[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacdan /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm wondering this about the K701s. Supposedly, from what I've read, AKG recommends 300 hours minimum burn in for that HP. Why doesn't AKG do that on their end before shipping the product?

The biggest reason by FAR, is the cost / time factor.

For a manufacturer to do that for you, the mfg. cost could go up $100.00 or more per headphone. Do you want to pay for that, or break them in yourself?

The holy grail is to design a can whose design requires no break in, and whose sonic character does not change over time/use.

Just think for moment, if it only cost 1 dollar an hour to provide all the equipment and space needed to "park" hundreds/thousands of K-701's for a 300 hour "break in." Then the labor involved in handling the headphones and evaluating the results. Even at 50 cents an hour per headphone needed to amortize the tens of thousands $$ they would have to spend on equipment alone, then there's the cost of the space needed for the project, the slow down in production delivery, yada, yada... That's $150.00 raw production cost added to each headphone. Depending upon the manufacturer's overhead for salaries, buildings, advertising, transportation, warehousing, and point spread given to distributors and retailers... That raw cost translates to a necessary increased retail cost of $300 to $750 added to every HEADPHONE!!!!! So take the price you pay today for a pair of K-701's and add 750 bucks to that, and what do you have? No Sale!!

 

[Beagle]

"Burn-in" or "break-in" is also a phenomenon that "exists" in order for dealers to have an "out" in order to convince the buyer to hang onto the gear for a while, to lessen the possibility of the returning of an item because they don't like the sound during the first day or two.

I think a plastic headphone diaphragm will vibrate and possible loosen-up slightly. I'm not sure if this would affect the sound, either in a negative or positive way.

As Uncle Erik pointed out, could a headphone change for the worse if the sound was actually ideal before one decided to run it in with pink noise or loud music?

All components age, collect dust and other airborne grime, and physically change in some way due to changes in humidity and air temperature. This would probably affect the sound in a much bigger manner.

 

[runswithaliens]

I have of course heard of this headphone burn-in' and have been wantin' to give it a try. Since I have a pair of ad700's layin' about unused I decided they would be a good place to start. Not wantin' to muck it up I did some lookin' about on the internets and came up with some might-handy techniques which I thought might be helpful:

Below are some ideas for starting the burn-in' process that includes regular techniques, as well as some more creative options.

Using Matches for the Burn-in'

Matches are a common way. They are cheap and lightweight. Strike-anywhere matches can be used on many surfaces to ignite, and combined with some dry tinder, can quickly start get the burn-in' started. Carry matches in a small, plastic, waterproof container that is always left in the pack (amp?).

Using Lighters for the Burn-in'

Cigarette lighters are another cheap and lightweight option. They do not require a separate striking surface to ignite, and can be quickly relit if the flame goes out or fails to stay burn-in'. Lighters can be purchased at convenience stores. REI sells the Colibri Extreme II Wind Resistant Lighter. This lighter is designed for use at altitudes up to 13,000 feet, is wind resistant, and burns butane fuel that can be refilled.

Burn-in' With a Magnesium Strip or Scraper

Magnesium strips or can be used again and again for burn-in and are lightweight. Using a knife, one can scrape the magnesium shavings into the ear cups, then ignite the shavings by scraping the knife against the sparker. A similar method is a scraper that utilizes technology similar to flint and steel to create a spark. Both items can be found at outdoor retailer stores.

Primitive Burn-in' Techniques

There are several primitive burn-in' techniques that can be used. It takes skill and practice to master these methods, but once learned these can be helpful.

----------------------------

.... Hope that helps. The above techniques are not mine, I just modified them slightly (in italics) for headphones. I can verify that they do work though as the ad700's are burnin' like crazy even now. However, I am wonderin' if I should wait 'till they are completely out before givin' them a listen, or is it ok to listen in while the burn-in' process is still under way?

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif It costs money to do that and it would lower the lifespan of the headphones.

And this, my dear haloxt, is where I have you in the vice-like grip of my superior intellect !

If we have two headphones with roughly similar pricing, say a pair of AKGs and a pair of Grados and both have a projected driver lifespan of around 5000 hours, but the Grados are stable after 30 hours use while the AKG require 300 hours before I can enjoy my music, we have a substantial difference in 'effective' lifespan of those headphones. We can play with any of the figures above, but its another nail in the coffin for cans with notoriously long burn-in requirements, at least in my mind.

I shall now do a victory lap of the city wearing nothing but a pair of sneakers, my Ultrasones and a smile !

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif "Burn-in" or "break-in" is also a phenomenon that "exists" in order for dealers to have an "out" in order to convince the buyer to hang onto the gear for a while, to lessen the possibility of the returning of an item because they don't like the sound during the first day or two. I think a plastic headphone diaphragm will vibrate and possible loosen-up slightly. I'm not sure if this would affect the sound, either in a negative or positive way. As Uncle Erik pointed out, could a headphone change for the worse if the sound was actually ideal before one decided to run it in with pink noise or loud music? All components age, collect dust and other airborne grime, and physically change in some way due to changes in humidity and air temperature. This would probably affect the sound in a much bigger manner.

Sounds like you're assuming that nobody designs these things, and that materials run in is not a factor that is accounted for. That's not been my experience.

 

[kwkarth]

If ignorance is bliss, why aren't you naysayers a lot happier?

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by estreeter /img/forum/go_quote.gif And this, my dear haloxt, is where I have you in the vice-like grip of my superior intellect ! If we have two headphones with roughly similar pricing, say a pair of AKGs and a pair of Grados and both have a projected driver lifespan of around 5000 hours, but the Grados are stable after 30 hours use while the AKG require 300 hours before I can enjoy my music, we have a substantial difference in 'effective' lifespan of those headphones. We can play with any of the figures above, but its another nail in the coffin for cans with notoriously long burn-in requirements, at least in my mind. I shall now do a victory lap of the city wearing nothing but a pair of sneakers, my Ultrasones and a smile !

The solution to your quandary has already been answered in a prior post in this thread. You must have missed it. Either that, or you missed the point.

Emperor, you have no clothes!, Oh, sorry, you already knew that.

Incidentally, Ultrasones happen to benefit more than many from adequate run in.

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif The solution to your quandary has already been answered in a prior post in this thread. You must have missed it. Either that, or you missed the point. Emperor, you have no clothes!, Oh, sorry, you already knew that. Incidentally, Ultrasones happen to benefit more than many from adequate run in.

Doh - foiled again, and without my tinfoil hat and cape for protection !

The Ultrasones are getting massive amounts of run-in, as I liked them from roughly hour 5 onwards. Admit that they sounded harsh initially, but I pay no heed to all this talk of coloration and muddy bass - I like the way they sound overall, and thats what matters.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by estreeter /img/forum/go_quote.gif Doh - foiled again, and without my tinfoil hat and cape for protection ! The Ultrasones are getting massive amounts of run-in, as I liked them from roughly hour 5 onwards. Admit that they sounded harsh initially, but I pay no heed to all this talk of coloration and muddy bass - I like the way they sound overall, and thats what matters.

That's cool, I can respect that. Now where'd I leave my tin foil hat???? Does a cape help?

 

[sampson_smith]

I can't remember if this has been clearly stated yet, but it is very perplexing to me that there is so much inherent debate about burn-in theory while, at the same time, its effect is inextricable from any comments about how relatively new headphones sound. When we discuss/review a new pair of 'phones and their sound signature, 95% of the time we qualify our impression based on whether there has been adequate burn-in time. This is a fact, whether it be a critic recommending that an unsatisfied listener let burn-in take its course before condemning their purchase, or simply beanouing about how a moderate amount of burn-in has transformed their headphones in a noticeable way. Why is it that when we are talking about this phenomena alone that so much debate arises? I mean, come on. It's all in our heads? Last time I checked, one of the things we have in common on Head-fi is the ability or at least inclination to be objective about sound, and do our best to quantify our observations whilst minding how our biases color our point of view.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sampson_smith /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't remember if this has been clearly stated yet, but it is very perplexing to me that there is so much inherent debate about burn-in theory while, at the same time, its effect is inextricable from any comments about how relatively new headphones sound. When we discuss/review a new pair of 'phones and their sound signature, 95% of the time we qualify our impression based on whether there has been adequate burn-in time. This is a fact, whether it be a critic recommending that an unsatisfied listener let burn-in take its course before condemning their purchase, or simply beanouing about how a moderate amount of burn-in has transformed their headphones in a noticeable way. Why is it that when we are talking about this phenomena alone that so much debate arises? I mean, come on. It's all in our heads? Last time I checked, one of the things we have in common on Head-fi is the ability or at least inclination to be objective about sound, and do our best to quantify our observations whilst minding how our biases color our point of view.

Well reasoned sir!

 

[haloxt]

LOL

 

[sampson_smith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well reasoned sir!

Thanks! Coming from a knowledgeable, well-spoken moderator, that means a lot. Cheers to you! Cheers to Head-fi!

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif LOL

???

 

[sampson_smith]

Wow. Insightful. I suppose then that science is beneath (or is that way above) you too? Subjectively speaking, you came off pretty bad there.

 

[sampson_smith]

Science in the most general, most easily-understood form of the word. If you are going to make a blanket statement about us being "subjective beings" and imply that we cannot try to observe things in a more-than-subjective way, then that's a pretty strong earmark for not supporting scientific discussion of any kind. Sure, listening to music through headphones would be an absolute bore if it was kept completely empirical, but I don't think it's anyone's place to dismiss someone who wants to get to the bottom of this through debate that has just the mildest under-pinnings in scientific process.