This is from Meze, of which I bought the 12 classics.
"For the in-ear headphones you don't need to do the burn in process. Some members of Head-Fi community did the process and after 24 hours the sound was improved with a tone of crisp in it. It's not a distinguishable improvement.
This process is much easier to be observed with the 99Classics series, because the drivers are bigger and the elasticity of the membranes needs 100 hours of daily usage for a better yield of the headphones."
This is from Meze, of which I bought the 12 classics.
"[COLOR=212121]For the in-ear headphones you don't need to do the burn in process.[/COLOR][COLOR=212121]
[/COLOR][COLOR=212121]Some members of Head-Fi community did the process and after 24 hours the sound was improved with a tone of crisp in it. [/COLOR][COLOR=212121]
[/COLOR][COLOR=212121]It's not a distinguishable improvement. [/COLOR][COLOR=212121]
[/COLOR][COLOR=212121]
[/COLOR][COLOR=212121]This process is much easier to be observed with the 99Classics series, because the drivers are bigger and the elasticity of the membranes needs 100 hours of daily usage for a better yield of the headphones."[/COLOR][COLOR=212121]
[/COLOR]
In 30 years ago, turntable moving coil cartridge requires demagnetise after about 100 hours play time. Moving coil cartridge cleaning device such as Panasonic and AudioTechica were quite common. After cleanning high frequency is clearer and extended. May be headphone burn in is just a reverse tweak.
The subject has gone round and round here, though a great test is to buy a second new set of an identical IEM after using the originals for six months. What is amazing is I have found the two IEMs will sound exactly the same. It showed me burn-in may be 100% mental. It may be more mental than anyone realizes.
It may apear that the IEMs sound better after time but it's the brain being conditioned to hearing the sound signature better. I used to be more of a burn-in believer.
Not sure about that, I don't have much experience with IEM's but I found this to be the case with regular speakers.
I had my wife listen to the Triples again after I had been wearing them for a week or so listening to them almost all day every day and she also felt they sounded somewhat better.
The only way to prove hardware burn in exists for IEMs is to have a time machine and a memory wiper. You can't even say you hear the same from you m day to day or hour to hour, due to physiological changes affecting mental perception.
Anyway, regardless, the Triples always impress me whatever state of mind I am in, which is the main thing.
The only way to prove hardware burn in exists for IEMs is to have a time machine and a memory wiper. You can't even say you hear the same from you m day to day or hour to hour, due to physiological changes affecting mental perception.
Anyway, regardless, the Triples always impress me whatever state of mind I am in, which is the main thing.
Even worse - how you can possibly remember accurately how something sounded that long ago? Show me any proof that the brain can reliably remember sound for more than a few seconds.
Even worse - how you can possibly remember accurately how something sounded that long ago? Show me any proof that the brain can reliably remember sound for more than a few seconds.
And did you ensure you slept exactly the same each night, ate the same food, drank the same amount, felt the same emotionally, etc before listening each time?
No offence, but none of us are even the same person from one second to another, and that's before we even get into the subject of the incredible fickleness of memory, auditory or otherwise.
The broad strokes of believing one IEM sounds better to you than another is not what I'm referring to here - that's quite clearly something upon which we can reasonably make our own personal case. What you are talking about is being able to perceive micro changes in the way the same fully functioning (i.e. not damaged) IEM replays music over time.
Honestly I think placebo is a funny thing. Even after a simple oil change my Wife and I would both think the car drove smoother, regardless of the pior performance. The good news is the break-in process always results in the audio equipment seemingly sounding better. I have an amplifier and the company recommended hundreds of hours of burn in. AKG k701 are noted to need 100-300 hours of burn in. I seemed to notice a sound change after 100 hours but still after 300 hours I purchased a used pair of k701s with 150 hours on them and they sounded identical to the 300 hours of burn in?
Honestly I think placebo is a funny thing. Even after a simple oil change my Wife and I would both think the car drove smoother, regardless of the pior performance. The good news is the break-in process always results in the audio equipment seemingly sounding better. I have an amplifier and the company recommended hundreds of hours of burn in. AKG k701 are noted to need 100-300 hours of burn in. I seemed to notice a sound change after 100 hours but still after 300 hours I purchased a used pair of k701s with 150 hours on them and they sounded identical to the 300 hours of burn in?
Went from the 12.5mm tips which were on the Triples to the 13 and that shored it up and now the sound is fuller, as it should be. Strange since most of the tips I use are the silicone mediums and the 13mm are bigger.
I assume you're making fun of me. For the ones who are willing to answer seriously, I have read that clip usage is supposed to reduce microphonics, is this effect so relevant with this in-ear headphone?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
