[spinali]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sampson_smith /img/forum/go_quote.gif What's the difference between "break-in" and "burn-in", exactly? Sounds derivative to me. Just read the first bit there and their definition of "burn-in" is not what most people on this forum describe/understand it to be. Who are these people and why should we put stock in the aforementioned article? I think I'll stick with "burn-in", which we can use interchangeably with "break-in" - the exact same thing - if one really must.

True, most people regard "burn-in" and "break-in" as the same thing. And worrying about shades of meaning may seem unnecessary.

But as the article sited mentions, burn-in is used to describe the process wherein components are tested for quality control - like LCD monitors. Break-in describes the physical changes of use, like breaking in a pair of shoes. It may seem like splitting hairs, but burn-in is irrelevant to headphones; but break-in describes the physical effects of use.

If you're interested in defining why break-in happens, it's more illuminating and accurate to describe it in terms of break-in. However, most people use a less formal vocabulary to describe the process.

 

[sampson_smith]

Given the fact that 99% of people here use the two terms interchangeably or just use "burn-in", I am going to disregard the "testing for quality control" definition. It doesn't serve a purpose in the realm of headphones and their drivers, more specifically. Whenever burn-in is debated, people frequently say that it is synonymous with breaking something in. So, generally, people debate about whether or not the driver's membrane is affected/changed physically with prolonged use, leading to noticeable changes in the sound signature of the headphones. This is "burn-in", and it is the result of something being broken-in over prolonged exposure to forces imposed on it.

Glad that we are seeing more proponents for and evidence of this interesting phenomenon, anyway.

 

[BOgdncrsti]

The burn in don't exist.

 

[sithompson]

How do people know their headphones have done X hours? Do people keep logs? I'm interested because I have been told that my new AKG 701's require a lot of burn in. I don't think I'll be hooking them up to pink/white noise or leaving them to run and run – I'm just going to be using them as and when, so I've no idea when I'll hit these magic numbers.

 

[spinali]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sampson_smith /img/forum/go_quote.gif Given the fact that 99% of people here use the two terms interchangeably or just use "burn-in", I am going to disregard the "testing for quality control" definition. It doesn't serve a purpose in the realm of headphones and their drivers, more specifically.

Agreed, most people posting here use the terms "burn-in" and "break-in" interchangeably.

For me, it makes more sense to aim for a technical definition rather than a colloquial one. One can claim to "burn-in" a pair of headphones...but headphones don't burn in. In the same way, it would be awkward to say you're "burning-in" a pair of shoes. One breaks in shoes, or headphones. (Similarly, with computer hard drives, many people misuse the general term "memory," when in fact they mean "storage.")

The reason for using the different terms makes more sense when you're trying to explain why break-in happens. The diaphragms don't burn in, but mechanically break in over time. That's supposedly why the changes in new headphones happen. Then again, if you disbelieve in break-in/burn-in, I guess it doesn't matter which term you use.

 

[sampson_smith]

I totally agree, spinali. Thanks for the detailed break-down. After sleeping on it, I'm inclined to stop splitting hairs and encourage the use of "break-in" instead of "burn-in". Let's see how may burn-in disbelievers change their tune when we trip them up with semantics!

 

[omigawsh_lollercoaster]

They mature like a fine wine.

And it's not plastic it's space age material mmmkay?

 

[kchew]

I've experienced improvements with burn-in on some of my equipment. The K701 showed the biggest improvement; I had heard my friends pair with 1000 hours and I was blown away, but I was pretty disgusted with my pair when I first got them. They really mellowed after 300 hours, sounding less shrill and more smooth. Surprisingly, my ES3X customs also improved with burn-in, despite the belief that balanced-armature drivers do not need burn-in.

I did not detect any changes to my amps and DAC over time though. And I had the chance to try a brand new AKG K242HD against my well used K240 Studio. They have the same drivers so I was curious if they would sound the same despite the difference in age. They did.

 

[brendon]

Well I am a strong believer in burn in as ALL but one of my earphones and headphones have had their sound changed dramatically after a few days of burn-in.

The biggest difference was in the Sennheiser HD201 headphones. My friend gave them to me to listen since he hated the sound. When I first listened to them for about 2 hours I did not like the sound - too much sibilance and the mids were recessed. \

Plus I could not drive them properly with my BlackBerry phone.

I then burned them in for about 48 hours without listening to them and I felt the sound had changed quite a bit after the burn-in - very little sibilance, mids were no longer recessed and most strangely the phones were now driven with ease on the BlackBerry !!! (I have no clue if burn in did that. But I found the volume to be very low before burn in and after burn in the volume was nice and audible)

I gave them back to my friend and he too mentioned that they sounded 'different' and said he liked how they sounded now.

Even with my Sennhiser HD650, they were very hard to drive initially and only with my home amp. I did not actively burn in the headphones (i.e. I just used them when I listened to music) and I have now found out that they are driven with even portable sources rather easily ! (I haven't been able to differentiate any sonic differences but they seem to be far easier to drive now.)

The biggest difference however is the Hippo VB. You can see in the thread here - http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f103/h...rience-455564/

that I had a huge sibilance problem initially, I could barely listen to them for a few minutes as the sound was very harsh. Now after about 50 hours burn in, I can listen to them for hours together ! Now dont tell me my ears were playing tricks on me and I imagined the sibilance that was overtly present before and now my ears are 'accustomed' to sibilance even though I did not listen to the earphones during the burn-in process.

Its probable that the people who dont believe in burn in have headphones that do not change much with burn in. One example is my Pro2 PH-1000 LE headphones. I have used them for over a year and yet I cannot differentiate the sound from a new pair.

 

[brendon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamaster /img/forum/go_quote.gif Really! I can't believe people still vote for "No". Every pice of audio gear I had benefit from burn-in. Even my ipod and headphone adapter. cable, amp, and headphone/speakers need burn-in the most. Seens like the more hight end gear you get, the more burn-in needed. upto 100~200 hours. I did notice digital gear need far far less burn-in than analog gear or any at all. I tried use cardas golden referece cable (used for 3 years) on my SONY HD TV, picture looks the same when I swap to a well made PS Audio botton of line $45 PC( Brand new). There may be difference, but maybe so little I don't even notice at all.

In my experience that was not entirely true. I bought a $12 Soundmagic PL-12 (including shipping to my house from China) and was about to throw it into the dustbin after listening to it for a few minutes. There was no treble to speak of. Mids were okayish, soundstage was very narrow and bass was totally non existent. Before throwing it out I decided to burn it in just for kicks (I never believed in burning my equipment before I got the PL-12). The sound changed dramatically after 20 - 30 hours or so. (Treble got a minor boost, mids sounded the same, but the bass improved quite a bit and had some much needed punch and the soundstage improved by leaps and bounds)

I tried burning them for another 40 - 50 hours more but I could not perceive any difference in sound beyond the initial 20-30 hours.

The Pl-12 and Hippo VB were the only earphones which had a dramatic change in sound. The others RE-1, PL-30 and Sennheiser earbuds (cant remember the model no) improved noticeably but no where as much as the PL-12.

So in my experience whatever difference burn-in made was most noticeable after 20 hours or so. Whatever additional difference there could have been were lost by my plastic (as opposed to golden) ears.

 

[Drubbing]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brendon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well I am a strong believer in burn in as ALL but one of my earphones and headphones have had their sound changed dramatically after a few days of burn-in. Even with my Sennhiser HD650, they were very hard to drive initially and only with my home amp. I did not actively burn in the headphones (i.e. I just used them when I listened to music) and I have now found out that they are driven with even portable sources rather easily ! (I haven't been able to differentiate any sonic differences but they seem to be far easier to drive now.)

Guff. Burn in, even if it exists, does not make hard to drive phones easier to drive. If a driver requires power to move them and deliver their potential, burn in doesn't 'fix' that.

 

[brendon]

I do not have ANY scientific evidence or graphs to disprove your statement but I do trust my ears on that front. There was very little bass and the volume was rather low when I first ventured to try the HD650 with the BlackBerry & they sounded rather bad compared to how they sounded when paired with my home amp.

However 6 months down the line when I again used the HD650 with the BlackBerry and I found that the bass quantity and quality were improved and the volume had increased to comfortable listening levels. Whether the BlackBerry had somehow increased its output or the HD650 really burned in I have no idea but this anomaly repeated itself with the Head-direct RE1 IEMs.

Earlier they were really hard to drive with any portable device. I used to max out the volume on my ipod 6G to get comfortable listening volume on the RE1. After a thorough burn-in (around 50 hours or so) I found the RE1s to be too loud at max volume !

Whats the explanation I don't know but this is what I have experienced. Since the only thing I did differently the first time I used the RE1 was to burn them in I concluded that burn-in made the RE1 somehow easier to drive.

 

[1Time]

Again, read and attempt to understand what I wrote in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MomijiTMO /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's not that clear cut. You require multiple positive results to categorically state that burn in is very real and dramatic. This eliminates the psychological component of burn in which I feel you don't weight in your decision process. As stated in my posts, I'll definitely be doing the test. I have to buy brand spanking new k701s next year and compare them to my burned in headphones. If I can hear a difference then I'll believe in burn in as per my own experiences. If I don't hear a difference then whatever change happens is something I cannot detect. Either result is not a definitive verdict on the issue but at least I can argue the point. 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'll be getting someone to put different headphones on my head and it's up to me to pick which k701 is used. Even then, I'm sure I'll still know because the used ones will probably be more comfortable but I'm hoping it's not that obvious. Ideally, I don't want to be able to tell the difference. I might just but new pads and whack them on the old ones so I can't tell.

 

[pp312]

Speaking of failure to address what was written, those who keep mentioning the psychological effect in all this (in the sense of getting used to the sound) are not addressing those of us who break in our phones without listening to them (which also scotches the "the pads wear in with use" theory). How do we get used to the sound when we're not listening to it?

 

[bdr529]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pp312 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Speaking of failure to address what was written, those who keep mentioning the psychological effect in all this (in the sense of getting used to the sound) are not addressing those of us who break in our phones without listening to them (which also scotches the "the pads wear in with use" theory). How do we get used to the sound when we're not listening to it?

You don't listen to it for a few days, forget exactly how it sounded. Also expecting or even "knowing" how will sound better because of what someone said you should be hearing.

...maybe