• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Headphone Burn In ?

jt45

jt45

Super Member
I just got a set of Audio Technica ATH-A700 headphones and was wondering what is the normal burn in for these and does burn in actually help the sound quality of headphones in general.

These headphones replaced a set of Grado 60s that I liked but had a driver go out.
So far I like these as well but I keep reading reviews that state they need alot of burn in time to really sound at their best. So what are your opinions about burn in time and improvements. Thanks.
 
Register to hide this ad
i read that my ATH-M50 cans needed at least 50 hours of burn in time. I experienced a very, VERY slight extension in bass response but it could be purely placebo. You could always get a pink noise MP3 and run them all night for a week and see if you can tell the difference. but i have a feeling, (unless you have super ears) that you won't notice a bit of difference. if they sound good out of the box, they are good!

happy listening! :music:

BTW: 100 Posts BOOYA!
 
Last edited:
I can't help you with the specific model you've got, but the Grado SR-325i headphones I'm using now changed quite a bit over about a half a year of use. Most noticeably, the sound filled out and became less bright, more balanced overall.

You can use headphone break in files to accelerate the process, and these are available free on the internet. However, it's probably not a good idea to leave the burn in files on for more than 4 or 5 hours at a time, or you risk damaging the drivers.
 
Thanks I found a white noise file that Im playing at night 4 to 6 hours hopefully that will do the trick. The jury is still out on these ATs, They do some things well but the grados I had were great for different reasons.
Maybe its just the difference between the open and closed back designs, Im not sure since I only just started listening to headphones.
Im hoping the mids open up a bit as the ATs seem very good on the top and bottom end but vocals are not as clear as the Grados wich were new also but I had to send them back after a driver failed.
 
Some do not believe in burn-in, I do based on side by side comparisons. So the answers you will receive will vary from no to maybe to yes. Most cans benefit from 50 hours to 250 hours depending on the model. Good luck and enjoy the ATH-A700, nice cans for the money.
 
I don't believe in physical burn in (the drivers/components somehow changing in sound over time/with use), but do believe in psychological burn in, i.e., getting used to the sound mentally, or psycho-acoustically. (And I will not argue such things and everyone is free to believe what they wish in any case).

So with time you will grow more and more accoustomed to a certain piece of gear (most notably speakers and headphones) and the "defects" (or, perhaps, just the peculiarities of the sound signature of such gear) you first hear will tend to be less glaring with time simply because you get used to them. I will say that if one doesn't at least like a piece of gear during the first few hours of listening, then he/she will probably never like it just because the sound will not change and the sound signature is just something he/she will not ever be able to get into. In such cases I wouldn't wait for some magical point where the sound is supposed to transform into something else, something better, but to send the item back and try something else while you can still get a refund. (Many sellers of hi-fi gear like to make sure the "burn in mark" of gear they are selling is conveniently right around where the return period ends).

But since you at least like these so far I'm sure you will adapt to their differences from the Grado's and come to appreciate them. Cans are very colored, they each have a unique sound imo, even more so than speakers. I've found that several aren't really better or worse than one another but just different and suit different music genres better. Sure some I like better overall than others, but other people wouldn't: the kind of sound signature one likes is subjective/personal of course.

The Grado's are famous for being mid-prominent, so it is no surprise you might find the AT's mids not as clear or recessed. That doesn't mean the Grado's are superior or AT's inferior, it just means that they have a different sound signature. Whether or not you like the AT sound signature as much as the Grado's you had is up to you. If you don't, after a week or so of listening (don't worry about burning them in, just try to get used to their sound on different material), I would send them back and get another pair of Grado's; unless you think you might have room for both somewhere down the road. Don't wait for the sound to transform into something else because it won't no matter how used to the sound signature you get it will still be the same; your perception of it, however, will change over time, but not that significantly.

Good luck, I'm sure those AT's are nice, I've looked at getting some myself.
 
Mr. Lin said:
I can't help you with the specific model you've got, but the Grado SR-325i headphones I'm using now changed quite a bit over about a half a year of use. Most noticeably, the sound filled out and became less bright, more balanced overall.

You can use headphone break in files to accelerate the process, and these are available free on the internet. However, it's probably not a good idea to leave the burn in files on for more than 4 or 5 hours at a time, or you risk damaging the drivers.
Click to expand...

Just like Mr. Lin, my Grado RS-2i headphones improved over time. I did use various types of music and an iPod with white noise, 6-8 hours at a time to break them in. Not sure if that in itself made specific differences, but the sound is more well balanced and tighter. I listened to them very carefully when I first got them and then with the same music after 100 hours of break in, just to see if there was a difference.
 
Last edited:
mrarroyo said:
Some do not believe in burn-in, I do based on side by side comparisons.
Click to expand...

Now this is interesting. That's about the first time I've heard this, usually someone buys a can (or any piece of gear) and maintains (dogmatically so most of the time) that it changed in sound over time, not that he/she adapted psycho-acoustically to the sound.

Well, obviously, that is no justification at all to conclude this, especially given that psycho-acoustic memory is so fallible. What needs to be done is to have two pairs of the same can (or any piece of gear) to switch back and forth with (blind would be the best): one with hundreds/thousands of hours of use and the other right out of the box. The best would be if the individual had never heard the can (or other piece of gear) at all, so the sound signature would be totally new to him/her and thus the peculiarities of it would be easier to detect and acoustic memory would not interfere (thinking it should sound a certain way). And, of course, if several tested the different cans (or other gear) blind to help rule out expectation. This all would still be subjective though I'm afraid, but it would be something to take into consideration, unlike the personal testimony about physical burn in based on one individual item that has been "burned in" but not been directly compared (preferably blind) to another of the same item without any physical burn in on it at all.

So, I have to ask, did you do this blind and did anyone else do so as well? I'm not trying to start an argument, I truly am curious to know. Thanks.
 
permanent waves just blew my mind. thanks AK for making me think! :thumbsup:

i can totally understand the psycho acoustic theory as it applies to headphones.

i think my M50s bass extended because at first i thought they were bass shy and now i am used to them.

happy listening :music:
 
Lol, well thanks! :D

This is all just my view, but I have long studied how the human mind is set up (hardwired by evolution) to not only be susceptible to but even to succumb to all sorts of perceptual/cognitive illusions/delusions on a regular basis (this is very well documented...and very fascinating, imo, to study), so when we get into such subjective areas as this where personal testimony/experience is held as infallible (personal experience/perception is very fallible), even if it directly contradicts the empirical evidence (in this case that drivers are "burned in" within a few seconds when they are tested at the factory, or, at the absolute most, after a few hours of use), I tend to be skeptical. (Show me, don't tell me, and all that).

Again, not wanting to argue or start a flame war, just to offer a different dissenting viewpoint. I don't really care what people think on this issue, just as long as they enjoy their gear. :thmbsp:
 
lol... that was even better!

Hey Waves, you should start your own thread on perception and reality. It would be real interesting.
 
I think I stated that I liked both of these for different reasons and while I agree that as I get used to a certain sound it will become less of an issue. I only guessing but I suspect alot of the differences are due to one being open verses the closed back design,
however alot of reviews like those at Stereophile seem to stress burn in as helping to smooth out the rough edges of new drivers so I had to ask about breakin time. Since Im still looking for what I might like best in headphones further listening and advice will help Im shure.
 
Permanent Waves said:
I don't believe in physical burn in (the drivers/components somehow changing in sound over time/with use), but do believe in psychological burn in, i.e., getting used to the sound mentally, or psycho-acoustically. (And I will not argue such things and everyone is free to believe what they wish in any case).
Click to expand...

+1 for this. If sound changes in a few hours, phones would be completely worn out after short usage. Nothing to add.
 
onepixel said:
lol... that was even better!
Click to expand...

Well, it was shorter for one thing! :D

onepixel said:
Hey Waves, you should start your own thread on perception and reality. It would be real interesting.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, now that would be an undertaking! (As if I don't spend too much time on here as it is! :D). I could write volumes on the subject (and have written dozens of pages, at least, in the past in various formats from essays to online posts on philosophy forums) and bore everyone!

I don't think AK has a section for such a subject...in the TOL forum it would just turn into a flame war. Besides, I would (and have) approach the issue as a general sort of "Here's how human thinking goes wrong and is flawed" all encompassing topic, drawing from everything from logic to psychology to neuroscience to philosophy to sociology etc.

In any case, others have done this already better than I could/have; here's a good place to start for those interested:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Think-About-Weird-Things/dp/0767400135

Read this (1998 version) for the hell of it in college and it (along with many forgotten books and articles on the subject, some of which I still have but would have to dig up/look through) helped to teach me how to think "correctly" about dubious claims of all sorts...as did Phil 101 and Logic 101 (for starters) as well.

Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (should be in the related book area) is a great read too, though not as technical; read that in high school.

This website is useful too:

http://www.skepdic.com/

Especially this section for the current topic:

http://www.skepdic.com/tilogic.html

LOTS of good info and links on that site (to other great sites and recommended reading); poking around there will surely be fruitful for those interested.
 
jt45 said:
I think I stated that I liked both of these for different reasons and while I agree that as I get used to a certain sound it will become less of an issue. I only guessing but I suspect alot of the differences are due to one being open verses the closed back design,
however alot of reviews like those at Stereophile seem to stress burn in as helping to smooth out the rough edges of new drivers so I had to ask about breakin time. Since Im still looking for what I might like best in headphones further listening and advice will help Im shure.
Click to expand...

No problem, it's good you asked, and, again, make up your own mind on the issue, either pro or con. I'm not here to try to force my views on anyone, but I will report what I believe the evidence shows. Doesn't mean I'm right or you have to agree. (I will say that referencing Stereophile is an example of the faulty appeal to authority: it doesn't matter what they say but only if they can back their claims up with solid evidence).

And yea, open vs. closed usually have different sound characteristics in general.

marne said:
+1 for this. If sound changes in a few hours, phones would be completely worn out after short usage. Nothing to add.
Click to expand...

That seems right, but I'm not technical enough to be sure. I know I've never read anything convincing that proves that drivers (much less other gear) take on different sound characteristics over time, at least properly functioning drivers that aren't damaged or about to "die".

onepixel said:
I prefer the open back designs, to me they have more air and feel less claustrophobic.

Here is a great tool for comparing headphone performance. Find some headphones that you know well and use them as a baseline. Good luck!

http://www.headphone.com/buildAGraph.php
Click to expand...

I prefer open as well, but both are fun. That graph is a great tool to start with as well.
 
Permanent Waves said:
Now this is interesting. That's about the first time I've heard this, usually someone buys a can (or any piece of gear) and maintains (dogmatically so most of the time) that it changed in sound over time, not that he/she adapted psycho-acoustically to the sound.

Well, obviously, that is no justification at all to conclude this, especially given that psycho-acoustic memory is so fallible. What needs to be done is to have two pairs of the same can (or any piece of gear) to switch back and forth with (blind would be the best): one with hundreds/thousands of hours of use and the other right out of the box. The best would be if the individual had never heard the can (or other piece of gear) at all, so the sound signature would be totally new to him/her and thus the peculiarities of it would be easier to detect and acoustic memory would not interfere (thinking it should sound a certain way). And, of course, if several tested the different cans (or other gear) blind to help rule out expectation. This all would still be subjective though I'm afraid, but it would be something to take into consideration, unlike the personal testimony about physical burn in based on one individual item that has been "burned in" but not been directly compared (preferably blind) to another of the same item without any physical burn in on it at all.

So, I have to ask, did you do this blind and did anyone else do so as well? I'm not trying to start an argument, I truly am curious to know. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I do not believe you understood me, perhaps I did not explain my self well. I compared side by side various cans. One set had 200+ hours of burn in and the other was fresh out of the box, I did this with at least 4 different pairs from various manufacturers. Invariably the units w/ the burn in sounded differently and better to my ears.

Some may credit the difference to manufacturing tolerances, however since it involved several units I would not be so sure. It was not a DBT.
 
If sound changes in a few hours, phones would be completely worn out after short usage. Nothing to add.
Click to expand...

Similarly, an auto engine requiring a couple hundred miles to fully seat the piston rings and the motor being worn out in 500 miles...:sigh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom