Did I quote the part about subs? No, I quoted your claims about headphones, where such a thing has never been measured and which was based entirely on your subjective impressions. My reading was fine
I also said I had no reason to doubt the test results as given. To maintain the belief that there is no burn in in objective fact requires that there are no exceptions.
Please examine other sources re: subwoofers that coincide with my results. After you do that in the spirit of honest inquiry, please come back and report.
I also said I had no reason to doubt the test results as given. To maintain the belief that there is no burn in in objective fact requires that there are no exceptions.
Please examine other sources re: subwoofers that coincide with my results. After you do that in the spirit of honest inquiry, please come back and report.
The question here is not burn-in in subwoofers, it’s burn-in regarding headphone drivers. These are very similar technologies, but not the same in terms of size, materials or construction, so the existence of burn-in in one does not prove the existence of burn-in in the other.
The question here is not burn-in in subwoofers, it’s burn-in regarding headphone drivers. These are very similar technologies, but not the same in terms of size, materials or construction, so the existence of burn-in in one does not prove the existence of burn-in in the other.
Sorry can’t accept that premise. Dynamic headphones in particular in these bass head days are fed input in the bass even under 20 hz making them smaller than usual subwoofers in effect. A dividing line between the two is illusory.
In the world of reality, materials age and change under stimulus it’s axiomatic. The materials and construction are not wholly different between the two - there are a set where they coincide, and it substantial.
UPD2. I personally don't believe in burin-in, it's just this subject was raised in my recent conversation with a friend, and I decided to see some test data.
Well I respect both camps of burn-in believers and detractors, whatever works for you. But I've personally never heard burn-in save a lousy IEM to transform it to a 5/5 IEM.
Sorry can’t accept that premise. Dynamic headphones in particular in these bass head days are fed input in the bass even under 20 hz making them smaller than usual subwoofers in effect. A dividing line between the two is illusory.
In the world of reality, materials age and change under stimulus it’s axiomatic. The materials and construction are not wholly different between the two - there are a set where they coincide, and it substantial.
Then the change should be directly measurable in headphones too, not reliant on subjective impressions or inferences from other applications.
And the question isn't simply whether material change over time, it's under what timeframe and conditions they change and whether they change to an extent that would result in audible differences within the range of human hearing. Many "burn-in" claims are notably vague and esoteric, but people will also make specific claims about things like the highs smoothing or bass becoming more controlled, that should be testable.
I don't know if I believe in burn in, but I do believe in brain burn in. It takes some time for your brain to adjust to the sound, and I think that might account for a lot of the reasons why people hear a change.
And the question isn't simply whether material change over time, it's under what timeframe and conditions they change and whether they change to an extent that would result in audible differences within the range of human hearing. Many "burn-in" claims are notably vague and esoteric, but people will also make specific claims about things like the highs smoothing or bass becoming more controlled, that should be testable.
I have no trouble with the very real criticism of subjective opinions, expectation bias, ego, and placebo among other things that have no or only vague association to objective reality in many if not more cases. I’ve piled on that plenty of times - but there are exceptions.
Let’s look at the predominance of FR graphs and the Harman curve in the world of headphones - as if that’s the key to nirvana. What about testing multiple frequencies at the same time - no room for IM distortion? What about passing square waves, driver Q, fundamental resonance freq, CSD, and more. I’m pretty sure with a PEQ with say 15 bands a HE-6SE could be shaped to be within .25 db of a TH900 mk2 from 20-20 kHz, Think they cant’t be told apart? The tests you reference didn’t cover all the audible permutations.
The senses are all subjective. Music can only be experienced that way. Double blind testing removes a lot of biases. Audio equipment cannot exist without a lot of engineering and testing. Recording techniques do not capture the reality of music. Like many other multi-factorial issues trying to find a model that tracks reality is a valid pursuit. But the conceit that the model is known is as pernicious as those that believe the king with no clothes is resplendent.
I'm much more eager to believe in earpad break-in before driver burn-in. Anyone who's ever swapped out some old pads for a fresh new pair of OEM pads can attest to the stark difference pads make. Even just a fraction of a millimeter change in foam squish means a significant percentage change of air volume inside the chamber on your ear. Plus, over time the pads absorb oils from your hair/skin and that likely influences the acoustic properties, as well. Maybe even environmental humidity variation changing the moisture content of the foam could have an impact.
I've never seen any evidence for headphone driver burn-in that can't more simply be explained by either pad variance or even just driver variance. And even if I were to be generous and suggest burn-in changes are measurable, that still doesn't mean they're meaningful
The so called burn-in or break-in applies to me every time my ears have adjusted to the sound. This break-in is an on going thing in my life, because every time I switch from one pair to another it starts all over again
But when I remove my 'adjusting to the sound' out of this break-in concept I have only experienced a worsening of the sound over a period of time, never any improvement. My AudioQuest NightHawks have come brighter and brighter over the years. The sound I fell in love with isn't there any more. Not that they sound like crap, but their non-fatiguing character is gone.
Looking at the paper referenced above, I noted several things that I might take issue with.
It's dated 2011. I suspect material and design science has evolved a bit since this was published.
The is no mention I saw of what the spiders were made of or the size. Other than speaker a and speaker b, no mention of just what speakers were the test subject.
I will take issue of the assumption that a speaker of some size will relate to headphones. Also there's a issue with planar drivers which have no spider.
So no, I didn't find the study useful...
Well I respect both camps of burn-in believers and detractors, whatever works for you. But I've personally never heard burn-in save a lousy IEM to transform it to a 5/5 IEM.
Well as I said above, the measured changes from more involved analysis are not in the frequency response, but in the compliance. So this is interesting, but not helpful in proving anything.
Burn-in is subtle, but if something sounds pretty good, it tends to get better, depending on materials.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
