[pp312]

"To say burn in is real because your headphones have changed with use is not a fair comparison. This doesn't eliminate the psychological component."

I don't expect people to study my posts but I wish a few people would at least read them. A couple of pages back I stated that I burn in phones by putting them in a box and playing white noise for a few hundred hours. Where's the "psychological" factor in that? I believe many burn-in believers don't listen to the phones during burn-in. Let's forget the psychological factor as a likely explanation.....unless of course you mean that when we come back to the phones we so much expect to hear an improvement that we actually hear one that isn't there. In that case I have no scientific answer. I can only say that if I pay $300 for a pair of phones, and they sound like crap, and I burn them in for a few hundred hours in another room, no amount of wishful thinking or psychological delusion is going to cause me to love them if they haven't improved out of sight.

 

[pp312]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielCox /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've got K701s. They're my favourite headphone and they sound the same now as they did the day I got them.

That's a shame.

 

[MomijiTMO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pp312 /img/forum/go_quote.gif "To say burn in is real because your headphones have changed with use is not a fair comparison. This doesn't eliminate the psychological component." I don't expect people to study my posts but I wish a few people would at least read them. A couple of pages back I stated that I burn in phones by putting them in a box and playing white noise for a few hundred hours. Where's the "psychological" factor in that? I believe many burn-in believers don't listen to the phones during burn-in. Let's forget the psychological factor as a likely explanation.....unless of course you mean that when we come back to the phones we so much expect to hear an improvement that we actually hear one that isn't there. In that case I have no scientific answer. I can only say that if I pay $300 for a pair of phones, and they sound like crap, and I burn them in for a few hundred hours in another room, no amount of wishful thinking or psychological delusion is going to cause me to love them if they haven't improved out of sight.

You have them in the box. There is a time delay and you are comparing them with your memory. It's not a proper comparison. My point was this. Then you as you said, your expectations might influence your hearing but it's impossible to do a direct comparison for obvious reasons. In fact if you did listen to them through the burn in phase, the change would be gradual and you'll be a sceptic.

I have no answers either but believe and value your own experiences. I don't doubt that you initially hated them and then began to enjoy them after a period of time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pp312 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's a shame.

I don't get that reply. It can be interpreted that he's missing out on something OR that his hearing is lacking.


Going back to a point I brought up earlier. Is there anyone who liked a headphone, only to hate them after burn in? It's only logical that if they did change that this could happen.

 

[estreeter]

For those who havent waded through this entire thread, should the test subject have listened to the 'burned-in' cans or not ? To my way of thinking, it would be ideal if said subject had never even seen either pair of cans and thought they were actually evaluating two different sources .... its only then that you *might* get comments like 'B sounded pretty much the same a A to me - are these both from the same company ?'

 

[MomijiTMO]

What I am going to do is buy another k701 later on and get some Headfiers from Brisbane to meet me to test. I'd do it now but I need to get over 100+ hours on my k701s. Heck I'll try and get 200+ by leaving them on playing songs.

 

[DanielCox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sampson_smith /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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...(etc)

Why are you ignoring one of the basic tenants of science? You don't assume something exists because of an absence of evidence proving it does not.
You're quite right about me calling it rubbish though - that's an opinion formed from my own personal knowledge and thoughts - it doesn't change the fact that no-one here can state burn in exists, there simply isn't the evidence to show that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pp312 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's a shame.

I disagree.

 

[VALIENTE]

I believe in burn-in. My Grado SR60 dramatically changes its sound quality for every hour or hours of playing music in my head. I never use "pink noise" cos I want to experience the changing of sound quality. I never leave my headphones out of my head when I play music. This "burn in" is really true based on my experience. And I do enjoy the "burn-in process".

And to add, I need to experience the "burn in" of AKG K701 which I plan to buy in the next few months. I assume that this AKG K701 would be a longer experience of "burn-in" than my Grado SR60.

 

[pp312]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MomijiTMO /img/forum/go_quote.gif You have them in the box. There is a time delay and you are comparing them with your memory. It's not a proper comparison. My point was this. Then you as you said, your expectations might influence your hearing but it's impossible to do a direct comparison for obvious reasons. In fact if you did listen to them through the burn in phase, the change would be gradual and you'll be a sceptic. I have no answers either but believe and value your own experiences. I don't doubt that you initially hated them and then began to enjoy them after a period of time.

No. Actually I hated them initially and still don't like them, as they're too bright and lean for me. But initially they were unlistenable, and after two hundred hours they'd become a viable alternative for someone who liked that kind of sound. The change wasn't subtle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MomijiTMO /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't get that reply. It can be interpreted that he's missing out on something OR that his hearing is lacking.

My remark was tongue-in-cheek. To me the 701 sounds like crap out of the box. He said his 701 sounds the same as when he got; therefore it must still sound like crap. Which is a shame.

 

[Mink]

Ok, I change my vote in a definite Yes.
With some albums my D5000's initially showed some treble peaks (nothing really nasty, but still not elegant) and when those peaks disappeared I was positive my X-Can was responsible for the smoother highs.

But today I did a simple test, I played the same track "The Good Hand" by Woven Hand over my X-Can and my Marantz PM7200.

From the moment I got my D5000's there were some treble peaks which I thought would be permanent, when Dave Eugene Edwards sings: "a heavy drone a heavy Ssssway girl I love to Ssssee you Ttttalk that way", the treble pierced slightly, with reverb to the right, like an echo, which made it stood out, not integrated, not even smeared out in the overall sound, it was like an instrument of its own.

This treble peak is no longer there.
And no, it's not because I got used to it.

The same with some Beatles tracks from the remasterd album 1
Help and Ticket to Ride, both showed some peaks in the treble, ("and I do apprecSSSiaTTT you being round")
Gone.

 

[Drubbing]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1Time /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

O'Rly?

So you get one devout Catholic in a room full of agnostics, and that proves the existence of a God (or burn in), does it, according to these study parameters?

What I can't believe is that there's a new thread on burn in here every week, and the same stuff is thrown around ad nauseam.

I have my opinion and until I EXPERIENCE something different for MYSELF (I couldn't give a stuff about anyone else's 'proof'), so my opinion won't change, nor do I expect to change those of the opposite opinion.

What is offensive is people arching up with arrogance and assumed superiority, in order to try and achieve this.

 

[TempestX]

Voted yes for break-in. Diaphragms change with time, but I believe the biggest changes occur within the first 24-48 hrs, with more changes out to 100-120 hrs. However, depending on how the diaphragms are made, material used, size, and stiffness, some may fall within said given range or longer.

I also believe there is some mental acceptance of certain signatures of headphones/speakers that take place as well. In essence, headphones are small speakers on your head/ears. Talking full-size headphones here not armatures or the micro buds or in-ears.

Some believe, some don't, but it is your ears and your mental acceptance of what you hear that only you can answer if you heard changes or not.


Happy listening!

 

[sampson_smith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielCox /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why are you ignoring one of the basic tenants of science? You don't assume something exists because of an absence of evidence proving it does not. You're quite right about me calling it rubbish though - that's an opinion formed from my own personal knowledge and thoughts - it doesn't change the fact that no-one here can state burn in exists, there simply isn't the evidence to show that.

It's pretty clear that you failed to understand my posts, Daniel. As I've stated my thoughts with due clarity previously, I won't bother to spoon-feed the relevant information to you that you have misinterpreted. I am not interested in schooling you, as that would require a degree of aptness on your part. You seem rather content with your own opinions and that, right now, is fine with me.

 

[DanielCox]

Of course I'm content with my own opinions - what I'm not getting is how you can claim burn-in to be plausible because there isn't any evidence either way. That's not how it works.

 

[MadMan007]

How can you say there's no evidence either way? Just because it's anecdotal doesn't make it not evidence.

 

[sampson_smith]

If you are confirming that you believe that there is a lack of evidence, either way, why are you so quick to offer biased and unfounded opinions, Daniel? Given that burn-in has not been adequately proven or disproved, it is right to assume that the phenomenon existing or not existing is plausible. That is its definition. There is no arguing this. (I am aware, MadMan, that there is some evidence on both sides of the table, but this is mainly based on here-say and not quantifiable observations that fall in the "scientific" realm.)

Also, at no point have I stated that scientific discourse has proven that burn-in exists. I have also been perfectly clear that I am bipartisan when it comes to whether or not burn-in is real, in the most objective sense. This is the product of watching much discourse on the subject over the last few months. It is clearly very difficult to be sure, and I can only say that, subjectively, I have got the inkling that it has happened to some of the new headphones I have owned over the first 100 hrs. or so.