Lifehacker weighs in on breaking in 'phones...
Apr 3, 2013 at 2:57 PM Post #2 of 4
The article forgets to mention the realistic possibility that Tyll, in his blind listening test, was hearing unit variation rather than effects of burn-in. Indeed, his actual measurements in his other test of a single pair indicated changes well below the threshold of hearing during burn-in, though with potentially perceptible changes within a narrow strip in the bass. Largely attributable to random chance, in other words.
 
Apr 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM Post #4 of 4
The good news, I think, is that Lifehacker references this blind test by Tyll Herstens. I think that blind testing of audio equipment is a good thing. Unfortunately Tyll Herstens does not perform a double blind test or "ABX" test.
 
Also I wonder about the results. He chose correctly 13 times out of 19. I wonder if that is statistically significant. I wonder also why he didn't do the test 20 times, it would have been easier arithmetic :)
 
As others have pointed out I think also that the big problem with testing for burn in is that it is difficult to rule out manufacturing differences between one pair of headphones and another.
 
However I will say that the whole thing is a huge improvement over the usual anecdotal evidence reported as fact.
 
Personally I think that break in in headphones is quite likely but not very significant. But I'd love it if this would be clarified by a good scientific approach to listening tests.
 
I do agree with the comments from the Grado. I suggest that in general, people should stop fetishising their equipment and listen to the music instead.
 
I would love to see Hi Fi publications (paper & web) adopt thorough double blind testing of equipment and reduce the amount of "reviews" which are just impressions possibly very coloured by suggestion and auto-suggestion.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top