[Rednamalas1]

I know there's a review of fresh K701s vs. burned-in K701s... and I agree completely. Burn in is real - at least for dynamic headphones. Burning in SS amps and cables? I'm little more skeptical..

 

[Scott549]

The test has to be blind, meaning you can't know which one is the burned in pair. So you need someone to mark them randomly A and B or 1 and 2. That's the kind of test I'm talking about -- a real scientific test.

 

[mercbuggy]

IMHO from experience I would go with burn-in for headphones/speakers and warm-in for the electronics. My home based hifi gear is definitely lacking in depth and has a brittle midrange/HF for an hour or so after an enforced shutdown e.g. for an electrical storm. I also agree that audio memory or lack thereof influences this phenomenon and perhaps is more noticeable on my portable rig as the ipod & amp are switched on and off repeatedly while traveling. This travel also involves switching between my Shure E2C and Yuin PK1 where each time I am pretty sure their is some hearing/brain adjustment going on

.

 

[kikkomang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif What does that mean? By Logic i believe that Burn-in exists in Dynamic headphones due to Dynamic drivers & piezoelectric

are you just spouting random words now?

 

[Ricey20]

I believe in headphone burning and amps to an extent (caps do need to burn in a bit). The difference though is that headphone burning is usually much more noticeable while amps and cables are more subtle if any.

 

[Caution]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnothingpoetic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not to the extent many make it out to be.

Amen, I also believe that what most people consider is "burn in" is more of a psychological effect, where you become accustomed to the sound. Eg I've bought many used headphones that have been used for many hundred of hrs, they don't sound great at all at first, but the more time u give them, the better they sound.

 

[V-DiV]

I just finished auditioning new K701 and HD600. After reading all of the arguments about burn-in I was fairly skeptical. But I dutifully played the cans night and day just in case.

When I first got the K701 it sounded shrill and rather ragged on the high end (at least to my uninitiated ears). After a few days burn in the highs seemed a little smoother. It also seemed to have developed a real nice deep vibration on low notes, although that deep vibe didn't seem very well connected to the rest of the frequency spectrum, almost like a separate band.

Then the HD600 arrived. It didn't have any of that shrillness. It was rather warm but didn't extend as low in the bass as the k701 on the same passages. Hmmm, so I thought K701, not as much high bass warmth, but deeper extension.

By the time they were both well burned in (>350 hours for K701, >250 hours for HD600) the K701 had developed a very smooth, connected frequency response from bottom to top, no more of that interesting but disjointed low end vibe. And the high end was smooth, no more roughness (I don't think that was all simply my ear getting accustomed, but of course that's possible). The HD600 now has a very similar low end bass extension to the K701.

So, at the very least, the low end extension of one or both of these headphones has changed. The K701 frequency response became better integrated. I think, but can't prove, that the high end response of the K701 became smoother, still emphasized, but smoother, less jagged/distorted. I believe the K701 changed by a significant amount. The HD600 may have changed a little or not. But the comparison with K701 changed.

I'm a believer.

 

[sunseeker888]

spouting words, lmao. Had a good chuckle at that segment of the thread!


Tubes need time too! My matched quad of Mullard EL84 reissues didn't sound like tubes until around 50 hours of normal use. Before that they sounded thin, and lifeless.

 

[aaron313]

So if it's not real, then why is it that cars accelerate better with age, and get better gas mileage (I believe)? Mechanical break in is real.

 

[Scott549]

Sorry to open an old can of worms, but it is a topic worth discussing on occasion.

 

[Kilane]

It's collectively imagined. Most of us experience it, so it's real... but it's all in our heads. Like group think, only across different states/personalities/equipment...

I'd say that at this point, whether the evidence is anecdotal or not there's a reasonable case for it; although, f you choose to be a skeptic that's your prerogative.

 

[western120]

I could feel a 5% difference in UM1 sound.. they seemed to have opened up a little more that was after 100 hrs or so of playing

 

[Jabada]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So if it's not real, then why is it that cars accelerate better with age, and get better gas mileage (I believe)? Mechanical break in is real.

Basically I don't believe in Burn in because I haven't experienced any improvements with all my toys.
And about car engines, from the magazines I read so far (all brazilian press), mechanical break in don't exist anymore due to better manufacture.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabada /img/forum/go_quote.gif Basically I don't believe in Burn in because I haven't experienced any improvements with all my toys. And about car engines, from the magazines I read so far (all brazilian press), mechanical break in don't exist anymore due to better manufacture.

The mechanical adjustment after certain use has nothing to do with the quality of the manufacture, all auto parts in an motor are CNC machined separatelly, sometimes in different plants, and even countries, and assembled later on. As you may know, all mechanical manufaturing processes have tolerances, or variations from an ideal, those tolerances are the ones that need to get "adjusted" later on with the use...Not sure if you are aware that new cars came with an speacial lighter oil that needs to be replaced after certain quick mileage, that first oil just provide that adjustment and trapped all the particles from the abrassion of the metals...Of course that process continues later on along the life of the motor...

 

[babi12]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott549 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The test has to be blind, meaning you can't know which one is the burned in pair. So you need someone to mark them randomly A and B or 1 and 2. That's the kind of test I'm talking about -- a real scientific test.

One way to test if burn-in is real is by comparing 2 exactly same brand and type of headphone.
One has been burned and another one is the new one.
They should be physically indistinguishable.

Take the blind test and decide which one is better with same music.
If out of 20 times, around 16-20 times people say that burned headphone is better than it's real.
Otherwise, it's not real.

Btw, that value 16-20 times is only my approximation to ensure it's statistically significant.

It should be as simple as this.
Can anyone try or has tried or willing to try this?