[Phronesis]

^ If a manufacturer thinks a headphone needs burn-in, why not just burn them in themselves before boxing and shipping them? Why let the customer (and reviewers) first hear and judge the headphone many hours before it reaches its potential? Color me skeptical ...

 

[donunus]

Burning in may increase the price

 

[LaCuffia]

Some manufacturers do "burn in" products before shipment but not entirely sure (maybe ZMF and MrSpeakers).

I think "burn in" is more just a psychological adjustment and learning to appreciate what's essentially been there since hour one. Perhaps subtle changes are indeed possible but not sure there is a way to capture that accurately in measurements.

 

[329161]

^ If a manufacturer thinks a headphone needs burn-in, why not just burn them in themselves before boxing and shipping them? Why let the customer (and reviewers) first hear and judge the headphone many hours before it reaches its potential? Color me skeptical ...

150 hours might put I past th warranty period, no?

 

[Phronesis]

Burning in may increase the price

Why? Just create a big burn-in rack, plug in, unplug X hours later, and box up.

As others have said, I suspect the burn in is more a matter of psychologically adjusting to the sound such that it sounds more ‘right’ to our brains.

Real test is to take two new headphones which sound the same, burn one in, then do blind comparison to see if you can reliably tell the difference and find the burned in one to sound better.

 

[LaCuffia]

And as someone on this forum said, it’s curious that “burn in” always results in improvement. You never hear “oh man these were great out of the box but doesn’t sound so good after 200 hours.”

Anyway, getting the Cascade today. Will post initial impressions later.

 

[Phronesis]

There's also a marketing angle to recommending burn in. The more time we spend with a product, the more we feel it's 'ours' - even if it's a loaner or has a full money-back return option - so returning it would feel like a 'loss'. We're inherently averse to such losses. Recommending a burn in period of dozens of hours, or 100+ hours, is a way to encourage us to spend more time with a headphone before deciding whether we're willing to give it up.

I'm not claiming that there's absolutely no such thing as real burn in - in principle, I can't rule it out - I'm just skeptical, and I suspect that the vast majority of claimed burn in is psychological.

 

[K1030]

Hey mate, just wondering if you're keen to share how the Cascades perform out of the Hiby single ended and if you get a big difference by adding the iBasso amp? Already have the Hiby and looking at the Cascades but not sure I wanna go through stacking, but I'll consider it if it means a noticeable upgrade in sound quality.

The Hiby's amp and volume control are fine but having a separate amp is better...for me at least. At first I was disappointed that the Hiby had an output impedance of 10 ohms which on paper is a no no for lower impeadance headphones. You'd need an 80 ohm set of cans to justify that output....on paper. Also digital volume control degrades the track played when attenuating the volume. Only at 100% will you get the full resoulution from the source. Everytime you lower the volume it's digitally altering the sound taking bits and bytes away to quiet the track. At first I used the Ifi iematch to solve the output impeadance issue but it attenuated the volume too much; 100% volume became too quiet. So to solve both issues I bought the thinnest portable amp I knew of with an output impeadance of less than 2 I beileve and plenty of power, SE or BAL. and yes it does sound pretty awesome imo. I now get to leave the hiby at 100% giving me all the fidelity of the track but with an analog volume pot to have full control (no more accidental volume blasts). I'm a weird guy so this isn't for everyone but the portable amp is so thin I really don't mind it at all and it actually has a better in hand feel for me. Back in the day I used a Teac HA-P50 so the PB3 doesnt even come close to the size of that brick. Once my balanced cable comes in I'm sure I'll be in for another treat with this amp.

 

[DivaFonda]

The dilemma of dedicating burn-in time again rears it's head. I did have an earphone go bad on me AFTER burn-in, turned muddier and less clear. I've had some headphones change very little with burn-in; or they sounded so good out of the box that I didn't even bother with serious burn-in. Then I've had some that changed for the better. It's really hard for me to say if burn-in helps or not. It certainly could be just getting used to the set's sound signature. I have also suspected higher impedance headphones would benefit more than lower impedance ones, just because you need to bring the sound out fully on those to get their true effect. But that's just speculation on my part.

 

[Phronesis]

There is a reason why Ken mentioned burn in of 150 hours.

The dilemma of dedicating burn-in time again rears it's head. I did have an earphone go bad on me AFTER burn-in, turned muddier and less clear. I've had some headphones change very little with burn-in; or they sounded so good out of the box that I didn't even bother with serious burn-in. Then I've had some that changed for the better. It's really hard for me to say if burn-in helps or not. It certainly could be just getting used to the set's sound signature. I have also suspected higher impedance headphones would benefit more than lower impedance ones, just because you need to bring the sound out fully on those to get their true effect. But that's just speculation on my part.

See above quote. If the manufacturer, Campfire Audio, is recommending 150 hours of burn in, I'd like to know the rationale for that. What changes occur during the course of those 150 hours? What testing did CA do to reach their conclusions on the burn in? I think there needs to be some accountability associated with such claims from a manufacturer.

 

[BuddhaBruce]

Why? Just create a big burn-in rack, plug in, unplug X hours later, and box up.

As others have said, I suspect the burn in is more a matter of psychologically adjusting to the sound such that it sounds more ‘right’ to our brains.

Real test is to take two new headphones which sound the same, burn one in, then do blind comparison to see if you can reliably tell the difference and find the burned in one to sound better.

A lot of space and resources would be required to burn in 1000's of headphones. It sounds like an easy thing to do but it's a lot of set up, time, resources, and space needed for this to happen. Additionally it would push their release dates way back seeing as they would need to perform some kind of QA before and after burn in.

 

[BuddhaBruce]

See above quote. If the manufacturer, Campfire Audio, is recommending 150 hours of burn in, I'd like to know the rationale for that. What changes occur during the course of those 150 hours? What testing did CA do to reach their conclusions on the burn in? I think there needs to be some accountability associated with such claims from a manufacturer.

I see it as a car needing burn in. Many manufacturers recommend you running your car 1000 miles before pushing it. My VW GTI dealer said not to redline or rev the car pass 3500 rpm because burn in is supposed to set some mechanical pieces into play and if you push your car too hard before that period it can cause some prolonged damage.

 

[K1030]

I see it as a car needing burn in. Many manufacturers recommend you running your car 1000 miles before pushing it. My VW GTI dealer said not to redline or rev the car pass 3500 rpm because burn in is supposed to set some mechanical pieces into play and if you push your car too hard before that period it can cause some prolonged damage.

Bingo. You need the turbo to break in before you go fast and furious and the same goes for the Cascade. I think it may have something to do with the beryllium drivers and the logistics of not doing the burn in process in house. What I heard at CanJam NYC and what I took out of the box when I purchased them was completely different until I took the time to burn them in overtime. Once I hit around 100 hours they started to sound like the ones I fell in love with and now at 150++ I'm completely enamored.

 

[Phronesis]

A lot of space and resources would be required to burn in 1000's of headphones. It sounds like an easy thing to do but it's a lot of set up, time, resources, and space needed for this to happen. Additionally it would push their release dates way back seeing as they would need to perform some kind of QA before and after burn in.

For an inexpensive mass-produced headphone, I certainly agree. But the Cascade isn't an inexpensive headphone, and CA is a relatively small company, so I'm not sure I agree with the argument in this case.

I see it as a car needing burn in. Many manufacturers recommend you running your car 1000 miles before pushing it. My VW GTI dealer said not to redline or rev the car pass 3500 rpm because burn in is supposed to set some mechanical pieces into play and if you push your car too hard before that period it can cause some prolonged damage.

Bingo. You need the turbo to break in before you go fast and furious and the same goes for the Cascade. I think it may have something to do with the beryllium drivers and the logistics of not doing the burn in process in house. What I heard at CanJam NYC and what I took out of the box when I purchased them was completely different until I took the time to burn them in overtime. Once I hit around 100 hours they started to sound like the ones I fell in love with and now at 150++ I'm completely enamored.

I'm familiar with break-in of cars, and there you have a lot going on with wear of components, lubrication, seating of many moving parts, etc. The physics of headphone dynamics seems a lot simpler to me, with wear and lubrication not being factors. In terms of mechanical deformation of headphone components, you have elastic deformation (which doesn't change over time), plastic deformation (which reflects something being overstressed and damaged), and creep deformation (which results from sustained loads, which we don't generally have with headphones). These don't fit the concept of headphone burn-in. Another possibility is connections between headphone components "loosening up" with use, but I'm not sure that would be a good thing.

I can't say there couldn't be physical burn-in with the Cascade, but I'd like to see evidence beyond subjective impressions which could be due to psychological effects. Perhaps CA can chime in on that.

Also, 150 hours is a rather long burn-in period. That amounts to more than 2 months listening every day for 2 hours. I wouldn't trust my memory to compare with how a headphone sounded to me 2 months prior.

To be clear, I'm not a critic of CA or their products. I've heard good things about them and am considering purchase of the Cascade and/or their IEMs.

 

[Sound Eq]

For an inexpensive mass-produced headphone, I certainly agree. But the Cascade isn't an inexpensive headphone, and CA is a relatively small company, so I'm not sure I agree with the argument in this case.





I'm familiar with break-in of cars, and there you have a lot going on with wear of components, lubrication, seating of many moving parts, etc. The physics of headphone dynamics seems a lot simpler to me, with wear and lubrication not being factors. In terms of mechanical deformation of headphone components, you have elastic deformation (which doesn't change over time), plastic deformation (which reflects something being overstressed and damaged), and creep deformation (which results from sustained loads, which we don't generally have with headphones). These don't fit the concept of headphone burn-in. Another possibility is connections between headphone components "loosening up" with use, but I'm not sure that would be a good thing.

I can't say there couldn't be physical burn-in with the Cascade, but I'd like to see evidence beyond subjective impressions which could be due to psychological effects. Perhaps CA can chime in on that.

Also, 150 hours is a rather long burn-in period. That amounts to more than 2 months listening every day for 2 hours. I wouldn't trust my memory to compare with how a headphone sounded to me 2 months prior.

To be clear, I'm not a critic of CA or their products. I've heard good things about them and am considering purchase of the Cascade and/or their IEMs.

well, best thing to do if you really want to know bout burn in effect, is either buy this headphone and hear yourself the effect of burn in, or simply buy another headphone

the consensus here is that cascade sounds best after burn in, how this can be proved by physics, measurements, and chemistry is simply not of most users concern, people here usually go by hearing impressions

i am not trying to ridicule your concern, but you are paying too much focus on burn in effect in my opinion

also you do not need 2 months, just play pink noise 24 hours a day for 7 days and you are done