Thanks for your answer. My general comment about what folks have said so far is that I understand (of course) the concept of what "breaking in" means -- and the phenomenological characteristics associated with shoes, shirts, even the way a lawn mower starts right up (or a key fits a lock) are all familiar. What is helpful in these posts (and in the many other posts which I will go check out), is when some specifics about what-one-would-experience with a broken-in-preamp vs. a broken-in-amp vs. a broken-in-speaker, etc.
Your answer, Millercarbon, makes sense to me -- "All start out with whatever fundamental character they have, but thin and etched or grainy, and then over time fill in and round out becoming more palpably real." That is a recipe for simply looking for what's dominant in the character of the thing and then watching as it deepens/enhances. Beyond that, what I wonder about is whether or not, for example, one can count on certain *missing* or *faint* characteristics (e.g. "lack of defined midrange detail in a speaker") to emerge or grow after "break in." That such a think could happen (and when, where, how) could conceivably help someone decide to wait on a speaker, amp, etc. before trading it in, prematurely.
Your answer, Millercarbon, makes sense to me -- "All start out with whatever fundamental character they have, but thin and etched or grainy, and then over time fill in and round out becoming more palpably real." That is a recipe for simply looking for what's dominant in the character of the thing and then watching as it deepens/enhances. Beyond that, what I wonder about is whether or not, for example, one can count on certain *missing* or *faint* characteristics (e.g. "lack of defined midrange detail in a speaker") to emerge or grow after "break in." That such a think could happen (and when, where, how) could conceivably help someone decide to wait on a speaker, amp, etc. before trading it in, prematurely.