[ratinox]

The change is measurable, and its there.  The question becomes how big of a difference does it make?  That is something that isn't measured, that's no one is sure about.

I'm looking over that and I want to take another look in a while to be sure that I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing. Right now, though, what I think I'm seeing is small noise level changes that are 60-75 dB below the signal. Noise 60 dB below the music is usually inaudible unless you're listening for that noise and you know what to listen for. Most humans wouldn't notice a 1.5 dB change outside of an A/B test. And as Tyll points out on the next page:

The one thing I think I have proved, however, is that if break-in does exist, it is not a large effect. When people talk about night and day changes in headphones with break-in, they are exaggerating. This data clearly shows that the AKG Q701 --- a headphone widely believed to change markedly with break-in --- does not change much much over time.

My hiking boots break-in; my sneakers break-in, too. But my hiking boots aren't going to turn into sneakers over time. This idea that you simply must let headphones break-in before you know what they are going to sound like is a myth. And this data busts it.​

So... do you need to break in your M-100? No, you don't. Put them on and enjoy them out of the box. And if you don't like them then turn the volume down a bit and give them a week or two to grow on you. And if you still don't like them then maybe they're not the cans for you.

 

[ratinox]

So then I have a question, I read somewhere on here that these will kind of form to your head. I have a big noggin, so is this true?

All pads will deform to match the shape of your head, more or less. How much they will deform and how well they will match depends on the materials, how much of them there are, the shape of your head and face, how thick the fat is underneath your skin, the clamping force exerted by the band, and how much time you give them to find their fit. That last is important for memory foam pads. They're relatively hard when the material is cold. It will take time for them to warm up and you may need to reposition them a couple of times before you get a good seal.

 

[ratinox]

And on the other, other hand, we have engineers and headphone manufacturers saying that burn in is real...right on their instruction manuals.

Which manufacturers? V-Moda doesn't. KRK doesn't. AKG doesn't. Shure doesn't. This is based on headphones that I own and still have the booklets. I have several Koss headphones but none of the packaging or paperwork so I can't check those.

 

[miceblue]

I don't believe in the driver break-in effect for headphones either. I think a large part of it depends on the earpad shaping to one's head, and another part just being your brain thinking it's hearing differences because we expect it to happen. Funny how no one seems to think that headphone drivers get worse over time, only better. I didn't notice any differences in sound with the M-100, and I basically laid it on the table for a week with pink noise playing (i.e. no earpad shaping to my head).

On the other hand, before making my purchase of the Shure SRH940, I was considering the Ultrasone headphones and those are infamous for needing some ridiculous number of hours to supposedly burn-in. I think the HFI-780 'needed' some 600 hours or another outrageous number like that. If a headphone needed that much burn-in, the headphone is fundamentally flawed to begin with, period. That's basically a month of break-in.

I did e-mail Ultrasone about that on the other hand and I received this reply from whatever representative was managing the e-mails (read: not necessarily an engineer or even designer of the headphone).

 

[Solrighal]

Which manufacturers? V-Moda doesn't. KRK doesn't. AKG doesn't. Shure doesn't. This is based on headphones that I own and still have the booklets. I have several Koss headphones but none of the packaging or paperwork so I can't check those.

You're quite right. Even if burn-in is present and then also detectable no manufacturer could really ever admit to it on the basis that products would never ever meet the expectations of the user. Or maybe they did sound fantastic but the user's wife said the colour clashed with the curtains. The manufacturer would be opening the door to a warranty claim nightmare.

 

[elvergun]

   
The best explanation is actually the one that he stated, they are trying to induce expectation bias.

 
The best explanation is PROBABLY the one that he stated.  I'm not certain one way or the other.  Tyll is not certain.   But you and ratinox are 100%, without a doubt, completely certain.  Okay.
 
All the engineers I've talk to (real people too) believe in burn in.  Now we are stuck, aren't we?
 
 

   
"Have I shown that break-in exists? No.
 

 
Does Tyll show that break-in does not exist?  No!!!!!!
 

 
The one thing I think I have proved, however, is that if break-in does exist, it is not a large effect. When people talk about night and day changes in headphones with break-in, they are exaggerating. This data clearly shows that the AKG Q701 --- a headphone widely believed to change markedly with break-in --- does not change much much over time."

 
How can this be conclusive evidence.  He shows that the Q701 does not change much, sure.   Does he show that no change happens at all?  No.  Does he show that the PX100 does not change much over time?  No.  Does he show that all headphones in existence do not change much over time?  No.
 
 
I don't know how you guys can use his findings as absolute proof that burn in is not real.  Objectivists are all about science and the scientific method; well, Tyll did not perform a scientific experiment.   Again, he was probably measuring bias and expectation. 
 
Are there any results of blind tests performed to see if burn in is real.  Show me those and I'll start to believe you.   Until then, I'll believe my biased ears.

 

[elvergun]

Which manufacturers? V-Moda doesn't. KRK doesn't. AKG doesn't. Shure doesn't. This is based on headphones that I own and still have the booklets. I have several Koss headphones but none of the packaging or paperwork so I can't check those.

 
So, you have never, ever heard of a manufacturer recommending burn in?  Really? 
 
 
 

Hmm, just from something I've got in my house.
 
http://www.martinlogan.com/pdf/manuals/manual-mikros90.pdf
 
BREAK IN
Allow approximately 15–30 hours of break in at moderate listening levels before
any critical listening. Like most high-performance audio reproduction devices, a
break-in period should result in improved performance. For rapid break-in you may
choose to leave the headphones connected to an audio source playing music during
the night or when otherwise not in use.
 
But what does Martin Logan know about headphones, right?  They are a speaker company and the don't know what they are talking about, right?
 
I can go find some more examples if you want.

 

[kyuuketsuki]

   
The best explanation is PROBABLY the one that he stated.  I'm not certain one way or the other.  Tyll is not certain.   But you and ratinox are 100%, without a doubt, completely certain.  Okay.
 
All the engineers I've talk to (real people too) believe in burn in.  Now we are stuck, aren't we?
 
 
 
Does Tyll show that break-in does not exist?  No!!!!!!
 
 
How can this be conclusive evidence.  He shows that the Q701 does not change much, sure.   Does he show that no change happens at all?  No.  Does he show that the PX100 does not change much over time?  No.  Does he show that all headphones in existence do not change much over time?  No.
 
 
I don't know how you guys can use his findings as absolute proof that burn in is not real.  Objectivists are all about science and the scientific method; well, Tyll did not perform a scientific experiment.   Again, he was probably measuring bias and expectation. 
 
Are there any results of blind tests performed to see if burn in is real.  Show me those and I'll start to believe you.   Until then, I'll believe my biased ears.

 
You should read all my posts again. Clearly you never did, since I never said with 100% certainty that burn-in absolutely does not exist. I did say to the degree that people claim it, is impossible because that would mean the driver changed to such a large degree that it would be a flawed product. If there are driver changes, they are going to be small. Most of the time they are undetectable by human ears well below perception levels. Something happens to the driver when they are used, however, most of the time the changes are so small that they are undetectable. I'm not saying, however, that it doesn't exist 100% since I HAVE heard it on a few headphones, but not many, under DBX tests. What I DID say is that most claims of burn-in are psychological. 

Also, Tyll's results can be used as a DBX test since it is raw data. Measurement instruments can have no bias. 
 
As for personal tests, you can check out the sound science forum, I'm sure you can find some. There is a rather large thread on Burn-in (30 pages long). Feel free to check it out. All I know is that I've done DBX tests with many headphones, and could not tell consistently at all for 95% of the headphones I tested, even with Ultrasone and AKG which are told to have the most burn in. But that is anecdotal evidence and my own perceptions cannot be used for evidence in the slightest. It did construct my own perceptions of burn-in or general lack thereof. Tyll and Rin's measurements are the best we have for evidence. And both show trends but they are so minor that the bigger question is if they are perceptible by human hearing. I think for most headphones they aren't, but that doesn't mean that every headphone does not have a perceivable change over time. 

 

[elvergun]

   
 
 
As for personal tests, you can check out the sound science forum, I'm sure you can find some. There is a rather large thread on Burn-in (30 pages long). Feel free to check it out.

 
Man, you want me to read Tyll's article again...you want me to read your post again...and now you want me to go read a 30 page thread?  What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?  Leave me alone. 

 
I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I told my PX100 tale and I was told that  what I heard was wrong.  You two have not convinced me of anything.  You can go check that thread out and fell free to PM any interesting information.  Really, go...it won't take much to convince since I am not certain that burn in is real.  I'm just not as certain as you that burn in is not real.

 

[kyuuketsuki]

   
Man, you want me to read Tyll's article again...you want me to read your post again...and now you want me to go read a 30 page thread?  What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?  Leave me alone. 

 
I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I told my PX100 tale and I was told that  what I heard was wrong.  You two have not convinced me of anything.  You can go check that thread out and fell free to PM any interesting information.  Really, go...it won't take much to convince since I am not certain that burn in is real.  I'm just not as certain as you that burn in is not real.

 

 
But seriously. I don't claim that it DOESN'T exist, just not to the degree that yourself or any others claim it to. And considering that you believe that you have experienced burn-in means that you do believe it does exist. Which means it would be that much harder to convince you since you'll always go back to "Well that headphone wasn't  the PX100." Thus always solidifying the claim in your head. In fact I could probably go through the list of headphones that I tested DBX for burn in and get the same reaction.
 
PS: Saying to reread his article was rhetorical since I quoted the relevant part of the conclusion for you
 
PSS: Telling you to go to the burn-in thread in the Sound Science forum was a gentle way of saying "This is really not the place for this conversation and it should really happen there, as that is the sound science forum"

 

[tinyman392]

I'm looking over that and I want to take another look in a while to be sure that I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing. Right now, though, what I think I'm seeing is small noise level changes that are 60-75 dB below the signal. Noise 60 dB below the music is usually inaudible unless you're listening for that noise and you know what to listen for. Most humans wouldn't notice a 1.5 dB change outside of an A/B test. And as Tyll points out on the next page: The one thing I think I have proved, however, is that if break-in does exist, it is not a large effect. When people talk about night and day changes in headphones with break-in, they are exaggerating. This data clearly shows that the AKG Q701 --- a headphone widely believed to change markedly with break-in --- does not change much much over time.

My hiking boots break-in; my sneakers break-in, too. But my hiking boots aren't going to turn into sneakers over time. This idea that you simply must let headphones break-in before you know what they are going to sound like is a myth. And this data busts it.

So... do you need to break in your M-100? No, you don't. Put them on and enjoy them out of the box. And if you don't like them then turn the volume down a bit and give them a week or two to grow on you. And if you still don't like them then maybe they're not the cans for you.

 
I'm going to make a statement and say that 1.5 dB can be easily audible if it's wide enough of a range that it covers (and in the right place, increase the 1-2k range by 1.5 dB, it'll make a difference depending on headphone).  Technically speaking, you don't need to break in any headphone, they'll break in with use.  But you did contradict yourself in your last paragraph, you stated that break in is not needed, but if you don't like them, break in might help (it can be needed). 
 
If you setup an EQ like this (each EQ was specifically designed for the M-100, one will boost the bass a bit, the other will flatten it a little bit).  This EQ will boost bass and treble, it looks like a 1.5 dB with a reverse-hump at the 1 kHz region:

1. 32 Hz - 400 Hz: 1.5 dB
2. 1 kHz: 0
3. 4 kHz - 16 kHz: 1.5 dB

 
You'll notice that if you EQ like this, the bass gets just that much more slam to it with a 1.5 dB gain.  It also gains a bit more body and weight to each note in general.  Although the treble increase isn't as audible it does have the slightest bit of gain in air (you wouldn't notice it over a burn in though).  Midrange instrumentals also gain presence too.  This is within the 1.5 dB bound again:
 

1. 32 Hz - 256 Hz: -1.5 
2. 500 Hz: 0
3. 1 kHz - 3 kHz: -1.5 
4. 4 kHz - 8 kHz: 0
5. 16 kHz: -1.5

 
The change makes the M-100's bass tighten up quite a bit and becomes more controlled (even though it's already controlled IMO, partly because of that hump at the 1 kHz)...  If you can't tell, both EQs use the M-100's measurements (by Tyll) to figure out what areas to EQ   Both of these also have minute changes when it comes to timbre as well, if you switch off the first EQ, you'll notice that the instruments don't sound as dark. 
 
If you flip the EQs, turn the 1.5 to 0 and 0 to 1.5 (or -1.5), you'll notice that the change is much smaller, when theoretically it is the same EQ, just at a different volume level.  I made a statement above that the width makes a difference here, as does intensity...  Width and intensity, think integral  
 
Actually, if you reverse the first EQ, like stated above, you'll find out why the M-100 doesn't lose out on details even though it's not bass-heavy.  Without that little hump at the 1 kHz the midrange, the headphones become much smoother and less aggressive. 
 
Also, if you want to explore further, you can adjust those above EQs to flatten the sound (or boost the bass for my basshead friends) just a tad bit more.  It'll make the M-100 sound a lot more fun, or a lot more hollow depending on which direction you go.  I actually like that little bass boost that it adds, sometimes it's that little tiny difference that makes all the difference. 

 

[ratinox]

a break-in period should result in improved performance.

Okay, one, and it's phrased with the weasel word "should" rather than the definitive "will". Can you show me a printed manual from a reputable manufacturer of headphones that states headphone burn-in will improve sound and performance?

Then again, MartinLogan has made one headphone and one earphone in the company's existence. Shure currently has 7 earphones and 9 headphones in active production. I can't speak for anyone else about this but I'm going to run with the idea that Shure's engineers have more experience designing headphones than MartinLogan's.

 

[miceblue]

Funny how no one seems to think that headphone drivers get worse over time, only better.

I expect my M-100 to sound like the HD800 in the future. Moar burn-in is bettah!

 

[SomeGuyDude]

JLAB says 40 hours: https://www.jlabaudio.com/index/burn-in
 
VMODA suggests 24 hours: http://v-moda.com/truehertz/
 
This one's hearsay, but Ultrasone sent out a memo about it possibly: http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=304310
 
Audeze states that they do it before shipping: http://www.audeze.com/update
 
Audio Technica says they don't need a "burn in" but that the sound changes over time by a "small margin" (which is burn-in): http://eu.audio-technica.com/en/support/questions/question.asp?id=239
 
Should I continue?

 

[ratinox]

I'm going to make a statement and say that 1.5 dB can be easily audible if it's wide enough of a range that it covers (and in the right place, increase the 1-2k range by 1.5 dB, it'll make a difference depending on headphone).  Technically speaking, you don't need to break in any headphone, they'll break in with use.  But you did contradict yourself in your last paragraph, you stated that break in is not needed, but if you don't like them, break in might help (it can be needed).

Please explain how "give them a week or two to grow on you" is at all suggestive of a change in the headphones?