The Inherent Value of Burn-In

[sampson_smith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif This thread should be a sticky. It's about time we had a discussion regarding the arguments for burn-in pro and con. There are multiple threads on so many issues here on Head-Fi, but we virtually no threads on burn-in. Just do a search and you'll see what I mean.

Wow. Thanks so much for the ringing endorsement! I am humbled. I obviously totally agree, especially now that it is clear to me that there is much contention about burn-in which hopefully can be resolved somewhat. Funny that it is not controversial to mention that you are burning in your headphones for a few hundred hours and will get back to the forum with educated impressions, but the second one asserts that burn-in is definitely a good or a bad thing, things get quarrelsome. Let's get to the bottom of this bottomless topic. Thanks for all the insights, not in-fights, so far!

With that, I'm a 100+ Head-Fi'er!

 

[Sakhai]

Burn-in and material fatigue are two different things.

 

[ABathingApe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sakhai /img/forum/go_quote.gif Burn-in and material fatigue are two different things.

yes and no. You can't have burn in without fatigue... So there is some correlation. And in terms of noticable differences in sound, from what I understand burn in occurs much earlier than material fatiguing.

 

[jawang]

I think iggy posted a very compelling arguing for why burn-in may be bogus...

Every pair of headphones has people who dislike them. Even the HD800 and similar models have SOME people who dislike their specific sound. There is not one headphone in existance that is universally preferred by all users.

On the other hand, burn-in seems to be universally preferred despite the fact that it allegedly changes sound. I have never EVER seen anyone ever say burn-in made headphones sound worse. If burn-in really does change sound, then by definition there should be at least a small percentage of people who dislike burned-in sound (purely due to the fact that it is a different sound).

it seems ridiculous that every pair of headphones ever made would always burn-in in a way that is pleasing to every person's preferences.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawang /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...it seems ridiculous that every pair of headphones ever made would always burn-in in a way that is pleasing to every person's preferences.

Which makes me more convinced that the majority of this 'burn-in' effect occurs at a mental level.

 

[Sakhai]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABathingApe /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can't have burn in without fatigue

That's not fatigue. When the material's stiffer than normal, you burn it in to make it have normal flexibility. When the material has abnormally greater flexibility due to excessive wear, then that material has fatigued.

 

[Sakhai]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawang /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think iggy posted a very compelling arguing for why burn-in may be bogus... Every pair of headphones has people who dislike them. Even the HD800 and similar models have SOME people who dislike their specific sound. There is not one headphone in existance that is universally preferred by all users. On the other hand, burn-in seems to be universally preferred despite the fact that it allegedly changes sound. I have never EVER seen anyone ever say burn-in made headphones sound worse. If burn-in really does change sound, then by definition there should be at least a small percentage of people who dislike burned-in sound (purely due to the fact that it is a different sound). it seems ridiculous that every pair of headphones ever made would always burn-in in a way that is pleasing to every person's preferences.

There's nothing bogus about burn-in. The problem is that people have differing definition of what constitutes burn-in.

The flexibility of the driver diaphragm will always be changing. It just turns out that the changes are most drastic during the initial hours of its life. After the initial hours, the changes are very slow, so slow that the changes may translate to virtually inaudible differences.

 

[haloxt]

People arguing that burn-in cannot be real because people always say it is good (for the umpteenth time I'll say this isn't always the case) do not seem to see this is not condemning of burn-in. It is just a theory that suggests looking at what makes people consider "better" sound as an avenue for understanding the phenomena of burn-in.

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif People arguing that burn-in cannot be real because people always say it is good (for the umpteenth time I'll say this isn't always the case) do not seem to see this is not condemning of burn-in. It is just a theory that suggests looking at what makes people consider "better" sound as an avenue for understanding the phenomena of burn-in.

If true, it does condemn burn-in pretty harshly, since it's statistically and logically impossible for one sound quality to be preferrable for all human beings. There is no argument against the fact (if the first statement is true), period. It's definitive proof that mental changes make a larger difference than actual physical/technical changes (again, this is IF the first statement is true).

But maybe I am wrong? I have never seen anyone claim that burn-in made their headphones sound worse, can you find me one example from these forums to disprove this? I am not out to "get" burn-in or anything like that. I would be happy if someone can prove me wrong.





On a slightly different subject, I don't think anybody is debating whether or not burn-in occurs (we more or less agree that it does). The real debate is whether changes in mental perception are superceding the actual physical effect of burn-in.

are you suggesting that average head-fi members are capable of completely tuning out the mental artifacts that could affect their perception of "burn-in"? I find this to be an absurd claim, considering how easily average consumers are swayed by simple FOTM fads and reseller propaganda.

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sakhai /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's nothing bogus about burn-in. The problem is that people have differing definition of what constitutes burn-in. The flexibility of the driver diaphragm will always be changing. It just turns out that the changes are most drastic during the initial hours of its life. After the initial hours, the changes are very slow, so slow that the changes may translate to virtually inaudible differences.

I'm not sure if I understand your post.

I did not mean to say that burn-in as a PHYSICAL phenomenon is bogus. Clearly, it DOES occur, there is no denying this fact. I meant to say that the drastic audible differences caused burn-in is (in my current opinion) bogus. Burn-in can surely make changes in sound quality, but people claiming that burn-in can make their cans sound like different headphones... turns me off from the idea.

If you believe that burn-in drastically improves sound, then do you also consider the affects of humidity, skin oils, blood pressure around the ears, ear wax buildup, room temperature, air circulation and flow, magnetic interference from earth's rotation, radio interference from cell phones/power outlets/etc., and other such things?

Also, to repeat Uncle Erik's comment, why don't manufactors pre-"burn-in" their headphones before shipping? it costs them virtually nothing to do so, and if such a drastic change occurs, then they clearly have justification to do it. Doesn't it make financial sense to make their product sound good out of the box (to prevent some returns and bad reviews)?

 

[haloxt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawang /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure if I understand your post. I did not mean to say that burn-in as a PHYSICAL phenomenon is bogus. Clearly, it DOES occur, there is no denying this fact. I meant to say that the drastic audible differences caused burn-in is (in my current opinion) bogus. Burn-in can surely make changes in sound quality, but people claiming that burn-in can make their cans sound like different headphones... turns me off from the idea.

Subtle tweaks can make significant differences in sound. Some people go all out doing things like swapping opamps or cables because they think these subtle changes are worth the effort. Me personally I'm burned out tweaking atm

.

Quote:

If you believe that burn-in drastically improves sound, then do you also consider the affects of humidity, skin oils, blood pressure around the ears, ear wax buildup, room temperature, air circulation and flow, magnetic interference from earth's rotation, radio interference from cell phones/power outlets/etc., and other such things?

Burn-in=change over time. Humidity and temperature and ventilation can change day by day and by the seasons and sometimes people do try to draw correlations between that and sound quality. EMI/RFI do often get accused of affecting sound quality. And other such things are considered by some to affect sound quality.

Quote:

Also, to repeat Uncle Erik's comment, why don't manufactors pre-"burn-in" their headphones before shipping? it costs them virtually nothing to do so, and if such a drastic change occurs, then they clearly have justification to do it. Doesn't it make financial sense to make their product sound good out of the box (to prevent some returns and bad reviews)?

To repeat myself, burn-in is considered wear and tear. And it does cost money to do it. There are many subtle things some people consider to affect sound that manufacturers do not often address, for example cables. And to repeat others, some manufacturers in fact do burn-in their gear.

 

[ABathingApe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sakhai /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's not fatigue. When the material's stiffer than normal, you burn it in to make it have normal flexibility. When the material has abnormally greater flexibility due to excessive wear, then that material has fatigued.

How can you define "stiffer than normal"? After manufacturing do all models average a certain amount of stiffness in their respective parts? Can you quantify this? OR do you have to consider where all part's "stiffness" when they are manufactured to be the benchmark, and anything below that fatigue...? You are going to have to state when these conditions apply.

 

[haloxt]

ABathingApe, by normal he doesn't mean the average but when it sounds at its "best" which of course would be subjective.

jawang, I just read your post where you quote me when I repeated that not everybody says burn-in is good and you repeat again that nobody has said burn-in made headphones sound worse. I mean really, have you even read this thread? Do you even read what you quote? I have a lot of tolerance for people who read with selective memory but it is embarrassing to see them make the same mistakes over and over again. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones.

 

[jawang]

haloxt, what is your personal justification for backing up burn-in? Are you simply trusting your ears? I'm in this thread to learn, so I want to hear your thoughts. Remember, I also believe that burn-in occurs. I simply don't believe that it makes drastic changes that can make a headphone that sounds unlistenable, suddenly become brilliant.

The reason why I have a hard time buying your point is because most burn-in supporters base their belief on their own ears. If they didn't hear drastic changes, there would be no argument right now.

Uncle Erik posted an relevent example regarding his glasses. You can also look at human history. Once upon a time, everybody believed the world was flat. Clearly, it looks flat. Guess how that turned out.



I want to hear a legitimate counterargument for the "mental placebo" point. What evidence do you have that suggests that burn-in is not affected by mental perception and placebo effects?

Unlike the previous point, science has conclusively proven (without a trace of a doubt) that human senses and perception can be affected by placebo effects. Why does this not apply to headphones?

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif ABathingApe, by normal he doesn't mean the average but when it sounds at its "best" which of course would be subjective. jawang, I just read your post where you quote me when I repeated that not everybody says burn-in is good and you repeat again that nobody has said burn-in made headphones sound worse. I mean really, have you even read this thread? Do you even read what you quote?

I can say the same thing to you. Did you really read everything I wrote? Its funny that you say I am "selectively" reading, when your own post only responded to the first half of my post. Why didn't you respond to my point about mental placebo?

Using yourself as an example in this context is ridiculous. I read your point and I asked you to find me a quote (obviously outside of this thread). The reason why I asked for a quote is because I WANT to believe you, but I have a strict engineer mind and I never believe anything unless there is empirical evidence. It's just my personality that I never take anyones word as evidence (even my professors).

Even if you quote yourself from another thread (as long as the post date is earlier than this thread), I will accept that as evidence. All I asked for was a quote, I won't hesitate to admit that I am wrong if you find one

Quote:

I have a lot of tolerance for people who read with selective memory but it is embarrassing to see them make the same mistakes over and over again. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones. I have said burn-in has in some ways reduced the sound quality of my headphones.

this doesn't have to turn into a heated debate. I honestly don't care if I am proven wrong, but I want to be PROVEN wrong, not TOLD that I am wrong. I'm here to learn. Hearing opinions and anecdotes doesn't help me.

I almost feel like I'm arguing about religion (which I have before, and I got responses very similiar to the ones you are giving me)


EDIT: to clarify myself further, I said I want a quote outside of this thread. it doesn't do me any good if you tell me "I think burn-in sounds bad" right now (I am not saying that you would lie to further your argument, I'm just saying that I personally can't be sure, because I don't know you)