Break in period

could you tell us what you mean by 'quality of components'

Obviously there are many things that define quality and this may differ from person to person as to what they are looking for (THD+N, TIM, Channel Separation, power, headroom, etc.). I simply included reliability and consistency of response over time as a factor that I regard as one of the important qualities in an audio component. A tube that changes response over a short time of a few hundred hours and ultimately dies shortly after that, is not the kind of quality I would be satisfied with. Others may be happy to put up with these issues and lack of consistency in sound in order to benefit from the fantastic sound of a particular finicky tube. Their definition of high quality differs from mine that's all (weighted to what they perceive as the "best sounding tube")

The list of components that do not audibly drift in a dramatic way with time is far too long for me to mention. Of course, components do age and they do fail but often they last a good many years. A small drift in power supplies as equipment ages is also well known (which is why components are generally designed to operate accurately within a tolerance range).

Thank you Shadorne, I understand of course that superstable high end devices whose sound is largely optimized out of the box are likely in the hundreds, or perhaps even in the thousands, and that this is not the place and time for an exhaustive list. Unfortunately, I have not had the luck of finding even one of these marvels yet in my admittedly limited experience. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us with just 5 or 10 of the most well known and respected examples.

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us with just 5 or 10 of the most well known and respected examples.

If I gave you well known names from respected engineering and manufacturering bands like Sony, Denon, Pioneer, and Yamaha would this help? Since it is not that difficult to design stable and reliable audio electronics these days then there is really no "enlightenment" to be had.

Thank you Shadorne for the enlightenment. I am a little surprised about your findings. Yet Admittedly, I have not had in depth experience with the mainstream commercial audio brands over the last couple of decades, But I recall that just a few years ago, even the perfectly respectable stereo in my Toyota van took perhaps 200 hours to sweeten up. Regardless, now I keep track of changing behavior of any new piece of audio gear through a spreadsheet. Next time I have the opportunity of examining a device from a major electronic manufacturer, I will track any subjective changes--or lack there of--over time and may be able to form a more informed understanding of the matter.

03-11-07: Shadorne
If I gave you well known names from respected engineering and manufacturering bands like Sony, Denon, Pioneer, and Yamaha would this help? Since it is not that difficult to design stable and reliable audio electronics these days then there is really no "enlightenment" to be had.

Yamaha, Sony, Denon, Pioneer.....do these guys use the same quality parts as say ARC?
Do you exclude the possibility that, say, TRT capacitors used in Audio Research, actually do change sound during the break in period?
I had an ARC LS-15 preamplifier where new caps(TRT Dynamicaps) were installed and I noticed siginificant improvement in sound only after 75 hours. I listened to it for the first 3 or 4 hours, didn't like it at all, but made notes. Turned the amp off and ran a signal from the tuner through the preamp for the next 70+ hours without listening. At about 75 hours I listened again and the sound was totally different. Way better than the way the brand new caps sounded and much better than the original ones that were replaced(REL). So possibility of me getting used to the sound is out of the way. If it is not break in that helped, what is it then?