[Lorentz]

Did anyone seriously not ever bother doing a scientific experiment of buying two brand new headphones, burn only one in for a hundred hours or more, then play the same music/sound/whatever over both, record the output, and analyze how they differ?

Someone ought to.

 

[MomijiTMO]

I believe people have and it's still split. Even then, it's not scientific per se. You'd have to test people whom have never heard either. A large sample size would make it fairly conclusive but then again you'd have to have people whom know about audio. There is a good chance that they have already made up an opinion on burn in. So it's near impossible to prove that burn in exists or doesn't exists due to the above reasons.

 

[Mink]

I voted no, because I don't believe in 'dramatical' changes.
That said, my D5000's sound better and better the more I listen to them, break-in?
I am not sure.

 

[DanielCox]

I've got K701s. They're my favourite headphone and they sound the same now as they did the day I got them.

 

[tvrboy]

Forgot to say: if burn-in is real, we should expect some headphones to get better and some to get worse. Why are there no reports of headphones getting WORSE after burn-in? Seems at least one headphone model among the hundreds out there would have this characteristic, but no, every single one just gets better and better... maybe if you burn them in for 10,000 hours your HD-555 will be better than a brand new HD-800. Or so some people would have you think...

Of course burn-in happens to some extent, the driver will change, every moving part wears out at some rate. But I seriously doubt those changes are audible.

 

[Crazy*Carl]

A "dramatic change" to an audiophile is barely notable to an average listener.

 

[gbacic]

Burn-in for headphones probably isn't as dramatic as burn in for tubes. Even less noticeable (I don't think it even happens) is cable break-in.

 

[Happy Camper]

Subtle not dramatic. To those who are curious, go to meets. There you have the same models with various hours use and an audience to try it. My K701s had a few thousand hours, another member had his new K702s.

 

[carledwards]

I believe that some change does occur over time. Whether or not it's "dramatic" may have more to do with the listener's level of obsessiveness than the physical changes in the hardware as it ages. I also believe there's a strong element of psychological getting-used-to-it at work here, too.

 

[omigawsh_lollercoaster]

In general I believe it's possible, I don't think I've heard any yet.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wadia 521 manual Careful listeners will notice that the sound of the Wadia 521 Decoding Computer will improve steadily after the unit is powered-up.

http://www.wadia.com/service/ownersm...521_Manual.pdf

:can o' worms icon:

 

[1Time]

I mean it really is laughable. How do people actually not get this?

If there is no significant audible difference between 2 brand new headphones, and then later there is a significant difference after only using 1 of those headphones... how can anyone not declare with certainty that they just witnessed the phenomenon known as burn-in?

And what's just as laughable is those declaring dis-believe in or out right non-existence of burn-in just because they have not witnessed it. It's like saying I don't believe men walked on the moon because I haven't walked on the moon... LOL. Or here's another, I don't believe the earth is round until I personally navigate myself all the way around it, and I'm not going to try to do so because I know it is flat and I don't want to fall of the edge.

I know if I was needing to do a study and write a paper for school or college, one on burn-in would be my choice.

Here's a simple study. Of course you can make it more scientific if desired. Buy 2 headphones of 1 model that is commonly known to be affected by burn-in and 2 more headphones of another model that is commonly known to not be affected by burn-in. Then, compare them from when new with 1 or more persons other than yourself in a blind test. And then compare them as described in my post below.

Your findings will show conclusively that burn-in can be perceived between new and used headphones. Simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1Time /img/forum/go_quote.gif All one needs to do is take two new headphones (or pieces of audio equipment) that are the same model. Play one of them for "X" length of time. And then play both of them one right after the other and compare. Then repeat this process "Y" times. The results will be either a perceptible difference or not.

 

[sampson_smith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielCox /img/forum/go_quote.gif I like to keep it short and sweet. I live my life by science - there isn't any evidence for burn-in at the moment so for now my opinion will not differ until I am contradicted. I can offer theories as to why it doesn't or does exist but these are all dressing around a single important fact that there is a lack of evidence. If people dropped by the sound science forum more there would probably be more detailed explanations for their reasons.

If there is lack of evidence that burn-in does occur, then it stands to reason that there is lack of evidence that it does not. I also live my life "by science" as I am a scientist. That said, although I am agnostic, you can compare your previous statement to the following:

"I live my life by religion - there isn't any evidence for the absence of God at the moment, so for now my opinion that he/she exists will not change until I am proved otherwise."

vs.

"I live my life by science - there isn't any evidence for the presence of a god yet, so for now my opinion that one or more do not actually exist will not change until this is scientifically found to be false."

***

Based on the fact that in the above cases, there is no experiment stated to empirically observe the presence or absence of the "phenomenon" being debated, neither side can safely say they are right. Until there is a proper method that can be implemented and can confirm or disprove the absence and presence of burn-in, you cannot call it "rubbish". Nor can I say that it is a certainty. We can have faith in what we hold stock in, but that is the farthest we can take this argument (for now).

 

[1Time]

Wrong. Not trying to pick on just this one Head-Fier, because there are plenty of posts / statements already in this thread that just don't float. But I haven't the time to address them all, so I will address this one as an example.

First of all subjects (persons) in a study do not need to be in unanimous agreement to prove whether burn-in exists. You actually only need 1 person out of several being tested who can repeatedly and without error distinguish the sound between new and used sets of headphones. And that proves the existence of burn-in. Of course it is much more likely more than 1 person would be able to do this if the number of subjects is high and the model of headphones used is commonly known to be affected by burn-in. Those unable to distinguish one pair of headphones from another in the test, simply prove that some people don't have an ear for such differences, for whatever reason. And those reasons are irrelevant to the fact that the other subjects can repeatedly, statistically, and scientifically prove that burn-in happens and can be perceived. Therefore, it exists. Those who cannot perceive it of course do not prove that it does not exist. Just like those who have not walked on the moon do not prove that men never walked on the moon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MomijiTMO /img/forum/go_quote.gif I believe people have and it's still split. Even then, it's not scientific per se. You'd have to test people whom have never heard either. A large sample size would make it fairly conclusive but then again you'd have to have people whom know about audio. There is a good chance that they have already made up an opinion on burn in. So it's near impossible to prove that burn in exists or doesn't exists due to the above reasons.

 

[sampson_smith]

In order for something to be safely proven, the experiment needs to be repeatable. And repeated ad nauseum to be absolutely confident. Regardless of whether one carries out the successful experiments or not, you would have to amicably agree until proven otherwise. To disprove something, however, you need far fewer results. "Will this brick soar away from my hand and into the sky when I release it?" *Watches brick fall to floor with a crash* "I can firmly believe it will not in future instances. Heavy, inanimate objects do not fly."

 

[JaZZ]

I believe in audible break-in and burn-in effects. But headphones don't «dramatically change their frequency response», as measurements show. There must be another factor in play.

Personally I favor harmonic distortion: Softening of suspension and/or membrane leads to a smoother (less jagged) membrane movement. That's why break-in is usually coupled with sonic improvement.

I voted «yes» anyway.
.