[spurxiii]

I can understand the dynamic drivers needing burn in but I've never experienced any benefits with burn in for any of my BA phones I've had

 

[mochill]

zero audio doppios and Sony xba 3,4 all benefited from my experience

 

[spurxiii]

zero audio doppios and Sony xba 3,4 all benefited from my experience

I had the XBA3 and didn't hear any difference. UE Superfi3, UE superfi5, UE900, UE600, UE700 had no difference for me. There was brain burn in but nothing really noticeable. The GR07BE and some other dynamic driver phones I've tried had big enough changes in their SQ to notice

 

[tjw321]

Had a quick listen at about the 44 hour mark. I wacked on some trance and some Diana Krall and Buble. There's some improvement in the soundstage, detail retrieval and with most of the trance stuff it sounds quite decent but as soon as someone sings it sounds really wrong. That mid bass makes it sound still unbalanced

 
 

  main way is using heavy bass music on high volume especially edm, psytrance,iem..etc of that nature to work out the dynamic drivers in the iem as well as the armature

 
I used a mixture of pink noise (2/3) and just plain old-fashioned listening (1/3) - most of my music is not bass heavy but I did turn the pink noise way up - and, for me, the bass settled down at around the forty hour mark.
 
Hopefully you are nearly there!

 

[nehcrow]

I had the XBA3 and didn't hear any difference. UE Superfi3, UE superfi5, UE900, UE600, UE700 had no difference for me. There was brain burn in but nothing really noticeable. The GR07BE and some other dynamic driver phones I've tried had big enough changes in their SQ to notice

Most burn-in is slight tbh, it's nearly all brain burn-in, it's been proven
...but I'm still curious

 

[TPGsanti]

Most burn-in is slight tbh, it's nearly all brain burn-in, it's been proven
...but I'm still curious

Burn in has been proven to be true in both matters, so it's really up to the person to decide what they want to believe is true.

Now if you really want to test the theory you will have to record the actual sound signatures from OOTB to compare it with the sound signatures over set periods of time (ie. 10hr, 20hr, 100hr, etc.). Where I would safely assume that most head-fi'ers do not even have the equipment to do so, which we would have to rely on outside info or trust in our ears.

Since we have to gather the outside info we have to take that leap of faith on what to believe. Majority of the info is gathered through the Internet that is filled with countless unbacked source material that makes you have to put that faith even more so.

Now if you are doing the burn in time at the same time as listening to your HP/IEM/buds then of course it is going to be a complete mental burn in. It is natural for us to grow accustomed to anything overtime if you repeatedly do the action, as opposed to doing bits over periods of time. As well less likely to notice the subtleties in difference over time.

All in all this is just my opinion. With my 10+ years working on radars I can attest that burn in is fact when it comes to electronics.

 

[nehcrow]

Burn in has been proven to be true in both matters, so it's really up to the person to decide what they want to believe is true.

Now if you really want to test the theory you will have to record the actual sound signatures from OOTB to compare it with the sound signatures over set periods of time (ie. 10hr, 20hr, 100hr, etc.). Where I would safely assume that most head-fi'ers do not even have the equipment to do so, which we would have to rely on outside info or trust in our ears.

Since we have to gather the outside info we have to take that leap of faith on what to believe. Majority of the info is gathered through the Internet that is filled with countless unbacked source material that makes you have to put that faith even more so.

Now if you are doing the burn in time at the same time as listening to your HP/IEM/buds then of course it is going to be a complete mental burn in. It is natural for us to grow accustomed to anything overtime if you repeatedly do the action, as opposed to doing bits over periods of time. As well less likely to notice the subtleties in difference over time.

All in all this is just my opinion. With my 10+ years working on radars I can attest that burn in is fact when it comes to electronics.

Not disagreeing with you, I do think there are slight changes with burn-in. Few dB's here, a few dB's there etc. FR might smooth out a little but it's effects are greatly exaggerated. You can state all you want that an IEM underwent significant changes but there's a lack of distinction between mental perception of sound and actual physical, concrete perception of sound. What we have here is a sort of sheep mentality where one person will state that the IEM significantly changed in sound and then the following person will agree due to confirmation bias. Etc. etc. Next minute, there's a general concensus that this IEM changes dramatically due to burn-in. The brain is very tricky that way. Not saying it's anyone's fault, it's just the way we are.

 

[gyx11]

I agree it's very easily to fall into this sheep mentality. but equally importantly is not to succumb to cynicism and disregard everything being simply a blind following the blind mentality.

I used to laugh as the concept of burn in too. my first few true IEMs were balance armatures, and they didn't change much, if at all, regardless of how many hours I put into it. Now, I still hold true to the belief that burn in is next to useless for BAs.

for DDs though, my experience have been vastly different. started off with my first couple of DD IEMs. they did indeed change with burn in. no, not the super drastic, transformation into a swan cliched kinda change, but enough for me to conclude that there was some, even if slight, change.

fast forward to the DGS100, my perception has changed even more. I still do not think the change in SQ is night and day, and I do acknowledge that at least some part of the difference can be attributed to psychological factors rather than actual change itself, but let's just say that it has proved to me that the magnitude of change which burn in can achieve is significantly larger than I previously thought.

 

[spurxiii]

Checking in after 50 hours and I don't think things have change all that much if at all. These phones have a few issues but one of the biggest ones is the mid bass, which overtakes everything and unbalances the phone terribly. The mid bass bloat, for lack of a better word causes the vocals to sound distant, it causes the singers to sound muffled and it detracts from all the other positives the phone has. There's just so much mid bass I can't see it ever going away with burn in. I'll keep burning these in until the recommended 100 hours but I doubt it'll help. If it doesn't change I'll offer these for others to listen FOC just so I know its not just me. No point in selling these and inflicting someone else the same misery. Sorry if I've offended anyone but these are IMHO

 

[nehcrow]

I agree it's very easily to fall into this sheep mentality. but equally importantly is not to succumb to cynicism and disregard everything being simply a blind following the blind mentality.

I used to laugh as the concept of burn in too. my first few true IEMs were balance armatures, and they didn't change much, if at all, regardless of how many hours I put into it. Now, I still hold true to the belief that burn in is next to useless for BAs.

for DDs though, my experience have been vastly different. started off with my first couple of DD IEMs. they did indeed change with burn in. no, not the super drastic, transformation into a swan cliched kinda change, but enough for me to conclude that there was some, even if slight, change.

fast forward to the DGS100, my perception has changed even more. I still do not think the change in SQ is night and day, and I do acknowledge that at least some part of the difference can be attributed to psychological factors rather than actual change itself, but let's just say that it has proved to me that the magnitude of change which burn in can achieve is significantly larger than I previously thought.

Agreed on the first point, I keep an open when it comes to hotly debated topics like these (burn-in, cable changes etc.)
...but without some sort of evidence what can reliably be acknowledged as a mental change in sound perception or a physical change? You can claim it to be largely a physical change in the drivers but you might underestimate the power of the brain
Mind you, I'm not discrediting burn-in, I'm just discrediting the severity of it
It would be so helpful for somebody to provide measurements of DGS100 at 0 hours and DSG100 at 100 hours. That would be most welcome

 

[nmatheis]

Got mine on X5 at volume 70 (low gain) with all of Autechre's albums on shuffle. Should give all the drivers a good workout!

Tried with my new Cayin C5 earlier out of the X5 (Rush's Fly By Night album). It sounded good (tamed the bass a bit and increased the soundstage), but it was too easy to drive (too loud too fast!). I think I'd have to use the C5 out of my DX90, so I can turn down the LO .

 

[encoreAC]

For me I wouldn't care if it's mentally or real as long the result is the same. That I can enjoy a phone by no matter method.
But normally I just assume it's just my brain for the most part. People often underestimate how adaptable our brain is.

 

[gyx11]

  Agreed on the first point, I keep an open when it comes to hotly debated topics like these (burn-in, cable changes etc.)
...but without some sort of evidence what can reliably be acknowledged as a mental change in sound perception or a physical change? You can claim it to be largely a physical change in the drivers but you might underestimate the power of the brain
Mind you, I'm not discrediting burn-in, I'm just discrediting the severity of it
It would be so helpful for somebody to provide measurements of DGS100 at 0 hours and DSG100 at 100 hours. That would be most welcome

I agree with your stance completely, and especially on the bolded part. I actually happen to think that changes in what we hear during the burn in process can be attributed more to 'psychological burn in' rather than actual physical changes.
 
To digress a little, another point which I feel is equally important to make, is that measurements are not the be all end all factor. I've been on threads where the IEM frequency graph confounds people who actually listen to it. Manufacturer specifications sometimes don't make any sense either. The Havi B3 Pro 1 is rated at 32 Ohms, but I see no possible way for that to be true. The O2/ODAC measures spectacularly, and you will find Objective purists who swear by the impossibility that any other DAC/Amp setup near the price vicinity can match up to how the O2/ODAC sounds, but then there are also some who dismiss how it sounds (I actually love it for the most part 

). Who is right and wrong in this instance?

To me, the answer is clearly: none!

I think all of us are into this hobby need to acknowledge, that on the most fundamental level, the nature of audio is subjective. I don't configure my setups and plug in my IEMs to appreciate the astoundingly low levels of THD, or to marvel at the absolutely spectacular SNR. I'm here simply for the end goal of finding what pleases myself and my ears. So even though sound science and objective measurements to definitely have more credence than the flawed human senses, at the end of the day, we still listen to music through our flawed and 'fickle' ears don't we?

In short, as with most things, I believe that the truth lies somewhere in between, and that there is always room for both objective measurements and subjective findings. Someone who comes to me proclaiming that the DGS100 morphed into a total beast after 200 hours of burn in, and another person who runs to me with a graph which shows that there was a mere 0.01% in difference pre and post burn in will both capture my attention, and I'll certainly give weight to what both sides are saying, but I won't take either as the gospel truth.

 

[nehcrow]

 
I agree with your stance completely, and especially on the bolded part. I actually happen to think that changes in what we hear during the burn in process can be attributed more to 'psychological burn in' rather than actual physical changes.
 
To digress a little, another point which I feel is equally important to make, is that measurements are not the be all end all factor. I've been on threads where the IEM frequency graph confounds people who actually listen to it. Manufacturer specifications sometimes don't make any sense either. The Havi B3 Pro 1 is rated at 32 Ohms, but I see no possible way for that to be true. The O2/ODAC measures spectacularly, and you will find Objective purists who swear by the impossibility that any other DAC/Amp setup near the price vicinity can match up to how the O2/ODAC sounds, but then there are also some who dismiss how it sounds (I actually love it for the most part 

). Who is right and wrong in this instance?

To me, the answer is clearly: none!

I think all of us are into this hobby need to acknowledge, that on the most fundamental level, the nature of audio is subjective. I don't configure my setups and plug in my IEMs to appreciate the astoundingly low levels of THD, or to marvel at the absolutely spectacular SNR. I'm here simply for the end goal of finding what pleases myself and my ears. So even though sound science and objective measurements to definitely have more credence than the flawed human senses, at the end of the day, we still listen to music through our flawed and 'fickle' ears don't we?

In short, as with most things, I believe that the truth lies somewhere in between, and that there is always room for both objective measurements and subjective findings. Someone who comes to me proclaiming that the DGS100 morphed into a total beast after 200 hours of burn in, and another person who runs to me with a graph which shows that there was a mere 0.01% in difference pre and post burn in will both capture my attention, and I'll certainly give weight to what both sides are saying, but I won't take either as the gospel truth.

Agreed with everything you said but your subjectivist vs. objectivist argument doesn't really fly with me since I too am a subjectivist - give me the flattest, most lowest distortion headphone/earphone you have and I'll prefer a more natural, more euphonic sound signature. 
...but what an objective approach helps clarify is the how much change is really occurring in drivers during burn-in. Now one's ears might colour the sound to register dramatic changes, whilst others might register slight changes, as we have seen in this thread. Some people are less prone to bias, some people are. Some people bought these IEM's on the promises that this will change dramatically over the course of 100 hours, if they don't experience this change then they may feel cheated or disappointed. Objective approaches help remove bias and overall provide a more substantial grounding to the community.

 

[TPGsanti]

Not disagreeing with you, I do think there are slight changes with burn-in. Few dB's here, a few dB's there etc. FR might smooth out a little but it's effects are greatly exaggerated. You can state all you want that an IEM underwent significant changes but there's a lack of distinction between mental perception of sound and actual physical, concrete perception of sound. What we have here is a sort of sheep mentality where one person will state that the IEM significantly changed in sound and then the following person will agree due to confirmation bias. Etc. etc. Next minute, there's a general concensus that this IEM changes dramatically due to burn-in. The brain is very tricky that way. Not saying it's anyone's fault, it's just the way we are.

Quite true. The burn in effect may vary ever so slight, but I do not discount that it can change greatly. I do believe it really depends on build. Another factor to take in is if the manufactures do a burn in prior to packaging and shipping. Though I doubt it considering the quantities being made.

I agree it's very easily to fall into this sheep mentality. but equally importantly is not to succumb to cynicism and disregard everything being simply a blind following the blind mentality.

I used to laugh as the concept of burn in too. my first few true IEMs were balance armatures, and they didn't change much, if at all, regardless of how many hours I put into it. Now, I still hold true to the belief that burn in is next to useless for BAs.

for DDs though, my experience have been vastly different. started off with my first couple of DD IEMs. they did indeed change with burn in. no, not the super drastic, transformation into a swan cliched kinda change, but enough for me to conclude that there was some, even if slight, change.

fast forward to the DGS100, my perception has changed even more. I still do not think the change in SQ is night and day, and I do acknowledge that at least some part of the difference can be attributed to psychological factors rather than actual change itself, but let's just say that it has proved to me that the magnitude of change which burn in can achieve is significantly larger than I previously thought.

As for a sheep mentally, yeah I can agree that this feeling is given from time to time here in the forums. Especially lately with this thread.

I was certain of getting these upon my return to Florida, but the impressions are very speratic as of late. The only interest I have with these now is to see about this burn in effect. I Just have a hard time believing in this drastic of a change.