[channum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shomie911 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The difference between a set of HD650s and the R10s is 5-10%. How can you say that 5-10% makes no difference and can't be heard?

Wow, way to misconstrue something completely. I said what people called burn in was 5%-10% in the hardware - nowhere did I imply it even amounted to a 5%-10% difference in actual audio quality. I thought I was pretty clear that I believed any actual difference in the sound was undetectable by the overwhelming majority of consumers of any level of headphone (which means they're already a pretty self selecting lot for audio quality and not just some random schmoes), and effectively meaningless even if you could hear there was a difference.


Quote:

Capacitors need time to break-in and operate under their given tolerances. Tubes need time to break-in also. That is basically undisputable.

And yet they are disputed all the time.

I'm not here to argue this, I went the molecular biology (and later entomology) route, not EE, but I've read enough and listened enough to convince me that whatever differences there are are not significant, meaningful, or worth losing as much time as I put into crafting the above post. As one article from a sound engineer put it regarding amp burn in and related tweaks (paraphrasing), yes, many of these changes are measurable, but the question is if they're audible, and the weight of evidence says they are not.

I understand that high end audiophilia is about chasing diminishing returns, but I'm, one, not in any way a high end audiophile and, two, far too pragmatic and skeptical to accept anything that blurs the distinction between real and imaginary. I'm not here to step on toes, but if it's not double blind and repeatable, or, quite literally a night and day difference, *I* do not and will not give it any more time than I give fairies, gods, and psychic surgery no matter how many people will swear up and down it made a monstrous difference in their rig.

It's way too easy to fool even ourselves, and when there's the sort of money on the line as there is in this stuff, I cannot afford, literally, pure subjectivity. Personal testimony has its place, but it also has its limits, and it certainly needs to be counterchecked with cold, hard rationalism at every turn.

 

[onvn]

I'm curious..

Burn-in faithfuls believe the sound that comes out of their headphones change over time being burnt-in. How come ALL cases of sound changing is an improvement? (correct me if I'm wrong) Now, change does not equal improvement, it can be a draw back. If burn-in is physical change in the piece of equipment and not in the mentality of the listener (i.e. the listener being accustomed to the sound of the new piece of equipment), how come its always a noticeable sonic improvement and never a decline in the perceived sonic quality?

Please note, I am convinced in the presence of the effects of burn-in, but due to my relatively limited experience with owning a wide range of headphones, I cannot be confident of its presence in all headphones, or equipments.

 

[pataburd]

Burn in is like a complex number: it has both real and imaginary parts (re: a + bi). (1) For some, "a" (the real component) is zero and "b" (the coefficient of the imaginary component) is non-zero; (2) for others "a" is non-zero and "b" is zero; (3) for still others, both a and b are non-zero numbers.

Personally, I happen to be of the second ilk. : )

But I could build a case for membership in the third ilk by arguing that one's becoming habituated to a piece of gear probably contributes to their (a) acquiescing to what at first was unfamiliar and perhaps even initially undesirable then (b) gradually developing a predisposition to what they originally heard and has since (e.g. in empirical terms) remained unchanged, but which in the listener's intricate auditory processes has been perceived as a "hardware" change (i.e. burn in of the equipment). So the listener confuses a change in the way their brain has adapted to an unpleasant first perception of a piece of gear with a material/measurable change in the gear itself. This could still be qualified as "burn-in," but in this case it is the same, principle and essentially unchanged character of the listener's "first" perception that has altered--or burned into, by repetition/habituation, the listener's subsequent (and virtual) perceptions, not some molecular structural burn-in of the physical material(s) per se comprising the piece of gear in question.

It's listener burn-in as distinct from, and perhaps even more pronounced than, equipment burn-in.

The brain, it seems, can be marvelously adaptive and creative during prolonged periods of sensory stress, often providing that critical "spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down," if I may be so brash as to quote Mary Poppins while addressing so grave a subject--or is it so "hot a topic," rather--as this one. : )

 

[monolith]

It's real, but not to the extent some people claim, for headphones and speakers. It's not real for amps and obviously not for cables.

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

If the sound really changes then shouldn't a microphone (or other device) be able to pick that up? Perhaps then we could get a graph or something of the changes after burn-in, for each headphone? Just like the frequency graphs that sometimes are posted?

(note: I have absolutely no idea about how to measure the frequency response of headphones. and maybe something other aspect should be measured instead)

Anyway, some graphs of burn-in would be interesting to see. Anyone in the mood to make graphs tonight? (I'm not in the business of making headphone graphs myself, but apparently some people are)

 

[kikkomang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Only Dynamic headphones can have burn-in even if it exists. Where do u see random words? Dont pass your random comments.

"By Logic i believe that Burn-in exists in Dynamic headphones due to Dynamic drivers & piezoelectric"

your original words said that burn in exists in dynamic because of dynamic drivers and piezoelectric. that doesn't mean anything. you are saying it exists because it exists.

 

[Scott549]

Quote:

Originally Posted by onvn /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm curious.. How come ALL cases of sound changing is an improvement?

Very interesting observation. Why doesn't anyone ever say, "I burned these headphones in for 50 hours and they sounded much worse"? It's probably because the process of acclimation to one's ears makes the sound more pleasant.

 

[mercbuggy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by onvn /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm curious.. Burn-in faithfuls believe the sound that comes out of their headphones change over time being burnt-in. How come ALL cases of sound changing is an improvement? (correct me if I'm wrong) Now, change does not equal improvement, it can be a draw back.

I would refute that all change is good in all cases, either through actually burn-in or habituation. My Sennheiser HD530 sounded a little 'shut in' when I first got them and they proceeded to open up over time to a rather hard/brittle/edgy sound signature which I found rather tiring to listen too. If memory serves me correctly even Sennheiser realised this and subsequently brought out the mark II version which warmed the presentation somewhat.

 

[donunus]

yeeeeeaaaaahhhhhey. The Definitive Audio Controversy. BURN IN...

REAL REAL REAL..... BURN IN IS REAL! Its been explained so many times. To people that can't hear burn in effects, it doesn't matter. It is still REAL...

Voila the last time I'm ever joining in a burn in thread conversation. Its been done to death and it never ends

 

[Gradofan2]

I can't think of a better way to proove to yourself that "burn-in" is real... than to buy a new pair of D5000s, and listen to them transition from a "catepillar to a butterfly" over 400 hrs of burn-in.

Absolutlely, nothing will make this phenomena more real to you than that!

 

[Scott549]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gradofan2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't think of a better way to proove to yourself that "burn-in" is real... than to buy a new pair of D5000s, and listen to them transition from a "catepillar to a butterfly" over 400 hrs of burn-in. Absolutlely, nothing will make this phenomena more real to you than that!

One thing that would make it more real -- do a blind test with the burned in pair and a brand new pair. You must be blindfolded, and there must be new pads on each set. If you get 16 out of 20 right, I'll be convinced. I would bet against you, though.

 

[kikkomang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gradofan2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't think of a better way to proove to yourself that "burn-in" is real... than to buy a new pair of D5000s, and listen to them transition from a "catepillar to a butterfly" over 400 hrs of burn-in. Absolutlely, nothing will make this phenomena more real to you than that!

in 400 hours i would've forgotten what the headphone had originally sounded like.

 

[twoears&oneheart]

burn in is real,

but it does not make a night and day difference ...

if it does, u are listening to your equipment too closely, too seriously and should apply for a job as a QC (quality control) audio engineer and get paid for it.

but i bet u never would want to listen to music through your ears again on your own free time.

make sense?

 

[gdeth]

it's not real.

 

[spinali]

Although I suspect headphone break-in exists, I believe there's a still better potential "proof" - should one have the gear.

Comparing double-blind reactions fails to account for the fact that different listeners have widely varying sensitivities. As long as you depend on the human as an initial test, issue like perception, inattention, and prejudice will enter the mix.

As with tests of speaker break-in (which has been measured graphically), headphone break-in must be measured by recording and graphing headphones on the same gear, before and after break-in. When you begin with numbers, it's easier to justify the validate for skeptics.

For me, it was easier to understand break-in once I was aware of how speaker phones show graphically validated changes.