[old tech]

It’s not even necessary to post that, even though it’s obviously true. Because you have already posted measurable audio differences but then say it doesn’t matter because those differences are inaudible (16 vs 24 bit etc.)

So you can hear a difference between 96dB and 144dB?

Unless your aim is to stir the pot, why are you even here? It is a bit like an alternative medicine type posting on medical science boards claiming that homoeopathy is real and the medical science and practitioners are all ideologically motivated when they ask for proof or a basic explanation of why it would work without an appeal to pseudo-science or the implicit paranormal.

And like audio, most believers of magic thinking are not frauds but rather they don't understand their own human perceptions and how it can be distorted by beliefs. The frauds are usually the purveyors of products and services to people with these ungrounded beliefs.

 

[dazzerfong]

So you can hear a difference between 96dB and 144dB?

Unless your aim is to stir the pot, why are you even here? It is a bit like an alternative medicine type posting on medical science boards claiming that homoeopathy is real and the medical science and practitioners are all ideologically motivated when they ask for proof or a basic explanation of why it would work without an appeal to pseudo-science or the implicit paranormal.

And like audio, most believers of magic thinking are not frauds but rather they don't understand their own human perceptions and how it can be distorted by beliefs. The frauds are usually the purveyors of products and services to people with these ungrounded beliefs.

It's obvious why he's here. Let's not entertain him - ignore and move on.

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

So you can hear a difference between 96dB and 144dB?

Unless your aim is to stir the pot, why are you even here? It is a bit like an alternative medicine type posting on medical science boards claiming that homoeopathy is real and the medical science and practitioners are all ideologically motivated when they ask for proof or a basic explanation of why it would work without an appeal to pseudo-science or the implicit paranormal.

And like audio, most believers of magic thinking are not frauds but rather they don't understand their own human perceptions and how it can be distorted by beliefs. The frauds are usually the purveyors of products and services to people with these ungrounded beliefs.

I never said I could hear the difference. How about the next time you quote me, you use the entire post, instead of quote-mining?

I have history with Bigshot. I was speaking about something specific, which you didn’t even include from my post. So everything else is void of proper context.

 

[Davesrose]

I never said I could hear the difference. How about the next time you quote me, you use the entire post, instead of quote-mining?

I have history with Bigshot. I was speaking about something specific, which you didn’t even include from my post. So everything else is void of proper context.

I don't know about your history of Bigshot, but when it comes to post #44, humm....no, don't see anyone shutting down this thread. People will continue to argue about minutiae until the end of time (even 16bit vs 24bit sources, while I haven't seen anything definitive what I prefer is title/mastering which doesn't make bit depth inherent). I know I have gotten into some heated arguments here...some over difference of terminology, technologies or physiology I know about, or what not...I could be angered or even triggered....but that still shouldn't mean censorship.

 

[castleofargh]

It’s not even necessary to post that, even though it’s obviously true. Because you have already posted measurable audio differences but then say it doesn’t matter because those differences are inaudible (16 vs 24 bit etc.).

So all your bases are covered and your ideology will always remain intact. If audio differences do not show in measurements, then anyone saying they hear differences is a fraud. But if audio differences do show up in measurements, it still doesn’t matter because human hearing can’t detect it anyway.

You all win. Case closed. Can a moderator just shut down all Sound Science threads now? The matter has been settled. No need for further discussion.

Measuring a difference can show a difference exists, so it's a very important step. One I would love to see more often when someone makes claims of objective changes to a driver.
But audibility is a completely different matter. Only a controlled listening test can really demonstrate audibility. and that's where things get annoying:

-We don't have time travel at disposition so we can't have someone A/B the before and after headphone. We can record something at both moments and the listener will A/B that, but someone will argue that the headphone used to listen might mask the differences. Or that the recording isn't precise enough, and question the experiment that way. So if no listener can tell a difference, we're back to the usual argument that blind tests are set up for people to fail them. At least if some listeners pass, we can conclude that something does sound different and start to look for the possible cause/causes. Which in this context of he says, she says, would be of tremendous value.
I've tried that once and couldn't pass(TBH what I measured didn't suggest there was something to hear).

-Other option, we could use 2 pairs of the same headphone and only "burn-in" one. We'd have to first confirm that nobody could tell them apart at the beginning. Otherwise the test is meaningless. Except that having to switch between headphones takes time and is impractical to test, both before and after. You'd have to take the headphone away where the listener can't see and have randomly the same or the other headphone given back to him, hoping he can't tell from the heat remaining on the pads, shape of the pads, or something else. Each switch will introduce a few dB of variations here and there because of a slightly different position on the head(change in the trebles, perhaps in the low end due to lesser seal). most of all, 2 pairs of headphones rarely measure close enough to be completely indistinguishable, so not only do we have to procure 2 pairs of the same headphone, we might need way more than 2. This test is hard and can easily be contested and found inconclusive.
I haven't seen anybody even trying to do it properly so far. That one seems to be a bust.

We could just have someone try the headphone new, and then try it again after 200h of burn-in and ask what he thinks.
Here the listener will have to remember perfectly some event from at least 200h ago, when research suggests that we start altering our memory of a sound sometimes as soon as a handful of second after hearing it. Super reassuring! So if someone feels like something is different, maybe it is, maybe some slight change in how he focused caused him to memorize something else, maybe he's noticing the difference between the actual sound and the imperfections in his memory of it? we don't know.
Oh and whatever he will answer, we have no way to confirm if it's true or not!!! Because, wait for it, this is not a test at all. It's us asking for somebody's opinion about a memory. No control is in place to check if he's correct or not. Worthless in term of getting conclusive evidence of audibility.
Of course that's what everybody claiming to have heard driver burn-in, is relying on.

So while you argue that we can close the topic because some of us have excuses prepared to reject any evidence(some do seem to act like that), I'd argue that we're still waiting for some legit reasons to start it. right now I've seen more reasons to believe in dark energy or UFOs, than in any sort of benefit (objective or subjective) coming from burning-in our headphones. doesn't mean they don't exist, of course lacking evidence doesn't disprove something! but then again, maybe when I tell my headphone "I love you" every morning, the sound improves. do you want to discuss that possibility in 30 different topics where nobody has any legit evidence of anything but loves to claim to know stuff anyway? seems like a waste of everybody's time, but not for the reason you proposed.

 

[bigshot]

I just want to shoutout to @gregorio and @bigshot for waging war against bull day in and day out on these boards. Respect.

Thanks, but I follow Mark Twain's old saying... Everyone is ignorant, just on different topics. I just try to focus on what I know, even if people keep trying to drag me into theoretical arguments about stuff other than home audio.

It’s not even necessary to post that, even though it’s obviously true. Because you have already posted measurable audio differences but then say it doesn’t matter because those differences are inaudible (16 vs 24 bit etc.).

Oh boy! Man! This is your golden opportunity to prove me wrong! All you have to do is post a controlled listening test that showed that people could hear the difference, and then WOW! would I have to eat crow then! OK go.

I don't know my history with this guy either. I guess he got butt-hurt at some point. It all turns into a blur with this stuff sometimes. Maybe he'll get butt hurt again and go away.

we could use 2 pairs of the same headphone and only "burn-in" one. We'd have to first confirm that nobody could tell them apart at the beginning. Otherwise the test is meaningless. Except that having to switch between headphones takes time and is impractical to test, both before and after.

I've done this with three sets of Oppo PM-1s, not with direct comparison but with careful evaluation using tone sweeps, if that counts... They all look identical, and after evaluating the response curve, they all came out with the same EQ correction. I still have a set in a drawer I haven't used much yet and two others that have been used a lot.

 

[dazzerfong]

Thanks, but I follow Mark Twain's old saying... Everyone is ignorant, just on different topics. I just try to focus on what I know, even if people keep trying to drag me into theoretical arguments about stuff other than home audio.



Oh boy! Man! This is your golden opportunity to prove me wrong! All you have to do is post a controlled listening test that showed that people could hear the difference, and then WOW! would I have to eat crow then! OK go.

I don't know my history with this guy either. I guess he got butt-hurt at some point. It all turns into a blur with this stuff sometimes. Maybe he'll get butt hurt again and go away.



I've done this with three sets of Oppo PM-1s, not with direct comparison but with careful evaluation using tone sweeps, if that counts... They all look identical, and after evaluating the response curve, they all came out with the same EQ correction. I still have a set in a drawer I haven't used much yet and two others that have been used a lot.

At least for headphones, there's an easy way to 'cheat' the break-in process: the pads. If you wear glasses, new headphones tend to pinch a lot more on them as they haven't quite conformed to your glasses yet. Regardless of the glasses, pads do get softer over time so that's another way of telling which headphone's which.

Then again, we're comparing a brand new headphones to one that's a year old.

 

[bigshot]

The pads pop off. We could use the same pads on all of the sets

 

[gimmeheadroom]

I've heard about headphone burn in for a long time, but I've never actually done it myself. I never really took to it because I did some quick research and found that it doesn't seem to be a real thing. But a lot of people seem to post on these forums about it... Is it legit? If it is legit, then why don't manufacturers do pre-burn in on their cans?

Headphones have mechanical components. There is cone movement or planar membrane movement so in theory there is likely to be some kind of change. But I believe any burn in is strictly between one pad and the other. Just like when you watch a movie or read a book the more times you go through it the more you pick up, your brain gets used to what each pair of headphones is doing. If everybody agrees headphones are a ticking time bomb destined to go into the garbage the minute you put them on then burn in is more reasonable. What's not reasonable is to think things get better and stay that way. If there is burn in there is burn out. So no, I say no, there is no appreciable burn in that anybody can hear.

But your last question about if it is legit then why don't manufacturers do it is not a reasonable question. As soon as something is ready to ship and it doesn't, that is costing somebody money. If you are willing to pay 2-3X the going rate, I will personally burn in all your new heaphones for you. BTW that price does not include shipping to me and back to you, customs charges, freight forwarding fees, local taxes, packaging, etc.

 

[dazzerfong]

The pads pop off. We could use the same pads on all of the sets

Yeah you could, but problem is pads breaking in are a thing. Can't discount break-in without considering the pads.

That being said, would like to see a measurement of an old pad vs new. Considering how sensitive headphone measurements are in just the positioning alone, wonder if the pads being different will be masked by that.....

 

[castleofargh]

Yeah you could, but problem is pads breaking in are a thing. Can't discount break-in without considering the pads.

That being said, would like to see a measurement of an old pad vs new. Considering how sensitive headphone measurements are in just the positioning alone, wonder if the pads being different will be masked by that.....

Anytime someone bothers to try measuring driver "burn in" under real life conditions, it becomes self evident that there are many other causes of sound changes that clearly dominate whatever may or may not happen to most headphone drivers. In all my efforts, the pads and placement on the head were always the clear winners in affecting the sound. To the point that last time I removed the pads and made a setup to firmly hold the driver in place throughout the process(and I found nothing conclusive in FR or THD).
that's why the reasoning; "I heard a change, ergo driver burn in is a fact", is so silly. It's clearly the reasoning of someone who's missing some pretty fundamental information on the topic.
Even if human memory was perfect, even if the listening skills of the person were perfect, in real life the differences he'd perceive would almost certainly be caused by something other than the driver itself.

Somehow I can't find my measurements of old vs new pads. I've found the impedance change from pads on my hd650, so it should be there somewhere. But with my talent in labeling files like "testhd650XXX1337-v2", it could be anywhere. I even might have deleted it thinking it was crap.
But the change is fairly obvious and long before measuring a change, I remember changing my EQ on new pads, and coming back to my usual EQ after a few months on the hd650. so something was bothering me in the FR at least.
On the other hand, I've never measured a headphone with those super large leather pads that look like they haven't changed at all in 10years beside maybe some slight discoloration from sweat. perhaps those do show high stability? I really don't know.

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

Measuring a difference can show a difference exists, so it's a very important step. One I would love to see more often when someone makes claims of objective changes to a driver.
But audibility is a completely different matter. Only a controlled listening test can really demonstrate audibility. and that's where things get annoying:

-We don't have time travel at disposition so we can't have someone A/B the before and after headphone. We can record something at both moments and the listener will A/B that, but someone will argue that the headphone used to listen might mask the differences. Or that the recording isn't precise enough, and question the experiment that way. So if no listener can tell a difference, we're back to the usual argument that blind tests are set up for people to fail them. At least if some listeners pass, we can conclude that something does sound different and start to look for the possible cause/causes. Which in this context of he says, she says, would be of tremendous value.
I've tried that once and couldn't pass(TBH what I measured didn't suggest there was something to hear).

-Other option, we could use 2 pairs of the same headphone and only "burn-in" one. We'd have to first confirm that nobody could tell them apart at the beginning. Otherwise the test is meaningless. Except that having to switch between headphones takes time and is impractical to test, both before and after. You'd have to take the headphone away where the listener can't see and have randomly the same or the other headphone given back to him, hoping he can't tell from the heat remaining on the pads, shape of the pads, or something else. Each switch will introduce a few dB of variations here and there because of a slightly different position on the head(change in the trebles, perhaps in the low end due to lesser seal). most of all, 2 pairs of headphones rarely measure close enough to be completely indistinguishable, so not only do we have to procure 2 pairs of the same headphone, we might need way more than 2. This test is hard and can easily be contested and found inconclusive.
I haven't seen anybody even trying to do it properly so far. That one seems to be a bust.

We could just have someone try the headphone new, and then try it again after 200h of burn-in and ask what he thinks.
Here the listener will have to remember perfectly some event from at least 200h ago, when research suggests that we start altering our memory of a sound sometimes as soon as a handful of second after hearing it. Super reassuring! So if someone feels like something is different, maybe it is, maybe some slight change in how he focused caused him to memorize something else, maybe he's noticing the difference between the actual sound and the imperfections in his memory of it? we don't know.
Oh and whatever he will answer, we have no way to confirm if it's true or not!!! Because, wait for it, this is not a test at all. It's us asking for somebody's opinion about a memory. No control is in place to check if he's correct or not. Worthless in term of getting conclusive evidence of audibility.
Of course that's what everybody claiming to have heard driver burn-in, is relying on.

So while you argue that we can close the topic because some of us have excuses prepared to reject any evidence(some do seem to act like that), I'd argue that we're still waiting for some legit reasons to start it. right now I've seen more reasons to believe in dark energy or UFOs, than in any sort of benefit (objective or subjective) coming from burning-in our headphones. doesn't mean they don't exist, of course lacking evidence doesn't disprove something! but then again, maybe when I tell my headphone "I love you" every morning, the sound improves. do you want to discuss that possibility in 30 different topics where nobody has any legit evidence of anything but loves to claim to know stuff anyway? seems like a waste of everybody's time, but not for the reason you proposed.

Just for the record, I don’t believe that cables make much difference at all, and I don’t believe that headphone “burn in” can make more than nominal differences either. I was arguing that there are properties and qualities of sound that a headphone produces that cannot be measured, but can be heard and discerned. There are things that one headphone can do better that another headphone can’t, even if they had the exact same tuning, frequency response, volume matched, etc.

I have never seen a CSD plot, frequency response, impulse response, etc. that can inform the listener which headphone will have the better soundstage, better layering of instruments, or which will have the more refined treble quality, for example. The FR can tell you where there is more energy at a given point and how well the treble extends to 20K, for example, but it can’t tell you if you’ll find the treble grainy or sibilant. You have to hear the headphones to determine that. I’ve had many headphones that have much lower treble energy, yet sound grainy and sibilant across many of my test tracks. And then I’ve heard headphones that scare me when I see the FR of their treble, and although they may sound bright, they do not grate my ears.

 

[castleofargh]

Just for the record, I don’t believe that cables make much difference at all, and I don’t believe that headphone “burn in” can make more than nominal differences either. I was arguing that there are properties and qualities of sound that a headphone produces that cannot be measured, but can be heard and discerned. There are things that one headphone can do better that another headphone can’t, even if they had the exact same tuning, frequency response, volume matched, etc.

I have never seen a CSD plot, frequency response, impulse response, etc. that can inform the listener which headphone will have the better soundstage, better layering of instruments, or which will have the more refined treble quality, for example. The FR can tell you where there is more energy at a given point and how well the treble extends to 20K, for example, but it can’t tell you if you’ll find the treble grainy or sibilant. You have to hear the headphones to determine that. I’ve had many headphones that have much lower treble energy, yet sound grainy and sibilant across many of my test tracks. And then I’ve heard headphones that scare me when I see the FR of their treble, and although they may sound bright, they do not grate my ears.

That's a logical fallacy.
Your examples to say that we can't measure everything in the sound coming out of a headphone, are subjective ones. But subjectivity doesn't exist in the sound waves. The subjective impression only takes form in your own head as an interpretation of the signal modified by your very own ears and mixed in with your other senses, memories, and thoughts. You only feel that the sound is that of a piano because you've experienced pianos making somewhat similar sounds. If you had been raised by trickster parents showing you all the time some video tape of a Godzilla movie with piano sounds anytime it opened it's mouth, and never letting you see an actual piano. You'd probably think it's the sound of Godzilla.
As for placement in space, your HRTF vastly influences that impression with a headphone. I have a different HRTF and as such am unlikely to ever place the various instruments exactly like you do in your own head, and that despite us using the same headphone with the driver vibrating the same way. Again, we call all those stuff subjective for a reason.

The only real issue with measuring headphone sound is like I said in the last post, all the other crap that a microphone is likely to pick up along with the driver's own vibrations. At some point it would be relevant to measure the driver with an optical setup instead of a microphone to avoid pollution from noises in the room, and maybe the mic's own distortions. In that respect we can have troubles measuring "everything", but that soon becomes a rhetorical conversation because a different measurement device will have different limitations. And if we go small enough in any type of measurements, we always end up reaching a limit. If only the limit of our quantification system.
Saying that we can't measure everything is kind of true, depending on circumstances. Like saying that a frequency response doesn't measure THD. But let's just remember that we've captured a "picture" of a black hole(waves from stuff around it), and one of an electron. Those are the scales that we're learning to handle. So the sound waves within the puny human audio range shouldn't be that much of a problem if we want to look at them more accurately than usual ^_^.


I'd like to mention that in a topic about doing headphone burn in, you've managed to initiate discussions about cables, ABX, and 16/24PCM. And now although you got baited by bigshot(bad bigshot! bad!), we got the "can't measure everything" defended by the legendary false, soundstage argument. I still try to reply as honestly and seriously as I can, but I'm starting to question your real purpose here.

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

That's a logical fallacy.
Your examples to say that we can't measure everything in the sound coming out of a headphone, are subjective ones. But subjectivity doesn't exist in the sound waves. The subjective impression only takes form in your own head as an interpretation of the signal modified by your very own ears and mixed in with your other senses, memories, and thoughts. You only feel that the sound is that of a piano because you've experienced pianos making somewhat similar sounds. If you had been raised by trickster parents showing you all the time some video tape of a Godzilla movie with piano sounds anytime it opened it's mouth, and never letting you see an actual piano. You'd probably think it's the sound of Godzilla.
As for placement in space, your HRTF vastly influences that impression with a headphone. I have a different HRTF and as such am unlikely to ever place the various instruments exactly like you do in your own head, and that despite us using the same headphone with the driver vibrating the same way. Again, we call all those stuff subjective for a reason.

The only real issue with measuring headphone sound is like I said in the last post, all the other crap that a microphone is likely to pick up along with the driver's own vibrations. At some point it would be relevant to measure the driver with an optical setup instead of a microphone to avoid pollution from noises in the room, and maybe the mic's own distortions. In that respect we can have troubles measuring "everything", but that soon becomes a rhetorical conversation because a different measurement device will have different limitations. And if we go small enough in any type of measurements, we always end up reaching a limit. If only the limit of our quantification system.
Saying that we can't measure everything is kind of true, depending on circumstances. Like saying that a frequency response doesn't measure THD. But let's just remember that we've captured a "picture" of a black hole(waves from stuff around it), and one of an electron. Those are the scales that we're learning to handle. So the sound waves within the puny human audio range shouldn't be that much of a problem if we want to look at them more accurately than usual ^_^.


I'd like to mention that in a topic about doing headphone burn in, you've managed to initiate discussions about cables, ABX, and 16/24PCM. And now although you got baited by bigshot(bad bigshot! bad!), we got the "can't measure everything" defended by the legendary false, soundstage argument. I still try to reply as honestly and seriously as I can, but I'm starting to question your real purpose here.

You question my purpose here? I question your ability as a moderator to actually be unbiased. I made no logical fallacy. Tell Bigshot to EQ the hell out of his PM-1 and get the frequency response to match the 800S and I’ll personally fly to California and accept the challenge on whether or not I can tell them apart in a controlled study that he can set up. By your logic, if they measure the same, I should fail miserably. You know, since you all claim all aspects of sound can be measured, and if it can’t, it’s not real. It’s just imagination. It’s subjective bias.

The truth is, most of you all in here, and especially Bigshot, are basically headphone hacks. You all are experts on speakers, but then think that expertise carries over to equal a 1-1 to headphones. It doesn't. They’re very different tools. The truth is, there are aspects of headphones that can’t be measured. Soundstage is one of them. You disagree? I don’t care. You’re wrong. Set up the challenge.

 

[KeithPhantom]

That's a logical fallacy.
Your examples to say that we can't measure everything in the sound coming out of a headphone, are subjective ones. But subjectivity doesn't exist in the sound waves. The subjective impression only takes form in your own head as an interpretation of the signal modified by your very own ears and mixed in with your other senses, memories, and thoughts. You only feel that the sound is that of a piano because you've experienced pianos making somewhat similar sounds. If you had been raised by trickster parents showing you all the time some video tape of a Godzilla movie with piano sounds anytime it opened it's mouth, and never letting you see an actual piano. You'd probably think it's the sound of Godzilla.
As for placement in space, your HRTF vastly influences that impression with a headphone. I have a different HRTF and as such am unlikely to ever place the various instruments exactly like you do in your own head, and that despite us using the same headphone with the driver vibrating the same way. Again, we call all those stuff subjective for a reason.

The only real issue with measuring headphone sound is like I said in the last post, all the other crap that a microphone is likely to pick up along with the driver's own vibrations. At some point it would be relevant to measure the driver with an optical setup instead of a microphone to avoid pollution from noises in the room, and maybe the mic's own distortions. In that respect we can have troubles measuring "everything", but that soon becomes a rhetorical conversation because a different measurement device will have different limitations. And if we go small enough in any type of measurements, we always end up reaching a limit. If only the limit of our quantification system.
Saying that we can't measure everything is kind of true, depending on circumstances. Like saying that a frequency response doesn't measure THD. But let's just remember that we've captured a "picture" of a black hole(waves from stuff around it), and one of an electron. Those are the scales that we're learning to handle. So the sound waves within the puny human audio range shouldn't be that much of a problem if we want to look at them more accurately than usual ^_^.


I'd like to mention that in a topic about doing headphone burn in, you've managed to initiate discussions about cables, ABX, and 16/24PCM. And now although you got baited by bigshot(bad bigshot! bad!), we got the "can't measure everything" defended by the legendary false, soundstage argument. I still try to reply as honestly and seriously as I can, but I'm starting to question your real purpose here.

Not to attack you, but remember because the argument is fallacious doesn't mean the conclusion is also fallacious (argumentum ad logicam). When someone uses a fallacious argument, try to explain why it is fallacious and then tell them what to fix in it, because hypothesis must be tested in order to falsify them and no fallacy can disprove a proposed hypothesis.

To address the actual topic, it is true that at a microscopic level we can see the effects of burn-in both in headphones and speakers, the problem is that the how audible is that change and how it does correlate to sound has not being agreed upon the audiophile community. This matter affects both the subjective perception of the sound coming from the transducer and the financial toll it takes each acquisition and "upgrade" of the actual gear.

In my opinion, until further testing is not provided that demonstrates that burn-in actually yields a difference that can be detected by an agreed concept of average human hearing, I assume the de facto position that no change can be heard. Now, if compelling evidence is brought to light and is peer-reviewed, I don't have any problem to switch sides.