[xnor]

Quote:

Concerning apparent headphone burn in, I'm on the fence but leaning towards physcoacoustics (and actually agreeing with xnor! 

)

Finally I can rest in peace now.

 
Quote:

Does Sennheiser, AKG, Grado or any other manufacturer put such 'break-in' recommendation in their manuals? If not, why are they hiding such an important secret from their customers???? 'Your headphone will sound better with more hours, so keep listening!' Or perhaps people who made your headphones are ignorant?

If they were ignorant, why is there no mention of silver cables in their manuals? heh

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Furthermore, considering the cable market is so lucrative, why not sell a range of cables along with the headphones and have all headphones with detachable cables? Why don't AKG etc do that?

 

[Danneq]

I would like it if headphones had detachable cables. The reason for that being that then I could easily change the length of the cable to suit the situation. Sometimes a longer cable length is needed and sometimes a shorter.

 

[xnor]

Well, some headphones do but everything has pros and cons. Guess I'm not telling you any news here, but hey, it's good to see you posting again.

 

[Danneq]

Quote:

Well, some headphones do but everything has pros and cons. Guess I'm not telling you any news here, but hey, it's good to see you posting again.

I know that some, mostly higher tier headphones, do have detachable cables. Unfortunately not the mid fi portable ones I mostly go for (since my headphone listening is restricted to when I am on the go).
 
Well, I have been posting regularly in the headphones and portable source gears forums. Not much interesting here in sound science lately. 

However I found this thread and the "Brain company" one quite interesting. I have been writing some amateur psychological theories there as opposed to the usual philosophical ones.

 

[shnitz]

Sennheiser does recommend burn-in for the HD800.  They recommend pink noise for an extended period, at reasonable listening levels.  I have definitely experienced burn-in with the K518, you can search for my previous thread about it.  I don't think that it takes hundreds of hours, but I do think that there's a discernable difference between brand new and 20 hours.  I am positive that I've heard a difference in the low-end.  Having a background in physics, I accept that any object, subjected to constant movement, will change its characteristics.  This is true whether it's a jet engine, car tires, or a shirt.  This is also true with a speaker or headphone membrane.  You can accept it or not.
 
I don't believe headphone companies are going to make a new room with hundreds of jacks, wasting electricity on lights and pumping music, to pre-burn in headphones.  This would drive the cost up considerably.  Also, I don't think headphone companies want to advertise, "dont use this product once you buy it."  Everyone will burn in their headphones naturally from using them anyway.  It's not like cars, where improper break-in can cause damage.  People may not initially get the most out of their headphones, but listening to any music will cause the membrane to loosen up.  So why worry consumers over something that becomes a non-issue anyway?  Shoes, as mentioned above, for example, need to be broken in as well.  You don't hear Nike or Asics saying not to immediately go and use the shoe.  But go to any running forum, and they caution you to break in the shoes, or you will develop blisters.  This happens both because they are still stiff and not fitted to your foot, and because you aren't used to them.  But just because you aren't used to them doesn't mean that they aren't also stiff.  If you accept this argument, extend it to anything that goes through physical stress.  Heck, my bedsheets are softer once used for a week.

 

[xnor]

shnitz, and Shure says that their headphones don't need burn-in because the transducers hardly move at normal listening levels and that they couldn't measure audible differences.
 
My guess with Sennheiser is that they target audiophiles with the HD800 and it makes sense to tell them that burn-in will further improve them.
Else why don't they recommend it for the other gazillion of headphones they offer?
 
Btw, all I've ever read was some vague statement of some Sennheiser guy that the glue *might* dry off a bit during initial use and that *could* change something, or not. Well, something like that.
 
edit: You wrote something about the "membrane to loosen up". Do you really want that to happen? Think about it.
Hint: Diaphragms are made of "high stiffness to mass ratio cellulose, polymer, carbon material or the like".
 

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Sennheiser does recommend burn-in for the HD800.  They recommend pink noise for an extended period, at reasonable listening levels.  I have definitely experienced burn-in with the K518, you can search for my previous thread about it.  I don't think that it takes hundreds of hours, but I do think that there's a discernable difference between brand new and 20 hours.  I am positive that I've heard a difference in the low-end.  Having a background in physics, I accept that any object, subjected to constant movement, will change its characteristics.  This is true whether it's a jet engine, car tires, or a shirt.  This is also true with a speaker or headphone membrane.  You can accept it or not.
 
I don't believe headphone companies are going to make a new room with hundreds of jacks, wasting electricity on lights and pumping music, to pre-burn in headphones.  This would drive the cost up considerably.  Also, I don't think headphone companies want to advertise, "dont use this product once you buy it."  Everyone will burn in their headphones naturally from using them anyway.  It's not like cars, where improper break-in can cause damage.  People may not initially get the most out of their headphones, but listening to any music will cause the membrane to loosen up.  So why worry consumers over something that becomes a non-issue anyway?  Shoes, as mentioned above, for example, need to be broken in as well.  You don't hear Nike or Asics saying not to immediately go and use the shoe.  But go to any running forum, and they caution you to break in the shoes, or you will develop blisters.  This happens both because they are still stiff and not fitted to your foot, and because you aren't used to them.  But just because you aren't used to them doesn't mean that they aren't also stiff.  If you accept this argument, extend it to anything that goes through physical stress.  Heck, my bedsheets are softer once used for a week.

QFT.  Everything you said has been said by myself and others.  You're better off not trying to convince flat earthers who have never seen the view from space. 

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaxilus /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
QFT.  Everything you said has been said by myself and others.  You're better off not trying to convince flat earthers who have never seen the view from space. 

I don't think you understood the OP.


Quote:

However I found this thread and the "Brain company" one quite interesting. I have been writing some amateur psychological theories there as opposed to the usual philosophical ones.

Ahhhhhhhhhh!
Just joking.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

I don't think you understood the OP.

You mean like when he said 'headphone burn-in is nonsense' which has been repeated 3x's already.  Yeah there seems to be back tracking toward the notion of solely explaining that the misinformed are simply experiencing psychoacoustic affects.  But the OP's other comments in the past and his first post indicate to me they equate burn-in=psychoacoustics in a very absolute sense.  

 

[cravenz]

Quote:

You mean like when he said 'headphone burn-in is nonsense' which has been repeated 3x's already.  Yeah there seems to be back tracking toward the notion of solely explaining that the misinformed are simply experiencing psychoacoustic affects.  But the OP's other comments in the past and his first post indicate to me they equate burn-in=psychoacoustics in a very absolute sense.  

I disappeared just cos' I couldn't be bothered anymore (no offence); but yes, that is exactly why I responded re: everything you said above. Though the OP states he is trying to give an alternate suggestion, his first post and subsequent posts as has been highlighted by myself and others, are very indicative that burn in = psychoacoustics and not the possible alternate solution that he claims and then subsequently 'ditches'. Just because A says B and then does C doesn't mean he is a proponent of B.
 
And again, I've seen the OP's other topics, so with a bit more context, that is the only way it will be read. And like I highlighted, perhaps it may have just been the manner it was typed, but it can be construed in the wrong way. I highlighted that, but obviously it was not taken too well, but I being on a 50/50 on the question, got offended. But for others who have no clue, it might come across alright. Again, I state, I can agree and accept both sides of the realm and I do attribute some misconceptions to psychoacoustics, but to totally put down the other side is rather myopic and disrespectful.

 

[wgb113]

I agree with ProgRockMan that most of what we call "burn-in" is actually just our becoming accustomed to the sound of a particular product.
 
In my experience a product has never gotten better over time.  Switching between two quickly though magnifies the differences and, if different enough, can cause confusion as to which sounds "better".
 
I have no idea how many "hours" are on my AKG 701s versus my Sennheiser 580s.  All that I know is that they sound different from one another to me but that I like they way both of them sound.
 
Bill

 

[Prog Rock Man]

 
Quote:

You mean like when he said 'headphone burn-in is nonsense' which has been repeated 3x's already.  Yeah there seems to be back tracking toward the notion of solely explaining that the misinformed are simply experiencing psychoacoustic affects.  But the OP's other comments in the past and his first post indicate to me they equate burn-in=psychoacoustics in a very absolute sense.  

Quote:

I disappeared just cos' I couldn't be bothered anymore (no offence); but yes, that is exactly why I responded re: everything you said above. Though the OP states he is trying to give an alternate suggestion, his first post and subsequent posts as has been highlighted by myself and others, are very indicative that burn in = psychoacoustics and not the possible alternate solution that he claims and then subsequently 'ditches'. Just because A says B and then does C doesn't mean he is a proponent of B.
 
And again, I've seen the OP's other topics, so with a bit more context, that is the only way it will be read. And like I highlighted, perhaps it may have just been the manner it was typed, but it can be construed in the wrong way. I highlighted that, but obviously it was not taken too well, but I being on a 50/50 on the question, got offended. But for others who have no clue, it might come across alright. Again, I state, I can agree and accept both sides of the realm and I do attribute some misconceptions to psychoacoustics, but to totally put down the other side is rather myopic and disrespectful.

My position is that what is called burn in and is attributed to the headphone as a physical change to it, is in fact physcoacoustic and is attributable to the listeners hearing.
 
I accept that there is such a thing as burn in, which is a change in mechanical/physical properties as something beds or is run in. I do not accept that such happens with headphones. I accept that there is a such a thing as psychoacoustics. Burn in does not equal psychoacoustics.
 
With headphones there is no burn in there is only psychoacoustics.
 
I am sorry guys but if that position is not clear to you, I am sorry, but it is clear to others and I cannot think of a better way to explain myself.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

My position is that what is called burn in and is attributed to the headphone as a physical change to it, is in fact physcoacoustic and is attributable to the listeners hearing.
 
I accept that there is such a thing as burn in, which is a change in mechanical/physical properties as something beds or is run in. I do not accept that such happens with headphones. I accept that there is a such a thing as psychoacoustics. Burn in does not equal psychoacoustics.
 
With headphones there is no burn in there is only psychoacoustics.
 
I am sorry guys but if that position is not clear to you, I am sorry, but it is clear to others and I cannot think of a better way to explain myself.

 
Ok.  I think your position is quite clear for everyone now.  You believe in burn-in, just not for headphones.  So you believe headphones do not have mechanical or physical properties that can burn in.  I think that lifts the fog in understanding your respective comments.  I disagree completely but thanks being clear about it.
 
Cheers
 

 

[xnor]

Prog Rock Man, could you explain why you think that burn-in doesn't exist _at all_ with headphones? (regardless of audibility, just talking about changes in mechanical properties here, right?)
 
If that (that there is no burn-in with headphones, at all) is what you just said, I guess I have to apologize to Anaxilus.