Amplifier Break-in - It's Real

I'm not denying atmasphere's discussion of measured differences. In fact, I have heard of it before. No surprise. The question is whether those differences are resulting in audible differences, and whether that can be demonstrated. If it could be shown that the measured differences in the internal parts affected the measurements of the component, then that would be strong evidence that an actual change has happened. Do we have such a study? If not, why not? If the community is so hot to prove break in is real, then wouldn't we think that those with the equipment to measure should have already done so? What's the delay? And, what if it turns out that the changes to internal parts do not change the overall measurements, or do so in such a seemingly insignificant way that it does not support strongly the contention that the components sound has changed? I'm open to discovery by measurements. I'm also open to discovery by actual system building.  :) 

You guys disdain as if 1. measured differences in internal parts must verify perceived changes to prove the gear sounds differently. That is not demonstrated until my above criteria has been met. 2. Perception of break in proves the gear is really changing. That also is not demonstrated. It is quite possible, given that I have discussed in my articles the very strong possibility that "break in" is a subjective process, that the measured changes to internal parts is not audible/measurable, and that my comparison which shows no perceptual difference between multiple pieces of gear, some broken in and some not, is upheld. 

I have said all along that anyone can do the comparison. Go ahead, mockers, do it. See, I mean, hear, what happens (or not). Just be prepared to be humbled. Your big, major, sizable, etc. break in changes when actually compared in a more controlled setting are imperceptible. You can apply your own golden hearing to assess.  :) 

BTW, some of you can't help yourselves in applying cynical religiously related analogies. I'm not so soft that I can't take it. But, remember, it can go both ways. I hope you will show the same grace if the tables are turned sometime.  :)  

"BTW, some of you can't help yourselves in applying cynical religiously related analogies. I'm not so soft that I can't take it. But, remember, it can go both ways. I hope you will show the same grace if the tables are turned sometime.  :)"

      If I'm found religiously putting my faith in measurements and theories. developed in the 1800s and found sorely lacking, in the early 1900s, to explain what was so commonly being observed in the universe, or- dogmatically claiming: what I hear (or don't) with MY ears, in my room, with my system and sources, CERTAINLY MUST also apply (ie: a LAW) to another's ears, room, system and sources:

                                                         Feel free to flame!

      I've always valued constructive criticism as a learning tool.     If I'm wrong: I want to know about it and correct my error.

                                            Happy listening and enjoy the journey!

rodman99999, by your comment, " If I'm found religiously putting my faith in measurements and theories. developed in the 1800s and found sorely lacking, in the early 1900s, to explain what was so commonly being observed in the universe," that is a mischaracterization (intentional or out of ignorance I cannot tell) of the state of the scientific debate. I put a great deal of weight in current science. You seem misinformed. The bulk of the scientific evidence supporting my faith has developed in the past fifty years in sciences such as Information Theory, Astrophysics, and Molecular Biology that were in their infancy half a century ago. Perhaps you are unaware of books such as "Carved in Stone," which use data from the oil industry's drilling in another developing science, Lithography (pertaining to study of the Earth's rock layers) to create a coherent model of the Flood. I suggest you take a look at Michael Behe's "A Mousetrap for Darwin" to see how the playing field has shifted in molecular biology. 

I'm not flaming you, I'm informing you. 

When I was a more ignorant, arrogant audiophile I had extreme confidence that I was indeed hearing changes to gear. Time and experience  - well, actually, building hundreds of systems - taught me that I needed to test, albeit informally, received wisdom of the community. I discovered many of the things in regard to system building that are deemed to be true simply do not advance audio systems all that well. Some, like belief in break in, actually are disadvantages to building better systems. I'm not interested in explaining it all here, but persons who wish to contemplate it will realize the strength of my assertion. I conclude that one of the reasons break in is so much defended in this community is because it is a primary way to satisfy the seemingly insatiable hubris of audiophiles. There are few things more arrogant in this hobby than declaring you can hear changes to gear over long periods of time and being unwilling to accept evidence that disproves it simply because YOU did not do so.   :) 

If your pride is so fragile that you will only believe it if you hear it for yourself, then by all means go ahead! Be precisely like those cable deniers, with the same arrogance and skepticism, who won't believe unless they experience for themselves. If you have no interest in such a comparison to demonstrate to yourself, then I would be wasting my time to continue to debate it with you.  :) 

"The bulk of the scientific evidence supporting my faith has developed in the past fifty years in sciences such as Information Theory, Astrophysics, and Molecular Biology that were in their infancy half a century ago." ETCETERA, ETCETERA, ETCETERA.*  

     Which has what to do with modern Electrical Theory (to which I specifically referred), or the hubris you exhibit (ie: LAWS)?

     My higher education was in Physics, QM and QED lectures (circa mid 60's).    I've made a point of keeping up with newer developments and discoveries, ever since.

                                           "I'm not so soft that I can't take it"
                           
                                              Yet: you seem so triggered!

                            *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JHH6iwgIek

rodman99999, thank you for the correction, that you were specifying electrical theory. I appreciate the clarification. Ok, I'll "untrigger" on that topic. In regard to physics and QM, take a look at Spephen Meyer's "Return of the God Hypothesis". My guess is you would chew through the math pretty easily. 

Now, when it comes to my term "Law" as applied to my principles for audio system setup, who's triggered?  ;) I use it tongue in cheek, obviously, because my testing is informal and not measurement driven, not strong enough to produce real laws. However, when I have set up dozens of systems and they all react the same with my methods, then I have much more happening than coincidence. Ergo, laws. You certainly have principles you espouse here, with some force (pun!), I add. So, lighten up, too.  :) 

Decades ago, I was an overconfident audiophile, and I would have argued vociferously the exact opposite, the popular perspective, on break in. It's stunning how building many systems opens up discoveries and allows one to dismiss misnomers. I do not expect anyone who has not built many systems to discover such things, and I expect the average hobbyist to vehemently disagree with me. They simply do not have the means - without a direct comparison - to gain the one thing they will trust, their own experience. They choose to accept their own thought process over reported results. Everyone determines the authorities they will or will not accept, and that determines much of one's results. Certainly sensory adaptation plays no possible role in it.  :(  

I guess audiophiles have never experienced wearing Blue Blocker sunglasses, and over time adapting to them so thoroughly that they no longer are weird in terms of their effect on the environment. We all know that the chemical structure of the glasses is changing, the color is shifting. Nothing like that could possibly be happening in terms of adaptation to sound over time. No, we are much more consistent than electronics. You wills say that changes to internal parts are the cause. I have made challenges to that argument. 

To consider the influence of sensory adaptation to have no involvement is circular reasoning. It changes because I hear it! I hear it, so it's obviously changing! I used to be like that.  :)