"Burn in" Are you serious?

No Redkiwi, we actually do live in the same world. Perhaps that's the fundamental issue. We don't see reality in the same way. But that's ok. And why would only "new" equipment change over time. Robba used a turn of phrase which, I think, hits the mark. I.e., the listener is being burned in. And Robba, for the purposes of this discussion, it makes all the difference. I could easily be converted by evidence more substantive than anecdotal. Also, Redkiwi; have you never listened to the identical source and setup and heard it differently? Isn't that a common experience for you? And if it is, do you attribute it to never ending change in you hardware, or perhaps to the highly variable nature of your natural apparatus? (Of course, we're not talking about tubes or electro-mechanical devices.)

Redkiwi: We're not talking complete systems here. But rather the supposedly perceived subtle manipulations of individual pieces.// Yes, but a video of a duck meets all of those criteria and yet is not a duck. As to denying "burn in",as implied before; It's not good science and it is not supported by many other's experiences(including mine). So, when science and experience agree, it is reasonable to me to accept. This is not a matter of taste.I am, however, open to change if it can be so demonstrated. I do agree that it is time to move on. Pax

Whether or not "burn in" is subjectively valid is for the individual to decide for him/her-self. I've never seen any objective proof for this claim and I would find it difficult (but not impossible) to believe that any respondent here has done sufficiently rigorous testing to validate such a claim. And I believe that anyone who could reliably distinguish between virgin wire and "burned-in" wire (e.g.), and prove it, could make a small fortune with such wagers. I know that I'd place a bet. And while they're establishing that they could also demonstrate that wire has unique electron flow characteristics for each direction. This type of thinking reminds me of how I felt about my first car when it was just washed and waxed. It always seemed to run better when it looked better. Of course, this remains, like so many things audio, a matter of opinion for many. When in fact, the truthfulness of the matter can be tested to satisfaction for anyone willing to accept the results. But, I also realize that words on a screen represent no proof what-so-ever. So, when applicable, for the purposes of civility. We can agree to disagree regarding this. I have to exclude tubes which have been "burned in" so long as to be considered well aged. Their properties may have changed enough to be audible.

Bmpnyc:What I trust is my hearing and my mind. Feelings can undermine the evaluative process considerably. I've done the cable comparison many times with variously priced wire. New on trial and well-aged loans from curious and cooperative friends. I also have a significant part of a twelve guage roll which has never to my knowledge had a single electron flow through it. Equal unused lengths compared to identical original cut lengths (aged about 3to4 hrs. daily for 7 or 8 years) sound identical to my well seasoned ears and measure the same also. I do admit that I've not personally done this experiment with hyper expensive wire(over about $300 a meter(that's hyper expensive to me)). Perhaps physics and the "burn in" effect are cost sensitive. As I've said, I'm open to convincing proof otherwise. If the test is not truly blind to the listener, then it cannot be considered objective. Let me finish with two simple questions. Would you say that you honestly would not have ANY expectations when doing (e.g.) a sighted comparison between a Krell and a 1978 Pioneer receiver?...or between multistranded solid silver cable and a straightened-out coat hanger? ( if doable,try the coat hanger.You might be surprised) Best to all for the Holidays.