[Scott549]

Seedhouse is absolutely correct.

This is the huge logical misstep the burn-in believers are making --
1. The headphones sound different after a period of time.
2. Therefore, it must be the headphones themselves, not my brain or my ears, that have changed.

Why are you so resistant to the latter -- that your brain or your ears might have changed? Given that either could theoretically happen and there is no evidence for the former, why not agree with Seedhouse that the latter is more likely?

I would also like to hear why, if the physical properties of the headphones change, they happen to always change for the better. They should change for the worse half the time, shouldn't they?

Edit -- one more thing -- a great example of this phenomenon happens at live concerts. Have you ever been to a concert where for the first song or two, the mix just didn't sound quite right, but then it starts to sound better? It is possible that the guy at the mixing board is making adjustments, but this has happened to me many times and I think one explanation is that your ears and brain adjust to the sound signature and it starts to sound more "comfortable." Of course it could be that the PA speakers are finally burning in after 15,000 hours.

 

[barleyguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott549 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Seedhouse is absolutely correct. This is the huge logical misstep the burn-in believers are making -- 1. The headphones sound different after a period of time. 2. Therefore, it must be the headphones themselves, not my brain or my ears, that have changed. Why are you so resistant to the latter -- that your brain or your ears might have changed? Given that either could theoretically happen and there is no evidence for the former, why not agree with Seedhouse that the latter is more likely? I would also like to hear why, if the physical properties of the headphones change, they happen to always change for the better. They should change for the worse half the time, shouldn't they?

I don't have a strong opinion either way on this one. But what about the people that say "I listened to these and they sucked, so I plugged them into my player and let them run for 50 hours without being in my ears, and then tried them again. They were much better."

That seems to be a common statement. Are people just imagining things? Is it placebo effect from reading that it will make a difference? It couldn't be the ears or brain if the earphones weren't in the ears when they were burning in.

 

[haloxt]

People have said things get worse with burn-in but since there's nothing you can do about it they usually just accept it. I really savored the artificially textured bass of brand new HFI-2200 and Pro 900.

Now please resume lecturing each other on science.

 

[Scott549]

Quote:

Originally Posted by barleyguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't have a strong opinion either way on this one. But what about the people that say "I listened to these and they sucked, so I plugged them into my player and let them run for 50 hours without being in my ears, and then tried them again. They were much better." That seems to be a common statement. Are people just imagining things? Is it placebo effect from reading that it will make a difference? It couldn't be the ears or brain if the earphones weren't in the ears when they were burning in.

Good question. I think it's likely placebo.

 

[Scott549]

Another reason I am skeptical is that audiophiles have a reputation for believing they can hear things they really can't. Many people waste ridiculous amounts of money on things like cables that have been tested and demonstrated to have no audible effect.

 

[charlie0904]

i tried ie8 burned in and without. to me, the change is quite drastic.

 

[3X0]

Whoever said this belongs in sound science, +1.

There's so many variables involved, both scientific and psychological, that it's just pointless to try and prove or disprove. Say two DACs perform at an identical level in terms of RMAA analysis (frequency response/curve, as well as THD, IMD, SCT, dynamic range and noise level all pretty much identical) while actually being two different units. Why do they sound different?


I'm curious as to whether someone could perform a frequency response analysis of an IE 8 out-of-the-box and the same IE 8 after a few hours. If any part of the curve deviates between the two beyond a certain tolerance, well..

 

[Rip N' Burn]

Attached to the earphone cord of the Maximo iM-590's are instructions that say: "For best performance: (1) "Burn in" the earphones first by playing music at moderately high volume for 8-10 hours. (2) Try the different sizes of eartips to achieve optimal bass response"

REVIEW – Maximo iM-590 iMetal Isolation Earphones | Mobile Magazine

Apparently the engineers over at Maximo don't think that "burn-in" is a placebo.

 

[Scott549]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3X0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Whoever said this belongs in sound science, +1. There's so many variables involved, both scientific and psychological, that it's just pointless to try and prove or disprove. Say two DACs perform at an identical level in terms of RMAA analysis (frequency response/curve, as well as THD, IMD, SCT, dynamic range and noise level all pretty much identical) while actually being two different units. Why do they sound different? I'm curious as to whether someone could perform a frequency response analysis of an IE 8 out-of-the-box and the same IE 8 after a few hours. If any part of the curve deviates between the two beyond a certain tolerance, well..

What they really need to do is simply to take two brand new sets and let just one of them run for whatever number of hours and see if people can tell the difference between the two. If physical burn-in were real it would be SO EASY to prove it that way. Why do you think no one has done it?

 

[3X0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott549 /img/forum/go_quote.gif What they really need to do is simply to take two brand new sets and let just one of them run for whatever number of hours and see if people can tell the difference between the two. If physical burn-in were real it would be SO EASY to prove it that way. Why do you think no one has done it?

That was suggested a while ago, but Ed Seedhouse discredited such a notion, as it would still leave to much up to chance apparently.

 

[Rip N' Burn]

A person named Jon Choo has experienced noticeable changes after some "burn-in" with the IE8's that is documented in his weblog. Here's an excerpt:

"The IE 8 has to be one of the most average sounding high-end IEM I've listened to out of the box. Like many IE 8 owners I found the initial bass response to be bloated and harsh. This is because unlike the Klipsch Custom series I reviewed in December, the IE 8 uses a single dynamic moving-coil driver which tends to require burn-in period before they shine. Leaving aside the fact that I personally think that Sennheiser should be the one doing the burn-in dirty work at the factory, I left the IE 8 to burn while listening to it at intervals. The upside of using dynamics is the wide frequency response and better bass response.

After just a couple of hours burn-in, the bass tames a little and the clarity improves. With further burn-ins, the IE 8 turned from an average sounding headphone to something that was well capable of delivering great midrange definition. The once recessed highs were blooming and the initial dark sound is all but gone, though they were still a little bit muddy. At this point I notice how vocals is one of the strength of the IE 8. They were clear and smooth. There were no issues with sibilance during my period with the IE 8, except perhaps with badly recorded music.

50 hours of listening later (I've stopped burning-in by then) IE 8's soundstage is simply astonishing - with depths unheard of in any IEMs I've ever owned/listened to."

jon's weblog: Sennheiser IE 8 in-ear headphone review

 

[Rip N' Burn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott549 /img/forum/go_quote.gif What they really need to do is simply to take two brand new sets and let just one of them run for whatever number of hours and see if people can tell the difference between the two. If physical burn-in were real it would be SO EASY to prove it that way. Why do you think no one has done it?

Charlie0904 in a few post before stated that he tried a "burned-in" IE8 and one that wasn't. According to Charlie, the difference between the two was drastic.

 

[billybob_jcv]

It would be more compelling if Charlie0904 was able to consistently notice a difference when he didn't know which IE8 he was putting on.

Just to throw a little fuel on this fire, I think it would be interesting to know whether the folks who do burn-in while *not* listening to the 'phones have longer burn-in times than those who burn-in while listening to the phones...

Something else that has not been brought up in this thread (but has been brought-up many times before) - Pick an audible frequency - ANY audible frequency - how many cycles does the transducer oscillate in an hour? 100 hz = 100 cycles/sec * 3600 sec/hr = 360,000 cycles/hour. How many cycles does it take for the transducer to loosen-up? Is it reasonable to expect that 360,000 cycles is not enough, but 36,000,000 cycles is enough? Does it matter what frequency is used to break-in a single-driver headphone? Why? Wouldn't just using a 15,000 Hz signal break the driver in faster than pink noise?

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by barleyguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't have a strong opinion either way on this one. But what about the people that say "I listened to these and they sucked, so I plugged them into my player and let them run for 50 hours without being in my ears, and then tried them again. They were much better."

Well presumably they leave them to burn for 50 hours out of an expectation that they will sound better at the end of those hours. Thus one would expect them to believe that the sound is indeed better if our knowlege about expecation bias is correct.

Just as if you believe the placebo pill will make you better you often do in fact get better. And you are usually not imagining that you are better, you actually are better. Just not because of the pill.

In those 50 hours your brain (which is a wonderful and mysterious thing) may have learned to appreciate the sound better. That isn't "all in your head" either. You really are hearing a better sound because your brain has learned to extract the full potential that was always there. The headphone isn't any better, but you can hear it better.

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rip N' Burn /img/forum/go_quote.gif Charlie0904 in a few post before stated that he tried a "burned-in" IE8 and one that wasn't. According to Charlie, the difference between the two was drastic.

But unless he didn't know which one had "burned in" and which one hadn't, this is not sufficiently well controlled to be evidence of anything. Do we know that the two sounded identical at the start? That would be necessary as well for a properly controlled test.

As described above, it's just another anecdote.