high bitrate mp3 is almost indistinguishable from flac afaic. I can tell a difference in A/B comparisons up to 192kb mp3 (sometimes). Above that it's essentially a crap shoot ftmp. Someone with better ears than me might be able to do better, but I'm pretty confident the vast vast majority of human beings can't really confidently distinguish between 320kb mp3 and flac.
As far as cables go, I suspect the biggest advantage of high end expensive cables "might" be durability...but even that isn't a given. I think as long as you aren't talking about something like what they sell at gas stations you are probably getting what you need out of your cables and there's no real need to add an extra $30-300 (or more) dollars to the equation...
I have a fun listening test that helps you determine where your threshold is for perceiving degradation of sound with lossy codecs and data rates. If you are interested, I'd be happy to share it with you. You might be surprised what you find out. Just PM me if you'd like to try it.
Good question, and I know not to me...
What cables? IC? Speaker/Headphone? AC? $700 Ethernet?
I did replace the $1.00 interconnects in my system with something nicer looking. Cannot say anything about the sound, but it does look cool. My HD800 has the stock cable. The aftermarkets I have tried did not seem to do anything (no I did not burn them in) and QC seemed to be lacking, so they were returned.
So in general you would put me in the cables don't matter camp. (With exceptions. When you play with very powerful amps, you do need to be very careful about cabling, just for safety reasons alone...)
The only place measurable burn in occurs is in electronics is electrolytic capacitors, where the dilectric alters with time after a potential is applied. The impedance changes with time over tens of hours. If you made a VERY capacitive material, and the insulator was like an electrolyte (most flashy cables use teflon which is the opposite of this) then you might notice something with a high impedance output. But you would deserve it for buying shoddy cables and equipmemt. Even then it is unlikely.
It is possible to have a bad interconnect cable, due to the way its connected. But the structure of the wires only matter to RF immunity.
Headphone cables? Al that matters to me is they are robust (are you reading this Sony and your crappy OFC lizt wire), have corrosion free plugs (Audeze: gold flash is not the same as gold plate) , and don't make a lot of conducted vibration when walking.
I've seen your other posts, and there seems to be a lot of dancing around the subject - so maybe better being direct. What is your position on burn-in and why?
As far as looking for evidence =>
What we know:
We know speaker surrounds for dynamic drivers contain a spider which is the driver surround, and has been proven over time to "break-in" resulting in both audible and measurable changes.
Most modern dynamic headphones don't have this spider, nor do BA's or small dynamic drivers. The smaller drivers simply don't require it. Some larger headphones may have it.
Tyll conduced a comprehensive test of AKG's Q701 headphones, and while there were measurable differences, they were so minute as to be unlikely to be audible, and certainly not the night and day changes people claim. I suggest reading the whole article and especially the conclusion.
When most people claim break-in:
They do not volume match
They do not even play the same song
Because of auditory memory - there is no way after minutes, let along hours, they could make a valid comparison
The cannot precisely position the headphone of earphone in the same position to be able to even objectively make a comparison.
We also know that the positioning on the head of a headphone can drastically change frequency response - a multitude more than any "supposed" burn-in. For IEM's - insertion depth and angle can also drastically change canal resonance which will alter frequency response.
So what we have is a lot of anecdotal claims of burn-in, but when we go to measurements and cross-correlate that with our understandings on audibility, yo'll understand why people on this thread are so sceptical.
This is why I asked you your position. You must have one - so please contribute. And perhaps also forward any evidence.
I will do my best to explain my position but it seems like the jury is already out
I think burn in can happen. It depends on the product. Sometimes it happens sometimes not. It all depends. I have had some things that really didnt change much and some that were very different after playing. So the whole idea of adapting and the way it supposedly happens as depicted here I have a hard time with. Why would some things change more than others if its some deceptive placebo as claimed??
And that whole measure double blind volume match mantra is pretty hard to pull off. You explain it pretty well IMHO why its crazy to expect such things. I certainly don't have the measurement equipment to measure headphones and even if I did the assumption that there is a direct correlation between measurement (which ones for that matter) and our hearing. Its not burn in, but its an example. I just modded my M1060s. Assuming you guys know how a planar driver is made I dampened the metal on the outside of the driver. The metal is basically the magnetic structure. So if it rings the driver moves. This mod dramatically ups the resolution. You can hear everything so clean. What measurements would show a cleaner background and better imaging and quicker timing? And how would a hobbiest conduct such measurements? And a better question is WHY would I.
My other views are that many people dismiss burn in with a wave of the placebo hand. You have already seen this here. But they miss the fact that placebo cuts both ways. If you think there is no burn in its just as likely you wont hear it. Anyhow the people that cant hear it seem to also not be able to here differences between amps and dacs. Isnt there "science" that says all amps sound the same??
My view on everything sounding the same (because I am sure you will ask is that there are differences between amps and between dacs. And that the everything sounds the same skepticism keeps people from seeing or hearing that. An example. I recently bought a new dac. My old dac was a soundcard with balanced outs and a dedicated computer (no internet, seperate psus, etc). I bought a new dac because the computer was putting out too much heat even though I under clocked and volted it. So a new dac arrived. Before it did, I did all kind of tweaks on the Surface 3 I was going to use as the new computer for the ethernet dac. Lots of windows tweaks. New dac arrives and it sounds great. (I don't recall a big difference in regards to burn in). The surface sucks as a tablet and a computer and I got so sick of its stupidity (like a text box that covers prompts you need to respond to) so a new computer was ordered. A mini pc with similar specs to the surface but could be set to power on with a power outage (no go on the surface). Anyhow the same dac sounded dreadful. I had not tuned the new pc for audio. I know right its all bits how could the computer make ANY difference on a ethernet dac? But it was terrible and repeating the software settings I had done on the Surface made it sound great again. How would one measure that? The difference was clearly audible but what measurements would one take....now my contention is that half this board or more is using some computer as a source, just picks a player like foobar (which doesnt sound as good as others) and hooks up some usb dac. So because of this their sound is not what it could be and well no wonder they can't hear any difference between things.
I had an MIT acoustic engineer explain to me that mp3 at 192k was transparent and that you couldnt tell the difference between it and the 1411 source file. Like he really thought that and had all kind of "proof". He administered an abx test. Lol you should have seen his face when I was able to reliably pick the source file.
Ok back to burnin. There is one company that sells amps and preamps and some of their models are built and then burned in for 48 or 72 hours. THEN shipped because they wanted them to sound good out of the box and within the return period. IF there is no burn in there is no reason for them to do that. It makes zero business sense. But they do it precisely because if there is burn in it makes all the sense in the world.
Good question, and I know not to me...
What cables? IC? Speaker/Headphone? AC? $700 Ethernet?
I did replace the $1.00 interconnects in my system with something nicer looking. Cannot say anything about the sound, but it does look cool. My HD800 has the stock cable. The aftermarkets I have tried did not seem to do anything (no I did not burn them in) and QC seemed to be lacking, so they were returned.
So in general you would put me in the cables don't matter camp. (With exceptions. When you play with very powerful amps, you do need to be very careful about cabling, just for safety reasons alone...)
Too many variables other than file format that could affect the sound to give a meaningful answer.
Can you tell me how you compared before and after? Did you match levels? Were you comparing measurements or direct A/B switched to avoid errors due to auditory memory? Were you comparing blind? If not, how do you know that bias and perceptual error wasn't skewing your impressions?
Can you tell me how you compared before and after? Did you match levels? Were you comparing measurements or direct A/B switched to avoid errors due to auditory memory? Were you comparing blind? If not, how do you know that bias and perceptual error wasn't skewing your impressions?
You A/B burn in with two copies of the equipment you're comparing, or though measurements. Auditory memory is very short. For subtle differences it can be as short as a couple of seconds. If you go back a week later and try to compare, you're going to not get accurate results.
Every human being is subject to bias. Bias usually works in the favor of the thing you're comparing. If you don't like something clearly, you probably just don't like it. You're in sound science here. If it isn't blind, we are allowed to call it bias/placebo.
I'm honestly not sure what you heard and what you just thought you heard. If you're interested in finding out for yourself, you might try applying some controls to your listening tests. A lot of us here have done that and we have gotten different results than you have. Your lack of controls may be the reason why.
[1] What measurements would show a cleaner background and better imaging and quicker timing? [1a] And how would a hobbiest conduct such measurements? [1b] And a better question is WHY would I.
1. A simple before and after comparison of spectograms for example.
1a. In the case of speakers, a cheap measurement mic, an ADC and some free software. In the case of a DAC or cable, you wouldn't even need a measurement mic.
1b. To see if there is an actual difference (and what the difference is) in what's being produced or if it's just a difference in your perception. The advantage of this is so that you know if the time, effort and/or money you've put in actually made a difference, if so did it actually make it better or worse AND when you go on a forum and post something about it, whether you are making a FOOL of yourself because you are falsely attributing differences in perception to audible physical differences in the waveform!
[1] But they miss the fact that placebo cuts both ways.
[1a] If you think there is no burn in its just as likely you wont hear it.
[1b] Anyhow the people that cant hear it seem to also not be able to here differences between amps and dacs.
[1c] Isnt there "science" that says all amps sound the same??
1. Who is "they"?
1a. That's possible but generally less likely. However, we also have objective measurements, so it's irrelevant anyway!
1b. If the measured difference is well below audibility then those "people that can't hear" a difference are hearing/perceiving more accurately than those that do. If one person can see fairies in their garden and one can't, which of them is seeing more accurately?
1c. No, of course there isn't!! There's science that says under certain conditions all amps sound the same but obviously not that all amps under any conditions sound the same. An obvious example, a broken/non-functioning amp will obviously not sound the same as one that isn't (so that's one of the conditions).
[1] My view on everything sounding the same (because I am sure you will ask is that there are differences between amps and between dacs.
[1a] And that the everything sounds the same skepticism keeps people from seeing or hearing that.
[1b] I know right its all bits how could the computer make ANY difference on a ethernet dac?
[1c] But it was terrible and repeating the software settings I had done on the Surface made it sound great again. How would one measure that?
[1d] The difference was clearly audible
[1e] ... but what measurements would one take....now my contention is that ...
1. Yes, no one is disputing there are differences between amps and between DACs. For starters they look different and have different prices and secondly, they all measure somewhat differently. The question is whether those differences produce actual audible differences or just differences in perception.
1a. Then that's a FALSE view, a view you've just made-up or are blindly repeating from shills/marketing. Again, if someone is sceptical that fairies exist and therefore doesn't see them, are they seeing more or less accurately than someone who isn't sceptical and does see fairies?
1b. You're joking right? Do you not know what a computer is? At the most basic level, a computer takes "bits", performs some "computation" on them and spits out different "bits", hence why it's call a "computer". On a slightly more sophisticated level, ethernet is a family of networking technologies, changing the ethernet protocol or settings within the computer is very likely to make a difference to an ethernet dac, even to the point of it not operating.
1c. There are numerous ways of measuring that. A quick, easy and cheap way would be a simple null test of the output of both DACs.
1d. That's a false statement, you do NOT know if the difference was clearly audible, the only thing you know is that you perceived a difference.
1e. And here's the whole problem in a nutshell! You apparently do not know that there are relevant measurements, so you feel justified in making-up a "contention" on the basis that no measurement exists. This of course is a fallacy! Just because you don't know or are unaware of the measurement/s, doesn't mean they don't exist. Science obviously doesn't depend on what you personally know (or don't know) of it. For some reason, this is a very common fallacy amongst audiophiles!
[1] I had an MIT acoustic engineer explain to me that mp3 at 192k was transparent and that you couldnt tell the difference between it and the 1411 source file.
[2] There is one company that sells amps and preamps and some of their models are built and then burned in for 48 or 72 hours. THEN shipped because they wanted them to sound good out of the box and within the return period. IF there is no burn in there is no reason for them to do that. It makes zero business sense. But they do it precisely because if there is burn in it makes all the sense in the world.
[3] In one case the sound was not that listenable even after burn in. I can't fathom what kind of bias that would be.
1. No you didn't! Maybe you just made-up that anecdote, maybe you misunderstood what you were told or maybe the guy lied about being an "MIT acoustic engineer" but as MIT is a well respected education establishment, it's inconceivable that an MIT graduate would be so poorly educated.
2. Yes, it does make all the business sense in the world. For example, if one is selling a product to gullible audiophiles who believe in burn-in!
3. Exactly! So, it effectively comes down to what you personally can and can't "fathom". Which brings us back to the point above: If you are unaware of (and/or "can't fathom") a particular measurement or some demonstrated science, does that mean the measurement or the science doesn't exist?
there could certainly be cases where for instance a set of headphones had some particular characteristic that was distinct enough in a negative sense that it was too much for a person to adapt to or ignore even after a period of burning them in. Personally, it really doesn't matter to me. If somebody wants to burn in their stuff, ok go ahead. I just mostly ignore it (although I find it troubling that sometimes burn in is used as a part of a sales pitch with some equipment). But, it's a bit of a cop out to say "well I hear the benefits of burn in, and I certainly don't have the time or the resources to conduct rigorous testing...so burn in is a real thing." That testing has actually been done by people who do have the resources, and afaik there has never really been evidence found of any sort of burn in effect that could account for notable, dramatic, or really even audible effects on sound quality. It's often claimed that burn in has turned an item that initially was not impressive into an item that sounds wonderful. that sort of dramatic impact should be easily noted in testing...shouldn't it?
Also, bias is a funny thing. There are other elements at play when it comes to this sort of hobby. For example, I have a definite inclination to "want" to like earbuds that have really nice components such as cables and shells. There have been times when I've initially been very impressed by a set of nicely-built earbuds but come to realize over time that they actually don't sound that great and it was really their physical characteristics I was impressed by.
there could certainly be cases where for instance a set of headphones had some particular characteristic that was distinct enough in a negative sense that it was too much for a person to adapt to or ignore even after a period of burning them in.
Errors in perception when it comes to audiophiles usually involve hearing differences that don't exist. This forum is jam packed with examples. The margin of error comes with similar sounding samples. There aren't many examples of people who have convinced themselves that they can't hear things that are clearly audible. Bias can make you hear things that don't exist, but it can't necessarily make you oblivious to sounds that clearly do. When people talk about something sounding fine and first but discovering over time that it doesn't, there are other possible reasons for that. We all know that audiophiles have a tendency to be shopaholics, and they churn equipment because the pleasure in it is the buying, not the listening.
There are all kinds of bias... the most common is probably expectation bias- you expect an expensive component to sound better than a cheap one, so that's the way you hear it. There's overconfidence bias, which involves thinking your ears have ability to hear that they really don't. There's the bandwagon effect, hearing something one way because everyone in the forum says it sounds like that. You can have bias because of what you're told by someone you trust... you expect that person to be an authority, so you hear what they told you. There's confirmation bias, which is cherry picking to validate a pre-determined opinion. Looking at specs detailing differences that are clearly inaudible can make you think you are hearing it. There's a magical thinking bias where because something is a warm or cool color, it must sound warm or cool. People have biases for or against certain brands. They hear things a certain way because they want to validate spending a lot of money and they don't want to be a loser. There are probably more, but that is what I can think of off the top of my head. And none of this starts to address perceptual error like auditory memory or level imbalances affecting our judgement.
Everyone is subject to bias... even scientists! That's why scientists know to apply controls to their tests to try to eliminate as much bias as possible.
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.
