Last week I took the plunge and purchased my dream headphones, the AKG 702. Immediately loved the sound, it was more than I was hoping for. The only niggle I had was that the bass weight was really low. So I went to Rock Grottos website and found tones for breaking in. Downloaded it, put it in my cowon and left it playing for about 2 days. I dont believe in breakin specific music but still after that amount of time I believe I have reached the initial stage of breaking in. I can hear bass again and it is the perfect amount. These headphones have a notoriously long break in period at 300 hours so I am hoping for more change. After about 100 hours now, the treble has settled down, bass is noticeably better and I am hearing things I havent heard with other headphones before.
-
Direct messages between forum members have now been disabled. - Get all the details here.
AKG 702 break in
- Thread starter shafesk
- Start date
So the whole point of this post is to discuss the concept of break in-have you experienced it yourself? Do you think burn in is more important than break in?
idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,164
- 137
- 19,370
Whether you call in break or burn in, testing on woofers has found that they do change with use, but if they are left to rest, sometimes that can take days, they return to their original state. So burn in is not permanent. I think that even though similar testing has not been carried out on the smaller speakers in headphones that they too will exhibit the same behavouir.
How audible burn is is another matter. One test found that there was as much difference between new headphones as there was between a new and burned in one. Even then the difference was described as minimal.
I think that burn in is more in the head than the headphone as you get used to the different sound of headphones. I think that with the AKG K70x it takes time to get used to the bass detail as opposed to bass depth, which is what is missing.
How audible burn is is another matter. One test found that there was as much difference between new headphones as there was between a new and burned in one. Even then the difference was described as minimal.
I think that burn in is more in the head than the headphone as you get used to the different sound of headphones. I think that with the AKG K70x it takes time to get used to the bass detail as opposed to bass depth, which is what is missing.
I think break in affects different products differently. For my AKG's I must admit, it is a slight improvement. I have a pair of Bose Around Ears and breaking them in led to a huge improvement. As for burn in, it was substantial with my ca 340a but not as much with my yamaha av amp.
shafesk:So the whole point of this post is to discuss the concept of break in-have you experienced it yourself? Do you think burn in is more important than break in?
There's a difference? Please define these two terms as you understand them. For most people they refer to the same thing...
And, I'd be glad to give my opinion. I believe burn in and break in to both be figments of our imagination. I can't tell you how many times I've read posts or even major reviews that describe the sound changing from very bad to excellent after "burn-in". It's pretty ridiculous. How would it be possible for a speaker designer and or electronics designer to factor in "burn in"? If burn in does exist, then equipment designers would be totally at the mercy of the unknown burn-in changes that might occur. But the main reason I don't believe in burn-in is that it violates common sense as follows. If burn-in was real, then it would truly change the sound of equipment. And if that occurred for real, some people would report that the sound got worse after burn-in. Yet that never happens. Years of reading posts and reviews and 100% of the time, the burn-in believers report improvements. How could that be possible? If the sound changes, it's certainly possible for it to change for the worse, no? But, that never happens. Therefore, it's imaginary. But I'm not knocking it. I like imaginary things too. Who doesn't.
There's a difference? Please define these two terms as you understand them. For most people they refer to the same thing...
And, I'd be glad to give my opinion. I believe burn in and break in to both be figments of our imagination. I can't tell you how many times I've read posts or even major reviews that describe the sound changing from very bad to excellent after "burn-in". It's pretty ridiculous. How would it be possible for a speaker designer and or electronics designer to factor in "burn in"? If burn in does exist, then equipment designers would be totally at the mercy of the unknown burn-in changes that might occur. But the main reason I don't believe in burn-in is that it violates common sense as follows. If burn-in was real, then it would truly change the sound of equipment. And if that occurred for real, some people would report that the sound got worse after burn-in. Yet that never happens. Years of reading posts and reviews and 100% of the time, the burn-in believers report improvements. How could that be possible? If the sound changes, it's certainly possible for it to change for the worse, no? But, that never happens. Therefore, it's imaginary. But I'm not knocking it. I like imaginary things too. Who doesn't.
Well having read in various places that the K's need a good 1000 hours (6-weeks round -the- clock) of "burn in", this was AKG's response to my "concerns":
Dear Malc, Thank you for contacting AKG.
Congratulations on your new
AKG headphones.
From our experience and
knowledge we cannot confirm
that there is a burn in effect of the transducers taking
place.
Normally the sound of
headphones changes only over
many years and then
mainly caused by the ear pads (less low end since the ear pads
get more
densely by sweat etc.).
However, during the first hours
of use of headphones, the ear
pads - in the beginning a little stiff - start to
accommodate to the users ears
and head
and the sealing becomes better,
as a result the bass can be
increased a little, on the other hand the
distance between the
headphones and the ear
may become closer, i.e. fewer
air volume between ears and
headphones is available and thus less bass. Kind regards Horst Burghauser
AKG intl. hotline hotline@akg.com
If they sound better than they do out-of-the-box in a few months then great, if not , so what? They sound fantastic already, and that's BEFORE I get a new source and amp.
Dear Malc, Thank you for contacting AKG.
Congratulations on your new
AKG headphones.
From our experience and
knowledge we cannot confirm
that there is a burn in effect of the transducers taking
place.
Normally the sound of
headphones changes only over
many years and then
mainly caused by the ear pads (less low end since the ear pads
get more
densely by sweat etc.).
However, during the first hours
of use of headphones, the ear
pads - in the beginning a little stiff - start to
accommodate to the users ears
and head
and the sealing becomes better,
as a result the bass can be
increased a little, on the other hand the
distance between the
headphones and the ear
may become closer, i.e. fewer
air volume between ears and
headphones is available and thus less bass. Kind regards Horst Burghauser
AKG intl. hotline hotline@akg.com
If they sound better than they do out-of-the-box in a few months then great, if not , so what? They sound fantastic already, and that's BEFORE I get a new source and amp.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram