Why no “Break in” period?

None of us are saying that you should not evaluate equipment through as many measures as you can reasonably apply. The problem for back seat audiophiles like geoffkait is that there are mountains of absurd junk and snake oil out there that they want to believe will make a miraculous improvement in the sound quality of their systems. More so than buying the newest Boulder amplifier which they can't possibly afford. Neither can I for than matter.  Prof, atdavid and I are just not delusional enough. I do keep my ARC phono amp on all the time because I do think it sounds better warmed up and I can afford the tubes. In reality I just hate waiting for it to warm up:) Oh and geoffkait, I would look for another profession. You might try being a psychologist. They are excellent at being wrong.

Andy, quite correct. At this point I have to be seriously warmed up. The nice thing about old guys is that once we are warmed up we last a lot longer.....as long as we save the sip of wine for after:)))

This is all coming down to being a great case of helicopter parenting amped up by a surfeit of hubris. 

Ya'll need to come down a few rungs on that ladder of abstraction to relatable and personal levels, like in the old days.

I'd hate to go have a meal with some of you as you'd ruin the experience. 😄

All the best,
Nonoise

Electronics do not have a break in period. You are only accommodating to the sound of your system.

This is also my thoughts.

For those that believe there is a break in period of electronics, please explain:

1. What is actually happening electronically that causes the equipment to sound better?

2. Why does the breakin process ALWAYS result in improved sound quality? Why is it not possible for whatever the breakin process is, to result in a less good (when compared to brand new) sounding piece of equipment at the end of its breakin process?

3. What prevents whatever the breakin process is, to stop when the equipment sounds better? Why doesn't it continue to breakin for its entire life and continue to improve?

SO; the bottom line of all this discussion(according to some) would be, "It’s a waste of time, trying to upgrade your system/listening pleasure, by actually auditioning(LISTENING), since YOU’RE too inept to tell if there’s an improvement in sound, without a degreed Scientist present, to PROPERLY conduct experiments on your proposed purchase and determine(for you) if it’s POSSIBLE for that component/tweak, to positively affect what you might hear."                                                                                       Right?

Wrong.

The problem is you'll need to actually accept nuance, rather than black-and-white answers, in order to understand the point that keeps being made.

As I'd repeated: no one needs to do science in being an audiophile.  Practice it however you wish, whatever makes you happy.  Buy a new power conditioner and it seems your system sounds better?  Enjoy.

But the more a claim enters the realm of "controversial" (and by that I mean "controversial among experts who have relevant knowledge and expertise"), if you really care about truth and having intellectual humility, then you would simply admit that, though personal experience seems to validate a positive claim, it isn't the type of data that would settle the matter, due to all the issues already pointed out.  If you say "I heard a difference and I'm good with that"...fine.  But when people leap to objective claims "therefore my experience has verified the claim and anyone who doesn't hear what I hear is at fault" then, that's going to get some pushback for the hubris it is.

As I've said: I have plenty of gear I haven't scientifically tested, and I have not advocated it's necessity for enjoying high end audio.