[Snake]

People will believe what they always wish to believe, regardless of science or logic. Any new material, especially ones with elastic / plastic / electric properties, changes with the first usages. It's engineering fact.

Here's one I bet most people don't know - glass. When glass, glass, is first made it can be 5 times stronger than steel.

http://www.heartlandscience.org/matrls/windows.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=4&c=y

http://www.mutualindustries.com/comp...forcement.html

This is based upon, and due to, the molecular structure. However, even the best glass once it is touched weakens and continues to weaken to the eventual point of fracture. Our touching, our usage, and weathering of glass creates microfractures across the molecular bonds and weakens it.

So glass is considered "weak" by the average person, yet the engineering field knows better and is constantly trying to work with the material to bring that incredible strength to long-lasting usage in the common world.

Materials change.

Same with the materials used to manufacture audio components. Once used...they change. Sometimes "better", sometimes "worse". But they change - and we call that "burn in".

Simple.

 

[alfie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Same with the materials used to manufacture audio components. Once used...they change. Sometimes "better", sometimes "worse". But they change - and we call that "burn in". Simple.

That is the instrument you use, among others, to investigate headphone burning in phenomena. That could help you to explain it, to prove it. It does not prove it by itself.

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfie That is the instrument you use, among others, to investigate headphone burning in phenomena. That could help you to explain it, to prove it. It does not prove it by itself.

Unless headphones magically avoid the factual mathematics, as shown in engineering, of plastic/elastic materials deformation change I don't think headphones have yet altered the universal constant.

Nor entropy.

There is almost 100 years of engineering evidence to prove materials change based upon usage.

I don't see any reason, nor need, to prove anything myself. It's all there in black and white.

Unless headphones come with their own perpetual-powered statis field.

 

[swmtnbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Simple.

Then lets measure it, shall we?

The question here isn't whether or not materials change with use, it's whether or not those changes result in characteristics that are audible to the human ear.

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpippel Then lets measure it, shall we? The question here isn't whether or not materials change with use, it's whether or not those changes result in characteristics that are audible to the human ear.

As I have noted earlier in the thread, that's subject to a huge number of factors we can allow for. Sometimes "Yes! This thing burned in amazingly!" and other times "NO! This thing about burn in is squat!"

Depends upon the materials involved, the methods used, the length of time, the amount of energy (volume/music/et al) put in...and, of course, the person's individual ability to hear any possible difference or care about it.

But scientifically...burn in happens. How much? Good or bad? Sensed or unsensed? Cared for or not?

You decide.

 

[alfie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Unless headphones magically avoid the factual mathematics, as shown in engineering, of plastic/elastic materials deformation change I don't think headphones have yet altered the universal constant.

Maybe in a laboratory there is a computer with a file with a serious study about headphones burning in, where the theory you recall is applied and where for an ideal headphone and a couple of peculiar real ones, it describes the modifications till they reach an audible level. There could be as well a study that proves modifications never reach an audible level, which is not dependent on sources and amplification. The latter would be based on the very same scientific theories. There could be also a computer in a social science department with a study about "How people believe to listen to modifications in headphones", based on scientific (whatever scientific can be in social sciences) considerations and statistical models. I don't know which is more possible, but none would change what people (believe to) listen.

 

[swmtnbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake As I have noted earlier in the thread, that's subject to a huge number of factors we can allow for. Sometimes "Yes! This thing burned in amazingly!" and other times "NO! This thing about burn in is squat!" Depends upon the materials involved, the methods used, the length of time, the amount of energy (volume/music/et al) put in...and, of course, the person's individual ability to hear any possible difference or care about it. But scientifically...burn in happens. How much? Good or bad? Sensed or unsensed? Cared for or not? You decide.

I keep coming back to the same position - if it can be heard it can be measured and analyzed. But we have no measurements, we have no analysis, and we have no data on burn-in. It seems to exist only in the realms of faith and belief. How very, very strange.

This comment isn't necessarily directed at you Snake, but it amazes me that people who play the engineering card to bolster their argument that burn-in is real seem to care less about seeing some testing done to measure these changes. Test and measurement plays a HUGE role in the field of engineering, yet when discussing burn-in it always seems to get dismissed as either impossible or unnecessary. Amazing.

I should have realized from the start that this discussion would no different than any other discourse about the phenomenon of burn-in, but I allowed myself to get sucked into the black hole anyway. Not much sense in continuing.

 

[smeggy]

in 30 years of hi-fi I've never had any piece of gear that sounded any better after a month than when new with the exception of electrostatics which need a charge up first. I've never heard any cable that made two farts worth of difference unless there was something seriously wrong with them in the first place and I've never experienced a night and day difference due to either time or cables... not even a dawn and dusk difference. And that's good, it preserved my sanity and saved me a ton of cash.

People are free to spend whatever they like on whatever they like and as long as it makes them happy that's cool. I'll believe it when I hear it, after 30 years of not hearing it I doubt that's gonna happen anytime soon. Then again, I tend to listen to music rather than equipment so who knows, maybe I'm doing it wrong

EDIT
Yes, dpippel is correct, if you can hear a difference it can be measured. If the bass if fuller it can be measured, it the treble is more mellow it can be measured as these are all different sound characteristics and should *all* be measurable. End of story!

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeggy EDIT Yes, dpippel is correct, if you can hear a difference it can be measured. If the bass if fuller it can be measured, it the treble is more mellow it can be measured as these are all different sound characteristics and should *all* be measurable. End of story!

Only if you are measuring, and therefore looking, in the proper areas.

Do your measurements of non-burned in vs. burned in goods look at transient response? THD (+N)? Slew? Every possible factor???

No. They simply take a simple frequency sweep and proclaim themselves "Correct", don't they?

When will you people learn? How many years did audiophiles SWEAR they heard things going on, yet "tests" couldn't find those differences...until new tests were either conducted or invented outright?

Like a computer, tests only tell you what you are looking for. They don't tell you what you aren't.

Go for the laboratory test, I say - sounds great to me. But you'd better test EVERY single thing you can on planet Earth with every available test you've got, otherwise you're just blowing smoke up your own rear end to make yourself feel oh, so superior. That blowhard who did the web page on "burn in, myth or reality" did only one test - frequency - and proclaimed himself perfect teller of all Truths.

Yeah. Right.

It took decades for some engineers to figure out what was going on with materials. Decades! So don't run one test and say "Finished", please.

But I'll wait for the full tests, they sound cool to me. I would like to see (all) the results, too!

 

[swmtnbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Like a computer, tests only tell you what you are looking for. They don't tell you what you aren't.

 

[smeggy]

There is obviously dark magic involved, and that's an area I have no experience in so I will leave it here.

 

[Snake]

*sigh* I guess you're audiophile virgins, at least in absolute terms.

 

[swmtnbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake *sigh* I guess you're audiophile virgins, at least in absolute terms.

Yeah buddy, nothing like a little condescension to make you feel good about yourself. I'm *really* done with this thread now. Later.

 

[Zoobies]

My plans....fruition!

 

[Snake]

Heh heh.

These people don't remember the 80's, where audiophiles swore they heard differences in CD players but those who measured said "BULL! You're full of it! They all sound the same!"

Why? Because the tests they were running simply weren't good enough. Nobody had the ability to test for, what we know now, as "jitter". The test rigs did not have that level of resolution.

10 years later...jitter is discovered. And all of a sudden one of the reasons "audiophiles" preferred one unit over another is discovered, tested and accredited.

Bob Katz, the recording engineer, on jitter, digital and the vagueness of it all

Talking about Bob Katz, jitter, discovery and measurements (search "jitter" in the text)

Tests only test what they can and where they are directed to. No less...but no more.

I am SHOCKED that people here, "audiophiles", simply haven't learned that yet or forgot.

I say test for burn-in. What can you lose? But just make sure the tests are GOOD.

And if you needed a bit of condescension to remember lessons from the past you should remember, then, oh well...