Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Showing 1 of 127 conversations about:
illi
72
Jun 10, 2016
bookmark_border
There's nothing TO understand where people are coming from. That's like saying loch ness monsters exist.
It's a hyped-up, hipster word that caters to your warm, analogue emotions. Pick up any new set of headphones you've never listened to. It sounds weird because you're new to it. Your ears get used to it. That's it.
Jun 10, 2016
Heefty
1387
Jun 10, 2016
bookmark_border
illi'Fraid not. There is a real physical reason for burn in on speakers and it's not that hard to comprehend, nor is it related to your auditory system's capacity to learn and adapt to new stimuli.
There is a real physical material that is vibrating to create the compression waves that your ears interpret as sound. That material's properties will change as it moves repeatedly and adapts to a its stimulus.
1 Pick up a clean new sheet of paper. 2 Crumple that paper into a ball. 3 flatten it back out. Is the paper the same as it was before you started the process? Will it ever be the same again? The materials your speaker is made of will also change and not revert. That's burn in.
Jun 10, 2016
illi
72
Jun 10, 2016
bookmark_border
HeeftyNumber one, there's no reason to call it a "burn-in" What the hell does that supposed to mean anyway? Sure there are physical changes after the device is played. For example, the glue loosening up due to vibrations. But there are just too many variables, and they're minuscule/negligible changes that cannot be quantified in any meaningful way. And what's more important, you can't tell the difference. So the point is moot. Show me a solid, science-based data or a double-blind test that proves there's an actual, discernible difference in sound and I will believe you. Also, I'd call it a 'break-in', like you break into your shoes, not a burn-in. This reminds me of that double-blind test between a copper coat-hanger and a pricey monster cable. So-called audiophiles couldn't even tell the difference. Think about that.
Jun 10, 2016
Heefty
1387
Jun 10, 2016
bookmark_border
illi"Burn-in" was probably a carry over from tube amps and the need to "burn-in" the tubes. Not sure why the term for a thing makes a difference on what the thing physically is to the degree that it needs to be argued about though... This is why I studied EE instead of language or sociology I suppose.
See page one where someone linked a study published on innerfidelity. There's your "science-based" data.
Physical changes in the material properties of a mechanical system is something completely different than the ability of different conductors to conduct. Those of us who actually understand the "science-based" aspects of audio reproduction can easily discern between the value a double blind test on "audiophiles" and real empirical measurement though. I've never seen a measurement on the monster cable vs. a coat hanger (I've never seen a copper hanger btw. sounds cool.) but I'll never call a test that relies on a person's perception/interpretation of something as a data point scientific. If 9/10 people can't tell the difference, but #10 can and thinks the difference is worth the high priced cable, what's wrong with #10 buying said cable?
In the end it's your perception of something that you must live with though. If you can't hear a difference between a burned in speaker, there's nothing wrong with that, but don't need to get on here talking trash (something about hipsters and emotions) about those who can. A lot of people can't tell the difference between 44.1kHz/16bit files and 96kHz/24-bit lossless files either, but I can and prefer the latter. Or even the highly compressed crap coming from some cut rate online streaming service or youtube for that matter. There's nothing wrong with that either. It just is.
Do what works best for you and leave other people to figure out what works best for them without passing judgement about their choices.
Jun 10, 2016
j-tech
93
Jun 13, 2016
bookmark_border
HeeftyI agree with you. I'd say, possibly subjectively, that the biggest difference with a brand new pair of headphones or speakers happens during the first hour or so. This is where things initially starts to loosen up a but. The changes are more gradually from there, but that doesn't mean they won't amount to a significant, in the sense that it'l be audible, over the next 100-200 hours. Of course, A-B testing gets kind of tricky with this, unless you happen to have several pairs available. Also, when some of the top manufacturers recommend a "burn-in" for 100-300 hours, I don't believe this is just some kind of weird marketing or wild guessing on their part. This is based on their experience with their particular drivers. And they certainly have several pairs available, so they do have the opportunity to compare.
Jun 13, 2016
Tragique
712
Mar 12, 2017
bookmark_border
HeeftyRight. And you listen to it before and after and pick the difference,
Mar 12, 2017
Stevangelist
54
Sep 4, 2017
bookmark_border
illiYour ignoramus is showing.
Sep 4, 2017
Stevangelist
54
Sep 4, 2017
bookmark_border
TragiqueYou wouldn't notice because over the time it is burning in, your are listening to it, and your brain (as small as it may be) and ears are adapting. You take 2 identical speakers, leave one in the box, blast the other one for 200 hours, and I can guaran-fuckin-tee you will hear the difference side by side.
Sep 4, 2017
Tragique
712
Sep 4, 2017
bookmark_border
StevangelistWhat exactly is your problem?
Sep 4, 2017
Stevangelist
54
Sep 4, 2017
bookmark_border
TragiqueNo problems here, my issue is with idiots like you spouting ill informed crap to people who are looking for advice, and ignoring facts and science on these threads. What part of your comment was helpful, except to your own hubris?
Sep 4, 2017
Tragique
712
Sep 4, 2017
bookmark_border
StevangelistAm I wrong or are you referring to me saying people have similar arguments over automatic watches in watch forums? You're way too caffeinated or somethin.
Sep 4, 2017
Stevangelist
54
Sep 4, 2017
bookmark_border
Tragique"Right. And you listen to it before and after and pick out the difference" So why argue something so subjective, when a quick Googling will confirm that yes, the sound profile changes?And no, maybe not everyone has the ears to notice it. Especially when they themselves may not listen to the same song twice in a week. And if they are listening during that period they will notice almost no quantifiable change, since it's subtle, and the changes may not effect the whole Fq spectrum. Leave it at that, shall we? My apologies for being so brash earlier, it was unnecessary. I don't think you meant anything by what you said. I'm just beyond sick of the misinformation floating on these threads sometimes. Cheers, I appreciate you not meeting my brash with yours. I owe you a beer.
Sep 4, 2017
Stevangelist
54
Sep 4, 2017
bookmark_border
Tragiquesorry for the harshness man or lady. It wasn't about a watch, I'm not Swiss.
Sep 4, 2017
Tragique
712
Sep 4, 2017
bookmark_border
StevangelistOh I've been called much worse I assure you. No harm done. Enjoy your day.
Sep 4, 2017
Glaga
15
Sep 5, 2017
bookmark_border
TragiqueDamn. And to think I wanted to remind you about the whole "act civilized" part in the title. However, you already both acknowledged it and even apologized for it! Nice one!
Sep 5, 2017
raz-0
51
Jan 4, 2019
bookmark_border
StevangelistWhat if the "burn-in" was really a change in the flexibility of the surround and/or spider due to outgassing of synthetic materials? They might actually sound essentially the same, just not like they would on day one of assembly.
Jan 4, 2019
View Full Discussion
Related Posts
Trending Posts in Audiophile