Like in all other hobbies, there is a rather simple rule of thumb:
You should preferably get your information from peeps that aren’t trying to sell you anything.
If the sound changes after manufacturing, the QC process is unreliable.
A driver that potentially changes when it's delivered to the customer is an unstable variable and shouldn't exist. Especially for expensive products.
There is also something inherantly nonsensical about ‘burn-in’ as it always turns out for the better. If this myth had any substantial merit behind it we would see just as many rapports where it manifested itself in a poor manner.
…but no every headphone always seems to get better with more burn-in….which leads us to a rather simple conclusion: nothing happens in the headphone outside of pad wear..yet the listener has over time slowly adapted to the new presentation.
Audio voodoo or simple logic? You decide for yourself. I know what I believe
I'm much for the "brain adjusting" standpoint, the brain can do very large adjustments and on top of that we have placebo. It's easy too be fooled in the audio business.
Every acoustics technology depends on moving parts. Almost every moving technology needs some time to adjust before it gets to its optimal performance. If somebody is telling, this is not true with speakers or headphones, he just simply doesn't have enough knowledge.
There is also something inherantly nonsensical about ‘burn-in’ as it always turns out for the better. If this myth had any substantial merit behind it we would see just as many rapports where it manifested itself in a poor manner.
There will be examples of when people returned headphones (or sold them) because after whatever 'burn-in' is they preferred the headphone as it was rather than that into which it changed. Although this case is probably dwarfed by the numbers of people who prefer the sound after a while. If one owned another headphone which was one's only headphone for years, then one's new model arrives with all that one's read and researched about it stored in mind. It's easy then to initially dislike the new model: it clamps, the earpads are stiff, there's distortion from one of the drivers etc. Multiple headphone ownership further complicates this.
Let’s be real here: there are far bigger differences in sound quality in everyday usage of headphones simply because we position them marginally different from time to time.
Hearing whatever mechanical changes at these minuscule levels is comparable to studying moon rocks lying on the moon….from the safety of your garden via your reading glasses. Absurd.
People vastly overrate their hearing…and very few counter them because most folks in this hobby dive head first into “the science” provided by manufacturers instead of turning to professional sound engineers that do not sell anything. There is a huge shift in goalposts there.
Try the Sound Science part of the forum. People there are actually very nice providing you leave your ego at the door
It is generally a very controversial topic and everyone should do what they think is right.
Many do not hear the difference when it is new and after 100-200 hours.
Which is understandable.
Because you can only remember how you had it in your head.
The euphoria also plays a role after putting it on and the first sounds where everything is wow.
That's why it's mostly very difficult and controversial.
That's also the case with loudspeakers.
If you really wanted to test it, you would have to take a new one and one that has already been running and then compare.
I think that there are also differences, that manufacturers have a better grip on it and that the tolerances are tighter than usual.
With the Lcd 2 c I have to say I didn't feel too much, if anything it was subtle.
With the Aeon R/T, on the other hand, it was clearly different, where 200 h was already different.
I found the first hours up to 100 the most noticeable, mainly in the bass range.
In general, I would run them for a minimum of 20-30 hours at low volume with breaks in between.
But it's not a must, everyone does it their own way and has their own opinion.
I do it for purely principle reasons where I test the functionality and get to know it.
It is generally a very controversial topic and everyone should do what they think is right.
Many do not hear the difference when it is new and after 100-200 hours.
Which is understandable.
Because you can only remember how you had it in your head.
The euphoria also plays a role after putting it on and the first sounds where everything is wow.
That's why it's mostly very difficult and controversial.
That's also the case with loudspeakers.
If you really wanted to test it, you would have to take a new one and one that has already been running and then compare.
I think that there are also differences, that manufacturers have a better grip on it and that the tolerances are tighter than usual.
With the Lcd 2 c I have to say I didn't feel too much, if anything it was subtle.
With the Aeon R/T, on the other hand, it was clearly different, where 200 h was already different.
I found the first hours up to 100 the most noticeable, mainly in the bass range.
In general, I would run them for a minimum of 20-30 hours at low volume with breaks in between.
But it's not a must, everyone does it their own way and has their own opinion.
I do it for purely principle reasons where I test the functionality and get to know it.
Manufacturers aren't immune to confirmation bias or believing audiophile myths themselves. They're just people. Also, they have a monetary reason to push the burn-in process, because it means fewer returned headphones, so they can hardly be considered a neutral party,
If it was real, something like a difference in "sub-bass presence" would be easily measurable, yet as far as I know no-one has ever measured "burn-in" for headphones that showed anything beyond normal variations within the margin of error depending on position on the measurement rig or other factors. If there is a perceived change I think it's most likely just normal changes in subjective listening experience based on time and adjusting to different sound signature, but I would also say that fit and pad seal are other likely candidates to be issues when trying new headphones right out of the box.
Anyway, this topic will never be settled because the claimed changes are entirely subjective, so it's all down to opinions.
If "burn-in" is something required to get the best experience out of your headphones, why aren't manufacturers doing the whole process themselves?
Some of them already seem to have "burn-in" stations, so why would they ship a half-baked product and let the end user finish the job when they could do it in a consistent and controlled manner?
I can understand how a certain shape or a certain material will have different properties which can result in relatively significant changes, but I really can't get my head around "burn-in" being something other than your brain getting used to your headphones.
If burn in was real recording engineers could never use headphones as they couldn't trust them to sound consistent, the same goes for the studio monitors. Yet, they are used just fine without any burn in. In the making of the recordings YOU are listening to.
Manufacturers aren't immune to confirmation bias or believing audiophile myths themselves. They're just people. Also, they have a monetary reason to push the burn-in process, because it means fewer returned headphones, so they can hardly be considered a neutral party,
If it was real, something like a difference in "sub-bass presence" would be easily measurable, yet as far as I know no-one has ever measured "burn-in" for headphones that showed anything beyond normal variations within the margin of error depending on position on the measurement rig or other factors. If there is a perceived change I think it's most likely just normal changes in subjective listening experience based on time and adjusting to different sound signature, but I would also say that fit and pad seal are other likely candidates to be issues when trying new headphones right out of the box.
Anyway, this topic will never be settled because the claimed changes are entirely subjective, so it's all down to opinions.
True this can go on and on without any conclusions.
I can only guess what happened with PM-3, but over the time these headphones actually became listenable with iphone. I know I could make them rumbling only with an additional amping at the beginning.
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.
