SilentFrequency
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2014
- Posts
- 788
- Likes
- 44
I'd say... pretty much what @castleofargh
did. Perhaps slightly different in inconsequential places.
Burn in makes sense from a physical standpoint... where the properties of a material that's exposed to constant changes in kinetic energy (in this case, the diaphragm) will change over time. Pretty much like a rock sitting in a river bed eventually gets worn away by the current. Though it may not take that long...
But the problem is... if someone never liked the tonal response of a headphone to begin with, then they would be much less inclined to like it again even after burn in. If they end up doing so, it's probably either a full moon, with the right mood, and some fine wine... or well, their taste in sound changed.
I'll cite myself as an example... I have heard the HD800 on many occasions... and I think I have heard one that is just fresh new out of the box, one that has been in use for years (note: more than 250 hours), one that has been modded, etc... and... I still don't quite end up liking it by that much. The change in my preference for the HD800 is probably proportional to the change in its sound due to burn in, which is pretty minimal.
Maybe what you refer to there is not what somebody may regard as "burn in" but rather normal wear and tear, which by its own opens another question that could be, what is the time span of a headphone diaphragm before past its best?
And as you example the hd800 (which I own personally and think is great) then if the "erosion" is slow over a period of time then the user is maybe less inclined to be aware of this change occurring in the first place whereas if "burn in" as is currently thought by some to actually exist in new products then they would almost certainly be aware of such a change?
And this is why I personally think "burn in" is maybe incorrect as it does neither the manufacturer or the consumer any favours.