What Exactly Does "Burn In" do for Electronics?

Is an audiophiles aural memory infallible? Of course not. Therefore the differences you think you are hearing could easily not be real. Your measuring device (ears and brain) are not accurate enough or reliable enough to be trusted for such subtle differences. To think it is, is simply an inability to believe an unpleasant truth. Few people are willing to submit to a blind ABX test for 2 wildly different amplifiers. Would love to see someone volunteer for a blind ABX test on new vs broken in cables. The idea is absurd.

And by the way, I never said I didn't hear break in differences. I said that ears and brain alone are not to be trusted to determine such subtle differences. Especially when those differences are frequently pulled from listening sessions that have occurred days, weeks, or even moths apart.

Do I think high end audio offers better fidelity? Hell yes. I'm a dedicated audiophile. But to think I cannot be fooled into thinking I hear an improvement when none exists is delusional. It also explains the long line of foolish products marketed to audiophiles, often at great expense to the buyer.

I wish I could hear no difference because I would have saved thousands and would be happy with a boombox.

"And by the way, I never said I didn't hear break in differences."

It looks like you did.

"I love audio and I still out no stock in burn in for electronics or cables."

Assuming you meant to say put instead of out, I can't think of any other way it can be taken.

"Your measuring device (ears and brain) are not accurate enough or reliable enough to be trusted for such subtle differences. To think it is, is simply an inability to believe an unpleasant truth. Few people are willing to submit to a blind ABX test for 2 wildly different amplifiers. Would love to see someone volunteer for a blind ABX test on new vs broken in cables.

I've heard these arguments before. Again, I'm not trying to be mean, but can you back them up? When it comes to the measurement/science/objective type of people, they never produce anything. For all the talk of science and blind test's, they never have anything real to support their claims.

I'm willing to keep an open mind. If you can show me some real tests that were done and documented somewhere, I'll set the test up myself and see if I can get the same results. If it turns out that I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it.

Zd,

Really, you want proof that audiophiles are easily fooled into believing in phantom sonic improvements? That's amusing. How about some proof that you can really hear the improvements from cable burn in? If any existed it would be the high end news of the century.

Let me ask you this, do you think there has ever been a fraudulent audiophile product making false claims of sonic improvements in the history of high end audio? I'll answer that for you, YES, of course. Next I'll ask you did that product have any true believers???? Again, I'll answer for you, of course it did. All fraudulent high end products have true believers that swear by the product for sonic improvements. Why? Simple, our ears can deceive us.

Let me conclude that a simple google search will reveal numerous ABX tests done in the past by reputable sources which consistently fail to produce any meaningful ability to distinguish differences in high end components. The onus is not on the person who rejects the claims of sonic improvements the onus is on the person making said claims. And believe me, if cable companies had any legitimate proof to offer it would be plastered everywhere. Does not exist.

Simply from a common sense perspective I can poke a large hole in the theory of burn in....why is it that burn in always Improves the sound quality. If we were to believe that the sonics of a component do indeed change during burn in, does it make sense that the change would 100% of the time be for the better??? Of course not, ridiculous. Yet never in decades of reading blogs and reviews have I heard someone report that a product sounded great out of the box but them after burn in it degraded. Nope, it's always better after burn in. That's one magical process I must say.

Scientists tested a frog. They cut off it's legs and they said "jump!"

The frog didn't jump.

Scientist therefore concluded that when frogs lose their legs, they become deaf.

It's not mine but I had to borrow it.

High end reviews are full of burn in for cables before they are reviewed. Google practically any cable review and you'll find it.
Claims can and will be made that are false and they will have their followers. Does it follow that all claims are so?
Can it be that 100% of cable burn in reviews being always for the better simply back up the claim that cables need burn in, thereby validating the claim?

All the best,
Nonoise