Why no “Break in” period?

SO; the bottom line of all this discussion(according to some) would be, "It’s a waste of time, trying to upgrade your system/listening pleasure, by actually auditioning(LISTENING), since YOU’RE too inept to tell if there’s an improvement in sound, without a degreed Scientist present, to PROPERLY conduct experiments on your proposed purchase and determine(for you) if it’s POSSIBLE for that component/tweak, to positively affect what you might hear."                                                                                       Right?

Wrong.

The problem is you'll need to actually accept nuance, rather than black-and-white answers, in order to understand the point that keeps being made.

As I'd repeated: no one needs to do science in being an audiophile.  Practice it however you wish, whatever makes you happy.  Buy a new power conditioner and it seems your system sounds better?  Enjoy.

But the more a claim enters the realm of "controversial" (and by that I mean "controversial among experts who have relevant knowledge and expertise"), if you really care about truth and having intellectual humility, then you would simply admit that, though personal experience seems to validate a positive claim, it isn't the type of data that would settle the matter, due to all the issues already pointed out.  If you say "I heard a difference and I'm good with that"...fine.  But when people leap to objective claims "therefore my experience has verified the claim and anyone who doesn't hear what I hear is at fault" then, that's going to get some pushback for the hubris it is.

As I've said: I have plenty of gear I haven't scientifically tested, and I have not advocated it's necessity for enjoying high end audio.

This is all coming down to being a great case of helicopter parenting amped up by a surfeit of hubris.

You haven't indicated who you are talking too.
But...

Tell me:  Who in this thread has been admitting "I don't know the asnwer. I haven't decided yet.  I'm still looking at the evidence."

Who has admitted to the "other side":   You could be right in reporting what you hear.

Is this admission of fallibility, tentativeness, and allowing the other person could be correct coming from millercarbon?   Rodman?

I'd hate to go have a meal with some of you as you'd ruin the experience. 😄

Not me.   I'm nuts about food, restaurants, fine dining etc, and I dine out regularly with a large variety of family, friends and acquaintances.  Just this weekend I had a 14 course tasting menu meal with a pal at the best restaurant in the city (not something I can regularly afford) that I'm still dreaming about.  Had tons of fun talking food with the rest of the diners at the table.

Most attempts to psychoanalyze other people on a forum fail because, especially when we find they disagree with our view,  the impulse is to characterize them in a way that makes us feel superior.

Personally, I'm sure millercarbon, rodman, and most others here are terrific people when not engaged in audiophile turf battles, and they are likely plenty smarter than I am overall.

Prof, I wish I was as eloquent as you are and Simonmoon I believe you are absolutely right. 
Everyone is entitled to their own experience. My problem comes when people try to sell stuff to other people that are less knowledgeable and perhaps more gullible. Companies take advantage of this to sell products that are somewhat more than ridiculous. Then one of us thinks it made his system sound better and away you go. I think the Walker turntable is a very interesting design but I would never consider one based on the other crap they sell on their web site. 

Buy Music,
Mike

"therefore my experience has verified the claim and anyone who doesn’t hear what I hear is at fault."???                                          PLEASE, point out any post, in which I’ve ever put forth such a proposition.     I’ve never had an agenda, on these pages, other than to encourage others in listening/experimenting for themselves.

Certainly, you're not saying some are taking liberties with what was said and portraying them as a position that you never ascribed to? That would be unethical.