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

@douglas_schroeder 

It's an eminence front.

It's a put on.......

Reubent, ah, one of my generation; good job! 
I suspect you get my intent; it's a big "put on" by all these people who want to make a big impression about what they can hear, about how break in/burn in is SO important, and how it makes SUCH a big difference, and... there's nothing much behind it.  People forget, indeed, that they are as susceptible to floating impressions and wandering subjectivity as anyone else. I have demonstrated it. 

It's not a very comfortable discussion for all the manufacturers, dealers, etc. who lean heavily on these concepts in support of their products and/or services. Notice how break in and burn in is never demonstrated, that is, the purported benefit/change etc. is never actually shown in a side by side comparison? Because they can't - or won't. I have demonstrated that it is relatively easy to get to the bottom of it. The average audiophile can do so for themselves with 2 pair of cables, or two amps, etc. Many have the means to see for themselves whether their impressions have any basis in reality. Most prefer to avoid such a clear test of their impressions. They would rather sit in their smug confidence that they are able to hear equipment changing. Whatever.  

I'm far from an enemy of the industry; I have worked with many manufactures and have good relationships with them. It's the nonsense, the peripheral, tangential, useless aspects that I have no need, nor respect for, and I see them as hindrances, not aids. The average audiophile has believed a lot of crap that is actually counter-productive in setting up superior systems. The average audiophile would never discover this. I had to set up hundreds of rigs to get to the point where I was clearly questioning the process, and had the equipment available to conduct a more involved comparison. I would not expect that of the average HiFi enthusiast. I would, however, expect that some might be open to the suggestion that they are changing rather inconsistency. But, of course, that is beyond the pale of most enthusiasts; their ego can't take consideration of that outcome.   :(

I find the arrogance in declaring what I hear to be nonsense quite objectionable. One of the problems with so-called experts is that they tend to end up believing their own blasé utterances. In this particular case, I happen to think he is on hopeless ground arguing that you should compare things straight out of the box. That is so patently non-sensical that it actually doesn’t warrant any objecting argument.

Enjoy the music

The phenomenon of thinking one hears change to a system over time is universal, and I experience it, too. I happened to question whether it was in fact equipment changing. I conducted informal testing and learned that it is not the equipment changing, but inconsistent impressions of the audiophile. It's quite simple, but with significant implications. 

Well I think it humorous that doug thinks he has more to offer in terms of opinion than the average hobbyist. Is believing in component change really a big deal and I would challenge doug to prove that this belief or many others he finds distasteful are deleterious to the hobby. 

For some all amps sound the same, for others there is no difference in cables and others believe in any claim no matter how absurd. There is no proof in this hobby and I thought we were done with the idea that we can objectify the subjective.

Why in the world would I spend hours and extra funds to prove something that I have accepted and that I perceive as significant? This would be a total waste of time. But what I find most objectionable is the fact that he feels the need to ascribe reasons for those that dont share HIS opinion. 

Hey Doug please refresh me on the qualifications of becoming a reviewer. Is there a degree, apprenticeship, or a school...I want to get me one of them high paying gigs.