Can extreme volume damage headphones?

[lkiller123]

I have a seldom-new AKG K420 headphone. It is a very nice headphone, but I've done not much listening with it. So I decided to lend it to my dad for a day.

Right after that, my dad forgot to turn the volume down from 100%, and the headphone ran about half a minute. It was pretty loud, to an extent that I can hear it across the room.

Right away, I ran there and turned it down. I tried listening to the headphone with full volume after a while to see if it really does have the distorting, cracking sound on the drivers (to see if the headphone could handle it). None.

Did I just damaged a headphone's sound quality, or did I finish a month's worth of break-in in a minute?:shrug:

[SoulsCollective]

"burn-in" is a myth.

But no, you didn't damage it. Continued use at very high volumes will wear out components faster, but phones are pretty tough and you won't cause actual "damage" unless you feed them way too much juice - at which point you'll be getting crackling, buzzing, distortion, etc, so you'll know it.

[STEvil]

Burn-in is not a myth, it just depends on the construction of the driver.

Most headphones use ferrofluid to suspend the coil in the electromagnetic gap, or have no spider and the only part to undergo burn-in is the surround of the diaphram itself. To "burn-in" a part you need to make it move and this is usually most easily achieved using low frequency sounds, however there really is no point to burn-in for most parts as they will slacken up naturally with use. If a driver has a spider to keep the coil aligned in the magnetic gap then the spiders can also be loosened up over time. You can see this on older subwoofers with spider sag..

The only way to damage your headphones is by causing the driver diaphram to distort, rock (side to side movement), or bottom out from overexcursion in which case you will hear it if it has been damaged. If you use enough power to blow the coil (melt it basically) then you'll probably hear nothing.

[damha]

"burn-in" is a myth.

But no, you didn't damage it. Continued use at very high volumes will wear out components faster, but phones are pretty tough and you won't cause actual "damage" unless you feed them way too much juice - at which point you'll be getting crackling, buzzing, distortion, etc, so you'll know it.

If you check out head-fi.org and you read the AKG 701/702s reviews you will find almost every owner recommends burning them in. From their reports I am ready to believe it is a reality.


Burn-in is not a myth, it just depends on the construction of the driver.

Most headphones use ferrofluid to suspend the coil in the electromagnetic gap, or have no spider and the only part to undergo burn-in is the surround of the diaphram itself. To "burn-in" a part you need to make it move and this is usually most easily achieved using low frequency sounds, however there really is no point to burn-in for most parts as they will slacken up naturally with use. If a driver has a spider to keep the coil aligned in the magnetic gap then the spiders can also be loosened up over time. You can see this on older subwoofers with spider sag..

The only way to damage your headphones is by causing the driver diaphram to distort, rock (side to side movement), or bottom out from overexcursion in which case you will hear it if it has been damaged. If you use enough power to blow the coil (melt it basically) then you'll probably hear nothing.

I don't understand all the terms in this post, but I understand the final message: you know way too much about speakers.

[SoulsCollective]

Burn-in is not a myth, it just depends on the construction of the driver.
If you check out head-fi.org and you read the AKG 701/702s reviews you will find almost every owner recommends burning them in. From their reports I am ready to believe it is a reality.Oh, there's no doubt that over time and with continued use a headphone will mechanically change slightly. That's to be expected with anything with moving parts. The myth of "burn-in" is that the sound of a pair of headphones will improve appreciably over that time, which from various double-blind tests has been debunked, at least to my satisfaction.

Anyway, this is getting slightly OT in a thread about damage caused by high volume :p:

[MattiasNYC]

I tried listening to the headphone with full volume after a while to see if it really does have the distorting, cracking sound on the drivers (to see if the headphone could handle it). None.

Did I just damaged a headphone's sound quality,

Well, any analog device will introduce changes to the original signal, and we could call that "distortion". But for the sake of the argument, let's talk about "distortion" as if it's something along the lines of "clearly ugly", "cracking" sound that "breaks up" etc... Know what I mean?

So if this is the case, the only thing you need to worry about is if you actually hear that. If it sounds fine (to you), it is fine (to you). That's pretty much all there is to it.

I also question why you would listen to it at full level. If you never listen to headphones at full volume (sounds like a bad idea for your ears), then there's really no point in testing them at that volume.

So having said all that; yeah, it's absolutely possible to damage headphones by sending a really loud signal to them. As for if you did or not, who knows? But if they sound fine then don't worry - you are the ones enjoying them, not us!


or did I finish a month's worth of break-in in a minute?:shrug:

I don't think you can break them in in that short a time period. It takes a bit longer.

[MattiasNYC]

Oh, there's no doubt that over time and with continued use a headphone will mechanically change slightly. That's to be expected with anything with moving parts. The myth of "burn-in" is that the sound of a pair of headphones will improve appreciably over that time, which from various double-blind tests has been debunked, at least to my satisfaction.

I'd like to see those tests.

If we acknowledge that the sound changes over time then we acknowledge that there indeed is "burn-in".

The only question after that is if it sounds better, worse, or "the same", from a subjective standpoint.

My latest experience with burn in was with a pair of Sennheisers, that sounded real harsh to me. After about 8-12 hours of playing them it really felt like the mid-range mellowed out and they sounded significantly "better" to me.

But like I said, I'm willing to look at and participate in tests.....

[Donnie27]

I'd like to see those tests.

If we acknowledge that the sound changes over time then we acknowledge that there indeed is "burn-in".

The only question after that is if it sounds better, worse, or "the same", from a subjective standpoint.

My latest experience with burn in was with a pair of Sennheisers, that sounded real harsh to me. After about 8-12 hours of playing them it really felt like the mid-range mellowed out and they sounded significantly "better" to me.

But like I said, I'm willing to look at and participate in tests.....

From visiting Head-Fi many times, most will say Senns have less effects from burn in that many others.

Just me, I believe both the guys above have very valid points. I think the what folks experience is a mixture of both Driver Degradation or Psychological effects or your Ears adjusting to the Headphones themselves. Once Cans are broken in, they peak, then start dying LOL! That means they start to color sound as the get closer to death.

I talked to another Audiophile who swore his 3 year old Senn-570's new driver sounded I identical to the old one!

Here's one of many at Head-Fi!

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/218977/i-hope-burn-in-is-just-a-myth

A least there seem to be very level headed folks there and fewer Audiophools than places like the AVS and other forums.:up:

[MattiasNYC]

From visiting Head-Fi many times, most will say Senns have less effects from burn in that many others.

Could very well be. All I know is that they were borderline "shrill" at first and sounded better after playing them for some time.


Just me, I believe both the guys above have very valid points. I think the what folks experience is a mixture of both Driver Degradation or Psychological effects or your Ears adjusting to the Headphones themselves. Once Cans are broken in, they peak, then start dying LOL! That means they start to color sound as the get closer to death.

Well sure people have a hard time being objective about this. Even coming up with a testing methodology that makes sense can be difficult.

Just so you know, I am an audio engineer by day and I deal with these sorts of things regularly. I'm usually quite level-headed when it comes to these sorts of things. I even set up a double blind test between a hardware Neve 33609 compressor and the Universal Audio UAD software emulation. Nobody could tell the difference!

In addition, when I got them I never thought about burn-in at all. It wasn't a concern of mine. I expected that I'd have to go exchange them. But after about a week they sounded better, so....

As to older drivers "coloring" the sound; they all do. It's just to different degrees I'd say. It's hard to find a headphone under a certain price that has a reasonably uncolored sound.

[Donnie27]

Could very well be. All I know is that they were borderline "shrill" at first and sounded better after playing them for some time.

Well sure people have a hard time being objective about this. Even coming up with a testing methodology that makes sense can be difficult.

Just so you know, I am an audio engineer by day and I deal with these sorts of things regularly. I'm usually quite level-headed when it comes to these sorts of things. I even set up a double blind test between a hardware Neve 33609 compressor and the Universal Audio UAD software emulation. Nobody could tell the difference!

In addition, when I got them I never thought about burn-in at all. It wasn't a concern of mine. I expected that I'd have to go exchange them. But after about a week they sounded better, so....

As to older drivers "coloring" the sound; they all do. It's just to different degrees I'd say. It's hard to find a headphone under a certain price that has a reasonably uncolored sound.

QFT! In a way, headphones are no different than a Car. It needs to be broken in correctly to extend the life of the Car. That doesn't mean it will get faster but that it will Operate better for a longer period of time. Also once that optimal performance time has past it starts to degrade. I loved what the one guy said at Head-Fi that's too often overlooked. When he talked about good R&D and engineering going into manufacturing to account for Break-in or long term performance of the Cans. It was his reply to the guy about how he loved his out the Box.

I compared my DT770 Pro 80's to a Brand new set of the same. None of the 3 of us testing them heard any difference. The was a difference with the AKG 701's that we took to the Guitar Center. Maybe our hearing is shot:confused:

I saw some guys at Head-Fi jump another guy as he gave the Phillips HP890 a good review. I've yet to hear any cans costing less than $400 come close to them for Game sound effects like Elevation and Distance. The driver is NOT slow as some have said. It does the 128 voice effect from Battle Field games better than the Denon AHD2000's. AHD 2000 sounds better for music=P

It's too bad that after 20 mins they seem like they weigh 25 lbs LOL! Since they're 32ohm they don't need any kind of AMP. They are a thing of beauty connected to my old Harmon Kardon 730. Since it is 32ohm, I have to enable filters.

http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/s/sbchp890/sbchp890_pss_eng.pdf

[STEvil]

elevation.. and distance....?

[Donnie27]

elevation.. and distance....?

Both are sound effects in Games. Like I said, one guest said, "How do you conceal your ceiling speakers? I told her and then one other guy, I didn't have any. Those Philips SBC HP890's cans pull of that same feat as my speakers. Even more impressive is that the first Half Life 2 used it's own sound engine and CMSS 3D worked perfectly with it for these cans as well.

As the link to the Holophonic demos showed, the source is equally as important as the cans for sound effects and in some cases for Music as well.

[STEvil]

Elevation and distance are not effects, they are part of the sound engine. Each engine handles the geometric/vectored audio constraints differently and the codec driving the audio to your analog diaphrams has the last say in the chain of command (aside from channel separation) on how the audio signal will be formed.

The best audio signals will be rendered in-game as if using binaural recording which need almost no external processing...

[MattiasNYC]

semantics....

[STEvil]

semantics....

Reverb is an effect.

An effect is something you add to an already existing sound to make it sound different on purpose.

[MattiasNYC]

Reverb is an effect.

An effect is something you add to an already existing sound to make it sound different on purpose.

I know reverb is an effect, and I know what the purpose of effects are. I've been working professionally as an audio engineer for over a decade, so at least I hope I'd know.

It just seemed as if his point was that things like elevation sounds fantastic on some headphones and not others - regardless of what you choose to call it. I.e, in relation to the point he's making it seems as pointless arguing over semantics. That's all....


But if it IS important, I'd say that there are two ways of looking at this, semantically:

1) What the industry in question calls it and defines it as:

in other words, the video game industry may very well not define the concept of and process of attaining "elevation" and "distance" effects.....

2) what others call it and define it as:

well, in my community of audio engineers the process leading to the sensation of elevation and/or distance is indeed using effects, such as reverb and EQ.

By adding reverb in conjunction with EQ you'll make the sound appear as if it is coming from a greater distance, i.e the process uses effects to achieve its goals.

So, to sum up; the video game industry professionals may indeed call their process of adding distance and/or elevation a non-effect and instead call it "part of the sound engine", but that very "sound engine" will most certainly 'add something to the existing sound on purpose to make it sound different' (i.e changing the impression of distance/elevation) which then makes it sound like it should be called an "effect" according to your definition, and mine.

Their definition, if this is the case, is debatable at best.

[STEvil]

The initial sound is calculated (with a good engine and API) as a distance. Reverb is added according to room harmonics and (if the game maker is intelligent enough) atmospheric data.. fog, clear, etc.

Adding effects to a non-calculated sound is just lazy... probably why most stuff uses EAX.

[MattiasNYC]

Honestly, I think you neither understood what I wrote, nor what you propose for that matter.

But no matter. It's besides the point of the thread anyways.

[STEvil]

If you're a sound engineer and dont understand what i've said then no wonder we have low quality audio in games these days.. :(

[MattiasNYC]

Fine; explain this line of yours: "Reverb is added according to room harmonics"

Explain what reverb is
Explain what harmonics are
Explain what room harmonics are

[STEvil]

reverb: echo, reflection.

harmonics: complementary frequencies (40hz, 80hz, 120hz...)

room harmonics: I should have said acoustics, but the implied meaning was still the same given the modifiers of atmospheric input.

[slim142]

STEvil man, all theseterms...

And I thought I was "cool" by knowing a sound wave becomes a shock wave at 190db

[MattiasNYC]

reverb: echo, reflection.

harmonics: complementary frequencies (40hz, 80hz, 120hz...)

room harmonics: I should have said acoustics, but the implied meaning was still the same given the modifiers of atmospheric input.

Right. So "Reverb is added according to room harmonics" doesn't really make much sense; I'm sure you agree.

Seems to me that this is a problem of clarity and semantics.

When you say "calculate the sound" it appears (now) as if you're talking about the game engine determining where in (virtual) space the sound originates. And then, based on that, it places the sound at that location. But the process of fooling our ears into thinking a sound comes from further away involves using effects - not "effects" as in "explosions", but "effects" as in "EQ" and yes, "Reverb".

So I'm back to what I said initially: The game industry may use different terms than the rest of the professional audio industry, but that doesn't make the terms either universal, accurate or intuitive.

And still, and most importantly, it doesn't matter in the context and spirit in which Donnie wrote his comment. He's absolutely right that playback systems are not equally good at representing a sounds "location". You can call the process leading to that information being sent to the headphones "effects" or "game engine calculations" or whatever, it doesn't matter. His point stands.

Once again, semantics.

[STEvil]

I didnt disagree with that point (playback systems), my point was that elevation and distance are mathematic functions applied long before any effect touches the sound being generated.

If a gunshot happens 200 feet away the sound will be quieter than if it happened right next to your ear. Effects are not added until the path of the sound is done (actually many game engines and sound API's dont do this part very well).

[dctokyo]

Burn-in is not a myth, it just depends on the construction of the driver. :up:

[MattiasNYC]

I didnt disagree with that point (playback systems), my point was that elevation and distance are mathematic functions applied long before any effect touches the sound being generated.

"mathematic functions applied" = effects.

That's my point. For any non-game-audio professional audio engineer that is true. That's why I keep saying it's semantics. I work in post production mainly, of which game-audio would certainly be a subset. However, I have yet to meet any audio-engineer working in the production of sound for cinema, broadcast (TV), advertising (both of the previous + internet) etc NOT agreeing on that definition of what an effect essentially is......


If a gunshot happens 200 feet away the sound will be quieter than if it happened right next to your ear. Effects are not added until the path of the sound is done (actually many game engines and sound API's dont do this part very well).

What is "the path of the sound", and what "effects" would be added after that "path" is done?

[STEvil]

"mathematic functions applied" = effects.

That's my point. For any non-game-audio professional audio engineer that is true. That's why I keep saying it's semantics. I work in post production mainly, of which game-audio would certainly be a subset. However, I have yet to meet any audio-engineer working in the production of sound for cinema, broadcast (TV), advertising (both of the previous + internet) etc NOT agreeing on that definition of what an effect essentially is......


Maybe I just think it is too simplistic of a calculation or too little modification of the sound (only making it quieter because its farther away)? :shrug:



What is "the path of the sound", and what "effects" would be added after that "path" is done?

Maybe the sound happened around several corners from the listening position, originated in a dead-end alley, there is a 12 foot tall wood fence next to the listening position, and there is extremely heavy fog.

[MattiasNYC]

Maybe I just think it is too simplistic of a calculation or too little modification of the sound (only making it quieter because its farther away)? :shrug:

No, you're actually quite right in what you say. I must have both misunderstood your point and expressed myself poorly.

Simply lowering the level of a sound wouldn't be considered an "effect". You're right about that. In the context in which you wrote it however, it read to me as if you were saying there were other things involved in that process. If you were talking about only level, meaning amplitude, or "loudness" ("subjective") then yes, you're right; not an effect and a very simple calculation.

So I shouldn't have written that " 'mathematic functions applied' = effects", since what I was referring to excludes the extremely simple ones. Sorry about that poor wording.


Maybe the sound happened around several corners from the listening position, originated in a dead-end alley, there is a 12 foot tall wood fence next to the listening position, and there is extremely heavy fog.

Well here's where I think things get "muddy". If we take that example, then to make that sound far away, I'd guess the sound would be lowered in level, get EQ applied to it, and then sent to a reverb. The balance between the reverb and the pre-reverb sound would be adjusted according to "distance" desired. And if there are hard surfaces (brick walls) or ones very close (the fence next to the listener) delays (independent of reverb) might be added.

Whether or not all of that is done by the audio engineer during recording or done in real-time by the games audio engine I have no idea. I'd think that it's the latter, by now at least.

Anyways, it doesn't really make sense (in my opinion) to separate the process of lowering the level from that of adding all the other stuff as far as this topic goes, as they all contribute to the same sensation. Know what I mean?.....

(PS. I hope I didn't come off as an a$$..... didn't mean to sound rude if I did....)

[Donnie27]

Right. So "Reverb is added according to room harmonics" doesn't really make much sense; I'm sure you agree.

Seems to me that this is a problem of clarity and semantics.

When you say "calculate the sound" it appears (now) as if you're talking about the game engine determining where in (virtual) space the sound originates. And then, based on that, it places the sound at that location. But the process of fooling our ears into thinking a sound comes from further away involves using effects - not "effects" as in "explosions", but "effects" as in "EQ" and yes, "Reverb".

So I'm back to what I said initially: The game industry may use different terms than the rest of the professional audio industry, but that doesn't make the terms either universal, accurate or intuitive.

And still, and most importantly, it doesn't matter in the context and spirit in which Donnie wrote his comment. He's absolutely right that playback systems are not equally good at representing a sounds "location". You can call the process leading to that information being sent to the headphones "effects" or "game engine calculations" or whatever, it doesn't matter. His point stands.

Once again, semantics.

Absolutely! Thank you!


Elevation and distance are not effects, they are part of the sound engine. Each engine handles the geometric/vectored audio constraints differently and the codec driving the audio to your analog diaphrams has the last say in the chain of command (aside from channel separation) on how the audio signal will be formed.

I just sat back read the replies before stepping back in. I agree with MattiasNYC, semantics....!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HRTF


The best audio signals will be rendered in-game as if using binaural recording which need almost no external processing...

Yeah but you need the hardware to do that with! Software crap can't do it without latency and etc.....

[STEvil]

No, you're actually quite right in what you say. I must have both misunderstood your point and expressed myself poorly.

Simply lowering the level of a sound wouldn't be considered an "effect". You're right about that. In the context in which you wrote it however, it read to me as if you were saying there were other things involved in that process. If you were talking about only level, meaning amplitude, or "loudness" ("subjective") then yes, you're right; not an effect and a very simple calculation.

So I shouldn't have written that " 'mathematic functions applied' = effects", since what I was referring to excludes the extremely simple ones. Sorry about that poor wording.



Well here's where I think things get "muddy". If we take that example, then to make that sound far away, I'd guess the sound would be lowered in level, get EQ applied to it, and then sent to a reverb. The balance between the reverb and the pre-reverb sound would be adjusted according to "distance" desired. And if there are hard surfaces (brick walls) or ones very close (the fence next to the listener) delays (independent of reverb) might be added.

Whether or not all of that is done by the audio engineer during recording or done in real-time by the games audio engine I have no idea. I'd think that it's the latter, by now at least.

Anyways, it doesn't really make sense (in my opinion) to separate the process of lowering the level from that of adding all the other stuff as far as this topic goes, as they all contribute to the same sensation. Know what I mean?.....

(PS. I hope I didn't come off as an a$$..... didn't mean to sound rude if I did....)

Nah, you're fine.

Different engines do it different ways.. a great example is Aureal A3D which was one of the best on the market.. now its basically gone and we have to put up with EAX which can sometimes allow you to hear gunshots from the other side of a map... Of course there are the game sound engines before that though, but many of them take the shortcut of using an external engine like EAX. The ones that dont can vary quite a bit as well. Honestly its a mess :(

Donnie - Read the reply before yours.

[Donnie27]

Nah, you're fine.

Different engines do it different ways.. a great example is Aureal A3D which was one of the best on the market.. now its basically gone and we have to put up with EAX which can sometimes allow you to hear gunshots from the other side of a map... Of course there are the game sound engines before that though, but many of them take the shortcut of using an external engine like EAX. The ones that dont can vary quite a bit as well. Honestly its a mess :(

Donnie - Read the reply before yours.

Thanks!

As an A3D fan and still own two of the 2500 cards I can tell you that A3D's best, or the never 3500 launched, isn't gone anywhere=P Creative has been and is using the hell out of it. Not only EAX that adds to what's already there but OpenAL + EAX, CMSS3D and everything beyond simple reverbs is rooted in A3D's tech! It was said that pure A3D was hard to code for so I do see your point about short cuts.

Example? One gun shot in Halflife 2's home made engine is made up of 8 separate sounds made simultaneously. These are then manipulated to make a shot sound close, far away, up, down, standing, kneeling, inside, outside and everything else! Distance has little to do with Volume. The sound is delayed, panned, occluded and other little nice tricks.

""Those Philips SBC HP890's cans pull of that same feat as my speakers.""

Some cans, you can barely tell or hear elevation cues, others you can hear them loud and clear. I can't game with any headphones without CMSS3D, thanks Aureal:up:

[amd4me]

"burn-in" is a myth.


No it is not, depending on the construction/composition of the driver you are using break in can range from 0 to hundreds of hours. Wood coned woofers require copious amounts of tuning and it can really only be done effectively after break in.

[AmiJIm]

I know for sure that extreme volume can destroy the speakers from hifi and car field,even high class cross overs are present.There fore i suspect high volume could have damaged the membrane of the speaker to some degree.