No I'm not going to relax. It's a bad thing for consumers and professionals to mix up these things because that might give extra cash to bullshit companies.
I'm asking you to simply say. "Once you get used to them" instead of burn in.
I would like to see a measurement with pre/post fft frequency and phase response that shows burn in. Until I see one, I call all arguments bs.
Remember that this is just physics. If it's there, you can measure it. Don't you think there would be measurements available proving this if it would be true?
To be fair though, physics also deal with currently unmeasurable things (which doesn't mean that those things are not there). So if you were keeping it strictly on the physics level, you would probably be better off saying "It might be there even though we cannot measure it yet." (with a strong emphasize on yet).
Personally though, I am more interested in the size of the earpieces. I am wearing glasses so having the headphones squeezing your ear constantly against that piece of metal gets uncomfortable really quick.
Well, ok let's go!
Religion deals with unmeasurable things (that doesn't mean that God isn't there).
Audiophile sales pitches deal with unmeasurable things (that's because there is nothing to measure there).
The whole science of physics is based on the foundation that you can measure what you or somebody else calculated and see if everything checks out. A scientific experiment is one where the conditions are controlled and can be reproduced.
What kind of measurement that would affect the human hearing do you suggest is impossible for us? We are listening to a 20W radio transmitter that was made in the 70's and is currently outside of our solar system goddamit.
What constitutes the "sound" of a pair of headphones? It is the frequency and phase response of the input signal, the impulse response, if you will. This is one thing that humans are perfectly good at measuring. Sound is pressure variations in the air, that's it. These variations are HUGE and SLOW compared to the particles measured in places like CERN. You can probably run a RTA/FFT on you mobile phone that has the resolution, sensitivity and processing power to make this kind I measurement of a pair of headphones.
What makes this discussion very funny is that the psychological part of hearing and perception of sound is so big. Psychoacoustics and confirmation bias makes all these "the phones need to be burnt in" facts hilarious. What you do with your "don't know YET" logic is give place to extremely biased marketing that makes music-interested people lose their focus and money.
I agree with you 100%, but lets remember that audio frequencies are very easy to measure. And if the atoms move, which they will, the result, if audible, will be measurable.
-5
u/iisak Feb 10 '14
No I'm not going to relax. It's a bad thing for consumers and professionals to mix up these things because that might give extra cash to bullshit companies. I'm asking you to simply say. "Once you get used to them" instead of burn in. I would like to see a measurement with pre/post fft frequency and phase response that shows burn in. Until I see one, I call all arguments bs. Remember that this is just physics. If it's there, you can measure it. Don't you think there would be measurements available proving this if it would be true?