# Is burn in real or placebo?



## Hifi Man

When people say they "burn in" their headphones, it could mean that they leave them on and don't listen to them, or they wear them and play stuff through them for extended periods. There's been claims that this 'improves' the sound. Is this measurable, or what? I don't know how people come up with this stuff, but if it's actually true then I'd be interested in an explanation of "burn in".


----------



## thegunner100

Read this article for more info. Burn in for headphones is real.
   
  http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





thegunner100 said:


> Read this article for more info. Burn in for headphones is real.
> 
> http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break


 
  Quote from the article:
   
  Quote: 





> * Did I show break-in exists? No.* There are too many variables still. Was it simply movement? I don't know. If I did it again to another brand new pair would I get the same results? I don't know. If I did it to an already broken in pair would I get the same results? I don't know.


 
   
  If it is real, it's pretty minor and I wouldn't worry about it too much.


----------



## thegunner100

I agree that it's generally pretty minor. If you don't like a pair of headphones before break-in, then burn-in probably isn't going to make you really like it.


----------



## pallentx

Quote: 





thegunner100 said:


> I agree that it's generally pretty minor. If you don't like a pair of headphones before break-in, then burn-in probably isn't going to make you really like it.


 
  It could if "burn-in" is partially (or completely) about the listener taking enough time to adjust to the sound of a new piece of equipment and appreciate it. I know whenever I hear something with a different sound signature, my initial reaction is to not like it and pick at how it differs from what I'm used to. If I force myself to give it time, my brain adjusts to what its hearing and begins to counter what was initially offensive. I've been forced to listen to some terrible, cheap Sonys at home while I'm waiting for new drivers for my Grados. At first, I couldn't stand them. The treble response was non-existent - everything was overwhelmed by muddy bass. After a few days though, I'm starting to hear the highs a bit more. I think my brain is learning to filter out the overpowering frequencies. There's no burn-in happening here. These phone are several years old and have been played a lot. I still don't like them, but I've become much more tolerant of them over hours of listening.


----------



## jackwess

Uhm, this is a very discussed topic. 
   
  My thinking is that it have more noticeable effects in some headphone models over others.


----------



## Christo4

Sometimes i think burn-in is a little bit of both technics and psichology.
   
  For example a pair of headphones clearly has more bass after a ton of burn-in, because at the beginning they were bass-shy but now it's just right. I asked a friend of mine who tried them at the beginning and now to see if i am right and he agreed.
   
  On the SR80i at first they kinda pierced my ears, but after some time i didn't mind it as much and i can barely sense it now. I also asked some people to compare them how they were before and after the burn-in and they didn't see any difference so it is all in my head.
   
  So IMO since it's both in your head and the diafragm may get a little more flexible from use, modifying the sound a little, both of these combined make a big/small difference in perceived sound signature over time.


----------



## MohawkUS

I used to be skeptical but then I had a pair of Ultrasone PRO2900s...

Just look up all the threads of people asking 'did I break my ultrasones?'. The burn-in process for those is quite strange. For the first 20 hours the bass gets louder and more fun. Then a little while latter you lose it completely. At that point myself and many others wondered if we had broken them somehow. When they got really bassy I put one of my bassiest albums on repeat and listened to it for most of the day.(Electric Wizard - Let Us Prey). Must have been the 6th time I was going through suddenly the bass disappeared.

It did settle out over the next 100 hours or so and from that point on I didn't notice any more changes. Of course the 'big bass' never resurfaced either which was a little disappointing.

Every other headphone that I've owned the burn-in has been subtle enough that I wasn't really sure if it was the headphones or me. Only the Ultrasones had a complete tonal shift during the process.


----------



## ssrock64

As many have stated before and will state again, burn-in is a combination of your headphones and yourself. Some models have a very pronounced difference in sound between the shipped product and the product after 100 hours, but the vast majority of headphones undergo only a little bit of change (or no noticeable change at all). It's usually much more important to get your ears used to a new pair of headphones than to shove it in a drawer for a few days with music blaring, but both can make a difference.


----------



## jaycee1

I burn in every pair of new headphones for at least 50 hours. One pair of headphones changed significantly in it's sound signature: the igrado's. Out of box, these were ridiculously bright, practically unlistenable. After about 60-70 hours, the sound signature smoothed out, so that some treble sparkle remained, but all of the extreme treble harshness disappeared. Now, these are a very pleasantly warm sounding pair of headphones retaining a bit of top end sparkle. Very nice.


----------



## Brooko

One thing I can't get my head around is how the proponents of burn-in are so sure of the changes - when our accurate aural memory (perception of differences over time) seems to be much less than 20 seconds?
   
  For a discussion on it - see this thread from hydrogenaudio (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=71595)
   
  I'd be really interested to know if there are any studies that show (for perception of details) how much we can actually retain over time - and reliably differentiate.
   
  The reason I ask is simple - how on earth can anyone tell what the actual difference is between 2 points of listening several hours apart - if our aural memory for detail only extends reliable for a few seconds.
   
  I have personally found no audible effect of mechanical break-in with any of the headphones I've owned - but then again, I wasn't expecting any.  I have found that at first listen - I may find a headphone's sonic signature to be strange (not what I'm used to) - but after a while listening to it (and only it). my wonderful brain adjusts it's expectations - and the sound changes.  This is an easy experiment to do - especially for owners of multiple headphones.  Take you headphones with the most 'different' sonic signatures.  Listen to one for a few hours.  Now switch to the second - note immediate reactions - but keep listening to the second (again for as much time - hours - as possible) - then switch back to the first again.  Write down your observations.
   
  Switching from HD600 to SR325i to HD600.
   

 HD600 initially sounds spacious, textured, natural - incredible timbre.  No sign of veil.  Switch to 325i ......
 325i sounds narrow, overly bright. harsh even.  After some time with it - it sounds energetic, highs are enticing, everything sounds alive and brilliantly clear - not harsh in the slightest.  Don't notice the narrow stage as much any more.  Bass is tight and accurate and a lot of fun.  Switch back to HD600 after 2 hours ......
 HD600 sounds slow, dull, distant.  Bass is boomy.
   
  Give it a couple of hours - and then the HD600 returns back to the first bullet point again.  I know this is an extreme example - but it highlights the reality of our brain's impact on perceived sonic changes.  Have the headphones changed over the 5-6 hours listening ....... no - both my cans would be considered well broken in by now.  So how can the change be so 'night and day' ........ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Tyll's experiments with the AKG 701s highlight how little measurable mechanical change actually happens.  Is there a change - definitely appears to be.  Is it going to be night and day - not according to his measurements.
   
  People will believe what they want to believe - but my position is simple.  Any burn-in (mechanical) is going to be so minute that my aural memory would never be able to differentiate it anyway. Therefore perception of change is all in my mind.  And I can show this (repeatably) by simply swapping different sonic signatures over time.


----------



## pp312

I'm a bit of a skeptic when it comes to cables etc, and even to some degree expensive amps, but my experience with burn in has been too convincing to ignore. Of course we're all familiar with the psychoacoustic arguments, with the effects of changing from headphones of one extreme to the other (Grado to HD650 etc), but none of that explains how a headphone that can sound extremely bright out of the box can sound much less so after many hours or days burning-in in a drawer, without being listened to. True, aural memory is short, but the memory of listener fatigue, particularly on specific passages or even single notes, is somewhat longer, and when an "unlistenable" headphone eventually becomes not only listenable but even enjoyable, then I know something has happened, and since I wasn't listening while the burn in was taking place, it isn't my brain burning in.
   
  Another argument for the reality of burn in is that it seems so random--not the sort of thing one could talk oneself into. Some headphones change enormously, some barely or not at all, regardless of one's hopes or expectations. Some seem to change quite quickly, others almost imperceptibly over months. If it's all pure psychoacoustics, us imagining a change or our brains compensating, wouldn't it be more regular and predictable? Wouldn't we always hear a change of around the same magnitude over the same period? If our brains are compensating, wouldn't the compensation be more regular rather than happening hugely with one headphone and not at all with another? (At least, that's my experience. Can't speak for others).
   
  Points to ponder perhaps.


----------



## Brooko

@pp312 - good points - but I think that is where expectation bias comes in.  You're expecting a change  - so it eventually "happens".  Ever noticed how it's always for the better?  Ever heard of a headphone that turns to crap after burn-in?
   
  What I'd love to do is grab three new headphones (same brand model - one that said subject has alluded to major changes in the past) - get a subject to listen to two, burn one in - then ask subject to listen again.  But to mix it up - leave the one with the 'burn-in' out of the test without him knowing.  Would be interesting to see if the expectation for a change, and the sighted knowledge that he expects one headphone to be 'burnt in' (pre-label it) would influence perceived hearing ........
   
  I just wish there was a way to tell for sure - but even Tylls tests were non-conclusive (and supposedly on the one headphone that a lot of people think changes - the 701).
   
  Anyway - interesting discussion.  I definitely can't say my stance is right (or wrong) - but I respect that we can all share opinions / viewpoints.


----------



## kyuuketsuki

I'm finally convinced that it can occur. It just happened with my ASG-1. They still have the same sort of soundsig as when I first got them. But the midrange is pulled back a bit and the bass is more lean leading to a more balanced form of its original sound signature. Some of it is placebo, but considering that I thought these were too warm when I first heard them and now they aren't I'm a believer. This is the first time I'm convinced that it is burn in rather than me getting used to the sound.


----------



## MohawkUS

brooko said:


> Ever heard of a headphone that turns to crap after burn-in?




Yes, the Ultrasone PRO2900... The audio memory explanation doesn't cover that one either.(And I do agree with you on that point that it makes listening for such things difficult) The change in bass quantity was instantaneous hence why many of us thought that something broke. And the headphone actually did sound better before burn-in as the already overdone highs were even more noticeable with the bass quantity lessened.

Generally every headphone that I've owned, save my 20+ yr old SR-5s which I got last year, has sounded either grainy or veiled out of the box. Half of them I sold off before they would have gotten a chance to burn-in; the other half I stopped noticing it sometime during the first two months of ownership. The difference that I perceived was small in all cases so I remained skeptical that the change was in the headphones. Only the Ultrasones took on a different tonal balance through burn-in. The rest of them, assuming they changed at all, just became less grainy/veiled/boomy/not-good

And to be honest I was not expecting a change with any of my headphones, especially my Grado SR-80s which I got before I had ever discovered head-fi, burn in, and all that. Approximately 100 hours in I remember thinking to myself "these sound better... no that couldn't be? Could it?"


----------



## Grado77

Quote: 





jackwess said:


> Uhm, this is a very discussed topic.
> 
> My thinking is that it have more noticeable effects in some headphone models over others.


 
   
  That is what I have noticed also. Recently I bought a pair of ATH-A900X and can't hardly believe how much they changed within about the first 10 hours. By far the most noticeable of all the phones I've used. After that I am noticing no further perceptible change. They've shaped up to be great headphones and scale well with amplification. Quite a bargain.
   
  My HE-400 were a little treble hot (sizzly) and settled down nicely after about 10 hours, no further differences have been perceived.
   
  My HE-500 have sounded the same as when they came out of the box......phenomenal.
   
  I haven't noticed it very much with my Q701, D5K, or Grados either. I am sure they are affected but the change will come over a long period of time that won't be noticeable.


----------



## Bill-P

Not to say I'm an expert on the matter...
   
  But given that headphones are physical objects, they get worn out over time, too. Especially as they're in use, since the drivers are constantly accelerating and decelerating.
   
  So from a scientific standpoint, I'd think burn-in SHOULD be real. Unless someone somewhere is claiming that there exist objects that retain its physical properties forever...


----------



## b3wannabe

Some models - yes
  Other models - no
   
  The most pronounced improvement I've experienced was on a pair of AKG-702's. Second most change was Ultrasone DJ1 Pro.
   
  On many models I hear no change at all.
   
  $0.02


----------



## VolkswagenFox

Me and my dad both have a pair of Alessandro MS-1's back in 2007 or 2008. Both sounded the same in the beginning. My dad's MS-1 have been used considerably less than mine, and five years later the difference is quite obvious. Mine sound more "full", while his are more thin with a bit of a harsher top end. When A/Bing them the difference is quite obvious. In a blind test my dad (78 years old, and doesn't have the world's best hearing anymore) noticed the difference right away and pointed out the same observations as me.
   
  So yeah, burn in is real.


----------



## Brooko

How are the conditions of the pads on both?  Differences in pads have a very noticeable effect on sound.


----------



## jaycee1

Quote: 





brooko said:


> How are the conditions of the pads on both?  Differences in pads have a very noticeable effect on sound.


 
   
  My igrado's are brand new, and the sound signature changed drastically after about 60 hours of burn-in.


----------



## ev13wt

Burn in, cable sound, equalizers and solid state vs. tube discussions all have 2 things in common:

1. They will bring wars upon forums.
2. You need to try it out and figure it out for yourself, because noone has your ears.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





brooko said:


> @pp312 - good points - but I think that is where expectation bias comes in.  You're expecting a change  - so it eventually "happens".  Ever noticed how it's always for the better?  Ever heard of a headphone that turns to crap after burn-in?


 
   
  But that's just it--it doesn't always happen. Some headphones I pray will change and they don't, or not significantly. They may be expensive and difficult to re-sell, so I very much need them to improve, but they don't. Others I'm not fussed about as I got them cheap and can re-sell at a profit--yet they improve to the point where I wouldn't consider selling them at any profit. It's totally random and has nothing to do with expectation.
   
  As for headphones always improving with burn in, if we assume the process of burn in is the headphone settling in and beginning to work at its optimum, I would always expect that to be so, just as I'd expect a new car to get better as its parts wear in. Have you ever had a car that got noisier and rougher in the first 10,000 miles?


----------



## Brooko

@pp312
  I won't continue on - simply because it's a polarising debate - and realistically the same things get rehashed over and over.  I respect your posts too much to put myself in a situation where there is no real middle ground and we are on completely opposite sides (call it a cop-out, but experience tells me to continue would be a downward spiral - rehashing all the now familiar points)
   
I'm yet to be convinced - especially with comments like these ..... 
   


jaycee1 said:


> My igrado's are brand new, and the sound signature changed drastically after about 60 hours of burn-in.


 
   
  I've yet to hear the night and day diff people talk about - and I know my own aural memory is no good after more than a minute (actually a lot less).  I freely admit to probably having tin ears as well 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
   
  I will suggest going back once again to Tyll's measurements showing something happening (and possibly something audible) with the 701's - but with actual measurements that clearly show any change to be minute / subtle.
   
  I don't doubt you are experiencing something changing.  I'll continue to be largely skeptical it's mostly due to 'burn-in' though - unless I hear it/experience it myself.


----------



## pallentx

I don't doubt that there can be some break-in of a physical moving diaphragm in headphone driver, but I also believe there is a strong psychological component to break-in. Its not a matter of expecting a change and then convincing yourself you heard it, though that could also happen. I think the most common is a matter of the listener's brain learning to process the different signal to make it "sound" more pleasant. When I hear people say, "when I first got these phone, the highs/mids/bass was bad, but after XXXXX hours, it started sounding much better." I think the "started sounding much better" part is your brain toning down the offensive highs or filtering through the muddy bass and being able to pick out mids and highs, etc. Your brain is a powerful processor - it can make you see things that aren't there and hear things in a different way. Its like when you were young, perhaps you hated the taste of broccoli, but as you got older you started to like it. The Broccoli doesn't taste different now, your brain has learned to like it.


----------



## jaycee1

Quote: 





brooko said:


> I won't continue on - simply because it's a polarising debate - and realistically the same things get rehashed over and over.  I respect your posts too much to put myself in a situation where there is no real middle ground and we are on completely opposite sides (call it a cop-out, but experience tells me to continue would be a downward spiral - rehashing all the now familiar points)
> 
> I'm yet to be convinced - especially with comments like these .....
> 
> ...


 
   
  I'm burning in earpods (60+ hours). I don't notice the slightest difference in sound signature. I've burned in several other pairs, and I agree, psychological "burn-in" is very real--the same headphones can sound very different from day to day, depending on volume, the sources, the use of an amp, what headhpones you listened to just prior, etc. 
   
  However, the igrado change was not subtle nor psychological. They were unlistenable and tediously bright. After 60 hours, the very harsh treble had basically disappeared, replaced by a full, warm, bright sound that was exceptionally pleasant. 
   
  It's the only pair that changed radically, but it's enough to convince me that in select cases, significant changes can occur. But for my other headphones, the changes have been modest to completely non-existent.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





brooko said:


> I won't continue on - simply because it's a polarising debate - and realistically the same things get rehashed over and over.  I respect your posts too much to put myself in a situation where there is no real middle ground and we are on completely opposite sides (call it a cop-out, but experience tells me to continue would be a downward spiral - rehashing all the now familiar points)
> 
> I'm yet to be convinced - especially with comments like these .....
> 
> ...


 
   
  Fair enough. I'd just like to make a couple of points:
   
  1. I don't spiral.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  2. I do think most of the changes people describe are exaggerated.
   
  3. I don't believe in burn in beyond about 50 hours, and mostly not even that. In my experience most changes take place in the first 20 hours. The 200--500 hours some people talk about is ridiculous. I've usually moved on to a different headphone altogether before I accrue those sorts of hours--or else I'll have been placed by my relatives in a nursing home.


----------



## Hifi Man

Quote: 





pallentx said:


> I don't doubt that there can be some break-in of a physical moving diaphragm in headphone driver, but I also believe there is a strong psychological component to break-in. Its not a matter of expecting a change and then convincing yourself you heard it, though that could also happen. I think the most common is a matter of the listener's brain learning to process the different signal to make it "sound" more pleasant. When I hear people say, "when I first got these phone, the highs/mids/bass was bad, but after XXXXX hours, it started sounding much better." I think the "started sounding much better" part is your brain toning down the offensive highs or filtering through the muddy bass and being able to pick out mids and highs, etc. Your brain is a powerful processor - it can make you see things that aren't there and hear things in a different way. Its like when you were young, perhaps you hated the taste of broccoli, but as you got older you started to like it. The Broccoli doesn't taste different now, your brain has learned to like it.


 
  This makes sense.


----------



## BetaWolf

What I've concluded is that is HAS to exist. How is it such a big, scientific, controversial discussion amongst audiophiles if it doesn't exist? Or else, how was it discovered?


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





pallentx said:


> Its like when you were young, perhaps you hated the taste of broccoli, but as you got older you started to like it. The Broccoli doesn't taste different now, your brain has learned to like it.


 
   
  Quote: 





hifi man said:


> This makes sense.


 
   
  No it doesn't. I still hate broccoli.


----------



## Phobos1393

Quote: 





betawolf said:


> What I've concluded is that is HAS to exist. How is it such a big, scientific, controversial discussion amongst audiophiles if it doesn't exist? Or else, how was it discovered?


 
  Bigfoot is also a big, controversial discussion, but that doesn't mean he exists, haha. On a serious note, I think it depends on the listener's state of mind and more what he hopes to hear, a change, or no change, and also the headphones themselves. For instance I'd think that drivers made from flimsier materials probably have somewhat of a burn in, and that drivers made from more robust materials are less susceptible to the effects of prolonged use.


----------



## Hifi Man

Quote: 





pp312 said:


> No it doesn't. I still hate broccoli.


 
  I LOVE broccoli. But I guess in all fairness I always loved broccoli. I eat whole stalks of the stuff steamed and plain.


----------



## streetdragon

Broccoli is alright.
 Also i think it is much more brain in than burn in.
 As stated on the first page about switching between the HD600 and SR325i,
 I experience the same effect between the HD558 and MS1i  w/L-cush though my thoughts were a little different.
 From the MS1i -> HD558 i felt the sound was dull and veiled, then in a while it was smooth and relaxing.
 Doing the reverse i felt the sound to be thin and harsh, but then soon found it to be lively and fun.

 Particularly when i look at claims where 'the bass really opened up' I dismiss it and rephrase it as 'brain getting used to new lesser and probably more neutral bass levels'.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





betawolf said:


> What I've concluded is that is HAS to exist. How is it such a big, scientific, controversial discussion amongst audiophiles if it doesn't exist? Or else, how was it discovered?


 
  My theory is it's a rumor spread by a manufacturer who wanted people to keep their headphones past the return period even if they didn't like them


----------



## ev13wt

I think if you listen out of the box for half an hour or even less, and then burn them in for 100 hours and listen to them again, your brain has already had enough time to "adjust" to the sound. that mixed with expectations is bound to be 90% of burn-in.

Only way to really try this out is to burn in headphones for 100 hours, listen to them and try out another same model headphone (from the same manufacturing batch etc) to even get close to a comparison. YMMV.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> My theory is it's a rumor spread by a manufacturer who wanted people to keep their headphones past the return period even if they didn't like them


 
   
  Now here I think you've got something. Only I don't think the rumour started with the manufacturers but with the retailers.


----------



## pallentx

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> My theory is it's a rumor spread by a manufacturer who wanted people to keep their headphones past the return period even if they didn't like them


 
  ha, yes. Or, less sinister, they knew if people keep listening, they will adjust to the different sound and actually like it.


----------



## BetaWolf

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> My theory is it's a rumor spread by a manufacturer who wanted people to keep their headphones past the return period even if they didn't like them


 
  ... That actually makes great sense. I retract my earlier theory in that statement, though I still believe burn-in exists.


----------



## VolkswagenFox

Quote: 





brooko said:


> How are the conditions of the pads on both?  Differences in pads have a very noticeable effect on sound.


 
  Not something I considered when doing the test. I just redid the test using the more worn (more comfortable) pads. Same outcome as before. There is a noticable difference between the two, but one wouldn't mistake them for a different model.


----------



## ThinkAwesome

Quote: 





bill-p said:


> Not to say I'm an expert on the matter...
> 
> But given that headphones are physical objects, they get worn out over time, too. Especially as they're in use, since the drivers are constantly accelerating and decelerating.
> 
> So from a scientific standpoint, I'd think burn-in SHOULD be real. Unless someone somewhere is claiming that there exist objects that retain its physical properties forever...


 
  Physical burn in does exist, but even for the most "burn in required" headphones, the differences are very small. Day and night differences are all from psychology. Think of it this way, if headphones got several times better after being, or even just changed significantly after a few tens of hours use, shouldn't the companies be burning in drivers before they sell them? 
   
   



jaycee1 said:


> However, the igrado change was not subtle nor psychological. They were unlistenable and tediously bright. After 60 hours, the very harsh treble had basically disappeared, replaced by a full, warm, bright sound that was exceptionally pleasant.


 

  You'd be surprised what your brain can get used to. If you really think that the iGrados physical improve, you should probably tell that to Grado Labs so they know their product changes a lot with some use, and maybe ask Tyll or someone else with equipment to measure pre/post burn in iGrados. 
   
   



betawolf said:


> What I've concluded is that is HAS to exist. How is it such a big, scientific, controversial discussion amongst audiophiles if it doesn't exist? Or else, how was it discovered?


 

  As someone else mentioned, bigfoot. As for how it was discovered, someone probably noticed audio equipment sounded better after several hours of use. Burn in is a very logical conclusion to describe what happened if the measurements didn't near disprove it for most pieces of equipment.


----------



## jaycee1

Inaccurate. As I have stated repeatedly, 60+ hours of burn-in made a dramatic difference in the sound signature of a pair of igrado's. The extremely bright, unbearable, exaggerated treble was reduced to a pleasant, mild sparkle with a lush, warm upper midrange and lower treble. Unbearable and grating to very pleasant and musical to me, is a 'day and night' difference.
   
  It is true that the effects of burn in have been modest to non-existent on my other headphones. 
   
  Quote: 





thinkawesome said:


> Physical burn in does exist, but even for the most "burn in required" headphones, the differences are very small. *Day and night differences are all from psychology*. Think of it this way, if headphones got several times better after being, or even just changed significantly after a few tens of hours use, shouldn't the companies be burning in drivers before they sell them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jaycee1

Quote: 





ev13wt said:


> I think if you listen out of the box for half an hour or even less, and then burn them in for 100 hours and listen to them again, your brain has already had enough time to "adjust" to the sound. that mixed with expectations is bound to be 90% of burn-in.
> 
> Only way to really try this out is to burn in headphones for 100 hours, listen to them and try out another same model headphone (from the same manufacturing batch etc) to even get close to a comparison. YMMV.


 
   
  I listened to my igrado's out of box for 2 minutes, maybe less. It was long enough to recognize how bizarrely exaggerated the treble was. I listened again after a day of burn-in. They sounded the same. I waited again until nearly 3 days in (60+ hours). Completely transformed.


----------



## ThinkAwesome

The effect of burn in is very very real. Physical burn in is not. The human brain is a ridiculous contraption. 
   
   


> Inaccurate. As I have stated repeatedly, 60+ hours of burn-in made a dramatic difference in the sound signature of a pair of igrado's. The extremely bright, unbearable, exaggerated treble was reduced to a pleasant, mild sparkle with a lush, warm upper midrange and lower treble. Unbearable and grating to very pleasant and musical to me, is a 'day and night' difference.


 
  Except that is your mind adjusting to the sound. 
   
   
   


> I listened to my igrado's out of box for 2 minutes, maybe less. It was long enough to recognize how bizarrely exaggerated the treble was. I listened again after a day of burn-in. They sounded the same. I waited again until nearly 3 days in (60+ hours). Completely transformed.


 
  Why is this important. If you cloned yourself, had one listen to the audio for two minutes then leave it burning in for 3 days, and had the other never listen to them until they finished burning in, that would be interesting. This, no. 
   
  And again, if a physical change in the headphone caused a day and night difference in sound. Why does Grado not suggest you burn in for 60 hours before listening to the iGrados? Why does Grado not simply play music through them for 60 hours before selling them?


----------



## streetdragon

The brain is a very flexible thinking... thing. 
Most notably is how it adjusts to warm/bright sounds as stated earlier. It will constantly adept to new signatures and once exposed long enough the brain would get used to it and begin to enjoy it. (there are limits to this of course)


----------



## Redcarmoose




----------



## ssrock64

Quote: 





thinkawesome said:


> Why is this important. If you cloned yourself, had one listen to the audio for two minutes then leave it burning in for 3 days, and had the other never listen to them until they finished burning in, that would be interesting. This, no.
> 
> And again, if a physical change in the headphone caused a day and night difference in sound. Why does Grado not suggest you burn in for 60 hours before listening to the iGrados? Why does Grado not simply play music through them for 60 hours before selling them?


 
  Jaycee1's last bit that you quoted was _very_ significant and is not to be dismissed. If you're saying the burn-in is due exclusively to mental adjustment, how can you leave a pair of headphones in a drawer for three days and suddenly feel like they sound completely different after that time. If listening to a headphone is the only form of burn-in required, how can such a large change be noticed without more listening time?
   
  I am not at all saying that most or even many headphones exhibit significant physical burn-in, and I do agree that nearly all burn-in that is important comes from your mind. However, there are _some_ headphones that *do *change noticeably in sound with burn-in time, though they are rare. There is no absolute in this argument either way.


----------



## streetdragon

Quote: 





ssrock64 said:


> Jaycee1's last bit that you quoted was _very_ significant and is not to be dismissed. If you're saying the burn-in is due exclusively to mental adjustment, how can you leave a pair of headphones in a drawer for three days and suddenly feel like they sound completely different after that time. If listening to a headphone is the only form of burn-in required, how can such a large change be noticed without more listening time?
> 
> I am not at all saying that most or even many headphones exhibit significant physical burn-in, and I do agree that nearly all burn-in that is important comes from your mind. However, there are _some_ headphones that *do *change noticeably in sound with burn-in time, though they are rare. There is no absolute in this argument either way.


 
  Probably the reason why the debate never ends even after so many years.


----------



## ssrock64

Quote: 





streetdragon said:


> Probably the reason why the debate never ends even after so many years.


 
  That's exactly what I think whenever this comes up: that we're arguing over apples and oranges.
   
  Some cans change extremely, and their owners will argue for that. Some don't, and their owners will argue against physical burn-in. Those who have had tons of headphones know that most don't react to any extreme, and that mental burn-in is the more important type (if not the only type) of burn-in.


----------



## julian67

ssrock64 said:


> That's exactly what I think whenever this comes up: that we're arguing over apples and oranges.
> 
> Some cans change extremely......mental burn-in.




"change extremely" and "doesn't exist" are not some tiny difference.

mental burn-in???? This is just an excuse to use the phrase "burn in" instead of "we get used to it".

If a headphone does "change extremely" simply by being used as intended then you ought to get your money back because apparently it has been manufactured from cheesy noodles and putty.

The only credible test of headphone burn in does seem to be innerfidelity's and that suggests that any change can't be any more than very marginal, and that if there is a change it is due to slight warming up in use, or even just a change in room temperature. There is no "extremely" anything except in expectation and belief.

Sometimes I switch between distinctly different sounding IEMs or headphones and it can be quite odd...for a few minutes. Then I'm used to it and just enjoy the music. This is not "mental burn-in"! It's being human, and does not need some bogus label that, as far as I can tell, is more about trying to lend credibility to some nonsense by associating it with something universally experienced and understood.


----------



## streetdragon

Going from cans with exaggerated bass to one with tight neutral bass would cause an initial impression of anaemic sounding headphones, but once one gets used to having neutral bass, the bass will 'open up' a lot.
 But for those who state that the sound changes while leaving the headphones in the drawer and the sound changes, i can't disprove that.
 Maybe it changes, but most probably not anywhere near night and day.


----------



## StudioSound

It's a good way for stores to have you keep products past the return period.
   
  If burn-in made a meaningful difference to a piece of equipment, it would be burned-in at the factory - why would they want their products to sound bad right out of the box?


----------



## ACDOAN

studiosound said:


> It's a good way for stores to have you keep products past the return period.
> 
> If burn-in made a meaningful difference to a piece of equipment, it would be burned-in at the factory - why would they want their products to sound bad right out of the box?



 
 " All Bryston amps get a rugged 100 factory hours burn-in consisting of a square wave input signal driving the amplifier into capacitive load slightly under clipping.Unlike resistive load, which dissipates all the energy as heat, a capacitive load feeds back the entire signal into the amplifier which puts maximum thermal stress on the output stage. After burn-in, each amplifier is again tested; the results are shipped with the amplifier. " Is it placebo effect or is it not ? or To be or not to be ? It is as old as Hamlet play.... Enjoy the music. It's all about the music not reasoning as good folks at Martin Logan's motto : Happy listening. Please be happy....


----------



## julian67

studiosound said:


> It's a good way for stores to have you keep products past the return period




But what about reputable manufacturers whose reputation and profits depend on customers being happy? No sane business annoys consumers if it wants to maintain a reputation. Having people feel stuck with something they don't like or want is a quick way to unpopularity.

AKG mention "burn in" on their site only in reference to avoiding burning in images on CRT displays. Sony is the same. Sennheiser don't mention it anywhere in any context. These people aren't amateurs; they are hardly likely to have concoted a strategy of winning in the mass market with products designed not to work properly for days or weeks or even _months_. 300 hour burn ins get mentioned by some people! Conceivably that could be someone's commute and gym time for a several months. A purchaser might listen to their ENTIRE CD COLLECTION while their new 'phones still didn't sound like the store's demo model. Even if 10 hours or 50 hours was a genuine figure for a genuine phenomenon there would be a lot of disappointed people going back to the store for a refund. If burn in was required for headphones then respectable manufacturers would at least acknowledge it, and probably be strongly encouraged to do so by their lawyers.

There are products that need bedding in and burning in. It's done by the manufacturer, or the manufacturer makes it clear that the purchaser is expected to perform x, y or z.

I get the impression that reviewers feel obliged to say "I gave it 50 hours burn in"only because it's less tedious than dealing with people who question the data by quoting magic, not because they think it ever made a difference.


----------



## LordOctron

I guess a good part of these measured differences are the result of external variables as air-humidity and room-temperature...


----------



## ssrock64

julian67 said:


> "change extremely" and "doesn't exist" are not some tiny difference.
> 
> mental burn-in???? This is just an excuse to use the phrase "burn in" instead of "we get used to it".
> 
> ...




You're right, it's not some tiny difference. But you're giving all-encompassing talking points on _all_ headphones, whereas I'm saying that most don't change, but some do.

I used the term "mental burn-in" because it is a completely valid phrase. I don't really understand why you're attacking it; it's simply a more nuanced way of stating the matter. It's not inexorably linked to what you claim to be the myth of driver burn-in; it's just a modification of a common phrase of the "break-in" period that many products and services undergo.

Are you saying any product that requires break-in isn't a good product? That's quite a high standard for almost anything. Some jeans need to be washed a particular way before wearing to get the correct fit, On the other hand, it's true that with a lot of products your body is the most important agent of change (the body needs to adapt to new medications before they start to work, etc.). If you read my post as anything but accusatory, you could see that I was saying that there's elements of both in this hobby, which leads to bitter debate.

You've pointed out a very good problem with your statment about Tyll's test: there's only been one credible test that we've discussed over burn-in. If we could get groups of people together testing some of these "extreme" burn-in cans in the same situation, I believe that evidence would support the assumption that some (and again, I said the word _some_) cans change.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





ssrock64 said:


> You've pointed out a very good problem with your statment about Tyll's test: there's only been one credible test that we've discussed over burn-in. If we could get groups of people together testing some of these "extreme" burn-in cans in the same situation, I believe that evidence would support the assumption that some (and again, I said the word _some_) cans change.


 
   
  What makes it interesting though is that the K701 / K702 / Q701 were the one headphone that a lot of people claimed big changes - and that many hours of burn-in were required to have them sounding right.  So the headphone that Tyll chose was one that is considered an "extreme" as you put it.  The changes (which he shows actual empirical data) neither prove of disprove break-in, but what they do show is that any change is extremely subtle.
   
  I agree - I'd love to see more tests - done properly (as Tyll's were) - then we could put this to bed.  Is there break-in? - quite possibly.  Is it major? - judging on the actual evidence we have - no.  So what about those who claim major differences? - until there are more tests - and judging on the claims in the past on the 701 series vs actual measurements - one would have to assume (again based on the data we have) that it is likely major changes are mostly our brains adjusting, and not the headphones.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> I get the impression that reviewers feel obliged to say "I gave it 50 hours burn in"only because it's less tedious than dealing with people who question the data by quoting magic, not because they think it ever made a difference.


 
  I think it's important to state it that way in reviews too because otherwise it just stupidly reinforces the reader's belief that it makes a (big) differences.


----------



## julian67

ssrock64 said:


> You're right, it's not some tiny difference. But you're giving all-encompassing talking points on _all_ headphones, whereas I'm saying that most don't change, but some do.




Extremely? Then there is something badly wrong with the materials chosen or the construction.



ssrock64 said:


> I used the term "mental burn-in" because it is a completely valid phrase. I don't really understand why you're attacking it; it's simply a more nuanced way of stating the matter.




It's the introduction of bogus terminology in place of plain language; it conflates known phenomena with assertions of unquantifiable magical experience. Example: "I got used to using a smaller keyboard" is a reasonable thing to say, whereas "After getting my new device I took a few hundred hours to mentally burn in its keyboard" is terrible claptrap.



ssrock64 said:


> It's not inexorably linked to what you claim to be the myth of driver burn-in; it's just a modification of a common phrase of the "break-in" period that many products and services undergo.
> 
> Are you saying any product that requires break-in isn't a good product?




No I didn't say that. I said something different to that. It's in black and white in my previous post. 



ssrock64 said:


> .... Some jeans need to be washed a particular way before wearing to get the correct fit, On the other hand, it's true that with a lot of products your body is the most important agent of change (the body needs to adapt to new medications before they start to work, etc.).




When they start making headphones out of jeans and you start soaking, spinning, tumbling and drying them then this will stop being completely nuts. Your headphones are not delivering chemical agents into your blood. Using a headphone at 0 hours play and 300 hours play is not in any way comparable to taking a course of pharmaceuticals! I already mentioned conflating known, measurable phenomena with claims of magic. It doesn't work any better even with repetition and variety. 



ssrock64 said:


> If you read my post as anything but accusatory, you could see that I was saying that there's elements of both in this hobby, which leads to bitter debate.




I'm not entirely sure what the above means. But pointing out that some people disagree doesn't mean that all or any hold valid positions or otherwise. It's merely a statement of the obvious.



ssrock64 said:


> You've pointed out a very good problem with your statment about Tyll's test: there's only been one credible test that we've discussed over burn-in. If we could get groups of people together testing some of these "extreme" burn-in cans in the same situation, I believe that evidence would support the assumption that some (and again, I said the word _some_) cans change.





"I believe that evidence would support the assumption" translated into English is "There is no evidence to support the claim".

But why believe? You can know.

Belief is irrelevant when a physical phenomenon is so grossly obvious that you can measure it. Tyll Hertsen didn't need to get groups of people together or to start with any assumptions or have any particular belief. He used sound method and reasoning and collected the data. That's why he's credible.


----------



## ssrock64

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> "I believe that evidence would support the assumption" translated into English is "There is no evidence to support the claim".


 
  Actually, it translates to "I believe that, if there were large-scale tests done (not just a single study), those tests would conclude that burn-in does exist as a physical phenomenon for _some_ headphones."


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





brooko said:


> What makes it interesting though is that the K701 / K702 / Q701 were the one headphone that a lot of people claimed big changes - and that many hours of burn-in were required to have them sounding right.  So the headphone that Tyll chose was one that is considered an "extreme" as you put it.  The changes (which he shows actual empirical data) neither prove of disprove break-in, but what they do show is that any change is extremely subtle.
> 
> I agree - I'd love to see more tests - done properly (as Tyll's were) - then we could put this to bed.  Is there break-in? - quite possibly.  Is it major? - judging on the actual evidence we have - no.  So what about those who claim major differences? - until there are more tests - and judging on the claims in the past on the 701 series vs actual measurements - one would have to assume (again based on the data we have) that it is likely major changes are mostly our brains adjusting, and not the headphones.


 
  The one thing missing from Tyll's test was a control.  There should have been two sets (at least), one with break-in running and periodic measurements, the other with just periodic measurements, both in the same environment, tested with the same equipment.  We don't really know what caused the minute changes, but environment and test system changes needed to be eliminated.  Environmental data should also be recorded at time of measurements, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, etc.  At that point we'd have differential information with environment and test system subtracted, perhaps additional data correlation to enviromental data, and unassailable credibility. Of course, this would be much harder to do.
   
  However, all of the above is an extremely small nit-picky point.  The measured FR changes were very much below audibility.  We can generally say, "Myth busted", then someone could go further and try break in with higher levels of signal, and of course, different products.


----------



## julian67

ssrock64 said:


> Actually, it translates to "I believe that, if there were large-scale tests done (not just a single study), those tests would conclude that burn-in does exist as a physical phenomenon for _some_ headphones."




"I believe...." still means "There is no evidence."

In a discussion of measurable phenomena offering "I believe" as an argument means you decline to enage in rational enquiry or meaningful debate. This isn't quantum theory or an enquiry into the nature of infinity. It's something that demonstrably can be quantified using well understood tools and method. And has been.


----------



## StudioSound

Quote: 





acdoan said:


> " All Bryston amps get a rugged 100 factory hours burn-in consisting of a square wave input signal driving the amplifier into capacitive load slightly under clipping.Unlike resistive load, which dissipates all the energy as heat, a capacitive load feeds back the entire signal into the amplifier which puts maximum thermal stress on the output stage. After burn-in, each amplifier is again tested; the results are shipped with the amplifier. "


 
  As I said - if the product will change in a meaningful way due to burn-in, it will be burned in at the factory. No company wants their product to perform poorly out of the box - that first impression is important.
   
  If it wasn't burned in at the factory, then there's no meaningful change from burn-in.
   
  And please note that _meaningful _is the key word there. That's not to say the performance will remain completely unchanged over time, but that it won't change in some significant way so that it now sounds completely different to the device you didn't like when you took it out of the box.
   
  If, after a few hundred hours of listening (listening, not leaving them running unattended) you start to like the headphones/amp/whatever a lot more, then it's because you have now adjusted to its sound - it's not that it has changed.
   
  And it sounds like the "burn-in" that Bryston are doing, is actually stress-testing the hardware before shipping it out, rather than it actually impacting the audio quality in any way.
   
   
   
  I see the same thing mentioned on forums discussing Plasma TVs as well. Originally people suggested that you needed 1000 hours on a set before it was properly run in and operating at its peak performance.
   
  People were making claims about how the dithering noise on their Pioneer plasma sets magically disappeared by the time it hit 1000 hours.
  That "hash digital image" when they first switched from their CRT to a Plasma disappeared after several hundred hours.
  And over time, that number has dropped to about 100 hours because newer plasmas are better than they used to be, so they don't need run in as long.
   
  A lot of these arguments can be quite convincing, and you have a _lot _of people repeating this information, and saying it made a big difference to them.
   
  Well things like the dithering on a Pioneer plasma are inherent to those displays - if they reduced the amount of dither, you would see a drastic increase in banding in the image. They have very limited gradation and need to use a lot of dither to make up for it.
  So that _can't_ be changing over time - yet people report that it does.
   
  There used to be reports that the black level on Panasonic plasmas got better over time - well it has now been shown that it actually gets _worse _over time.
   
  And claims that the "harsh digital image" has now become more analog - well displays like Plasmas have a fixed pixel structure, and their image processing isn't changing over time. So it's the same thing there - people are just getting used to the device, rather than it actually improving over time.


----------



## CybDev

My Panasonic plasma has a playstation logo burned in, does this count? 

That said, the blacklevels _do_ degrade over time


----------



## wink

Why do I like this topic?


----------



## julian67

cybdev said:


> My Panasonic plasma has a playstation logo burned in..




But I believe it doesn't 

On the other hand I believe that the only reason they didn't find the moon is made of cheese is that they didn't dig deep enough....yet. All we need to do is gather some space cadets, a rocket ship and some space shovels and it's only a matter of time. You buy the bread and butter, I'll bring the tomatoes and the toaster. To incredulity and beyond!


----------



## CybDev

julian67 said:


> But I believe it doesn't
> 
> On the other hand I believe that the only reason they didn't find the moon is made of cheese is that they didn't dig deep enough....yet. All we need to do is gather some space cadets, a rocket ship and some space shovels and it's only a matter of time. You buy the bread and butter, I'll bring the tomatoes and the toaster. To incredulity and beyond!




Oh I don't know, where do we get those showels in time? They'll need to be burned in first ofc...


----------



## streetdragon

About Tyll's blind Q701 test, have we all forgotten about product variances? HD800 for one has actual graphs of each headphone that was ever produced and they do fluctuate a little. Maybe the Q701 that Tyll has also fluctuated a little. 
 While that may not be the only factor, that may be a contributing factor.
 Also another thing to note is earpads, they get softer over time and i have observed some valours get really soft as time progressed and it may change the sound and seal.
 He stated that the burned in Q701 is warmer sounding, which seems about consistent with softer earpads having the driver closer to the ear.

 One way to keep consistency is to swap out the broken in earpads with a new one for the test so they are the same.


----------



## ssrock64

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> "I believe...." still means "There is no evidence."
> 
> In a discussion of measurable phenomena offering "I believe" as an argument means you decline to enage in rational enquiry or meaningful debate. This isn't quantum theory or an enquiry into the nature of infinity. It's something that demonstrably can be quantified using well understood tools and method. And has been.


 
  You still managed to ignore the bulk of my words. I'm calling for more rational tests, not blowing smoke and just stating I'm right indisputably. I could very easily be wrong. You're being nearly as irrational in saying that you believe that burn-in doesn't exist as I am in saying that it does. A lack of studies does not mean that something doesn't exist.
   
  To piggyback off your moon analogy, we never _tested_ for millenia that the moon itself was there, but we _believed_ it because it seemed fairly obvious to us.
   
  A single study of a single model of headphone is not the unassailable body of proof you seem to claim it is, and again to reiterate the point I've made continuously: MOST headphones do not have noticeable or significant burn-in. SOME, I believe a good study would show, do.


----------



## StudioSound

Quote: 





cybdev said:


> My Panasonic plasma has a playstation logo burned in, does this count?


 
  Oh, but didn't you hear? If you run a break-in disk that flashes black and white or r/g/b images for 100 hours before _using _the TV, you _can't_ burn them in any more! Plasmas fixed that problem years ago.
   
  ...and yet it still happens.
   
  Sigh.
   
  I hate the amount of misinformation that people spread online on forums, whether misguided or malicious.
  Sorry to hear about your problems with it.
   
   
   
  It's the same thing when discussing "burn in" with headphones. (obviously a different type of burn-in)
  As I said originally - if the headphones or amplifier, or whatever device it is actually benefitted in a meaningful way, it would come that way from the factory.
   
  And when companies like Bryston advertise that they burn in the devices before selling them, it's usually a stress test on the hardware for reliability reasons, not performance reasons.
   
  It's usually not the manufacturer that is telling people they should burn in their product for X amount of time before using them, or before they perform at their best - it's the people selling the products (often trying to avoid a return) or the people that have already purchased them themselves.
   
  Maybe it's true that they bought the headphones, didn't like the first impression they got from them, and grew to like them as they spent more time with them - but that doesn't mean the headphones themselves are actually changing in a meaningful way that makes them sound better.


----------



## ssrock64

Quote: 





studiosound said:


> It's the same thing when discussing "burn in" with headphones. (obviously a different type of burn-in)
> As I said originally - if the headphones or amplifier, or whatever device it is actually benefitted in a meaningful way, it would come that way from the factory.
> 
> And when companies like Bryston advertise that they burn in the devices before selling them, it's usually a stress test on the hardware for reliability reasons, not performance reasons.
> ...


 
  I agree with you. The vast majority of companies would do this if it impacted their products to a large degree. Still, I will hold onto the thought that a few models slip through the cracks, because not every company does what the _should_.
   
  I'm going to exit this thread now, trying to be on a more amicable note than I have been. In the end, regardless of what we all think on the burn-in issue, we should know to trust the facts when presented. I'm hoping for more studies, and I'd love to be disproven. It'll give me a better perspective of how my brain gets used to sound. I'd also love to find out that burn-in is real, so perhaps I can go back and try a few cans I was initially disappointed with and returned, in the hopes that after some time they'll get better.
   
  In the end, we're all about the same thing, and regardless of any technical debate we can all agree to love the equipment we've got and to trust our own ears for musical enjoyment.


----------



## ACDOAN

Quote: 





ssrock64 said:


> You still managed to ignore the bulk of my words. I'm calling for more rational tests, not blowing smoke and just stating I'm right indisputably. I could very easily be wrong. You're being nearly as irrational in saying that you believe that burn-in doesn't exist as I am in saying that it does. A lack of studies does not mean that something doesn't exist.
> 
> To piggyback off your moon analogy, we never _tested_ for millenia that the moon itself was there, but we _believed_ it because it seemed fairly obvious to us.
> 
> A single study of a single model of headphone is not the unassailable body of proof you seem to claim it is, and again to reiterate the point I've made continuously: MOST headphones do not have noticeable or significant burn-in. SOME, I believe a good study would show, do.


 
   
   
  Still I find out that there is nothing but a bunch of opinions and opinions are just that, one's man bias point of view. As far as Bryston 100 burn-in hrs, again, there are some assumption that it is only for testing to make sure the amplifier(s) performs up the spec but there is no evidence to back up that assumption either.
   
  Stuart Taylor , a chief ecletrical engineer at Bryston who is credited for the designed of the SST amplifier lines. Hence the SST series are named after him. I think it more appropriate for Stuart Taylor to claim the burn-in effect ( 100 hrs) on his amplifiers than our opinions. After all, opinions are just opinions, bias or unbias.
   
  Move on, enjoy the music. Either you believe in burn-in or you do not believe in such placebo effects. It's your ears and your money and most of all, your happiness of enjoying the music is what it counts.


----------



## Takeanidea

I quizzed Axel Grell at the headfi meet in London about this. I asked him why my HD800s sounded so thin and harsh for the first 30 mins they were on. He said he reckoned they were just cold and had been laid up in storage for a little while and this was quite normal for headphones as big as the HD800s. Burn in is a real important discussion; it's what causes so many headphones to be sold on headfi so soon after purchase, people just don't give them a good enough try. Still that's to other's advantage.


----------



## ACDOAN

takeanidea said:


> I quizzed Axel Grell at the headfi meet in London about this. I asked him why my HD800s sounded so thin and harsh for the first 30 mins they were on. He said he reckoned they were just cold and had been laid up in storage for a little while and this was quite normal for headphones as big as the HD800s. Burn in is a real important discussion; it's what causes so many headphones to be sold on headfi so soon after purchase, people just don't give them a good enough try. Still that's to other's advantage.



 
 I agree with your point of view about the learning curve of "burn-in" however this is an endless topic among the followings: 1. Do all amplifiers sound the same ? 2. Cables are just wires ? 3. Digital sources such as CDP ,SACD players sound the same ? 4. Is burn-in just a myth? 5. LP/ CD demagnetization is just B.S. Those are among a few topics that have endless discussions and most often that leads to hostility and counter productivity. Audio is a very personal hobby and trail and error of the learning curve are inevitable. Sadly, science is not the answer to all human answer. Human perception is unique and can neither be approved nor disapproved by science but that does not mean it does not exist.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





acdoan said:


> I agree with your point of view about the learning curve of "burn-in" however this is an endless topic among the followings: 1. Do all amplifiers sound the same ?2. Cables are just wires ?3. Digital sources such as CDP ,SACD players sound the same ?4. Is burn-in just a myth?5. LP/ CD demagnetization is just B.S. Those are among a few topics that have endless discussions and most often that leads to hostility and counter productivity. Audio is a very personal hobby and trail and error of the learning curve are inevitable. Sadly, science is not the answer to all human answer. Human perception is unique and can neither be approved nor disapproved by science but that does not mean it does not exist.


 
  Feeling very compelled, but holding back just a little...just the two big ones for now: 5. Demagnetizing nonmagnetic storage medium is nonsense.  (whew!)  and the concept that science is not the answer...human perception is unique...those two sentences...Everyone is free to adopt their own belief system based on anything or nothing.  But the beliefs that are most comforting, most resilient and long-lasting are those adopted with deep understanding, those that have proof behind them, and those that go well beyond the unsubstantiated claim and land on verifiable truth.  It's one thing to say, "My power cable makes my sound better", and perhaps even extract a degree of temporary satisfaction in that belief. But some day that belief may crumble and deep dissatisfaction will result.  It's another thing entirely to know that the $300 you might have spent on a power cable without verifiable results has been put into your music collection where it can continue to give back for years to come.  
   
  Science has not explained everything, but it's working on it, and has explained a lot, and its answers are provable, and repeatable.  That's not a claim that can be made by other belief systems.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





acdoan said:


> I agree with your point of view about the learning curve of "burn-in" however this is an endless topic among the followings: 1. Do all amplifiers sound the same ?2. Cables are just wires ?3. Digital sources such as CDP ,SACD players sound the same ?4. Is burn-in just a myth?5. LP/ CD demagnetization is just B.S. Those are among a few topics that have endless discussions and most often that leads to hostility and counter productivity.


 
  There's exceptions to pretty much everything you mentioned except demagnetization. For example, nobody says all amps sound the same. Only if they show similar performance they sound the same regardless of price.
   
  Quote: 





> Audio is a very personal hobby and trail and error of the learning curve are inevitable. Sadly, science is not the answer to all human answer. Human perception is unique and can neither be approved nor disapproved by science but that does not mean it does not exist.


 
  Could you name a non-personal hobby?
  I guess you wanted to say "human questions". Well yeah, it doesn't, but for blatant claims like cable X sounds better than cable Y science can provide answers.
  Anyway, what makes you think science does not make extensive use of human perception?


----------



## Takeanidea

I have become lost in it all and am caught between 2 worlds of give me proof and this sounds good to me although all the evidence shown to me says it shouldn't be any different. Some very credible views in both camps. I concentrate on the headphones first and work my way down the chain from there and have a lot of fun doing it. All the folks I've met from headfi share broadly the same love


----------



## ACDOAN

xnor said:


> There's exceptions to pretty much everything you mentioned except demagnetization. For example, nobody says all amps sound the same. Only if they show similar performance they sound the same regardless of price.
> 
> Could you name a non-personal hobby?
> I guess you wanted to say "human questions". Well yeah, it doesn't, but for blatant claims like cable X sounds better than cable Y science can provide answers.
> Anyway, what makes you think science does not make extensive use of human perception?



 
 1.Fishing, camping, hunting, hiking, golfing...a maybe a million more ...but why wasting time and energy ? 2. Similar performance they sound the same. Really, that's new revelation but that's one' s man opinion, yours. " Performance" is based on what ? There is thing the designer call it specification. 3. Al Gore makes big money on "Global warming", still there is not one scientific answer that is agreed upon among the nay and yea camp. ANW, I am out of here. You guys can go visit AVS forum and debate to death these old, endless, non constructive questions while I am enjoying my hi-end sound. Happy listening.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





acdoan said:


> 1.Fishing, camping, hunting, hiking, golfing...a maybe a million more ...but why wasting time and energy


 
   I find all of those fairly personal.
  Quote:


acdoan said:


> 2. Similar performance they sound the same. Really, that's new revelation but that's one' s man opinion, yours. " Performance" is based on what ? There is thing the designer call it specification.


 
  Better make that two men's opinions...at least.  He's right.
   
  Global warming has been confirmed, it's real. Small, but measurable. The cause is what's open for debate, as is the question of it being anomalous or cyclical,  but it's all pretty pointless because it's way too late to do anything about it anyway.
   
  Sorry if you feel you have to run off.  There are plenty of forums where you may feel more at home, but this is, after all, "Sound Science".  Just try not to go away mad, I'm sure nobody means any of this personally.


----------



## jaycee1

Quote: 





hifi man said:


> When people say they "burn in" their headphones, it could mean that they leave them on and don't listen to them, or they wear them and play stuff through them for extended periods. There's been claims that this 'improves' the sound. Is this measurable, or what? I don't know how people come up with this stuff, but if it's actually true then I'd be interested in an explanation of "burn in".


 
  Aside from intellectual curiosity, there's no way to know if YOUR headphones will benefit unless you try. At the very worst, there will be no change, and you will have spent a few extra pennies on electricity. At best, you may find a major change for the better. 
   
  There's no possibility of harm, assuming you keep the sound level reasonable during burn in (under 70 dBA for me).


----------



## streetdragon

Is there any chance it burns in for the worse?


----------



## xnor

Well I've seen people using very low frequency sine and even square waves. Or running sweeps through their headphones at high SPL for countless hours non-stop. This can definitely damage the drivers.
   
   
  As for the "it doesn't harm anyone" comment, that's a bad argument. Have you filled your room with stones? No? It doesn't harm anyone but the stones radiate positive energy. At worst there won't be any change, at best you will feel a lot better.
  It reminds me of Pascal's wager..
  Also, it kinda shifts the discussion away from the actual issue. "Break in makes a positive difference" is a claim. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.


----------



## ACDOAN

jaddie said:


> Better make that two men's opinions...at least.  He's right.
> 
> Global warming has been confirmed, it's real. Small, but measurable. The cause is what's open for debate, as is the question of it being anomalous or cyclical,  but it's all pretty pointless because it's way too late to do anything about it anyway.
> 
> Sorry if you feel you have to run off.  There are plenty of forums where you may feel more at home, but this is, after all, "Sound Science".  Just try not to go away mad, I'm sure nobody means any of this personally.



 
 No, I am not running away. I never left. Again, you said " Better make that two men's opinions...at least" . I take just that as OPINIONS. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion but it is just opinion nothing more ,nothing less. It only has any value at all to those who have the same OPINION. Sound Science,Audio Video Science forum....you cannot prove one's perception to sound that does not mean it does not exist, placebo or not. Science or not, it does not prevent people who listen to to BOSE 321 at retail store with WOW factor. Their perception are the Bose 321 is it. They do not know what to look for ,even when somebody tells them it's nothing the loud distortion with the low frequency dissipates probably around 50Hz. Now go tell these people their Bose are POS. so they will return their POS. It ain't happen. You cannot hear the difference among cables since your are : 1. Not be able to afford them. 2. Do not know what to look for . I bet you. Having a binocular does not mean you can see what others can see unless you know what you are looking for. Stop them flame.


----------



## streetdragon

^ Debate restarting in 3....2....1....


----------



## xnor

At first I didn't want to reply since you said you left the thread, but since you didn't..
   
  Quote: 





acdoan said:


> 1.Fishing, camping, hunting, hiking, golfing...a maybe a million more ...but why wasting time and energy ?2. Similar performance they sound the same. Really, that's new revelation but that's one' s man opinion, yours. " Performance" is based on what ? There is thing the designer call it specification. 3. Al Gore makes big money on "Global warming", still there is not one scientific answer that is agreed upon among the nay and yea camp. ANW, I am out of here. You guys can go visit AVS forum and debate to death these old, endless, non constructive questions while I am enjoying my hi-end sound. Happy listening.


 
  1) Maybe you understand something else when using the term "personal" as in only one individual is involved .. which btw doesn't make much sense since this community is part of your hobby. Also, I know people who go fishing alone...
   
  2) It may come as a surprise to you, so what? Audio performance is based on measurements. Even the difference in sound can be measured, but to find out if someone can hear a difference he/she obviously has to do a blind test.
  Of course, once thresholds of audibility are reached you can measure _relatively _"huge" (actually tiny) differences in performance which aren't audible.
   
  I can add examples but it should be obvious what I'm talking about.
   
  3) Utterly off-topic.
   
  Quote: 





acdoan said:


> No, I am not running away. I never left. Again, you said " Better make that two men's opinions...at least" . I take just that as OPINIONS. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion but it is just opinion nothing more ,nothing less. It only has any value at all to those who have the same OPINION. Sound Science,Audio Video Science forum....you cannot prove one's perception to sound that does not mean it does not exist, placebo or not. Science or not, it does not prevent people who listen to to BOSE 321 at retail store with WOW factor. Their perception are the Bose 321 is it. They do not know what to look for ,even when somebody tells them it's nothing the loud distortion with the low frequency dissipates probably around 50Hz. Now go tell these people their Bose are POS. so they will return their POS. It ain't happen. You cannot hear the difference among cables since your are : 1. Not be able to afford them. 2. Do not know what to look for . I bet you.Having a binocular does not mean you can see what others can see unless you know what you are looking for. Stop them flame.


 
  What I was talking about is fact, but maybe you misunderstood.
  You seem to be of the opinion that you can hear any kind of measurable difference? Maybe you haven't tried, but process a file with an EQ adding a peaking filter with a bandwidth you choose. Start with +6 dB, decrease the gain until you cannot hear differences in an ABX test anymore.
  If we go by your opinion, you can distinguish the files until the gain is exactly 0.0 dB, i.e. no gain which is like no equalization at all.
  If we however go by facts, we'd expect that below a certain gain ("similar performance") participants cannot hear a difference anymore. This threshold of course depends on the bandwidth of the filter.
   
  I have no idea where you're going with the Bose thing. I'm not talking about personal preference here at all.
   
  I have taken part in several public blind listening tests, some with high bitrate lossy files, and my results were always pretty good.
  Also, your reasons for not hearing a difference among cables are a complete non sequitur.
  1) I know a local hi-fi dealer very well that has several really expensive cables that I can virtually test as long as I want either at home or in his treated listening room. We've done listening tests with several other people and the results with speaker cables always were statistically insignificant.
  2) Actually, when you measure stuff you can see the differences and therefore get a very good idea what to listen (not "look") for.
   
  You're also wrongly assuming I've never heard differences with any kind of cables, but I have, for example with extension cords ... and you tell others to stop flaming??


----------



## SoundFreaq

Have not read this thread, looks like it's pretty tense. I'll just throw in my philosophy. 
   
  Burn in is both real and placebo. Or what I can physical, and mental. 
   
  It's just common sense that when you have objects like dynamic drivers moving back and forth thousands of times a second, the physical properties of things like the cone will change with time. This could mean flexibility and many other variables. 
   
  I also think your brain definitely gets used to a certain sound signature. And the more your brain spends with a headphone, the more familiar it sounds, everything else aside. So of course your brain burns in. 
   
  Things like cables and electronics may settle to some minor degree straight out of the factory, but it can't be much IMO. 
   
  I just think it's funny that burn-in around here is ALWAYS a positive thing and makes everything always better. That just cannot be true. Maybe the stiff cones of a driver sound better factory fresh, than after they've been run in for hours. If burn-in exists, it must SOMETIMES have a negative affect!


----------



## HPiper

In the "Now I've heard Everything" category. In the main forums there is a post in which a person says that his headphone CABLES need some burn in time!! Are you kidding me...cables..what happens, do the molecular properties change over time....LOL...give me a break.


----------



## streetdragon

Quote: 





hpiper said:


> In the "Now I've heard Everything" category. In the main forums there is a post in which a person says that his headphone CABLES need some burn in time!! Are you kidding me...cables..what happens, do the molecular properties change over time....LOL...give me a break.


 
  In fact it should actually reduce clarity and induce muddyness as the cable heats up from the current passing through it which will cause the atoms and molecules (just atoms if it's pure copper) to move around and bump into the moving electrons. 
 If you want to increase the performance of your cable you should submerge it into liquid nitrogen/oxygen for at least 10 minutes to ensure the purest signal.
 Do be careful when handling the supercooled cable, it just might shatter upon excessive headbanging due to the new clarity of the sound due to the super high undistorted distortion level pure signal.

 Speaker burn in? Maybe, just maybe due to moving parts and stretching.
 Cable burn in? *crickets*


----------



## xnor

The biggest reason for break-in in woofers is the spider. Spiders are usually made of cloth hardened with epoxy. When you play a low frequency tone at high SPL for a while the structure of the epoxy gets damaged adding small cracks which effectively make the spider softer. So the suspension loses some stiffness (T/S parameter Cms gets bigger) . This in turn reduces the total Q (T/S: Qts) of the loudspeaker, the resonant frequency (Fs) drops a bit and so on..
   
  The problem is that headphone drivers usually do not have a spider. The diaphragm is both centered and suspended by the surround. The surround must be airtight and flexible, so there's no epoxy used there either. Also, the material mustn't break due to stress for hours on end.
  Some headphones use the diaphragm as surround (thinner of course than the actual diaphragm), others seem to use some kind of soft rubber/y glue.
   
  Unless anyone can show that these materials change their properties after break-in AND some cooldown period we can dismiss the claim of dynamic headphone driver break-in.
   
   
   
  We've also seen some measurements which show that measured differences (for whatever reasons, e.g. environmental factors, earpad wear, heating up ...) are negligible compared to what reviewers attribute to break-in ("day/night differences").
  So atm the only rational position to take is to say that break-in is not at all what people claim it to be. Put it stimply, it's the reviewer that changes, not the drivers. Call this however you will: placebo, getting used to, mental break-in ... but not headphone break-in.


----------



## jaycee1

Quote: 





xnor said:


> The biggest reason for break-in in woofers is the spider. Spiders are usually made of cloth hardened with epoxy. When you play a low frequency tone at high SPL for a while the structure of the epoxy gets damaged adding small cracks which effectively make the spider softer. So the suspension loses some stiffness (T/S parameter Cms gets bigger) . This in turn reduces the total Q (T/S: Qts) of the loudspeaker, the resonant frequency (Fs) drops a bit and so on..
> 
> The problem is that headphone drivers usually do not have a spider. The diaphragm is both centered and suspended by the surround. The surround must be airtight and flexible, so there's no epoxy used there either. Also, the material mustn't break due to stress for hours on end.
> Some headphones use the diaphragm as surround (thinner of course than the actual diaphragm), others seem to use some kind of soft rubber/y glue.
> ...


 
  This is a great post but my igrado's sound signature did change very noticeably after 60+ hours of burn-in. It was not a subtle difference.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jaycee1 said:


> This is a great post but my igrado's sound signature did change very noticeably after 60+ hours of burn-in. It was not a subtle difference.


 
  How should I know? Can you rule out the possibility that the drivers got damaged? Can you rule out that you got used to the sound signature?
   
  Without details this is a pure guessing game.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





acdoan said:


> No, I am not running away. I never left. Again, you said " Better make that two men's opinions...at least" . I take just that as OPINIONS. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion but it is just opinion nothing more ,nothing less. It only has any value at all to those who have the same OPINION.


 
   Um...missed the point.  I was making an understatement.  As to the value of opinion, shouldn't the opinions of those with extensive knowledge, experience, and training be valued to even those who don't share the same opinion, but have less knowledge, experience and training? Such would be dictated by humility.
   
  Quote:


acdoan said:


> Science,Audio Video Science forum....you cannot prove one's perception to sound that does not mean it does not exist, placebo or not.


 
   Perhaps we should agree to disagree. I would say that one's perception of sound is also an opinion, but influenced heavily by many external factors.  If those external influences are eliminated, and one's opinion can be proven reliable with no other science but listening, then the opinion could be considered an accurate observation.
   
  By the way, the placebo discussion has kind of been beat to death, but science has proven the placebo effect not only real, but so powerful that it has saved lives.  I don't have any problem with someone hearing something wonderful because of a expectation bias or placebo effect.  His experience will be real to him, and if it 's enjoyable, I'll defend his right to have it.  I only draw the line when something is presented as fact without reasonable proof.
   
  Quote:


acdoan said:


> Science or not, it does not prevent people who listen to to BOSE 321 at retail store with WOW factor. Their perception are the Bose 321 is it. They do not know what to look for ,even when somebody tells them it's nothing the loud distortion with the low frequency dissipates probably around 50Hz. Now go tell these people their Bose are POS. so they will return their POS. It ain't happen.


 
  I've never knowingly heard a Bose 321, I assume it's not great sounding, but you have cited  an excellent example of expectation bias and its effect on listeners.  Bose should be respected for their amazing analysis of what sells. Their industrial design is exceptional, their name recognition is extremely high, they absolutely own the idea of big sound from small speakers, and their systems present a very high degree of simplicity and integration.  To that they added a price-point commensurate with high quality, and the buyer simply expects good sound, hears it, and is very satisfied.  ACDOAN, you are no doubt an experienced listener, so you know these systems are lacking in sound quality.  So why does an average sounding, yet expensive system sell so well?  Buyers are conditioned by expectation bias.  It's reinforced by the appearance, operation of the system, and high price.  They simply don't notice that there's anything missing from the sound quality.  
   
  If a buyer were come upon an elegantly designed, superbly constructed cable with the appearance of something very special, and a high price to match, what would he expect to hear?

  The expectation bias is very significant, and there is simply no ignoring it.
   
  Quote:  





> You cannot hear the difference among cables since your are : 1. Not be able to afford them. 2. Do not know what to look for . I bet you.Having a binocular does not mean you can see what others can see unless you know what you are looking for. Stop them flame.


 
  Well, presumptuousness aside, and that may take some doing...
  1. There are many people fully able to afford high-end cables who chose not to purchase them after auditioning.
  2. Don't you think that knowing what to look/listen for might be just a bit of expectation bias?
  3. Binocular analogy...doesn't work.  Even if you didn't direct a binocular user to a small target, he might find it without assistance anyway. If you then remove the target, no user, coached or not, will ever see it.  The key is, the target is a real, physical, measurable object.  You cannot use expectation bias to get someone to see it if it's not there.    
   
  Wikipedia defines flaming as "hostile and insulting interaction...often involving the use of profanity".  I would like to think this discussion is somewhat more civil than that.  But again, there could be a little expectation bias at work.


----------



## Carpe530

It's real, but minor or not depends on your headphone. I'm more focused on the IEMs so I can only give you some idea with reference to them. I've owned a SE535 Red for more than a year, and I'm pretty sure I've run it in for more than at least >10000 hrs. And since my dad have recently purchased his Red last month, I've got a good brand new Red to compare with, and I can tell that there is a apparent difference. For IEMs with high independence, especially those from Westone( I also own a UM3X RC), really takes time(usually more than >1000) to fully run it in to get to its best condition.

 But I would say if you still doubt the concept of run in, I'm afraid you've got a nocebo effect on this LOL

 Still, changing cables or tips/cups could be a more direct way to alternate the sound from your headphones.


----------



## Greenleaf7

Came across this study by udauda, who's a headfi member.
   
http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/04/introduction-it-is-generally-known-that.html


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





carpe530 said:


> It's real, but minor or not depends on your headphone. I'm more focused on the IEMs so I can only give you some idea with reference to them. *I've owned a SE535 Red for more than a year, and I'm pretty sure I've run it in for more than at least >10000 hrs*. And since my dad have recently purchased his Red last month, I've got a good brand new Red to compare with, and I can tell that there is a apparent difference. For IEMs with high independence, especially those from Westone( I also own a UM3X RC), really takes time(usually more than >1000) to fully run it in to get to its best condition.
> 
> But I would say if you still doubt the concept of run in, I'm afraid you've got a nocebo effect on this LOL
> 
> Still, changing cables or tips/cups could be a more direct way to alternate the sound from your headphones.


 
   
  Thanks - haven't laughed as much in a while.
   
  Hmmmmm.  More than a year would indicate less than 2 years.  2 years = 730 days = 17520 hours ...... and you've spent greater than 10000 hours with them ......... ?
   
  Or put another way - let's call your time since purchase a year and a half.  Those greater than 10,000 hours = 416 days at 24 hours per day (non-stop)
   
  As a reasonably long term owner of the SE535 Reds ........

 Considering their isolation and ability to build internal heat & moisture after prolonged use (and yours is pretty extreme) - I bet you've had a few trips to the doctor to clear up the infections huh 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



 I'm also guessing you may be getting to the early stage of deafeness as well after that much use without resting your ears?
   
  Given the above - I can only guess one of two things .....
   
  Either you were massively exaggerating any change (did you attempt to actually abx after volume matching or was it sighted) - in which case the chances of actually believing your story goes right out the window?    OR  You actually did as you claim, and your ears are so whacked (infections and hearing damage) that anything you claim would be null and void anyway.
   
  BTW - when reading above - please don't assume I'm attacking you here.  Read it with a humorous 'tone'.  Let's just say I remain sceptical in the extreme


----------



## jaycee1

Quote: 





xnor said:


> How should I know? Can you rule out the possibility that the drivers got damaged? Can you rule out that you got used to the sound signature?
> 
> Without details this is a pure guessing game.


 
  I didn't ask a question. 
   
  I seriously doubt the drivers were damaged, lol. The sound quality was absolutely fantastic. I can rule out that I got used to the sound signature, yes. They were ridiculously bright at first. After 20 hours, they sounded exactly the same: far too bright. I didn't listen to them again until after 60 hours of burn-in. At that point, the mids were beautifully warm, and the highs had a slight to moderate amount of 'sparkle' but had lost their extremely edgy, grating character. They were amazing, and sounded nothing like they did out of the box. 
   
  There's no guesswork involved: burn in worked beautifully on this pair.


----------



## Greenleaf7

Quote: 





jaycee1 said:


> I didn't ask a question.
> 
> I seriously doubt the drivers were damaged, lol. The sound quality was absolutely fantastic. I can rule out that I got used to the sound signature, yes. They were ridiculously bright at first. After 20 hours, they sounded exactly the same: far too bright. I didn't listen to them again until after 60 hours of burn-in. At that point, the mids were beautifully warm, and the highs had a slight to moderate amount of 'sparkle' but had lost their extremely edgy, grating character. They were amazing, and sounded nothing like they did out of the box.
> 
> There's no guesswork involved: burn in worked beautifully on this pair.


 
  did you feel the veil being lifted too?


----------



## streetdragon

I would probably fault the eartips/earpads getting worn out/used.


----------



## Greenleaf7

Yes the sonic changes can be affected by the age and wear of the ear buds/ headphone pads as it ages. And sometimes this is perceived as 'breaking in' of the equipment, as show in a test here
   
http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/04/introduction-it-is-generally-known-that.html


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





carpe530 said:


> It's real, but minor or not depends on your headphone. I'm more focused on the IEMs so I can only give you some idea with reference to them. I've owned a SE535 Red for more than a year, and I'm pretty sure I've run it in for more than at least >10000 hrs. And since my dad have recently purchased his Red last month, I've got a good brand new Red to compare with, and I can tell that there is a apparent difference. For IEMs with high independence, especially those from Westone( I also own a UM3X RC), really takes time(usually more than >1000) to fully run it in to get to its best condition.
> 
> But I would say if you still doubt the concept of run in, I'm afraid you've got a nocebo effect on this LOL
> 
> Still, changing cables or tips/cups could be a more direct way to alternate the sound from your headphones.


 
  Brooko already responded to that, but I'd like to add that if people do not hear a difference after 10 mins the break-in yes-men say:
  - oh but you need 20 mins, if that doesn't work they say:
  - oh but you need 1 hour, if that doesn't work they say:
  - oh but you need 4 hours, if that doesn't work they say:
  - oh but you need 24 hours, if that doesn't work they say:
  - oh but you need 100 hours, if that doesn't work they say:
  - oh but you need 300 hours (like was measured with the K701),
  and so on and on...
  you just reduced this to absurdity, which makes the whole concept of headphone break-in highly doubtful.
   
  Why do you think ABX test results are better if you allow fast switching? Even after a few minutes you will have troubles recalling the exact frequency response or distortion pattern ...
   
  Quote: 





jaycee1 said:


> I didn't ask a question.
> 
> I seriously doubt the drivers were damaged, lol. The sound quality was absolutely fantastic. I can rule out that I got used to the sound signature, yes. They were ridiculously bright at first. After 20 hours, they sounded exactly the same: far too bright. I didn't listen to them again until after 60 hours of burn-in. At that point, the mids were beautifully warm, and the highs had a slight to moderate amount of 'sparkle' but had lost their extremely edgy, grating character. They were amazing, and sounded nothing like they did out of the box.
> 
> There's no guesswork involved: burn in worked beautifully on this pair.


 
  In other words you don't know whether there was damage or not. People who have tube amps with high distortion and rolled-off frequency response also say the sound quality is absolutely fantastic.
   
  You cannot rule out biases in your sighted evaluation. Maybe after the 20h test you thought you'd have to return it if it doesn't change in the next couple of hours and so it did. This could have happened purely subconsciously.
   
  Also, please try to provide an explanation why the highs should change when the stiffness of the suspension changes. I've already explained above that this is unlikely with dynamic headphone drivers, but lets assume for the sake of the argument that the suspension changes.
   
  "There's no guesswork involved" is a pretty bold statement for providing just another anecdote with not a shred of validating evidence.


----------



## jaycee1

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Brooko already responded to that, but I'd like to add that if people do not hear a difference after 10 mins the break-in yes-men say:
> - oh but you need 20 mins, if that doesn't work they say:
> - oh but you need 1 hour, if that doesn't work they say:
> - oh but you need 4 hours, if that doesn't work they say:
> ...


 
  LOL, I just find it so odd when people get defensive and angry in discussions about headphones. OK, so you are upset that someone disagrees with you and/or had a different experience than predicted according to your theory/expectations/dogma, or whatever you want to call it. It's all good.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jaycee1 said:


> LOL, I just find it so odd when people get defensive and angry in discussions about headphones. OK, so you are upset that someone disagrees with you and/or had a different experience than predicted according to your theory/expectations/dogma, or whatever you want to call it. It's all good.


 
  I'm not angry at all, I believe I'm fairly calm, skeptical and rational.
   
  What I wrote above about the spider is not a theory, it can be measured and has been measured as can the effects. The "theory" of and relationships between electromechanical parameters (see Thiele/Small) also agree with this.
   
  As I said, we can just dismiss your anecdotes since you fail to back them up with even a shred of evidence. This is not the "tell your anecdote/story" forum. LOLing won't change anything.
   
  You don't even seem to be willing to think of possible technical reasons for the _perceived _differences you wrongly attribute to break-in. Instead, you try to make fun of me ... and say I'm defensive..


----------



## jaddie

So the answer to the thread title question, "Is burn-in real or placebo?", after seven pages, seems to be, "Real, if you want it to be." In other words, as the issue lacks sufficient test data that supports significant changes in headphones after burn-in, and in the face of strong opinion with factual support to the contrary, the placebo effect is so strong as to not only present an apparent burn-in effect, but to strongly polarize opinions as to its actual presence.  
   
  Those who say burn-in is placebo are looking for test data that supports a change over time with the use of a burn-in regimen.  So far, the only test data we have is Tyll's test of a single set of headphones, the results of which lean towards supporting no burin-in change, but his test is without a control, and has insufficient samples, tends to support the absence of burn-in effects for one specific model, and thus remains somewhat inconclusive.  There are far more theories that tend discredit the effectiveness of a headphone burn-in regimen that support it.  And when we look at burn-in of non-electro-mechanical devices, the theories completely bunch up on the side that rejects the burn-in effect.  However, we still lack data.
   
  We will most likely never have enough data to completely resolve this question, because to do so would require testing several samples of every headphone and IEM using more than one burn-in regimen encompassing hundreds of hours per sample, and with proper control groups.  Even if someone (like the boys at Harmon?) had the resources to do an extensive test that concluded there was little or no burn-in effect, there will always be someone who will say they hear burn-in change their specific and untested model. 
   
  What is needed is a simple and inexpensive method and device to make tests on headphones and IEMs that any user could afford and use.  A test jig and self-calibrating software that could generate a library of controlled and timed burn-in signals, run periodic tests and upload them to a server.  Then we would have a large volume of data on a large number of devices, and a general trend may become apparent without a control group.  This is similar to what was done with the Audyssey Pro calibration software, which resulted in measurements of over 10,000 rooms being compiled, a feat that would be impossible otherwise.  And a trend did emerge, and was published.  That's what we need to resolve burn-in, and probably a few other things like headphone FR target curve, etc. 
   
  At this point, there seems little to be gained in arguing generalities on either side, because neither side can effectively test and prove their position in general, and probably wouldn't expend the resources needed to do it in specific.  Only someone with the resources like Tyll or Harmon can actually perform the needed testing.  All we have is the fact that there is a significant lack of theoretical support for burn-in, and there is a strong expectation bias in favor of burn-in. 
   
  We also shouldn't dismiss that the placebo effect is real and verifiable, and can result in physical and mental change.  This is why there are prescription placebos, and they work.  If burn-in is a placebo, then it probably works too for some people, even if there is no measurable change.  The end experience is what matters.  To some of us, the truth of both cause and effect is important, to others, it's not. 
   
  So it goes in the world of audio.


----------



## ACDOAN

To Jaddie, 1. Many of them spend a lot of money on cables and many of them treat their cables as another component ( just like the room acoustic treatment, the listening room is actually the most important component ( excluding near field listening). These people can hear the differences among cables no matter how they look but the end result, the sound they are looking for to have a synergy in their system.. This is not for a person who owns a mass producing system from BB and the listener(s) preference is EQing bass head,or treble freaks. Nothing wrong with gear sells at BB. They make sound but let's face it , these gear at BB are not even consider audiophile quality in sound and design. For these type of AVR or stereo receiver from Onkyo,Denon, Pioneer, use the zip cord from Home Depot please. Cables are not the cure for sound fidelity in this case. Be glad these products make sound and be glad that they may have loudness button, EQ build-in, bass and treble knobs for their owners to fondle with but please do not even think about any other upgrade cables,it ain't happen. 2. Having a binocular does not qualify everyone to be a well trained sniper. Having said that, it take years of knowledge,audition to learn what to look for in sound fidelity reproduction. Bose 321 sells like hot cakes and people who own them are proud owners "I have Bose,man." I am glad they are happy with what they have in the narrow window of their knowledge of sound fidelity (?) with their Bose. They are happy since they do not know what is missing.That's good since they are happy and that's all it counts,happiness. 3.Bias ? Opinions are all bias.


----------



## ssrock64

Quote: 





greenleaf7 said:


> Came across this study by udauda, who's a headfi member.
> 
> http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/04/introduction-it-is-generally-known-that.html


 
  A summary of the link for anybody who hasn't read it (yes, I'm back in the thread, but merely as an observer and reporter. I'm not going to debate again):
   
  The original tests seemed to indicate a noticeable difference in sound signature from pre-burn and post-burn versions of a single HD650. However, the owner ordered new earpads to repeat the test and achieved exactly inverse results, meaning that nearly all the differences observed came from earpad wear.


----------



## streetdragon

Quote: 





ssrock64 said:


> A summary of the link for anybody who hasn't read it (yes, I'm back in the thread, but merely as an observer and reporter. I'm not going to debate again):
> 
> The original tests seemed to indicate a noticeable difference in sound signature from pre-burn and post-burn versions of a single HD650. However, the owner ordered new earpads to repeat the test and achieved exactly inverse results, meaning that nearly all the differences observed came from earpad wear.


 
  What i predicted.


----------



## fatcat28037

I've been here a few years, the subject of burn-in and cables has been beat-to-death over and over in many threads. Some believe and some don't. I'm not a believer. Those who say the sound changes, never  say it degrades. How can that be? Always changing for the better is statistically improbable.  If changing the cable or "burning-in" significantly improves the sound, why don't manufacturers do it? It's to their benefit to make their product sound as best as possible. No one has ever proven burn-in is advantages or that a $300 cable improves the sound of a headphone. It's very subjective, If your ears hear a difference, enjoy. IMHO if you're new to the hobby, forget burn-in just put the phones over your ears and enjoy and save the cable money toward your next set of phones.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





acdoan said:


> To Jaddie, 1. Many of them spend a lot of money on cables and many of them treat their cables as another component ( just like the room acoustic treatment, the listening room is actually the most important component ( excluding near field listening).


 


> _The difference is, room acoustic treatment's effects are 100% measurable.  And I would not exclude a near-field configuration as immune from the effects of acoustic treatment._





>





acdoan said:


> These people can hear the differences among cables no matter how they look but the end result, the sound they are looking for to have a synergy in their system.. This is not for a person who owns a mass producing system from BB and the listener(s) preference is EQing bass head,or treble freaks. Nothing wrong with gear sells at BB. They make sound but let's face it , these gear at BB are not even consider audiophile quality in sound and design. For these type of AVR or stereo receiver from Onkyo,Denon, Pioneer, use the zip cord from Home Depot please. Cables are not the cure for sound fidelity in this case. Be glad these products make sound and be glad that they may have loudness button, EQ build-in, bass and treble knobs for their owners to fondle with but please do not even think about any other upgrade cables,it ain't happen.


 
  Ah yes, only the "elite" can hear the difference cables make.  You are unaware of the industry tests that prove that even "expert" audiophiles cannot reliably tell the difference between high-end and mid-fi components, aren't you?  Been done to death, years ago. Actually, testing of cables was done to death years ago too.  
   
  BTW, small side point, but just in case readers of the thread go looking and not finding them...the loudness buttons are long gone, as are the bass and treble knobs.  Modern AVRs auto-cal systems also calibrate out any modification caused by cable.  (Should I duck and cover now?)
  Quote: 





acdoan said:


> 2. Having a binocular does not qualify everyone to be a well trained sniper.


 
  Thank God!  But also, irrelevant. 
  Quote: 





acdoan said:


> Having said that, it take years of knowledge,audition to learn what to look for in sound fidelity reproduction.


 
  The problem is that the likely corollary to that hypothesis is, "without years of knowledge a person can't possibly know what to look/listen for".  Sorry, just not true.  Basic ear and listening training can be accomplished in hours.  It's mostly a question of interest and aptitude.
  Quote: 





acdoan said:


> Bose 321 sells like hot cakes and people who own them are proud owners "I have Bose,man." I am glad they are happy with what they have in the narrow window of their knowledge of sound fidelity (?) with their Bose. They are happy since they do not know what is missing.That's good since they are happy and that's all it counts,happiness.


 
  Completely agree. In fact, it's just fine that way.  My only problem with Bose owners is when they proudly tell me what they have, I'm embarrassed that my honest reaction isn't positive, yet I don't want to burst the bubble either.  
  Quote: 





acdoan said:


> 3.Bias ? Opinions are all bias.


 
  Opinions are not bias, bias influences opinion. Bias also heavily influences perception.  This is a point that seems to be difficult to get across, but expectation bias has been well known and used for thousands of years to affect perception of reality.  It's documentable, repeatable, and the results verifiable.  The hardest part is getting someone with a very high self image to acknowledge that they may be affected by expectation and perception bias.  Which, in itself, is bias.  
   
  The crux of it is, good science tries to find the truth by eliminating all bias and considering just the facts, regardless of if those facts have some for of metric applied or not (in other words, numbers or not).  Those that reject the scientific approach and findings are basing their opinions on uncontrolled bias, then they further reject the presence of that bias.  The result is two highly polarized positions (as we see in this thread).  It would seem that an effort to discern the truth about something without concern for what that truth may be would yield more truth than rejecting, summarily, the findings of science.  Then again, it's all about what makes you happy.  If someone is happy with their non-scientific opinion of anything, cables or otherwise, I'm also happy to leave them alone.  Right up until their opinion is presented as an absolute fact that cannot be verified by any known science.  Then we have this here problem.


----------



## ACDOAN

jaddie said:


> Ah yes, only the "elite" can hear the difference cables make.  You are unaware of the industry tests that prove that even "expert" audiophiles cannot reliably tell the difference between high-end and mid-fi components, aren't you?  Been done to death, years ago. Actually, testing of cables was done to death years ago too.
> 
> BTW, small side point, but just in case readers of the thread go looking and not finding them...the loudness buttons are long gone, as are the bass and treble knobs.  Modern AVRs auto-cal systems also calibrate out any modification caused by cable.  (Should I duck and cover now?)
> Thank God!  But also, irrelevant.
> ...



 
 Jaddie, you win the debate but before I stopping wasting my time and my energy, Have you honestly ever knowed of or even have a chance to know the Appogee ribbon speakers, or the Eminent Technology Planar speakers ...Well let me make it easier for you, BB do now carry some entry level of the quasi-dipolar Martin logan electrostatic speakers.Go down there and bring some of your Onkyo and ask them to replace the Mcintosh with your Onkyo or whatever you may have. I bet you you either be in for a lesson about sound fidelity or you will not have gut to accept Hi-end cables,pre-amp, amp and CDP as a whole will make not a subtle improvement but rather significant than the mass producing Onkyo, Denon AVR. BTW, their no need to fondle with loudness, bass, treble controls. There ain't any. Image, soundstage, instrument localization ...just to name a few , I am afraid your Onkyo will not cut it. Yes,it's a placebo effect all right. Try it and let me know. Again, Opinion is taken with just a grain of salt, either mine or yours. Science of Metaphysic study of mind and matter has a long way to go so let call sound fidelity is a hoax and nothing but placebo effect since it cannot be proven and cannot be universally accepted.


----------



## xnor

scnr,


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





acdoan said:


> Jaddie, you win the debate but before I stopping wasting my time and my energy, Have you honestly ever knowed of or even have a chance to know the Appogee ribbon speakers, or the Eminent Technology Planar speakers ...Well let me make it easier for you, BB do now carry some entry level of the quasi-dipolar Martin logan electrostatic speakers.Go down there and bring some of your Onkyo and ask them to replace the Mcintosh with your Onkyo or whatever you may have. I bet you you either be in for a lesson about sound fidelity or you will not have gut to accept Hi-end cables,pre-amp, amp and CDP as a whole will make not a subtle improvement but rather significant than the mass producing Onkyo, Denon AVR. BTW, their no need to fondle with loudness, bass, treble controls. There ain't any. Image, soundstage, instrument localization ...just to name a few , I am afraid your Onkyo will not cut it. Yes,it's a placebo effect all right. Try it and let me know. Again, Opinion is taken with just a grain of salt, either mine or yours. Science of Metaphysic study of mind and matter has a long way to go so let call sound fidelity is a hoax and nothing but placebo effect since it cannot be proven and cannot be universally accepted.


 
  I've never owned the Appogee or Eminent Tech speakers.  I don't own any Onkyo either.  I've auditioned Martin Logan, I sort of like them, but they're a single-seat sweet-spot speaker.  The test you suggest would be valid if I had no idea what I was listening to, but if I do, I'm not qualified to make an unbiased judgement.  
   
  Agreed on the uselessness of bas, treble and conventional loudness, but only because we now have far better tools.  Loudness never worked right, but the new crop of dynamic volume systems do, just fine.  
   
  I guess we can just stop now, points have been made.  I do regret that you've categorized me as you have, since you have no idea who I am or what I've spent my life working with, but perhaps it wouldn't matter  anyway.  
   
  Thanks for the stimulating back and forth, and I do mean that!
   
  Ever done any measurements on room acoustics?


----------



## Speedskater

Apogee speakers do not meat the 'reasonable' requirement in the pre-requirement in the reasonable speakers, reasonable amplifier and reasonable conditions clause.
   
  Apogee are almost Zero Ohm speakers, that's a very special case.


----------



## cel4145

fatcat28037 said:


> If changing the cable or "burning-in" significantly improves the sound, why don't manufacturers do it?




Not sure about headphones, but many speaker manufacturers recommend burn-in times. I assume it's smart marketing. If physical burn-in doesn't exist, there's the benefit of psychological adjustment. Buy a pair for headphones or speakers and let 'em burn in with some listening every now and then, and one can become better adjusted to the sound. Plus, the longer someone keeps something, the less likely they are to return it. 

That, and it would significantly add to the production process time to burn in speakers and headphones.


----------



## jaycee1

Quote: 





xnor said:


> I'm not angry at all, I believe I'm fairly calm, skeptical and rational.
> 
> What I wrote above about the spider is not a theory, it can be measured and has been measured as can the effects. The "theory" of and relationships between electromechanical parameters (see Thiele/Small) also agree with this.
> 
> ...


 
  And what I'm sharing is my personal experience. My anecdote is reality. Too bad it doesn't align with your dogma. I don't really care what the technical reasons are, I simply enjoy the results. 
   
  And I can assure you, the difference is so dramatic, I don't need to go searching for a +/- .05 dBA difference at various points in a frequency graph.


----------



## jaycee1

Quote: 





cel4145 said:


> Not sure about headphones, but many speaker manufacturers recommend burn-in times. I assume it's smart marketing. If physical burn-in doesn't exist, there's the benefit of psychological adjustment. Buy a pair for headphones or speakers and let 'em burn in with some listening every now and then, and one can become better adjusted to the sound. Plus, the longer someone keeps something, the less likely they are to return it.
> 
> That, and it would significantly add to the production process time to burn in speakers and headphones.


 
   
  I believe I've only seen one manufacturer of headphones recommend burn in. I think it was a high figure, several hundred hours. However, they are the exception, not the norm. If it is a marketing gimmick, it is not exactly widespread, but in fact, very rare.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





fatcat28037 said:


> I've been here a few years, the subject of burn-in and cables has been beat-to-death over and over in many threads. Some believe and some don't. I'm not a believer. Those who say the sound changes, never  say it degrades. How can that be? Always changing for the better is statistically improbable.  If changing the cable or "burning-in" significantly improves the sound, why don't manufacturers do it? It's to their benefit to make their product sound as best as possible. No one has ever proven burn-in is advantages or that a $300 cable improves the sound of a headphone. It's very subjective, If your ears hear a difference, enjoy. IMHO if you're new to the hobby, forget burn-in just put the phones over your ears and enjoy and save the cable money toward your next set of phones.


 
   
  Stax run-in their drivers for two weeks before assembling them into headphones. They stated that the vast majority of any changes will occur during that period. It was interesting. My experience of these things has been considerably varied. Symphones Magnums drivers very distinctly change with use -- the bass is boomy at first. I need to check with Rhydon how much he tests the drivers before sending them out.
   
  With electronics, discreet OPAMs seemed to go all weird sonically for the first 350 hours before settling down. Some tests without music playing suggested this was purely due to heat. Some DACs I've owned sounded harsh at first but not so much after 2 weeks of being left switched on. Many other headphones and other equipment I didn't notice any changes with them.  It would definitely be interesting to measure the IMD of the components where I felt I observed something before, during and after a couple of hundred hours of use. It would also be interesting to see if any manufacturers would be willing to talk, even off the record, about how much run-in their equipment is given.
   
  I definitely don't think it is something it's a case of something existing or not but something that has to be considered per-component alongside measurements and an understanding of what is going on, if anything.


----------



## Kamakahah

I didn't think it makes a difference, but my mind has changed after a few different experiences. There are many factors that might persuade me to disbelieve, but my ears tell me what they do, so I'm going with that. 

Also I've had IEMs actually get worse from burn-in. So I find that it can go either way for me. In the end, it really only matters what you hear because no one else will be using your ears. 

In other words, it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, their opinion shouldn't change what you hear or don't hear.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





xnor said:


> As I said, we can just dismiss your anecdotes since you fail to back them up with even a shred of evidence. This is not the "tell your anecdote/story" forum. LOLing won't change anything.


 
   
  Why not, instead of arguing, create and run some experiments? I've been trying to arrange to actually do this with some headphones at least.


----------



## UmustBKidn

I discussed this a bit in my first thread after joining. IMO, I think "burn-in" should be applied to tubes, and not necessarily to headphones or solid state devices.
   
  I spent nearly 15 years of my life making vacuum tubes. I can attest with certainty that with respect to tubes, burn-in is a very real phenomenon. The higher quality the tube, the longer the burn-in required. Glass vacuum tubes used in our headphone amps (or ancient TV's) burn in rather quickly (on the order of hours, or perhaps a few days at most). The active surface in a vacuum tube that emits electrons (and the target of those emissions), also "out gas", and this unwanted matter needs to be absorbed into a special component within the device. The vast majority of out gassing occurs fairly quickly, although it continues for a while. Tubes wear out because the surfaces that emit electrons, simply run out of electrons to emit. That's why tubes need replacing after a while.
   
  There are quite a variety of other vacuum tubes, used in commercial microwave amplifiers, radar, certain aircraft, and satellites (among other things). Yes, indeed, if you watch Direct broadcast TV over satellite, a vacuum tube is responsible for transmitting that signal to your home. They are used in satellites because they have lots more efficiency than solid state devices of the same weight (and weight is at a premium on satellites), and they last quite a long time. The small dish on your home is due to higher powered tubes being used in those satellites. Most satellites run out of fuel, before they stop working. Further reading for the curious:
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_tube
   
  Burn in (really, aging) for tubes has the effect of making the functioning of the device more stable. The aforementioned outgassing, as well as the aging of the electron emitting and absorbing surfaces, is what burn in helps stabilize. It also helps weed out the devices that aren't going to work for long (usually, a bad device doesn't survive burn-in).  I do not have any memory of burn-in increasing performance, per se. I find it hard to imagine that any tube manufacturer would not burn in their tubes, at least for a short while. So I doubt there would be much of an effect on performance after the tube is in the hands of the end user. A little maybe, but not much.
   
  Solid state? No. When I worked on solid state devices, the only thing that we did was a smoke check (love that name). Basically you turn it on and run it for a day, to see if it fries itself, or not. Faulty solid state devices usually don't last long. If it smokes, it doesn't get shipped (it gets repaired first). This sort of check just makes sure all the solder joints are good, and the components are working. I just don't see how any solid state device could exhibit anything like burn in, as I described it above. They either work, or they don't. When they do work, they work for a long time (I still have a Kenwood amp built 30 years ago, and the only thing that's gone bad are switches and the volume potentiometer). I also have an analog Radio Shack VOM that I bought in the late 70's (and it still works).
   
  Headphones? Well, I'm not qualified to judge. I guess that's why I'm here 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was hoping someone else would have the answer to that. Other than saying, I don't think calling it "burn-in" is correct (break-in, may be a better term). There were a couple interesting articles I read somewhere, that pointed to studies where new headphones were measured over a few days. I can't find the link now, but one of them seemed to indicate that response seemed to flatten out and become less peaky or resonant. I think that's plausible, but I'm not sure what it would sound like.
   
  I only own 2 sets of decent headphones. They are both relatively new. I'd swear they sound a little better than when I first plugged them in, but that may just be wishful thinking. I guess the important thing is, they sound good. I have the folks who visit this website to thank for pointing me in the right direction there.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jaycee1 said:


> And what I'm sharing is my personal experience. My anecdote is reality. Too bad it doesn't align with your dogma. I don't really care what the technical reasons are, I simply enjoy the results.
> 
> And I can assure you, the difference is so dramatic, I don't need to go searching for a +/- .05 dBA difference at various points in a frequency graph.


 
  No, your anecdote describes what you perceive as reality including illusions and the results of wishful thinking and cognitive biases. I do not understand why it's so hard to get that. You seem to be completely devoid of the idea of bias.
  You also shouldn't be using words like dogma you obviously don't know the meaning of.
   
  So you do not care about the technical reasons. Well, then we can stop the discussion here since the value of your anecdote has already been "assessed".
   
  There's far more to it than frequency response graphs, which you'd know if you had read my previous posts, but since you're not interested in technical reasons I won't even try..
   
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> I definitely don't think it is something it's a case of something existing or not but something that has to be considered per-component alongside measurements and an understanding of what is going on, if anything.


 
  I agree. For example, of the small changes that were measured over at IF a tiny part could be attributed to the surround changing slightly or the diaphragm losing a bit of its stiffness (which is bad actually). But look at the post I quoted above. "Dramatic" differences were heard and reports of "day/night" differences using the same headphone as was measured at IF are not rare either.
  When specific things (like driver burn-in) are really tiny compared to the overall perceived differences I rather simplify and say they are negligible or non-existent than reinforcing wrong ideas.
  Your mass also increases if you run vs. standing still due to the kinetic energy but for all intents and purposes it doesn't change. Saying driver burn-in exists in such specific case would be equivalent to saying that jogging makes you heavier.
   
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> Why not, instead of arguing, create and run some experiments? I've been trying to arrange to actually do this with some headphones at least.


 
  That sounds nice. Biggest problem is controlling all the variables, some of which you probably don't even have control over, like manufacturing accuracy.
  Whenever I make claims I do try to make experiments to back them up.


----------



## cel4145

jaycee1 said:


> I believe I've only seen one manufacturer of headphones recommend burn in. I think it was a high figure, several hundred hours. However, they are the exception, not the norm. If it is a marketing gimmick, it is not exactly widespread, but in fact, very rare.




Yeah. Like I said. I don't know about headphones. But many speaker manufacturers do it. I've owned three pairs of speakers and multiple subwoofers that the manuals recommended it and have heard of others.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Why not, instead of arguing, create and run some experiments? I've been trying to arrange to actually do this with some headphones at least.


 
  Great idea.  Non-trivial assignment.  
   
  Experiments would need:
   
  1. a stable measurement jig (possibly a head/pinna, but at least something head-sized for proper seal)
  2. good resolution measurement equipment, calibrated mic, etc.
  3. equipment to measure and log environmental parameters (temperature, humidity, barometric pressure)
  4. method to verify stability of the above measurement equipment
  5. two samples of each model to be tested, one as a DUT, the other as a control.  That gets you two samples of each, left and right
  6. A carefully designed test regimen, measurement intervals, burn-in signal type and level, verification of level (SPL at the ear)
   
  You need to do at least this.  If you do less, there's not enough to avoid the arguments.


----------



## jaycee1

Whatever. My headphones sound better after burn in. Yours don't. You mad? 
  Quote: 





xnor said:


> No, your anecdote describes what you perceive as reality including illusions and the results of wishful thinking and cognitive biases. I do not understand why it's so hard to get that. You seem to be completely devoid of the idea of bias.
> You also shouldn't be using words like dogma you obviously don't know the meaning of.
> 
> So you do not care about the technical reasons. Well, then we can stop the discussion here since the value of your anecdote has already been "assessed".
> ...


----------



## jaycee1

I've just burned in a pair of koss ktxpro1's for about 60 hours now. 
   
  Initially, they sounded slightly dark with a bit of high frequency sparkle. Unfortunately the highs were marred by very sloppy reproduction, esp. of percussion and snare drums. It's that weird uneven sound of low bit rate digital. Now, the highs are far cleaner. These are very balanced headphones, and very clean, esp. compared to my first listen or two. 
   
  I have about a half dozen test tracks/favorite songs I almost always cycle through, so the volume and test tracks have not varied much at all. 
   
  Anyway, I can now advocate a 60 hour break in period. If that doesn't help, you might not have very good headphones. 
   
  I am exceptionally pleased with these koss headphones.


----------



## jaycee1

Quote: 





barry cheddar said:


> My breakfast cereal tastes better on Tuesdays.


 
  My grado and koss headphones sound better after 60+ hours of break in.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





jaycee1 said:


> My grado and koss headphones sound better after 60+ hours of break in.


 
  Next time you buy a new pair of headphones, buy two pairs (you can return one of them).  Have a friend blind-fold you.  Temporarily tag one pair, then playing them both, have your friend swap them for you.  Your job is to see if you can tell them apart.  If not (that's pretty important here) go ahead and burn-in one pair.  After your 6/60/600 hours of burn-in with your favorite exotic conditioning signal, have your friend blind-fold you again, and go ahead and identify the burned-in pair by playing them both, and having your friend swap randomly them for you.  After about 20 trials, see if how you "scored" and let us know.  Then box up the pair you don't like, and send them back for refund, or sell them here as "like-new" or "pre-conditioned".  
   
  You'll do yourself, and readers here a favor by providing useful data rather than single-trial anecdote.  And what you will be providing will be basic statistical data for a single model with a burn-in signal of unknown average power and spectrum. 
   
  Then, when you say "My headphones sound better after 60+ hours of break in", you'll also be able to relate the above trial and results.  Still not great, or universally conclusive, but better than what's going on here now, which frankly, is pointless. 
   
  K?
   
  Thanks!  
   
  Hey, Currawong, how's that for an experiment?


----------



## ktm

Quote: 





umustbkidn said:


> I discussed this a bit in my first thread after joining. IMO, I think "burn-in" should be applied to tubes, and not necessarily to headphones or solid state devices.
> 
> I spent nearly 15 years of my life making vacuum tubes. I can attest with certainty that with respect to tubes, burn-in is a very real phenomenon. The higher quality the tube, the longer the burn-in required. Glass vacuum tubes used in our headphone amps (or ancient TV's) burn in rather quickly (on the order of hours, or perhaps a few days at most). The active surface in a vacuum tube that emits electrons (and the target of those emissions), also "out gas", and this unwanted matter needs to be absorbed into a special component within the device. The vast majority of out gassing occurs fairly quickly, although it continues for a while. Tubes wear out because the surfaces that emit electrons, simply run out of electrons to emit. That's why tubes need replacing after a while.


 
  Tube do change a lot over the 1st few hours, then flatten out, and then roll off and die.That's in their nature.
  Cables? I believe cables make a difference, but i haven't spend too much $$. That can turn into a rat hole fast.
  Cable burn in, not really buying it.
  Mechanical devices like speakers and headphones, to some degree I'll go with. All my speakers and headphones
  were bought used, other that a set of JBL L100's I bought back in the 1970's. So I don't have much to go on there.
  All the equipment I currently have here is used, so it isn't a factor. Best of all, it's a lot cheaper!


----------



## Greenleaf7

Quote: 





jaycee1 said:


> My grado and koss headphones sound better after 60+ hours of break in.


 
  Did breaking in open up the sound stage and remove the veil?


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





greenleaf7 said:


> Did breaking in open up the sound stage and remove the veil?


 

 I've heard things do exactly that!  How did you know?


----------



## Greenleaf7

Quote: 





esldude said:


> I've heard things do exactly that!  How did you know?


 
  I don't that's why I'm asking jaycee1. I wonder if the veil on his headphones got lifted somehow.
   
  This is a video about veils, synergy and portable rigs
   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Rqo8jI8dk


----------



## ssrock64

The problem with multi-headphones trials, especially of lower-end models (those that you're most likely to buy two pairs of for the sake of testing) is production variance, regardless of burn-in. It's not a proper test to use just two different pairs of the same headphones, because one may sound different from the other regardless of burn-in. In addition, the test proposed a few posts up doesn't go anywhere to prove mechanical burn-in, because it could easily just be driver heating or pad wear responsible.
   
   
  My form of the test would have at least five of the same headphones, preferably a higher-end model from a company known for great QC, at different stages of burn-in. To avoid some outliers, every single one of them would have brand-new earpads at the time of the test and would all have had at least one hour of burn-in to simply "warm the drivers" because that's another issue of certain controversy.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





ssrock64 said:


> The problem with multi-headphones trials, especially of lower-end models (those that you're most likely to buy two pairs of for the sake of testing) is production variance, regardless of burn-in. It's not a proper test to use just two different pairs of the same headphones, because one may sound different from the other regardless of burn-in.


 
   If you look at what I suggested, that would be determined in the initial comparison of both non-burned-in pairs. If they were already detectably different, the test could just stop there.
  Quote:


ssrock64 said:


> . In addition, the test proposed a few posts up doesn't go anywhere to prove mechanical burn-in, because it could easily just be driver heating or pad wear responsible.


 
   Pretty sure proponents of burn-in don't care exactly what is happening, only that there's a positive change.  Determining what causes it is outside the scope of both tests I suggested, but would be the logical next step.
  Quote:


ssrock64 said:


> My form of the test would have at least five of the same headphones, preferably a higher-end model from a company known for great QC, at different stages of burn-in. To avoid some outliers, every single one of them would have brand-new earpads at the time of the test and would all have had at least one hour of burn-in to simply "warm the drivers" because that's another issue of certain controversy.


 
  Yes, that would be ideal.  And also so impractical that it will never be done on more than perhaps a very few models.  So far it seems that people with at least some resources don't seem to be interested in doing a test with even two copies of each.  Assuming manufacturers wouldn't just offer five test samples of their $1000 headphones, samples would have to be bought, and now you've got a project with a significant budget. Without a wide cross-section of the market, we couldn't discern the effect of general burn-in. 
   
  I have another suggestion...but it's not fully cooked yet.  Stay tuned.


----------



## fatcat28037

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Stax run-in their drivers for two weeks before assembling them into headphones. They stated that the vast majority of any changes will occur during that period. It was interesting. My experience of these things has been considerably varied. Symphones Magnums drivers very distinctly change with use -- the bass is boomy at first. I need to check with Rhydon how much he tests the drivers before sending them out.
> 
> With electronics, discreet OPAMs seemed to go all weird sonically for the first 350 hours before settling down. Some tests without music playing suggested this was purely due to heat. Some DACs I've owned sounded harsh at first but not so much after 2 weeks of being left switched on. Many other headphones and other equipment I didn't notice any changes with them.  It would definitely be interesting to measure the IMD of the components where I felt I observed something before, during and after a couple of hundred hours of use. It would also be interesting to see if any manufacturers would be willing to talk, even off the record, about how much run-in their equipment is given.
> 
> I definitely don't think it is something it's a case of something existing or not but something that has to be considered per-component alongside measurements and an understanding of what is going on, if anything.


 
  Interesting Currawong, thanks for the post, I'll keep this in mind.


----------



## xnor

Yeah I wondered if this info is from the Stax website, or some interview? Is there any data on these changes that occur during that period?
  On the Symphones: maybe their special coating material behaves similarly as the epoxy I described before, i.e. small cracks develop that reduce the stiffness of the diaphragm after some stress? That would be ironic since: "A newly developed coating material was created to address unwanted bending modes within the diaphragm surface."
   
  Discrete op-amps: I doubt it but shouldn't be too hard to measure.


----------



## jaycee1

Quote: 





greenleaf7 said:


> Did breaking in open up the sound stage and remove the veil?


 
  With igrado's no. The highs were far too harsh initially, meaning, right out of the box. They remained that way after about 20+ and 40+ hours of burn in. I listened to them again at around the 60+ hour mark, and the highs had become far less harsh, and as a result, the sound signature was quite balanced overall. There was a bit of sparkle remaining, which was musical and pleasant.
   
  I've broken in koss ktxpro1's for a similar amount of time. Again, after around the 60 hour mark, the sound signature had changed. In this case, the weird percussion smearing had smoothed out. Again, now I have something close to a neutral sound signature with a bit of pleasing high frequency sparkle. 
   
  No changes in sound stage. If I want a broad soundstage, I listen to speakers. 
   
  Also, I find that an amp is really nice for allowing headphones to shine, particularly in the highs. 
   
  I just don't find any consistent effect of burn-in. All I can say is, in a couple of cases, burn in has allowed the headphones to reach their potential. In the majority of cases, the changes if any, are slight to unnoticeable.


----------



## jaycee1

My experiences mirror those of currawong: burn in varies on a case by case basis. There is no consistent effect, and sometimes none.


----------



## xnor

Then how do you explain the big differences people heard when breaking in (about 100 to 300 h) the K701?
   
  I know a few options that could explain what's going on, but driver burn-in is not one of them.


----------



## foreign

I bought a headset for my girlfriend as she had always wanted a nice gaming headset so I opted for the pc360. She put them on for 20mins came back and said I can't hear bass. I tried them on and noticed the bass was very light indeed. I took them home and used them for about a week probably 30 hours in total. I noticed a huge difference and bass really started to come through. I hadn't said anything about my findings or about burning in all I did was hand the pair back to her and said have another listen if you don't like them we will buy a different headset. She put them on turned and said wow were the other pair faulty?? The bass is awesome. She actually didn't think it was the same headset.


----------



## foreign

I just found after 30odd hours the headset balance had improved and bass had become more neutral vs light. For someone to think that it wasnt the same headset and it had been swapped there has to be some truth behind the burn in.


----------



## julian67

Day one everything seems OK. Nice sound - you are happy and excited. Day 2 the missus notices you are too happy which makes her suspicious. She finds you have a new toy. By the end of day three she has discovered the real cost and that you weren't straight with her the previous day and you are in big trouble. For a week or ten days she is unusually busy and you are eating frozen crap from the supermarket or toast and your love life is comparable to that of a celibate monk. The headphones are no fun and you dare not even use them so you burn them in. Somewhere between days 10 and 14 you have grovelled and apologised enough and really carefully hidden the receipts for the other stuff you bought. You are back to home cooking and no longer scared of waking up with a pillow clamped over your breathing apparatus. You now feel relaxed and the headphones sound great too. This is the secret of burn in. For single people it's mostly that they don't already have enough to worry about.


----------



## foreign

day 1 bought her the headset she doesn't like it. Day 7 ask her to try it again before sending it back. She's had 7 days for her to think about it and come to the conclusion it was bought as a present maybe I shouldn't hurt his feelings and just pretend I like it. As she could see the excited look on my face and doesn't want to disappoint. That was the real burn in . Lol


----------



## Happy Camper

I check my scientific horoscope daily to know what to think. It's obvious we are human and flawed so are not capable otherwise to trust our senses. Wait, aren't scientists human too? The whole world is placebo in art and fashion but science hasn't figured that one out yet. They are just eclectic and not to be given any credence because they don't fit a formula. 

Since the field of science is black and white, let's see a top ten list of songs. 

Snarky fun so don't get your slide rule in a twist.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> I check my scientific horoscope daily to know what to think. It's obvious we are human and flawed so are not capable otherwise to trust our senses. Wait, aren't scientists human too? The whole world is placebo in art and fashion but science hasn't figured that one out yet. They are just eclectic and not to be given any credence because they don't fit a formula.
> 
> Since the field of science is black and white, let's see a top ten list of songs.
> 
> Snarky fun so don't get your slide rule in a twist.


 
  And how is this comical post related to this topic?


----------



## Happy Camper

The previous posts were levity for the cons, I tossed one in for the pros. As to the topic, you know how this ends don't you.......


----------



## foreign

Everyone a





happy camper said:


> The previous posts were levity for the cons, I tossed one in for the pros. As to the topic, you know how this ends don't you.......



Everyone agrees that burn in is required for optimal sounding cans. That's how I would like it to end but of course there will be arguments and opinions thrown left right and in the end we wil all agree to disagree. THE END


----------



## streetdragon

foreign said:


> I just found after 30odd hours the headset balance had improved and bass had become more neutral vs light. For someone to think that it wasnt the same headset and it had been swapped there has to be some truth behind the burn in.



Earpad compression, helps retain the sound pressure better.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> Day one everything seems OK. Nice sound - you are happy and excited. Day 2 the missus notices you are too happy which makes her suspicious. She finds you have a new toy. By the end of day three she has discovered the real cost and that you weren't straight with her the previous day and you are in big trouble. For a week or ten days she is unusually busy and you are eating frozen crap from the supermarket or toast and your love life is comparable to that of a celibate monk. The headphones are no fun and you dare not even use them so you burn them in. Somewhere between days 10 and 14 you have grovelled and apologised enough and really carefully hidden the receipts for the other stuff you bought. You are back to home cooking and no longer scared of waking up with a pillow clamped over your breathing apparatus. You now feel relaxed and the headphones sound great too. This is the secret of burn in. For single people it's mostly that they don't already have enough to worry about.


 
   
  Classic post.
   
  And I'm not even married.


----------



## foreign

Th





streetdragon said:


> Earpad compression, helps retain the sound pressure better.



That actually does make sense and might explain the difference in the bass quality. It's still only about a 4 week old headset and I can see slight compression of the ear pads versus brand new.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> The previous posts were levity for the cons, I tossed one in for the pros. As to the topic, you know how this ends don't you.......


 
  Levity? Cons and pros? What are you talking about?
   
  Quote: 





foreign said:


> Everyone agrees that burn in is required for optimal sounding cans. That's how I would like it to end but of course there will be arguments and opinions thrown left right and in the end we wil all agree to disagree. THE END


 
  One person disagreeing is enough to make your statement wrong. How do you define "optimal sounding"?


----------



## foreign

Knor you don't seem to have a sense of humour as every post is so serious and well straight. Optimal means most favourable or desirable btw. I was being sarcastic in the previous post not making a statement at all.  hence the humour comment no offence intended.


----------



## deltawave

Hey guys! 
I've been lurking for a while, but it seems this is the time for me to post. 
I'm a professional audio engineer and system designer with a background in concert and recording audio along with experience in lighting and pro video engineering. 

Now the pro audio section is quite a lot different from the HIFI world, (I'm a HIFI guy when not working), but the headphone burn-in topic has come up in discussion between some of my workmates and I in the past.
So about a year ago we had decided to test the whole burn-in topic and bought some basic Sony MDR-v6's and hooked them up to SMAART (an RTA anyalizer). The way we did this was to use two balanced Earthworks M-30 measurement mics, and a Sound Devices computer interface. We used some studio foam on each side, then stuck the mics into it at ear level, then played pink noise/white noise and recorded what we saw in SMAART. We ran them for around 20 hours between measurements and noticed a change ever so slightly over around 80 hours of burn in. 

I won't go into exactly what frequencies were effected, however there was a clear change of 1-4 DB at many separate frequencies, which tells me that the drivers must have changed their response over time, along with their sensitivity at different frequencies. 

I hope this helps! 

Your friendly Audio dude


----------



## xnor

@foreign: Oh I do have a sense of humor, just didn't recognize it as sarcasm. But I'd like to add anyway, that worn earpads can cause an increase in bass that is NOT desirable.


----------



## jaddie

deltawave said:


> Hey guys!
> I've been lurking for a while, but it seems this is the time for me to post.
> I'm a professional audio engineer and system designer with a background in concert and recording audio along with experience in lighting and pro video engineering.
> 
> ...



Any chance of posting some data?


----------



## mikeaj

Are you sure there wasn't just a difference in foam, clamping, positioning, etc.?  Was it tested with the drivers cooled down?  I mean, it's not exactly impossible for there to be changes, but just making sure we're interpreting the data correctly.
   
  Also, care to be a bit more specific about which frequencies?  If something shifted 1-4 dB at say 500 Hz, that'd be one thing.  If it happened at 9 kHz, that's another.  Measurement consistency seems a lot higher in the midrange.
   
  I'm going to guess that the same experiment wasn't run with a control that didn't have sounds being played through the headphones... or not?


----------



## deltawave

The headphones stayed in one place through the duration of time we tested them. We ran them for around 20 hours at a time with pink noise, then off for a period of time. 
We took our total readings after letting them set for a few hours. 

If Ii remember correctly, there was a slight change (+\- 3 db) around 60hz, but the most significant change was the 700hz-1k range where the headphones lessened their output by about 4 db. 

I used a balanced set of Earthworks m-30's with a SoundDevices 2 channel mic pre running 24x44.1. Just a basic SMAART setup, the headphones were being pushed by a MacBook Pro with the standard headphone out. 

I didn't feel the need to use highend amps/dac's for this experiment because I was only out to see if there was a change in frequency responce. 
There was a change, better or worse? I don't know.


----------



## deltawave

Also, I plan on trying this test again soon, though it'll be with a pair of AKG k240 Studios. 

I don't have the data from the other test (wasn't super scientific, just playing around with some gear) however when i test them again ill be sure to document it well! 

It's great to see so much interest in investigating this, it'll give me something to do after work for sure!


----------



## jaddie

Would there be a chance you could measure both ears, then condition one of them, then measure both again before conditioning the other ear? Might make for a more controlled test.


----------



## Happy Camper

And calibration documents verified to protocol of all international standards within the last six months........ :rolleyes:


----------



## julian67

jaddie said:


> Would there be a chance you could measure both ears, then condition one of them, then measure both again before conditioning the other ear? Might make for a more controlled test.




while patting your head and rubbing your belly. Remember though that you'll have to steer with your knees so light that cigarette before you start. Pics please.


----------



## jaddie

Ok...very funny.  Judging by the reaction, I should have said "earphone" rather than just "ear". I didn't think requesting a control group was such a hilarious request, but I've been wrong before.


----------



## Yazen

Both, more or less depending on the headphone being tested.  Please do not share individual experiences in the Sound Science forum


----------



## xnor

No it makes a lot of sense jaddie. Put the headphone on the measurement apparatus, from here on you shouldn't touch the headphone anymore at all, measure both channels, play sound through one channel for a few hours, give it a couple of minutes of cooldown (you may also measure before cooldown if you're interested in how a heated up driver changes performance), measure both channels again, play sound through the other channel ...
   
  Dunno about earphones but with a new headphone you should see differences even in the channel where no sound was playing.


----------



## UmustBKidn

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> ...
> Since the field of science is black and white, let's see a top ten list of songs.
> 
> Snarky fun so don't get your slide rule in a twist.


 
   
  Hocus Pocus, by Focus
  88 lines about 44 women, by The Nails
  Da Da Da, by Trio
  Song to help you keep your job, by Ray
  Basketball Jones, by Cheech and Chong
  Eat it, by Weird Al Yankovic
  Bohemian Rhapsody, by The Muppets
  Always look on the bright side of life, by Monty Python
  Detachable Penis, by King Missile
  The Bad Touch, by The Bloodhound Gang


----------



## Takeanidea

umustbkidn said:


> Hocus Pocus, by Focus
> 88 lines about 44 women, by The Nails
> Da Da Da, by Trio
> Song to help you keep your job, by Ray
> ...





There is fun in science after all


----------



## MrTechAgent

I cannot believe that people don't hear the difference and think its placebo


----------



## nanaholic

Quote: 





mrtechagent said:


> I cannot believe that people don't hear the difference and think its placebo


 
   
  I cannot believe that in the 21st century people still believe their sensory organs are more accurate than measuring apparatus.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





mrtechagent said:


> I cannot believe that people don't hear the difference and think its placebo


 
  I do.


----------



## MrTechAgent

Quote: 





nanaholic said:


> I cannot believe that in the 21st century people still believe their sensory organs are more accurate than measuring apparatus.


 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jxdOEpiCTs - Stubborn hah , do not tell me that this is not accurate.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





mrtechagent said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jxdOEpiCTs - Stubborn hah , do not tell me that this is not accurate.


 
  This is not accurate.
   
  Or figure it out yourself: compare K701, K701b or T1, T1b or LCD3a, LCD3b, LCD3c, LCD3d, LCD3e or ...
   
  Same model, different sample = different FR regardless of break-in


----------



## MrTechAgent

I respect that but the guy above said that sensory organs should not be believed , I am really stunned that a Head-Fi'er said that.
  Nevertheless I don't think its placebo at least to my ears


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





mrtechagent said:


> I respect that but the guy above said that sensory organs should not be believed , I am really stunned that a Head-Fi'er said that.
> Nevertheless I don't think its placebo at least to my ears


 
  Not quite what he said, though. 
   
  "I cannot believe that in the 21st century people still believe their sensory organs are more accurate than measuring apparatus."


----------



## MrTechAgent

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Not quite what he said, though.
> 
> "I cannot believe that in the 21st century people still believe their sensory organs are more accurate than measuring apparatus."


 
  WOW.


----------



## xnor

"Not believing sensory organs" sounds like they are totally unreliable. If they were there would be not much purpose in doing things like blind listening tests.
  And nature would have selected against us if they were not reliable to some degree.
   
  Problems start when you try to hear small differences but do not only use your ears but all sorts of other sensory input. Your brain will incorporate all of those inputs plus all you've heard/read and know about it into what you will hear.
  Human hearing is not a mic -> preamp -> A/D converter. There's a black box in the middle with many inputs that does weird things to the signal.


----------



## wingtsun

The problem here is that we all listen using different equipment, with different music recorded in different ways and at differing quality with different ears. To say that what one person experiences during a 1000 hours of listening is just rubbish, regardless of whether they hear a change in their equipment or not, is small-minded.
   
  I've experienced a change in the sound of all my headphones and amps during their "burn-in" period. I loathe having to burn in audio equipment and if I thought it was unnecessary or likely to help to a degree that I was barely able to hear then I just wouldn't bother. Having to leave my cans and amps playing for hundreds of hours by themselves whilst I sleep is a PITA and hardly an enjoyable part of this hobby. However, after around 300 hours of play I can usually hear a discernable difference in my equipment and usually for the better and to such an extent that I un(graciously) put myself through the rigmarole to try to speed up that process.
   
  Now I know people, who've had the same equipment, that hear little or no difference after 300 hours and so they don't bother. That's cool by me and I sometimes wish I was one of them. At other times I thank my maker than He gave me ears that could hear the difference. What is a fact for one person may not be a fact for another. One person's reality is another person's fantasy. In all of this, however, one fact remains constant: you'll never be able to hear your rig through the ears of another person whilst connected to their brain. As such, burn in for some is real and for others fantasy.
   
  For me it's real and that's all that matters. And on that bombshell I need to go plug in my Predator; it still needs another 250 hours burn in.


----------



## MrTechAgent

Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> The problem here is that we all listen using different equipment, with different music recorded in different ways and at differing quality with different ears. To say that what one person experiences during a 1000 hours of listening is just rubbish, regardless of whether they hear a change in their equipment or not, is small-minded.
> 
> I've experienced a change in the sound of all my headphones and amps during their "burn-in" period. I loathe having to burn in audio equipment and if I thought it was unnecessary or likely to help to a degree that I was barely able to hear then I just wouldn't bother. Having to leave my cans and amps playing for hundreds of hours by themselves whilst I sleep is a PITA and hardly an enjoyable part of this hobby. However, after around 300 hours of play I can usually hear a discernable difference in my equipment and usually for the better and to such an extent that I un(graciously) put myself through the rigmarole to try to speed up that process.
> 
> ...


 
  I really like the way you emphasized about enjoying the Burn-in period rather than keeping them "on" one side on for days. (Atleast I hope that is what you were trying to say)


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





mrtechagent said:


> I really like the way you emphasized about enjoying the Burn-in period rather than keeping them "on" one side on for days. (Atleast I hope that is what you were trying to say)


 
   
  Not sure you "heard" me right there.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I listen throughout the "burn in" period and use my cans and amp whenever I can. However, I'm not a patient person and like to get that first 300+ hours on the clock as quickly as I can. Therefore, I'll leave the rig on continuous play whilst I'm asleep and sometimes during the day when I'm working. That part I find a bit of a PITA, TBH but I do it because I know it will get me there quicker. I still enjoy listening in the meantime, though, so maybe you did hear me right, after all.


----------



## MrTechAgent

Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> Not sure you "heard" me right there..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Oh alright ,good for me


----------



## nanaholic

Quote: 





mrtechagent said:


> I respect that but the guy above said that sensory organs should not be believed , I am really stunned that a Head-Fi'er said that.
> Nevertheless I don't think its placebo at least to my ears


 
   
  Have you never tried playing those optical illusion tricks?  How about biaural recordings which simulates surround sound?  Why is it so difficult to come to grasp that your sensory organs are not only not completely 100% reliable, but fails to measure up to apparatus which can measure and detect gigahertz sound frequency which no humans can hear?  Also just because I don't believe my sensory organs are 100% reliable, it doesn't mean I can't use and enjoy their usage, it's two completely different things.  
   
  Here's an easy example for you to think about - 3D movies.  Anyone would know that 3D movies are not really 3 dimensional and that it would be easily measurable (stick a basic ruler on the screen, there won't be anything in the z-axis poking out), but the illusion of depth produced by using the technology to fool our sensory organs can make for interesting and enjoyable effects - here in this example what you enjoy is completely irrelevant to the facts of the physical world.  Can you say with a straight face that in such situation your sensory organs is more accurate?  It is the same with your ears and music.


----------



## MrTechAgent

Quote: 





nanaholic said:


> Have you never tried playing those optical illusion tricks?  How about biaural recordings which simulates surround sound?  Why is it so difficult to come to grasp that your sensory organs are not only not completely 100% reliable, but fails to measure up to apparatus which can measure and detect gigahertz sound frequency which no humans can hear?


 
  It is "Binaural" not "Biaural".
This shows you complete lack of Knowledge , I have never seen anyone arguing about this topic which is so transparent and gear based haven't you seen the above comments. Stop being stubborn and let other people have their opinions shared.
100% - Who claimed that figure ?


----------



## nanaholic

Quote: 





mrtechagent said:


> It is "Binaural" not "Biaural".
> This shows you complete lack of Knowledge , I have never seen anyone arguing about this topic which is so transparent and gear based haven't you seen the above comments. Stop being stubborn and let other people have their opinions shared.


 
  A spelling mistake somehow proves that I have a lack of knowledge?  Okay I guess you got me there. /s
  Also I think it is you who is being stubborn here, not me, as you seem hell bent on trying to make people believe that burn-in is not a placebo, even by posting a video from Tyl which says it is a subjective listening test for a pair of headphones which he actually showed to have measurable difference as a rebuttal to my comment which still leaves me scratching my head right now, as a true rebuttal to my comment would only be if Tyl's experiment showed no measurable difference while he can correctly do an ABX listening test to identify the different headphones.  I only made one comment and you already began throwing the stubborn word around.  And who's stopping you from voicing your opinion anyway?  
   
  Finally please take the time to think about how the accuracy of your sensory organs has no bearing on the subjective enjoyment of art.  Again I distrust the accuracy of my sensory organs, but that has absolutely no bearings to how they provide me with subject enjoyment of movies and music.


----------



## MrTechAgent

Quote: 





nanaholic said:


> A spelling mistake somehow proves that I have a lack of knowledge?  Okay I guess you got me there. /s
> Also I think it is you who is being stubborn here, not me, as you seem hell bent on trying to make people believe that burn-in is not a placebo, even by posting a video from Tyl which says it is a subjective listening test for a pair of headphones which he actually showed to have measurable difference as a rebuttal to my comment which still leaves me scratching my head right now.  I only made one comment and you already began throwing the stubborn word around.  And who's stopping you from voicing your opinion anyway?


 
  Alright lets end this.
  I really don't want any fights/arguments on Head-Fi (Its a happy community)
  You of course are knowledgeable look at all the equipment you have got up there.
Talking about the Burn-in subject its a difference of observation.
Enjoy music that is what counts


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> The problem here is that we all listen using different equipment, with different music recorded in different ways and at differing quality with different ears. To say that what one person experiences during a 1000 hours of listening is just rubbish, regardless of whether they hear a change in their equipment or not, is small-minded.


 
  You might experience all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them true.
   
   
  Quote: 





> I've experienced a change in the sound of all my headphones and amps during their "burn-in" period. I loathe having to burn in audio equipment and if I thought it was unnecessary or likely to help to a degree that I was barely able to hear then I just wouldn't bother. Having to leave my cans and amps playing for hundreds of hours by themselves whilst I sleep is a PITA and hardly an enjoyable part of this hobby. However, after around 300 hours of play I can usually hear a discernable difference in my equipment and usually for the better and to such an extent that I un(graciously) put myself through the rigmarole to try to speed up that process.


 
  That's a fine argument from personal experience or anecdote, but in science it doesn't really count as evidence.
   
  I know this sounds crazy, but just think of people having personal experiences of being abducted by aliens. No matter how (in)sane the claim, hard evidence is what we need to find out what's really going on.
   
   
  Quote: 





> Now I know people, who've had the same equipment, that hear little or no difference after 300 hours and so they don't bother. That's cool by me and I sometimes wish I was one of them. At other times I thank my maker than He gave me ears that could hear the difference.


 
  Are you talking about your dad here? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
   
  Quote: 





> What is a fact for one person may not be a fact for another. One person's reality is another person's fantasy.


 
  Someone experiencing a change that he/she attributes to break-in is itself a fact, yes, but that doesn't make break-in a fact and certainly not a scientific one. In science, we verify facts by repeatable experiments.
  Facts are not a matter of taste or opinion. I'd define fact as something objectively true.
   
   
  Quote: 





> In all of this, however, one fact remains constant: you'll never be able to hear your rig through the ears of another person whilst connected to their brain. As such, burn in for some is real and for others fantasy.


 
  Food for thought: The other day I was tweaking an EQ curve and it took me a while until I noticed bypass was enabled. All the fiddling did exactly nada to the sound (reality, fact), but I was hearing differences (personal experience, fantasy).
  The difference I heard felt real to me, but I was just deluded.


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





nanaholic said:


> A spelling mistake somehow proves that I have a lack of knowledge?  Okay I guess you got me there. /s
> Also I think it is you who is being stubborn here, not me, as you seem hell bent on trying to make people believe that burn-in is not a placebo, even by posting a video from Tyl which says it is a subjective listening test for a pair of headphones which he actually showed to have measurable difference as a rebuttal to my comment which still leaves me scratching my head right now, as a true rebuttal to my comment would only be if Tyl's experiment showed no measurable difference while he can correctly do an ABX listening test to identify the different headphones.  I only made one comment and you already began throwing the stubborn word around.  And who's stopping you from voicing your opinion anyway?
> 
> Finally please take the time to think about how the accuracy of your sensory organs has no bearing on the subjective enjoyment of art.  Again I distrust the accuracy of my sensory organs, but that has absolutely no bearings to how they provide me with subject enjoyment of movies and music.


 
   
  Hmm.. I get what you're saying but.. I'm a trained pilot with a commercial license. I've also passed the MAF (Mission Aviation Fellowship) exams/tests which are far tougher than the standard psych tests for commercial pilots. We're trained to not always believe our senses and rely on our instrumentation, instead. So from the outset I'm rather conditioned towards the conclusion that burn-in is probably more placebo than real. However, on 3 rigs which I became intimately knowledgeable of, I heard several stages of transformation. The end result on each of my rigs was finally better detail and a silkier sound that was most certainly not the case when the equipment came into my possession. This was not something I expected to happen but something which did happen. It made no real sense to me and from a purely technical standpoint it maybe shouldn't have happened. However, not having 90 families on board to consider, I'm able to just trust my ears on this one and I certainly know what they told me.


----------



## xnor

I know what I heard because I know what I heard because ... I say so.
   
  Lets assume you heard an improvement. Why should it be break-in?


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





xnor said:


> I know what I heard because I know what I heard because ... I say so.
> 
> Lets assume you heard an improvement. Why should it be break-in?


 
   
  Well, if after a given period of time, on 3 separate rigs, I heard an improvement after say 300 hours on all 3.. frankly, you can call it what you want. So let's change the term "break in" or "burn in" to "mechanical electro stabilisation".. Does that help?


----------



## kyokosakura

I think it's a mix of both. I don't think burn in is necessarily caused by using your headphones over time but that it is more of a mental occurrence as your brain gets used to a new pair of headphones/speakers. 

 However the ear pieces also tend to burn to the shape of your head and that could have something to do with it.


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





xnor said:


> You might experience all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them true.
> 
> *It makes them true to me.*
> 
> ...


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> Well, if after a given period of time, on 3 separate rigs, I heard an improvement after say 300 hours on all 3.. frankly, you can call it what you want. So let's change the term "break in" or "burn in" to "mechanical electro stabilisation".. Does that help?


 
  Dowsers found water, metals or oil at hundreds of thousands of spots, yet they fail miserably in proper tests. Call it what you want, it doesn't make it more likely to be true.
   
  Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> You might experience all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them true.
> 
> *It makes them true to me.*


 
  From my point of view the earth looks flat. Does that make the earth flat? No.
  For example, crazy people experience all sorts of things that are not real, even if they feel completely real and true to them.
   
  Quote: 





> *But I'm not interested in science, I'm interested in what I personally hear. When I've just taken off in a Cessna 172 and the guy sat beside me says: "Yeah, OK, you're talking to air traffic control, I can see we're in cloud but that doesn't prove we're in the air.." I say: "OK, flop yourself out of that door and see what 13,000 feet feels like when you hit the tarmac. Then you'll have scientific proof." *


 
  But you're in a science forum. That's like saying you're interested in DBTs only in the cable forum.
  Anecdotes are uninteresting, especially in audio.
   
  The analogy doesn't work.
   
   
  Quote: 





> Someone experiencing a change that he/she attributes to break-in is itself a fact, yes, but that doesn't make break-in a fact and certainly not a scientific one. In science, we verify facts by repeatable experiments.  Facts are not a matter of taste or opinion. I'd define fact as something objectively true.
> 
> *Audio is not a "fact". It's what one person hears and cannot be reproduced since you, I or anyone else cannot lend another person our ears.*


 
  I guess you meant to say sound (what we perceive) instead of audio.
   
  Sure, I cannot lend my hearing to another person, but I can ask the other person to use their ears only to hear. We can set up a blind test and check if the other person heard real or imagined differences. It's not easy with headphones, but definitely not impossible.
   
   
  Quote: 





> Food for thought: The other day I was tweaking an EQ curve and it took me a while until I noticed bypass was enabled. All the fiddling did exactly nada to the sound (reality, fact), but I was hearing differences (personal experience, fantasy).  The difference I heard felt real to me, but I was just deluded.
> 
> *Food for thought: the other day I thought to myself: "You ought to get out more." Looks like you and I do have something in common after all.*


 
  I'm getting out enough after work.


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Dowsers found water, metals or oil at hundreds of thousands of spots, yet they fail miserably in proper tests. Call it what you want, it doesn't make it more likely to be true.
> 
> From my point of view the earth looks flat. Does that make the earth flat? No.
> For example, crazy people experience all sorts of things that are not real, even if they feel completely real and true to them.
> ...


 
   
  LOL! Glad you took it in the light-hearted way in which it was intended. I hadn't actually noticed this was the science forum as I'd just picked up the thread from the "new posts" link, so you got me there. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Burn-in has been debated for as long as I can remember and I've been into the music audio hobby for about 20 years now. When I was younger I also needed proof of everything before I believed it. As life went on I found many things to be true that couldn't necessarily be scientifically proved. 
   
  As in everything in this hobby, our reality is our own. It's what we hear through our ears via our brain. Nothing else matters. For years I debated whether cables made a difference. The other day I connected my iPhone 5 to my Predator using a 10+ year old RnB Audio (don't think he exists any more) mini cable, having previously connected it using a cheap one I'd bought to use in my Jeep. The difference was astounding and I sat there for a few minutes quite shocked at what I was hearing. Many "scientists" would claim there could be no audible difference.. Their reality would be quite different from mine.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> Burn-in has been debated for as long as I can remember and I've been into the music audio hobby for about 20 years now. When I was younger I also needed proof of everything before I believed it. As life went on I found many things to be true that couldn't necessarily be scientifically proved.


 
  We have good evidence for speaker break-in and the main reason for the change is that stress on the spider causes tiny cracks that weakens it. In dynamic headphone drivers there is no such spider. Biggest measurable differences observed are due to small changes in placement of the headphones on your head, especially at high frequencies, but also wear of the ear pads. Just replace old, dirty, compressed ear pads with new ones and you should be able to hear a difference etc.
   
  As for requesting evidence, it's a claim that can be tested scientifically. People make all kinds of claims that fail proper tests but still believe them to be true. Luckily, reality doesn't care about people's beliefs.
   
  Quote: 





> As in everything in this hobby, our reality is our own. It's what we hear through our ears via our brain. Nothing else matters. For years I debated whether cables made a difference. The other day I connected my iPhone 5 to my Predator using a 10+ year old RnB Audio (don't think he exists any more) mini cable, having previously connected it using a cheap one I'd bought to use in my Jeep. The difference was astounding and I sat there for a few minutes quite shocked at what I was hearing. Many "scientists" would claim there could be no audible difference.. Their reality would be quite different from mine.


 
  That's another anecdote.
  I disagree with reality being somehow personal. What you perceive as reality or your interpretation of it may be personal, but reality is not.
  If you haven't heard of the McGurk effect yet: watch this.
   
  That's why uncontrolled comparisons and anecdotes are of little to no help. Even if you are completely honest, which I assume you are, they don't help.
   
  From the video: "So we can't always trust what we hear, because sometimes our sense of vision takes over enabling us to maintain a coherent view of the world."
  I'd argue it's not just vision but also past experiences, things you've read and heard about a piece of equipment, the fact that you e.g. just bought an expensive piece of equipment and it better be worth it etc.
  Our brain tries to reduce cognitive dissonance all the time, which results in perceiving stuff that is not real.


----------



## techboy

I have tried the same headphone new out of box and with some burn in, it was a mid range headphone, yet the difference was night and day.


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





xnor said:


> We have good evidence for speaker break-in and the main reason for the change is that stress on the spider causes tiny cracks that weakens it. In dynamic headphone drivers there is no such spider. Biggest measurable differences observed are due to small changes in placement of the headphones on your head, especially at high frequencies, but also wear of the ear pads. Just replace old, dirty, compressed ear pads with new ones and you should be able to hear a difference etc.
> 
> As for requesting evidence, it's a claim that can be tested scientifically. People make all kinds of claims that fail proper tests but still believe them to be true. Luckily, reality doesn't care about people's beliefs.
> 
> ...


 
   
  My reality is what I hear and perceive. Your reality is what you hear and perceive. THE reality may or may not be far different but it's my reality that matters to me, at least in the case of what I hear through my Grados.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> My reality is what I hear and perceive. Your reality is what you hear and perceive. THE reality may or may not be far different but it's my reality that matters to me, at least in the case of what I hear through my Grados.


 
  This reminds me of subjectivism and extreme forms like solipsism which really don't get us anywhere. Your perception of reality may be different from another's person perception, but that doesn't change the underlying reality. I've provided a few examples already, another one would be a color-blind person seeing red and green objects in a shade of gray, but that doesn't change that the objects are red and green.  If you don't accept that let's agree to disagree.
   
  If you hear a difference after 300 hours without isolating that only the headphone drivers have changed I do not see how you would conclude it must therefore be break-in.* It simply does not follow.*
  When audio engineers have fallen for the bypass trap (EQ or could be any DSP really) mentioned before although they made instant adjustments how do you think I'm thinking about someone hearing differences after hundreds of hours?
   
  And then there are measurements of the K701, which is said to change drastically after a few hundred hours, that show that what people hear is almost entirely imagined.


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





xnor said:


> This reminds me of subjectivism and extreme forms like solipsism which really don't get us anywhere. Your perception of reality may be different from another's person perception, but that doesn't change the underlying reality. I've provided a few examples already, another one would be a color-blind person seeing red and green objects in a shade of gray, but that doesn't change that the objects are red and green.  If you don't accept that let's agree to disagree.
> 
> If you hear a difference after 300 hours without isolating that only the headphone drivers have changed I do not see how you would conclude it must therefore be break-in.* It simply does not follow.*
> When audio engineers have fallen for the bypass trap (EQ or could be any DSP really) mentioned before although they made instant adjustments how do you think I'm thinking about someone hearing differences after hundreds of hours?
> ...


 
   
  Sounds to me like you really want to debate something for the sake of debating it. Unfortunately, I'm just not that interested to take the debate further than I already have. I hear what I hear and I'm happy with that. I just don't take listening to music through a set of headphones so seriously that I want to throw hours at this, debating on whether my ears are telling me the truth. In fact, if I ever do take it that seriously I hope that my Chinese Crested Naked Dog bites me on the ass as hard as she can to remind me that I have bigger fish to fry.


----------



## Happy Camper

Science minded people are so rigid that they often miss even the most simple of things for the blind reason that it does not compute. It's the noisy ones that make such fools of science by not considering their world hasn't all the answers. Science is human's attempt to apply logic (by their definition) to explain nature. They are so vigilant to point out how flawed humans are yet are so sure of their human logic.......:rolleyes: For as far as we've come technologically, we are re-defining it every day. Good soldiers that they are, they will march to it's rules until proven wrong, then complain the proof invalid for it was human error until irrefutable. 

This is an artistic hobby so why do you persist in so passionate a crusade?


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> Science minded people are so rigid that they often miss even the most simple of things for the blind reason that it does not compute. It's the noisy ones that make such fools of science by not considering their world hasn't all the answers. Science is human's attempt to apply logic (by their definition) to explain nature. They are so vigilant to point out how flawed humans are yet are so sure of their human logic.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Spot on!!!


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> The other day I connected my iPhone 5 to my Predator using a 10+ year old RnB Audio (don't think he exists any more) mini cable, having previously connected it using a cheap one I'd bought to use in my Jeep. The difference was astounding and I sat there for a few minutes quite shocked at what I was hearing. Many "scientists" would claim there could be no audible difference.. Their reality would be quite different from mine.


 
  A true scientist would claim there _should_ (not could) be no audible difference, and wouldn't completely discount the fact that a difference may exist.
   
  The scientist would then attempt to discover two things: 1, if there was a difference, measurable or repeatably audible, bypassing perception bias, and 2, if a difference exists, what caused the difference.   And in doing so, would also uncover if the difference was repeatable.  
   
  Good science is not closed minded, but open minded.  It's only through opening possibilities, regardless of how improbably, that the truth can be discovered.  Sometimes the truth involves simply qualifying a generality. For example, the "scientific" statement, "cables make no audible difference", would scientifically be more correct as, "cables can make an audible difference under the following conditions:"  
   
  Now, regardless of all of that, personally, I would be the last person to take away your reality.  If it's sweet, enjoy it, it may not last indefinitely.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> Science minded people are so rigid that they often miss even the most simple of things for the blind reason that it does not compute. It's the noisy ones that make such fools of science by not considering their world hasn't all the answers. Science is human's attempt to apply logic (by their definition) to explain nature. They are so vigilant to point out how flawed humans are yet are so sure of their human logic.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Doubting burn in or any subjective impression isn't saying that science has all the answers. It's about questioning why things are the way they are, rather than drawing premature conclusions.
   
  Taking a subjective impression and saying it is the definite truth and that you know all the reasons that were the cause of this perceived change is what I'd call rigid.


----------



## Happy Camper

Matter of fact attitudes? Pot calling the kettle.......come in kettle.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> Sounds to me like you really want to debate something for the sake of debating it. Unfortunately, I'm just not that interested to take the debate further than I already have. I hear what I hear and I'm happy with that. I just don't take listening to music through a set of headphones so seriously that I want to throw hours at this, debating on whether my ears are telling me the truth. In fact, if I ever do take it that seriously I hope that my Chinese Crested Naked Dog bites me on the ass as hard as she can to remind me that I have bigger fish to fry.


 
  No, I'm just discussing whether break-in is real or placebo, which is what the thread is about. If you say it there is a physical change going on that causes the large differences you hear I'm asking for evidence. It's as simple as that.
   
  Quote: 





happy camper said:


> Science minded people are so rigid that they often miss even the most simple of things for the blind reason that it does not compute. It's the noisy ones that make such fools of science by not considering their world hasn't all the answers. Science is human's attempt to apply logic (by their definition) to explain nature. They are so vigilant to point out how flawed humans are yet are so sure of their human logic.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Science minded people are open-minded, open to the possibility that they are wrong, and more coherent in rejecting claims. They don't insist on their hearing telling them absolute truth, because they know how easily bias creeps in. They are also not as gullible believing the kind of marketing stuff you see targeted at science-illiterate audiophiles.
  Science minded people are also the first to openly admit that they don't know everything, far from it actually.
   
  Humans are flawed and we have scientific evidence and countless examples in history for it. People are irrational, make non sequiturs and other fallacies. Your implication (how I picked it up anyway) that science is somehow self-refuting because flawed humans use flawed logic is a perfect example of such a fallacy.
  The video linked above shows that for example vision can clearly change what we hear. Even if you know what is going on you're probably still hearing the wrong thing. That does not mean you cannot trust your hearing only.
   
  What are we re-defining every day, logic? As for complaining proof to be invalid after being proven wrong, that's just grouchy anti-science talk. Heard of controlled, repeatable experiments and reproducible results? The scientific method?
   
  Accurate sound reproduction is a matter of science. It may be that you're not after that, which is fine, or that you re-define hi-fi to not mean high fidelity, which I'm less fine with, but anyway break-in is not a matter of opinion nor does it have anything to do with art.
   
  Why are science minded people persistent in looking for the truth? Because they actually care what is true, no matter how comforting the alternative/delusion.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> Taking a subjective impression and saying it is the definite truth and that you know all the reasons that were the cause of this perceived change is what I'd call rigid.


 
  No, that's just stupid.


----------



## Mezzo

I haven't read through the entire thread but is electronic burn-in a myth? Like amplifier burn-in? Some dealers say you should run them in for best performance. Is that BS or is there some merit to doing this?


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





mezzo said:


> I haven't read through the entire thread but is electronic burn-in a myth? Like amplifier burn-in? Some dealers say you should run them in for best performance. Is that BS or is there some merit to doing this?


 
   
  LOL! Depends who you ask. For me and many others it's perfectly true. Scientists don't always believe it as it's not something easily scientifically proven. I just let my ears tell me what's happening, which in a hobby that involves listening, sounds pretty logical to me.


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





xnor said:


> No, I'm just discussing whether break-in is real or placebo, which is what the thread is about. If you say it there is a physical change going on that causes the large differences you hear I'm asking for evidence. It's as simple as that.
> 
> Science minded people are open-minded, open to the possibility that they are wrong, and more coherent in rejecting claims. They don't insist on their hearing telling them absolute truth, because they know how easily bias creeps in. They are also not as gullible believing the kind of marketing stuff you see targeted at science-illiterate audiophiles.
> Science minded people are also the first to openly admit that they don't know everything, far from it actually.
> ...


 
   
  OK, I'm allowing myself to be lured into this again, but hey ho. The point is, I can't prove to you anything. I can only tell you my experience.
   
  Maybe scientists' brains are wired differently and part of that wiring affects their hearing?
   
  Kind of reminds me of this scene from "White Men Can't Jump":
   
Sidney Deane: "Look man, you can listen to Jimi but you can't hear him. There's a difference man. Just because you're listening to him doesn't mean you're hearing him."


----------



## castleofargh

how come components always change in a good way?  where is the headphone that is amazing for 80hours then slowly becomes utter crap?
   
   
  Quote: 





mezzo said:


> I haven't read through the entire thread but is electronic burn-in a myth? Like amplifier burn-in? Some dealers say you should run them in for best performance. Is that BS or is there some merit to doing this?


 
   
  people in electronic must have solved this mystery long ago.  but if the characteristics of a component lack stability over time, wouldn't it be considered a bad component?


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> OK, I'm allowing myself to be lured into this again, but hey ho. The point is, I can't prove to you anything. I can only tell you my experience.


 
  Let me quote the founder of Stereophile:
  Quote: 





> Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel.


 
   
   
  Quote: 





> Maybe scientists' brains are wired differently and part of that wiring affects their hearing?


 
  If there is some difference in wiring I'd assume it's audiophile brains, because they're usually the ones obsessed about stuff like break-in, expensive cables, wires, DACs, amps, all kinds of tweaks aka voodoo etc.. They're also usually the ones hearing stuff that's not there, as has been shown many times in the past with listening tests, measurements or plain logic.


----------



## Happy Camper

. Edited forward.


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Let me quote the founder of Stereophile:
> 
> 
> If there is some difference in wiring I'd assume it's audiophile brains, because they're usually the ones obsessed about stuff like break-in, expensive cables, wires, DACs, amps, all kinds of tweaks aka voodoo etc.. They're also usually the ones hearing stuff that's not there, as has been shown many times in the past with listening tests, measurements or plain logic.


 
   
  OK, but how is that relavent to what I wrote?


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





xnor said:


> If there is some difference in wiring I'd assume it's audiophile brains, because they're usually the ones obsessed about stuff like break-in, expensive cables, wires, DACs, amps, all kinds of tweaks aka voodoo etc.. They're also usually the ones hearing stuff that's not there, as has been shown many times in the past with listening tests, measurements or plain logic.


 
   
  But I'm not obsessed. Nor am I obsessed in proving to you what my ears already tell me. If you can't hear it, you can't hear it. That must be a tad annoying for you, granted, but don't blame me for the ears you were born with. I can't beat Bolt in the 100ms. I'm not going to hate him for that, though, or ask him to scientifically prove why he and I are different.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> OK, but how is that relavent to what I wrote?


 
  It's relevant in that you should prove it to yourself first (before trying to prove something possibly untrue to others) being honest to yourself and submitting to the basic honesty controls mentioned above.
   
  Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> But I'm not obsessed.


 
  I'll let readers decide:
  Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> I've experienced a change in the sound of all my headphones and amps during their "burn-in" period. *I loathe having to burn in audio equipment* and if I thought it was unnecessary or likely to help to a degree that I was barely able to hear then I just wouldn't bother. *Having to leave my cans and amps playing for hundreds of hours by themselves whilst I sleep is a PITA and hardly an enjoyable part of this hobby.* However, after around 300 hours of play I can usually hear a discernable difference in my equipment and usually for the better and to such an extent that I un(graciously) put myself through the rigmarole to try to speed up that process.


 
   
  IIRC, there are entire threads about where to best put headphones during burn-in because of the annoying noise, or what signals to best use, at what level, duration, how long and many breaks .. and so on and on. If this isn't obsession I don't know what is. And that's just one of the many points I mentioned audiophiles obsess about.
   
   
  Quote: 





> Nor am I obsessed in proving to you what my ears already tell me. If you can't hear it, you can't hear it. That must be a tad annoying for you, granted, but don't blame me for the ears you were born with. I can't beat Bolt in the 100ms. I'm not going to hate him for that, though, or ask him to scientifically prove why he and I are different.


 
  No, I can for example hear differences over time even if I just switch from my current headphone to my old one. (old as in having played music for hundreds of hours) That doesn't mean my old headphones are constantly changing. What's changing is me, i.e. getting accustomed to the different sound signature.
  I also have my hearing checked regularly and I've always done well in listening tests.
   
  The only thing that's annoying is that you either didn't read #197 or think you're somehow superhuman and immune to illusions, bias, cognitive dissonance etc.
   
  The difference between you and Bolt is that he can prove scientifically what he achieved. His time was taken with a device called stopwatch. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Sorry.
  I'm not hating anyone, but you assuming me hating you for your supposedly above-average, uninfluenceable by stuff mentioned above hearing is just sad.


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





xnor said:


> It's relevant in that you should prove it to yourself first (before trying to prove something possibly untrue to others) being honest to yourself and submitting to the basic honesty controls mentioned above.
> 
> I'll let readers decide:
> 
> ...


 
   
  But I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. I'm simply telling you my experience. Add it to your list of stats and use it how you will.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> But I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. I'm simply telling you my experience. Add it to your list of stats and use it how you will.


 
  Fine with that.
   
  anecdoteCount++;
   
  Sorry, this probably just makes sense to programmers.


----------



## Happy Camper

mezzo said:


> I haven't read through the entire thread but is electronic burn-in a myth? Like amplifier burn-in? Some dealers say you should run them in for best performance. Is that BS or is there some merit to doing this?




The Idling Process

If a Black Gate capacitor mounted on an electronic device is actuated, a signal current flows into it and the electrodes are gradually activated, reducing non-linear distortion and phase distortion substantially while improving the efficiency of power transfer efficiency.

The time required for this process varies widely with the capacity, voltage and signal level a total of about 30 hours is the standard level.

Once this process of idling is completed. The effect continues as long as the capacitor Is kept at the same place and the operating environment does not undergo a substantial change *The effect of idling has been proved with all types of electronic equipment - analogue, digital, high-frequency and other devices.*

It must be noted that idling is different from ageing, which applies a direct current voltage without giving signals.
http://www.octave-electronics.com/Parts/cap/bg_tech.shtml

This was quoted from the link attached.


----------



## mikeaj

Capacitors and some other components can drift a bit in values and unintended properties over time, but most designs shouldn't be hypersensitive to the changes and use parts especially susceptible in key locations. Depends. But yeah, for vintage gear... It's usually not something that's desired in electronics, but I guess you might call it burn in?
   
  By the way, -174 dB distortion as opposed to -100 dB across one component probably not being directly used in the signal path is a rather curious thing to care about.
   
  Anyway, look at the magnitude of effects and go from there.
   
   


xnor said:


> Fine with that.
> 
> anecdoteCount++;
> 
> Sorry, this probably just makes sense to programmers.


 
   
  Personally, I'm an underscore guy.


----------



## xnor

A matter of convention and taste, really.
   
   
  Back on topic, I'm really wondering if the break-in time will be increased further again once we have more tests that show that not much is going on even after 300 hours. Maybe to three weeks or doubling to 600 hours?
  I mean it started with a couple of minutes, then a few hours, then we had people saying you need a day, then two, then three, then the infamous 100 hours, then a week and now we're somewhere around the ridiculous and what seems to be a completely arbitrary 300 hours or close to two weeks.
   
  This alone should make people wary.
   
  The longer someone waits, the more likely it is that he/she will fail recalling the initial sound signature precisely. Especially considering that auditory memory starts to decay after a couple of seconds.


----------



## Happy Camper

The size of capacitor and it's function will determine the time as stated. Be it a signal cap or power cap. Point is there is a burn in that has been identified by the manufacturer of the capacitor and it has a direct effect on the sound in non-linear and phase distortion. That has an impact on soundstage (phase) and background noise. The power caps will have an effect on the bass impact. All three are comments people mention when "claiming" to hear a change in their components and all for the better. It was recommended that Black Gate power caps needed 200 hrs or more for proper performance.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





xnor said:


> This alone should make people wary.
> 
> The longer someone waits, the more likely it is that he/she will fail recalling the initial sound signature precisely. Especially considering that auditory memory starts to decay after a couple of seconds.


 
   
  That's the bit I don't get either.  How do they actually compare when we know that our senses are limited to such a short time period of accurate auditory memory.
   
  I don't discount there is something happening (especially after Tyll's tests on the K701) - but the thought that the differences are:
   - audibly distinguishable after an x hour gap
   - night and day (as some die hard burn-in believers state)
  has me very puzzled to say the least.
   
  I know that headphone position on the head/ears, and also pad changes (ie wear/compression) can make a very large and audible difference.  So why is it that some people will swear by the concept of burn-in making the biggest changes, but discount the physical changes that we know actually do make a difference?
   
  I just wish more people were open to questioning what could be happening (like Tyll's tests) - neither denying outright, nor accepting blindly - but actually searching for the actual reason for any sonic changes.


----------



## ThinkAwesome

Why doesn't someone with a HATS make a bet. 
  1. Name a headphone
  2. Name a duration for supposed day and night burn in difference
  3. Measurements before, measurements after burn in
  4. If day and night person gets headphone free
  5. If not person pays 2x price
   
  Like I'd do that if I had a HATS. They seem to be pretty expensive devices though. 
   
  Assuming that pro-burn in audiophiles are willing to put money where their mouth is, it would be a source of income (since I would bet that the vast majority of supposedly day and night after burn in headphones like the K701s aren't), and possibly identify headphones that do benefit from burn in if they exist.


----------



## mikeaj

You don't even need much of a simulator—just something that's reasonably consistent (easier said than done).
   
  Now, people will come in: 10,000 hours. Or actually, they'll claim you're not measuring the right thing or that the differences cannot be seen by the measurements taken.


----------



## ThinkAwesome

That is why day and night, which some people claim. How can a day and night difference _not_ be observed in a simulator. 
   
  Also, there are people that say day and night difference at 10k hr, but a lot of people claim stuff in the 100-500 range a lot more often. 
   
  I figure a simulator is good, because that is what all the reputable sites use if I'm not mistaken. If it was truly a day and night difference, you could probably just use a regular old microphone lol.


----------



## xnor

@Brooko: To add to that, some people here made it look like questioning Tyll's test(s) is like blasphemy. In reality, scientists are happy to prove their peers wrong and get proven wrong by others. That's how they actually further their field of study.
  There's nothing more gratifying that your peers trying to dissect and pick apart your experiments and fail. But even if they succeed it's a win because it means you can correct mistakes you've made.
  Sometimes you gotta go back to the drawing board and start anew, but that's better than insisting on some wrong BS.
   
  It's the mindset that all scientists have agendas, are in on a huge conspiracy, incapable of objectivity etc. that is really (self-) damaging. Using a computer to post anti-science statements over the Internet really blows my mind. I wouldn't be surprised if such behavior created black holes in, well you can guess where.
   
   
  I have the utmost respect for Tyll and what he's doing. Problem with switching between two headphones is that they very, very likely happen to measure differently from the very beginning. A scientific control would have shown that, or at least doing measurements directly after unboxing.
  You could use DSP to correct for those differences, or try to find two well-matching pairs.
   
  Of course all of that means more work, effort, cost ... and who would want to give money to researchers when you can spend it on fancy cables?


----------



## Brooko

Actually the one test (and I know it wouldn't be foolproof - because of the potential for pad compression) would be to use Tyll's set-up on one pair of brand new k/Q701's.  Do the test exactly as he did - but measure at the beginning, and at the end and compare the two measurements.  BUT - at the very beginning - play and record (on the dummy head) 2-3 actual music tracks, and then repeat after 300 hours.  Post the tracks - and invite ABX's (with logs etc).
   
  Assuming that Tyll wouldn't mind having his chamber tied up for a week - there would be no reason to move the headphones - and because you're comparing one headphone from start to finish - you won't be worried about manufacturing variance in a single pair.
   
  There would still be the question of the pads settling / compression I guess.
   
  If no big variation from start to finish, and more importantly if no-one could blind abx the samples - then it would go at least part way to making an assumption regarding burn-in and audibility.  Of course, then you'd need to retest with another pair and see if results similar.
   
  I know there is probably a huge flaw in my logic somewhere - but would this approach be on the right track?


----------



## xnor

If you go the measurement route then yes, that's the way to go. Some guys would complain about the microphone destroying all the differences and not capturing the supernatural realm of sound wave transmission and such stuff, but yeah it could work. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I know you know this, but let me repeat it anyway. He already did pre/post measurements but with his test signals. The differences imo did not even remotely come close to what people described as day/night differences after 100 h with the same headphone, and his test was even a bit longer, 125 h iirc.


----------



## nanaholic

thinkawesome said:


> Why doesn't someone with a HATS make a bet.
> 1. Name a headphone
> 2. Name a duration for supposed day and night burn in difference
> 3. Measurements before, measurements after burn in
> ...



 
 It's not feasible when you have audiophiles who insist that their ears are the reality rather than what the measurements says.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> Point is there is a burn in that has been identified by the manufacturer of the capacitor and *it has a direct effect on the sound* in non-linear and phase distortion.


 
   
  Not necessarily, even if the claimed burn-in is true (note that it is only identified for that particular type of capacitor by the manufacturer). If the effects are inaudible already before the "burn-in", like they probably are in a reasonably designed circuit, then reducing them by a factor of even 10, 100, or 1000 will not actually improve the sound.
   
  Quote: 





happy camper said:


> That has an impact on soundstage (phase) and background noise.


 
   
  In headphone electronics, electrolytic capacitors that are in the audio path are normally only used for DC blocking (preferably not on the headphone output, so typically only in high impedance circuits), and are unlikely to affect the sound stage or background noise.
   
  Quote:  





> The power caps will have an effect on the bass impact.


 
   
  Not unless they are too small, and at high volume cause the bass to clip at a lower voltage.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Not necessarily, even if the claimed burn-in is true (note that it is only identified for that particular type of capacitor by the manufacturer). If the effects are inaudible already before the "burn-in", like they probably are in a reasonably designed circuit, then reducing them by a factor of even 10, 100, or 1000 will not actually improve the sound.
> 
> 
> In headphone electronics, electrolytic capacitors that are in the audio path are normally only used for DC blocking (preferably not on the headphone output, so typically only in high impedance circuits), and are unlikely to affect the sound stage or background noise.
> ...


 
  Spot-on, +1.  
   
  BTW, how do they measure -170dB distortion products?


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





brooko said:


> That's the bit I don't get either.  How do they actually compare when we know that our senses are limited to such a short time period of accurate auditory memory.
> 
> I don't discount there is something happening (especially after Tyll's tests on the K701) - but the thought that the differences are:
> - audibly distinguishable after an x hour gap
> ...


 
   
  I don't personally discount any of physical changes that make an impact. Different ear pads, drive cups, cables can and will all have an audible impact. For me, what seems to happen on all my rigs is the sound becomes smoother. The rig will start out detailed but a little harsh. Over the course of time it seems to "settle down" and the sounds seems to morph into something a little more likening a caress. The notes are delivered with a more silky signature, rather than the harshness of the new kit. That's why to me there's such a difference which is easily memorable. If you just use the kit and let it burn in very gradually, say 2 hours a day of listening, it's going to take 6 months before you've reached 300 hours. If you just let it ride night and day whilst you're working and sleeping it will take around 15 days, so it's obviously far more noticeable if done that way. 
   
  With regard to adding other bits to the system, I now know what I like and what I've found to work. When ordering my last set of Grados I ordered wooden cups and HD414 pads at the same time. With those both present during the burn in process they can effectively be eliminated from the equation of what is changing the sound signal since they are there from the start.


----------



## Brooko

Ahhhh - but that's what I was trying to get at.
   
  Over time - and even between short periods - several things can happen ........
   

 The headphones are slightly differently sitting on your head.
 The pads themselves in the slightly altered position may be sealing a little better - and definitely over time, I personally find any pad with each subsequent use slowly conforms to your personal head shape.
 Probably most importantly - each time you use the new headphone, your brain very slightly gets used to it (adjusts).  I know it took me a while to get used to my 325is when I had them - but after wearing them for half an hour and switching to something like an HD600 - I'd immediately think the HD600 was slow and dull.  Leave me with the HD600 for a half hour or so and switch to the 325i - and the Grados were bright and harsh.  The brain is an incredible equaliser!
   
  Combine the 3 above - and add the empirical data from people like Tyll who have actually physically measured how small any changes are - and you start to see a pattern forming.
   
  Is actual head-phone or gear burn-in audible based on the limited available empirical tests - not really sure (needs further work)
  Is pad position or physical change (seal etc) audible - yep, can say that 100%
  Can we discount psychoacoustic adjustment - nope, we're all human
   
  From the above - looking at it completely clinically, you can understand why some of us remain sceptical .........
   
  And wingtsun - I do respect your view, and understand you may well be "hearing changes".  All I'm trying to suggest is keeping a very open mind on what those changes could be until we have more proof.  I would be the first to admit I was wrong if anyone can prove it exists - but in my personal opinion it's less likely to be actual headphone burn-in, and more likely to be one or all of the factors I listed above.
   
  Either way though - as long as we continue to get maximum enjoyment from the music - that's all that really matters


----------



## Lorspeaker

Burn in....burning.....burnt down....nature at its most predictable....over time.


----------



## wingtsun

Quote: 





brooko said:


> Ahhhh - but that's what I was trying to get at.
> 
> Over time - and even between short periods - several things can happen ........
> 
> ...


 
   
  Yes, agree, the pads will make a difference over time but I'm not sure that would help with harshness. If anything, as the drivers become closer to your ears the harshness would be more noticeable? Add to that that in the first 300 hours I probably get time to actually listen to music for just 6-7 hours max and I wonder if the pads would have had much chance to really mould to my head?
   
  I'm currently "burning in" both new Grados and a new Predator amp. As such I can't be sure which component is settling down or changing the sound. Could be the amp, could be the headphones, could be both. A change of cable at one point brought a significant difference.. I just burn and juggle until I'm happy with what I hear.
   
  Someone earlier commented of the different lengths that are reported with burn in. That's always been the same. HD650s were reported to take a good 50 hours. Most of Ray Samuels' amps are reported to take anywhere from 300 to 1200 hours. That was the same 10 years ago as it is now. An SR71 I had took around 300 hours which is why I expect this Predator to take around the same time, though it could be totally different. One review I read stated 1200 hours.
   
  Could it be my brain equalising? Possibly but I'm not inclined to believe that my brain is solely responsible.


----------



## xnor

Drivers closer to the ears can cause less leakage and therefore stronger bass and low mids, but also shift resonant frequencies which could be considered harsh, especially when you're not used to them.


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





wingtsun said:


> Yes, agree, the pads will make a difference over time but I'm not sure that would help with harshness. If anything, as the drivers become closer to your ears the harshness would be more noticeable? Add to that that in the first 300 hours I probably get time to actually listen to music for just 6-7 hours max and I wonder if the pads would have had much chance to really mould to my head?


 
   
  There's some data on the HD 650s. The older pads bring down the treble relative to other frequencies, actually. See the bottom two graphs here:
http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/04/introduction-it-is-generally-known-that.html
   
   
  But yes, I'm not really too convinced by pads shifting so much in 6-7 hours of head time. In your case, either there's something significantly going on different about the headphones (not impossible but I don't really buy that either, especially for dynamic driver types for which we have some data points) or yet again it is shown that people get used to sounds and A/B comparisons across days are really difficult to make accurately.


----------



## Maxx134

I agree with most all the points stated in this thread..
Also I would say the brain itself is a filter, so even a placibo would definitely bias it..

BUT..
I also know for a fact burn in is real!
I was "on the fence" about this issue untill..
I had three es7 at same time,
two esw9 at same time,
2 sets of es10 drivers when I restored it.

So based not in hearsay, but from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I can conclude to MYSELF, that burn in MOST ASSUREDLY EXISTS! 
 ha.


----------



## migasson

Now this may not be the most scientific of methods, but has anyone tried this? get a brand of 'phone that has tight QC, get two pairs, "burn" one in. Listen to both blind, (a friend will mark which one is which) and see if you hear the difference.....


----------



## ferday

Quote: 





migasson said:


> Now this may not be the most scientific of methods, but has anyone tried this? get a brand of 'phone that has tight QC, get two pairs, "burn" one in. Listen to both blind, (a friend will mark which one is which) and see if you hear the difference.....


 
   
been done.  it's a very, very hard test to actually do since all headphones (even those with 'tight' QC) will have very slightly different FR


----------



## xnor

That's why you need a control and DBT.


----------



## Yazen

Quote: 





maxx134 said:


> I agree with most all the points stated in this thread..
> Also I would say the brain itself is a filter, so even a placibo would definitely bias it..
> 
> BUT..
> ...


 
  I've noticed the burn in effect with several of my headphones.  Other times I am trying too hard to hear differences, which is a brain in sort of effect for me.
   
  Not a single person has tried to test this yet?  Its not too hard really:
   
  0 - Find isolated room, and in an area where headphone or cable will not receive interference
  1 - Place mannequin
  2 - Install measuring apparatus
  3 - Place headphone on mannequin
  4 - Take baseline readings
  5 - Allow headphone to burn in
  6 - Take secondary readings
  7 - Compare
   
  Tedious, but at least we can have some sort of closure and end this thread!  It goes without saying headphones will sound different after thousands of hours..


----------



## xnor

That's also been done. Check innerfidelity.


----------



## Yazen

Quote: 





xnor said:


> That's also been done. Check innerfidelity.


 
  Really?  I only saw after a long (hundreds of hours) test


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





yazen said:


> I've noticed the burn in effect with several of my headphones.  Other times I am trying too hard to hear differences, which is a brain in sort of effect for me.
> 
> Not a single person has tried to test this yet?  Its not too hard really:
> 
> ...


 
   
  Here - 4 articles from Innerfidelity.  Tyll did the tests.  Listed them from oldest to newest.  Last one is probably the one you definitely want to read - especially the conclusion on page 4:
   

 http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break
 http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/break-part-deux
 http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/testing-audibility-break-effects
 http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/measurement-and-audibility-headphone-break (read this one!)


----------



## Yazen

Quote: 





brooko said:


> Here - 4 articles from Innerfidelity.  Tyll did the tests.  Listed them from oldest to newest.  Last one is probably the one you definitely want to read - especially the conclusion on page 4:
> 
> 
> http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break
> ...


 
  Thanks!  Seems fairly conclusive to me.
   
  Why isn't this thread closed yet?  XD


----------



## Mambosenior

Quote:  





> Why isn't this thread closed yet?  XD


 
   
  (There's still the belly-button lint that needs to be analyzed, I guess.)
   
  "Just because the measured data of headphone break-in may be *vanishingly small* does not mean *it can't be sensed*." Perhaps the absolute best comment of all four articles. Bravo! (and) Thank you!


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





mambosenior said:


> (There's still the belly-button lint that needs to be analyzed, I guess.)
> 
> "Just because the measured data of headphone break-in may be *vanishingly small* does not mean *it can't be sensed*." Perhaps the absolute best comment of all four articles. Bravo! (and) Thank you!


 
   
  Personally - I liked these two better .......
   


> 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.


 
   
  and .....
   
   


> If they sound lousy out of the box, but they start sounding a lot better as you listen to them over time, it's your amazingly versatile brain figuring out how to cope with the world.
> The miracle is in your head ... not in the headphones.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





yazen said:


> Thanks!  Seems fairly conclusive to me.


 
  That K701 owners are wrong about the burn-in changes they report? Sure, in that case I'd agree, but this thread has a more general tone.
   
  Of course showing this for one particular model made the people shouting: "But what about headphone X? I heard it, I must be right. You didn't prove anything!"


----------



## Mambosenior

The statement I quoted does imply that the tests showed SOME change took place.

Personally, I have never bought into the burn-in procedure and do believe that one's initial take on a headphone is how it will be. I used Tyll's quote regarding "vanishingly small" changes because it DOES establish that there WAS change. Whether I or anyone else can hear this atomic-level change, it is still there. 

Those that believe they hear it, well, congratulations! Frankly, I wish I had senses that worked at that level.


----------



## Mambosenior

Sorry, I forgot.
   
  Couldn't the wear over time on the "other" parts of the headphone manifest itself as "change?" It doesn't seem logical that repeated on-off wearing sequences wouldn't lead to materials aging/adapting and contributing to insignificant BUT identifiable changes to some users. Are there tests for how these other factors impact headphone performance over time? To measure just the transducer element appears to ignore so many other things that make up a headphone.


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





mambosenior said:


> Sorry, I forgot.
> 
> Couldn't the wear over time on the "other" parts of the headphone manifest itself as "change?" It doesn't seem logical that repeated on-off wearing sequences wouldn't lead to materials aging/adapting and contributing to insignificant BUT identifiable changes to some users. Are there tests for how these other factors impact headphone performance over time? To measure just the transducer element appears to ignore so many other things that make up a headphone.


 
   
  Like pads, headband, other parts? Yeah, over the long haul these actually make some kind of difference that we shouldn't at all dismiss.
   
  See bottom here, for example:
http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/04/introduction-it-is-generally-known-that.html
   
  When people talk about burn in, they're talking about the transducers though. You need to be aware of the other factors, anyhow.


----------



## Yazen

Quote: 





mambosenior said:


> The statement I quoted does imply that the tests showed SOME change took place.
> 
> Personally, I have never bought into the burn-in procedure and do believe that one's initial take on a headphone is how it will be. I used Tyll's quote regarding "vanishingly small" changes because it DOES establish that there WAS change. Whether I or anyone else can hear this atomic-level change, it is still there.
> 
> Those that believe they hear it, well, congratulations! Frankly, I wish I had senses that worked at that level.


 
   
  Quote: 





mambosenior said:


> Sorry, I forgot.
> 
> Couldn't the wear over time on the "other" parts of the headphone manifest itself as "change?" It doesn't seem logical that repeated on-off wearing sequences wouldn't lead to materials aging/adapting and contributing to insignificant BUT identifiable changes to some users. Are there tests for how these other factors impact headphone performance over time? To measure just the transducer element appears to ignore so many other things that make up a headphone.


 
  Why bother?  If the headphone has changed over a period of 300 hours, this proves "Burn in".  Whether or not someone can hear this change requires a completely different test yes?
   
  I believe I posted this months ago:  I don't side strong with the Burn-in folk.  
   
  When I read burn in threads, I try to count how many sheep are going to hear the EXACT same change.  You might hear a difference, after trying really hard


----------



## migasson

Has anyone bought a pair of 'phones, listened to them for an hour, stopped listening, "burned" them in for say 200 hours, then put them back on and heard the difference? I personally don't have the patience!!


----------



## ferday

Quote: 





migasson said:


> Has anyone bought a pair of 'phones, listened to them for an hour, stopped listening, "burned" them in for say 200 hours, then put them back on and heard the difference? I personally don't have the patience!!


 
  that's not a test of anything
   
  no one that has ever lived, or ever will live, has an audible memory of 200 hours!


----------



## foreign

migasson said:


> Has anyone bought a pair of 'phones, listened to them for an hour, stopped listening, "burned" them in for say 200 hours, then put them back on and heard the difference? I personally don't have the patience!!



Yes I have bought a pair oh headphones for someone they didn't like the initial sound took it home used it for a couple weeks. Gave it back to them and they then said wow did you swap it for a different headphone. This doesn't prove anything though it could have just been the pads softening up after I used them. Or my friend couldn't remember the sound few weeks ago or a different music track which suited the cans better than the previous audition. To many variables lol, the only thing that changed was her opinion from not liking them to a big wow these sound awesome. She isn't an audiophile and she used to have a cheap set of cans so I thought I would introduce her to Senns. Mind you she listens to music almost all the time now with the new cans.


----------



## krismusic

I am sure that there is no shortage of anecdotal "evidence" but. I was hugely disappointed with my IE8's when I first heard them. Put them in a drawer with music playing through them. Tried them again and was much happier with them. I don't like to subscribe to audio mysticism but at least this "myth" doesn't cost anything and so does no harm.


----------



## castleofargh

I guess the reason why industries didn't invest billions of $ to answer that question is: what's the point?
  if there is no burn in, then there is none.
  if there is, well you can't help it anyway.
   
  my incentive on this:
   if it was out in the cold or super hot sun, wait and give it time to get to ambient temperature.
  it it was never used or not used in a long time, let it play 10mn alone.
   
   
  but 400hours or whatever that's not burn in, that's aging.


----------



## krismusic

If People, including me, find that after "burn in" they are happier with their headphones then that's a good thing surely. Mind you. It occurred to me that I have never heard of anyone saying "I loved my headphones unti they burned in"!


----------



## jaddie

krismusic said:


> If People, including me, find that after "burn in" they are happier with their headphones then that's a good thing surely. Mind you. It occurred to me that I have never heard of anyone saying "I loved my headphones unti they burned in"!



You have now. I have a set of headphones that have been burned in for hundreds of hours. And I don't like them nearly as well as when they were brand new. Still great phones, still like them, but they aren't knocking me over anymore.

Again, anecdotal, no control, completely subjective opinion, so ignore it, but I'm not making it up either.


----------



## mikeaj

Nah, when the experience turns sour, it's because you don't really like the sound after all.
   
  When the experience improves—now _that's_ burn in!


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Nah, when the experience turns sour, it's because you don't really like the sound after all.
> 
> When the experience improves—now _that's_ burn in!


 






 ...only because I couldn't find a "knee slap" emoticon.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> You have now. I have a set of headphones that have been burned in for hundreds of hours. And I don't like them nearly as well as when they were brand new. Still great phones, still like them, but they aren't knocking me over anymore.


 

   
  Sorry, but this was too hard to resist.


----------



## mjrussell91

If burn in were a thing, I feel that the engineers designing audio products would design them to be optimal once they have reached the 'burnt in' stage. Therefore to sell the best sounding product, it would need to pre-burned in by the manufacturer to sound as it was intended. And yet, you don't see anyone doing this. Maybe it's because it's uneconomical, or because consumers relish the opportunity to burn in their expensive new toy themselves (because clearly, the first thing you want to listen to on your new cans is sine wave sweeps and pink noise).
   
  When I first burnt in a pair of headphones I didn't really notice a different until I started listening to them for long periods as opposed to just leaving them run overnight. And in retrospect the change I perceived was more than likely placebo/grounding (in which I expected there to be a change, and therefore experienced that change), implying that the change was psychosomatic. And even then the change was subtle, more a slight shift in balance of bass and treble. Perception is a funny thing...


----------



## migasson

@ferday....Nope. Not what I'm saying. My suggestion would involve the burn-in whilst not listening.. i.e. continuously play tracks over 2 weeks, then come back with fresh ears. Apologies if that wasn't clear.


----------



## upstateguy

I don't believe in burn in.
   
  But..........
   
  My 650s were muddy when I first got them and they are not any longer.
   
  Nothing seemed to happen to my 701s.
   
  My '03 880s, on the bright side when I got them, developed a marvelous treble.
   
  This is an over simplification,  but out of the box, my T-1s sounded like 650s when I first got them and became much more 880 like in a short period of time. (there's an old post somewhere about this)
   
  Go figure !!!!


----------



## xnor

Many K701/Q701 owners would disagree vehemently with you, at least before they saw Tyll's measurements.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Many K701/Q701 owners would disagree vehemently with you, at least before they saw Tyll's measurements.


 
   
  I know, but all I can report is a subjective experience regarding a phenomena I don't believe in.


----------



## ferday

Quote: 





migasson said:


> @ferday....Nope. Not what I'm saying. My suggestion would involve the burn-in whilst not listening.. i.e. continuously play tracks over 2 weeks, then come back with fresh ears. Apologies if that wasn't clear.


 
   
  doesn't change my point.  no one is capable of remembering the sound nearly any amount of hours later, much less hundreds.  audio memory is short, when you came back after all those hours the best you could do is compare notes from before....which may be personally meaningful but has zero application to "sound science"
   
  tyall tried to get around this by using 2 sets of cans, with one broken in and the other not.  but...were they hearing "burn in" or just slight FR/channel balance/etc differences between the cans?  QC can be good but can't be perfect!


----------



## Yazen

The experience is subjective, but change has occurred.


----------



## xnor

At the risk of repeating myself: placement changes, even if just a few millimeters, will cause different sound.
   
  On some headphones the effect is only at high frequencies, on other's it can cause even substantial differences at bass frequencies.
   
  I believe this not only to be a source of hearing "differences" attributed to break-in, but also sometimes wildly varying impressions by different people. Some get a good seal, others do not and say the headphone is bass light, etc.


----------



## UmustBKidn

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> I don't believe in burn in.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Agreed, for everything but tubes. As previously posted, I believe burn-in is quite real for tubes. I spent nearly 15 years of my life making vacuum tubes, and yes, we spent time burning them in. That's a part of the manufacturing process for those devices.
   
  Solid state? No. Solid state stuff (amps, dacs) either works or it doesn't, because something got whacked during manufacture or assembly. There is no burn in for solid state devices.
   
  Headphones? Well now, that is a curious matter. They are indeed mechanical devices with moving parts. Any device with moving parts can "wear" as a part of it's normal life. Like the engine in a car for example. If the "wear" in a headphone can alter it's sound quality, well, then you might hear a slight difference over time.
   
  After spending some time recently swapping around 2 different amps, 2 dacs, and 2 headphones for an informal review in another thread, I witnessed some unexpected changes in sound quality, in the same pieces of gear, which I could not attribute to the "wear" of any device or any sort of burn in. The more I play around with this stuff, the more I tend to believe there is something in our brains, our ears, our perceptions of sound quality, that has nothing at all to do with the devices themselves. I am both amazed and disappointed, because in the end one of my favorite audio setups sounded worse (and one sounded better). The more expensive one sounded worse, lol, and the cheaper one sounded better. Had I not gone futzing around with the setups, I probably would have been blissfully ignorant... now, I want to go shopping for new gear hahaha.
   
  I guess some people think these perceived changes are burn in... perhaps because it is a convenient way to describe a change they heard. But it isn't burn in, per se.


----------



## milosz

I measured more low frequency output from a pair of AKG K701's that I had, level came up about 3~4 dB in the area around 100 Hz, where before there had been something of a dip between about 200 and 80 Hz, it came up in level closer to midband level, after about 80~120 hours of playing loud music through them.  I don't think my measuring set-up is susceptible to placebo effect.
   
  By the way, it's a bit inaccurate to say "real or placebo" -  placebo effect is a REAL effect.  A real _mental_ effect. It's not OBJECTIVE but it's real.  People's minds are effected by placebo, their perception is changed.  People with REAL pain can often be given some relief if they are given tablets that they are told will help the pain, even if the tablets contain only sugar.  While it's true that the sugar has no biological analgesic effect on pain nerves, pain (like sound) is perceived in the BRAIN and placebo  can effect what the brain is doing.
   
  But anyway, I know what was meant by the title of the thread, and that's why in my post I mention an_ objective measurement, _not a subjective impression or opinion.
   
  I have not seen such a significant change in any other headphone over time.  The AKG 701's must have a driver suspension that needs some flexing to soften it a bit before it reaches it's final performance.
   
  I've experienced a similar effect with certain (speaker) woofers and subwoofers. The suspension of some drivers seems to "loosen up" after a period of being driven fairly hard as a break-in procedure.
   
  I've seen tube measurements showing that plate curves, overall gain and so on can change a little with tube aging, but these changes tend be rather slow. And of course, I've experienced tubes that have died over a period of time, too- some Chinese 6H2's I had in an integrated amp slowly dropped in gain as they aged, and after a year I had to replace them. But I don't think of that as "break in."


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





milosz said:


> I don't think my measuring set-up is susceptible to placebo effect.


 
   
  It may be susceptible to random variation due to factors like different placement/seal/etc., though.


----------



## noxa

I always listen to my headphone straight out of the box for a couple of hours then burn them in for a week without listening again and in almost all cases have noticed a difference, by doing it this way i eliminate the brain burn in theory. I definately believe in it because i've expierienced it too many times to be a coincidence. Saying that i said changes not always improvement like is always suggested.


----------



## audionewbi

For dynamic driver it helps but long term it is really your ears getting used to the sound. There is way to test this, use one pair of headphone for a week and than one day immediately change to something else and than after a while got back to the first one again .


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





noxa said:


> I always listen to my headphone straight out of the box for a couple of hours then burn them in for a week without listening again and in almost all cases have noticed a difference, by doing it this way i eliminate the brain burn in theory.


 
   
  You do not eliminate expectation bias, however. Also, I may be wrong, but I think it is possible that the brain continues to "learn" the sound for a while even after the initial few hours of listening.


----------



## jaddie

stv014 said:


> I may be wrong, but I think it is possible that the brain continues to "learn" the sound for a while even after the initial few hours of listening.



I'd say your're right. Over the course of months you can acclimate to a surprising range.


----------



## noxa

stv014 said:


> You do not eliminate expectation bias, however. Also, I may be wrong, but I think it is possible that the brain continues to "learn" the sound for a while even after the initial few hours of listening.




Definately agree with you there though, the power of expectation is certainly a powerful variable.


----------



## samu

This is actually the first time I know about 'burn-in' terms. But I guess it might be both about our ears adaptability or might be about the actual several changing in our headphones as well, not so sure which.
   
  I was using a cheap in-ear earphones. Philips SH*** (I forgot the type) I used it for almost a year. I liked the detail but one day it sink in water and then it hurt my ear every each time it moving or dangling. So then sadly I have to look for another earphone. I choose Nokia WH-920 Monster which is almost 2 times expensive so I expect more. My first impression is that I compared it with my Philips SH series and I at the time I conclude that it's not that valuable compare with the price. But then time after time I use it, my ears begin to catch any extra detail from the WH-920. I realized that this earphone have a complex detail in the mid-range and soft moderate bass. For reference, my Philips SH was had a tubby bass so I can't listen to music for too long but a have a really nice detail in the high range. Now I love my Nokia WH-920 Monster cause it's detail in the mid-range and moderate smooth bass.
   
  But sometimes I also realized that when you have an old headphones (for half a year or more) and you leave it for some period of time, when you use it the first time after long time, you might hear a better smooth and strong bass, crisy treble. I don't know if it just my delusional or not.


----------



## xnor

No it's perfectly normal to get used to your headphone. Even if objectively it is not as accurate you'll probably prefer it to a new, better one, at least in the beginning.
   
  Unless you have a reference about everything how a headphone sounds is subjective and relative.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Wen I was a child and into my teens, I would always listen to the stereo with the tone controls cranked all the way up. When I was 15 or so, I encountered my first "audiophile" who told me of the evils of tone controls. That they should be zeroed out. So I go home and zero out the tone controls on my stereo. It sounded like absolute crap. Like someone had put wet mattresses over my speakers. But I succumbed to peer pressure and kept them zeroed out.

And over time (about a week or two), things weren't sounding so bad. In fact they started sounding pretty good. Instead of bursts of noise, cymbals sticks drumsticks hitting cymbals. And I started noticing all sorts of other details in the music.

Of course nothing in my stereo was burning in. Rather it was my brain acclimating to a new pattern. And that's something that the brain is really good at, patterns. And if presented with a particular pattern over a period of time, it starts carving out a little rut for itself from that pattern. Change the pattern and things get disrupted. But keep that next pattern going, and it will start to wear a new rut for that pattern.

Another example, sometimes when I look into the mirror on our medicine cabinet door, I'll feel a little off balance. This concerned me a bit when I first noticed it, but I found what was causing it was the medicine cabinet's door being slightly ajar. The pattern I normally saw in the mirror was changed only very slightly. But it was enough that it disrupted the rut my brain had worn itself into from the more consistent pattern.

People keep saying "trust your ears," but leave out the fact there is a human brain attached to those ears and the human brain is a funny thing.

se


----------



## ferday

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> People keep saying "trust your ears," but leave out the fact there is a human brain attached to those ears........


 
   
   
  right on, great quote!


----------



## Solshock

Quote: 





mohawkus said:


> Yes, the Ultrasone PRO2900... The audio memory explanation doesn't cover that one either.(And I do agree with you on that point that it makes listening for such things difficult) The change in bass quantity was instantaneous hence why many of us thought that something broke. And the headphone actually did sound better before burn-in as the already overdone highs were even more noticeable with the bass quantity lessened.
> 
> Generally every headphone that I've owned, save my 20+ yr old SR-5s which I got last year, has sounded either grainy or veiled out of the box. Half of them I sold off before they would have gotten a chance to burn-in; the other half I stopped noticing it sometime during the first two months of ownership. The difference that I perceived was small in all cases so I remained skeptical that the change was in the headphones. Only the Ultrasones took on a different tonal balance through burn-in. The rest of them, assuming they changed at all, just became less grainy/veiled/boomy/not-good
> 
> And to be honest I was not expecting a change with any of my headphones, especially my Grado SR-80s which I got before I had ever discovered head-fi, burn in, and all that. Approximately 100 hours in I remember thinking to myself "these sound better... no that couldn't be? Could it?"


 

 A little off topic, but how do you like those SR-5s?


----------



## Danamr

Okay, I admit to not reading all 19 or so pages, to see.
  For those who believe in burn-in, any kind of burn-in, why is the effect always positive?
  I cannot recall a thread where someone said "this started good, and now it sounds like crap".
  I would think if the effect was real, it would have as much a chance of a negative result as a positive...


----------



## UmustBKidn

Quote: 





danamr said:


> Okay, I admit to not reading all 19 or so pages, to see.
> For those who believe in burn-in, any kind of burn-in, why is the effect always positive?
> I cannot recall a thread where someone said "this started good, and now it sounds like crap".
> I would think if the effect was real, it would have as much a chance of a negative result as a positive...


 
   
  Ah, someone finally noticed 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I think I saw one person somewhere, in one thread, claim that after his burn in, something sounded worse. But only one person. The rest have been overwhelmingly positive.
   
  Why? Well, I'm not going to repeat everything I've posted already. But IMO:
   

 Tubes really do burn in, but most of it is done before the tube leaves the factory. The rest of what you might hear are just normal changes in the device over its lifetime. Tubes change, that is their nature - which is why solid state was such a big deal when it first came out, lol. People have forgotten they need to replace tubes every few years.
 Solid state devices don't burn in. They either work or they don't. If they are going to die, it usually happens in the factory during a "smoke check". A few devices will croak quickly, but not many. If it works for the first few days, chances are it's going to work for a long while.
 Headphones are mechanical devices, and as such may "wear in" as they are used. That includes ear pads, as well as transducers. This effect is probably minimal, but I do believe it exists. Example: car engines also break in as they wear. That is the nature of mechanical devices. How much effect that has on sound quality is open for debate.
 People's brains and ears adjust to what they are listening to. In general this seems to be a "positive" adjustment. Why? Well, I'm not a psychologist, so anything I say is a wild guess. But I do know this adjustment occurs. I have proven it to myself by swapping around my amps, DAC's, and headphones, leaving it that way for a while, then switching back. The switching back and forth produces different perceptions of sound quality. In particular, when switching back, things don't just return quickly to the same quality - it takes a little while for that to happen (about a week). I postulate that this is the same phenomenon people experience when they buy new gear: after a week or so, things sound better.
   
  You'll also note that many people seem to hear improvements within a week or so. This is another curious consistency. So, to address your observation, yes, one would certainly think the law of averages would apply. But, it doesn't seem to. It's overwhelmingly leaning in one direction. On the other hand, these effects are most certainly real. But in my experience, the negatives occur when I switch my gear back (after switching them around once): the same setup in my case, didn't sound as good as it once did. I had to re-listen to it for about a week, or maybe a bit more, before it began to sound like it used to.
   
  I can only attribute that to my ears and my mind. Nothing else changed.


----------



## Baxide

Quote: 





umustbkidn said:


> Solid state devices don't burn in. They either work or they don't. If they are going to die, it usually happens in the factory during a "smoke check". A few devices will croak quickly, but not many. If it works for the first few days, chances are it's going to work for a long while.


 
  Oh yes they do. But it is quite easy and simple to check for burn in. All you need if two brand new units of choice. Unbox both and check that they sound the same. Then box one up again and don't use it. Use the other unit for a couple of weeks. Then unbox the other unit and compare. If burn in applies to what you are testing it will show up between the two units.
  I have tried this experiment many times and it can be relied upon to show up differences in performance.


----------



## xnor

Make claims all you want, I agree with this mindset:
  Quote: 





> if they tell me that I need to listen to it for at least 100 hours to break the amp in, or worse break in the sound / sound stage / sound depth etc....it's basically time to shop somewhere else


----------



## migasson

After some thought, if "burn-in" occurs its negligible, and not worth worrying about. I've owned/ have owned, LCD's, T90's, K702's, PS500's, FA-002W's, DT770LE's and I'd say only slight changes occur. Owning valve equipment, tube rolling gets bigger changes, but even they make only a slight change too. Whether burn-in is in the head or the equipment, is actually irrelevant, because the change is only slight. If you don't like the sound in 10hours, sell them and buy something else!! Bigger changes will occur when you buy different headphones!


----------



## jaddie

baxide said:


> Oh yes they do. But it is quite easy and simple to check for burn in. All you need if two brand new units of choice. Unbox both and check that they sound the same. Then box one up again and don't use it. Use the other unit for a couple of weeks. Then unbox the other unit and compare. If burn in applies to what you are testing it will show up between the two units.
> I have tried this experiment many times and it can be relied upon to show up differences in performance.



You are 80% of the way there with your test, but you haven't removed perception bias, so your results will be skewed and unreliable.


----------



## Baxide

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> You are 80% of the way there with your test, but you haven't removed perception bias, so your results will be skewed and unreliable.


 

 What perception bias? There are none. Either there is a difference to be heard or there isn't.


----------



## krismusic

Isn't that what perception bias is? If you are aware of which 'phone you are listening to then you will expect a difference at least, if not an improvement.


----------



## UmustBKidn

Quote: 





baxide said:


> Oh yes they do. But it is quite easy and simple to check for burn in. All you need if two brand new units of choice. Unbox both and check that they sound the same. Then box one up again and don't use it. Use the other unit for a couple of weeks. Then unbox the other unit and compare. If burn in applies to what you are testing it will show up between the two units.
> I have tried this experiment many times and it can be relied upon to show up differences in performance.


 
   
  Well, what do you do with the second unit? Do you keep it, return it, or sell it? Do you keep the one that sounds better? And which one sounds better, the one you ran for two weeks, or the one that sat in the box? Does the store give you a refund for the unit you bring back? I am amazed that you would have enough money sitting around to buy two of everything and run this little test on them all. Many times.
   
  As fascinating as this sounds, I'd be very surprised if you could "tell the difference" just by listening to a device after two weeks. Your memory of that sound isn't going to last that long. Sorry my friend, but our ears and our memory just aren't that good.
   
  My personal experiences with this phenomenon can be read in a little review I did a short time ago here:
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/676593/budget-fi-comparison-schiit-magni-vs-bravo-v2-with-schiit-modi-vs-pure-i-20
   
  You can skip down to the conclusion, epilogue, and last post, for the point, which is this: simply swapping around the amps, dacs, and headphones of two setups I was accustomed to listening to, totally skewed my perceptions of their sound quality. No burn in occurred. No changes in the gear at all. After I finished the comparison, the sound of my M+M stack had changed. A couple weeks after letting my ears re-adjust to the original setups, they started sounding good again. That change was all in my ears and my mind. The gear hadn't changed at all.
   
  Solid state devices do not burn in. There is nothing to burn in, as it were. People have been mis-using the term that is really only properly used when describing part of the tube manufacturing process, for probably a long time, so it has now become an urban myth. What you are hearing is a change in perception within your ears and your mind.


----------



## ferday

Quote: 





umustbkidn said:


> Solid state devices do not burn in. There is nothing to burn in, as it were. People have been mis-using the term that is really only properly used when describing part of the tube manufacturing process, for probably a long time, so it has now become an urban myth. What you are hearing is a change in perception within your ears and your mind.


 
   
  solid state devices do indeed "burn in"!  particularly the caps, there are even MIL specs requiring cap burn in before use.  this is often called a smoke test (also see bathtub curve).  a bit of an internet search will even show up _measurements_ of cap changes, here is one document that i quickly found (i'm lazy beyond that) that lists the MIL specs and offers some explanation.  my experience conducting smoke testing is usually 96 hours at elevated temperature.  these are not necessarily applicable to all types of caps, all the time, mind you.
   
  1.  the vast majority if not all consumer products are smoke tested before sale.  they are generally ran at higher temps than normal use and often higher current.  the "burn in" is a failure test, not a "burn in" as noted by the audio community
   
  2.  the "changes" are *very* unlikely to be audible, as the changes are magnitudes lower than that of dynamic changes (micro cracking of spiders, stretching of diaphragms, etc) which are already measured to be not likely audible....not to mention that the slight change in voltage may not even affect the rest of the circuit in any way at all!
   
  3.  it has been shown that the amount of change depends on the construction of the cap.  some caps will "degrade" slowly over time, but can be refreshed with a shot of high temp.  some caps are temp compensating.  
   
  if one replaces the caps in their equipment with brand new units, it is likely that a measurable (using intense equipment) change might occur during the burn in.  my skepticism is the audibility of the change (or even that the change will affect the rest of the circuit in any way, particularly as it moves down to the end of the signal chain), and for pre-built consumer units, they have all been burned in already and as such will not exhibit change over time.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





baxide said:


> What perception bias? There are none.


 
  If you know which one you are listening to, your perception is biased by that knowledge. If there's something you even slightly prefer about that choice, even subconsciously, you'll hear a difference, even if there is none.  If someone has told you that one is better for any reason at all, you can hear the difference, even if there is none.  In a true double blind test, you won't know what choice you're listing to.  The task will not be to determine the difference, but to match choice A or choice B with choice X which will be either A or B, but unknown to you.  A statistically high score after a minimum of 16 to 20 trials in which X is scrambled for each indicates you can hear a difference without perception bias.
   
  Quote: 





baxide said:


> Either there is a difference to be heard or there isn't.


 
  Suggestion is far more powerful than you realize.  The placebo effect is real, well documented, and unescapable.


----------



## Baxide

Quote: 





umustbkidn said:


> Well, what do you do with the second unit? Do you keep it, return it, or sell it? Do you keep the one that sounds better? And which one sounds better, the one you ran for two weeks, or the one that sat in the box? Does the store give you a refund for the unit you bring back? I am amazed that you would have enough money sitting around to buy two of everything and run this little test on them all. Many times.
> 
> As fascinating as this sounds, I'd be very surprised if you could "tell the difference" just by listening to a device after two weeks. Your memory of that sound isn't going to last that long. Sorry my friend, but our ears and our memory just aren't that good.


 
  I use the 2nd unit in a different part of the house. In some cases I have several of the same item. Like 5 pieces of the SB Touch, or four of the same Sony TV. I do have a big place after all. As far as money is concerned, why do you assume I am poor and incapable of affording the nicer things in life? I can probably sell just my watch and use the money to buy the equivalent of your whole audio and video set up.
   
  I am surprised that you are surprised that I can't hear the difference after two weeks. It's not a question of memory, but direct comparison between the two. You are obviously making excuses as you go along instead of paying attention on how to conduct your own test by direct comparison between two identical units.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





baxide said:


> What perception bias? There are none. Either there is a difference to be heard or there isn't.


 
  That about sums up what is wrong with hifi.


----------



## DavidJ1973

Before ever knowing what burn-in was, I remember a distinct point in time when my old Grados seemed to sound more balanced. I even took them off my head and looked at them quizzically. The highs were still there but the lows were deeper. I tried numerous different tracks from a bunch of different genres and they all seemed better. I didn't think much of it but about two years later came across a friend talking about burn-in with his Sennheisers. Placebo? Maybe. But I think I experienced it without even knowing it existed.


----------



## UmustBKidn

Quote: 





ferday said:


> solid state devices do indeed "burn in"!  particularly the caps, there are even MIL specs requiring cap burn in before use.  this is often called a smoke test (also see bathtub curve).  a bit of an internet search will even show up _measurements_ of cap changes, here is one document that i quickly found (i'm lazy beyond that) that lists the MIL specs and offers some explanation.  my experience conducting smoke testing is usually 96 hours at elevated temperature.  these are not necessarily applicable to all types of caps, all the time, mind you.
> 
> 1.  the vast majority if not all consumer products are smoke tested before sale.  they are generally ran at higher temps than normal use and often higher current.  the "burn in" is a failure test, not a "burn in" as noted by the audio community
> 
> ...


 
   
  I think you just made my point. 96 hours is a bit of a protracted test, but that's still on the order of a smoke check. One day, or a few days, is not much in terms of burn in. Even so, the process you're describing is a _smoke check_. That isn't _burn-in_. There's nothing in a capacitor to *burn *in. You're just making sure it works under full load for a longer period of time than most people would ever expose the device to. That by definition is a smoke check.
   
  The process you describe _does not _do for a capacitor, what burn-in does for a vacuum tube. At this point I'm going to refer you to my earlier posts, because I don't care to repeat myself. The whole concept of burning in a vacuum tube is wholly unlike what you're talking about. What I tend to see being discussed on Head-Fi constitutes a confusion of what burn-in means. It isn't surprising really, because even today there are very few companies who make such devices. The number of people familiar with the process is very small. And I probably know many of them 
   
  When I made tubes, we burned them in for 1000 to 1500 hours. Of course, those were rather specialized tubes that lasted many years, in continuous usage (not like glass envelope vacuum tubes). That's 42 to 62 days, give or take a couple hours. But, the length of time isn't really the issue. What burn in does for a vacuum tube is a couple of things, mainly, continuing the outgassing of the materials in the tube that flashing the getter started, and stabilizing the output so that it becomes a reliable amplification device. It also confirms that the device will work as long as expected (in the case of a TWT, 15 years in continuous usage). Tubes that were faulty would either lose their vacuum, become unstable, or output power would slowly drop over the length of the burn in period.

 So, yeah. Burn in is for vacuum tubes. Solid state devices are smoke checked, and they don't change (which was, after all, the primary advantage of solid state devices when they first came out).


----------



## UmustBKidn

Quote: 





baxide said:


> I use the 2nd unit in a different part of the house. In some cases I have several of the same item. Like 5 pieces of the SB Touch, or four of the same Sony TV. I do have a big place after all. As far as money is concerned, why do you assume I am poor and incapable of affording the nicer things in life? I can probably sell just my watch and use the money to buy the equivalent of your whole audio and video set up.
> 
> I am surprised that you are surprised that I can't hear the difference after two weeks. It's not a question of memory, but direct comparison between the two. You are obviously making excuses as you go along instead of paying attention on how to conduct your own test by direct comparison between two identical units.


 
   
  Well now, there's no need to get obnoxious and pompous. If that's how you roll, then I'll just redirect your emotional vomit to /dev/null.
   
  I doubt that there is any human being capable of remembering what something sounded like after two weeks. Now, if you had described a scientific method of testing your theorem, then I would have been impressed, and probably convinced by your argument. However, since all you offered was anecdotal evidence, then that is all I can presume about your test methods. You have no data to back up your argument. You didn't describe how you captured or recorded this data. If all you're talking about is your memory and your ears, then I suggest that both are flawed, and you really should reconsider whether you should be so confident in your conclusions.


----------



## jaddie

umustbkidn said:


> When I made tubes, we burned them in for 1000 to 1500 hours. Of course, those were rather specialized tubes that lasted many years, in continuous usage (not like glass envelope vacuum tubes). That's 42 to 62 days, give or take a couple hours. But, the length of time isn't really the issue. What burn in does for a vacuum tube is a couple of things, mainly, continuing the outgassing of the materials in the tube that flashing the getter started, and stabilizing the output so that it becomes a reliable amplification device. It also confirms that the device will work as long as expected (in the case of a TWT, 15 years in continuous usage). Tubes that were faulty would either lose their vacuum, become unstable, or output power would slowly drop over the length of the burn in period.




Wow, so you made traveling wave tubes? Klystrons too? Did you work for Varian? 

I had the opportunity to walk through the GE plant with the last remaining tube production line in 1983. There was an huge rack for burning in tubes, hundreds at a time, before final test.


----------



## UmustBKidn

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Wow, so you made traveling wave tubes? Klystrons too? Did you work for Varian?
> 
> I had the opportunity to walk through the GE plant with the last remaining tube production line in 1983. There was an huge rack for burning in tubes, hundreds at a time, before final test.


 
   
  No. Varian was one of our primary competitors. I worked for Hughes Electron Dynamics (it's still there, but it's owned by L3 now, and called Electron Technologies Inc). We didn't make Klystrons. We made all the TWT's for commercial microwave amps, satellites, radar, ECM's, and other stuff that I can't discuss. The really big tubes were the exciting ones to work on (things that you needed a crane to lift, and a cart to move around). I worked with voltages in the 5-figure range for a while. Talk about exciting LOL. We learned that people who made mistakes usually only made them once. I was pretty lucky, I only got hit a couple times, once with 800 volts, and once with 3000 volts. I still have the entry mark on my arm (it went all the way through me).
   
  Maybe that's why I have such an electric personality?


----------



## upstateguy

Quote:


baxide said:


> <snip>
> 
> *I can probably sell just my watch and use the money to buy the equivalent of your whole audio and video set up.*
> 
> <snip>


 
 Wow!


----------



## UmustBKidn

upstateguy said:


> Wow!


 
  
 Pretty pathetic, eh?


----------



## Baxide

umustbkidn said:


> Pretty pathetic, eh?


 
 Why? The issue in question is whether I am financially capable of being able to afford to have more than one of the same item for testing purposes to determine if burn in exists or not. Well I am able to afford the stuff and spend my hard earned wages whichever way I please. Nothing pathetic about that. More like jealousy from your end.


----------



## xnor

baxide said:


> Why? The issue in question is whether I am financially capable of being able to afford to have more than one of the same item for testing purposes to determine if burn in exists or not. Well I am able to afford the stuff and spend my hard earned wages whichever way I please. Nothing pathetic about that. More like jealousy from your end.


 
 The way you put it is condescending and pretentious...


----------



## lookingforIEMs

Is it real or placebo? I think it's both. There are a couple of headphones and iems that need long periods or burn in eg my Atrios mg7. They really do sound very different compared to when I first opened the box and plugged them in. Btw mind you I disliked the sound at first and didn't use them except for burning it for a few months so placebo effect is ruled out. But then again, it's also placebo. When eg a person goes from a muddy headphone to a clear headphone, the brain adjusts to the sound and it's hard to go back to the muddy headphone and it is more likely to do with the brain than an actual effect
Just my 2 cents


----------



## upstateguy

lookingforiems said:


> Is it real or placebo? I think it's both. There are a couple of headphones and iems that need long periods or burn in eg my Atrios mg7. They really do sound very different compared to when I first opened the box and plugged them in. Btw mind you I disliked the sound at first and didn't use them except for burning it for a few months so placebo effect is ruled out. But then again, it's also placebo. When eg a person goes from a muddy headphone to a clear headphone, the brain adjusts to the sound and it's hard to go back to the muddy headphone and it is more likely to do with the brain than an actual effect
> Just my 2 cents


 
  
 I don't believe in burn in, or any of the other myths, but....
  
 My first pair of T-1s were the overly bright version and I would have sold them off had the left driver not failed.
  
 Beyer replaced the headphones under warranty. 
  
 The second pair of T-1s had the soft headphone pad, which, btw, was a tremendous improvement, but when I plugged them in I found the replacement T-1s to sound much like my 650s. 
  
 After a short while, the new T-1s developed a much more 880s type sound and have retained this sound ever since.
  
 While all this was going on, my 650s continued to sound like 650s, my '03 880s continued to sound like 880s and my 701s continued to sit in a large zip lock bag in the drawer with all the stuff I don't use.
  
 Go figure !


----------



## DavidJ1973

xnor said:


> The way you put it is condescending and pretentious...




Issues of PERSONAL wealth or economics aside, I've pondered that audiophiles in general typically have more to spend on this sort of thing. I know there are exceptions.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

davidj1973 said:


> Issues of PERSONAL wealth or economics aside, I've pondered that audiophiles in general typically have more to spend on this sort of thing. I know there are exceptions.




Audiophiles don't need to spend too much if they make informed purchase decisions though


----------



## lookingforIEMs

kamijoismyhero said:


> Audiophiles don't need to spend too much if they make informed purchase decisions though



Very rare for newbies though haha


----------



## Happy Camper

davidj1973 said:


> Issues of PERSONAL wealth or economics aside, I've pondered that audiophiles in general typically have more to spend on this sort of thing. I know there are exceptions.


 Babyboomers were the beneficiaries of technology development that brought music to the masses. Music has been part of my life since I was 5. Probably earlier but I remember getting my portable record player for my 5th birthday and I've had a music system of some kind ever since.


----------



## UmustBKidn

baxide said:


> Why? The issue in question is whether I am financially capable of being able to afford to have more than one of the same item for testing purposes to determine if burn in exists or not. Well I am able to afford the stuff and spend my hard earned wages whichever way I please. Nothing pathetic about that. More like jealousy from your end.


 
  
 Well, no. The issue was burn-in, which devices it really applies to, and which ones do not burn in. Somehow it became a crass, condescending remark about your finances, and your inflated ego. My point about why people are unable or unwilling to spend more money was completely lost on you. You'd rather advertise why you can just buy whatever you want. In fact, you claim to buy TWO of whatever you want, just so you could mystically argue about burn in at some point in the future.
  
 See, I'm not buying your story, bro. Whether you have a big wallet or not is just a manifestation of your ego. What you're really trying to do is convince us that you have enough spare change laying around so you can leave half your gear in a closet. Right. Just so you can pull it out one day to see if things sound better? LOL. I call bullsh*t.
  
 I'm not jealous of you man. I know you're full of it. I feel sorry for you.


----------



## krismusic

I suggest that we get back on topic.


----------



## DavidJ1973

krismusic said:


> I suggest that we get back on topic.





^ THIS.


----------



## upstateguy

> Originally Posted by *UmustBKidn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


 
  
 +1


----------



## scottosan

I feel it's 50% real break in and 50% you becoming acclimated to them.


----------



## BrownBear

scottosan said:


> I feel it's 50% real break in and 50% you becoming acclimated to them.


 

 I tend to agree with something like this. I haven't noticed burn-in on any of my headphones. Not saying it isn't real or anything, but I don't think it has a huge impact on sound like some might think, but rather what affects the sound more is the listener becoming accustomed to the sound of that particular headphone.


----------



## wnmnkh

I happened to have two HD600 tonight (other one going to be shipped tomorrow). One is old HD580 upgraded with HD650 grills and cables, another one is brand new HD600.
 I tested them with same headband length and using same earpads to compare the sound.
  
 They sounded same. Even after several years, drivers -I mean, those well-made drivers- do not degrade nor change drastically. The reason we still have old stuffs like K340 still going around strong.
  
 That said, most of those burn-in are caused by psychological and earpads being adjusted/degraded to one's head. Simply replace earpads with new ones pretty much restores original sound.
  
  
 I can't tell about tubes amps tho.


----------



## scottosan

*I a taking this from a well respected person I have had discussions with.*
  
*Burn in is probably has the biggest effect on capacitors.*
  
 Several things happen. The major thing is; during the break in period, the dielectric material (the insulating material) interacts negatively with the signal flow. The dielectric absorbs and releases energy as opposed to passing it through the capacitor. Uncooperatively, this is occurring at chaotic intervals.This sporadic interaction is changing signal flow through the capacitor. However, the dielectric material changes over time as voltage is applied to the capacitor. The voltage creates heat, and a polarized skin forms on the surface of the dielectric (called skinning).
 The dielectric then has a path through which to absorb and release energy, and does so at the correct times due to the formed path. (Like a path through a forest that is traveled over and over). Also over time, as voltage is applied to the conductors (the foil) the metal tempers, creating patterns as well (electricity will take the path of lowest resistance).There are other reasons like skin effect (With an alternating current, there is a delay in the magnetic field's response to the change in current and the 'old' magnetic field tends to push the current towards the outside of the conductor. As the frequency increases, so does the effect until at very high frequencies the entire current flows in a very narrow skin on the conductor--hence the name).One other consideration is self inductance (The property of self inductance is a particular form of electromagnetic induction. Self inductance is defined as the induction of a voltage in a current-carrying material when the current in the wire itself is changing). Although there are non-inductively wound capacitors; meaning, careful attention is made to not produce inductance with the design, there is an inductance due to the alternating voltage.Every electrical component has a break in period. Some are more noticeable then others. Signal carrying components are the most obvious. It will take approximately 100 hours of operation for the capacitor to function to full performance.


----------



## UmustBKidn

scottosan said:


> *I a taking this from a well respected person I have had discussions with.*


 
  
 ACHTUNG! Alles touristen und non-technischen peepers!
  
   Das machine control is nicht fur gerfinger-poken und
   mittengrabben. Oderwise is easy schnappen der springenwerk,
   blowen fuse, und poppencorken mit spitzensparken.
   Der machine is diggen by experten only. Is nicht fur
   geverken by das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken sightseenen
   keepen das cotten picken hands in das pockets,
   so relaxen und watchen das blinkenlights.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

OK, that made me laugh.
  
 With regard to break in, any other folks out there wear spectacles?  I notice every time I change a prescription it takes a bit for me to not notice a change when I put the new specs on.  Which is breaking in, my brain or the lenses?


----------



## stv014

Well, wearing glasses can in fact affect the sound. I have measured something like up to 3 dB difference in the bass response with a DT770 Pro 250 (closed headphones are more sensitive to changes in the seal).


----------



## lookingforIEMs

stv014 said:


> Well, wearing glasses can in fact affect the sound. I have measured something like up to 3 dB difference in the bass response with a DT770 Pro 250 (closed headphones are more sensitive to changes in the seal).



Lol dude I think he's talking about why it takes a while for new spectacles to give you a natural view o the world.

My opinion is that it's your brain trying to adjust to new ( and definitely clean ) lenses


----------



## stv014

Of course, it also takes some time to adjust to any optical effects, like being able to focus accurately, correctly perceiving distances, etc. The new lenses may also have a small amount of distortion or other minor problems that one needs to get used to.


----------



## DavidJ1973

Ja!


----------



## ThinkAwesome

blindinoneear said:


> OK, that made me laugh.
> 
> With regard to break in, any other folks out there wear spectacles?  I notice every time I change a prescription it takes a bit for me to not notice a change when I put the new specs on.  Which is breaking in, my brain or the lenses?


 
 Obviously the lenses. You didn't know? 
  
 Heat heat from your head is transferred by the legs into the lens, slowly warping the lens into the proper shape. In theory you could speed this process up by putting your new glasses on a grill for a good 8 to 24 hours, some high end lenses require at least 100. I really don't know why they don't ship them out of the factory pre burned in. It would save a lot of hassle.


----------



## lookingforIEMs

thinkawesome said:


> Obviously the lenses. You didn't know?
> 
> Heat heat from your head is transferred by the legs into the lens, slowly warping the lens into the proper shape. In theory you could speed this process up by putting your new glasses on a grill for a good 8 to 24 hours, some high end lenses require at least 100. I really don't know why they don't ship them out of the factory pre burned in. It would save a lot of hassle.




Haha dude the high end ones have to be put into a nuclear reactor to burn in properly


----------



## DavidJ1973

lookingforiems said:


> Haha dude the high end ones have to be put into a nuclear reactor to burn in properly




I tried this and everything was fine until I played a Nickelback CD and then suddenly I burst into flames and all the dogs in the neighborhood started barking and people started wandering the streets like zombies and then instantaneous spontaneous combustion of all forms of life and the neighborhood was wiped out in a blast akin to Bikini Island atoll in 1951. I'm writing this from heaven. Er, hell I mean.


----------



## lookingforIEMs

davidj1973 said:


> I tried this and everything was fine until I played a Nickelback CD and then suddenly I burst into flames and all the dogs in the neighborhood started barking and people started wandering the streets like zombies and then instantaneous spontaneous combustion of all forms of life and the neighborhood was wiped out in a blast akin to Bikini Island atoll in 1951. I'm writing this from heaven. Er, hell I mean.



Oh no! It seems you have experienced a laaalalalallalalalallaalalalaal. If you're still covered under warranty, you can swap them in for new ones. If you are already over the warranty, here's a list of what to do. Firstly, obtain some fairy dust. No, I don't mean those cheap imitations. I mean the actual dust that came straight from tinkerbell. Then, drop the fairl dust into a genie jar, with a genie inside of course. Do this all over your toilet bowl for the next step. Just as the genie is coming out of the jar, drop the jar into the toilet bowl and flush it. Then you gotta act fast. The toilet water will turn green and I want you to drink up as much of it as you can. This will give you a thousand wishes and so you can fix your problem


----------



## Makiah S

thegunner100 said:


> I agree that it's generally pretty minor. If you don't like a pair of headphones before break-in, then burn-in probably isn't going to make you really like it.


 
  
 this +1
  
 Although honestly... all science aside I like the little rituals of audio gear lol, even if it's total BS... I'll still slap a new pair of cans to an amp and a nice playlist of tunes for a day or 2 ;3


----------



## UmustBKidn

blindinoneear said:


> OK, that made me laugh.
> 
> With regard to break in, any other folks out there wear spectacles?  I notice every time I change a prescription it takes a bit for me to not notice a change when I put the new specs on.  Which is breaking in, my brain or the lenses?


 
  
 I'm glad you enjoyed that. We used to post that sign on the power supplies we ran tubes with. Especially the big ones, with voltage in the 5-figure range. You know, the tubes that we actually burned in. The control panels actually looked something like that picture.
  
 Oh, and those power supplies used electrolytic capacitors the size of 5-gallon buckets, with corona balls 2" in diameter, on top of ceramic insulators that looked like something out of a Frankenstein movie. Once in a while those things would blow up too. The repair department hated working on them too, for good reason. You will only forget to discharge a capacitor that big, once. Just once. Now that's what I'd call burn-in LOL.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

umustbkidn said:


> You will only forget to discharge a capacitor that big, once. Just once. Now that's what I'd call burn-in LOL.


 
  
 Non-habit forming, huh?  Hopefully folks were able to learn from the examples of others!  Here's an example of burn-in from the world of chemistry, stuff that can set sand on fire:  http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_save_you_this_time.php


----------



## mitadoc

If it can be caught by an electronic device as osciloscope - it`s real.If we cannot measure it with our ears - we can say it may exist or may not.If it can be caught by an electronic device - it doesn`t exist.Or both of the times you have used the electronic devices you haven`t put the necessary settings and the measurement may be corrupted.Who knows...


----------



## Sweden

Having owned a great number of headphones of which I have listened to out of the box with my test tracks and then put on "burn-in" for a day or two and then listened to again I can from my experience say that the effect of burn in exists to some degree but is not at all present with all headphones. Big changes are rare.
  
 Audio Technica CKS77 (a very bass-heavy in-ear) is perhaps the clearest and most dramatic example.  
 Out of the box the bass was noticeably uncontrolled and muddy and the overall sound lacked clarity, detail and refinement. I almost though the pre burnt in CKS77 was defective or fake.
 Come two days later the bass had tightened up a great deal (still on the boomy side though being incredibly bass-heavy) and the mids and highs had come forward showing more clarity and detail. The biggest change was the tightness of the bass. It would have been fun to compare a pre burnt in CKS77 to a post burnt in CKS77 side by side to really get a true representation of the overall change because the perceived change was so drastic.
 From reading other peoples comments it's seem to be a rather consistent aspect of the CKS77 and the CKS line.
  
 The thing is that we are influenced and conditioned by past experience and expectations to a bigger degree then we realize.
 For example If you listen to a bright and bass light headphone for a long time and then put on a pair of more bassy and smooth headphones of roughly the same technical ability headphones you will feel the new headphones sound muddy and dull, but if you listen to that same headphone for a long enough time and put on the first headphone you will think it sounds anaemic and harsh. Our brain have a remarkable ability of adapting to new circumstances and make it the new baseline of which you form your opinions.
 Most of the phenomena called burn in will be people getting used to the new signature to a large degree.
 Unless the change is dramatic I doubt peoples ability to really differentiate between real sonic change and their brain changing. I don't really trust my own either.


----------



## thelostMIDrange

so we've established that burn-in is real, since it can and has been measured by people, that innerfidelity experiment being one, but that most of the psycholgical affect is familiarity affect, cognitive rebiasing if you will. I think this discussion is over. on to more important things like learning how to can these peaches i got from old man jefferies.......


----------



## sobe

thelostmidrange said:


> so we've established that burn-in is real, since it can and has been measured by people, that innerfidelity experiment being one, but that most of the psycholgical affect is familiarity affect, cognitive rebiasing if you will. I think this discussion is over. on to more important things like learning how to can these peaches i got from old man jefferies.......


 
 Why can what you can get to eating


----------



## Saraguie

Here's a good article. NAY.......
  
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/11/tnhyui-earphone-burn-in/


----------



## krismusic

I just posted this on another forum on the same subject. 

I had an interesting (to me at least) time with my 8's last night.
I hadn't listened to them for a couple of days. They sounded awful! Pretty much the same as I remember when I first heard them. Thick and muddy.
I tried a few different things. Including sticking a bit of tape over the bass screws. (AKA "The Tape Mod") that improved clarity but screwed with all the other frequencies. Very similar to switching phase on loudspeakers IMO.
Anyway after trying various different things I gave up and reverted to how I usually listen.
The muddiness had gone.
This leads me to believe that any change over time with the IE8's is down to my brains ability to tune out what it does not like.
I wonder if this is a phenomena that could be harnessed? Then maybe I will try telekinesis!


----------



## Dustandshadow13

I bought a used of LCD-3s and a Mjolnir/Gungnir a month ago.
  
 When it first came I more or less thought it sounded terrible. I was used to listening to DT-990s so the difference from a "bright" headphone to a "dark" headphone were way too much for me to handle. The warmth was absolutely destroying the sound of the guitars in almost everything that I usually listen to. It sounded as if the mids were out of control!
  
 In the end I stuck with it and now, aside from the worst mastered albums I have, my set-up is definitely superior than what I had before. 
  
 Only problem (as far as "burn-in" is concerned) is that all my "new" gear was already quite used. The only thing that changed was in my head as I adapted to the new way my favorite songs were being presented to me.


----------



## bangshoushang

yeah,If you don't like a pair of headphones before break-in, then burn-in probably isn't going to make you really like it.thanks


----------



## wewewho77

bangshoushang said:


> yeah,If you don't like a pair of headphones before break-in, then burn-in probably isn't going to make you really like it.thanks



Yup agreed. If there is a burn in effect it will have a very slight change in the sound. It is more on our brain that adapts to the sound.


----------



## badwolf259

I don't really believe in mechanical burn-in, I think its our ear that adapts. Last year I lost my hearing for several months, and I remember when I finally got it back every sound was excruciating. Talking sounded like shouting, I would jump back at the sound of paper rustling, playing violin was like taking a chainsaw to the side of the head. But after three days it sounded fine. I think that's an example of the 'burn-in' effect, although it might be a bit more extreme than that with headphones.


----------



## krismusic

badwolf259 said:


> I don't really believe in mechanical burn-in, I think its our ear that adapts. Last year I lost my hearing for several months, and I remember when I finally got it back every sound was excruciating. Talking sounded like shouting, I would jump back at the sound of paper rustling, playing violin was like taking a chainsaw to the side of the head. But after three days it sounded fine. I think that's an example of the 'burn-in' effect, although it might be a bit more extreme than that with headphones.



I agree with you. I read a report from a senior tech at Shure. They measured the FR of a new pair of IEMS and a pair with 2000 hrs. Exactly the same. I would take that over anecdotal reports. It must have been horrible losing your hearing. Especially as it sounds like you are a musician. Very glad you got it back.


----------



## UmustBKidn

badwolf259 said:


> I don't really believe in mechanical burn-in, I think its our ear that adapts. Last year I lost my hearing for several months, and I remember when I finally got it back every sound was excruciating. Talking sounded like shouting, I would jump back at the sound of paper rustling, playing violin was like taking a chainsaw to the side of the head. But after three days it sounded fine. I think that's an example of the 'burn-in' effect, although it might be a bit more extreme than that with headphones.


 
  
 When people discuss their setups, they usually talk about things like the music source, their DAC, their amplifier, and their headphones. Some folks also discuss their cables, their power supplies, perhaps power filtering equipment. Some folks discuss issues with ground loops, noise, and other issues stemming from the connection of various components. Others discuss their recordings, whether they are lossy or loss-less, what the bitrate is, and so forth. I think that it's safe to say, that every individual piece of the components used to reproduce music, comes under intense scrutiny on this website.
  
 This amazingly detailed analysis generally stops at the interface between the headphone, and the human listening to the music.
  
 There is another chain of components involved that seem to be less frequently discussed, and even more poorly understood. I'm talking about our ears, the response of our ears, and our minds - which includes the understanding of what sound quality is, how to describe the various aspects of sound quality, our varied tastes in music, and so on. Of necessity, this also includes the age of the listener (which has an affect on how well we can hear things), as well as the "wear and tear" on each person's ears (those who've listened to loud music for years are less able to hear minor aspects of sound quality, vs those who have been kinder to their hearing).
  
 It is my assertion that these details are what causes many disagreements and arguments over what we are hearing. We cannot ignore the fact, for example, that a man of my age (50+), who also has a provable hearing loss, simply is not able to hear the same detail as a man of say, 18 years old, who hasn't damaged his hearing. Similarly, a person much younger than I, who hasn't spent years of his/her life as a musician, may not have the same level of music appreciation that I do.
  
 This is not a put-down. I'm just illustrating the fact that people's perceptions of music and sound quality differ. We often discuss such topics as sound quality without any regard to comparisons of the listeners. We like to pretend as if everyone has the same level of music appreciation, the same level of hearing ability, and the same ability to identify and compare very slight differences and aspects in sound quality.
  
 This simply is not the case. People are different. I think it would be more accurate to say that everyone has their own individual perception of what sound quality means to them.
  
 My observations on this thread (and others), years of being a musician, and years of listening to music, demonstrate that my perception of sound quality changes, from one day to the next, and from one set of equipment to another. It is horribly difficult to establish an accurate basis of comparison, just for one individual - nevermind attempting to establish a basis of comparison between any two human beings on this planet.
  
 That being said, we still attempt to compare things. We try to identify and quantify such things as "burn in" - whether this is real or imaginary. I have previously stated my beliefs on this thread. My observations are relevant to individual pieces of audio equipment, and not to the human beings using them. Most of us have discussed these issues on this thread, without paying any attention to the human factors involved. And therein lies the problem: we're comparing the wrong things.
  
 Outside of the fact that tubes actually do "burn in", headphones may "break in" due to mechanical wear, and solid state components don't change much (if at all) with use, we still need to discuss the real variables in this equation: our ears, our minds, and our perceptions. In my opinion, those are the things that vary far more than any of our audio equipment. And since it is very difficult to establish a basis of comparison, we're arguing over something that we'll never be able to prove.


----------



## krismusic

Really excellent post.


----------



## xnor

Audiophiles like to blow everything out of proportion.
  
 Amp "sound", DAC "sound", cable "sound", break-in, magical tweaks, etc. To most myths there is a grain of truth, but the remaining 99% is nonsense.
  
 Just because large woofers break-in with small audible difference doesn't mean tiny headphone drivers' break-in will cause small audible differences too... see #88.


----------



## Teja

A couple of years ago the German magazine "ct" invited readers to blind test CD vs MP3 many of those readers considered themselves as audiophiles and were very sure that they could hear the difference. At 128kbit most participants were able to hear the difference. But at 256kbit it was only guessing. This is just one example there are lot more tests that debunk hifi myths.The audiophile community is full of more or less religious myths about SQ improvement. Most of these people wouldnt even be able to hear a difference between CD and high bit Mp3 but spent happily big money for cables, amps and insist that they must burn in their cans. It is not possible to prove that the tooth fairy does not exist but very strong evidence suggest it. Same is true for cables, burn in and amps. Yes amps! An amp is - for Christ's sake - just a device that increases the power of a signal. To all the believers in the voodoo BS it is just like the great American philosopher James Hetfield once said to his audience in Seattle: " Wake up, the fxxx!"...


----------



## Sweden

krismusic said:


> I agree with you. I read a report from a senior tech at Shure. They measured the FR of a new pair of IEMS and a pair with 2000 hrs. Exactly the same. I would take that over anecdotal reports. It must have been horrible losing your hearing. Especially as it sounds like you are a musician. Very glad you got it back.


 
  
 FR can be a very limited type of measurement. I can show you graphs of headphones measuring almost the same and sounding completely different.
 Can you see on a FR graph if the bass is tight, the mids silky, the highs harsh and the soundstage huge? You can see if the bass is tight looking at other measurements though, or at least to some degree.
 We have to know what to measure and how to best measure it in the first place if we want to figure out burn in on a scientific level. Or a lack of burn in.


----------



## Saraguie

umustbkidn said:


> When people discuss their setups, they usually talk about things like the music source, their DAC, their amplifier, and their headphones. Some folks also discuss their cables, their power supplies, perhaps power filtering equipment. Some folks discuss issues with ground loops, noise, and other issues stemming from the connection of various components. Others discuss their recordings, whether they are lossy or loss-less, what the bitrate is, and so forth. I think that it's safe to say, that every individual piece of the components used to reproduce music, comes under intense scrutiny on this website.
> 
> This amazingly detailed analysis generally stops at the interface between the headphone, and the human listening to the music.
> 
> ...


 
 Breathtakingly simple and IMO exactly right, the most overlooked component of our hobby. Well put U!


----------



## upstateguy

umustbkidn said:


> <snip>
> 
> It is my assertion that these details are what causes many disagreements and arguments over what we are hearing. *We cannot ignore the fact, for example, that a man of my age (50+), who also has a provable hearing loss, simply is not able to hear the same detail as a man of say, 18 years old, who hasn't damaged his hearing.* Similarly, a person much younger than I, who hasn't spent years of his/her life as a musician, may not have the same level of music appreciation that I do.
> 
> <snip>


 
  
 I agree. 
  
 While the older listener may not be able to hear the same detail as an 18 year old, the younger listener hasn't been listening long enough to be able to fully appreciate what he is hearing.
  
 This is not a put down either.


----------



## xnor

sweden said:


> FR can be a very limited type of measurement. I can show you graphs of headphones measuring almost the same and sounding completely different.


 
 That's because they interact with the ears they're on. On a dummy head two completely different headphones can measure similarly, but on different persons with differently shaped ears they will produce a different FR.
  


> Can you see on a FR graph if the bass is tight, the mids silky, the highs harsh and the soundstage huge? You can see if the bass is tight looking at other measurements though, or at least to some degree. We have to know what to measure and how to best measure it in the first place if we want to figure out burn in on a scientific level. Or a lack of burn in.


 
 Perceived qualities of bass/highs can be read from FR and harmonic distortion plots. "Silky" mids doesn't mean anything to me, and probably doesn't do to most people.
  
 "Soundstage" (I prefer to call it headstage because it's not a soundstage in the speaker sense) is a function of FR difference between channels. Again, a perfectly symmetrical average dummy head will tell you something different than your own head.
  
 Many break-in claims are in fact about the FR: bass increased/decreased, piercing peaks in the highs decreased, initially veiled treble increased ... none of which have been shown in any of the measurements taken, but all of which can be explained by the brain getting used to a new reference.


----------



## UmustBKidn

upstateguy said:


> I agree.
> 
> While the older listener may not be able to hear the same detail as an 18 year old, the younger listener hasn't been listening long enough to be able to fully appreciate what he is hearing.
> This is not a put down either.


 
  
 Absolutely agree my friend.
  
 I conducted a quick experiment some weeks ago. A local electronic shop had Sennheiser HD 598's on sale for $150, so I thought I'd buy a pair and see if I liked them. I was a bit hesitant, because my research indicated that I might not like these particular cans. But, I decided to try anyway, because it was such a good price.
  
 I brought them home and hooked them up to my Schiit Magni. Caveat: I am currently running my Magni directly out of a laptop headphone output (I know, I cringe when I think of it), because that's my 3rd setup and I still haven't bought a proper DAC for it. Other bills have had to come first, but I digress...
  
 The first thing I did was to run through some audio test tones that I'd generated with Passmark SoundCheck. The other set of cans in use on this setup at present are my old ATH M40fs, which I honestly consider my "worst" set. The HD 598's sounded like crap compared to the Audio Technica cans, much to my surprise. Could that be attributed to more "break in?" Perhaps so.
  
 My daughter, who is 18, had come into the room whilst I was doing this, and I was testing high frequency tones. So I handed her the headphones, hit the 15 kHz tone, and asked her if she could hear it. She could. To me, it was dead silent. Then I hit the 16 kHz tone. She could also hear that, which I could not. I didn't try further, but I would expect she could have heard some higher tones, if I'd had them handy.
  
 I then played the low frequency tones, which could be heard by both of us, down to somewhere around 20 Hz. I'm happy that I can still hear low frequencies 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Overall, the Senn HD 598's sounded better to my 18 year old daughter, than they did to me - by virtue of her being able to hear high frequency notes that I could not. On the other hand, I preferred the inferior ATH M40fs cans (that are 1/4 the price), but were better broken in than the brand new cans. This reinforces the observation that younger people who haven't damaged their hearing, can quite easily hear higher frequency tones, that us Old Farts (TM) can't hear any more. What each of us considered "better" was different.
  
 I can hear some of you thinking: "But those HD 598's weren't broken in! You should have broken them in for a couple weeks then tried them!"
  
 Perhaps. Perhaps not. But in the space of two weeks, I might not have been able to return those cans for a full refund 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 To me it was more important to get my money back, than to futz with them for a couple weeks in the hopes that I'd like them later on. So I took them back, and was happy I got my money back. It's an Old Fart thing, lol.
  
 I'm applying the adage, that first impressions are usually correct. Not always, but usually. Maybe the Senn 598's would have opened up after a couple weeks of white noise. Or maybe they would have sounded better, if I'd been using a proper DAC, the list of variables could go on. On the other hand, maybe I'm really a Beyerdynamic kind of guy, and I should stick with what I know sounds good to me. My DT 770's sound so much better. And even the ATH M40's were more tolerable under the circumstances. Or maybe my evaluation of the 598's was correct, and I just confirmed it.
  
 I'm just glad my daughter didn't say, "Dad, can I have these?"


----------



## Sweden

xnor said:


> That's because they interact with the ears they're on. On a dummy head two completely different headphones can measure similarly, but on different persons with differently shaped ears they will produce a different FR.
> 
> Perceived qualities of bass/highs can be read from FR and harmonic distortion plots. "Silky" mids doesn't mean anything to me, and probably doesn't do to most people.
> 
> ...


 
 I sounds like you contradict yourself with the two first paragraphs. First you say FR from dummies is irrelevant as the real FR is only in place with the sound interacting with the listeners ears, but than you lay all this importance on FR plots being paramount to perceived qualities.
 Maybe I'm just confused by how you write things.
  
 Don't make a hang up on silky. You can put any quality of the mids like clear, detailed, warm, harsh, thick, thin etc.
 You still can't tell from a headphones that basically measures like a straight line from 1 khz to 20 hz like LCD-3 and any TWFK driver in-ear.
 To say that all the difference in quality in these frequency span can be checked for by simply looking at FR and distortion figures is false.
 Even if you also have cumulative spectral decay plots and 30 and 300 hz square waves to look at you can only say so much. Those are at least better than only looking at FR.
  
 Can you elaborate on the section I bolded. I have not heard anything like this before. Maybe point me to a scientifically done test.
 Do you also explain imaging in this way as well?  I heard imaging explained in other ways.
  
  
 I've started a small experiment on my own.
 I have a 18 month old JVC FXD70 that have been reported to demand long burn in time and change for the better. Speculation have been about the stiffer nano tube drivers damanding longer time to loosen up. I let that be a side note I don't comment on.
  As it was a favorite of mine and cheap I ordered a spare one in case the model was discontinued.
  
 The new one is clearly more trebly and harsh as the biggest difference, but also not as open and dynamic sounding.
 I can clearly tell when doing a side by side comparison which ones is which, and in a room with mood lighting it's impossible to tell them apart physically.
 Of course individual production differences could be the only cause of difference in sound. 
 Let's see when the newer one have 300 hours of play time if I can tell a difference at all.


----------



## xnor

sweden said:


> I sounds like you contradict yourself with the two first paragraphs. First you say FR from dummies is irrelevant as the real FR is only in place with the sound interacting with the listeners ears, but than you lay all this importance on FR plots being paramount to perceived qualities.
> Maybe I'm just confused by how you write things.


 
 I am not saying FR measurements from dummy heads are irrelevant, but that the FR will look slightly different on any person's head. This point was made as reply to: "two headphones measure similar but sound different". A simple lack of seal can easily mean a difference of 20 dB at low bass frequencies.
  
 This doesn't change the second point that FR is very (I'd argue the most) important measurement.
  
  


> Don't make a hang up on silky. You can put any quality of the mids like clear, detailed, warm, harsh, thick, thin etc.
> You still can't tell from a headphones that basically measures like a straight line from 1 khz to 20 hz like LCD-3 and any TWFK driver in-ear.
> To say that all the difference in quality in these frequency span can be checked for by simply looking at FR and distortion figures is false.
> Even if you also have cumulative spectral decay plots and 30 and 300 hz square waves to look at you can only say so much. Those are at least better than only looking at FR.


 
 I don't know what you're saying, and I'm no in-ear guy at all. FR technically includes phase so is just a visualization of the impulse response. CSD is just a visualization of the impulse response as well.
 Sure, both have their pros and cons.
  
 Why can a difference in quality not be determined by those and distortion measurements? Are there magical hidden properties?
  
  


> Can you elaborate on the section I bolded. I have not heard anything like this before. Maybe point me to a scientifically done test. Do you also explain imaging in this way as well?  I heard imaging explained in other ways.


 
 I was talking about the reproduction side. The headphones primarily change the FR both overall and between channels.
  
 Headstage vs. soundstage is a more complex matter, but basically what you lack with headphones is sound from the right speaker reaching your left ear with a slight delay and vice versa - hence crossfeed and such.
 Sound sources are localized heavily using per-ear frequency response and of course also time delays between them at lower frequencies. (Google: HRTF)
  
  


> I've started a small experiment on my own.
> I have a 18 month old JVC FXD70 that have been reported to demand long burn in time and change for the better. Speculation have been about the stiffer nano tube drivers damanding longer time to loosen up. I let that be a side note I don't comment on.
> As it was a favorite of mine and cheap I ordered a spare one in case the model was discontinued.
> 
> ...


 
 The speculation doesn't make (common) sense / to me at all.
 It's the diaphragm that is made out of "nanotubes", and diaphragms are supposed to be rigid. If you loosened up the diaphragm you would get strong break-up, drastic rise in distortion, nulls in the FR etc.


----------



## Sxooter

I think that a large part of what changes on new headphones as they break in is about the seal around the ears. Like an old comfy pair of shoes, after many hours on your head your headphones slowly mold themselves to you. This would also explain why some headphones seem to need breaking in and others don't. If they fit really well right out of the box and don't change much over time then there would be no change during the initial usage. OTOH, if small changes over time in the seal might have large effects on the sound.


----------



## UmustBKidn

sxooter said:


> I think that a large part of what changes on new headphones as they break in is about the seal around the ears. Like an old comfy pair of shoes, after many hours on your head your headphones slowly mold themselves to you. This would also explain why some headphones seem to need breaking in and others don't. If they fit really well right out of the box and don't change much over time then there would be no change during the initial usage. OTOH, if small changes over time in the seal might have large effects on the sound.


 

 You are correct that the seal changes. That also changes the distance between the transducer and your ears, and the volume of air inside the cup. That continues to change as the pads wear in. Whether that's a "large part" of what you're hearing, is a matter of some debate.
  
 As that seal changes, the amount of air (if any) passing between the pads and your head can change. That also has an affect.
  
 Other things that can change on headphones: the material that the transducer is made from is going to wear in a bit also. That material is connected around the outside diameter to the body of the headphone, and in the middle to the voice coils that make the whole contraption vibrate. The stiffness of the material itself will change over time as it spends time vibrating at all sorts of frequencies, and that will affect the character of the sound.
  
 The voice coil at the center of the headphone hopefully isn't touching anything (otherwise you'd hear an annoying buzzing sound as they play). If headphones are over-driven to the point where the voice coil is over-heated, it can cause the assembly to warp. If that happens, the character of sound reproduction will also change. Worst case, the voice coil can start rubbing on the magnet assembly, and at that point your cans are blown. I've blown out full size speakers before - have torn them apart just to see what happened.
  
 I do believe in physical break in (though I don't call it burn-in, because it isn't). Mechanical devices wear. Proof of that is the fact that they eventually wear out and need to be replaced (your car for example). I don't know and don't care to speculate how much any of the items above individually contribute to whatever changes in sound we might hear. But clearly, enough people hear them to make me a believer.
  
 I do however also believe our ears change, in ways that no one has sufficiently explained (to my knowledge). I've heard my own gear change, just by switching components around (using equipment that ought to be well past break in). Personally, I think our ears are the biggest variable in this deal.


----------



## Soundwave76

Placebo is a bit poor word choice in my opinion. 'Adaptation' is the key word here. ALL human senses adapt to stimuli. This is a biological and physiological well studied fact, and it explains the 'burn-in sensation' we experience.


----------



## UmustBKidn

soundwave76 said:


> Placebo is a bit poor word choice in my opinion. 'Adaptation' is the key word here. ALL human senses adapt to stimuli. This is a biological and physiological well studied fact, and it explains the 'burn-in sensation' we experience.


 
  
 Well, yes and no. It's just a bit too easy to button it up like that and chalk it all up to sensory adaptation.
  
 Burn-in is an electronic phenomenon most properly used to describe something that happens during and after the manufacture of vacuum tubes. It is not a physical sensation. I've explained it in prior posts in this thread and will not repeat it here.
  
 Break-in is a physical phenomenon that is most properly used to describe how mechanical devices change over time as they are used. Headphones are both electrical and mechanical devices.
  
 Solid state devices (e.g. transistors and IC chips) do not burn in. They are made from silicon, and are quite stable in use.
  
 All that being said, our perceptions do also change. But they are not the only things that change. Hence the great difficulty at coming to some consensus as to all of these effects going on.


----------



## Ari33

What about the 30 year old capacitors in classic amps that are replaced to reinvigorate the amp, have these 'burnt in' or 'burnt out'? My point is that does burn in (or wear in) always improve things as seems to be considered likely by most?... Do manufacturers design and tune audio equipment to sound great out the box or does the design and development process actually mean that we are likely to experience an improvement?
For example I have 2 pairs of Sony nc-020 (dynamic driver iems), one set with probably 3-4 hundred hours while the other pair have less than 70 hours..
 I prefer the newer, slightly tighter ones, so 'wear in' should not be expected to necessarily be a good thing.


----------



## Soundwave76

Has anybody ever heard anyone report that the sound changed to WORSE after burn-in / break-in?
  
 Indeed.  If we would search ALL burn-in and break-in strories here from Head-fi, I bet you the results would be 99% positive. In my opinion this hints again to human sense adaptation quite strongly.


----------



## money4me247

soundwave76 said:


> Has anybody ever heard anyone report that the sound changed to WORSE after burn-in / break-in?
> 
> Indeed.  If we would search ALL burn-in and break-in strories here from Head-fi, I bet you the results would be 99% positive. In my opinion this hints again to human sense adaptation quite strongly.


 
 +1. that is what I believe as well.
  
 when I was first starting out on my headphone journey, I actually did think that I gotten sonic improvements with a pair of m100s due to burn-in. I actually ended up w/ x2 pairs of the headphones d/t retailer error, so I was able to do a blind direct A/B test. I found that the effects that I thought I felt was most psychological as I do not accurate pick out which pair of headphones is which. personal experience of course, so ymmv


----------



## esldude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Practice_Effect
  
 Not burn in, this is just a artifact of space and time control.  In the above (fictional) book, the more things are used the better they become.  Only saving things deteriorates them.  Rich people employ the poor to use items until they improve enough to befit the high class folks in society. 
  
 But, yeah, why doesn't anything burn in and get worse?  Things that make you go HMMMM!


----------



## UmustBKidn

ari33 said:


> What about the 30 year old capacitors in classic amps that are replaced to reinvigorate the amp, have these 'burnt in' or 'burnt out'? My point is that does burn in (or wear in) always improve things as seems to be considered likely by most?... Do manufacturers design and tune audio equipment to sound great out the box or does the design and development process actually mean that we are likely to experience an improvement?
> For example I have 2 pairs of Sony nc-020 (dynamic driver iems), one set with probably 3-4 hundred hours while the other pair have less than 70 hours..
> I prefer the newer, slightly tighter ones, so 'wear in' should not be expected to necessarily be a good thing.


 
  
 Your point has been brought up before. It is a very curious observation that, more often than not, people experience _*improvements *_in SQ over time, as opposed to _*degradations *_in sound quality. However, that is not always true. A few people have reported degradations. In my own case, as I was writing this particular review, I noticed that the re-combination of two different amps and DACs had the unintended side effect of making one pairing sound better, and another sound worse. Even stranger, the mixing up of what I was "used to" seems to have forever altered my perceptions of my own gear. Now, one of my favorite combinations is my Modi Dac driving a Bravo amp (where previously I would never have considered swapping my Magni out).
  
 Now, has this belief in a break-in period for damn near everything become so entrenched in our hobby as to create a perception of improvement, whether it actually exists or not? That really is the point of this thread. If a manufacturer tells you to expect a break in of X hours, and your gear will sound "better" after that, then that is what you expect to happen (whether it really happens or not). Psychologists might call this a "conditioned response." Hence, one might reasonably wonder if "burn in" or "break in" is real.
  
 As I pointed out in a few earlier posts, I spent nearly 15 years of my life working for a company that made some really hi-tech vacuum tubes. A part of the manufacturing cycle was something we variously called "aging" or "burn in". That process helped stabilize the output of the device, and it also told us whether it was going to last for its intended lifetime or not. These were not audio tubes, but they were similar in concept, enough so that I think I can speak with at least a little bit of confidence in what I'm saying. Our tubes were expected to last at least 15 years in service 24/7, so we had to make sure they were going to work long-term. So for vacuum tubes, burn in is a very real phenomenon.
  
 As to your question regarding classic (e.g. OLD) amplifiers, stuff does wear out. Over time, some components do change - which I would think is especially true of capacitors, simply because of the way they are made. Electrolytic capacitors are basically two conductors immersed in a liquid media separated by a dielectric medium. 30 years of heating that up every time the amp is run is going to make some physical changes occur, and those physical changes probably alter the original specs of the device. If the capacitance changes significantly, then you have altered the design of the circuit (which may result in better - or worse - performance). Replacing them will bring the circuit back to its original design, and probably make things sound better. There's nothing particularly phenomenal about that. The brakes on your car wear out too 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Do manufacturers design obsolescence into their products? I am sure that is true in some cases. After all, if you only need to sell someone a car once in their lifetime, then there sure won't be too many auto makers around. It is an absolute certainty that a manufacturer who makes products that never wear out, will only be able to stay in business for so long.


----------



## krismusic

ari33 said:


> Do manufacturers design and tune audio equipment to sound great out the box or does the design and development process actually mean that we are likely to experience an improvement?



I may be wrong on this but I don't think any manufacturer specifies in their literature that their headphones should be burnt in. 
I suspect that this is a user construct. Born from equal parts buyers remorse and wishful thinking.


----------



## Teja

100% right. This is a nonsens discussion and total headphone voodoo BS. Where are the experts that can in a blind test proof that burn in exists? There are none! Same is true for a correct build amplifier for a portable hp. At the same volume level none of the so called experts can proof in a scientific blind test that they can hear a difference. (Of course u can hear much louder!) Some people just "want to believe" aka "the mulder syndrom"


----------



## Sxooter

teja said:


> 100% right. This is a nonsens discussion and total headphone voodoo BS. Where are the experts that can in a blind test proof that burn in exists? There are none! Same is true for a correct build amplifier for a portable hp. At the same volume level none of the so called experts can proof in a scientific blind test that they can hear a difference. (Of course u can hear much louder!) Some people just "want to believe" aka "the mulder syndrom"


 
 Heck even Mulder was far more of a skeptic than the folks who are anti-DBT.


----------



## H T T

The, arguably, premier instrument speaker manufacturer says that burn in is real. Here is their recommended method: http://celestion.com/speakerworld/guitartech/104/How_to_break-in_a_guitar_speaker/
  
 Obviously, the driver size of a bass or guitar amp is much larger than a headphone.
  
 In my experience, burn-in (break-in) is fairly notable with a guitar speaker. Depending on the headphone, I have found subtle to negligible change with burn-in. I think ear pad break-in and the resultant change in the distance relationship of the ear to the driver being the reason for most change, if any, for headphones.


----------



## krismusic

Afaik no one disputes speaker break in.


----------



## Teja

I beg to differ:

"In parts of the audio industry, there is a belief that all com-
ponents from wires to electronics to loudspeakers need to
“break in.” Out of the box, it is assumed that they will not
be performing at their best. Proponents vehemently deny
that this process has anything to do with adaptation, writing
extensively about changes in performance that they claim
are easily audible in several aspects of device performance.
Yet, the author is not aware of anycontrolled test in which
anyconsequential audible differences were found, even in
loudspeakers, where there would seem to be some oppor-
tunities for material changes. A few years ago, to satisfy a
determined marketing person, the research group per-
formed a test using samples of a loudspeaker that was
claimed to beneﬁt from “breaking in.” Measurements
before and after the recommended break-in showed no
differences in frequency response, except a very tiny
change around 30–40 Hz in the one area where break-in
effects could be expected: woofer compliance. Careful lis-
tening tests revealed no audible differences. None of this
was surprising to the engineering staff. It is not clear whether
the marketing person was satisﬁ ed by the ﬁ nding. To all of
us, this has to be very reassuring because it means that the
performance of loudspeakers is stable, except for the known
small change in woofer compliance caused by exercising
the suspension and the deterioration—breakingdown—of
foam surrounds and some diaphragm materials with time,
moisture, and atmospheric pollutants. It is fascinating to
note that “breaking-in” seems always to result in an
improvement in performance. Why? Do all mechanical and
electrical devices and materials acquire a musical aptitude
that is missing in their virgin state? Why is it never reversed,
getting worse with use? The reality is that engineers seek
out materials, components, and construction methods that
donot change with time. Suppose that the sound did
improve over time as something broke in. What then? Would
it eventually decline, just as wine goes “over the hill”? One
can imagine an advertisement for a vintage loudspeaker:
“An audiophile dream. Model XX, manufactured 2004,
broken in with Mozart, Schubert, and acoustic jazz. Has
never played anything more aggressive than the Beatles.
Originally $1700/pair. Now at their performance peak—a
steal at $3200!”
http://www.scribd.co...s-Floyd-E-Toole-p569


----------



## proton007

^^
 If you've bothered to read the comments earlier, no one is denying loudspeaker break in.


----------



## Teja

What? I deny it and science also... That was the point of my post.


----------



## Teja

And by science I mean it like this: Imagine you have two perfect dices, in one you have engraved with nano technology "science is awesome" and with an electronic microscope you can see it very clear. But with your own eyes you just can't. Would you bet you can spot the engraved dice for 10 times each at $1000? I dont think so. Likewise there is no one who would do such a bet for burned in or not burned in speakers in a blind test scenario. Yes, maybe you can measure differences but to the human ear they are just not relevant.


----------



## Sxooter

proton007 said:


> ^^
> If you've bothered to read the comments earlier, no one is denying loudspeaker break in.


 
 All the while making it obvious you didn't read HIS post.


----------



## manbear

sxooter said:


> proton007 said:
> 
> 
> > ^^
> ...


 

 LOL

 That post brings up a good point -- why does burn-in always seem to result in an improvement? That's an awfully convenient coincidence. You would think the opposite could happen as well.


----------



## Sxooter

manbear said:


> LOL
> 
> That post brings up a good point -- why does burn-in always seem to result in an improvement? That's an awfully convenient coincidence. You would think the opposite could happen as well.


 
 Yeah the fact that things ALWAYS get better points to the human audio / aural circuitry in your brain MAKING things sound better over time. It's your brain's job to make it sound better and to compensate for bad environment, sound, hearing, etc. You brain almost never makes things sound worse over time. Add in the human nature of not wanting to be wrong, and you've got a double whammy. You WANT those new headphones / DAC / Amp / widget to sound better. So they DO sound better, because you believe they do.
  
 It's how people convince themselves that an $80 USB cable makes a real difference for their DACs.


----------



## krismusic

manbear said:


> LOL
> 
> 
> That post brings up a good point -- why does burn-in always seem to result in an improvement? That's an awfully convenient coincidence. You would think the opposite could happen as well.


If this issue was down to logic I think this post would nail it.


----------



## krismusic

sxooter said:


> Yeah the fact that things ALWAYS get better points to the human audio / aural circuitry in your brain MAKING things sound better over time. It's your brain's job to make it sound better and to compensate for bad environment, sound, hearing, etc. You brain almost never makes things sound worse over time. Add in the human nature of not wanting to be wrong, and you've got a double whammy. You WANT those new headphones / DAC / Amp / widget to sound better. So they DO sound better, because you believe they do.
> 
> It's how people convince themselves that an $80 USB cable makes a real difference for their DACs.


 Nail, hit on head.


----------



## Saraguie

+115,897.  Which is why I just bought this:  $4.97


----------



## proton007

teja said:


> And by science I mean it like this: Imagine you have two perfect dices, in one you have engraved with nano technology "science is awesome" and with an electronic microscope you can see it very clear. But with your own eyes you just can't. Would you bet you can spot the engraved dice for 10 times each at $1000? I dont think so. Likewise there is no one who would do such a bet for burned in or not burned in speakers in a blind test scenario. Yes, maybe you can measure differences but to the human ear they are just not relevant.







sxooter said:


> All the while making it obvious you didn't read HIS post.




My sincere apologies. Keep going.


----------



## UmustBKidn

teja said:


> And by science I mean it like this: Imagine you have two perfect dices, in one you have engraved with nano technology "science is awesome" and with an electronic microscope you can see it very clear. But with your own eyes you just can't. Would you bet you can spot the engraved dice for 10 times each at $1000? I dont think so. Likewise there is no one who would do such a bet for burned in or not burned in speakers in a blind test scenario. Yes, maybe you can measure differences but to the human ear they are just not relevant.


 
  
 If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?


----------



## Teja

You need help because you murder harmless bits and bytes for no obvious reason...


----------



## UmustBKidn

teja said:


> You need help because you murder harmless bits and bytes for no obvious reason...


 
  
 The wise programmer is told about Tao and follows it. The average programmer is told about Tao and searches for it. The foolish programmer is told about Tao and laughs at it.
  
 - Book one, the Tao of Programming.


----------



## Teja

Götz von Berlichingen, Act III, 1773, p. 133.


----------



## proton007

umustbkidn said:


> If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?


 
  
 In that case the question is, how do we know he spoke?


----------



## castleofargh




----------



## UmustBKidn

proton007 said:


> In that case the question is, how do we know he spoke?


 
  
 I only said, there were no women around to hear him.
 I didn't mention men. All men around him, would have known he spoke.
  
 When one man speaks to another man, he listens.
 When a woman speaks to a man, listening may be the last thing he does.


----------



## proton007

umustbkidn said:


> I only said, there were no women around to hear him.
> I didn't mention men. All men around him, would have known he spoke.
> 
> When one man speaks to another man, he listens.
> When a woman speaks to a man, listening may be the last thing he does.




And how does this relate to burn-in?


----------



## money4me247

proton007 said:


> And how does this relate to burn-in?


 
 obviously the man is the headphone drivers & the forest is the headphones... and the women is the listener! =P


----------



## alex8337

+1 vote for real. My LCD2's are noticeably better after a few days. This was noticeable for my girlfriend who has only used them three times and has commented on them sounding clearer.


----------



## UmustBKidn

proton007 said:


> And how does this relate to burn-in?


 
  
 Well my friend, if your ears have not been burned in by a woman, then I congratulate you.


----------



## castleofargh

umustbkidn said:


> proton007 said:
> 
> 
> > And how does this relate to burn-in?
> ...


 

 burned in I don't know, but heated up for sure ^_^


----------



## 27mym

Any "warming up" reveals weak places (wear) in a loudspeaker design. The sound changes towards increase in a bass (all consequences connected with it) and dimensions of sounding. But also I often notice such feature as "fatigue" of a material after 5 and above hours of continuous listening. After that it is desirable for have a rest earphones. I didn't forget as ears are tired. All this I checked aurally, so this my subjective opinion. Who has an equipment to make exact indications you can check - so it or not.


----------



## castleofargh

27mym said:


> Any "warming up" reveals weak places (wear) in a loudspeaker design. The sound changes towards increase in a bass (all consequences connected with it) and dimensions of sounding. But also I often notice such feature as "fatigue" of a material after 5 and above hours of continuous listening. After that it is desirable for have a rest earphones. I didn't forget as ears are tired. All this I checked aurally, so this my subjective opinion. Who has an equipment to make exact indications you can check - so it or not.


 

  I have noticed something like that a few times, but the other way around ^_^.
 like I felt that my pico slim sounded better after say 20minutes, than right after I turned it ON. I though it might have to do with the temperature of certain components or be in my head and left it at that.


----------



## 27mym

castleofargh said:


> I have noticed something like that a few times, but the other way around ^_^.
> like I felt that my pico slim sounded better after say 20minutes, than right after I turned it ON. I though it might have to do with the temperature of certain components or be in my head and left it at that.


 
 Difficult with the translation. You mean that high frequencies increased?


----------



## Happy Camper

castleofargh said:


> burned in I don't know, but heated up for sure ^_^


 Ear muffs in the shape of legs?


----------



## jimr101

I noticed my headphones got better as they broke in. As a welder the same thing happened every time I bought a new welding machine. It was a dud or it keep getting better until it flat out wore out. I theorize that the molecules in the conductive materials align themselves to the flow of electrons. Thus preference to materials like oxigen free cooper. I would imagine that the flow of current would gradually make itself a better and better path through out all the mechanical connection overcoming oxidation. By the same token it would make sense that the materials used to produce the sound would be assembled tight so they would reach proper tension after being vibrated by the coil. As to the placebo effect it is true that we notice more a device that brakes in for the better by design than the dud.


----------



## Matrixnobu

Its real alright. I also heard that it has to do with the diaelectrics in the cables reacting with the copper.


----------



## Gruffnutz

Mechanical transducers, yes.  Capacitors. maybe.  Cables and everything else, utter BS.
  
 Q.E.D.


----------



## Gruffnutz

matrixnobu said:


> Its real alright. I also heard that it has to do with the diaelectrics in the cables reacting with the copper.


 

 I 'heard' it was to do with the phase of the moon and synchronised menstrual cycles...


----------



## Matrixnobu

gruffnutz said:


> I 'heard' it was to do with the phase of the moon and synchronised menstrual cycles...


 
  
 I know it's hard to grasp. It's ok....


----------



## Mambosenior

matrixnobu said:


> I know it's hard to grasp. It's ok....


 
  
 It's difficult to grasp hot air.


----------



## jimr101

Can you grasp that those who know everything never learn a thing and are to be avoided by those who honestly seek the answers by keeping their minds open.


----------



## Mambosenior

jimr101 said:


> Can you grasp that those who know everything never learn a thing and are to be avoided by those who honestly seek the answers by keeping their minds open.




Thank you for the philosophy lesson. You are not seeking answers, you are simply spouting an opinion devoid of any "proof" that is empirically relative to the argument of burn-in.

"Please sell crazy somewhere else, we are full here."


----------



## jimr101

I apologize for the venting. Didn't mean to be rude you're hot air comment hit me wrong. I retired from a job of resolving all the issues that the best engineers could not resolve on paper. I dealt with minor problems like connecting a square 600ton duct to hole that was supposed to by square on paper but wasn't. And I apologize I did not figure any of this by looking at moon charts or astrology. I got you but give me a little credit. The math is most important but just as important are the factors that aren't always so obvious. I have changed headphone cables and noticed a night and day difference. But I can't begin to figure out why if I can't trust my senses just because the science says no. I am not refudiating science just looking for the science that is missing in the clear evidence that my senses are showing me. Galelleo used his observations to determine that the earth revolved around the sun in spite of the strong oppositions of the inquisition.


----------



## castleofargh

in a Colbert report last week on the subject of obama care (again) I heard this and couldn't help but to think about audio subjectivism:
  


> -you wanna keep on reading the fine print here.
> -not really, not if it's gonna make me lose the argument!


----------



## money4me247

jimr101 said:


> I apologize for the venting. Didn't mean to be rude you're hot air comment hit me wrong. I retired from a job of resolving all the issues that the best engineers could not resolve on paper. I dealt with minor problems like connecting a square 600ton duct to hole that was supposed to by square on paper but wasn't. And I apologize I did not figure any of this by looking at moon charts or astrology. I got you but give me a little credit. The math is most important but just as important are the factors that aren't always so obvious. I have changed headphone cables and noticed a night and day difference. But I can't begin to figure out why if I can't trust my senses just because the science says no. I am not refudiating science just looking for the science that is missing in the clear evidence that my senses are showing me. Galelleo used his observations to determine that the earth revolved around the sun in spite of the strong oppositions of the inquisition.


 
 for the difference in audio cables that you heard, did you do a double blinded ABx comparison test & accurately identified which cable was which with a large enough sample size and p value less than 0.05? ...because the simplest explanation for why you thought one cable sounded better than the other was because you paid more for that upgrade cable and your brain expects a better sound.
  
 accurate science has nothing to do with trusting your senses or recalling what happened to you before, but rather finding empirical evidence for objective data points that can be reliably reproduced in a controlled setting.
  
 Actually the Inquisition simply used their senses (eg, watching the sun rise and fall in the sky) to say that the sun revolved around the earth, while Copernicus, Kepler, and Galelleo conducted experiments and found objective data on the movements of celestial bodies from telescopic observation to calculate a mathematical model of a heliocentric solar system which could accurately predict planetary movement.


----------



## jimr101

Believe it or not I've been exposed to quite a bit of double blinded test from the boys in the office. And that's where the difference comes in. In the lab test and the tried and tru tested methods in the field are two different things. The double blind test on you tube plainly proves there is no audible differences between two file formats and they are right. So why is it that at other times the difference is like night and day. I agree with you 100% that reliable objective data is the answer. The creation of better double blind test comes from observations that leads us to better tools like the telescope. But as always it was first a theory followed by the measurements and accurate math. It takes both. By the way the better cables were the cheaper ones. What I'm good at is to propose theory to the great minds that rap their heads around the algorithms. I just make them work with their wonderful and intelligent help. Grado is a good example of this marriage of good old down to earth yankee know how with superior engenering. The topic of this thread is better sound. That is why this topic does matter to both of us that love music. Maybee what is needed here would be putting my theories in a question form. I have found that I got more results by stroking the delicate egos of my much more educated cohorts. So here goes could it be that in blind tests there will always be unknown factor that may or may not be factored in. Making the process never final but always evolving even if technology is getting closer and closer.


----------



## higbvuyb

jimr101 said:


> I apologize for the venting. Didn't mean to be rude you're hot air comment hit me wrong. I retired from a job of resolving all the issues that the best engineers could not resolve on paper. I dealt with minor problems like connecting a square 600ton duct to hole that was supposed to by square on paper but wasn't. And I apologize I did not figure any of this by looking at moon charts or astrology. I got you but give me a little credit. The math is most important but just as important are the factors that aren't always so obvious. I have changed headphone cables and noticed a night and day difference. But I can't begin to figure out why if I can't trust my senses just because the science says no. I am not refudiating science just looking for the science that is missing in the clear evidence that my senses are showing me. Galelleo used his observations to determine that the earth revolved around the sun in spite of the strong oppositions of the inquisition.


 
 There's also a night-and-day difference here:
  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUf0672xAOU
  
 Why would you trust your own senses when the human brain is designed not to?


----------



## UmustBKidn

mambosenior said:


> Thank you for the philosophy lesson. You are not seeking answers, you are simply spouting an opinion devoid of any "proof" that is empirically relative to the argument of burn-in.
> 
> "Please sell crazy somewhere else, we are full here."


----------



## Matrixnobu

mambosenior said:


> It's difficult to grasp hot air.


 
  
 I don't like the Mambo Sir. But seriously why would do for example internet cables continuously get improved upon if the cable isn't going to make any difference?


----------



## Sxooter

matrixnobu said:


> I don't like the Mambo Sir. But seriously why would do for example internet cables continuously get improved upon if the cable isn't going to make any difference?


 
 Marketing? Profit margins? Taking advantage of the Placebo Effect?
  
 The whole point behind the argument here is that if burn in does occur, and usually makes things sound better, then there should be ample evidence of it by now, through double blind tests, and / or measurement by scientific devices.
  
 And yet, to date, no one has found any.
  
 So burn in is real to a large percentage of people, yet to science it is not, which strongly suggests the placebo effect.


----------



## jimr101

Martrixnobu I'm probably expressing my self all wrong. I agree with Mambosenior on 99%. He is correct there is too much hot air in the marketing of hifi products. I've gotten caught up in it myself. I once bought a packet of cables at a wholesale club because they had gold plated connectors and the cables were heavy gages. They wound up being junk but not because the materials were bad. It wound up falling for exactly what they said. Thinking they were better because they were more expensive. The problem turned out to be the lousy assembly. One of the RCA jacks literally feel of. The outfit just took good looking cable gold plated connectors threw them together with cheap labor and charged a premium price. The scientific knowledge of our scientific friends is imperative technically speaking the gage of the cable is the measure we should go by. I was only trying to inject a more hands on perspective like manufacturing quality controls assembly factors design flaws like shape of jack in receptical oxidation soldering all factors that make hard to have truly objective blind test.


----------



## elmoe

matrixnobu said:


> I don't like the Mambo Sir. But seriously why would do for example internet cables continuously get improved upon if the cable isn't going to make any difference?


 
  
 That's totally besides the point - Internet cable don't get continuously improved upon, it's just that fiber optic cables allow for more bandwidth than your typical copper phone line. Current cables for audio, whether copper silver gold / whatever - already allow all the information to travel just fine.
  
 On the subject of burn in - I think it exists, in two ways: 
  
 1) The most obvious way is that our brain/ears get used to a certain sound signature after so many hours of listening, the brain tends to concentrate on the parts it likes. And so, the harsh treble becomes detailled and "fast". Certainly this isn't a physical phenomenon happening to the headphones, but it doesn't change the reality that it exists and is an important factor nonetheless. When I first heard the SR325s, they were HARSH. After getting used to them, I love them dearly and am glad I stuck with them.
  
 2) The fit of the headphones' pads. And this is a very real physical phenomenon which plays an ESSENTIAL part with headphones. The more hours the headphones spend on your head, the more the pads are molded to provide a good fit, and the better the isolation/sound becomes. A few millimeters of placement can make quite the difference in the appreciation of a pair of headphones.
  
 All in all, I dislike this term 'placebo', because that's really not appropriate. There is a change, if not in the headphones themselves, in the way our ears listen and our brain interprets the sound. This isn't placebo at all, and it is why the vast majority of people do think burning in helps tremendously. So in my opinion, between someone who takes TIME to burn-in a pair of headphones and ends up loving them, and someone who listens to them for an hour, decides they suck, and moves on - the first guy will get much more bang for his bucks, and that's what it's all about. We are always evolving beings and listening to headphones and music is an extremely subjective thing. If you think you are the ONE CONSTANT in your audio chain, then you fail to see what is so great about music, this hobby and ultimately, being human.


----------



## jimr101

Right on Elmo. Enjoying reaching that so illusive sound gives me great pleasure. Overcoming the chalenges that comes with mastering this beautiful art form is what this is all about. Just like picking up 1000tons with a crane getting it perfect is very rewarding. I would never attempt such feats without the precise calculations of the engineers. But by the same token it does help that I happen to remember that the electricians dug a ditch right where the crane sits a week after engenering took soil density measurements for their calculations. Our senses may fool us at times but it's always a good idea to check the house if I smell something burning. You don't get second chances lifting 1000tons. That's why I enjoy the challenges of finding the sounds that are perfect to MY ears. Oh yea now that's an orgasm to my ears.


----------



## migasson

I would suggest that the argument will never end...

You're going to have fervent believers for and against, and neither will give quarter to the other!!

I believe that burn in is bollocks, and if it does occur, it's not worth worrying about......

My 2 cents...


----------



## vertical

+1


----------



## UmustBKidn

migasson said:


> I would suggest that the argument will never end...
> 
> You're going to have fervent believers for and against, and neither will give quarter to the other!!
> 
> ...


 
  
 1) Probably not, but then we'd have nothing to do. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 2) It's the swing voters we're talking to. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 3) Well, yes and no. To wit:
  
 - Tubes really do burn in. I spent close to 15 years of my life making tubes. I know this for a fact.
 - Solid state components (e.g. transistors, IC chips), do not burn in.
 - Headphones, like other mechanical devices, can "wear" in, or "break" in, because of mechanical friction. Car engines do the same thing.
 - Most solid state devices (amplifier, computer, TV, whatever) are given a "smoke check" at the factory, to make sure they don't quickly break when they are purchased. This smoke check is meant to assure the device has been assembled properly, and can withstand normal operation for a reasonable period of time (they're frequently run at full operating parameters for anything between one day to one week). It is not meant to "age" or alter the state of the device - it is only meant to make sure the assembly works. That is NOT burn in.
 - Some other electronic components can change state over time, particularly capacitors. These are not solid state devices (to counter an argument someone else hit me with some time ago). In particular, electrolytic capacitors can change physical state simply because the materials used to make them, deteriorate over time. They do not last decades. They must be replaced after a period of time. Other types of capacitors last longer than electrolytics.
 - Any component that heats up when used, and cools down when turned off, will deteriorate over time. Nothing lasts forever. This is not burn-in. Stuff breaks as it ages.
  
 I frequently see the term "burn in" thrown about frequently, and used to describe things that it was never meant to describe. I have been attempting to clarify this point since joining this thread. When I see people discuss burn in for headphones, I cringe, because the correct term would be "break in". When I see people apply the term "burn in" to solid state amplifiers, I also cringe, because it simply doesn't apply (those electrolytic capacitors won't change appreciably in the short period of time, normally attributed to burn in).
  
 The term "burn in" can only really be properly applied to tubes, because they really do burn in - we used to just call it "aging". It is meant to stabilize the device, and it also proves the device will last for its intended lifetime. The vacuum tube devices I helped to make, were burned in for 1000 to 1500 hours, to stabilize the device (after that, we called them "new"). I will not take the space to attempt to explain vacuum tube theory, you can look it up elsewhere on the Interwebz.


----------



## ljhhh

Well depends on how you define 'burn-in'. But I do hear audible differences (maybe it is due to mental reasons) when I listen to my IEM for the first time compared to a few days later after playing hours of music.


----------



## UmustBKidn

ljhhh said:


> Well depends on how you define 'burn-in'. But I do hear audible differences (maybe it is due to mental reasons) when I listen to my IEM for the first time compared to a few days later after playing hours of music.


 

 This is a matter of physics. It is not an opinion. A bit more explanation may make it clear why "burn in" is the right term for vacuum tubes.
  
 As I'm sure I've said before, if you read a bit about vacuum tube theory, you will find out that they amplify a signal by means of expelling electrons off a negatively charged heated metal surface (cathode), in a vacuum, towards a more positively charged surface (anode). When a tube is first turned on, the action of expelling electrons from the heated surface requires time to become stable (and thus produce a predictable, stable output). This period of time is called "burn in". The heat applied to the cathode is rather small, but it is sufficient to drive electrons off the surface.
  
 After a long while, the cathode surface gradually loses its ability to expel electrons. You won't really notice this unless you're measuring output levels closely. One day you'll just notice your tube doesn't work any more (or it sounds weird, or imbalanced, etc). That's because no matter how much heat you apply, you can't burn any more electrons off of the surface. Hence the phrase "burn out".
  
 As someone who worked at a company that made vacuum tubes for quite some time, I think I can speak on this subject with at least a little bit of first hand knowledge. I didn't invent the term or the technology. I didn't design any tubes. I'm just repeating what I know. So, I stand by my statement: the phrase "burn in" is only properly applied to vacuum tubes (because we really are burning electrons off a cathode surface to make the device work).
  
 The effect of our minds and ears should not be discounted. Indeed, they do play a huge part (maybe the biggest part) in our perception of sound quality. I have said repeatedly in this thread and others that the least-studied aspect of audio discussed on this website is our ears and our minds. The only curious constant seems to be that most people experience improvements in sound quality over a period of time. However, I have also personally proven that this perception can be changed, simply by switching my gear around. A different combination of my DAC's and amps resulted in decreased SQ in one setup, and improved SQ in another. After a while, the one that initially sounded worse, got to sound "better".
  
 I can't explain why that happens. But I know it does. However, that is something else other than vacuum tube "burn in". Personally, I think it would be helpful for the community to try to establish a better definition of what we mean when we discuss these things, so I keep talking about it here and there. One day we might figure out why our brains adjust to new equipment, to make it sound "better".


----------



## krismusic

I think most people on hear take "burn in" to refer to equipment in general. Not just vacuum tubes. Everybody seems to get what is being referred to.


----------



## UmustBKidn

krismusic said:


> I think most people on hear take "burn in" to refer to equipment in general. Not just vacuum tubes. Everybody seems to get what is being referred to.


 
  
 I don't believe that _*everybody seems to get what is being referred to*_. Because what is being referred to is quite often wrong. Which is why I am trying to say something about it. Should I feel bad? No. I don't think so. Worse, vendors of audio gear feed into the problem by confusing terminology. Everything would seem to have a "burn in" period. And that's just not true.
  
 If you need an illustration of this effect, you should watch a few episodes of Jimmy Kimmel's "Lie Witness News" ...
  

  
 It just blows me away that people just make stuff up like that. But they do. If that illustration doesn't make you want to search for the truth on something you are passionate about, I'm not sure what will.
  
 I'm speaking of what I would call "myth-information". The absolute worst examples of this sort of confusion, in my opinion, can be found in the tropical fish hobby. There is no regulation of claims made for products in that particular hobby, that I can tell. So, vendors are free to claim whatever they want. It takes a long time to sift through the BS to find real accurate information. A shockingly large percentage of vendors in that hobby actively try to keep you ignorant. That ignorance results in profits for them. I blew a whole lot more money than I care to admit trying to keep fish and coral for some years. I eventually decided that it just wasn't worth the effort and expense (much as I really loved the hobby). Mistakes are tremendously expensive.
  
 I surely don't know everything. The older I get, the more I realize just how little I really know. But I do speak out when I have some first hand knowledge. And this is one of those subjects I feel I can contribute accurate information on. So I do. For what that's worth. If you prefer to dismiss the information, that's your choice.


----------



## KT66

I thought burn in was total bollocks, and in many ways I still do, 
 cartridges do change intitially, but there a mechanical reasons why.
  
 HOWEVER my Beyer T50p went from horrible to quiet good after a 1 week on white noise.
 I still think the softening of the earpads probably changes the sound most, but that still does confuse me
  
 Anyone use the Nordost burn in service???


----------



## elmoe

Nordost Vidar Cable Burn In Service   Cable burn in service with our Nordost Vidar machine, hear the difference or your money back.

  

 Seriously? They must actually make money on this since they offer money back. Unbelievable.


----------



## UmustBKidn

elmoe said:


> Nordost Vidar Cable Burn In Service   Cable burn in service with our Nordost Vidar machine, hear the difference or your money back.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? They must actually make money on this since they offer money back. Unbelievable.


 
  
 See, now that particular item is Baloney. LOL. That one belongs in the aquarium hobby category.


----------



## elmoe

It's a good laugh though


----------



## ag8908

In the same way that your eyes adjust to different levels of light (i.e. they behave differently when you're out in the sun, when you're indoors, and during the night) -- your ears adjust to different sound signatures. Put on a headphone that feels bright at first, listen to it for two hours, and it won't seem as bright anymore. Same with bass levels and every other feature.
  
 So I think that's the biggest part of "burn in."
  
 However, objective measurements have shown that full sized headphones do exhibit a different frequency response after burning in and, being mechanical objects, they can't be expected to behave exactly the same after a year of use as they do after one hour of use.


----------



## The French

migasson said:


> I believe that burn in is bollocks, and if it does occur, it's not worth worrying about......
> 
> My 2 cents...


 
  
 +1
  
  
 Burn in, such as cable improvements, comes with self confidence.
  
 If you cannot hear the difference, it's because you're weak.
 I can hear it because...well I must be gifted. 
 It goes with testosterone. 
  
  
 Most blind tests reveal another, more logical, truth.
  
 As long as you haven't participate to a real blind test, you don't know how wrong you could be.
 You don't know, and you often don't WANT to know.
  
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths


----------



## krismusic

umustbkidn said:


> I don't believe that _*everybody seems to get what is being referred to*_. Because what is being referred to is quite often wrong. Which is why I am trying to say something about it. Should I feel bad? No. I don't think so.



I certainly do not want you to feel bad for making a contribution and I apologise if I came across as rude. 
FWIW I completely agree with you about the infuriating amount of BS and miss information in this hobby. 
I am interested to hear that Tropical fish is worse. I thought audio offered the most scope for charlatans. 
The video you posted is priceless. 
And yes. I have the same feeling of knowing less as I learn more!


----------



## UmustBKidn

ag8908 said:


> In the same way that your eyes adjust to different levels of light (i.e. they behave differently when you're out in the sun, when you're indoors, and during the night) -- your ears adjust to different sound signatures. Put on a headphone that feels bright at first, listen to it for two hours, and it won't seem as bright anymore. Same with bass levels and every other feature.
> 
> So I think that's the biggest part of "burn in."
> 
> However, objective measurements have shown that full sized headphones do exhibit a different frequency response after burning in and, being mechanical objects, they can't be expected to behave exactly the same after a year of use as they do after one hour of use.


 
  
 Yes. I agree on both points. I am particularly intrigued by the first one. That brings up the question, is there some qualitative level of sound quality that our ears and minds are attempting to adjust to? And how do our ears or minds arrive at what we consider "the best" sound quality?
  
 Further, if our minds have some sort of pre-set notion of what "the best" is, then how do we discover "better" sounding gear? You can read in any number of places on this website, how people discover newer and better gear of all sorts. Stranger still, their conclusions that some piece of gear is better, may come immediately, or after some extended period of usage (which often involves running the said piece of gear over time, without actively listening to it).
  
 It is this notion that running new gear for a period of time after buying it, constitutes "burn in". It doesn't seem to matter what sort of gear is being discussed. This is where it gets weird.
  
 It really amazes me to read the Schiit Vali thread, with people constantly discovering how awesome the Vali sounds, yet they consistently remark on the "ringing" effect of the tubes used in the device. In case you're not familiar, this is an American made, hybrid tube/ss amp, that is squarely in the middle of what I call "Budget-Fi" land ($119 bucks). It has been compared to amplifiers costing far more, by members of this forum whose opinions are considered quite reliable and trust-worthy.
  
 Because of the extended period of time between news of the amp and it's actual release, that thread held a protracted series of discussions about sound quality. It really amazes me how this device was compared to amps costing many times more, by the few people who were lucky enough to have an advance copy of the device. Even after its release, many remain amazed by its performance for the price. I wonder how Schiit can continue to sell its more expensive devices, if the amp is truly the giant killer it's made out to be.
  
 Given the ability of our ears and minds to adjust to new gear, it might not come as a surprise that people rave about the amplifier as much as they do. One might reasonably wonder whether they should spend $1000 for an amplifier, or $119 for an amplifier, given the rave reviews. If you are budget conscious like me, you might be very happy to spend only $119 on an amplifier, if it can sound as good as something ten times it's price. Especially with the knowledge that our ears will eventually adjust to whatever quirks might exist in the sound quality produced.
  
 Of course, the manufacturers of audio gear would prefer that you spend cubic dollars to purchase their gear, because of course a Woo Wa7 at $999 sounds better than a Schiit Vali at $119. Right? Even if it does, won't our ears adjust to whichever device our wallets can afford?


----------



## UmustBKidn

the french said:


> +1
> 
> 
> Burn in, such as cable improvements, comes with self confidence.
> ...


 
  
 Well said, lol. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Being new, you might want to read this comedic review of the Schiit Vali. It's definitely worth the laugh.


----------



## The French

umustbkidn said:


> Well said, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 "The tubes in the vali are not just decorations.  If they were they would be on the outside"


----------



## UmustBKidn

krismusic said:


> I certainly do not want you to feel bad for making a contribution and I apologise if I came across as rude.
> FWIW I completely agree with you about the infuriating amount of BS and miss information in this hobby.
> I am interested to hear that Tropical fish is worse. I thought audio offered the most scope for charlatans.
> The video you posted is priceless.
> And yes. I have the same feeling of knowing less as I learn more!


 
  
 Thank you for your comments. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish emotions over the Internet. I may have over-reacted as well. I just wanted to be clear. Sometimes I spend too much time trying to be clear 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I absolutely loved salt water tropical reefs. My favorite was an 80 gallon tank, that used 650 watts of metal halide lighting and another 55 watts of actinic light. I have some old pictures of it below. Many fond memories, my kids really loved the tank...
  
 The 20 gallon saltwater:

  
 The 26 gallon show tank, also saltwater:

  
 A cute little freshwater tank:

  
 My 80 gallon reef tank, shortly after a water change:

  
 Another angle of the 80 gallon reef:


----------



## krismusic

They look like a lot of care went into setting them up and looking after them. This may well be the most "off topic " a thread has ever gone on Headfi! There again probably not !!


----------



## Demo3

Just my two cents... the first album I listened to with my AX-60s was the remastered "Wish You Were Here".  When it was playing "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" parts VI-IX and it hit those highs I thought I had bought some crappy IEMs.  Now after 50 hours that same guitar sounds very smooth.  Can't say what changed, my ear or the IEM.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Ear


----------



## bigshot

It's possible that when you bought them there was some dust or plastic flange caught in the driver that shook out after a while. A hair in there can cause stuff like that. But I doubt that drivers would distort by themselves and then fix themselves.


----------



## UmustBKidn

demo3 said:


> Just my two cents... the first album I listened to with my AX-60s was the remastered "Wish You Were Here".  When it was playing "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" parts VI-IX and it hit those highs I thought I had bought some crappy IEMs.  Now after 50 hours that same guitar sounds very smooth.  Can't say what changed, my ear or the IEM.


 
  


bigshot said:


> It's possible that when you bought them there was some dust or plastic flange caught in the driver that shook out after a while. A hair in there can cause stuff like that. But I doubt that drivers would distort by themselves and then fix themselves.


 
  


kamijoismyhero said:


> Ear


 
  
 In my subjective experience and opinion, both your ears and your IEM's changed.
  
 The IEM, because mechanical devices do break in with use. Automotive engines do the same thing over time. Car engines don't really work optimally until about 1000 miles of use. That amounts to 1% or 2% of their expected lifetime. Ditto for motorcycles (though their expected lifetime is considerably shorter).
  
 The ear, because I have read and personally experienced changes in my own gear, that occurred AFTER any possibility of mechanical break-in could have occurred (e.g. many many hours of use). In this review, I noted after a period of time that the sound quality of the same gear from my collection, in different combinations, triggers this "oh my god this sucks" and later, the "wow, this sounds good after all" reaction. THAT is what I am personally the most curious about. I really would like someone with experience in psychology, physiology, ontology, audiology, etc to chime in on this and try to explain what is happening. So far it remains an absolute mystery to me and everyone here, near as I can tell.
  
 Btw, Kamijo, I bought Prince & Princess after watching a few of their video's. Amazing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm still baffled why they broke up.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

umustbkidn said:


> In my subjective experience and opinion, both your ears and your IEM's changed.
> 
> The IEM, because mechanical devices do break in with use. Automotive engines do the same thing over time. Car engines don't really work optimally until about 1000 miles of use. That amounts to 1% or 2% of their expected lifetime. Ditto for motorcycles (though their expected lifetime is considerably shorter).
> 
> ...


 
 Although I agree physical change occurs within the IEM, the difference is tiny, maybe only 1-2 dB at certain frequencies. To me, that is insignificant enough and conclude that the ear/psychology amounts to 99% of the change.
  
  
 OT:
 Oh that's good to hear, that is actually my favourite release by them, what did you like about them? They haven't officially disbanded, just on a hiatus.


----------



## UmustBKidn

kamijoismyhero said:


> OT:
> Oh that's good to hear, that is actually my favourite release by them, what did you like about them? They haven't officially disbanded, just on a hiatus.


 
  
 I love the guitar work, mostly. I really like solid metal guitar work, and I was really impressed by Hizaki (and Teru, but mostly Hizaki). Accuracy in what I call "speed metal" is something that has forever impressed me. Perhaps because I never mastered Guitar, of all the instruments I played 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I am also impressed by the ability of multiple guitarists to work together live, which this group seems to be adept at. For all of the distractions that Visual Kei offers, these guys are absolutely not distracted from their guitar work.  I just wish I could understand Kamijo, lol.


----------



## krismusic

A couple of things. 
The car analogy has been used in this context before. 
It is not really relevant IMHO. 
In point of fact I have been told when buying a new car that these days the engine is built to fine tolerances and subjected to ultrasonic washing to remove debris. 
Running in is unnecessary. 
More relevant is that a senior technician at Shure took an IEM with 2500 hrs and one straight off the production line. 
They both measured the same. 
Kamijoismyhero is right IMHO. 
Any break in is likely to be so tiny as to be inaudible.


----------



## nanaholic

The engine analogy is completely wrong.  Things literally *explodes* inside a car engine, with metal rubbing against metal thousands of times if not millions of times during a routine drive, that's huge amounts of wear and tear going on such that you would expect some "burn in" or change during the usage.  That's why even with new modern day engines build so precious you still have to tear them down and rebuild them after certain mileages.  Headphones simply doesn't do anything close to what car engines goes through.


----------



## UmustBKidn

krismusic said:


> A couple of things.
> The car analogy has been used in this context before.
> It is not really relevant IMHO.
> In point of fact I have been told when buying a new car that these days the engine is built to fine tolerances and subjected to ultrasonic washing to remove debris.
> ...


 
  


nanaholic said:


> The engine analogy is completely wrong.  Things literally *explodes* inside a car engine, with metal rubbing against metal thousands of times if not millions of times during a routine drive, that's huge amounts of wear and tear going on such that you would expect some "burn in" or change during the usage.  That's why even with new modern day engines build so precious you still have to tear them down and rebuild them after certain mileages.  Headphones simply doesn't do anything close to what car engines goes through.


 
  
 The internal combustion engine analogy is not perfect. No disagreement there. The point was just to illustrate that all mechanical devices experience some degree of wear and tear. Auto engines will experience much more wear than headphone transducers (or speakers for that matter). It doesn't take much analysis to determine that.
  
Here is an interesting article that describes where the friction in a speaker comes from, see the section titled "*The speaker: a mass-spring system.*" How much friction in a headphone? Not much. But it exists. The transducer in a headphone vibrates. The outer part of the diaphragm is connected to a frame, and the inner part to the top of a voice coil. The junction of the material that the diaphragm is made from, is what experiences that friction.
  
 I do also agree with the notion that our *minds *play a _*huge *_part in our perceptions of sound. I don't think our ears are changing (unless we damage them with overly loud music) - our perceptions of sound changes - and that's _*all in our heads*_.
  
 I believe our brains change, or adapt. What fascinates me is the fact that the apparent sound character of a set of gear, can change over time. Not only can it change once, it can change over and over again. I have proven that with my own small collection of gear (at least to my own satisfaction). All you need to do is take 2 sets of everything, and switch the parts around, then listen to that setup for a while. Then switch it again. It will change again - and change over time, again.
  
 I ran into some funny videos while poking around YouTube. Look what big speakers can do...
  

  
 And this is just weird...
  

  
 More fun with wire...


----------



## krismusic

Ah yes. The SPL guys.The young lady would have enjoyed that more if they were playing 33Hz 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 Your link to the mass spring bizzo was for full size speakers. Headphones have much smaller drivers and so I would expect less effect.
 All seems a bit hair splitting of me though TBH.
 If people find that they enjoy their headphones more over time that is a good thing.
 I would just suggest that a headphone is not going to dramatically change its fundamental character over time so if you do not like them out of the box do not hang on to them past the point that you can return them.
 Personally, the psychoacoustic aspect has been the biggest revelation for me on here.


----------



## bigshot

For me, equalization has made the biggest improvement.


----------



## krismusic

I meant that psychoacoustics was something that I don't think that I was aware of before coming on here.
 I wish that Spotify would reinstate even the simple beta EQ that used to be hidden in the App.
 Although I always had real difficulty setting up the EQ in my car system.
 At least with speakers I could get a knowledgeable friend to help.


----------



## UmustBKidn

bigshot said:


> For me, equalization has made the biggest improvement.


 
  
 Indeed. Now, if we can postulate that setting EQ to some value that immediately sounds "better" to you, what will happen to your SQ as you listen to that over time? Does it get better, worse, or stay the same? In other words, once you've artificially "fixed" the sound so your brain perceives it as improved, does your brain then _*improve it more*_ over time? Or does it leave a good thing alone?
  
 In one of my setups (a laptop in bed), I have no amp or DAC, just my ATH M40fs headphones (which I consider the weakest in my collection). I have the music player set to heavily equalize the cans (something of a soft V-shape). It's good enough to watch movies late at night, so I can turn it up and not disturb my kids. Any music I listen to there, sounds funky (e.g., not as good), compared to either of my other setups (there are 3).
  
 I brought one of my Bravo amps to this location, in the hopes that some weekend, I won't be working from home, and I'll have time to modify it. While it's there, I plugged it inline using a 3.5mm to RCA adapter (and still no DAC). Of course, the SQ changes with that amp in line. It makes the ATH M40fs sound significantly better, but overdrives the bass notes (because of the heavy EQ). So I need to re-equalize the sound (and make a new EQ setting, just for that amplifier), because it overdrives the system into distortion if I don't.
  
 I am convinced that my brain would never adjust the sound quality to get rid of the distortion caused by adding the amplifier in line. In other words, my brain can't adjust for clipping. So I need to do that myself. After I get done messing with the EQ, the setup sounds more "solid" by virtue of the amp being there.
  
 Bottom line: my brain can't equalize for distortion. It is unable to overcome a fundamentally flawed sound signature.


----------



## krismusic

umustbkidn said:


> Bottom line: my brain can't equalize for distortion. It is unable to overcome a fundamentally flawed sound signature.



This is what I have been trying to do with the IE8's. Without success.


----------



## bigshot

umustbkidn said:


> Now, if we can postulate that setting EQ to some value that immediately sounds "better" to you, what will happen to your SQ as you listen to that over time? Does it get better, worse, or stay the same? In other words, once you've artificially "fixed" the sound so your brain perceives it as improved, does your brain then _*improve it more*_ over time? Or does it leave a good thing alone?


 
  
 Once I hit the sweet spot, it stays.


----------



## UmustBKidn

bigshot said:


> Once I hit the sweet spot, it stays.


 
  
 Fascinating.
 (Sorry, I borrowed that from Mr. Spock.)
  
 In an odd way, this discussion kind of reinforces my personal belief that it's best to start with Budget-Fi gear, and work your way up. If our brains can adjust to *create *a certain percentage of the overall sound quality, then a prudent consumer would start with gear that has the minimum acceptable sound quality, and wait to see if their brains can adjust sufficiently to create an acceptable level of SQ.
  
 So the next curious question must be, if our brains adjust to that "sweet spot", how can we tell when it's not so sweet any more? I mean, if our brains really are adjusting our perceptions of SQ, then why doesn't the cheapest set of gear allow our brains to create the optimal sound? Why spend thousands of dollars, if we only need to spend a couple hundred?
  
 Are people too impatient? Are they not waiting long enough for their brains to adjust to their gear? Or are they waiting a while, and not experiencing that "sweet spot"? Is that not happening because of some level of distortion (as I observed above?)
  
 Are people who spend cubic dollars to buy high end gear, really getting better sound quality? Or would they save enough to buy a new hot tub if they were just a bit more patient for their brains to adjust to their cheap gear?
  
 So maybe, the whole concept of burn in is an excuse to wait some indeterminate period of time, for our brains to create/adjust to, the ultimate sound quality. Instead of blaming our brains for not sufficiently adjusting, we blame our gear, and go spend more money? Or does the quality of our gear really matter after all, because our brains can only adjust by a small amount? Or is all this just an excuse to convince us to spend more money?


----------



## krismusic

This sounds like mumbo jumbo to me.
Gear is either good or indifferent. Sometimes regardless of price. I just want to listen to my music. Not embark on some kind of brain training odyssey!


----------



## elmoe

krismusic said:


> This sounds like mumbo jumbo to me.
> Gear is either good or indifferent. Sometimes regardless of price. I just want to listen to my music. Not embark on some kind of brain training odyssey!


 
  
 It's not necessarily mutually exclusive.


----------



## bigshot

umustbkidn said:


> So the next curious question must be, if our brains adjust to that "sweet spot", how can we tell when it's not so sweet any more?


 
  
 You misunderstood I'm afraid.... I'm not EQing to my personal preference. I'm EQing to achieve a flat frequency response. That's a very objective calibration, not a subjective one. It is difficult to calibrate to a flat response in a 5:1 speaker system, and it requires balancing both level on each channel and EQ. It can take a bit of back and forth parallel parking of settings to fine tune. But once that balance is struck there is no coloration, just natural sound. That's the sweet spot.
  
 Balanced response always sounds better than colored response. And every transducer involves compromises that make it deviate from flat. So just about every transducer benefits from a little calibration with EQ. It's possible to EQ mid priced transducers to make them sound more like the best ones available.


----------



## krismusic

elmoe said:


> It's not necessarily mutually exclusive.



Fair point. Nice avatar


----------



## elmoe

krismusic said:


> Fair point. Nice avatar


 
  
 Thank you, I used to have this as a giant poster on my wall as a kid


----------



## krismusic

elmoe said:


> Thank you, I used to have this as a giant poster on my wall as a kid



A mighty fine album.


----------



## elmoe

Their best as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## krismusic

This is OT but cannot resist. If I could only listen to one album ever again it would be Electric Ladyland


----------



## elmoe

It's a hard choice but Axis Bold As Love would definitely be considered if I had the willpower to choose one album only.
  
 As far as OT goes, I think this one is acceptable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Speaking of Hendrix, if there's one headphone I always grab whenever I listen to any Hendrix album it's my Grados.


----------



## UmustBKidn

krismusic said:


> This sounds like mumbo jumbo to me.
> Gear is either good or indifferent. Sometimes regardless of price. I just want to listen to my music. Not embark on some kind of brain training odyssey!


 
  
 Hah. Well spotted. Note the time of the post. That was half speculation, half intoxication 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I suppose if you can take anything away from that post, I was trying to explore for myself the relative merits of this whole discussion. Clearly, sound quality changes. The question is, why? And is better gear really worth the cost?
  
 If I had to guess what the OP of this thread was driving at, it would have to be something like that.
  
 We seem to agree that much of it is in our heads. Yet some gear sounds better than others ("better" being highly subjective). And some folks are willing to spend amazing sums of money to get that "better" setup.
  
 As for me, well, necessity means that I started in Budget-Fi land, and I'll slowly work my way up, assuming I can justify the expenditures. I just wish there was a good way to justify them.


----------



## UmustBKidn

bigshot said:


> You misunderstood I'm afraid.... I'm not EQing to my personal preference. I'm EQing to achieve a flat frequency response. That's a very objective calibration, not a subjective one. It is difficult to calibrate to a flat response in a 5:1 speaker system, and it requires balancing both level on each channel and EQ. It can take a bit of back and forth parallel parking of settings to fine tune. But once that balance is struck there is no coloration, just natural sound. That's the sweet spot.
> 
> Balanced response always sounds better than colored response. And every transducer involves compromises that make it deviate from flat. So just about every transducer benefits from a little calibration with EQ. It's possible to EQ mid priced transducers to make them sound more like the best ones available.


 
  
 Ah. Well yes, I did misunderstand. But it was worth a curious rant 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I don't personally run EQ on most of my setups, save for one that badly needs it. Am I robbing myself of better performance? I don't know. But I can tell you this: on the two setups I run as-is, they both sound so much better than anything I previously owned, that it's worth leaving them be.


----------



## krismusic

umustbkidn said:


> Hah. Well spotted. Note the time of the post. That was half speculation, half intoxication :tongue_smile:



I thought it was a touch new agey for you!
I've read that headphones and source are worth spending money on. Everything else not so much.


----------



## bigshot

umustbkidn said:


> I don't personally run EQ on most of my setups, save for one that badly needs it. Am I robbing myself of better performance? I don't know.


 
  
 It's less important for headphones than speakers, but I've found EQ will always improve even the best cans a little.


----------



## upstateguy

bigshot said:


> You misunderstood I'm afraid.... I'm not EQing to my personal preference.


 
  
 Nothing wrong with EQing for personal preference either.  
  
 All recordings are not mastered the same.
  
 All radio stations do not sound the same.
  
 And all internet high bit rate streams do not sound the same, even at the same bit rate.


----------



## bigshot

Pretty much all classical and jazz and pre-1970s music is mastered for a flat response. I never have to touch my tone controls, but I don't play much current music. It's only since the advent of home studios that all standards went out the window. Movies are generally much more consistent. They all work with a calibrated response.
  
 The problem with EQing to personal taste is that boosting certain frequencies can cause huge problems. Not all frequencies exist in all songs, and you can get into trouble boosting frequencies that aren't there. For instance, if you "like bass" and bump up the low end in a typical 70s album rock song which doesn't have much below 80Hz, all of a sudden a rap song with sub bass content comes up and rattles the room. If you use a flat response, sub bass never jumps out like that.
  
 Best to calibrate, then use your bass and treble only when necessary.


----------



## SilverEars

Ok, so I just recently got a really hard to drive planar-magnetic phones, and according to the instructions, it mentions burn-in.  Do planars benefits from burn-in?


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

no


----------



## SilverEars

I feel like my new iems took a bit of time to burn in. It sounds more open now.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I didn't believe in burn-in before but I don't know why my iems sound more opened up than 2 hours ago.  I always thought burn-in was some BS, but my BA drivers do sound like it opened up.


----------



## bigshot

If you stop listening to them for a while, they'll close up again


----------



## UmustBKidn

Quote:


silverears said:


> I feel like my new iems took a bit of time to burn in. It sounds more open now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  


bigshot said:


> If you stop listening to them for a while, they'll close up again


 
  
 I hereby dub this discussion, "The Thread That Refused To Die (tm)."
  
 I think we have beaten this to death. Several times. I'm not entirely sure why it refuses to remain dead, but then again, people keep watching cat video's on the Internet, too.


----------



## RazorJack




----------



## Sxooter

umustbkidn said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> I hereby dub this discussion, "The Thread That Refused To Die (tm)."
> ...


 
 Because feelz > realz


----------



## darko313

I've discerned no changes in the sound signature of my Fidelio X1s after extended burn-in. Might update this with results from new JVC HA-S680s coming in a few weeks to see if any 'burn-in' is noticeable. I suspect advocates of burn-in are a lot like those who refrigerate their batteries. Human consciousness is not static. If you listen to some music today it may sound different the next day. Stress and various factors can affect our concentration. We can just as easily tune out certain aspects of music like we can tune out a lecture or the sound of a road nearby. It's easy to attribute attribute accommodation to the sound signature of a pair of headphones to the burn-in process, but the science is just not there. Until there is a section on Wikipedia dedicated to and explaining burn-in, I categorize it with magical thinking. Most times I see burn-in recommended no one actually mentions what improved, but choose to use ambiguous  terms like 'improved clarity'.
  
 Does the audio crowd (audiophile is kind of an annoying term at this point that carries certain implications) really need more people who advocate things they can't explain even in the simplest of scientific terms? Some have equated burn-in to combustible engines, but really most electronics do not burn in but instead suffer from wear and tear. Screens lose brightness as they age, computers do not get faster from 100 hours of use.
  
 My Arx-A1b's sound better than they did a year ago, but that's because I replaced the lepai2020 with a Topping TP-21. For sound quality to improve, you have to make a change to the design, such as replacing the cushions or the drivers, or adding a port. Some things really just work right out of the box people.


----------



## Saraguie

The only piece of audio equipment that has a noticeable 'burn in' which changes its sound signature, in a relatively short period of time, say 50-100 hours, is a tube.  Solid State materials do not burn in.  Over long periods of use they degrade or wear out.
  
 Different types of metal, quality of the metal, the way in which a component is built all that, is what determines how it sounds.
  
 IMO.


----------



## SilverEars

Ok, so everytime I start listening to my planar magnetic cans, it would sound hollow(which is how it sounds like with less powerful amp when I do a comparison), and I give it some time to play some music, it performs better.  Why is that?  Is there some some sort of warm up period for planars?  I never experienced this before.


----------



## bigshot

Try letting them play without listening to them first.


----------



## ab initio

That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
  
 Are you using a tube amp? Did you give your tube heaters enough time to warm up? If your tubes aren't warmed up and your headphones need a lot of current, I imagine you'll be especially underdamped until the amp is warmed up.
  
 Cheers


----------



## ToddTheMetalGod

In my opinion, burn in is psychological only. I've owned headphones that I thought burned in, then went to an audio store and listened to the same one fresh out of the box and the sound was identical. It's also worth noting that burn in never has a negative effect, as if it is us getting used to the new product. Also, burn in really doesn't make sense in physics. The diaphragm on headphones is so thin that even a bit of molecular change would destroy the previous sound signature, yet burn-in never changes the sound signature vastly. I think burn-in is us audiophiles justifying our questionable purchases. Unless someone shows physical evidence of burn-in none of us will ever be sure.


----------



## UmustBKidn

bigshot said:


> Try letting them play without listening to them first.


 
  
 Sometimes at work, I let my headphones play without listening to them.
  
 Oddly enough, I get more work done that way.


----------



## Kneel2Galvatron

Not sure how anyone could notice a subtle difference over the course of weeks or months.


----------



## esldude

kneel2galvatron said:


> Not sure how anyone could notice a subtle difference over the course of weeks or months.


 

 The difference is felt more than heard.  You feel it getting slowly better while remembering how it wasn't as good to start with.  Now of course the feeling is all that has changed.


----------



## SilverEars

esldude said:


> The difference is felt more than heard.  You feel it getting slowly better while remembering how it wasn't as good to start with.  Now of course the feeling is all that has changed.


 
 of course difference is felt than heard.  Our ears arn't a deferential calculator.  Difference is noticed by our brain, not heard.


----------



## Kneel2Galvatron

Hmmm interesting my HD650 do feel better I find since I purchased them back in march. Sound and comfort. I guess it makes sense to me now. Ear positioning could be a factor as well.


----------



## Dark_wizzie

HD800 feels the same from when I first tried them out.


----------



## bigshot

I measured the Oppo PM-1s when I first got them, and they still sound the same.


----------



## elmoe

kneel2galvatron said:


> Hmmm interesting my HD650 do feel better I find since I purchased them back in march. Sound and comfort. I guess it makes sense to me now. Ear positioning could be a factor as well.


 
  
 Of course. As pads get softer and you wear the headphones more, you get a better seal, which undoubtedly improves sound quality. My SA5000s had no bass when they were new, with time the pads got softer and now I got a perfect seal and the bass is much much more present.
  
 Obviously measurements will tell you otherwise, but then again putting a microphone in between the pads is not a good way to measure frequency response of headphones dependent on good seal.


----------



## SilverEars

elmoe said:


> Of course. As pads get softer and you wear the headphones more, you get a better seal, which undoubtedly improves sound quality. My SA5000s had no bass when they were new, with time the pads got softer and now I got a perfect seal and the bass is much much more present.
> 
> Obviously measurements will tell you otherwise, but then again putting a microphone in between the pads is not a good way to measurement frequency response of headphones dependent on good seal.


 
 yeah, I heard this before.  The pads do get soft over time, and your ears get closer to the drivers as time goes on, and loses the vice-grip-ness to your head. lol.  There are lots of things that can affect the sound from my experience such as the type of pads used(it can dampen the sound depending on the material), and for iems, fit and tips(type of material used, complies or silicones) makes a significant difference.
  
 I know your brain adjust to the sound over time also.  Way to really notice the difference in SQ is switch the phones quickly, but other than that even if you go to lower quality headphones, your ears adjust to the sound over time, and could sound better.


----------



## krismusic

Surely open back headphones do not rely on a seal?


----------



## elmoe

Sure they do. Sound leaking instead of bouncing off the pads is an issue even with open backs, depending on the type of pads. Certainly if we're talking about grados, there isn't much of a seal to begin with, but for the SA5ks, the seal matters.


----------



## krismusic

I'm surprised that foam would create a barrier to sound.


----------



## elmoe

The sa5k pads are leather...


----------



## krismusic

elmoe said:


> The sa5k pads are leather...



Ah. I was thinking of my 600's.


----------



## elmoe

Well, even with the 600. The seal is also important, not just the pads' material's reflective properties. My DT990s' pads also benefit from a good seal. It's not like foam pads absorb 100% of what comes out of the drivers.


----------



## krismusic

I accept the point that you are making. I am amazed how much the 600's leak though. I could almost use them as speakers!


----------



## Sxooter

elmoe said:


> Sure they do. Sound leaking instead of bouncing off the pads is an issue even with open backs, depending on the type of pads. Certainly if we're talking about grados, there isn't much of a seal to begin with, but for the SA5ks, the seal matters.


 
 Agreed. Also note how various foam pads for grados affect the sound signature quite a bit as well. It's all about how close to the ear they are etc with foam non-sealing pads as opposed to the seal that they really don't make. Even foam pads tho, change over time, slowly seating the drivers closer to your ears as they change shape and conform to your head.


----------



## Agharta

I find the older I get, the more I need increasingly strong coffees in the morning before I am properly burned in.


----------



## krismusic

agharta said:


> I find the older I get, the more I need increasingly strong coffees in the morning before I am properly burned in.



I'm burned out!


----------



## vertical

agharta said:


> I find the older I get, the more I need increasingly strong coffees in the morning before I am properly burned in.




Ha, I'm sipping my 1st cup of java as I type this


----------



## Saraguie

agharta said:


> I find the older I get, the more I need increasingly strong coffees in the morning before I am properly burned in.


 
 +1


----------



## UmustBKidn




----------



## SilverEars

Sorry guys.  I believe in burn-in now.  Something ridiculous happened with my new BA CIEMs.  If I explain it, you'll just shake your head even more.  Any material science or physics majors here help me out?


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Try to get a new one and AB it with your current one,  level matched.


----------



## ab initio

silverears said:


> Sorry guys.  I believe in burn-in now.  Something ridiculous happened with my new BA CIEMs.  If I explain it, you'll just shake your head even more.  Any material science or physics majors here help me out?  :bigsmile_face:




I Hope it's still under warranty ! 

Cheers


----------



## SilverEars

kamijoismyhero said:


> Try to get a new one and AB it with your current one,  level matched.


 
 How did I know someone was going to pop out and say this?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 No, I will not level match! Never!! I will keep the volume uneven and make my favorite one louder. 
  
  


ab initio said:


> I Hope it's still under warranty !
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 It states, it doesn't cover damages due to fire.


----------



## bigshot

silverears said:


> No, I will not level match! Never!! I will keep the volume uneven and make my favorite one louder.


 
  
 Keep the most expensive one louder. That's what everyone else does!


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

silverears said:


> How did I know someone was going to pop out and say this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Only fire? My GR07's warranty is voided if God decides to do something funny.


----------



## krismusic

kamijoismyhero said:


> Only fire? My GR07's warranty is voided if God decides to do something funny.



Any god or just God?


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

It is singular in the print but I am not sure which one they are referring to


----------



## castleofargh

got an answer looking at that documentary
 http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152270/abandon-all-hope


----------



## krismusic

kamijoismyhero said:


> It is singular in the print but I am not sure which one they are referring to



Ha ha. Good answer!


----------



## mbkennel

silverears said:


> Ok, so everytime I start listening to my planar magnetic cans, it would sound hollow(which is how it sounds like with less powerful amp when I do a comparison), and I give it some time to play some music, it performs better.  Why is that?  Is there some some sort of warm up period for planars?  I never experienced this before.


 
  
 On the useful assumption that the planar magnetics require higher power,  what could be warming up is the amplifier.  Playing music causes more current to flow through the amplifier, increasing its temperature closer to its operating design point.  Transistors have electrical properties which are notoriously temperature sensitive.
  
It's also possible that since there is some significant power being dissipated in the voice coil in the diaphragm with an inefficient transducer, the temperature of the diaphragm is also increasing, changing physical properties. 
  
 I personally perceive that my planar-magnetic speakers (magnepan 3.6) sound better after being played at a reasonable volume for ~15 mins or so.  I don't notice this effect with my headphones (Sennheiser HD580), which have a fairly high impedance and DAC/amp which feels to be the same temperature regardless of it is playing or not.


----------



## SilverEars

bigshot said:


> Keep the most expensive one louder. That's what everyone else does!


 
 I just compared $900 DAC to ODAC/O2 combo($300 from JDS lab, but cheap if DIY).  Guess who won?  ODAC/O2.  I'm very impartial to price.  My ears are impartial period.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So, please don't look at humans as so frail.


----------



## bigshot

Five bucks says you owned the DAC that won and borrowed the one that didn't.


----------



## UmustBKidn

silverears said:


> ...
> It states, it doesn't cover damages due to fire.


 
  
 Well now, that would be *Burn Up*, not Burn In.
  
 I believe the subject of Burn Up is in another thread.


----------



## blades

It is real but it doesn't work the way audiophiles think.  It is actually we who break into equipment (that has a sonic signature in the first place.)  Familiarity breeds sonic improvements.  Ever notice how speakers always sound better with time and never worse?  It is we who are doing the breaking in to a new sound.


----------



## jimr101

Don't mean to be rude but you are full of it. When an electronic welding machine breaks in as the circuits warm up and the connections get better as current flow thru them, I'm sorry the welds and the x rays of them get better. And so does the sound as circuits get better meterials expand and contract. There is a mental factor tru. I tend to be more aware of improvements in equipment I favor rather than the flaws agreed. Yet it still is changes that I am observing.


----------



## julian67

@jimr101

Firstly, if you "don't mean to be rude" then don't say stuff like "you are full of it" or people might question your sincerity 

Secondly, what you describe is warm up not burn in. "Burn in" would be a change that occurs after x time of use and is then persistent/permanent regardless of other factors. "Warm up" obviously is a change that occurs as the item warms with use and which is lost when the item is again used from a cold start.

The only sane examination I ever saw of the supposed burn-in phenomenon _in headphones_ was by Tyll at Inner Fidelity and he pretty much demonstrated that the changes observed were related to temperature changes, not permanent changes in physical or electrical properties.


----------



## Danamr

jimr101 said:


> Don't mean to be rude but you are full of it. When an electronic welding machine breaks in as the circuits warm up and the connections get better as current flow thru them, I'm sorry the welds and the x rays of them get better. And so does the sound as circuits get better meterials expand and contract. There is a mental factor tru. I tend to be more aware of improvements in equipment I favor rather than the flaws agreed. Yet it still is changes that I am observing.


 

 As someone else mentioned you are describing warm-up, not break-in. An industrial welding machine is built to certain specs ± a certain %. If it does not meet those specs it needs to be adjusted, repaired, or replaced.
 Not to mention that except for a very small number of very expensive solid state power amps, nothing in hi-fi could expect to see the kind of energy levels produced by a welder.
 What you are describing is classic placebo effect. It's as expected because that's how the human brain works.


----------



## castleofargh

warm up= when turned off all the changes will reverse to the original state
 burn-in= definitive changes
 warm up must have some matter of effect on sound, but it might be of a degree that is not audible, and there is no telling if the result or increased temperature is better for sound. it will obviously depend on the system itself and what components/power will be used.
 I find it hard to make a global answer to such a problem.
 I would be tempted to say that if the manufacturers know what they are doing, they made sure the specs would be good under load after hours of use. and if warming up for 10mn was important, I dare to believe that the manufacturer would be aware of it and would tell us about it(if not in the manual, at least in a mail when asked).


----------



## jimr101

I sincerely do not mean any rudeness in saying you are full of it. Just that it is growing up in europe where athletics weren't at the center of education the goal was the truth vs. I'm right and you are wrong. I'm the carter back so I get the prettiest cheerleader. Or I'm the foreman you're under me so tell me I'm right whether or not I am and I'll keep you. I do apoligize for my rudeness. I am rude that's the truth. It not about political correctness like any good frenchman will tell you. It is simply about the simple fact that the more current flows through a circuit it burns in for the better most times and in some cases you get a lemon that for some reason or not does not. This is not a psychological exercise like in the book I'm ok you're ok where one takes the parent role and speaks down to the child. It is simply about getting better sound. I'm OK with me are you OK With your self. I didn't reach a level of making nuclear grade welds by playing pecking orders. My hobby now that I am retired is trying my best to find the ultimate sound not being or having the best sound.


----------



## bigshot

jimr101 said:


> Just that it is growing up in europe where athletics weren't at the center of education the goal was the truth vs. I'm right and you are wrong.


 
  
 So does that mean because you grew up in Europe you think you are wrong and he is right?
  
 As for the truth... point to a confirmation through a well conducted double blind listening test, please.


----------



## Danamr

jimr101 said:


> I sincerely do not mean any rudeness in saying you are full of it. Just that it is growing up in europe where athletics weren't at the center of education the goal was the truth vs. I'm right and you are wrong. I'm the carter back so I get the prettiest cheerleader. Or I'm the foreman you're under me so tell me I'm right whether or not I am and I'll keep you. I do apoligize for my rudeness. I am rude that's the truth. It not about political correctness like any good frenchman will tell you. It is simply about the simple fact that the more current flows through a circuit it burns in for the better most times and in some cases you get a lemon that for some reason or not does not. This is not a psychological exercise like in the book I'm ok you're ok where one takes the parent role and speaks down to the child. It is simply about getting better sound. I'm OK with me are you OK With your self. I didn't reach a level of making nuclear grade welds by playing pecking orders. My hobby now that I am retired is trying my best to find the ultimate sound not being or having the best sound.


 

 Maybe you should just grow up.


----------



## jimr101

Exactly the oposite, to find the truth one must be capable of being wrong. In there lies the problem I was trying in my dyslexic way and feeble speling to discribe how engineering degrees and technical graphs and data can a 
times put us a parent to child aproch to problem solving rather than the humility of having to have failed over and 
over again to attain a higher level of judgement. Once one has failed enough and humbled himself enough can he 
boldly approch more complex and chalenging task with 
the boldness needed to lead. I have never snubbed my 
nose at the very acurate and precise mathematics of the 
engenering department and they fully respect my years of 
practicle experience when I find the short falls of their 
blind test figures that inevitably always miss some unpredicted factor. All I'm asking is that one respects my 
life long observations on an equal plane as I do respect their technical know how. So for whatever it is worth or not I have observed that just like I had welding machines 
right next to another one (just like an objective blind test) one would produce better and better x ray welds the more it was used the other one was a lemon with the same 
welding technique. And as I got into the headphones hobby I noticed the very same thing occuring with sound equipment. As we set 600ton roofs on nuclear reactors 
somehow the engineers took these observation skills in concideration. The mathematical calculations of the loads were crucial but no less than years of experience 
anticipating the unexpected. There lies the problem with double blind test. Fortunatly we are not machines or robots we have senses that when finely tuned have 
abilities behond computers and machines to anticipate the not anticipated factors.


----------



## Danamr

Given:
 You are male
 You are old enough to retire
 You have been working in a industrial environment long enough to become what I am sure is a master welder.
 That means:
 You don't have the hearing able to hear what you are claiming you are able to hear.
 If what you say is true please point us to the documentation requiring your rigs to be "burned in" before use.


----------



## castleofargh

jimr101 said:


> I sincerely do not mean any rudeness in saying you are full of it. Just that it is growing up in europe where athletics weren't at the center of education the goal was the truth vs. I'm right and you are wrong. I'm the carter back so I get the prettiest cheerleader. Or I'm the foreman you're under me so tell me I'm right whether or not I am and I'll keep you. I do apoligize for my rudeness. I am rude that's the truth. It not about political correctness like any good frenchman will tell you. It is simply about the simple fact that the more current flows through a circuit it burns in for the better most times and in some cases you get a lemon that for some reason or not does not. This is not a psychological exercise like in the book I'm ok you're ok where one takes the parent role and speaks down to the child. It is simply about getting better sound. I'm OK with me are you OK With your self. I didn't reach a level of making nuclear grade welds by playing pecking orders. My hobby now that I am retired is trying my best to find the ultimate sound not being or having the best sound.


 

 not sure that trying to win an argument by making fun of american education was your brightest move here. and I also tend to disagree with the rest, the powers involved are really not the same. there is nothing to say that a low current, low voltage signal(audio systems) can have any of the effects of whatever is needed for high grade weldings. something with less power could mean slower effect, but could also mean no effect at all or just temporary ones if the structure of the material is not changed.
 also I fail to see how getting better weld explains anything about a better signal? maybe more noise in the current is the reason the weld is better for all I know. I'm not denying what you're saying about your job, but you're jumping to conclusions when it concerns audio signals and any possible similarities.


----------



## jimr101

I do not pretend to know anything about audio signal. Only the unbias power of observation acquired over the years. As the son of a WWII vet my love of the US is not a put down of american education put rather an objective study my father made in his theses for his doctorate in education that our athletic oriented education mostly in the 70's could be better served by less compation and more objectivity if we wanted to keep up and hopefully getting better. I don't claim to know why, but I did a little experimenting on my own. I brought a friend of mine to the McIntosh dealer that doesn't own or has any prejudice try on several pair of headphone without him knowing witch were the new one and witch one had a couple hours on them and he picked out 10 out of 10 the used ones as sounding much better. I really doubt that it was his ears were adjusting as they were presented in different order. As old as my ears are I'm pretty sure I could tell the difference between the sound coming out the Iphone and the Mcintosh amp just like I could tell the difference between the new and the older headphones.


----------



## TsKen

So its been 3 years, whats the conclusion?


----------



## krismusic

There is no conclusion. Ever..


----------



## Redcarmoose

What ever the conclusion is, it's personal. Unless of course it's a burn-in recommendation for a specific product made by a company then it's public.

Sony recommends 200 hours per amplifier for the 1Z and 1A. Each of those models has two amplifier sections, one balanced and one single-ended, thus 400 recommended hours total per product.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 16, 2017)

If you want maximum placebo value, you should burn in your equipment for as long as you can. If there actually is a difference made during burn in, you should return it for a refund, because if the sound shifts right out of the box, odds are it will keep shifting. It's defective.

The difference between expensive equipment and midrange equipment often isn't related to sound quality. It's related to manufacturing tolerances. An expensive model has to perform to a tighter standard. I was told by a high end headphone manufacturer that they were shooting for a +/- 1dB deviation from their target response. They later released a similar model for a lower price. I would bet that it was the same basic design and materials, it would have just had a wider tolerance. So if your headphones shift after burning in, you aren't getting what you paid for.


----------



## Danamr

If device X (headphone, cable, amp, etc) requires a burn-in to sound the way they are supposed to, why isn't this done by the manufacture as part of QC? Why am I, the person who put down my cash, doing this? And in the case of the Sony device above 16-17 days? Really? What?
Makes no since at all. If a Sony device for example, is using these special, high tech capacitors that need 8 days of something to sound correct, why is this device shipped without that being done? More to the point why doesn't Sony require their supplier ship them "broken in"?
If a pair of headphones doesn't sound the way they are supposed to out of the box and requires x number of hours of (pink noise, a certain Grateful Dead song, etc) to sound correct, how are they passing QC to begin with? Does the manufacturer even know? And what are you supposed to use to do this? Are you saying playing random cuts of a Grateful Dead cd is the same as using say a noise generator that produces a more even coverage of frequencies and wave forms. (Something Sony or Sennheiser or Grado might have but the average music geek?)
This sounds more like a way to force you to live with a device and adapt to it, than anything else.


----------



## Redcarmoose (Dec 17, 2017)

It’s acceptable only because of the wide range of tomfoolery audiophiles have a capacity for. They will jump through burning hoops if it could add an inkling of improvement in performance. But in regards to the Sony used Panasonic capacitors, they are actually unstable and produce a wavering volume which can actually be noticed, then smooth out over time.

Though I’m pretty sure most transducer burn-in is mental. One way to test it is buy an exact headphone new and see if it sounds like the already burned in headphone. Most of the time the two headphones sound exactly the same because it was mental burn-in.


----------



## krismusic (Dec 17, 2017)

[SPOILER/]="Danamr, post: 13919488, member: 3895"]





Danamr said:


> If device X (headphone, cable, amp, etc) requires a burn-in to sound the way they are supposed to, why isn't this done by the manufacture as part of QC? Why am I, the person who put down my cash, doing this? And in the case of the Sony device above 16-17 days? Really? What?
> Makes no since at all. If a Sony device for example, is using these special, high tech capacitors that need 8 days of something to sound correct, why is this device shipped without that being done? More to the point why doesn't Sony require their supplier ship them "broken in"?
> If a pair of headphones doesn't sound the way they are supposed to out of the box and requires x number of hours of (pink noise, a certain Grateful Dead song, etc) to sound correct, how are they passing QC to begin with? Does the manufacturer even know? And what are you supposed to use to do this? Are you saying playing random cuts of a Grateful Dead cd is the same as using say a noise generator that produces a more even coverage of frequencies and wave forms. (Something Sony or Sennheiser or Grado might have but the average music geek?)
> This sounds more like a way to force you to live with a device and adapt to it, than anything else.


I've sometimes wondered how engineers would design equipment if burn in was a factor. Do they use burned in components? I very much doubt it. So they forecast how a design is going to sound after burn in??


----------



## 71 dB

krismusic said:


> [SPOILER/]="Danamr, post: 13919488, member: 3895"]
> I've sometimes wondered how engineers would design equipment if burn in was a factor. Do they use burned in components? I very much doubt it. So they forecast how a design is going to sound after burn in??



Engineers use most of the time _ideal components_ (that don't exist in real life) when designing something and hope the real world components are "close enough."


----------



## castleofargh

Redcarmoose said:


> It’s acceptable only because of the wide range of tomfoolery audiophiles have a capacity for. They will jump through burning hoops if it could add an inkling of improvement in performance. But in regards to the Sony used Panasonic capacitors, they are actually unstable and produce a wavering volume which can actually be noticed, then smooth out over time.
> 
> Though I’m pretty sure most transducer burn-in is mental. One way to test it is buy an exact headphone new and see if it sounds like the already burned in headphone. Most of the time the two headphones sound exactly the same because it was mental burn-in.


this is really not a proper testing method and here is why:
- you have absolutely no certainty that the manufacturer didn't change anything in the headphone's production over time.
- expecting to get the same sound from 2 pairs is simply a false assumption. most of the time we don't even get the same sound from the left and right driver of the same pair. 
- just placing the headphone back on your head could result in several dBs of variation with the very headphone you just took off. 


in short, your conditions for the experiment are likely to generate a lot more variations than a headphone playing hundreds of hours.



TsKen said:


> So its been 3 years, whats the conclusion?


the conclusion is that just like I don't type this message with a shovel, we don't demonstrate objective variations with subjective impressions gained with nonexistent methodology.
tubes in amps deteriorate over time and that is probably something to look after. 
pads on headphones do change the sound and getting new ones can have a drastic anti burn in effect. ^_^
some gears need a little time to warm up(often literally so). 
gears having actual(not imagined) drastic changes over short period of time are bad products and should be avoided. 

for the most part, if you never think about burn in ever again in your life, you'll probably make yourself a favor. even if we consider many electrical, mechanical, acoustical causes and put them all into our ignorance bag named burn in with the hope to end up with some significant changes, so what? we can dance around our gear with paint on our faces while playing at 666hz test tone for 1337 minutes. but none of the people doing that kind of stuff have any evidence that it does anything, or that if it does, it's beneficial to the sound.


----------



## krismusic

Ideal components? I assume that the designers pay for these with magic beans?


----------



## Redcarmoose (Dec 17, 2017)

@ https://www.head-fi.org/members/castleofargh.188025/

Well, it’s happened a couple times, when I purchased a new pair and they sounded just like the burned in pair. I’m not saying it’s a perfect scientific methodology at all, only it was a surprisingly new personal discovery. The surprise was, I was ready to hear a difference, but there was none, a couple of times.


----------



## Redcarmoose (Dec 17, 2017)

@  https://www.head-fi.org/members/castleofargh.188025/


Never think of it again? Put it in our ignorance bag? Huh?

No, you have to realise many folks hear have spent $1000s with no clear idea how the personal sound signature at the end is going to be.

Also if you read up on members, many have very different signature tastes. Some want stuff to sound warm, some want more of a reference sound; you can’t have both. This process of sound quality coming together from burn-in for us is huge. It’s the difference between massive levels of frustration and financial loss or Win-Win.

And if your wondering if we as listeners are waiting and hoping for the burn-in fairy to arrive (even over the course of weeks or months) ......you bet that’s what we are waiting for...... perfection!

How it changes in amplifiers with time, may have a scientific cause. It may also be a combination of mental and material burn-in, but whatever it is something is going on here. It would be a great thing if science could help control it, help us understand it, but it’s going on, none the less.


And there will most likely never be a hard predictable science to it all. And there will always be arguments about what people hope or believe to be true.

But when you have a company like Sony write burn-in instructional material into the operating system of the player, they are telling folks about burn in. Same as Woo Audio is telling people about burn-in with their tube amps. The capacitors change how they react in a scientificly proven manner. Burn-in for capacitors is a real thing. Wires and headphones? Who knows.

Three levels of Sony players have two sided boards. Side one has single-ended, side two has 4.4mm Pentaconn 5 pole balanced outputs. Sony recommends 200 hours per amp. That’s 400 hours a player, before the new Panasonic capacitors have settled down.


----------



## Danamr

Redcarmoose said:


> But in regards to the Sony used Panasonic capacitors, they are actually unstable and produce a wavering volume which can actually be noticed, then smooth out over time.


I can believe that. My question is, why is it on me to deal with a known issue of a component?
Is it impossible for Panasonic to deal with this when they QC the caps? Or Sony to deal with it when they QC the device?
Does this mean that it's on me, the consumer to do the QC? Because how can you ship a device where the volume is wavering?  How am I supposed to know if this is a "break-in" issue, or a DOA?


----------



## Danamr

krismusic said:


> [SPOILER/]="Danamr, post: 13919488, member: 3895"]
> I've sometimes wondered how engineers would design equipment if burn in was a factor. Do they use burned in components? I very much doubt it. So they forecast how a design is going to sound after burn in??


How can you do a forcast without controlling the burn in? What is used, what environment, etc?


----------



## Danamr

Redcarmoose said:


> Three levels of Sony players have two sided boards. Side one has single-ended, side two has 4.4mm Pentaconn 5 pole balanced outputs. Sony recommends 200 hours per amp. That’s 400 hours a player, before the new Panasonic capacitors have settled down.


I have no doubt this is true.
So again, why is on me to spend 16 days of doing this for Sony? Are you saying Sony could not automate this at the factory level, so it done in a uniform and calibrated fashion?
For that matter why is Panasonic delivering unstable components to Sony, and why is that okay?
Would you be okay if you car took 400 hours of driving to become stable? For the airbags to work properly? If my washing machine took 400 hours to do a wash a load without getting cloths clean?
Not.
A.
Chance.


----------



## Danamr

The answer is audio is so centered on subjective assessments that cannot be measured, the manufactures can get away with this kind of BS.


----------



## nanaholic (Dec 17, 2017)

Danamr said:


> I have no doubt this is true.
> So again, why is on me to spend 16 days of doing this for Sony? Are you saying Sony could not automate this at the factory level, so it done in a uniform and calibrated fashion?
> For that matter why is Panasonic delivering unstable components to Sony, and why is that okay?
> Would you be okay if you car took 400 hours of driving to become stable? For the airbags to work properly? If my washing machine took 400 hours to do a wash a load without getting cloths clean?
> ...



You do know that car manufacturers often do recommend you to not go above a certain rev range for the first few hundred kilometres of a new engine, which is essentially asking you to "burn in" the engine/engine components before they can reach optimum performance?  Your question could then apply to "why don't car manufacturers burn in the engine for me so I can rev the engine to red line as soon as I get it?". I'd say because some people actually enjoy this process and prefer to get a brand new item that they feel they grow and bond with it, in a sense. Some people have their own ritual to running in their equipment and think they even know better than the manufacturer on what is the best way to burn in, so there's that too.


----------



## Danamr

nanaholic said:


> You do know that car manufacturers often do recommend you to not go above a certain rev range for the first few hundred kilometres of a new engine, which is essentially asking you to "burn in" the engine/engine components before they can reach optimum performance?  Your question could then apply to "why don't car manufacturers burn in the engine for me so I can rev the engine to red line as soon as I get it?". I'd say because some people actually enjoy this process and prefer to get a brand new item that they feel they grow and bond with it, in a sense. Some people have their own ritual to running in their equipment and think they even know better than the manufacturer on what is the best way to burn in, so there's that too.


While breaking in a drive line was common 30 years ago, the general consensus is modern autos (with a few exceptions) are good to go right off the line. Manufacturing in the auto (motorcycle) industry has come a long way.


----------



## Danamr

nanaholic said:


> You do know that car manufacturers often do recommend you to not go above a certain rev range for the first few hundred kilometres of a new engine, which is essentially asking you to "burn in" the engine/engine components before they can reach optimum performance?  Your question could then apply to "why don't car manufacturers burn in the engine for me so I can rev the engine to red line as soon as I get it?". I'd say because some people actually enjoy this process and prefer to get a brand new item that they feel they grow and bond with it, in a sense. Some people have their own ritual to running in their equipment and think they even know better than the manufacturer on what is the best way to burn in, so there's that too.


And thinking about it a bit, I realized it's not that dis-similar to what we are talking about here.  In the day when you asked how to break in a engine, there were as many answers as hours in the day, and very little actual data to back up any of them.
Just poke around on a auto or motorcycle forum about break-in. You will see threads just as nasty as anything here.


----------



## castleofargh

Redcarmoose said:


> @  https://www.head-fi.org/members/castleofargh.188025/
> 
> 
> Never think of it again? Put it in our ignorance bag? Huh?
> ...




first, type @ and the first letters of the name you want to tag. the list of members starting with those letters will pop up  

science has zero problem identifying changes, let's not mistake what you and I know for the scientific knowledge on a subject. if science was limited to what audiophiles understand, we probably wouldn't even have recording and playback devices. 
I've said it too many times on too many similar topics. I don't care if burn in is real or not, because there isn't even a clear idea of what burn in is. just here, we go from basically any possible change in a headphone over time, to capacitors in a DAP, to car engines...  how can I not see burn in as an ignorance bag where people throw anything they don't understand or don't want to bother proving correctly?  people don't care for a second if they imagined a change, if they have an altered memory of how the sound was a month ago(which is 100% guaranteed to happen). if the sound changed because they dropped the headphone and rolled their chair over the cable twice this week. they don't care if maybe some acoustic filter is getting dirty from all the dust and smoke in the room and reduce the high frequencies and resonance peaks. if they got a certain habit when it comes to placing the headphone that they didn't have the first day. if taking the headphone outside when it's was -15°C might have been bad for a driver counting on the flexibility of the membrane's material to work a long time. if maybe they plugged the headphone into the amp that was previously used with a much less sensitive headphone and for a sec the sound was too loud and maybe damaged something before they could react.... I could make a book of all the hypothetical causes of sound change over time without even having to make up BS causes. including how nothing grows younger, and how it's a fact that everything is always changing if we look close enough. but instead of looking at things separately and in detail, people somehow seem to want to reverse engineer thinking. sound changed over time is the common result, so everything that created a sound change over time (real or imagined) must be burn in!  said like that it seems stupid, but isn't it the axiom implied when somebody goes "burn in is real, headphone XXXX sounding very different after a month"? of course it is. people use perceived change in sound to justify that burn in exists. meaning that they assume burn in to be the only cause of sound change. or put differently that all possible causes for a change after some time are called burn in.  I turned the volume knob, boom, burn in! that's the problem with fallacies, they're easy to push over the edge because they're irrational to begin with. 
we could as well call burn in, the hand of god, or blame aliens doing stuff to our gear while we sleep. it would hardly be sillier than what we pretend to debate about burn in. 


as for manufacturer saying stuff. I'll care about that the day they release measurements showing how much change there is after XXXhours. and then I'll try to reproduce the results myself or look for somebody to do it. because sony also draws staircase graphs to "explain" the benefits of high res. and talks about how their proprietary chipset reduces the noise floor while forgetting to mention that it's the digital noise floor and their output for many models with such chip still had pretty significant analog noise floor well above 16bit. they're not exactly famous for being strictly true to their customers and talking about relevant stuff.  marketing is marketing. 





in the end facts are based on evidence. claims of burn in for a specific device has to be measured under controlled conditions(and not just while measuring, we also need controls between the measurements). anything less is unreliable and inconclusive. 
if such a device was proved to change in some way, there will be a reason. when do we decide to call it burn in? after investigating to find the real cause or immediately no matter what(bag of ignorance)? 
let's assume there is a change and it falls into whatever vague definition of burn in we have defined. so far it's an anecdote and nothing else. to simply conclude that all the devices of the same model burn in, we'd need statistical sample put under the same test as the first one. 
let's assume this happens someday somewhere. it's still only 1 series of device from one brand. nothing more.
and that's rational logic and experimentation aimed at drawing conclusions about burn in. very far from my uncle had a sister who said that burn in was real for bacon, therefore I burn in my cables by doing some nonsensical ritual that I imagine to have some impact on my gear". proving a positive impact would of course require even more testing and would in fact be much harder to do than all I've just mentioned. which is why I'm very confident when I say that what people do to burn their gear is stuff of a cult. it's purely based on faith instead of evidence of anything at all. 

so there we are, I don't claim that things change audibly or not, I don't claim anything about burn in, not even a proper definition. but I do claim that audiophiles suck at testing and suck even more at logic and deduction. and burn in is an irrelevant thing so long as it's not clearly defined objectively and demonstrated in a global way, which will probably never happens.


----------



## bigshot

Danamr said:


> Makes no since at all. If a Sony device for example, is using these special, high tech capacitors that need 8 days of something to sound correct, why is this device shipped without that being done?




Because the no questions asked return window is 7 days.


----------



## nanaholic

bigshot said:


> Because the no questions asked return window is 7 days.



There's no such return policies in Japan. In fact most countries don't have such return policies except the USA AFAIK.


----------



## nanaholic (Dec 17, 2017)

Danamr said:


> While breaking in a drive line was common 30 years ago, the general consensus is modern autos (with a few exceptions) are good to go right off the line. Manufacturing in the auto (motorcycle) industry has come a long way.



My friend just took delivery of a brand spanking new Subaru BRZ in Japan, Subaru still told him to burn in the engine.

Come to think of it, a BRZ would be considered an enthusiasts sports car, where these kinds of "burn in" rituals would be widely believed and trusted. A normal car buyer who bought a sedan just looking at getting between point A and B won't give a rats ass about properly running in their engine, hell most people don't even take proper care of their cars and even learn the most basic things about cars in general. You can more than draw a few parallels here.


----------



## Danamr

bigshot said:


> Because the no questions asked return window is 7 days.


Interesting statement.  Having dealt with the photo and video side of Sony for 20+ years or so, I really don't envy retailers on the audio side of the market. I can just see trying to get a RMA on a high-end audio component based on it not sounding correct...


----------



## Danamr

nanaholic said:


> My friend just took delivery of a brand spanking new Subaru BRZ in Japan, Subaru still told him to burn in the engine.


And ask that person what that involves. And take a look in Subaru forums about break-in.  It's as bad as anything on Head-Fi.


----------



## nanaholic (Dec 17, 2017)

Danamr said:


> And ask that person what that involves. And take a look in Subaru forums about break-in.  It's as bad as anything on Head-Fi.



It's the usual - try to not go above 3k for the first 500 clicks etc.  There's no mystery to it and don't need to look at any forums, it is still based on the age old idea of not over-stressing the engine and give time for the parts to slowly wear in. Again you'll have people who swears this is important vs another group who says it's all BS (and another group who will say no you need to do something else entirely), still doesn't come down to any solid conclusions one way or the other.


----------



## Ari33 (Dec 17, 2017)

Running a car engine in can't really be compared with the so called burn in of electronics. Engine/drivetrain Run in/Friction reduction is a proven and measurable factor on how an engine performs, incidentally, one that I have even been able to measure myself in terms of performance when I bought my first new car.

Other than A-B subjective testing electronics burn in is most probably unmeasurable regardless whether it is real or not.


----------



## Danamr

castleofargh said:


> so there we are, I don't claim that things change audibly or not, I don't claim anything about burn in, not even a proper definition. but I do claim that audiophiles suck at testing and suck even more at logic and deduction. and burn in is an irrelevant thing so long as it's not clearly defined objectively and demonstrated in a global way, which will probably never happens.


You make very good points.
With the right technology you can very accurately describe what something sounds like. You cannot at all accurately describe  what someone is hearing.  When you look at how we describe what we hear, there are very few things that are not subjective...
That said, I think car engine break-in is a very good analogy. It's not well understood, and the results are almost impossible to quantify.
The discussions are fun though.


----------



## Ari33

Danamr said:


> You make very good points.
> With the right technology you can very accurately describe what something sounds like. You cannot at all accurately describe  what someone is hearing.  When you look at how we describe what we hear, there are very few things that are not subjective...
> That said, I think car engine break-in is a very good analogy. It's not well understood, and the results are almost impossible to quantify.
> The discussions are fun though.




I agree that the correct method for running a car engine in, is up for debate but if 'run in' is measurable in altering an engines output itself, then surely that makes the comparison with unproven 'burn in' in electronics an irrelevant one?


----------



## Danamr

Ari33 said:


> I agree that the correct method for running a car engine in, is up for debate but if 'run in' is measurable in altering an engines output itself, then surely that makes the comparison with unproven 'burn in' in electronics an irrelevant one?


That's kind of the problem. 
First how would you measure that change in the engine? Dyno? Pull the plugs and do a compression check? (Good luck with that on a modern auto, finding the plugs is a challenge)
Assuming you do one of the above, I would not expect to see a statically meaningful change in a standard assembly line engine. Hand built, high performance engine maybe, but even then, much of a change in the first 500 miles would be a red flag to me. In  Most of the break-in is to get to that first oil and filter change.  
That's, I think one of the reasons, engine break-in is one of those subjects that you need Nomex to get involved with. 
(Want to see flame wars, start a oil discussion...)


----------



## bigshot

I think burn in is like aging fine wine. It's like developing a patina on a bronze statue. It's a lot like planting a seed and watching it germinate.

Naw... it's placebo.


----------



## Ari33 (Dec 17, 2017)

Danamr said:


> That's kind of the problem.
> First how would you measure that change in the engine? Dyno? Pull the plugs and do a compression check? (Good luck with that on a modern auto, finding the plugs is a challenge)
> Assuming you do one of the above, I would not expect to see a statically meaningful change in a standard assembly line engine. Hand built, high performance engine maybe, but even then, much of a change in the first 500 miles would be a red flag to me. In  Most of the break-in is to get to that first oil and filter change.
> That's, I think one of the reasons, engine break-in is one of those subjects that you need Nomex to get involved with.
> (Want to see flame wars, start a oil discussion...)




I am a bit of a petrolhead and with my brother being a rally driver Im also involved with motorsport in servicing and event marshalling so I have quite a lot to do with like minded people and also socially. It's widely accepted, in fact pretty much a given amongst all of us that engines/drivetrain do loosen up and performance increases on a brand new engine... especially over the first 10-15k miles. You are probably the first person that I've come across who is questioning it. Yeah, its probably more noticable in a race engine due to it's purpose but there is no reason why it shouldnt also happen to some extent with regular power units.

Many years ago 98 I think? I bought a brand new Pug 106gti having previously owned the S1 106 Rallye. The engine had allegedly been dyno run in and I'd been told it was good to drive as I liked without taking any precautions. My initial impressions were pretty disappointing... it was a bit faster than my old S1 Rallye but not THAT much faster, certainly not worth any where near the cost difference, it did handle much better though.
 I timed it at 7.9 avg to 60 using a Vbox logger, only 0.25 secs quicker than my old Rallye despite having a bigger engine and an alleged 20 extra ponnies (Yeah, right!! :/...) pretty gutted! More like only an extra 5bhp and the increased torque was the only increase at that point. 
Twelve months and 6k miles on and it started loosening up a bit and I'm thinking yeah... 'Ok, still not exactly earth shattering but it's definately getting better....' then two years in and at 13.5k miles it was really starting to go so MUCH better that I Vboxed it again and was now averaging 7.5 to 60... it felt even better than that but I suppose almost half a second is quite a substantial increase and one that equated to around 15 bhp in that particular car.
It wouldn't solely be down to just the engine... but the whole drivetrain loosening up as all the bearings and frictional parts bedded in. I also have no doubts whatsoever that a dyno would have shown a similar improvement had I been bothered to put it on the rolling road at new then again after two years. I no longer regretted buying it and I actually bought two others over the years since then.

So I 100% do believe in mechanical run in and also accept that there COULD be a possibility of speaker diaphragms in headphones changing as they loosen up... maybe? 
With electrical burn in I am a lot more sceptical... someone prove it and I'd be happy to alter my opinion though.


----------



## krismusic

I suggest the car analogy should be like mentioning Nazis on the rest of the internet. Once someone mentions it, game over. It is such a spurious analogy. Means nothing. IMHO.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Manufacturing BS? Why say that? It’s just a simple form of audiophile physics which the manufacturers are going along with. 

It’s maybe not cost effective to burn the capacitors in prior to the sale. Normally if I remember right a company like VPI runs their new turntables on a shelf for 24 hours. Each company is different. The Sony player becomes dramatically different even after 25 hours. So at times these companies are recommending the full burn-in recommendation. 

Why be upset with the company, as they made world-class great sounding equipment. We are lucky have it offered, it burn-in or not.


----------



## Redcarmoose (Dec 17, 2017)

krismusic said:


> I suggest the car analogy should be like mentioning Nazis on the rest of the internet. Once someone mentions it, game over. It is such a spurious analogy. Means nothing. IMHO.



Well, with turntables, like VPI, this 24 hour “wear-in” is looked at like car “burn-in”. They also state that it’s quality control, so they want to make sure the turntable functions for 24 hours as well as the slight mechanical change of bearings wearing into and smoothing out mechanically into their new home. But cars actually get better gas mileage after the first tank of gas, as it’s simply more work to push the car along with all the internal mechanical friction.

Though car “run-in” has changed over the years. In the 1970s many took fast cars from the dealer and went onto the freeway to 100mph only to have the engine blow-up. Now engineering has made tolerances so slightly fit, that you could take a 2017 car out and go full speed on the freeway with no issues.


----------



## bigshot

That sounds like they're foisting their quality control tests off to the consumer.


----------



## Redcarmoose

You can only imagine how bewildering all this is for the new comer. 


And that’s what the web site is for right? To help people understand and get better enjoyment from audio equipment. 

Science would like everything to be cut and dry. So to say, OK maybe there is a slight sound change in equipment due to slight changes beyond the methods of measurement is too much to admit. It’s hard to prove anything and, we all know how confusing and unreliable subjective listening proof is from experience. 

As science has done with psychology, we know preconceived ideas change audio perception. So just stating to the new comer about burn-in can even create a phenomenon which does not exist. 

Manufacturers believe in it at times and include ownership manuals which go on to explain how the burn-in process will 100% positivity change the equipment sound for the better. Though these changes are slight they are noted as being slightly warmer, maybe more consistent and smooth. 

So a small list of ideas, would be very useful to the new comer. And.......the hardfelt reality here is that a headphone or amp or DAC that they may have actually loved, would be passed up if listened quickly out of the box and put back on the shelf. 

That’s the real risk of not taking burn-in changes as real. If you already own the equipment it simply gets better. But to actually not buy equipment due to fear of no burn-in process is the danger here for the noobs.


----------



## Ari33

I remember a Creative X-fi soundcard sounding noticably better after listening to/through it for a few hours... the trouble is... it was 2nd hand, had been used for a few years previously.
That's when I realised just how powerful auditory perception and burn in of my... BRAIN... can be!


----------



## Redcarmoose

It’s like looking at a map of a town. Then going to the town and driving around, then looking at the map again.

After visiting the town, the map takes on an all new meaning. Somehow perception changes in relation to exposure of perception stimuli over the course of time. I used to believe in wire and heardphone burn-in, though now I’m not so sure. Mental burn-in is 100% real though.


----------



## bigshot

Assuming that burn in is real... Who's to say that burn in improves sound quality? Maybe you like the way it sounded out of the box and a couple of days later, it doesn't sound so good. I would think that deteriorating sound would be more likely than improving sound. A manufacturer isn't going to send a product out the door that doesn't sound its best.

I think burn in is a myth created by retailers to discourage quick returns. They figure if they can require a buyer to listen to their new cans for a week or so, the customer is going to get used to the funky sound and not bother to return them. I see buyer's remorse all the time on these forums. This is how retailers fight back.


----------



## Danamr

Redcarmoose said:


> You can only imagine how bewildering all this is for the new comer.
> 
> 
> And that’s what the web site is for right? To help people understand and get better enjoyment from audio equipment.
> ...


In a ideal world, that's not what science wants. Science wants theories that can be tested and proved or disproved. Real world science is as screwed up as everything else. Poke through what Sabine Hossenfelder writes about physics: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/. 


Redcarmoose said:


> As science has done with psychology, we know preconceived ideas change audio perception. So just stating to the new comer about burn-in can even create a phenomenon which does not exist.
> Manufacturers believe in it at times and include ownership manuals which go on to explain how the burn-in process will 100% positivity change the equipment sound for the better. Though these changes are slight they are noted as being slightly warmer, maybe more consistent and smooth.


Why is it 100% positive? This is a issue with burn in. 


Redcarmoose said:


> So a small list of ideas, would be very useful to the new comer. And.......the hardfelt reality here is that a headphone or amp or DAC that they may have actually loved, would be passed up if listened quickly out of the box and put back on the shelf.
> That’s the real risk of not taking burn-in changes as real. If you already own the equipment it simply gets better. But to actually not buy equipment due to fear of no burn-in process is the danger here for the noobs.


Listen to yourself. This makes no since at all.
How do you ever audition a product? 
And how do you know you are burning it in correctly? 
And yeah stuff ends in a closet because you have kept it so long expecting it to burn in you can't return it anymore...


----------



## Redcarmoose (Dec 17, 2017)

The above responses are standard fare for SS. I've read them here for years and years, they never change.

The audio-nihilism ideas presented here in SS would have kept me from truly enjoying this hobby if I would have been a noob and didn't know any better.



Spoiler:  Nihilism Word Definition 



*Noun*
*nihilism* (_countable and uncountable_, _plural_ *nihilisms*)


(philosophy) A philosophical doctrine grounded on the negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life.
(ethics) The rejection of inherent or objective moral principles.
(politics) The rejection of non-rationalized or non-proven assertions in the social and political spheres of society.
(politics, historical) A Russian movement of the 1860s that rejected all authority and promoted the use of violence for political change.
The understanding that all endeavors are devoid of objective meaning. quotations ▼
*Synonyms*: fatalism
The refusal of belief, that belief itself is untenable.




And that's the sad part. A noob reading 20 to 20,000 hertz is all there is ever to hear. That you would be fine with a 1999 CD player putting out 20 to 20,000 hertz and all the rest is distortions and color.

How those manufacturers are the bad guys for selling faulty equipment. ..........with no burn in. Equipment which reproduces audio non-consistently. Lol.

By the way, that's simply a comeback to disregard the respectful group who knows electrical equipment can change sound over time.


And for noobs who read sound science and believe some of the "Sound Nihilism" here as truths are going to miss out.

_*Being open minded that there could be a change allows the new Head-Fi memeber the freedom to understand that equipment may sound different over time and use and that it may not be a concept fully understood by science at this time, but exists none-the-less.*_

Because if an amplifier powers headphones to a signal of 20Hz to 20kHz, there are millions of other variables which come into play and enhance the enjoyment of audio.

So we hear SS say, how could the engineering be done with capacitors which put out a wavering signal? They use burned-in capacitors when making the prototype model.

All this stuff starts to get simple once you pull your head out of the sand.


----------



## Danamr

Redcarmoose said:


> The above responses are standard fare for SS. I've read them here for years and years, they never change.
> 
> The audio-nihilism ideas presented here in SS would have kept me from truly enjoying this hobby if I would have been a noob and didn't know any better.
> Lots of snipping.


There's the HEAD-FI I knew and love.
Ask hard questions and the whining starts.
Oh and


----------



## castleofargh

Redcarmoose said:


> The above responses are standard fare for SS. I've read them here for years and years, they never change.
> 
> The audio-nihilism ideas presented here in SS would have kept me from truly enjoying this hobby if I would have been a noob and didn't know any better.
> 
> ...


yeah, oh poor people missing out on all the fun because they exercise some measure of skepticism and ask for evidence before starting to spread legends on the internet. I don't delete your post because IMO it's so empty and whinny that it makes a case for us more than it hurts members of this section. but to be clear in the event that you planned to keep going in that direction. when the forum forbid personal attacks and libel, it doesn't imply it's all right to do it for an entire group of members.


you're mistaking a few things here:

-refusing to believe something without evidence, is not the same as claiming it doesn't or cannot exist. I never claimed that device specs were frozen in time for all eternity(that would be stupid). I also didn't claim that for example capacitors wouldn't change with time. capacitors lose capacitance over time, rapidly in the beginning then slower and slower over time. different types have different behaviors. now let's say we get a made up 2% loss of capacitance in the first 100hours. then what? do you have any idea how that will impact whatever sony DAP you were referring to? did you see anybody measuring the output on a bunch of those DAPs before and after? of course not. and if you did, you would surely count any change as being caused by the caps or at the very least "burn in", whatever that is. disregarding everything else to help your already made point of view. that leads to the next misunderstanding.

- refusing to consider bad testing practices, irrational deductions, and people fishing for anything that agrees with them while dismissing everything else, is not taking sides. it's applied logic. 
you want to "prove" that burn in exists, but you don't even bother defining what burn in means clearly. that's the kind of half baked logic I cannot adhere to. is burn in a change occurring on moving parts because of frictions and manufacturing accuracy like in car engines? or is it about moving part bending back and forth a great many times like with the membrane of a headphone? apparently it is also a phenomenon occurring on non moving parts like capacitors, and cables, and whatever else. so burn in is what? a result of friction, bending, electricity, chemistry, magic? how do you reconcile actions of such an obviously different nature and still pretend like it's ok to get any evidence of any change on any gear and use that to make a point about the reality of burn in? such faulty logic used over and over again is blowing my mind. 

- IMO, you're also mistaking open mindedness and some sort of superstition. being open minded is me still running tests on the new gears I get to check if at one point I can manage to measure significant changes in the first hours or days after using it. I do it despite being now convinced that I'm usually wasting my time. that is me being open minded. instead of sticking to my convictions, I still try to disprove them and look for situations outside of what I'm used to. open minded is me still running abx a few times a year to check if I get a difference from using high res files against the same file converted to lower res despite failing more of those than I can count. that IMO is open mindedness. because one clear counter example(without another obvious cause) would be enough to have to reconsider my position, I keep looking for that counter example. 
not believing any BS we read about aliens, flat earth, vaccines causing down syndrome, and chemicals making the frogs gay. that is not lack of open mindedness. we don't have to gobble any fancy empty claim because we haven't proved it wrong. I and many others chose instead to reject empty claims until some factual evidence is provided to support them. it's not closing any door, it's just anti gullibility born from fair skepticism. 
superstition on the other hand is having no solid evidence of something, not really trying to get any, not checking if we can prove ourselves wrong. yet deciding to believe it is true anyway because we feel it should be true. then proceed to do stuff because of that thing that we don't know to be true in the first place. the cult of burn in. let's burn in our gear, just in case. let's do that weird stuff using that special CD because some dude without a clue told us it was the best way to burn in our gear. let's keep that stuff we don't really enjoy because we hope it will sound better later.
how can that be the right way to approach a problem? 

now when I get a new device I open the box and leave it be at room temperature because I don't know what happened to it during transport in term of temperatures, humidity of whatever. that in my experience can have some impact. should I call it burn in too?  there is no end to this nonsense if nobody cares for proper definition and proper means to gather evidence.


----------



## Whazzzup

I got a burnin desire  for more cowbell


----------



## SilverEars

Whazzzup said:


> I got a burnin desire  for more cowbell


And you shell have.


----------



## bigshot

I think we need more woo woo around here!


----------



## liquidrats

is it true that dynamic drivers requires burn in? even the manufacturer says

Recommended burn-in time: 80 ~ 150 hours (can better enhance the low-band energy and dive degree)


----------



## Ari33

liquidrats said:


> is it true that dynamic drivers requires burn in? even the manufacturer says
> 
> Recommended burn-in time: 80 ~ 150 hours (can better enhance the low-band energy and dive degree)




It is possible that the diaphragms might loosen up a little but I think you noticing a difference would more likely be down to your auditory system tuning in to them tbh..

I've AB'd brand new and used earphones of the same model (Sony NC030) and couldn't accurately determine which was which.

Just listen to them..


----------



## Brooko

liquidrats said:


> is it true that dynamic drivers requires burn in? even the manufacturer says
> 
> Recommended burn-in time: 80 ~ 150 hours (can better enhance the low-band energy and dive degree)



And yet from one of the largest manufacturers on the planet ..... http://www.shure.com/americas/support/find-an-answer/burning-in-earphones-or-breaking-in-earphones

That's from an interview with their engineers. I've also tested countless IEMs (measured before an after) and I am yet to see an earphone (dynamic or BA) which shows measurable differences from burn-in.  You will get more sonic change from:
- different tips
- different insertion depth
- different insertion angle
- position on your head (headphones)
- pad condition/wear (headphones)
- different volume (no-one I know volume matches, yet they swear they hear differences - go figure .....)


----------



## Kdubbs82

I agree. Some is psychology. But I’ve noticed the difference in my HD600s after 100 hours of burn in. They don’t sound as tight and relax a bit. I love them! 



Christo4 said:


> Sometimes i think burn-in is a little bit of both technics and psichology.
> 
> For example a pair of headphones clearly has more bass after a ton of burn-in, because at the beginning they were bass-shy but now it's just right. I asked a friend of mine who tried them at the beginning and now to see if i am right and he agreed.
> 
> ...


----------



## liquidrats

Brooko said:


> And yet from one of the largest manufacturers on the planet ..... http://www.shure.com/americas/support/find-an-answer/burning-in-earphones-or-breaking-in-earphones
> 
> That's from an interview with their engineers. I've also tested countless IEMs (measured before an after) and I am yet to see an earphone (dynamic or BA) which shows measurable differences from burn-in.  You will get more sonic change from:
> - different tips
> ...


are we screwed by the manufacturers to have this burn-in period; in fact it's to retune our heads. But the tips helps a lot tho in the lower and upper region in the frequency band.


----------



## Danamr

What this comes down to is what piece of gear we are talking about too. Headphones from a major company, I suspect they are going to say no, you should not hear a change. $1000.00 power cables on the other hand need at least 500 hours of burn in to get the best out of them...(or whatever the max return period is in hours)


----------



## castleofargh

even within headphones, there are many designs. even just looking at dynamic drivers, think about all the materials and shapes used by manufacturers. it's obvious that different gears are simply different. trying to stick some global concept onto all that is a waste of time. 
I'm absolutely sure that the Sennheiser guys have run tests or at the very least simulations on hundreds if not thousands of coils and membranes and have measured the hell out of them over time. if only to check for stability and durability. they have the statistically significant results for their very specific model. I'd believe that kind of information if it was made public, no matter what it would say so long as I could see some measurements. even averages would do great.
but average Joe talking from memory about that anecdote from uncontrolled listening, is that a joke? I don't trust my own experience under those conditions, I'd have to be on drug to consider such impressions to have any sort of factual relevance. 
how some can have a misplaced confidence in themselves is not helping. TBH anytime I read somebody saying that he's sure he heard a difference, that he has enough experience not to fall for placebo while sticking to sighted impressions, I instantly distrust anything coming from his mouth. I know that 1/ his testing method is unreliable so he doesn't have the means to back up his claims. and 2/ that he's a very bad judge of what is or isn't real. 

now I happen like Brooko to measure a few stuff from time to time, those are my anecdotes, and they don't tell me about any mystifying tendency for massive sound change. sometimes a battery needs a full charge or 2, freshly started gear might measure a little differently from when it's been working for some time and warmed up to a stable temperature. headphone pads have the most massive impact I know of on headphones over time. placement, shape, how well they get to conform with our skull, how over time we end up with the driver closer to the ear and all the changes coming from that. they're all very real and very significant changes. at this point I don't have a doubt that pad and bad memory are the 2 most significant causes of change over time on a headphone. so if I come with my large head, I get more clamping, so I need less hours for the pads to give in to pressure. is that still burn in if the size of my head and the headband setting and maybe glasses, determine how much and how fast the sound will change?
for IEMs, dirty dampers(dust and earwax clogging them over time) is a reality, easy to measure, easy to change the dampers for new ones on a few IEMs and check in real time how much we get back at resonance frequencies and in the trebles. it can be many dBs so obviously it's audible. but now if how much ear wax the user generates is what dictates the amount of change, is it still the IEM burning in? ^_^ maybe that's why I'm not a big burn in believer? my body is pretty lazy at secreting anything, from sweat to saliva to earwax. maybe sweat on the pads accelerate changes in elasticity, maybe more earwax would get me to feel IEMs changing rapidly? I'm only half joking, it's kind of a reasonable hypothesis.
  shocks can also be unkind to gears. who knew I could burn in my device by violently dropping it on the ground.  
if I spent some time thinking I'm sure I could come up with other less significant but still measurable stuff, like plugs, being clean or not, being forced or not, and cables being mistreated, rolled over with a chair, torn on a door knob... those are changes occuring over time but I also have a hard time imagining that I should call it burn in. 

those are the most significant changes I have been able to observe objectively. not the membrane of a flexing and "breaking in", not the capacitors being brand new, not my cables being "cooked". doesn't means something can't happens. but I'd already be impressed if the driver of a headphone "burning in" for 300hours could show a change in signature bigger than someone taking his headphone off, and putting it back on. my small anecdotal experience trying to measure stuff tells me that much.


----------



## bigshot

Auditory memory for similar sounds last a matter of seconds. Differences in volume level can make a big difference. How do you overcome this when there is 500 hours of "burn in" between the two sound signatures you're comparing? I think it's pretty safe to dismiss all claims that burn in is real that don't involve measurements. That pretty well eliminates all of them, because I've never heard of anyone ever measuring a change due to burn in. Bingo! Question is answered.


----------



## PointyFox (Dec 29, 2017)

There is a not very controlled test of the burn-in on the MDR-Z1R here: 

If you compare the overall frequency response from each time point, there seems to be a trend where the frequencies converge slightly on the (assumed) harmonic frequencies of the headphones the longer they are burned-in. This is not proof of anything, but there is a chance that the drivers could be increasing in flexibility on the harmonic nodes, adding a little volume to the harmonics while decreasing others slightly.  If this is actually occurring, headphones would tend to sound worse with burn-in, though if changes are the magnitude seen here, they shouldn't be audible. I would assume different driver materials to change the magnitude slightly if this is actually occurring.  But who knows. The sample size is 1, we don't know how repeatable this is and we have no control samples.


----------



## amirm

I would think the headphone cushions would compress over that time, impacting what is measured given the closeness of the microphones to them.  No?


----------



## Danamr

amirm said:


> I would think the headphone cushions would compress over that time, impacting what is measured given the closeness of the microphones to them.  No?


Someone earlier made some points. #2 was people tend to exaggerate.
I think he hit the #1 problem with things like "burn in" and cables for example.
While I am sure cushions compressing has a small affect on the sound of a headphone, I am also sure it's very small and almost impossible to measure. Keep in mind that unless you are wearing your headphones exactly the same way every time, you will be talking about the same kind of changes in relationship of the driver to your ears.


----------



## PointyFox

Danamr said:


> Someone earlier made some points. #2 was people tend to exaggerate.
> I think he hit the #1 problem with things like "burn in" and cables for example.
> While I am sure cushions compressing has a small affect on the sound of a headphone, I am also sure it's very small and almost impossible to measure. Keep in mind that unless you are wearing your headphones exactly the same way every time, you will be talking about the same kind of changes in relationship of the driver to your ears.



I would imagine people wouldn't be able to detect these differences, especially over any time longer than around 3 seconds.


----------



## HotIce

There has been studies (google for "subwoofer burn in") that showed that burn in altered the physical characteristics of the speaker.
From there, to actually blind-testing folks on hearing differences, it's the usual "Ohh, hmm, meh, ...".


----------



## Brooko

HotIce said:


> There has been studies (google for "subwoofer burn in") that showed that burn in altered the physical characteristics of the speaker.
> From there, to actually blind-testing folks on hearing differences, it's the usual "Ohh, hmm, meh, ...".


Speakers have a Spider which does actually physically change over time.  The dynamic drivers used in headphones typically don’t have one. The dynamics and BA units in IEMs definitely don’t have one.  So comparing speakers to headphones/IEMs is like comparing apples to potatoes 

And the audible burn-in myth is continually perpetuated unfortunately.


----------



## HotIce

Which part of my post was stating that subwoofers behave the same as IEMs (or else)?
Clearly in a sub the mechanical dynamics of the system are stretched to the max, and there it was shown that it was possible to measure them.
Conventional HP drivers, in order to generate sound, they have to move, and in order to move, something has to give up.
Is it measurable with the right tools? Maybe.
Is it distinguishable in blind tests? "Ohh, Uhm, Meh, ..."


----------



## bigshot

I am REALLY glad my sub didn't shift from when I got it. I calibrated it and I don't want it to go out of calibration.


----------



## Danamr

HotIce said:


> There has been studies (google for "subwoofer burn in") that showed that burn in altered the physical characteristics of the speaker.
> From there, to actually blind-testing folks on hearing differences, it's the usual "Ohh, hmm, meh, ...".


So your saying you buy subwoofer brand X with the expectation that what it sounds like out of the box is not what you expect it to sound in the future?


----------



## HotIce

Actually, I said the contrary, but maybe the "Ohh, hmm, meh, ..." did not convey clearly enough my skepticism.


----------



## amirm

Danamr said:


> While I am sure cushions compressing has a small affect on the sound of a headphone, I am also sure it's very small and almost impossible to measure.


Why?  The small cavity of your ears will change substantially in volume, resonances and reflections if the thick cushions compress more.

Here is a quick test I just ran on my headphone measurement system.  I kept my finger in the same place on the headphone, measured, and then pushed it in some and measured again:




 

We see that the volume clearly changes and the response overall changes in some places.

Really, if we are going to consider "burn-in" of the driver, surely there are more changes to the cushion than that element!


----------



## Danamr

amirm said:


> Why?  The small cavity of your ears will change substantially in volume, resonances and reflections if the thick cushions compress more.
> 
> Here is a quick test I just ran on my headphone measurement system.  I kept my finger in the same place on the headphone, measured, and then pushed it in some and measured again:
> 
> ...


While I agree with what you are seeing, I know that my HD800 phones do not end up at the exact same place on my head every time, and the difference can be as much as a full cm. What happens to your traces when you start moving the phones laterally?


----------



## amirm

Danamr said:


> While I agree with what you are seeing, I know that my HD800 phones do not end up at the exact same place on my head every time, and the difference can be as much as a full cm. What happens to your traces when you start moving the phones laterally?


Oh they go nutz.  Headphone measurements are exceedingly variable and can be quite unreliable or at least unrepeatable.   When I did the testing above, just the mere fact of putting my finger on the back of the headphone caused significant difference in response!  This is why I kept it there as reference without pressure as opposed to testing the headphone without my finger there.


----------



## Brooko

For IEMs, depth and angle of insertion will cause a magnitude more difference in frequency response than any supposed change from burn in. For headphones - pad compression or position on head will do the same. Difference in volume for both will again cause a magnitude more perceived difference. And our reliable auditory memory is fleeting - a matter of seconds. So why is it that anecdotal evidence of perceived change is taken as fact and pushed as evidence of burn in when we know it can’t possibly be the cause without discounting other factors. 

And why is it that when we actually measure - the differences which could be possibly attributed to burn-in are of such a magnitude that they would be inaudible anyway


----------



## HotIce

amirm said:


> Why?  The small cavity of your ears will change substantially in volume, resonances and reflections if the thick cushions compress more.
> 
> Here is a quick test I just ran on my headphone measurement system.  I kept my finger in the same place on the headphone, measured, and then pushed it in some and measured again:
> 
> ...



It is not only the volume, but also the position of the mic compared to the driver, which changes with pressure.
There were sweeps posted in a link I am not able to find anymore, were using the dummy head, and varying the position of the mic within the ear cavity, changed responses pretty dramatically.
Curious, which test harness did you use for the graph you posted?


----------



## HotIce

In lack of answer, these videos are interesting in the subject:


----------



## HenkdeFries

amirm said:


> Why?  The small cavity of your ears will change substantially in volume, resonances and reflections if the thick cushions compress more.
> 
> Here is a quick test I just ran on my headphone measurement system.  I kept my finger in the same place on the headphone, measured, and then pushed it in some and measured again:
> 
> ...


That's pretty interesting to see, in that it unexcitingly drops evenly  across the board. Do you reckon different fabrics are prone to more heavy changes


----------



## castleofargh

with pressure on the pads, the driver comes closer to the mic/ear. so louder is the first expected change. the rest is a matter of how the all acoustic chamber is changed(in volume, but also possibly a little in shape), how the pinna reflects sound from the new driver position, and TBH maybe how we get used to a different position on the head once the pad are a little worn out(which shouldn't be visible on that measurement).


----------



## amirm

HenkdeFries said:


> That's pretty interesting to see, in that it unexcitingly drops evenly  across the board. Do you reckon different fabrics are prone to more heavy changes


It might.  If they happen over time though we likely adapt and it won't be an audible thing.


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> with pressure on the pads, the driver comes closer to the mic/ear. so louder is the first expected change. the rest is a matter of how the all acoustic chamber is changed(in volume, but also possibly a little in shape), how the pinna reflects sound from the new driver position, and TBH maybe how we get used to a different position on the head once the pad are a little worn out(which shouldn't be visible on that measurement).


It's it necessary to spend that kind of money on transport only for Mojo? How about the Pioneer 300r or a decent phone?


----------



## Dawnrazor

I experienced night and day differences with my M1060 mkiis. Out of the box they were good and the bass was amazing.  Few hours later they were unlistenable as the highs were just wrong.  Too much, much too much.  

So on went the burn in tones while I slept.  Listened in the morning- aweful.  Back went the tones and this cycle repeated until about 70-75 hours of burn in tones it sounded great with all the highend glare and unpleasantness gone.   Over 120 hours now and its a different headphone.  I can listen to alot more recordings without fatigue and everything is more enjoyable.  Though the bass isnt quite as good.  It seems to be a bit less in level or punch but still great.  

Maybe its a planar thing but IMHO lots of the M1060 high issues were most likely just people not burning them in long enough.  

My M565 didnt seem to suffer any of this and just sounded great from the get go.


----------



## Redcarmoose (Feb 4, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Auditory memory for similar sounds last a matter of seconds. Differences in volume level can make a big difference. How do you overcome this when there is 500 hours of "burn in" between the two sound signatures you're comparing? I think it's pretty safe to dismiss all claims that burn in is real that don't involve measurements. That pretty well eliminates all of them, because I've never heard of anyone ever measuring a change due to burn in. Bingo! Question is answered.



It’s so true that there is really no way to accurately remember an exact tone or sound signature. Vision too is highly unreliable as there are figures which show we may only mentally see 10% of the information coming into our brain from our eyes.

Expectations color our perception of almost everything. Still there are lasting and absolutely critical ideas a person can perceive. I’m a guitar player and guitars are a very subjective musical device.

When putting a live show together many times a band will choose guitars and amplifiers specifically so each person has a place in the mix, kind of like a guitar player choosing only to use his treble pick-up so that the rhythm guitar and lead guitar parts will each have an area of definitive space in the mix.

Though let’s just say a guitar player walks into a music store and picks an acoustic guitar simply to play by themselves. If it’s an experienced player they have tone parameters which are set in their memory.

And of course with out measuring............. these tone ideas are very much influenced by the brand/style and wood used to make the guitar.

In acoustic guitars you have styles of bodies which are replicated over and over again using similarly comparable woods to get a comparable sound.

The art of making guitars is obviously very complicated and convoluted, but let’s generalize and say a large white maple guitar may have a bright and loud sound when played. Also a smaller mahogany guitar is going to be both darker and quieter when comparable to the maple guitar. Guitar makers are always taking this wood sound knowledge and making various changes with every new model.

Now in this instance the player is also the listener, where in audio we just have people listening to their stereos. And in further regard the player is doing multiple things while playing and listening to how the instrument reacts. There are values of brightness, sustain, harmonic richness, levels of extension into the treble and bass areas, and......just like headphones some guitars can be more mid-centric................


But my point is that even though guitars can change slightly due to atmosphere, a guitar player knows his instrument. He knows the sound that’s taking place, he remembers the character. This tone is what musicians will listen for before they go out onstage to make sure there are no issues. Many times something in the personality of the guitar is off and it takes a while to pin down what it is. There are issues which are way more drastic like if the guitar is not in-tune with itself. But over all these things are almost like living creatures having personality and character which is unique unto themselves, never wavering much, year in and year out.

The argument could be that burn-in changes are way more understated than the tone of different guitars. My argument here is that some people can get a pretty good idea about a musical device. These characteristics can be really small, and of course be different day to day in perception, but they can exist in what some people hear.


----------



## ScareDe2

Count me on the side of those who believe in the break in. I always got sound problem with new pair of dynamic headphones right off the box. Too harsh, too compressed, to muffled, too honky. I did not experience that with used pair of headphones, or brand new planars. Only brand new dynamics.


----------



## DaaDaa

i approached this question by the means of auditioning some headphones that i was not emotionally or financially invested in. i listened to them out of the box and then after 200 hours of playing music through them and in most cases I saw positive  differences in the case of HE400i it was night and day as in out ofthe box there was no bass impact and after burn in the bass ad the sub bass was there so to me it is clear.


----------



## bigshot

Do you know about auditory memory? try googling the term.


----------



## ScareDe2

I have more trust in headphone burn in than black hole evaporation.


----------



## SilverEars

Anybody have links to measurements of orthodynamics of state of never been driven to being driven for many hours?


----------



## castleofargh

SilverEars said:


> Anybody have links to measurements of orthodynamics of state of never been driven to being driven for many hours?


measurements of anything would be better than "I trust my ears and I have perfect memory because I'm from Mars". 
we would need to have a way to place the gear exactly at the same place(not so easy), make sure it doesn't move if we decide to leave it in place for all the burn in process(just with the driver's own force, or some dude with butter fingers). and we need to measure without pads. many measurements IMO aren't looking at driver changes because they kept the pads throughout the experiment. it kind of defeats the purpose to look for a small change while keeping something else that will inevitably create a bigger change. 

 then again maybe pad wear is burn in for some people. a fully reversible burn in would be weird, but I still haven't got a clear definition of what people consider burn in to mean, despite asking a few times. 
 before joining the audio hobby, I knew "burn in" as the act of letting some gear run to get passed the typical early failures that exist on most products. the idea being to sell gears with lower risks of defects when it's an important factor. no nonsense about making everything magically become better after 200hours though.


----------



## SilverEars

castleofargh said:


> measurements of anything would be better than "I trust my ears and I have perfect memory because I'm from Mars".
> we would need to have a way to place the gear exactly at the same place(not so easy), make sure it doesn't move if we decide to leave it in place for all the burn in process(just with the driver's own force, or some dude with butter fingers). and we need to measure without pads. many measurements IMO aren't looking at driver changes because they kept the pads throughout the experiment. it kind of defeats the purpose to look for a small change while keeping something else that will inevitably create a bigger change.
> 
> then again maybe pad wear is burn in for some people. a fully reversible burn in would be weird, but I still haven't got a clear definition of what people consider burn in to mean, despite asking a few times.
> before joining the audio hobby, I knew "burn in" as the act of letting some gear run to get passed the typical early failures that exist on most products. the idea being to sell gears with lower risks of defects when it's an important factor. no nonsense about making everything magically become better after 200hours though.


Who cares?  You have the links to the measurements or not?


----------



## castleofargh

lol. you really know how to motivate people to work for you.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Mar 15, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> lol. you really know how to motivate people to work for you.


Burn in for transducers is usually referring to suspension systems on woofers "loosening up" and coming into spec.Considering the tiny movements in headphone drivers i'm not sure it would apply....particularly with planars....oops didnt mean to quote you bud


----------



## Danamr

ScareDe2 said:


> Count me on the side of those who believe in the break in. I always got sound problem with new pair of dynamic headphones right off the box. Too harsh, too compressed, to muffled, too honky. I did not experience that with used pair of headphones, or brand new planars. Only brand new dynamics.


How often has the sound gotten worse?


----------



## bigshot

It should be more likely to get worse because quality control checks stuff before it leaves the factory. Otherwise they would burn it in before it passed QC.


----------



## ScareDe2

Danamr said:


> How often has the sound gotten worse?



Never. It always sounded better with time. Right now I got a brand new DT880 and I find them too bassy like if the bass is bleeding in the midrange. It sounds unfocused. I took my old DT770 pads and it did not solve the problem. It is the chrome special edition 250 ohms. Surprisingly bassy. Sounds like Dr.dre made an effort to produce a decent headphone but failed.


----------



## ljnew

Sxooter said:


> Marketing? Profit margins? Taking advantage of the Placebo Effect?
> 
> The whole point behind the argument here is that if burn in does occur, and usually makes things sound better, then there should be ample evidence of it by now, through double blind tests, and / or measurement by scientific devices.
> 
> ...


Funny, that doesn't prove anything except for the fact we don't have an accurate way of testing yet.


----------



## PointyFox (Mar 6, 2019)

I've seen frequency response measured at various "burn in" times and there has been little to no difference even with models claimed to exhibit large improvement with burn in. There is nothing to suggest the tests aren't accurate.


----------



## bigshot

Ears definitely burn in. Our hearing adjusts for small imbalances over time. We get used to it.


----------



## castleofargh

ljnew said:


> Funny, that doesn't prove anything except for the fact we don't have an accurate way of testing yet.


the issue of "burn in" isn't so much that something somewhere changed in the gear. if we measure with a resolution high enough, then of course a mechanical device is changing over time(else it would mean that it could work forever and never break ^_^). so the actual question was never about gears changing over time. as for measurements, of course we can measure changes, the issue most of the time is that said changes tend to be too small to match the subjective experience described by people in uncontrolled experiences(except for pad wear which has measurements and impressions of change matching each other just fine).
from the get go it's been about people feeling a change under uncontrolled conditions and deciding that: 1/ everything they remembered was accurate, and 2/ every idea or memory of change was induced by an actual change in sound. both being mighty wrong most of the time and actual testing of those 2 points consistently conclude that audiophiles(let's just say humans in general) are an overconfident bunch when it comes to their memories and impressions. 

burn in topics are just one consequence of the real issue.


----------



## Whazzzup

depends if you are on fire or not. If you are it could be real


----------



## Phronesis

I have no doubt that the big differences claimed due to physical burn-in are actually due to ear/brain perceptual adaptation, and those differences can indeed be big.  If there are any physical burn-in effects, I expect that they're audibly very small and swamped by other factors.


----------



## ljnew

Phronesis said:


> I have no doubt that the big differences claimed due to physical burn-in are actually due to ear/brain perceptual adaptation, and those differences can indeed be big.  If there are any physical burn-in effects, I expect that they're audibly very small and swamped by other factors.


Perception is reality


----------



## Dawnrazor

Phronesis said:


> I have no doubt that the big differences claimed due to physical burn-in are actually due to ear/brain perceptual adaptation, and those differences can indeed be big.  If there are any physical burn-in effects, I expect that they're audibly very small and swamped by other factors.


I have a hard time understanding posts like this.  Maybe its me but i dont adapt.  I listen initially and then days later after playing 24/7 test tones. .  There is no adaptation from constant listening.    You just listen initially then days later.  How do you think people do burn in?


----------



## PointyFox (Mar 7, 2019)

Dawnrazor said:


> I have a hard time understanding posts like this.  Maybe its me but i dont adapt.  I listen initially and then days later after playing 24/7 test tones. .  There is no adaptation from constant listening.    You just listen initially then days later.  How do you think people do burn in?



It's like how someone living in a city environment adapts to the noise, or how someone can hear either "yanny" or "laurel" depending on which frequencies their brain is focusing on.  That's a pretty huge change hearing one word or another or completely tuning out traffic noise from just "brain burn-in".


----------



## Dawnrazor

PointyFox said:


> It's like how someone living in a city environment adapts to the noise, or how someone can hear either "yanny" or "laurel" depending on which frequencies their brain is focusing on.  That's a pretty huge change hearing one word or another or completely tuning out traffic noise from just "brain burn-in".


Ok but we are talking about going to the city and hearing the traffic and then leaving the city and coming back two weeks later and there is no traffic.  

Tuning out the traffic happens because the traffic is always there.  This is not the case with burn in.


----------



## PointyFox

Dawnrazor said:


> Ok but we are talking about going to the city and hearing the traffic and then leaving the city and coming back two weeks later and there is no traffic.
> 
> Tuning out the traffic happens because the traffic is always there.  This is not the case with burn in.



I disagree.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 7, 2019)

Dawnrazor said:


> I have a hard time understanding posts like this.  Maybe its me but i dont adapt.  I listen initially and then days later after playing 24/7 test tones. .  There is no adaptation from constant listening.    You just listen initially then days later.  How do you think people do burn in?



I don't want anything that is going to change over time. If audio components change in their sound, how do you know when they're going to stop? They might just keep right on shifting and go somewhere I don't want them to go. I buy equipment that sounds the way I want it out of the box. If it changes, I wouldn't be able to trust it, and I'd ship it back as defective. Thankfully, I've never bought anything that changed.

Auditory memory in people is very short. For similar sounds, it can be as short as a few seconds. Whenever I buy something new, I compare it against my reference equipment directly in a line level matched, direct A/B switched comparison. If you listened to something a week ago and try to compare it to something you are hearing today, there is no way to know what you are hearing. Human ears aren't that calibrated. Heck, just changes in weather or your health can dramatically affect your hearing from day to day.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Mar 7, 2019)

i find the idea of burn in pretty laughable ftmp.  i see recommendations for earbuds with the specification to "just make sure you burn them in for at least 100 hours." Really?  100 hours?  Let me see if I understand this...so this set of buds out of the box sounds a little blah, BUT if you burn them in for 100 hours, they will achieve a wonderful, blissful SQ, and then STOP burning in any further?  How does that make any sense at all?  I suspect the main reason things sound better after a period of time on the "burn in station" is because people *want *them to sound better and they have invested in the belief that burn in will make them sound better.  I've fallen into that sort of audiophile trap myself at times over the years - convincing myself that some change I've made to a system (expensive cables for instance) has had some dramatic impact on SQ.  I'm pretty sure blind A/B testing would reveal that I was bullshitting myself...

Now, speakers/earbuds etc are mechanical devices with moving components and I certainly believe that their characteristics can change with use, but i'm pretty sure that once you've run them for 30 minutes or so at normal volume they are about as burned in as they are going to get and the actual effect on SQ is exceptionally minimal if it exists at all.

It would be refreshing to hear a recommendation like "oh these earbuds sound really great ootb but after 100 hours of use you're going to have to throw them away because they will take on a distinctly woolly, flubbery SQ."


----------



## PointyFox

This came with an audio cable I bought. 

 
If this is real, you'd think measurement equipment would come with something like this along with burn-in warnings in the manuals. We'd also not be able to trust the equipment either, because where does the burn-in stop? Would have to recalibrate hourly and every time a probe is changed. Some of this equipment measures signals that are 0.00000000001% of what should be audible, so why would they use cheap Chinese cables that aren't burned-in if it's actually a thing?


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

PointyFox said:


> This came with an audio cable I bought.
> 
> If this is real, you'd think measurement equipment would come with something like this along with burn-in warnings in the manuals. We'd also not be able to trust the equipment either, because where does the burn-in stop? Would have to recalibrate hourly and every time a probe is changed. Some of this equipment measures signals that are 0.00000000001% of what should be audible, so why would they use cheap Chinese cables that aren't burned-in if it's actually a thing?




LOL...burn in on cables.  oh my goodness...


----------



## bigshot

I bet 175 hours is about the same length as the no questions asked return window.


----------



## Phronesis

Dawnrazor said:


> I have a hard time understanding posts like this.  Maybe its me but i dont adapt.  I listen initially and then days later after playing 24/7 test tones. .  There is no adaptation from constant listening.    You just listen initially then days later.  How do you think people do burn in?



Perception is influenced by past experiences, expectations, cognitive models of 'normal' sound, etc.  Our brains learn and adjust in order to interpret the sounds we experience in our environments in a manner that fosters our survival and reproduction.

Try this experiment: quickly switch back and forth between headphones that have a substantially different sound signature, e.g. a bassy headphone with less detail versus one with less bass and more detail.  When I've done this, the bassy headphone initially sounds too bassy and muffled, and the other headphone initially sounds too thin, but those problems diminish with more listening of each headphone.


----------



## castleofargh

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> i find the idea of burn in pretty laughable ftmp.  i see recommendations for earbuds with the specification to "just make sure you burn them in for at least 100 hours." Really?  100 hours?  Let me see if I understand this...so this set of buds out of the box sounds a little blah, BUT if you burn them in for 100 hours, they will achieve a wonderful, blissful SQ, and then STOP burning in any further?  How does that make any sense at all?  I suspect the main reason things sound better after a period of time on the "burn in station" is because people *want *them to sound better and they have invested in the belief that burn in will make them sound better.  I've fallen into that sort of audiophile trap myself at times over the years - convincing myself that some change I've made to a system (expensive cables for instance) has had some dramatic impact on SQ.  I'm pretty sure blind A/B testing would reveal that I was bull****ting myself...
> 
> Now, speakers/earbuds etc are mechanical devices with moving components and I certainly believe that their characteristics can change with use, but i'm pretty sure that once you've run them for 30 minutes or so at normal volume they are about as burned in as they are going to get and the actual effect on SQ is exceptionally minimal if it exists at all.
> 
> It would be refreshing to hear a recommendation like "oh these earbuds sound really great ootb but after 100 hours of use you're going to have to throw them away because they will take on a distinctly woolly, flubbery SQ."


I believe that it's more interesting to focus on warning people about the issues of testing things several days apart, instead of trying to find a rational in the irrational. 
most people usually have some concept of a static memory that's completely divorced from reality. if we can have someone learn a little more about memory and maybe test himself(that would always be ideal), then he will on his own understand the problem of drawing conclusions from 2 experiences significantly spaced in time. but so long as a person doesn't get that his brain isn't a hard drive, he will have no reason to care about the rest because he "knows" what he heard and will naturally keep trusting that over anything and anybody else. 
we need to address the problem at the source.


----------



## ljnew

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> LOL...burn in on cables.  oh my goodness...


I think in some cases burn in time is directly correlated with


bigshot said:


> I bet 175 hours is about the same length as the no questions asked return window.


Get out my head!!! That's what I was about to say.   But Cables lives do matter!!!


----------



## Dawnrazor

PointyFox said:


> I disagree.


If I listen for 5 min then burn in for 24 hours and listen for 5 min and then listen 24 hours later, how can I adapt?  To adapt you need to be exposed for a good amount of time.  And most on this thread deny burn in, so why the need to say there is adaptation??  Adaptation to what?  A non existent phenomenon?


----------



## Dawnrazor

bigshot said:


> I don't want anything that is going to change over time. If audio components change in their sound, how do you know when they're going to stop? They might just keep right on shifting and go somewhere I don't want them to go. I buy equipment that sounds the way I want it out of the box. If it changes, I wouldn't be able to trust it, and I'd ship it back as defective. Thankfully, I've never bought anything that changed.
> 
> Auditory memory in people is very short. For similar sounds, it can be as short as a few seconds. Whenever I buy something new, I compare it against my reference equipment directly in a line level matched, direct A/B switched comparison. If you listened to something a week ago and try to compare it to something you are hearing today, there is no way to know what you are hearing. Human ears aren't that calibrated. Heck, just changes in weather or your health can dramatically affect your hearing from day to day.


How do you know you arent just adapting to the gradual change.  If you listen like you do you could just adapt without knowing it.  Or just a victim of placebo.

Though I do agree about auditory memory.  

FWIW some manufacturers burn in their gear before shipping...


----------



## Dawnrazor

Phronesis said:


> Perception is influenced by past experiences, expectations, cognitive models of 'normal' sound, etc.  Our brains learn and adjust in order to interpret the sounds we experience in our environments in a manner that fosters our survival and reproduction.
> 
> Try this experiment: quickly switch back and forth between headphones that have a substantially different sound signature, e.g. a bassy headphone with less detail versus one with less bass and more detail.  When I've done this, the bassy headphone initially sounds too bassy and muffled, and the other headphone initially sounds too thin, but those problems diminish with more listening of each headphone.


Of course, those are examples with actual differences.  Different headphones.  You can't say people adapt and then somehow say there is no such thing as burn in.  Adapt to what???   There has to be a change in the sound which is burn in....


----------



## PointyFox (Mar 10, 2019)

Dawnrazor said:


> If I listen for 5 min then burn in for 24 hours and listen for 5 min and then listen 24 hours later, how can I adapt?  To adapt you need to be exposed for a good amount of time.  And most on this thread deny burn in, so why the need to say there is adaptation??  Adaptation to what?  A non existent phenomenon?



"To adapt you need to be exposed for a good amount of time".

Not true. I have one dark sounding closed back headphone and one bright sounding open back. If I listen to the bright one for a few minutes it sounds normal to me. Then when I switch to the dark headphone, it sounds very dark and not very clear. Over the next few minutes, it begins to sound normal to me. I then switch back to the bright one, it sounds very bright and too sterile. Then over the next few minutes, it begins to sound normal to me again.

It's like how someone can turn on a noise machine to fall asleep and not notice the sound after a few minutes.


----------



## Dawnrazor

PointyFox said:


> "To adapt you need to be exposed for a good amount of time".
> 
> Not true. I have one dark sounding closed back headphone and one bright sounding open back. If I listen to the bright one for a few minutes it sounds normal to me. Then when I switch to the dark headphone, it sounds very dark and not very clear. Over the next few minutes, it begins to sound normal to me. I then switch back to the bright one, it sounds very bright and too sterile. Then over the next few minutes, it begins to sound normal to me again.
> 
> It's like how someone can turn on a noise machine to fall asleep and not notice the sound after a few minutes.


Guess everyone is different.  If its too bright and sterile I just dont listen.  Its hard to think that I would adapt to that. When I got the M1060s there were some tracks that were murder.  I never adapted to that but improved things.  My passive pre had to go because I traced the brightness to it.  And then some mods to open up the treble resolution.  New dac and new amp (though that was because the other one was class A and would heat up the room to much). So no, my ears didnt adapt, but I adapted the system and modded the M1060s so today I can play those songs that were horrible and they are ok now.  Sure some recordings are so bad nothing can fix them.  And fwiw I did this not by masking the sound but by upping the resolution.

But that example you pose is one of differences.  Certainly you are not saying burn in happens and the same headphone sounds different after playing a 100 hours?  And that people adapt to that change?


----------



## PointyFox

No, I'm saying people adapt to what's around them. So far there has only been proof that certain headphones do not exhibit "burn in", and no proof that "burn in" exists on anything yet.


----------



## Dawnrazor

PointyFox said:


> No, I'm saying people adapt to what's around them. So far there has only been proof that certain headphones do not exhibit "burn in", and no proof that "burn in" exists on anything yet.


Ok.  but if there is no proof of burn in, what are they adapting to?


----------



## PointyFox (Mar 10, 2019)

They're adapting to the sound. It should sound more normal as they adapt. If the overall sound is dark or bright, it should sound a bit less dark or bright in the absence of a reference point as they adapt.

Try it yourself. Listen to a bright source for a while, switch to a dark source for a while, then switch back to the bright source. It will probably seem a lot brighter than you remember at first.


----------



## Dawnrazor

PointyFox said:


> They're adapting to the sound. It should sound more normal as they adapt. If the overall sound is dark or bright, it should sound a bit less dark or bright in the absence of a reference point as they adapt.
> 
> Try it yourself. Listen to a bright source for a while, switch to a dark source for a while, then switch back to the bright source. It will probably seem a lot brighter than you remember at first.


I dont have bright or dark sources.  They are all pretty neutral so its hard to do that test.  Closest I can come it to switch from my main cans to earbuds.  The lack of bass and clarity on the earbuds make things seem brighter than "normal'  But even after an hour walk listening to music I am not suddenly thinking they aren't bright or bass shy.  

It sounds like you are conflating normal with good.  I don't think a crappy headphone will suddenly sound great...that sounds more magical than burn in.  

And how do you explain the roller coaster of burn in.  It often sounds good then better than worse then ok then even worse then better, etc.  So that adaptation idea doesnt seem to explain that.  

You seriously never put on  a different can and realize that the other one is better?


----------



## bigshot

How are people who think burn in is real determining that? Are you just casually comparing, or are you doing some sort of controlled test with level matching and direct switching between before and after?


----------



## Brooko

Dawnrazor said:


> I have a hard time understanding posts like this.  Maybe its me but i dont adapt.  I listen initially and then days later after playing 24/7 test tones. .  There is no adaptation from constant listening.    You just listen initially then days later.  How do you think people do burn in?



I've seen your other posts, and there seems to be a lot of dancing around the subject - so maybe better being direct.  What is your position on burn-in and why?

As far as looking for evidence =>

What we know:

We know speaker surrounds for dynamic drivers contain a spider which is the driver surround, and has been proven over time to "break-in" resulting in both audible and measurable changes.
Most modern dynamic headphones don't have this spider, nor do BA's or small dynamic drivers.  The smaller drivers simply don't require it.  Some larger headphones may have it.
The largest manufacturer of BA based IEMs on the planet (Shure) have measured hundreds of 1000's of their own products - both BAs and dynamic, and have said that they find no evidence of audible change in their own products
Tyll conduced a comprehensive test of AKG's Q701 headphones, and while there were measurable differences, they were so minute as to be unlikely to be audible, and certainly not the night and day changes people claim.  I suggest reading the whole article and especially the conclusion.
When most people claim break-in:
They do not volume match
They do not even play the same song
Because of auditory memory - there is no way after minutes, let along hours, they could make a valid comparison
The cannot precisely position the headphone of earphone in the same position to be able to even objectively make a comparison.

We also know that the positioning on the head of a headphone can drastically change frequency response - a multitude more than any "supposed" burn-in.  For IEM's - insertion depth and angle can also drastically change canal resonance which will alter frequency response.
So what we have is a lot of anecdotal claims of burn-in, but when we go to measurements and cross-correlate that with our understandings on audibility, yo'll understand why people on this thread are so sceptical.

This is why I asked you your position.  You must have one - so please contribute.  And perhaps also forward any evidence.


----------



## Phronesis (Mar 10, 2019)

Delete (redundant)


----------



## Phronesis

Dawnrazor said:


> And how do you explain the roller coaster of burn in.  It often sounds good then better than worse then ok then even worse then better, etc.  So that adaptation idea doesnt seem to explain that.



This is why it's better to say that our perception _changes_ over time, rather than necessarily adapting.  Keep in mind that perception is an active constructive process, not a simple passive process - our ears aren't microphones and our brains aren't digital recorders.  There's a lot going on to create subjective perception of sound.

OFF TOPIC: You guys should check out the album 'Solitarily Speaking of Theoretical Confinement' by Ron Jarzombek.  Holy hell, that's some serious complexity and virtuosity!


----------



## PointyFox

Another thing that can burn in is smell. If you're in a room with a smell, after a few minutes you stop noticing it. If you put on a respirator and breathe unscented air, you won't notice the change until you wear it for a few minutes then take it off. Suddenly you'll smell what your senses went blind to.


----------



## geek707 (Mar 10, 2019)

What I find interesting here is how the hifi world has embraced this concept. Don't like the way anything sounds?? "How long did you burn it in?" "Let it burn in for xx hours, it will get better."
Coming from a photo retail environment and selling high-end cameras (Leica) and printers (17" to 60" wide) I am envious. I can't tell you how many times I wish I could have told a unhappy customer that the reason their camera of printer wasn't working the way they wanted was they had not burned it in...
And this doesn't even begin to address the issues that arise if burn in is real. For example: how do you know what the proper way to burn in a component is? And I can think of many more.
I think it could be a interesting study to figure out where this comes from.
(Not new here BTW, but got locked out of my original account (Danamr) and could not get back in.)


----------



## Phronesis

geek707 said:


> What I find interesting here is how the hifi world has embraced this concept. Don't like the way anything sounds?? "How long did you burn it in?" "Let it burn in for xx hours, it will get better."
> Coming from a photo retail environment and selling high-end cameras (Leica) and printers (17" to 60" wide) I am envious. I can't tell you how many times I wish I could have told a unhappy customer that the reason their camera of printer wasn't working the way they wanted was they had not burned it in...
> And this doesn't even begin to address the issues that arise if burn in is real. For example: how do you know what the proper way to burn in a component is? And I can think of many more.
> I think it could be a interesting study to figure out where this comes from.
> (Not new here BTW, but got locked out of my original account (Danamr) and could not get back in.)



We got a fancy new mattress several months ago.  When we first tried it out, we didn't like it (too firm).  The store said give a month to 'break in'.  I doubt that it actually broke in, but we did get used to it, and decided to keep it.


----------



## castleofargh

Brooko said:


> I've seen your other posts, and there seems to be a lot of dancing around the subject - so maybe better being direct.  What is your position on burn-in and why?
> 
> As far as looking for evidence =>
> 
> ...


an Etymotic engineer also suggested no relevant variation over time even after years(minus ear wax getting in or tips needing to be changed).


----------



## castleofargh

*off topic:*


geek707 said:


> (Not new here BTW, but got locked out of my original account (Danamr) and could not get back in.)


did you ask an admin(I'm not one), or post in the "feedback and bug report" section so they know of the situation? twice in the last 2 years, the site would give me an error page as soon as I would log in(but clearing firefox and browsing without logging in worked fine). and both times the issue did not solve itself, I had to ask for help.


----------



## geek707

castleofargh said:


> *off topic:*
> 
> did you ask an admin(I'm not one), or post in the "feedback and bug report" section so they know of the situation? twice in the last 2 years, the site would give me an error page as soon as I would log in(but clearing firefox and browsing without logging in worked fine). and both times the issue did not solve itself, I had to ask for help.


Used the contact form twice and never got a reply, so I gave up and created a new user.


----------



## ljnew

castleofargh said:


> an Etymotic engineer also suggested no relevant variation over time even after years(minus ear wax getting in or tips needing to be changed).


Here's a good explanation:

"During the manufacturing process, as insulation is extruded over the conductors, gases can become trapped. This combined with the high electrical charges often found in new cables, result in a brittle and bright sound that lacks the detail and depth desired for music reproduction. There are a few ways to solve this problem. One way to burn-in your cables is to simply hook them up in your home audio system and play music for a minimum of 100 hours. Even better, use a burn in disc, like Nordost’s System Set-Up & Tuning Disc, which provides a track specifically designed to produces a range of tones that stress the cables and expedite the burn-in process."

https://nordost.com/blog/what-is-cable-burn-in/


----------



## bigshot

HIGH ELECTRICAL CHARGES IN NEW CABLES! HANDLE WITH RUBBER GLOVES ON!


----------



## geek707

ljnew said:


> Here's a good explanation:
> 
> "During the manufacturing process, as insulation is extruded over the conductors, gases can become trapped. This combined with the high electrical charges often found in new cables, result in a brittle and bright sound that lacks the detail and depth desired for music reproduction. There are a few ways to solve this problem. One way to burn-in your cables is to simply hook them up in your home audio system and play music for a minimum of 100 hours. Even better, use a burn in disc, like Nordost’s System Set-Up & Tuning Disc, which provides a track specifically designed to produces a range of tones that stress the cables and expedite the burn-in process."
> 
> https://nordost.com/blog/what-is-cable-burn-in/


Which begs the question of: if this is needed, why isn't the company making the "what-ever" doing burn-in as part of their QC.  Nordost charges enough to do that, and frankly at their level of customer, adding 10% to the price and saying they have been burned in would be accepted without any question. They say playing music, BUT, the Nordost disk is better. How much better is it? And why if it needs burn in, and they don't want to do it, why not have the files available for down load so it's done "correctly". And "high electrical charges often found in new cables"? What? What charges? What is high?  And does that mean they are manufacturing the actual cables they are using and not buying if from a company that makes cable to their spec? Because if they are buying rolls of cable from a OEM any out-gassing from the insulation should be done by the time it's used. And if not, why not? If they know this causes "brittle and bright" sound, why not let the cables sit in the warehouse and out gas? And where is the gas being trapped anyway? Are they talking about the plastics in the insulation out-gassing? And please explain how playing anything over the cable at the levels that consumer electronics can reach is going to release the "gas". New cables need to fart to sound right? What?
And more to the point, why are they (the company making the product) delivering a product that is not ready for use? Am I getting a price break for doing a job that they have the ability to do?
Sorry I am very confused...


----------



## castleofargh

ljnew said:


> Here's a good explanation:
> 
> "During the manufacturing process, as insulation is extruded over the conductors, gases can become trapped. This combined with the high electrical charges often found in new cables, result in a brittle and bright sound that lacks the detail and depth desired for music reproduction. There are a few ways to solve this problem. One way to burn-in your cables is to simply hook them up in your home audio system and play music for a minimum of 100 hours. Even better, use a burn in disc, like Nordost’s System Set-Up & Tuning Disc, which provides a track specifically designed to produces a range of tones that stress the cables and expedite the burn-in process."
> 
> https://nordost.com/blog/what-is-cable-burn-in/


let's just say that I have a hard time finding this convincing(or credible). so the insulation is made of whatever and bubbles can form inside for one reason or another. up to that point I don't really know but it doesn't sound too surprising. after that though, how is the electrical signal passing inside the metal affected by gas bubbles? what gas are we talking about that apparently goes away or transforms into Goodsoundinium after 100hours of passing multitone signals into the wire? what amount of BS are we supposed to take in one serving? those are but a few of the questions I have about that link. 
if something does happen(which is possible after all), surely it has a chemical reason and a measured impact. I'd like to learn about that instead of reading the typical "you can't sue me cause I made an entirely subjective claim about bright sound that lacks detail and depth". but some objective explanation is nowhere to be found about the bubbles. nothing about how they objectively impact the signal, nothing about how "burn in" is objectively solving the issue. it's a page of BS marketing with a text that raises so many flags that if I believed in cable burn in, I would still think they're full of crap and clearly know it given how they express those stuff. 
now if you tell me that this is an early April fool, I'd say it is brilliant.


----------



## bfreedma

ljnew said:


> Here's a good explanation:
> 
> "During the manufacturing process, as insulation is extruded over the conductors, gases can become trapped. This combined with the high electrical charges often found in new cables, result in a brittle and bright sound that lacks the detail and depth desired for music reproduction. There are a few ways to solve this problem. One way to burn-in your cables is to simply hook them up in your home audio system and play music for a minimum of 100 hours. Even better, use a burn in disc, like Nordost’s System Set-Up & Tuning Disc, which provides a track specifically designed to produces a range of tones that stress the cables and expedite the burn-in process."
> 
> https://nordost.com/blog/what-is-cable-burn-in/



I clicked the link and was shocked (not really) that there were no measurements demonstrating the audible improvement due to their burn in process.

Typical use of “scientific” word salad with no actual meaning.  But it sounds so important...


----------



## PointyFox (Mar 11, 2019)

1. Air touching an audio cable doesn't do anything.
2. Audio cables don't store voltage, and not high voltage for that matter. I don't think anyone has ever been shocked by a disconnected cable.

It's highly concerning someone would view that as a "good explanation".


----------



## bigshot (Mar 11, 2019)

geek707 said:


> Nordost charges enough to do that, and frankly at their level of customer, adding 10% to the price and saying they have been burned in would be accepted without any question.



Actually, they could just add 10% and do nothing and it wouldn't make any difference... but let's not give them any ideas. The snake oil is bad enough as it is!


----------



## ljnew

geek707 said:


> Which begs the question of: if this is needed, why isn't the company making the "what-ever" doing burn-in as part of their QC.  Nordost charges enough to do that, and frankly at their level of customer, adding 10% to the price and saying they have been burned in would be accepted without any question. They say playing music, BUT, the Nordost disk is better. How much better is it? And why if it needs burn in, and they don't want to do it, why not have the files available for down load so it's done "correctly". And "high electrical charges often found in new cables"? What? What charges? What is high?  And does that mean they are manufacturing the actual cables they are using and not buying if from a company that makes cable to their spec? Because if they are buying rolls of cable from a OEM any out-gassing from the insulation should be done by the time it's used. And if not, why not? If they know this causes "brittle and bright" sound, why not let the cables sit in the warehouse and out gas? And where is the gas being trapped anyway? Are they talking about the plastics in the insulation out-gassing? And please explain how playing anything over the cable at the levels that consumer electronics can reach is going to release the "gas". New cables need to fart to sound right? What?
> And more to the point, why are they (the company making the product) delivering a product that is not ready for use? Am I getting a price break for doing a job that they have the ability to do?
> Sorry I am very confused...


So what do you think of this? https://nordost.com/images/review-images/review-pdf/9-HiFiPlus_issue47b.pdf


----------



## gregorio

Dawnrazor said:


> [1] If I listen for 5 min then burn in for 24 hours and listen for 5 min and then listen 24 hours later, how can I adapt? To adapt you need to be exposed for a good amount of time.
> And most on this thread deny burn in, so why the need to say there is adaptation?? Adaptation to what? A non existent phenomenon?



1. That assertion is obviously false. If you go into a loud environment, say enter a night club, your ears/hearing adapts within just a second or so, in order to protect itself from damaging sound pressure levels. If it took more than 24 hours to adapt, the damage would have already been done long before that time and there would be no point in adapting. You are contradicting science that is has been well demonstrated, understood and established for over a century and even studied quantitatively for over 80 years!

2. Adaption to very existent phenomena, expectation bias and preference being just two of the most obvious ones. Claiming that a physical change is occurring in, for example a wire, which produces a difference in the resultant audio waveform so large it would actually be audible, would be trivial to measure and those making the claim would be posting those measurements all over the web. It would be easy therefore for you to provide some links to those posted measurements.



Dawnrazor said:


> And how do you explain the roller coaster of burn in.



Again, it's explained by the well established roller coaster of human perception. If you want to explain burn-in in terms of an actual physical change in the produced waveforms, then show us the difference in produced waveforms.

G


----------



## PointyFox

ljnew said:


> So what do you think of this? https://nordost.com/images/review-images/review-pdf/9-HiFiPlus_issue47b.pdf



It says the effects of burn in wear off and need to be reapplied if you don't use the cable for a while. I guess the cable would start generating high voltage on its own.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Mar 11, 2019)

ljnew said:


> So what do you think of this? https://nordost.com/images/review-images/review-pdf/9-HiFiPlus_issue47b.pdf



I think it's hilarious.  

As far as adaptation is concerned, there doesn't really even need to be any sort of actual adaptation going on at all.  All that there needs to be is an acceptance of the premise that burning in headphones will cause a positive improvement in SQ.  Once a person accepts that that is true, then they can very easily convince themselves that - after burning a set of phones in for 30 or 50 or 100 or 1000 hours - they now DO sound better than they did in the few minutes or so they were auditioned ootb.  Unless you've done a blind A/B comparison between a set of phones that have been burned in for the requisite amount of time and a set of the same model that is new, there's a very high probability you are just hearing what your brain tells you to expect to hear...

There's sort of 2 different things at play potentially. In the case where a person buys a set of phones and starts listening to them right away and keeps listening to them as they "burn in", there's the high probability that any perceived changes in sound quality really come down to the person simply adapting to the sound signature of the phones in question.  You just get used to the way they sound...and if burn in is a thing you believe to be real you account for that adaptation as a consequence of the process of the phones burning in. "I've been listening to these phones for a week now and MAN do they ever sound better than they did ootb!  You really need to burn these babies in!"

Then, in the case where a person buys a set of phones, listens to them for a few minutes, and then puts them on the burn-in station because according to somebody they need 100 hours of burn in to sound good, there's a high probability that after the burn in process is done, lo and behold they DO sound better than they did - because if you believe in burn in and they've now been burned in why wouldn't they?  And since you're basing the assessment on a few minutes of listening a week ago compared to now post-burn in you simply don't have much to go on other than questionable memory of what they may have sounded like when they were new.  "I've had these phones on my burn in station for a week now and MAN do they ever sound better than they did when I tried them out for a few minutes ootb!  You definitely need to burn these babies in!"


----------



## geek707

ljnew said:


> So what do you think of this? https://nordost.com/images/review-images/review-pdf/9-HiFiPlus_issue47b.pdf


Magic!
Makes anything with any kind of wire sound better. Dramatically changed the sound of the tonearm tubes the reviewer was using.
Magic!
Now he toasts any cable he gets, which is a bit weird as a reviewer, given most people buying a cable he reviews will not have toasted cables. And since it makes such a huge change in the sound, how do you trust his cartridge reviews?
Am i surprised that a company selling $700 unrated Ethernet cables has produced such a box? (40Gb/sec & 1000MHz! Cat 7 is 10Gb/sec and 600MHz, and the standards for Cat 8 are not released yet. Before I retired I had a nice yellow box I would have loved to plug one of those cables in to test. I'll bet they are using them in all of Google's data centers...)
Magic!


----------



## ljnew

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I think it's hilarious.
> 
> As far as adaptation is concerned, there doesn't really even need to be any sort of actual adaptation going on at all.  All that there needs to be is an acceptance of the premise that burning in headphones will cause a positive improvement in SQ.  Once a person accepts that that is true, then they can very easily convince themselves that - after burning a set of phones in for 30 or 50 or 100 or 1000 hours - they now DO sound better than they did in the few minutes or so they were auditioned ootb.  Unless you've done a blind A/B comparison between a set of phones that have been burned in for the requisite amount of time and a set of the same model that is new, there's a very high probability you are just hearing what your brain tells you to expect to hear...
> 
> ...


So you don't believe cables make a difference at all or do you believe im cables just not burn in?

What about mp3 vs flac?


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

ljnew said:


> So you don't believe cables make a difference at all or do you believe im cables just not burn in?
> 
> What about mp3 vs flac?



high bitrate mp3 is almost indistinguishable from flac afaic.  I can tell a difference in A/B comparisons up to 192kb mp3 (sometimes).  Above that it's essentially a crap shoot ftmp.  Someone with better ears than me might be able to do better, but I'm pretty confident the vast vast majority of human beings can't really confidently distinguish between 320kb mp3 and flac.

As far as cables go, I suspect the biggest advantage of high end expensive cables "might" be durability...but even that isn't a given.  I think as long as you aren't talking about something like what they sell at gas stations you are probably getting what you need out of your cables and there's no real need to add an extra $30-300 (or more) dollars to the equation...


----------



## bigshot (Mar 11, 2019)

ljnew said:


> So what do you think of this? https://nordost.com/images/review-images/review-pdf/9-HiFiPlus_issue47b.pdf



"The first thing you notice is that it looks like a real product."



ljnew said:


> What about mp3 vs flac?



I have a fun listening test that helps you determine where your threshold is for perceiving degradation of sound with lossy codecs and data rates. If you are interested, I'd be happy to share it with you. You might be surprised what you find out. Just PM me if you'd like to try it.


----------



## geek707

ljnew said:


> So you don't believe cables make a difference at all or do you believe in cables just not burn in?


Good question, and I know not to me...
What cables? IC? Speaker/Headphone? AC? $700 Ethernet?
I did replace the $1.00 interconnects in my system with something nicer looking. Cannot say anything about the sound, but it does look cool. My HD800 has the stock cable. The aftermarkets I have tried did not seem to do anything (no I did not burn them in) and QC seemed to be lacking, so they were returned.
So in general you would put me in the cables don't matter camp. (With exceptions. When you play with very powerful amps, you do need to be very careful about cabling, just for safety reasons alone...)


ljnew said:


> What about mp3 vs flac??


Too many variables other than file format that could affect the sound to give a meaningful answer.


----------



## jagwap

Burn in on cables will be nonsense. Of course. 

The only place measurable burn in occurs is in electronics is electrolytic capacitors, where the dilectric alters with time after a potential is applied. The impedance changes with time over tens of hours. If you made a VERY capacitive material, and the insulator was like an electrolyte (most flashy cables use teflon which is the opposite of this) then you might notice something with a high impedance output. But you would deserve it for buying shoddy cables and equipmemt. Even then it is unlikely.

It is possible to have a bad interconnect cable, due to the way its connected. But the structure of the wires only matter to RF immunity.

Headphone cables? Al that matters to me is they are robust (are you reading this Sony and your crappy OFC lizt wire), have corrosion free plugs (Audeze: gold flash is not the same as gold plate) , and don't make a lot of conducted vibration when walking.


----------



## Dawnrazor

Brooko said:


> I've seen your other posts, and there seems to be a lot of dancing around the subject - so maybe better being direct.  What is your position on burn-in and why?
> 
> As far as looking for evidence =>
> 
> ...


I will do my best to explain my position but it seems like the jury is already out 

I think burn in can happen.  It depends on the product.  Sometimes it happens sometimes not.  It all depends.  I have had some things that really didnt change much and some that were very different after playing.  So the whole idea of adapting and the way it supposedly happens as depicted here I have a hard time with.  Why would some things change more than others if its some deceptive placebo as claimed??  

And that whole measure double blind volume match mantra is pretty hard to pull off.  You explain it pretty well IMHO why its crazy to expect such things.  I certainly don't have the measurement equipment to measure headphones and even if I did the assumption that there is a direct correlation between measurement (which ones for that matter) and our hearing.  Its not burn in, but its an example.  I just modded my M1060s.  Assuming you guys know how a planar driver is made I dampened the metal on the outside of the driver.  The metal is basically the magnetic structure.  So if it rings the driver moves.  This mod dramatically ups the resolution.  You can hear everything so clean.  What measurements would show a cleaner background and better imaging and quicker timing?  And how would a hobbiest conduct such measurements?  And a better question is WHY would I.  

My other views are that many people dismiss burn in with a wave of the placebo hand.  You have already seen this here.  But they miss the fact that placebo cuts both ways.  If you think there is no burn in its just as likely you wont hear it.  Anyhow the people that cant hear it seem to also not be able to here differences between amps and dacs.  Isnt there "science" that says all amps sound the same??  

My view on everything sounding the same (because I am sure you will ask  is that there are differences between amps and between dacs.  And that the everything sounds the same skepticism keeps people from seeing or hearing that.  An example.  I recently bought a new dac.  My old dac was a soundcard with balanced outs and a dedicated computer (no internet, seperate psus, etc).  I bought a new dac because the computer was putting out too much heat even though I under clocked and volted it.  So a new dac arrived.  Before it did, I did all kind of tweaks on the Surface 3 I was going to use as the new computer for the ethernet dac.  Lots of windows tweaks.  New dac arrives and it sounds great.  (I don't recall a big difference in regards to burn in).  The surface sucks as a tablet and a computer and I got so sick of its stupidity (like a text box that covers prompts you need to respond to) so a new computer was ordered.  A mini pc with similar specs to the surface but could be set to power on with a power outage (no go on the surface).  Anyhow the same dac sounded dreadful.  I had not tuned the new pc for audio.  I know right its all bits how could the computer make ANY difference on a ethernet dac?  But it was terrible and repeating the software settings I had done on the Surface made it sound great again.  How would one measure that?  The difference was clearly audible but what measurements would one take....now my contention is that half this board or more is using some computer as a source, just picks a player like foobar (which doesnt sound as good as others) and hooks up some usb dac.  So because of this their sound is not what it could be and well no wonder they can't hear any difference between things.  

I had an MIT acoustic engineer explain to me that mp3 at 192k was transparent and that you couldnt tell the difference between it and the 1411 source file.  Like he really thought that and had all kind of "proof".  He administered an abx test.  Lol  you should have seen his face when I was able to reliably pick the source file.

Ok back to burnin.  There is one company that sells amps and preamps and some of their models are built and then burned in for 48 or 72 hours.  THEN shipped because they wanted them to sound good out of the box and within the return period.  IF there is no burn in there is no reason for them to do that.  It makes zero business sense.  But they do it precisely because if there is burn in it makes all the sense in the world.  

Well you DID ask...


----------



## Dawnrazor

geek707 said:


> Good question, and I know not to me...
> What cables? IC? Speaker/Headphone? AC? $700 Ethernet?
> I did replace the $1.00 interconnects in my system with something nicer looking. Cannot say anything about the sound, but it does look cool. My HD800 has the stock cable. The aftermarkets I have tried did not seem to do anything (no I did not burn them in) and QC seemed to be lacking, so they were returned.
> So in general you would put me in the cables don't matter camp. (With exceptions. When you play with very powerful amps, you do need to be very careful about cabling, just for safety reasons alone...)
> ...


When you mention very powerful and safety reasons, can you give an example??


----------



## bigshot

Dawnrazor said:


> I have had some things that really didnt change much and some that were very different after playing.



Can you tell me how you compared before and after? Did you match levels? Were you comparing measurements or direct A/B switched to avoid errors due to auditory memory? Were you comparing blind? If not, how do you know that bias and perceptual error wasn't skewing your impressions?


----------



## Dawnrazor

bigshot said:


> Can you tell me how you compared before and after? Did you match levels? Were you comparing measurements or direct A/B switched to avoid errors due to auditory memory? Were you comparing blind? If not, how do you know that bias and perceptual error wasn't skewing your impressions?


How do you A/B burn in? Time machine?

In one case the sound was not that  listenable even after burn in.  I can't fathom what kind of bias that would be.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 12, 2019)

You A/B burn in with two copies of the equipment you're comparing, or though measurements. Auditory memory is very short. For subtle differences it can be as short as a couple of seconds. If you go back a week later and try to compare, you're going to not get accurate results.

Every human being is subject to bias. Bias usually works in the favor of the thing you're comparing. If you don't like something clearly, you probably just don't like it. You're in sound science here. If it isn't blind, we are allowed to call it bias/placebo.

I'm honestly not sure what you heard and what you just thought you heard. If you're interested in finding out for yourself, you might try applying some controls to your listening tests. A lot of us here have done that and we have gotten different results than you have. Your lack of controls may be the reason why.


----------



## gregorio (Mar 12, 2019)

Dawnrazor said:


> [1] What measurements would show a cleaner background and better imaging and quicker timing? [1a] And how would a hobbiest conduct such measurements? [1b] And a better question is WHY would I.



1. A simple before and after comparison of spectograms for example.
1a. In the case of speakers, a cheap measurement mic, an ADC and some free software. In the case of a DAC or cable, you wouldn't even need a measurement mic.
1b. To see if there is an actual difference (and what the difference is) in what's being produced or if it's just a difference in your perception. The advantage of this is so that you know if the time, effort and/or money you've put in actually made a difference, if so did it actually make it better or worse AND when you go on a forum and post something about it, whether you are making a FOOL of yourself because you are falsely attributing differences in perception to audible physical differences in the waveform!



Dawnrazor said:


> [1] But they miss the fact that placebo cuts both ways.
> [1a] If you think there is no burn in its just as likely you wont hear it.
> [1b] Anyhow the people that cant hear it seem to also not be able to here differences between amps and dacs.
> [1c] Isnt there "science" that says all amps sound the same??



1. Who is "they"?
1a. That's possible but generally less likely. However, we also have objective measurements, so it's irrelevant anyway!
1b. If the measured difference is well below audibility then those "people that can't hear" a difference are hearing/perceiving more accurately than those that do. If one person can see fairies in their garden and one can't, which of them is seeing more accurately?
1c. No, of course there isn't!! There's science that says under certain conditions all amps sound the same but obviously not that all amps under any conditions sound the same. An obvious example, a broken/non-functioning amp will obviously not sound the same as one that isn't (so that's one of the conditions).



Dawnrazor said:


> [1] My view on everything sounding the same (because I am sure you will ask  is that there are differences between amps and between dacs.
> [1a] And that the everything sounds the same skepticism keeps people from seeing or hearing that.
> [1b] I know right its all bits how could the computer make ANY difference on a ethernet dac?
> [1c] But it was terrible and repeating the software settings I had done on the Surface made it sound great again. How would one measure that?
> ...



1. Yes, no one is disputing there are differences between amps and between DACs. For starters they look different and have different prices and secondly, they all measure somewhat differently. The question is whether those differences produce actual audible differences or just differences in perception.
1a. Then that's a FALSE view, a view you've just made-up or are blindly repeating from shills/marketing. Again, if someone is sceptical that fairies exist and therefore doesn't see them, are they seeing more or less accurately than someone who isn't sceptical and does see fairies?
1b. You're joking right? Do you not know what a computer is? At the most basic level, a computer takes "bits", performs some "computation" on them and spits out different "bits", hence why it's call a "computer". On a slightly more sophisticated level, ethernet is a family of networking technologies, changing the ethernet protocol or settings within the computer is very likely to make a difference to an ethernet dac, even to the point of it not operating.
1c. There are numerous ways of measuring that. A quick, easy and cheap way would be a simple null test of the output of both DACs.
1d. That's a false statement, you do NOT know if the difference was clearly audible, the only thing you know is that you perceived a difference.
1e. And here's the whole problem in a nutshell! You apparently do not know that there are relevant measurements, so you feel justified in making-up a "contention" on the basis that no measurement exists. This of course is a fallacy! Just because you don't know or are unaware of the measurement/s, doesn't mean they don't exist. Science obviously doesn't depend on what you personally know (or don't know) of it. For some reason, this is a very common fallacy amongst audiophiles!



Dawnrazor said:


> [1] I had an MIT acoustic engineer explain to me that mp3 at 192k was transparent and that you couldnt tell the difference between it and the 1411 source file.
> [2] There is one company that sells amps and preamps and some of their models are built and then burned in for 48 or 72 hours. THEN shipped because they wanted them to sound good out of the box and within the return period. IF there is no burn in there is no reason for them to do that. It makes zero business sense. But they do it precisely because if there is burn in it makes all the sense in the world.
> [3] In one case the sound was not that listenable even after burn in. I can't fathom what kind of bias that would be.



1. No you didn't! Maybe you just made-up that anecdote, maybe you misunderstood what you were told or maybe the guy lied about being an "MIT acoustic engineer" but as MIT is a well respected education establishment, it's inconceivable that an MIT graduate would be so poorly educated.

2. Yes, it does make all the business sense in the world. For example, if one is selling a product to gullible audiophiles who believe in burn-in!

3. Exactly! So, it effectively comes down to what you personally can and can't "fathom". Which brings us back to the point above: If you are unaware of (and/or "can't fathom") a particular measurement or some demonstrated science, does that mean the measurement or the science doesn't exist?

G


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Mar 12, 2019)

there could certainly be cases where for instance a set of headphones had some particular characteristic that was distinct enough in a negative sense that it was too much for a person to adapt to or ignore even after a period of burning them in.  Personally, it really doesn't matter to me.  If somebody wants to burn in their stuff, ok go ahead.  I just mostly ignore it (although I find it troubling that sometimes burn in is used as a part of a sales pitch with some equipment).  But, it's a bit of a cop out to say "well I hear the benefits of burn in, and I certainly don't have the time or the resources to conduct rigorous testing...so burn in is a real thing."  That testing has actually been done by people who do have the resources, and afaik there has never really been evidence found of any sort of burn in effect that could account for notable, dramatic, or really even audible effects on sound quality.  It's often claimed that burn in has turned an item that initially was not impressive into an item that sounds wonderful.  that sort of dramatic impact should be easily noted in testing...shouldn't it?

Also, bias is a funny thing.  There are other elements at play when it comes to this sort of hobby.  For example, I have a definite inclination to "want" to like earbuds that have really nice components such as cables and shells.  There have been times when I've initially been very impressed by a set of nicely-built earbuds but come to realize over time that they actually don't sound that great and it was really their physical characteristics I was impressed by.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Real.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Redcarmoose said:


> Real.




lol...oh ok.


----------



## geek707 (Mar 12, 2019)

Dawnrazor said:


> In one case the sound was not that  listenable even after burn in.  I can't fathom what kind of bias that would be.


What device was this?


----------



## bigshot (Mar 12, 2019)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> there could certainly be cases where for instance a set of headphones had some particular characteristic that was distinct enough in a negative sense that it was too much for a person to adapt to or ignore even after a period of burning them in.



Errors in perception when it comes to audiophiles usually involve hearing differences that don't exist. This forum is jam packed with examples. The margin of error comes with similar sounding samples. There aren't many examples of people who have convinced themselves that they can't hear things that are clearly audible. Bias can make you hear things that don't exist, but it can't necessarily make you oblivious to sounds that clearly do. When people talk about something sounding fine and first but discovering over time that it doesn't, there are other possible reasons for that. We all know that audiophiles have a tendency to be shopaholics, and they churn equipment because the pleasure in it is the buying, not the listening.



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> Also, bias is a funny thing.  There are other elements at play when it comes to this sort of hobby.



There are all kinds of bias... the most common is probably expectation bias- you expect an expensive component to sound better than a cheap one, so that's the way you hear it. There's overconfidence bias, which involves thinking your ears have ability to hear that they really don't. There's the bandwagon effect, hearing something one way because everyone in the forum says it sounds like that. You can have bias because of what you're told by someone you trust... you expect that person to be an authority, so you hear what they told you. There's confirmation bias, which is cherry picking to validate a pre-determined opinion. Looking at specs detailing differences that are clearly inaudible can make you think you are hearing it. There's a magical thinking bias where because something is a warm or cool color, it must sound warm or cool. People have biases for or against certain brands. They hear things a certain way because they want to validate spending a lot of money and they don't want to be a loser. There are probably more, but that is what I can think of off the top of my head. And none of this starts to address perceptual error like auditory memory or level imbalances affecting our judgement.

Everyone is subject to bias... even scientists! That's why scientists know to apply controls to their tests to try to eliminate as much bias as possible.


----------



## geek707

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> there could certainly be cases where for instance a set of headphones had some particular characteristic that was distinct enough in a negative sense that it was too much for a person to adapt to or ignore even after a period of burning them in.


Wouldn't you say this is something completely different? I would not expect different brands of headphones to sound the same. (Grado vs. Audez for example)


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Mar 12, 2019)

geek707 said:


> Wouldn't you say this is something completely different? I would not expect different brands of headphones to sound the same. (Grado vs. Audez for example)



well, I was responding to the point made about how sometimes burn in doesn't have a positive (or any) effect.  The argument being "if burn in is imaginary or a placebo effect, why doesn't it always work?"  My point was just that there might be some slightly more notable feature or characteristic that is causing a negative reaction to a set of earbuds (for example) and the placebo effect of burn in (for someone who believes it works) isn't enough to over come it.  I'm thinking of stuff like maybe a bump in a specific frequency range that one might be more or less sensitive to...that sort of thing...

essentially the point I was trying to make was that the fact that burn-in doesn't always work doesn't necessarily prove that burn-in is a real thing.  lol...


----------



## geek707

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> well, I was responding to the point made about how sometimes burn in doesn't have a positive (or any) effect.  The argument being "if burn in is imaginary or a placebo effect, why doesn't it always work?"  My point was just that there might be some slightly more notable feature or characteristic that is causing a negative reaction to a set of earbuds (for example) and the placebo effect of burn in (for someone who believes it works) isn't enough to over come it.  I'm thinking of stuff like maybe a bump in a specific frequency range that one might be more or less sensitive to...that sort of thing...


I get that. But I don't think this is same thing that is being talked about here. The frequency bump your talking about is something that can be measured. I can see it in response diagrams. And that's what I was saying. 
It's also possible to adapt to something like that. You might not like something at first because it's different (Grado sound signature vs. Audez for example) and given enough time your tastes change or you adapt. This is not burn in.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Mar 12, 2019)

geek707 said:


> I get that. But I don't think this is same thing that is being talked about here. The frequency bump your talking about is something that can be measured. I can see it in response diagrams. And that's what I was saying.
> It's also possible to adapt to something like that. You might not like something at first because it's different (Grado sound signature vs. Audez for example) and given enough time your tastes change or you adapt. This is not burn in.



no I agree.  I mean from my perspective, there really is no such thing as burn in anyway.  I was sorta grasping at straws really, lol.


----------



## geek707

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> no I agree.  I mean from my perspective, there really is no such thing as burn in anyway.  I was sorta grasping at straws really, lol.


----------



## Dawnrazor

bigshot said:


> You A/B burn in with two copies of the equipment you're comparing, or though measurements. Auditory memory is very short. For subtle differences it can be as short as a couple of seconds. If you go back a week later and try to compare, you're going to not get accurate results.
> 
> Every human being is subject to bias. Bias usually works in the favor of the thing you're comparing. If you don't like something clearly, you probably just don't like it. You're in sound science here. If it isn't blind, we are allowed to call it bias/placebo.
> 
> I'm honestly not sure what you heard and what you just thought you heard. If you're interested in finding out for yourself, you might try applying some controls to your listening tests. A lot of us here have done that and we have gotten different results than you have. Your lack of controls may be the reason why.


Sure man just get 2 pairs of the same cans and 2 of the same amps.  Got it.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 12, 2019)

The amps aren't as important because odds are, they sound pretty much the same.

By the way, I did a direct switched comparison between two sets of Oppo PM-1s- one set brand new from Oppo, and one set that I had been using for two months. They sounded exactly the same. The lead engineer at Oppo told me that their manufacturing tolerances for response was +/-1dB.


----------



## geek707

Dawnrazor said:


> Sure man just get 2 pairs of the same cans and 2 of the same amps.  Got it.


You would not need 2 amps (or what-ever you are driving the headphones with), just a Y cable.
But you do get into the same problems we have been talking about. You do have to take one set of phones off and put the other on. And the relationship between the ear and headphone driver can affect the sound.
So really they only way to do this would be with 2 bi-aural mike sets and measure what they are hearing. And then you would have to find out what the manufacturing tolerances are for the phones.
Not worth the trouble or $$ for me. If the phones don't sound the way I like out of the box, back they go.


----------



## jagwap

bigshot said:


> The amps aren't as important because odds are, they sound pretty much the same.
> 
> By the way, I did a direct switched comparison between two sets of Oppo PM-1s- one set brand new from Oppo, and one set that I had been using for two months. They sounded exactly the same. The lead engineer at Oppo told me that their manufacturing tolerances for response was +/-1dB.



I did the same thing with the Oppo PM-3, and got a very different result. So you will say I imagined the difference. I could say you didn't want to hear a difference so didn't. Both different and valid forms of bias.


----------



## castleofargh

jagwap said:


> I did the same thing with the Oppo PM-3, and got a very different result. So you will say I imagined the difference. I could say you didn't want to hear a difference so didn't. Both different and valid forms of bias.


I'm not a fan of testing 2 pairs of headphones for such a topic as we're just adding even more variables than we eliminate. we solve the memory issue(although not entirely as it takes a moment to switch between headphones). but 2 drivers are likely to have some variations from the get go, then we have the pads!!!!!! and no clear way of keeping potential "burn in" differences separated from differences that were already there between the headphones. well we could try to rigorously measure and document them, but as far as listening test goes, it's a messy job IMO. 
so I'm not surprised that you could perceive differences, and I'm more surprised in that instance that bigshot could get 2 headphones so well matched that an honest attempt to find a difference failed. obviously it can happen, but I'd say rigorous manufacturing + some luck need to be involved here(or bias). 
so I'm more confident in measurements where we'd really do our utmost best to repeat the same conditions over time. and as long as we're unsure about what is changing and how, I'm very much a fan of recording some tracks and using ABX, null, and any other ideas to check objective change and audibility. it does mean adding an entire loop of recording and playing back the signal, which is far from ideal, but I can't really think of a more accurate method.


----------



## jagwap

castleofargh said:


> I'm not a fan of testing 2 pairs of headphones for such a topic as we're just adding even more variables than we eliminate. we solve the memory issue(although not entirely as it takes a moment to switch between headphones). but 2 drivers are likely to have some variations from the get go, then we have the pads!!!!!! and no clear way of keeping potential "burn in" differences separated from differences that were already there between the headphones. well we could try to rigorously measure and document them, but as far as listening test goes, it's a messy job IMO.
> so I'm not surprised that you could perceive differences, and I'm more surprised in that instance that bigshot could get 2 headphones so well matched that an honest attempt to find a difference failed. obviously it can happen, but I'd say rigorous manufacturing + some luck need to be involved here(or bias).
> so I'm more confident in measurements where we'd really do our utmost best to repeat the same conditions over time. and as long as we're unsure about what is changing and how, I'm very much a fan of recording some tracks and using ABX, null, and any other ideas to check objective change and audibility. it does mean adding an entire loop of recording and playing back the signal, which is far from ideal, but I can't really think of a more accurate method.



I agree. It was not a fair or scientific test in either case. I was just using it as an illustration of potential error due to bias in either direction.

In this case it could be the case that the difference is between someone who always finds a difference and someone who never finds a difference


----------



## bigshot (Mar 13, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> I'm not a fan of testing 2 pairs of headphones for such a topic as we're just adding even more variables than we eliminate. we solve the memory issue(although not entirely as it takes a moment to switch between headphones).



In this case, I was told by the designer that the manufacturing tolerance was 1dB across the whole audible range. So I called on my sound mixer friend to do tone sweeps to verify it. We didn't do headphone switching. We evaluated the response curve of each set individually. I can attest to the high manufacturing standards of the Oppo PM-1s. We tested three sets altogether and they all were balanced the same to within 1dB. They all had the same pads by the way...

The engineer who designed the PM-1s told me that the high price tag wasn't due to the materials or manufacture as much as it was due to the manufacturing tolerances. He said they tested and rejected a big chunk of the manufacturing run. Perhaps those rejects ended up in the lower priced Oppo cans. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. The designer said that typically, the manufacturing tolerance for headphones is 3dB, which makes sense. Beyond that is where it really starts to matter. 1dB is a luxury.

He wouldn't say what the curve was that they were aiming for, but I got pretty much the same results from my sound mixer friend running sweeps all three times. It was very close to my ideal balance, just a little bit of a bump between 1 and 2kHz and a small place in the bass that sounded a tiny bit off. I don't remember the exact specs offhand, but it lined up with Tyll fairly closely. He came up with his response using a different method though.


----------



## KevlarCoatedIEM

I don't believe in physical burn-in, but mental burn-in is a phenomena I've experienced repeatedly and that, imo, some people might confuse for physical burn-in if they aren't just playing white noise through their headphones 24/7 and they're actually wearing and listening to them throughout the burn-in period. I've felt this both on a daily level and on an equipment-to-equipment level. My Campfire Andromedas, say, have on multiple occasions sounded thin and sharp, especially when I'd used a Massdrop Plus, Final E1000, or Final E4000 beforehand. Yesterday I heard this exact change when switching from E4000 to Andros, yet when I put on the Andros first this morning, they were perfectly fine and sounded up to par. For another, more permanent change, I can point to my HS1551; the bass initially sounded gigantic, but then I got used to hearing the low thumps of the drums and now the bass is just highly present, rather than almost overwhelming. Even when I listen to the MH755 (which are bass cannons, really), the bass is now far less pronounced than it used to be. Finally, my fit on the HS1551 could have eventually improved/stabilized over time and thus reduced the bass to manageable levels. These are factors besides burn-in that could make the sound of a headphone better over time, and frankly far more believable factors than "equipment always gets better over long times, never worse".


In regards to physical equipment burn-in, I do have a question: have any manufacturers provided data? I often see them claim that you need so-and-so many hours of burn-in to get the most out of your headphones (Campfire and Final seem to subscribe to this ideology), but so far I've only seen the claim given at face value and then just taken at face value. It's an odd phenomenon for a manufacturer to claim you need burn-in, and people just take the claim and run with it.


----------



## Dawnrazor

geek707 said:


> What device was this?


The M1060s.  There were tracks even after burn in that were hard to listen to.  It turned out that the issue was with the passive preamp I had installed to get the TV sounds through the headphone rig.  It was super bright and it had to go.  Also I bought into the "digital volume control is bad" mantra so I added the pre.  Can't believe everything on the nets.


----------



## Dawnrazor

gregorio said:


> 1. A simple before and after comparison of spectograms for example.
> 1a. In the case of speakers, a cheap measurement mic, an ADC and some free software. In the case of a DAC or cable, you wouldn't even need a measurement mic.
> 1b. To see if there is an actual difference (and what the difference is) in what's being produced or if it's just a difference in your perception. The advantage of this is so that you know if the time, effort and/or money you've put in actually made a difference, if so did it actually make it better or worse AND when you go on a forum and post something about it, whether you are making a FOOL of yourself because you are falsely attributing differences in perception to audible physical differences in the waveform!
> 
> ...



audio is my hobby and you have a ton to reply to.  Give me time, maybe this weekend.  

The part where you call me a liar is not cool.  It happened.  This was the deal.  I worked at an audio company.  We were launching a new product that stored cds in the mp3 format at 192k.  It was my job to train the dealers on the product and we all knew that the dealers would freak at the bit rate.  I got to meet the acoustic engineer who was in charge of the storage format and he was from MIT.  He was trying to educate us on the psychoacoustics of it and had some examples I cant remember of how the brain works.  Something about an airport and tuning out the planes IIRC. That was probably in 2002 or 2003 I think.  Maybe 2001. Then we did the listening tests.  I nailed it.  And maybe its the word transparency.  But look at this page, and note the bit rate they have for Mp3...its 192k.  That is in line with what he told me and what they spout at hydrogen audio:
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Transparency

Maybe I misunderstood something or it was symantics but the tests he put us through were designed for me to go "yeah I can't hear any difference" or "they sound different but I don't know which one is which" or something like that.  Those tests did the opposite and I could tell he didnt expect anyone to be able to tell the difference.  One other guy heard the differences but no one else did.  

you can't hear the difference between 192k mp3 and wav files??


----------



## bigshot (Mar 13, 2019)

Dawnrazor said:


> The part where you call me a liar is not cool.  It happened.



I don't think we're calling you a liar. You're clearly saying what you believe. We're just saying that your results aren't necessarily the same as typical results, and there may be an error in testing that caused it. If you want to find out if that's the case, you should try to do a more controlled comparison and see if it comes out the same. Here in Sound Science, that's what we do... test our hypothesis to see if it holds up under controlled conditions and is repeatable consistently.

If you are interested to see where your threshold is for lossy formats, I have a test I can share with you that includes samples of three different codecs with three different data rates compared against each other and against a lossless sample. It's really handy to figure out what you can hear and what you can't. If you'd like to try it, send me a PM and I will administer it to you.


----------



## gregorio

Dawnrazor said:


> [1] The part where you call me a liar is not cool. It happened.
> [2] Maybe I misunderstood something or it was symantics but the tests he put us through were designed for me to go "yeah I can't hear any difference" or "they sound different but I don't know which one is which" or something like that. Those tests did the opposite and I could tell he didnt expect anyone to be able to tell the difference. One other guy heard the differences but no one else did.
> [3] you can't hear the difference between 192k mp3 and wav files??



1. I didn't call you a liar, I just listed that "Maybe" you were lying as one of several different possibilities and it certainly wouldn't be the first time someone has done that in this sub-forum.

2. And generally, in most cases, I too wouldn't have expected anyone to be able to tell the difference. However, the other side of that same coin means that there could be certain cases/conditions under which it would be possible to reliably tell a difference. Around the same time (late 1990's, early 2000's) I quite extensively tested the transparency of MP3s and generally it was transparent but there were certain pieces/recordings where I could reliably identify a difference, repeatedly achieve a perfect score with an ABX test. And, that was with 320kbps MP3s, not 192k! Furthermore, all my audio engineer colleagues were also able to reliably tell the difference (at 320kbps) and, this was also the consensus of the audio engineering community as a whole. Of course, we didn't really fall under the banner of "generally", we were all professionals; experienced, trained listeners with listening environments (commercial studios) significantly superior to the "general" public. An MIT educated acoustic engineer would certainly have been aware of the state of MP3 encoders in the early 2000's and therefore should have expected that at only 192kbps most people with most material probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference but some would.

3. In fact, with some material, I can't even hear the difference between 128kbps MP3's and the original wav files! As ALWAYS though, like with amps and DACs all sounding the same, there are conditions. In this case, there is the stated condition of "some" material, PLUS the non-stated condition of which MP3 encoder, which version and what encoder settings. Many encoders, LAME and Vorbis being two examples, are constantly being tested and developed. Testers report which material (commercial recordings/pieces of music) they are able to differentiate with ABX testing and then a new ".1" version of the encoder is released (with tweaked settings to the employed psychoacoustic model), which eliminates those recordings/pieces from the material which can be reliably differentiated. This has being ongoing for around 20 years and today, the formal testing of MP3 encoders at 320kbps no longer really occurs, because the list of pieces/recordings which can be reliably differentiated at that bit rate has been reduced to zero. Testing today occurs at much lower bit rates, where the list of material that can be differentiated increases as the bit rate reduces (and varies according to the encoder). My answer to your question is therefore BOTH "no I can't and no one else has reliably demonstrated the ability to" AND "yes I can, it's trivially easy and whole communities are also able to". Without the conditions/variables mentioned, your question is meaningless. Let me ask you a question; you can't hear the difference between 320kbps and wav files??

G


----------



## bigshot

Fraunhofer MP3 isn't nearly as good of a codec as the more modern ones. I'd like to find someone who can consistently identify AAC 256 or 320 from lossless with even the most difficult music to encode. Haven't found any yet.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Fraunhofer MP3 isn't nearly as good of a codec as the more modern ones. I'd like to find someone who can consistently identify AAC 256 or 320 from lossless with even the most difficult music to encode. Haven't found any yet.



Years ago they said Fraunhofer is the best with high bitrates and LAME is the best at low bitrates but I suppose a lot has changed and codecs today are superior to those 15 years ago so who really cares?


----------



## bigshot (Mar 14, 2019)

I've found that LAME is also better than Frau at high data rates too. There are codecs specifically designed for super low data rate voice applications, but most of the ones we talk about here are for music and higher data rates.

The reason it matters is because a lot of people seem to have based their opinions on compressed audio based on Fraunhofer MP3, which is almost 30 years old now. What was true in 1991 isn't necessarily true today.


----------



## AKGForever (Mar 17, 2019)

I think there is probably a short break-in period for mechanical devices such as speakers or headphones but no more than an hour or two.  Parts flex, parts seat. 

I recently read an article for a capacitor that stated that capacitors had to settle down for a week or two to reach their optimum performance.  The article was talking specifically about crossover capacitors.  Has to be one of the most ludacris thing I every read.  Whatever brand they were talking about, I don’t want them.

The whole burn-in thing comes from the computer industry.  With computers it was used to weed out “Infant Mortality” failures and not performance issues.  Memory and Hard Drives would last forever if they made it past a few days of hard use


----------



## jagwap

AKGForever said:


> I think there is probably a short break-in period for mechanical devices such as speakers or headphones but no more than an hour or two.  Parts flex, parts seat.
> 
> I recently read an article for a capacitor that stated that capacitors had to settle down for a week or two to reach their optimum performance.  The article was talking specifically about crossover capacitors.  Has to be one of the most ludacris thing I every read.  Whatever brand they were talking about, I don’t want them.
> 
> The whole burn-in thing comes from the computer industry.  With computers it was used to weed out “Infant Mortality” failures and not performance issues.  Memory and Hard Drives would last forever if they made it past a few days of hard use



The capacitor thing is true. I've seen the plots from the manufacturer. The ESR alters in the first 10s of hours when they they have their working voltage applied across them. However crossover capacitors do not have a voltage across them,so this may be different. They do have current passing through them, but I haven't seen how that affects their parameters.


----------



## geek707

And this settling down isn't done by the manufacture in QC under controlled conditions, why?


----------



## jagwap

geek707 said:


> And this settling down isn't done by the manufacture in QC under controlled conditions, why?



Who are you asking, and on what subject?

Answering generally, it makes no financial sense to hold on to stock you could sell on, to do something the customer can.  Some products are tested for 12 to 24 hours by manufacturers who want to look for early failures, and this will do the majority of burn in if there is any.

Speakers definately experience burn-in. It is widely known in the industry and is measurable.

Headphones - it is fiercely debated here. I have recenly discussed this with driver engineers and they have explained to me that the spider is the main culprit in loudspeakers, so as headphones usually don't have one, maybe the effect is much less or non-existant. 

Electronics: electrolyic capacitors do exhibit burn in, and I've encoutered it often, and seen the manufacturer's data.

Cables: I see no evidence and find nothing. Seems incredibly unlikely.


----------



## bigshot

If I was a manufacturer, I wouldn't sell something to a customer that didn't sound the way I intended it to. That's just asking for returns. If all it takes is 30 or 40 hours of playing tones, I'd ship a couple of days later and ship them sounding right.

It makes no sense that a company would put all that R&D and manufacturing costs into producing a consistent product and then ship it unverified and let the customer find out if it settles into the right place or not. If burn in exists and it is mechanical, it isn't going to be consistent. The outcome is going to be a crap shoot.


----------



## geek707

bigshot said:


> If I was a manufacturer, I wouldn't sell something to a customer that didn't sound the way I intended it to. That's just asking for returns. If all it takes is 30 or 40 hours of playing tones, I'd ship a couple of days later and ship them sounding right.
> 
> It makes no sense that a company would put all that R&D and manufacturing costs into producing a consistent product and then ship it unverified and let the customer find out if it settles into the right place or not. If burn in exists and it is mechanical, it isn't going to be consistent. The outcome is going to be a crap shoot.


Thank you. This is the point I've tried to make. If a company believes that product x requires burn in, why aren't they burning the product in?  That said, I think most manufactures believe burn in is nonsense whatever they say publicly.


----------



## AKGForever

bigshot said:


> If I was a manufacturer, I wouldn't sell something to a customer that didn't sound the way I intended it to. That's just asking for returns. If all it takes is 30 or 40 hours of playing tones, I'd ship a couple of days later and ship them sounding right.
> 
> It makes no sense that a company would put all that R&D and manufacturing costs into producing a consistent product and then ship it unverified and let the customer find out if it settles into the right place or not. If burn in exists and it is mechanical, it isn't going to be consistent. The outcome is going to be a crap shoot.




 Burn-in is a loaded word, I prefer break-in when it comes to mechanic devices.  On the contrary, break-in can be very consistent.  With motors, as an example, mass produced parts mate with proper break-in.   Each part wears a little to match the other and then wear stops


----------



## geek707

AKGForever said:


> Burn-in is a loaded word, I prefer break-in when it comes to mechanic devices.  On the contrary, break-in can be very consistent.  With motors, as an example, mass produced parts mate with proper break-in.   Each part wears a little to match the other and then wear stops


I disagree. That's a apple and oranges comparison. When you talk about break-in you think of, for example, a internal combustion engine, break-in was something like piston rings mating with cylinder walls to get the best seal. You ran a cylinder hone into the cylinder to create, among, other things a slightly rough surface for the rings to wear against and create a seal. 
The is nothing in the high-fi world that has the energy  or mass levels of what's going on in a engine.


----------



## bigshot

If it was comparable, we would need to do oil changes on our transducers!


----------



## AKGForever (Mar 18, 2019)

geek707 said:


> I disagree. That's a apple and oranges comparison. When you talk about break-in you think of, for example, a internal combustion engine, break-in was something like piston rings mating with cylinder walls to get the best seal. You ran a cylinder hone into the cylinder to create, among, other things a slightly rough surface for the rings to wear against and create a seal.
> The is nothing in the high-fi world that has the energy  or mass levels of what's going on in a engine.




Perhaps not the best example but speaker surrounds soften and spiders flex.  I am not saying it is even audible but mechanical devices change with initial use.  I think that 100 hour burn-in  is ridiculous.


----------



## elmoe

Where there is movement there is potential for break-in. If a headphone driver's diaphragm expands and contracts, it gets looser with time. If it gets looser with time, sound signature changes. Whether that's something that can be heard with the human ear or not is going to depend strongly on the materials used for the diaphragm as well as how it was implemented in the driver's design.

It is not that much of a stretch to compare the process to an engine breaking-in and your anti-break/burn-in arguments would be received more favorably if you didn't argue semantics.

Just my 2c.


----------



## AKGForever

bigshot said:


> If it was comparable, we would need to do oil changes on our transducers!



Hope you are getting your ferrofluid changed every 3000 miles


----------



## bigshot

If something starts shifting right away, how do you know how far it's going to shift or if it's even ever going to stop shifting? Things that move certainly wear out and break down. But something that is manufactured to as tight a tolerance as a good set of headphones shouldn't change until it starts wearing out. I've never had a set of speakers or headphones that changed significantly. If I did, I'd probably return them because I couldn't trust them not to change again.


----------



## AKGForever (Mar 18, 2019)

bigshot said:


> If something starts shifting right away, how do you know how far it's going to shift or if it's even ever going to stop shifting? Things that move certainly wear out and break down. But something that is manufactured to as tight a tolerance as a good set of headphones shouldn't change until it starts wearing out. I've never had a set of speakers or headphones that changed significantly. If I did, I'd probably return them because I couldn't trust them not to change again.



 Wear tolerances are built in to any mechanical design.  A screwdriver machine that I helped develope took into account the play that would occur and ran marginally better after  it had begun to flex.  The reason it ran better is it was more forgiving of screw orientation  The play did not get worse because the forces that caused the play had reached their limit.


----------



## jagwap

bigshot said:


> If I was a manufacturer, I wouldn't sell something to a customer that didn't sound the way I intended it to. That's just asking for returns. If all it takes is 30 or 40 hours of playing tones, I'd ship a couple of days later and ship them sounding right.
> 
> It makes no sense that a company would put all that R&D and manufacturing costs into producing a consistent product and then ship it unverified and let the customer find out if it settles into the right place or not. If burn in exists and it is mechanical, it isn't going to be consistent. The outcome is going to be a crap shoot.



Some high end manufacturers do, but it is entirely the minority.

Ever been to a mass production factory?  Not the little Hi-Fi companies, the 1000s per day upwards?  I've worked in both, and I regularly visit the latter, mostly in China.  There is no way a commercial factory is going to put thousands of product playing tones or pink noise for a few days without being forced to.  Can you imagine the logistics of it?  I've been in the reliability labs where kW active speakers are life tested, and only 10 sets mean your need ear-plus plus ear-defenders, and it's still loud.  When there are big subs going you get nausea.  It is completely impractical.  Why not let the consumer do this for free, especially as in the most differentiating case, a loudspeaker, it is well understood and accepted in the industry and the retailers.


----------



## jagwap

bigshot said:


> If something starts shifting right away, how do you know how far it's going to shift or if it's even ever going to stop shifting?



Engineering



> Things that move certainly wear out and break down. But something that is manufactured to as tight a tolerance as a good set of headphones shouldn't change until it starts wearing out. I've never had a set of speakers or headphones that changed significantly.



I think you have. You didn't notice.



> If I did, I'd probably return them because I couldn't trust them not to change again.



I don't think they would take them back. If I were the retailer dealing with this, I would take them, play them for 3-4 days "to investigate", and then let you try again as they seem OK now...


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> If something starts shifting right away, how do you know how far it's going to shift or if it's even ever going to stop shifting? Things that move certainly wear out and break down. But something that is manufactured to as tight a tolerance as a good set of headphones shouldn't change until it starts wearing out. I've never had a set of speakers or headphones that changed significantly. If I did, I'd probably return them because I couldn't trust them not to change again.



I don't know about right away, but after 500 hours of use at a decent volume I would expect some loosening up to happen. Is it that far a stretch to think so? 

Has anyone done a longevity test on x,y,z driver to determine if time rather than stress is more impactful physically?


----------



## jagwap

AKGForever said:


> Perhaps not the best example but speaker surrounds soften and spiders flex.  I am not saying it is even audible but mechanical devices change with initial use.  I think that 100 hour burn-in  is ridiculous.



It is measurable. Klippel, the current definitive measurement gear for loudspeakers, has written about it.  True, they say it is easy to measure in 10s of hour, but it is asymptotic towards a settling point, which takes longer.  100 hours is an amount that covers most products, except kevlar.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 18, 2019)

AKGForever said:


> Wear tolerances are built in to any mechanical design.  A screwdriver machine that I helped develope took into account the play that would occur and ran marginally better after  it had begun to flex.  The reason it ran better is it was more forgiving of screw orientation  The play did not get worse because the forces that caused the play had reached their limit.



I totally understand when you're breaking in a transmission and you start with less lubricating oil to get the pistons to wear down into moving smoothly, and then once the burrs are worked out, you switch to normal oil... but I don't see how that applies to a headphone. A headphone is designed and manufactured to perform to spec. It should perform to spec. If it doesn't and it changes, that's probably because it's been knocked wonky or it's getting ready to fail.

I helped a high end headphone manufacturer evaluate their prototype and the fella who designed it said that they tested each and every set off the line to make sure the response was the way they wanted it to be. He said they did no burn in and no burn in was necessary. They didn't pick some arbitrary response curve and hope it would settle into what they were shooting for. They engineered it to perform to spec as soon as it started playing.

Headphones don't have parts that move that much. They're designed to vibrate. I've replaced the diaphragm in my antique phonograph, and I'm familiar with reeds in musical instruments... Those always work the way they're intended from the beginning. If they change, it's because they are starting to degrade and wear out.

I've never had a set of headphones or speakers that needed burn in for five minutes, much less several days. I do an EQ pass as soon as I get them out of the box, and I've never had my EQ settings change over time. Maybe everything I've bought was broken in by the manufacturer. I don't know. But I would like to see proof that the sorts of burn in times I see tossed around by retailers are realistic at all. What kind of deviation from the intended response are we talking about/ +/-4dB? +/-6dB?

I think they just use that to get people to burn through their return window.


----------



## jagwap

bigshot said:


> I totally understand when you're breaking in a transmission and you start with less lubricating oil to get the pistons to wear down into moving smoothly, and then once the burrs are worked out, you switch to normal oil... but I don't see how that applies to a headphone. A headphone is designed and manufactured to perform to spec. It should perform to spec. If it doesn't and it changes, that's probably because it's been knocked wonky or it's getting ready to fail.
> 
> I helped a high end headphone manufacturer evaluate their prototype and the fella who designed it said that they tested each and every set off the line to make sure the response was the way they wanted it to be. He said they did no burn in and no burn in was necessary. They didn't pick some arbitrary response curve and hope it would settle into what they were shooting for. They engineered it to perform to spec as soon as it started playing.
> 
> ...



It does NOT effect EQ. There are many other parameters to sound.


----------



## bigshot

Which ones and how do we measure it? Distortion? It seems to me that loosening up of a diaphragm would definitely affect the response. It might affect distortion levels in a bad way too.


----------



## geek707

AKGForever said:


> Perhaps not the best example but speaker surrounds soften and spiders flex.  I am not saying it is even audible but mechanical devices change with initial use.  I think that 100 hour burn-in  is ridiculous.


This exactly gets back to my point. 
Are you sure about that statement? Does every speaker manufacture use the same materials for those parts? 
While it may have been somewhat true back in the days of paper cones and rubber surrounds, is it true today with modern material technology? I would think that modern designers would pick materials that would have little or no measured change during the life of the produce.
I'm not trying to pick on you, BTW. I'm saying if what you say is true, and component x requires some time before it is preforming as it should, then the actual manufacture of that device is really the only one who can do it, because they are the only people who know what needs to be done.
I am amazed that this persists. It's something I heard as gospel in the early 80s when I got into this hobby, and it has hung on all these years.
(BTW the break-in of car/motorcycle engines, which I am very familiar with, has completely changed over the last 30 years do to changes in materials technology, and manufacturing technology.)


----------



## jagwap

bigshot said:


> Which ones and how do we measure it? Distortion? It seems to me that loosening up of a diaphragm would definitely affect the response. It might affect distortion levels in a bad way too.



I linked to it before. Use the search function for my user name and Klippel. 

I'm going into a meeting with audio experts soon. Not your google.


----------



## geek707

elmoe said:


> Where there is movement there is potential for break-in. If a headphone driver's diaphragm expands and contracts, it gets looser with time. If it gets looser with time, sound signature changes. Whether that's something that can be heard with the human ear or not is going to depend strongly on the materials used for the diaphragm as well as how it was implemented in the driver's design.
> 
> It is not that much of a stretch to compare the process to an engine breaking-in and your anti-break/burn-in arguments would be received more favorably if you didn't argue semantics.
> 
> Just my 2c.


I'm curious why you believe that.
There is no reason, I can think of, that a modern design with modern materials should get looser, or change in any significant way over the life of the product.


----------



## geek707

jagwap said:


> Some high end manufacturers do, but it is entirely the minority.
> 
> Ever been to a mass production factory?  Not the little Hi-Fi companies, the 1000s per day upwards?  I've worked in both, and I regularly visit the latter, mostly in China.  There is no way a commercial factory is going to put thousands of product playing tones or pink noise for a few days without being forced to.  Can you imagine the logistics of it?  I've been in the reliability labs where kW active speakers are life tested, and only 10 sets mean your need ear-plus plus ear-defenders, and it's still loud.  When there are big subs going you get nausea.  It is completely impractical.  Why not let the consumer do this for free, especially as in the most differentiating case, a loudspeaker, it is well understood and accepted in the industry and the retailers.


I don't think anybody is talking about mass market anything here.


----------



## jagwap

geek707 said:


> I don't think anybody is talking about mass market anything here.



Why not?  

Sennhieser is mass market. AKG, JBL, Sony, all mass market. I said some hi end manufacturers do a little burn in, but they are a tiny part of the market.


----------



## elmoe

geek707 said:


> I'm curious why you believe that.
> There is no reason, I can think of, that a modern design with modern materials should get looser, or change in any significant way over the life of the product.



That depends on what's considered significant and whether or not that's audible. Has there been proper blind testing done with headphones known to "need" hundreds of hours of break-in where people could reliably identify the new pair from the old?


----------



## geek707

jagwap said:


> Why not?
> 
> Sennhieser is mass market. AKG, JBL, Sony, all mass market. I said some hi end manufacturers do a little burn in, but they are a tiny part of the market.


Or they have determined that burn in is not necessary and doesn't change how the product sounds. That's a bit different from saying it needs to break in, let the consumer do it for free.


----------



## geek707

elmoe said:


> That depends on what's considered significant and whether or not that's audible. Has there been proper blind testing done with headphones known to "need" hundreds of hours of break-in where people could reliably identify the new pair from the old?


I'm curious to know what headphones are known to need hundreds of hours of burn-in.


----------



## elmoe

geek707 said:


> I'm curious to know what headphones are known to need hundreds of hours of burn-in.



Apparently enough of them to warrant a 49 page thread in the Sound Science forum.


----------



## geek707

elmoe said:


> Apparently enough of them to warrant a 49 page thread in the Sound Science forum.


Why get better? A violin, for example does not get better as it's used. The opposite in fact. (Traditional instrument, not electronic)


----------



## elmoe (Mar 18, 2019)

geek707 said:


> Why get better? A violin, for example does not get better as it's used. The opposite in fact. (Traditional instrument, not electronic)



Says who? There are century old Stradivarius violins that are extremely coveted for their sound. Instruments like guitars made in the 50s 60s and 70s. Age is definitely a factor there.


----------



## Watagump

I feel brain burn in is real, not so much electronic burn in.


----------



## geek707

elmoe said:


> Says who? There are century old Stradivarius violins that are extremely coveted for their sound. Instruments like guitars made in the 50s 60s and 70s. Age is definitely a factor there.


The best Strads are long retired, and what is in use now is nowhere close to the best. Now even a 2ed or 3rd rate Strad (or lower) is very good, and there are reasons other than sound for a performer to own one (status, owning one of about 500 remaining instruments). As for acoustic guitars played professionally, I would bet the same is true.


----------



## castleofargh

AKGForever said:


> Hope you are getting your ferrofluid changed every 3000 miles


anytime I drop a pair of BA IEMs on the ground, I'm super worried that some of the ferrofluid might have gone where it's not supposed to. and it's funny because for any other headphone/IEM, if I drop it on the ground I'm devastated, but for some messed up reason in my brain, I worry about ferrofluid more ^_^.


elmoe said:


> Apparently enough of them to warrant a 49 page thread in the Sound Science forum.


there are thousands of pages about headphone burn in. but if you read them, you'll notice that controlled tests and measurements can fit in one, maybe 2 pages. the rest is a battle of ego where someone wants to be right and will argue that for a long time while making very sure not to demonstrate anything. 



elmoe said:


> Says who? There are century old Stradivarius violins that are extremely coveted for their sound. Instruments like guitars made in the 50s 60s and 70s. Age is definitely a factor there.


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check



Watagump said:


> I feel brain burn in is real, not so much electronic burn in.


brain burn in as you call it has been demonstrated so many times that it makes no doubt anymore. the difficulty is to get audiophiles to admit that they're not a perfect reference of objective change. and despite how obvious that should be to anybody who ever had to deal with humans or happens to be one, getting audiophiles to admit that they're not perfect recording devices has been a work in progress for decades. and there is no sign of audiophile communities acknowledging that. we all believe that others can and will be wrong, but being wrong, biased, with non perfect memory ourselves? get out of here!


----------



## Watagump

The body adjusts to all kinds of things, smells, hearing, vision, etc.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

here's a little write-up that makes some cogent points...
https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/do-new-monitor-speakers-really-need-be-run-in#para3

it appears the Kippel stuff is hidden behind a paywall.  But it's also about loudspeakers.  I'm ever-so-slightly more open to the possibility of some sort of audible burn-in effect in loudspeakers (though still doubtful in the extreme)...but this is head-fi and we're focused on much much smaller/different types of components.  The article I linked there makes a point that I consider important as well.  We've got people who claim to hear distinct differences in SQ as a result of having burned a set of headphones (or even earbuds) in for a period of time sometimes as much as 100 hours.  Any actual measurements I've seen over the years have shown that any changes due to burn in are infinitesimally tiny and very questionably audible.  I know from listening to headphones and buds for a number of years that by simply altering the position of the device in or on my ears a tiny amount, the sound can change significantly.  As well, a number of other situational conditions can effect sound quality pretty significantly from one session to the next.  So we are supposed to accept that a given listener has ears capable of noting nearly imperceptible changes in sound quality between a set of buds he listened to for a short period of time a week ago compared to the same buds today after a hundred hours of burn in - and that those changes have everything to do with burn in and nothing to do with any number of other factors that we KNOW can ACTUALLY fairly dramatically impact SQ from one listening session to the next.  

I would be curious to see measurements taken after 20 hrs of burn in and then after 100 hours.  I'd bet there is no change at all...


----------



## jagwap

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> here's a little write-up that makes some cogent points...
> https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/do-new-monitor-speakers-really-need-be-run-in#para3
> 
> it appears the Kippel stuff is hidden behind a paywall.  But it's also about loudspeakers.  I'm ever-so-slightly more open to the possibility of some sort of audible burn-in effect in loudspeakers (though still doubtful in the extreme)...but this is head-fi and we're focused on much much smaller/different types of components.  The article I linked there makes a point that I consider important as well.  We've got people who claim to hear distinct differences in SQ as a result of having burned a set of headphones (or even earbuds) in for a period of time sometimes as much as 100 hours.  Any actual measurements I've seen over the years have shown that any changes due to burn in are infinitesimally tiny and very questionably audible.  I know from listening to headphones and buds for a number of years that by simply altering the position of the device in or on my ears a tiny amount, the sound can change significantly.  As well, a number of other situational conditions can effect sound quality pretty significantly from one session to the next.  So we are supposed to accept that a given listener has ears capable of noting nearly imperceptible changes in sound quality between a set of buds he listened to for a short period of time a week ago compared to the same buds today after a hundred hours of burn in - and that those changes have everything to do with burn in and nothing to do with any number of other factors that we KNOW can ACTUALLY fairly dramatically impact SQ from one listening session to the next.
> ...



http://www.klippel.de/fileadmin/kli...tigue_and_Aging_of_suspension_AES_NY_2011.pdf

https://www.klippel.de/fileadmin/kl...ts/KLIPPEL Speaker Component Measurements.pdf

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00810563/document

First page of results of google.

There are pages of this debate elsewhere in Head-fi, all speculative on both sides.  But the industry accepts loudspeaker burn-in, break-in etc.  I am looking to find something more definative in the headphone industry.  When I do, I will add it in Head-Fi.  But it probably won't make a difference to the majority of the internet experts here, who have made up their mind.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

jagwap said:


> http://www.klippel.de/fileadmin/kli...tigue_and_Aging_of_suspension_AES_NY_2011.pdf
> 
> https://www.klippel.de/fileadmin/klippel/Bilder/Test_Objects/KLIPPEL Speaker Component Measurements.pdf
> 
> ...



Thanks.  I haven't the time to fully read and absorb those documents, but a quick perusal seems to reveal no real mention of sound quality effects.  I mean I don't think anyone is debating that moving components break down over time.  What's being debated is that those breakdowns have a notable positive effect on sound quality...


----------



## elmoe (Mar 19, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check



So this article proves that the violinists could tell a new vs old violin apart 100% of the time. They tended to prefer the new, but were all clearly able to tell the difference. In short, age has an effect on sound signature.

I would add that newer instruments tend to be louder compared to old ones, so unless they recorded and volume matched, then the "newer" preferences is easily explainable.


----------



## geek707

elmoe said:


> So this article proves that the violinists could tell a new vs old violin apart 100% of the time. They tended to prefer the new, but were all clearly able to tell the difference. In short, age has an effect on sound signature.
> 
> I would add that newer instruments tend to be louder compared to old ones, so unless they recorded and volume matched, then the "newer" preferences is easily explainable.


I will have to read that because this says the opposite:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...violins-arent-better-than-new-ones-round-two/


----------



## jagwap

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> Thanks.  I haven't the time to fully read and absorb those documents, but a quick perusal seems to reveal no real mention of sound quality effects.  I mean I don't think anyone is debating that moving components break down over time.  What's being debated is that those breakdowns have a notable positive effect on sound quality...



Sure.  The highest regarded test equipment manufacturer in the field, leaves it to their customers to decide.  They just present the science. Which is appropriate in this forum.


----------



## elmoe (Mar 19, 2019)

geek707 said:


> I will have to read that because this says the opposite:
> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...violins-arent-better-than-new-ones-round-two/



From the article above: Although the soloists varied in their tastes, two new violins consistently scored the most points, with an old Stradivarius tailing in third place. Overall, the new violins collectively scored 35 points and the old ones scored 4—a six-fold difference.  Fritz writes, “We can find no plausible scoring system by which the old fare any better.”

Seems to me a 6 fold difference is a fairly good result in being able to pick out old from new


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

jagwap said:


> Sure.  The highest regarded test equipment manufacturer in the field, leaves it to their customers to decide.  They just present the science. Which is appropriate in this forum.




I'm really not sure how that applies to what we are talking about.  It seems to me that the concern there is whether or not the components are capable of operating within a reasonable range of their technical specs for a reasonable lifespan.  As a manufacturer, I would want to try and make sure the components in my product are not going to start under-performing within a certain accepted time frame.  Again, I don't think anyone in this thread is disputing that moving parts wear/break down.  I don't need scientific papers to prove that to me.  I already know it.  What I don't know is whether or not that break down (in the case of a speaker) has a beneficial, or even an audible consequence as regards the quality of the sound produced.


----------



## elmoe

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I'm really not sure how that applies to what we are talking about.  It seems to me that the concern there is whether or not the components are capable of operating within a reasonable range of their technical specs for a reasonable lifespan.  As a manufacturer, I would want to try and make sure the components in my product are not going to start under-performing within a certain accepted time frame.  Again, I don't think anyone in this thread is disputing that moving parts wear/break down.  I don't need scientific papers to prove that to me.  I already know it.  What I don't know is whether or not that break down (in the case of a speaker) has a beneficial, or even an audible consequence as regards the quality of the sound produced.



Again this is going to depend on your definition of "quality of sound". If you're a studio engineer then a flat response or as near to one as can be is what you'll want. If you just like listening to music then that definition will change based on taste, music genres, etc.

Has there been any proper double blind abx testing done on a brand new pair vs a pair that's been used for hundreds of hours? I am not finding any on my end.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 19, 2019)

jagwap said:


> I linked to it before. Use the search function for my user name and Klippel.



I'm asking for explanation, not a brush off. If you aren't interested in having a conversation, there's absolutely no reason to post at all. Have fun with your experts.

I have to say, when I see people stating things without any explanation and using irrelevant analogies to automobiles and machine parts, it makes me thing this whole thing is totally made up. I'm open to it being a real thing, but someone would have to be able to point to a headphone that is clearly different after burn in with controlled listening tests and measurements. That isn't asking too much. Those are the tools we use to evaluate every aspect of audio fidelity.

If you're saying it doesn't affect the frequency balance, that goes against everything people say about burn in. The anecdotal reports say that headphones sound thin and open up with a fuller sound after burn in. That is definitely describing a change in response.



jagwap said:


> But it probably won't make a difference to the majority of the internet experts here, who have made up their mind.



At least I'm willing to discuss the possibility that I might be wrong.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Mar 19, 2019)

elmoe said:


> Again this is going to depend on your definition of "quality of sound". If you're a studio engineer then a flat response or as near to one as can be is what you'll want. If you just like listening to music then that definition will change based on taste, music genres, etc.
> 
> Has there been any proper double blind abx testing done on a brand new pair vs a pair that's been used for hundreds of hours? I am not finding any on my end.



As it relates to the burn in debate we're having here, it's got nothing to do with definitions of quality of sound.  We're talking here about statements such as "earbud xxx is a great earbud.  I highly recommend it...BUT you MUST burn them in for at least 100 hours for them to sound good!"

It's about the claim that a given set of headphones improve in sound after a burn in period.  It's got nothing to do with any definition of "quality of sound" because it's about comparing headphone state A (pre-burn in) to headphone state B (post-burn in) and determining if there is even ANY change in performance at all, and then if that change is audible or beneficial.  I've seen a couple articles in which some tests were done and the result was that the changes were extremely tiny and certainly nothing that would account for the dramatic claims in sound improvement made by burn in advocates...but of course they will say "oh but there WERE changes right?"  lol...


----------



## bigshot

I've only spoken with one headphone designer. He said that burn in wasn't necessary. His cans came off the line consistent and calibrated. They were planar magnetic headphones. Might that make a difference?


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Mar 19, 2019)

Honestly, I'd love it if burn in were a true thing.  I like the idea of my gear improving over time!  There's even been occasions over the past few months where I've thought I detected an improvement as a result of burning a set of buds in for a time.  But, after a bit more listening time I realized I really couldn't conclude that in any confident way - it very likely had more to do with me having switched from a different set of buds I'd been using in the interim.  The old ear adjustment/brain burn in thing.  I would be really interested in seeing some detailed test results taken at a variety of times over a given burn in range - like at 5 hours, 20 hours, 50, 100 - to see what the changes might be in terms of sound output.  Certainly that must be possible no?

Actually...this is interesting...

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/learn/break-in


----------



## elmoe (Mar 19, 2019)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> As it relates to the burn in debate we're having here, it's got nothing to do with definitions of quality of sound.  We're talking here about statements such as "earbud xxx is a great earbud.  I highly recommend it...BUT you MUST burn them in for at least 100 hours for them to sound good!"
> 
> It's about the claim that a given set of headphones improve in sound after a burn in period.  It's got nothing to do with any definition of "quality of sound" because it's about comparing headphone state A (pre-burn in) to headphone state B (post-burn in) and determining if there is even ANY change in performance at all, and then if that change is audible or beneficial.  I've seen a couple articles in which some tests were done and the result was that the changes were extremely tiny and certainly nothing that would account for the dramatic claims in sound improvement made by burn in advocates...but of course they will say "oh but there WERE changes right?"  lol...



Of course it is about quality of sound.

For example, pad wear has a noticeable effect on sound quality and FR response correct? And typically, the result of age on pads ends up giving the listener a better seal and more comfort, which translates to a more enjoyable experience and so, better quality of sound. To an audio engineer though, if the pair of headphones brand new had a flat response and after ageing and pad wear, it no longer does, then the quality of sound got worse. To a music listener at home, the quality of sound got better.

'I've seen a couple articles in which some tests were done..." so anecdotal evidence at best? Can you point me to a volume matched, double blind ABX test of a brand new pair of say, Sennheiser HD650s vs a pair with over 500 hours of use that conclusively shows 10 or more people were not able to differentiate?



bigshot said:


> I've only spoken with one headphone designer. He said that burn in wasn't necessary. His cans came off the line consistent and calibrated. They were planar magnetic headphones. Might that make a difference?



Great, and that's likely the case for that model of headphone, or maybe it's not, plenty of product designers ended up finding out new facts about their products only after end-users came back with feedback. That is typically how products are improved upon. What brand/model of headphones were these?

"I've only spoken with one headphone designer who said burn-in is not necessary" is also anecdotal. Any concrete evidence to back up this claim?

So far and after 50 pages all I have seen are "beliefs" from one side or the other.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Mar 19, 2019)

elmoe said:


> Of course it is about quality of sound.
> 
> For example, pad wear has a noticeable effect on sound quality and FR response correct? And typically, the result of age on pads ends up giving the listener a better seal and more comfort, which translates to a more enjoyable experience and so, better quality of sound. To an audio engineer though, if the pair of headphones brand new had a flat response and after ageing and pad wear, it no longer does, then the quality of sound got worse. To a music listener at home, the quality of sound got better.
> 
> ...




No, it isn't about quality of sound.  Nobody who advocates for burn in ever says the result of burn in made the phones in question sound worse.  All I'm looking for is some relatively meaningful proof of ANY audible change as a result of some recommended burn in period.  Once that has been established, then maybe we can start talking about whether that change is good or not...

And I added an edit to my previous post which presents at least something more than just beliefs. 

...and it's worth noting that one set of these beliefs is commonly used TO SELL STUFF...which it seems to me should require a little more in the way of proof than beliefs that are not designed to sell stuff.

And I'll see if I can find that sennheiser test you asked for.  In the mean time perhaps you can find me the one that shows ten or more people WERE able to tell the difference!  LOL...


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

bigshot said:


> ...But I would like to see proof that the sorts of burn in times I see tossed around by retailers are realistic at all. What kind of deviation from the intended response are we talking about/ +/-4dB? +/-6dB?
> 
> I think they just use that to get people to burn through their return window.




I'm not sure about return windows, but it definitely seems like stating that a set of phones needs a certain burn in period would be a great way for a manufacturer to allow time for "brain burn in" and aural adaptation to occur!


----------



## elmoe (Mar 19, 2019)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> No, it isn't about quality of sound.  Nobody who advocates for burn in ever says the result of burn in made the phones in question sound worse.  All I'm looking for is some relatively meaningful proof of ANY audible change as a result of some recommended burn in period.  Once that has been established, then maybe we can start talking about whether that change is good or not...
> 
> And I added an edit to my previous post which presents at least something more than just beliefs.
> 
> ...



That link you posted concludes with: Therefore, it is possible that there are headphones in the market that would require break-in but were not included in our test. It also possible that increasing the length of test by a few hundreds of hours, or testing headphones of others types (with electrostatic or hybrid drivers) would show evidence of burn-in. Additionally, we only compared the headphones in terms of frequency, phase, and harmonic distortion response. Other metrics such as inter-modulation distortion or non-coherent distortion may be able to show a pattern of change that could be considered as evidence for headphones break-in.

Yes, it's about quality of sound. In my example about pad wear, an audio engineer will find the quality worse, your typical at home listener will find it better. Sound quality from an Audiophile (and NOT an audio engineer)'s perspective is subjective. Why are you looking for meaningful proof? If you've bought a pair of headphones, listened to them, liked them, listened to them for 500 hours, did not notice any kind of change and are still happy with them, then all's well in your world.

The link your posted previously also shows some changes. Whether those are audibly relevant or not is going to depend on many different factors, but the phase and frequency response timelapse graphs on the link you posted clearly show a shift in curves for X hours of break in.

As for selling stuff, you'd have to be a pretty terrible salesman if your sales argument was "my product is only good after 500 hours of use". I don't think that's a very good sales argument at all.

As for showing you links where people can tell a difference, so far the only ones I've seen are the articles about Stradivarius violins, where it is explicitly pointed out that people can tell a difference between the old & new. I don't know myself of any actual volume matched, double blind ABX testing done with headphones as I've asked for some, and I am not here to prove my belief one way or the other. I'm only interested in seeing actual data and valid testing, not anecdotal evidence, whether that evidence favors the idea that burn-in has an audible effect on sound signature or not. Personally I am very happy with the gear I have, and the only burn-in I've done on any pair of headphones I've ever owned was when they were on my head with music playing through them. That being said, I haven't read anything in this whole thread that invalidates the argument that something like a diaphragm will loosen over time and impact sound signature, and it seems very plausible to me.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Mar 19, 2019)

I'm not interested in violins I'm interested in headphones.  And your point about the article I linked to is both predictable (I knew you were going to highlight that comment) and un inspiring.  Until you present me an article in which every single model of headphone is tested under every circumstance and some meaningful evidence of burn in is uncovered, I'm going to accept the conclusion presented in that article - of four headphone models tested (all of which are said to need burn in) no burn in effect was noted after 120 hours.  The "shift in curves" you refer to in their measurements bounce up and down over time.  That isn't how burn in is supposed to work according to the people who advocate it.  If the effect is up and down over time and all over the place how can it be considered a useful process for assessing the quality of a headphone (and that's assuming the variations are even audible)?

I'm looking for meaningful proof because that's what this discussion is about, lol.  If you don't care about meaningful proof, maybe the Sound Science forum is the wrong place to hang out.  I don't know why you keep talking about sound quality.  It doesn't matter for our purposes in this particular discussion.  Pads don't matter (aside from them being a possible explanation for SQ changes other than burn in of course).  What matters is trying to determine if there is any reason to believe burn in actually is a thing that happens...

Browse around the forums a bit.  I'm pretty sure you'll find lots of recommendations for headphones in which it's stated they need a certain period of burn in to get good.  I wasn't really talking about paid salesmen...


----------



## elmoe

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I'm not interested in violins I'm interested in headphones.  And your point about the article I linked to is both predictable (I knew you were going to highlight that comment) and un inspiring.  Until you present me an article in which every single model of headphone is tested under every circumstance and some meaningful evidence of burn in is uncovered, I'm going to accept the conclusion presented in that article - of four headphone models tested (all of which are said to need burn in) no burn in effect was noted after 120 hours.



I didn't realize you wanted a dissertation from me. I shall try to enhance my words to inspire you henceforth. 

In all seriousness, you're very combative about this whole ordeal for someone who doesn't think burn-in is real. Shouldn't you really not care all that much? Lots of bitterness going around. Personally I think this type of discussion is quite fun.

If you're unable to discuss the topic without getting riled up, I suggest taking a break from the discussion and I don't know, listen to music?

Moving on. I, unlike yourself, am very interested in violins and I believe there is definitely a correlation between musical instruments aging and having a particular type of sound signature and headphones (possibly) doing the same. I understand that you believe otherwise, and having not provide any factual evidence of the contrary, I will adopt the same position you do in saying that until you prove to me that headphones don't break/burn-in, by giving my factual evidence as opposed to anecdotal (which is what the Sound Science forum is about), then I'm going to accept what my ears tell me, rather than some random article by some random guy nobody knows anything about.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

lol.  Can you present me with a random article by a random guy nobody knows anything about that proves burn in exists?  I mean that test I linked to seemed pretty good to me - and pretty well implemented.  It's exactly what I had in mind prior to my having found it.  Sure, it isn't perfect, but it's a fair bit better than nothing - which is what you've presented so far.  I'm not worked up, btw.


----------



## elmoe

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> lol.  Can you present me with a random article by a random guy nobody knows anything about that proves burn in exists?  I mean that test I linked to seemed pretty good to me - and pretty well implemented.  It's exactly what I had in mind prior to my having found it.  Sure, it isn't perfect, but it's a fair bit better than nothing - which is what you've presented so far.  I'm not worked up, btw.



You seem to think I am here trying to prove burn-in is real, or at least that is the role you seem to have taken on in order to argue back and forth with me. That is not my goal here, and providing you with articles is not what I'm interested in doing in this discussion. The test you linked to is hardly conclusive of anything in my opinion. It's a start, certainly, but again this is the Sound Science forum. Anything short of perfect testing is not going to fly.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

Here is my take on burn-in:

I reckon a good starting hypothesis is that burn-in that makes a large, positive change in the sound from headphones or speakers is a myth. If someone can supply controlled scientific tests on a pair of decent headphones that contradicts this, then I'll be happy to revise my opinion, but, as usual, the burden of proof is on the folks that believe the myth.
The question of the existence of burn-in is kind of moot, since (if it were a real thing) burn-in would happen naturally as a result of use. If it happens, we're good eventually, if it doesn't, we're good right out of the box.
As has been pointed out, the myth of burn-in allows dealers and manufacturers to stall unhappy customers until their brains have a chance to adjust to the sound of their new speakers or headphones. It also gives those customers a warm fuzzy feeling that they are participating in a ritual that will improve their new purchase.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Mar 19, 2019)

I'm sorry, but when the alternative is no testing at all, imperfect testing is suitable for the time being.  You asked if there had been any tests done comparing headphones pre burn in to phones post burn in.  The answer is yes, there has been. 

I'm suggesting that burn in is probably a myth - in response to the question posed by the thread title.  I've presented an article that does some fairly rigorous tests on 4 different models of headphone and that concludes that burn in is probably a myth.  If you don't want to advocate in favor of burn in, then there's no need for you to respond.  If you do wish to advocate in favor of burn in...show me something better than what I presented.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

elmoe said:


> It's a start, certainly, but again this is the Sound Science forum. Anything short of perfect testing is not going to fly.


Actually, this is the _Sound_ science forum, not the _Unsound_ science forum. Perfect testing before flying just can't happen, and that's not the way science works. All the evidence I've seen indicates that burn-in isn't a real consideration. If you can supply one well-conducted study that shows it's real even for one set of decent cans, then we'll have to change our theory. Expecting a study that tests all the headphones on the market and finds no evidence of burn-in before you'll believe that it doesn't exist is equivalent to having to look in every English garden finding no faeries to prove that faeries don't exist.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 19, 2019)

elmoe said:


> Great, and that's likely the case for that model of headphone, or maybe it's not, plenty of product designers ended up finding out new facts about their products only after end-users came back with feedback. That is typically how products are improved upon. What brand/model of headphones were these? "I've only spoken with one headphone designer who said burn-in is not necessary" is also anecdotal. Any concrete evidence to back up this claim?



I explained this earlier in the thread, but I'll explain it again...

I was asked by Oppo (along with Tyll and several other people) to evaluate their prototype for the PM-1. They sent me three iterations of the headphones over the period of four months or so, the third set was a final retail copy. We had a forum where evaluators and the designer of the headphones could communicate. The designer was very open and available to us to answer questions and provide technical information. He told us that burn in wasn't going to affect the sound at all, and that the manufacturing tolerance had a tolerance of +/-1dB across the response curve.

I brought over a friend of mine who is a sound engineer with an interest in achieving a balanced response from professional speaker installations. He brought over his test equipment and we set it up on my kitchen table. I had two sets of PM-1s at the time he was here, one was a couple of months old and I had been using them a lot since I received them. The other set had just arrived and was still in the shipping box. I was told that the only difference between them had to do with clamping pressure. (That was the issue several of us in the evaluation committee had commented on.) My friend went over the response his way using tones, and I did it my informal way using a reference music track and an equalizer. We both came up with pretty much the same results. and my sound mixer friend found the difference between the two sets of cans was within 1dB, differing only slightly around 1kHz to 3kHz (if I remember correctly). With my informal way of comparing, I couldn't tell any difference. When Tyll's measurements were published (I don't know if he burned in or not), his results were within a dB or so of ours too.

The engineer from Oppo explained to me that the reason a high end set of cans costs more than a midrange set isn't because of design or materials, it's because of manufacturing tolerances. Oppo was testing and rejecting a fair percentage of the headphones as they came off the production line because they didn't meet the spec. That cost and the cost of testing each set of headphones individually got rolled in to the cost of the headphones that did meet spec that ended up being sold.

This was not a strict scientific test by any means, but you have three people (me, my sound mixer friend, and Tyll) using three different methods of evaluating and coming out at basically the same place. And burned in and not burned in headphones came out the same. My notes on my evaluation are here in Head-Fi somewhere in the archives if you're interested.

I would recommend that you not come here with a chip on your shoulder demanding things of us unless you are prepared to provide evidence yourself. It's easy to be an armchair duffer ramming through unfounded beliefs with sloppy logic, but those kinds of people don't fare well in Sound Science.


----------



## elmoe

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I'm sorry, but when the alternative is no testing at all, imperfect testing is suitable for the time being.  You asked if there had been any tests done comparing headphones pre burn in to phones post burn in.  The answer is yes, there has been.
> 
> I'm suggesting that burn in is probably a myth - in response to the question posed by the thread title.  I've presented an article that does some fairly rigorous tests on 4 different models of headphone and that concludes that burn in is probably a myth.  If you don't want to advocate in favor of burn in, then there's no need for you to respond.  If you do wish to advocate in favor of burn in...show me something better than what I presented.



I disagree. Bad testing can be worse than no testing at all in many many cases.



StandsOnFeet said:


> Actually, this is the _Sound_ science forum, not the _Unsound_ science forum. Perfect testing before flying just can't happen, and that's not the way science works. All the evidence I've seen indicates that burn-in isn't a real consideration. If you can supply one well-conducted study that shows it's real even for one set of decent cans, then we'll have to change our theory. Expecting a study that tests all the headphones on the market and finds no evidence of burn-in before you'll believe that it doesn't exist is equivalent to having to look in every English garden finding no faeries to prove that faeries don't exist.



Again, bad testing is worse than no testing. I've not seen any such well-conducted study that shows burn-in isn't a real consideration, still waiting for someone to show me some data here. I'm not expected a study that tests all headphones, just 1 model, but under proper circumstances, meaning comparing 2 pairs, 1 brand new, 1 with 500 or more hours of use on it, with volume matching in a double blind ABX setting.

Ultimately, everything you call "evidence" is showing slight differences after burn in. You call those "not a real consideration" and that's fine, but that is subjective and your belief, not concrete evidence of anything.


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> I explained this earlier in the thread, but I'll explain it again...
> 
> I was asked by Oppo (along with Tyll and several other people) to evaluate their prototype for the PM-1. They sent me three iterations of the headphones over the period of four months or so, the third set was a final retail copy. We had a forum where evaluators and the designer of the headphones could communicate. The designer was very open and available to us to answer questions and provide technical information. He told us that burn in wasn't going to affect the sound at all, and that the manufacturing tolerance had a tolerance of +/-1dB across the response curve.
> 
> ...



I understand what you're saying, but that is hardly evidence that burn-in never happens for any headphones. In fact, since there was a recorded difference (only slightly, but a recorded difference nonetheless) with the PM-1s, what's to say that this difference isn't more accentuated with other headphone brands/models? Again, you could not hear a difference yourself and that's fine, but you're asking me to trust your ear, not really giving me factual evidence, just an anecdote about you and a friend testing, and then Tyll, who was able to reliable tell a difference (albeit small) between a brand new pair and a "burned in" pair: https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/testing-audibility-break-effects-page-2

He says himself in that article: It's clear to me, having had the experience, that there is indeed an audible difference when breaking-in a pair of Q701 headphones. I've seen measured differences, and now experienced audible differences. While the measured differences are small, I believe the human perceptual system is exquisite and able to perceive, sometimes consciously and sometimes sub-consciously, subtle differences.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 19, 2019)

elmoe said:


> I understand what you're saying, but that is hardly evidence that burn-in never happens for any headphones.



Uh oh. You just went from "show me one example" to "one example isn't enough". Obviously no one is going to be able to prove a negative with every set of cans in the world. That just isn't possible and it isn't reasonable to demand that. It's better to try to prove burn in exists. Can you show me evidence that burn in is audible to human ears with any headphones under a controlled listening test? I'd be interested in seeing that. (remember when you answer that you already said you didn't know of any.)


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Mar 19, 2019)

elmoe said:


> I disagree. Bad testing can be worse than no testing at all in many many cases.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol.  OMG.  The test was only "bad" according to you and because it didn't conclude what you wanted it to conclude.  If you have something that is at least as good that indicates burn in is real, present it.  Until then...I win.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

bigshot said:


> Uh oh. You just went from "show me one example" to "one example isn't enough". Obviously no one is going to be able to prove a negative with every set of cans in the world. That just isn't possible and it isn't reasonable to demand that. It's better to try to prove burn in exists. Can you show me evidence that burn in is audible to human ears with any headphones under a controlled listening test? I'd be interested in seeing that. (remember when you answer that you already said you didn't know of any.)



The goal posts have moved substantially over the past couple pages!


----------



## bfreedma

A fairly simple approach to testing if someone with the right equipment wants to take a run at it.

Eliminating the variables:

Need to have identical pad wear
Need to have identical placement
Need to avoid reliance on human audio memory.
To deal with the above, I would suggest buying two of the same model headphones, building a jig that allowed for identical placement on the measurement rig, and two measurement rigs.  Using the jig to place both headphones on the measurement rig on day 1 would ensure identical (within reasonable limits) placement and would ensure pad break-in would (within reasonable limits) to occur identically on both headphones.  Take baseline measurements of both headphones

Play music/tones/whatever on headphone "A" for 30 days while leaving headphone "B" on it's rig without any input.  Without moving the headphones, measure again on day 30.

While not perfect, I believe that process should show any non pad/placement changes due to burn in if any exist


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Mar 19, 2019)

bfreedma said:


> A fairly simple approach to testing if someone with the right equipment wants to take a run at it.
> 
> Eliminating the variables:
> 
> ...



I think the way it was done in the article I linked is even better.  Using two same model pairs allows the variable of variance between the two pairs.  I mean I think testing at different points during the burn in process of a pair that hasn't been moved at all on the testing device is pretty sound...


----------



## bfreedma

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I think the way it was done in the article I linked is even better.  Using two same model pairs allows the variable of variance between the two pairs.  I mean I think testing at different points during the burn in process of a pair that hasn't been moved at all on the testing device is pretty sound...




Good point.  My only thought about using two pairs would be to avoid the inevitable "unicorn" argument and the variability between the two headphones should stay consistent.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

StandsOnFeet said:


> ... It also gives those customers a warm fuzzy feeling that they are participating in a ritual that will improve their new purchase.



salient point.  That ritualistic quality is pretty appealing.  Setting up your little burn in station and then waiting for the process to complete at which time you get to audition those sweet burned-in phones...it's like brewing up a good beer or something.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 19, 2019)

I missed this one before because I stopped reading after my first reset button was pushed...



elmoe said:


> Tyll, who was able to reliable tell a difference (albeit small) between a brand new pair and a "burned in" pair



First of all, that isn't the Oppo PM-1s. The Oppos were designed to perform to spec before and after burn in and they did. A +/-1dB difference isn't likely to be audible in normal use. The designer at Oppo told me that the typical manufacturing tolerance for good headphones is +/-3dB. *So the ones that Tyll compared may very well have been as much as 6dB apart from the start.* A frequency response variance of 6dB is most likely clearly audible... and the cans Tyll tested _may have been that far apart from the start before they were even broken in. _For Tyll's test to mean anything, they should have tested both sets against each other either both not broken in or both broken in to determine if that difference was a part of manufacturing standards. You can't say that burn in was responsible for the differences unless you set a baseline proving that they were either the same at the start, or the same after burn in. Otherwise they could just be two completely different sounding sets of cans.


----------



## jagwap

bigshot said:


> I'm asking for explanation, not a brush off. If you aren't interested in having a conversation, there's absolutely no reason to post at all. Have fun with your experts.



I have had hundreds of conversations with you.  I have had this one with you before.  I was busy and I feel that even after repeat many points, like the one below about frequency response, I am not being heard.  I just suggested in limited time, you go look up the previous time we discussed this and you ignored me.



> I have to say, when I see people stating things without any explanation and using irrelevant analogies to automobiles and machine parts, it makes me thing this whole thing is totally made up. I'm open to it being a real thing, but someone would have to be able to point to a headphone that is clearly different after burn in with controlled listening tests and measurements. That isn't asking too much. Those are the tools we use to evaluate every aspect of audio fidelity.
> 
> If you're saying it doesn't affect the frequency balance, that goes against everything people say about burn in. The anecdotal reports say that headphones sound thin and open up with a fuller sound after burn in. That is definitely describing a change in response.



No, it isn't.  If frequency response is the only thing you can adjust, and measure, then it is the only tool you can see.  Once you get access to transient response, group delay, transient intermodulation, and countless others, your horizons broaden.  But for those, you need to be able to design the product.



> At least I'm willing to discuss the possibility that I might be wrong.



It doesn't actually come across that way.  You regularly state you want to know about product that sounds different, as everything you have heard sounds the same.  It really sounds like you have already made your mind up, which doesn't belong in a science forum.  You are given papers on other measurements, and repeat it must be frequency response.


----------



## jagwap (Mar 19, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I missed this one before because I stopped reading after my first reset button was pushed...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, that isn't the Oppo PM-1s. The Oppos were designed to perform to spec before and after burn in and they did. A +/-1dB difference isn't likely to be audible in normal use. The designer at Oppo told me that the typical manufacturing tolerance for good headphones is +/-3dB. *So the ones that Tyll compared may very well have been as much as 6dB apart from the start.* A frequency response variance of 6dB is most likely clearly audible... and the cans Tyll tested _may have been that far apart from the start before they were even broken in. _For Tyll's test to mean anything, they should have tested both sets against each other either both not broken in or both broken in to determine if that difference was a part of manufacturing standards. You can't say that burn in was responsible for the differences unless you set a baseline proving that they were either the same at the start, or the same after burn in. Otherwise they could just be two completely different sounding sets of cans.



That is too simplistic an answer.  Typical is +/-2dB in the midband, and larger variations towards the frequency extremes.  However any decent manufacturer can manage +/-1.5dB without trying too hard, if they push for greater control.  So I think you are assuming too much about Tyll's circumstances with high end headphones.


----------



## elmoe

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I'm sorry, but when the alternative is no testing at all, imperfect testing is suitable for the time being.  You asked if there had been any tests done comparing headphones pre burn in to phones post burn in.  The answer is yes, there has been.
> 
> I'm suggesting that burn in is probably a myth - in response to the question posed by the thread title.  I've presented an article that does some fairly rigorous tests on 4 different models of headphone and that concludes that burn in is probably a myth.  If you don't want to advocate in favor of burn in, then there's no need for you to respond.  If you do wish to advocate in favor of burn in...show me something better than what I presented.



There's plenty of things that the human body tests better than machines. Which is why the type of testing is important. Measuring responses is nice but ultimately until I see the result of a proper, volume matched, double blind ABX listening test, I won't be convinced either way. I can respond to you if it pleases me, because I'm suggesting your suggestion is not founded in enough valid evidence to be a fact. Feel free to ignore my post and move on. 



bigshot said:


> Uh oh. You just went from "show me one example" to "one example isn't enough". Obviously no one is going to be able to prove a negative with every set of cans in the world. That just isn't possible and it isn't reasonable to demand that. It's better to try to prove burn in exists. Can you show me evidence that burn in is audible to human ears with any headphones under a controlled listening test? I'd be interested in seeing that. (remember when you answer that you already said you didn't know of any.)



No. I asked for a proper example, I haven't seen one yet. All the articles and examples posted in this thread so far have shown some differences, with some tests where people could reliably tell the burned in headphone from the brand new one in listening tests. If you have more reliable data to share, I would love to see it.

When you ask if I can show you evidence that a burn in is audible to human ears with any headphones under a controlled listening test, that's what I've been asking this whole time. You've been in this thread since day 1, I just got here.



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> lol.  OMG.  The test was only "bad" according to you and because it didn't conclude what you wanted it to conclude.  If you have something that is at least as good that indicates burn in is real, present it.  Until then...I win.



I don't want to test to conclude one way or the other. Makes no difference to me if burn in is real or not. At the end of the day I don't burn in anything unless I'm using it to listen to music. If it happens great, if it doesn't great. The sound I hear won't change either way.



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> salient point.  That ritualistic quality is pretty appealing.  Setting up your little burn in station and then waiting for the process to complete at which time you get to audition those sweet burned-in phones...it's like brewing up a good beer or something.



That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Why would you find it ritualistically appealing to waste electricity by over using your gear? I've never heard of anyone who was 100% convinced burn-in was a thing who didn't feel inconvenienced by it.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 19, 2019)

jagwap said:


> I have had hundreds of conversations with you.  I have had this one with you before.  I was busy and I feel that even after repeat many points, like the one below about frequency response, I am not being heard.  I just suggested in limited time, you go look up the previous time we discussed this and you ignored me.



I'm having a conversation HERE. I'm not running off to any website people point me to. That's been a fool's errand in the past (especially with that turntable guy!) and my time is valuable too. If I am discussing something I want to be able to ask questions. I can't ask questions of a link. I politely asked you...

*If it isn't frequency response making it audibly different, WHAT is it and how is it measured?
What's the audible threshold?*

I made it nice and big so you can quickly cut to the point and not waste time. Sound is made up of frequency and amplitude, the modulations are laid out in time. If something is accurately reproduced, it has low distortion. If it isn't accurate, it has high distortion... dynamics, flutter, noise floor... Just answer simply and clearly.

I am not ignoring you or even disagreeing with you. I am CHALLENGING you, and you are bluffing and refusing to commit. If you continue to dodge the question, I'll send you off to a link to tell you what I think of your lack of reply.

You have plenty of time to thread crap, but not enough time to deal with honest questions. We're having a conversation here. If you don't have time to participate, the door is one click away. Don't let me stop you. If you have more important things to do with more important people, by all means go do it.




jagwap said:


> That is too simplistic an answer.  Typical is +/-2dB in the midband, and larger variations towards the frequency extremes.  However any decent manufacturer can manage +/-1.5dB without trying too hard, if they push for greater control.  So I think you are assuming too much about Tyll's circumstances with high end headphones.



GREAT! Something we can work with!

What would be the sample error parameters for the headphones Tyll was saying he could hear burn in with? Would that sample error be audible from one set of the headphones Tyll tested and another of the same make and model? Is a deviation of +/-1.5dB audible? These are pertinent questions. I would be happy to assume that the cans Tyll was comparing had a sample deviation of +/-1.5dB. And I would also be happy to say that a deviation like that might be audible if it was in a certain frequency range and deviated in different directions in the two sets of cans. That might invalidate his test, wouldn't you agree? It would have been better if he tested them both in the same state first to make sure it wasn't just manufacturing differences.

But you've gotten us talking about frequency response again... You realize that, right?


----------



## bigshot (Mar 19, 2019)

elmoe said:


> When you ask if I can show you evidence that a burn in is audible to human ears with any headphones under a controlled listening test, that's what I've been asking this whole time. You've been in this thread since day 1, I just got here.





Spoiler



We haven't seen anything to indicate that aside from anecdotal impressions and casual comparisons.



I spoiler tagged that because I didn't want to ruin the end of the story for you. If you don't know which way the river flows, you may not want to wade in too deep.

Oh I forgot one...



Spoiler



...and people who make claims but are just too busy to take the time to explain them.


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've made no claims for or against. Basically you're telling me there is no evidence of burn in existing and very circumstancial evidence of it not existing. Got it.


----------



## castleofargh

@bigshot if I may, we did have that conversation at length with @jagwap already(maybe a year or 2 ago?) and the data from the speaker manufacturer was also brought up and discussed a bunch. 
the question of audibility is always tricky, and my very personal opinion is that slow progressive change over time is going to go unnoticed unless the total turns out to be massive. which isn't something supported by measurements so far. as the most massive change I've seen comes from pad wear and placement of the headphone on the head. 2 phenomenons I don't consider part of "burn in". so my guess is that people feeling changes do so because of occasional big contrast in sound(we haven't tested all gears, maybe some do have terrible stability over time?), or even more likely, erroneous memory of the original sound.  

but that's only my point of view and educated guess. what happens should be confirmed by reliable data instead of opinions and poorly controlled anecdotes. in that respect, I don't see why your testimony is more reliable than someone's testimony that he heard a clear change between 2 pairs of headphone. in both cases we're dealing with one anecdote, one listener. and the amount of actual controls aren't amazing. my point is, just because I agree with your conclusion, doesn't mean I have to agree with how you reached it.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 20, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> @bigshot if I may, we did have that conversation at length with @jagwap already(maybe a year or 2 ago?)



I'm afraid that the way my brain works, without a face or name or formal introduction, everyone blends online into an undifferentiated whole. Once we are properly introduced, I can connect stuff. Sorry about that! Feel free to remind me of who you all are. (I've been nicely introduced to you Castle.) I remember hearing something about speaker tests, but it was all hush hush and couldn't be shared, so I dismissed it as being bluff.

I'm not big on what *seems* correct. That has led me astray too many times. I prefer solid evidence pointing in one direction or another. I really don't care which direction that is, but when solid evidence points in a particular direction, I tend to aim that way myself, even if that doesn't make sense. That gives me the opportunity to do more research and make sense of it.


----------



## jagwap

bigshot said:


> I'm afraid that the way my brain works, without a face or name or formal introduction, everyone blends online into an undifferentiated whole. Once we are properly introduced, I can connect stuff. Sorry about that! Feel free to remind me of who you all are. (I've been nicely introduced to you Castle.) I remember hearing something about speaker tests, but it was all hush hush and couldn't be shared, so I dismissed it as being bluff.
> 
> I'm not big on what *seems* correct. That has led me astray too many times. I prefer solid evidence pointing in one direction or another. I really don't care which direction that is, but when solid evidence points in a particular direction, I tend to aim that way myself, even if that doesn't make sense. That gives me the opportunity to do more research and make sense of it.



I'm afraid I cannot agree to a formal introduction without a chaperone. I'm not that kind of girl. (I am also obliged to take care what I say about my work, who I work for, or stay anonymous online as I have said before)

So when I mention results, I may not be allowed to publish them without a huge amout of approval from corporate. Some of this stuff was 20 years ago.

I have worked with, and continue to work with some of the best in audio design in the world. Everyone agrees: audio is not finished yet. We don't know everything.


----------



## bigshot

I'm duly impressed with the quality of your co-workers. But I'm afraid I've been around this block before... If someone in a public internet forum claims to have special knowledge, I'm not just going to blindly trust them and take their word for it. Get back to me when you can explain how you back up your claims. I'm here for information, not to just have conclusions spoon fed to me. You might be absolutely correct, but if you aren't allowed to talk about it, I don't see why you're talking about it at all. It just makes you look like one of the chumps that comes into this forum with a chip on their shoulder who try to bluff their way through "scoring a point" against "those a-holes in Sound Science". We've been bluffed too often around here.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 20, 2019)

elmoe said:


> I've made no claims for or against. Basically you're telling me there is no evidence of burn in existing and very circumstancial evidence of it not existing.



I gave you an example of a high end headphone manufacturer whose lead designer said burn in isn't necessary... and tests by three separate people in three different ways showing tha three different copies of these headphones that were tested sounded and measured basically the same, whether burned in or not.

I'm not going to pay any attention to your bluff either. If you have evidence, present it. If you don't have anything to back up your opinions, then I'll take that into consideration when you express one.

You get your turn at bat. If you strike out, don't blame anyone else but yourself.


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> I gave you an example of a high end headphone manufacturer whose lead designer said burn in isn't necessary... and tests by three separate people in three different ways showing tha three different copies of these headphones that were tested sounded and measured basically the same, whether burned in or not.
> 
> I'm not going to pay any attention to your bluff either. If you have evidence, present it. If you don't have anything to back up your opinions, then I'll take that into consideration when you express one.
> 
> You get your turn at bat. If you strike out, don't blame anyone else but yourself.



What bluff is that? I posted in here to see specific data about listening tests, the data I saw was ambiguous at best, it's always "There are slight changes but we guess they're not audible by the human ear and if they are, the changes are so little it wouldn't matter". That's an opinion, not a fact. Can you show me scientific data showing accurate measurements of differences in sensitivity to sound that clearly shows that the human ear indeed is not sensitive enough to easily pickup these kind of changes?

I came here to discuss the "evidence" posted, if you want to argue semantics and call people bluffers, fine by me, I will move on. I'm not here to prove anything, only gather information, which is frankly lacking in this thread.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 20, 2019)

You're bluffing because you keep moving the goalposts and demand more proof from other people than you do of yourself.

My evidence: A designer of high end headphones who said that burn in wasn't necessary, I provided info on three sets of the same make and model of cans that all sounded the same and performed to identical spec, new and old in three different tests.

Evidence to the contrary: Anecdotal comments by salesmen and customers with no attempt at measuring or applying controls to their listening.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

you're playing games my friend.  You aren't interested in receiving information.


The changes you refer to from the article I linked to were smaller than the sort of changes one would get from simply re positioning the phones slightly differently on the listener's head or from environmental changes.  If the changes resulting from supposed burn in are that tiny, how could you or anyone consider them meaningful.  That's aside from the fact that as I indicated earlier most of the small changes evident n the tests went up and down repeatedly - again not what burn in is supposed to do.  

If you want to argue in favor of burn in (and you obviously do) then you go out and prove that the tiny changes found in the tests ARE audible.  Several of us have done WAY more than enough on our side of the coin.


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> You're bluffing because you keep moving the goalposts and demand more proof from other people than you do of yourself.



Well yes I do that, I'm not the one claiming anything. I'm here to read what people claim and look at the evidence provided and draw my own conclusions. Again, not interested in winning an argument, but if this is the extent of the evidence gathered then I personally am not convinced, one way or the other. There is nothing to bluff about. What's the bluff?


----------



## elmoe

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> you're playing games my friend.  You aren't interested in receiving information.
> 
> 
> The changes you refer to from the article I linked to were smaller than the sort of changes one would get from simply re positioning the phones slightly differently on the listener's head or from environmental changes.  If the changes resulting from supposed burn in are that tiny, how could you or anyone consider them meaningful.  That's aside from the fact that as I indicated earlier most of the small changes evident n the tests went up and down repeatedly - again not what burn in is supposed to do.
> ...



See that's the problem here. Anyone contradicting the popular opinion is playing games, bluffing, not interested in receiving information, etc. I've been on Head-Fi a lot longer than you, you can call me a troll if you want to, but your credibility is lacking.

I'm not referring only to the changes in your article. Tyll's comparison and ability to distinguish from a new pair / a burned-in pair most of the time also shows those changes can sometimes be not so "slight". If he is able to tell them apart reliably then they are meaningful.

Your article wasn't the only material shared in this thread and I won't base my opinion strictly off of it, unlike you.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 20, 2019)

I gave you my information and my evaluation of that information. What more do you want? More examples? No one has done serious tests on burn in because no one who knows enough to be able to do a controlled test sees it as an issue. I was able to do a check on two identical cans and did a pretty good evaluation that showed that they sounded identical. Tyll's measurements came out the same. I honestly don't see why I should continue to test in this direction any more. If you are interested, you can feel free to do that. I'll even help you and give you advice on how to put together a good test. That's what we do here in Sound Science... we test our theories and see whether it works or not. Testing is fun. You should try it. It's the best way to learn how sound works.

You don't come to Sound Science with basic questions and demand that other people do the testing for you. You roll up your sleeves and figure it out for yourself. We had a newbie here who actually did that a couple of weeks ago. He learned a lot and he understood what everyone was saying about the subject better. Try it.


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> I gave you my information and my evaluation of that information. What more do you want? More examples? No one has done serious tests on burn in because no one who knows enough to be able to do a controlled test sees it as an issue. I was able to do a check on two identical cans and did a pretty good evaluation that showed that they sounded identical. Tyll's measurements came out the same. I honestly don't see why I should continue to test in this direction any more. If you are interested, you can feel free to do that. I'll even help you and give you advice on how to put together a good test. That's what we do here in Sound Science... we test our theories and see whether it works or not. Testing is fun. You should try it. It's the best way to learn how sound works.
> 
> You don't come to Sound Science with basic questions and demand that other people do the testing for you. You roll up your sleeves and figure it out for yourself. We had a newbie here who actually did that a couple of weeks ago. He learned a lot and he understood what everyone was saying about the subject better. Try it.



I'm not demanding anything, I'm asking if there is more, you answered in a belligerent way, I responded in kind. Rolling up your sleeves is great but requires a budget and time, inquiring to see if there is information first seems like a good idea to me, isn't that the point of science, to be shared freely?

So yes I'm going to come and ask basic questions like "can you back up your claim with something a little more definitive than 'there are very slight changes but we can sometimes tell reliably'?" which you are free to completely ignore, by the way.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

elmoe said:


> See that's the problem here. Anyone contradicting the popular opinion is playing games, bluffing, not interested in receiving information, etc. I've been on Head-Fi a lot longer than you, you can call me a troll if you want to, but your credibility is lacking.
> 
> I'm not referring only to the changes in your article. Tyll's comparison and ability to distinguish from a new pair / a burned-in pair most of the time also shows those changes can sometimes be not so "slight". If he is able to tell them apart reliably then they are meaningful.
> 
> Your article wasn't the only material shared in this thread and I won't base my opinion strictly off of it, unlike you.



Yeah, and you are disregarding everything anyway.  You have the info you were looking for.  It hasn't changed your view - you still believe in the magic of burn in.  Fine.  Go in peace.

No, there isn't anything more.  Because burn in is a myth, and you believe the myth.  No evidence is going to change that for you.


----------



## elmoe

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> Yeah, and you are disregarding everything anyway.  You have the info you were looking for.  It hasn't changed your view - you still believe in the magic of burn in.  Fine.  Go in peace.
> 
> No, there isn't anything more.  Because burn in is a myth, and you believe the myth.  No evidence is going to change that for you.



Actually I don't believe either way. From what I've seen here, seems like there are some makes/models where burn-in changes the sound significantly enough so that the ear can reliably tell a difference, however in the majority of cases, no difference could be heard.

So my conclusion is that we lack enough data to come to a proper conclusion and it is still up in the air.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

elmoe said:


> Actually I don't believe either way....




yes you do.


----------



## elmoe

Ok buddy.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 20, 2019)

For someone who doesn’t like semantic arguments, you’re using an awful lot of words to say very little. I told you about a test I did, and you said it wasn’t good enough. And doing controlled testing yourself is too much bother. Honestly, we see that kind of blathering around here a lot. I could provide gold plated evidence and you’d just say it isn’t good enough and demand more, and become progressively ruder and ruder. Been there, done that, nothankyouverymuch.

Usually we can dismiss people who aren’t interested in participating in a real conversation pretty quickly. We’re even better at dismissing than they are at generating blather. Efficiency comes with practice I guess.

Next!


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> For someone who doesn’t like semantic arguments, you’re using an awful lot of words to say very little. I told you about a test I did, and you said it wasn’t good enough. And doing controlled testing yourself is too much bother. Honestly, we see that kind of blathering around here a lot. I could provide gold plated evidence and you’d just say it isn’t good enough and demand more, and become progressively ruder and ruder. Been there, done that, nothankyouverymuch.
> 
> Usually we can dismiss people who aren’t interested in participating in a real conversation pretty quickly. We’re even better at dismissing than they are at generating blather. Efficiency comes with practice I guess.
> 
> Next!



My previous post was 2 words long.

There's nothing progressive about your rudeness however, but if the self-sufficient dismissals flatter your ego, I will leave you to it.


----------



## castleofargh

do you guys want me to lock the thread? because that's how you get a thread closed.
let people have whatever opinion they want to have. being fact checker is not the same as being the thought police. forget unsubstantiated claims, or just ask for evidence and let the reply do the work. ideally, share evidence if you have some. the game isn't that hard. but attacking individuals and saying that his father smelt of elderberries, that's rapidly annoying and it has nothing to do with burn in.


----------



## bigshot

He’s playing tag.


----------



## elmoe

castleofargh said:


> do you guys want me to lock the thread? because that's how you get a thread closed.
> let people have whatever opinion they want to have. being fact checker is not the same as being the thought police. forget unsubstantiated claims, or just ask for evidence and let the reply do the work. ideally, share evidence if you have some. the game isn't that hard. but attacking individuals and saying that his father smelt of elderberries, that's rapidly annoying and it has nothing to do with burn in.



We're of the same opinion.


----------



## upstateguy

elmoe said:


> Actually I don't believe either way. From what I've seen here, seems like there are some makes/models where burn-in changes the sound significantly enough so that the ear can reliably tell a difference, however in the majority of cases, no difference could be heard.
> 
> So my conclusion is that we lack enough data to come to a proper conclusion and it is still up in the air.


 
I see you guys are still yacking about this so I'm going to throw in my 2 cents.  First a disclaimer: I've been around too long to believe that things burn in or believe any of the other garbage people 'think' they hear.  But.....

When the T-1 came out years ago, I bought one of the first models from Amazon. They were way more treblely sounding than my 880s.  A lot of guys posted about it and sold them because of that.  I remember posting complaints about the over treblely T-1s as well as the foobar EQ curve I used to tame it.  Fortunately, the left driver failed within the warranty period and Beyer replaced the headphone.  The new ones they sent me sounded like 650s with a rolled off high end and I posted that apparently Beyer had 'over' fixed the treble problem of the T-1 and included the foobar EQ curve I was using to boost the treble back to satisfying levels.  It's been a long time now so I don't remember how long it took, but with in a short time I posted that the new T-1s with their 650 sound had reverted to the Beyer house sound and that they sounded like super 880s.  

That was a long time ago but that is my recollection.  I don't recall any other headphone doing that and I've never noticed anything similar from an electronic device or wire.

The other bone I have to pick is that all DACs sound the same.  Years ago I took part in some double blind tests at one of the meets and I was not able to reliably tell a Stello D100 DAC from a Benchmark.  However, that same Stello D100 DAC had a 192 upsample switch.  When this switch was thrown, there was less bass.  I didn't pursue it because it because the Stello was moved to a secondary rig, but one day I got curious and recorded the sound from the bypass position and the upsample position and ran it through the DiffMaker to see what was going on.  What I heard was additional treble. The point being that although similar circuits will probably have similar sounds, different circuits may have different sounds.  I noticed a similar thing with USB to SPDIF converters.  The HiFace seemed to be more resolving but didn't have the 'tone' of a Blue Circle and the Peachtree X1, although resolving, sounded like a cross between the two.


----------



## elmoe

upstateguy said:


> I see you guys are still yacking about this so I'm going to throw in my 2 cents.  First a disclaimer: I've been around too long to believe that things burn in or believe any of the other garbage people 'think' they hear.  But.....
> 
> When the T-1 came out years ago, I bought one of the first models from Amazon. They were way more treblely sounding than my 880s.  A lot of guys posted about it and sold them because of that.  I remember posting complaints about the over treblely T-1s as well as the foobar EQ curve I used to tame it.  Fortunately, the left driver failed within the warranty period and Beyer replaced the headphone.  The new ones they sent me sounded like 650s with a rolled off high end and I posted that apparently Beyer had 'over' fixed the treble problem of the T-1 and included the foobar EQ curve I was using to boost the treble back to satisfying levels.  It's been a long time now so I don't remember how long it took, but with in a short time I posted that the new T-1s with their 650 sound had reverted to the Beyer house sound and that they sounded like super 880s.
> 
> ...



See I recently replaced my old non USB benchmark dac1 with an rme adi2 dac and I thoroughly tested both (not blind) with different headphones while volume matching and I could not tell them apart one bit. I have an amp with dual inputs and an input switch which allows me to switch between the two DACs instantly so I found it worthwhile to test things out. I used a USB to SPDIF interface on the DAC1, and USB out on the RME. This is with stock settings on both units, no resampling.

I'm a little less inclined now to believe that DACs sound different. I think if the implementation is sound, they'll sound the same. I'll keep the RME because I'm growing to really like the features and EQ capabilities, but from a sound quality perspective it made no difference.

I did a similar test with cables years ago and now, aside from a couple of expensive pairs I still have, I only buy cheap monoprice cables which to my ears, make no difference in sound.

Headphones I am of the same mind, I've never noticed any of the headphones I own changing, sound wise, after many hours of use. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen as my ear could be adapting, who knows. I recently bought a pair of hd6XXs which supposedly sound dramatically different after hundreds of hours, so we'll see. I made note of my first impressions on it so I have something to reference to in the future.


----------



## upstateguy

elmoe said:


> See I recently replaced my old non USB benchmark dac1 with an rme adi2 dac and I thoroughly tested both (not blind) with different headphones while volume matching and I could not tell them apart one bit. I have an amp with dual inputs and an input switch which allows me to switch between the two DACs instantly so I found it worthwhile to test things out. I used a USB to SPDIF interface on the DAC1, and USB out on the RME. This is with stock settings on both units, no resampling.
> 
> *I'm a little less inclined now to believe that DACs sound different. *I think if the implementation is sound, they'll sound the same. I'll keep the RME because I'm growing to really like the features and EQ capabilities, but from a sound quality perspective it made no difference.
> 
> ...



Can we agree that similar circuit implementations using the same bitrate and sampling techniques like oversampling or upsampling might sound similar but different circuit implementations using using different bitrates and different sampling techniques might not sound the same?

*If different circuit implementations didn't sound different, why did Stello include an upsampling switch and say this about it in the DA100 manual?*

From the PDF of the DA100 manual:

"*UPSAMPLE* : You can select either 192kHz/24 Bit upsampling or Bypass. ‘BYPASS’ means the digital output is exactly same as the digital input (up to 96kHz/24 Bit). *You should be the judge to decide which mode is better* because the musicality and nuance vary depending on the recording status of the sources. 
Generally, we recommend 192 upsampling for most of the playback."


----------



## elmoe

upstateguy said:


> Can we agree that similar circuit implementations using the same bitrate and sampling techniques like oversampling or upsampling might sound similar but different circuit implementations using using different bitrates and different sampling techniques might not sound the same?
> 
> *If different circuit implementations didn't sound different, why did Stello include an upsampling switch and say this about it in the DA100 manual?*
> 
> ...



I can't tell you with any certainty anymore. Before testing the two DACs I did think I heard difference when upsampling, but I never actually tested this, just noticed it when listening to music. I do think that it is possible depending on implementation that upsampling makes an audible difference but until I see proper test results or try for myself, I can't be certain.

As to why certain manufacturers make certain claims, I can't answer that and I can't say whether those claims can or can't be trusted without data or my own testing of said gear.


----------



## bigshot

If you want to know, you apply controls to your comparison tests. It isn't hard and there are people here in this forum who would be happy to help you set up a way of doing that yourself.


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> If you want to know, you apply controls to your comparison tests. It isn't hard and there are people here in this forum who would be happy to help you set up a way of doing that yourself.



No need, I've read enough on the topic to set that up myself. I feel confident enough to do this without blind testing, as I compared my DACs this way and couldn't tell a difference, there's no need for me to take it further and go blind. Upsampling vs not upsampling is something I just haven't yet tested. I probably will at some point.


----------



## upstateguy

elmoe said:


> No need, I've read enough on the topic to set that up myself. I feel confident enough to do this without blind testing, as I compared my DACs this way and couldn't tell a difference, there's no need for me to take it further and go blind. Upsampling vs not upsampling is something I just haven't yet tested. I probably will at some point.



It occurs to me that if you don't have a DAC that offers different sampling choices it doesn't matter one little bit.  I've had a bunch of DACs and the only one that had a switch was that Stello.  My only point was that the prevailing notion in the Subjectivist's Forum, that all DACs sound the same, is not entirely true, by virtue of the one I have with an upsampling switch that changes the sound by changing the implementation.


----------



## elmoe (Mar 22, 2019)

upstateguy said:


> It occurs to me that if you don't have a DAC that offers different sampling choices it doesn't matter one little bit.  I've had a bunch of DACs and the only one that had a switch was that Stello.  My only point was that the prevailing notion in the Subjectivist's Forum, that all DACs sound the same, is not entirely true, by virtue of the one I have with an upsampling switch that changes the sound by changing the implementation.



Right. Both my DACs can upsample and I gave it a quick test this evening. I won't say there's any kind of dramatic difference, to be honest I'm not even convinced upsampling "sounds better", but there is an audible difference that I can pick out. I didn't spend enough time with it and will play more tomorrow so my opinion might change, who knows. Maybe for this I might talk the wife into helping me do a controlled test.


----------



## castleofargh

cool, the conversation isn't full of disrespect and personal attacks. I officially call this going in the right direction. now if at some point you guys could try discussing a topic in the appropriate thread, that would be even better


----------



## elmoe

castleofargh said:


> cool, the conversation isn't full of disrespect and personal attacks. I officially call this going in the right direction. now if at some point you guys could try discussing a topic in the appropriate thread, that would be even better



Hey upsampling testing is all part of my DAC burn-in


----------



## upstateguy

castleofargh said:


> cool, the conversation isn't full of disrespect and personal attacks. I officially call this going in the right direction. now if at some point you guys could try discussing a topic in the appropriate thread, that would be even better



Hey Castle, how have you been?


----------



## Tsukuyomi

I think burn in is real for headphones + speakers. not for DACs or AMPs.
But thats just me


----------



## upstateguy

elmoe said:


> Right. Both my DACs can upsample and I gave it a quick test this evening. I won't say there's any kind of dramatic difference, to be honest I'm not even convinced upsampling "sounds better", but there is an audible difference that I can pick out. I didn't spend enough time with it and will play more tomorrow so my opinion might change, who knows. Maybe for this I might talk the wife into helping me do a controlled test.



I agree with your assessment.  The difference is subtle but noticeable.   With the Stello DAC I was talking bout, the bass is slightly more pronounced in the bypass mode.  I don't think we have to assign a judgement call of "better" or "worse".  The point we want to make is that different implementations can sound different.

In that realm, I was thinking about the thread on the amp challenge and wondering if a Carver SS amp that was tuned to sound like a tube amp, sounds different than a SS amp that has not been tuned?  Did the Carver "tube sounding" SS amps he marketed after the challenge actually sound different from regular SS amps?  And after all these years, I'm wondering why the Futterman mono blocks sounded like a Pioneer SX-1500 receiver?  What happened to the measurable *2nd order harmonics* in tube amps?  And why wasn't it noticeable with the Magnepan MG-IIIa speakers?

Btw, you really don't need to involve your wife, use the DiffMaker or record and invert to see if there's anything there, and in that light, one more everything sounds the same anecdote.  Many years ago, when I thought I could hear a difference between opamps in an M^3 amp, I recorded the signals from two opamps that were supposed to have very different sound signatures and sent them to Ti Kan who promptly inverted them and sent me back a -45dB difference, which he attributed to "having inverted it by hand".


----------



## bigshot

There are lots of beliefs about home audio, and some of them are even true! But many are misconceptions or outright lies. The way to know things for sure is to be set up to do simple comparison tests yourself. All it takes is a simple switcher and a process for balancing line levels. That can be put together for under $50. Most of the regulars here at Sound Science do informal controlled tests ourselves. We don't do it to lab standards or for publication. We do it for ourselves to know which direction the truth lies in. I'd recommend that anyone interested in improving the sound of their system make an effort to analyze things logically and do some of their own homework, rather than relying on internet "experts". If you make an effort to do that, it isn't hard to discern whose advice is useful, and whose isn't.


----------



## voxie (Mar 22, 2019)

Final Audio call this "Ageing" and have a page on its website describing exactly how it, over time, effects the sq of their headphones. In a positive way. interesting reading. So maybe we can keep this tread focussed to the original question. its becoming an ego fest!


----------



## upstateguy

bigshot said:


> There are lots of beliefs about home audio, and some of them are even true! But many are misconceptions or outright lies. The way to know things for sure is to be set up to do simple comparison tests yourself. All it takes is a simple switcher and a process for balancing line levels. That can be put together for under $50. Most of the regulars here at Sound Science do informal controlled tests ourselves. We don't do it to lab standards or for publication. We do it for ourselves to know which direction the truth lies in. I'd recommend that anyone interested in improving the sound of their system make an effort to analyze things logically and do some of their own homework, rather than relying on internet "experts". If you make an effort to do that, it isn't hard to discern whose advice is useful, and whose isn't.


 
Hey BigShot, well  said.  This little ditty should be a sticky. 

Btw, can you comment on the amp questions I was thinking about?


----------



## bigshot

The basic purpose of an amp is to take a small line level signal and amplify it to be strong enough to push a transducer enough to produce sound. It really shouldn't add or subtract anything audible from the signal... it should just amplify it. They call an amp that does that "a wire with gain". There are lots and lots of solid state amps that do that perfectly. In fact, in the past 25 years or so, I haven't run across any solid state amps that aren't audibly transparent for the purposes of listening to music in the home. The best tube amps are also capable of that. If an amp succeeds as a "wire with gain", there's no reason why it should sound any different than any other audibly transparent amp.

When you talk about second order harmonics, you're talking about a different purpose altogether. In that case, you are deliberately designing an amp to NOT be audibly transparent. Some specialty amps are designed to add distortion or response imbalances to the signal in an attempt to "sweeten" the sound. For me, adjustments like that are better accomplished by digital signal processing. With a DSP, you can fine tune the coloration exactly the way you want it. With a colored tube amp, you're stuck with whatever signal distortion is hard wired into the design. That's why you see tube amp fans who have six or eight amps that they swap in and out, or they keep churning- buying and reselling amps- to try to find a perfect coloration for them. It's a LOT more efficient and inexpensive to just adjust a dial exactly the way you want it digitally. But there's a certain degree of fetishism to tube amp collecting that has nothing to do with sound quality.

Yes a tube amp can sound just as transparent as a solid state amp, and a solid state amp can sound just as distorted as a tube amp. But I don't know why anyone would go to the added trouble and expense to get a transparent tube amp when solid state ones are cheap and just as clean... and I don't know why anyone would want to buy a tube amp that is distorted with no way to adjust it.


----------



## upstateguy

bigshot said:


> The basic purpose of an amp is to take a small line level signal and amplify it to be strong enough to push a transducer enough to produce sound. It really shouldn't add or subtract anything audible from the signal... it should just amplify it. They call an amp that does that "a wire with gain". There are lots and lots of solid state amps that do that perfectly. In fact, in the past 25 years or so, I haven't run across any solid state amps that aren't audibly transparent for the purposes of listening to music in the home. The best tube amps are also capable of that. If an amp succeeds as a "wire with gain", there's no reason why it should sound any different than any other audibly transparent amp.
> 
> When you talk about second order harmonics, you're talking about a different purpose altogether. In that case, you are deliberately designing an amp to NOT be audibly transparent. Some specialty amps are designed to add distortion or response imbalances to the signal in an attempt to "sweeten" the sound. For me, adjustments like that are better accomplished by digital signal processing. With a DSP, you can fine tune the coloration exactly the way you want it. With a colored tube amp, you're stuck with whatever signal distortion is hard wired into the design. That's why you see tube amp fans who have six or eight amps that they swap in and out, or they keep churning- buying and reselling amps- to try to find a perfect coloration for them. It's a LOT more efficient and inexpensive to just adjust a dial exactly the way you want it digitally. But there's a certain degree of fetishism to tube amp collecting that has nothing to do with sound quality.
> 
> Yes a tube amp can sound just as transparent as a solid state amp, and a solid state amp can sound just as distorted as a tube amp. But I don't know why anyone would go to the added trouble and expense to get a transparent tube amp when solid state ones are cheap and just as clean... and I don't know why anyone would want to buy a tube amp that is distorted with no way to adjust it.



That was really good.  A candidate for another Sticky.

What comes to mind though are the Conrad Johnson Premier and the Mark Levinson ML-2 amps that were chosen for the "Challenge".  They were highly regarded but each allegedly had a unique non SS sound signature which leads me to the question of transparency.


----------



## Saraguie

Tsukuyomi said:


> I think burn in is real for headphones + speakers. not for DACs or AMPs.
> But thats just me



What makes you think that?


----------



## Brooko

Going to repost this - because I believe its valid:

As far as looking for evidence =>

What we know:

We know speaker surrounds for dynamic drivers contain a spider which is the driver surround, and has been proven over time to "break-in" resulting in measurable changes.  I don't think anyone disputes break-in affecting speakers - whether it is audible is up for debate (especially because tests are so hard to do.  This is worth reading - https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,21464.0.html#entry209911
Most modern dynamic headphones don't have a spider (or surround) - because of the smaller drivers its simply not required. Nor do BA's or small dynamic drivers. Again the smaller drivers simply don't require it.
The largest manufacturer of BA based IEMs on the planet (Shure) have measured hundreds of 1000's of their own products - both BAs and dynamic, and have said that they find no evidence of audible change in their own products
Tyll conduced a comprehensive test of AKG's Q701 headphones, and while there were measurable differences, they were so minute as to be unlikely to be audible, and certainly not the night and day changes people claim. I suggest reading the whole article and especially the conclusion.
When most people claim break-in:
They do not volume match
They do not even play the same song
Because of auditory memory - there is no way after minutes, let along hours, they could make a valid comparison
The cannot precisely position the headphone of earphone in the same position to be able to even objectively make a comparison.

We also know that the positioning on the head of a headphone can drastically change frequency response - a multitude more than any "supposed" burn-in. For IEM's - insertion depth and angle can also drastically change canal resonance which will alter frequency response.
So what we have is a lot of anecdotal claims of burn-in, but when we go to measurements and cross-correlate that with our understandings on audibility, you'll understand why many people on this thread are so sceptical.

As far as electronic devices breaking in - we know:

Capacitors can alter over time.  You could argue that they are at their best when straight OOTB and decline over time.  Personally I find any difference so small, and my auditory memory being normal (eg human) I'd never be able to register a change. I've never seen anyone perform tests on audibility.  The only way you could do it would be to record output of a track pre and post break-in, then perform an abx on the recordings.
Likewise tubes do change over time, and those changes can be measured.  Again I haven't seen properly controlled audio tests.


----------



## Tsukuyomi

Saraguie said:


> What makes you think that?


Well, i like to think that headphones and speakers have moving parts (drivers) that flex and move to varying degrees depending on the intensity of the music and loudness.
I've experienced myself at a friends expense a speakers driver that was pushed too hard right out of the box and the driver started to crackle and buzz and didnt sound right. apon closer examination we found out the driver had jumped out of its seating inside the speaker housing and the fabric diaphragm also ripped. the sound was terrible and required immediate repair. thank goodness my friend had the warranty still.
When we were going through the manual for the warranty card, the manufacturer did mention to not exceed a level of volume for the first 48 hours of use until the drivers have moved enough.

this concept i believe holds true to headphones as well since they do have a somewhat similar design. When I get new headphones regardless of driver design (dynamic/planar) i never push it on my source set-up past -30db for the first week. (usually within a week, 48hrs worth of music has been played, or at least i try too lol busy busy)

I'd rather gradually ease and acclimatise moving parts to use, so that they dont wear as quickly and last longer. 

this is my thought on it.


----------



## geek707

Tsukuyomi said:


> Well, i like to think that headphones and speakers have moving parts (drivers) that flex and move to varying degrees depending on the intensity of the music and loudness.
> I've experienced myself at a friends expense a speakers driver that was pushed too hard right out of the box and the driver started to crackle and buzz and didnt sound right. apon closer examination we found out the driver had jumped out of its seating inside the speaker housing and the fabric diaphragm also ripped. the sound was terrible and required immediate repair. thank goodness my friend had the warranty still.
> When we were going through the manual for the warranty card, the manufacturer did mention to not exceed a level of volume for the first 48 hours of use until the drivers have moved enough.
> 
> ...


That is a lot of damage. It sounds like that speaker had a bad driver from the start.


----------



## Tsukuyomi

geek707 said:


> That is a lot of damage. It sounds like that speaker had a bad driver from the start.


Possibly, but having experienced this id rather take things slow at first with new gear and ease it into a more consistent use.


----------



## geek707

Tsukuyomi said:


> Possibly, but having experienced this id rather take things slow at first with new gear and ease it into a more consistent use.


To each their own.
I will observe that if it was DOA (defective out of the box), then that failure would occur if it was gently broken in or not, and by delaying the return, you are complicating the transaction with the involved retailer.


----------



## bigshot

I don't think that blowing a voice coil is any different on the first day as months in. If you push it to a certain point, it's going to blow. The one thing that's for sure is that whenever you do it, it's the last day for that speaker.


----------



## Tsukuyomi

bigshot said:


> I don't think that blowing a voice coil is any different on the first day as months in. If you push it to a certain point, it's going to blow. The one thing that's for sure is that whenever you do it, it's the last day for that speaker.


agreed,
luckily for my friend the manufacturer was excellent in assessing the issue and replacing the speaker.


----------



## geek707

No reasons, but for sure burn-in is real:
https://www.lessloss.com/docs/Burn-In_Curve.pdf
They have curves...


----------



## bigshot

Oh yes! BS is MUCH more believable if you just make it into a real looking chart or diagram.


----------



## geek707

bigshot said:


> Oh yes! BS is MUCH more believable if you just make it into a real looking chart or diagram.


It's a funny company BTW. I get their promotion emails to forward to friends. The web site in hysterical.


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> Oh yes! BS is MUCH more believable if you just make it into a real looking chart or diagram.




Now, I don’t know much about fruits and vegetable, BUT. . . 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/is-a-tomato-a-fruit-or-a-vegetable

I think we all make it to the top of mount stupid once in a while. ; )


----------



## elmoe

Steve999 said:


> Now, I don’t know much about fruits and vegetable, BUT. . .
> 
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/is-a-tomato-a-fruit-or-a-vegetable
> 
> I think we all make it to the top of mount stupid once in a while. ; )



Haha. Tomatoes are definitely fruits.


----------



## bigshot

Is a bell pepper a fruit?


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> Is a bell pepper a fruit?



Yep. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_pepper#Nomenclature


----------



## bigshot

How about a carbuncle?


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> How about a carbuncle?



Pre or Post burn in?


----------



## geek707

bigshot said:


> How about a carbuncle?


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> How about a carbuncle?


Well...they can resemble a tomato.....probably illegal to eat them though,with the whole cannibalism thing:/


----------



## jagwap

geek707 said:


> No reasons, but for sure burn-in is real:
> https://www.lessloss.com/docs/Burn-In_Curve.pdf
> They have curves...



What units is that graph in? 

Is it in Qualities or milli-Quailities? 

It's the old adage:

Lies
Damn lies
Statistics
Specifications
Marketing
Management
Polititions...


----------



## bigshot

Speculative sounds like SPECTACULAR!


----------



## elmoe

Are you trying to argue against science-based facts?


----------



## geek707

bigshot said:


> Speculative sounds like SPECTACULAR!


Their description of why the graph flattens out is great:
"Maturity of Tone Quality(speculative)Expected Evolution Over TimeBurn-in general scheduleBad days, good days, probably not burn-in dependent, can be factors such as fluctuations in Earth’s magnetic fields, solar radiation patterns, local grid pollution, etc."
What?


----------



## bigshot

The world is a marvelous place full of wonders and mysteries... if you’re stupid!


----------



## vulup

Well, I am going to get burned for this, but I have just had a case where I experienced burn-in. Received my ZMF Blackwood yesterday, and it sounded tinny and rather painful out of the box. Frankly, I was dissapointed. Left it running all night and while at work, and now it's much better: it has that warm, smooth midrange that does not lack any detail I associate with the ZMF sound, and the treble does not bite my ears off anymore.

Mind you, nothing else has done this for me. ZMF headphones, every time. Absolutely nothing else "burns in" to me, aside from, say, having R2R DACs warm up after turning them off, for example, which makes sense.


----------



## Redcarmoose

vulup said:


> Well, I am going to get burned for this, but I have just had a case where I experienced burn-in. Received my ZMF Blackwood yesterday, and it sounded tinny and rather painful out of the box. Frankly, I was dissapointed. Left it running all night and while at work, and now it's much better: it has that warm, smooth midrange that does not lack any detail I associate with the ZMF sound, and the treble does not bite my ears off anymore.
> 
> Mind you, nothing else has done this for me. ZMF headphones, every time. Absolutely nothing else "burns in" to me, aside from, say, having R2R DACs warm up after turning them off, for example, which makes sense.


----------



## bigshot

How do you know whether it was something affecting your ears like water from a shower or unequal pressure in your inner and outer ear?


----------



## geek707

vulup said:


> Well, I am going to get burned for this, but I have just had a case where I experienced burn-in. Received my ZMF Blackwood yesterday, and it sounded tinny and rather painful out of the box. Frankly, I was dissapointed. Left it running all night and while at work, and now it's much better: it has that warm, smooth midrange that does not lack any detail I associate with the ZMF sound, and the treble does not bite my ears off anymore.
> 
> Mind you, nothing else has done this for me. ZMF headphones, every time. Absolutely nothing else "burns in" to me, aside from, say, having R2R DACs warm up after turning them off, for example, which makes sense.


So I'm assuming from your post you perceive the ZMF phones as sounding better. On a scale of 1-100 with 100 being most, can you give me an idea of how much the you perceived the sound to change? My questions: Do you believe ZMF sent you phones that were not complete, and required burn in to reach their best operating state sound wise? If so were you given directions on how to burn in and digital files to do this correctly? If not, why not? These aren't $20 mass produced headphones. And though I understand this sounds adversarial, I'm just trying to understand the logic.


----------



## vulup (Jan 13, 2022)

bigshot said:


> How do you know whether it was something affecting your ears like water from a shower or unequal pressure in your inner and outer ear?



No way, no how, good point. We could also veer towards, say, pads becoming softer & clamping force as other possibilities.



geek707 said:


> So I'm assuming from your post you perceive the ZMF phones as sounding better. On a scale of 1-100 with 100 being most, can you give me an idea of how much the you perceived the sound to change? My questions: Do you believe ZMF sent you phones that were not complete, and required burn in to reach their best operating state sound wise? If so were you given directions on how to burn in and digital files to do this correctly? If not, why not? These aren't $20 mass produced headphones. And though I understand this sounds adversarial, I'm just trying to understand the logic.



No worries, I can't quanitfy it on a scale. If I had any measuring equipment, I would have done a before and after, but of more than just, say, the frequency response. I would also have to figure how to take such measurements, as I have never taken any. I can only base it on other headphones I have in my collection.

As for instructions, and for what it's worth, I believe 200 hours, but through typical music listening, nothing crazy, are recommended on the ZMF website.


----------



## Redcarmoose (Jan 13, 2022)

The crazy part is over at the MDR-Z1R thread the MDR-Z1R are known to have this phenomenon where after you get them about 10 hours of listening takes place and they sound different.

They sound better and natural. We basically attribute it to brain bum-in. But in truth we just guess that that is it. Truly it doesn’t matter except 10 hours of listening seems to do the trick.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 13, 2022)

The question with burn in on equipment is, who's to say burn in won't continue and the sound will shift a little bit at a time forever? And if short term burn in happens, how do the manufacturers do quality control checks without burning them in at the factory before they ship? It seems to me that if all it takes is to play music through them for 10 hours, they would just do that at the factory to prevent returns based on pre-burned in sound quality.

In any case, I would be very suspicious of the stability of anything that changes how it sounds over time. What if I liked the way it sounded before burn in?


----------



## Davesrose

Redcarmoose said:


> The crazy part is over at the MDR-Z1R thread the MDR-Z1R are known to have this phenomenon where after you get them about 10 hours of listening takes place and they sound different.
> 
> They sound better and natural. We basically attribute it to brain bum-in. But in truth we just guess that that is it. Truly it doesn’t matter except 10 hours of listening seems to do the trick.



Interesting that it has to be 10 hours....as if that's part of the bias.  I really don't see how one can believe their sense of hearing never changes with any given moment.  Just with ear physiology: at given times our acuity can be different due to ear pressure, tensing of middle ear muscles, or chemistry adjusting viscosity of inner ear.  Then you have your brain that can have more or less focus directed to your hearing.  Then when you're comparing something from "10 hours" (which assumes it's another day of listening), you're having to rely on memory (which is fallible and influenced by feelings).

I have seen burn-in measurements of headphones....run over multiple hours and overall output lowers a bit (however from what I saw of the graphs, sound signature stayed the same).  There could also be more deviation from being another measurement session, and I'd believe our fallibility of memory is a much bigger deviation.

Then also, as bigshot brings up....headphone manufacturers do their own burn in.  I now many will burn in individual drivers and then match the closest left and right drivers for the best balance.


----------



## bigshot

I participated in a group working with a high end headphone designer and someone asked him if the headphones we were evaluating needing burn in. The designer said, "No. Burn in isn't real."


----------



## jagwap

bigshot said:


> I participated in a group working with a high end headphone designer and someone asked him if the headphones we were evaluating needing burn in. The designer said, "No. Burn in isn't real."



But then you only listen to opinions that align with your own.  When I an others present evience of something which you do not agree with, you ingore it and try to agrivate us with pointless arguements.


----------



## Davesrose (Jan 13, 2022)

bigshot said:


> I participated in a group working with a high end headphone designer and someone asked him if the headphones we were evaluating needing burn in. The designer said, "No. Burn in isn't real."



I think it depends on what your scale of "real" is.  Certainly with electronics, the only appreciable "burn in" that might happen is after years of use and the capacitors start swelling.  But with transducers, there apparently are some measurable "settling in"....thing is I think it looks very minuscule compared to how our perceptions are different at any given time.  To further my previous post about manufacturers doing burn in: I know at least Dan Clark and Audeze will burn in drivers for 40 hours.  They'll then measure drivers and match the closest for left and right.  It's to keep the tolerances for balance minimal: and minimal it is (maybe only slightly measurable and nothing human ears can hear).


----------



## Redcarmoose (Jan 14, 2022)

@https://www.head-fi.org/members/davesrose.43904/

No it’s usually about 10 hours of listening. Look I’m over 40 years of headphone listening am not going to argue or really care about the subject. I’m simply referring to the MDR-Z1R thread and my very own experience with the MDR-Z1R. I lean more towards it being mental burn-in, but we don’t know exactly why the phenomenon occurs.

Also you will find people who are curious about the Headphone (MDR-Z1R) and we let them know that there is an adjustment period for everyone 100% across the board. Is this suggestion, maybe? It could be suggestion expectation bias? But the people who say they don’t know about it come to the MDR-Z1R thread perplexed their first day listening. So? Then after a day or two understand the headphone. Still of course there are the people who the signature is not for them.

But typically this happens because the MDR-Z1R has room response placed into the frequency response. So it’s the sound of headphones with the sound of speakers in a room taking and getting a slight bass bump from sound waves bouncing inside the speaker cabinet then existing the back (and sides) of the speaker and bouncing off the rear and side walls, then coming back and mixing slightly with what sound is projected forward from the speaker.

It’s the sound you hear in a club, that’s the room response. So the MDR-Z1R will at first sound not natural. For each person it’s different; some 5 hours some 15 hours......but there comes a time when all of a sudden a light goes on and the sound seems correct.

Scan through the MDR-Z1R Impressions thread and you will find this true for everyone.


Strange that I specifically said about 10 hours, and you turn it around to be exactly 10 hours? Why is that? It is a rough estimate that explains a lot in this hobby. Mainly due to individuals attempting to discover if the MDR is right for them. They go to a demo location and get confused as they actually didn’t get enough time in. It seems this conditioning to the signature is permanent and life long lasting. I’m simply relaying what the whole MDR-Z1R thread has discovered! Cheers!


----------



## Redcarmoose (Jan 14, 2022)

Davesrose said:


> Interesting that it has to be 10 hours....as if that's part of the bias.  I really don't see how one can believe their sense of hearing never changes with any given moment.  Just with ear physiology: at given times our acuity can be different due to ear pressure, tensing of middle ear muscles, or chemistry adjusting viscosity of inner ear.  Then you have your brain that can have more or less focus directed to your hearing.  Then when you're comparing something from "10 hours" (which assumes it's another day of listening), you're having to rely on memory (which is fallible and influenced by feelings).
> 
> *I have seen burn-in measurements of headphones....run over multiple hours and overall output lowers a bit (however from what I saw of the graphs, sound signature stayed the same).  There could also be more deviation from being another measurement session, and I'd believe our fallibility of memory is a much bigger deviation.*
> 
> Then also, as bigshot brings up....headphone manufacturers do their own burn in.  I now many will burn in individual drivers and then match the closest left and right drivers for the best balance.


First off you must be joking to think graphs show the whole response character. Plus what style of graph? Waterfall graphs can show a little bit of transient response that is responsible partially for imaging. But if your taking about FR graphs.........they leave much of the picture out. That’s why every reviewer says that they are only a guide. Timbre, texture, imaging, soundstage.....don’t get any clue related from a FR graph. So your response (highlighted) is questionable? So you see those elements of the signature are partially what we are interested in about burn-in. Also somehow the FR seems to change slightly......mentally? Though truthfully we don’t know. Have you ever purchased two headphones and only burned in one? I have........and amazingly they both sounded identical after only one was burned in for 300 hours. So......that could mean it’s all mental?

This is why there are still multiple questions regarding burn-in. It’s still an unanswerable question. Probably a little of brain burn-in and some slight physical change with the headphone. But nothing is proven yet.

I really believe though that brain burn (with headphones and IEMs) is most responsible for the perceived change. Like looking out over a valley, you can find new things to see over hours of view. If you have ever walked into a new house, the feeling changes after four hours. That’s acclimation.


----------



## bigshot

The designer I spoke to told me that headphones don’t shift after they leave the manufacturer. They test every transducer to make sure it meets the manufacturing tolerances at the factory. If it doesn’t, they don’t ship it.


----------



## jagwap

bigshot said:


> The designer I spoke to told me that headphones don’t shift after they leave the manufacturer. They test every transducer to make sure it meets the manufacturing tolerances at the factory. If it doesn’t, they don’t ship it.


You choose to forget, as you and I have discussed, probably in this thread, it does not affect frequency response, but complience.  Speaker drive units it is documented, measured, proven.  Headphones less so.


----------



## bigshot

This was a designer of high end headphones who was also known for high end planar speakers.


----------



## josh0001

Hifi Man said:


> When people say they "burn in" their headphones, it could mean that they leave them on and don't listen to them, or they wear them and play stuff through them for extended periods. There's been claims that this 'improves' the sound. Is this measurable, or what? I don't know how people come up with this stuff, but if it's actually true then I'd be interested in an explanation of "burn in".


I have two theories. I don't think that hundreds of hours are needed but I have to say that I notice a difference in the first 10 to 20 hours of listening. Now I'm not blaming this is burn in. I'm saying it might be. My other theory is that it has to do with neural plasticity. I base my theory of the fact that neural plasticity is the process on which luring processes are based. Most people buy they're IEM's because they have a surge timbre or sound and usually mach it to they're library. I think that people listen to EIM's that are slightly different from one another but once they know the sound signature they like they tend to buy product with similar properties. The brain so only has to get used to that slight difference of tonality. In part I think people habituate to the difference, and in part I thin the brain overnights the old memory of the privies sound signature. I think that this gives the Impression of bur in and that the period of burn in depends on the time needed for habituation or the neural plasticity to change whereby the tonal difference between the privies IEM and new IEM signature may be correlated to the perceived bur in period. The bigger the difference the longer the time and vice versa. 

I don't believe that this takes the dozens or even hundred of ours of bun in as retailers claim. I may be cynical but I believe this is to avoid a return within the warranty period by people who have little experience or want to convince themselves that the problem with their IEM is burn in rather than the signature. 

I'm no scientist or expert so take this with the bag of salt and don't interpret this as anything more than my opinion


----------



## UmustBKidn (Jan 15, 2022)

And having spent time debating this subject, before my hearing took a crap... I have come to believe both theories are true:

1) headphones change sound quality over time (whether that's called 'burn in' is irrelevant), and
2) peoples perceptions of sound quality change, for numerous reasons.

Re: 1) It's kind of obvious that any mechanical device (headphones included) will change characteristics over any given period of time. Cars, boats, planes, headphones, garden hoses, lol, whatever... (except maybe my ex wife)....

Re: 2) Hearing loss over time as we age. Or, hearing afflictions, like Meniere's disease, or simple hearing loss because of old age. Attend too many Rock concerts and, well, you know...

As proof, I offer the great number of arguments/discussions that we have had, for years.

I suggest that we may never resolve this subject, because it has no resolution...


----------



## bigshot

I’m just glad that MY headphones don’t change. If they did, I’d be pissed, because I like the way they sound.


----------



## UmustBKidn

BTW, having worked for an audio manufacturer at one time, I know for a fact that they tested every device for 24 hours, before it was shipped. This was done more to ensure the product worked, than to ensure any sort of sound quality. I also participated in factory repair of units that had been poorly assembled, literally spending months repairing the same stupid defect that came from the original factory in Japan.

No, I won't be repeating the name of the company.


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Jan 15, 2022)

UmustBKidn said:


> And having spent time debating this subject, before my hearing took a crap... I have come to believe both theories are true:
> 
> 1) headphones change sound quality over time (whether that's called 'burn in' is irrelevant), and
> 2) peoples perceptions of sound quality change, for numerous reasons.
> ...


I would agree that a person's hearing or hearing perception can change over the course of a day or even a single listening session. As I have been listening on headphones almost exclusively for the last several years, a typical session might start at, say 11:30pm, and go til around 1am. DAP and headphones, Tidal HiFi or local SD card files: At first things will sound fresh and my enjoyment is at a relatively high level. By the end of a session my neural pathways or what ever have been worn down and I almost say to myself out loud, "there's no reason to keep trying to chase it, it's over..." and I end the session. Every so often, but less than average, I end the session on an even keel with the enjoyment still at a good level, sort of the equivalent of a Senfeldian "end on a high note".

Sometimes it starts off badly and never gets better and you just have to give it up. Once in a blue moon the entire session is inspired--I remember in particular a session I had with my DAP and a set of HiFiMan HE-X4's that sounded good the entire time. I just sort of marveled at it. It could have been a sort of perfect combo of well-restedness, relaxation and mental calmness, I don't know. My hearing isn't perfect by any means so that certainly plays a part overall--hi freq hearing loss from concerts and playing guitar back in the day and Tinnitus which for me manifests in a general, low volume, very high frequency constant noise, like a low volume version of ringing ears that I mostly tune out, but is there if I'm in a silent room or have closed backs on with no music playing. On the other hand if I had lots of high-end equipment I might be singing an entirely different tune!


----------



## bigshot

Why do people always report burn in as an improvement? If the sound was changing, it would just be a change, sometimes good, sometimes not.

Why does burn in stop? It seems to me that if something can change, that would make it prone to changing more. Why wouldn’t it change after six months of use?


----------



## jagwap (Jan 15, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Why do people always report burn in as an improvement? If the sound was changing, it would just be a change, sometimes good, sometimes not.
> 
> Why does burn in stop? It seems to me that if something can change, that would make it prone to changing more. Why wouldn’t it change after six months of use?



We discussed this also, but you forget, for whatever reason.

Burn in generally leads to improvement for two reasons:

Compliance from new heads to a consistent behaviour.  The materials work themselves towards their steady state behaviour. The way they will be for the majority of the lifetime of the product.  The rate of change is relatively rapid in the first few hours, and dissapears to effectively nothing over the rest of the lifetime.  The eventual braking point is so far away in time, it is considered a separate process.

The people tuning the product will work on prototypes that have been used, measured and proven for many hours when they finish tuning the product.  So their final design will be aligned with the steady state behaviour above, not the fresh out of the box compliance.

It's not balck magic or voodoo.  Quite simple really, if you allow yourself the imagination to think it may exist for a few moments instead of deciding something from your own rationale rather than actually listening, to people or product.


----------



## jagwap

UmustBKidn said:


> BTW, having worked for an audio manufacturer at one time, I know for a fact that they tested every device for 24 hours, before it was shipped. This was done more to ensure the product worked, than to ensure any sort of sound quality. I also participated in factory repair of units that had been poorly assembled, literally spending months repairing the same stupid defect that came from the original factory in Japan.
> 
> No, I won't be repeating the name of the company.



Yes this is common, because a significant number of failures happen in the first 24 hours, often assembly errors, sometimes component failures.  This is also a well documented phenomenon, and statistically proven. This used to be unfortunately nick-named "infant mortality", but in these enlightened times the term has thankfully been dropped.

Even the Japanese make assembly errors.  I imagine the error was most cosistantly wrong every time?

I have worked for audio manufactures for over 30 years, and I have seen some real crazy mistakes. I will also not be naming them, but we all know some of them.


----------



## jagwap (Jan 15, 2022)

UmustBKidn said:


> And having spent time debating this subject, before my hearing took a crap... I have come to believe both theories are true:
> 
> 1) headphones change sound quality over time (whether that's called 'burn in' is irrelevant), and
> 2) peoples perceptions of sound quality change, for numerous reasons.
> ...



You are correct on all fronts.

It is now scientific proven speakers burn in, and the debate is finally over, except for a few unbelievers (you know the type: anti-vax etc.). No one designing speakers with any real experience believe burn-in doesn't exist.  However as it is the spider of the driver in a speaker that provides most of this effect, and few headphones have a spider, it is still in the "debatable" phase on most simple headphones, due to a lack of published evidence. It doesn't mean it cannot exist.  The headphone experts in the company I work in diplomatically say it "depends" when asked, as it can cause so much debate, and we have to keep the customers un-offended.

I also believe the other effect is we get used to a new sound, and adjust to it.  The difference here is this one works on old run-in products too.

Because both factors exist, people feel they need to choose one, and one only to exist.  Daft.


----------



## UmustBKidn

jagwap said:


> You are correct on all fronts.
> 
> It is now scientific proven speakers burn in, and the debate is finally over, except for a few unbelievers (you know the type: anti-vax etc.). No one designing speakers with any real experience believe burn-in doesn't exist.  However as it is the spider of the driver in a speaker that provides most of this effect, and few headphones have a spider, it is still in the "debatable" phase on most simple headphones, due to a lack of published evidence. It doesn't mean it cannot exist.  The headphone experts in the company I work in diplomatically say it "depends" when asked, as it can cause so much debate, and we have to keep the customers un-offended.
> 
> ...


I found a nice, not too long article on the various types of headphone drivers, below.
This helps underscore your points above.

https://soundgearlab.com/guide/types-of-hephone-drivers/


----------



## castleofargh

Some think a given experience about burn in is real, while others don't. That's a 50/50 chance of being correct. IMO, it's all about pets. They look cool but they actually screw up with audio gear behind people's back, causing change in sound for unsuspecting owners. It also explains why not everybody gets to have the same experience with a given model of headphone. Clearly I'm onto something here.
My position being backed up by as many facts as someone's anecdote about his headphone burning in, we should now consider 3 possibilities of equal potential.
To support my point, here's a graph I found by typing"80%" in google image:






Now you can see how whether you're convince that burn in is real, or that it's BS, your odds of being correct are only 33.33333%. Which means that at a statistical level, there's a solid 66.66666% chance that you're clearly wrong.
QED.



ps: I practice reasoning wushu.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 16, 2022)

Monkeys are the most problematic pets because they have an opposable thumb to use to turn dials on your system when your back is turned.

The chaos theory would say that the longer you burn in, the more chance change isn't going to be beneficial to an ordered result.

I think what they did with the headphones I was consulting on was to measure each transducer and the ones closest to the target were put in the high end line. The ones that just missed the manufacturing tolerances were put in the midrange line. And the ones that were further off were put into the low end line. I asked the designer what happened with the transducers that didn't meet spec, but he wouldn't answer. I'm pretty sure that all the copies of the headphones that were sent to me were measured and stable because the prototypes had markings on them to indicate which set it was... and they specifically said burn in was a waste of time.


----------



## dirtrat

Although I have been an Audiophile for over 40 years, I've NEVER believed in burn in. I know it's not a popular opinion with Audiophiles and people seem very strongly opinionated about this. I've had people call me crazy for this belief. I have no doubts that people are hearing improvements over time. My one exception to this belief is possibly speakers and headphones since they have some mechanical properties. I've seen it first-hand where peoples hearing changes over time, and they adjust to this new sound, and it does improve. I've yet to see any real scientific and undeniable proof that would explain electronic stereo devices sound changing after burn-in. Modern electronic components have very tight tolerances, and their values would have to change significantly to impact the sound this much. Are there exceptions to this? Possibly with tubes or transformer but it's a complete guess on my part. Our hearing is very sensitive and needs to adapt to new sounds especially when you are used to hearing something a certain way. This has always been a somewhat controversial topic and always will be! AGAIN, this is just my opinion!


----------



## BrownBear

dirtrat said:


> Although I have been an Audiophile for over 40 years, I've NEVER believed in burn in. I know it's not a popular opinion with Audiophiles and people seem very strongly opinionated about this. I've had people call me crazy for this belief. I have no doubts that people are hearing improvements over time. My one exception to this belief is possibly speakers and headphones since they have some mechanical properties. I've seen it first-hand where peoples hearing changes over time, and they adjust to this new sound, and it does improve. I've yet to see any real scientific and undeniable proof that would explain electronic stereo devices sound changing after burn-in. Modern electronic components have very tight tolerances, and their values would have to change significantly to impact the sound this much. Are there exceptions to this? Possibly with tubes or transformer but it's a complete guess on my part. Our hearing is very sensitive and needs to adapt to new sounds especially when you are used to hearing something a certain way. This has always been a somewhat controversial topic and always will be! AGAIN, this is just my opinion!


I also believe that hearing adjusts to different sounds and tonalities. With my own gear, I find that I have to re-adjust my hearing to a specific set of headphones after listening to a different set for a period of time. Since all my headphones are well burned in by now, it certainly can't be that that's causing my perception to change. Just my experiences though.


----------



## jagwap

dirtrat said:


> Although I have been an Audiophile for over 40 years, I've NEVER believed in burn in. I know it's not a popular opinion with Audiophiles and people seem very strongly opinionated about this. I've had people call me crazy for this belief. I have no doubts that people are hearing improvements over time. My one exception to this belief is possibly speakers and headphones since they have some mechanical properties. I've seen it first-hand where peoples hearing changes over time, and they adjust to this new sound, and it does improve. I've yet to see any real scientific and undeniable proof that would explain electronic stereo devices sound changing after burn-in. Modern electronic components have very tight tolerances, and their values would have to change significantly to impact the sound this much. Are there exceptions to this? Possibly with tubes or transformer but it's a complete guess on my part. Our hearing is very sensitive and needs to adapt to new sounds especially when you are used to hearing something a certain way. This has always been a somewhat controversial topic and always will be! AGAIN, this is just my opinion!



I'm glad you are open to the possibility that there are exceptions, because there are: 

All transistors have very wide gain (the order of 80-350). Even the Hfe gain band selected types.  This does not tend to affect burn in much, but is the main resdon for their being a finite warm-up time in amplifiers.  It also can change the amplifier's audio stability if the amp is driven hard, particularly into clipping, taking sometimes minutes to recover.  Their bandwidth, input capacitance, Vbe (on voltage), and many other parameters vary wildly between samples and temperatures.  This is why discrete audio design involves experience and knowledge.

Electrolytic capacitors are far from tight tollerance.  The best available are 10% in terms or their capacitance, these are rarely used.  +/-20 % is commonly considered high quailty, and low cost gear uses +80/-20% tollerance, which if used with abandon will result in very lose consistancy between unit.  However a little known and certainly overlooked factor is that a key characteristic of theirs: ESR (Electrical Series Resistance), or how closerly they represent a low impedance at higher frequencies, changes over time.  Now it is well known by professional electronic engineers that is goes up over time slowly, as the componant wears out.  This is VERY slow, and generally you will only noticed the effect when you find someone whop can change these components out for new parts, say 20-40 years of use.  (don't worry, the 1% capacitors that should be in you RIAA phono stage are different and super stable, if the designer knows anything.)

However, what is less common knowledge, is these same parts go through a rapid change of ESR over the first few 10s of hours after the unit is switched on.  The ESR goes down as the electrolyte settles to its working voltage, which improves their performance.  The change is quite significant, and I would not be surprised if some equipment it could be audible.

A competant audio designer needs to design out these factors as much as possible.  However you can only attenuate the effect, and it often cost money to do so.  So this can be why high end gear gets expensive, but consistantly good.

Belief is a wonderful thing, but in Sound Science it should give way to repeatable results and scientific measurement.


----------



## bigshot

I hope whatever I buy is manufactured to perform to spec out of the box. I don’t want to take a chance that it burns in to something I don’t like.


----------



## jagwap

bigshot said:


> I hope whatever I buy is manufactured to perform to spec out of the box. I don’t want to take a chance that it burns in to something I don’t like.


You're funny. Given I explained this a few comments ago


----------



## LaughMoreDaily

If underpants can be burned in. Why not audio products?


----------



## bigshot

Mine are burned out!


----------



## dirtrat

jagwap said:


> I'm glad you are open to the possibility that there are exceptions, because there are:
> 
> All transistors have very wide gain (the order of 80-350). Even the Hfe gain band selected types.  This does not tend to affect burn in much, but is the main resdon for their being a finite warm-up time in amplifiers.  It also can change the amplifier's audio stability if the amp is driven hard, particularly into clipping, taking sometimes minutes to recover.  Their bandwidth, input capacitance, Vbe (on voltage), and many other parameters vary wildly between samples and temperatures.  This is why discrete audio design involves experience and knowledge.
> 
> ...



I'm not buying your explanation but that's fine, we are all entitled to our OPINIONS. What's funny is I don't remember people talking about burn in much back in say the 1970's. I guarantee component tolerances are made to a higher standard now especially very high-end audio equipment. I know Resistor tolerances are better today and power supplies and voltage regulation can be built to much better standards. Many times, parts are hand selected and matched. Again, as far as I know there is no widely accepted definitive scientific study that proves beyond a shadow of the doubt that burn-in is a real phenomenon that greatly improves the sound quality. Like I said before I'm guessing there are exceptions to this, I'm sure but again I can't prove anything!


----------



## castleofargh

1/There is inevitable change over time. chemical, mechanical, dark energy made of quantum gremlins. 

2/Then there is the question of when those changes get audible. That will only make a portion of the changes. Portion made even smaller when considering how many of the clearly audible changes using direct switch, would go unnoticed when stretched over a long period of time.

3/Last but not least, there is the question of finding out how many of the audiophile testimonies about driver burn-in have something to do with it. Personally, I'd be absolutely amazed if even 1% of the testimonies were correct. By correct I mean, memories and impressions in line with the actual sound change, and that change actually being caused by driver burn-in.


----------



## bigshot

If a clearly audible change occurs in a relatively short period of time, I’m going to assume it’s due to a defect in manufacturing and return the item. If burn in is real, I want them to do that at the factory before the transducers are matched, not after I’ve bought the headphones. I expect tight response tolerances.


----------



## old tech

jagwap said:


> I'm glad you are open to the possibility that there are exceptions, because there are:
> 
> A competant audio designer needs to design out these factors as much as possible.  However you can only attenuate the effect, and it often cost money to do so.  So this can be why high end gear gets expensive, but consistantly good.
> 
> Belief is a wonderful thing, but in Sound Science it should give way to repeatable results and scientific measurement.


My last purchase of active speakers cost nearly $3k, and that was direct from the manufacturer no middle men taking a cut. The company does not engage in marketing bs or embellishment.  The manual that came with the speakers specifically states no burn in is required and goes on to explain why this belief is a myth.


----------



## bigshot

Burn in is a way to get consumers to burn through their return window.


----------



## jagwap

bigshot said:


> If a clearly audible change occurs in a relatively short period of time, I’m going to assume it’s due to a defect in manufacturing and return the item. If burn in is real, I want them to do that at the factory before the transducers are matched, not after I’ve bought the headphones. I expect tight response tolerances.


For the LAST time, it does not affect frequency repsonse.  The things it affects, like complience, are not practically measurable on the production line.  The gear to do it is prohibitively expensive for production test equipment, and only lives in R&D labs.  But the manufacturers of that test gear, Klipple, have published data on burn-in, which I have linked to here before.

If burn in takes 100 hours, do you expect speaker manufacturer making thousands a week to have them running at high power levels in a giant sound proof warehouse before shipping?  This is an expense that most customers would not want to absorb.


----------



## bigshot

If it isn’t measurable, then how could it be audible? Clearly audible changes in sound in a short period of time is a red flag. It isn’t something you should expect.


----------



## jagwap

dirtrat said:


> I'm not buying your explanation but that's fine, we are all entitled to our OPINIONS. What's funny is I don't remember people talking about burn in much back in say the 1970's. I guarantee component tolerances are made to a higher standard now especially very high-end audio equipment. I know Resistor tolerances are better today and power supplies and voltage regulation can be built to much better standards. Many times, parts are hand selected and matched. Again, as far as I know there is no widely accepted definitive scientific study that proves beyond a shadow of the doubt that burn-in is a real phenomenon that greatly improves the sound quality. Like I said before I'm guessing there are exceptions to this, I'm sure but again I can't prove anything!


There were no opinions in my explanation.


----------



## jagwap

bigshot said:


> If it isn’t measurable, then how could it be audible? Clearly audible changes in sound in a short period of time is a red flag. It isn’t something you should expect.


It is measurable by Klipple, as they explain in the paper I link to YOU before.

"There is nowt so daft that will ne listen"


----------



## bigshot

You talk in circles. Is it clearly audible?


----------



## CoryGillmore

In my experience, the sound of gear does change, sometimes drastically, over the course of the first day, week, month(s). Whether it's new or used. Yeah, new or USED. This tells me it's all in our heads. I mean yeah it IS real, relatively. 
You see people all the time who claim drastic frequency response changes over the course of "burn-in". Yet, as far as I know, no one has ever measured these "drastic frequency response changes" before and after. 
Audiophiles hate admitting their mind is playing tricks on them. But that's exactly what is happening. You're just acclimating to a new sound. I go through the same damn thing every time I switch to one of my other headphones after using something else for a while.  
Or if I just listen to my 2-channel system for a while all of my headphones sound like trash.


----------



## dirtrat

jagwap said:


> There were no opinions in my explanation.



Your right, it just wasn't a good one and explained nothing! It's all good, after all, this is what I expected when I jumped into this topic. Nobody's opinion on this subject is any more relevant than anyone else's including mine. Believe what you want and enjoy the music.


----------



## jagwap

bigshot said:


> You talk in circles. Is it clearly audible?



In speakers it is clearly audible and measurable (By speakers I mean hi-fi, pro audio and other transducers with some resolution.  Built in speakers in a laptop are unlikely to be audible to any noticable extent I think).  It varies depending on material as to the extent of change, and the number of hours it takes.  When you work in the industry you have access to multiple examples of the same product at different stages of burn-in, it is regularly evident.

When you are a arm-chair expert you either except the people working on this daily, or stick your fingers in your ears so that you cannot hear anything that disagrees with your entrenched point of view.

I do not talk in circles, unless it is chasing your ever increasing circles or selective memory.  You are either blinkered, or trolling.


----------



## jagwap

CoryGillmore said:


> In my experience, the sound of gear does change, sometimes drastically, over the course of the first day, week, month(s). Whether it's new or used. Yeah, new or USED. This tells me it's all in our heads. I mean yeah it IS real, relatively.
> You see people all the time who claim drastic frequency response changes over the course of "burn-in". Yet, as far as I know, no one has ever measured these "drastic frequency response changes" before and after.
> Audiophiles hate admitting their mind is playing tricks on them. But that's exactly what is happening. You're just acclimating to a new sound. I go through the same damn thing every time I switch to one of my other headphones after using something else for a while.
> Or if I just listen to my 2-channel system for a while all of my headphones sound like trash.



Why can't both effects exist? Working together or separately? Physical burn in AND acclimatizing to the new sound?

I have stated above, in transducers, it is not frequency response that is affected, but mostly the driver's compliance (springiness curve).


----------



## bigshot (Jan 17, 2022)

jagwap said:


> In speakers it is clearly audible and measurable



And it doesn't affect frequency response... Then it must affect amplitude across the entire frequency range. We're talking about dynamics, right?

I'm guessing by the way you're phrasing things that there's no evidence that this applies to headphones, correct?


----------



## jagwap

bigshot said:


> And it doesn't affect frequency response... Then it must affect amplitude across the entire frequency range. We're talking about dynamics, right?
> 
> I'm guessing that this doesn't apply to headphones, correct?


Now you are being circular.  We have been through this before, with papers, evidence, and simple terms.

Enough.  Let betters minds take care of it all for you, like RF interference.


----------



## jagwap

For everyone else I welcome any questions, on this and other things.  I have answered Bigshot many times with the same answers, but he has a selective memory for whatever his motives are.  I am finally after years of this, sadly putting him on ignore.  He obviously has areas of expertise, but will not accept others.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 18, 2022)

If you just answered questions directly instead of trying to be an authority who knows and doesn't feel the need to explain we would all understand you better. This isn't a contest. I am trying to figure out what the hell you are saying, and pointing me at dense scientific papers without explanation is not going to help me understand.

Is this clearly audible in speakers? in headphones?
How big a difference is there? Is it big enough to hear without a direct A/B comparison? Or is it subtle, so you wouldn't notice it, but it measures?
If it doesn't affect frequency response what does it affect? Amplitude? Dynamics? Time?

These should be easy questions to answer in a single sentence.


----------



## roadcykler

jagwap said:


> It is measurable by Klipple, as they explain in the paper I link to YOU before.
> 
> "There is nowt so daft that will ne listen"




I searched the entire site and "Klipple" only comes up twice and neither has any paper, graph, table, measurements, etc. Would you be so kind as to (re)post here the info you have?


----------



## jagwap

roadcykler said:


> I searched the entire site and "Klipple" only comes up twice and neither has any paper, graph, table, measurements, etc. Would you be so kind as to (re)post here the info you have?


Sorry, I spelled the guys name wrong:

Wolfgang  Klippel,  Klippel GmbH.

The paper, which shows measurement, is behind a pay wall.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16000

Before I found extracts and put them somewhere here. I'm a bit busy at the moment. Power amps going bang.


----------



## castleofargh

Here you go https://www.head-fi.org/threads/is-burn-in-real-or-placebo.663773/page-49#post-14845475


----------



## bigshot (Jan 18, 2022)

Is this clearly audible in speakers? in headphones?
How big a difference is there? Is it big enough to hear without a direct A/B comparison? Or is it subtle, so you wouldn't notice it, but it measures?
If it doesn't affect frequency response what does it affect? Amplitude? Dynamics? Time?

I don't know why he can't answer simple questions... Maybe he doesn't understand it himself. He expects us to sort it out for him.

I'll add a new question every time the previous ones go unanswered...

Does burn in apply the same to tweeters as it does to woofers?


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Is this clearly audible in speakers? in headphones?
> How big a difference is there? Is it big enough to hear without a direct A/B comparison? Or is it subtle, so you wouldn't notice it, but it measures?
> If it doesn't affect frequency response what does it affect? Amplitude? Dynamics? Time?
> 
> I don't know why he can't answer simple questions... Maybe he doesn't understand it himself. He expects us to sort it out for him.


He replied to the question of change from driver with the information he can share, and specified that it was demonstrated for speakers but not yet as clear for headphones.
That particular experiment does not involve listening.
 TBH, how would you go about setting up a listening test where the 2 sound samples are tens of hours away from each other? Whatever testing method you pick, someone will say it's not conclusive for the real thing. I guaranty it!


----------



## bigshot (Jan 18, 2022)

Are the measurements in the ballpark of what could be expected to be audible?

Whenever getting actual info turns into pulling teeth, I generally assume that it's something that has absolutely no application in our world of home audio. It's just an irrelevant exception thrown in to try to impress people who are easily impressed by such things.

To get back to the topic that I was discussing before this derailment, I see no reason to believe that headphones burn in. If I bought a new set of cans and they changed after I used them a while, I would call them defective and ask for a refund. I expect equipment I buy to be stable enough for normal use.


----------



## UmustBKidn




----------



## UmustBKidn

bigshot said:


> Are the measurements in the ballpark of what could be expected to be audible?
> 
> Whenever getting actual info turns into pulling teeth, I generally assume that it's something that has absolutely no application in our world of home audio. It's just an irrelevant exception thrown in to try to impress people who are easily impressed by such things.
> 
> To get back to the topic that I was discussing before this derailment, I see no reason to believe that headphones burn in. If I bought a new set of cans and they changed after I used them a while, I would call them defective and ask for a refund. I expect equipment I buy to be stable enough for normal use.



I'll go out on a limb here and say, mostly, I doubt it. But I could be wrong.

There can be unusual exceptions, but in those cases, you'd want to be returning your unit for refund or replacement. And, people can hook things up wrong, and blow things up. Most of the returns I've ever seen, were from dead amplifiers. Just didn't work, out of the box. But it's been years since I've had a dead unit.

Speakers in general are 'moving parts'. As such, they can change or degrade over time. How much, and whether you can hear is, are open questions. That said, I guarantee you that if you overdrive a speaker, it will blow up, sooner rather than later. Under normal use (whatever that is), lord only knows. There are too many variables.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 19, 2022)

I agree.

We waste a lot of time discussing unusual exceptions and bleeding edge thresholds of audibility. I wish there was less ego parading and more practical advice on how to improve sound systems for human ears. Some things are red herrings and get more discussion than they deserve.


----------

