Amplifier Break-in - It's Real

"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!

"...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.  :)"

       Isn't it interesting how our understanding of the senses has been evolving, based on further study?      ie:  Seems our noses may actually hear the frequencies, generated by the chemical bonds in molecules.

       It's probably why Cyanide and almonds smell the same.   Though their molecules are completely different; their frequencies are identical.

        https://physicsworld.com/a/a-quantum-sense-of-smell/

        https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21150046

       Click on the thing about, "birds hijacking quantum physics" (in second article), also.

https://phys.org/news/2011-01-quantum-robins.html#:~:text=In%20a%20forthcoming%20article%20in,levels....

                           Fascinating stuff, all around us!

@millercarbon Yes indeed, things do cut both ways, and maybe a third: just because you hear it doesn't mean anyone else will.