Is break in quicker with Planars and Stats?

I have no difficulty believing Magfan's experience. But that is not what is generally referred to as speaker break in. The switching of stereo image rapidly back and forth sounds more like an impedance problem likely to a connection. Also likely is that with a little heat, the connection was made. My guess is that this occurence was dramatic, could not be missed by anyone in the room, and was initially viewed as a defect in the workmanship or the parts. Speaker break in is generally not spoken of in quite those terms, but more as a gradual shift that is not noticeable over short time periods, say 15 minute intervals. I also don't doubt that there are changes to all components over time. Otherwise nothing would wear out and all systems would last forever. Those changes are certainly measureable because we have instruments that are very sensitive and offer high repeatability and resolution - take as standard 4 terminal ohmmeter that can accurately measure a few milliohms. Whether those changes are of a magnitude that can be heard is another story. More importantly, what should be sought in any component is stability, the problem I see with a component that would exhibit changes over a period of 40 to 200 hours of use is that it follows that the changes would continue, and a continuing change that is noticeable in 40 to 200 hours of use is a change at a rapid pace. This would likely hurt sales so much that the component would not be on the market very long. Certainly mechanical systems with a good deal of motion and friction show considerable changes, particularly early on. But speakers, of whatever technology, are not in that class of mechanical systems.

I'm going to really stir the pot with this post.

My Dali Megalines required 450 to 600 hours before they performed to their maximum. The bass was non existent until after 300 hours and deep bass not until nearly 600.

A good friend and member of my audio group experienced similar frustration with his Kharma Exquisite 1De. He waited beyond 650 hours before his speakers produced best performance.

In both cases, I have ten or so associates that heard the long progress and final results. Believe it or not, it's absolutely true.

Maybe it's the ceramic drivers in the Kharma, maybe the 24 woofers in my Dali's move so little that break in is tardy in arriving. Whatever the reason, it's audible and frustrating to wait through.

My new tube crossover made a break through in performance this last Tuesday evening. Burn in was 605 hours at the end of the evening and a huge change from the week before when there was only 437 hours on the parts.

In the case of the crossover I know the slow break in is due to Teflon Caps, 14 in the main unit and more in the power supply. I called the manufacturer who designed and built the caps (the same guy that builds Cardas, V-Cap, DynamiCap and most of the other big names).

He was not surprised, said it would continue to about 1000 hours or beyond, same answer I got from several other engineers in the business.

My previous custom crossover was identical in design, hand built by the same guy and was working well at 50 hours, reaching maximum performance at about 350 hours.

The difference? It had traditional caps from Wima, F-Dyne and Illinois capacitor and half the chokes and power supply. Everything makes a difference when all the parts are pushed to the limit.

When capacitors and other components drift with age and temperature over long periods then I am not sure when this becomes "aging" as distinct from "break-in".

Again, careful component selection and design can minimize the audibility of these effects. A capacitor that runs very hot or that is placed next to a resistor that runs hot will age more quickly and should not be placed in the signal path. (It might be ok in a power supply for example)