break-in--bane or boon ??

When I've heard a change due to break in, not swapping, it wasn't subtle and it wasn't huge. This was not black and white, big or small, dramatic or ordinary.

My system can easily discern a cable change, a CD mat insertion, a change of footers, IC or SP or PC swap, a tube swap (when I used tubes). Some of those changes were big, some small, but they all had one thing in common. One area in particular stood out at first, only to reveal more once the initial impact wore off.

It took different manner of music to bring out the more subtle improvements as one type of music, let alone one song, or one part played over and over, can, in no way, help to ascertain the benefits. Obviously, one song or a part of it, can not convey the magnitude of improvement since that particular piece only covers a mere, few facets of the overall performance that can manifest itself on ones system. It will hit big time at first, then slowly reveal more of itself over time and with different music.

The changes I've heard during break in usually take me by surprise. I'm not expecting it, it just happens. My brain is in its usual auto mode when I hear the difference. It's when I'm listening for listenings sake. Nothing scientific here. This is with recordings I'm very familiar with. It's like I'm being tapped on the shoulder (ear). Subtle, yes, but noticeable.

That's when I focus my attention. That's when I break out other familiar recordings to see what else parallels what I'm hearing, or compliments with other areas of improvement. This is usually followed by one or two more levels of improvement, over time, and then no more.

It's something I've come to expect but not anticipate. One allows the natural event, the other forces an outcome that can delude. I think that is why double blind tests aren't valid due to the very nature of their being: they force anticipation, instead of allowing something natural, which can seriously skewer a test subjects ability to judge. With their sanity, prestige, and reputation on line, all manner of perception can be tainted.

The same can be said for the well intentioned performing their own DB tests. Being of same mind, or at the very least, friendly and of a peer, they can negatively affect the results due to the very nature of their clique.

All the best,
Nonoise

"Mapman - Is it just me or did you just completely misconstrue Ivan's
comments to fit your "placebo effect explains it all away"
agenda. :-)"

Read what I said. I did not say any single thing explains anything away. I said that there can be many factors including an individuals variable perceptions, which is one often overlooked.

Geof, I am not a vendor. You are. I have no vested interest in influencing people one way or another. Most vendors do and I would not exclude you.

Recently read this as it applies to speaker drivers.

http://www.gr-research.com/myths.htm

Seems to make sense for moving parts. Certainly heard dramatic effects after just transporting speakers and letting them settle for just an hour.

Can't confirm anything but also read several claims that some capacitors can take 100 hours to "burn in" while others may take just a few minutes.

Mapman wrote,

""Mapman - Is it just me or did you just completely misconstrue Ivan's
comments to fit your "placebo effect explains it all away" comment?"" (Geoff's comment)

"Read what I said. I did not say any single thing explains anything away. I said that there can be many factors including an individuals variable perceptions, which is one often overlooked."

Geez, sorry, I must have been reacting to your snake oil industry comment. :-)

"geoff, I am not a vendor. You are. I have no vested interest in influencing people one way or another. Most vendors do and I would not exclude you."

I suspect everyone here on this forum wishes to influence people, why else would we take part in these discussions, and sometimes argue so strenuously? So, of course you have a vested interest in influencing people. And that is why you post so frequently on controversial topics, one assumes.

09-06-12: Nonoise
The changes I've heard during break in usually take me by surprise. I'm not expecting it, it just happens. My brain is in its usual auto mode when I hear the difference. It's when I'm listening for listenings sake. Nothing scientific here. This is with recordings I'm very familiar with. It's like I'm being tapped on the shoulder (ear). Subtle, yes, but noticeable.

That's when I focus my attention. That's when I break out other familiar recordings to see what else parallels what I'm hearing, or compliments with other areas of improvement. This is usually followed by one or two more levels of improvement, over time, and then no more.

It's something I've come to expect but not anticipate.

But how do you know that you are not, on a significant fraction of those occasions, attributing the change to the wrong variable? And that the change is not actually due to one of the several different kinds of extraneous variables I listed in my earlier post in this thread, or to tube aging, or to the kinds of variables you and others have been discussing in this thread, such as changes in humidity, differences in the power levels of AM radio transmissions during the day vs. the evening, changes in power quality, etc.

Not to mention, as indicated by me and others above, some degree of change in the breakin status of transducers that can occur and re-occur periodically, depending on how frequently they are used and also perhaps on what they are used to play.

And doesn't it also stand to reason that once your attention has focused on a perceived change, and you then "break out other familiar recordings to see what else parallels what I'm hearing, or compliments with other areas of improvement," that in doing so there is an increased likelihood that you will perceive things that may have been present in those recordings all along, but you were not previously as conscious of?

I'm certainly not saying that ALL perceptions of breakin-related changes of cables or electronic components are being attributed to the wrong thing. But my point is that without a methodology that includes the kind of disciplined comparison Doug has described, it is all too easy for that to happen. Ultimately resulting in belief systems evolving that are self-reinforcing as well as misleading.

Best regards,
-- Al