Physical explanation of amp's break in?

Once again, I believe there *is* such a thing as "break in." I believe I have heard amplifiers change over the first few weeks
and they also sound better if you leave them on, never turning them off. But, I also believe manufacturers have become hip to the fact that buyers are often stressed by a new purchase and that, not only does the component "break in" but the buyer's ears return to
normal after a period of acceptance. And, this is just another good
reason to tell buyers to give the unit 300 hours to "break in."

Whatever...In the missile guidance system business we have learned over several decades that circuits ought to be configured so that they are not sensitive to exact values of their electronic components. It can be done. The necessity for items like lazer-trimmed resistors, except in particular applications like an A/D or D/A, indicates (in our experience) sloppy circuit design. Maybe that's what we have in the audio business.

So, in summary, the best explanation offered above was that of Danvetc, who suggests that the newly awakened electrons are disorganized and take a while to get together and sing "Kumbaya".

Over and out..:) Ed

In a missile guidance system, are the components simply responding and looking for a signal that acts as a command / response arrangement or is the quality of the signal being quantified and judged along with the basic data being provided ? This is where the difference lies between data devices and how our brain interprets sound impulses.

I'm assuming that the guidance system has some type of system that checks in and verifies data and responds accordingly, doing this on a phenomenally frequent basis. As such, this would be akin to high quantities of negative feedback in an amplifier circuit. While the system measures phenomenally well and does everything it is supposed to in terms of measured data and responds promptly to changes in detected signal, it just so happens to sound like hell. All of the bench tests in the world can't tell us why ( at this point in time ), but the computer aided test equipment connected between our ears that deciphers such input makes this all too clear.

I hope that at least some of you get the point. That is, we don't know everything there is to know about everything : ) Sean
>

Missile guidance systems ???????????? Are you seriously comparing the performance of missile guidance systems to that of audio circuits? If you insist on taking your experience in controlling the flight of giant bullets and using it to explain the function of audio circuits, then I fully understand your inability to grasp these concepts.

If I had known we were discussing two entirely different worlds, I would never have refuted your original position.

I too am "over and out" on this one :>)

Herman, et al....My experience with audio circuitry goes back to about 1953, when we built our own equipment, often from raw electronic parts, sometimes from kits, and also did a bit of circuit design on the side. My bread and butter job, as opposed to hobby, was in the missile guidance business. (Retired now but consulting part time). Because we may disagree, don't characterize my position as inability to grasp concepts. I am familiar with all the arguments put forth above. Although some facts cited are true (eg: component values settle with use) the conclusions drawn (eg:the amp sound better) just doesn't follow. Note that I did not say that the amp didn't sound better...just that you have not correctly identified the reason. I encourage you to think up some new explanations for review.

My comments on circuit design relate to philosophy and are general in nature and applicable to most if not all types of circuitry. You might consider study of the work of Genichi Taguchi, a Japanese disciple of W Edwards Deming (the "Father of Modern Quality Control") who was very influential in the development of superior products by Japanese industry following WW2.