4 ms·

Headphone "break-in" is a myth up there with coloring the edges of your CDs with a green magic marker.

by minikites 13y ago

gadders 13y ago
Yeah, but to get the full effect you need gold plated optical leads from Monster.
- Groxx 13y ago
  The day we get room-temperature superconducting cables, Monster will put some into a 6-foot HDMI cable and sell a bunch for tons of money.
TylerE 13y ago
No, it's not. I've observed it on my own with several sets of high quality 'phones.
- minikites 13y ago
  You've measured it with calibrated equipment? Or you just listened to them and believed they've changed after your brain adapted?
  - TylerE 13y ago
    The difference, especially in deep bass extension, is not subtle.
falcolas 13y ago
"What I do know is that during the course of these measurements some things changed. While the data showed only very small differences, the data was clearly above the noise, and a general trend observable. The data also showed a discontinuity around the 20 hour mark in both the FR and THD data. While, it seems to me, much of the change observed could easily be due to movement, especially in the frequencies above 5kHz, some changes seem more likely due to break-in. In particular, the changes in frequency response around the fundamental resonance of the driver at 80Hz, and in %THD+noise at the same frequency and at around 40Hz." http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-brea...
- minikites 13y ago
  You missed the paragraph right before that: > 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. Testing one pair of headphones one time doesn't show anything.
  - falcolas 13y ago
    The author seems to be suffering from a "there's no such thing as headphone break-in" bias. Their results show changes, but they deny it (while subsequently accepting it: "some changes seem more likely due to break-in"). Broader tests would be certainly be useful, but that test certainly doesn't prove that break-in is a myth, either. Given that people accept break-in is required for, and changes the sound qualities of, larger speakers, it would seem that the benefit of doubt should go to the "headphones do break-in over time". After all, headphones are speakers, just smaller. To quote John Grado: "All mechanical things need break-in."
    - minikites 13y ago
      > but that test certainly doesn't prove that break-in is a myth, either It's impossible to prove a negative. The test was: "is there evidence for headphone output changing over time" and there was not enough evidence to show this by the author's own admission. Given the ocean of audiophile bullshit out there, it's not unreasonable to take the default position of assuming a claim is bullshit until there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
      - falcolas 13y ago
        > The test was: "is there evidence for headphone output changing over time" And the test was positive, given the test parameters. The author didn't want to extrapolate beyond that (I attribute that to the author's own biases against break-in: "I rarely hear break-in", "voodoo" when referring to break-in), which is their prerogative. Not to mention that by their very criteria, "all I'm looking for here is a clear trend where the data changes smoothly from the start to the end reference", it did happen. However, theirs is not the only test out there which shows differences over time. In my limited googling, the consensus seems to be "headphones do break in, even if the effects are limited".
Wingman4l7 13y ago
(For anyone who isn't familiar with the latter myth: http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.htm http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.htm)

Headphone "break-in" is a myth up there with coloring the edges of your CDs with a green magic marker.

gadders 13y ago

Yeah, but to get the full effect you need gold plated optical leads from Monster.

Groxx 13y ago
The day we get room-temperature superconducting cables, Monster will put some into a 6-foot HDMI cable and sell a bunch for tons of money.

TylerE 13y ago

No, it's not. I've observed it on my own with several sets of high quality 'phones.

minikites 13y ago
You've measured it with calibrated equipment? Or you just listened to them and believed they've changed after your brain adapted?
- TylerE 13y ago
  The difference, especially in deep bass extension, is not subtle.

falcolas 13y ago

"What I do know is that during the course of these measurements some things changed. While the data showed only very small differences, the data was clearly above the noise, and a general trend observable. The data also showed a discontinuity around the 20 hour mark in both the FR and THD data. While, it seems to me, much of the change observed could easily be due to movement, especially in the frequencies above 5kHz, some changes seem more likely due to break-in. In particular, the changes in frequency response around the fundamental resonance of the driver at 80Hz, and in %THD+noise at the same frequency and at around 40Hz." http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-brea...

minikites 13y ago
You missed the paragraph right before that: > 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. Testing one pair of headphones one time doesn't show anything.
- falcolas 13y ago
  The author seems to be suffering from a "there's no such thing as headphone break-in" bias. Their results show changes, but they deny it (while subsequently accepting it: "some changes seem more likely due to break-in"). Broader tests would be certainly be useful, but that test certainly doesn't prove that break-in is a myth, either. Given that people accept break-in is required for, and changes the sound qualities of, larger speakers, it would seem that the benefit of doubt should go to the "headphones do break-in over time". After all, headphones are speakers, just smaller. To quote John Grado: "All mechanical things need break-in."
  - minikites 13y ago
    > but that test certainly doesn't prove that break-in is a myth, either It's impossible to prove a negative. The test was: "is there evidence for headphone output changing over time" and there was not enough evidence to show this by the author's own admission. Given the ocean of audiophile bullshit out there, it's not unreasonable to take the default position of assuming a claim is bullshit until there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
    - falcolas 13y ago
      > The test was: "is there evidence for headphone output changing over time" And the test was positive, given the test parameters. The author didn't want to extrapolate beyond that (I attribute that to the author's own biases against break-in: "I rarely hear break-in", "voodoo" when referring to break-in), which is their prerogative. Not to mention that by their very criteria, "all I'm looking for here is a clear trend where the data changes smoothly from the start to the end reference", it did happen. However, theirs is not the only test out there which shows differences over time. In my limited googling, the consensus seems to be "headphones do break in, even if the effects are limited".

Wingman4l7 13y ago

(For anyone who isn't familiar with the latter myth: http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.htm http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.htm)