- Joined
- Apr 11, 2015
- Posts
- 1,311
- Likes
- 558
It was a lucky break back in 1981 or 2
Some types of changes have been demonstrated on rather large speakers. The audibility of it is another matter(maybe just because it's impractical to set up a listening test, as you need the same device at different moments in time, so nobody bothered?). But at least we have public data shared on those objective changes affecting the sound. Headphones, while using similar dynamic driver tech, are also different in many ways(size, shape, material, impedance, mostly no surround involved, ...). So just pushing what we know of speakers onto headphones and concluding that it's the same, is a really bad idea IMO. Almost as bad as letting memories of sighted impressions be the judge of objective changes.No proof, but it's interessting that focal has a page on their website about burning in their loudspeakers. The cause being that the mount is rigid and needs to adapt to temperature and humidity.
https://www.focal.com/en/focal-teach/what-is-the-running-in-period
I know it's not headphone drivers, and that there's no measurements, but it's coming from a big company.
When i bought an Audioquest Nightowl, they also said in the manual, that you shouldn't trust the sound having settled until it reached 150 hours of burn in.
Another question.
The difference might not be in frequency response, but in soundstage and the details. If that's so, how can you measure that?
I'm not really a smart guy so don't roast me
The manual that came with my speakers specifically says burn in is not required. The way it is stated implies burn in is a audiophiles/marketing myth.No proof, but it's interessting that focal has a page on their website about burning in their loudspeakers. The cause being that the mount is rigid and needs to adapt to temperature and humidity.
https://www.focal.com/en/focal-teach/what-is-the-running-in-period
I know it's not headphone drivers, and that there's no measurements, but it's coming from a big company.
When i bought an Audioquest Nightowl, they also said in the manual, that you shouldn't trust the sound having settled until it reached 150 hours of burn in
Yep...Allan Shaw of Harbeth says break in is a crock.The manual that came with my speakers specifically says burn in is not required. The way it is stated implies burn in is a audiophiles/marketing myth.
Thank you for the response. It makes sense.Some types of changes have been demonstrated on rather large speakers. The audibility of it is another matter(maybe just because it's impractical to set up a listening test, as you need the same device at different moments in time, so nobody bothered?). But at least we have public data shared on those objective changes affecting the sound. Headphones, while using similar dynamic driver tech, are also different in many ways(size, shape, material, impedance, mostly no surround involved, ...). So just pushing what we know of speakers onto headphones and concluding that it's the same, is a really bad idea IMO. Almost as bad as letting memories of sighted impressions be the judge of objective changes.
Manufacturers telling you to burn in gears for XXX hours is the easiest trick in the book to stop someone ready to send something back, make him have second thoughts and keep the gear until he either gets more used to it, or passes the return policy limit. I don't mean to say that all manufacturers of all products in the world talking about burn in are doing it for that reason, but I'd bet that several do. Because it costs them nothing, and might easily save them money. In the world of marketing that seems like a no-brainer.
Soundstage is an impression. Like any other, it is born of interpreting and mixing up various information(not necessarily limited to hearing). So we have to pick what we wish to test for. If you're only curious about possible "soundstage" impact from the sound itself, then we need to set up a test where people don't know what they're listening at. So that only sound can have an impact on the result.
What can change the subjective impression of "soundstage"(in a very large improper sense), is most of the audible sound. So the obvious solution to factually measure a change, would simply be to record signals and music before and after "burn in" periods, then check for differences. That can easily settle the question of objective change in the sound over time.
What it does not settle is knowing if that change is caused by "burn in"(whatever that really is supposed to mean, as we've already seen anecdotes about guitars...). I've measured significant change over time at magnitudes easily audible with my own headphones, but so far the most obvious contribution to sound change have always clearly been the pads and how they change over time. Because anytime I've tried to record or measure stuff without pads, the differences I so easily found before were gone. Instead I got changes so small that I cannot tell you if it's ambient noise, measurement artifacts, or actual change from the driver's sound.
Regardless of whether it's ears adjusting or the headphones/earphones/speakers mechanically burning in, is this real or not based on the science?
What do you mean by detail? If we measure changes, depending on the amplitude and nature of the change, we may sometimes be able to predict to some extent what type of subjective change will be perceived by a listener(part of a sound engineer's job would be to know most of those, I guess). Like maybe some boost somewhere in the treble will feel to many people like an increase in details. If the sound is getting louder overall(with the pads being compressed and the driver coming closer to the ear over time), that too could perhaps feel like increased details to most people. But recently I've read a post where someone was clearly describing a massive increase in distortions as being more detailed. Obviously I would not say, that in general, increased distortions sound more detailed. Most likely, other people hearing what he heard would not call that more detailed. That's the issue with subjective impressions. They can be really subjective.Thank you for the response. It makes sense.
I've been thinking if it's possible with pure measurements to see it there's a change in detail.
Do you know that and do you have any examples of that?
I just imagine that measurement tests are to see the Frequency response.
With acoustic guitars it's mostly the effect of temperature and humidity changes on the wood. The nut and saddle don't change. Those are bone. But guitar players can be like audiophiles too. There are armchair guitarists who fuss over all kinds of inconsequential things instead of playing and practicing!
So would you say that when we say that some headphones are more detailed than others, it's just subjective?What do you mean by detail? If we measure changes, depending on the amplitude and nature of the change, we may sometimes be able to predict to some extent what type of subjective change will be perceived by a listener(part of a sound engineer's job would be to know most of those, I guess). Like maybe some boost somewhere in the treble will feel to many people like an increase in details. If the sound is getting louder overall(with the pads being compressed and the driver coming closer to the ear over time), that too could perhaps feel like increased details to most people. But recently I've read a post where someone was clearly describing a massive increase in distortions as being more detailed. Obviously I would not say, that in general, increased distortions sound more detailed. Most likely, other people hearing what he heard would not call that more detailed. That's the issue with subjective impressions. They can be really subjective.
No. I'm saying that what some people consider more "detailed" may have nothing to do with fidelity or the actual ability to hear more of the music.So would you say that when we say that some headphones are more detailed than others, it's just subjective?
That if you took a cheap headphone and an hd800, then you could not perceive the difference in the detail by measurements? I'm sure that just by looking at driver/voice coil material and size, you could roughly see what driver would create the best detail. But there must be some difference if we measure them. Or is it just the distortion or the lack of it?
No it was yet another weird Sony DAP marketing joke. They mentioned for some DAPs how they were using special capacitors that needed burn in. On some models they also argued that the sound was better because they used like 4 or 8 caps instead of 2 reaching the same total value... And a few years before, they were all about the wires between the battery and the PCB having lower impedance(lower than what? Nobody knows). There was also something about the soldering of that "extraordinary" battery cable being done by hand I think(or was it one of A&K BS marketing? IDK)... Before that, while they had some of the most stable and accessible UI you could find, what they were advertising instead was the karaoke option to display the lyrics (if you added some). It's like a tradition of advertising about the least significant yet peculiar stuff in the entire device.Are you saying that firmware breaks in? How is that? I've never experienced any change in performance of solid state electronics unless it gets hot and starts erring. But that isn't a good thing at all.