Do we break in our componets or do our componets ?

In my opinion it is about 90% component break-in and 10% you breaking in. The way I see it, if it was you being broken in then all your friend's audio systems would sound horrid and never appear to you to be breaking in, all systems at audio shows would sound horrid, as would all dealer demos. The other possibility is that all those that have experienced break in simply have horrid systems and the only reason they enjoy them at all is that they have broken in. While possible, I would have to dismiss that possibility having a reasonable likelihood. In essence, what I experience with a new component is not mirrored when I move from listening to my system to listening to an unfamiliar system. Therefore this convinces me that there is no weight to the theory that it is just us breaking in and not the equipment. Other experiences suggest there is reality to the view that we break in, but the effect seems much less dramatic to me than component break in.

Whether it is in my head or not, I perceive break in when I buy new components. That is what is, hence it is an issue. I do not perceive the same effect with a system that is simply unfamiliar. Based on this experience it is sensible for me to not make hasty judgements about equipment that is new - yet fast judgements are more sound when the equipment has been "broken in", whether familiar or not. Therefore I behave accordingly, because to do so makes sense. If you Pbb do not perceive break in - then that is your reality and it is sensible for you to act accordingly. Whether our differences are due to me deluding myself into believing something, just for the sake of it, or whether it is due to your closed little mind refusing to believe the evidence of your ears, neither of us will ever know for sure. I have stated what I believe. You have stated yours. Your stooping to denigrating others to support your point of view only succeeds in diminisjing yourself.

I won't insist its reality, if you don't insist that because something is not explained by exixtsing knowledge, then it cannot be reality. No real scientist would be so closed minded. The history of science is littered with bad scientists that insisted their theories were the truth only to have them disproven. I don't find your analogy Eldartford to be a terribly good analog of the issue at all. But how about the analog of those that insisted the planets revolved around Earth. Are the claims that there cannot be component break in any different? If so, please explain how? It was more open minds that were prepared to accept observations that were more consistent with a new theory, that led to progress, not the closed mindedness of the bad scientists that insisted that everything was already known and anything inconsistent with that had to be heresy.

I think TWL did rather well at avoiding being impolite, in circumstances where it is hard not to feel exasperated.

Rsbeck, I approach all new claims that do not fit my preconceptions with a good deal of scepticism - perhaps even unhealthy scepticism when it suggests I have spent my money on my existing system unwisely. But I would hope you would also approach claims that might lead to greater enjoyment of reproduced music with a healthy degree of open-mindedness that would at least let you listen for yourself.

If it is possible that we do not know everything that is meaningful in the reproduction of music (which I would judge a near certainty rather than just a possibility), then the value of these forums ought to be that posters can report their experiences, and if several posters report similar experiences, then the rest of us will have the opportunity to decide to try for ourselves or ignore the new possibility.

If it is possible that break in exists, then it is also possible that many audiophiles that do not know about it have made gross misjudgements of products that they have had at home for an overnight trial. Such poor audiophiles will have wasted their time and missed out on some otherwise excellent products. Do you not think that these forums ought to serve to improve the way we select products?

I am reminded in this debate of the observation that libertarians have high opinions of their fellow "man", and socialists are the reverse. Do the "it is in your head" posters perhaps have a low opinion of their fellow "man" and feel the need to protect the poor suckers from charlatanism and decry any new possibility simply because people have to be saved from themselves? Is it lack of respect for posters of new ideas? Or do they want to close down possibilities because it scares them - after all we are hurtling through space at frightening speed on a rock we cannot control, you know?

I have no problem with having scepticism. But I don't think that is the same thing as rudely, stupidly, closed-mindedly stating "it is in your head" to someone that has reported accurately here what they they have perceived happening in over 30 years in this hobby.

Would you have it that no poster should report their experiences and beliefs unless there has been scientific corroboration of the effect first? I would have it that we can each state our beliefs about what reality is - whether for or against a new possibility. I don't believe this forum is benefitted by posters that post their beliefs about others based on what those others believe.