Okay, I have one right now:
TW: talk about burn-in (reader discretion is advised)
So I’m lurking in the Head-Fi watercooler because dudes talking about $4000 IEMs like they’re as accessible as $100 sets is weirdly fascinating. Someone was talking about the Campfire Trifecta and was like “it’s a 3DD, you need 150 hours of burn-in to get the sound where it’s supposed to be, and there are people selling it after their first listen. That’s weird.”
What I think is weird is a company selling a $3400 IEM that isn’t ready in it’s “best, as intended” state upon box opening. Nobody has said if CFA encourages or suggests this burn-in period (companies like Dunu do), and if they haven’t done so and it’s just what enthusiasts suggest, I’d drop this point dead.
But if CFA recommends 150 hours of burn-in (that’s a week, for the people not doing math), why are we accepting a TOTL $3400 IEM can be shipped to customers and it’s not ready to be listened to “as intended” until you run it for a week. Someone argued that it must be too much to manage logistically because they had a run of 333 units, and to burn those units in for a week, they’d have to charge more to figure out how to do it.
Yeah, and? It’s a $3400 IEM. If you charged $3800 with burn-in assumed and baked into the price, was anybody who bought it new for $3400 going to honestly not buy it at $3800 now?
Much like with Dunu selling 300 SA6 Ultras but only having 100 production models completed when they launched, this kind of half-assery bothers the hell out of me.
Or am I just crazy and unreasonable?