For Your Edification and Enjoyment re "Burn In", etc.

I addressed "break in" and "burn in" in the article as it pertains to the phenomena under assessment.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As I said Douglas, several times before. I have NEVER heard the term "BURN IN" used by professional repairmen. ONLY by rookies. Just like the term "MOTOR" in lue of "ENGINE". The term is used all the time by WHO? Drivers not mechanics. The same with "burn in".
If words don’t matter to you, they do to the people like me.

Why? I can’t think of a single time you can substitute burn in, for break in in any way other than people in the audiophile community. WHY BURN IN? A lack of command of the English language, (not a first language).

My counterparts in other countries would use words like this, but would point to the word "BREAK IN" in the BOOK. If you mean breakin but type burnin, what other word salad, do I have to decipher.
I can’t hear a difference means, "Sometimes" I can’t hear a difference? or ALL the time?

Terms like brake in, conditioned, seated, lapped, settled, ran in, trued, lined up, within tolerance, out of spec, misaligned, tune up, etc.

Even BRAKES are seated, but NEVER EVER BURNT IN. BUT they can BURN UP, catch on fire, go up in flames, up in smoke, burn to the ground, become glazed, BUT they never burn in..
Is the MOTOR "blowed up", Goober. :-(
Aunt Bee, would have said "Are you having engine trouble, Andy"? Seized a piston, due to a lack of oil? :-)
That "Dipstick" Goober...

What next, you'll want to borrow a cable conditioner. :-)

Regards..

oldhvymec, wonderful, you have made your point. Now, I presume you will be silent, unless you have something pertinent to the article to discuss.   

Douglas - an excellent article, congratulations. How refreshing to read sensible, objective, honest, thorough, grounded opinion, written well. 
Do keep reposting it here, won’t you, as needs be...

bluemoodriver, thank you! I seem to occupy a position in the industry and community that is fairly vacant, that of eschewing most forms of system enhancements/methods called "tweaks", and endorsing other methods that some ridicule. It all comes out of building hundreds of systems, not theory.

I will disgruntle those who take a hard objectivist position in terms of components, and disgruntle those who take a hard position on tweaks. So be it. OTOH, I have split the difference once again in not only this article, but also a cable review that has just been submitted. It reveals with very strong evidence, if one explores the materials the company has made public, that 1. Geometry, conductor material, etc. do make an audible difference, and 2. That when well designed according to strict parameters (measurable), it sounds better than other cables. So, that article steps a bit into both camps.

I recall my father, who when discussing particular subjects would opine, "There are a lot of left fielders, and a lot of right fielders, but not a lot of center fielders." I’m trying to play center field. BTW, can we please for once have our reactionist politically motivated disturbers hold their tongue? The comment has zero relevance to politics, and I don't care what your opinion is on the matter. The topic is tweaks. Thank you!  :)

https://resources.altium.com/p/what-burn-testing-electronics