Physical explanation of amp's break in?


Recently purchased Moon i-5, manual mention 6-week break in period, when bass will first get weaker, and after 2-3 weeks start to normalize. Just curious, is there ANY component in the amp's circuitry that known to cause such a behaviour?

I can't fully accept psycho-acoustical explanation for break-in: many people have more then one system, so while one of them is in a "break-in" process, the second doesn't change, and can serve as a reference. Thus, one's perception cannot adapt (i.e. change!) to the new system while remain unchanged to the old one. In other words, if your psycho-acoustical model adapts to the breaking-in new component in the system A, you should notice some change in sound of your reference system B. If 'B' still sounds the same, 'A' indeed changed...
dmitrydr
Paulwp: I have posted a small portion of my background in an Agon thread entitled "Who R U". For further info, you can also read this thread over at AA's "General Asylum". I only mention this as it gives further information as to my background in the field of electronics that i didn't mention in the Agon thread.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=general&n=270072&highlight=DHT+amps&r=&session=

While you're over at AA, you can search for a post that i made within the last few months that publicly challenged any EE / designer / product manufacturer to post commentary pertaining to the effects of "break in" / measurable parts value shift NOT taking place in new components. I have done a search for it but can't find it, otherwise i would have provided a link.

Either way, there was not ONE response posted to that "challenge" because everyone that works on / uses gear for a living knows that it is the truth. Most of the engineers / designers / manufacturers that read and post on AA are "hands on" kind of folks and know what is really going on. Since they know the truth, they didn't bother to respond. It is only the "desk jockeys" that design gear and never use it that think that things always work as they should in theory.

As far as the EE's that you talked to and bought their schpiel, i make my living working on the products that they design. By "working on", i mean repairing the failures in under-designed circuitry that wasn't well thought out to begin with and / or modifying that same circuitry so that it performs in a more optimized manner.

Other than that, you can believe / trust whom you want to. Whether you want believe or disregard my opinions, that is up to you. Having said that, the wide bandwidth scopes, $15,000 signal generators, $35,000 spectrum analyzer, etc... that i have and use on a daily basis are basically impartial witnesses to my testimony. The results that i've obtained using this test equipment and past experiences with hands-on use are what i've based many of my opinions on.

Other than the opinions of others that you've repeated here, do you have any first hand experience or technical references that explain what YOU base YOUR thoughts about the subject on ? I think that i've more than explained how parts shift / circuits change over time and use and done so in an easy to understand manner. Sean
>
I guess you answered my questions about your educational background. You aren't an EE. You've said you know what you are talking about because you repair things. I told you my firsthand experience is I have listened to an abundance of amps and have never heard one change from day one. That's all I claim.

A pretty silly grade school rhetorical device to ask someone for a technical explanation of why an imaginary event doesn't occur. As far as I know, the only thing that can happen is degradation, and that should be measurable.

Btw, I think I saw a reference to Carver amps in the AA thread. Do/did you like the Lightstar II?
Paulwp...Don't give sean a hard time! Although I don't always agree with him, I find his comments interesting/informative. Although I am primarily an academic-type engineer, I have always been known as one who likes to get his hands dirty, and I must say that some of my best theoretical insights (over a 40-plus year career) have come about as a result of screwing around in the lab.

My view in a nutshell is that things you see (or hear) in the lab ought to be confirmed by scientific expanation. Until that is accomplished, you can't be sure that you weren't fooled in some way.
pheeew...i thought i was the only one that didn't believe in break-in of amps, cables, and CD players...well, i guess i'm not alone anymore...thank you guys!
What's funny here, people tend to consider this as something to "believe in", instead of "know". To believe because "somebody told me", or "he must have MSc in EE to know"... LOL! Here you've got an opinion based on a practical experience and professionally measured data, not just a simplified theory. Instead of asking "educational background" :) , it would be more appropriate to provide a data, acquired on a similarly professional level (not "personal thoughts"), that would just prove the opposite... Should be easy, right?