Break in time that extends to months or maybe even years!!


On another thread, we have a well known and well respected piece of gear ( and great sounding too, IME) that according to the member who is reviewing it, needs in excess of 1000 hours to fully break in!! 

While we have all heard of gear that needs immense amounts of 'break in' time to sound its best, usually gear that involves teflon caps, I question whether this very long break in time is the job for the consumer? Is it reasonable for a manufacturer of audio gear to expect the consumer to receive sub-par performance from his purchase for potentially several months ( years?) before the true sound of the gear in question can be enjoyed? Or, is it ( or should it be) perhaps the job of the manufacturer of this gear ( usually not low priced) to actually accomplish the 'break in' before releasing it from the factory? Thoughts...
128x128daveyf
My post was a joke.... :)

But sure some debunk even joke if it is about "break in"....It is a serious subject matter... It is very important after all to debunk audiophile "crazy" impressions....

If you perceive rainbow dont say it is real, it is a subjective impression clothed in an objective one clearly... :)

An A.I. will not perceive it....Reality dont need impressions....;)

Wait ! I realize now that what I had just written is wrong...

An A.I. connected to a human brain will....

And will be more intelligent...

Able to debunk his own impressions and knowing why....

And no blind test needed...



:)


I apologize for my joke or sarcasm.... We are not always wise....

I will go back to the shed where Newton observe light wrongly with his corpuscular theory, and i will read Goethe to complete it rightly...But wait is Goethe not a poet? Poet are more stupid than some "audiophile".... 

Wasn't Goethe stupid ? He wrote that there is no theory behind phenomena and that phenomena are the theory...

It is sure now, Goethe was an "audiophile"....


Wait a minute...

Is it not quantum theory that suppose that a photon cannot be called  a "phenomena" before being in the theater of consciousness, but only a probability wave?

I throw my hat to the wind...

I dont understand anything anymore...

Where is Feynman when we need it  ?

No debunking, just accurate reporting.
I just realize that you are not debunking anything...


I misread your post...


But by "accurate reporting" are you suggesting that the preparation of the hadron collider has nothing to do with the preparation of an amplifier by an "audiophile" ?


We often interpret things how we want them to be. That does not make it true.
This is very wise remark....

This hadron collider does not need to "break in" for sure...a collider is another beast than an amplifier... Or a cable...


Simple then, for the time to come, why do we not call "break in" the necessary preparation for a love affair between some chemical catalytic component and some neuron? This "illusion" or "audiophile" pleasurable sensation is like a rainbow after all....

And after all, "real truth" or "the" truth like you said,(Or isn’t me saying that?) dont need any interpretation and has nothing to do with this love affair, and the birthing of truth is like Athena birth, coming nude from the head of Zeus... Is’n it?

P.S. I just remember that Feynman said that if someone pretend to understand quantum mechanic he is lying...I think Feynman dont understand truth either.... Or do he?

I will let you decide all that... :) 

I will just give you a hint about my own opinion with only one word: "consciousness"...

Make of this word what you like it to be, a reality or an illusion, but beware of the consequences...
You can’t debunk something that’s not bunk.

You can’t cheat an honest man and never smarten up a chump. - old audiophile axiom 🤗
Regarding the LHC, this is from Wikipedia.

Initial lower magnet currentsEdit

In both of its runs (2010 to 2012 and 2015), the LHC was initially run at energies below its planned operating energy, and ramped up to just 2 x 4 TeV energy on its first run and 2 x 6.5 TeV on its second run, below the design energy of 2 x 7 TeV. This is because massive superconducting magnets require considerable magnet training to handle the high currents involved without losing their superconducting ability, and the high currents are necessary to allow a high proton energy. The "training" process involves repeatedly running the magnets with lower currents to provoke any quenches or minute movements that may result. It also takes time to cool down magnets to their operating temperature of around 1.9 K (close to absolute zero). Over time the magnet "beds in" and ceases to quench at these lesser currents and can handle the full design current without quenching; CERN media describe the magnets as "shaking out" the unavoidable tiny manufacturing imperfections in their crystals and positions that had initially impaired their ability to handle their planned currents. The magnets, over time and with training, gradually become able to handle their full planned currents without quenching.[80][81]


The LHC is down for a major upgrade, when it comes back up it will be called the High Luminosity LHC. Sounds kinda like a god...

So yes, the LHC required a break in period, and yes, like us audiofools, the physicist at CERN have an insatiable urge to upgrade.