Why no “Break in” period?

prof
Geoff, In your rush to judge you have, as usual, misunderstood the point. If you ever slow down to read before firing off a rant, it would have been blazingly obvious I wasn’t taking about what conclusions I would actually draw in the scenario I outlined, but rather probing rodman with questions about what conclusions HE would think to be reasonable.

>>>>Yes, I know, that’s why I said you or anyone else can’t draw conclusions based on one test. In other words, nobody can. Your argument was a Strawman. The conclusions of two people that have different results based on one test can BOTH be thrown away. For example, one of you might have a cold. 🤧

mijostyn ...

Yes, you are correct ... cartridges are mechanical devices.  

I remember when I upgraded the turntable belt and bought one from "Originlive." Upon first listening, I, and a buddy could discern the belt breaking in over an hour period. That was fascinating to be sure. Very obvious too.

https://www.originlive.com/hi-fi/turntable-upgrades-modification/turntable-belt-upgrade/

When I received two new Audio Research REF-75 amps, the capacitors had to break in over about a 500 hour period. The improvement was incremental over time and the end result, compared to when new was remarkable. 

Frank

“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” Albert Einstein.

lols I managed to squeeze that in.  And here is mine that even muchas better than that a$$ :-)  and mark my words.

There is no such thing as "mechanical device" or "electrical device".  It only exists in the human mind.

There is no difference in "biological thing" or "non-biological thing".  It only exists in ... oh wait ... damn I run out of hierarchy ... well may be in God's mind.  

Am I a "thing" dreaming of a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming of a "thing" ...

Infinity ... coffee ... morning ... night ... infinity ...

mijostyn
Vinyl I think most of us could pick up by the back ground noise.

>>>>Not to mention the musicality. 🤗

geoff,

>>>>Yes, I know, that’s why I said you or anyone else can’t draw conclusions based on one test. In other words, nobody can. Your argument was a Strawman.

Amazing, you still don't get it.

I wasn't presenting an argument for a conclusion based on the listening results I depicted.   I was asking what type of conclusions rodman thinks HE could draw, and giving variations "do you think THIS is a reasonable conclusion?  Do you think THAT is a reasonable conclusion?"  etc.

You clearly interpreted it as if I were arguing for those conclusions, and trying to diss me for it. 


Sloooow dooooown geoff.  Sloow doown.   I know it's your thing to try to knock everyone down a peg, but it wastes even your own time to end up looking silly by not bothering to understand what your object-of-derision is actually writing.  You aren't going to have any feet left if you keep firing holes in them like this.   Well, unless you like the feeling of shooting your own foot, which also would make sense of your posting here  ;-)