[dougms3]

Please show the measured difference burn-in achieved from hour 1 vs hour 200, otherwise with nothing backing it, what hole do you think you're free from? No documents "supporting" burn-in, the actual measured change taken from those two points. Same with "technical capability". Unless you have rtings level tests done on the imaging, soundstage, etc, it's your opinion, not a fact or anything near concrete.

The Timeless needs correction too, but at least it isn't ear piercing (IMO) ootb like the Kirin. I never said it was "so good", and it's also dated. Why wouldn't people be selling it by now and trying new IEMs? It's my opinion. You don't like it? Too bad.

I probably wouldn't like the mk2, especially if it wasn't some sort of revelation and the equivalent of sound nirvana being a $1k IEM. This relates to the BAX and Kirin how? So you'd pay $1k for the Kirin since they beat your $1,200 Clears?

You want to really support that opinion? Send TRN what you believe the price should be based on it's "technical capability" as a thank you if you feel that way. Since you think it's worth ~$1k capability wise, I'm sure they'll be very happy with that. You would even be able to prove it with a receipt!

Lol, please show the measured difference that there is no burn in effect. Nothing to back that up with I suppose? No documents supporting no burn in effect? No actual measurements taken from those two points? Door swings both ways there buddy. Please point out which part of the graph indicates technical capability, soundstage, imaging, tonality, decay, texture, impact, dynamics, etc. I'm not as smart as you so apparently I can't see this measured detail in the graph like you can.

So let me see if I understand, you are EQ'ing iems to harman target, which is a reference made by a company who made it based on the opinions of non audiophiles for the general public, thats smart. Btw the Kirin isn't ear piercing to me, but then again, I took the time to burn it in.

The monarch mk2 is a very technical set of iems, perhaps you missed that analogy when I referenced them in regards to the kirin's technical capability, you know since you said it was hot garbage. And I didn't say the kirin is better than the clear, I said this, "in some aspects the kirin is more capable than my focal clears." If that means better to you, then I can't help you.

Huh?

 

[Surf Monkey]

Lol, please show the measured difference that there is no burn in effect. Nothing to back that up with I suppose? No documents supporting no burn in effect? No actual measurements taken from those two points? Door swings both ways there buddy. Please point out which part of the graph indicates technical capability, soundstage, imaging, tonality, decay, texture, impact, dynamics, etc. I'm not as smart as you so apparently I can't see this measured detail in the graph like you can.

So let me see if I understand, you are EQ'ing iems to harman target, which is a reference made by a company who made it based on the opinions of non audiophiles for the general public, thats smart. Btw the Kirin isn't ear piercing to me, but then again, I took the time to burn it in.

The monarch mk2 is a very technical set of iems, perhaps you missed that analogy when I referenced them in regards to the kirin's technical capability, you know since you said it was hot garbage. And I didn't say the kirin is better than the clear, I said this, "in some aspects the kirin is more capable than my focal clears." If that means better to you, then I can't help you.

Huh?

To be fair, as the one making an extraordinary claim that (in the lack of any quantifiable supporting evidence) burn-in is real and noticeable. Therefore it’s actually on you to provide some kind of supporting evidence, not for the other member to try and prove a negative (that burn-in isn’t real.) It’s impossible to prove a negative so your demand that they do so is a logical fallacy.

 

[dougms3]

To be fair, as the one making an extraordinary claim that (in the lack of any quantifiable supporting evidence) burn-in is real and noticeable. Therefore it’s actually on you to provide some kind of supporting evidence, not for the other member to try and prove a negative (that burn-in isn’t real.) It’s impossible to prove a negative so your demand that they do so is a logical fallacy.

An electronic device needs play time to burn in is an extraordinary claim?

 

[Surf Monkey]

An electronic device needs play time to burn in is an extraordinary claim?

Too vague to evaluate. Does an iPhone need burn in? I don’t think so…

 

[Redcarmoose]

It’s all individual experience. No one is right or wrong. This talk has gone on since the mid 1960s, never does it gets anywhere. Best to try and keep an open mind, as very few things are absolute. Except for Absolut Vodka, that’s absolut.....it’s Absolut. Unless it’s counterfeit, then it’s probably something cheep, or not even exactly vodka? So you see nothing is totally as it seems.

We grab hold of handholds on our journey easier, still all of us know very little.

 

[Carpet]

It’s all individual experience. No one is right or wrong. This talk has gone on since the mid 1960s, never does it gets anywhere. Best to try and keep an open mind, as very few things are absolute. Except for Absolut Vodka, that’s absolut.....it’s Absolut. Unless it’s counterfeit, then it’s probably something cheep, or not even exactly vodka? So you see nothing is totally as it seems.

We grab hold of handholds on our journey easier, still all of us know very little.

Any misrepresentations about Absolut vodka are still absolutely untrue!

 

[Carpet]

Too vague to evaluate. Does an iPhone need burn in? I don’t think so…

Does an iPhone need burnin', ABSOLUTELY!

 

[Surf Monkey]

Does an iPhone need burnin', ABSOLUTELY!

I know mine doesn’t really get email or browse web pages to it’s full potential until I’ve used it for at least a month.

 

[Carpet]

I know mine doesn’t really get email or browse web pages to it’s full potential until I’ve used it for at least a month.

I meant burnin' as in "burning", not "burn in". I'm more a Louis Rossmann and Steve Wozniak fan, than a Steve Jobs fan. Error 53 etc.

 

[Japz77]

Too much popcorn for today. Hoping for more impressions on the st5

 

[saldsald]

Too much popcorn for today. Hoping for more impressions on the st5

It's basically a MAX with less bass rumble but identical impact, more forward and higher resolution mids and treble, but also means a bit less depth due to the forwardness and less rumble. It's overall quite different but still similar.

 

[dougms3]

Too vague to evaluate. Does an iPhone need burn in? I don’t think so…

Any electronics need to burned in to work at their full potential, audio and video devices in particular, some more than others.

This on the product page of the audio-gd di20he.

Lol arent you the one who said this?

Until owning a few sets I wouldn’t have believed it but in the case of all of my planar IEMs (with the possible exception of the P1 Max), a long run-in period before they reached their potential was required.

Planar drivers in headphones are like that as well.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Any electronics need to burned in to work at their full potential, audio and video devices in particular, some more than others.

This on the product page of the audio-gd di20he.



Lol arent you the one who said this?

Planar drivers in headphones are like that as well.

You’re not a very linear and logical thinker, are you?

I’m not arguing burn-in one way or another. I’m just noting that your whole argument is founded on a fallacy. You should fix that.

 

[unifutomaki]

Wake me up when this thread isn’t a dumpster fire

 

[dougms3]

You’re not a very linear and logical thinker, are you?

I’m not arguing burn-in one way or another. I’m just noting that your whole argument is founded on a fallacy. You should fix that.

Lol your getting insulty for no reason.

What you said in this sentence is what is known as burn in. Perhaps you should Google logic, while you're at it look up fallacy as well.

Until owning a few sets I wouldn’t have believed it but in the case of all of my planar IEMs (with the possible exception of the P1 Max), a long run-in period before they reached their potential was required.

I can't prove my point, they can't prove theirs. No point in really arguing. I'm just sharing my experience and where I'm referencing this from.

Your opinion is that I'm making an extraordinary claim, i can say the same for you, you're entitled to your opinion just like I'm entitled to mine, to state that i have to prove something based on your opinion is moronic.

Again door swings both ways.