Dwell long enough in audiophile circles and you'll eventually stumble upon the curious ritual of burning in headphones. This process basically involves running audio hardware for an extended period of time. This is supposed to improve the sound of your headphones, IEMs and speakers. If that sounds implausible, it's probably because the concept is pseudoscience. Let's see why.
SummaryWhat is burn-in?A glimmer of plausibility……that crumbles under basic scrutinyChange is not always for the bestShure Sure doesn't buy into the mythThe placebo effectBurning in headphones is a waste of timeSome audiophiles believe that the quality of sound emitted by new audio equipment such as headphones, IEMs and speakers improves after letting them run for several hours. Like running in a new car or wearing new shoes, burning in a new pair of headphones supposedly allows moving parts to settle down and reach their "true specs", thus achieving the best performance possible.
In fact, the additional elastic supports (spider and surround) found in larger loudspeakers have a greater impact on the movement and damping of the loudspeaker cone. These resilient mounts are affected by the stress of being actuated over millions of cycles, which can change their frequency response over time.
The logic behind burning audio equipment, however, begins to break down the moment you delve deeper into the arcane ritual. Nobody seems to agree on the duration of the burn in process.
Some recommend 20 hours while others run their equipment for 500 hours. The ideal audio gear also varies depending on who you ask. Some insist on test tones such as frequency sweeps, white noise, or pink noise. Others either have elaborate break-in albums circulating in audiophile circles.
Like all pseudoscience, there is no standard for breaking your audio equipment. This is the first sign that the ritual could be a big nothing at all. The second sign is much more obvious.
Remember how we learned that headphones, IEMS, and speaker drivers have moving parts whose frequency response can change over time? The keyword being currency .
The various aforementioned moving parts within such audio equipment will only degrade over time. One must also consider how the internal crossover circuits (essentially capacitors, inductors, and resistors) are prone to degradation. This certainly does not bode well for the sound quality.
By following the laws of basic physics and electronics, your headphones, IEMs, and speakers only sound gradually with age. The rate at which this degradation occurs may be negligible for all practical purposes, but there is nothing to suggest that this change is for the better.
Why aren't the brands that make these audio devices stepping in to dispel the myth? Well, when your target demographic harbors the idea that your product ages like fine wine, would marketers let the engineering team step in to break that practical illusion?
This did not happen at Shure. The reputable audio maker revealed to Wired how it put the notion of burnout to the test when reviewing its signature E1 headphones. Shure's test samples have been used extensively over the years since their launch in 1997. Unsurprisingly, the brand's internal testing revealed no noticeable change in sound output over time.
It's right out of the mouth of the proverbial horse.
Another interesting investigative piece by Inner Fidelity's Tyll Herstens compared the all-new AKG Q701 headphones with a burnt-out pair. Frequency response graphs were plotted for each break-in interval and compared to that of the brand new headset. It should be noted that these headphones are known to take hundreds of hours of break-in, with many users claiming to notice an improvement over time.
Herstens noticed an observable change in the frequency response graphs over time, but concluded that this was not tamper-proof as a means of improving audio quality. This required him to conduct another comprehensive test covering a break-in period of 300 hours. Data gleaned from the full test showed no discernible difference between new and burnt headphones. This is telling for the earbuds that are supposed to benefit the most from break-in.
Herstens, however, sums up this myth with great analogy:
Scientific testing has shown no evidence to support the burning in myth. So why do audiophiles still swear by it? This could be because our sensory perception is a function of the brain interpreting information relayed by the senses. This is also why art and music tend to be subjective. Scientists aren't even sure if everyone is on the same page when it comes to basic colors.
The concept of burglary could therefore be due to familiarity. The possibility of your brain getting used to the sonic signature of the audio equipment, which in turn amplifies the perceived quality over time. Otherwise, there is no scientific or empirical explanation to support its validity.
Read more:
