Break in time that extends to months or maybe even years!!

I forget to say that this first citation is effectively not from Einstein...
It seems trite or a banality... Yes... Not meaningful ? no...And like my "translation" or reformulated statement made it clear, there is a link between the citation falsely attributed to Einstein, and the real citation of Einstein....

the 2 citations are well related to this break-in problem, which is also, in some aspect, an optimization problem....

My" translation" of the trite citation in a new statement of it, refer to what in mathematics, computer science and economics, is call an optimization problem , the problem of finding the best solution from all feasible solutions. is it not clear?

With this short post about this "trite" citation, falsely attributed to Einstein, I was willing to only makes my point in few clear words... But you push me to be more clear, and clarify something that is apparently trite but meaningful tough....

my best....

Nope, sorry. Einstein would never say something so trite. It doesn’t mean anything.

You are right :) but I love this " trite" citation....
Sometimes banality reflect the situation itself....This was my point....

It is for the last decades in all audio thread this break-in "problem" that is not one simple problem but reflective of a complex situation, a trite problematic, implicating an experiencing subjectivity and a complex audio system .....
I dont think blind test, or comparison will settle that, except for those who call the improvement in some break-in process an illusion because it is mostly only subjectively experienced ( not necessarily an illusion or a placebo tough) and not measurable the way they will like it...

Like say Einstein in a non trite citation:

"“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.”

And this apply also to the break- in problem ….


But you said that this citation is not meaningful.... I dont think so... This is my translation:

“Not everything that counts can be counted,
and not everything that can be counted counts.”

All parameters linked to a problem cannot always be takes into account by the problem's statement
And more than that some parameters of the problem are sometimes secondary for the solution...

any complex body must adjust and synchronize with his environment and liberate his working potential.... :)

Good post...My best to you...

No debunking, just accurate reporting.

I just realize that you are not debunking anything...


I misread your post...


But by "accurate reporting" are you suggesting that the preparation of the hadron collider has nothing to do with the preparation of an amplifier by an "audiophile" ?

We often interpret things how we want them to be. That does not make it true.

This is very wise remark....

This hadron collider does not need to "break in" for sure...a collider is another beast than an amplifier... Or a cable...


Simple then, for the time to come, why do we not call "break in" the necessary preparation for a love affair between some chemical catalytic component and some neuron? This "illusion" or "audiophile" pleasurable sensation is like a rainbow after all....

And after all, "real truth" or "the" truth like you said,(Or isn’t me saying that?) dont need any interpretation and has nothing to do with this love affair, and the birthing of truth is like Athena birth, coming nude from the head of Zeus... Is’n it?

P.S. I just remember that Feynman said that if someone pretend to understand quantum mechanic he is lying...I think Feynman dont understand truth either.... Or do he?

I will let you decide all that... :) 

I will just give you a hint about my own opinion with only one word: "consciousness"...

Make of this word what you like it to be, a reality or an illusion, but beware of the consequences...

My post was a joke.... :)

But sure some debunk even joke if it is about "break in"....It is a serious subject matter... It is very important after all to debunk audiophile "crazy" impressions....

If you perceive rainbow dont say it is real, it is a subjective impression clothed in an objective one clearly... :)

An A.I. will not perceive it....Reality dont need impressions....;)

Wait ! I realize now that what I had just written is wrong...

An A.I. connected to a human brain will....

And will be more intelligent...

Able to debunk his own impressions and knowing why....

And no blind test needed...



:)


I apologize for my joke or sarcasm.... We are not always wise....

I will go back to the shed where Newton observe light wrongly with his corpuscular theory, and i will read Goethe to complete it rightly...But wait is Goethe not a poet? Poet are more stupid than some "audiophile".... 

Wasn't Goethe stupid ? He wrote that there is no theory behind phenomena and that phenomena are the theory...

It is sure now, Goethe was an "audiophile"....


Wait a minute...

Is it not quantum theory that suppose that a photon cannot be called  a "phenomena" before being in the theater of consciousness, but only a probability wave?

I throw my hat to the wind...

I dont understand anything anymore...

Where is Feynman when we need it  ?

Several years ago I recall reading the the Large Hadron Collider at CERN would only operate at 50% power for 1 year following startup to allow the magnets and other heavy electrical components settle in. I recall that the physicist mentioned that the crystal structures in some component needed time to align or de-stress. Maybe 1000 hours to break in some audio gear is not unheard of.

I am sure this news has been already debunked by some audio "scientist" here....Or James Randi...

What a waste of time because CERN dont consult the right "scientist" probably....


Me I know perfectly well that out of the box any electronic component is more than ready to use, no "tweaks" needed, no time to waste, we have proven it with measures.... :)