"Burn in" Are you serious?

Glad this is still going,and nobody has hired a hitman,(or have they?).On the subject of the frog turning into a prince:When I got my Aerial cc3; new, 'twas un listenable.Actually, HORIBLE !I pieced an old cd player/receiver/wires; stuck it all in the closet;threw some blankets over it;cranked it;left it on repeat.After 5 days, the volume was considerably louder.(Never touched the setting.)3 more days;the prince emerged. On burning in most all equipment,the bass is the easy "identifiable". You ( I ) can tell,just walking in the room,don't have to sit down and strain.While different pieces vary;some actually do the frog/prince thing.

Burn-in is not a case of beating your ears into submission. Of course many horrible things can at first be tolerated and eventually even liked (smoking, drinking), but most people who participate at Audiogon have the sense to leave plenty of time between critical listening to allow for a change to be accurately heard. Some items don't require as much burn-in as others. My Harmonic Technology cables had me worried for a while, but changed dramatically at the 85 hour point. Why not trust your ears instead of denying the reality of burn in? As a writer/producer for 28 years I have had to use my ears in critical applications hundreds of times requiring much more sensitivity than merely hearing a difference in a cable after 100 hours use. I think the "wishful thinking" might possibly be on your part Waldhorner. Life would be that much simpler for Audiophiles if burn in was not a factor in evaluations. You can try comparing two of the same cables at first and breaking in only one, then comparing them again. Even if the difference after break in in is difficult to articulate, I suggest you "trust your feelings" Waldhorner. Good listening and Happy Holidays to all.

I wasn't aware that your experience has been a refudation of burn-in. On the other hand, we could take a symetrical argument and explain your perception. Perhaps your aural memory is such that the gradual changees introduced in the burn in period escape its notice. Perhaps your perception changs along with the piece. I've made up my mind that I want to do a double blind on this (knowing in advance the arguments against that methodology). I was wondering if you have? In regards to: I could easily be converted by converted by evidence more substantive than anecdotal; I think it's important to remember that science begins with the observation, the anecdotal evidence. Reality (if such a thing exists) determines the collection of imperfect models that we call science, not vice-versa. But then again I suppose mathmaticians are always a little skeptical of something so temporary as physics (grin).

Disclosure: being new to this hobby, I don't have a lot of experience either way with this. My dealer told me to burn my stereo in and not to listen too critically at first, and I followed his advise. As a result, I have no idea whether or not my system 'burned in'. Furthermore, I hope no one construes my last post to mean that I disavow science. I am much more likely to believe an explanation grounded in science than one based in faith (especially if that faith is based on frail human perception).

Robba; respectfully; listening to/enjoying music is somewhere beyond science, at least at our present state of knowledge. Music, IMO, is an art form. When you look at two paintings and like one but not the other can that be explained scientifically? But as your appreciation grows, maybe you'd like the 2nd painting? This has happened to me many times with music-- sometimes it grows on me-- as I grow personally. Except to say it's psychologic, I can't expalin this phenomena "scientifically", and it can't be "tested". Craig.