purely subjective.
 
I wrote a small (liar.) post about burn-in myths. Read that again. Not burn-in-is-a-myth, but myths within burn-in. I think that's what pisses non-believers off:
 

• Burn-in is just getting the membrane "used" to vibrations. You don't need frequency sweeps or noise in all the colors of the rainbow... Well it won't hurt of course, but it won't do much. The truth is, if you only use white noise you are sure to get the best possible result. Frequency sweeps also vibrate in all pure harmonic frequencies, but one at a time. And in any case, if you force a membrane to sustain a vibration is any audible frequency, you will get the same result. Somehow the idea that if you use certain frequencies to burn-in, the driver will only be burnt-in for those frequencies got around. It's just a vibration. Of course a higher frequency has more energy, and thus would be more efficient in burning-in, but to all the frequencies, not just to that one. And after 24 hours of burn-in the membrane will be in the same state regardless of whatever frequency you used, sine by that point the maximum recommendable relaxing of the membrane will surely have been reached. A good example: take a plastic bag. Now ask your buddy to hold one end and you vibrate the other at the same frequency for 24 hours (let's imagine you can hold on to 500Hz with 10-minute breaks every hour). It will get a bit relaxed, as in, the plastic will be easier to wrinkle. Now try this with an identical bag, but on a higher frequency - let's say 2000Hz for 24 hours (poor you). In the end, examine both bags. If none of them teared up, is there any difference? No. They have reached the same state of relaxing, and any more would probably result in damage (tearing up).
• You don't need 1000 hours of burn-in. You just don't, since by that point, as explained above, it will be in the same state. I promise you, if you can ever find a difference between a headphone with 1000 hours of your choice of burn-in files and another one with the same burn-in, but just a miserable 200 hours, in a blind test, you can have my account and every headphone/amp/source I own.

 
I don't own great measuring gear and I didn't study this thoroughly, but it makes sense to me.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

• You don't need 1000 hours of burn-in. You just don't, since by that point, as explained above, it will be in the same state. I promise you, if you can ever find a difference between a headphone with 1000 hours of your choice of burn-in files and another one with the same burn-in, but just a miserable 200 hours, in a blind test, you can have my account and every headphone/amp/source I own.

Heck, even I might take that bet. Every headphone might sound a little different regardless of burn-in. That's a risky offer to make.

 

[LizardKing1]

Hi guys, I'm the new owner of this account! I took the challenge and guess what...
 
HeadInjury, I meant 2 headphones of the same model... Ok let me rephrase that: to get it right with at least 3/4 (75%) right answers within a total of at least 20 tries. So you have to get it right 15 times. One of them has 1000 hours on it, the other has 200. Better?
 
Honestly I think at 1000 hours we're starting to look at the diaphragm wearing out more than burning in.

 

[liamstrain]

Even 2 headphones of the same model could have sufficient variation to make them readily identifiable (which was the major flaw in Tyl's test - all it showed was that he could tell two different Q701' apart - not that burn it existed). You need to correct for that. 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Hi guys, I'm the new owner of this account! I took the challenge and guess what...
 
HeadInjury, I meant 2 headphones of the same model... Ok let me rephrase that: to get it right with at least 3/4 (75%) right answers within a total of at least 20 tries. So you have to get it right 15 times. One of them has 1000 hours on it, the other has 200. Better?
 
Honestly I think at 1000 hours we're starting to look at the diaphragm wearing out more than burning in.

No. That's exactly what I thought you meant, and my post still stands.
 
Look up the graphs of the V-Moda M80 and V80 on InnerFidelity. As far as I know, they're the same model, the V80 is just branded with True Blood sponsorship and has a different color.

 

[LizardKing1]

EDIT: I'm sorry, I really misread your post and deleted what I said before, since it made no sense.
 
I thought the M80s used a different enclosure from the V80.
I'm sorry, is anyone here actually saying that 1000 hours of burn-in will work noticeably better than 200? Other than that, I doubt there's any respectable company that produces headphones with more than 3dB different in the FR graph. They don't have to be atom-perfect, but noticeably different sounds like too much.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

EDIT: I'm sorry, I really misread your post and deleted what I said before, since it made no sense.
 
I thought the M80s used a different enclosure from the V80.
I'm sorry, is anyone here actually saying that 1000 hours of burn-in will work noticeably better than 200? Other than that, I doubt there's any respectable company that produces headphones with more than 3dB different in the FR graph. They don't have to be atom-perfect, but noticeably different sounds like too much.

No, no one's saying that. Not recently anyway. We're saying the differences between headphones of the same model are as significant as the differences between different amounts of burn-in.
 
Check InnerFidelity's SR-009 graphs. There's three of them, one being the same model as another but burned in. The burned in version shows the most difference in THD, but the frequency response changes are arguably smaller than the differences between headphones of the same model.