Dang it - there is TOO a burn-in for armature IEMs (at least for Shures) (I think)

[codine]

I think its mainly your ears and head burning in, although I don't fully dispute that no physical change happens to your equipment through use, it makes sense to me that materials change when a current is passed through them or when they are flexed over and over again. Often people say after burn in the music sounds more tighter and correct, between your ears and brain they sort out vibrations into sounds and music. If you listen to binaural recordings with your eyes closed you can hear stuff in front of you, if you open your eyes the sound often jumps behind your head because your brain knows there is nothing in front of you, the sound didn't change, the way it is interpreted by the brain did though.

Who knows though, this is something that will be argued about for ages.

I do know this for sure, when I put my UM2s on they don't sound right for about 5 mins then they sound fine and after about 10mins I'm loving them, this is why I think some of it is brain burn in. On the other hand my SR225s always sound right...

 

[valkolton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by codine /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do know this for sure, when I put my UM2s on they don't sound right for about 5 mins then they sound fine and after about 10mins I'm loving them, this is why I think some of it is brain burn in. On the other hand my SR225s always sound right...

Similarly - When I switch between a normal or accentuated bass IEM to a pure Bass-model IEM at first I think the bassier models sound much darker/hazier. But after about 5 minutes, my brain adjusts and I can make out more of the clarity and I appreciate the overall unique sound even. though I go back to a accentuated IEM to get more of the clarity back 9 times out of 10.

 

[immtbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jokieman /img/forum/go_quote.gif That makes no sense. If there is physical burn in then you should be able to detect the changes no matter what your source is. If it is in fact a placebo effect then that is another story all together. I don't understand. Are you saying that poor sources stop the burn in process from happening?

Absolutely not. What I am saying is, that the poorer the source and headphones ability to reproduce the original recording, the less of a difference you are going to hear, therefore diminshing the benefit of burn-in.

For example, if you are using a 128 kbps .mp3 or a poor redbook recording with a cheap DAP with a (cheap dac and amp) and a can that's not capable of reproducing the full spectrum of the original recording, burn in is not going to improve the final outcome compared to a quality source with a hi-rez recording and a entry level audiophile can. To me, it is not a placebo effect YMMV.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jokieman /img/forum/go_quote.gif See, I would tend to believe this too. This is why I think a big part of it is just the brain acclimating to the sound.

x3. My new set of Super.Fi 5 pro sounds much better than my older Super.Fi 5 pro did after a year. I received them back very very quick and heard an instant difference in sound. The one I returned (not for sound quality, but for a piece that cracked all of a sudden) after a year of use when compared to the brand new pair had sounded fatigued with less dynamic impact. Now this makes sense to me scientifically... a mechanical part wearing out with age, absolutely. But a mechanical part getting better with age? I'm not so sure.

Certain loudspeakers do sound better with age as the surrounds around the cone break in, but that doesn't mean they are physically getting better. After a certain amount of hours (400 hrs.) my Dynaudio's broke in and sounded their best. This was even confirmed by a staff member who worked at their factory that they do require some break-in time. But after those 400 hours, they hit their peak, and like any piece of mechanical equipment, degraded over time and eventually wore out.

I don't know why some believe in burn-in for some types of headphones but not others. If you believe in burn-in then it should be on all headphones. Look at a diagram of a balanced armature. It is still connected to a diaphragm which moves, so why would that diaphragm not be subjected to the same laws of physics as a larger diaphragm in a bigger headphone? It's pushing air, therefore how can you say that armatures don't get burn-in but big headphones do?

If you don't believe in burn-in, that's fine too. But at least be consistent in your beliefs. Otherwise, it sounds like every bit of it a placebo effect. We talked about this in the amp section today regarding burn-in (see amp section).

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif a mechanical part wearing out with age, absolutely. But a mechanical part getting better with age? I'm not so sure.

I think better is a relative term, especially when we are talking about headphone. Maybe the wear and tear change the sound characteristics, than our mind interpreter it as a better sound?

 

[spinali]

"Break-in" with IEMs would be tough to prove, and not simply because the manufactuerers claim that these devices do not break-in (though that's awfuly credible, given that most users, manufacterers, and resellers seem to affirm headphone break-in, while negating the same for IEMS).

IEMs are more of a process of learning how use them - insertion techniques, earpieces, and the like. The smallest differences can change the sound drastically. Personally, I've not heard any "break-in" differences with the E4C and Westones.

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

What I am saying is, that the poorer the source and headphones ability to reproduce the original recording, the less of a difference you are going to hear, therefore diminshing the benefit of burn-in.

While it's not surprising to see yet another attempt to slowly back off the argument until so few people can claim to hear it that the argument can't continue, this is complete bollocks.

First of all, 99+% of users around here who swear on their mother's grave that their phones changed are not claiming the change was some subtle tweak only detectable on lossless files played on $1000 phones.

But even more basically, either the phone's ability to reproduce the signal undergoes a change or it doesn't. If your phones are now reproducing the lows so much better than before, it's going to be there whether you're listening to 128kbps or 320kbps or lossless (or whatever your recordings are), unless you want to argue that the specific bits that low-bitrate recordings throw out are the specific ones that "burn-in" selects to reveal (which is nonsense).

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torula Yeast /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, not that you're getting a new pair for *me* -- but rather, that you'll soon have yourself a new pair you can contrast against the pair you passed along to a friend.

Oh I see! I'll definitely tell you my impressions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazmonkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even then, he'll know which one's which. If he uses different tips on each, he could probably feel the difference between old and new foam, and the fit each time is slightly different. If he uses the same tips and moves them around, they could fit on differently each time, and the fit each time could still be slightly different. Perhaps over time an armature gets quieter, no different-sounding, so the volume would be different. Perhaps the volume given the same signal is just different between the two. And there's no reference. The OP clearly *wants* the two pairs to sound different, and comparing two pairs to a control pair allows weeding out of bogus observations. A simple "is there a difference between these?" is a question to which your brain can easily fudge the answer. Besides the mental issues present in the burn-in question, there are a lot of factors that are hard to control, each of which is capable of producing the exact effect we're trying to find.

I'll use new tips on both of them. It'll be a crude test, but what else am I supposed to do?

I someone would like to get me another pair of E500 then I'll gladly do a fair test

I'll probably get my friend to label the headphones using tags as 1, 2 and 3. He'll know which one's the burned in pair while I do the listening. That's similar to the cable blind test that Edwood set up a couple of years back.

 

[immtbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac /img/forum/go_quote.gif While it's not surprising to see yet another attempt to slowly back off the argument until so few people can claim to hear it that the argument can't continue, this is complete bollocks.

Bullocks you say ??? It's just my opinion, which, by the way, is what enables this forum to exist.

Rodbac, what do you mean by? :

"While it's not surprising to see yet another attempt to slowly back off the argument until so few people can claim to hear it that the argument can't continue,"?

How is an attempt being made to slowly back off the argument and stop it from continuing?

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

Bullocks you say ??? It's just my opinion, which, by the way, is what enables this forum to exist.

Um, you didn't make a subjective statement, which is the only realm in which someone's opinion is irrefutable.

You made a statement that doesn't follow- the scenario, if it exists, is not bitrate dependent.

Quote:

How is an attempt being made to slowly back off the argument and stop it from continuing?

Well, typically, when the evidence seems to point elsewhere, a person will start claiming that higher- and higher-end phones/amps/music is needed to experience what they're claiming (see cable arguments for the most egregious examples- first the difference is night and day, and eventually it's the last 0.00000000001% of improvement).

If you didn't intend it that way, my apologies.

 

[bazmonkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker /img/forum/go_quote.gif How is an attempt being made to slowly back off the argument and stop it from continuing?

I think his point was that the notion that burn-in is more apparent on more expensive equipment means that someone claiming to not hear burn-in on their modest system can basically be dismissed by not having equipment resolving or detailed or accurate enough to show the difference. Eventually that line of thinking leads to an "Emperor's New Burn-In" sort of thing, where only the people with good systems hear it, and everyone else just assumes that their system must not be good enough. It kills the argument to say that only a small subset of the participants can truly judge on it by virtue of their equipment.

Besides, "testing" for burn-in should merely be listening for an audible difference between burnt-in and new headphones. Even if your source is junk, you should hear different junk with burnt-in headphones. This difference has no relation to what music is actually playing, or its quality.

Quote:

the poorer the source and headphones ability to reproduce the original recording, the less of a difference you are going to hear, therefore diminshing the benefit of burn-in.

You've probably never heard the original recording in question, what does that have to do with whether or not the headphones sound different after burning-in? It may sound better with a proper system, but that's just common sense, and not what you seemed to be suggesting, namely that better source equipment has something to do with one's ability to discern the difference in burnt-in headphones.

 

[immtbiker]

I feel like I'm being attacked here for making a general blanket statement. Words are being put in my mouth.
There appears to be an insinuation that I am saying that if you don't have high-end equipment, you will not hear the benefits that burn-in reaps. I am being taken too literally or else people have a problem with what I am saying for other, less obvious reasons.
My point is that the lower the quality of the music (yes, includng bitrates) and equipment, the less noticible the benefits of burn-in will appear. I am not berating anyone or anyone's equipment. The main purpose of a component is to reproduce, as accurately as possible, the original recording, whether it be good or bad. If you have a headphone that dulls the midrange or a CDP that is hot at the topend, then, even though burn-in, if you believe in it, will affect the improvement of the reproduction less than, let's say a headphone or component that is neutral and accurate. Yes there will be improvement in both cases, but the improvement will be more noticible in a pair of Gado RS-1's compared to a pair of Bose Quiet comfort noise cancelling headphones.

If a component does not do it's job and produce sounds equal to the recording, then all the burn-in in the world will not bring those sounds back.
It's not a conspiracy theory...I am not minimizing people's musical tastes or equipment purchases, but if a 320kbps .mp3 produces a less compressesed version of a song than a 128kbps, then burn-in will allow components to loosen things up and create a better reproduction.
I'm sensing some hostility here and I'm not sure why, unless people write things just for the sake of causing dissention.

Peace, and the freedom to express one's feeling without making it personal.

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

My point is that the lower the quality of the music (yes, includng bitrates) and equipment, the less noticible the benefits of burn-in will appear.

If this is what you want to maintain, then as I said, you have to explain how "burn in" only exposes the parts of the song that are thrown away compressing a low bitrate file.

Do you not see how preposterous that is?

If there is some physical change happening in the mechanical workings of your headphone's driver, it doesn't matter what you're listening to and it doesn't matter how good of a phone it was in the first place- you're going to hear a change.

"Good" drivers don't loosen up more, and a "burnt in" driver doesn't care how much information was thrown out.

[edit] And sorry if I mistook or misrepresented your initial argument- don't take it personally. I'm not trying to be hostile or some such thing. [/edit]

 

[bazmonkey]

Quote:

I'm not trying to be hostile or some such thing.

x2. All in good spirits...

Quote:

Originally Posted by immitbiker If you have a headphone that dulls the midrange or a CDP that is hot at the topend, then, even though burn-in, if you believe in it, will affect the improvement of the reproduction less than, let's say a headphone or component that is neutral and accurate.

This is what I don't get. Burn-in, if it occurs, simply changes how the headphone produces sound from a given signal. If there's any change, such as the treble becoming less harsh or sibilant, that's going to be noticed equally whether or not the treble being provided is of poor quality or not. Poor quality treble would just be less harsh poor quality treble. I really don't see where a higher bitrate track would make a difference in the difference betweeen burnt-in drivers and new ones. I can understand that the effects of burn-in, if any, would sound better on a higher quality system, but even then, that's just because it was a better sound to begin with.

 

[immtbiker]

I really think that we are saying the same things, just hitting it from different angles.

To get back on topic...My original bottom line:
Even though the IEMs do not have dynamic drivers, there are many other components that the headphone is comprised of, and they themselves can benefit greatly from burn in.