[Brooko]

Dear friend,

According to the characteristic of the headphone, burning the new earphone for about 200 hours can make the horn diaphragm in the better working condition. But the burn in time is not a fixed value and you could determine by yourself.

Best regards

@FiiO - as I asked by email last time - if you are going to make these claims, please show measurements before and after of the changes burn-in makes. Otherwise I suggest you stop making these claims. I suspect your engineers know already that its just Marketing snake oil. You guys are better than this!

 

[nort ycagel]

The sound quality of these IEMs are heavily dependent on good isolation. In my experience, I've gotten the best sound when using MandarinE's Symbio W Eartips (hybrid silicone & foam tips). They're dense and isolate sound like foam tips but without bass attenuation due to the silicone shell. I would also recommend playing with the various tip types and sizes that came with the FH5. Before I got the Symbios, I used the large sized "balanced" tips to get the best sound even though I usually use medium size tips with other IEMs, like the FA7.

True, I'm finding some peace with the IT01 foam tips

 

[maira]

@FiiO - as I asked by email last time - if you are going to make these claims, please show measurements before and after of the changes burn-in makes. Otherwise I suggest you stop making these claims. I suspect your engineers know already that its just Marketing snake oil. You guys are better than this!

Do you think nothing exists that cant be measured? Maybe it´s possible in the future?

 

[Brooko]

We’ve known the basics of audio for years. We can measure frequency response, phase and distortion beyond our own limits of audibility. If break-in is so easy for us to hear - then why does it not show up in freq response or distortion? At the very least those two will show changes. Guess what - they don’t.

And look at what people say with the “perceived” changes. Always good. Always improved clarity, improved bass, better highs etc. how much of that do you think could happen without changing freq response and/or distortion?

 

[mhoopes]

We’ve known the basics of audio for years. We can measure frequency response, phase and distortion beyond our own limits of audibility. If break-in is so easy for us to hear - then why does it not show up in freq response or distortion? At the very least those two will show changes. Guess what - they don’t.

And look at what people say with the “perceived” changes. Always good. Always improved clarity, improved bass, better highs etc. how much of that do you think could happen without changing freq response and/or distortion?

Reminds me of a scene in Bull Durham:

Annie: I think probably with my love of four-legged creatures and hooves and everything, that in another lifetime I was probably Catherine the Great, or Francis of Assisi. I'm not sure which one. What do you think?
Crash: How come in former lifetimes, everybody is someone famous?
Crash: I mean, how come nobody ever says they were Joe Schmo?
Annie: Because it doesn't work that way, you fool!

Tyll Hertsens and RTINGS independently performed some instrumented tests on limited sample sets looking for evidence of driver break-in. Tyll didn't draw any conclusions, though his plots showed up to +/- 0.5 dB differences over time, increasing progressively. I'd argue that +/- 0.5 dB may fall within the margin of error (considering other factors such as progressive ear pad compression), and even if due to diaphragm compliance changes, is probably inaudible. I do know that my old AR91s sounded different when I replaced the foam surrounds about 18 years into their life. That would be an extreme example.

 

[expatriot]

So it would seem that since these perceived changes with burn-in can't be proved on paper, then I would think it is brain burn-in that a lot of people talk about?

 

[maira]

then I would think it is brain burn-in that a lot of people talk about?

I used different kinds of Sinus curves and white / pink noise. I didnt listen to that of course. So "brain burn-in" is not possible... .

 

[chupacabra314]

Brain burn-in is just a much more plausible explanation. Yes the speaker membrane can relax but the human brain is a super unreliable measurement tool so it will already have deep bias well before it can detect/acknowledge the relaxation. Read any behavioral psychology book.

I work in nanotechnology and the machines we make have to work with several nanometer (0.000001 mm) accuracy. Guess what - we don't burn them in in the factory and don't expect our customers to burn them in either.

 

[maira]

Brain burn-in is just a much more plausible explanation.

No it is not, as i explained in my previous post.

 

[expatriot]

maira: So I believe in brain burn-in but can't prove that it exists, and you believe in hard burn-in and can't prove that it exists, but your right and I'm wrong?

 

[sidecross]

Cable burn in is like theology where belief battles fact and an uncontested answer is not ever achieved.

 

[expatriot]

sidecross: How true

 

[domho7]

Any bros here gotten the FA7 also

 

[maira]

maira: So I believe in brain burn-in but can't prove that it exists, and you believe in hard burn-in and can't prove that it exists, but your right and I'm wrong?

Well, i think there is definitely something like "brain burn-in". But that is not the explanation for everything. So imho both do exist.

 

[mhoopes]

As long as I'm not required to rub blue mud in my navel, I don't mind if others do. Their perception is their reality.