Why no “Break in” period?

Measured with an accu-tuner they would measure different. 

Well I’ll be....!

"So what was I to complain about? Finally I stopped measuring and started listening, and I realized that the capacitor did have a fundamental flaw. This is were the ear has it all over test equipment. The test equipment is almost always brought on line to actually measure problems the ear hears. So we’re always working in reverse. If we do hear something and we can’t measure it then we try to find ways to measure what we hear. In the end we invariably find a measurement that matches what the ear hears and it becomes very obvious to everybody. "

He’s putting it a little differently, but this is exactly what I’ve been saying over and over again- it is NOT on the listener to prove with measurement, not at all. The listener, what we hear, is the ultimate measure. Then and only then you can go looking for a way to measure what we are hearing. It is NOT the other way around!

Pin it to the top of every thread where someone is trying to invalidate actual human experience just because it is beyond the measure of their silly primitive instruments.

the ear has it all over test equipment.

Read it and weep. RIP, techies, RIP.

Prof,
" And I pointed out I hadn't come to a firm conclusion on the matter myself"

Me,
You are not being completely honest with yourself here prof. You're a measurements guy who will not be swayed by any "conversation" I can possibly have with you on this subject. Maybe someone else can, but it will not be me. 

Sailboat,
I'm hopeful that someday science will catch up to our hobby & be able to accurately measure all the improvements we hear.    

News Flash! Or should I say flashback? 😳 The most important things are impossible to measure. Soundstage, sweetness, transparency and musicality. 😬

boxer,
No, I'm honestly representing what I argue for and believe.  Insofar as you would include me in your previous complaint:

boxer: They are the victims here. Just trying to teach us that we can't possibly be hearing what we are hearing. 

You are making a strawman.
I have been explicit in pointing out I'm NOT claiming: "you aren't hearing what you claim!"
I'm pointing out instead "You MAY be hearing what you claim, but the method you are using to come to your conclusion or argue for it isn't as reliable as you seem to assume."
C'mon, we can do nuance around here can't we, to understand another person's point of view rather than dismiss it with strawmen versions?