[tdockweiler]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyll Hertsens /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
^^This!  Is the thing that bugs me too.  The number of times I've seen folks talk about their headphones settling in after break-in is astounding.  It's now become the common belief that you won't know what your headphones sound like until they're burned-in. That's balony. While I could tell the difference between the two cans, they weren't much different. When you open a box of headphones and have a listen, that's pretty much what they're going to sound like. Anyone who says, "OMG after burn-in my new cans are night-and-day better" is full of hoooeee. 
 
Just trying to walk a sensable middle road here. 
 
Anyway, have fun y'all. 

 
This is something I don't agree with. Now, I'm sure Tyll has tried several hundred pairs of headphones in his lifetime, but perhaps just has not actually heard one yet that has sounded horrible without burn-in, but DID make a night and day difference with burn-in. This is perfectly understandable and not many people will.
 
I've had an experience recently where my newest pairs of DJ100's sounded absolutely HORRIBLE out of the box. I think it would be unfair of anyone to just pass judgement on these without burn-in. They sound completely different in every way than a well burned in pair. Why do I know? I had both at the same time. A well burned in pair and a pair new from the box. It's not simple variations between pairs. Not a chance. I've used this headphone so much that I know it's signature inside and out. The new pair sounds nothing like a regular DJ100 that's well burned in. Maybe I just had bad luck? The new DJ100 I got in was basically un-listenable. Almost sounds broken and similar to my previous pair without burn-in.
 
I actually offered to send them to Tyll for burn-in testing to prove this. I felt the differences could actually be measured by him. Really! The offer still stands.
 
Even when listening to a new out of the box pair, someone would honestly have no clue what they'd possibly sound like after burned it for 5-6 days. Nobody has to believe me.
 
99% of the time, yes there will be only minor differences between new and burned in pairs. Not the case here and I believe it can be proven with measurements.
 
So yes, I do agree with this, but to a point. There are headphones that will in fact make a night and difference change with burn in. Most people will never know unless they have a new pair and fully burned in pair. The chance of them having the same experience as me is very slim.
 
My rule for burn-in is that if they sound great out of the box, don't bother. Burn them in while listening to them. So far I've only had 2-3 headphones that needed burn-in and I've been through several dozen pairs.
 
 

 

[Sylafari]

Quote:

that's not surprising, because there's going to be a difference in FR with even a small variation in headphone placement on the dummy head or wear on the ear pads.  which would make a "burn-in" FR test very difficult because any differences that may be attributed to burn-in are likely much less than the testing error you'd have.
 

Hmm, never thought about that. I guess you would have to keep the headphone secure for the entire duration. Such intricacies and so many outside factors...
 

 

[jjinh]

Shouldn't this thread supposed to be in the "Sound Science" Forum?

 

[jageur272]

Quote:

Shouldn't this thread supposed to be in the "Sound Science" Forum?

No, because science is ignored in threads like these.

 

[JamesMcProgger]

I think OP should change its tittle, specially after this post by Tyll post #37
 
said that, I swear I heard some differences in the M50 brand new and time after, but not like a whole different sound, more slighty changes. It has been the only headphone Ive notice such fenomenum though.

 

[koolkat]

How exactly does a headphone manage to sound so much different before and after burn-in? 

 

[milosolo]

X2!
 
People are welcome to believe whatever they want. IMO and experience burn-in of audio equipment exists because I trust what I hear with my ears. I couldn't care less if someone thinks I'm hearing the placebo effect because I can't provide scientific measurements to back up the claim. While I'm at it... Cables and tubes have different sound signatures also. I can't show you the proof but I can have you listen to it.
 
Quote:

This is how I know burn in is real.  I put the headphones on and I listen to them over time, then I trust  my ears. I've trusted my ears as an editor for 24 years. They've fed, clothed and sheltered myself and my family for 24 years.  I don't need no stinkin blind test to tell me what I hear and what I don't hear.  But hey if you're not confident in your own ability to hear and perceive then I guess you need blind test proof, double blind test proof.  Measurements from instruments as proof.  Anything other than your own ears because who can trust those things.

 
 

 

[oldshoe99]

Tyll tested only one mfr and model and applied the result generally, which is very unscientific. Some models are going to be different, and change quite a bit.

 

[Willakan]

 
Quote:

X2!
 
People are welcome to believe whatever they want. IMO and experience burn-in of audio equipment exists because I trust what I hear with my ears. I couldn't care less if someone thinks I'm hearing the placebo effect because I can't provide scientific measurements to back up the claim. While I'm at it... Cables and tubes have different sound signatures also. I can't show you the proof but I can have you listen to it.

So everything sounds different and it's not the placebo effect because you can HEAR it...
When you can spot what is wrong with this statement, try some blind testing.
 
 

 

[kiteki]

 
I think before and after FR graphs will confirm that burn-in is real.
 
Why no such graphs exist? 
 
 

 

[ChavaC]

"How exactly does a headphone manage to sound so much different before and after burn-in?"
 
I would assume submicroscopic orientation, organization, and potentially structural weakening of the individual fibers of the material used to create the diaphragm. For example, take a new pair of cheap jeans that are rigid and uncomfortable on day one. Wear them normally for a month or two and you should appreciate a noticeable increase in flexibility and comfort d/t essentially "burn in" of the fabric. Or another analogy would be the construction paper we are all familiar with from kindergarten. A new sheet is flat and will easily bend across linear planes, whereas a sheet that has been crumpled and uncrumpled many times assumes a more easily distorted texture that is similar to cloth. Transpose these ideas into the setting of a diaphragm being vibrated by a pair a magnets at a very high frequency over several hundred hours and I think it's reasonable to postulate a change in sound based on the integrity of the diaphragm. That's my theory at least.
 
The other rationale would be that acclimation and adjustment to the sound/expectations of the headphone leads to a "mental" burn in process until we reach the point whereupon we hear what expect, as opposed to subconsciously/consciously evaluating the headphone's quality in comparison the prior headphone or norm.
 
I would assume both factors play into the equation with most people, but not necessarily to the same extent in each individual. The widespread prevalence of the phenomena seemingly supports the assumption that some process is changing wrt the way the sound is perceived, and personally I find it somewhat asinine and dismissive to blanket these observations under the placebo effect or "voodoo". In the end, if you can hear audible improvements in the way a headphone sounds after x hours of burn-in then continue to do so and don't let any childish remarks you read here dissuade you.

 

[BournePerfect]

Great points there Chavac-and a brilliant comparison I might add that makes sense. Unfortunately, people lack common sense these days and need to be spoon-fed a graph to believe anything . It's a wonder some people can get out out of bed and dress themselves in the morning, what with their fragile, ever-shifting psyche convincing them that maybe they're still dreaming. Also, I'll play the skeptic role and ask, where is the scientific proof of brain burn in? People scoff at cables and diaphram/transducer maleability (burn in)-then pull the BRAIN BURN IN CARD!?!?!  That cracks me up to no end!

 Keep it up haters-I'll keep hearing what's real to my ears, and you keep trying to prove the sun does not exist. For shame.
 
 

 

[Graphicism]

In addition to what's already been echoed in this thread, is there any common association between that and say source, amps and cables to a lesser degree. I've had discussions where members of the forum told me the Fiio E7/E9 is the be-all and end-all in source and amplification due to the frequency and numbers the company has released; all others amps and source being colored in comparison.
 
Do all non-burn-in believers also buy headphone gear on paper and don't touch the upper echelon and chart it down to just another placebo at work. If not, why do you spend more than you need too when the Fiio E7/E9 proves scientifically there is nothing better? -- Could you possibly be deciding with your ears and not what's written in black and white?

 

[BournePerfect]

Carefull, Graphicism-sound reasoning and common sense are not welcomed here...
 
-Daniel

 

[koolkat]

Optical illusions.
 
Quote:

Great points there Chavac-and a brilliant comparison I might add that makes sense. Unfortunately, people lack common sense these days and need to be spoon-fed a graph to believe anything . It's a wonder some people can get out out of bed and dress themselves in the morning, what with their fragile, ever-shifting psyche convincing them that maybe they're still dreaming. Also, I'll play the skeptic role and ask, where is the scientific proof of brain burn in? People scoff at cables and diaphram/transducer maleability (burn in)-then pull the BRAIN BURN IN CARD!?!?!  That cracks me up to no end!

 Keep it up haters-I'll keep hearing what's real to my ears, and you keep trying to prove the sun does not exist. For shame.