Why no “Break in” period?

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. 

At dinner one night, second bottle of wine comes, finish my glass and pour another and.... what the? Sharp, astringent, acidic, had to double-check. Yeah same wine. Wife still had some of hers from the first, try this, sure enough, first ones better. Huh.

Little while later, pour myself some more, now it tastes like the first bottle. Does wine really need to "breathe"? I guess if wine drinkers were like eloquent audiophiles there’d be someone at the table pontificating on how if you say it tastes better fine but don’t go try and tell me it tastes better harumph harumpf.

When in fact after a little more conversation and investigation it turns out the wine does in fact taste better, and I’m not gonna go into the whole story of how we demonstrated this but we did in fact demonstrate this.

Turns out the issue is not after all anything like its being made out to be, however eloquently the illogical dog chasing its own tails narrative is told. What we were able to show is really going on is the difference was there all along. Some just weren’t paying attention.

There’s always gonna be people who aren’t paying attention. Which is fine. Makes the world go round. Only funny thing, pretty much always turns out the more you pay attention the better you do. Which is why I’m always recommending people go and listen. To DYODD. To listen and audition and buy what you like and not what some random interwebber recommends. Over and over again.

To disregard the vast number of times I’ve said this, well that is beyond not paying attention. We’re talking downright willful ignorance here. And for what? To make a cheap audio turf war point?

Nah. Couldn’t be. That would never happen. Would it?

3. What prevents whatever the breakin process is, to stop when the equipment sounds better? Why doesn't it continue to breakin for its entire life and continue to improve?

Can you step into the same river twice?
Can you listen to the same cable twice?

"Break-in" is a difficult thing to accept.  The word "aging" is more universally accepted.  

rodman

Note I said "But when PEOPLE leap to objective claims..."

I didn’t say you had made that explicit claim. Though millercarbon has made essentially that claim many times, continually insulting people who "can’t hear" the obvious sonic differences of various tweaks he tells us about.

But you seem to have conveniently forgotten the nature of your own posts in this thread, filled with invective against those of us voicing skepticism. There was indeed have a similar apparent point implicit in what you keep writing:

You’d claimed "ONLY experimentation(the heart of the Scientific Method), provides PROOF, regarding anything discussed. "

And that an example of this was just testing out devices in your system:

What you hold true, in your listening room, is all that matters. Experiment and trust your ears.

So, you are trusting your ears to tell you the truth.

Then you are moving from that to discredit anyone who raises any skeptical challenge to this method:

Anyone that discredits another’s abilities to hear improvements, in their own systems, in their own listening environments, with their own ears, should be considered condescending, insulting and/or(probably), simply projecting their own ineptitude. Perhaps, to be pitied.

In other words: someone skeptical of the conclusions you’ve drawn from your experience is at fault. And you’ve included all sorts of insults and invective against those of us skeptical about your claim.

So, really, yeah...you also seem to be an example of the problem I pointed to, where you have decided based on your "trusting your own ears" that what you hear is "true" and then you go on to cast aspersions at anyone who may doubt as being "rock-headed."
Why the dogma regarding subjective experience, where instead of admitting we can be wrong, you seem to promote first-hand subjective experience as "the only way to truth" about what is going on in an audio system?

Why is it *so hard* to admit you could be in error? That’s not the same as admitting you *are* in error. Just that it’s possible. We’re human right? Give it a whirl: It’s good for the soul. ;-)

How can prof post so fast with so many words in a long post?  Did he and his posts materialize out of thin air?  Is he in my living room with me?