[Xsho123]

So if I think it in another way, even for the people who listened like 1min after unpacking and didn't like it, there may already be lower of expectation deep inside the mind and when you go back 100hours later, it just doesn't sound as awful as before as you kind of know what is coming. 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

So if I think it in another way, even for the people who listened like 1min after unpacking and didn't like it, there may already be lower of expectation deep inside the mind and when you go back 100hours later, it just doesn't sound as awful as before as you kind of know what is coming. 

Since that experience is inside your head and nothing to do with the mechanics of the headphone, then yes.

 

[haloxt]

Skipping all but Anaxilus' posts=very informative read.
 
I personally believe the lines that separate "too tight/harsh", "just right", and "sloppy/too smooth ", are very thin. And that some headphones can sound as if they are past their prime to some ears given enough use.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

Skipping all but Anaxilus' posts=very informative read.
 
I personally believe the lines that separate "too tight/harsh", "just right", and "sloppy/too smooth ", are very thin. And that some headphones can sound as if they are past their prime to some ears given enough use.

That is when 'burning in' actually means wearing out

 

[grokit]

Great arguments on both sides. And as usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. We should really be trying to form a consensus to see exactly where in between this truth lies, as it's probably not right in the middle IMHO. But it's much more fun to make absolute pronouncements, and try to spur one side to absolute victory over the other, that's just human nature at work. Why is human nature so counter-productive to forming a consensus we can all agree upon anyways?

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Would 5% caused by minor mechanical changes and 95% in the head be a reasonable consensus? I am open to compromise......
 

 

[beachgeek]

I know nothing about speaker construction, but wondered if it is like a pressure sensor diaphragm.  The pressure is measured by the diaphragm displacement.  We noticed pressure sensors that did not read the correct values for different atmospheric pressures.  This was partially due to the manufacturing process which caused built in forces that would work themselves out during pressure cycling.  This ended up having less effect then initially supposed but did have an effect.  It is well known that there are initial, short & long term shifts of the diaphragms stablility.
 

Short- and long-term stabilities (drift) are parts of the accuracy specification. The short-term stability is manifested as changes in the sensor’s performance within minutes, hours, or even days. The sensor’s output signal may increase or decrease, which, in other terms, may be described as ultralow-frequency noise. The long-term stabilitymaybe related to aging of the sensor materials, which is an irreversible change in the material’s electrical, mechanical, chemical, or thermal properties; that is, the long-term drift is usually unidirectional. It happens over a relatively long time span, such as months and years.

 

Long-term stability is one of the most important for sensors used for precision measurements. Aging depends heavily on environmental storage and operating conditions, how well the sensor components are isolated from the environment, and what materials are used for their fabrication. The aging phenomenon is typical for sensors having organic components and, in general, is not an issue for a sensor made with only nonorganic materials. For instance, glass-coated metaloxide thermistors exhibit much greater long-term stability compared to poxy-coated thermistors.Apowerful way to improve long-term stability is to preage the component at extreme conditions. The extreme conditions may be cycled from the lowest to the highest. For instance, a sensor may be periodically swung from freezing to hot temperatures.

 

Such accelerated aging not only enhances the stability of the sensor’s characteristics but also improves the reliability (see Section 18), as the preaging process reveals many hidden defects. For instance, epoxy-coated thermistors may be greatly improved if they are maintained at +150°C for 1 month before they are calibrated and installed in a product.

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

Would 5% caused by minor mechanical changes and 95% in the head be a reasonable consensus? I am open to compromise......
 

 I'm more on the 25/75% side of the same coin, but this is a start!

 

[haloxt]

I don't think we'll ever be able to predict when the perception of burn-in is due to one or the other. Pragmatism says to give burn-in a chance if you have headphones you want to sell but others tell you to give it time. And also don't be paranoid about burn-in, as you can't enjoy music when you're worried about gear.

 

[grokit]

Well the middle ground is acknowledging that both sides are valid, but I think that there must be tendencies in one direction or the other, hence the percentage ratio. When I say 25/75%, I just mean that I think that a change to our psychoacoustics would be three times more likely than a physical change to the headphone as a reason for a change our perception of the sound.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

On that note, at what point do you decide these headphones are for keeps or to go?
 
My for keeps headphones have all been AKG, I really like the detailed, not too bass heavy sound as it works in my system. (If I had a different system I would imagine other headphones would become my preferred choice). I have either liked or really liked the sound of all of them from the start.
 
Of my other headphones (my collection of because they look nice headphones) some have sounded terrible from the beginning, but I have grown to like, well more tolerate them (the burn in that is actually in my head and not the headphone).
 
Would you persevere with a headphone you are not keen on and if so for how long?
 
I think that that is very relevant here because the length of time people persevere, may be equated with the alleged length of time headphones take to mechanically burn in.

 

[haloxt]

Different headphones are said to need different burn-in times to be settled in, ranging from none to 500+ hours. The amount of hours you could burn-in a certain headphone before letting it go, could be the amount of hours people generally say that headphone needs to be settled in. After that I'm pretty sure most burn-in believers would tell you to sell if you want to do so.
 
I like to listen closely for the first 10-20 hours to get a good idea of the sound characteristics of a new device, then if I want to burn it in quicker, I leave it on for 2 weeks, or 300 hours, then listen critically again and tweak around.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Different headphones are said to need different burn-in times to be settled in, ranging from none to 500+ hours. The amount of hours you could burn-in a certain headphone before letting it go, could be the amount of hours people generally say that headphone needs to be settled in. After that I'm pretty sure most burn-in believers would tell you to sell if you want to do so.
 
I like to listen closely for the first 10-20 hours to get a good idea of the sound characteristics of a new device, then if I want to burn it in quicker, I leave it on for 2 weeks, or 300 hours, then listen critically again and tweak around.

 
x2.  Listen out of the box.  Make notes about small and large discrepancies.  Let em run off and on w/o listening for 1-2 days.  Compare w/ notes.  Judge based on sound and understanding of material composition whether perhaps more can be improved if dissatisfied.  Run it some more or get rid of them.  There is no universal answer.  As I said only perhaps 5-6 of all my phones had appreciable change from burn-in.  2 of which were negative changes IMO.  The point of burn-in has two functions.  One, destress and break in the driver to prevent potential damage from overdriving, etc.  Two, ensure the driver has reached its natural sound signature so you can accurately evaluate it.  There is no other known, factual reason for burn-in like guaranteeing an improvement in SQ.  It may or may not improve.  Only one way to know though.  Saying otherwise is like selling snake oil on late-night TV.  It's just a simple electrical and mechanical process, it knows no moral or ethical value.  
 

 

[wgb113]

When I find I'm not enjoying the music and focusing on the sound.
Quote:

On that note, at what point do you decide these headphones are for keeps or to go?
 

 

[haloxt]

Quote:

 
There is no other reason for burn-in like improving SQ.  It may or may not improve.  Only one way to know though.  Saying otherwise is like selling snake oil on late-night TV.  It's just a simple electrical and mechanical process, it knows no moral or ethical value.  
 

It may so happen that the sort of changes that typically occur over time and use are the sort of changes that tend to correlate with either 1. actual physical technical improvements, or 2. some physical changes that are perceived and interpreted as improvements.
 
I won't give examples of the first possibility because I don't have the data to do it, but I would speculate a bit on the second possibility, maybe people like smoothness or a sense of continuity without the harshness of real music, so perhaps simply wearing out the drivers past "whatever is considered technically most accurate" tends to make people like the sound more? Or maybe when highs become less piercing or distinct, it becomes easier to consciously focus on highs, so that although there is actually less highs, there is the perception of more high freq resolution.
 
I give these two possibility just as an alternative to the argument that "because burn-in is almost always perceived as an improvement, it must be placebo".