Amplifier Break-in - It's Real

"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.  :)

       "My guess is you would chew through the math pretty easily."

     Funny, you'd say that!    It was the Math that chewed me up, in Physics.    I pretty much suck; as regards remembering formulae.

     Still: figuring out how and why things work, was always a fascination.

     I found QM and QED much easier to grasp.  Slippery as they both are, they still always made more sense, to me.      When it comes to such as frequencies, particle nomenclatures/behavioral study, etc; no problem.  I find the explanations easily digestible*.

     After all: virtually every new invention, that we've enjoyed for the past century, has been a result of QM/QED study.   HEY: they work!

      Most have trouble, when trying to figure out how all this craziness functions, because they want it to make sense.    That's been the scientific debate, since the 1927, Solvay Conference.  So: we're in good company!

      The basic premise of QM is: almost nothing really makes sense.   
                              (Fits my psyche, perfectly!)

             https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03793-2

             https://www.nature.com/articles/419117a
                                                                                                                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_quantum_mechanics

       When I encounter seemingly abstract, but (to me) audible, phenomena such as electronic burn/break-in, whether cables and fuses can make a difference, etc; I realize that there are a plethora of things, still not defined, let alone measured, in our MOST complex musical signals and a multitude of possibilities, based on what I know (or don't, yet).

            *Ditto: the workings of General and Special Relativity (again: minus the Higher Math).

                     Happy listening and enjoy the journey!