Equipment Break-in: Fact or Fiction

Mrd, thanks for your honest and incredible story. Naim should back their stuff up and give the gut a full refund. Yes, every lab should be fair in what they sell. Why? For all their GIGANTIC HYPE, they and the "hi-fi" mags print out. Of course a 25% return fee is reasonable. ...Where's Bwhite when our camp needs him most. We could use some reinforcements. Hey Marakanetz very good, easy to understand explanations. Truth will prevail.

I have bad ears. I can't hear the difference between electronic components or cables with 3 hours on them or 300 hours. However, I will attest to the fact that the speakers I purchased changed markedly (for the better) after 200 hours on them. I was not the only person who noticed it. Fresh ears who heard them out of the box and then again 6 weeks later commented on how much better they sounded from previous listening.

Thanks, Spluta
This link proves that electric and electronic components wear out within time and break-in time is infinitessimaly measurable.
The reliability issues have to be sought for different purpouses whether it's for aircraft, hospital, audio or any different type of electronics.

If we could measure the "break-in" factor by some electronic means, then everyone would believe it, right? The main argument here, that I see, is that if there is no measured quantification of this phonomenon, then it is some sort of "psychological effect", or "self delusion". Isn't that what it is really coming down to? Some people only believe in measurements, and some people believe their ears. Same old story, using a differently phrased question. The same thing could be said for any piece of audio gear. Why buy a $50k audio system when a shelf unit has better specs and plays the same music? Any improvement in sound over the $129 shelf system must simply be "psychological". We are simply convincing ourselves that our high$$ systems sound better. There is no break-in, cables don't sound different, power conditioners can't make a difference in sound, tubes are "euphonically distorted", blind testing is the only true way, etc, etc, etc.

I agree with Seandtaylor's statement above. Let's agree to disagree. This is an argument that has its basis far from audio. It is in the individual's belief system. Some prefer to trust the limited measurement capacity of others, more than they would trust their own ears. Fine. Other people would rather trust their ears, than the limited measurement capacity of others. Fine too. The decisions made will directly affect the sound quality of each person's system. They will have to live with their philosophy/choices. My choices only affect what the results of my system will be, and nobody else's. The same is true with Seandtaylor's system. We promote what we feel is correct, and others can make their own decisions as well. Both of our viewpoints, actually, are made from a desire to communicate what each of us feels is a valid viewpoint, in a desire to help others with their decision making. Neither Seandtaylor or myself, would make these statements, if we didn't care about helping other people enjoy their systems, and possibly save money. We just have different ideas about how it should be done. That's all. Everyone can make up their own minds about what way they want to go.

Actually, this is not a relativistic, everyone has his own philosophy matter. Either "break in" or other audio phenomena are real--in the sense that they can make an objective (if not necessarily measurable) audible difference--or not. It might be true that some people cannot hear such differences, but this doesn't mean that there are no differences. If they can't hear purported differences, they may well be more skeptical that there objectively are such differences. But this, too, is not a philosophical or personal values/beliefs matter: either their skepticism is warranted or not. Of course, if they can't hear purported differences, then the differences will make no subjective difference to them, in which case it wouldn't matter to them whether the phenomena are objectively/not merely psychologically real.