[Permagrin]

Quote:

The debate is too much fun to give it up.
 
I disagree that there is no proof of anything. There are billions of actions that cause the same result time after time, so you can prove an action will cause a specific result. For me, there are enough measurements of speakers to show that they do change when in use and then revert back to their original state when left. That physical change is essential in taking the first step to proving burn in.

 
Yes physical change. The one roadblock I see though is that to accurately test this is it would require two headphones that are physically identical down to a negligble threshold. FWIR that seems to be nigh impossible which suggests that there will never be a true statement regarding this. Well other than those headphones which have components that do physically change with use (whichever ones those are).
 
Oh and nice post ajkda.

 

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

By simply claiming this or that couldn't be tested before verifying your information you do not fit the title of headphone supremus.

^This statement is full of win.

 

[Albedo]

So being a man of science one should label others with their golden ears as a cognitive dissonance rambling idiot, and if that idiot links to something that's opposite to one's conviction as a man of science... ignore.
 
http://www.jenving.se/?p=direct
 
It's always a good thing to check out a link, but for the lazy...
 
 
Quote:

In ‘high-end’ audio, ‘Directionality’ means: ‘a cable used for audio signal transmission offering better sound quality (in various ways) when connected a particular way round.’ To those sensitive to the sonic changes, this is repeatable, over spans of time, or in different systems. In other cases, if the less good direction were chosen, it too may approach the preferred direction after burn-in, i.e. a period of use, simple ageing, or even cryogenic treatment. Such ‘burn-in’ processes involve annealing of the metal.
Some pundits say that ‘directionality’ (in cables) can be heard even on the low quality ‘curvy plastic’ low/mid-fi audio equipment sold in high-street shops. On an higher vector, a US high-end enthusiast/ researcher, Doug Blackburn, suggests it is possible that when audiophiles say they hear sonic changes after changing polarity (by swapping conductors at one point - not by swapping ends as with conventional directionality*) that they’ve actually heard directionality instead. That’s because purely digital (‘software’) polarity reversals mysteriously don’t have the sonic attributes associated with analogue signal polarity reversal.

*Here, directionality effect being heard is in the connected parts (eg. long inductor wires), rather than in the preceding connective conductors.

 
One could just label Mr. Jenving and laugh at him saying "we must always be able to explain what we do, measure what we do and... to prove". Here's an interview of the madman with his ridiculous claims, just look at that rambling idiot making no sense at all -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqNCL67QzL8

 

[EthanWiner]

Quote:

sigh*

I'm not here to make trouble or to make enemies, but that is the lamest (non) reply I've seen in weeks. So you have nothing to rebut my clear and detailed explanation? You can't even try?
 
I've seen this before, where I'll go to great effort in a thread to explain some aspect of the science of audio, and someone comes back with this sort of empty post that expresses disagreement, but without saying why I'm wrong or what's right. What I don't understand is why people who can't defend or even explain their position continue to cling to that position.
 
--Ethan

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

The debate is too much fun to give it up.
 
I disagree that there is no proof of anything. There are billions of actions that cause the same result time after time, so you can prove an action WILL cause a specific result. For me, there are enough measurements of speakers to show that they do change when in use and then revert back to their original state when left. That physical change is essential in taking the first step to proving burn in.

I think you meant, "you can prove an action will 'most likely' cause a specific result.  

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Quote:
 
Yes physical change. The one roadblock I see though is that to accurately test this is it would require two headphones that are physically identical down to a negligble threshold. FWIR that seems to be nigh impossible which suggests that there will never be a true statement regarding this. Well other than those headphones which have components that do physically change with use (whichever ones those are).
 
Oh and nice post ajkda.

Plus you need a large sampling from different manufacturers since, IME and others, it seems to indicate the audibility of the phenomena in about 20% of the cases.
 
I actually didn't care for his post, it operated on a set of preconceived notions and didn't actually address the point and summed up in an ad hominem.  Whatever, pats on the back for everyone that agrees w/ a certain viewpoint.  Hazzah!  As usual there is not a lot of critical engagement but lots of ships passing in the night that don't even read the thread(s).  OP should change the title to 'Just another Burn-in thread'.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

So being a man of science one should label others with their golden ears as a cognitive dissonance rambling idiot, and if that idiot links to something that's opposite to one's conviction as a man of science... ignore.
 
http://www.jenving.se/?p=direct
 
It's always a good thing to check out a link, but for the lazy...
 
 
 
One could just label Mr. Jenving and laugh at him saying "we must always be able to explain what we do, measure what we do and... to prove". Here's an interview of the madman with his ridiculous claims, just look at that rambling idiot making no sense at all -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqNCL67QzL8

Glad you said it.

 

[swbf2cheater]

Quote:

I'm not here to make trouble or to make enemies, but that is the lamest (non) reply I've seen in weeks. So you have nothing to rebut my clear and detailed explanation? You can't even try?
 
I've seen this before, where I'll go to great effort in a thread to explain some aspect of the science of audio, and someone comes back with this sort of empty post that expresses disagreement, but without saying why I'm wrong or what's right. What I don't understand is why people who can't defend or even explain their position continue to cling to that position.
 
--Ethan

Ethan, your argument is folly.  What if find incredibly humorous is the argument that there is no proof, but usually in the same paragraph someone will say no, burn in doesnt exist there is no proof.  Rofl.  Welcome to the dark ages of science where if you cant see it or there is no tech to measure it, it simply doesn't exist and anyone who thinks otherwise is dumb.
 
go buy two of the same set, test them like I have multiple times and then come back here and tell me the diaphragms have a slight difference in sound reproduction after burn in, that some wires and capacitors require X amount of time and usage to reach optimum efficiency, and lastly prove to me that the agents at Audio Technica who stated their amps and tubes do require some burn in are stupid and you are much smarter than they are.  If you ( not anyone specifically ) cannot do that, then you shouldn't post.  

 

[poikkeus]

Hmm. I'm not altogether sure if cognitive dissonance is the best way explaining the theory, though I get the idea. Cognitive dissonance kicks in only when the mind has to resolve two strong beliefs, and must choose one; however, if your beliefs are less intense, or more reasoned, the mind can even accept contradictory beliefs. Dissonance isn't a factor.
 
The idea of "perceptual set" makes more sense. You hear something, and the mind makes conclusions; perceptual set is an active process wherein beliefs can even change over time. I'm not saying that this is what's going on with headphone break-in, but it might, for some people.

 

[ajkda]

Quote:

So being a man of science one should label others with their golden ears as a cognitive dissonance rambling idiot, and if that idiot links to something that's opposite to one's conviction as a man of science... ignore.
 
http://www.jenving.se/?p=direct
 
It's always a good thing to check out a link, but for the lazy...
 
 
 
One could just label Mr. Jenving and laugh at him saying "we must always be able to explain what we do, measure what we do and... to prove". Here's an interview of the madman with his ridiculous claims, just look at that rambling idiot making no sense at all -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqNCL67QzL8

 
I do not label everyone with golden ears or self-proclaimed golden ears as having cognitive dissonance but trying to provide an explanation for so many burn-in, break-in phenomena. This burn-in phenomena appears even in BA IEMs where manufacturers themselves have stated that balanced armature requires no burn-in.
 
I do agree that within the billions of people in the world there are certainly some with better hearing or a hightened sense of hearing simply because there are many cases where the blind have better hearing. Some people are also trained to listen better and could thus have better hearing. However to say whether or it is 'golden ears' or cognitive dissonance the player in break-in is not as important; this is the science forum after all, I believe people here believe in physical measurements better because it helps to justify their purchases further.
 
Let's say you bought a $2000 headphones and did 'hear' a difference in the sound after 500 hours of use, the next day you went online and found out how the frequency response will shift as you burned the headphones in, wouldn't that be an awesome experience?

 

[Albedo]

Yes, then I'm assured that it was money well spent. As for burn-in...
 
 
Jenving Technology AB:

The ‘directionality’ of conductors is now able to be measured, and Supra cables are the first in the world to benefit from a spectral technique developed by audio consultant Ben Duncan in conjunction with Jenving Technology AB. This employs some special test conditions which better approximate audio equipment’s real-world usage than standard, pure signal sources. Test results show typical increases in harmonic (noise) levels 0.5dB when cables are connected so the conductors’ drawn direction opposes the signal flow direction. In real use the noise difference, which is some dB below the main signal, could be much greater. From this, a reduction in such noise (‘more clarity’) is what’s expected, and it is also one of the things that is heard in practice - when optimum conductor orientation is discovered.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

I think you meant, "you can prove an action will 'most likely' cause a specific result.  

No I meant an action that will cause a specific result. Or are you going to claim that if you mix red and blue you may end with brown?

 

[Prog Rock Man]

 
Quote:

Ethan, your argument is folly.  What if find incredibly humorous is the argument that there is no proof, but usually in the same paragraph someone will say no, burn in doesnt exist there is no proof.  Rofl.  Welcome to the dark ages of science where if you cant see it or there is no tech to measure it, it simply doesn't exist and anyone who thinks otherwise is dumb.
 
go buy two of the same set, test them like I have multiple times and then come back here and tell me the diaphragms have a slight difference in sound reproduction after burn in, that some wires and capacitors require X amount of time and usage to reach optimum efficiency, and lastly prove to me that the agents at Audio Technica who stated their amps and tubes do require some burn in are stupid and you are much smarter than they are.  If you ( not anyone specifically ) cannot do that, then you shouldn't post.  

Please link to/post those tests and the results. That would make for very interesting reading.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

No I meant an action that will cause a specific result. Or are you going to claim that if you mix red and blue you may end with brown?

No, just that it's a logical fallacy to assume to know the outcome of a future event.  In fact, you don't know that it won't be brown until you test it and only then would your conclusion be valid for that test and not a future one.  Do you KNOW the Sun will rise tomorrow?  Nobody does, but people will claim to based on prior knowledge and assume as much.  We operate more on Induction rather than Empiricism than most would believe.  Just putting the notion of 'conclusivity' into perspective.  Science needs to be tempered by reason and critical analysis and not succumb to orthodoxy and dogma.  Lets assume we conduct your test using red and blue paint and hypothesize the outcome to be purple paint.  Yet after mixing it does turn Brown!  What then?  We do an analysis and discover some impurity during the manufacturing process interacted w/ the chemical composition of the other paint yielding the unexpected result.  I just caution the notion that anything is the be all end all conclusive test.  The Theory of Gravity is still up in the air being challenged by some of the brightest physicists in the world yet people want to claim 'conclusive knowledge' of the quantum universe within which an electron exists?  Call me skeptical. 

 

[Permagrin]

Quote:

No, just that it's a logical fallacy to assume to know the outcome of a future event.  In fact, you don't know that it won't be brown until you test it and only then would your conclusion be valid for that test and not a future one.  Do you KNOW the Sun will rise tomorrow?  Nobody does, but people will claim to based on prior knowledge and assume as much.  We operate more on Induction rather than Empiricism than most would believe.  Just putting the notion of 'conclusivity' into perspective.  Science needs to be tempered by reason and critical analysis and not succumb to orthodoxy and dogma.  Lets assume we conduct your test using red and blue paint and hypothesize the outcome to be purple paint.  Yet after mixing it does turn Brown!  What then?  We do an analysis and discover some impurity during the manufacturing process interacted w/ the chemical composition of the other paint yielding the unexpected result.  I just caution the notion that anything is the be all end all conclusive test.  The Theory of Gravity is still up in the air being challenged by some of the brightest physicists in the world yet people want to claim 'conclusive knowledge' of the quantum universe within which an electron exists?  Call me skeptical. 

 
Ok Mr. Skeptical. 

 
The other can of worms (sic?), in my opinion, is the still pervasive thought patterns of Aristotleian logic (see Robert Anton Wilson).