Chinese / Asian Brand IEM Info Thread
Nov 24, 2018 at 1:31 PM Post #20,026 of 33,689
Burn in isn't just about the movement of electrons, it concerns the mechanical behaviour of drivers, diaphragms, armatures, etc. This can change over time.
"Burning" is not a mechanical process and membranes are not being burnt...you would smell that. Burning is an oxidization process [oxidization = release of electrons] - and a rather rapid one (as discovered by the catholic church in the late middle ages). You mean "break in". Another reason why the term "burn-in" should be avoided is because it comes from the many pseudoscientific, unfounded claims by manufacturers of overpriced audio cables. In other words, by using this incorrect term, we promote quackery and lose credibility ourselves.

As said before, I will measure and therefore attempt to quantify "break in" once my next earphone shipment arrives.

Here a great article about that:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/06/musings-audio-cables-summary-non.html

Thanks for pointing this thread into a scientific direction.

Expensive Cables.jpg
burning .jpg
 
Last edited:
Nov 24, 2018 at 2:40 PM Post #20,028 of 33,689
got my ezaudio d4 yesterday--they're likeable but (sorry to be so contrarian on a lovely saturday) not the godhead the flock would have you believe. nice build, very comfortable; particularly good quality carrying case and isolation better than advertised. included tips are bad; changing to spinfits enhanced the mids considerably. soundwise, they have excellent layering and stereo separation; stage is fairly dimensional if not very large. u-shaped signature, with lean note texture; lowend is well articulated but not especially deep or throbbing; there's a considerable midbass focus which makes them slightly incoherent and less revealing than price peers like the adax or emi c800. my chief issue is the treble, which is somewhat underdone and lacking in sparkle--guitar strings and drums lack some snap and sound a tad lo-fi on these. (my test disc, by the way was the verlaines "you're just too obscure"--highly recommended nz pop). very reminiscent of the memt x5, and definitely worth the $8 tab, although i still prefer the kz ed9 or edr1, which sound more natural.
 
Last edited:
Nov 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM Post #20,031 of 33,689
Nov 24, 2018 at 3:27 PM Post #20,033 of 33,689
Nov 24, 2018 at 3:36 PM Post #20,037 of 33,689
The brain adapts to different sound signatures. That's a fact. Try listening to a bright IEM for some time and then change to a more bassy one. The bass may sound overwhelming, much more than yesterday when you listened all day to that same IEM.

You can reset you brain by listening to a more neutral IEM like the Hifiman RE-400..

That's why I don't believe in reviews that don't have at least several testing days.
This 100%!!! I believe that this is something that should be talked about more. Well said friend.
 
Nov 24, 2018 at 5:06 PM Post #20,039 of 33,689
Here a fantastic video explaining "burn in" - very funny:


I've seen the Rockwell video of the updated model.
Have you seen the History of the Turbo Encabulator? :wink:
.
"The original machine had a base plate of prefabulated aluminite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two main spurving bearings were in a direct line with the pentametric fan. The latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzlevanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar waneshaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed in panendermic semi-bovoid slots in the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a nonreversible tremie pipe to the differential girdlespring on the "up" end of the grammeters."
.
That is one of the many descriptions of the famous turboencabulator, a machine devised by Chrysler, General Electric, and Rockwell Automation, among others in the 1940s through 1960s. Many saw it as a technical marvel that could change babies diapers and revolutionize motor design. First publicized by the British Institution of Electrical Engineers Students’ Quarterly Journal in 1944, this machine struck a chord with many readers. If you're still scratching your head trying to figure it out, the turboencabulator was an inside joke between engineers in the 1940s that used technobabble to confuse those not in on the foolery – and it was a completely made up machine. The gag slowly gained traction in the mid-1940s and in 1946, a US publishers started picking up on the fanfare of the amazing machine. Time magazine published an article in May of 1946 titled, "An adjunct to the turbo-encabulator, employed whenever a barescent skor motion is required," which only widened the scope of this massive technical joke. Readers of Time magazine sent in letters to the editor asking many questions about the potential uses and expressing excitement about the machine. Some readers said "it sounds like a new motor," and that it sounds like a "wonderful machine for changing baby's diapers." Time also received many complaints about using too much technical jargon in the article for the layman to understand. But really, everyone knows what an ambifacient lunar waneshaft is, so those comments fell on deaf ears.
.
 
Nov 24, 2018 at 7:25 PM Post #20,040 of 33,689
So currently I'm def gonna buy the BQEYZ BQ3 and the NICEHCK lucky bag (well maybe, last one didn't blow me away but it's a triple driver this time so got my interest). I'm also looking at getting the AS10.

Trying to find a good multi-BA on Alie but there's tons of them :frowning2:
got my ezaudio d4 yesterday--they're likeable but (sorry to be so contrarian on a lovely saturday) not the godhead the flock would have you believe. nice build, very comfortable; particularly good quality carrying case and isolation better than advertised. included tips are bad; changing to spinfits enhanced the mids considerably. soundwise, they have excellent layering and stereo separation; stage is fairly dimensional if not very large. u-shaped signature, with lean note texture; lowend is well articulated but not especially deep or throbbing; there's a considerable midbass focus which makes them slightly incoherent and less revealing than price peers like the adax or emi c800. my chief issue is the treble, which is somewhat underdone and lacking in sparkle--guitar strings and drums lack some snap and sound a tad lo-fi on these. (my test disc, by the way was the verlaines "you're just too obscure"--highly recommended nz pop). very reminiscent of the memt x5, and definitely worth the $8 tab, although i still prefer the kz ed9 or edr1, which sound more natural.

Totally agree, they're nowt special. I'd disagree they sound anything like the MEMT x5 tho... the x5 are much better sounding and are thick noted with deep sub bass
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top