[swbf2cheater]

Quote:

 


 

 - if bass changes then it means that the response to bass frequencies changes which will show up as amplitude differences when you chart FR curves so if you measure the outputs pre and post burn-in for any given musical signal any changes in lower frequency range responses will show up in the measurements.Similarly if decay is affected that will show up as differences in the outputs as frequency/amplitude over time will change.

No, I do not believe it does.  Thats a misconception I am not sure can be shown on a chart like that.  Thickness and airiness cannot be charted.  Frequency response remains the same, clarity and bass tightness, thickness or kick is subject to change.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

No, I do not believe it does.  Thats a misconception I am not sure can be shown on a chart like that.  Thickness and airiness cannot be charted.  Frequency response remains the same, clarity and bass tightness, thickness or kick is subject to change.

What do you mean by thickness ? Do you mean the bass gets louder or does the bass rise time/ decay time change or are bass harmonics added, these things will show up in a FR change.
 
I am struggling to understand what you mean

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

What do you mean by thickness ? Do you mean the bass gets louder or does the bass rise time/ decay time change or are bass harmonics added, these things will show up in a FR change.
 
I am struggling to understand what you mean

I think he means body or fullness not decay or reverb.  Just a guess.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

What do you mean by thickness ? Do you mean the bass gets louder or does the bass rise time/ decay time change or are bass harmonics added, these things will show up in a FR change.
 
I am struggling to understand what you mean

He's arguing that none of the changes can be measured, but that they exist.  Basically the same argument cable believers use . . .

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

I think he means body or fullness not decay or reverb.  Just a guess.

Okay, but that descriptive term must have some correlate to the physics of sound , if two bass notes have the same fundamental and same harmonics with the same amplitudes what makes one have more body than the other ?

 

[Prog Rock Man]

If two cables or whatever sound different, but measure the same, the reason for the difference in the sound is elsewhere, probably in the mind.
 
To clarify some of my earlier posts here is how I reach a conclusion;
 
Someone suggests something (like they can hear the difference between a burned in headphone and a new one) - evidence is gathered to see if that is the case (blind tests or Audio Diffmaker) - repeats of those tests are carried out with different people and headphones - the final result is the proof as to whether cables actually make a difference.
 
At the moment with burn in we have barely started to gather evidence. I believe that we have reached a conclusion with cables and that they make no difference to sound quality, but can cause the volume to vary.
 
 

 

[googleborg]

if you look at the Wikipedia revisions list for the term "golden ears", it's quite amusing, a clear bias in many, now undone, updates, like;
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_ear&action=historysubmit&diff=388675754&oldid=369886365
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_ear&action=historysubmit&diff=323782353&oldid=323777111

 

[EthanWiner]

Quote:

Thickness and airiness cannot be charted.  Frequency response remains the same, clarity and bass tightness, thickness or kick is subject to change.

That's simply not correct. "Thickness" to me implies a low midrange frequency response, and "airiness" is definitely the 5 KHz and up frequency range. I promise that any real (not imagined) change you hear can be easily measured using the four standard metrics that apply to all audio reproduction:
 
Frequency response
Distortion
Noise
Time-based errors
 
Further, even if there were some audible parameter that audio engineers didn't know about or know how to measure, it would have shown up long ago as a residual in a null test. Not sure if I linked to my AES Audio Myths video lately here, but it will be a real eye-opener for you.
 
--Ethan

 

[swbf2cheater]

Quote:

That's simply not correct. "Thickness" to me implies a low midrange frequency response, and "airiness" is definitely the 5 KHz and up frequency range. I promise that any real (not imagined) change you hear can be easily measured using the four standard metrics that apply to all audio reproduction:
 
Frequency response
Distortion
Noise
Time-based errors
 
Further, even if there were some audible parameter that audio engineers didn't know about or know how to measure, it would have shown up long ago as a residual in a null test. Not sure if I linked to my AES Audio Myths video lately here, but it will be a real eye-opener for you.
 
--Ethan

 
sigh*

 

[p a t r i c k]

Quote:

if you look at the Wikipedia revisions list for the term "golden ears", it's quite amusing, a clear bias in many, now undone, updates, like;
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_ear&action=historysubmit&diff=388675754&oldid=369886365
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_ear&action=historysubmit&diff=323782353&oldid=323777111

That's funny

 
 
According to one of the positive definitions I should be a very well qualified Golden Ear!
 
Quote:

This training is developed from obtaining as much exposure as possible to the absolute reference standard of live, unamplified music.

 
I do go to the Royal Festival Hall in London a lot for classical concerts.
 
In 2000 the hall had a massive and hugely expensive acoustic make-over and I think that it is possibly the best venue in the world today, but I haven't tried them all.
 
I will say that the Royal Festival Hall is really superb for listening to music, the quality of the sound is amazing.
 
If you are a hi fi type then it is well worth a visit.
 
One of the great things about it is that you get superb quality wherever you sit.
 
View from back of stage into auditorium:
 

 

[poikkeus]

This "sounds", er, like a great place to listen to music.
 
But back to the topic. There's no scientific "proof" of anything; science has always been a process of developing hypothesis, which are either "proven" or "disproven" over time. Will there ever be a proof of headphone break-in that will satisfy skeptics and believers? Somehow, I don't think so. I even have a feeling that someone will post a comment on how they disagree with these comments.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

This "sounds", er, like a great place to listen to music.
 
But back to the topic. There's no scientific "proof" of anything; science has always been a process of developing hypothesis, which are either "proven" or "disproven" over time. Will there ever be a proof of headphone break-in that will satisfy skeptics and believers? Somehow, I don't think so. I even have a feeling that someone will post a comment on how they disagree with these comments.

QFT
 
The beauty is that it would be a naturally occurring phenomena irrespective of one's chosen 'faith'.  

 

[ajkda]

Quote:

That program doesnt measure audio quality or bass thickness.  All it measures is hz response which does not change after burn in.  Clarity and Bass are the only real things that change after burn in so testing with something like that is useless and would provide anyone asking the question with bad info

Hertz (Hz) is a measure of frequency. A high frequency relates to high pitch while a low frequency of say 50Hz is a low and thumping sound which correlates to bass.
 
Your arguement here saying bass changing after burn-in without a change in frequency is fundementally flawed, unless you can prove a simple formula for waves

wrong. This formula is used to calculate speeds, wavelengths, as well as frequency of linear waves; it is also used for the calculation of speed of sound.
 
Quote:

No, I do not believe it does.  Thats a misconception I am not sure can be shown on a chart like that.  Thickness and airiness cannot be charted.  Frequency response remains the same, clarity and bass tightness, thickness or kick is subject to change.

After this post, your arguement is fundemantally flawed, you first claimed changes in clarity and bass cannot be shown on a chart, after disproved by fellow members, you go on to make other claims that (A) or (B) cannot
 
be shown in a chart.
 
In this second post, you mentioned bass tightness which I would assume to be the speed of bass notes, and how fast do they sound, correct me if I assumed wrongly. In this case, bass tightness will still be shown in the
 
formula above by simply plucking in the frequency response which you said remains the same, and countinue by calculating the speed of the bass notes at say 50Hz, 100Hz, to 500Hz.
 
In the field of sound, most things should be able to be tested because they are simple sinusoidal linear waves. They do not even go into the more complex and complicated spherical waves and ... so on.
 
By simply claiming this or that couldn't be tested before verifying your information you do not fit the title of headphone supremus.

 

[ajkda]

Quote:

This "sounds", er, like a great place to listen to music.
 
But back to the topic. There's no scientific "proof" of anything; science has always been a process of developing hypothesis, which are either "proven" or "disproven" over time. Will there ever be a proof of headphone break-in that will satisfy skeptics and believers? Somehow, I don't think so. I even have a feeling that someone will post a comment on how they disagree with these comments.

Burn-in can simply be a form of psychological cognitive dissonance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance.
 
Cognitive dissonance basically explaines people having buyer's remorse and grow to become biased to think that their buying decision is the right one.
 
Companies and corporates know this, they solve this by assuring customers with after sales services, such as providing warranties.
 
Imagine this, you bought a million dollar cable, the first time you hear it you felt and hear no difference from the cable you originally have. You're in shocked, what do you do? You feel embarrassed. All this triggers the brain to pick up differences. OOH the cable looks pretty, it fits my better. Many such thoughts are generated to make you feel better because YOU HAVE SPENT TOO MUCH MONEY, you want to justify your purchases.. and you even go to the internet and look for reasons and that is when you come to head-fi and found out about burn-in.
 
From that point onwards you believe in burn-in because of what other people says, this thought grows more firmly and you become deeply rooted into the believe of burn-in. But think about it try a blind test, do you really hear a difference? If you do congratulations on your purchase because you feel better after it and there is nothing wrong with it. If you do not, stop lying to yourself and take it as a lesson and spend money more wisely next time.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

This "sounds", er, like a great place to listen to music.
 
But back to the topic. There's no scientific "proof" of anything; science has always been a process of developing hypothesis, which are either "proven" or "disproven" over time. Will there ever be a proof of headphone break-in that will satisfy skeptics and believers? Somehow, I don't think so. I even have a feeling that someone will post a comment on how they disagree with these comments.

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.