Why no “Break in” period?

+1 nonoise 

Prof,
"You MAY be hearing what you claim, but the method you are using to come to your conclusion or argue for it isn't as reliable as you seem to assume."

Me,
Again, how is this any different than what I previously posted:
"Just trying to teach us that we can't possibly be hearing what we are hearing"  

Prof,
C'mon, we can do nuance around here can't we"

Me,
Let's see if we can find nuance in your last post to mill:

"That a high end audio designer gave up providing objective or reliable methods for vetting his designs hardly supports your case. The Curl quote is just appealing to the same subjectivity as you are; it's assertion, not justification"

"Did you stop for a second to consider why the instruments were developed in the first place? Yeah...to measure things not only that our sense can detect, but that our senses can NOT detect - to go BEYOND the capabilities of our senses.   You do know that distortion profiles and various objective electrical phenomena can be measured that you with your Super Duper Golden Ears can't possibly hear, right?"

And finally...

"I've actually had more coherent conversations with flat-earthers, who at least try to offer objective evidence for their claims vs constant repetition of personal assertions" 

It's easier to "Find Waldo" than "Nuance" in your posts prof

boxer,

Why not try to understand an argument, rather than presume it is wrong and waste time misrepresenting it?
You've presented quotes AS IF they don't form part of a coherent stance, while not actually showing any effort to understand what you quoted.

My point has been that it makes sense that if a phenomenon is objectively real - that we are detecting something that is objectively changing a signal and that we can perceive this change - it makes sense to look both for measurable evidence of a change and evidence that measurable change is audible. At the very least, reliable evidence that *something audible* is happening to begin with.

But the problem for the way audiophiles tend to discern these things is "trust your ears." Which is to just ignore the facts we know about how our perception is NOT necessarily so trustworthy. We know that varios forms of perceptual bias can lead us to think we "hear" (or see, or whatever) things that aren’t actually happening. That’s one BIG REASON we have a scientific method to begin with! To try to route through these variables to more reliable results.

So if you say "X capacitor produces different sound from Y" capacitor, it makes sense to ask "how do you know?" Do you have measurements supporting this? Even so, are the measured differences in the realm you’d expect to hear, given the limits of our hearing? If you are simply claiming this on the basis "I believe I hear a difference" then there is the problem of sighted bias. How have you discerned between "I heard something objectively changing" and "I imagined it, due to biased perceptual errors?"

Those are exactly the questions science asks. Why in the world would you imagine audio to exist in some bubble where those questions are not relevant?

See, it doesn’t matter "who" you are when you are making the claim. What matters is the method.
No scientist establishes justification for a claim merely by saying "I’m a scientist, so you should just believe me." Or "I’m a Well Known Scientist, so you should believe me." No! That’s antithetical to science.Science recognizes that every human can be biased and in error, so ANY scientist proposing a hypothesis or claim needs to show his work, to show how he has weeded out the variables and how the work can be replicated by others.

So, back to Curl, it doesn’t matter a DAMN whether Curl is a well-known audio engineer. What matters for him is the same for any audiophile making a claim: What METHOD does he offer for vetting his claim that, say, capacitors "just sound different?" If he is taking no more steps to weed out sighted bias than the average audiophile, it’s just as dubious methodology as the average audiophile.

And...AGAIN...this is NOT AN ARGUMENT THAT CURL IS WRONG. Or that you or anyone else aren’t perceiving real things. It’s simply a lookat the TYPE OF EVIDENCE offered for the claims, and the liabilities of THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE.

It’s like saying "I know it’s sunny outside!" I say" well, you may be right! How do you know?" You answer "because I flipped a coin - heads it was going to be sunny, tails it was rainy. It came up heads, so it’s sunny!"
Well, it MAY WELL BE SUNNY OUTSIDE, but the method you’ve used to come to that conclusion has some problems we can talk about.

Similarly, if MAY WELL BE THAT CAPICITORS (or AC cables etc) sound different...but the type of evidence on offer has some problems we can talk about (particularly if it’s the "I think I hear it, so I know it’s true" form of anecdote).

Do you get this nuance...yet? Do you think you’d be able to actually depict my argument without strawmanning?

There is also this little part of the story that seems to be skimmed over.

In the end we invariably find a measurement that matches what the ear hears and it becomes very obvious to everybody.

So they don't  stop with well some think they hear something and some don't  they investigate what's  going  on.  

prof,
" Do you get this nuance...yet? Do you think you’d be able to actually depict my argument without strawmanning?"

Me,
Again, try to be honest with yourself. You believe that measurements trump personal experience & there is nothing that can be said to persuade you of this until science catches up to our hobby. As a consequence of this opinion, what you believe to be "nuance" doesn't exist.

I'm really not "strawmanning" you... it's just that on this footing (measurements trump personal experience & there is nothing that can be said to persuade you of this until science catches up to our hobby), your argument simply can not be argued.   

All items require a specific breakin period.i have been into audio 40+ years 
and owned a audio store for almost a decade dielectrics ,as well as new metals expand and contract untill threal ey temper or settle in ,even upgrading connectors from say a brass to a good copper detail and refinements improves over time,the crap thst your esr just gets used to it is BS li have done many a blind test .believe what you will ,I have the best instruments In the  world 
the ear to determine what is real and what is an illusion!!