Does a new cd transport require break-in time?

What exactly is happening during this "burn in" time with cables, amps etc etc? And no, this isn't a "bait" question, I'm really wondering.

I'll preface this by stating I'm certainly no expert regarding answering burn in questions, however, to my understanding it applies most to capacitors, so that they "form" correctly (or optimally). In the case of my speakers (Golden Ear T Ref), Sandy uses the term "heal" in the case of the crossovers, which include caps. Personally, I'm not a big believer in burn in of any kind when it comes to cables. 

Burn in is just one of these myths. For speakers a few hours may be all that is needed, but speakers are mechanical components. In the case of electronics there is no theory that could explain why they would need break in.
If you want to test the hypothesis, comparing a product over the course of many hours is an invalid methodology, of course, because given humans’ short audio memory you cannot do a direct comparison over time, and time travel is yet to be invented. So what you would need to do is a double blind level matched comparison between a used item and one that is still in virgin state. Guess what?
In the case of a disc transport, it is my considered view that there are no sonic differences between them anyway. Their output is bitperfect and bitperfect is bitperfect. Anyone who wants to argue that they do have a sonic difference should show that bit by bit the files are actually not the same.
And that, of course, is the beauty of the digital revolution. Bits are bits, and that is good news, because the numbers in our bank accounts do not suddenly change because the bank uses a new hard drive that still has to be burned in.

willemj

... comparing a product over the course of many hours is an invalid methodology, of course, because given humans’ short audio memory you cannot do a direct comparison over time, and time travel is yet to be invented. So what you would need to do is a double blind level matched comparison ...

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. You can't logically on the one hand insist on a double blind level matched evaluation, and then deny a listener the opportunity to listen at his leisure. Either your testing methodology is capable of producing a valid result independent of listener bias and other testing errors, or it isn't. Your position sounds like you have no faith in the testing protocol you so tirelessly promote here. Perhaps you should search for a test in which you can place more confidence.

Huh??

Oh, no, not again! The dreaded Double Blind Test raises its ugly head! 👹 The threat of double blind testing has done a great deal of harm to the hobby by preventing progress and suppressing innovation and creativity. Double Blind Testing is the favorite weapon of died in the wool pseudo skeptics and knuckle dragging naysayers, as if they automatically win any argument by declaring, "But it can’t pass a double blind test!" Ironically, the knuckledraggers never actually do double blind testing themselves. That’s for someone else to do. In fact the naysayers don't even know how to conduct a proper double blind test.