[haloxt]

The Monkey, I think the perception of burn-in has lead to some pretty annoying things in reviews, but I think if people took your suggestion and just keep updating their changing opinions, whether it is due to burn-in or not, it would be the most annoying thing of all. I think if people think there is a significant change due to burn-in for a piece of gear they are going to describe on the forums, they should just give initial impressions and then give final impressions after it has reached the # of hours people generally say it has become settled in. One example of someone being annoying with constantly updating his opinion as things burn-in is me describing my Pro 900's

I just kept repeating that things sound wrong, but since it has taken so absurdly long for either burn-in to settle it down or for me to get used to it, I don't think I should really go back and fix up all my Pro 900 posts.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think if people think there is a significant change due to burn-in for a piece of gear they are going to describe on the forums, they should just give initial impressions and then give final impressions after it has reached the # of hours people generally say it has become settled in.

Agreed. I fail to see the utility of impressions during burn-in by someone who believes in it. Aren't such impressions worthless almost by definition?

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not much of a believer in burn in. Especially when those claims get into the hundreds or even thousands of hours territory. But it is obvious from threads such as these that there are two sides (at least) to this debate, and that we are not close to resolving said debate. Accordingly, I'd really like to see reviewers cease dedicating such large parts of their reviews to "burn-in." Just review the equipment and describe how your opinions have changed over time, if at all. Ascribing such changes to burn in without acknowledging that there is another side to the debate sucks credibility from a lot of reviews. More importantly, it's just a waste of space because so many of those reviews become more about the burn in process than the actual equipment under review. In many ways, it seems to be a crutch that people use when they are having trouble making a decision about whether or not they like a product.

Fabulously stated!!

 

[Sakhai]

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.

So is this really the issue here? Literary license to exaggerate and use what we call a "hyperbole."

Is this a feud between those who interpret things literally (the legalists) versus those who use language loosely and exaggerate here and there to dramatize the difference? One person may say "the difference is night and day," while the legalists say, "no, it's more like 6:30pm and 7:15 pm on a midsummer night's eve"

 

[sampson_smith]

Is it possible that making a comparison between new and suitably "burnt" headphones using a carefully recorded frequency response graph would give some insight into whether or not burn-in is real? I'd imagine that one would not see great deviations between the before and after specs, but this would help end the debate once and for all between those that think burn-in is a mental artifact and those that think that the phenomenon is physically transformative in a helpful, noticeable way. I'm for the latter, but wouldn't be surprised if I've been duped a bit by some desirable placebo effect. Reliable frequency response graphs aren't that easy to come by, mind you, but HeadRoom seems to have no difficulty generating them.

 

[bergman2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sampson_smith /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is it possible that making a comparison between new and suitably "burnt" headphones using a carefully recorded frequency response graph would give some insight into whether or not burn-in is real? I'd imagine that one would not see great deviations between the before and after specs, but this would help end the debate once and for all between those that think burn-in is a mental artifact and those that think that the phenomenon is physically transformative in a helpful, noticeable way. I'm for the latter, but wouldn't be surprised if I've been duped a bit by some desirable placebo effect. Reliable frequency response graphs aren't that easy to come by, mind you, but HeadRoom seems to have no difficulty generating them.

while I am a firm believer in objective data, graphs and other nonesuch only go so far in an admittedly subjective endeavor as audiophilia ... i'm reminded, for instance, of the fairy tale "The Princess and the Pea" --- while the princess assuredly felt the little pod, I doubt that any observable (and marked) data would have trumped the dear girls own sensitivity

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sakhai /img/forum/go_quote.gif So is this really the issue here? Literary license to exaggerate and use what we call a "hyperbole." Is this a feud between those who interpret things literally (the legalists) versus those who use language loosely and exaggerate here and there to dramatize the difference? One person may say "the difference is night and day," while the legalists say, "no, it's more like 6:30pm and 7:15 pm on a midsummer night's eve"

I didn't exaggerate anything. Many head-fi'ers literally claim that burn-in can turn a terrible sounding pair of headphones into a brilliant sounding pair.

I don't believe that such drastic changes can physically occur to headphones, so I wrote that post that you quoted.


And don't take this the wrong way, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't make such unfounded condescending remarks. Everybody in this thread has graduated elementary school, we all know what a "hyperbole" is.

 

[nor_spoon]

.

 

[estreeter]

Aah, the burn-in wars - you've gotta love it.

Would be great to be able to DBT every single Head-Fier in this thread, pro or con, with a pair of their favourite cans after a few hundred hours and a brand new pair. I dont pretend that the results would prove or disprove anything, but it would be amusing to see if either side was able to consistently choose one from the other based purely on sound. But then DBT is a whole other can of worms, isnt it ?

 

[aimlink]

As with most things, it's difficult to make blanket claims either way in that burn in is real and significant with all dynamic cans or it's not... period. In my own experience, I'm skeptical about it. I haven't been able to discern a truly meaningful difference though one may well be there. It's the same as my not being able to, on the overwhelming majority of occasions, detect a meaningful difference between a 320kbps/sec mp3 and the wav file.

Grado talks about how they meticulously match the drivers in the Reference series cans and above. It would seem that it takes effort and repeated matching to find two drivers that are supposedly the same, that genuinely do sound the same. IOW's, are two separate cans really alike that you're willing and confident to say that the difference is from burn in?

Just a question....

On the face of it, from my own observations and experiences, I'm witnessing testimony of night and day experiences where for me, it was different but only slightly so, and quite often, not meaningfully so in that I don't mind either way. So the experience seems to be a subjective one. Additionally, the power of acclimatisation to a particular sound is HUGE. I find it personally VERY difficult to trust what's acclimatisation from what's burn in. For instance I thought my HD650's had improved in their sparkle and less recessed sound over time. Then I got a pair of Denons, then I relistened to the HD650s. I have since got a couple Grado cans which again, changed my impressions of the HD650's.

Perhaps with years of experience there are those who can detect differences in sound because of subtle physical changes with burn in without subjective burn-in interfering with that assessment.

 

[sampson_smith]

Well put, aimlink! On that note: What are the detectable differences, if any, between your Grado SR-325is and RS-2i?

I'm actually curious about upgrading from my pair of SR-325is's to that model or the RS-1i, and while we are being as honest as we can about the ability to discern subtle nuances, I thought I'd ask for your expert opinion. Thanks!

 

[kwkarth]

Hi folks, I've removed a few potentially incendiary posts and references thereto. I also banned two of the posters. It was obvious, at least to me, that these individuals were not here to discuss or learn, but rather to incite riot.

That being said, my two favorite quotes of the day;

If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people here?

Better to keep one's mouth shut and to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Cheers!

 

[MaZa]

My own experience with burn-in. Mostly I have bought used equipment and with those I dont remember any real change other than getting used to new soundsignature which is obvious. They were all already burned-in so to speak.

Now, I got my HF2 which sounded very rolled off in the treble out of the box, to the point that I had to switch opamps to brighter ones in my DAC which helped a bit but it was all still very dissapointing. Still, I listened them a lot so I could adjust to their sound like I have always done with new headphones. And when I didnt use them I left them on because they were new. I guess this went on for 24 hours at max. I found out that they had become brighter and treble was more balanced with the bass. I swapped opamps back to original ones I used and the sound fitted HF2 just fine. Biggest change I have detected in a headphone during use.

Yesterday, I used SA5000 which is undeniably brighter than HF2. Of course there was some sonic shock due to new balance in sound but since it is a very familiar headphone with a sound I like a lot, my brain readjusted quickly. Now I use HF2. Again there was some sonic shock after SA5000, but treble wasnt noticeably rolled off like were my impressions out of the box.


I'm not a believer of long burn-ins, but I do believe some changes in first few hours of headphone use and my experience with HF2 enhanced this belief. Is it all in my head? It could be, but I still say that I have never experienced that large change from dissapointing treble to treble that is just fine even after heavy use of bright headphones. And that is just good thing. DT880'03 was also new when I bought one, and it also went some balance change, but that is so long time ago that I dont remember details. Nothing extreme though.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sampson_smith /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am relatively new to the Head-fi arena and continue to turn up fresh facts and factoids every day here to "enhance" my listening enjoyment, despite being a receptive "lurker" over the last year or so. I do have an undying obsession with music of all kinds, however, and Head-fi provides an invaluable counterpoint. Apart from appreciating the consistent good quality of the writing of this forum, and most member's unquenchable lust for aural innovation and insight, one thing has always enthralled me: driver burn-in. Objectively speaking, most of us know that burn-in most often improves the performance of a headphone, smoothing out rough perimeters and ripening raw noise emitters into transportive, beautiful devices. At best, what really goes on and how much of “it” is required to allow the driver to achieve its most natural, supple state is a slippery subject. On top of the debatable fruition that arises from these “can calisthenics”—pink noise, sine sweeps, Slayer’s “Show No Mercy” on repeat for a week, or whathaveyou—there is something to me that is more ethereal about the phenomena and it is far less easy to pin down. Face it: most of us have joined Head-fi not to find one excellent stereophone in particular, attain contentment, then part ways. It’s a process, and it’s as dynamic as our drivers. We are thirsty for sound in a way that causes others to involuntarily scratch their heads, if not roll around the floor in a fit, alternately laughing and crying. When something new arrives that perpetuates its own hype, bolstered by an ever-expanding allegiance based on quickly establishing value, our ears literally perk up. Time for the next journey to the source. Maybe I’ll get closer this time if my wallet so allows! We like to grow as listeners and improve our “abilities” over time. And apparently our headphones do to! Every little tidbit gleaned from these forums, and the ever-changing arsenal of ‘phones tallied in our signatures, tells a story of some sort of refinement. For some rapid, for some slow. And our headphones literally echo this as we fall in favor with a potent can or two, choosing to follow them along their journey to the ideal state. If drivers typically started wearing out from the first moment they started making music, headphoning would be a pessimistic predicament first, and a junk yard for opportunists second. Instead of waiting for our headphones to lose their voices and then die, we await their maturation into something blissful that we cannot fully imagine. I recall one Head-fi member likening burn-in to breaking in a pair of shoes. But shoes wear out far too fast! It is more like being able to let a fine wine mature, while at the exact same time having the opportunity to take frequent sips along its course without it spoiling. What a way to reward oneself for indulging in several hundred hours of good music. Sounds great to me! I would like to hear how burn-in has impacted your listening experience. All the best, Vince

Hi Vince,
Good question you ask. First off, I would like to suggest that your choice of words in the beginning of your second paragraph, should probably subjectively, not objectively. If the phenomenon we're discussing were an objective fact, then there would be no controversy, alas, there is a great deal of controversy surrounding this observation, hence the term subjective is the more appropriate choice.

From my subjective observation, burn in does seem to make a large, transformative difference with some drivers and very little if any with others. My thoughts with regard to the transformative changes subjectively observed, is that mechanical flexion properties are settling in as the driver moves back and forth and perhaps "loosens" up.

Secondary to that, perhaps other, more subtle electrostatic changes take place over time/use.

As I mentioned at the start, my observations are subjective and not objective.

Cheers!

 

[sampson_smith]

Thanks, kwkarth. Just when I thought the "mild riot" that ended this thread about a month ago was over, more unfounded bickering. That said, my favourite quote of the day has to be "I've removed a few potentially incendiary posts [from a thread about burn-in]" Ironic! How about some positive comments to salve our wounds, Head-fi'ers?