[geek707]

So this article proves that the violinists could tell a new vs old violin apart 100% of the time. They tended to prefer the new, but were all clearly able to tell the difference. In short, age has an effect on sound signature.

I would add that newer instruments tend to be louder compared to old ones, so unless they recorded and volume matched, then the "newer" preferences is easily explainable.

I will have to read that because this says the opposite:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...violins-arent-better-than-new-ones-round-two/

 

[jagwap]

Thanks. I haven't the time to fully read and absorb those documents, but a quick perusal seems to reveal no real mention of sound quality effects. I mean I don't think anyone is debating that moving components break down over time. What's being debated is that those breakdowns have a notable positive effect on sound quality...

Sure. The highest regarded test equipment manufacturer in the field, leaves it to their customers to decide. They just present the science. Which is appropriate in this forum.

 

[elmoe]

I will have to read that because this says the opposite:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...violins-arent-better-than-new-ones-round-two/

From the article above: Although the soloists varied in their tastes, two new violins consistently scored the most points, with an old Stradivarius tailing in third place. Overall, the new violins collectively scored 35 points and the old ones scored 4—a six-fold difference. Fritz writes, “We can find no plausible scoring system by which the old fare any better.”

Seems to me a 6 fold difference is a fairly good result in being able to pick out old from new

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Sure. The highest regarded test equipment manufacturer in the field, leaves it to their customers to decide. They just present the science. Which is appropriate in this forum.

I'm really not sure how that applies to what we are talking about. It seems to me that the concern there is whether or not the components are capable of operating within a reasonable range of their technical specs for a reasonable lifespan. As a manufacturer, I would want to try and make sure the components in my product are not going to start under-performing within a certain accepted time frame. Again, I don't think anyone in this thread is disputing that moving parts wear/break down. I don't need scientific papers to prove that to me. I already know it. What I don't know is whether or not that break down (in the case of a speaker) has a beneficial, or even an audible consequence as regards the quality of the sound produced.

 

[elmoe]

I'm really not sure how that applies to what we are talking about. It seems to me that the concern there is whether or not the components are capable of operating within a reasonable range of their technical specs for a reasonable lifespan. As a manufacturer, I would want to try and make sure the components in my product are not going to start under-performing within a certain accepted time frame. Again, I don't think anyone in this thread is disputing that moving parts wear/break down. I don't need scientific papers to prove that to me. I already know it. What I don't know is whether or not that break down (in the case of a speaker) has a beneficial, or even an audible consequence as regards the quality of the sound produced.

Again this is going to depend on your definition of "quality of sound". If you're a studio engineer then a flat response or as near to one as can be is what you'll want. If you just like listening to music then that definition will change based on taste, music genres, etc.

Has there been any proper double blind abx testing done on a brand new pair vs a pair that's been used for hundreds of hours? I am not finding any on my end.

 

[bigshot]

I linked to it before. Use the search function for my user name and Klippel.

I'm asking for explanation, not a brush off. If you aren't interested in having a conversation, there's absolutely no reason to post at all. Have fun with your experts.

I have to say, when I see people stating things without any explanation and using irrelevant analogies to automobiles and machine parts, it makes me thing this whole thing is totally made up. I'm open to it being a real thing, but someone would have to be able to point to a headphone that is clearly different after burn in with controlled listening tests and measurements. That isn't asking too much. Those are the tools we use to evaluate every aspect of audio fidelity.

If you're saying it doesn't affect the frequency balance, that goes against everything people say about burn in. The anecdotal reports say that headphones sound thin and open up with a fuller sound after burn in. That is definitely describing a change in response.

But it probably won't make a difference to the majority of the internet experts here, who have made up their mind.

At least I'm willing to discuss the possibility that I might be wrong.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Again this is going to depend on your definition of "quality of sound". If you're a studio engineer then a flat response or as near to one as can be is what you'll want. If you just like listening to music then that definition will change based on taste, music genres, etc.

Has there been any proper double blind abx testing done on a brand new pair vs a pair that's been used for hundreds of hours? I am not finding any on my end.

As it relates to the burn in debate we're having here, it's got nothing to do with definitions of quality of sound. We're talking here about statements such as "earbud xxx is a great earbud. I highly recommend it...BUT you MUST burn them in for at least 100 hours for them to sound good!"

It's about the claim that a given set of headphones improve in sound after a burn in period. It's got nothing to do with any definition of "quality of sound" because it's about comparing headphone state A (pre-burn in) to headphone state B (post-burn in) and determining if there is even ANY change in performance at all, and then if that change is audible or beneficial. I've seen a couple articles in which some tests were done and the result was that the changes were extremely tiny and certainly nothing that would account for the dramatic claims in sound improvement made by burn in advocates...but of course they will say "oh but there WERE changes right?" lol...

 

[bigshot]

I've only spoken with one headphone designer. He said that burn in wasn't necessary. His cans came off the line consistent and calibrated. They were planar magnetic headphones. Might that make a difference?

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Honestly, I'd love it if burn in were a true thing. I like the idea of my gear improving over time! There's even been occasions over the past few months where I've thought I detected an improvement as a result of burning a set of buds in for a time. But, after a bit more listening time I realized I really couldn't conclude that in any confident way - it very likely had more to do with me having switched from a different set of buds I'd been using in the interim. The old ear adjustment/brain burn in thing. I would be really interested in seeing some detailed test results taken at a variety of times over a given burn in range - like at 5 hours, 20 hours, 50, 100 - to see what the changes might be in terms of sound output. Certainly that must be possible no?

Actually...this is interesting...

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/learn/break-in

 

[elmoe]

As it relates to the burn in debate we're having here, it's got nothing to do with definitions of quality of sound. We're talking here about statements such as "earbud xxx is a great earbud. I highly recommend it...BUT you MUST burn them in for at least 100 hours for them to sound good!"

It's about the claim that a given set of headphones improve in sound after a burn in period. It's got nothing to do with any definition of "quality of sound" because it's about comparing headphone state A (pre-burn in) to headphone state B (post-burn in) and determining if there is even ANY change in performance at all, and then if that change is audible or beneficial. I've seen a couple articles in which some tests were done and the result was that the changes were extremely tiny and certainly nothing that would account for the dramatic claims in sound improvement made by burn in advocates...but of course they will say "oh but there WERE changes right?" lol...

Of course it is about quality of sound.

For example, pad wear has a noticeable effect on sound quality and FR response correct? And typically, the result of age on pads ends up giving the listener a better seal and more comfort, which translates to a more enjoyable experience and so, better quality of sound. To an audio engineer though, if the pair of headphones brand new had a flat response and after ageing and pad wear, it no longer does, then the quality of sound got worse. To a music listener at home, the quality of sound got better.

'I've seen a couple articles in which some tests were done..." so anecdotal evidence at best? Can you point me to a volume matched, double blind ABX test of a brand new pair of say, Sennheiser HD650s vs a pair with over 500 hours of use that conclusively shows 10 or more people were not able to differentiate?

I've only spoken with one headphone designer. He said that burn in wasn't necessary. His cans came off the line consistent and calibrated. They were planar magnetic headphones. Might that make a difference?

Great, and that's likely the case for that model of headphone, or maybe it's not, plenty of product designers ended up finding out new facts about their products only after end-users came back with feedback. That is typically how products are improved upon. What brand/model of headphones were these?

"I've only spoken with one headphone designer who said burn-in is not necessary" is also anecdotal. Any concrete evidence to back up this claim?

So far and after 50 pages all I have seen are "beliefs" from one side or the other.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Of course it is about quality of sound.

For example, pad wear has a noticeable effect on sound quality and FR response correct? And typically, the result of age on pads ends up giving the listener a better seal and more comfort, which translates to a more enjoyable experience and so, better quality of sound. To an audio engineer though, if the pair of headphones brand new had a flat response and after ageing and pad wear, it no longer does, then the quality of sound got worse. To a music listener at home, the quality of sound got better.

'I've seen a couple articles in which some tests were done..." so anecdotal evidence at best? Can you point me to a volume matched, double blind ABX test of a brand new pair of say, Sennheiser HD650s vs a pair with over 500 hours of use that conclusively shows 10 or more people were not able to differentiate?



Great, and that's likely the case for that model of headphone, or maybe it's not, plenty of product designers ended up finding out new facts about their products only after end-users came back with feedback. That is typically how products are improved upon. What brand/model of headphones were these?

"I've only spoken with one headphone designer who said burn-in is not necessary" is also anecdotal. Any concrete evidence to back up this claim?

So far and after 50 pages all I have seen are "beliefs" from one side or the other.

No, it isn't about quality of sound. Nobody who advocates for burn in ever says the result of burn in made the phones in question sound worse. All I'm looking for is some relatively meaningful proof of ANY audible change as a result of some recommended burn in period. Once that has been established, then maybe we can start talking about whether that change is good or not...

And I added an edit to my previous post which presents at least something more than just beliefs.

...and it's worth noting that one set of these beliefs is commonly used TO SELL STUFF...which it seems to me should require a little more in the way of proof than beliefs that are not designed to sell stuff.

And I'll see if I can find that sennheiser test you asked for. In the mean time perhaps you can find me the one that shows ten or more people WERE able to tell the difference! LOL...

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

...But I would like to see proof that the sorts of burn in times I see tossed around by retailers are realistic at all. What kind of deviation from the intended response are we talking about/ +/-4dB? +/-6dB?

I think they just use that to get people to burn through their return window.

I'm not sure about return windows, but it definitely seems like stating that a set of phones needs a certain burn in period would be a great way for a manufacturer to allow time for "brain burn in" and aural adaptation to occur!

 

[elmoe]

No, it isn't about quality of sound. Nobody who advocates for burn in ever says the result of burn in made the phones in question sound worse. All I'm looking for is some relatively meaningful proof of ANY audible change as a result of some recommended burn in period. Once that has been established, then maybe we can start talking about whether that change is good or not...

And I added an edit to my previous post which presents at least something more than just beliefs.

...and it's worth noting that one set of these beliefs is commonly used TO SELL STUFF...which it seems to me should require a little more in the way of proof than beliefs that are not designed to sell stuff.

And I'll see if I can find that sennheiser test you asked for. In the mean time perhaps you can find me the one that shows ten or more people WERE able to tell the difference! LOL...

That link you posted concludes with: Therefore, it is possible that there are headphones in the market that would require break-in but were not included in our test. It also possible that increasing the length of test by a few hundreds of hours, or testing headphones of others types (with electrostatic or hybrid drivers) would show evidence of burn-in. Additionally, we only compared the headphones in terms of frequency, phase, and harmonic distortion response. Other metrics such as inter-modulation distortion or non-coherent distortion may be able to show a pattern of change that could be considered as evidence for headphones break-in.

Yes, it's about quality of sound. In my example about pad wear, an audio engineer will find the quality worse, your typical at home listener will find it better. Sound quality from an Audiophile (and NOT an audio engineer)'s perspective is subjective. Why are you looking for meaningful proof? If you've bought a pair of headphones, listened to them, liked them, listened to them for 500 hours, did not notice any kind of change and are still happy with them, then all's well in your world.

The link your posted previously also shows some changes. Whether those are audibly relevant or not is going to depend on many different factors, but the phase and frequency response timelapse graphs on the link you posted clearly show a shift in curves for X hours of break in.

As for selling stuff, you'd have to be a pretty terrible salesman if your sales argument was "my product is only good after 500 hours of use". I don't think that's a very good sales argument at all.

As for showing you links where people can tell a difference, so far the only ones I've seen are the articles about Stradivarius violins, where it is explicitly pointed out that people can tell a difference between the old & new. I don't know myself of any actual volume matched, double blind ABX testing done with headphones as I've asked for some, and I am not here to prove my belief one way or the other. I'm only interested in seeing actual data and valid testing, not anecdotal evidence, whether that evidence favors the idea that burn-in has an audible effect on sound signature or not. Personally I am very happy with the gear I have, and the only burn-in I've done on any pair of headphones I've ever owned was when they were on my head with music playing through them. That being said, I haven't read anything in this whole thread that invalidates the argument that something like a diaphragm will loosen over time and impact sound signature, and it seems very plausible to me.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I'm not interested in violins I'm interested in headphones. And your point about the article I linked to is both predictable (I knew you were going to highlight that comment) and un inspiring. Until you present me an article in which every single model of headphone is tested under every circumstance and some meaningful evidence of burn in is uncovered, I'm going to accept the conclusion presented in that article - of four headphone models tested (all of which are said to need burn in) no burn in effect was noted after 120 hours. The "shift in curves" you refer to in their measurements bounce up and down over time. That isn't how burn in is supposed to work according to the people who advocate it. If the effect is up and down over time and all over the place how can it be considered a useful process for assessing the quality of a headphone (and that's assuming the variations are even audible)?

I'm looking for meaningful proof because that's what this discussion is about, lol. If you don't care about meaningful proof, maybe the Sound Science forum is the wrong place to hang out. I don't know why you keep talking about sound quality. It doesn't matter for our purposes in this particular discussion. Pads don't matter (aside from them being a possible explanation for SQ changes other than burn in of course). What matters is trying to determine if there is any reason to believe burn in actually is a thing that happens...

Browse around the forums a bit. I'm pretty sure you'll find lots of recommendations for headphones in which it's stated they need a certain period of burn in to get good. I wasn't really talking about paid salesmen...

 

[elmoe]

I'm not interested in violins I'm interested in headphones. And your point about the article I linked to is both predictable (I knew you were going to highlight that comment) and un inspiring. Until you present me an article in which every single model of headphone is tested under every circumstance and some meaningful evidence of burn in is uncovered, I'm going to accept the conclusion presented in that article - of four headphone models tested (all of which are said to need burn in) no burn in effect was noted after 120 hours.

I didn't realize you wanted a dissertation from me. I shall try to enhance my words to inspire you henceforth.

In all seriousness, you're very combative about this whole ordeal for someone who doesn't think burn-in is real. Shouldn't you really not care all that much? Lots of bitterness going around. Personally I think this type of discussion is quite fun.

If you're unable to discuss the topic without getting riled up, I suggest taking a break from the discussion and I don't know, listen to music?

Moving on. I, unlike yourself, am very interested in violins and I believe there is definitely a correlation between musical instruments aging and having a particular type of sound signature and headphones (possibly) doing the same. I understand that you believe otherwise, and having not provide any factual evidence of the contrary, I will adopt the same position you do in saying that until you prove to me that headphones don't break/burn-in, by giving my factual evidence as opposed to anecdotal (which is what the Sound Science forum is about), then I'm going to accept what my ears tell me, rather than some random article by some random guy nobody knows anything about.